habibi, used in attack against our forces in kandahar province. buy biometricically matched to i.e.d. districts that took american lives in kandahar where i.e.d. were seized. a fellow named nek mohammed, an i.e.d. expert transfers money to al qaeda. the list goes on. aktar mohammed, suspected taliban commander who conducts attacks, provides lethal aid and supports taliban leaders in operations against ansf and icef in kunar province, acted as a trusted courier, former gaziabad and taliban government. the list goes on and on.

the these are not random arrests. these are not misdemeanors. these are serious, hard core professional terrorists that have already committed these acts. that's what's so disappointing about it. and, again, i'd just say to my friend from south carolina, we've been there often, often and at times when it's been probably the best part of our entire lives of being around these brave young americans who are serving and sacrificing. some of them three, four, five, six tours of duty in afghanistan and iraq. and it seems to me that we owe them at least the security of not releasing these trained killers. these are not amateurs. these trained killers, into the fight again. and we know that already the ones that we released voluntarily -- i'd ask my

friend, i think it's around 30% he or 27% of them, of those reentered the fight. i say to my friend in response, isn't it almost totally predictable that these individuals, hard core individuals will quickly reenter the fight? they're talented, they're trained, they're zealots and obviously it would put american lives in danger. and finally in answer to my colleague's question, again, i'm saddened because president karzai and you and i and senator lieberman, we've developed a relationship over the many years of cooperation and assistance. and there are reasons for some of his behavior. it's been terribly mishandled by this administration, we still don't know the number of troops that they want to leave behind, but having said all that and the sadness i feel, i think it's been replaced a bit by anger

because this kind of action cannot be excused when we have an obligation to do everything we can to protect the lives of the young men and women who are serving and to let this go unresponded to is just an abrogation of our responsibility to these young men and women. i still have hopes for the agreement. i would point out to my colleagues that it was first raised a couple of years ago by senator graham when he and i were over there, and i still believe that after this election because the overwhelming majority of afghans support this agreement, but when we have people like this out there running around, it's not just americans and our allies who are in danger but it's that of the afghan people that president

karzai was elected to represent. so i just ask my colleague again, how many times have you been through this drill with president karzai where they were about to release these people and we managed to pull them back from the brink and apparently they've finally stepped over the line? mr. graham: as of sunday -- all we're asking for, senator mccain, we're not asking to bring these people back to the united states for trial. we're asking they go through the criminal process under afghan law, where afghan judges will decide their fate, where afghan prosecutors and defense attorneys will do the case, not us. we agreed to 550 people being released under this administrative review board but these 88 according to general dunford and for my own review represent a different class of detainee, the evidence in some cases is overwhelming, with some investigation to follow i think you could make cases against all of them and the

n.d.s., basically their f.b.i.-c.i.a. all rolled into one, many of these people have lost their lives captain -- capturing these folks. all we've asked the afghans to do is follow their own rule of law. the accountability review board was never meant to be a release mechanism so general dunford did the right thing by lodging a complaint. i've talked to the president of afghanistan personally about how this is against the letter and spirit of the memorandum of understanding we have regarding detainees, and how this would play back in america, and apparently what we think doesn't matter to him anymore and i understand being upset with this administration for a lot of mistakes they've made and uncertainty, but we may be the two last people in the whole senate that understands that we need a relationship with afghanistan post-karzai, i think a lot of my colleagues understand that, too. but here's what i hope every united states senator will agree upon, to make a clear

statement, agree to this resolution, if you got any ideas to enhance it, i'll welcome any ideas, but i want this body to speak with a single vote, republicans and democrats, standing behind our general and telling the president of afghanistan we will not let this happen without pushback. we owe it to those who have died, we owe it to those in harm's way, we owe it to our own value system and now is the time for the congress and the senate particularly to speak with one voice and let president karzai know that you really don't understand what's going on in america. you really are detached from reality when it comes to afghanistan and america. no president of afghanistan who understood this issue at all would ever do this because you're making it impossible for an american political leader, an american general, an american leader not to respond forciblifully. so senator mccain, i look forward to working with you on this resolution. mr. mccain: could could i just

emphasize one point my friend from south carolina has already made. we're not giving up on afghanistan. we believe that we can't afford to see the movie that we saw in iraq, which the total withdrawal of american forces caused the chaos and the situation in iraq today. the second battle of fallujah, 96 foadges and marines killed --, soldiers and marines killed and wounded, today the black flags of al qaeda fly over the city of fallujah. there is no greater metaphor for the failure of this administration in iraq. but we are saying that we will make a new deal with karzai's successor. we will provide the economic assistance, we know provide the follow-on force. but right now we cannot stand by without responding to this act, which directly puts lives of

americans and afghans in danger. these are professional killers, they are terrorists, they're good at their work and we cannot expose our allies and our friends and our men and women to this kind of danger without a response. again, i want to finally say again, no one understands this issue better than colonel graham. colonel graham has been through every single one of these cases, he has fought this battle many times before, and if anybody has any question about the severity and the consequences of the act being taken today by president karzai, i suggest they talk with him, since he has all the information. i thank my colleague for his many years of service in afghanistan and iraq on behalf of the men and women who are serving and serving with him. mr. graham: thank you senator mccain. just to conclude here, this is

not lindsey graham or colonel graham saying this, this is is what general dunford is saying and i know he is right. i understand clearly what he is telling us, i have seen it firsthand to the folks at 435 who are in charge of the detainee population, they lost two yesterday. an i.e.d. killed two of our civilian contractors working out at the prison, paul and michael. i know them well, i met them a bunch of times. they've been over there in civilian contractor mode for years, trying-term prove the afghan detention facilities and legal system, and they gave their lives for a very worthy cause, and all i am saying is that until the time -- we need to suspend aid. we're taking hundreds of millions of american taxpayer money and investing in a way in afghanistan that is inappropriate. after president cars' decision we should tax cut cut 2 money off, not a dime on economic development. no more money.

because i can't go to the taxpayer in south carolina and say you should write a check to this government being led by karzai, hopefully as senator mccain said when somebody new comes along, reason will prevail. i need your support, i'm urging everybody member of this body to speak with one voice. i'll come with recognizing my good friend from connecticut whose son is a marine who served in afghanistan and served there many times and i want to let you know, senator bliewl blumenthal, to let our marines know their sacrifice will not go unnoticed and we're not going to let these guys walk out of the jail without a fight. thank you. mr. mccain: i would recognize also that the senator has a son in the navy as well. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i want to thank my distinguished colleagues for recognizing my sons' service, one as a marine reservist,

deployed to afghanistan and the other as a navy officer, currently in further training, and i want to thank them and offer my support to the goals that they have articulated today and look forward to supporting the resolution that they are offering and to talking to them further about the specifics of it but to thank them for recognizing the urgent need for this body to take action at this point, supporting those goals, and i look forward to continuing my work together with them and, again, my gratitude to them for their courage and determination and i offer my thanks and support. thank you. i am here today, mr. president, to really talk about a bill that undoes an injustice and frequently that is the work of this body, to undo unjustices and sometimes even mistakes,

such as the repeal of the cost of living adjustment reductions for certain military retirees. i've spoken before on the floor in this chamber and at home in connecticut about my opposition to the pension cost of living adjustment reduction contained in the budget agreement approved by this body. because i firmly believe there is no just way to balance the budget on the backs of our military retirees. it was a mistake then, we can undo it now without a so-called pay-for because their sacrifice and service has been paid in full with their sacrifices, military retirees deserve to be paid in full for the promises we have made to them. we made it to them for their service and sacrifice, that

they've given us already, and we should not break that are promise. the reduction in these cost of living adjustments impacts both the brave veterans who served for 20 years in the military and those who earned their retirements because of a service-connected medical disability. we should keep our promises to both. last month i discussed this problem with about 25 veterans in american legion post 96 in west hartford with commander ken hungerford, our brave patriots who gathered there who served and sacrificed for our country, they agreed, understandably, should receive the full benefit of present cost of living adjustments, a promise we have made, a promise we must keep. to fix this issue, senator shaheen of new hampshire and i

first introduced the military retirement restoration act, and i continue to support it. i also support chairman searnd's comprehensive legislation that would restore this cut to military retiree pensions along with improving health care and backlogs for veterans. i'm happy to have draflted the omnibus bill known as the megabill that has been offered already on the floor. but there is a very simple, straightforward solution we should adopt before either of those two options. it is senate 1856, which would repeal section 403 of the bipartisan budget act of 2013, senate 1856 meets this criteria of paid in full, it is simple

and straightforward, it has no pay-for because there is no need for an offset when we're talking about fulfilling our promises to our brave and dedicated veterans who have given on the battlefield their all, who have given us in service and sacrifice even before they reached combat or even if they had no combat, the kind of contribution to our national security and our national defense that merits these cost of living adjustments. as a member of the armed services committee, i listened to the testimony of acting deputy secretary of defense christine fox, that it was not consulted in the drafting of the cuts in cola, cost of living adjustment, and does not support reduction in military retiree benefits enacted through 403 of

the bipartisan act of 2013, the bipartisan budget act of 2013. if there is a need to combat fraud in any of our programs, let the department of justice increase the bigger ineffectiveness of enforcement efforts. if there is a need to repair a statute, to prevent waste or fraud or corruption, we should deal with that issue separately and distinctly. if there is a need to reduce the debt and the deficit -- and i agree that we should be mindful of fiscal responsibility, we ought to do it without breaking our promises to veterans, and we ought to keep those promises without worrying about the debt that could be cut by other measures, and we should adopt

those other measures rather than demanding a payback for an offset or whatever the terminology may be. in the next five years, we will see one million americans leave the united states military, as troops come home from afghanistan, as the military downsizes, the marines and the army reduce the numbers of men and women serving in uniform. one million americans will leave the military. that number consists of individual lives. not just statistics. individual stories of heroism and bravery on the battlefield, of invisible wounds as well as horrific visible injury, invisible wounds involving the

issues of posttraumatic stress and traumatic brain injury. more than one-third of them perhaps, as many as a half of all of those young men and women leaving the military will bear those invisible wounds of war. we need to provide them with health care, job counseling, skill training and jobs. treatment for those invisible wounds of war, that they deserve and they have earned. that's the purpose of the bill that i helped to draft with senator sanders' leadership, the omnibus bill, that will address those issues, and i'm hopeful also that we'll adopt an act to extend tax credits for employers who hire those veterans, tax credits that expired at the end of last year. my bill would restore them.

but let us now urgently and immediately adopt senate 1856. simple and straightforward measure to restore justice to the federal pension system for military retirees. let us not balance our budget on the backs of our brave veterans. let us restore those pensions to the level that we promised and keep our promises as a nation to the military veterans who have kept our freedoms strong. mr. president, that is the end of my remarks, and i thank you, and i'd like to ask unanimous consent that margaret taylor, a detailee from the state department to the senate foreign relations committee, be granted floor privileges today in anticipation of votes on nominations and for the rest of the 113th congress in order to

assist with matters related to the work of the committee. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i -- i want to thank senator blumenthal for his remarks, and i'm going to utilize the same chart that he had in a moment because i think it really says it all, and it was my -- my colleague mark begich that first used this terminology, that our soldiers, they have paid for this benefit already, and to get distracted by a discussion on how much to hurt children in order to restore these benefits is not worthy, in my opinion, of the men and women in uniform. so i am proud to stand up in support of senator pryor's commonsense bill, and i ask that i be allowed to proceed for 15

minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: senator pryor's bill is a restoration bill. it restores fairness and justice to our military veterans. it repeals cuts to the cost of living adjustments, we all them colas, for military retirees under the age of 62. i see the senator from alaska just came in and i want to reiterate how much i appreciate his leadership, senator begich, and to tell you that your analysis of this important restoration bill, restoring fairness and justice, was so right when you said our veterans have paid in full, and to get into some conversation of who do we hurt in order to pay these veterans? it's not worthy of our men and women in uniform, and i wanted to thank you for your leadership. repealing these cola cuts, well,

that's the right thing to do. that's the right thing to do. we -- we're talking about men and women in uniform who have served our nation bravely for more than 20 years, and turf say as i stand up in strong support of the pryor amendment and restoring these benefits to our veterans, i adamantly oppose the ayotte amendment, which is hurtful to children, very hurtful to children, and i'll get into that later. you know, mr. president, when these veterans first put on a uniform and they promise to protect and defend our nation, we made them a solemn promise, to provide them with the care and benefits that they earned. these men and women have sacrificed so much for us, and tragically, too many of them made the ultimate sacrifice. in my state of california, we lost 892 service men and women in iraq, and we have lost 411 in

afghanistan. we can't break faith with those who put their lives on the line for our nation. we hear about people who have served four times, four deployments, five deployments, six deployments. i have heard of ten deployments, mr. president. and when this benefit was diminished as part of the budget deal, everyone knew that we would have to move quickly and change it. we knew right away. and that's what we're trying to do. we're not offering a slew of amendments on unrelated matters that hurt children and risking losing this very simple premise, mr. president, that we honor our men and women in uniform. we want a simple vote. either you're for the vets or you're not for the vets. it's pretty simple.

35 organizations. do we have the list of those? 35 organizations are supporting this. we must recognize that when you attach unrelated amendments that have nothing to do with veterans , you slow down the bill. we all know that. it's a way to derail things. look at what my friends tried to do on unemployment compensation -- get us off on some discussion of how to pay for all that in an emergency situation with the long-term unemployed, and that rate is so high historically. and then we said okay, we'll play on your turf, we'll agree, we'll find a pay-for. we found a pay-for. they said they like. no, it wasn't good enough for them. we only got 59. we needed 60. if anyone thinks that wasn't

planned, i have a plot of land to sell you in a dump somewhere. come on. we know how it goes around here. don't tell me 59 and no more, please. those are games. and this is not an issue we should be playing games about, restoring veterans' benefits. so what we have in the ayotte amendment is an amendment which demeans an entire population, an entire pop layings. the amendment is antichildren. it's antiimmigrant, and it doesn't do one thing to help our veterans. but it will hurt some of our young dreamers. we know the dreamers. we've met the dreamers. those children who came to the united states through no fault of their own but now they want to contribute to our great society by staying in school and

staying out of trouble. but yet the ayotte amendment attacks the childcare tax credit which impacts some of these dreamers, and which protects 1.5 million children from falling into poverty every year. mr. president, honestly, this ayotte amendment is so mean-spirited, so unnecessary, i just hope it is defeated soundly. the u.s. poverty rate is now the highest it's been in 20 years, with 22% of children living in poverty. why would someone come down to the floor and attack children? 22% of children live in poverty. low-income immigrant families who claim the child tax credit earn an average of $23,000 a

year, and they use this tax benefit to provide for their splirn's basic needs, including food, rent and clothing. this tax credit which senator ayotte would essentially take away from a whole group of people is an incentive to do the right thing. these low-income families are working hard, they are earning money, but they need a tax break to help care for their children. my republican friends are always fighting for tax breaks for the top, top, top, for the top. what about the people struggling who are working and earning $23,000 a year? where are my friends on raising the minimum wage? so far i haven't heard their support. i hope they will change their mind. where are my friends on giving unemployment insurance to those

who through no fault of their own just can't find a job and who paid into that insurance system? where are they? they are absent. they -- they offer amendments that they know are going to get us off track, distract us and bring the bill down, but we're not doing it this time, i hope. i hope we will say no to the ayotte amendment because it is an amendment that guts a very important tax break. so let's be clear -- to claim the child tax credit, which is what senator ayotte's amendment wants to weaken, families have to file taxes, so we're talking about tax-paying families. the child tax credit only goes to working people who earn money and pay payroll taxes, who pay state and local taxes and any other taxes they may owe.

this ayotte amendment is an outrageously disproportionate response to a problem the internal revenue service is addressing. the i.r.s. has implemented changes to improve enforcement, they're working with department of homeland security to make sure that fake documents do not slip through the cracks. let me be clear, mr. president -- if a person commits fraud in this program as in any other program, we should go after that person, and the law is on the books. and i ask senator ayotte, look at the law. the law says if you commit in any way fraud in the filing of this credit, and you are guilty, you are found guilty of a felony , you will be fined not more than $100,000, $500,000 in the case of a corporation, or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

so here we have a situation where if fraud is committed by anyone claiming this child tax credit, mr. president, they can go to jail for three years and be fined $100,000. but what does senator ayotte do? she takes the brush and she paints it all across america to immigrant families with children and says, we don't trust you. i think it is so offensive. it isn't fair for law-abiding, tax-paying families to lose their child care -- their child tax credit because of fraud that might be committed by a few. you know, i have to tell you, i have worked with a number of my colleagues and they have identified billions and billions

and billions of dollars of tax avoidance schemes in this country. we have corporations who use tricks so that they pay zero in taxes. i don't see senator ayotte -- and i hope she will do this in the future -- come down to the floor and rail against these wealthy individuals and corporations. no. she just goes after the weakest constituency -- children. children. why should any of us attack children? literally take food out of the mouths of children -- why? we need to keep our promise to the veterans but we should keep our promise to the children. you don't say i'll restore one

promise but i'll break another promise. we already have a law on the books. mr. president, if anyone is guilty of fraud in this program, they go to jail for three years, they could be fined up to $100,000. i just think it is so wrong. it is so wrong. we can do this. now, i -- i want to close by reading from sister simone campbell, executive director of "network," a national catholic social justice lobby. and i know senator durbin has quoted this and i hope i'm not being too repetitive but her words ring to my heart. some of you know about nuns on the bus. these were nuns who saw the injustice in some of the budgets that came before the congress

and they went on a bus and they said, please, don't cut funds for the most vulnerable people. that's not america. we're already losing the middle class. mr. president, do you know that 400 families are worth more in this country than 150 million americans? think -- i want you to think about it. 400 american families are worth more than 150 million americans. surely we can do better than hurt our most vulnerable children as we aim to restore benefits to our veterans. so this is -- this is what sister simone campbell says about the ayotte amendment. "for awhile now, kids, particularly those in immigrant families, have been unfairly under attack in the senate. and the only plausible

explanation is unconscionable -- to score political points." this is sister simone. "senator kelly ayotte recently proposed variations of a plan to strip away the refundable tax credit that now goes to millions of children of tax-paying immigrant workers in low-wage jobs." she says, "the proposal is misguided and antithetical to the gospel's call to care for children and those at the margins of society. it violates our long-held values as a nation and it should be rejected." i tell you, i have such respect for sister simone campbell and the work of "network," because they just don't read the gospel and go to church and practice their religion, they live it.

they live it. and when they see things happening on this floor that hurt the most vulnerable people, they speak out. that's what nuns on the bus did. that's what sister simone campbell is doing. this is what she says further. she says, "senator ayotte says she understands families' needs yet she wants to deny a child tax credit to tax-paying immigrant families. actions speak louder than words and her proposal hurts families. our political leaders should never place poor children in a position of competing with other vulnerable populations for funds and help pay for food and other basic needs. deliberately harming immigrant families goes against the fundamental goodwill of americans, including thousands of people we met last year as our nuns on the bus traveled 6,500 miles across the u.s. to speak for justice. throughout our journey," she writes, "we stood with, prayed with and heard of stories of

hundreds of immigrants who have long served the needs of our nation. responsible leaders in congress should look into their hearts and reject proposals like this one. the political tactic is not good for our economy or the well-being of our entire nation, especially children who are the future of our country. we are better than this." so let's go back to our other chart as i sum up here, mr. president. mrs. boxer: senator pryor, senator begich and a group of senators, i believe including senator shaheen, senator hagan, senator landrieu -- i believe they're all on this proposal, as am i. with their sacrifice, military retirees paid in full. they paid in full. and to offer amendments that

have nothing to do with the subject matter but open up an entire battle on immigrant families who are working so hard because there are some examples of fraud, just as there are examples of fraud in corporate america, unfortunately there's an example of fraud all across america, including in politics. okay? but i have to say, to go after the most vulnerable children and the most vulnerable families and try to convince this united states senate that that's something fair, i just think it's off the mark. and i hope we will reject the ayotte amendment. i hope everyone will read what sister simone said, that the proposal to go after children is misguided, it is antithetical to the gospel's call to care for

children and those at the margins of society. it violates our long-held values as a nation and it should be rejected." and i want to remind everyone, if anyone commits fraud in this society, i will be the first one on the floor saying, go after them. and we already have a law that is very, very clear. anyone who commits fraud in connection with the child credit, refundable credit, shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction shall be fined not more than $100,000, $500,000 in the case of a corporation, or imprisoned not more than three years. if my friend on the other side of the aisle believes that justice isn't doing enough, the justice department or the i.r.s. isn't doing enough to go after this fraud, i've got to say, let's call the folks in charge, let's tell them that we want to make sure that there is an effort. write a letter.

but don't say because a few people are doing a bad thing and should go to jail for it, don't take your paintbrush there and paint every immigrant family who have dreamers with this. this is outrageous to do. and especially to claim that -- you know, you're not doing anything to hurt the children and you're doing it to help the veterans. the veterans have paid in full. let's vote for the veterans, okay? for the veterans. and for the children. you vote for the veterans by voting for pryor. you vote for the children by voting "no" on the mean-spirited ayotte amendment. thank you very much. and i yield the floor. and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i'd ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: and that the nominations be reported. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations, department of state, richard stengel of new york to be under second. sarah sewall of massachusetts to be an under secretary. charles hammerman rivkin of the district of columbia to be an assistant secretary. department of veterans affairs, sloan d. gibson of the district of columbia to be deputy secretary. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be equally

divided on each side, the time. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: and i would now note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: i come to the floor talk about three highly qualified nominees for very significant posts at the department of state, and the foreign relations committee, which i'm privileged to chair, has moved 48 nominees through the committee just this year

alone. i'm pleased these three will move, but i want to express my concern about the remaining nominees. they are critical to us promoting our foreign policy and our national interests and security interests abroad. so i urge my colleagues to support movement of these nominees to the floor as quickly as possible. the three tad today are richard stengel, who has more than 30 years of experience as an author and journalist. he brirk brings, i think, a very unique perspective. he's served as the managing editor of "time" magazine during the past seven years, demonstrating his impressive managerial capabilities. and he led, as the president and c.e.o. of the national constitution center in philadelphia, where he brought public education efforts to raise awareness about our nation's founding charter and the values enshrined in it. and this public diplomacy role

is incredibly northern a world which is -- incredibly important in a world which is constantly getting closer and smaller by virtue of the mass media, the internet, and all of the different forms of communication. and our advocacy in public diplomacy is incrediblably important to get our message out as the united states in terms of our bilateral and multilateral pursuits. dr. sarah sewall has been nominated to serve as under secretary for civilian security, democracy, and human rights, and she comes to this position with significant relevant experience. she is etaught at the naval war college, served at the harvard carr center. she is an expert on mass atrocity prevention. a lecturer at the john f. kennedy school at harvard. her large portfolio will include a range of issues including

challenges to civilian security in latin america. sear yawsyria's growing refugee, which is a concern for us and the entire region, jordan ring for example. human trafficking and women's issues, these are all incredibly important in the pursuit of our foreign policy. and i'm confident she will be an excellent under secretary. i urge my colleagues to support her nomination. finally, we have ambassador charles rivkin's deep experience in the private sector and a clear talent for managing large organizations, which i believe position him well to take on the position of assistant secretary of state for economic and business affairs. and at a time when our country is pursuing the most a ambitious trade agenda in generation gened our companies and workers are facing tougher and more

aggressive competition than ever before, ambassador rivkin has been demonstrated the skill and the experience needed to lead the state department's participation in formulating and implementing international economic policies aimed at protecting and advancing u.s. economic, political, and security interests. particularly at a time in which we are seeking to create greater jobs here at home, our advocacy abroad to open markets, to have transparency, to have the rule of law for our companies who do invest abroad to ultimately ensthiewensure that when they mh decisions, that if there is a violation of their contracts, they have a transparent and judicial process that they can go and litigate their issues in are incredibly important to not only our companies' investments abroad but the jobs created here at home that promote the products and services that we generate across the globe.

so i urge my deletion support these nominations in pursuit of the national interest and security of the united states, mr. president. and with that, i yield the floor and observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: i ask consent to yield back all time on both sides, including the two minutes prior to the vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

mr. menendez: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: sufficient you have? is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. yeas and nays are owrded. -- the yeas and nays are ordered. under the previous order, the question occurs on the stengel nomination. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senator wishing to vote or to change a vote? if not, the ayes are 90, the

nays are 8, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote on the sewall nomination. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. time is yielded back. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the yeas and nays are ordered. the question occurs on the sewall nomination. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 97, the nays are 1. the nomination is confirmed. mr. reid: move to reconsider. madam president? would we have order?

the presiding officer: order. order. mr. leader. mr. reid: madam president, we're going to have one more recorded vote. we think we'll have another vote that won't be recorded but it will be a vote, a voice vote. we're going to --al that will be the last vote tonight. i am totally aware of the weather prediction, that we might get some snow tomorrow night, and we'll see what happens tomorrow midday to find out how the weather forecasters are still predicting and how much snow, if any. i'm aware of that. around 11:30, we have a series of votes tomorrow. the floor staff will be working on what the votes will be for sure, and i will be discussing it with senator mcconnell. so one more vote tonight. we have a series of votes at 11:30 tomorrow. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally

divided in the usual form prior to a vote on the rivkin nomination. does anyone wish to be recognized? mr. leader. the time has been yielded back. is there objection? without objection. under the previous order, the question occurs on the rivkin nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a second. there is a second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: