so i've got to take things in a different direction. because it's my responsibility as the colead of the senate nato observer group, as the senator from a state who has a citizen in prison for 580 days. i have no choice. so, mr. president, thank you for the time today. i'll be back next week and i'll be back every week until we see justice served for pastor brunson. thank you, senator lankford. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: all postcloture time has expired, and the question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 49. the nays are 46. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate to bring to a close debate on the nomination of joel m. carson, iii, of new mexico to be united states circuit judge. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the clerk will continue. the clerk: for the tenth circuit, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense

of the senate that debate on the nomination of joel m. carson, iii, of new mexico, to be united states circuit judge for the tenth circuit shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the

chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 71. the nays are 24. and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: the judiciary, joel m. carson iii of new mexico to be united states circuit judge for the tenth circuit. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i want to return to a theme that i've been addressing the last few days and that is the nomination of ms. gina haspel to be director of the c.i.a. yesterday the entire country, indeed the entire world, got to see ms. haspel's performance before the senate select committee on intelligence. and speaking for myself, i could not have been more impressed. and in taking an informal poll among others, i think they felt

-- many people felt the same way. it is al tough -- it is a tough -- a tough requirement of her confirmation process to -- for comob who has been 33 years -- somebody who has been 33 years working for the c.i.a. in the most obscure and unknown to the rest of us spots around the world to have to come and answer questions about her career much of which happens to be classified information. and, of course, we had an open session and then a classified hearing where she and we on the committee could protect the sources and methods and alliances we have around the world that help us collect intelligence for our policymakers and help keep our country safe. but as expected, she faced intense rounds of questioning, as i said, both in open session and behind closed doors and i

believe did so with patience, courtesy and poise. she articulated her view on a number of topics, of course. she defended her record against a series of false accusations, and said repeatedly what those of us who have supported her already knew. she believed tx. -- she believed the u.s. government actions must be held to a strict moral standard. if confirmed, she would not obey an order she believed to be unlawful and in her role she would not restart interrogation programs inside the c.i.a. i want to highlight three programs that i believe lend credence to ms. haspel. the first is the comparisons drawn with john brennan, former c.i.a. director under president obama. as many others pointed out, mr. brennan served as the number four official at the c.i.a., much higher up the food chain, so to speak, than ms. haspel, who was a gs-15.

yesterday i asked someone to tell me what would that rank as a civilian intelligence officer, how would that compare to the military? and i was told that would be the equivalent of roughly a major or maybe lieutenant colonel in the military. i think that's significant when you think that mr. brennan was the number four official at the c.i.a. and ms. haspel at the relevant time was an intelligence officer in a midlevel position, to be sure. getting back to mr. brennan, he had direct personal knowledge of the interrogation program that many have questioned ms. haspel about. when she told us that she was not a part of it, had not been read into the program and did not interrogate anybody. mr. brennan was confirmed by a vote of 63-34 with only two democrats and one independent voting against him. if mr. brennan was confirmed despite his history at the c.i.a. at a time when this program was being implemented,

ms. haspel should be confirmed as well. and it's worth noting that mr. brennan himself agrees. he's called ms. haspel an exceptionally well respected within the c.i.a., one who held a number of senior level positions over the years and has he acquit herself competently. he said she will be able to provide a political support to mr. trump and others. given our democratic colleagues current opposition it to ms. haspel, it strikes me that she and our current president are being held to a standard to which mr. brennan and president obama were not held. in other words, it's a double standard. i think that's highly regrettable and indefensible. the truth is that all of the senate democrats on the intelligence committee currently who were senators at the time of john brennan's confirmation voted to confirm him.

so i believe they have no good reason not to vote to confirm ms. haspel as well. i also remember when president obama declassified certain office of legal counsel memos in 2009. he promised the men and women of the c.i.a. that, quote, we will protect all who acted reasonably and relied on the legal advice from the department of justice that their actions were lawful. they need to be fully confident that as they defend the nation, i will defend them. and i hope we will hear from president obama as he keeps the promise that he made back in 2009 to defend those who acted on legal advice from the department of justice in good faith. i think we all need to remember those words by president obama and apply them when considering ms. haspel's nomination. the second thing i want to mention is a letter dated just yesterday that was sent to the senate select committee on

intelligence chairman burr and vice chairman warner. it was signed by more than 30 former senior government officials with national security experience and administrations of different parties on capitol hill. they called ms. haspel an excellent choice to lead the c.i.a. at a time when our intelligence community is under significant pressure at home and abroad. they praised her as a leader with discipline and guts to take the c.i.a. into the future saying she's highly regarded in the storied halls of langley. that letter was signed by former c.i.a. and national security agency director michael hayden, former n.s.a. director general keith alexander, former attorney general michael mukasey and many, many others. i said it before, but i will say it again, those people who know haspel best who worked alongside her on a daily basis, been in meetings with her, witnessed her decision making, they like this

woman, they respect her, and they think she is the best of the best. so enough already, i think we should listen to the people who know her the best. the third item related to ms. ms. haspel that i will mention is a telling exchange that she had with my colleague, our colleague and friend, the senior senator from california, ms. feinstein. senator feinstein asked about a certain book that at least, in which one author claimed proves that ms. haspel ran an interrogation program in the days after 9/11. ms. haspel in graciously responding to our colleague's question pointed out something very important that the author in the book in question said definitively that he never intended to suggest in the book that gina haspel is in charge of the c.i.a. interrogation program. she was not. in other words, he corrected a misimpression that was created by the way the book was written and made clear she was not in

charge of the c.i.a. interrogation program. the author went on to say that he fully supports ms. haspel's nomination. i think that short episode establishes how careful we need to be in evaluating what's known about ms. haspel's distinguished record of service. there's a lot of things that are being said that just simply are not true. as many mentioned this week, when it comes to interrogation programs following the devastating attack of 9/11, where 3,000 americans lost their lives, she in fact was exonerated by both internal reviews at the c.i.a. as well as two justice departments who complied with legal -- determined that she complied with appropriate legal guidance at the place and time she acted. toward the end of the open session, mr. president, ms. haspel spoke about the sacrifices made by the men and women she has served with. i think we need to keep in mind

how difficult intelligence work can be, especially when it requires one to leave their family and friends and take up hardship assignments in far-off corners of the globe. and these are not like our men and women of the military who perform such dedicated and patriotic service. intelligence officers have the additional burden of not even being able to tell their own family and friends where they are and exactly what they're doing because of the sensitivity of their work. ms. haspel told us about a c.i.a. al qaeda expert who gave birth to her third child in the days leading up to september 11. this analyst, because of her expertise, was deployed to afghanistan shortly after the terrible events of 9/11, leaving her family and three children behind. later she and six of her colleagues were murdered while serving in that combat zone in the service of the central

intelligence agency and the united states government. this is exactly the kind of dangerous and selfless work that intelligence professionals embark upon day after day. they do it because they feel a deep abiding sense of duty and loyalty to a country that has given us freedoms that many parts of the world do not enjoy. and it's that loyalty, it's that sense of duty that propels them to put it all on the line. they pour their blood, sweat, and tears into detecting and helping stop threats posed against this country by nations and actors intent on doing us enormous harm. as we heard yesterday from ms. haspel, there are more than 100 stars on the c.i.a.'s memorial wall and 7 more were added just last year. those are a reminder of the u.s. men and women who have lost their lives while engaged in the service of the intelligence community and our country. having served for 33 years with

distinction, ms. haspel is acutely aware of the sacrifices that have been made by so many that she will be working with in her new capacity as director of the c.i.a., and she's mindful, i know, of the colleagues and friends that she has lost. and yet, she believes so firmly in the agency's mission. she's willing to take on one more challenge, one that may be her greatest challenge yet, and that is leading the entire c.i.a. into an uncertain future. i want to close by saying i appreciate her willingness and desire to serve in this new and never easy capacity, and i hope we can confirm her in short order so that she can get back to work and continue to do what she loves and help keep our nation safe. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i appreciate the remarks made by the senator from texas.

indeed, i think we have a career intelligence officer that has done a commendable over three decades, commendable service, service to this country. i will be meeting with her next week. i have a number of questions. and upon meeting with her, then i will make my decision. and i thank the senator from texas, as i have thanked many on the intelligence committee that i have sought their opinion as well as reading all the relevant documents. mr. president, i rise here today because the state of florida has again proposed to harm thousands of seniors and folks with

disabilities who rely on medicaid for their health care as well as their financial security. under current law, critical protections in medicaid allow those who rely on program for their health care, they can get up to three months of retro active coverage after they apply for medicaid after the time that they have enrolled in the program. to put that another way, a person who has had health care problems and that is eligible under medicaid, once they apply, under current law there's a lookback period of three months

that those health care expenses that they incurred would be reimbursed to their health care providers -- the doctors, the nurses, whatever the service is -- and paid by medicaid because they have been deemed to be eligible. certain people with disabilities and certain people because of their incock level and -- their income level and their status. what the state of florida is proposing -- and this is what is so damaging -- is to cut that three months of reimbursement for medicaid down to one month. well, the current law is three months, so why should the state of florida penalize its citizens

that are getting their health care -- they're eligible -- under florida's law for health care through medicaid? why should you penalize them by saying we're only going to make you eligible for 30 days instead of three months? it defies understanding. the state proposed to c.m.s. just a week or so ago to eliminate this critical protection, and in the process it jeopardizes how many people in florida right now? 39,000 of the most vulnerable floridians and the countless medical providers who treat them. so if they constrict this period, that means a lot of people are not getting

compensated by medicaid, such as a hospital. the hospital can't eat all of those uncompensated expenses. and so what happens? ultimately that finds its way into all the rest of us, all of the rest of us taxpayers who also have private health insurance, and it runs the price of the health insurance up. and if this is not enough of an outrage that the state of florida is doing to these 39,000 people, this maneuver will also cut up to $100 million from an already underfunded medicaid program that is suffering because the state of florida has already decided over the last several years that it's not going to expand medicaid up to

138% of poverty. and you know how much money they have passed up? the state of florida has passed up that otherwise 800,000 people in florida would be getting health care through medicaid? they passed up $66 billion in federal funds that is sitting there on the shelf ready to be used for health care through medicaid for florida by refusing to expand medicaid that is allowed under the law, up to 138% of poverty. well, it's just unacceptable. this provision was designed to protect seniors and veterans and pregnant women and individuals with disabilities and parents and their families with high

medical bills and the cost associated with the long-term care. so not only are you jeopardizing hospitals and the doctors and the nurses and all the medical providers of not getting paid, of which they are eligible under current law, you're also putting into financial jeopardy the poor people that are sick that need to be treated, and they don't have the money because of their income level. they don't have the money, and then you start getting all these dunning statements and saying, we're coming after you financially and we're going to take you into the poorhouse. and so that's why i joined with my colleague in the house, congresswoman caster, and we have a letter signed by half the florida delegation calling on c.m.s. to reject this heinous

provision that the state of florida is asking for. and, mr. president, i ask consent that this be inserted in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: so, it's our duty to ensure that the folks -- our folks, the people in our states have access to care without having to go into debt to obtain that care. and the state of florida is attempting to take that away. and in doing so, it's attempting to wipe out many families' pocketbooks and increase the strain on the health care providers, the doctors, the nurses, the hospitals, and all florida taxpayers who ultimately

on uncompensated care are the ones who pick up the bill. the state of florida claims that this proposal will, quote, enhance fiscal predictability, end of quote. that begs the question -- for whom? if the state repeally wanted to secure greater financial security -- if the state really wanted to secure greater financial security, they would expand medicaid and accept the $66 billion of our florida financial taxpayer money sitting on the shelf that floridians have already paid for with their tax dollars and provide health care to up to 800,000 floridians that don't have it now. and perhaps what's even more troubling is that the letter accompanying the state of

florida's request stated the agency -- get this, quote, was not aware of any concern or opposition raised by any member of either party regarding this provision during extensive budget debate, end of quote. so now it's not -- not only is the state of florida trying to harm thousands of floridians, including many of our seniors and veterans -- by the way, veterans are on the medicaid program as well; don't forget that. veterans are not just all taken care of under the veterans administration. there are a lot of veterans on medicaid. so the state is trying to harm

these people, and i wonder now, in that letter that i just quoted from, if the state is misleading the federal agency c.m.s. in trying to get their waiver approved to cut from 90 days down to 30 days. indeed, members of the florida senate -- the florida state senate, the legislature -- raised innumerable concerns and objections to the provision. most recently, the florida senate minority leader called out the governor's administration for the misleading claims. and instead of making it harder to gain coverage, we ought to be focusing on getting our uninsured neighbors quality and affordable health coverage and reducing uninsured,

uncompensated cost. we need to do what's good for the people of florida. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. heller: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: mr. president, i rise today to reiterate my strong opposition to the house of representatives' effort to restart licensing activities at yucca mountain and in particular the nuclear waste policy amendment act, which passed the house just a few hours ago. this bill, which is a complete and total waste of taxpayers' dollars, is dead on arrival in the united states senate. not only will i place a hold on the bill now that has passed the house, i will also object to the motion to proceed to the bill. and this vote today proves my point -- that i am the only

person in washington, d.c., standing between a pristine, beautiful nevada or a nevada dripping with nuclear waste. just as i've said? the past, i'll continue -- just as i've said in the past, i'll continue to serve sasse a roadblock to make -- serve as a roadblock to make nevada a dump. despite the house's repeated attempts to revive the failed project, i have been able to ensure that not a single dollar has been appropriated to restart licensing activities at yucca mountain. this vote is nothing but a failed exercise because as long as as i'm in the senate, yucca mountain is dead. it's as simple as that. as i've previously said to you, mr. president, under my watch, i will not let one more hard-earned taxpayer dollar go towards the failed yucca mountain project p. my state fails to serve as our nation's nuclear west dump. that's why i'm proud to say that

because of my leadership, the senate has repeatedly refused to pass a law funding the high-level nuclear waste repository, a position that has most recently been confirmed in the most -- was confirmed in the most recent omnibus spending measure. because of my current work as nevada's senior senator and my bipartisan work with the former senate majority leader, yucca mountain remains dead -- and i repeat, it's as simple as that. but despite yucca's clear and unquestionable death long ago, some of our friends on the other side of the capitol continue to waste their time attempting to bring back life to this ill-conceived and fiscally irresponsible plan. their efforts keep alive a long-standing fight over states' rights, and distracts us from the real task at hand which is finding a viable, long-term nuclear west storage solution that meets the needs of all americans. i'll be the first person to recognize the important role

nuclear power plays in a stable and secure all-the-above energy strategy and with nuclear energy comes the need to properly store spent nuclear fuel. but i firmly believe that our nation cannot progress towards achieving viable and sustainable storage solutions for spent nuclear fuel and defense high-level waste without further abandoning yucca mountain. i'm not saying that we shouldn't come to the table to discuss our nation's nuclear waste storage needs. we should. and i would. but i also believe the states should have a say in the matter. that's why in my opinion, consent presents the only viable way forward. it is a way of addressing our nation's high-level waste problem while at the same time respecting the sovereignty of states to object to becoming nuclear waste dumps. the yucca mountain proposal, however, represents the exact opposite of consent. it is a unilaterally imposed

federal mandate that goes against the will of the people that it directly affects. you've heard me, mr. president, raise this question many times and many nevadans are thinking this. why should a state without a single nuclear power plant of its own be forced against its will to house all of our nuclear -- nation's nuclear waste? let me repeat that. why should a state without a single nuclear power plant of its own be forced against its will to house all of our nation's nuclear waste? this is a question that has never been answered. not from your seat, mr. president. not from the speaker of the house, nor from the author of this bill. and i think if you want an intellectually honest answer, it should be that it shouldn't -- it shouldn't have to. beyond the violations of state sovereignty and the disregard of the will of the local population, yucca mountain poses

safety risks and potentially catastrophic financial risks that must be addressed before and not after the proposal moves forward, should it move forward at all. so, yes, what are these risks? well, for one, yucca mountain is located just 90 miles from the world's most premier tourist and convention entertainment destination, las vegas. last year las vegas welcomed nearly 43 million visitors. over the past decade, the greater las vegas area has been one of the fastest-growing in the u.s. with a population that now exceeds 2.1 million people, according to the latest u.s. census bureau numbers. any issues with the transportation of nuclear waste to that site or issues with storage there would bring devastating consequences to the las vegas, nevada, and national economies. issues that would inevitably result from shifting -- shipping

9,500 rail casts in 2,800 trains and 2,850 tax reduction hauling one cask each to yucca mountain over the next 50 years. these shipments would use 22,000 miles of railways, 7,000 miles of highways, and cross over 44 states. to date, however, nevadans have not received sufficient assurance from the department of energy or the nuclear regulatory commission that their concerns will receive the procedural due process, thoughtful consideration they are owed under existing law. in fact, in my recent correspondence with the nuclear regulatory commission, i continued to stress to the commission the importance of procedural safeguards like local hearings and local adjudication to ensure parties directly affected by the proposal have the opportunity to air their concerns and have them considered in an open and reasonably close forum.

it's because of these and other unresolved concerns that i continue to stand with the state of nevada in its strong opposition to restarting licensing activities at the yucca mountain repository. rather than forcing the state of nevada to accept nuclear waste as a scientificically unsound site, taxpayers would be better off to spend -- identifying their time viable alternatives for the long-term storage of nuclear waste in areas that are willing to house it. finding alternatives in this commonsense path forward as well as the fiscally responsible decision. now, the federal government should not waste another taxpayer dollar on yucca mountain. waste also amounts to $15 billion. an additional $82 billion would be needed to license, construct, and operate yucca mountain through closure, bringing the total system life cycle costs

for the project around $100 billion, an amount that would be probably 15% to 20% higher in today's dollars. so it's clear -- it's clear, mr. president, instead of throwing more taxpayer dollars at a failed proposal, which is exactly what the house of representatives nuclear waste policy amendment does, we should be working on a real long-term solution rooted in consent-based siting. so, with that, mr. president, i urge my colleagues, as we continue the budget and appropriation process for the 2019 fiscal year, to focus on further implementation of the department of energy's consent-based siting process. and i stand ready to partner with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this issue and am confident that together we can find a solution to this problem once and for all. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the cloture motions with respect to the scudder and

st. eve nominations be withdrawn. and that the senate vote on the nominations in the order lists 59:30 p.m. on monday, may 14. i further ask that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the president being immediately notified of the senate's action, i further ask that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, the senate vote on confirmation of the carson nomination at 12:00 noon on tuesday, may 15. understand that if cloture is invoked on the nalbandian nomination, that confirmation vote occur immediately following the disposition of the carson nomination, that if either are confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.

the clerk: cloture motion we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of john b. nalbandian of kentucky to be united states circuit judge for the sixth circuit, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the manned quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that the nomination of john nalbandian to be a circuit judge for the sixth circuit shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: