vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 52, the nays are 44. the nomination is confirmed. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: before i speak, i have been asked to ask for some consent. i ask consent that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action on calabria and altman nominations. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. grassley: i ask unanimous consent that the senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. grassley: since i made that unanimous consent motion and i'm going to be speaking for longer than just ten minutes, i ask unanimous consent to speak for whatever time i might consume, which will probably be in the neighborhood of 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: yesterday, the ways and means committee sent a letter to the i.r.s. requesting the president's tax returns. last night, i had a chance to read that letter, and i have to say that if you take it at face value, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. consider the reasons that are stated in that letter from the ways and means committee for requesting the president's tax returns. it states that the committee is conducting oversight of the audit process that the i.r.s.

uses to evaluate presentation tax returns. currently, the i.r.s. examines the president's tax returns as a matter of policy, simple policy, but a review isn't required by law. democrats of the ways and means committee have said they are now looking into whether the current i.r.s. policies of auditing the president is enough or if congressional action may be needed. democrats have even been talking about making i.r.s. audits of the president's mandatory every year, even though -- now, understand that -- even though the i.r.s. does that every year and have been doing it for a long period of time. in a press release, a democrat

member of the ways and means committee said that he has a duty to examine whether congressional action is needed to require presentation audits and oversee that they are done correctly. ask yourself why that member would be saying that. i, for one, haven't seen any evidence that the i.r.s. has suddenly changed its policy under this president, meaning president trump. or that it's conducting a less thorough review of president trump's taxes than it did of previous presidents, or that it hasn't conducted a review at all. so why are the democrats considering these changes to the tax code now? why didn't they half the issue

under president obama or president bush or president clinton? the answer, of course, is nothing has changed. there is no reason to believe that the i.r.s. is doing any less due diligence in its review of president trump's taxes than it has for any other president in our memory. the letter also states that the committee needs to know the scope of the audit that the i.r.s. conducts when it looks at a president's tax returns, that it needs to know whether there is a review of underlying business activities reported by the president. if democrats are truly interested in finding out the level of scrutiny given to a president's tax returns, why not simply just ask the i.r.s. to describe its audit procedure?

that's a very straightforward question, and i'm sure that commissioner reddick could be happy to oblige with a straightforward answer. why is there a need to see president trump's tax returns in order to get an answer to those questions? i want to give you a hint. there isn't one. the letter also states that the committee is looking into how the i.r.s. is doing its job of enforcing tax laws in a fair and impartial manner. in a statement yesterday, the ways and means committee said it especially wants to know whether or not audits of presentation tax returns are being fully and appropriately being conducted. along those lines, in addition to ask fog president trump's tax

returns and those of his businesses for the last six years, the democrats have asked for information on the status of all audits of those tax returns that have been conducted. it sounds like they are planning to conduct their own review of the president's tax returns to see whether or not the i.r.s. has been doing its job. now, there is a problem with that. the i.r.s. audits more than a million tax returns every year, and while audits of the president and vice president might happen automatically, the audit process that is followed for them ought to be the same as it is for everyone else. every member of the ways and means committee knows that as well. in members' remarks yesterday, they said the committee has a

responsibility to conduct oversight of the tax system to determine how americans, including those in elective office, are complying with the law. in other words, the president and the vice president ought to be held to the same high standards as every other american. not a different standard. the same standard. and there is no reason to believe that this isn't already happening. democrats haven't offered a shred of evidence to suggest the i.r.s. hasn't done its job audit ing president trump, his taxes, or anybody else's, for that matter. by the way, if democrats are really so concerned about enforcement, then why not ask the treasury inspector general to conduct a review of the

i.r.s. audit process? well, i want to tell you why they might not do that, because they are not concerned about oversight of the i.r.s. enforcement process at all. what they are interested in is using their oversight responsibilities to collect as much information about this president's finances as they can get their hands on. and that is really the bottom line, isn't it? this letter from the house democrats doesn't make sense when taken at face value because you can't take it at face value. democrats say they are interested in the tax returns of all presidents when they are really just interested in one, president trump. it's the effort to get the president's -- if the effort to

get the president's tax returns isn't part of a grand reform effort, as they would have us believe, then what is it motivated by? i want to tell you what it's motivated by. it's motivated by the democrats' intense dislike of this president. it's motivated by their frustration over losing an election that they thought that they would easily win. it's motivated by their desire to use all of the resources at their disposal to find something, anything to bring this president down. just take a look at how this whole effort to request the president's tax returns has unfolded. i will tell you a real story. democrats started making calls for president trump to release his tax returns while he was still a candidate during the 2016 election.

at the time, democratic calls for the release of his tax returns were clearly just a political attack. not a policy issue, as they would now want us to believe. secretary clinton said, quote, there must be something really terrible in those tax returns, end of her quote. her communications director used the issue to chide then-candidate trump for, quote, hiding behind fake excuses and backtracking on previous promises, end of quote. in his speech before the democratic national convention, president clinton's running mate questioned then whether then-candidate trump had been paying his fair share, at once calling for him to relief his tax returns and asking, quote,

donald, what are you hiding, end of quote. since the election, these calls have continued, as you see yesterday. democrats had just come up with more inventive excuses for making these calls, although i suspect the underlying political reasons are the same today as they were in 2016. consider how those reasons have changed over time now. not long after the election, at the beginning of last congress, 93 house democrats signed a resolution of inquiry directing the secretary of treasury to turn over the president's tax returns. that request was for his tax returns to be provided to the full house of representatives

and not the committee on ways and means. the house democrats' portion of that resolution committee report signed by ranking member and current chairman is filled with complaints about the president's refusal to release his tax returns, none of which mention ever reviewing i.r.s. audits. or even inquiring about i.r.s. audit procedures. in that report, democrats say that the president has, quote, rebuked over 40 years of tradition, end of quote, by refusing to release his tax returns. they say that the president's tax returns should be released because he has a vast domestic and international business empire.

they say they should be released because he is, quote, not an average american. they say they should be released because he is president of the united states and has the power to sign bills into law. and that is supposed to serve as some kind of justification for demanding and releasing his tax returns? well, i can tell you, the law does not support that argument. under section 6103 of the federal tax code, the tax returns of all americans, even including the president of the united states, are considered to be private information. and without an individual's permission, tax information can't be released except under the most limited of

circumstances. and let's not forget that our tax code reads that way for a very good reason. when congress reformed the modern i.r.s. privacy law -- that was in 1976, not long after president nixon left office -- nixon had used his power over the i.r.s. to target his political enemies, and congress, by passing that law in 1976, wanted to make sure that that never happened again. congress was determined to put protections in place that would prevent any kind of abuse of that i.r.s. power in the future. congress wanted to ensure private tax information was never used for political purposes ever again.

but if you strip away all the pretense and trace this current effort back to its roots, that sounds an awful lot like what's happening right now with the efforts by the members of the ways and means committee. i stopped listing them, but democrats have had plenty of other reasons in the past for claiming to need president trump's tax returns. in 2017, democrats also said the president's taxes should be released because he stood to benefit from the tax reform that congress passed and the president then signed into law. apparently because the president is wealthy and successful, they figured he must have had a self-interest in supporting that reform. and a more recent effort to get the president's returns is

contained in a bill the house -- the democrats recently sent to our senate known as h.r. 1. that bill contains a provision requiring that the candidates for president and vice president, as well as the sitting president and vice president, release their last ten years of individual tax returns. assuming the proposal lives on, even if the bill doesn't, i wonder if that's one of the items they were hoping to evaluate through their current oversight efforts. maybe they want to see the president's tax returns in order to evaluate their proposal to see the president's tax returns. that sounds like a lot of circular logic to me. democrats may also have made -- have also made a big deal out of

the fact that under section 6103 the secretary of treasury shall turn over relevant tax records to the chairman of the ways and means committee if he requests them. that's exactly right, as long as the committee has a legitimate legislative purpose in asking for them, as opposed to this perceived political reason that they want to do it. for decades, the courts have been clear that congressional requests for information like those tax returns or any other thing that we're trying to do must have a legitimate legislative purpose. but that's where the democrats come up very, very short. see, they don't have a purpose. all they have are a lot of excuses. let me tell you something.

introducing legislation that would essentially require the president to release his tax returns and then using that to somehow justify requesting the president's tax returns is one of the worst excuses that i've ever heard of. you'd think that considering the amount of time and practice that they've had trying to rationalize all of this and make it sound so very good, they'd be able to come up with something a little bit better than that. apparently not. and that really speaks volumes, doesn't it? the fact is, the reasons the democrats have offered for wanting president trump's tax returns back in 2016 and 2017 don't pass muster any better than the ones that they're trying to peddle right now.

that's because they're not requesting the tax returns in order to investigate a problem in the need of oversight at all, and they really care about -- all they really care about is finding a pretext to bring this president down. you know, as a member of the congress who knows firsthand the importance of good oversight, that's what concerns me the most about this whole campaign that's going on in the other body. i happen to know a thing or two about oversight. over my career, i've conducted oversight of the last seven presidential administrations, democrat and republican. i've called out both parties for doing things that they shouldn't be doing. in that spirit, i've always said

that every single member of congress is duty bound to conduct oversight of the federal government. in fact, i remind every new member that i run into in this body -- and the now president of the senate has heard me tell him this -- you don't need to have -- if you want to get a bill passed, you've got to have 51 votes to get it passed. but you want to do oversight, you only need to have one vote -- your own decision to do that oversight. the responsibility to conduct oversight is and ought to be regarded by each and every one of us as sacrosanct. the power to conduct oversight flows directly from the constitution. as a member of the congress, we owe it to the people we

represent to preserve and protect its use as a tool for carrying out our legitimate constitutional responsibilities. i don't believe for a minute that when the framers created article 1, the power of congress to legislate, what they had in mind was members using these powers to collect personal information on their political opponents in an effort to destroy those political opponents. you know, in all my years of conducting oversight, i've never started with an end result and then worked backwards in search of a reason for making it happen. that's not how oversight is done. oversight is about advocating for transparency, and with transparency becomes accountability. in order to fix problems and to

improve government, not about searching for ways to sow division and tear down your political opponents. what the democrats are doing now looks a lot like the latter, more like the latter than the former. and if that is what they're up to, it's not oversight at all. when you strip away all of their pretexts and when you strip out their circular logic, all you have are democrats who want to go after the president in any way that they can. they dislike him with a passion, and they want his tax returns to destroy him. that's all that this whole process is about, and it's nixonian to the core.

i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president, i would ask that the quorum call be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: thank you, mr. president. earlier this week, the senate debated a disaster relief funding bill that would have provided $13.5 billion in assistance to states and territories that have been touched by recent hurricanes, wildfires, and other natural disasters. i assure my colleagues' commitment to provide necessary assistance to get affected americans back on their feet. as chairman of the budget committee, i believe we should

always consider the budgetary effects of any legislation pending before this body. supplemental appropriation bills highlight a real challenge in controlling federal spending. how should we budget for inevitable natural disasters and emergencies? answering this question is important because the federal government continues to spend more money than it takes in and will soon confront annual deficits exceeding a trillion dollars a year. these surging deficits add to our rising debt which stands today at $22 trillion or more than $65,000 per person. that's regardless of age. the baby that was born this morning owes $65,000. by 2029 if nothing is done, the national debt will grow to more than $33 trillion or more than $94,000 per person.

adding urgency to this situation is the surge in auto pilot spending, which now represents more than two-thirds of what the federal government spends each year. two-thirds of what we spend is not actually voted on. it happens automatically. as our population ages, rising health care and interest costs will compound our fill problems. in ten years nearly 80 cents of every dollar the government spends will be on mandatory programs and interest on the debt. we need to do everything we can to improve our fiscal situation, and that includes improving the way we provide disaster relief. some of my colleagues may not realize that since the passage of the budget control act in 2011, congress has spent $250 billion outside of the discretionary caps responding to natural disasters and other emergencies. this spending has received

special designations under the law that exempted from discretionary spending limits, but such spending still has the very real effect of further increasing the federal deficit. the federal debt. one designation that is often used is emergency, which i implies they're for something congress did not anticipate. but as we all know, natural disasters happen on an annual basis, and in recent years we've had multiple natural disasters in the same fiscal year. i want to applaud my friend from utah, senator romney, for offering an amendment that recognizes the challenge of budgeting for disasters and emergencies. disaster relief funding must be built into our base budgets, which is why i have incorporated these costs in recent budget resolutions, including the one that passed through our budget committee last week. while there is no silver bullet

to this solution -- to this problem, i am willing and eager to work with any of my colleagues who believe there's a better way to anticipate these costs. the senate budget committee recently held a hearing that partially touched on the idea to better budget for disaster funding. one option is to offset emergency spending increases with spending reductions in other areas. another option could require a dedicated fund for emergencies similar to how some states budget for these events. i've also considered whether a new actuarially sound insurance program could appropriately assess the risks for such disasters while maintaining affordable premiums. budgeting for emergencies and disasters is not a precise science, but i believe congress can do a lot better than just calling it an emergency and adding to the debt. while we work to more honestly

budget for these annual costs, there are other ways we can lower the costs of natural disasters. the federal emergency management agency has found that for every dollar spent mitigating against natural disasters saves an average of $6. last year congress passed the disaster recovery reform act which i was proud to support. this bill included programs that encouraged mitigation activities. congress should be open to any idea that could help our country better plan for annual costs of these natural disasters. this would allow us to respond to natural disasters more efficiently while also reducing the burden on american taxpayers. with our country more than $22 trillion in debt and quickly approaching $1 trillion annual deficits, we must do everything in our power to help put our country on a more fiscally sustainable path. better budgeting for natural disasters won't fix all our financial problems, but it's a

good place to start. before i conclude, i want to touch on another area of concern, and that's the growing prevalence of directed scorekeeping. that's a way of saying we're not going to count that even though we're going to spend it. congressional budget statutes have established scoring rules that are intended to provide standardized accounting to ensure lawmakers have the best possible information upon which to base fiscal decisions. in recent years, however, we've seen more and more attempts to undermine that process and instead direct the scoring outcomes. last week the senate budget committee, which i chair, approved a fiscal year 2020 budget resolution that aims to crack down on this process by allowing a surgical point of order to be raised against any such provision. what that means is if the offending provision could be stricken from the underlying measure unless 60 senators voted to retain it.

unfortunately the disaster bill which was brought to the floor this week included a provision that would essentially direct the appropriations from the harbor maintenance trust fund up to a limit be scored as costing zero dollars. the effect of this change would allow congress to spend an additional $2 billion above the statutory spending caps each year while obscuring the real budgetary impact from the american people. i filed an amendment that would solve that. it's long past time for an honest conversation about fiscal challenges facing our country. in the budget committee, we tried to advance that conversation with the budget that was approved last week. unfortunately the directed scorekeeping provision in this disaster bill considered earlier this week would set that effort back. i hope that when congress returns to the consideration of the disaster legislation, it abandons that multiple spending

effort. i yield the floor. i suggest 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 hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. i come to the floor today following our colleague senator tillis to join him in talking about the importance of nato and expressing our deep appreciation for the north atlantic treaty

organization. senator tillis and i are the cochairs of the newly established senate nato observer group which builds on the effort that was started back in the 199 0's by tomorrow daschle and trent lott to address the expansion of nato following the fall of the berlin wall. our task is to not just shepherd through the senate any changes in nato that require senate approval, but it's also to remind all of us and to remind the american public just how important nato is. over the last seven decades the nato alliance stood by its members in the darkest hours including in afghanistan after the united states was attacked on september 11. and as secretary general stoltenberg reminded us yesterday the only time article 5, the mutual aid clause of the

nato charter has been invoked was after september 11, after the united states was attacked by terrorists. our trans-atlantic bond has been critical to the united states and nato, and in particular it has sustained a period of unprecedented global security and stability. and while people may not recognize it, every day the united states sees the benefits of nato. whether we need to use nato bases to evacuate american troops from conflict or to ensure that american goods and people travel safely across the atlantic ocean, nato plays a critical role. as nato marks its 70th anniversary today and back, the fact is that the alliance makes us stronger around the world and safer at home. so it's no wonder that americans are very supportive of this organization.

any implication that americans don't like or understand nato is just simply wrong. this week the pew research center unveiled research to show that nearly eight in ten americans, or 77%, including large majorities in both democratic and republican parties, agree that being a member of nato is good for the united states. we've also seen the chicago council on global affairs that's recorded a steady increase in nato favorability across generations of americans. even the millennials, the generation born between 1981 and 1996, which are now the largest voting block in the united states, even millennials value our alliances, and 72% back the united states contribution to nato. now boosted by these numbers, congress has been more active than any time in my memory in

expressing its support for nato. in 2017 and 2018 congress took more votes in support of the united states in support of nato than at any time during the fall of the united states. since then we've enjoyed a diverse and active membership across republican and democratic parties as well as the enduring support of the senate's leadership. both senator mcconnell, majority leader, and senator schumer, the democratic leader. further, congress continues to put its word into action by allocating significant levels of funding to help europe deter threats that emanate from nato's eastern and southern borders. already having provided $6.5 billion in the last year alone for the european deterrence initiative. i have no doubt that as the

senate prepares to provide its advice and consent to nato's 30th member, north macedonia, members of congress will once again rally to nato's side and push forward on initiatives to further strengthen nato. i should just call out, mr. president, the republic of north macedonia as well as the country of greece are reaching an agreement around the name change for north macedonia that both countries have agreed to and the parliaments of both countries have supported. so as china and russia struggle to maintain allies and resort to coercion and force to keep countries in their sphere, nato has proven to be an enduring american advantage in an uncertain world. our nato allies continue to magnify the strength of our military and they stand ready to defend us and protect our shared interests and values worldwide.

for this reason, i thank our allies for what they've done for the united states and for the people of europe who are part of our partner nations. and while we may have our differences, we will always remain stronger with allies. as the secretary general said yesterday, it is good to have friends. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 21. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. daniel desmond domenico of colorado to be united states district judge for the district

of colorado. mr. mcconnell: i sent a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. 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 on the nomination of daniel desmond domenico of colorado to be united states district judge for the district of colorado, signed by 17 senators fools. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 27. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to.

mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. patrick r. wyrick of oklahoma to be united states district judge for the western district of oklahoma. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. 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 on the nomination of patrick r. wyrick of oklahoma to be united states district judge for the western district of oklahoma signed by 17 senators. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposessed no, the ayes

appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 105. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of labor. cheryl marie stanton of south carolina to be administrator of the wage and hour division. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of cheryl marie stanton of south carolina to be administrator of the wage and hour division department of labor, signed by 17 senators as follows.

mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 173. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of state. john p.abizaid of nevada to be ambassador to the kingdom of saudi arabia. mr. mcconnell: i sent aerocloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to

bring to a close debate on the nomination of john pssments abizaid to be ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary for the united states for the kingdom of saudi arabia signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 31. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. holly a. brady of indiana to be united states district judge for the northern district of indiana mr. mcconnell: i send the

cloture motion tosks. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of holly a. brady of indiana to be united states district judge for the northern district of indiana, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 30. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination. the judiciary.

david steven morales of texas to be united states district judge for the southern district of texas. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the nomination of david steven morales of texas to be united states district judge of the southern district of texas signed by 17 senators as followings. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: