clear that rao's center was being funded with 4$00,000 from, quote, name -- $400,000 from, quote, naming gift scholarships. the koch brothers scholarship money earmarked for naomi rao's center. it was being funneled for nay oh,y -- nay oh, my rao. the dark plot thickened. here's the most interesting part of all. the open records documents also show that the law school dean, henry butler, regularly reported to leonard leo on developments at naomi rao's center, including faculty hiring and other

federalist society priorities. the e-mails are very cozy. the dean is deferential. there's even a calendar entry for lunch at a washington, d.c., restaurant for naomi rao, henry butler, andeonard leo. cozier still is that another condition of the koch foundation's massive gift was that henry butler be protected as deemed because they viewed him, specifically him, as, quote, critical to advancing the school's mission. that mission? doing the koch foundation and leonard leo's bidding to help cripple public interest protections in this country for

big special interests funding leo, funding the center, and funding the federalist society. neomi rao's defenders were quick to defend and said we were stifling their academic inquiry. they pointed to the senator -- the center's research round tables and public policy conferences as evidence of its fair and independent academic bona fides. sorry, but tough to buy when in one private fund raising e-mail dean butler was revealed to have asked one wealthy donor for a $1.5 million gift -- and i'm quoting here -- to entice neomi

to return home to scalia law after she dismantles the administrative state. end quote. tell me who is the real threat to academic inquiry here? and perhaps more to the point now that she is a judge, who is a present threat to judicial independence at the d.c. circuit court of appeals? fancy lunches and weird, cozy relationships between public law school deans and d.c. power brokers can seem a bit i the weaves so let's not lose sight of the bigger picture here. this stuff matters because americans are now seeing their courts filled with judges like

neomi rao who are expected and chosen to reliably rule for big corporate andpartisan special i. the ones funding the federalist society's selection of these judges, the ones funding the judicial crisis networks confirmation of these judges, the ones funding the amiki -- the front group amiki who show up to argue in court. i recently looked at the numbers for the federalist society dominated supreme cou. undechief justice roberts' tenure through the end of october term 2017-2018, republican appointees have

delivered partisan 5-4 rulings that favor corporate or republican partisan special interests, not three or four times, not even a dozen or two dozen times, but 73 times. if you look at the court's cases during chief justice roberts' tenure and you look at the 5-4 decisions and you look at the 5-4 decisions where the breakdown between the 5 and the 4 was partisan, and you look at those 5-4 partisan decisions for the ones in which there was a clearly apparent big republican donor interest, you find that every single one of those 73 decisions was won was decided in favor of the big republican

donor interest. 73 victories delivered for big republican interests with no democratic appointee joining the majority. here's one case study of recent decision after the 73. lamps plus versus varello. the. the presiding officer: varello sued his company after a fraudulent tax form being filed in his name. an appellate court looked at the case and relied on a state contract law principle to agree with. the presiding officer: varella. that's a traditionally conservative principle, deferring to state laws. along came the supreme court in this case and ditched the conservative principle to rule in favor of the corporation 5-4

partisan decision. there's another case study pending before the court now, kaiser v. wilke. kaiser addresses an obscure administrative law doctrine about judicial deference to federal agencies but it has been described as a, quote, stalking horse for much larger gain. end quote. the largest purpose is to strip away judicial deference to administrative agencies' capacity to regulate independently in the public interest. you have to understand that if you are a mighty corporation, you come to an administrative agency from a position of terrific advantage ordinarily and where administrative agencies are willing to stand

up, that is important. but if you can get your judges on the court and strip away that deference, now you can put the fix in through the courts. imagine a world in which federal agencies get virtually no judicial deference and leonard leo's special interest hand picked judges rule on americans' disputes with big corporations. if these big special interests are sick of protections for workers in the workplace, let the judges get rid of them. dismantle the administrative state. if a big special interest is sick of safeguards for our air and water or dangerous in toys

our children play with, dismantle the administrative state. tear down the safety regulations. they'll have the judges to do that. and if corporations are sick of a guardrail that keeps our financial system from dragging down millions of americans' financial security, these judges stand ready to dismantle the administrative state protecting investors. leonard leo's dark federalist society element is installing judges poised to systematically and relentlessly dismantle government agencies sworn to keep us safe and secure. how do you push back on this machine where the big money

special interests select the nominee by contributing to the federalist socie and leonard leo's secretive judicial lists and judge-picking process? they then spend money campaigning for their selected judge's confirmation through the judicial crisis network. they then spend money through amicus briefs arguing before the judges who they've spent money to select and confirm and then sure enough, bingo, 73-0 in the important decisions where they can get the republican appointees to gang up in a group of five and deliver and deliver and deliver and deliver and deliver for the interests o at e center of this who you can't properly identify because it's not transparent. the federalist society doesn't disclose its donors. the judicial crisis network doesn't disclose its donors. the supreme court rule doesn't

get at who the real donors are to these p phony front group ami -- amiki. you find out later on when you see who the winners are, 73-0. how do you push back on that machine? sunlight. transparency. we must have transparency in our campaign finance system and we must have transparency into this special interest conveyor belt filling our courts. and we should have transparency in the courts. mr. whitehouse: right now the dark money groups behind the federalist society judge-picking operation, they're probably also behind those amicus briefs. a littletransparency and we'd

know. it's through these amicus briefs that the judges who were selected and confirmed by these folks get instructed on how they should rule. this is a recipe for corruption. the court itself should require real transparency from so-called friends of the court. these amicus groups come in under a supreme court re su rul requires them to disclose who paid for the brief. but who's really behind the group? we don't know. the supreme court could correct that. it could correct it like that. but then it would start to expose who's here. so if the court won't, congress must. democracy dies in darkness, it

has been said, and so does judicial independence. the american people deserve to know when powerful special interests are paying to sway federal judges with self-serving legal advice, and if those same interests paid to get those judges selected and paid to campaign for their confirmation and then paid to have the amicus brief put before the court, the need for the american people to understand what is going on becomes even more profound. so i will close with a big thank you to "the washington post" for their reporting. thanks to their careful investigative work pouring through tax records and interviews, we now know a lot more about this federalist society court-fixing operation.

our president likes to describe investigative journalism that pokes and probes at the mischief in his administration as fake news. ththere's nothing fake about ths news. this is in the best traditions of investigative journalism, and i'm grateful for their work to illustrate how our courts are being captured by corporations and runaway partisanship fueled by dark money. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: mr. president, i rise tied to speak about the ongoing threat from the trump administration to health care and the guaranteed protections that millions of american families depend upon. president trump has tried to pass repeal plans that would take people's health care away and allow insurance companies to charge more for people with preexisting health conditions. or those insurance companies could deny them coverage altogether. when that repeal plan failed to

pass in the united states senate in the summer of 2017, instead of working in a bipartisan way to lower health care costs, presesident trump turned to truy sabotaging our health care system. what do i mean by that? the trump administration made it harder for people to sign up for the affordable care act coverage. they've done so by limiting the window of time that people can enroll. they've truly created instability in the health care market. and their sabotage has contributed to premium spikes that we've seen across the country, including in my home state of wisconsin. the trump administration has even gone to court to support a

lawsuit in order to overturn the affordable care act completely, and that of course would include protections for people with preexisting health care conditions. they've essentially gone into court to ask the court to strike down the affordable care act. now, if they were to succeed, insurance companies will again be able to deny coverage or charge much higher premiums for the more than 130 million americans who have some sort of preexisting health condition. the number with preexisting health conditions includes some two million wisconsinites. what is the president's plan to protect people with preexisting health conditions? he doesn't have one. and i don't believe he ever will. in fact, he's acted in just the

opposite vein. this administration has expanded junk insurance plans that can deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions, and they don't have to cover essential services like prescription drugs or emergency room care or maternity care. i ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to think about this for a moment. president trump supports overing it up the law -- overturning the law that provides protections for people with preexisting conditions. at the same time he is expanding these junction plans that don't provide those -- these junk plans that don't provide those very ex-protections. if this isn't straight-up sabotage, i don't know what is. when i was nine years old, i got sick. i was really sick. i was in the hospital for three

months. now, i recovered, but my family still struggled because i had been branded with the words preexisting health condition. and i was denied insurance coverage. that family and personal experience has driven my fight to make sure that every american has affordable and quality health care coverage. today, because of the affordable care act, those with plea existing health conditions -- with preexisting health conditions cannot be discriminated against. they can't be denied health care coverage, and they can't be charged discriminatory premiums. i want to protect the guaranteed health care protections that so many millions of americans now depend upon. so i've introduced legislation along with my colleague senator doug jones of alabama to

overturn the trump administration's expansion of junk insurance plans. the entire senate democratic caucus, including the two independents who caucus with us, have supported this legislation. they have signed on to this bill. the nation's top health care organizations representing tens of thousands of doctors and physicians and patients and medical students and other health experts have supported this legislation and endorsed it. anyone, anyone who says they support health care coverage for people with preexisting conditions should support my legislation. so, mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the help committee be discharged from

further consideration of s. 1556, that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, and that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, reserving the right to object. this is the latest democratic attempt to raise the cost of health care paid for out of your own pocket by taking away an ability to provide lower-cost health insurance that preserves preexisting condition protection and the essential health benefits. these short-term health benefits were available under president clinton. they were available under president bush. they were available under president obama right until the last few months h to three

months long. president trump has simply said you may now have them up to a year and renew them for three years. and if you live in fulton county, georgia, mr. president, your insurance costs will be 30% less against the typical obamacare bronze plan ndz even more against the silver plan. this is the latest democratic attempt to increase the cost of what you pay for health care out of your own pocket. their next attempt will be medicare for all which of you have health insurance on the job willake that health insurance you away. i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. ms. baldwin: mr. president, i am certainly disappointed that my republican colleagues have chosen to object to protecting people with preexisting conditions. and it is my contention that some of the very opposite impa impacts because of these junk plans are occurring than my

colleague has recited. in fact, i hardly consider them insurance plans. many have argued that they're not worth the paper that they're written on. they don't cover many essential benefits. they are not required to cover people with preexisting health conditions. they can drop people. they can charge outrageous prices. and what we found in the -- and the reason that the obama administration went from year-long plans to three-month plans is because they saw the distortion in the markets. they saw that people who had believed that they might not get sick, healthy, often younger people, were availing themselves to these plans making the affordable care -- lex will the senator yield for a question? ms. baldwin: i would yield to one question and then i want to

wrap up my comments. mr. alexander: is the senator from wisconsin not aware that the short-term health care plans do not change the law on preexisting condition? ms. baldwin: mr. president, these short-term plans do not have to cover preexisting conditions. i can tell you as i've inquired -- mr. alexander: may i -- ms. baldwin: i yielded already to a question. but i want to -- mr. alexander: she gave the wrong answer, mr. president. ms. baldwin: it might not be to the senator's liking but i was going to tell you about the plans that i read the fine print on from the state of wisconsin. now that these short-term plans are renewable for up to three years, these junk plans, you can see the fine print. many times they start with we will not cover a preexisting condition. every single one of them refuses to cover maternity care. that means none of these junk plans cover that essential

benefit. most of them don't cover emergency room care. most of them don't cover prescription drugs. so regardless of how the law impacts people who have other types of insurance, i feel strongly that these junk plans are very distorting of the market and not worth the paper they're written onn for those wo have chosen to take that root. last fall, we heard all my colleagues across the aisle say often repeatedly that they support protections for people with preexisting health conditions. today i just offered an opportunity for democrats and republicans to come together to protect people's access to quality, affordable health care when they need it the most. but there was an objection. anand i say to the american

people, we must not lose sight of the fight right in front of us. we have a president who has time after time sabotaged our health care system, raised health care costs, and pushed these junk insurance plans that don't have to cover people with preexisting conditions. we have an administration that is asking a court to strike down the affordable care act and its protections for people with preexisting conditions in their entirety. mr. president, the choice for the american people could not be morere clear. we want to make things better. and my republican colleagues refuse to join us in this effort which would be to prevent this administration from making things worse. mr. president, i yield.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, the house recently passed a piece of legislation called protecting americans with preexisting conditions act, the substance of this legislation would prevent a trump administration rule from going into effect that would allow for states to license the kind of insurance plans that senator baldwin was referring to. these are plans that do not cover preexisting conditions, nor the essential health care benefits. i'm going to offer right now a unanimous consent request to proceed to the immediate consideration of this bill. i suspect it will be objected to

and after an opportunity for republicans to object, i will speak to the merits of this legislation. so let me start with a request to bring this legislation that will protect people with preexisting conditions and the essential health care benefits to the floor. my motion is as such, as if in legislative session i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 90, h.r. 986, protecting americans with preexisting conditions act of 2019, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, reserving the right to object. section 1332 is the innovation waiver that is part of the affordable care act passed by the democratic majority.

that act includes protection for preexisting conditions. using the flexibility granted under section 1332 does not change anything about preexisting conditions. so it's misleading to the american people to suggest that it does. this is another democratic attempt to make it more expensive, to cost more for what you pay for health care out of your own pocket by taking away flexibility from states to find a less expensive way for you to afford health care at the same time not changing the preexisting condition protection that are provided by the affordable care act. this is the latest attempt to do it but the boldest attempt to raise the cost of your health care is m medicare for all which of you have insurance on the job

is 181 million americans do, would take that insurance away from you. i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. murphy: mr. president? thank you, mr. president. again, i share in senator baldwin's disappointment we can't move immediately to this legislation. this isn't a political game. these are individuals all across the country who are relying on us to make sure they're not subject to the abuses of the market, relying on us to make sure we don't return to the days in which insurance companies could prevent you from getting health care simply because you are sick, return to the days when you bought an insurance product and then it didn't turn out to ultimately be insurance. let's be clear. the waiver that the president has allowed states to take advantage of would absolutely, would by definition of the rule allow for states to waive the

preexisting condition requiremen the rule itself says that the innovation that happens at the state level does not have to comply with the essential health care benefits requirement. it says in the rule that you do not have to comply with preexisting conditions requirements. that's the reason that they are so cheap. so i'm at a loss as to why we have republicans on the floor saying that preexisting conditions will be protected under this rule. that's not true. the rule says that states do not have to comply with the preexi preexisting requirement. it says that states do not have to cover essential health care benefits. that's why -- that's why these junk plans are attractive, because they aren't actually insurance. and they are only insurance for people that are at the time very healthy. we've got to get on the same page here. we've got to be reading from the same script. the fact of the matter is the definition of the rule allows for protections for people with preexisting conditions to be

discriminated against. i'm sorry that we weren't able to bring up this piece of legislation because health care insurance should be health care insurance. and what we worry about is two things. first, that by allowing f for te marketing of these junk plans, you're going to have all sorts of people who today aren't sick jumping into those plans coming off the plans that protect people with preexisting conditions. the people that are going to be left behind on those regulated plans are people who are sick, people who have preexisting conditions. and so you're all of a sudden bifurcating the insurance market. you're going to have a market for people that are currently healthy and then you're going to have a market for people who are sick or who have ever had a preexisting condition. and you don't have to be an actual wear. you don't have to have taken classes in health care insurance economics so know when that happens, rates skyrocket forpeog condition, for the millions of people around this country who have had a serioious diagnosis

over at some point during their life. and so as you sell these junk plans, there's no way but for costs to go up. and that's on top of the increases we saw last year. last year insurance companies priced in the cost of trump administration sabotage. they priced into their premiums the attacks on our health care system from the republican congress. and in many states we saw insurance plans pushing 60%, 40%, in some cases 80% increases in premiums. and now on top of that, for sick people, for people with preexisting conditions, the rates are going to be even bigger because of the flight of those without preexisting conditions into market places set up specifically for them. the second thing we worry about is that these junk plans market themselves as insurance but they aren't. here's a list of things that i would generally consider to be covered under my insurance plan. if i bought an insurance plan, if i handed over a check to the insurance company, i kind of

think that if i go to the emergency room, i'm not going to have to pay for it out of my pocket. i'm thinking to myself, you know what, if i need prescription drugs, they're going to cover some of that. if i have a mental health diagnosis, doesn't insurance cover my head as well as the rest of my body? these are the things that i would assume that insurance covers. but these junk plans don't cover these things. junk plans do not cover trips to the emergency room. junk plans often don't cover hospitalizations. they don't cover prescription drugs. almost none of them cover maternity care. your checkups might not be covered under a junk plan. preexisting conditions will cost you more. contraception isn't going to be in lots of these plans. they don't require you to cover lab services or pediatrics. mental health is not going to be in many of these junk plans. rehab services if you get injured, you're not growing to find those in some of these plans. if you countera chronic disease, there's nothing in the law that requires treatment for those to be covered.

all of a sudden the things you thought insurance covered don't cover it and you've been paying a premium for years. when you finally need access to the system, it's not there. that's what these plans can do. that's what the law and the trump administration rule allows states to license as insurance and that's why we're on the floor today to ask -- to plead for our colleagues to bring legislation before this body, either senator baldwin's legislation or representative custer's legislation that has already passed the house that would stop these junk insurance plans from being sold all around this country, which will trick many americans into believing they will have insurance when they don't and will dramatically raise the cost of care potentially in many states for people who have serious preexisting conditions. i'm not surprised at the objection to both of our unanimous consent requests. nevertheless, i am disappointed. and we will continue to be down

here on the floor for as much time as it takes to try to rally the whole of this body to protect people with preexisting conditions, to fight back against the sabotage of the affordable care act and the health care system by this president. hopefully one day we'll be successful. i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. i'm proud to be here on the floor today to join with leaders,enator baldwin, she and senator jones, on their resolution; with senator murphy. and i just have to say, senator murphy, before you put that down, i have to look that list and tell you, befe the affordable care act, i would get calls like this, someone calls me and they say, i paid into health care all my life and never gotten sick. and then i fine finally needed surgery. what do you mean it only pays for one day in the hospital?

well, it never paid for more than one day in the hospital. but they didn't know it because they didn't get sick. so folks join the junk plans, and your list -- and thank you for your list. but they buy the junk plan being healthy and then will never know that it doesn't cover those things unless they get sick. and when they find out, it'll be too late. so that's why we are here, mr. president, because we know that the health care isn't political. it shouldn't be political. it's personal for every one of us. it's personal for ourselves and our families. it affects all of us, whether we're democrats, republicans, independents, vote, don't vote, rural, from any state in the union. when people tell me their health care stories, they don't start by telling me their political affiliation. they talk to me about what's happened to them, what's happened to their mom and dad, what's happened to their children. political affiliation doesn't

matter. people in michigan simply want to know that the health care they depend on will be there for them and be affordable for them and their family -- today and into the future. and that's the fight that we have as democrats. we will continue that fight. unfortunately, they have reason to be worried about the rise of short-term, limited-duration insurance plans. they should be worried about what these plans don't cover. junk plans, a as we're calling them, because in fact as senator baldwin said so well, they're junk. they don't really cover anything. they make you feel good as long as you're healthy that you've got insurance. but then you find out when you get sick that your child ♪ covered or you're not covered. and the fact is, these plans are, many of them, called medically underwritten because the insurance company -- by the

way, junk plans are about putting decisions back in the hands of the insurance company instead of knowing that you and your doctor know what you need and that it will be covered. but the insurance companies can charge whatever they want based on somebody's health and gender and age or other status. remember when being a woman was considered a preexisting condition. i do. these plans are bringing that back. and one recent study found that none of these plans that have been approved by the trump administration so far, none of them cover maternity care -- none of them. and we fought hard -- i fought hard as a member of the finance committee to make sure that women's health care and maternity care were covered. our health care is as basic a health care as any man's health care and ought to be covered the same. and i want to repeat this. we have a maternal health crisis in this country, and the adminiration is pushing plans

that don't cover basic coverage for women. on top of that, these junk plans can exclude people with preexisting conditions -- yes, they can -- and impose yearly or lifetime caps on care. remember when if -- you had to worry about how many cancer treatments the insurance company would pay for? now there aren't caps so that you can decide, your doctor can decide with you on what it takes to put y in remission and put you on a healthy path. it's estimated that about half of michigan families include somebody with a preexisting condition, about half. everything from heart disease to asthma to arthritis. i met with some of them earlier this month during the national brain tumor society's head to the hill event. tiffany, who is from livonia, was just 17 years old when she was diagnosed with a brain tumor. since then, her tumor has

reoccurred six times. she's been through seven surgeries, chemotherapy, and radiation treatments. the location of her tumor means that tiffany has also lost some of the use of her left arm and hand. tiffany doesn't have a choice. her life depends on having comprehensive health insurance. unfortunately, that kind of insurance is getting less and less affordable. so when our republican colleague comes to the floor and says, we just want to raise prices, let me tell you what has really happened in the last year. the sabotage by the trump administration, the unraffling of the -- the unraveling of the affordable care act, now the instability and going into court trying to repeal the affordable care act, all of that instability, everything that's been done means that comprehensive health insurance costs have gone up 16.6% this year. so somebody buying insurance is

paying on average 16.6% more than they did last year because of all of this effort to sabotage and undermine and unravel the health care system. tiffany should be able to focus on getting the treatment she needs and living her best life possible, not how she'll pay for the insurance she needs. and we all know tiffany isn't alone. it's estimated that 130 million people in our country are living with preexisting conditions. 130 million people. that's 130 million people who could be hurt either directly or indirectly by these short-term junk plans. two weeks ago i had the chance to speak at the detroit race for the cure, which raises money, as we know, for breast cancer research and services. as i stood on the stage and looked out at over 10,000

people, a lot of beautiful pink all surroundi us in downtown detroit, i saw people with preexisting conditions. one woman who was standing on the stage near me asked me the question, why is it that i have to worry about whether or not i'll be able to get insurance in the future? why do i have to worry about that? she added, why don't president trump and other republicans understand, this is my life? it's not political for her. it's personal. it's her life. i think that's a very good question. why don't republicans understand that people like tiffany and those women in pink deserve health care protections? protecting peopl with politics. it's about sing lives. and i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation and the efforts of senator baldwin and jones.

mr. president, i want to take an additional moment to talk about a second issue that's about saving lives. for almost 25 years the violence against women act has helped prevent domestic violence and provides survivors with the things they need to build a better life for themselves and their families. this important piece of legislation is now expired. the house passed a vawa -- violence against women -- authorization bill 48 days ago, sent it to us. it contained important updates to protect people from violent dating partners and stalkers and helped restore protections for victims of crimes on tribal lands. just as in the case of junk insurance plans, we see no action on this floor, no action

by the majority leader. i think, in fact, it's been over two months before -- since we've had actual legislation and votes on legislation that would solve problems, address concerns of the american people. and it's been 48 days since the house of representatives sent us a bill to continue support and funding for domestic violence shelters and other important support. well, people with preexisting conditions have waited long enouough. survivors of domestic violence have waited long enough. and people whose lives are being threatened by violent dating partners or stalkers have waited long enough. here's my question for the senate majority leader -- what are you waiting for?

i yield the floor. ms. baldwin: mr. president, i would 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 from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: i'd ask unanimous consent that we start the 4:30 votes now and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question is on the neilson nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 51, the nays are 47. the nomination is confirmed. the senator from wyoming. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the remaining votes in the series be ten minutes in trentsdz. -- length. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report t next nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, stephen r. clark, of missouri, to be united states district judge for the eastern district of missouri. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? any senator wish to change their vote? on this vote the yeas are 53. the nays are 45. the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, carl j. nichols of the district of columbia to be united states district judge for the district of columbia. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second?

there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. this is a ten-minute vote. vote: