Brian Schatz

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, in the Hawaii Legislature, there was a common custom to ask the presiding officer that the previous speaker's remarks were adopted as if they were my own. And although I didn't listen to the entirety--I am not prepared to do that because I only got the back end--I just wanted to commend the senior Senator from Massachusetts for her moral clarity about the conduct of the war in Israel and the fact that it is a strategic and moral failure, and that the Prime Minister of Israel must be held to account for the fact that so many people are suffering so unnecessarily.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, there is no good reason to delay the security and humanitarian assistance in this national security supplemental package any longer. Ukraine is running dangerously low on munitions on the eve of the second anniversary of Putin's invasion; millions of innocent Palestinians in Gaza are suffering daily without access to basic necessities; and our allies in the Indo-Pacific are counting on our support to counter China's aggression and maintain stability in the region. None of these priorities can wait months longer without being addressed. All of them are vital to our security interests. We need to pass this supplemental urgently. When Ukrainian officials warn that they are running out of shells and bullets, it is not an exaggeration. In the fight for an eastern Ukrainian city, the ratio of Russian to Ukrainian artillery fire was 5 to 1--5 to 1. Ukrainian soldiers are being forced to ration their bullets even when enemy soldiers are bearing down on them. That is what Ukraine is contending with on the frontlines as we speak. Meanwhile, Putin is intensifying his onslaught with the help of Iran and North Korea which are more than happy to replenish his stockpiles if it means ending world order as we know it. In Gaza, millions of innocent civilians have been, for months, enduring unimaginable horrors on a daily basis. More than 28,000 people have been killed since the start of the war. Hundreds of thousands are starving with widespread famine looming. Just about everyone is displaced with nowhere else to go, and humanitarian assistance getting through the few available checkpoints is nowhere close to enough. These people need our help, and it can't arrive soon enough. Just as we have a responsibility to help Israel defend itself against Hamas terrorism, we also have a responsibility to make sure that innocent Palestinians caught in the crossfire have access to basic necessities--food, water, medical supplies. This package also includes important assistance for our allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific region in order to counter China's aggression in the region. Chinese President Xi has made no secret of his desire to take Taiwan by force if need be. And just because there are wars going on in the Middle East and Europe, it does not mean that we can take our eye off threats brewing in Asia and the Indo-Pacific. It is in both our interest and our allies' interest for us to stay vigilant and provide support to maintain stability in the region. Later this week, I will be part of a bipartisan delegation with 14 of my colleagues attending the Munich Security Conference in Germany. And one of the pressing questions among world leaders will be: Where does America really stand? Do we still believe in defending democracy and freedom? Are we still willing to rally the world in standing up to autocrats and authoritarianism? They will no doubt be closely watching what we do or fail to do here in the next few days. And we ought to be able to say to them: America remains the indispensable Nation. America stands with our allies in war and in peace. But that depends on Republicans working with Democrats in good faith to pass this supplemental package. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 529.

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 541, which is at the desk.

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, for centuries, Native people have had everything stolen from them--their lands, their water, their language, their children. It wasn't that long ago it was the official policy of the U.S. Government to terminate--to terminate--the existence of Tribes and to forcibly assimilate their citizens. And a big part of that unrelenting, inhumane policy was that the remains of Native ancestors and culturally significant items were also taken from them, not with permission, but by force; not discovered, but stolen on battlefields and in cemeteries, under the cover of darkness or under guise of academic research. Think about that. The U.S. Government literally stole bones. Soldiers and agents overturned graves and took whatever they could find. And these were not isolated incidents. They happened all across the country. In my home State of Hawaii, the remains of Native Hawaiians-- or ``iwi kupuna,'' as they are called--were routinely pillaged without regard for the sanctity of burials or Native Hawaiian culture. All of it was brought to some of the most venerable institutions at home and abroad to be studied like biological specimens, displayed in museum exhibits as if they are paintings on loan or squirreled away in a professor's office closet never to be seen again. The theft of hundreds of thousands of remains and items over generations was unconscionable in and of itself, but the legacy of that cruelty continues to this very day because these museums and universities continue to hold onto these sacred items in violation of everything that is right and moral and, more importantly, in violation of Federal law. To remedy this injustice, Congress passed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, or NAGPRA, in 1990. It required museums and universities to quickly return the remains and the items that they were holding that belonged to Native Hawaiians, Alaska Natives, and American Indians. At the time, the Congressional Budget Office anticipated that it would take about 5 years to complete the process of repatriation. Thirty-four years later, it is nowhere close to being done. In fact, experts recently estimated that at the current rate, it may take up to 70 more years to complete the process. Why? Because these institutions, all otherwise well-respected and sought after, have done everything in their power to obstruct and obfuscate when confronted about their collections. They act as if this is some sort of impossible task, either administratively or determining the lineage or providence of an item. They purposefully mischaracterize items as ``culturally unidentifiable.'' Culturally unidentifiable. They engage with Native communities as little as possible. They ``borrow'' collections from one another so they can never actually be held responsible for them. And maybe the most outrageous of all excuses, they claim that Tribes and Native groups lack the ability to take care of their own things--lack the ability to take care of their own items of cultural patrimony, bones stolen from graves. This smells of the worst kind of colonialism, with a thin veneer of progressive ideology and verbiage. University provosts and presidents can do all of the land acknowledgements that they want. They can post lengthy statements about equity on their websites and champion any number of progressive causes, but that rings hollow when they are at the same time clinging onto vast collections of stolen items because of a perverse, patronizing sense of ownership. This is not morally ambiguous. There is nothing to ponder here. The fact is these items do not belong in museums or universities or to science or academia. They belong to the Native people from which they came, which is why the Committee on Indian Affairs, where I am chair, held an oversight hearing on this issue almost 2 years ago and demanded explanations from the foremost offenders about their delays in repatriating these items. They are located all over the country: Ohio History Connection; the Illinois State Museum; Harvard University; University of California, Berkeley; and Indiana University. Together, these five institutions still hold at least 30,000 Native ancestral remains. These institutions have been responsive, and many have accelerated their repatriation efforts since. Earlier this month, Harvard, which has the third largest collection of these items in the country, pledged to cover the travel expenses of Native leaders to facilitate the repatriation process. Other museums, including the American Museum of Natural History and the Field Museum, have recently announced steps to finally comply with the Federal law. And yet there are still more than 70 other institutions holding almost 58,000 ancestral remains. That is not counting the additional hundreds of thousands of cultural items in their collections. These museums and universities are everywhere: the University of Tennessee; the University of Kentucky; the University of Alabama; the University of Arizona; the University of Florida; the University of Missouri, Columbia; the University of Oklahoma; the Center for American Archaeology in Illinois; the University of Texas at Austin; the Milwaukee Public Museum; and so on. This is just a small sample, and I will enter the full list into the Record. But the point is this: We are not done. Our work is not over. These are supposedly liberal institutions who have no problem parroting whatever progressive expression is in vogue. And yet at the same time, they continue a colonial project against the explicit and repeated wishes of Native people. If you say you are for equal justice, for doing right by people of all backgrounds, then act like it. Return these remains and items to the Native people they belonged to all along. Some of the challenges when it comes to addressing past injustices in American history can seem so big as to be totally overwhelming. Where do you start? But this is not one of them. Returning these items matters, and the good news is it is imminently doable, but doable only if we collectively agree that getting this right is a necessary condition for justice to be restored. Doing this alone will not right past wrongs or somehow erase a long and brutal history of injustice. Of course, it won't. Native people still need money for water and electricity and healthcare. They still, as ever, need the unimpeded right to self-determination. But the least we can do--and I mean that, the least we can do--is enable them to tell their own stories and to define themselves, for themselves, to the rest of the world. Give the items back. Comply with Federal law. Hurry. Devote resources to this. Demonstrate in three dimensions that you care about the values that you espouse. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of institutions in possession of the repatriated remains be printed in the Record.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, February 5; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Campbell nomination; further, that the Senate vote on confirmation of the Laroski nomination at 5:30 p.m.; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Monday's session, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Duckworth.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I have two requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, this week is the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. Because of the current rightwing Supreme Court's decision almost 2 years ago to dismantle reproductive freedom, women in many parts of the United States today have less control over their bodies than they did 50 years ago--50 years ago. The Dobbs decision was the crowning achievement of the hard right's decades-long war on a woman's right to choose, but it wasn't the end. They want to go even further. These very same people are now going State by State, trying to pass extreme laws to all but ban abortion access, and it is working. Over half of the women of reproductive age live in States that are hostile to abortion rights, and more than 64,000 women and girls have become pregnant because of rape in States that have implemented abortion bans after Roe was overturned--64,000 women and girls pregnant in States where abortion access is limited or not available at all. The stories they share about the pain and trauma inflicted by this extremist cruelty will break your heart. A woman in Ohio had 1 day--1 single day--to decide whether or not to keep her child because she was right on the verge of the State's ban at 6 weeks. A Florida woman was forced to carry her baby to term even though doctors found fatal abnormalities in an ultrasound at 23 weeks and knew that it had at most a few hours to live after birth. Another woman, whose baby would have been born without a skull--without a skull--traveled 1,400 miles from Baton Rouge to New York City to get an abortion because local doctors were afraid they would lose their license--they would lose their license--or be thrown in prison for providing abortion services. Horrific as these stories are, they haven't stopped Republicans from trying to destroy every last bit of bodily autonomy and freedom. Republicans here in Congress are explicit: They are pushing for a national abortion ban. So some of the things you say about what is happening sound like they are partisan talking points, but that is what is happening. They actually do want an abortion ban in Federal statutory law. The rightwing Supreme Court may well deliver another hammer blow to abortion rights in the coming months if it reverses Federal rules governing access to medication abortion--rules that were shaped in part by a Federal lawsuit where a Hawaii doctor argued correctly that women should be able to access abortion pills, which are safe and effective, when and where they need them. For Hawaii and so many other places around the country that rely on telehealth and medication by mail for access to care, this is vital, but they may not last much longer. If there is a glimmer of hope in all of this, it is that a majority of Americans reject this extremism on abortion. They see it for what it is: plainly unjust and needlessly cruel--needlessly cruel. They believe in a woman's right to choose, and they support enshrining reproductive rights nationally once and for all. We live in a democracy, after all, and Senate Democrats will continue to fight until a woman's right to control her own body is the law of the land again. Supplemental Funding Mr. President, the war in Gaza, the war in Ukraine, looming threats in the Indo-Pacific--finding bipartisan consensus about what to do on any one of these issues is very, very hard. To do them all together is extraordinarily difficult. But time is running out, and it is essential that we act--No. 1, because we have a very real security interest in each of these areas, and No. 2, because our allies and partners are counting on our help as they encounter the alarming march of fascism around the globe. It has been almost a month since the last U.S. arms shipment left for Ukraine. Funding for assistance has run out completely. Let me just repeat that. This is not something we are arguing about in terms of the facts on the ground; it is a fact that Ukraine is slowly but surely running out of ammunition. Ukraine will have to fight for its survival with a weapons supply that is dwindling by the day. Putin, on the other hand, is intensifying his assault with the help of missiles and artillery rounds provided by North Korea and Iran. That is who Ukraine is up against--Russia, North Korea, and Iran--a band of autocrats that have no respect for democracy or even a passing interest in peace. Beyond its own survival, Ukraine's fight is for the fate of the free world and nothing less. So we don't have time to play partisan politics here as Putin continues to pummel Ukraine day by day. Time is running out, and they desperately need help. I understand people say what is useful to them as an argument to get their legislation through, so I don't want you to think this is some sort of overstatement. They are literally running out of ammunition. If you ask anybody in a classified session, in a nonclassified session; if you ask any expert--left, right, and center--the determining factor for Ukraine's future and therefore the future of Europe and the future of the free world is, what do we do about the supplemental appropriations bill? They are running out of ammunition, and Putin is banking on a war of attrition that Ukraine will not be able to win. Meanwhile, the war between Israel and Hamas since Hamas's barbaric attacks on October 7 continues to devastate millions in the region. Hamas still holds 130 hostages captive, including Americans and even a year-old infant. As the United States made clear in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas attacks, Israel has an entirely legitimate right and an obligation to defend itself and to rescue the hostages. It should not be lost on anyone that Israel continues to lose scores of young men and women in battle trying to protect their nation in the wake of this unprecedented terror attack. But just as the United States has a responsibility to Israel, as its closest ally, to help it defend itself, we also have a responsibility as the leader of the free world to call on Israel to wage this war smartly and justly--to prosecute Hamas, not the Palestinian people. More than 25,000 Palestinians have been killed in the last 3 months, most of them women and children. This is in no one's interest strategically or morally. We also have a responsibility to make sure that humanitarian assistance is allowed to flow to the millions of innocent civilians suffering the horrific conditions under the constant barrage of crossfire. Even in the face of heightened passions and justifiable anger, we have to make a distinction between people and their governments. These are two peoples suffering agonizing losses, two peoples who want to live their lives just like the rest of us--outside of the constant shadow of violence and bloodshed. They just want to go to school or teach at a school or be a garbage collector or bake bread or eat bread or drink coffee or make coffee or fix roads or drive on a road. Everybody has basic human needs. Everybody has basic human needs. And the idea that we can't see beyond our geopolitical disagreements to understand that this is causing immense suffering for everyone is one of our fundamental challenges. I talk a lot with the Presiding Officer from New Jersey about this. You know, it is at least partly the internet. It is at least partly the fact that if you say something about the suffering of Palestinians, the first thing out of everyone's mouth in your replies is ``What about October 7?'' If you say ``Hamas is terrible,'' people say ``What about''--the truth is, there really is suffering on both sides, and I am not trying to make equivalent a terrorist attack with a reaction to that terrorist attack. I am not. But, do you know what, that is all written in the wind. Everyone is suffering. Everyone is suffering. Whenever and however this war ends, there has to be a path to a just and a lasting peace. It has been the longstanding policy of the U.S. Government on a bipartisan basis to support a two-state solution because a two-state solution is the only way to guarantee distinct, inalienable, and mutually recognized homes for both peoples and empower each to chart their own future. As we consider a major aid package for the region, it is not insignificant to at the same time reaffirm our commitment to that vision. The amendment I plan to file, along with 48 of my colleagues, should a supplemental aid package come to the floor is about making the American position clear. Inherent to achieving a two-state future is leadership on both sides that is actually interested in peace and both sides feeling secure enough to pursue it. Israel must feel that Hamas and other militant groups have been degraded so they no longer pose a threat to the people of Israel or the country of Israel, and Palestinians must feel that they have a real seat at the table. There can't be extremists in the Israeli Government who jump at every chance to inflame and incite divisions, and there can't be a Palestinian Authority rank with corruption and nepotism, deteriorating into a kleptocracy. Palestinians want and need a representative and an effective government, and the PA in its current form is falling short. So, as we press for diplomacy, we also need to be clear that it will take a reformed P.A. that can deliver on the aspirations of the Palestinian people, in addition to a cooperative, forward-looking Israeli Government, in order for these negotiations to work. Changing a longstanding and deeply broken status quo is hard, but it is incumbent on the United States of America, as a global leader, to do everything that we can to foster the conditions for an enduring peace. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I get it. I understand that people are tired of hearing about whatever insane thing Donald Trump just said or did. I get that it is emotionally exhausting; it is intellectually exhausting; it is certainly politically exhausting to be panicked and outraged all the time. And, frankly, it is not possible. We have now been living in this reality of Trump's unending lies and chaos for almost a decade, and people understandably just want to live their lives. They want to go to school. They want to drop their kids off at school. They want to make dinner. They want to maybe get some exercise or read a book or watch a show. They want their life to continue. And so you can't wake up every morning and be one of those people, one of those people who says: Did you see what Trump said? Did you see how crazy it was? Aren't you worried? You can't live life like that. I totally understand. But Trump's lawyers said something this week in a courtroom just a few blocks from here that is impossible to ignore, and it must cause alarm because it was the clearest indication that Trump and his team believe that he can commit any crime in the book--crimes as clear as day--and get away with it without any consequences whatsoever. When asked by a Federal judge if a President could be criminally prosecuted for ordering SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival, Trump's lawyer responded, ``He would have to be, and would speedily be, impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution could proceed.'' What does that mean as a practical matter? It means that the President could commit any crime--it means that the President could commit any crime--up to and including ordering the U.S. military to murder a political rival, and there would be no way to hold him accountable as long as 34 U.S. Senators stood ready to vote to acquit. Do you think 34 U.S. Senators stand ready to vote to acquit? I don't know, honestly. I don't know. But I can tell you that way more than 34 U.S. Senators voted to acquit former President Trump, who was impeached and then tried by the U.S. Senate twice. So I guess what we are saying is, this time, the Senate would stand up because that crime would be more egregious than the other ones. Let's back up for a second because during the impeachment trial 3 years ago, Trump's legal team and a majority of Senate Republicans argued that it was the job of the criminal justice system to deal with statutory crimes--crimes that are in the law books, right--not the Senate. They said the question before Congress was whether or not Trump's actions rose to the level of crimes against the country, which are different from statutory crimes--a novel argument. And it worked, right? It doesn't have be to a good argument. It doesn't have to be a compelling argument. It just has to work in this body because we have 100 jurors, all politicians, and however the chips fall is however the chips fall. But their argument was explicit, which is: This is not the venue. And now Trump's lawyers are arguing in the other venue--I am sorry. What I meant was this is the venue. So what they are really saying is: Our guy gets to commit crimes. Our guy gets to commit crimes. I want everybody who is right of center--far right of center, center right, right in the center, I don't care. I want everyone to think about the consequences of accepting this argument: Any President can commit any crime. Not only that, by the way, it is not a matter of just committing a crime, it is a matter of commanding the U.S. military; it is a matter of being the most powerful individual on the planet. It is a matter of being the Commander in Chief and using those resources to assassinate a political rival. And you can't even get a Trump lawyer to say: Yeah, that would probably be illegal and cause him to go to jail. Their question is: Well, that would depend on how the votes fell in the Congress. I am alarmed. Trump's team is in court arguing that it is up to Congress; that the political system, not the justice system, should render judgment even on statutory crimes. I say this as a Senator and someone who believes deeply in the awesome responsibility of this institution. ``If the Senate says so'' is not a serious legal argument. ``If the Senate says so'' is not a legal argument. What is being contemplated here--the ordering of a murder--is a crime. It is a violation of the criminal code, and every other person in the land would be arrested and tried for it. But, apparently, the official view of Donald Trump's lawyers is that he, and he alone, should be exempt from the law. In the authoritarian future that he is clamoring for, he gets to do anything he wants, wielding unparalleled power in the Presidency and zero repercussions. That is not a President; that is a dictator. That is not equal justice under the law; that is one law for Trump and another for everybody else. Think about what they are saying and ask yourselves: Are you comfortable with that? Are you comfortable with a democratic President with those kinds of authorities? Is that the kind of country that you want to live in? To be clear, this can't be dismissed as, like, ``I don't read the tweets'' or ``Oh, that guy is crazy; he just says stuff'' or, ``What a showman.'' Right? That was always the kind of hand waving away of whatever Trump said or did. But now there are two differences. First, we now have 4 years of the Trump Presidency, two impeachments, and many--both statutory and constitutional--crimes to look straight at. The other thing is, again, this is not a tweet. This is not a comment in a townhall, right? What this is is the official position of the lawyers for the former President of the United States. Authoritarianism is no longer just a remote problem in foreign lands. I just joined the Foreign Relations Committee a couple of years ago, and one of the things that we do as members of the Foreign Relations Committee is we go to other countries and encourage them to adopt democratic reforms. We encourage them to adopt democratic reforms. And, now, when we have our meetings, they are encouraging us to maintain our democracy. And make no mistake, this is not some nebulous movement that is difficult to decipher. This is because Donald J. Trump was President and does not believe in American-style democracy. He doesn't. He doesn't believe he should be accountable. He believes he should be immune. And he believes that when and if he becomes President again, he will exact revenge, that he will be a dictator from day one, and that if he is held accountable for his crimes, there will be bedlam. Now, does that sound like a rhetorical flourish? It sure does, doesn't it, except that I am quoting him. So, again, I want everybody to be able to live a life. I don't want everybody to wake up every morning freaked out about whatever Donald Trump says. But, today, this week, it is worth marking what his lawyers said because it is an official position of a Presidential candidate, and it is a position that is antithetical to everything that we all believe in. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, and 414; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 316, Tobin John Bradley, of California, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Guatemala; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the President pro tempore, and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to Commissions, committees, Boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.

Mr. SCHATZ. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 299, 320, and 413; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate resume legislative session.