Floor Statements

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about something every American wants from their public officials: transparency and accountability.

Unfortunately, after repeated attempts, Congress has not received that transparency or accountability from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and it is feeding the perception of corruption. For the past 6 months, the Senate Finance Committee has been trying to get straight answers from the Justice and his wealthy friends about the growing list of handouts they have lavished on the Justice.

Most recently, we sought to figure out whether Justice Thomas secretly had over $250,000 in debt written off--simply wiped away--by a wealthy benefactor. If so, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I am working to learn whether he paid the taxes he was supposed to-- taxes that any American is legally required to pay.

The Justice has refused to respond. Justice Thomas acts as if the freebies and the special favors Americans are reading about--the flights on private jets, comped; trips on luxury yachts; megawealthy individuals paying for school tuitions; quarter-million-dollar debts wiped away--is totally normal stuff.

The reality is, it is not. It isn't normal for anyone, and when the person receiving all of these extravagant handouts is one of the nine most powerful jurists in the country, with unchecked power to rewrite laws from the bench, it looks worse.

With respect to this disappearing debt, here is what we know. In 1999, one of Justice Thomas's friends loaned him $267,230 to buy a luxury RV. That is some kind of friend.

Justice Thomas wants to believe the story is simple, like the couple hundred bucks you would loan somebody to get their car fixed in an emergency. This is the story that the Justice has, in effect, apparently subscribed to obscures the truth.

The simple fact here is that loans have to be repaid, and it sure looks like this one was not. According to the terms of the loan agreement--which, by the way, was written down on Supreme Court stationary from the chamber of Clarence Thomas--Thomas's friend supplied the money to buy Thomas the luxury RV. In return, the Justice was supposed to pay 7.5 percent interest for 5 years. Then the loan would come due, and then Justice Thomas would be responsible for having to repay the full principal. But from what I have seen, the payment never happened.

Through my investigation, I have uncovered that Justice Thomas only paid interest on the transaction. When the deadline hit after 5 years, his friend extended the maturity date on the loan for another decade. But just 4 years later, Thomas' friend simply decided to stop collecting payments from the Justice, even though the Justice still owed him more than $\1/4\ million.

Justice Thomas's friend wrote a note telling him that the interest he paid was good enough and that he wouldn't accept further payments. That means that the debt--likely the entire $260,000 in principal--was considered forgiven. Again, that is quite a friend.

So the documents we have seen indicate Justice Thomas received a $267,000 loan to buy a luxury RV and never repaid most--and, likely, not even a dollar--of the money that his friend originally loaned him. This has legal consequences.

The Tax Code makes clear that in instances where a debt is canceled, forgiven, or discharged for less than the amount owed, the borrower must report the amount canceled or forgiven as income for tax purposes. Furthermore, the forgiven debt is income that Justice Thomas is required by law to report on his financial disclosure report.

But Justice Thomas never reported the $\1/4\ million in forgiven debt on his financial disclosure report in 2008, the year his debt was forgiven. He won't give the Finance Committee a direct answer on whether he reported it on his taxes, raising serious legal questions.

After I publicly revealed these findings, Justice Thomas, through his lawyer, said the documents that I reviewed were untrue. The Justice said:

The loan was never forgiven. Any suggestion to the contrary

is false.

And--

The terms of the agreement were satisfied in full.

This contradicts the documents I reviewed. So, along with Senator Whitehouse, our colleague from Rhode Island, we wrote to Justice Thomas's lawyer and gave him a chance to prove his claim. Personally, I believe that a sitting Supreme Court Justice would jump at the opportunity to correct the record and prove that he repaid his debt and did not cheat on taxes. I wish I could report to the American people that was the case and that this whole mess was just a misunderstanding. But that did not happen.

Justice Thomas did not give us any documentation about his so-called loan. Senator Whitehouse and I gave him a month to respond and received nothing--no loan agreement, no payment schedule, no evidence of principal payments, and no explanation for why he and his lawyer said the documents and information I uncovered were untrue. If what Justice Thomas and his lawyer are saying about the loan is accurate, the question is, What is behind all the stonewalling?

Does the Justice believe he shouldn't ever have to answer the questions about all these major windfalls and luxury travel, not even to prove that everything was on the level? Justice Thomas and his lawyers could put this whole affair to rest by providing copies of checks repaying the $\1/4\ million loan.

My personal guess is they can't because those payments never happened.

If a wealthy friend forgave a $\1/4\ million loan to Justice Thomas, the law requires that he declare it.

As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, it is essential that Justice Thomas list that income on his taxes. He is also required to disclose the money on his financial disclosure report. Based on what we have seen, it

seems like he did neither. Our laws, including our tax laws, have to apply to everyone. The law applies to everyone, especially one of the nine most powerful jurists in America. Congress must ensure that they do.

It is time for Justice Thomas to respond with the facts about this $\1/4\ million loan and any similar money and gifts he has received as a Supreme Court Justice.

Now, Madam President, I am going to yield to my colleague on the Finance Committee. He is also the chairman of the Budget Committee and chairman of the important Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, our colleague Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of our team be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress: Steven Mapes, Jordan Harrington, and Janelle Conrad.

Madam President, ensuring Americans' right to access, read, and understand the law is critical to the functioning of our democracy. Whether text with the force of law is found in statute or regulation or whether it has been incorporated by reference, it is essential that all members of the public have fair and equitable access to the legal standards by which they must abide.

Unfortunately, I have concerns that the Protecting and Enhancing Public Access to Codes (Pro Codes) Act would hinder, rather than enhance, the public's access to technical or voluntary consensus standards that have been incorporated into law by reference. This bill explicitly allows standards-setting organizations to require that a member of the public create an account or agree to terms of service as a condition of access. Requiring that an interested party surrender personal information to, or enter into a binding contract with, a private entity in order to read the law raises concerns of privacy and fairness.

I am also troubled that the bill lacks robust standards for public accessibility. It does not require standards to be made available in print or in person, and it does not require standards to be searchable, machine-readable, or accessible to persons with disabilities. In this way, the Pro Codes Act risks creating barriers to access for many Americans, including researchers and reporters, those without reliable internet service, and individuals with visual impairments.

For these reasons, I will object to any unanimous consent agreement regarding the Pro Codes Act.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of my office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 118th Congress: Tiffany Chenneville and Eoghan Stafford.

Madam President, I rise today with my colleagues to pay tribute to a special friend and our former colleague, Senator Kohl of Wisconsin.

I was fortunate enough to be able to serve with Herb Kohl during his service in the Senate and have been equally fortunate to know his wonderful family.

I have been listening to my colleagues describe Senator Kohl, and I thought that I would describe him in a way that Herb Kohl would never describe himself as being. That is because he was too modest.

The fact is, Herb Kohl was really the embodiment of what we Jews know as tikkun olam, which is a belief that all of us have a responsibility to leave our world and our communities better off than we found them. Herb did that day in and day out, living his life always trying to boost the well-being of those less fortunate.

As my colleagues have been saying, Herb Kohl didn't need to go into public service, but what we are all saying today is that public service desperately needs people like Herb Kohl: a successful businessperson, passionate about improving his home State of Wisconsin and his country through public service.

When most people think of a U.S. Senator, my guess is they have an image of somebody who loves to hear themselves talk, puts out a blizzard of news releases, tweets every day, and aims to take credit for lots of stuff. Herb Kohl was just the opposite of all that.

For example, at home in Oregon, I always make a point of going to Boys & Girls Clubs to shoot baskets with the kids in the summer. Again and again, I would encounter young people around lunchtime who came to camp ravenous and got two lunches right away. They weren't just hungry; they had had nothing to eat but a candy bar since the day before.

Local Boys & Girls Clubs helped kids get substantial, nourishing meals, and they are always trying to find ways to get extra food to kids in need, particularly as the week comes to a close and many kids are facing a weekend in the summer not knowing where their next meal would come from.

I assume my colleagues know this. It wasn't until years after I had been going to shoot hoops in the summer

with the Boys & Girls Clubs--it wasn't until years later that I found out that Herb Kohl, our Herb Kohl, was giving generous support to those Boys & Girls Clubs for years. But did he say a word about it to my colleagues, to me? We talked basketball all the time, but he never talked about how he stepped in to help all those future hoopsters. And that was Herb Kohl in a nutshell. He would see a need for his community, and without any fanfare, without any notice, without any press releases, Herb Kohl didn't act like a Senator; he just acted in the spirit of tikkun olam. He stepped up. He wanted to help. He never asked for an award, never saw himself with a picture of himself in a blue suit and a red tie getting some kind of award.

A number of Senators over the years--and I think this echoes what my colleagues have said--they said that Herb was very nice to them and very polite. I heard Senator Klobuchar talk about work on antitrust stuff. But a lot of colleagues would come up to you and they would say our first name and they would say: But I haven't really had a lot of extended conversations with Senator Kohl. Now, we know it was not because he was unpleasant or wished somebody ill but because he was very private, putting in the work each day to make good on his pledges to Wisconsin families and so many others.

All of us read the really wonderful, gracious obituary for Senator Kohl in the New York Times. One of the reasons I wanted to come to the floor today was to mention a couple of things that they didn't even manage to get into that wonderful obituary. It was terrific. But let me give some examples.

My background is working with the Gray Panthers, working with the elderly. I was thrilled to be able to work under him when he was chair of the Aging Committee. When it came to seniors, no issue for Senator Kohl was too small or too insignificant for him to tackle. He tackled end-of-life issues and long-term care, addressing unemployment among older workers, protecting seniors from financial abuse, tried to help them save for retirement. All of us could go through this laundry list of accomplishments. Not all of those ideas might have been on the front page of the paper, but they represented the quiet and thoughtful workhorse that Herb Kohl was.

Older Americans had no better ally than they did in Senator Kohl. Through all the partisan infighting, he always worked on those senior issues because he saw that as ground that was exempt from all the pettiness that drives so much of politics.

I will close with this: I was especially appreciative that Senator Kohl, in his quiet way, had the vision to look down the road at big challenges. For example, he talked to me often--and I am sure my colleagues as well--about how the guarantee of Medicare had evolved over the years. In other words, Senator Kohl knew that Medicare was not a voucher, that it wasn't some piece of paper, some snippet of paper; it was a guarantee of Medicare. He also knew that it had evolved over the years. It is still continuing with the prescription drug benefit. He knew the program inside out, and Senator Kohl would always say to me: Let's just keep figuring out how to update the Medicare guarantee, protect the elderly, and promote choice and alternatives without compromising the protections that older people deserve.

Let me just say to my colleagues, as chair of the Finance Committee, if you walk into the Senate Finance Committee room today and you talk about the issues relating to Medicare and Medicare Advantage and them spending $6 billion on garbage advertising, Herb Kohl was telling us years ago there were supposed to be guardrails for that, there were supposed to be protections for that. That was Herb Kohl--thinking down the road as well as helping people today.

So I am really pleased to be here with my good friends, and I will just close with one last point. I think one of my colleagues talked about it. Senator Klobuchar knew that the Senate was kind of a community, and I suspect that there are a few people in the House today who understand that as well. But when staff was working late at night-- they might have a bill or an amendment or something or maybe they would be working on a project where staff was helping the bigger campus community--and it would get to be 8 or 9 o'clock at night and people were kind of hoping that somehow, out of the sky, a pizza would arrive--not with Herb Kohl. When it got to be 9 o'clock, we got ourselves a real dinner, and nobody knew where it came from, but a handful of us did.

Until his last days, Herb Kohl practiced tikkun olam. That is why you have some of my most thoughtful colleagues--the Senate is made up of a lot of people, but I have just been here a few minutes, and I heard Senator Baldwin, Senator Klobuchar, and my partner from Oregon, Senator Merkley. These are the kind of people who also represent the best of public service. That is why all of us are here--because our hearts are heavy today because we so admired him, we so appreciated him.

I send my love tonight to Sid and Dorothy and Lisa and the whole family because they continue to represent the ideals Herb Kohl stood for.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I lift my intent to object to Executive Calendar No. 262, the promotion of Lt. Gen. Timothy Haugh to the grade of general and, consequently, to be the Director of the National Security Agency--NSA--and commander of U.S. Cyber Command. I have received the information I sought from the Department of Defense and NSA in connection with the nomination.

Madam President, I don't want to make this a bouquet- tossing contest. The fact is, the four Senators on the floor have together put in decades and decades and decades prosecuting the cause of clean energy. And the fact of the matter is, we had tried a lot of things over the years. We tried cap and trade.

I was a strong supporter of Senator Markey's efforts. We tried carbon taxes. We tried border adjustment. And particularly three of the four Members over here are from the Finance Committee--they were willing to take the risk of saying we ought to basically, if not throw the Tax Code in the garbage can as it relates to energy, get pretty darned close in terms of creating a whole new set of incentives.

I am going to speak about Martin O'Malley's candidacy here for a few minutes. But I just wanted to say to these four, we would not have even gotten a major climate bill out of the Senate Finance Committee to break 50 years of gridlock. That is how the New York Times described it: 50 years of trying. And the Finance Committee broke that gridlock. It wouldn't have happened without these four Senators. I want them to know that.

Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, we hear often about this matter of taxing college endowments, that somehow this is going to address college affordability and make the Tax Code, you know, more fair.

I am the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and I gather that my colleague has just introduced this legislation--maybe as recently as today. I think it is appropriate that before we start making tax policy on the floor of the U.S. Senate, we have a chance to actually have the Senate look at some of the details.

For example, if we are going to talk about tax fairness, I will just say to the Senator from Ohio that I welcome that. I am the author of the bill to say that billionaires, who now, under the current Tax Code, can go for years and years paying little or no taxes--I am the author of the proposal that would change it. All you have to do is change three words: buy, borrow, and die. That is how they do it--buy, borrow, die, and pay little or nothing for years on end.

So what we ought to do is take the Senator's ideas and anybody else's, you know, ideas and bring them to the Senate Finance Committee. I will tell you I have not seen any evidence in the past about how, somehow, the kind of tax my colleague wants to levy is going to somehow make things better for students, which is what I want to do.

This tax legislation has not been considered by the Senate Finance Committee. That is the correct place to hold a robust discussion about fairness and affordability. For that reason, I object.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I just heard about this legislative idea a few minutes ago. So I really have very little information about it.

But what I can tell you is, we already know what the bottom line is. The amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana will hurt honest taxpayers and will help wealthy tax cheats. That is the bottom line.

Now, I am all for seafood inspections. We have got loads of seafood in our part of the world. But I want to take just a minute to talk about the reasons that Members of this body ought to oppose the legislation.

First--and the Congressional Budget Office has made this point--this amendment uses the fake offset of cutting IRS funding. The cut in IRS funding included in this amendment doesn't pay for an increase in seafood inspections; it increases the deficit. And the reason I say that is because that is what the Congressional Budget Office says about these ideas.

The Congressional Budget Office are the folks that we put in place to give us objective, nonpolitical analyses of various important ideas. The Congressional Budget Office are the people that we use on the Finance Committee regularly, and the Congressional Budget Office has said that every dollar cut from the IRS budget reduces revenue by $2. And that increases the deficit.

Second, this has given a big pass to wealthy tax cheats. People need to know that the reason there is a focus on IRS enforcement is because the wealthy tax cheats have the lawyers and accountants, and they have all kinds of ways to get around the rules. The working families that we represent--the folks in Michigan, the automobile workers--pay taxes with every single paycheck. We know what kind of financing they have because they pay with every check. It is the wealthy tax cheats that we have to deal with.

And I just say to my friend, the kind of person that he has given a pass to is--we recently found almost a thousand millionaires who didn't even file a tax return. Not one of the scams--they didn't even file a tax return, almost a thousand millionaires. The Federal Government lost more than $30 billion just on that.

So the Senate ought to be focusing on making sure that we have tough IRS enforcement, that we have the funding to improve services for all taxpayers--all of them--and, particularly, ending the free ride, once and for all, for wealthy tax cheats.

And the service has gone up. We have seen reduction in waiting times for calls from 28 minutes to 3 minutes.

I wish I had time to have a more extended exchange with my colleague. We are, right now, in our caucus meeting having debates on important issues.

But I would just say, in the future, if my colleague could even give us 15- or 20-minutes' notice, we could maybe have a more extended discussion.

The people who get help here are wealthy tax cheats. The people who are hurt here are honest taxpayers. And for that reason, I object.

Mr. President, I expect that the Senate will soon pass by unanimous consent the Blackburn-Ossoff REPORT Act. This bill will strengthen the Nation's centralized reporting system for the online exploitation of children, operated by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to better protect children from online sexual abuse and exploitation. Senators Blackburn and Ossoff worked closely with me to make important changes to this bill to require that the upgraded CyberTipline be secured consistent with Federal cybersecurity best practices, so that hackers are not able to steal and then distribute the extremely sensitive images and videos documenting abuse that are stored in this system. I sincerely appreciate their partnership on this important issue.

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

Mr. President, I got back late last night from Oregon-- another round of community meetings. You can't do your job well sitting behind your desk back here; you have to get out into the community. I have had more than 1,000--really more than 1,060--open-to-all townhalls, in every corner of Oregon, and I am going to talk for a few minutes about the issue I hear about constantly, and that is the shortage of affordable housing for working families.

I am going to talk about what it means for my constituents, but I will tell you, I hear about it all across the country and from Senators on both sides of the aisle. I have just introduced legislation with the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Senator Sullivan, about housing that is affordable for working families. Ask the New Hampshire Senators about employers and workers facing housing challenges there. Ask those from Kansas what is going on in Kansas City, where they can't house teachers. Oregonians from Brookings to Baker City are facing rising rents and housing costs and are making tough financial choices. They ought to have enough money because they are working hard to pay for affordable shelter.

Here is a statistic that will give you a sense of what the challenge is all about. In my State, 26 school districts have been forced to buy, rent, or build housing for their teachers. So get this, Mr. President-- and we are westerners, and we understand this. We know we have a lot of challenges competing in tough markets. We have a leg up geographically with Asia, for example, on the west coast, but we are losing it if we don't have affordable housing for working families, for firefighters and teachers.

Folks, the minority community has said: We are trying to start small businesses on a credit card, and we can't afford shelter.

In Oregon, these school districts--more than 20 of them--are now basically in the housing business. How in the world--I see my friend from Alaska is here. We have been talking about these issues. It is wonderful to work with him on it. How in the world did our schools suddenly get in the housing business? I guess in some places they are going to in effect rent houses they bought to teachers, and the teachers will practically be back, I say to my friend from Alaska, in their college days. They will be waiting to use the washing machine in line with other teachers.

So I just don't think it is right that all our school districts have to get into the housing business--by the way, there was a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal here not long ago about the same sort of thing in Kansas City.

I have introduced comprehensive legislation as chairman of the Finance Committee to tackle this issue. It is called the DASH Act--the Decent, Affordable, Safe Housing for All Act. Today, we are just going to focus on one piece, which is affordable housing for working families.

Senator Sullivan and I have teamed up here in the Senate. I am very pleased that our bill is bipartisan and bicameral.

I am very pleased that our bill is bipartisan and bicameral. Representatives Jimmy Panetta and Mike Carey are offering the same kind of tax credit that Senator Sullivan and I are offering for working families, and our proposal is built on the proven and successful--what is called LIHTC--low-income housing tax credit.

My view is that the combination of LIHTC, plus the help that Senator Sullivan and I and our counterparts in the House want to advance--those two efforts--could spur a juggernaut of new and desperately needed housing construction. Our bill could be a big shot in the arm to the countless middle-income Americans hoping to get their shot at the American dream of owning a home.

I want, as we get into this issue of working families, to make sure that everybody understands that we are also recommitting our support to the existing programs that help the homeless and help folks of modest incomes, like LIHTC. These are people who, every week, walk an economic tightrope. They are balancing the food bill against the fuel bill and the fuel bill against housing costs. We desperately need more LIHTC funding, and as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I am going to continue to push that.

But I don't think the two needs here for working families and low- income folks are mutually exclusive. We can do both. We ought to do both. Our country is not at its best when we pit working families against people of modest means. We ought to be extending opportunity for all Americans.

I will just say--and I am going to yield to my friend from Alaska-- that small businesses across my State--and I heard it yesterday again at our business summit in Portland--can't grow because employees can't afford housing. Even when they have good-paying jobs, families are forced to search for months for reasonably priced properties, only to be up against several other families in similar circumstances and contending for the same property.

So we are going to continue to try to build on the progress of LIHTC. My hope is--and I had a good talk just this morning with the chairman in the other body, Chairman Jason Smith of the Ways and Means Committee, my counterpart. We had a good conversation about the effort to get help for kids with what is called the child tax credit, and an equal amount of help for the research and development tax issue for innovation so we can outcompete China. We made good progress just in the last week, Chairman Smith and I,

in looking at the numbers and the various ways in which we can ensure that an equal amount of assistance--an equal amount of assistance--goes for the child tax credit and the research and development tax credit.

One of the reasons I was so pleased to be able to come to the floor this morning and talk with my colleague from Alaska is I think we also ought to be talking about, on top of--and I use those words--an agreement that is proportional in assistance for the child tax credit and for the research and development tax credit. I think, on top of that, we ought to give a boost to housing, particularly the low-income housing tax credit, which has gotten significant support from my colleague from Washington, Senator Cantwell, and a number of Republicans as well, and we should include such a housing effort--on top of a child tax credit and a research and development-innovation package, help on housing--and make them all bipartisan.

I see my friend from is Alaska here. I thank him for his cooperation.

I will just say, in closing, no community is immune from the skyrocketing cost of housing. Democrats aren't usually supposed to use this word, but I will tell you I am a supply-sider on housing. We need to increase supply, and on that, Senator Sullivan and I are working together.

I yield the floor to him.

I will yield very quickly to Senator Peters after I wrap this up.

Mr. President, first, I want to thank Senator Sullivan again for giving us a chance to bring housing, in a bipartisan way, to the Senate floor and just to tell colleagues there is an opportunity to do something really big here in the U.S. Senate.

I just got off the phone again with the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the other body, my counterpart. We are making good progress in the effort to make sure that there is a child tax credit and a significant boost to research and innovation in this country. They have to be proportional. We have made that clear. That is the essence of a good and fair agreement.

Now, Senator Sullivan and I and our colleagues who are advocating for LIHTC are getting an opportunity to also discuss building upon that and taking some steps to ensure that there is housing for working families and for low-income folks.

I thank my colleague from Michigan for the chance to close this discussion up.

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

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I must regretfully object to the promotion of Lt. Gen. Timothy Haugh to the grade of general and, consequently, to be the Director of the National Security Agency--NSA-- and Commander of U.S. Cyber Command.

In January of 2021, I made public an unclassified memo I received from the Defense Intelligence Agency revealing that it was purchasing, retaining, and using location data revealing the movements of Americans. After receiving that information, I pressed the Department of Defense to identify which other Agencies within the Department are buying Americans' personal data, including location data and web browsing records.

The Department provided me with that information in March of 2021, but marked the information ``Controlled Unclassified Information''-- CUI--a made-up designation with no basis in law. The administration is abusing the C-U-I designation to keep this unclassified information from the American public. In May of 2021, I wrote to Secretary of Defense Austin to urge him to remove the restrictions on that information, so that the American people can be told which Agencies are buying their information without court oversight and so that Congress can conduct appropriate oversight. In August of 2021, I received a response letter from the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, declining to clear the information for public release.

In connection with Lieutenant General Haugh's pending promotion to lead the NSA, I narrowed my request. I asked that the American people simply be provided yes or no answers as to whether the NSA is buying their location data and web browsing records. Unfortunately, intelligence officials have been unwilling to release even that basic information.

The American people have a right to know whether the NSA is conducting warrantless domestic surveillance of Americans in a manner that circumvents the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Particularly as Congress is currently debating extending section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Congress must be able to have an informed public debate about the scope of the NSA's warrantless surveillance of Americans.

Until the NSA publicly releases the information described above, I must object to the Senate proceeding with the Haugh nomination.