votes on judicial nominations for district court positions. senators will recess at 12:30 eastern for a weekly lunch meeting, they will be back at 2:15 to continue debate to receive the go ahead during the morning vote. live to the senate floor here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god, in whose life we find life, open the hearts of our lawmakers to the whispers of your spirit. make them productive, accomplishing your purposes on

earth even as your providence guides them. lord, redeem their failures, reward their diligence, and validate their faith. crown their labors today with heaven's approbation, strengthening them to rise above all that is common to do uncommon things. we pray in your holy name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

mr. reid: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 354. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 354, s. 2535, bill to provide for an increase in the federal minimum wage and to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth. mr. reid: following my remarks, mr. president and those of the republican leader, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:00 this morning. the majority leade majority wile first half, the republicans the final half. at 11:00, there will be six cloture votes on six nominations. at 12:30 there will be a recess for the weekly caucus meetings. i'm tholed that there is a second reading due. the clerk: s. 2262, a imil to

promote energy savings in residential buildings and industry and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i would oppose to any further proceedings with this. the presidinthis.officer. the president pro tempore: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, this week the senate will begin consideration of increasing the federal minimum wage. over the next few days, members of this body will come to the floor to make case for or against increasing the minimum wage. most of the statements you will hear today will be in favor of it because the republicans are not anxious to come here and speak against raising the minimum-wage bill. they will be very silent most of the time and not talk much about increasing the minimum wage, which is so vitally important to our country. the american people written undated with figures and facts regarding the economic impact of an increase to $10.10 an hour. mr. president, why was that

number chosen? it was chosen because that number, $10.10 an hour, for 40 hours, you were no longer in poverty. as supporters of this legislation, senate democrats have ample evidence to back up our position. it is good for america. a recent study from the economic policy institute indicate indict increasing the minimum wage would raise wages for 28 million american workers, that's about 10% of the american people. contrary to what republicans would have you believe, these 28 million americans just aren't high school kids looking to make a few bucks after school. the same analysis reported that the median age of minimum-wage workers is 35 years, approving that these employees are growing men and women, most of them with families. and if we needed more reason to pass this important legislation, the most recent polling data

reveals that about 75% of americans back an increase in the minimum wage. so, mr. president, the evidence supporting an increase in the minimum wage is ample and is for all of us to see. however, the real issue transcends political polls and studies. the heart of the minimum-wage debate is a question we should ask ourselves: what kind of a country do we aspire to be? this nation is home to the greatest economy on earth. even as we continue to recover from the great recession, there's no question that we're the richest country on the planet. can anyone in this chamber doubt that our economy has the capability of providing livable wages to american workers? the fact is that america there are full-time working mothers and fathers who must juggle two to three jobs to provide food and shelter for their children -- i think that's unconscionable. before any sulking billionaire comes forward and is upset and

pens an op-ed in some newspaper calling me collectivist, as they have done, let me be clear, this, mr. president, is a question of fairness. do we believe it's fair that fellow americans work full-time and be paid less than the minimum wage? i hope not. or do we value all american workers and reward them with t t least the very best, a wage that allows tow them to provide for their families? a junk man works at mcdonald's. the wages were so low, he was forced to get another job. working two jobs what is this young man going to do? is he going to go to college? of course nolt. is he going to go to trade school? of course not. he is no busy working. what is going to happen to him? to better his life? just a few months ago an incredible successful businessman visited capitol

hill. he said he put himself through colleges attending harvard and he did that being paid $2 an hour. which was the minimum wage at the time. he now is an elderly, very successful businessman. he worked full-time over the course and was able to pay harvard's tuition. the tuition at that time was $2,400 a year, which was a lot. he even claims he had money left over after paying his college fees. jim's daughter is now preparing to enroll at harvard. if she were to be employed at today's minimum wage she would have to work full-time for four years in order to afford one year at harvard. the young man could never dream of putting himself through harvard or unlv or anyplace because he's working two jobs.

working families are being stripped o of the american drea. that's what delvin has, like the presiding officer, like i have, a dream to better yourself, even better than what wu'er family was able to provide. again, put simply, is it fair that work minimu men and women e being stripped of their american dream because we refuse to pay them a livable wage for working hard? that's why this legislation is so critical. an increase in the minimum wage won't make a millionaire out of anyone but will ensure that each full-time working american will have a fighting chance to get ahead in the economy. every hardworking american should have the opportunity to put a roof over their head and that have their familyment. and every full-time employee should have a fair shot at the american dream. that's why i invite my republican colleagues to consider what is fair for their constituents and work with us to increase the federal minimum

wage as 75% of the american people think we should do. they should join in giving every american a fair shot at providing for their families. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i would like to take a moment to offer condolences to those affected by this week's storms. tornadoes struck a terrible blow in several towns and we're thinking today of all those who were killed and injured and

their friends and family as well. now, mr. president, on an entirely different matter, the american people want congress to focus on one thing above all else: jobs. jobs. you'd think the democrats who control the senate would want to help us advance bipartisan ideas to boost job creation. you'd think they'd actually work with us to address the concerns and anxieties of our constituents. but instead senate democrats are pushing legislation this week that would actually cost -- not create but actually cost up to a million american jobs. this is completely tone-deaf. their bill would cost up to 17,000 jobs in kentucky alone, and apparently this is what senate democrats have made their top priority. not. of a surprise, though. as i've said many times,

washington democrats often hurt the very people they claim to be fighting for. when this comes to so many of their proposals, washington democrats appear to prioritize the desires of the far left over the needs of the middle class. and let's be honest. the interests of the far left and the interests of the middle class seem to be in fierce opposition. take the keystone pipeline, for example. the obama administration recently announcinged yet another punt on this critical jobs project, one that would lead to the creation of thousands -- literally thousands of good jobs. why? because of pressure from the far left. one union leader called the administration's decision a cold, hard slap in the face for hardworking americans. another labor leader, whose union endorsed the president twice, put it this way: "no one seriously believes that the administration's nearly

dark-of-night announcement was anything but politically motivated." it represented, he said, "another low blow to the worki g men and women of our country for whom the keystone pipeline is a lifeline tout good jobs and energy security." here is another project the government has been studying for five or six years now. five or six years they have been studying this project. americans have learned that building keystone would produce significant economic benefits for our country, lower energy prices and lead to the creation of thousands of jobs at a time when we need them more than ever. and president obama's own administration has concluded that approving keystone would not significantly impact net carbon emissions anyway. improving the project wouldn't have an adverse impact on carbon emissions.

so you'd think washington democrats would join the large rmajorities of americans who say that keystone is a good deal for our country. you'd think they'd jump at a chance to promote policy that's been thoroughly vetted. democrats' opposition to keystone isn't really about policy at all. they're basithey basically surre policy argument a long time ago. remember, this is the same party that conceded that its agenda for the rett o rest of this year was drafted by campaign staffers. they said that. so for them, this is more about politics and symbolism and the far left has apparently decided that killing keystone is the symbolic scalp that they want.

in fact, they're demanding it. washington democrats seem perfectly willing to go along. of course, the big loser in all of this is the american middle class, the moms and dads a and sister and brothers whose primary concern is paying the bills and putting food on the table. the kind of people who've had it worse in the obama economy, the very people washington democrats should be doing literally everything to help. what i'm saying to my colleagues today is this: it's not too laivment you can still work with rentes to help us rebuild the middle class. but to do so, you need to abandon the left and start focusing on the middle class for a chaifnlgt and if you're ready to get serious about job creation, then there's some easy ways to demonstrate that to the american people. for starts, you can stop pushing legislation that would cut

rather than create jobs and you can start blocking projects like keystone, things that almost everyone knows will create jobs. americans want jobs, not symbolism. so start working with us to give the american people the kind of pro-jobs policies they want and deserve. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order there will now be a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, and with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, i've spoken several times in the past few weeks -- actually i've spoken quite pa few times in the past 20 years about the scourge of land mines. these are inherently indiscriminate weapons. they're triggered by the victim, and usually the victim is an innocent civilian that is either killed or horribly maimed. now the united states has not exported, produced or used antipersonnel mines for more than 20 years.

tpho -- not withstanding that, even though 161 nations have joined an international treaty banning them, one nation stands out not having joined the treaty. that's the united states. and that is a shame on this country. as the world's only super power with by far the most powerful military, one would have thought the united states would have set an example of moral leadership. indeed, we're among those who are preventing having a universal treaty. and that is a shame on the united states. and this is doubly disappointing considering that it was president clinton who 20 years ago called for the elimination of antipersonnel mines. two years later, in 1996, back in the last century, he said -- quote -- "today i'm launching an international effort to ban antipersonnel land mines." but that administration did not

sign the treaty. then we had the bush administration. they did nothing on the issue. they did not sign the treaty. now we have the obama administration. nothing has changed. the obama administration is following the bush administration's policy of doing nothing on the treaty. so we're still waiting. i was thinking of this this weekend because last week i was in vietnam along with senator shelby and crapo and representatives cooper from tennessee and well -- welch from vermont. we had conversations with president sang, the minister of defense and other officials. we met with organizations, those who worked to locate and clear land mines. it is costly. it is dangerous work.

they have been doing it for decades. until you visit the sites where they do this, you can't fully understand because it is slow, hard, dangerous work. and at the current rate, when you consider that millions of land mines and bombs were dropped in vietnam during the war, it's estimated it will take another 100 years before it's safe to walk in that country without fear or trigger a deadly explosion. i met countless people in vietnam who have been crippled and disfigured by land mines. many of them are children, the age of my grandchildren. and here is a photograph of two vietnamese men i met with last week. you can see what land mines do.

my wife, marcel, and i were touched talking with them. but they were thanking us, the leahy war victims fund for vietnam veterans for helping them with wheelchairs. i'm thinking what if we hadn't had those land mines in the first place. they're lucky because they survived, but they lost their legs, they lost their arms. they're not among the tens of thousands who died from land mines during that war and so many who died long after the war ended. in vietnam we've used late had i war victims -- we've used the war victims fund to provide medication to thousands of mine victims. i want to compliment here on the

floor, as a democrat i want to compliment a republican president -- george h.w. bush -- who worked with me and worked with an inspired leader of the vietnam veterans of america, bobby mueller, to start using the leahy war victims fund in vietnam. we spent many millions of dollars to help get rid of the mines. as i said earlier, 40 years after the war, we still have huge areas of this country littered with mines and bombs. and vietnam is only one of dozens of countries where people have been terrorized from land mines. some from our country, some from others. you talk to the department of defense about this; they say their mines are smart because they're designed to deactivate after a certain time. of course that's better than mines that remain active for

years. but if a child steps on one before the time they're deactivated, that child doesn't know whether it's a smart mine or a dumb mine. because when they're active, they are no better distinguishing between a child or soldier. like the woman i met after the bosnia conflict in a hospital sent away by her parents to be safe during that conflict. but when the conflict was over and the armies had left, she's running down the road to greet her parents, and had both legs blown off. the war was over. the war is just beginning for her. i've never argued that mines have no military utility. every weapon does. so does poison gas. so do i.e.d.'s. but we wouldn't use them, and we

consider it kphorl for other people -- immoral for other people to use them. they are the antithesis of a precision weapon. they don't belong in the arsenal of civilized countries, least of all in the united states. and the united states ought to have courage enough to sign the land mine treaty. you have to wonder if pennsylvania or oklahoma or utah or vermont or new jersey or any of our 50 states were littered with land mines, killing and maiming innocent americans, would we tolerate that? of course not. we wouldn't make excuses about needing to preserve these weapons. the outcry would be deafening and the united states would finally join the treaty as they should have 15 years ago. some might ask why this matters. the united states has not used mines for two decades. we fought too long land wars.

that is because of the political price of using them, particularly in afghanistan where more innocent civilians have been killed or injured from land mines than perhaps anywhere else would have been prohibited. it matters because like any other issue, even when the united states is not part of the problem, we have to be part of the solution. we speak to our moral core, we ought to set an example. we ought to be strong enough and brave enough and courageous enough to do what 161 other countries have done and join the treaty. i've spoken to president obama about this. i know he shares my concern about the toll of innocent lives from land mines. as a senator, he cosponsored my legislation. so has secretary hagel. this is an unfinished job.

it began with president clinton. it continued to president bush, who did not sign it. you know, it's time to put the united states on a path to join the treaty. only the commander in chief can do that. only the president can show that kind of leadership. the world cries out to him to show that kind of moral leadership. mr. president, on another matter, events in egypt continue to concern people of goodwill in this country and across the globe who share the egyptian people's yearning for greater freedom under the rule of law. i'm chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on the state department and foreign operations. we handle all the spending for the state department and all the money for foreign aid. even if i wasn't chairman of

that, i would have been watching this situation with great interest and growing dismay where hundreds of people could be sentenced to death after a sham trial lasting barely an hour. that's the flaunting of human rights by the egyptian. it is an appalling abuse of the justice system, fundamental to democracy. nobody, nobody can justify this and does not show democracy. it shows a dictatorship run amok. it is a total violation of human rights. so i'm not prepared to sign off on the delivery of additional aid to the egyptian military. i'm not prepared to do that until we see convincing evidence

the government is committed to the rule of law. we can't stand here and say golly, gee whiz, we're disturbed by hundreds of people being sentenced to death after a few minutes in a mass trial. but actually we've been friends for so long, we'll send you some money but you should stop doing that. no. i think the taxpayers of this country realize we americans don't condone that, and i'm not prepared to send any money until that changes. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

hussein thuna senator: mr. presi

would mr. president we're working on confirmations related to federal district judges across the country and one of them is a potential federal district skwrurpblg for my state of kansas. i want to rise and speak in support of one of those individuals considered this week, daniel crabtree. he has been nominated by the president to be a united states district court judge for the district of kansas. and i want to attest to my colleagues my view that this is a gentleman who should be confirmed by the united states senate. he was reported out of the judiciary committee without opposition and is rated unanimously well-qualified by the american bar association which in part confirms my view that he would make an outstanding federal judge. i actually

have known this individual for more than 30 year, dating back to our years at the university of kansas school of law where he was a year ahead of me in law school and i have followed his personal and professional development since that time. we've remained acquainted. we've been friends and in fact for a short period of time we practiced law at the same firm in downtown kansas city. he is worthy of our support today, but he is also someone who has my respect and admiration. after graduating from the university of kansas school of law, dan crabtree became an associate, a partner at the down iistown law firm. the firm merged into a firm called stenson. he has experience in the federal and state courts and he has

received recognition by the publication "best lawyers in kansas city" as the antitrust lawyer of the year in 12013 and 12014 he was the kansas city banking and finance litigation lawyer of the year. so again outside confirmation of his qualifications and capabilities, dan is a lifelong resident of our state. he grew up in kansas city, kansas. it is the suburbs of kansas city, missouri, on the kansas side of the line. he and his wife and their teenage daughter continue to live in kansas city, kansas today. i have often told you here on the senate floor of the special way of life we have in our state and dan crabtree in his hometown of kansas city, kansas, exemplifies what i so often admire and speak about on the senate floor about his humility, his devotion to others, his relationship with his community, and how much -- how important it

is to him to be an active member in trai trying to make life betr for other people. those who are his neighbors and those who surround anymore in kansas a and can our state. he has those characteristic i guess sticks of a kansan. i have known people who have been so successful in their professional life, went to a large, press stey news firm and in many instanc instances forgoe they came from. dan continues to live in his honetown and toins make sure that good things happen in that community and does that with a great sense of humility. while he has the attributes that could cause him to be superior in his attitude about others, there's nothing about dang that's nothing different than being humble and caring and compassion intcompassion navmenn where he comes from is evident by his devotion to his community

activities, the great kansas community foundation. he sits on the sports commission and is responsible in part for bringing 14 ncaa championships. he's husband and father and lawyer, community leader, he is exemplary in fulfilling the roles in each of those circumstances. but mostly i want to tell you that his characteristic and, integrity, professional achievements are worthy of being a member of the federal bench. i can think of few others that i have met in my time as united states senator but also my time as a practicing attorney in kansas who would fulfill the solemn duties of this position better than dan crabtree. i thank the president for nominating dan crabtree and i ask my colleagues to join me in confirming him as a judge for the united states district court for the district of kansas. i yield the floor. mr. thune: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i come to the floor to discuss the proposed minimum wage hike and the jobs it will cost americans. with more than 10 million americans unemployed, the last thing that this body should be doing is considering legislation that would jeopardize jobs. yet this week we're back in session with another one of the democrats' election-year gimmicks, a 40% minimum wage hike that the congressional budget office -- the congressional budget office estimates would result in the loss of up to one million jobs in this country. minimum wage hikes are a favorite democrat proposal when economic times are hike and election-year prospects are dim. hiking wages sounds good. democrats figure it is a sure-fire way to appeal to americans. the friewj is, when the consequences of the minimum wage hike are explained to them, americans don't want it because americans want jobs.

a minimum wage-wage hike during such a weak economic recovery would result in job losses. it's simple. when you make something more expensive, people can afford less of it. when you drive up the cost of hiring, hiring workers, employers can't afford to hire as many of them, especially when you consider many who employ minimum-wage workers are small business owners. right now democrats are proposing a 40% hike in an economy in which unemployment is already high and job growth is already weak. a massive minimum wage hike under the worst possible conditions. now it should surprise no one that the congressional bugs office has estimated that this hike would cost up to a million jobs. who will be hurt most by these lost jobs? well, wig women, for one. the congressional budget office estimates that 57% of the roughly half a million jobs that would be lost by the end of 2016

thanks to this bill, would be jobs held by women. young people would also be hit particularly hard. our economy's overall unemployment rate is not good but the unimloit ray for 16-24-year-olds is even worse. bhor than twice the national average. the unemployment rate for african-americans between 16 and 24 is still worse than that. a staggering 23.6%, almost four times the national average. duquesne university economist anthony davis estimates that the democrats' proposed minimum-wage increase would hike unemployment for those under 25 years old without a high school diploma by 7% to 10%. if you are somebody who really needs a job out there, people under 25 years old without a did diploma, the unemployment rate could go up to 7% to 10%. finally, mr. president, the democrats' proposed minimum wage

hike would harm the lowest-income people. when businesses are faced with higher employment costs from a minimum wage hike who are he this go to let go? low-skilled workers. the same workers who are most likely to be make the minimum wage. in a march 2014 survey of businesses currently employing minimum-wage workers, 38% reported that they would have to let some employees go to cover the cost of minimum wage hike. while 54% reported that they would reduce their hiring. south dakota small business owners told me the same thing at a recent round table that i held. multiple main street business owners told me that they would stop hiring younger and less experienced workers and/or reduce the hours of their current employees. others spoke of the devastating impact the cost increases would have on their businesses. one gentleman who employs 30 workers at a dairy queen in

south dakota told me that a $3 increase in the minimum wage would cost his business an additional $100,000 a year. now, that is a huge amount for a small business in a rural area of south dakota. to deal with these costs, this owner, like so many other small business owners around the country, is going to be forced to hike prices on the products that he offers. and that will affect individuals and families in south dakota and across the country. middle-class families have already seen their incomes fall by nearly $3,500 on this president's watch and the coggal budget office makes sure that a minimum wage hike means that their purchasing power is going to be even further reduced and eroded. mr. president, the evidence is clear. minimum wage hikes cost jobs. and when informed that they cost jobs, a strong majority of americans reject these hikes.

but, unfortunately, democrats have a habit of ignoring both the evidence and the american people. take obamacare. democrats jammed the bill through congress on a party-line vote over the objections of the american people and despite plenty of evidence to suggest that obamacare wouldn't work. but committed to their liberal fantasy of successful government-run health care, they ignored all the evidence to the contrary and forced the bill through. the american people are suffering as a result. you've got canceled health care plans, lost doctors and hospitals, higher prices, fewer choices, reduced access to medications -- the list goes on and on and on. last week the fifth annual u.s. bank-small business survey reported that businesses now rank health care as their number-one concern and more than 60% of them -- and i quote from

the survey -- "now say the long-term impact of the affordable care act will be negative on their business." another article over the weekend sit asaid "health insurers are preparing to raise rates for plans issued under the affordable care act. "that's from a weekend article. still another article, this one from the "hill" newspaper on saturday stated that democrats in competitive elections regarding obamacare as a four-letter word with many of their campaign web sites omitting any reference to the law." mr. president, democrats know that obamacare has failed, but instead of trying to replace the law, they're just trying to distract with more bad policy knacks it even harder -- policies that make it even harder to create jobs in this country. mr. president, american families are hurting. they need jobs. steady, good-paying jobs. democrats are ignoring this

priority in favor of liberal pet projects that pander to their base. there is a clear contrast developing in the senate. democrats are offering distractions. referring are offering proposals that could help middle-class families. proposals like senator hoeven's bill to force approval of the keystone pipeline and the 42,000 jobs that the president's own state department says that it would support. or senator collins' proposal to amend the obamacare 30-hour workweek provision that's causing employers to cut hours. or the proposal from senators hatch, toomey and coats to repeal the tax on medical devices, a tax that has already negatively affected tens of thousands of jobs in this industry and stands ready to damage many more. then there's senator portman's bill to require executive branch agencies to conduct a cost-benefit anal sills of new regulations so that fewer burden p some, job-killing regulations

emerge from the regulation. and senator lee and senator mcconnell's bills to give workings more flexibility in the workplace so they can make it to more soccer games and more dance reciteals while maintaining steady jobs. and senator rubio's bill to amend the national labor relations act to allow employers to give raises to deserving employees. and my own bill to help long-term unemployed workers by providing a onetime low interest loan to start a new job or -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. thune: those are the things we ought to be focusing on, mr. president. i hope we'll start and start creating jobs and opportunities for the american people. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session. under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.

the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of sheryl h. lipman of tennessee to be united states district judge for the western district of tennessee, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of sheryl h. lipman of tennessee to be united states district judge for the western district of tennessee shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: the presiding officer: are there any other senators wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 58, the nays are 39. the motion to invoke cloture is agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: we have five more votes. at the end of ten minutes, with

the five-minute kicker we have in each of those to close the vote, no matter who is not here. we have a lot to do. we have two caucuses. they should start at 12:30. we'll go ahead and rush through these as quickly as we can. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate prior to the motion to invoke cloture on the b a astion nomination. a senator: i want to speak about stan bastion. mrs. murray: in my home state of washington, we have a bipartisan judicial selection process that allows us to recommend nominees who are supported by republicans and democrats alike. we don't always agree on every nominee, but that process has really served our state well for a long time. as the senate votes today on mr. bastian's nomination, i'd like to inform my colleagues that during the bipartisan process to select him, his support was unanimous. that means every republican and

every democrat who helps select judicial nominees in our state supports putting mr. bastian on the federal bench. in today's political atmosphere, that is as strong an endorsement as i can think of. he has nearly 30 years of litigation experience. he's a fellow in the american college of trial lawyers. he is chairman of equal justice coalition. and throughout his career, he served the washington bar first as a member of the board of governors and eventually as president. he has practiced in both state and federal court, tried hundreds of cases, including civil and criminal cases and jury and bench trials. mr. president, our system of government is at its best when good people step up to the plate and are willing to serve, and throughout his legal career, stan bastian has done just that. so i am here to express my support and urge our colleagues to do the same. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection, all time is yielded

back. under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of stanley allen bastian of washington to be united states district judge for the eastern district of washington, signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of stanley allen bastian of washington to be united states district judge for the eastern district of washington shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote snr? if not, on the motion to invoke cloture, the ayes are 55, the noes are 41. the motion is agreed to. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the shah nomination. the senator from vment vthe sen.

mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask all time be yielded back on both sides of the remaining pending nominations. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in aconsidereaccordance with the ps of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of manish s. shah to be united states district judge for the northern district of illinois. signed by 19 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of manish s. shah of illinois to be united states district judge for the northern district of illinois, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: