quorum call: ms. collins: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, i want to comment on the vote that we took earlier today on whether or not to proceed to a bill that would increase the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. now, madam president, it has

been several years since we have increased the minimum wage, and i support an increase in the minimum wage, but i do not believe that at a time when our economy is so fragile as is indicated by the very slow increase in g.d.p. that was reported this morning that we can afford to increase the minimum wage by some 39%. i would note, madam president, that just a year ago, president obama was suggesting that we should increase the minimum wage to $9 an hour. i don't see any change in the economic conditions that would have caused him to abruptly change his position and now be advocating $10.10 an hour.

i know, madam president, that there are many low-income families that are really struggling in this country, and i believe that our economy could accommodate an increase in the minimum wage, but the congressional budget office, a nonpartisan entity, has told us that the consequences of going to $10.10 an hour would be a loss of some 500,000 jobs at a time when our economy simply cannot afford that kind of loss. now, i have talked with numerous employers in maine. they care deeply about their employees. they in most cases are willing and able to pay more.

in fact, many of them do pay more. in fact, all of them pay more than the federal minimum wage because maine's minimum wage is is $7.50 an hour rather than than $7.25 an hour. so we're already above the federal minimum wage. but what they told me is that if there is too much of an increase too rapidly, they will be forced to shrink their work forces or not bring on those summer part-time employees, those high school students, those college students, those individuals who don't have the training and experience that are necessary to be productive in the job for which they are hired at that time. madam president, there is a huge area of compromise available

here between $7.25 and $10.10. i think it speaks to what is wrong with washington today that we were placed in a situation where it was take it or leave it rather than are trying to come together and offer amendments and debate the level that might be acceptable to members of this body and to our colleagues in the house, a level that would not cause dramatic job losses, which would hurt the very people we are trying to help and yet would recognize that we do need to increase the minimum wage by a reasonable amount to help struggling low-income families.

so, madam president, i have to express my disappointment and frustration that we cannot seem to have a normal legislative process where ideas could be offered as amendment as compromises between $7.25 and $10.10, where members would bring other ideas to the senate floor on how we might spur job creation, on how we could improve job training programs, which is a huge issue in this country. i have talked to so many employers in maine, particularly in the trades that have jobs available but cannot find the skilled workers to fill those jobs. i had a terrific and enlightening meeting with union

representatives from bath ironworks who told me that we need to do a better job at our community colleges in training workers for the great jobs, far above minimum wage, that exists at bath ironworks in my state. so there are so many ideas out there that would help us improve the financial condition of our low-income families, from increasing the minimum wage by an amount that did not cause massive job losses to improving our job training programs so that we can fix this mismatch between the jobs that are available and the skills that our workers have. i would note that the department of commerce secretary testified that there are four million jobs that are unfilled nationwide because of that mismatch in

available jobs and the skills needed to fill them. there are other proposals to give tax incentives to small businesses. we have allowed a very important tax incentive that encouraged hiring to expire at the end of last year. the work opportunity tax credit expired. why not extend that, not only to those groups who qualify now but also to people who have been unemployed for a long time, to encourage employers to take a advance on them, to bring them into the -- back into the work force where they want to be. we could also include other provisions. for example, i have a bipartisan bill with senator donnelly and senator manchin and members on my side of the aisle that would fix the definition of full-time

work under obamacare so that it would be 40 hours a week and not 30 hours a week. we would go back to the standard definition of 40 hours a week. there are tax incentives having to do with bonus depreciation and small business expensing that would encourage small businesses to make the investments so that they can hire more employees. madam president, we ought to have a full debate on all of these options, not just stop with one vote on whether or not to proceed to one bill to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 with no amendments allowed, with no alternative proposals being permitted. madam president, i so believe that if we could get back to the

normal way of doing business that we would so much better serve the people of this country, including low-income workers who are struggling to get by, and i believe we could come up with a compromise that would enjoy bipartisan support. i'm not saying it would be easy, but we ought to at least try, madam president. and i have talked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are willing to try, and we need to be given that opportunity, madam president. each and every member in this body cares about individuals who are working two jobs, who may have two minimum wage jobs because they're trying to support their families. i think that we could come

together, but we can't come together unless we are allowed to offer alternatives, to fully debate the issues and to bring forth ideas to improve our job training programs and to encourage the creation of more jobs as well as better paying jobs in what unfortunately remains a very anemic economy. thank you, madam president. madam president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: i would ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, yesterday, all america watched while commissioner adam silva and -- adam silver and the national basketball association punished donald sterling for his racist behavior. commissioner silver banned sterling from the nba for life and a $2 million fine. i with almost all of america applaud the nba's work to swiftly move to stamp out bigotry in its ranks. commissioner silver and the league have set the standard for how professional sports associations should act in the face of racism. i wonder today, madam president,

how the leadership of the national football league, the nfl, that money-making machine, i wonder if they have taken notice of the nba's decisive action. how long will the nfl continue to do nothing, zero, as one of its teams bears a name that inflicts so much pain on native americans? madam president, i have 22 tribal organizations in nevada. all over america, especially in the western part of the united states but not only in the western part of the united states, we have large numbers of native americans. it is untoward of daniel snyder to try and hide behind tradition. tradition, that's what he says, in refuseing to change the name of the team. madam president, tradition? what tradition? a tradition of racism is all that name leaves in its wake. mr. snyder knows that in sports, the only tradition that matters

is winning. so i urge daniel united tore do what is morally right and remove this degrading term from the league by changing his team's name. it's been done before right here in washington, d.c. 17 years ago, the washington bullets and the late abe pollin, a wonderful man, madam president, saw all the gun violence and murders taking place in the washington, d.c. area. and what did he do? he voluntarily decided that name, washington bullets, wasn't any good and changed his name. he didn't want his team to be associated with bullets, so he changed the team's name from washington bullets to the washington wizards. we all followed the washington wizards the last couple of weeks. they are now in the second round of the play-offs. we were all happy about that. they have struggled for a long time. we support, the american people support the wizards.

people in the d.c. metropolitan area. the wizards have a good name. don't you think daniel snyder can come up with a name? it should be easy. he could invite the fans to choose a name. he could ask high school kids to come up with a name. anything they came up with would be better than the washington team name they have now. but since snyder fails to show any leadership, the national football league should take an assist from the nba and pick up the slack. it would be a slam dunk, madam president. for far too long the nfl has been sitting on its hands doing nothing while an entire population of americans has been denigrated. so i say to commissioner roger goodle, i believe roger goodell is a good man but it's time for this good man to act, remove this hateful term from your league's vocabulary and rid the

league of racism and bigotry. your fans will support it. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

hatch madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: i rise today in defense of the u.s. constitution, the separation of government powers that established the rule of law that are enshrined and the legitimate prerogatives of the legislative branch and this body in

particular. under our constitutional system of government, i'm very concerned about what's been going on. last week the justice department announced a plan to extend clemency consideration to a large class of drug offenders. both "the new york times" and "the washington post" estimate that the department's new guidelines will poe teptionly apply it tens of thousands of cases with clemency likely to be granted to perhaps thousands of current federal inmates. now, this surprise announcement by the administration marks a worrying shiftway from the long-standing norm requiring individualized determinations based on the particularly compelling circumstances of specific cases. instead, the justice department has laid the groundwork for mass clemency based on a few widely shared and broad criteria. now, of course, the constitution

gives the president the power to grant clemency in individual cases. no one disputes this authority. it has been exercised by presidents throughout our nation's history, and it is properly used on a limited case-by-case basis to ameliorate specific instances of injustice experienced by particular individuals. by contrast, it is the rightful province of the legislative branch to establish broader sentencing policy through duly enacted federal statute. there is sentencing law on the books and congress periodically revisits and revises this sentencing policy. but in our constitutional system, changing the law requires legislative action by congress. in the face of this most basic constitutional requirement, the president has apparently instead decided to use -- or, rather, abuse the clemency power and the

attempt to real estate write sentencing law -- rewrite sentencing law unilaterally. his invocation of clemency is merely a fig leaf to usurp legislative authority. the president's clemency power is not a vehicle by which the executive branch may effectively revise or discard lawful statutes, with which the president disagrees. but that is precise what i president obama and his justice department have promised to do. the amount of time that entire classes of drug offenders spend in jail will no longer be based on uniform sentencing law passed by congress and administered by the federal court, judiciary; instead, it will be determined by the president's personal views of -- quote -- "justice" -- inquote -- by the attorney general's subjective notions of what he considered -- quote --

"fair" -- unquote -- and by some justice department bureaucrat's sentence of -- quote -- "proportionality." this turns our government on its head and represents an abdication of the president's corps constitutional duty. instead of faithfully executing the law, president obama is simply seeking to enforce his personal ideological preferences. it is precisely this sort of unchecked and unaccountable rule that our nation's founders founs sought to prevent. madam president, the obama administration's unilateral action on drug sentencing is especially troubling since congress is actively considering a umin of potential sentencing reforms -- a number of potential sentencing reforms. an ideological diverse, bipartisan group of senators have demonstrated they are eager to legislate on this issue. several sentencing reform bills have been drafted and

introduced. legislation has been considered and reported by the judiciary committee. although a president should never expect to get every single idea he wants through the legislative process, bipartisan agreement here seems well within reach, especially if the administration chose to focus on working with congress to change the law rather than acting alone to undermine it. yet even in an area where constructive action is achievable, the president has decided to go it alone, and in doing so, he violates the most basic constitutional principles he once taught to his law school students. madam president, examples of such executive abuse have become all too common under this administration, especially since president obama announced his new -- quote -- "pen in phone" -- of unilateral action

specifically designed to bypass congress and evade constitutional constraints and restraints. just last week, the associated press reported that under orders from the white house, the department of homeland security is considering limiting deportations to only criminal aliens with felony convictions. ous in using the excuse -- now, using the excuse of prosecutorial discretion, another executive tool limited to individual cases in particular circumstances, the administration is seeking to frustrate duly enacted immigration law and instead implement its own broad immigration policies. whatever your thoughts on the sensitive questions of immigration policy, everyone can agree that such an act requires legislative action and should not be brought into effect through executive fiat. i am struck by how far this approach contrasts with the

president's own judgment, as recently as last fall. if the administration continued broadening enforcement carve-outs, he said -- quote -- "then essentially i'll be ignoring the law in a way that i think would be very difficult to defend legally" -- unquote. now, given the lawlessness of the broad enforcement carve-outs, the president stated flatly -- quote -- "that's not an option" -- unquote. president obama went on to acknowledge that he does not in fact have the authority to halt most deportations. in his own words -- quote -- "if in fact i could pass all these laws without congress, i would do so. but we're also a nation of laws. that's part 6 ou of our traditi. the easy way out is to pretend that i can do something byvite violating our laws, but what i'm proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic process to achieve the same goals" -- unquote.

madam president, i'd like to associate myself wholeheartedly with president obama's exhortation last fall that we are a laws and that substantive changes to the law must come about through the democratic process. as public servants, our common allegiance must first be to the rule of law under the constitution, as it, more than anything else, is what secures the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. i fear that president obama's frustration with an inability to win broad support for every aspect of his legislative agenda has caused him to ignore clear legal and constitutional obligations. he now seems to view the long-standing rules -- requirements and traditions central to our system of republican self-government as irritants, mere suggestions that he is willing to bend past their breaking point in order to advance his controversial

agenda. madam president, concern about the potential for executive overreach has animated american political life from the very beginning. indeed, it predates our republic and shaped its founding. centuries ago, absolute monarchs, like the stewart dynasty of england, seizing on the power of the medieval popes as a model claims a -- quote -- "royal provocative" -- unquote -- to suspend the application of the laws and used this power to justify their oppressive rule. the stewarts' unchecked reign in england ignited a long and bloody struggle to eventually led about to the glorious revolution. thereafter, the 1689 english bill of rights confirmed the

ancient rights -- in the questions -- of englishmen and enshrined the notion that the monarch had no -- quote -- "disexpensing power" -- unquote -- to waive the application of the laws of the realm. as many noted scholars have observed, the american founders were well-versed in these 17th century english constitutional struggles. viewing themselves as hire heire framers set out to establish a system of government with an eye toward preventing similar abuse -- or should i say abuses. with the old monarchy's abuse of the claim "disexpensing power" fresh in their minds, the founders did not even include an exhe can for. when that framework approved

unworkable, the framers drafted and states ratified a constitution that avoided either historical extreme, an all-powerful executive that claimed the power to dispense with the powers of law or a powerless executive lacking the capacity to govern effectively. the structural features of the our constitution navigate between these two poles creating an energetic executive but carefully cabining his power. it vests legislative authority in congress, not the president, while the precise line between enforcement, screarks and lawbreaking may sometimes seem blurred, the constitution makes clear that changes to the law are the province of the legislator rather than the executive branch and that when congress and the president have enacted statutory law, the executive cannot unilaterally displace it.

the constitution also requires the president to -- quote -- "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" -- unquote. this clause does not suggest or invite the president to enforce the law. it obligates him to do so. and he is bound by the text of the constitution to do so -- quote -- "faithfully" -- unquote. to, uto execute the laws faithfy is defined as to do so -- quote -- "honestly with strict adherence to duty and allegiance and without failure of performance." unquote. as a diverse array of legal scholars have noted it is -- quote -- "unplausible and unnatural" to allow the president authority to deviate from the loyal enforcement of federal statutes. james lawson, the original proponent of the take-care

clause, put it this way: "the president has -- quote -- "authority not to make or alter or dispense with the laws but to execute and enact the laws which are established" -- he continued -- quote -- "to contend to see that the laws faithfully executed i am please the power to forbid their execution is entirely inadmissible." there are, madam president, certain situations in which the executive may in fact legitimately ignore or even contravene a duly enacted federal statute, but such circumstances are few and far between. the presence of both parties have long claimed authority not to enforce unconstitutional statutes. according to this view, if the constitutional view of the executive branch determines that a statute clearly violates the

constitution, the highest law, then that statute is no law at all and is not worth enforcement. the presidents have also sought to justify partial nonenforcement. as the supreme court explained -- quote -- "the president performs his full constitutional duty if with the means and instruments provided by congress and within the limitations described by it he uses his best endeavors to secure the faithful execution of the laws enacted." in other words, the constitution still obligates the president to do his best to ensure that duly enacted laws are faithfully executed even when he and his subordinates are working with limited resources. in such cases he is obligated to ensure that those resources are optimally allocated to achieve as faithful execution as

possible. sadly, mr. president, political expedience and ideological fervor has led our current president to disregard his fundamental obligation to -- quote -- "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." take, for example, the nation's drug laws, an area where the obama administration has decided that it disagrees with the criminal statutes on the books and wants to implement a different policy no matter the governing federal law. as i noted earlier, the administration's massive clemency push seems to employ the president's specific constitutional power, one limited to relieve individual instances of injustice to, provide relief to large swaths of criminals who fit a few broad criteria. the president also directed major changes over which federal drug crimes are charged and at

what level, citing prosecutorial discretion, a limited authority derived from the power to adapt enforcement to an individual's specific circumstances to implement broad criteria affecting thousands of prosecutions. given the scope of this executive action, compared to its narrowly tailored authority, the administration's invocation of prosecutorial discretion has become a transparent excuse used to try to justify flouting existing federal law. much of the same is true in context -- in the context of immigration. the administration has advanced a growing number of enforcement carveouts for expanding classes of illegal immigrants. first, the administration exempted those brought here as

children. then veterans. then their families. now the administration may seek to exclude from application of duly enacted immigration law anyone who has not committed serious felonies. of course no one disagrees that violent criminals should be our highest priority. the administration has come much further and essentially made current immigration law a dead letter for virtually everyone else. last week i joined 21 of my colleagues in a letter to the white house highlighting this executive abuse. how can the administration even claim it is attempting to faithfully execute immigration law when almost all deportations last year were limited to convicted criminals and recent border crossers? when i.c.e. agents were forced to release 68,000 potentially deportables alone last year. think about about that. when the administration took

disciplinary action against i.c.e. officers for making lawful arrests. when the president of the national i.c.e. council felt compelled to testify in front of congress that although -- quote -- "most americans assume i.c.e. agents and officers are empowered by the government to enforce the law, nothing could be further from the truth." another egregious example of this administration's willful failure to faithfully execute the law involves education. the department of education has given 42 of the 50 states waivers from application of no child left behind. rather than seek a legislative reauthorization of the statute to set realistic goals going forward, the administration has chosen simply to establish their preferred education policy by attaching their own conditions to the waivers that the states need to receive federal money. recently the state of washington became the first to lose its

waiver primarily because it did not meet the administration's mandate for teacher and principal evaluation, a mandate that has no grounding in the actual statute. when the vast majority of states receive waivers by meeting conditions that bear little resemblance to provisions of the law itself, is the administration faithfully executing the law as required under our beloved constitution? to the contrary, the president is using waiver conditions to bring about an entirely different set of education policies, and he is doing so to avoid spending his energies and political capital on a legislative process that might expose divisions within his own party but force his administration to compromise with those who do not share all of his policy preferences. of course, madam president, any discussion of ask executive overreach by this administration must include obamacare.

back when the administration was writing that 2,700-plus page monstrosity, the bill's proponents argued its length and complexity were necessary evils, that its many intricate parts were essential to achieve the bill's promised objectives. the individual mandate, the employer mandate, the minimum coverage requirements, the cuts to medicare advantage and the limits to subsidies to state-run exchanges, we were promised that these provisions and others were both critical and carefully timed to expand coverage and rein in costs. yet, when the time came to implement the law, the administration's tune changed. to justify violating a number of clear statutory mandates, the administration has mustered a weak and unconvincing hodgepodge of legal acro batics all for the purpose of allowing the tko*eupl

tko*eupl -- the administration to avoid the provisions of its own signature law. when we in congress have proposed legitimate fixes to provide hardworking americans relief from obama's disruptive effects, the white house has displayed shocking audacity in threatening to veto lawful delays to some of these cuts and mandates. madam president, i don't know if anyone could imagine a better example of an administration allowing political expediency and ideological commitments to trump the president's constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. equally troubling, where the president's legislative efforts have failed, he's decided simply to regulate seemingly undeterred from stretching his existing statutory authorities past their breaking point. again, this is the very

definition of executive abuse. for example, a hallmark of the president's so-called -- quote -- "pen and phone" strategy was to sign an executive order forcing federal contractors to raise their minimum wage. he issued this directive despite the fact that there is already a federal statute that governs the minimum wage for federal contractors. although a different statute gives the president some discretion in the area of federal procurement, it's plain language to the demands the courts have long held that there be a sufficient nexus between the president's orders and the statute's stated goal of efficiency and economy in federal procurement. increasing a contractor's labor costs by hiking their minimum wage is wholly inconsistent with the statutory goal demonstrating there is no legal basis for the

administration's executive order. yet another area of grave concern is the effort by this white house to establish new institutional arrangements that fail to respect the separation of government powers and the basic principle of checks and balances enshrined in our constitution. take the dodd-frank bill, another signature piece of the president's agenda. all americans should be concerned with the unchecked institutional form of the newly created consumer financial protection bureau. this administration's efforts was made manifest toward placing the cfpb beyond the constitutional power of the purse. the cfpb director is empowered to collect a certain percentage of the federal reserve's operating expenses indexed to inflation.

thereby, denying congress its rightful authority to allocate federal spending and keep the agency in check with respect to its over weaning regulatory ambitions. what the white house sought was unaccountable executive power. a cfpb that could regulate with virtually no meaningful restraint. when we expressed a desire to address the concerns before the cfpb, the white house decided that abiding by the appointments process established by the constitution was too inconvenient. determined to press forward with the administration's agenda at all costs, the president simply installed his choice for cfpb director as well as other key federal officers without the advice or consent of the senate. again, the height of executive arrogance. the administration sought to justify this move by citing the

president's power under the recess appointments clause. but all the relevant legal authority suggested otherwise. the original public meaning of the clause well established historical practice, the constitutional requirement for the house of representatives to consent before the senate may adjourn for more than three days, the senate's constitutional authority to set its own rules, and the senate's own determination that it was not in recess at the time; all of this made clear that the president had no authority to make the appointments unilaterally. yet, as an indication of its willingness simply to ignore the law and the constitution, that is precisely what the president did. this brazen lawlessness cannot stand, and it won't. already several federal court, appeals courts have ruled that these appointments were unconstitutional. and most observers expect the supreme court to agree.

yet, the obama administration remains undeterred. having decided to bypass congress and go it alone, the white house has likewise sought to remove meaningful accountability by means of the federal judiciary. as in the recess appointments cases, federal courts have rejected a variety of this administration's lawless actions and vindicated critical constitutional rights. no court has served as a greater check on executive overreach than the d.c. circuit court of appeals, which oversees most federal regulatory actions, so the white house has sought to remove even this modest restraint. after the d.c. circuit rightfully invalidated several key administration actions as outside the bonds of federal law, the president then sought to pack that court with compliant judges in order to obtain more favorable decisions. the president's allies in this

body, in their own words -- quote -- "focused very intently on the d.c. circuit" determined to -- quote -- "switch the majority" on the court and were willing to -- quote -- "fill up the d.c. circuit one way or another." unquote. in the rush to eliminate any possible judicial obstacle to unilateral progressive advances, they ran roughshod over the rules and traditions of this body, working untold and permanent damage to two venerated institutions of our constitutional system. madam president, this whole episode demonstrates a brazen willingness on the part of this administration to ignore virtually any legal or constitutional constraints and even tamper with the judiciary simply for the stake -- for the sake of advancing its own ideological goals or objectives.

i've only had time today to scratch the surface of a pattern of executive abuses in areas as diverse as e.p.a. and nlrb regulatory actions, inappropriate i.r.s. targeting, net neutrality rule making and the refusal to defend the defense of marriage act. such executive lawlessness should be troubling to all americans regardless of political stripe or partisan affiliation. it is the constitution, the political institutions it established, the legal framework it enshrined, the checks and balances it requires that ensures we remain a government of laws and not of men. absent these essential restraints, we will all become subject to increasingly arbitrary rule, a government that knows no bound and seeks to regulate and control virtually every aspect of our lives. president obama once spoke of the necessity for such

restraint. he warned of the dangers associated with unilateral executive action. and he highlighted the critical importance of adhering to constitutional procedures. while campaigning for presidente said -- quote -- "i taught constitutional law for 10 years. i take the constitution very seriously. the biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with the president trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through congress at all and that's what i intend to reverse when i'm president of the united states of america." how far we've come since candidate obama made those empty promises. madam president, i've been a member of this body for nearly four decades. i've worked with a half dozen presidents. on many occasions we've been able, working together, to accomplish great good for the american people. my concern today is not partis

partisan. my criticisms are not ideological. nor is my interest as a member of the senate simply institutional. throughout my years as a member of this body, i've acknowledged and defended the power of the president when he acts lawfully, he or she. in the national security context in particular, where the president is -- is at the height of his constitutional and statutory authorities, i've defended the prerogatives of the president, no matter the party occupying the white house. and no matter the political unpopularity of doing so. the concerns i have expressed today are about legitimacy. what authority to govern does the president, or do any of us, have except that which we derive from our constitution? my criticisms are about restoring accountability. how are we going to keep this or any administration honest when it seeks to cut out congress'

legitimate role in the governing process? above all, my observations today are about liberty. yeah, that's right, liberty. if we are to maintain our freedoms with so many of our fellow citizens have fought and died to preserve, including my own brother and two brother-in-laws, we must also remember to heed james madison's warning in federalist 47 that -- quote -- "the accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." madam president, it is storable the continuation -- madam president, it is essential to the continuation or to the continued well-being of our nation, to the legitimacy of our government and to the liberties of our citizens that the

exercise of executive power is kept within lawful bounds of the doing so requires continual vigilance by the court, by congress, and by the american people to uphold the standards of the constitution. and that includes the president as well. madam president, let me close with a word of warning from president george washington, perhaps even more true today than when president washington spoke it way back when. quote -- "if in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be contracted by an amendment in the way which the constitution designates. but let there be no change by usurpation, for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." i want to thank you,

madam president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, the world health organization has deemed this week world immunization week. every year the w.h.o. designates a whole week to promote the world's most powerful tools in public health -- the use of vaccines to protect all -- people of all ages against disease. immunization is one of the most successful cost-effective health interventions ever introduced, preventing up to 3 million deaths a year from diseases such as diphtheria, tetanus, polio and measles. and thanks to decades of research, there are now 25 diseases that can be prevented by vaccines, including some forms of influenza, meningitis and even certain types of liver and cervical cancer. the theme is "are you up to date

"? this year, 1-5 worldwide won't receive the vaccinations they need. some because their parents choose not to and others because it's just not available. through the global vaccination action plan, the w.h.o. is working to close this act and promote access to vaccines for every adult or child in the world. their aim -- have all people vaccinated against preventable disease by 2020. one of the diseases the w.h.o. is targeting is polio. madam president, i have a few years on you but i can recall growing up in the 1950's. and when you grew up in that e era, polio was a real concern. in some years, 50, 60, 40,000 kids would come down with polio. and at that time, nobody knew why. they couldn't figure out where it was coming from or how to stop it. and parents, my mom included, had their theories. some of them based loosely on

health and others on legend. one of them my mother said, don't you go play in that rainwater outside in the street after it rains. you can get polio. i can remember hearing that. and we can remember when we were kids the earliest television shows showing people in iron lungs surviving in that -- in that machine that kept them alive and looking at the world through a mirror that was perched above their heads. and many people were afflicted by polio. some of my closest friends growing up had polio. our republican leader, senator mcconnell, suffered from polio as a child. so it was not uncommon. it was way too common. but then came the day in 1952 -- pardon me, in 1955 which jonas salk came up with the salk vaccine. it was such an amazing piece of news. it was shared in every classroom across the country. they had a vaccine. it involved a shot and none of

us were excited about that, but the idea of being protected for life from polio was worth it. then came along the saven oral vaccine which we were even happier to hear about. but it was an indication to a lot of people that with hard work and research that cures could be found. it was april 12, 1955, when dr. thomas francis jr., an epidemiologist at the university of michigan and a mentor to salk, announced that salk had discovered a polio vaccine that was safe and effective. that announcement came at a time when families across america were celebrating. we couldn't wait to get in line. april 12 was deliberately chosen for the announcement because it marked the 10th anniversary of the death of the most famous polio survivor of all, president franklin delano roosevelt. roosevelt had also founded march of dimes, a foundation in 1938, without which salk may not have had the research to complete his -- money to complete the

research. conducted on 1.8 million children in america and it was proven 80% to 90% effective. we had achieved this victory over polio. it really was a big deal. as a result, polio was eradicated in the united states of america in 1979. in february, the senate passed a resolution i cosponsored with senator kirk of illinois supporting world polio day. this resolution commended not only the work of jonas salk but also the rotary club, w.h.o. and me linda gates foundation and unicef for their work to eradicate polio. these organizations have joined with the united states and other national governments to successfully reduce cases of polio by more than 99%. we now believe, madam president, there are only three nations on earth where there is evidence of this polio -- nigeria, afghanistan and pakistan. the success of the polio vaccine showed the public what medical research could explish encourage -- accomplish and

encourage. yesterday, chairman mikulski of the senate appropriations committee, had a hearing on research and we had some great witnesses. among them, dr. francis collins, who is the head of the national institutenationalinstitutes of . they came to talk about america's investment in research and innovation. you would think that with the success of the salk polio vaccine and all the other things that have followed, that america would have learned a valuable lesson about this investment. but, sadly, today, some 60 years after the discovery of the salk polio vaccine, we are not making progress as we should. in fact, in some respects, we are falling behind. because of our failure to adequately fund the national institutes of health over the last 10 or 12 years, we've seen a 20% decline in the awards for medical research. 20% of worthy research projects have not been funded because we have not put the money down to make it happen.

i talked to dr. francis collins about this two or three months ago. he heads up the n.i.h., a brilliant, wonderful man who was in charge of mapping the human genome project. he did it on time, ahead of time and on budget and produced a wealth of information which is now being used to find cures for diseases. just a month or so ago, the national institutes of health introduced their amp program, where they have engaged the 10 largest pharmaceutical companies in america to join up with the n.i.h. to use the human genome to find cures for the following diseases: alzheimer's, type 2 diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis. those are the first three targets they're going after. we need to go after more and we need to encourage them for several reasons. first, if we don't make an investment in medical research that future generations of

researchers can count on, young people will not dedicate their lives to medical research. think of this for a moment. 30 years ago -- 30 years ago, 19% of all the n.i.h. medical researchers were under the age of 36. 30 years ago under the age of 36. 19% of them. now, 3%. younger people are not moving toward medical research because they're uncertain of our national commitment in this area. shame on us. at a time when we should be enticing the best and brightest in the world to get involved in biomedical research, our indecision and lack of leadership at the governmental level is failing to fund these entities and this effort. i asked dr. collins, what is the kind of commitment we should make as a nation in medical research that can make a dramatic difference? he said, senator, if you could give us 5% real growth a year, beyond inflation, 5% a year for

10 years, i'll promise you we'll make dramatic progress. so i did a calculation. i asked my staff, what would it cost us as a nation to increase medical research 5% a year for 10 years? well, they've added the national institutes of health, the center for disease control, the department of defense medical research, and the veterans administration medical research and they said, all right, put them all together, give them a 5% raise each year, how much would it cost over 10 years. the answer? $140 billion. that's a huge sum of money. but in that same period of time, we are likely to budget for the government over $18 trillion in spending. it's a very tiny piece of the overall spending of our government. now, some people who are budget hawks will step back and say, "great idea, senator, but we just can't afford it. we can't afford to commit to

coming up with $140 billion over 10 years." i'd ask them to consider two things. the first -- last year in the united states of america, the federal government spent through the medicare and medicaid programs over $200 billion treating one disease -- alzheimer's. if we through our medical research could find some blessed cure for this terrible disease or even delay its onset, it would more than pay for the amount of money we would have to invest in medical research. it is just that important. and secondly, there are things we can do which i will stand up and say i am prepared to do which would fund a major part of this research. if we increase the federal tax on tobacco products by 95 cents a package, 95 cents, it would pay for more than half of the medical research which i just

suggested, and over a ten-year period of time, 900,000 american lives would be saved because children wouldn't be able to afford to buy these tobacco products. so this medical research commitment is not only a good one in terms of reducing our costs of medical care, but it also is something that we ought to achieve in order to make sure that there will be breakthroughs found in the years ahead to eliminate and treat many of the diseases which haunt us and our families across america. the american cures act is a bill that i have introduced. i'm happy to have a number of my colleagues cosponsoring it. it has the support of virtually all of the major medical research organizations. it should be bipartisan, and i hope those on the other side of the aisle who share my commitment to medical research will join me. discovering the polio vaccine, one journalist sought the nobel prize that allowed him to create the salk institute, one of the premiere institutions for

biomedical research. if he had done nothing else, jonas salk's place in history would have been assured. but jonas salk wasn't content to rest on past achievement. after all, he was an american. in his last years of his life, he spent his time searching for a cure for aids. when his earlier efforts failed, he was undeterred. i asked him why. he said you can only fail if you stop too soon. well, this is a decisive moment in the history of our nation. we have to continue to invest in order to reap the immense rewards of decades of work by the best scientific and medical minds in the world. the only way we can fail is by stopping too soon. madam president, i ask consent to enter into the record at this point a statement on behalf of manish shah who is a pending nomination to the u.s. district court for the northern district of illinois. mr. shah is an outstanding nominee. he has been interviewed by my interview committee and he was

chosen by senator kirk's committee to serve. he is a former federal prosecutor of the northern district of illinois. he is currently chief of the criminal division in that office. he has a lengthy resume of achievements in this field. mr. shah has won numerous awards and recognize nises from the u.s. -- recognitions from the u.s. attorney's office including the f.b.i. director's award for outstanding criminal investigation. he graduated from stanford university and the university of chicago law school, clerked for two years for judge jim zagel of the northern district of illinois. his nomination in the northern district of illinois is historic. upon confirmation, he will be the first article 3 judge of south asian descent to serve in the state of illinois. he appeared before the judiciary committee last november in a hearing that i chaired. he was reported out unanimously from that committee. i'm sorry that it's taken so long for us to get to that nomination on the calendar, but i am certain that he will be an excellent addition to the bench for the northern district of illinois. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, i at this point suggest the

absence of a quorum. i'm sorry. i yield the floor to my colleague. the presidingthe presiding offie senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i rise today to express my support for the nomination of stanley bastian to be district judge for the eastern district of washington. stanley bastian is the kind of highly qualified federal judge that washington needs. the eastern district of washington represents a swath of washington that is over 20 counties and over 63% of our state, yet the court has been operating with two vacancies, so it is time for the senate to move forward on fulfilling this position, and i hope we confirm mr. bastian today and i hope we can move forward on a vote for mr. salvador mendoza in the coming weeks as well. mr. bastian has been an outstanding choice for the eastern district bench, and we want to make sure that we understand why. he was born in washington and is well versed in pacific northwest issues, as my colleagues mr. wyden and mr. merkley will note. he is a graduate of the university of oregon, but he

also went to law school at the university of washington. he has handled a diverse portfolio of legal matters including representing counties, public utility districts, fruit growers, medical clinics, brokers and individuals and he brings more than 30 years of legal experience to the federal bench, including 25 years in private practice. as well-rounded and experienced from all sides of the legal process from civil and criminal trials to mediation and arbitration and negotiation of various parties throughout his career, he has shown a dedication to justice and equal access to the law. as an experienced trial attorney, he has earned the support and recognition of his peers. when i interviewed him, i was impressed by his respect for legal precedent and his commitment to the rule of law, his work to improve access to justice and a local knowledge that is very important to serving eastern washington and all of washington. mr. bastian also served as a judicial pro tempore in the municipal courts and recently he

had the opportunity to lead the washington state bar association. as the president of that organization, mr. bastian focused on ethics, professionalism and civility in the legal profession. he has a long and wide-ranging background in the law and community, so that's exactly why we should put him on the federal bench. his legal career exemplifies public service, a commitment to justice and a stellar legal intellect. i am confident that he will serve the eastern district well, so i hope that, madam president, we will move forward on these nominees this afternoon and confirm mr. bastian. i thank the chair. madam president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that following

disposition of the levy nomination, the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 711, that there be two minutes for debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to vote on a confirmation of that nomination. further, that notwithstanding rule 22, on thursday, may 1, at 11:00 a.m., the senate proceed to executive session to vote on cloture nominations to calendar number 591 and 575 and 592. that if cloture is invoked on any of these nominations, all postcloture time be expired at 1:45 p.m. the senate proceed then to vote on confirmation of calendar number 591 and then 592 and then 730 and 701. further, that on monday, may 5, at 5:30, the senate proceed to executive session and vote on confirmation of calendar number 575 and 703. further, that there be two minutes for debate prior to each vote equally divided in the usual form, that any roll call votes following the first in each series be ten minutes in

length. if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made, laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and that no further motion be in order with the nomination, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, with this agreement, we'll have up to seven roll call votes this afternoon and as many as three roll call votes beginning at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow. as many as four roll call votes tomorrow afternoon beginning at about 1:45. madam president, i would ask that even though we're a minute or so short, we start the votes. i ask consent. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations, the judiciary, cheryl h. lipman of tennessee to be united states

district judge for the western district of tennessee. stanley allen bastian of washington to be united states district judge for the eastern district of washington. manishs. shah of illinois to be united states district judge for the northern district of illinois. daniel d. crabtree of kansas to be united states district judge for the district of kansas. cynthia ann bashant of california to be united states district judge for the southern district of california. jon david levy of maine to be united states district judge for the district of maine. department of defense, robert o. work of virginia to be deputy secretary. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i have not had the opportunity, and it's my fault, to speak to the chairman of the judiciary committee, but hoping that he won't be upset, i ask consent that the two minutes prior to this first vote be yielded back and then i will talk to senator leahy to see how he feels about the others. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the lipman

nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote: