director of the c.d.c. a couple of weeks ago. he and the members of the public health community maintain the way to contain the spread of ebola is to contain the virus at its source, to prepare for the possibility of ebola patients here in america and to help with containment overseas, the obama administration has requested $6.18 billion in emergency funding, including $1.83 billion for the c.d.c. i support the president. janet is a commendable part of thissest. i hope people will hear her story and support the united states' efforts in liberia. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: question now occurs on the orr nomination. is if there's no further debate, all those in faff say aye. all those opposed, say no. the the ayes appear to have it.

the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: joseph s. h hezir of virginia to be chief financial officer. the presiding officer: there will now be two minutes of debate prior to the vote on the nomination. without objection, all time is yielded back. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 89. the nays are 3. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a cloture vote on the stivers nomination. without objection, all time is yielded back. 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 the debate on the nomination of gregory n. stivers of kentucky to be united states district judge for the western district of kentucky. 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 gregory n. stivers of kentucky to be united states district judge for the western district of kentucky, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 70, the nays, 23. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: the judiciary, gregory n.stivers of kentucky to be united states district judge for the western district of kentucky. the presiding officer: there will now be two minutes of debate equally twiede divided po a cloture vote on the leeson nomination. without objection, all time is yielded back. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the

nomination of joseph f. leeson jr. of pennsylvania to be united states district judge nor the for the eastern district of pennsylvania, 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 joseph f. leeson jr. of pennsylvania to be united states district judge for the eastern district of pennsylvania shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are manned tried under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:#

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 66 and the nays are 26. the ayes have it. and the motion is agreed to. and the the clerk will report te nomination. the clerk: the judiciary joseph f. leeson jr. for the united states district judge for the eastern district of pennsylvania. the presiding officer: there will be two minutes of debate on the griggsby nomination. is there objection? the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. mr. reid: -- the clerk: we move to bring to

a close debate on the nomination of lydia kay griggsby to be a judge of the united states federal court claims for a term of 15 years 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 lydia kay griggsby of maryland to be a judge of the united states court of federal claims 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: any senators wishing to vote or change their votes? if not, the yeas are 53 and the nays are 36. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: the judiciary. lydia k. griggsby of maryland to

be a judge of the united states court of federal claims. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for debate only until 1:45 p.m., with time equally divided in the usual form. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. i rise this morning to offer my support for the gentleman for whom cloture was just invoked. we're going to have a confirmation vote this afternoon. it was mr. joseph leeson from pennsylvania. mr. leeson has been nominated to serve as a u.s. district judge in the eastern district of pennsylvania. i want to start by thanking chairman leahy and ranking member grassley for facilitating and moving his candidacy through the process through the create, and senator reid and senator mcconnell are our respected leaders for bringing the nomination to the senate floor.

i appreciate that cooperation. i should also point out i am very grateful for the cooperation of my colleague senator casey. senator casey and i have spent a lot of time and energy making sure that we fill the vacancies that occur on the federal bench in pennsylvania with the absolutely most qualified terrific pennsylvanians. we have been blessed that so many wonderful pennsylvanians have offered to serve in this role to make this sacrifice for public service. senator casey and i in the four years i have been in the senate we have confirmed 13 district judges. we have placed a judge in the redding courthouse in burkes county which had been vacant for three years. placed a judge in the easton courthouse which had been vacant for ten years. when mr. leeson is hopefully confirmed this afternoon, that will bring our total to 14. i look forward to his speedy confirmation. and here's why. he is going to be a great federal judge. joe leeson is a graduate of

catholic university where he got his law degree. i've known joseph leeson certainly by his reputation for a very long time. he's a very well-respected attorney in allentown, pennsylvania. my family and i live just outside allentown, have for a long time. joe leeson is a partner in leeson and leeson. he has got very extensive trial experience. he has counseled people in accidents and injury cases. he has represented legislators and mayors. his practice includes litigation, municipal law, nonprofit, religious law. across the board, a very diverse portfolio. and he'ses are had a -- he's also had a long and distinguished commitment to public service. joe leeson has served as the bethlehem city solicitor, as a member of the bethlehem city council, as an administrator on the board of catholic conference. if confirmed, he will sit in the allentown courthouse. we need a federal judge in the allentown courthouse. we have an outstanding judge there now. we need another because the size of the lehigh valley region

requires that. it will be terrific to have a second federal judge in the allentown courthouse for i think the first time. mr. president, i just conclude by saying there is no question in my mind that mr. leeson has the experience, the acumen, the temperament and the integrity to be an outstanding federal judge. he will be a great addition to the bench, and i urge all my colleagues to support his confirmation, and i yield the floor.

:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: sir, sentence is not in a quorum

call. mr. cornyn: i appreciate that, mr. president. so, mr. president, i just want to make some very brief remarks. i know my colleague from new hampshire is here and others who want to speak. but i just want to say a few good words about divided government. since 1981, 1981, there have been more than 25 years in which one party controlled the white house while the other party controlled at least one chamber of the congress. more than 25 years. by comparison, there have been fewer than nine years in which one party controlled both the presidency and all of congress. and so as we can see, divided government has really been the norm. and unified government, single-party government, the exception. the truth is, i suspect turn really like -- the american people really like divided government because they realize it's another layer of checks and

balances on what happens up here in washington, d.c. which are really, really important to making sure we get things done right and give at this time kind of deliberation and thoughtful consideration that they deserve, particularly if you're talking about legislating for a country of 320 million people or so. and it also forces us to do something maybe that isn't our first instinct, that is -- instinct, it forces us to build consensus, which is actually a good thing when you're talking about the american people. so what has it given us in the recent past? it's given us a republican president and a democratic house that worked together on social security reform in 1983 and tax reform in 1986. several years ago, it was another republican president and a fully democratic congress that worked together on landmark disability and environmental laws. in the mid 1990's it was a

democratic president and a republican congress that worked together on welfare reform and balanced the budget. this is what can happen when you have divided government when have you a willingness of the president and the congress to work together to try to solve problems. you can actually do hard things, things that you could never do with a purely one-party government or the other. and then in 2001 as a republican president and a democratic senate that worked together on education reform. no child left behind. i still remember when former governor bush, then-president bush, the 43rd president, worked together with teddy kennedy, a liberal lion of the senate on negotiate and it raised more than a few eyebrows back home in texas but that demonstrated what can happen when one side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle try

to work together in the best interest of the american people. so here is the short of it. divided government does not translate into gridlock. it doesn't have to. it can, but dint have to. we -- doesn't have to. we actually have another choice. each of the four presidents who came directly before president obama found it possible to sign major bipartisan legislation despite having serious philosophical differences with members of the opposing party. i remember a conversation i had recently with one of my colleagues who just was reelected to the united states senate and he is let's just say from the other end of the political spectrum than me. and he made the obvious point, he said i'm not going to change who i am, i'm not going to change what i believe in, but i am going to look for ways to legislate in the center. and i thought that stated it very well. i'm not going to change who i am as a conservative. i'm not going to do something which i would view to be

unprincipled in order to get an outcome. but i do think that leaves an awful lot of room for us to work together to try to legislate in the center. and my impression is from the presiding officer and others i've talked to and chatted with and seen their reported comments, there's a big appetite, there's a big appetite on both sides of the aisle to make this place work again. and i think if there's a single message that i heard from november 4 in this last election is that people do not want their government to not function. now, they may want it to function more or less on some areas and not the others but they don't want it to be dysfunctional. and indeed, that makes pretty common sense. well, what remains an open question is what the president -- what path the president is going to choose, whether he's actually going to work with republican majorities in the house and the senate.

i was somewhat encouraged the president had a meeting with the incoming majority leader, senator mcconnell, and they talked about, it was reported to me they talked about things that they thought they could work on together. but we've sort of been led down this pathway before with, you know, happy talk and then the actions did not follow the rhetoric. unfortunately, i think the president started off on a bad foot offer that election on november 4 by issuing this executive action order and i realize it's very controversial and we're all -- can be frustrated at times with the slow pace of actually getting things done around here. but i've expressed myself previously and i'll say it again, the president i think made a very serious mistake in doing it the way he did it. number one, i don't think he has the authority to do it, something he himself said he didn't have 22 different times

in published comments, but it just poisons the well at a time i think there was a lot of hope maybe we could turn this place around. so -- and it's not just my view, it's the view of a number of our democratic colleagues, too. for example, the senior senator from louisiana said after the president's action on immigration, he said we're all frustrated with our broken immigration system but the way forward is not unilateral action by the president. i agree with that comment. her, her sentiments were echoed by the junior senator from indiana who believes president obama should not be making what he called -- quote -- "such significant policy changes on his own." the senior senator from missouri said similarly how this is coming about makes me uncomfortable and i think it's probably makes more missourians uncomfortable. the reason they fay uncomfortable is that the president's executive order

represents a direct affront to the constitutional separation of powers, even if you agree on the substance of what did he, which itself is controversial, how he did it was a direct affront to our constitution and the separation of powers. and you know what, it's unsustainable. what happened is it provokes a response from congress when it feels left out and, in fact, the president is going to need congress to work with him to fix our broken immigration system because congress remains the poes isor of the purse. and then the senator from main put it this way. "the framers knew what they were doing. it's not as if the president gets to do what he wants and act, as if he knows what's good for the country on his own." so this is not