quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i ask consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: mr. president, i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. alexander: mr. president, within a few minutes, we will be voting for the fourth time on cloture on the bill. this time i expect it to pass. the cotton amendment has been disposed of. following that, if it's successful, senator feinstein and i have recommended to the majority leader and the democratic leader that we move to a vote on the cardin and fischer amendments. at 60 votes, a voice vote on the flake amendment. then all that would be remaining would be a final cloture vote which may or may not be necessary and final passage. none of those votes have been agreed to yet, and we'll let senators know when they are, but in the opinion of the bill managers, we're ready to finish the bill and we thank senators for their cooperation to get us to this point. mr. alexander: i notice the

absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: mr. president, on behalf of the senator from arkansas, senator cotton, i withdraw the cotton amendment. the presiding officer: the amendment is withdrawn. 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 senate amendment numbered 3801 to calendar number 96, h.r. 2028, an act making appropriations for energy and

water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes, 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 amendment number 3801 offered by the senator from tennessee, mr. alexander, as amended, to h.r. 2028 shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 97. the nays are 2. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i'm glad to see that enthusiastic vote of support on the cloture motion on our fourth try.

we gain a little bit every time. there will be two votes at 4:30, for the information of senators, on the cardin and fischer amendments. and at 60 votes each. and i will now ask consent that it be in order to call up the following amendments and that they be reported by number: cardin 3871, fischer 3888, flake 3876. further that the time until 4:30 be equally divided between the managers or their designees for debate on the amendments concurrently and that following the use or yielding back of time the senate vote on the cardin and fischer amendments in the order listed with a 60 affirmative vote threshold for adoption for amendments 3871 and 3888. i further ask that there be no second-degree amendments in order to any of these amendments.

thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: ratepayer -p r the amendments be amendments by number. the clerk: the senator from tennessee, mr. alexander, proposes amendments numbered 3871, 3888 and 3876. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. barrasso: i come to the floor to talk about the threat that the zika virus poses, a threat to the health of americans and to people around the world. every day we learn more about this virus. the centers for disease control and prevention confirmed a link between zika and mike cephaly. that's -- microcephaly, a

condition where babies are born with smaller heads and with brain defects. it's a devastating problem that we are all facing. studies have linked zika to something called guillain-barre, something i studied in medical school, seen patients with. it can lead to paralysis, another very serious condition. last week the centers for disease control also confirmed the first zika-related death in puerto rico. because this virus is mostly spread by mosquitoes, the potential risk is going to only become more urgent as the weather turns warmer. so we must do what we can now, today, before this turns into a true epidemic from the threat that it is today. america's drug companies and researchers need to continue working on treatments, on tests, and on vaccines. our cities, our towns need to start taking aggressive measures for controlling mosquitoes.

doctors can help to educate people who are at risk of contracting the disease, this virus, but we really do need all hands on deck. so washington has an important part to play. and republicans in the senate are ready to address this issue. now, congress has already passed legislation that adds zika to what's called the priority review voucher program. this program awards financial incentives to the sponsor of a new drug that's approved to prevent or treat a tropical disease. that's a good way that congress can help to speed up the research process in dealing with zika. congress has also approved the transfer of nearly $600 million in existing unobligated funds for an immediate zika response, so the money has already been moved to help. we can also make a big difference by cutting through red tape, and there is significant red tape in this city that actually makes it

harder to kill mosquitoes that carry this virus. you would think you'd want to make it easier to kill the mosquitoes, but there is red tape in washington, d.c., bureaucrats making it harder to kill the virus, to kill the mosquitoes that carry the virus. today, hard to believe there are requirements for permits that i think are absolutely unnecessary and they make it more difficult and more expensive to spray for mosquitoes in the united states. so if a farmer or a rancher or a city, a community wants to spray for mosquitoes, they have to use a pesticide that's been approved by the environmental protection agency. that's one. so a lot of cases people who want to spray for mosquitoes, they also have to get a separate permit under the clean water act. that's two. two steps. one to get the permit to spray and two to get the e.p.a.

approval of what they're going to spray with. this doesn't add any benefit to the environment, and it certainly doesn't help protect anybody from the zika virus. but it's washington getting in the way. it adds another hoop for people to jump through before they can get rid of the mosquitoes that carry the zika virus. now, senator mike crapo from idaho, he's written legislation that would eliminate this second unnecessary requirement. it's not saying that anyone can go out and spray whatever they want. the pesticides would still have to be approved so that we know that they're safe. but the legislation says that we don't need this second permitting process that washington demands. it's a commonsense change. it's the kind of thing that we could do to help local officials on the ground make the best decisions about how they can fight these mosquitoes and this virus in their communities in the places that they know the

best and do it quickly. senator crapo's bill has 18 cosponsors and i'm proud tor one of them. this bipartisan bill has bipartisan support. it's already passed the environment and public works committee. we should take up this bill and pass it and get these tools h into people's hands as quickly as possible. now, i know that there are some americans, and what we can do to help in this fight against zika and people understand this, it's going to require us to spend money. and i support that. that's why the appropriations committee is looking at the need for additional funding, additional spending to address this threat. regular appropriations bills are the best way for us to carefully look at where the priorities are for spending the taxpayers' dollars. that's how we should be paying for things around here, not just another continuing resolution or some emergency measure when

something new comes up. we can look at it, figure out how to balance the cost and if we have to do an emergency bill to get some money out the door more quickly, well, we can take a look at that as well. but what we can't do, we can't do without at least having a plan from the administration on where and how this money that they're requesting is going to be spent. the obama administration has not yet given us the level of information that we need to make an informed decision. it appears that the administration is trying to take advantage of this zika emergency to give itself an additional $2 billion to use however it wants. maybe to fight zika, but maybe to do other things. now what the administration is saying is that they want the money to be used for -- this is a quote -- "for assistance or research to prevent, treat or otherwise respond to zika virus

or other infectious diseases." the wording is much too vague. it would allow the administration to use these emergency funds on other priorities well beyond the zika response. the president's request for emergency funding goes on to say that most of the money, they say, could be transferred to other parts of the government, like the environmental protection agency, and even the department of defense. it includes a lot of expenses that don't necessarily qualify as emergency spending outside the regular appropriations process. both sides of the aisle know the zika situation is serious and both sides want to do what we can to help. congress also has an obligation to make sure that our taxpayer dollars are being spent responsibly, that there is accountability. we shouldn't be writing a big check for the obama administration to cash without adequate explanation and adequate accountability.

we deserve that. the american people deserve it. they expect it, and they deserve it. i want to be clear, zika is a very real public health threat and it deserves serious discussion. it deserves urgent action. this fight against zika virus should not be turned into a political game. so i think it's a terrible sign that some democrats in the senate have begun to treat this devastating health issue like just another political talking point. that's what they've done on the floor of the senate. they held a press conference calling on congress to approve emergency funds for zika. then the same democrats turned around and blocked passage of the energy and water appropriations bill for a number of days. the appropriations process is the best way for us to fund the zika response and the senate democrats are holding up this process for political purposes. we need to get moving beyond

this appropriations bill to the next one that's going to address the issue of zika and to hear that the minority leader might want to wait until next week to get on this bill, we need to get on this bill now. so the democrats have made it clear that they don't even want to talk about offsetting any of the zika funding. the obama administration continues to stonewall our reasonable requests for adequate information about how it wants to spend these taxpayer dollars. well, senate republicans are going to keep asking for this information. we're going to keep pushing to use the appropriations process the way it's intended. and we are committed as republicans to addressing the public health threat posed by the zika virus. we'll continue working across the aisle to respond to the threat and to do it in a way that is reasonable, responsible, and accountable. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

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

quorum call:

mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call, senator.

mrs. murray: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to lift the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you. madam president, i come to the senate floor today to once again urge my republican colleagues to listen to the vast majority of the people across the country, do their job and allow us to do ours. fulfill our constitutional responsibility, hold a hearing for judge merrick garland and give him a vote. we owe that to the people we represent and it is simply the right thing to do. two months ago the president did his job. he selected a nominee. for two months judge garland has been ready and willing to meet with any senator who will make the time. yesterday judge garland did his job by submitting a questionnaire to the senate judiciary committee outlining his background and his work history, which is standard for judicial nominees. what about the senate?

in complete disregard of what so many members continue to hear in their home states across the country, republican leaders are refusing to act. senate republicans won't say they are opposed to judge garland. they're refusing to even live up to their constitutional responsibility and consider him. this kind of pure obstruction and partisanship is so wrong, people across the country are not going to stand for it. we are now at an unbelievable 88 days into this supreme court vacancy, and especially after knowing what i do after meeting with judge garland and what many republicans know after meeting with him as well, his distinguished career and work history show he is without a doubt someone who deserves fair consideration by all of us here in the senate. judge garland led a massive investigation of the oklahoma city bombing and supervised the prosecution of timothy mcveigh.

he called his work for the justice department following the oklahoma city bombing the most important thing he has ever done in his life. his fairness and diligence earned him praise from members of both parties, from victims' families and law enforcement officers and even from the lead lawyer who was defending mcveigh. as the prosecutor, he ensured proper respect for the rights of criminal defendants, and he was confirmed to the d.c. circuit court of appeals in 1997 with a strong bipartisan vote of 76-23. and several of those, by the way, who confirmed him in 1997 still serve in the senate here today. clearly this is less about judge merrick garland as a nominee and more about political obstruction and partisanship, especially after one republican senator admitted if it looks like donald

trump will lose the november election, we should quickly confirm judge garland, and that comes after weeks of saying the senate should not do its job until we have a new president. mr. president, evaluating and confirming supreme court justices is one of the most important roles we have here in the united states senate. i have heard from people all over my state of washington who want the senate to do its job. so if republicans continue to refuse to do their jobs, they aren't saying that the people should decide. they are saying they believe the republican presidential nominee should, and that is just wrong, especially after we heard from the presumptive republican nominee last night on fox news. he said recently that he thinks women should be punished for exercising their constitutionally protected reproductive rights. and last night he went a step further. he promised he would only appoint -- quote -- pro-life justices who would overturn roe

v. wade. let me repeat that. the candidate republicans would like to see in the white house nominating supreme court justices has committed to taking our country back to the dark ages. that's appalling, and it's something that i know millions of women and men across the country are scared of, and it's just one more reason that people will continue demanding senate republicans do their jobs now. washington state families should have a voice right now. families across america should have a voice right now. and the tea party gridlock and dysfunction that has dominated too much of our time and work here in congress should be pushed aside right now. so, mr. president, i hope republicans will reconsider. i hope they will meet with judge garland, hold a hearing, give him a vote. we need nine justices serving on the highest court in the land. the american people deserve a fully functioning supreme court. thank you, mr. president.

i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection.

mrs. boxer: thank you, mr. prest. i come here to talk about a very important responsibility that the united states senate has to deal with in an expeditious manner a supreme court nomination. mr. president, in a practice consistent with every single supreme court nominee before him, president obama's nominee to fill the vacant seat, judge merrick garland, submitted his completed questionnaire yesterday to the senate judiciary committee. inside six boxes were 141 pages with 2,066 pages of appendices in which judge garland provided incredibly thorough answers to the standard question asked of every supreme court candidate. he detailed the highlights of his career, his published

writings, the many honors and awards he received, the cases he litigated, the judicial opinions he gave as well as his speeches and his interviews. despite the fact that senate republicans have forced judge garland into an unprecedented limbo, he remains focused on the task before him. he acted with the greatest decency, thoughtfulness and bipartisanship while agreeing to meet with 46 senators, including 14 republicans. judge garland respects the process. why can't senate republicans? president obama clearly respected the process when he picked judge garland, who as chief judge of the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia, the second most

important court in the country, has more federal judicial experience than any other supreme court nominee in history. let me repeat that. judge garland, the nominee from our president who was duly elected not once but twice. that nominee has more federal judicial experience than any other supreme court nominee in history. judge garland has committed much of his life to public service. from his days leading the successful prosecutions of the oklahoma city bombers and unabomber to his nearly two decades as a federal appellate judge. he is brilliant. he is evenhanded. the congressional research service called him pragmatic and meticulous, a nominee who

prioritizes collaboration over ideological rigidity. let me repeat that. a nominee who prioritizes collaboration over ideological rigidity. and he has received high praise from some republican senators, and that praise deserves repeated. senator lindsey graham said he's honest, capable and his reputation is beyond reproach. senator lindsey graham. senator jim inhofe, the chairman of the committee on which i serve as ranking member, said he's an impressive guy. senator jeff flake said nobody has said a bad thing about him. yet in the same breath, these are some of the very same republicans who refuse to hold a hearing and schedule a vote on

judge garland's nomination. even though article 2, section 2, clause 2 of the constitution says it is the senate's job to provide advice and consent on the president's supreme court nominees. i want to read -- you know, here's the thing that gets me, mr. president. my republican frie -- friends say they care about the constitution. they love the constitution. they abide by the constitution. they want a literal reading of the constitution. well let's read it. together. article 2, section 2, clause 2, the president shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the senate shall appoint judges of the supreme court. it doesn't say the president may. it says the president shall

nominate. it doesn't say that the senate may give advice and consent. it says they shall with the advice and consent of the senate. the president shall and by and with the advice and consent of the senate. they also shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls and judges of the supreme court. so here it is. this clause wasn't put in some bottle and it washed up on the shore miraculously and said this is what our founding fathers wanted. it's in the constitution. it doesn't say may. it doesn't say to the senate, and by the way, p.s., if you don't like the president, forget it. no, no, no, it's not in there.

i looked. it doesn't say, well, if you think a president isn't a good president and you think you're going to get a better one, you can put it off. no, it doesn't say it. the american people have three words for the republicans who are disrespecting this process, disrespecting our constitution, disrespecting our president, and threatening to create a manmade crisis at the supreme court. and it's a crisis. if they deadlock, it's a crisis. you're going to have one set of laws in one part of the country, one set of the laws in the other part of the country. or you're not going to have a ruling on a very important issue. it doesn't matter what your ideology is. you're setting up deadlock. it's bad enough there's obstruction here, and i know my friend, senator from illinois, will talk about the obstruction when it comes to judges and

ambassadors and the like. we face it every day. that's bad enough. but the highest court in the land governed by this constitution, it doesn't say prchlts s., look at -- p.s., look at the other side of the paper. you really don't have to act. and the american people are saying across party lines three words to my republican friends "do your job." do your job. and you know, since 1916, when the senate judiciary committee began holding public confirmation hearings for supreme court nominees, the senate has never denied a supreme court nominee a hearing and a vote. let me say that again. since 1916, the senate has never denied a supreme court nominee a hearing and a vote. the democrats never did it. the republicans never did it until now.

and from the very people who, oh, i carry the constitution in my heart, i'm a strict constructionist. if you're such a strict constructionist, read this and follow the constitution. i understand, and i'm not sure -- i think i read this that somebody is either thinking of filing a lawsuit or they have filed a lawsuit because of inaction. i'll tell you, if i wasn't here, i would truly think about that. you can't read this constitution and come up with any other conclusion that what they're doing is unconstitutional. the very same people who say follow the constitution. so in closing, which is where my friend was waiting for, here's what i want to say. our republican friends have got to rethink their obstructionist approach because they're going to do lasting damage to two of our country's most important

institutions. the united states senate and the supreme court. i know they love their country. i know they love their country. i know they may not like this nominee, even though a lot of them seem to like him quite a bit, and maybe they're waiting for donald trump to put someone up, and i hope that never happens. but i'm going to tell you now, you're obstructing. you're obstructing the will of the people. you're obstructing a president who was elected twice. you're obstructing justice for the american people. and they all hate what you're doing, including the republicans that we've seen polled. you have to end the political games. it's time to give judge garland the same consideration as every other nominee before him. it's time to bring some respect

back to the senate and to the supreme court nomination process. and the american people are going to hold you accountable for this because you cannot do this. this is not right. you want to vote against a nominee? i've done it. of course, vote against a nominee. but as much as i opposed nomin nominees before and i have, i have never suggested nor has any other democrat i know ever suggested that you don't go forward with the process. so thank you, mr. president. and i would yield the floor and note that my friend from illinois is going to address us. dush thank you. -- mr. durbin. thank you. could you tell us the order of business. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is recognized. the senate is post cloture on amendment number 3801. mr. durbin: there are no time limits agreed to? the presiding officer: the time is evenly divided until 4:30 p.m. mr. durbin: thank you very much, mr. president.

mr. president, executive calendar is sitting here on the tables for each of the members of the senate to take a look at it. i've renamed it. it's no longer the executive calendar. it's the political obituaries because these are men and women who have been nominated for positions to serve in our government excited about the opportunity to be public servants. many of them have gone through extensive background checks, f.b.i. checks, staff have taken a look at their resumes, asked hard questions, demanded their answers, put these nominees through hearings, and many of them went through extensive periods of investigation and hearings, and then they were reported, 20 of them, 20 individuals reported by the senate judiciary committee to the floor of the united states were they controversial? no. all 20 came to the floor by unanimous vote. think about it. here is a senate divided 54 republicans and 46 democrats, 20

judicial nominees made it through what i just described to the executive calendar of the united states senate, wednesday, may 11, 2016, and there they sit. day after weary day, month after weary month thinking they might have a chance to serve this nation but realizing that the clock is running out. what do i mean by that? in this congress we've approved 17 judges, two circuit judges. those at the palate level -- appellate level. 13 at the district level. 20 still sit on the calendar. across the united states we have 87 judicial vacancies, including 29 in districts that we think are in serious trouble if they aren't filled quickly. the republican majority in the united states senate puts these men and women through this process, reports them out of committee, and then lets them languish on the floor of the senate. they will not call them for a vote. what are they waiting for? well, it's a political decision.

here's what it comes down to. there's an unwritten rule you won't find it in our rule book called the therman rule. it relates to senator strom thurman of south carolina. he must have articulated this at some point in his career. but he said, when it comes to an election year like this one, we will stop approving nominations as of the beginning of the political conventions. well, in this year, that's going to be about the middle of july. so if you do the countdown of when we're in session, we have probably five, six weeks left to consider nominations before they die under the unwritten thurman rule. so what the republicans are doing is running out the clock on these 20 people. we shouldn't be surprised. if they would do this on a nomination to fill a vacancy on the highest court of the land, it shouldn't surprise us that they would do the same thing when it comes to these 20 nominees. what are they waiting for? why don't they want to approve

these judges? noncontroversial judges. they are waiting in prayerful reflection for the election of donald trump as president. mr. president, you know that many people in your party have mixed feelings about the candidacy of mr. donald trump, but i would say stepping aside from the merits of his candidacy, we shouldn't have mixed feelings when it comes to the constitution. and the constitution is explic explicit. explicit when it comes to vacancies on the supreme court. the constitution quoted minutes ago by my colleague from california in article 2, section 2, the founding fathers didn't mince words or eqirve indicate. they said the president shall appoint nominees to fill vacancies on the supreme court subject to the advice and consent of the senate. we both have a role. the president is required by the constitution to appoint someone

to fill at vacancy. three months ago the untimely passing of justice antonin scalia created that vacancy. to months ago, 56 days, president obama nominated merrick garland to be the next justice on the supreme court. the president met his constitutional responsibility, but the republicans in the senate announced hours after justice scalia was found to have passed away that they would not even consider a nominee by this president to fill that vacancy, not a hearing, not a vote. you say to yourself, well, that's politics in washington. should we expect anything different? should we expect a republican senate to approve a nominee from a democrat? come on. this is hardball here. this isn't bean bag. well, let me tell you a little story.

1988, republican president ronald reagan with a vacancy on the supreme court, president reagan in his last year in office nominated anthony kennedy to fill that vacancy on the supreme court, sent the nominee to this chamber in the senate. when it was controlled by the democratic side. what did the democratic majority say to the republican president trying to fill the supreme court vacancy? we know our responsibility, and that senate under the control of the democrats took up the name offered by the republican president, approved him and sent him to the supreme court, 1988. so to argue that this is just typical politics, don't make a lot of noise, we do this all the time, let me make it clear. what the republican senate majority is doing today has never -- underline that word "never" -- happened in the history of the united states of america. this is disrespect for a constitutional provision which is explicit. this is disrespect for a court

which now sits with eight members on the court, a court which could find itself and already has in several instances tied 4-4. how important is it? let me read a you quote back in 1987. every day that passes with the supreme court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body. who made that statement? president ronald reagan, republican president ronald reagan. what he said then applies now. what the republican majority is doing in the senate, refusing merrick garland a hearing and a vote, holding up 20 nominees on the calendar who should be on the federal bench is obstructionism at its worst. its a he what the people are sick of across this country. it is disrespect for the constitution. it is obstructionism. it is pure politics.

why? why are they so determined to keep this vacancy? some of them, as i said, are dreaming of the possibility of a president trump picking the next justice on the supreme court. i'll let your mind race away with the possibilities if the donald is going to choose the next justice on the supreme court. but others really bring it down to a much more basic level. there are special interest groups that want to make sure the next justice on the supreme court is their friend. they don't want to run the risk that someone is going to be put on the court who won't rule in their favor. and so they're praying their political prayer, hang on, hang on, senate republicans. take the grief that two-thirds of the american people think you're wrong what you're doing and be prepared to accept that grief if you want the support of these special interest groups. that's what it comes down to. it's the sad reality of politics in washington today. and i will tell you there's blame for both sides on many issues, but on this one there is

crystal clear clarity. the president has met his constitutional responsibility. the senate republican leaders for the first time in the history of the united states of america are denying a supreme court nominee a hearing and a vote. that is fundamentally wrong under the constitution and fundamentally unfair to merrick garland. merrick garland was born in illinois, so maybe i'm partial to him a little bit, but he has quite a record. he has been touted as one of the best nominees in terms of qualifications. he is now the chief justice of the u.s. district court, right below the supreme court. that's a big job. he's the man for it. according to people from both political parties. the solicitors general of the united states of america just sent a letter to the congress, to the senate. nine of them signed, democrats and republican. men who have argued before the supreme court representing the united states of america. attorneys w