a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to address the issue of vacancies on the federal bench in the commonwealth of pennsylvania. you know, mr. president, through the five and a half years that i have been in the senate, i have sought to find common ground with my colleagues on both sides of this aisle, with considerable success and sometimes we continue to search for that success. but whether it's legislation to prevent pedophiles from infiltrating our classrooms or working to fight this terrible scourge of opioid abuse and overdoses in pennsylvania to trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerously mentally ill. but one of the accomplishments about which i am most proud is the work that i have done with senator casey to fill vacancies as they have occurred on the federal bench in pennsylvania. senator casey and i have

developed a fairly elaborate process. we are blessed to have very talented men and women who have volunteered their time and energy and expertise to help us identify and vet candidates when a vacancy occurs, to recommend those candidates, to begin a process by which we could get some of the best and brightest people in pennsylvania who are able and willing to serve on the federal bench to do exactly that, and using this process, senator casey and i have gotten together, we have agreed, we have recommended to the president, the president has then nominated, and this senate has confirmed 16 men and women to the federal bench in pennsylvania. 14 are district court judges, two circuit court judges, and there are only two states in the union that have confirmed more federal judges in this period of time, and those are the very large states of california and new york which have had considerably more vacancies. this makes a difference for the people of pennsylvania.

for instance, because senator casey and i have cooperated this way, we have been able to fill courthouses, federal courthouses that have sat vacant where people do not have convenient access to justice in the city of redding, the city of williamsport, in easton, vacant courthouses that are no longer vacant because through our work, we have now federal judges sitting and hearing cases and trying cases and providing justice in those communities. but despite what's been a very successful record so far, we have got more work to be done. we have vacancies in pennsylvania now. as a matter of fact, there are currently four district court nominations, district court nominations for pennsylvania that are pending in the senate. two are still be reviewed by the judiciary committee and two have been approved by the committee. they have had their hearing, they have had their markup, they have voted, they have been successfully reported out of committee, and they are on the executive calendar.

now, for some time, senator casey and i have been working to get these -- all four of these nominees through the process confirmed, and i strongly believe that all four should be confirmed. but today i want to focus in particular on two, and those are the two that have already been successfully reported out of committee. they are now listed on the executive calendar, and these are vacancies that are especially concerning to me because in one case the federal courthouse in erie, pennsylvania, the fourth biggest city in pennsylvania has a vacant courthouse. it's vacant. it has been vacant for almost three years, for almost three years there has been no federal judge able to hear cases. and so the people in erie and the surrounding counties are have very -- have very long travel. they have to go all the way down to pittsburgh or take a very long drive to get to another federal courthouse, and that's

not right. that's not right for the people of erie, it's not right for the people of northwestern pennsylvania generally. we have another district judgeship in the western district of pennsylvania that likewise has been vacant for almost three years. here's the thing, mr. president, i want to stress. the two judges i'm talking about, the two nominees for these judgeships would fill judgeships that have been vacant far longer than any other pending on the executive calendar. there are other nominees pending on the executive calendar. i get that. there is people who want to confirm every one of them. i understand that. but no vacancies have been outstanding for as long as these two vacancies, for which we have two qualified candidates who have been successfully reported out of committee, and they are very well qualified nominees. in fact, i want to talk briefly about each of them. susan baxter is one.

she has 43 years of legal experience, including over 23 years serving as a federal magistrate judge, over a decade as a practicing lawyer, both public and private sectors. she spent three years as a teacher. she has completed her education at two of pennsylvania's very impressive schools, getting her law degree from temple and her undergrad from penn state. and judge baxter has agreed to sit in the erie courthouse which would alleviate this problem of a vacant courthouse in the city of erie. marilyn horan is the other judge. judge horan likewise extensive legal experience for 37 years, 20 of those years as a judge in the pennsylvania court of common pleas in butler county, pennsylvania, 17 years as a practicing lawyer, including 14 as a partner in a law firm. judge horan likewise attended two terrific pennsylvania schools, got her law degree from the pittsburgh school of law and undergrad from penn state. there is no question in my mind both of these women will make

outstanding additions to the federal bench in pennsylvania, and i believe that the seats that they will fill if they are confirmed by the senate have been vacant too long. three years is just far too long. now, yesterday my colleague from pennsylvania, senator casey, made a consent request for these two pennsylvania judges but also nine others, for a total of 11. now, i was not on the senate floor at the time. had i been, i would have voiced my support for that request, and i would have agreed to that vote. now, unfortunately, leader mcconnell disagreed and raised an objection, and so we find ourselves stuck at zero. we have nobody pending for a confirmation. we have our colleagues on the other side saying let's have 11 judges confirmed. i am suggesting a slightly different course, mr. president. how about we try a step in the right direction. how about we vote on these two,

two judges. two of the 11. it's not the entire slate but it's not zero. they are the two judges who would fill the vacancies that have been vacant the longest. these women represent real bipartisan cooperation. one was initially suggested to the president by senator casey, the other by me. one is a democrat, the other is a republican. and the other seats have had vacancies for far shorter periods of time. so, mr. president, i think this would be progress. if we could simply agree to have a vote on these two nominees, and then let's see where we go from there, but let's get off this all or nothing, zero or 11 situation, and let's confirm the two judges who would fill the vacancies that have lasted the longest. and so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations -- calendar number 460 and 461 en

bloc, that the senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate, that if confirmed the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session without any intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: reserving the right to object, on the executive calendar, there is a queue of judges who have come out of the judiciary committee and are ready for floor action. by my count, along that queue, the two pennsylvania judges that my distinguished colleague refers to are numbers nine and ten. senator jack reed and my rhode island judge is number eight. we would very much like to enter into an agreement where these

judges start to be moved in regular order, as we often say we like around here, through the queue, as is the tradition here in the senate, so that we can get them all cleared. and senator casey, the senior senator from pennsylvania, as the junior senator mentioned, came here yesterday to move a larger bloc, and i would not object to this request if it were amended to include all ten of those judges. on the executive calendar, down to and including the two pennsylvania judges to whom my distinguished colleague refers. that would be calendar numbers 307, 357, 358, 362, 364, 364, the all-important 459 from rhode island and 460 and 461. so if t

-- the senator from pennsylvania would amend his unanimous consent to accommodate that, then i would not object. the presiding officer: will the senator so modify the request? the majority leader? mr. mcconnell: i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. whitehouse: parliamentary question. i'm not sure whether the majority leader's objection was to senator toomey's unanimous consent or to my attempt to modify it. if it was to the former, then we're moot and this conversation is concluded. if not, then i will object if i cannot get the regular order for the judges ahead. the presiding officer: the objection is heard on the modification. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, it's my understanding what i intended to do is to object to the modification offered by the distinguished senator from rhode island. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. whitehouse: with that clarification i must regrettably then object to the unanimous consent propounded by the junior senator from pennsylvania. but i do hope very much we can

find a way to work towards getting these judges confirmed. these are judges who came out of the judiciary committee which is a fairly contentious committee unanimously. so if we can't move them and their district judges, if we can't move them, then i subject the senate is really not working the way that it ought to and i very much hop we can get to a -- hope we can get to a place where we can move them all. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. whitehouse: thank you. mr. mcconnell: president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: it bears repeating what i've said the past few days if you look at the barack obama years, he will ultimately have eight years in the white house and the george w. bush eight years in the white house. and you draw a line at this point in their presidencies, brack has gotten 23 more lifetime appointments, federal judges than george w. bush did during the same period. so by my objective standard,

president obama has been treated more than fairly during that course of his presidency, much more fairly, frankly, than george w. bush was treated during the same period of his presidency. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania tomb first, mr. president, i just want to make it clear that i did not -- mr. toomey: first, mr. president, i just want to make it clear i did not have an objection made by the senator from rhode island. think senator mcconnell makes a valid point about judicial vacancies that have occurred under president obama, but where we disagree is i think right before us, we have excellent candidates who have been vetted by both sides. they have been chosen by both sides. they have come through the process. they've had their hearings. they've been reported out by the committee. and it does not serve the people of the commonwealth of pennsylvania to have to continue

to wait. so i am not finished in this effort stymied today and i must say i'm disappointed that my friends on the other side can't agree to make some progress. it is not as though i am, for instance, asking that only republican judges be confirmed or only judges who are chosen by republicans. i'm not asking that. we have a democrat and a republican chosen by my democratic colleague and myself, and i understand that they are not in the sequence that is traditionally dealt with but we're at an impasse here. and they are the two judges who would fill the vacancies that have lasted the longest through know fault of their own. so i'm just trying to find a way to get somewhere between zero and 11 neither of which is acceptable. so this is a very frustrating and disappointing moment, mr. president. but i'm not going to give up trying. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: let me only add to what the distinguished senator from pennsylvania has said by noting first that the

impasse to which he refers is created by his own leadership who refuse to bring up judges that have come out of the judiciary committee unanimously. so there is a problem here. it is one that can be solved within the republican caucus. we can't very much help with that, but we hope that a solution comes. the second point is that the question i think here should not be viewed only as whether the president is being treated fairly but there are constituents that we have at home. there are vacancies on federal courts. it's our responsibility to provide advice and consent. and we have a duty of fairness to the constituents who have empty seats in court rooms, and we have a duty of fairness to the candidates, the nominees who have put their lives on hold with the expectation that they would be treated fairly by the united states senate. that's our job to treat nominees fairly and to see to our

constituents' needs. it is not just a question of numbers and who is president. so with that i will yield the floor and i appreciate the persistence of my -- both colleagues from pennsylvania and i'm sure we'll continue to do this on the floor until we make some headway. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: mr. president, today it's an excellent day if students across the country who are taking out student college loans. for the upcoming school year, the treasury auctions just took place on ten-year notes. some folks might ask, what's the connection with student loans and treasury notes. well, three years ago senator alexander, myself, center manchin, king and others said

something very simple. we're going to get politicians out of the business of setting student loan rates and we're going to let the marketplace do it. so that was a wise decision. as the law we passed the bipartisan student loan certainty act has saved since 2013, $36 billion to students taking out loans than their parents. and we'll save another $10 billion this year. that means that 200,000 north carolinians, students and their parents are saving even more on student loans. those 200,000 north carolinians take out about $500 million in student loans to attend universities and colleges because this law -- because of this law they've been saving and this year because of today's treasury auction, they're going

to save even more. about $1.1 billion across my state alone because of the reduction in the treasury note from a little over 4% on the ten-year to i think 3.7 or 3.76 today. congressional research service tells us that about $4500 less will be paid out for a four-year degree. i hold this us because i think this is -- this up because i think this is indicative of where we are this year. the lowest student loan rates since the year 2004. now, i know that this is a debate not only within the body of the senate and the house, but also on the campaign trail for our presidential candidates. you see, prior to 2013, interest rates had been written into law by politicians and were essentially set at 6.8%.

i'm not sure that the president was here then but many of us looked at it and said this is insane. for the protection of america's taxpayers, it ought to be tied to some financial instrument. so we tied it to the ten-year bond. and since that point, taxpayers, specifically students and their parents, have saved $36 billion because we decoupled it from the political process here. in fact, those interest rates have dropped significantly just since last year. 4.29% to 3.76% today. that means about $40 more per month in the average graduate's pocket. it means $45 mun more over-- $4500 more overall in save costs. what would have happened if we hadn't come together to pass this law? student woos have shelled out

another $46 billion in student loan interest participates -- interest payments. this is one thing that congress can hold up and highlight the fact that we did something responsible. for those that claim we haven't done anything about the high cost of student loans, let me suggest to you we've done a lot. we've saved parents and students $46 billion. we probably could save them more than that if in fact we didn't divert some of the proceeds that the government gets off of student loans to the affordable care act by $2 billion a year. listen, we ran into significant pushback from several members of this body. in fact, 18 members of this body, mostly from the other party, opposed this law. the junior center from have the -- senator from vermont called it a disaster for our young people in our country looking to go to college. this law was also vocally opposed by the senior senator from massachusetts but today demonstrates shortsightedness

that was displayed then. today because of what we did in a bipartisan fashion passed by this body parents and students have saved $46 billion, and in north carolina this next year it's projected they will save another $1.1 billion in interest payments on their student loans. this is a day that congress can be proud of because we've done something good for the american people. with that i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. a senator: mr. president, i want to congratulate the senator from north carolina. mr. alexander: he was the leader in 2013 along with senator manchin, senator colburn who was here at the time, i was a little bit involved at the time, senator angus king from maine and we worked with the president and we worked with the house. and the senator is exactly

right. the decision that senator burr and others made persuading this congress, working with the president in 2013 to take the student loan interest rate out of politics and tie it to a certain rate, today reduces the rate by one half percent for nearly 6.4 million students and saves millions and millions and millions of dollars on student loans. so there's a lot of talk about student loans and the cost of them. some people don't look at all aspects of them. in tennessee i would say to the senator from north carolina the independent colleges and universities have pointed out to me that the new overtime rule proposed by the labor department would add as much as $850 per student to the cost of tuition at an independent college in

tennessee, all the independent colleges in tennessee which is an outrageous thing to be doing. but here is an example of real leadership, real action, real results by the senator from north carolina, the senator from maine, the senator from west virginia who by their action in 2013 working with the president have reduced the cost of going to college to 6.4 million american students. so a lot of people can talk. some people can get a result. the senator from north carolina, the senator from maine, the senator from west virginia got a result. i thank them for it. and let's give credit where the credit is due. president obama was instrumental in that decision. he worked with senator harkin and with others in helping us come to an agreement. so for those who think that things can't get done, things do get done here and sometimes they help people who would like to have the help. so congratulations to senator

burr for saving millions of dollars to students who are taking out student loans. mr. president, in just a moment we'll have two votes on the energy and water appropriations act. one is first the senator from maryland maryland, senator cardin. second is the senator from nebraska, senator fischer. other than a voice vote on senator flake's vote, those are the last votes on amendments that we have for the energy and water appropriations bill. so as soon as the majority leader and the democratic leader agree that we can schedule the vote on final passage, either later today or tomorrow hopefully, we will have completed for the first time since 2 thousand 9 an -- 2009 a

bill across the senate which every single member of this body has a chance to participate in rather than just having the for members of the appropriations committee and then everybody else being presented with a great big omnibus bill at the end of the year which they really don't have a chance to change. everybody had a chance to weigh in on this, about 80 senators did before it came to the floor. we will have considered about 21 more amendments. it's been a very good process. a couple of bumps, but, you know, this is the united states senate. we deal with the bumps. so i thank senator cardin for his contribution, senator fischer for hers, when we're through with that, we hope to finish the bill. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question owe cuss on amendment 3871, offered by the senator from tennessee, mr. alexander, for the senator from maryland, mr. cardin. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. 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? on this vote, the yeas are 39. the nays are 60. under the previous order requiring of 0 votes -- requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment the amendment is not agreed to. new mexico the question occurs -- under the previous

order, the question occurs on the adoption of the amendment ordered by the senator from nebraska or mrs. fischer. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

he

vote:

vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 47. under the previous order, the amendment is not agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the democratic leader, the senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of calendar number 307, that there be 60

minutes for debate only on the nomination equally divided in the usual form, that upon the use or yielding back of tiernlg the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate, that if confidence, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the president be immediately note nied of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session without any intervening being a or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the sno senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i am pleased to report to the senate on behalf of senator feinstein and myself that basically we're finished with our work on the energy and water aprogressions bill. -- appropriations bill. the final vote, all that remains to be done, that will be set whenever the majority leader and the democratic leader gley it can be. -- agree that it can be. i'll nor say about the bill tomorrow, by i want it thank senators for their cooperation with this. this will be, if we're able to pass it tornlg the first time

we've taken this bill, the energy and water appropriations bill, across the floor in the regular order since 2009. what that means is, every single senator has had a chance to weigh in on it, first in the committee where we received recommendations for policy from 80 or so senators on bodge sides of the aisle -- on both sides of the aisle and we processed another 21 amendments here on the floor. i hope this is a good model for the other 11 appropriations bills would we have, and i was pleased to see that when we voted for the fourth time on whether to end debate on the bill, that the vote was 97-2. i hope that's an indication of what the final vote will be when the leaders set it. i'm confident that senators will vote for it in big numbers because we've had an open and fair process. we've had a full amendment process. almost every senator is

represented in the bill, and many senators have already been home taking credit for what's in the bill, so i hope this'll know vote for what they've been taking credit for when they have an opportunity hopefully to. so we'll twite see when the majority leader and the democratic leader decide to set the vote, but other than the final passage of the bill, completed our work on the energy and water appropriations bill. i thank the senate for the opportunity to do that. mr. cochran: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. cochran: mr. president, i'm encouraged that the senate will soon complete consideration of the energy and water development appropriations bill. this legislation funds important components of our national defense, invests in our waterways add flood control infrastructure and supports a safe and affordable domestic energy supply. i commend the managers of the bill, the senator from tennessee, senator alexander,

and the senior senator from california, senator feinstein. they make a good team. they have been persistent. they have worked diligently to ensure that all senators' interests have been considered in drafting this legislation. i look forward to continued progress on the appropriations bills in the weeks ahead. i yield the floor. mr. alexander: mr. president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i ask consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., thursday, may 12. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. further, that following leader remarks, the senate be in a

period of morning business for one hour equally divided with senators permitted to speak therein. further, that following morning business the senate resume consideration of h.r. 2028. finally, that all time during the adjournment and morning business count postcloture on the alexander substitute 3801. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. alexander: i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate will stand

>> >> >> this book is not about roosevelt with a political spectrum but a call to action and to me is meant to inspire and motivate

americans of every generation what makes american special and that is worth fighting for and some of us carried a rifle and any of this generation still do but you don't have to carry a rifle to be in the arena.

>> >> this sent a shock wave of alarms around the world because the right wing military quickly backed by hitler and mussolini to send arms and mussolini eventually send 1,000 ground troops here was the spanish rate making a grab for power and people all over the world felt it ought to be resisted. if not here, where? otherwise we are next.

>> that secretary we would guess 72 of our delegates to the next president of the united states. [cheers and applause] >> we are back this morningtinci to talk about peace and m.i.t. technology review extinction and invention to

kill off that species could eradicate malaria but is that too risky? that is the question that he poses. let me begin by showing the viewers malaria by the numbers.de to afford a 14 million cases , 430,000 in 90 percent of the debt take place it in tropical africa. 3.2 billion people are rest. what is malaria?aria has >> there is another figure out there that people say it has killed more people in the history of humanity than any other disease it is caused great a single cell parasite spread by a mosquito bite the bite of a female mosquito as the blood

meal they need that to lay their eggs and that is what they bite then it gets into the bloodstream and destroys the massive reproduces to cause the symptoms of malaria and especially in children that can cause death. >>host: how was that they started to spread this sore when they become deadly. >> back in time the parasite probably jumped from apesle of two men dead happened many thousands of years ago so it is the natural life cycle of this parasite it leads a human host to live and thatui is the way it works. >>host: why are so many killed by a hit in africa? we have mosquitos and united states but we are not

fighting malaria here so why is that in tropical africa? andl >> if you look at the heat to map where they are and the climate it would have been bitten the most, there is a bar across sub-saharan africa that is where they are more biting people but also these are some of the poorest countries on earth. they don't have good health systems in the drugs are now reaching people so is of a tragedy of mismanagement i think last your nephew managed to eradicate malaria including morocco but that is at the edge of the area afri. and it is easier push that back then it is in the center so has been pushed

back but it is a problem in africa. >> is it a certain type of mosquito we don't have been united states? >> yes. there 320-0500 types 30 of them spread malaria the biggest problem in africa is a group of closely related mosquitos in indiana and the southeast asia we do have this species of mosquito. >>host: you also begin your piece writing the price tag for eradicating diseases more than 100 million over 15 years you would need bed mats for everyone in millions of gallons of insecticide. even the poorest countries

don't have strong governments or purchasing power and a functioning public health system so malaria keeps killing.ogy that e so that brings us to the new technology. what is it? >> what we wrote about is an old idea that becomes feasible in the last year and a way to spread through a population of mosquitos.nginer where they can genetically engineer the vice they have in front of them but have you change the dna?through repr so that is what it says the spread those changes to the reproduction of mosquitos it is like a locomotive and it pushes through the population you can push anyar gene that you want but the one that people talk about

most are the ones that would kill mosquitos eventually with this particular type that causes malaria to go to the distinction -- extinction. >>host: what is behindseattl this technology? >> is the bill and melendez gates foundation in seattle from microsoft founder bill gates. he and his foundation of and running this a little over 10 years they spent about $44 million which is not a lot from their perspective but this is the most developed program out of london with the imperial college it is a big program to develop to have concrete plans to release them. >>st