[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5965-5968]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF WANDA FELTON TO BE FIRST VICE PRESIDENT OF THE EXPORT-
                    IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Wanda Felton, of New 
York, to be First Vice President of the Export-Import Bank of the 
United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The remaining time until 3:30 p.m. will be for 
debate on the Felton nomination.
  The Senator from Illinois.


                           American Cures Act

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, a generation ago, an AIDS diagnosis meant 
a sure and agonizing death. It was 23 years ago, when I was in the 
House of Representatives, when I was walking to the Chamber for a vote 
when I saw a colleague and friend, Tom McMillen, a Congressman from 
Maryland, coming my way. You would not miss Tom McMillen. He played in 
the NBA. He was tall. As he passed by on the sidewalk, he stopped and 
said: Magic has AIDS. It was a stunning announcement that Magic Johnson 
had been diagnosed with AIDS. The reality is that was 23 years ago. At 
the time we felt this was a death verdict, there was no way to escape 
it.
  Last month American researchers revealed that a second American baby 
born with HIV has apparently been cured of the virus with drugs 
delivered just minutes after birth.
  How far we have come in 23 years--from an AIDS diagnosis meaning 
certain death to being able to cure for the second time a baby born 
with HIV with drugs delivered minutes after birth.
  These babies were treated as part of a research program at the 
National Institutes of Health. Their apparent cures offer real hope for 
a quarter of a million babies who were born into the world this year 
with HIV--many of them in desperately poor nations.

[[Page 5966]]

  It is not the only happening when it comes to medical research, by a 
long shot. In my home State of Illinois, Dr. Jose Oberholzer from the 
University of Illinois-Chicago and Dr. Xunrong Luo from Northwestern 
University are among scores of researchers throughout the country on an 
NIH-sponsored project to find a cure for Type 1 diabetes.
  Do you know anyone with type 1 diabetes? I do. To think that we are 
close enough to even consider the possibility of a cure should spur us 
all on to want more research in this area done as quickly as possible.
  These two doctors are part of an effort called the Clinical Islet 
Transplantation Consortium. Islets are a group of beta cells in the 
pancreas that produce insulin. Type 1 diabetes destroys these cells. 
Transplanting healthy beta cells into the liver of someone with type 1 
diabetes can enable the person's body to start producing insulin on its 
own--a functional cure for type 1 diabetes.
  This is not just a theory; it is starting to show results when it 
comes to this clinical research.
  Why do I raise these amazing medical research stories on the floor of 
the Senate? Because the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives 
each year vote on how much money we are going to put into the National 
Institutes of Health, and we have had some sad outcomes in recent 
years.
  Did you know that over the last 10 years we have been unwilling to 
give the National Institutes of Health even a cost-of-living 
adjustment? So each year they have fallen behind in medical research 
just because of inflation. They have fallen behind 22 percent in 
awarding research grants such as the ones I just described because we 
have failed to provide a cost-of-living adjustment for them.
  Does anyone believe we are saving money by cutting back on medical 
research? If they do, they are just plain wrong.
  They had a program announced about a month ago at NIH called the AMP 
Program. It is a new undertaking. The 10 largest pharmaceutical 
companies have put up $150 million--not a great amount of money for 
successful pharmaceutical companies but an investment--to be matched by 
NIH, and they are setting out to use human genomic mapping and cell 
information to find cures for Alzheimer's, type 1 diabetes, and 
rheumatoid arthritis.
  Can we afford this? Can we afford this research? Do you know what we 
paid last year in Medicare and Medicaid just for Alzheimer's patients? 
It was $203 billion--1 year. If we can, through our research, find a 
way to at least delay, if not cure, Alzheimer's, think of the misery 
that will be spared these poor families who suffer from Alzheimer's and 
think of the money we will save.
  Are we so shortsighted as a nation that we have forgotten that 
medical research not only finds cures but saves us money that would 
otherwise be spent for medical care?
  That is why I introduced, 2 weeks ago, the American Cures Act. It is 
different. There are not a lot of proposals like it before Congress. 
What I am doing with this proposal is trying to get Congress, on both 
sides of the aisle, in both Chambers, to make a commitment to American 
medical research, American cures.
  Here is the commitment: Over the next 10 years, I want a commitment 
that we will increase the funding in medical research beyond inflation 
5 percent a year--5 percent--for the National Institutes of Health, for 
the Centers for Disease Control, the Department of Defense medical 
research, and the Veterans' Administration medical research.
  What is the cost of that? The cost of that is $150 billion over 10 
years--to make a commitment to go forward on medical research. It is a 
lot of money. It is a lot of money until you consider what the cost is 
each year of Alzheimer's--$200 billion--not to mention the cost of 
diabetes, arthritis, and so many other illnesses and diseases that call 
for huge investments when it comes to medical care.
  Where in the world can we get $150 billion over 10 years? Where could 
we possibly find it? Let me give you a starting place. Increase the 
Federal tax on tobacco products by 95 cents. I am for that. I will tell 
you why I am for it. I have been fighting tobacco as long as I have 
been in Congress--the House and Senate--and what I have discovered is, 
if you want to discourage young people from smoking, taking up tobacco 
addictions that will ultimately cost them their lives, raise the price 
of the product. They stop buying it.
  In my lifetime, we have seen the percentage of Americans smoking cut 
in half. So raising that tobacco tax gives us money for medical 
research and reduces the likelihood that people will become addicted to 
nicotine and tobacco.
  Mr. President, 700,000 Americans will not take up the tobacco habit 
if we raise that tax 95 cents. It is money well spent on medical 
research.
  If we do not do this, what happens? We fail to find the cures for 
diseases, we continue to make massive expenditures in Medicare and 
Medicaid and other health programs, and we watch the world pass us by.
  If the United States decides to retreat when it comes to biomedical 
research, other countries are ready to step in. Now, today, China is 
investing 12 to 20 percent more each year in government research and 
medical research--each year. In 8 years China will surpass the United 
States in dollars spent on government research and medical research. 
Are we ready to let that happen? I hope not.
  For the sake of the people who live in this country who need cures 
for these diseases, and help, for the sake of the cost to our health 
care system that all of this medical challenge presents, and if we want 
to maintain a lead when it comes to researchers and doctors and 
hospitals, it is time for us on a bipartisan basis to make a commitment 
to medical research.
  I hope others will join in cosponsoring this American Cures Act. A 
number have done this already, and I thank them for joining me. One of 
them is on the floor, my colleague from California Mrs. Boxer. She is 
always by my side. We have fought a lot of these battles together. And 
the list goes on: Senators Reed, Brown, Hirono, Feinstein, Gillibrand, 
Cardin, Hagen, Casey, Markey, and Mikulski, and we are just getting 
started. I might also say that Congresswoman Anna Eshoo is cosponsoring 
this measure in the House.
  I cannot think of a more important thing that we can do to make this 
a better, safer nation, to reward research, to find cures for diseases, 
and to make sure our country continues to lead the world when it comes 
to biomedical research.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Illinois 
for his leadership in making our people healthier than they otherwise 
would be. He talked about the battles we have had making sure that we 
crack down on the tobacco companies that told us for years smoking was 
safe--as a matter of fact, do it, it will relax you--and they denied 
the science.
  We lived through those years. Many years ago, I worked with then-
Senator Lautenberg--and Senator Durbin led the charge in the House--to 
stop smoking on airplanes. I remember coming home from these long trips 
and literally reeking of cigarette smoke--I never smoked in my life, 
but just sitting around it in the airplanes.
  Now we are working together on NIH issues. We are very upset about 
some of the false claims that are being made about ecigarettes, and we 
want the truth out.
  So before he leaves the floor, I want to thank the Senator.


                         Paycheck Fairness Act

  Mr. President, I am here for only a couple minutes to express my 
chagrin, my disappointment, my shock that not one Republican voted with 
Democrats to make sure women have equal pay to men. What a simple 
concept: If you work a job that is the same as a man, the pay should be 
equal, and that means women can get a fair shot in the

[[Page 5967]]

workplace. And how do we know it is not happening? We know because 
there are statistics that prove that women are earning, on average, 
$11,000 less than a man for the same job; and that is $11,000 a year. 
Over the course of a lifetime, it is over $400,000.
  Our Republican friends, in searching to come up with a reason--I do 
not know their reason; I do not get their reason--but this is what they 
said. They said--Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, said in a 
press conference--and I just read it; I hope I am wrong, and maybe he 
did not say this--but he said: We are hurting the very same people we 
are trying to help in this legislation.
  Now, somebody explain to me how it hurts a woman to have equal pay 
with a man for the same job. How does it hurt a woman to be able to 
afford a better place to live with that $11,000 a year, or a better 
school, to send her child to college, or just to enjoy a family 
vacation or a used car that maybe they want to buy--or, or, or.
  It is unbelievable to me. Every Republican voted against equal pay 
today for women. What is even more disturbing, every Republican voted 
to filibuster equal pay for women, meaning they voted against our even 
taking up the subject. They stopped us. We had a good, solid majority 
of Democrats--54. We just wanted to take it up and work on it and get 
it through. They filibustered this. It is, to me, amazing.
  Senator McConnell said that Democrats are obsessed with this issue of 
equal pay for equal work. OK, I will take it. I am obsessed. I want 
equal pay for women.
  We are here in the U.S. Senate. Everyone knows what we earn, and 
everyone knows that a woman Senator makes the same as a man Senator. We 
have the same pension options and health care options, and that is the 
fair way. All the equal pay for equal work act says is: We want to 
enforce the civil rights laws that demand it. But employers now harass 
you, fire you, stop you from finding out what your colleague across the 
aisle makes.
  If you even ask someone: I want to just check, am I getting paid 
fairly? I am getting paid $45,000 a year, and we do the same job. Can 
you tell me?--that alone--that alone--makes that worker a target for 
dismissal, harassment, et cetera.
  This should not be. We should be able to find out and ask. That is 
all we are trying to do here. We are trying to make sure that the Civil 
Rights Act which passed in the 1960s actually works. Because the Civil 
Rights Act said: equal pay for equal work. But then all these rules 
came down and loopholes came down, and employers can fire you, harass 
you, or do whatever, if you even ask about it.
  Everyone knows--I should not say ``everyone''--a lot of people 
understand the Lilly Ledbetter case. Lilly Ledbetter worked at a tire 
company. She was a manager. She was considered one of the top people in 
the company who did this work. She found out she was getting paid 
thousands of dollars less by the owner of the tire factory. She sued.
  She won her lawsuit at the lower level. Then it went all the way to 
the Supreme Court. They said: Sorry, you waited too long to file your 
lawsuit. What? She said: I could not find out about it. I did not find 
out about it, she said, until a coworker left me a note and said:

       Lilly, I admire you. You're great. Do you know you're 
     getting paid X thousands less a year than your male 
     counterpart?

  But she did not find it out for many years. So we had to fix that 
problem. Barbara Mikulski led us, and the President led us. He signed 
the bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which expands the statute 
of limitations so when you find out you have been discriminated against 
you can bring a lawsuit.
  All this is, is you can find out for sure earlier by asking someone. 
So I am in shock. Do not tell me women do not want fair pay, all they 
care about is flexibility. You cannot buy groceries with flexibility. 
If you want flexibility in the workplace, you can work that out. But 
set your pay first. I have employees, men and women, who want to get 
their pay settled. Then they will say: Is it okay if I work 4 days at 
the same level, but then I do not get paid for that fifth? That is fine 
if that is the flexibility workers want. But do not substitute 
flexibility and say: Well, if you want to work 4 days a week, we will 
give you that, but, guess what, you are going to be paid less for the 
job than a man. Please.
  Yes, we are obsessed with this. We are because we Democrats believe 
in justice and fairness and equality, not just in words and speeches 
and reading great quotes from our Founders, but in reality.
  That means, in reality, we want a woman in the workplace to be able 
to find out if she is getting paid fairly. I am disappointed, but I am 
also excited that Harry Reid is going to bring this back again and 
again and again in the hopes that our Republicans in the Senate relent 
and understand this is about fairness and justice and equality and the 
right thing for women in this country. Not only women in this country, 
but for their families, their children. Two-thirds of women either are 
the sole supporters of their families or they are cosupporters of their 
families. This is an economic issue.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the American economy is the envy of the 
world, primarily because it is still seen as a place where anyone--
regardless of who you are or where you come from--can work hard, play 
by the rules, and succeed. That belief is predicated on the notion that 
America has a thriving, competitive, and free enterprise economy in 
which the best ideas and hardest workers win the day, while those who 
are less successful always have a fair chance to try again.
  The free enterprise system is not perfect, by any means, but it is 
fair. Unfortunately today, Americans increasingly believe our system is 
rigged. In President Obama's America, they have good reason. From the 
stimulus to Cash for Clunkers, from the bailouts to cap-and-trade, from 
Dodd-Frank to ObamaCare, every namebrand initiative of the President's 
term of office has distorted public policy to privilege well-connected 
insiders and elites at the expense of taxpayers and consumers.
  The Export-Import Bank is another taxpayer-funded example of 
distorted public policy that further erodes Americans' confidence in 
our markets and our system. In short, the Ex-Im Bank exists to dole out 
taxpayer-backed loan guarantees to help American exporters. Most of the 
benefits go to large corporations that are perfectly capable of 
securing private financing anywhere in the world. That is to say, 
Congress allows Ex-Im Bank to risk taxpayer money unnecessarily to 
subsidize well-connected private companies.
  This kind of public policy privilege, best described as crony 
capitalism, is a threat to the free market and to its moral 
underpinnings. Crony capitalism corrupts the free market by rewarding 
political connections over competitive excellence. It subverts the rule 
of law by codifying inequality. It undermines social solidarity by 
pitting citizens against one another, twisting cooperative communities 
into rival special interests.
  That is why in Obama's crony economy, we are seeing record corporate 
profits but stagnant middle-class wages and an anemic, jobless 
recovery. Cronyism has promoted and exacerbated inequality. It has 
isolated the poor and it has squeezed America's middle class.
  There are three principal reasons why we should start making this 
discussion part of the public debate and why we should start doing it 
right now: First, we should do this to fix the economy. Nearly all of 
our Nation's net job creation comes from firms that have existed for 5 
years or less. But cronyist policies tilt the playing field against 
those very firms, and make it next to

[[Page 5968]]

impossible for those companies to succeed, to grow, and to create new 
jobs that we so badly need, and that the American people so 
significantly deserve. Leveling the playing field creates competition 
in both directions. It allows smaller, younger firms to compete, and it 
forces larger, older firms to do the same. That dynamic competition is 
what creates new jobs. It is what creates new economic growth. It is 
what gives rise to new opportunities up and down the economy on every 
step on the economic ladder.
  Second, this is a matter of basic justice. The American people have a 
fundamental right to equal opportunity under the law, and it is the job 
of the government to protect equal opportunity. If the very people who 
work hard and play by the rules are forced by government to bail out, 
prop up, and subsidize elite insiders who do not, then the land of 
opportunity, well, is not.
  Third, as those who most support free enterprise and equal 
opportunity, Republicans must bear the burden of reform. We believe in 
the power of free markets and a voluntary civil society to expand, lift 
people out of poverty, and support a secure and prosperous middle 
class. So it is our responsibility to follow through on our own 
convictions and close our own branch of the beltway favor bank. It 
starts with conservatives having an agenda to reform government and to 
end cronyism. Fortunately, some of us have already started working on 
it.
  These proposals focus on protecting the American people from the 
economic harm that comes from the collusion of big government, big 
business, and big special interests.
  For example, we have policy reforms that force Congress to 
periodically reevaluate expensive regulations; level the playing field 
for all energy producers; open our higher education system to new 
students, teachers, and competition; give Americans the right to choose 
whether to join a union; cut out the bureaucrats who waste critical 
infrastructure funding; and, yes, eliminate taxpayer subsidies to 
organizations such as the Ex-Im Bank.
  This agenda will create jobs, grow the economy, increase 
opportunities by allowing small businesses and forcing big businesses 
to compete on a level playing field where success depends on customer 
service and not on political connections. A conservative agenda to get 
right on cronyism will be good for jobs, for the economy, and above all 
it will be the right thing to do.
  Eventually, later this year, the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank 
will be before the Senate, and I hope my colleagues will keep these 
points in mind. But before us today is the nomination of Wanda Felton 
to be First Vice President of the Export-Import Bank. This is a 
position she already holds, but it is being renominated so that she can 
continue holding that position.
  Ms. Felton, significantly, sat on the board of the Ex-Im Bank, and 
she did so at a time when the Ex-Im Bank declined to take several 
recommendations from its own inspector general to lower its risks, 
which, in turn, put taxpayers at greater risk.
  The Ex-Im Bank has also continued to make claims about the importance 
of Ex-Im on job creation without necessary caveats or references to the 
bank's methodology--claims the GAO has heavily criticized.
  I cannot support putting someone back into this position after that 
person largely ignored these recommendations by government watchdogs.
  For all the reasons I have mentioned, I respectfully and strongly ask 
my colleagues to oppose the renomination of Wanda Felton to be the 
First Vice President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Wanda Felton, of New York, to be First Vice President of the Export-
Import Bank of the United States?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), and 
the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 21, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 104 Ex.]

                                YEAS--75

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Begich
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Crapo
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--21

     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Toomey
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bennet
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Cruz
  The nomination was confirmed.

                          ____________________