Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are neccesarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was in my office and just learned, by Senator Grassley's floor speech, about the passing of Berkley Bedell, and I just wanted to add my voice to his. He was a wonderful man. I served with him in the House of Representatives. Spirit Lake was his home area in Iowa. He was a really knowledgeable man when it came to issues of agriculture, and I didn't learn until many years later that he was a very successful businessman in the fishing tackle business, if I remember correctly, and sporting goods. He had many interests. He was a spirited, friendly, good person who worked hard at his job and was a credit to the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of party, and I think Senator Grassley's remarks reflect that. I am going to miss his annual Christmas card. He and his wife--she passed away just recently, as well--would send a card about the comings and goings of their big, old family. It was a big oversized card, and I always looked forward to it. I feel honored to have been able to serve with him. I thank my colleague and friend Senator Grassley from Iowa for paying tribute to him.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am going to take a chance this afternoon and vote for one of the President's nominees. Some of my colleagues have come up to me and said I am making a big mistake, and I hope I am not. His name is Stephen Hahn. He is a medical doctor and an oncologist from MD Anderson in Texas, and he has been named to serve as the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner. This is a relatively small agency by Federal standards that has a major-size impact on the lives of Americans and beyond. I think it is one of our most important agencies. It regulates so many things relating to safety and quality of life, and Dr. Hahn would come to this position at an auspicious moment in our history. I refer, of course, to the fact that we are now battling a vaping epidemic across the United States of America. The Presiding Officer, from Utah, and I have worked on this together, and I thank him for his leadership in this regard. I look at Dr. Hahn and I think of all the questions that I have asked him. I had a face-to-face meeting with him in my office and then had him on the phone last night for another half hour, and he was very patient in answering my questions. I asked him about the vaping crisis we face, the epidemic that we face. He readily concedes that this is something he feels very strongly about. The latest disclosure from the youth tobacco report suggests that 28 percent or more of high school students across the United States are currently using e-cigarettes or vaping. Yesterday, I had a group of high school students from New York who asked to see me, and they said: Senator, you are wrong. It is over half. A majority of the students in high school now are using JUUL devices, or vaping devices, and these flavors, and they have developed nicotine addictions, which have become controlling in their lives and it affects the way they feel and the way they perform as students. That is why it is so important, from my point of view, for Dr. Hahn to make this a major priority. He assured me that he would. He reminded me that he is a lung cancer doctor, and we had a long conversation about my father, who died of that disease, and tobacco and the impact it had on his life. I felt sincerity on the part of the doctor when he was discussing this. We talked about working with Dr. Azar, who has been an ally in this conversation about controlling vaping devices and cigarettes. He said that regardless of how I voted for him, he would look forward to working with me. I am going to vote for him as the new FDA Commissioner. It is a leap of faith because I am not certain where the President of the United States is at this moment. The Presiding Officer was at a meeting a couple of weeks ago in the White House, and I have commended him for the questions he asked there, hoping to hold the President and First Lady to their promise of September 15 to really take on this epidemic of vaping and e- cigarettes. I don't know at this moment whether he is going to continue in that effort or whether the vaping industry has diverted him to a different point of view. Dr. Hahn may find himself in a compromised position soon, and I told him as much. If it comes to the point where the President has abandoned his effort against vaping and the industry is going to prevail, then, I am afraid that Dr. Hahn is going to be wearing the collar for some of the things that follow. Even though he may not even agree with the President's conclusion, he will be working for the President as part of his administration. Dr. Hahn said to me: I don't want to be known in history as the head of the FDA who saw this epidemic grow dramatically when it comes to vaping by young people. I am going to give him my vote, and I do it with the hope that he will have a persuasive voice with Dr. Azar and the administration to move in the right direction. I applauded President Trump--which is unusual from my side of the aisle--when he made his initial decision to take action against e- cigarettes, and I would like to applaud him again. I hope he will resume this effort. I hope the First Lady, who rarely gets engaged in issues but seems to feel very strongly about this, will join us in persuading the President to keep true to his promise of September 15. I will be supporting Dr. Hahn's nomination for FDA Commissioner.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Lawrence VanDyke to fill a Nevada seat on the Ninth Circuit. When my Republican colleagues decided to abandon blue slips for circuit court seats, many on our side warned that we would start to see nominees with little connection to the States in which they were nominated to sit. Those warnings are coming true. We saw it earlier this year, when the Senate approved the nomination of Daniel Bress to fill a California seat on the Ninth Circuit, even though he had barely lived or practiced in California as an adult. Now, we are seeing it again with Mr. VanDyke, whose ties to Nevada are minimal. He did not grow up in Nevada or attend any schools there. He did not move to Nevada until 2015, after he had lost a race for the State supreme court of Montana. He did not become an active member of the Nevada Bar until October 2017. He does not have family ties to Nevada. He does not currently live in Nevada. Since he moved to Virginia 8 months ago, he has not been to Nevada even once. Mr. VanDyke's only real tie to Nevada is that he was given a job there for a few years as solicitor general, apparently as a landing spot after he lost his race in Montana. There are many longtime members of the Nevada legal community who are well qualified to serve as a Federal circuit court judge. But none of them will get the chance to fill this seat. Instead, Senate Republicans are going to rubber-stamp someone with minimal Nevada ties for this Nevada judgeship. How would my colleagues like it if that happened to their States? Mr. VanDyke also has a deeply troubling record. When he was Montana's solicitor general, we saw from his emails that he allowed political considerations to guide litigation decisions. For example, in a 2013 email, he urged that Montana join an amicus brief supporting the NRA in a cert petition involving a challenge to a gun law on the books. VanDyke wrote, ``I'm not sure I agree with the strategy of bringing this case to SCOTUS, but I think we want to be on the record as on the side of gun rights and the NRA.'' I am troubled that, for his judicial election campaign, he filled out an NRA endorsement questionnaire in which he said he agreed that ``gun control laws are misdirected.'' He also has a lengthy history of criticizing and undermining LGBTQ rights. This includes his 2004 column where he wrote that there is, ``ample reason for concern that same-sex marriage will hurt families, and consequently children and society.'' Mr. VanDyke is the ninth Trump judicial nominee who has been rated ``Not Qualified'' by the ABA, out of over 260 Trump nominees the ABA has reviewed. The ABA conducts a peer review process. In VanDyke's case, the ABA interviewed 60 attorneys and judges who knew him and his work. Mr. VanDyke's peers said that Mr. VanDyke ``is arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules,'' ``does not always have a commitment to being candid and truthful,'' and ``in some oral arguments, he missed issues fundamental to the analysis of the case.'' These were scathing comments from dozens of judges and lawyers who know Mr. VanDyke and his work well. In short, it is no surprise that both of Nevada's Senators oppose this nomination. I agree with them. I will oppose the VanDyke nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massahusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this January, it will be 12 years since Illinois banned smoking in businesses. In 2008, the Smoke-Free Illinois Act went into effect and changed the lives of people throughout the State. There has been a 20-percent decrease in hospitalizations for conditions aggravated by secondhand smoke, like asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and heart attacks. High school smoking rates have fallen more than 53 percent since then. This is real change. My friend, Illinois Senate President John Cullerton, led that fight to save lives. His storied career is one of working for good government and the safety of people. In January, he will be retiring, and I want to take this time to honor him. John grew up in the village of Winfield in DuPage County. His family has deep roots in Illinois as one of the original settlers in Chicago in 1835. If you are wandering Chicago, you might come across Cullerton Street, which used to be 20th Street. It was named after John's great- grandfather's brother, Edward ``Foxy'' Cullerton. Edward, originally elected to Chicago city council in 1871, served one of the longest tenures as a Chicago alderman in the city's history. The Cullertons have been a staple of Illinois politics ever since. Though it may seem like the Cullerton family is just filled with politicians, John's father and paternal grandfather were electricians. In fact, most of his immediate family was not political. John's role model was his maternal grandfather, Tom Tyrell, a real-estate lawyer in Chicago. At 12 years old, John wanted to be a lawyer because of him. His grandfather would give legal lessons at the dinner table. He would cut cherry pie and explain how corporations have shares. John went to Loyola University Chicago and earned a bachelor's degree in political science. He stayed at Loyola to study law. John also served in the Illinois National Guard from 1970 to 1976. In law school, John experienced firsthand how litigation can bring change. As president of the Loyola University Chicago Student Bar Association, he saw his fellow students draft a complaint against the school for not providing adequate facilities for the law school. The students hired a lawyer and actually negotiated a deal without filing a lawsuit. A few years after John and his classmates graduated, a brand-new law school was built at the corner of Pearson and State in Chicago, which still stands today. John's first job was working as a Chicago assistant public defender. For 5 years, he was on the frontlines of law defending people. In 1976, John earned his first political experience by being elected to be a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. Though John's immediate family was not very political, his cousin Parky Cullerton was Cook County tax assessor at the time. Parky's influence convinced him that he could run for the Illinois House of Representatives, and he won in 1978. In 1988, John joined Fagel Haber, which later became Thompson Coburn Fagel Haber, where he still is a partner today. In 1990, John was appointed to fill then-State Senator Dawn Clark Netsch's seat. John won the seat on his own right in 1992, representing the Chicago Cubs' neighborhood of Wrigleyville, but he remained a loyal White Sox fan. John thrived in the Senate. Between 2003 and 2006, he sponsored more bills and had more bills signed by the Governor than any other legislator. John dedicated himself to things like traffic safety, gun control, reforming the criminal justice system, and tobacco regulation. John would work with anyone for a greater good. He always made it a point of going out to dinner not just with Democratic State senators but with Republican ones too. In 2008, the senate Democratic caucus chose John to be senate president. Immediately, John prioritized an infrastructure bill that had not passed in 10 years at the time. John has steered the senate through many tough times. He can proudly say that, during his time, Illinois passed two capital funding bills, marriage equality, an abolishment of the death penalty, school funding reform, and immigration reform. John has encouraged bipartisanship and cooperation through all of it. For 41 years, John has served with a sense of justice, friendship, and even comedy. He regularly performed at an annual event at the legendary Second City Chicago Theater. His impersonation of then-Mayor Richard J. Daley earned him the crown of Mr. Wonderful from the Conference of Women Legislators in 1979. John retiring from the senate will allow him to spend more time with his wife Pam and his kids Maggie, Garritt, Carroll, John III, and Josephine, and his three grandchildren. I am privileged to call him a friend and look forward to all the new things he will take on in the future. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Sarah Pitlyk to be a Federal district court judge in the Eastern District of Missouri. I believe that people who are nominated to serve as Federal trial judges ought to know their way around a courtroom. There are basic levels of experience and qualifications that a person needs in order to be an effective trial judge. I have no doubt that there are plenty of experienced, qualified Republican attorneys and State court judges in the Eastern District of Missouri, but Ms. Pitlyk is not one of them. She has never tried a case. She has never taken a deposition. She has never argued a motion in court. She has never picked a jury. She has never participated at any stage in a criminal matter. The American Bar Association's peer review process rated her ``unanimously not qualified.'' The ABA said that ``Ms. Pitlyk's experience to date has a very substantial gap, namely the absence of any trial or even real litigation experience.'' The Senate is not doing our justice system any favors by confirming trial judges who lack courtroom experience. My Republican colleagues should stop rubber-stamping judicial nominees who lack basic qualifications and experience. Ms. Pitlyk also has made many statements in her career that indicate that she has prejudged certain issues. For example, she wrote an article describing the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act as ``an unprincipled decision.'' She also gave a speech earlier this year in which she described the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on abortion as ``thoroughly activist,'' and ``politically biased,'' and as containing ``gross defects.'' She has spent much of her legal career advocating against reproductive rights, including a 2017 article in which she wrote that ``surrogacy is harmful to mothers and children, so it's a practice society should not be enforcing.'' She also said in a 2017 press release that ``surrogacy diminishes respect for motherhood and the unique mother-child bond, encourages exploitation of women, and it commodifies pregnancy and children. Surrogacy also weakens society's natural abhorrence of eugenic abortion.'' My colleague Senator Tammy Duckworth wrote a powerful letter in response to Ms. Pitlyk's attacks on surrogacy. Senator Duckworth's letter talked about her two beautiful daughters and her use of assisted reproductive technology to start a family. She wrote: ``No American should be denigrated and insulted for starting a family with the help of assisted reproductive technology or opting to use surrogacy, which is often a last resort.'' She went on to write: ``As a mother who struggled with infertility for years and required IVF to start my family, I would be one of the many Americans who could never enter Ms. Pitlyk's courtroom with any reasonable expectation that my case would be adjudicated in a fair and impartial manner. . . . Not after Ms. Pitlyk accused families who opt for surrogacy of contributing to `grave effects on society' including disrespecting motherhood.'' I want to commend Senator Duckworth for this powerful and personal letter. I hope my colleagues pay attention to it. I appreciate that at least one Republican Senator, Ms. Collins of Maine, has said she will vote no on the Pitlyk nomination because of Ms. Pitlyk's lack of qualifications and extreme views. I hope more Republicans will join her. I will vote no on the Pitlyk nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.