Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for supporting the Defending Elections against Trolls from Enemy Regimes Act, aka the DETER Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation I introduced with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Blumenthal, and Senator Grassley. This legislation would prevent foreign regimes from exploiting U.S. immigration laws to undermine U.S. elections. Specifically, it would make ``improper interference in U.S. elections'' a violation of immigration law. Given the ongoing threat to the United States in terms of the integrity of our electoral process from Russian interference, we need to ensure that we are denying--and, if necessary, revoking--any visas to foreign nationals who seek to improperly interfere in our elections. One of the most important takeaways from the Mueller report is that Russia successfully attacked America in 2016 by doing everything it could to undermine our election process. Page 1 of the Mueller report says: ``The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.'' The report detailed numerous examples of Russian interference, including an ``intelligence-gathering mission'' that employees of the Internet Research Agency--also known as the IRA--took in June of 2014. The IRA was the Russian troll farm that waged information warfare against the 2016 election with stolen identities, fake social media accounts, fake campaign events, and even attacking the voter list for the State of Illinois. The report and the earlier indictment of several IRA employees noted that two of the Russians arrived in the United States for a 3-week trip ``for the purpose of collecting intelligence to inform [IRA's] operations.'' The DETER Act would respond to threats like this, barring foreign actors from traveling to our country to interfere in our elections. I thank my colleagues for supporting this important legislation which was approved on Monday night. I hope the U.S. House of Representatives will quickly pass it and send it to the President's desk for his signature. This should be the first of many steps Congress takes to deter and punish future election interference by the Russians or by any foreign power.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, every day, the American farmer works hard to keep the faith and survive unknowns--from changes in the marketplace or the unpredictability of the weather, to changes in public policy. We saw that in the 1980s with disruptions in our export markets, depressed prices, creeping debt, and high production costs. We see that same today. Just like then, Illinois farm families have a trusted person fighting to keep their operations strong and to help pave the way for a stronger future for farming--his name is Steve Scates. I am here today to honor my friend Steve, who was recently named one of this year's Southern Illinois University Distinguished Alumni. He has more than earned this prestigious recognition. A native of Shawneetown in southern Illinois, Steve has worked his entire life in agriculture, from production agriculture with his grandfather, who founded Pat Scates and Sons Farm, to developing public policy that supports our farmers. Ever since he earned his bachelor's degree from Southern Illinois University in 1959 in animal sciences, Steve has been actively involved in a wide range of professional agricultural organizations, including in several leadership posts, like chair of the Illinois Soybean Association board of directors. President Bill Clinton recognized Steve's experience and hard work supporting the Illinois farming community by appointing him the State Executive Director for the Illinois offices of the USDA Farm Service Agency, where he served for 8 years and played a critical role in the implementation of the 1996 farm bill programs. He went on to serve as chairperson of the Illinois Council for Food and Agricultural Research. During his time there, he received more awards than can be counted, including the Farm Bureau Eagle Award, the USDA Secretary's Award, and the SIU College of Agricultural Sciences 2008 Outstanding Alumni Award. With all the awards and recognition, Steve's career has really been about helping people. While he is part of one of the largest farming operations in Illinois, he has always worked to look out for the interests of the smallest of farming operations to ensure they received a fair shake. Although today they say that Steve has retired from farming, I know that he is still actively involved and serves as a senior partner at Pat Scates and Sons Farms and on the board of directors for Scates Gardens, Inc. Steve is never far from his partner and wife, Kappy, and his heart is always with his fabulous family. Illinois agriculture is lucky to have a champion like Steve and his family still going strong in the farming community. America and Illinois need leaders like Steve now more than ever.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this Senate Chamber has had a lot of historic debates. We have considered legislation of great seriousness and historic importance. I have been on the floor of the Senate when we voted on going to war. I can't think of a more serious responsibility that a Member of the Senate might have. You know that even at the end of a good day, innocent people are going to die, and you have to cast a vote as to whether America should make that decision. I have been here when we passed legislation that really was transformative in terms of the future of this country. After we went through the great recession in 2008, President Obama stepped up and said that we have to do something about reforming Wall Street, and we did. We spent months in committee hearings and brought to the floor a bill that is characterized as Dodd-Frank to change Wall Street and to make sure we never went through that kind of economic crisis again. I was here when we considered the Affordable Care Act 10 years ago. That debate went on for over a year, amendment after amendment, change after change. We were addressing an issue that affected virtually every single American family, if not directly, then indirectly. Those are the types of things that have been debated on the floor of this Chamber. But look at it now. It is empty. It is so underutilized that for hours and hours each business day, we come to the floor to make little speeches. At best, we are going to have a vote or two on another nomination from the Republican side, usually a controversial nomination, and that is it. That is it. When you think of all of the possibilities of what we could do in the U.S. Senate Chamber for the good of this country, it seems like a terrible waste of space and a terrible waste of time. Men and women who made great personal sacrifices to run for the U.S. Senate and who serve in this Chamber find themselves in an empty Chamber, by and large, with nothing going on. If you want to see some action, switch your C-SPAN channel over to the House of Representatives. In that Chamber, with a Democratic majority, they are actually legislating. That is right. On Capitol Hill, one of the branches of Congress is actually passing legislation. Students ought to see it so that they know what it looks like. Don't look here because we don't do that anymore. We don't spend our time dealing with legislation in the U.S. Senate--only with lifetime appointments to the Federal bench that Senator McConnell and the Federalist Society approve. Let me give you an example of something that happened in the House, an opportunity for the Senate. It is about the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act passed under President Obama 10 years ago. It really changed the way we sold health insurance in America. Before the Affordable Care Act, health insurance companies could, and often did, use people's medical history to deny coverage or to charge premiums they couldn't afford to pay for. What type of preexisting condition caused people to be rendered essentially uninsurable before the Affordable Care Act? Asthma, diabetes, allergies, high blood pressure, arthritis, a history of cancer, or even being a woman--that was considered a preexisting condition. It raised your premiums and maybe even denied you coverage. More than 133 million Americans out of some 360 million in this country have a preexisting condition. Five million of them are from my home State of Illinois. I bet even more are from the State of Florida. Before the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies used to use that medical history against individuals and families. The Affordable Care Act said, enough of that discrimination against people who have preexisting medical conditions. That bill, that law, prohibited insurance companies from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions or from trying to charge them higher premiums because of it. For the past 2 years, President Donald Trump has had a single focus on eliminating the Affordable Care Act and the protections I just described. He has attempted in every way possible to eliminate protection for 133 million Americans with preexisting conditions. He even brought it to the floor of the U.S. Senate early in his Presidency. I will never forget that night. It was early in the morning, and it was a seesaw vote back and forth as to whether we were going to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The Republicans, who had been decrying this for 10 years, couldn't wait to repeal it, but they had nothing to replace it with. So at 2:30 in the morning, through that door walked a man whom I consider a national hero, a Member of the U.S. Senate named John McCain. John McCain walked through that door, stood in that well, and as he could barely move his arm, having had his arms broken as a prisoner of war, said no. His ``no'' vote, with that thumb going down, changed history. It kept the Affordable Care Act alive. President Trump failed, and he has never forgiven that great hero John McCain for stepping up for the good of this country and voting no against the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. The President did not quit with that legislative effort. He decided he would try to kill the Affordable Care Act and the protection for people with preexisting conditions. He would do it in court if he couldn't do it in the Senate. President Trump's Department of Justice recently weighed in on a Texas court case and argued that the Affordable Care Act should be abolished. If that happened, of course, discrimination based on preexisting conditions would once again be legal in America. In July, the court will hear the appeal of this case. If President Trump has his way, Americans will lose this protection if they have preexisting conditions. It is just that simple. Last month, the House of Representatives, not too far away from where I am standing, decided to do something. They decided to legislate. Unlike the Senate, they understand that the House of Congress can actually pass a bill that might become a law. So they had a debate, and they had a vote. On a bipartisan basis, the House of Representatives, last month, passed the Protecting Americans with Preexisting Conditions Act. This bill would prevent President Trump or any President from once again allowing health insurance companies to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. It would affect 5 million people in my State with preexisting conditions and their families. Let me tell you about one of them. Her name is Cathy. She is from one of our suburban towns outside of Chicago--not the town, really--the big city of Naperville. She wrote me about her kids, especially her oldest child who has diabetes and the other three children in her house who have cystic fibrosis. Cathy wrote: ``As a constituent and someone personally affected by cystic fibrosis, I'm asking you to please protect access to quality, specialized care for people with pre- existing conditions.'' Think about what that mom has been through with those three kids-- diabetes for the oldest and cystic fibrosis for three of her children. Can you imagine the sleepless nights, the heartache, and the worry she and her family have been through because of those kids? Any family who has ever had a sick kid knows it is a special pain, and Cathy has had it over and over and over again. Cathy, I have to say this: The House of Representatives is here to help you. Sadly, the Senate is not. Under Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican leader from Kentucky, the Senate is exclusively considering partisan, controversial, lifetime appointments to the Federal courts and virtually nothing else--nothing else. The Senate should be voting on bills that improve people's lives. The Senate could pass the bill already passed by the House, and I could send Cathy of Naperville a message: We hear you. We want to help you and your kids. We don't want you to ever have to worry about health insurance in the future because the kids were born with these medical conditions. There are other things we could do. How about this for a radical idea? Overwhelmingly, the American people, Republicans and Democrats, say: Congress, would you do something about the cost of prescription drugs? What have we done on the floor so far when it comes to the cost of prescription drugs in the Senate? Nothing. Every single day, if you own a television, you get to see night ads by prescription drug companies, and some of them you could repeat right back to them. ``If you are allergic to Xarelto, don't take Xarelto.'' How would I figure that out? Do you know the most heavily advertised drug? It is Humira. It is for an arthritic condition, but it also treats psoriasis. I am learning all of this because I see these ads over and over and over again. Do you have any idea how much Humira costs? AbbVie, the company that makes it, tells you $5,500 a month. Now, if you are crippled with arthritis, maybe that is what you need and want to do. If you have a red spot on your elbow from psoriasis, probably not. So I have a bill that says: Disclose the price of drugs on your ads. It is not a radical idea, and it is a price that the drug manufacturers themselves publicize. We are not making it up. Put it on your ad. It is one step but only one step forward. There are so many things we could do to deal with the high cost of prescription drugs that we are not doing on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Instead, this empty Chamber is for Members of the Senate to come and give speeches and maybe look longingly across the Rotunda at the House of Representatives, which is actually legislating. What if we decided to do something about prescription drug prices? I think America would be in shock to think that the Senate actually is legislating. We just had another tragedy in Virginia Beach, another mass shooting. Twelve innocent people were killed and several others seriously wounded. We don't know how that will end, but it is already a gross tragedy. It has been repeated over and over and over in virtually every one of our States. Could we take the time on the floor of the Senate to make sure people with a felony conviction record do not buy guns in America? That is not too much to ask, is it? Closing that gun show loophole and keeping guns out of the hands of people who misuse them, we could be doing that on the floor of the Senate but not with Senator McConnell's agenda. It doesn't fit. He doesn't have time. We could also be reauthorizing the Violence Against Women's Act. It is a bill that used to pass so easily. Democrats and Republicans agree that we are against violence involving women. We are not reauthorizing it. We are not even considering it on the floor of the Senate. The Senate would be a great place to legislate. It would almost sound like the movie or look like the movie, ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' where people come to the floor of the Senate, elect Senators, debate issues, vote on amendments, have rollcalls, make speeches, appeal to the American people, and try to put the majority votes together. Wouldn't it be a wonderful return to those thrilling days of yesteryear when the Senate legislated? But Senator McConnell doesn't have time, no time this year for legislation. Maybe next year. If he is in charge, maybe never. I urge Leader McConnell and my Republican colleagues, let's get back to work. Let's earn our paychecks. Let's use this Chamber for the purpose for which it was built. Let's actually debate a measure. Don't be afraid to vote, my colleagues in the Senate. I have done it several thousand times. It is not that painful. I have constituents who expect nothing less of us, to see the Senate at work actually legislating on matters that are meaningful. They realize the Senate has become an empty Chamber, a legislative graveyard. I am ready to go to work. Perhaps a few Republican Senators will join the Democrats in actually doing that. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), 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 Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), 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 Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), 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 Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), 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 Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, let me say how much I agree with the Senator from Virginia. I endorse completely what he said. I would make one amendment. Instead of just the compassion approach versus the criminal approach, it is the commonsense approach versus the criminal approach as well. I do believe that the point has been made and demonstrated by what my colleague said here and what he has said in previous meetings that when we invest in family planning and sex education and good healthcare for women, we have fewer unplanned pregnancies and fewer abortions, period. Those policies that militate against that just increase the likelihood of abortion. Let me also add something that I think pro-life and pro-choice should agree to come to terms with in unity. How in the world can we live in a country--the United States of America--with all its wealth and all its expertise, and have in the last 25 years the worst incidence of maternal mortality in civilized countries around the world? More women are dying in the United States giving birth today than 25 years ago. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, wouldn't you agree this should be a high priority of our government--both parties--to reduce maternal mortality here in the United States? I might add that infant mortality is still unacceptable in the United States. The rate of it is unacceptable. Couldn't we agree, pro-life and pro-choice, to come together behind those two? I am a cosponsor of a bill introduced by Congresswoman Robin Kelly of Illinois that she aptly entitled the ``MOMMA Act,'' which will try to deal with maternal mortality issues, particularly as they relate to women of color. And the irony, the surprise is that when you read the data, the incidence of maternal mortality among women of color does not track with poverty and education. It is a racial issue for reasons that are hard to explain, but she addresses it, and I have joined her in that effort. The other point I would like to make is this: My colleague from Virginia has talked about efforts in State legislatures that have gone to extremes. What I call the Alabama two-step is the second step in that process. We spend our time day after day, week after week putting men and women on the bench who were proposed by the Trump administration and pushed through as quickly as possible by the Republicans in the Senate who, frankly, are waiting for the day when they will have a chance to endorse, approve these statutes my colleague has described, which are extreme by any definition. That, to me, is problematic and troublesome for us as a nation, that we are moving toward that possibility. I see that the Senator from South Dakota is on floor, and I believe he has a request to make. I would like to ask unanimous consent, after his request, to be recognized again.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I see another colleague on the floor, so I will make my comments brief. We had a briefing this week in a room in the Capitol that the public is not allowed to enter; it is called the SCIF. It was a briefing that is given to Members of the Senate of top-secret, classified information. It related to the situation in which we now find ourselves in relation to Iran. It was troubling to hear the comments being made by the leaders of the Trump administration--the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, as well as military leaders and leaders in the intelligence community. You see, what we are engaging in in the United States is a confrontation with Iran. We are moving toward that. It started with this President's insistence that the United States step away from a treaty entered into by the Obama administration to stop the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. What President Obama succeeded in doing over many years of diplomatic effort was to come to the table with Iran--an enemy of the United States on many fronts--and to reach an agreement where there would be international inspectors with free access to Iran to make certain they did not develop nuclear weapons. We believed--the world believed that Iran with nuclear weapons would be a danger to the region, a danger to our ally Israel, and even a danger to the United States. The coalition put together by President Obama was nothing short of remarkable. You wouldn't be surprised to learn the coalition included the United Kingdom, our traditional ally, but it also included Germany, France, the European Union, Russia, and China. Russia and China. All came to the table and agreed on it. Did it work? International inspectors came and reported to Members of Congress over and over that there were no locked doors, no areas where access was denied, and that they could say with virtual certainty that Iran was living up to the terms of this agreement. So what did this President, President Trump, decide to do? He canceled U.S. participation in the agreement. Why? Why would he believe that the development of nuclear weapons in Iran is in the best interest of anyone? Yet he did. He followed that with even more provocative efforts in relation to Iran when it came to categorizing the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization--a step that moved even closer to provocation and confrontation. And then, of course, we decided to send our own military closer in to Iran itself. A carrier group was dispatched to that region. What is behind all this? Why is it that we are escalating the situation with Iran? The President has been equivocal in trying to explain it, but his National Security Advisor, John Bolton, has not. John Bolton is a hawk. His position and his posture when it comes to military confrontation was so controversial that in a previous administration, he was denied the position of Ambassador to the United Nations because of statements he had made. Now he is the top national security advisor to the President of the United States. He has written articles pleading for confrontation with Iran on a military basis. Rumors fly out of the Pentagon--this morning's Washington Post suggestion that we are already sending 10,000 more military advisors into the region; a rumor 2 weeks ago that there was a contingency plan for 120,000 American troops. I might add that the Secretary of Defense, in my office this morning, denied both of these, but the fact is, more and more information is tumbling out about a confrontation with Iran. I will tell you that some of us--a handful of us in the Senate--were here on the Senate floor when we debated and voted on a war in Iraq. It was 18 years ago. We were given information by the Bush administration and particularly Vice President Cheney about the danger of Iraq to the United States of America, to the point where a vote came to the floor, and the Senate approved an invasion of Iraq. I remember that night. I remember it well. Twenty-three of us--one Republican and twenty-two Democrats--joined together in voting no. It may have been the most important and maybe the best vote I believe I ever cast as a Member of the Senate. It was a foreign policy mistake to invade Iraq. What followed was a tragedy. We have spent billions and billions of American taxpayers' dollars in that country. We have lost over 4,000 American lives in Iraq, and over 30,000 or 40,000 came home with serious injuries, including my colleague in the Senate, Senator Tammy Duckworth. We have paid so dearly for that mistake. The weapons of mass destruction we were sent in to destroy did not exist. What was told to the American people about the danger of Iraq was false--false. We are still there today, 18 years later, as we are in Afghanistan--the two longest wars in the history of the United States of America. Is there anyone who believed when we voted on the Senate floor that we were voting for the longest war in the history of the United States? Now this administration, the Trump administration, is tempted to draw us into another war in the Middle East. The question is whether Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives will abide by the constitutional responsibility and demand that the American people, through our voices, have something to say about this decision. If the American people are ready for a war in Iran, I would be shocked. As I travel around the State of Illinois and other parts of this country, I find no sentiment for the United States to engage in another war at this moment in our history. I also find most people believing that the provocative and confrontational efforts of the Trump administration are drawing us nearer to that day. So we leave now for a week. We will be back, but what will happen in the 7 or 8 days we are gone? I worry about that based on the briefings we have been given and the appetite of John Bolton and others in this administration to move us into war. We should not invade Iran. We should not engage in another invasion in the Middle East. We should not subject America's young men and young women to the possibility of military service in another war that can go on indefinitely. There are better ways to deal with this. Let's rely on diplomacy and direct negotiation. Let's work with our allies to bring a peaceable result here and to stop activity which we know Iran is engaged in which is objectionable. It can be done short of invasion, short of military force, and short of war. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent from votes number 128 and number 129 due to the birth of my granddaughter, Josephine Emily Durbin. Had I been present, I would have voted yea to waive the Budget Act with respect to the emergency spending to help the States and Territories impacted by storms and other natural disasters. I would have voted yea on passage of H.R. 2157, as amended by the Shelby-Leahy substitute amendment, as well.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Democrats continue to propose thoughtful, effective solutions to the humanitarian crisis at our southern border. In February, after the President finally ended his government shutdown, I helped write an omnibus appropriations bill that included $564 million for inspection equipment at ports of entry to detect lethal narcotics and $414 million for humanitarian assistance at the border. Last week, I and a number of my colleagues are reintroducing a comprehensive bill to address the root causes of the humanitarian crisis coming out of the Northern Triangle. Our bill cracks down on cartels and traffickers, provides for in-country processing so that refugees can seek protection without making a dangerous northbound journey, expands third-country resettlement in the region, and eliminates immigration court backlogs. I note with regret that the President and his political appointees in the Department of Defense have other priorities. They continue to take from our military and ignore our military's readiness to build the President's medieval wall. We all remember Donald Trump's idea that we need a 2,000-mile concrete wall from sea to shining sea and his claim that Mexico would pay for it. He said it some 200 times on the campaign trail and in the Oval Office. When Mexico said no, the President told the military they would have to pay for it. On February 15, President Trump announced that he would go around Congress and build the wall with $6.1 billion that Congress gave to our military. After the announcement, the President was asked if he had consulted his military advisers first. He said that they told him some of the tradeoffs, but, ``It didn't sound too important to me.'' In March, Acting Secretary Shanahan took the first step: taking $1 billion appropriated by Congress for military pay and pensions to use for the wall. DOD told us that they had more money than they needed because the Army missed their recruiting goals. At a hearing that same week, Secretary of the Army Mark Esper admitted that the Army hadn't budgeted for paying the salaries of the troops on the border, and they were short $350 million. Why didn't Acting Secretary of Defense Shanahan take this $1 billion of extra funds and give some to the Army? His notification to Congress laid it out in disappointing detail. He labeled the wall a ``higher priority.'' It is incredible that these are the priorities of the President and Acting Secretary Shanahan: wall first, military last. Then on May 10, Acting Secretary Shanahan did it again, but he took $1.5 billion from the military this time. The Washington Post headline the next day said it all: ``Pentagon will pull money from ballistic missile and surveillance plane programs to fund border wall.'' Once again, the Pentagon claimed that the funds were extra, that the Pentagon couldn't spend this missile defense money and surveillance money this year for various reasons. Once again, the ``higher priority'' was the wall. But the Army isn't the only one in need. Each military service is blinking red. Last month, in a leaked memo, the head of the Marine Corps, General Neller, said that the President's decision was contributing to ``unacceptable risk to Marine Corps combat readiness and solvency.'' General Neller noted that the marines had already pulled out of three military exercises and were cutting back on combat equipment maintenance because there wasn't enough money to go around. He noted that Hurricanes Florence and Michael last year had done $3.6 billion in damage to Camp Lejeune and other Marine Corps property. He said that marines were living in ``compromised housing,'' with another hurricane season starting up this June. He also warned that he might also have to cancel more than a dozen additional exercises if the marines didn't get budget help. Once again, we are seeing the wall is first, and the military is last. In an unusual move late last month, Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson published an op-ed highlighting the impact of several natural disasters on Air Force bases. In October 2018, Hurricane Michael inflicted $4.7 billion of damage on Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. In March 2019, a historic flood inundated Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska, submerging dozens of buildings. The Senate continues to work on an emergency supplemental to make a down payment on repairs at these bases, as well as at Camp Lejeune, but in the meantime, this $1.5 billion could have jump started repairs months ago. Once again, the wall came first, and the military came last. In each case, the Pentagon didn't ask me to approve these transfers as it normally does. As vice chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I have different priorities, the ones I have mentioned, and so they went around me and the rest of Congress. Also still to come is the $3.6 billion from cancelling important military construction projects. The damage continues to pile up. These harmful decisions will continue until my Republican colleagues side with our military over a campaign pledge. I hope they think long and hard about which one of those is more important.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, once again, our Republican colleagues are spending another week rubberstamping President Trump's extreme nominees. Daniel Collins, nominated to a California Ninth Circuit seat, received a vote over the objection of both of California's Senators. Before this year, a judicial nominee had never been confirmed over the objection of both home State Senators. Mr. Collins's confirmation marked the sixth time it has happened this year. This Republican Senate has effectively killed the blue slip for circuit court nominations. This is a precedent that could come back to haunt each of our States. My Republican colleagues who are voting repeatedly to override home State Senators' objections may come to regret those votes someday. I opposed the Collins nomination. I agree with Senators Feinstein and Harris that Collins has ``a history of taking strong litigation positions for no reason other than attempting to overturn precedent and push legal boundaries.'' I am particularly troubled by his extensive representation of the tobacco industry and his inadequate recusal commitment when it comes to matters involving his former tobacco industry clients. The district court nominees scheduled for votes this week also have a long history of advancing extreme ideological views. When it comes to abortion, North Carolina district court nominee Kenneth Bell once wrote in an op-ed, ``There is no middle ground.'' Missouri district court nominee Stephen Clark has spent much of his legal career litigating against reproductive rights and access to contraceptives. Utah district court nominee Howard Nielson wrote a memo for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, arguing that the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit torture, do not apply to civilians captured abroad. DC district nominee Carl Nichols has advanced extreme views of Executive power, including arguing that Presidents and Presidential aides have absolute immunity from congressional process. I opposed these extreme nominees, and I regret that the Senate's advice and consent process has become an exercise in Republican rubberstamping. This institution can and should do better.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this morning we had a meeting in Speaker Pelosi's office of the Democratic congressional leaders. It was in preparation for a meeting with President Trump. Three weeks ago, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate, asked for a sit-down with the President in the Cabinet Room to discuss the infrastructure of the United States of America--the backbone of our economy, a part of America that, sadly, has been neglected for too many years. President Trump promised in his campaign there would be an infrastructure program--put America to work to build the roads, the bridges, and the airports, and I might say broadband and so many other things that need to be done--so that the strength of this economy would be there to entertain new business opportunities, to attract new jobs. We had this meeting 3 weeks ago, and it was amazing how well it went. I was sitting just a couple of seats removed from the President and heard an agreement in the room from the Democratic leaders and the President--$2 trillion, the President said. He rejected our offer of $1.5 trillion and said: No, make it $2 trillion that we will spend on our infrastructure. Everybody sat up straight in their chairs and said: Well, this President is serious. We said: Mr. President, will it be 80 percent Federal spending and 20 percent local, the way it has always been? Yes. Can we include rural broadband in here so those of us who represent small towns--rural areas that don't have the benefit of broadband services--can get into the 21st century in terms of education and telemedicine and all of the things that brings? Yes. He signed up for all these things--$2 trillion, 80 percent Federal-- and the list was long of things that we were going to do together. We went into detail in that meeting 3 weeks ago with the President about some of the aspects of it. For example, the President said--and I think he has been quoted before--that he does not approve of public- private partnership programs. He argues there is too much litigation. That is all right with me and for most of the people in the room. We didn't have to have that if the President didn't want to include it. So there was back and forth in this conversation. There was one element missing, and I remember Richard Neal--who is the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the critically important committee, the counterpart of Senate Finance--said to the President: Now, Mr. President, we have to pay for it. Two trillion dollars--how are we going to do that? And the President said: Wait. I am not going to say that at this meeting. I know you want me to blink first as to how we are going to pay for it. I am not going to get into that. There had been some proposals from Democrats of tax increases for wealthy people and corporations and such, but the President said: I won't to get into that today. Let's meet 3 weeks from now and talk about how we are going to do this, how we are going to pay for the $2 trillion. So many of us sat down, Democrats--I hope Republicans, as well--and started thinking in positive terms about what this would mean for the economy. We can create tens of thousands of good-paying jobs across the United States, rebuild our infrastructure, and be ready to compete with countries like China and others that believe they are building faster and better than we are. The meeting was scheduled for today. We started this morning with a briefing. The Democrats sat together in Speaker Pelosi's office, about 20 of us, and went through it and talked about what our presentation would be to the President and some ideas that we had to move forward. We accepted the President's invitation. We went to the White House, gathered in the waiting room there, and then we were invited into the Cabinet Room. We walked into the Cabinet Room, took our assigned seats, looked across the table, and there was the Secretary of the Treasury, people from the Office of Management and Budget. The President's daughter was there. There was quite a gathering of people getting ready for this high-powered meeting. We waited, and we waited, and then the door opened, and the President walked in. Without greeting anyone or sitting down he said: We are not going to have this meeting. We are not going to have this meeting because Congress continues to investigate me. I think we have had enough investigations, and until the investigations end, there will be no infrastructure bill. His statement went quite a bit beyond that, but I think that was a fair summary of his conclusion. He turned around and walked out. So the meeting that he had called, the meeting we responded to so that we could come up with an infrastructure program, ended right on the spot. The President then went out into what is known as the Rose Garden next to the White House and held a press conference with posters and signs saying: As long as Congress is investigating me, we won't be discussing issues like infrastructure. That is an unfortunate development--unfortunate for America, first, because this President and this Congress, regardless of party, have a responsibility to the American people to do the basics to make sure that we provide what Americans need, what cities need, what businesses need, what families need to grow the economy and create good-paying jobs. The President walked away from that this morning. So here we are at a point in history. I am not sure which way to turn. You see, every President would like to make this claim: I am not going to do business with Congress if you investigate me. But the bottom line is, every President is investigated. Their administration is investigated. That is what we do. That is what the U.S. Congress does. That is what happens in a democracy. No President can say: I am pulling down the shades, and I am closing the doors. You can't look at me, and you can't look at what we are doing, either in activities as individuals or as agencies. No. There is accountability in our government. This Congress, the Senate, the House--we appropriate the funds for the executive branch, and we investigate them as we appropriate the money. How are you spending the taxpayers' dollars? Are you wasting them? Is there corruption involved in it? We ask those questions not just of this President but of every President. That is the nature of democracy, of accountability, and this President can't get off the hook. He may be weary of investigations--and I can tell you that President Obama was weary of investigations, too, and President Bush before him--but that is the nature of accountability in a democracy. For this President to say: No more. It is out of bounds for us to be investigated, and I won't do anything necessary for the economy and future of this country as long as the investigation continues--that is a sad day in the history of this country. I hope cooler heads will prevail, but I am not sure they will. We have so much we need to do. Look at this empty Chamber here. My speech in this Chamber each day is basically what you are going to hear if you are a visitor to Washington, DC. You are not going to hear a debate on legislation. Wouldn't you like for this Chamber to be filled with Republicans and Democrats who are debating a bill right now on the high cost of prescription drugs? I would. And we certainly have the power and responsibility to manage that issue, but we don't do it. We have done virtually nothing in this Chamber for this entire year. Senator McConnell has one goal: fill up Federal judicial vacancies with lifetime appointees as fast and as often as possible. We have seen men and women come before us, clearly unqualified to be judges, who are being given lifetime appointments. Why? It is part of a plan--a political plan to fill the courts with judges friendly to the Republican point of view. And so we do nothing else. Nothing else. I have been here a few years, in the Senate and the House. There is an issue called disaster aid. I have seen 100 different variations. There will be some horrendous weather event--a fire, a drought, a flood--and we have responded time and again wherever it occurred. Without concern as to whether it was a red State or a blue State, we have come together as an American family and said: We will give you a helping hand. We have a disaster bill that has been pending here for weeks, if not months. We can't even reach an agreement on how to send disaster aid to areas that have been hit by flooding and tornados, and it is an indication of what the problem is right here. The Senate is not being the Senate. It is not legislating. And now the President announced this morning that he has gone fishing. He is not going to be around to discuss issues like the infrastructure of this country. What can we do about it? Well, you can appeal to your Members of Congress and tell them you are fed up with it, and I hope you do. That is what a democracy is about. But you can also make sure that you participate and vote in the next election. Ultimately, in a democracy, the American people have the last word at the polling place on election day. If you are satisfied with an empty Chamber doing nothing, ignoring infrastructure, delaying disaster aid, if you think that is a good thing for this country, I suppose you know how you should vote. But if you are fed up with it and looking for change, I hope people across this country will see what happened today as a call to arms--maybe, importantly, a call to the polls.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) is necessarily absent.