Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the President's inauguration over 2 years ago was a historic moment. Though my candidate didn't win, I attended it in my capacity here in the U.S. Senate and saw a lot of people, but the one person I saw who was nothing short of remarkable was Jimmy Carter. The reason why it was remarkable to see the former President, who left office in 1980--39 years ago--was the fact that most everyone had counted him for dead. If you will remember, he was diagnosed with a form of cancer that was supposedly fatal. People were talking about making their last trip to Plains to attend his church on Sunday and hear his last sermon. I thought it was over, and most everyone did, too, but then something amazing happened. There was a new drug that came along, and it turned out to be just the right drug to save his life. When I saw Jimmy Carter a little over 2 years ago, I thought to myself: I never thought I would see him again, and I never thought I would see him looking this good. Those things don't just happen. Those drugs aren't just discovered. They are the product of a great deal of work and research and application. I remember asking Dr. Collins at the National Institutes of Health what Jimmy Carter's story was. He explained that early research at NIH, which is the premier medical research facility in the world, had led to some new possibilities in treating cancers. It just so happened that Jimmy Carter's cancer was responsive to that drug. Others have been, too, and I hope that even more are discovered. The good news is that the U.S. Senate and Congress understand this. Do you know what has happened over the last 4 years? What has happened over the last 4 years is a dramatic show of bipartisanship when it comes to medical research. Roy Blunt, from Missouri, is in my neighboring State. I, of course, represent Illinois. He is the head of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds the National Institutes of Health. Lamar Alexander, from the State of Tennessee, is the chairman of the authorizing committee for the National Institutes of Health. Patty Murray, my Democratic colleague from the State of Washington, serves in both the appropriations and authorization committees and couldn't be a stronger advocate when it comes to medical research. We have a little team together, the four of us, and we said we were going to do something or try to do something each year. Here is what we set out to do. We set out to take the appropriations for the National Institutes of Health and give it 5 percent real growth every single year--because Dr. Collins told me: If you do that, Senator, then the people who do the research believe that next year could be a good year, too, to continue their research, and they will stick with it, and when they stick with it, amazing things happen. So we did. I want to give credit to Senator Blunt, Senator Alexander, and Senator Murray. I was happy to be a part of the effort. For 4 straight years, we added 5 percent real growth to the National Institutes of Health. In total, when you look at all of the increase of that period, there is a 30-percent increase in medical research in a period of 4 years and more to follow--more to follow, if we get a chance. That is why, when we received President Trump's budget yesterday, it was such a heartbreaking disappointment. He has given up in terms of our continued increases in medical research. In fact, he wants to cut $5 billion out of the appropriations for the National Institutes of Health. Each of us decides why we want to be here and what is worth fighting for. I think medical research is worth fighting for. The team that has been fighting for it has been a bipartisan team in the Senate, and I hope they felt the same way I did--a feeling of real disappointment in President Trump's budget. I have to tell you that he believes his wall is the most important thing on Earth. I believe medical research and saving lives are among the most important things on Earth. As for cutting money out of medical research--for whatever reason you are going to use it--I just have to say to the President and others that you are in for a fight. There are a lot of us who are standing up and representing patients that are counting on that research to find a breakthrough and families who are dealing with Alzheimer's. How many friends of mine and how many families could I tell you about who have some form of Parkinson's or dementia or Alzheimer's that has changed the family dramatically? Can we and should we be looking for more medical research to delay the onset of Alzheimer's and, God willing, to find a cure some day? We are reaching a point where this is going to absolutely take over the medical budget of America if we are not careful. Shortsighted cuts in medical research jeopardize those new cures for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and dementia. The President is just wrong in his priorities--just wrong. Some of the other things he has done in the budget are equally troubling. According to his budget request, the President wants to cut $1.5 trillion from Medicaid--$1.5 million from Medicaid. What is the Medicaid Program? It is health insurance for poor people. Who are those poor people? In my State of Illinois, out of all the babies born in my State each year, half of them are paid for by Medicaid. There are low-income moms delivering babies--we hope healthy babies--because Medicaid as health insurance is there to help them. But that isn't the biggest charge on the Medicaid Program. The biggest charge on the Medicaid Program--that health insurance program-- is for your mom, your grandmother, or your father. When they reach that stage in life where nothing is left, when there is no savings and maybe a little Social Security check, and they have medical needs, it is the Medicaid Program that comes through for them. If we cut what the President is suggesting, $1.5 trillion in Medicaid, which of those groups do you want to reduce care for--the mothers with their new babies or the parents and grandparents at a stage in life where they have no place to turn and no savings to turn to? That is not a good outcome. Then there was the suggested cut of $845 billion in the Medicare Program. Medicare is health insurance for the elderly. When you reach age 65, you have paid into it through your working life and you have that Medicare insurance plan. The President cuts $845 billion out of Medicare. Does Medicare work? There is one way to test it. What is the life expectancy of senior citizens today, after Medicare, compared to their life expectancy before Medicare? It is dramatically different. People are living longer and more independent lives because Medicare gives them quality care when they reach age 65, and President Trump believes we should cut that program by $845 billion. That, to me, is shortsighted. When it comes to our health, is there anything more important? When it comes to the health of our families, of seniors, of the disabled, and of women who are about to have a baby, is there anything more important than to make sure that turns out right? It is hard for me to think of what it might be. The cut to the Centers for Disease Control of $1.3 billion in the President's budget is another one you just shake your head at. The Centers for Disease Control shows up when no one else will enter the room, when they are facing diseases that are life-threatening. For the Ebola crisis in western Africa and the fear that it would spread throughout that continent and maybe to the United States, it was the Centers for Disease Control that stepped in and said: We are going to tackle it. We will take it on. They did, and they did it successfully. We are only one plane ticket away from some of those diseases making it into the United States. I want the Centers for Disease Control to stop them in their tracks before they come to the United States, and the President cuts $1.3 billion. The SNAP food stamp program is another one--a cut of $220 billion. This is a program that provides supplements for food for families. Many of them are working families who just don't make enough money to get by. I can't tell you how many food pantries I visited in Illinois where the people who run it--many of them volunteers with churches and charities--say: The people who are coming in to see us now are folks who are working and not making enough money. Some of them qualify for food stamps, and some of them don't, but feeding America should be fundamental in this country; shouldn't it? Shouldn't that be one of the basic things we pride ourselves on as Americans? Remember when President Trump spoke about the aging infrastructure of America during his campaign? Even though I wasn't supporting his candidacy, I certainly cheered those remarks. Infrastructure is bipartisan. The roads and bridges in Arizona and Illinois and in every other State all need help, and they count on us in Congress to come through with it. Well, the budget that the President released this week slashes infrastructure funding by 22 percent. When we should be putting more into making a more modern and more efficient infrastructure to build our economy, the President cuts it. He cuts 31 percent from the Army Corps of Engineers. Today, I had a visit from the Illinois corn growers. We are proud. There is a lot of corn in Illinois, and we are proud of being No. 2 to Iowa, I might add, when it comes to corn production. But do you know what they talked about in addition to ag programs? They talked about the locks and dams on the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers. Those are the avenues of commerce for agriculture in the Midwest, and they are old and getting older and falling apart. The Army Corps of Engineers are counted on to modernize them, and the President cuts 31 percent of their budget--one-third of their budget-- and 16 percent of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The President's budget completely ignores the threat of climate change, cutting the Environmental Protection Agency by 30 percent. Here is one that hits home. The President cut the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative by an outrageous 90 percent. They did a survey a few years ago and asked the people of Chicago, the city I am proud to represent: What do you think is the defining characteristic of the city? The overwhelming response was Lake Michigan. That beautiful lake, a part of the Great Lakes, is not just a source of pride, but it is a source of good, clean drinking water and of recreation and commerce. We know it is threatened in every direction, from chemical runoffs to invasive species, and we fight to make sure those lakes will survive for another generation. The President cuts the funds for that effort by 90 percent. These are just a few examples of decisions made in the President's budget. Needless to say, I have saved the best for last. Though he has cut everything I just talked about--from medical research to protecting our Great Lakes, to transportation and infrastructure, to taking care of senior citizens, to making sure that health insurance is there for expectant mothers--the President needs $8.5 billion for his almighty wall, this wall on our southern border. We have given the President 120 miles of fencing--new and replacement fencing--over the first 2 years he was in office. That is 120 miles to add to the 640 already on our border. Do you know how many miles have been built, as I stand here today, for the last 2 years that we have given the President? None. It takes a long time to build these fences, and the President is learning it the hard way. Yet he wants to take money out of programs across the board on the possibility that they may be built in the future--needed or not. Congress needs to step up--and I hope on a bipartisan basis--to assert our constitutional authority and to find a bipartisan way to put together a budget that is much more balanced and that realizes the real values of America. Judicial Nominations

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week, Senate Republicans are looking to confirm two more circuit court nominations, which would make a total of six circuit court confirmations this year. None of these six circuit court nominees have had any prior judicial experience. Some have had very little courtroom experience at all. Four of them have been put forward over the opposition of Senators in their home State: Eric Miller, who was opposed by both Washington Senators; Chad Readler and Eric Murphy, who were opposed by Senator Brown; and now Paul Matey, who was nominated over the objections of both Senators Booker and Menendez. I believe the Republican majority is making a serious mistake by abandoning blue slips for circuit court seats. They have set a precedent that could affect each and every one of our States. Already, the Trump administration has nominated a person for a Ninth Circuit California seat, Daniel Bress, who has only lived in California for 1 year since high school and who practices in Washington, DC. It is absurd to see a nominee to a California-based seat with such minimal ties to California. That is what the Republicans have brought about by abandoning circuit court blue slips. It is a big mistake. This week, Majority Leader McConnell plowed right through with a vote on Paul Matey, President Trump's nominee for a Third Circuit seat based in New Jersey. Mr. Matey had recently served for 4 years as the general counsel for University Hospital in Newark, NJ. While Mr. Matey was there, a patient safety organization gave this hospital annual grades of ``C,'' ``D,'' ``D,'' and ``F'' for patient safety. The grades got worse while Mr. Matey was there. Previously, Mr. Matey had been a longtime staff member to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. He served as Governor Christie's chief ethics officer and deputy chief counsel. Mr. Matey said he provided a rigorous system of ethics training, monitoring, and oversight for staff members in the Governor's office; yet it is unclear what steps, if any, he took to ensure that ethics rules were followed. It certainly appears that Mr. Matey's ethics guidance fell way short during the so-called Bridgegate scandal in 2013. That is when Christie administration officials arranged to close lanes on the George Washington Bridge as retaliation against a mayor who had not endorsed the Governor's reelection. The deputy chief of staff, Bridget Kelly, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for her role in this scandal. In addition to being a former staffer to a Republican-elected official, Mr. Matey is a longtime member of the Federalist Society. But just because a nominee meets the ideological litmus tests of the Republican Party and the Federalist Society doesn't mean he has the experience and judgment to be a good circuit court judge. More likely, it is a sign the nominee will be an ideological judge. New Jersey's two Senators opposed Mr. Matey's nomination, but the White House and Senate Republicans plowed right through with this controversial nominee. Also this week, Senator McConnell has scheduled a vote on D.C. Circuit nominee Neomi Rao. The DC Circuit is often considered the second most important court in the land, and typically the nominees to this court bring with them a wealth of legal and judicial experience. Ms. Neomi Rao has virtually no practical experience in law. She has never tried a case in court. She has never argued an appeal in court. She has never made an appearance in an American court, and she has filed one court brief in her entire career. How in the world could someone suggest that this woman get a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land, never having tried a case, never having argued an appeal, never having made an appearance in the court, and having filed only one court brief in her entire career? She was a political appointee of the President, working at the Agency known as the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. When she was there, she set out to rescind a lot of Federal regulations-- regulations, however, that might have been better left on the books-- that protected workers, the environment, and Americans facing discrimination. She was out to put an end to those regulatory protections. She has been an academic. She has written a lot. In the year 2009, she wrote: ``The President may also decide not to follow Supreme Court precedent, and in the rare instance, may decide against the enforcement of a particular judgment.'' That would be considered a radical statement by most standards. It is a radical view of Executive power that Ms. Rao put forward. It flies in the face of Supreme Court rules and decisions, where the final word on constitutional interpretation was decided and established two centuries ago in Marbury v. Madison. Ms. Rao has also published a number of articles in college, in which I can't even describe to you what she was thinking. They were shocking and inflammatory writings on issues involving race, sexual orientation, sexual assault, and date rape. In April of 1993, this woman--destined for the circuit court and a lifetime appointment, where she will use her judgment on a daily basis to decide the outcomes of cases and the legal framework of America-- wrote: ``Date rape exemplifies the attempts of the nurture feminists to develop an artificial, alternative world in which women are free from sexual danger and `no always means no.' '' In October of 1994, she wrote of date rape survivors: ``If she drinks to the point where she can no longer choose, well, getting to that point was part of her choice.'' In September of 1994, she wrote that a group at Yale called the Bisexual, Gay and Lesbian Co-Op was ``spreading myths about AIDS.'' In November of 1993, she wrote: Myths of sexual and racial oppression propagate themselves, create hysteria, and finally lead to the formation of some whining new group. One can only hope to scream, ``Perspective, just a little perspective, darling!'' These are a few examples of writings, which are difficult to describe in the fairest terms and inflammatory at the least. While she wrote a letter to the Judiciary Committee apologizing for some of these writings, what does it say about her values, her thinking, and whether she should be in this legal position for the rest of her life? The bottom line is this. Ms. Rao has minimal practical experience in the law. Her legal views are beyond extreme, and her personal views, as reflected in her own personal writings, are deeply troubling. I would like to say to the President and those who are in charge of picking his nominees: Please, isn't there a good Republican conservative somewhere in this area who has actually been in a courtroom, who has actually made an appearance in a case, who has maybe even tried a case, who has maybe even filed a motion, or who would know a courthouse if they saw it and not on television? Is that too much to ask for a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land? This nominee may be ideologically perfect for somebody who decided she was destined for this court, but this nomination is not a perfection when it comes to the legal system in America. It is an imperfection, which, if approved by the Senate, is going to be with us for a lifetime. I yield the floor.

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 West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones) is necessarily absent.

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if you ask the Trump administration about their highest spending priority in terms of their budget, it is pretty clear--national defense. Over and over, the President has asked and Congress has voted for more money for America's military for operations, readiness, and investment across the board. I don't think there is any question that the votes reflect the bipartisan commitment to our military and the belief that spending dollars today to train our men and women, to equip them properly, and to make sure they live in the best circumstances is in the best interests of America's future. We have done that year in and year out, but this year we are facing quite a challenge from the Trump administration. This notion of building a $5.7 billion wall is going to be paid for at the expense of the U.S. military. It is the military that will end up surrendering projects that are underway and investments in our troops that are underway so that the President can build this almighty wall of his that was supposed to be paid for by the Mexicans, right? I heard him say that--only 100 times, but I heard him say it. Now he is off of that. It will not be the Mexicans paying for the President's wall. It will be our military. So we ought to be very honest about the vote that is coming up. President Trump has decided to declare an emergency and to say that regardless of the Constitution's giving authority to Congress to appropriate funds, he wants to take on that responsibility to decide where funds will be spent. That will be challenged in court, I am sure, as it should be. But for those Members of the Senate who in a few days will be asked to vote, I would like them to reflect on two things. Their vote supporting the President's approach is basically giving the authority of this branch of the government away to the Executive. Make no mistake, that is at the heart of it, and a number of Republican Senators--a handful--have stood up and said: We wouldn't have allowed this under a Democratic President; why would we allow it under a Republican President? Yet others have said they are prepared to look the other way. If this President is popular back in their home States, the Constitution comes in second. I think that is a mistake. Secondly, though, Members of the Senate, before they cast this vote giving this President the authority to take money out of our military to build this wall, ought to stop and take a look at where the money is coming from within our military. I am in the fortunate position to be the ranking member on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. It is the biggest appropriations job on Capitol Hill, and I am happy to have Senator Shelby, a Republican from Alabama, as my chairman of the subcommittee. I am the ranking Democrat on that committee. We have the biggest appropriation bill when it comes to discretionary spending--some 60 percent of the Federal discretionary budget, and we know how important it is to get it right. America never wants to come in second in a war, and we certainly never want to be in a position where we are mistreating or ignoring the needs of our men and women in uniform. Each year we go through their requests and try to make sure the most important things are funded. The military will tell us: There are certain things that are essential and timely, and we need you to spend money on them. And we have responded, not just in the subcommittee and in the full committee but in the Senate and in the House. Now comes the President and says: Not so, we are going to take the money that we told you was so critically important this year and spend it on the Mexican border to extend the wall--$5.7 billion worth of it. As I have met with the heads of the branches of our military service, we have asked basic questions. I did that yesterday to several generals and Secretaries who came before me. I said: Has the administration sat down with you in terms of your branch of the military and told you where they are going to take the money to build the wall? Consistently, the answer is no, they don't know. We are days or weeks away from that money being taken. What we have done is to prepare a chart through the Military Construction Subcommittee, which is chaired by Senator Boozman, the Republican from Arkansas, and Senator Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii. I asked them: Where are the unobligated projects? These are projects that have been authorized but haven't been started. They may have had basic engineering and preliminary estimates done and so forth. They are ready to let a contract. The money is sitting there ready to move forward, and these are the projects that are on the target list for President Trump when it comes to cutting the military to pay for his border wail. We have a long list here. The list includes almost every State-- certainly, every State that has anything near a military facility. The State of Illinois has several key projects that we consider to be essential. There is one in Peoria, IL. It is a fire crash and rescue station that needs to be upgraded for the safety of the men and women who work there and those who use that important airport, and there are other things within our State. As I said, hardly any State is omitted from this list. Any Senator who is voting to give this President the authority to cut military projects and to stop the spending on military projects should realize that it may come home and require an explanation. The Presiding Officer is from the State of Oklahoma. I tell him that four of the projects are in Oklahoma that are on the target list--the hit list--for cuts if the President decides to cut those projects or Illinois projects to fund this wall. I have two or three specific ones that I would like to highlight today because they came to my attention. I thought it would be a shame--in fact, it would be just plain wrong--for us to cut the spending on these projects. Let me tell you about one of them that struck me first. The Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps came to see me. He is a no- nonsense man. You can understand that if you come to be a four-star general in the Marine Corps, you get down to business in a hurry. We talked about some of the damage done at the premier training facilities for the U.S. Marine Corps. Last year, Hurricane Florence tore through the State of North Carolina. The Marine Corps happened to be one of the victims of that violent storm. The hurricane damaged roughly 800 buildings on base at Camp Lejeune, New River, and Cherry Point. Here is an overhead shot that is not as graphic because it was taken after the hurricane, but the blue coverings on the tops of these roofs are an indication of the structural damage that was done to these buildings. As I mentioned, 800 buildings on these bases were impacted and damaged by this hurricane. This overhead shot taken last month indicates the work that needs to be done before these buildings can be successfully inhabited by the Marine Corps and their families. I have a photo of the Camp Lejeune chapel, too. There is not much left of it. That is an indication of the damage that was done there. This is a worker walking outside of the chapel. That is what is left of the chapel. Insulation is falling from the ceiling. There is no good reason to prolong the cleanup. The Marine Corps said they want to get down to work as quickly as possible and restore this training facility for the good of the Marine Corps and for our Nation, but this is on the hit list for the President for the wall at the border. What else needs attention this year? The U.S. Air Force needs $750 million to begin cleaning up Tyndall Air Force Base, which was leveled by Hurricane Michael. The Army leaders need $1 billion for everything from more training to jump-starting new technology to keep our troops safe and effective in the battlefield. The Navy has asked for hundreds of millions of additional dollars for unexpected ship maintenance. We can't afford to shortchange the men and women in the Navy. We saw what happened not that long ago with the fatal accidents involving Navy maneuvers and exercises. We never want that to happen again. The National Guard has 2,100 personnel on the border, but it is starting to run low in its pay account. So it was hoping some of these unobligated funds, at least a small part of them, might be used so they can continue their border mission. Unless the Department of Defense finds $150 to $300 million this year, the National Guard will have to cut short its summer trainings in all 50 States. My subcommittee has identified almost $5 billion in military priorities that need attention today, but after President Trump takes half of that--$2.5 billion to pay for his border wall--which priorities will get cut? The President has also decided to cut or delay $3.6 billion in military construction projects. The President might not think these projects are timely or important, but it was just weeks or months ago when the administration said just the opposite and asked Congress to appropriate money--examples: $800 million for essential training facilities like the National Guard readiness centers, simulators and firing ranges in the States of Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, and Montana, to name a few; $1.4 billion worth of maintenance-related projects such as aircraft hangars and vehicle maintenance shops in Arkansas, Indiana, Missouri, and Oklahoma, not to mention many other States affected; $1 billion worth of projects for medical and dental care facilities for the men and women in uniform; schools for military families, military barracks, and other essential facilities in Arizona, Missouri, Texas, and beyond. Fort Campbell, KY, needs a new middle school for military children. The current building dates back to 1967 and is in serious disrepair. We were told that was a priority, but it could be stopped, cut, and eliminated if we are not careful to build this wall. Also on this list is a new rifle range at Parris Island, SC, a training base for 20,000 new Marines every single year. There is a new training center at Fort Bragg, NC, to provide top- notch training and prevent injuries among our Special Forces. They are using an old warehouse right now, and they want a modern facility. If it were your son or daughter serving our military at Fort Bragg, you would give them nothing less. The list goes on and on. Are we really going to tell our military--the very people who are protecting and defending this Nation--that the needs they have identified and we have appropriated money for are going to be put on hold because President Trump made a campaign promise that he can't keep--that the Mexicans were going to build the wall? Republicans and Democrats in the Senate should join the House in rejecting the President's emergency declaration. The Senate should reject any effort by the President to take money from our troops, from the military--from the Marines, from the Air Force, the Navy, the Army, the National Guard units--to build this wall. We may not agree on much, but we used to agree on fundamental things. The Department of Defense was a priority. The men and women serving there deserve not only our gratitude but the investment in their training, operations, readiness, and a way of life that shows our respect for what they are doing in service to this country. We can do nothing less. When we face the vote--quite likely a week from today or tomorrow--on whether we agree with the House, I hope that the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, will put the national defense of our Nation first and our military first and vote no on President Trump's effort to extend this emergency designation and to try to assume constitutional responsibilities beyond what is already written. We are a branch of government--article I of the Constitution. Our responsibility is to appropriate funds. When we give away that responsibility, we walk away from the reason we were elected. I hope that Members on both sides of the aisle will consider that as we face this historic vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, when I hear my friend from South Dakota describe the state of the economy, it is amazing how political amnesia can take over on the floor of the Senate Chamber. Do you remember the election of 2008 when Barack Obama was elected President of the United States? Was there anything going on with the economy when he took office? Oh, something that the Senator failed to mention--our country was facing the one of the worst recessions in the history of the United States. You had to go back to the Great Depression to see the impact of this recession on the American economy, and it happened under a Republican President--George W. Bush. President Obama inherited that, and most people will never forget it because in 2008 and 2009, many people saw their savings devastated by the drop in value in the stock market. They saw this economy teetering on the edge and financial institutions failing. This all happened on President George W. Bush's watch. President Obama inherited it and had to turn it around--without the cooperation of the Republican Party, I might add. A handful of them stepped up to join him in a bipartisan effort, but most of them opposed him. He did everything he needed to do to save this economy and then started turning it around with job creation--unprecedented job creation--throughout the 8 years of his term. Now, of course, along comes a new President who wants to take credit for all of it and, as the Senator from South Dakota suggested, blame President Obama for the state of the economy he inherited. History tells us a different story. After this tax cut that the Senate Republicans are so proud of, I think you ought to ask the American families paying their taxes now to take a look at their taxes and tell you how the Trump tax cut helped them as working families. For some, there is some value to it, but for most, there is none. You see, over a long period of time, the vast majority of the benefits of this Republican tax cut go to people in the highest income categories. If there were ever a group who didn't need a break, it is people who are already making millions of dollars each year. Yet this Republican tax cut gave them the break. It added trillions of dollars to our deficit, it helped the richest people in America, and it forgot working families and left them behind. Yet Republican Senators still come to the floor and boast about it with regularity. There is a better way to approach this. Yes, I want to give tax incentives and tax relief to working families because we know they are not getting the paychecks they need to meet their obligations, to save for the future, and to make sure their kids have a better life. We should be focused on them, not the wealthiest among us--they are doing quite well, thank you. Let's focus on working families instead. The Trump tax cut forgot that. (Mr. SCOTT of Florida assumed the Chair.)

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, throughout the country and in the great State of Illinois, a host of environmental issues are plaguing Americans. From air pollution, to groundwater contamination, to the increases in climate change-related harm that we are already facing, there is no more crucial time to have strong national leadership on environmental issues than right now. However, in the midst of all these issues comes the nomination of Andrew Wheeler--a former lobbyist for corporate polluters--to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. If there is one major thing we have learned from the Clean Air Act, it is that regulations save lives and money. Regulations that ensure clean air mean fewer premature deaths and health issues, as well as fewer asthma attacks in children and health-related missed work days. However, the EPA under this administration that is now led by Acting Administrator Wheeler, consistently works to roll back clean air and water rules. This exposes the most vulnerable members of our society-- including children and the elderly--to toxic and deadly chemicals. The people in Illinois are no exception. We are facing several environmental issues in Illinois that require immediate action by the EPA, and so far, I am not satisfied that EPA is doing everything it can and should be doing under Mr. Wheeler's leadership. The Sterigenics facility is causing is a public health threat in Willowbrook, IL due to emissions from cancer-causing ethylene oxide. The EPA's own risk assessment from 2016, showed that ethylene oxide exposure increases the risk of cancer more than what was previously thought. However, given this information, the EPA has still not taken sufficient actions to protect people of Willowbrook who are exposed to this gas. Concerns about ethylene oxide exposure is not limited to the people of Willowbrook--it is also of concern to the people of Gurnee and Waujkegan, IL who also have plants that use ehtylene oxide in the middle of their towns. Every time I have spoken with Acting Administrator Wheeler about this issue, I have been disappointed by the lack of urgency to do anything more than monitor and collect more data. When it comes to the facilities in Gurnee and Waukegan, the EPA won't even commit to monitor and collect data, even though I have joined my colleague Senator Duckworth in requesting that monitoring begin immediately. The EPA is 4 years overdue to begin the process to promulgate new standards for this gas, even though they know the increased cancer risk. So I, along with my colleague Senator Duckworth and my colleagues in the House, introduced legislation to require the EPA to promulgate new rules for ethylene oxide. However, the EPA's failure to act to limit toxic chemicals being emitted into neighborhoods does not end with ethylene oxide. There is manganese pollution on the Southeast side of Chicago. Manganese exposure results in serious neurological effects, such as learning difficulties, lower IQ scores in children, and manganese poisoning--a condition that resembles Parkinson's disease. There are several facilities on the Southeast side of Chicago that emit manganese, and EPA is now monitoring these facilities after my colleague Senator Duckworth and I pressed EPA to do so. These facilities contaminate both the air that people breathe and the soil that children play on. Although the EPA knows how dangerous this neurotoxin is and how high the concentrations are, they will not commit to strengthening manganese standards or take immediate action to clean up sites with soil contamination. We need someone at the EPA that will be aggressive in enforcing the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. We also need an EPA Administrator who recognizes how urgent it is to address climate change. The Trump administration's own Department of Defense issued a report last month identifying national security threats to defense missions, operations, and installations, due to climate change. Yet Acting Administrator Wheeler continues to undermine independent science for climate change by appointing members to the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board who are biased by industry or actively deny that climate change is a problem. How can we expect the EPA to lead efforts to address climate change if its leadership doesn't believe it requires immediate action? I would also like to mention one more thing before I close. This administration promised farmers, biorefineries, and fuels stations that they would ensure stations could sell E15 fuels this summer. The EPA is coming close to failing to fulfil that promise. I hope the EPA will work with me to ensure stations are able to sell E15 fuels this summer. We need someone leading the EPA who will put the health and well- being of the people of this country above the profits of corporate polluters. We need someone who is willing to protect families and communities from toxic chemicals in our air and water by fully enforcing the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. And we need someone who will lead the charge to address climate change. I am not convinced that Acting Administrator Wheeler will do these things. As a result, I cannot support his nomination. I hope he proves me wrong.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) is necessarily absent.

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. Mr. President, if you are a student of history, the speech you just heard is not a new speech. It is a speech that has been given repeatedly in the Senate Chamber. It was back in the 1930s, when a President named Franklin Delano Roosevelt had an idea, and the idea was radical at the time. Here was the radical idea: Shouldn't we allow people, during the course of their work-life, to put a little money away and to invest for their retirement so that when they reach the age of 65, they will have a program called Social Security? That was considered a radical socialist idea, taking money from everyone to create a positive program to help retirees across America when they reach retirement age. It takes away our freedom, they said. We ought to be able to make our own choices in life. They resisted it, but, fortunately, they failed and in their failure allowed the creation of the Social Security Program, which is the single most popular government program in America today. Over 95 percent of Americans count on Social Security to make sure that when they reach retirement, there is something there to take care of them, but that wasn't the end of the speech you just heard. It was repeated again in the 1960s because another Democratic President by the name of Lyndon Baines Johnson came up with a notion that, perhaps, if people are going to live a little longer and have Social Security, they should also be able to have affordable healthcare. So Lyndon Baines Johnson suggested the creation of Medicare. What did the critics say about Medicare? Socialism; that you would collect money from people all across America just to provide for the benefits to those who are retired; that you would take away our freedom to make our own savings plans for our future by saying we have to pay into Medicare. It is an attack on our freedom, they said. It is a socialist idea, they said. Thank goodness they lost in that debate as well. What happened, of course, was a creation of a Medicare Program, and we can see what came about as a result of it, a dramatic increase in the number of hospitals in America and doctors in America. We started taking healthcare seriously when it came to senior citizens. What is the proof in the pudding? Senior citizens started living longer and longer lives. They were healthier, they were independent, they were strong because of this so-called socialist program of Medicare. So if you listened this morning as Republican leaders came to the floor and decried socialism again, what is their point now? Their point now is, they believe that if we make a national effort toward dealing with climate change and global warming, it is socialism. It takes away our freedom. I would agree with them in this respect. If we do something as a nation, a sensible approach that is moderate, constructive, and positive, it is going to change the future. It is going to take away the opportunity that some of us will have to leave a planet for our children that is uninhabitable. Does anyone doubt--does anyone doubt--that we are dealing with some change in the climate that we face around this world? Does anyone doubt that the scientific evidence, year after year after year, about the increased temperature of this planet has had a negative impact on the world we live in--more extreme weather events than we have ever seen, tornadoes in Taylorville, IL, in December? Listen, I grew up in Illinois. I was awakened many times in the summer to get down in the basement because there was a tornado warning. My parents were worried about it. It was part of growing up in the Midwest, part of growing up in Illinois. I don't recall ever going down to the basement around Christmas. It turns out that tornado season in Illinois, and many other places, is now becoming a year-round event and flooding and fires and flooding in the city of Miami. All of these things are evidence to me that something is going on, and we have the scientific explanation. Greenhouse gas emissions are creating a different environment, warming our planet, changing our weather patterns. I have come to the floor repeatedly over the last several years and asked one basic question, can anyone name any major political party in the world today--any major political party in the world today--that, like the Republican Party of the United States, denies climate change? I make that open challenge over and over again on the floor and have never had a Republican come to me and say: No, there is another party somewhere that takes our position on the issue that climate change is a fallacy and a fiction. I will tell you, though--maybe I am not supposed to repeat this--but one Republican Senator, after I made that challenge over and over again, drew me aside in the elevator, looked in both directions, and said: I think there is a political party in Australia that also denies climate change. That is as good as it gets--one more party somewhere halfway around the world. When Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, comes to the floor and challenges the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, with the basic questions, I believe we have the right to ask for an answer. To the Republicans, to my friend from South Dakota who just spoke, to Senator McConnell of Kentucky, the first question is this: Do you believe that there is such a thing as climate change and global warming? That is a pretty easy question. The scientists overwhelmingly believe it. I do too. The second question that Senator Schumer has posed to them is this: Do you believe that our human activity has something to do with it? Well, the scientific evidence is overwhelming again. Once we got into the industrial age and starting spewing all of the smoke and chemicals into the air, things started warming up on this planet Earth. The third question that Senator Schumer has posed to the Republicans is basically fundamental, as well: What are you going to do about it? The answer is obvious. For the 4 years the Republicans have been in control in the Senate, they have done nothing--nothing. Now they have a President who has the United States as the only country in the world--the only Nation on Earth--that has withdrawn from the Paris accord, which tried to create a global strategy to deal with climate change. The President is enthralled by the notion that climate change is a fallacy, a fiction, and so are the Senate Republicans. So any effort to address this is socialism. Any idea that we should come together as a nation and work toward a planet that our kids can live on is taking away our freedom. Well, we know better. Under President Obama, we started moving toward more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. A gallon of gas is giving us more mileage because of government policy. Well, I guess it took away the freedom of gas guzzlers, but we can at least say we made a positive step forward, and this administration is stepping backward, and they are doing it for the fossil fuel industry--for oil and gas and coal interests. They are coming to the floor and trying to get us into a fight, once again, over socialism when we talk about government policies that would guide us in the right direction for the future.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I listened to the statements of my colleague from South Dakota. I would like to make a suggestion. Since the Republicans are in control of the U.S. Senate, since there is a Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I would suggest to my colleague that perhaps we have a hearing on this bill he just described. You see, it came to the floor yesterday without any hearing. And the reason why we need a hearing is that many of us--many of us--voted for an infanticide law, which is currently on the books--a law that says that a child needs to be protected and that those who don't protect that child are subject to criminal penalties, as they should be. Now, if this is a different approach to it, doesn't it at least merit a hearing from the Republican majority before it comes to the floor for a vote? There are many questions I would like to ask of those who propose this. I want to understand why the law that has been on the books now for 17 years, as I remember, is inadequate to the challenges it faces. I supported the infanticide law. I will continue to. If there are any changes that the Republicans want to make, is it too much to ask them to have a hearing in their own committee, which they chair, on this subject matter? I hope they will take it seriously enough to do it. Critics have said this has nothing to do with changing the law. It is just a ``gotcha'' vote on the floor--an amendment which may be used against candidates in future elections. When it comes to children, something as serious as life and death should be taken much more seriously by the Republican majority.