Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the pending nomination of Eric Miller to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a seat based out of the State of Washington. If the Senate chooses to confirm Mr. Miller, it will be a historic decision because it will be the first time ever since the introduction of blue slips over 100 years ago that the Senate has confirmed a nominee who is not supported by either of the home State Senators from the State in which he will be seated. What is a blue slip? It is basically a consultation with the Senate before we move forward on a nomination. It is a courtesy that has been extended. It is an effort to try to find some common ground, some understanding, perhaps some moderation when it comes to the choice of nominees. It has been abused in some cases, but the two Senators here-- Senator Cantwell and Senator Murray--are well known in this body for being reasonable people who try to find solutions to problems and work well with both sides of the aisle. Yet, in this case, the Trump White House has decided that they are going to push this nominee for the Ninth Circuit in their home State of Washington against their wishes. If Mr. Miller is confirmed, we will have taken away yet another guardrail in the Senate advice and consent process. If you follow what has happened in the Senate over the last 2 years and a few months, you know that the highest single priority of Senator McConnell's--the Republican leader--is to fill the Federal judgeships, to put in place men and women who will serve literally for a lifetime, as long as they live. He is determined to do it. There is a template for the people who they find acceptable. If you have been a law clerk for Clarence Thomas, you check the box, you are ready to go--a lifetime appointment. If the Federalist Society decides you are the right person for the Supreme Court of the United States, box checked, off we go. Instead of relying on common sense, moderation, and judgment, we are going through a formula here to put people on the bench for a lifetime--those who have been approved on the Republican side of the aisle. Make no mistake--under Democratic Presidents, we look to nominees who are closer to our value system, for sure, but we never walked away from the blue slip process until this nominee--the first time ever it has been done. We have seen so many things change under the Republican leadership in the Senate when it comes to the selection of judges. We used to say that if you are found unqualified--not qualified--by the American Bar Association, forget it. Go about your business. Do something else. We are not going to put you on the bench for life. Well, we have decided, under the Republican leadership, that is no longer the case. Simply being unqualified is not enough to disqualify you. We have also said that when it comes to the process of making these decisions, we will have hearings where we will consider multiple candidates in the same day. Let's run them through. Of course, you know what happens when you do that: You get in a hurry, and you end up putting people on the bench for life who shouldn't be there. We have also decided in this White House that we will send people off to be Federal judges who have never been in a courtroom in their lives--not once. Maybe they watched ``Perry Mason'' on some retro channel, but that is about as good as it ever was for some of them. I recall one of the nominees from the Trump White House. It was a moment in the history of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana asked him some basic questions about what it meant to be a judge and some of the things he would have to rule on. It was a sad moment. It reminded me of my worst days in law school when I didn't know the answers to the test or to the question being asked by the professor. This nominee, thankfully, withdrew. He never should have been nominated. In this case, when it comes to Mr. Miller, neither of the Washington Senators returned a blue slip on him, and they have a reason. He is 43 years old; he may serve on the bench for three decades or more. In his relatively short legal career, he has demonstrated that his views are far outside the legal mainstream, particularly when it comes to one legal issue--the issue involving Indian Tribes. I don't know if you watched the Oscars, but I did, and I was watching for a movie that I saw that I was impressed with. It was called ``Roma.'' It was a movie about Mexico. It received quite a few awards, and I thought it deserved them. It raised some painful questions for people living in Mexico. I know because I have spoken to Mexican Parliamentarians at a dinner a few weeks ago. It is the treatment of indigenous people. Most countries in the world, including the United States, haven't written a very admirable record when it comes to the treatment of people who were here before we ``arrived.'' What we have done to Native Americans in this country, sadly, is nothing to brag about. They were dispossessed, relocated for their lands, and many times treated in the poorest possible fashion. The movie ``Roma'' was about indigenous people of Mexico who are servants, and some would say slaves, to families who have more money in Mexico. So the question of the treatment of Native Americans is not something that we can just push back in the pages of history; it still confronts us in the United States today, as it does in other countries, like Mexico and Australia and so many others. So what does this have to do with this nominee? It turns out that in a rare moment, the National Congress of American Indians weighed in against Eric Miller for this circuit court nomination. The National Congress of American Indians opposed his nomination. Here is what they wrote in a letter to the Judiciary Committee, and I want to quote it in its substance: Our concern is that he chose to build a law practice on mounting repeated challenges to tribal sovereignty, lands, religious freedom, and the core attribute of federal recognition of tribal existence. His advocacy has focused on undermining the rights of Indian tribes, often taking extreme positions and using pejorative language to denigrate tribal rights. Indeed, his law firm website touts his record, with over half of his private practice achievements coming at the expense of tribal governments. Given his strong preference for clients who oppose tribes, there are considerable questions about whether he would be fair in hearing cases regarding tribal rights. You might say to yourself: Well, that has to be a narrow area of the law--Tribal rights--and if he happens to consistently get that wrong, how important could it be? Take a look at the fact that he has aspired to be a nominee to the circuit court--the second highest court in the land--in the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit includes 427 of the 573 federally recognized Tribal nations of America. That circuit he aspires to for a lifetime appointment hears more cases involving Tribal issues than any other Federal circuit. It is deeply troubling to see a Ninth Circuit nominee whose impartiality on Tribal legal matters is in question. Mr. Miller's nomination is opposed by not only the National Congress of American Indians; he is also opposed by a broad array of civil rights, environmental, labor, and other organizations that are concerned about his record and legal views. He is 43 years old--43 years old--three more decades to hand down decisions. It is astonishing that the Senate would vote to confirm a nominee this controversial over the objection of home State Senators and to break a century-old tradition in the Senate to do it. These Senators represent millions of people in the State of Washington. Their good judgment has been recognized by election and reelection. But when it comes to having a voice in the selection of a circuit court nominee who will be serving their State for the next three decades, they have been shunned and pushed aside. I think the Republican majority is making a mistake. They are so bound and determined to fill these vacancies that they are abandoning basic Senate traditions--which, in fact, will slow things down from time to time, I am ready to admit, but also put at least a note of caution into a critical judgment process. Blue slips encourage consensus and cooperation between the Senate and the White House. There isn't a single one of us serving in the Senate who hasn't counted on that cooperation to make sure that lifetime appointments to the Federal judiciary are people who can stand the test of time. Although they may not agree with any Senator every single time, they bring judgment, experience, balance, and moderation to their service. Blue slips ensure that the voices of the American people, through their Senators, are heard in this process, and they help steer the nomination process toward the middle of the road. Without blue slips, the White House can ignore home State interests and pick extreme judges who do not have the confidence of that State's legal community. This decision--for the first time in a century--to abandon blue slips for the sake of putting this man in a lifetime position on the circuit bench could affect every one of our States someday. I can't understand why my Republican colleagues want to diminish their authority, their ability to safeguard against judges who should not be appointed for life. That is what we are doing on the vote to confirm Eric Miller to the Ninth Circuit. I will oppose his nomination. I urge my colleagues to do the same, if for no other reason, so that when the time comes--if it ever comes-- that you ask for the respect of this body when it comes to the selection of an important Federal judge, you will receive it regardless of who the President may be. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 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. Madam President, I arrived in the U.S. Congress in January 1983--a new Congressman from downstate Illinois, the son of an immigrant mother--and I was in awe. Just listen to this list of House Committee chairmen back then: chairman of the Rules Committee: Claude Pepper; Judiciary chairman: Peter Rodino; Veterans Affairs chairman: Sonny Montgomery; Interior Committee chairman: Mo Udall; Ways and Means Committee chairman: Danny Rostenkowski. Yet even among these legends, John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, stood out. He was a giant among giants, and not just because he stood 6 foot 3. A 26-year veteran of the House at the time, he was revered as the architect of Medicare and a driving force behind some of the most important civil rights and environmental laws in America's history. He went on to become the longest serving member of Congress in American history. But it is the quality and courage of John Dingell's service, even more than its length, that made John Dingell one of the most influential legislators of all time. He helped write most of the Nation's major environmental and energy laws. He helped save the American auto industry twice: in 1979 and again during the great recession. His nickname--``Big John''--was a reflection not only of his commanding height but also of his moral stature. Of the more than 25,000 votes he cast in Congress, the one he as most proud of was his vote in support of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That vote led to a brutal reelection fight later that year. It was the second time John Dingell ever had a cross burned on his lawn and the closest he ever come to losing a race. But John Dingell was unbowed. He went on to champion the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and--many more major civil rights laws. John David Dingell, Jr, was born in 1926, the eldest of three children. His family, he once said, was as ``poor as Job's chicken.'' In 1932, when John was 6 years old, his father was elected to Congress, where he became a leading champion of the New Deal. He stood behind FDR as he signed the law creating Social Security. In 1943, John Senior introduced America's first national health insurance bill--to help seniors and children from poor families. The bill never passed. In 1955, John Senior died in office from tuberculosis. That same year, at the age of 29, his son was chosen in a special election to finish his father's term. At the start of every new Congress, John Dingell introduced a bill to create a Medicare Program to provide health insurance for older adults. He never gave up on fulfilling his father's dream. When Medicare finally came up for a vote in 1965, he was given honor of presiding over the House, in memory of his father. He lent the gavel he had used that day to Speaker Nancy Pelosi when the House voted to pass the Affordable Care Act in 2010. John Dingell sat by President Obama's side when he signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010. Millions and millions of Americans can afford to see a doctor today and retire with a bit of security and dignity because of John Dingell. Chairman Dingell's father taught him that public service through politics can be a noble calling. He treated everyone with dignity. He cared about people who struggle, as his own family struggled when he was young. The priest who officiated at his funeral mass in Dearborn yesterday told a story about a woman who approached him recently and told him, ``If not for John Dingell, I would not have been able to put food on the table.'' Last week, on the day he died, John Dingell dictated some reflections to his wife, Congresswoman Debbie Dingell. She was John's partner and his rock for 40 years, and she now holds the seat that John and his father once held. John's ``parting thoughts,'' as he called them, were published in the Washington Post. They are profoundly moving and wise. One in particular stands out for me. Chairman Dingell said that it always grated on him to hear it said that a person ``has'' power. ``In democratic government,'' he wrote, ``elected officials do not have power. They hold power--in trust for the people who elected them.'' I'll close with one last story--one final more bit of wisdom--from my friend John Dingell. In 1944, when he turned 18, John enlisted in the U.S. Army. The following year, he was supposed to be among the first wave of American soldiers to invade mainland Japan. Only the surrender of Japan saved him from what would have been near-certain death. All of his life, he remained proud of his service and deeply committed to other veterans and to their families. When President George H. W. Bush died shortly after Thanksgiving, Chairman Dingell wrote a posthumous tribute--the last World War II veteran to serve in Congress, writing to honor the last World War II veteran to occupy the Oval Office. It was published in the Detroit News. This is what John Dingell wrote: Both of us understood how fragile this American democracy was and the atrocities that were occurring in the world. Both of us signed up immediately when war was declared and knew our moral responsibility to defend America and fight for the freedom of mankind. He went on to say: We were from a political generation that understood delivering for the American people was more important than political wins. The success of government and good public policy is the success of hard-working men and women. He closed with a plea, almost a prayer: May the stories of my good friend help us find our way back to a society that promotes dialogues, not demagogues, and that it helps us to remember we, the people, have the ability to restore this great nation to common ground rather than letting it continue its downward spiral into constant chaos. In closing, Loretta and I send our deepest condolences to John's wife, the love of his life, Congresswoman Debbie Dingell moreover, to John's three surviving children: Chip, Christopher, and Jennifer; and their families, including John's three grandchildren; to his brother and sister; his countless friends and the countless more who thought of him as a friend and mourn his passing.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. What is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the nomination of William Barr to be the next Attorney General of the United States. Mr. Barr has an admirable record of public service in his career. He has dramatically more qualifications and experience than many of his predecessors and, certainly, the Acting Attorney General. We can see he brings more experience to the job. I respect Mr. Barr and his family. I have told him as much to his face. He has a wonderful family, and he brought them with him to the hearing, and many of them have chosen public service careers, as he has. I carefully reviewed his record, trying to consider him in not only the context of this awesome responsibility of being Attorney General, but at this awesome moment in history. When it comes to the ongoing investigation of President Trump's campaign by Robert Mueller, I fear that Mr. Barr has said and done things that raise questions about his objectivity. He has clearly indicated to President Donald Trump and to all of us how he would oversee this investigation if he is confirmed. Just look at the unsolicited--unsolicited--19-page memo that William Barr sent to Special Counsel Mueller's supervisors and to the Trump legal defense team just in June of 2018. It is notable that Mr. Barr did not send this memo to Special Counsel Mueller himself, and he did not make it public. This was the only time Mr. Barr had sent a memo like this to the Justice Department, and he did not disclose in his memo that he had personally interviewed with the President the previous year about serving on the President's defense team. This memo is critical for its substance. In it, Mr. Barr argued that Bob Mueller, the investigator, the special counsel, should not be permitted to ask the President any questions about obstruction of justice, even though Mr. Barr's analysis focused only on one narrow obstruction theory. The memo calls into serious question Mr. Barr's ability to impartially oversee the obstruction of justice issues in the Mueller investigation at a moment in history when that is an essential question. Mr. Barr has made no commitment to recuse himself from such questions. That is worrisome. That William Barr would volunteer a 19-page legal memo with dramatic efforts at research and verification, give this to the President's defense team and to Mr. Mueller's supervisors at the Department of Justice, and basically make arguments diminishing the authority of the special counsel to move forward in the investigation raises a serious question about his impartiality. Just as important, I am alarmed by Mr. Barr's continued hedging about what he will do when Mr. Mueller completes his investigation and has a presentation of his conclusions, his evidence, and his findings. Make no mistake. Special Counsel Mueller's findings and conclusions should be shared with the American people and with the U.S. Congress. Current Department of Justice regulations and policies allow for such a release. I am concerned that Mr. Barr will exercise his discretion under those regulations narrowly and issue a cursory report that does not take the findings of the Mueller investigation in their entirety and make them available to the American people. This investigation is too critical to seal its result in some vault at the Department of Justice. I believe we can trust Bob Mueller to be impartial and unbiased. I don't know if he will find the President or people around him guilty of wrongdoing beyond the indictments and convictions that have already come down or whether he will conclude that there is no further responsibility or culpability, but I trust his findings, whatever they are. He is a true professional. It is important, after we have gone through a year or two of investigation, that the American people hear the details, hear the information that may be part of the Mueller investigation. I am also concerned that Mr. Barr will continue his predecessor's harsh approach on immigration instead of charting a different course. It was just last year, I believe in April in 2018, when the Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced something called the zero-tolerance policy. Do you remember it? The zero-tolerance policy said that the U.S. Government would forcibly remove infants, toddlers, and children from their parents at our border. The inspector general's reports say that it had been going on for a year before it was publicly announced. Twenty-eight hundred children were removed from their parents. What happened to them next is shameful. There was no effort made to trace these children and the parents who were forced to give them up. It was only when a Federal judge in San Diego stepped forward and required the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Health and Human Services to make an accounting of how many children were still not united with their parents that they took the effort to do so months--months--after those children had been separated from their parents. I saw those kids in an immigration court in Chicago in a large office building that you would never guess was a court building in the Loop in Chicago. There it was, the immigration court taking up most of one floor in this office building. People were stacked three and four deep in the corridors, waiting for their hearing. But the judge--and she was a good person, a real professional--couldn't get her hearing underway. She had a problem with those who were appearing before her court that day. The problem was this: She had said that before they could start the proceeding, those who were appearing had to sit down. One of the clients who was in there for a hearing that day had some difficulty. I was there to witness it. The difficulty was she was 2 years old. She wasn't tall enough to crawl up in that chair without somebody lifting her. The other client who had a hearing that day, who had been removed under this zero-tolerance policy, was a little more skillful. He spotted a Matchbox car on the top of the table, and this 4-year-old boy got up in the chair to play with it. Those were two of the clients before this immigration judge in this office building in the Loop in Chicago. They had been forcibly removed from their parents, and they were up for a hearing. It was in August. As a result of the hearing, as with most of the hearings, they said: We are going to postpone this until we get further evidence. The next hearing will be in December--December. I would ask any parent, any grandparent: What would you think about being separated from that little girl, that 2-year-old girl, whom you love so much, for 6 months, 8 months, 9 months? That was the policy of this Trump administration with zero tolerance--a policy created and announced by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. So when I asked Mr. Barr: You are going to take over this job. What is your view on this type of policy? Sadly, I didn't get a direct answer. I am concerned that in many respects Mr. Barr could continue the harsh approach to immigration that we have seen by the Trump administration instead of charting a different course, a course more consistent with America's values and history. We are in fact a nation of immigrants. Throughout American history, immigration has strengthened and renewed our country. I stand here today, the son of an immigrant girl who came to this country from Lithuania at the age of 2. Her son grew up and got a full-time government job right here in the Senate. It can happen. It is my story. It is my family's story. It is America's story. When I listened to the diatribes by this President in the State of the Union Address about immigrants coming to this country--of course there are bad people. We don't want any of them in this country, and if they are here, we want them to leave. But think of all of the good people who have come to this country and made America what it is today. The President dismisses those folks, doesn't take them as seriously as he should, as far as I am concerned. I want to know if this Attorney General, Mr. Barr, subscribes to the President's theories on immigration. For the past 2 years, President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions did everything in their power to make America's immigration policy harsh and unwelcoming. Mr. Barr's comments and history make me fear that he will bring the full weight of the Justice Department to advance the President's anti- immigration agenda. Mr. Barr has refused to disavow the cruel and un- American zero-tolerance policy, which I just described, that led to thousands of children being forcibly removed from their parents, and he has fully and repeatedly echoed President Trump's call for a border wall after the debate we have been through over the last several months, falsely arguing that it will help to combat the opioid epidemic. That is a ludicrous argument. In fact, the Drug Enforcement Administration, which Mr. Barr would supervise, has found that the vast majority of deadly narcotics coming into America through the Mexican border are coming in through ports of entry. They are not being carried in backpacks by people scaling fences. That is where our security efforts should be made, not with some medieval wall. Mr. Barr also falsely and repeatedly was critical of our asylum laws for a host of problems. Our asylum laws, which have historically had broad bipartisan support until this President came along, simply ensure that we honor our legal and moral obligation to provide safe haven to families and children who are fleeing persecution. Who are these families seeking asylum and refugee status in the United States? You can find members of those families right here on the floor of the United States Senate. You can find three Cuban-American U.S. Senators--one Democrat and two Republicans--whose families came here as refugees from Castro's Cuba. Are we having second thoughts now about whether they are a valuable part of America? I am not. These people, these Cuban-Americans, have become an integral part of our Nation. They were once refugees and asylees. Now, they are party of America's future, and we are better off for it. I could tell that story so many different ways. Soviet Jews trying to escape persecution in the old Soviet Union and the Vietnamese who stood by us and fought by our men and women in uniform during the Vietnam war, who had to escape an oppressive regime, came to the United States as refugees and asylees. We are now seeing under President Trump the lowest level of refugees in modern memory. We are walking away from our obligation to the world. And Mr. Barr called for withholding of Federal funds to force cities to cooperate with the Trump administration's immigration agenda, even though courts have repeatedly struck down that approach. Perhaps most troubling is Mr. Barr's comment to me that he thinks it is absolutely appropriate for the Attorney General to change the immigration rules to help advance a President's campaign. He said he did it to help the campaign of President Bush in 1992. The idea of an Attorney General letting campaign politics drive immigration enforcement is unacceptable regardless of the President. I am also concerned with the views Mr. Barr expressed on something known as the unitary executive theory and his expansive view of Presidential power. He put it bluntly in that 19-page memo I mentioned before, when he said the President alone is the executive branch. We need an Attorney General who recognizes the need for checks and balances, but he did not believe that this President should be held accountable for many of the actions he has taken. I may be naive, but I don't believe any American is above the law, including the President of the United States. This is not an ordinary time in the history of the Justice Department. President Trump has criticized the Judiciary, individual Federal judges, our intelligence Agencies, and the Department of Justice when they continued an investigation into his campaign. He has undermined their independence and integrity with his storm of tweets every single day. William Barr said he sees the Attorney General as ``the President's lawyer''--in his words--but the chief law enforcement officer of the United States is supposed to be the lawyer for the people of the United States. We need an Attorney General who will lead the Justice Department without fear or favor and who will serve the Constitution of the American people even if it means standing up to a President. If he is confirmed, I hope Mr. Barr will prove me wrong and that he will be a good Attorney General who came at the right moment in history, but I have not received the reassurances I was looking for from him to give him a vote to reach that position. I will be voting no on the Barr nomination. I see my colleague and friend Senator Leahy on the floor. I will withhold two other statements for the Record to yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will finish its work on the Natural Resources Management Act. This is a bipartisan package addressing over 100 public lands, natural resources, and water. It will provide protection for a number of historical sites and treasured landscapes across the country. One of those sites is in my home State of Illinois. This lands package would include a bill I have cosponsored with my colleague Senator Tammy Duckworth to expand the Lincoln National Heritage Area. It would expand the heritage area to include several areas in Central Illinois that were a critical part of President Abraham Lincoln's life, including the site of Lincoln's legal career within the eighth judicial district, as well as the sites of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates. By expanding the Lincoln Natural Heritage Area, we can give more Illinois residents and visitors a chance to learn more about President Lincoln's legacy to our State and Nation. In addition, this lands package contains legislation that Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah introduced in the last Congress to protect over 700,000 acres of land in Emery County, UT. I have worked for many, many years to protect the stunning, fragile, and amazing desert landscape in Utah through the Red Rock Wilderness Act, which I have introduced and reintroduced over a period of time. While I would like to have seen the Red Rock Wilderness Act included in this package, Senator Hatch and I worked together to protect some of the land covered by my bill in a bipartisan compromise that is, in fact, included in this bill. This lands package also contains an important tool for conservation and recreation throughout the country, permanently reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund, also known as LWCF. In Illinois, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has invested more than $213 million to protect outdoor spaces, public access to trails, parks, and historic sites. Permanent reauthorization of this critical program should have happened a long time ago, but I am glad we have finally reached a bipartisan moment of achievement in passing it as part of this legislation. I look forward to the enactment of this legislation to protect these important areas in Illinois and across the Nation. Sterigenics and Ethylene Oxide Mr. President, there is often kind of a casual debate about regulation and the power of government. Some basically start with the premise that all regulation is bad, eliminating regulation is always good, and the role of the government needs to be challenged and questioned regularly. I guess there is some truth in those statements, but there comes a moment when we put things in perspective. Let me tell you that the people who live in the community of Willowbrook in Illinois are putting things in perspective when it comes to regulation. Most people are not familiar with Willowbrook. It is a village west of Chicago with a population of 9,000. It is in DuPage County, just west of the downtown Chicago area. It is a middle-income community with a lot of hard-working families, and many of them work hard to make sure their kids have a better life than they do, as so many American families do. In the middle of this village at Willowbrook is a business known as Sterigenics. It is a sterilization plant that uses a chemical, ethylene oxide, to sterilize medical equipment, and they do it in great volume. On any given day, they will be sterilizing thousands of catheters that are being used across the country and certainly in the Midwest for stents and for investigative medicine--absolutely essential to the health of those who are being treated. They will approve over 1,000 surgical kits each day through their sterilization process. They put through the sterilization process such things as knee replacements and defibrillating devices that are implanted in people, so it is an essential part of the medical picture in the Midwest at this moment, but it also turns out that the chemical they are using, ethylene oxide, is problematic, and that is where the issue of government regulation becomes front and center. I didn't know much about ethylene oxide. I was a liberal arts lawyer, so I skipped all of those hard chemistry courses and tried to understand other aspects of education. When it came to ethylene oxide, I needed to be educated. Here is what we found. We have learned that ethylene oxide is a dangerous toxin. It is carcinogenic. To put it in layman's terms, it causes cancer. We learned that ethylene oxide, a chemical in the form of gas, is more carcinogenic to humans than we previously thought, and this facility has been releasing ethylene oxide into the surrounding Willowbrook community for 34 years. Then we found out last August that the Willowbrook community is an area with higher cancer risk due to ethylene oxide emissions from Sterigenics, and we know that cancer-related ethylene oxide exposure includes lymphoid cancer, breast cancer, stomach cancer, and others. After we were told that this company, Sterigenics, was doing everything it could to reduce the emissions of this carcinogenic toxic gas and that it had installed pollution control measures, a local television station--CBS in Chicago--revealed a few days ago through interviews that this wasn't the case at all. Ex-employees of Sterigenics came forward and reported to this television station that ethylene oxide was often released directly into the air surrounding the plant through open doors and vents, and, instead of being directed through pollution control measures, it was simply released. According to these whistleblowers, employees at Sterigenics were instructed to dump a toxic liquid byproduct of ethylene oxide called ethylene glycol directly into the water drains that lead to the public sewer system. Ethylene glycol is a chemical that is used in antifreeze. Then, in the middle of last week, came a stunning revelation. We were told by the Environmental Protection Agency--an Agency that is often derided here in Washington by many--that the level of ethylene oxide measured outside of the Sterigenics facility in Willowbrook, IL, was 350 times higher than what the EPA finds to be an acceptable risk and 50 times higher than what was found in the surrounding area. Saying that the families--some of whom have lived in Willowbrook for decades--are concerned is a dramatic understatement. Imagine for a moment, if you will, that you have been raising a child in Willowbrook, that your family has lived within sight of this Sterigenics plant, and now you are learning that they were releasing this toxic gas into the air at a level of 350 times beyond what is deemed acceptable for human exposure. To say that the residents are concerned is a dramatic understatement. They are demanding action, and they want answers. For the record, this is not about Democrats making noise. This is a bipartisan response. Dan Cronin is a friend of mine. He is the chairman of the county board at DuPage County and a proud Republican. Both he and Jim Durkin, who is the Republican leader of the Illinois House, have come out publicly with the strongest possible statements about this Sterigenics emission and the danger it poses to their community. The same thing is true for the Democratic side of public service in that county. All of us have come out together, Democrats and Republicans, decrying this terrible situation, this dangerous situation. Members of this community should not have to divert time away from their lives and their loved ones to try to research a chemical release and to piece together answers. That is the responsibility of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, an Agency which, sadly under this administration, has been led by people who don't have sympathy for families before business. They tend to lean toward the business side before they look at the public health aspect. That is unfortunate. The Clean Air Act was one of the first and most expansive environmental laws ever created in the United States, but, as with most laws, the Clean Air Act is enforced by a Federal Agency--in this case, the Environmental Protection Agency--with broad power and authority to act or to refuse to act. In this case, the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to use the new information that came off its own monitors--new information about the concentrations and danger of ethylene oxide--to develop new rules around the use of that chemical, including when it is used for commercial sterilization in plants like Sterigenics. The EPA has the authority to do this. The EPA should quickly promulgate rules to establish safe limits for ethylene oxide used in manufacturing and commercial sterilization. This would protect not only the people in Willowbrook but also the people in Gurnee and Waukegan, IL, which also have plants that use ethylene oxide--plants that are located smack dab in the middle of these populated communities. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is 4 years overdue to begin the process of promulgating new rules for ethylene oxide commercial sterilization. Yet when I called the Acting Administrator, Mr. Wheeler, at the EPA last Friday, there didn't seem to be any sense of urgency to take action on this issue beyond the further collection of data over the next several weeks. The EPA is under court order to review ethylene oxide emission standards for manufacturing by 2020, but there is no official timeline for commercial sterilization review--exactly what we have asked of Mr. Wheeler and the EPA over and over again. Waiting 1 year is unacceptable for the families who are affected by these emissions. The health and safety of these families and their children are at stake in this decision by the EPA. That is too long to ask someone to wait when they sleep near this plant, work near this plant, or take their kids to school near this plant. That is why today I join my colleague Senator Duckworth, who has been my trusted ally in this effort, and my colleagues in the House of Representatives, Congressmen Schneider, Foster, Casten, and Lipinski. We are introducing legislation requiring the EPA to promulgate these rules within 180 days on the use of ethylene oxide in this manner. There is no excuse and no logical explanation for delaying this kind of establishment of a rule. But the EPA has to do a lot more than simply start a 6-month process toward promulgating a rule for ethylene oxide. The EPA needs to treat this matter like the public health crisis it is. Today Senator Duckworth and I are calling on the EPA to immediately require Sterigenics to work with an independent, third-party environmental engineering firm to identify the source of these emissions and reduce these emissions coming from that facility. We want a third party on the scene. We don't trust Sterigenics to do this by themselves. For their own credibility, they should invite a third-party environmental engineering firm to do this work. If Sterigenics cares about this community as much as they say they do, they shouldn't wait for the EPA to issue an order for them to have this sort of inspection and to make the repairs and changes necessary to protect the people in the surrounding community. They should immediately hire an independent, third-party expert to identify the source of the emissions and reduce them as quickly as humanly possible. The EPA should commit to continuous monitoring around the facility instead of ending the monitoring as planned later this week. The EPA should remain as a presence in this community to make sure we restore the faith to the people living nearby that the situation is no longer dangerous and threatening. The EPA should commit to continuing to analyze and share the data they collect with the public. No one should have to live in fear that simply breathing the air around their home, their school, or their workplace will give them cancer. I am calling on the EPA to treat this with the urgency it deserves. I am ready to work with them, and I am sure Senator Duckworth is as well. Let me close by saying that there are many people who mock the EPA and say that we would be better off if they stopped harassing businesses like Sterigenics. Tell that to the people who live in Willowbrook. Tell that to the people who live in Gurnee and Waukegan. They are counting on us--those in Washington who work with the Environmental Protection Agency--to keep this community safe for their families. They are counting on us to understand the concern they feel for themselves and their children. They are counting on us not to come with bureaucratic delay but to come up with a timely response, to put Sterigenics on the spot when it comes to the emissions that are coming off their plant, and to put us as a government on the spot to respond as quickly and as humanly as possible. It is not a matter of bureaucracy; it is a matter of common sense. If this were your family living next to this facility, would you want business as usual, or would you want to make sure the government responds in a timely fashion? I think the answer is obvious. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) 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. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from MN (Mrs. KLOBUCHER) and the Senator from MI Mrs. Stavenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last night, most of America was tuned in to the President's State of the Union Address, and I attended it with most of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate. The State of the Union Address is an opportunity for the President, once each year, to speak directly not just to Congress but to the American people. The President had an opportunity last night to bring us together and to talk about ways we can solve the challenges facing our great Nation. Sadly, time and again, the President chose to use divisive language when he could have used unifying language. What is the state of the Union under this President? Affordable health insurance is at risk. Last night, President Trump said he wanted to protect healthcare for people with preexisting conditions like cancer, diabetes, asthma, and heart disease. What he did not say was that at this very moment, his administration is trying to eliminate those protections for people with preexisting conditions. That is right. A lawsuit--filed by Republican attorneys general, led by the Texas Republican attorney general--is supported by the administration and the President, and it would declare the entire Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, including those provisions that protect people with preexisting conditions. The President can't stand before us and give a speech to the American people and say: I am all about preexisting conditions--and then tell his Attorney General to join in a lawsuit and try to eliminate that protection. That is exactly what is happening at this moment. Last night, President Trump said he wanted to help people with HIV/ AIDS and children with cancer. Who could argue with those goals? But people with HIV/AIDS and children with cancer are some of the people who stand to lose the most if President Trump sabotages the Affordable Care Act. Let me say a word about the childhood cancer issue. What a heartbreaking, tender moment it was to look up into the Gallery and see that little girl, that 7-year-old girl, who, fighting a brain tumor, was still out raising money for St. Jude's Hospital. It was beautiful, and she was just as pretty and loveable as any child can be as she applauded everyone and had what is clearly the night of her life to be at that joint session. I looked up there, and I am sure every parent and grandparent in the audience saw in her exactly what we love about little children. Let's be honest about what the President said last night. When he said he wanted to fight childhood cancer, he said how much he would spend. That is an important thing because your values in Congress and in the government are often measured by how much you are willing to invest in your values. The President suggested that he wanted to spend $500 million on childhood cancer. That is breathtaking, $500 million, until you listen to the rest of the sentence--over 10 years, so $50 million a year. To the outsider, that may seem like a significant amount of money, but in the context of medical research, it is not. The annual budget for the National Institutes of Health, the major medical research organization in the world, nears $35 billion; $50 million against $35 billion pales in comparison. Look at this. Each year, the National Institutes of Health spends almost $500 million on childhood cancer. I want to make sure they pay more, spend more, research more. I thank Roy Blunt, the Senator from Missouri--Republican Senator from Missouri; Lamar Alexander, Republican Senator from Tennessee; and, of course, Patty Murray, our champion when it comes to medical research on the Democratic side. What they have done for 4 successive years is have a 5-percent real increase in medical research. That is amazing. That is almost 30 percent more being spent on medical research because this bipartisan team--which I am a cheerleader for--has done that kind of investment So when the President talks about, now he is going to tackle childhood cancer, I can't wait to see the next budget for the National Institutes of Health. It is Congress that has been pushing the 5- percent real growth every year, not President Trump. So, yes, I am glad he is on board for childhood cancer. If we can help that little girl, and so many others like her each year who are battling cancer, we need to do it and put party aside, but $50 million a year is hardly a moonshot against cancer when it comes to children. If we are going to make a massive investment to make this work, it will take a lot more of an investment than that. For the past 2 years, President Trump has proposed cuts--cuts--in the National Institutes of Health. Mr. Mulvaney, who is now his Acting Chief of Staff, is pretty good as a budget cutter. He is not very good when it comes to investing in research. He suggested an 18-percent cut and a 6-percent cut to the very Agency responsible for medical research increases. Thank goodness, the team of Senators I mentioned to you earlier ignored the President's request and Mr. Mulvaney's directive to cut spending when it came to medical research. We need to make sure we invest in medical research for the future, finding new cures for diseases and conditions, including childhood cancer and HIV/AIDS. The basic services of our government are at risk, unfortunately, despite the President's statement last night. You see, the President authored the longest government shutdown--35 days--in the history of the United States, and after he relented and allowed the government Agencies to go back into business and pay their employees--some 800,000 Federal employees--he dangled again the possibility that next week he will do it all over again, shut down the government again, God forbid. We have seen enough of this. My guest last night was from Illinois. His name is Toby Hauck. Toby is head of the air traffic controllers in our State. We have almost 1,000 or more across our State. When they reached a point of 35 days with no pay, the air traffic controllers announced they would have to slow down air traffic operations across the United States. I believe that was the decisive moment in the government shutdown. It was shortly thereafter that the President relented and said he will allow the government to reopen again. Now, he says if he doesn't get his way about his almighty wall, he is going to do it all over again. I hope he doesn't. For the good of this Nation, I hope he doesn't. For air traffic controllers, and for people who work at the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and so many other Agencies, not to mention TSA, I would hate to see them face another period of not being paid while being called into work. Our national security is at risk at this moment too. When you look for the reasoning behind it, you can see the President's view of foreign policy is part of the problem. I was glad to stand last night when the President recognized the heroes of World War II. Those three men--in their nineties, I am sure-- really were a part of the ``greatest generation.'' The sacrifices they made for America, the sacrifices they made to defeat the forces of authoritarianism in Germany, Italy, and Japan have left a better world. It also led to the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization after World War II. The nations that were victorious in World War II, led by the United States, came together and said: Our goal is never to have another World War; to stop a war from breaking out again in Europe, as it had twice in the last century. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was the organization they chose to make sure we were prepared to fight communism or other forces that might lead to war. It has been dramatically successful not just in keeping the peace but in building a community of interest between the United States and Europe, which endures to this day. I don't disagree with the President. Those who are allies should pay their fair share for NATO, but, clearly, many of those countries in Europe today wonder if the United States still has an interest in their future, as it once did many years ago. That uncertainty, when it comes to dealing with Russia, is emphasized on a daily basis as we try to understand this President, who one day is admonishing the Russians for failing to live up to a nuclear arms treaty and the next day is ignoring Russia's cyber act of war as it tries to take over the election process in the United States. I can't follow where this President stands when it comes to Russia, and a lot of our NATO allies are curious, too, as to what he is trying to achieve. It isn't just NATO. Beyond that, we know the President walked away from this nuclear agreement with Iran. He talked about it last night. I couldn't disagree with the President's position more. When we had the major countries on Earth come together and devise a way with inspectors to make sure Iran did not develop a nuclear weapon, that made the Middle East safer; that made Israel safer. The President opposed it from the start. Despite his opposition, President Obama was able to get it through, approved in Congress, and it became the law of the land. When the reports came back, Iran was complying with the nuclear agreement. They weren't developing nuclear weapons. They were destroying centrifuges and other equipment that could lead them to develop a nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, the net result of it was destroyed when the President stepped away from this treaty. Iran still lives by its terms, but we don't know what tomorrow might bring. The nuclear arms race with Russia is on again because of their violation of a nuclear arms treaty that dates back to President Reagan. Instead of negotiation, we walked out and said we are just not going to live by it anymore. We need to stop a new arms race, and we need to engage China, as the President suggested last night, in that process. I also want to say the state of our Union sees our planet at risk. This President withdrew the United States from the Paris climate accord, an agreement signed--listen carefully--by every country in the world, but it doesn't include the United States. The rest of the world--those who are political foes and friends alike--came together and said: We have to do something to make sure this planet is loveable for our children and grandchildren but not President Trump. He walked away from that. As a consequence, the United States is not doing what it should to show leadership in this critical life-or-death issue. Finally, when it comes to America's confidence in our government, it has been shaken by a President who refuses to disclose his tax returns, refuses to be open about his business dealings around the United States and around the world, and, unfortunately, has seen a Cabinet riddled with corruption and conflicts of interest. We have never seen anything quite like this. In the 8 years of President Obama, there were no scandals that even came close to match what is happening under the Trump administration. Is it any wonder that people are skeptical about their leadership and their commitment to the common good as opposed to their own personal gain? The last point I will make is our economy. It is true, there are more jobs. We have had economic growth since President Obama brought us out of the worst recession since the Great Depression, and that growth and job creation is a good thing for America. I applaud it. I want to see it continue, but when we had a chance to rewrite the Tax Code in a way to help working families and those who are in the lower and middle- income categories, this Congress and this President did just the opposite, creating massive tax breaks for the wealthiest people in America. I know it is part of the Republican playbook that if the rich can just get a little bit richer, America will be better off, but it is counterintuitive. Too many working families across the United States have seen their wages--their real wages--fall behind, even though productivity and profits in corporations have increased. We have to make sure this is a fair economy when it comes to our workers and our taxpayers. Unfortunately, the President's position on taxes has not helped that in any regard whatsoever. So last night's State of the Union Address, unfortunately, divided us instead of united us. It didn't point out the real challenges we face and need to deal with. I hope still that we can come together, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and the House, to deal with the major challenges it faces--the challenges we were elected to confront and deal with. Mr. President, 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 Washington (Ms. Cantwell) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell) is necessarily absent.