Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this may be one of the most important votes in this new session of the Senate relative to the Trump administration. It is a Cabinet position most people are not aware of, except if you work here. It is the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. This individual has the authority to write the President's budget, to establish priorities, and to review Federal spending governmentwide. It is a big job. It is an awesome responsibility. The way it is executed will not only lead to an accounting of our Federal expenditures, but it will have a direct impact on America's economy. The choice of Congressman Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina for this job is wrong. It is wrong based on his record in the House of Representatives. He was a founding member of the Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives. That is a group which led to the resignation of Speaker Boehner and continues to tie the House of Representatives into knots. Why? Because they have certain tactics they believe are credible tactics, which Congressman Mulvaney signed up for. Let me give one of them. They think closing down the government is a good way to get people's attention. Well, they are right. It sure gets attention. But it does it at the expense of innocent people across America--taxpayers, those who are receiving critical programs, and Federal employees who are waiting for their paychecks. Congressman Mulvaney signed up for that. Once every year or so we have to decide to lift what is called the debt ceiling, which is the indebtedness of the United States, the full faith and credit of our government--really, the credibility of our government when it comes to financing. Congressman Mulvaney, who wants to head the Office of Management and Budget, has said we can default on our national debt, and it really won't cause that great of a problem. That is just the beginning of some of his bizarre views. He said he wants to end the Medicare program as we know it. He calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme. He has called for a 25-percent reduction in reimbursement for Medicaid; that is health insurance for children, the disabled, and the elderly in America. He also has questioned whether the United States as a government should continue to invest in medical research. I am not making this up. This man who wants to set the priorities for the Trump administration and deliver the budget for America's future questions whether our Federal Government should invest in medical research. When it came to paying for natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy-- and it happens to every State--he decided that instead of coming to the rescue of people in an emergency, we would have to cut entitlement programs--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--as well as military spending, in order to pay for disasters. That is how shortsighted he has been, and President Trump has chosen him to write the budget for America. I just have to say that his priorities as a founding member of the Freedom Caucus disqualify him for this job, in my consideration. The fact that he would repeal the Affordable Care Act without a replacement and leave some 30 million insured Americans without the promise of healthcare security for their families is another indication of an extreme point of view which should not be defining our government in Washington. I have no doubt Republicans are going to march in lockstep, with maybe one exception. Senator McCain has said he is going to vote against him. I think they will end up giving President Trump his man as head of the Office of Management and Budget. But we are in for a battle royal over the values in America. You can judge that values of a nation not by political speeches but by our budget. Congressman Mulvaney will cut some of the most basic and fundamental programs of our government, would endanger our economy by questioning the full faith and credit of the United States, and is prepared to shut down the government to get his way. That is not a responsible course when it comes to budgetmaking in a great nation like America. I will be opposing the nomination of Mick Mulvaney to be head of the Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise again to speak about the epidemic of gun violence in the city of Chicago and across America. The American Medical Association has declared gun violence as a public health crisis in America. Every day, almost 300 men, women, and children are shot in this Nation. Gun violence touches every American community, but no community has suffered more than the city of Chicago. I am honored to represent that city. I love it, and I think it is a great city. I spend a lot of time there to get to know the people who were born there and live their lives there and call it home. It is a great honor to call it part of my State that I am honored to represent. The stories that are coming out of the city of Chicago are heartbreaking stories--and none worse than this week. This week there was a slaughter of the innocents. In a 4-day period earlier this week, three beautiful children under the age of 12 were fatally shot. On Saturday night, 11-year-old Takiya Holmes, sitting in her mom's car, was shot in the head and killed. A 19-year-old suspect in custody has been charged. He reported that he was shooting from across the street at rival gang members, and a stray bullet hit Takiya. She died on Tuesday morning. On Saturday, 12-year-old Kanari Gentry-Bowers was shot while playing basketball in the West Englewood neighborhood. She passed away just yesterday. On Tuesday at 1:30 in the afternoon, 2-year-old Lavontay White was shot and killed while sitting in the car with his pregnant aunt and uncle. Lavontay's uncle was also killed. His aunt was wounded. These shootings are senseless, devastating, and heartbreaking. Already this year there have been over 400 shootings in Chicago--so far this year. That is after there were more than 4,300 shootings last year. My thoughts and prayers, of course, go to the victims and their families. I have attended so many marches and parades, funerals, and memorial services. But thoughts and prayers are not enough. We need to do something to reduce this epidemic of gun violence. There have been too many funerals, too many families who have lost that baby they loved, too many children who suffered the physical and mental trauma of gunshot wounds and witnessing violence. Many of these shootings could have been prevented, but it is going to take changes in our laws and changes in our attitude for that to happen. We have absurd loopholes in our gun laws that make it easy for dangerous people to get their hands on guns. We have obvious gaps in our gun background check system. We have inadequate Federal laws to stop gun trafficking and straw purchases of guns. These factors allow a flood of illicit guns to come into Chicago from other towns and States, from gun shows in neighboring States where there is no background check. These drug gangs drive over to these locations and fill up the trunks of their cars with guns to take them and sell them in the neighborhoods to kids who shoot and kill one another day in and day out. We have gun dealers--federally licensed gun dealers--who look the other way when someone comes in to make a straw purchase. That is the purchase of a gun that the purchaser is not going to use but is going to give it to somebody who is prohibited from buying a gun. In light of the epidemic of gun violence in our country, Congress should be working around the clock to fix these gaps in our Federal law. But the Republican-controlled Senate is doing nothing to address gun violence in Chicago or anywhere else. Instead, look at what we just did yesterday. Just yesterday, this Senate, on this floor, voted to weaken the gun background check system instead of strengthening it. It is hard to understand how the Republican Party can have its priorities so wrong when it comes to gun violence. We can respect Second Amendment rights of individuals. We can respect the rights of people to own a gun for self-defense, for sporting and hunting purposes. I have gone hunting. I have used a firearm. I complied with every law in the books, all of them. The hunters who were with me did too. Why is it so hard to ask before we sell a gun to someone whether they have a criminal record, whether they are buying it for another person who might have a criminal record, or whether they have a history of mental instability, which would disqualify them from owning a gun? We are facing a crisis in Chicago and across the Nation because of this violence. We in Congress have a responsibility to do everything we can at the Federal level to protect our constituents, our neighbors, from getting shot. We can't ignore this responsibility, and we certainly shouldn't be weakening gun laws as the Senate did yesterday. We also need the Federal Government to be an engaged partner with cities like Chicago to help reduce violence and expand economic options in depressed neighborhoods. You can pick out three neighborhoods in the city of Chicago that account for almost 50 percent of gun violence-- three neighborhoods. I visited some of them. They warned me: Don't get out of the car. They are right. Random gunfire is a reality of life in those neighborhoods. We know where they are. We know where the shooters live. We know where the victims are. We can do more. President Trump sends out a lot of tweets. He likes to tweet about Chicago, and I am not quite sure why. Tweeting doesn't save lives. Saying that you are going to send in the Feds may be one of those short tweets that is catchy, but it doesn't mean a damned thing to the people who are being shot and are dying in the city of Chicago. Last week I joined my colleague Senator Tammy Duckworth, and we sent a letter to the President asking him to do more than tweet when it comes to Chicago. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter.

Mr. DURBIN. We asked the President to put his twitter account down for a few minutes and instead direct his Department of Justice to enhance programs that improve community policing, such as COPS and the Byrne-JAG grants. We asked him to provide a surge in these programs, just like President Obama did in his first year through the Recovery Act and the appropriations process. We also asked the President to direct the Justice Department to promote mentoring and job training programs. I want peace on the streets of Chicago and every American city, and I know that one of the keys to this is the belief that there is a chance in this economy for you and your family. We need to have mentoring and job training programs for young people through the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and for former incarcerated persons through the Federal Second Chance Act. We asked the President to support policing reforms recommended by the Justice Department in Washington. We asked him to support our efforts to close the gaps in Federal gun laws. There is no denying that poverty plays a role in fueling violence and in violating justice. We asked the President, also, to prioritize funding for jobs programs under the Departments of Labor and Education. These are concrete steps that would help reduce violence in Chicago. So far, President Trump's administration has not committed any additional resources to combatting Chicago's violence. Mayor Emanuel was here a few days ago to meet with the Department of Justice and to make the same plea. The administration instead is threatening to cut funding, on top of the devastating funding cuts we have already seen in Illinois under our current Governor. Now is not the time for the Federal Government to abandon support for the families living in this great city. I urge the President and his administration to reprioritize Federal resources to reduce gun violence in Chicago and around the Nation. It is going to save a lot more lives than tweeting. If you will not do it for two Democratic Senators, do it for these families. Do it for the moms and the relatives who are now planning the funeral services of these babies who were gunned down in the city of Chicago this week. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before I make a statement on Scott Pruitt, to my colleague and friend from Colorado, I couldn't agree with you more. What happened in Colorado was an environmental tragedy, and we saw the photos. It is horrible. I don't know who is responsible for it, but it appears to be a government agency, and they should be held accountable. I will join you in that effort. I don't think there is any Member who wouldn't join you in saying there ought to be justice done here. We shouldn't let them off the hook because they are EPA employees or employees of the Federal government. But I don't understand the leap in logic from that position to Scott Pruitt. Scott Pruitt is a man who, as attorney general of Oklahoma, has filed more than 14 lawsuits to restrict the authority of the EPA to clean up rivers.

Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield for the purpose of a question.

Mr. DURBIN. I said to the Senator from Colorado that I will join you. If the EPA is responsible for this spill, then I will stand with you. Justice should be done. The point I am making to you is that this leap of logic then--to put Scott Pruitt in charge of the EPA--is really taking away the power of this Agency to avoid that kind of environmental disaster.

Mr. DURBIN. I will be glad to yield for a question.

Mr. DURBIN. I reclaim my time and just say this. I do not know the particulars. I understand that what you said is what I read, that it was the fault of some government employee--perhaps of the EPA. I don't dispute that fact. If that is the case, then we have a responsibility to your State to make it whole again. And whoever the EPA Administrator is should face that responsibility. I will join you in that effort. But to go from there to say Scott Pruitt is the man to head the EPA because he is going to acknowledge this one fact, is to ignore his record, to ignore his position on the environment. The Senator from Colorado, I know has to leave the floor, but I want to continue on this vein. Yesterday, the President of the United States decided to sign a resolution. He had a big gathering. He had Senator McConnell, the Republican leader and other Members of the Senate and the House. It was a big celebration. Representatives of mining companies, coal companies, even mine workers were there celebrating the repeal of an EPA rule. What was the repeal of that rule? The repeal of that rule related to what the mining companies could dump into rivers and streams from their mining operations. What was the fear? The debris in toxic waste that they would dump in the rivers would end up killing rivers, just like the river that the Senator from Colorado has given a speech on. I might add that he voted to repeal that rule. So now we have the President of the United States saying we are going to revitalize the mining economy by eliminating a rule that restricts mining companies from dumping debris and toxic waste into rivers and streams. Now, that doesn't follow. If you are dedicated to keeping our rivers and streams healthy and pure and reliable sources for safe drinking water, you don't do what President Trump did yesterday. You don't do what the Republicans in the Senate did just a few days ago and remove this rule. I struggled to understand. I see my friend from Delaware is here. The Senator and I have been in this business for a long time together. I won't say how many years. He knows, I know, and some others know, but most people would be surprised of the following: Which President of the United States created the Environmental Protection Agency? Richard Milhous Nixon, 1970. A Republican President created this Agency which has become the bete noire for the Republicans--the most hated Federal agency, created by a Republican President. Why? Because at that moment in time, America was awakening to Rachel Carson's ``Silent Spring'' and to so many other factors, when we finally concluded there was something we were doing to the environment that was harmful, not just to the environment but to the Earth, which we hoped to leave our children. We joined together on a bipartisan basis--this is before I was in Congress--to create this Agency which Scott Pruitt seeks to lead. Now, what has happened? What has happened is there has been a role reversal here. The Republicans, who used to be part of environmental protection and safety, have now abandoned it. In fact, that is the drum they beat on most often, when they talk about overregulation, the Environmental Protection Agency. Yesterday, this President--28 days into his Presidency--could not wait to sign a rule that allows mining companies to dump toxic waste and debris into rivers and streams. You know the argument: It is just too expensive not to. If we are going to make a profit, if we are going to employ people, then you have to let us dump this into the rivers and streams. I don't buy it. The reason I don't buy it is that I can remember many years ago, the first time I went across my State of Illinois and took a look at abandoned mine lands. These were lands that were strip mined, which means they brought in bulldozers and really just found the coal deposits, not just that for below the surface of the land. They ripped out the coal and left the mess behind for future generations. It was horrible--a horrible environmental disaster. They walked away from them after they made the money. They went out of business and left that mess behind for the next generation or the one beyond it. I am all in favor of mining. Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with it at all. But responsible mining means that you are responsible when it comes to the environment. You just don't make your money and leave, you accept the responsibility to leave behind something that is as good as or better than the way you found it. It is known as stewardship. It is Biblical. This is kind of a moral responsibility which we accept on this Earth that we live on, to leave it better than we found it. The Environmental Protection Agency is there for that purpose. I would say to the Senator from Delaware, they did a survey in Chicago a few years ago. They asked the people of Chicago: What is the one thing unique and defining about that city? Overwhelmingly, the response was Lake Michigan, as it should be--this magnificent great lake which borders the city of Chicago. It is a source of so much fun and joy and aesthetic beauty. We look at it and thank the good Lord that we have the good fortune of living, as many of us do, part time, full time, right there on the banks of Lake Michigan. It was about 5 or 6 years ago that I heard a story about a ship on Lake Michigan. It was an auto ferry. It took passengers and automobiles across that beautiful great lake. It moved them from Wisconsin to Michigan. The name of the ship was the SS Badger. It had been around for decades. It was kind of an institution. Come the summer months when people would cross that lake to head over to Michigan or back over to Wisconsin, they would pile on and bring on their automobiles and families. It was a great excursion. But we came to learn that there was another side to the story. The SS Badger was the last coal-fired auto ferry on the Great Lakes. It burned coal to run the engine to move the ship across Lake Michigan. That, in and of itself, raises some interesting questions about pollution coming off the smokestack of the SS Badger. It turned out that wasn't the worst part. The worst part is that for decades, as the SS Badger trekked across Lake Michigan, it not only burned coal, it dumped the coal ash overboard while it was going across the lake. This potentially dangerous and toxic coal ash was being dumped into Lake Michigan day after day after day. The Environmental Protection Agency came in and gave us the facts. It turned out that the auto ferry, that one ship, was the dirtiest ship on the Great Lakes. It created more pollution, more damage to the Great Lakes and its environment, than any other ship. Believe me, there are plenty of ships that traverse the Great Lakes. This was the filthiest, dirtiest ship. The EPA said to the SS Badger: We know you employ people. We know you perform an important function. But clean up your act. So what did the SS Badger do, in light of this EPA finding? Well, they fought them all the way. They came to Congress and asked that Congress designate the SS Badger as a historical monument. A historical monument? Well, it was an old ship. There is no doubt about it. But the notion that came from the Congressmen from Michigan and Wisconsin was, by designating it a historical monument, it would be exempt from environmental protection laws. So the dirtiest ship--the SS Badger--on the Great Lakes would somehow have historical status and continue to pollute Lake Michigan. I thought it was outrageous. A number of us joined in stopping that effort. Instead, we said to the EPA: You have given them years to clean it up. Now do something about it. Next thing, surprisingly, the owner of the SS Badger asked to meet with me in my office. I said sure. He came in and he said: Senator, we employ 100 people. We have been doing this for years. We cannot technologically clean up the SS Badger. It just can't be done. We would lose too much money. I said: I am sorry, but that is unacceptable. You cannot tell me that because of profitability you need to continue to create a bigger mess in the Great Lakes than any other ship on the Great Lakes. So he went back and lawyered up and decided he would fight the EPA. I stood with the EPA, the regional office out of Chicago. We had a battle on our hands. A rule was issued by the EPA. I hear so many Republicans come to the floor bemoaning rules and regulations. Let me join that chorus. Are there too many rules and regs in some areas? Yes. Are there some rules and regs which I could never explain or even try to defend? Certainly. But the rules and regulations of the EPA many times are critically important. In this case, that was exactly what we found. So the EPA issued a rule and regulation that said to the SS Badger: You have been given years to clean up, and you will not do it. So now the clock is ticking. There will come a moment when you will be subject to a substantial fine if you don't clean up your act. Do you know what happened because of this onerous EPA regulation? Do you know what happened to the SS Badger, whose owner said that it was technologically impossible for them to clean up this mess? They came up with the most basic, simple solution. You wonder why they waited so long. They now hold the coal ash on the SS Badger as they go back and forth across Lake Michigan. They remove it once they get to shore and put it into an environmentally acceptable waste disposal. This was an obvious answer for decades, but they would not do it. It took the Environmental Protection Agency to step up and threaten it with a rule and a fine. Now they are finally doing it. So I say to those who loathe government rules and regulations: This was a good one. For the health of the Great lakes, for God's gift to us of that beautiful body of water, we did the right thing and the EPA was there to do it. Yesterday, when President Trump signed this new resolution that repealed the rule, he was reversing what I just described to you. He was saying to mining companies across the United States: Be my guest. Dump toxic waste and debris in our rivers and streams. He did it in the name of job creation. We all want to create jobs, but if we are creating jobs at the expense of the health of rivers and lakes, if we are creating jobs at the expense of safe drinking water, that is a bargain I will not be part of. Many times I have had a conversation with my wife and friends. I guess it reflects the fact that we have been on this Earth a little longer than some. You wonder out loud. You say: Why in the world do we have more autism today than we once had? Why do we have more cancers than we once had? People have a lot of theories. Some of them are wild and unfounded. But many times people say: Could it possibly be the chemicals in our drinking water? I do not know. I am a liberal arts lawyer. Don't get me near a laboratory; I would not know what to do with it. But it is a legitimate question, whether there is some contamination in our drinking water, which has a public health impact. Someday we may discover that. Isn't it best for us to err on the side of keeping our drinking water as safe and clean as possible? I think so. I don't want to turn on the tap and drink the water and think that I am making myself sicker or more susceptible to a disease. I sure as heck don't want to do it for my kids and grandkids. What Agency is responsible for that? It turns out to be the Environmental Protection Agency. That is the Agency that Scott Pruitt seeks to head. He is a terrible choice. I am sorry to say that. I shook hands with him once. I don't know him very well. But when you look at what he has done--I think of a letter I received from Dale Bryson in Illinois. I don't know him personally. He wrote to me and he said: Having served under both Republican and Democratic Presidents, we recognize each new administration's right to pursue different policies or ask that Congress change the laws that protect our environment. But EPA's administrator must act in the public's interest and not simply advance the agenda of any specific industry that EPA regulates. Mr. Bryson goes on to say: The agency is lucky to have had EPA administrators, Republicans and Democrats, with the patience, skill and commitment to public service that is needed to steer through these challenges and deliver the clean and healthy environment that Americans want at a price they are willing to pay. We do not believe Scott Pruitt has demonstrated that he has the qualities needed to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. He was not the only one who wrote to me. I have heard from constituents who believe that sensible environmental regulation is critical for us to have a clean planet to live on and leave to our kids. Tim Hoellein, a professor at Loyola University in Chicago, conducts research on water pollution in city environments. He wrote to me and said: I note our city, State and county have made some major advances toward better infrastructure and policy for clean water. However, we are still not meeting our obligations to our neighbors and future generations by rising to the best standards of water stewardship. Those gains are at eminent risk with the appointment of Mr. Pruitt to the EPA. Finally, I want to read a letter from a Chicago resident, Ms. Maureen Keane. She wrote to me and she said: I love my country. I love our beautiful environment and my family. We need a strong advocate for our land and people to head the EPA. That person is not Scott Pruitt. Hundreds of former employees of the EPA agree with me. That must mean something. Pruitt has a record of doing everything he can to shut down and dismantle the EPA. We need a strong advocate who has the ability to create a balance between business and our land and people resources, one who can create strong laws for which businesses can agree on and adhere to while protecting our most precious assets, people, wildlife, and our land. She says: As someone who grew up surrounded by dirty water in the Little Calumet River, next to a train yard, and surrounded by onion fields with pesticides, I have seen first hand family and neighbors die young from cancer. Please oppose Pruitt if you love America and your family. This is a decision that can be costly for future generations. These letters really are just a handful of those that I have received on the subject. Scott Pruitt has alarming conflicts of interest with the oil and gas industry. My friend and colleague, Senator Carper of Delaware, has taken on this nomination professionally and in the right way. He has helped us reach a point now where we have to say to our friends on the Republican side of the aisle: Be careful about the vote that you cast at 1 o'clock today, because by 1 o'clock on Tuesday or Wednesday, in the following week, you may regret that vote. The reason I say it is that Senator Carper has been working with groups trying to get a disclosure of the emails that Scott Pruitt, attorney general of Oklahoma, had during the course of serving as attorney general, while he was filing some 14 different lawsuits against the Environmental Protection Agency. He was caught red-handed taking a letter written by one of these energy companies and changing the letterhead and calling it an official statement from his own attorney general's office. So he clearly has a comfortable, if not cozy, relationship with the energy companies. That, in and of itself, is not condemning or damning, but if it ends up that he is seeking this position to advocate their political position, rather than to protect America's environment, that is a relevant issue. Senator Carper has been working with groups night and day to get disclosure of emails that were sent to Scott Pruitt and sent by him between oil and gas companies and other energy companies to determine whether there are any conflicts we should know about before giving him this job. I understand that late this morning, our Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley, may be coming and asking for us to postpone this vote until these emails are publicly disclosed. Is it 5, 6, 10 emails? I think it is thousands, isn't it? Some 3,000 emails. The Republican Senators and Senator McConnell have said: We don't want to read them. We don't care what is in them. It doesn't make any difference if there is a conflict of interest. This is Scott Pruitt. He is our man. President Trump wanted him. We don't want to read the facts. We don't want to know the evidence. We just want to give a good, loyal vote to our President. I don't think that is the way we should meet our responsibilities in the Senate. This thoughtful and sensible thing to do is to postpone this vote until we return. We are going to be gone next week because of the President's recess. Scott Pruitt can wait 10 days, and we can wait for the truth, can't we? The Environmental Protection Agency will continue to do its business with its professionals, but before we put him in the job--which we may come to regret in just a few days--shouldn't we take the time to do this and do it thoughtfully? As Oklahoma attorney general, he sued the EPA 14 times. He was often partnering with the very industries he is now being called on to regulate. Though some of these lawsuits are still ongoing, he will not even commit to recuse himself. He was asked during the course of his hearing: As attorney general of Oklahoma, you sued the EPA. The EPA, as an Agency, has the first level of administrative hearing on those lawsuits. Will you, if you become Administrator and Secretary of the EPA, commit to recuse yourself from those lawsuits you filed? He said: No. That means he could have a very interesting position when those lawsuits come up for consideration. He will be the petitioner and the plaintiff; Scott Pruitt, attorney general of Oklahoma. He will be the defendant; Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, Administrator, and Secretary. He will also be the jury; the Environmental Protection Agency, headed up by Scott Pruitt in his administrative capacity. What a sweetheart deal. I used to be a trial lawyer. This would be the answer to a prayer. I get to be the plaintiff and the defendant and the judge? Scott Pruitt wants to protect his right to do that so he can continue to protect the special interests he represented as attorney general of Oklahoma. Common sense suggests to any lawyer licensed to practice in America that this is a conflict of interest which needs to be avoided, but Scott Pruitt says: No, they have to go forward, and I have to win this lawsuit. You know what, I think he is going to win the lawsuit if he doesn't recuses himself. We need to ensure that the EPA has strong leadership, that it is dedicated not to energy companies, not to oil companies, not to gas companies but to protecting all Americans. Literally, lives depend on it. President Donald Trump has chosen not just a man with an extraordinary amount of conflicts of interest but a person who is a climate-denier. He said some things that are nothing short of amazing. Look at this quote by Scott Pruitt, candidate for Administrator of the EPA: The debate about climate change is just that, a debate. There are scientists that agree, there are scientists that don't agree, to the extent of man's contribution and whether it is even harmful at this point. Really? So 98 percent of scientists--98 percent--have said that something is happening to this world, and human activity is the reason, 98 percent of them. Greenhouse gas emissions, carbon in our atmosphere, obvious changes, glacial melts, the rising of the oceans, extreme weather conditions that we are facing--just a casual observer would understand that is a reality, but not this man, not the man who seeks to head the Environmental Protection Agency. To him, it is still being debated. He is in this rarified group with blinders. You see him here with his glasses. He wants to put on blinders when it comes to climate change. And this is the man President Trump has chosen to head up the Environmental Protection Agency? The Chicago Sun Times, on December 8, had an editorial entitled ``Foe of EPA is wrong person to lead it.'' Here is what they said: Unfortunately, President-elect Donald Trump has appointed Scott Pruitt, an open foe of environmental initiatives, to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. That demonstrates a callous disregard for the health of our nation and planet just as rapid technological advances hold out hope for avoiding the worst effects of climate change. The U.S. Senate should reject Pruitt. They go on to say: During his campaign, Trump said he would dismantle President Barack Obama's environmental policies and pull the United States out of the 195-nation Paris accord to reduce greenhouse gases and climate change. After the election, Trump moderated his tone, saying he has an open mind about climate change. His appointment of Pruitt, however, suggests that if he's open to anything, it's strictly more pollution. They go on to say: The EPA is all about science. Someone who doesn't believe in science can't do the job. His appointment would send a message to the rest of the world that the United States is not a partner in efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The damage could be incalculable. If a house divided against itself could not stand, neither can a government agency. When you listen to what Scott Pruitt has said about science, you realize this man has no business heading up the Environmental Protection Agency. Listen to what he said in February 2012: The amount of human exposure to mercury from U.S. powerplants is small. ``Human exposure to methylmercury resulting from coal fired EGUs is exceedingly small.'' Here is what the scientists say: As a result of these long-term mercury inputs [from coal- fired electric utilities], there are hotspots and whole regions, such as the Adirondacks of New York, the Great Lakes region of the Midwest and large portions of the Southeast where the fishery is contaminated with mercury. . . . There are more fish consumption advisories in the U.S. for mercury than all other contaminants combined. The source of this scientific statement: Dr. Charles Driscoll from Syracuse University. Here is what Mr. Pruitt said about mercury and air toxic emissions from power plants: ``Finally, the record does not support EPA's findings that mercury, non-mercury HAP metals, and acid gas HAPs pose public health hazards.'' Here is what the scientists say: ``There is no evidence demonstrating a `safe' level of mercury exposure.'' Source of that statement: Dr. Jerome Paulson from the Council on Environmental Health, American Academy of Pediatrics, before the Senate EPW Committee. Scott Pruitt isn't quite sure if mercury is really that dangerous. Scientists disagree. Mr. Pruitt, when talking about the benefits from cleaning up powerplant mercury emissions: The benefits of cleaning up powerplant mercury are ``too speculative,'' said Mr. Pruitt, and ``not supported by the scientific literature.'' Concluding, ``EPA cannot properly conclude that it is `appropriate and necessary' to regulate hazardous air pollutants under section 112.'' That is a statement from Scott Pruitt's legal brief in Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA, November 2016. What do the scientists say about Mr. Pruitt's observations? ``U.S. efforts to reduce mercury emissions, including from power plants, are benefiting public health much faster than could have been predicted in 1990.'' Source of that statement: Dr. Lynn Goldman, dean of Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, January of this year. Here is what Mr. Pruitt had to say about the debate over whether climate change is real: Global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates of our time. That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged--in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress. That quote is from an article in the National Review, May of 2016. What do scientists say about Mr. Pruitt's observation? ``The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.'' That was a statement from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 2005--12 years ago. Twelve years later, Scott Pruitt is still wrestling with whether this is a problem. How about Mr. Pruitt, when it comes to the extent of the human activity on climate change? He said: We've had ebb and flow, we've had obviously climate conditions change throughout our history, and that is scientific fact. It gets cooler. It gets hotter. And we do not know the trajectory is on an unsustainable course. Nor do we know, the extent by which the burning of fossil fuels, and man's contribution to that, is making it far worse than it is. That was a statement he made on the ``Exploring Energy'' radio program in May of 2016. What do the scientists say about that? ``The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.'' Source: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006--11 years ago. They said this unequivocally. Scott Pruitt still doesn't buy it. What did he say about climate change being a natural occurrence? I will quote him. Is it truly man-made and is this simply just another period of time when the Earth is cooling, increasing in heat, I mean is it just typical natural type of occurrences as opposed to what the (Obama) Administration says? Again, this is from that radio program ``Exploring Energy.'' This was in October of 2016. What do the scientists say about Mr. Pruitt's observation? Human-induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes. The source: The American Geophysical Union; the date, 2003--14 years ago. Here is Scott Pruitt, this man who wants to head up our Environmental Protection Agency, still at war with scientific fact. What has he said about the debate over climate change? He said: The debate about climate change is just that, a debate. There are scientists that agree, there are scientists that don't agree, to the extent of man's contribution and whether it is even harmful at this point. Again, this is from the ``Exploring Energy'' radio program show in May of 2016. What do the scientists have to say about that? It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The source of that statement: The American Meteorological Society, 2012--5 years ago. What Mr. Pruitt says about how reasonable minds can disagree on climate: How [climate change] is happening, if it is, clearly is subject for reasonable minds to disagree. Whether man is contributing to it or not. Again, this is from his ``Exploring Energy'' radio program, April 2016. I am sorry I missed that one too. Here is what the scientists say in response: The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now. The source of that scientific statement: The American Physical Society, 2007--10 years ago. Now we know what this man is all about. He denies science. He is an advocate for those special interest groups who make money off of pollution. He doesn't believe the Environmental Protection Agency should have the authority it has today. He has challenged it 14 times in court. He won't recuse himself from even the petitions he has personally filed as attorney general of Oklahoma, and he is anxious to be approved by the Senate before we get a chance next Tuesday or Wednesday to read 3,000 emails he received and sent as attorney general of Oklahoma, including emails between Mr. Pruitt and energy, gas, and oil companies. I think it is pretty clear what this is all about. This is an effort by special interests in America to put their best friend on the job at the Environmental Protection Agency. They want to make sure he is there to look the other way when we should be regulating to keep this planet we live on safe and in good shape for future generations. That makes it a clear choice for all of us. I am going to vote against Scott Pruitt. I am sorry, I say to Donald Trump. You have a right to have your point of view, but you don't have a right to put a man in this job who denies basic science that has been agreed upon for over a decade. You certainly don't have a right in this circumstance to put a man in charge of the EPA who is going to add to the climate change problem in our world, who is going to diminish the reputation in the United States on fighting this on an international basis, and who is going to kowtow to special interest groups, which has been shown over and over again when it comes to his service as the attorney general in the State of Oklahoma. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 5 minutes to make a statement on a separate topic.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, yesterday the President of the United States had a long and eventful press conference--77 minutes--talking about the issues before us in this country and his administration. He referred to his administration as ``a fine tuned machine.'' That was his 28th day in office. I will observe the following: This so-called fine-tuned machine was forced to dismiss the Acting Attorney General of the United States in the first 3 weeks. This fine-tuned machine was reprimanded by three different Federal courts for an Executive order on immigration and refugees which they found to be inconsistent with the law and the Constitution of the United States. This so-called fine-tuned machine had to accept the resignation in the first 24 days of the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States. Mr. Trump is making history. No President has been through those experiences. None. I wouldn't say it is a fine-tuned machine; I would say it is a history- making machine. And sadly this fine-tuned machine, as he calls it, has had some rough spots. That is not all. This issue about the Russian connection in President Trump's campaign is not going away. Seventeen different intelligence agencies have verified the fact that Vladimir Putin and the Russians expressly tried to invade on a cyber basis the United States of America and to influence the outcome of an election. And it wasn't an equal opportunity effort--they were there to elect Donald Trump and defeat Hillary Clinton. To make the record perfectly clear, as they say, there is no evidence that the Russians had any actual impact on the actual casting or counting of votes, but they did everything else they could dream of. They tried to invade and hack sources of files and information and to disclose and release them in a timely fashion. There was that horrible episode involving ``Entertainment Weekly,'' or whatever the name of that operation was, where they had a recording of then-candidate Donald Trump saying some awful things. It was no coincidence that 2 hours after that recording was released, they started releasing John Podesta's emails and files--the Russians did--to try to resurrect the Trump campaign that hit some pretty rocky shoals. So we know that happened. We also know there was contact with General Flynn, the National Security Advisor to Donald Trump, prior to the President being sworn in. The extent of the contact, we don't know. The number of people in the Trump campaign who may or may not have had contact with the Russians, we don't know, but we do know this: The Federal Bureau of Investigation has an investigation underway into this very question because it raises some big issues. This is the first time we know in the history of the United States that a foreign power has tried to invade our electoral process. And it isn't just a benign invasion; this is one of our major enemies when it comes to national security, and the reason is obvious. Travel to the Baltics, travel to Poland, travel to Ukraine, and talk to them about Vladimir Putin. He isn't this great hero, as President Trump has characterized him, from their point of view; he is a threat to their existence. They know what happened when the Soviet Union had the power. It controlled the Baltics. It controlled Poland. It controlled Ukraine. They don't want to see that day return. They want the United States and NATO to stand up and help make sure they have a way to continue their democracy and continue making their own sovereign decisions. Meanwhile, our President of the United States, Donald Trump, is tossing political bouquets and sweet little kisses to Vladimir Putin and his Russian regime. Is this worth looking into? You bet it is. This week we made a leap of faith right here in the Senate. We have decided to give to the Intelligence Committee of the Senate the authority to move forward on this investigation. I reluctantly agreed to that approach. I am skeptical. I will tell you why I am skeptical. I served on the Intelligence Committee. It is a critically important committee, but the Intelligence Committee, 95 percent of the time, meets behind closed doors in a secret space without a sign on the door, and the proceedings of the Intelligence Committee necessarily are secret. This is not an issue that should be kept secret. We need to make sure the American public understands in an independent and transparent way exactly what happened when it came to the Russian involvement in America's election, who was involved in the Trump campaign, if anyone. We need names, and we need people to be held responsible. The second thing is, the Intelligence Committee--if and when it finally issues a report, that report is going to be classified to some extent. We have seen pages, I am sure, of redacted materials, big black lines and maybe one or two words emerging from a single page. Who decides to take away the black lines and tell the American people exactly what they found? The ultimate decision on declassifying documents in the Intelligence Committee is made by the White House. So here is the White House, President Trump and his people under investigation by the Intelligence Committee, and they have the last word about what the American people will see. Isn't it interesting-- when it came to the investigation of Benghazi with Hillary Clinton, when it came to the investigation of emails with Hillary Clinton, the Republicans couldn't wait to have week after week and month after month of public hearings. Now they want a secret hearing in the Senate Intelligence Committee and no hearing in the House Intelligence Committee. It is a big ``shrug your shoulders; boys will be boys'' moment for the Republicans in control of the Congress. It shouldn't be for the American people. The American people have a right to know what the Russians did, and they have a right to know if and when members of the Trump campaign or his close associates were engaged and involved in what he has dismissed as a ruse. Seventeen intelligence agencies don't dismiss it. We need an independent, transparent investigation of what happened. The American people have a right to know. And we ought to say to this President: You may conceal your income tax returns, unlike any other Presidential candidate in modern memory, but you cannot conceal from the American people the facts as to whether the Russians were attempting a cyber attack on the United States during the course of our last election. That is too critical a question to ignore. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, ``Hidden Figures'' has been lodged at the top of the box office charts for 2 months now--and with good reason. ``Hidden Figures'' tells the fascinating, true story of three mathematicians who worked as ``human computers'' at NASA in the early years of America's manned space program. Their job involved double-checking the accuracy of intricate calculations made by NASA's computers. And they carried the weight of awesome responsibility. Fifty-five years ago this week, their calculations helped launch Lt. Col. John Glenn into the heavens and return him safely after he had orbited the Earth three times. Coming in the midst of cold war tensions and the real fear that the Soviet Union was winning the space race, that historic flight was a source of intense pride and relief to Americans. It made John Glenn a national hero and an international symbol of American ingenuity and ambition. But the brains behind that flight remained largely unknown--until now. Why? It is because those formidable mathematicians--those ``human computers''--were three African-American women. They served this Nation at a time when racial segregation was the law of the land and gender- based discrimination was almost as common as air. As America marks Black History Month, this month seems a good time to say thank you to Mary Jackson, Dorothy Vaughn, and Katherine G. Johnson. America's history is filled with the stories of men and women whose contributions have been minimized or overlooked entirely for the same reason the ``Hidden Figures'' of NASA remained unknown for so long-- because our Nation's tortured history with race blinded us to large parts of our own national story. Ninety years ago, an historian and scholar by the name of Carter G. Woodson suggested a way to overcome this historical myopia. Dr. Woodson and other prominent African Americans proposed that 1 week each February be designated Black History Week. This is the first Black History Month since the opening last fall of the Smithsonian Museum of African American History and Culture on the National Mall in Washington, DC. This remarkable new museum represents America's first official attempt to tell the African-American story. In the not quite 5 months since the museum opened, more than 900,000 people have visited. My wife and I toured the museum over the Thanksgiving holiday. We spent hours there--what a moving experience. The history of African Americans is a story that stretches back 600 years. It is a story of brutal subjugation, racial violence, and discrimination. It is also story of a resilient people who survived those horrors and created a rich and vibrant culture and who have enriched our Nation by their contributions in every walk of life. In a speech a few months ago, then-First Lady Michelle Obama alluded to the vast and inspiring sweep of that history when she said, ``I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves and I watch my daughters--two beautiful, intelligent, black young women--playing with their dogs on the White House lawn.'' It was a simple but powerful image that captured how far we have come on questions of race since our founding. As America's 44th President, Barack Obama grappled honestly with complex challenges facing America and the world and delivered solutions that has improved the lives of millions. He and Michelle served our Nation with uncommon dignity, wisdom, and compassion. I am proud to call them both friends. The Obamas' story is just one of the stories told in the new African- American History Museum. Other famous African Americans are featured as well, from Crispus Attucks, the first patriot to give his life in the American Revolution; to the great abolitionists and women's suffrage champions, Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, and Harriet Tubman; from Jesse Owens, who won four gold medals at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin and singlehandedly shattered the racist myth of Aryan superiority; to the Tuskegee Airmen, who helped democracy defeat fascist tyranny in World War II. The museum tells the stories of other prominent men and women, including Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King; Malcolm X; Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; Congressman John Lewis, my friend, an icon of the civil rights movement; and Shirley Chisholm, the first African-American woman ever elected to Congress--in 1968. Some of the best advice I have ever heard about making a difference came from Shirley Chisholm. She said, ``If they don't give you a seat at the table, bring a folding chair.'' I think Shirley Chisholm would have loved to see the way the women of America are making their voices heard today and changing the debate in this country. The new African-American History Museum and Black History Month give us a fuller, truer picture of our past. They also give us hope and guidance for today. Here are just a few quick examples of what I mean. Ida B. Wells, born into slavery in 1862, was a journalist, activist, and feminist who led an antilynching crusade in the 1890s, speaking throughout the United States and Europe. She reminds us that brave journalists, armed with the First Amendment, can shine a light on wrongdoing and change history. Garrett Morgan had only a sixth-grade education, but he also had a natural mechanical genius and an entrepreneurial bent. In 1914, he invented a ``safety hood'' that protected wearers from smoke, gases and other pollutants. It became the prototype in World War I for gas masks and for the breathing devices that firefighters wear today. His inventions have saved untold millions of lives. While some argue that we should cut funding to public schools that serve low-income children, Garrett Morris reminds us that American genius and ingenuity isn't limited by race, or gender, or family income. Our future prosperity depends on our willingness to invest in the potential all of America's children. Finally, A. Philip Randolph organized and led the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, the first predominantly African-American labor union. In 1941, he was part of a group that convinced President Roosevelt to ban discrimination in the defense industries during World War II. In 1948, that same group persuaded President Truman to issue an Executive order ending segregation in America's Armed Services. And in 1963, A. Philip Randolph helped led the March on Washington. If you want to know how to raise the wages of working people and mobilize ordinary Americans to create a more perfect union, study the life of A. Philip Randolph. Black History Month actually started as Black History Week 90 years ago. The choice of the week had special significance; it included the birthdays of both Abraham Lincoln and the mighty abolitionist, Frederick Douglass. President Lincoln once predicted that, if history remembered him for anything, it would be for issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. With that great promissory note of freedom, President Lincoln declared that the 3 million persons living in bondage in the rebellious states ``shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.'' The Emancipation Proclamation marked a turning point in America's Civil War; it transformed the fight to preserve the Union into something even larger and nobler: a battle for human freedom. But without Frederick Douglass, the ``Great Agitator,'' there might never have been a ``Great Emancipator.'' Frederick Douglass was one of the best-known men in America. He was a powerful and respected speaker and journalist. He criticized Lincoln frequently and publicly for what he viewed as the President's timidity in denouncing slavery. But rather than denouncing Douglass, Abraham Lincoln sought his counsel, and their respectful relationship changed history. Without Frederick Douglass's prodding, Lincoln might not have issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln might not have agreed to allow free men of color to serve in the U.S. Army. Without Frederick Douglass, it might have been harder for Lincoln to see that the Civil War could not end until slavery had ended, that only ``a new birth of freedom'' could redeem the carnage of Civil War. The relationship between Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass shows us the good that can be achieved when patriotic citizens dare to speak truth to power and leaders are secure enough to listen. That is a lesson worth pondering during this Black History Month and beyond.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, pending before the U.S. Senate is the nomination of Mick Mulvaney, a Congressman who is seeking to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. If you were to ask the people of America about the Cabinet positions filled by the President, the one they probably would miss is the Office of Management and Budget. It turns out to be one of the more important positions, but it is not as well known historically as Treasury Secretary, Secretary of State, and Attorney General. It is an important job. It is one of the most consequential jobs because the Director of the Office of Management and Budget is responsible for preparing the President's budget, setting the priorities of the Federal budget, and overseeing the performance of Federal agencies. It is a big and challenging job. Many other nominees for positions in the Cabinet are well known and have been debated on the floor of the Senate. Today I come to say a few words about the record of this Congressman, Mick Mulvaney, who is seeking this directorship of the Office of Management and Budget. It is a very interesting record. It is not unusual for Members of the House and the Senate to have unusual positions on issues. I guess each one of us has something we believe intensely that other people question. When it comes to Congressman Mulvaney, there is a long litany of positions he has taken that are far out of the mainstream of either political party. Yet President Donald Trump decided this is the man, this is the person he wanted to head up his budgeting effort. This is the person he wants to set the priorities for spending in the United States of America during his Presidency. If you look at the record of Mick Mulvaney, you will find that he has had an eagerness to dictate large and draconian cuts across the Federal Government in some of our most important and most cherished programs. Let me tell you about a few that highlight his record in Congress. Each one of these that I will speak to, if advanced by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, would have far-reaching consequences on families and individuals across the United States, not only in the operation of government but also in the effectiveness of our Federal workforce. To start with--and this, I think, is the right place to start-- Congressman Mulvaney, who seeks the position of Director of the Office Management and Budget, has repeatedly led efforts to shut down the Federal Government. When Mr. Mulvaney and the Republicans succeeded in shutting down the government for 16 days in 2013, it cost the American economy $20 billion. Do you remember that? Rush Limbaugh got on his radio show and said: If they shut down the government, no one will even notice. Guess what, Mr. Limbaugh. They noticed. All across America, working families paid the price for that foolish political act of shutting down the government. The real cost of the government shutdown is not just measured in dollars. The real cost is in hardships unnecessarily created, hardships for Federal employees who didn't receive their checks on a timely basis, hardships for people struggling to survive in America, who relied on programs like food stamps. We call them SNAP benefits now. They had their food in jeopardy and endangered because Congressman Mulvaney and his friends thought that a display of political power--shutting down the government--was the right recipe for America. These government shutdowns delayed 2 million Federal workers from receiving their checks, real people with real families to feed. Congressman Mulvaney doesn't seem to care about these real-world consequences of a shutdown. Instead, he called the shutdown of the Federal Government ``good policy.'' Those are his words: ``good policy.'' Then, when we finally reached an agreement to reopen the government, he was one of the few Members of the House to vote against the compromise in reopening the government. In recent years, he has repeated his calls. He is willing to shut down the government of the United States of America to defund Planned Parenthood. This man wants to craft our national budget, and he would shut down the government over one provision in that budget? That is what he said. Time and again, he has taken extreme positions on the Federal budget. We have a standing tradition in the House and the Senate. Since not one of us can predict when the next natural disaster is going to occur, we try to help one another. I have voted for funds during the course of my congressional career for disasters in probably every State in the union. Do you know why? Because I knew the day would come--and it did, several times during my tenure in the House and Senate--when there would be a natural disaster in my State, and we needed a helping hand, emergency disaster assistance. That is a tradition which has been around Congress--I can go back almost centuries to see it in past history. Listen to what Congressman Mulvaney did. He tried to block emergency disaster assistance to States that desperately needed the help of the Federal Government in their recovery efforts. He offered a poison pill amendment to the Hurricane Sandy relief package that would have required across-the-board cuts in military spending--military spending--to pay for disaster relief from Hurricane Sandy. Then he went further and said: Not just military spending, I want cuts in entitlement programs--Medicare, Medicaid. Let's cut the healthcare assistance for Americans to pay for that disaster. That is his idea of social justice. Despite President Trump's campaign promises to rebuild the Nation's crumbling infrastructure, Congressman Mick Mulvaney has taken an extraordinary and extreme view. He wants to eliminate Federal funding for transportation projects. He cosponsored a bill that would slash the Federal gas tax. That is how we pay for repairing Federal roads and mass transit across America. He isn't interested in fixing the highway trust fund solvency problems. His solution is to bankrupt it. This is the man who wants to write the budget for America? His extreme ideology would threaten billions of dollars that my State receives in Federal transportation funds. We put money into the Federal highway trust fund, too, every time we buy a gallon of gas in Illinois. He would cut back on the resources coming back to my State and others to repair the very roads we drive on. He has consistently supported across-the-board cuts for the Department of Defense, regardless of those affected. Just a few minutes ago, Senator John McCain, the senior Senator from Arizona, came to the floor to announce that because of Congressman Mulvaney's positions on cuts in the military, he--Senator McCain--would oppose the appointment of Mulvaney as head of OMB. Senator McCain said that it is a rare day when he comes out against a Presidential nominee of his own party. But he thinks Mulvaney's record is worrisome, and I couldn't agree more. The positions that Congressman Mulvaney has taken are reckless and would jeopardize the economic security of working families and put our Nation and economy at risk. Possibly one of the most troubling positions that Congressman Mulvaney has taken is the fact that he is opposed to the Federal Government spending funds for medical research. Last year when Congress was deliberating how to combat the Zika virus, Representative Mulvaney wrote this on his Facebook page: ``Do we really need government-funded research at all?'' Let's think about that for a moment. Do we really need government- funded medical research in the United States? Do we need the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, and the Veterans' Administration investing in trying to find new cures for diseases? Government-funded research in the Department of Defense has produced fascinating insights into the biology of breast cancer that have greatly impacted the treatment of that disease and saved lives in America. Look at the revolutionary Department of Defense-funded work that led to the development of the innovative drug Herceptin. Government-funded research, which Congressman Mulvaney does not believe we should do, at the National Institutes of Health has accomplished the following. It has cut the U.S. cancer death rate by 11 percent in women and 19 percent in men. And Congressman Mulvaney says: Do we really need to do that? Is that important? I would guess that his family, like every family in America, has a story to tell about cancer--what it has meant, the devastation it has created, the deaths that have resulted. But Congressman Mulvaney doesn't get it. He just doesn't understand anything as basic as investing in medical research to save lives. HIV/ AIDS is no longer a death sentence in America. I saw Magic Johnson just a few weeks ago at a farewell party for President Obama. I remembered the day in the House of Representatives when I was told that he had AIDS. We assumed he would die in just a short period of time. But that was over 25 years ago. He has survived because of research that was done at the National Institutes of Health, and he is not alone. There are thousands just like him. When I was a kid, polio was something every mother and father were frightened of. What in the world was happening? How could your child be infected with polio and end up being crippled for life? Our Republican leader here, Mitch McConnell, went through that in his childhood and has talked about that episode in his life and how devastating it was. He has had a full life since then, but he has overcome the problems of that disease. I remember as a kid in grade school, when they announced that our government research had come up with a vaccine that would protect kids from polio. That, to me, was a breakthrough, and one that I welcomed and our family welcomed. Congressman Mulvaney questions whether or not medical research should continue, even in the light of the achievements in eradicating polio and small pox and other diseases in our country. These advances didn't just magically happen because of the miracle of the marketplace. They occurred because of sustained taxpayer investment in Federal medical research. I will tell you this. If he wants to make a referendum in the Senate or the House on medical research a part of his budget debate, I welcome the challenge. I believe that Members of both political parties would stand up for medical research, despite Congressman Mulvaney's extreme positions. So when someone asks if we really need government-funded medical research, the answer on behalf of cancer patients who are beating the disease, on behalf of HIV/AIDS patients who are living longer and normal lives, on behalf of all those families hoping and praying that some Federal researcher will come up with a breakthrough for Alzheimer's, for autism, or Parkinson's or diabetes--the answer, Congressman Mulvaney, is unequivocally, yes. America needs to invest in medical research. And the fact that you would question it really raises the question of your judgment. Let me tell you another thing that he is for, which I think is the single most irresponsible budgetary position he has taken. He has been an opponent of raising the country's debt ceiling. What is the debt ceiling? That is America's mortgage. That is the amount of debt we incur as a nation. It is a mortgage that is incurred for things that we have already spent money on. So when we come and vote for $600 billion for the Department of Defense and the intelligence agencies and we don't have enough money coming in taxes to pay for it, we have to extend America's mortgage to cover it. Congressman Mulvaney says that is the wrong thing to do--extending the debt ceiling of this country. While running for Congress, Congressman Mulvaney, who now wants to manage our Nation's budget, pledged he would never ever vote to raise the country's debt ceiling. He voted against it four different times. In 2011, when we were just about to breach the debt limit and default on our national debt for the first time in the history of our country, Mulvaney was a leading voice in support of default. He called it a ``fabricated crisis,'' and accused both parties of ``fear mongering.'' I am not sure what is more disturbing--Mr. Mulvaney's willingness to default on our country's obligations, the full faith and credit of the United States, or his lack of appreciation for the devastating economic consequences which would follow. I can tell you what is at risk with that kind of reckless attitude toward our Nation's debt. What is at risk are the savings and investments and retirement accounts of ordinary Americans across the Nation. Mr. Mulvaney may be willing to gamble the full faith and credit of the United States; I am not. Forcing the Federal Government to default on the Nation's debt would harm the economy and affect the government's ability to make payments to Social Security and Medicare recipients, military personnel, veterans, Federal employees, defense contractors, State governments, and to the bondholders of the United States, here and overseas. We would lose our credibility if Mr. Mulvaney had his way and allowed us to default on our national debt. We should not ever consider confirming an OMB Director who has repeatedly risked the economic security of our Nation to score political, rhetorical points. Throughout his campaign, President Trump promised to protect Medicare and Social Security and make decisions that would ``benefit American workers and American families.'' That is a quote. However, instead of making good on the promise, President Trump has chosen a man to head the Office of Management and Budget who has led calls for devastating cuts to Federal programs that millions of Americans rely on every day. Mr. Mulvaney has said he wants to ``end Medicare as we know it,'' and he has called Social Security a ``Ponzi scheme.'' He has called for raising the retirement age for Social Security to 70, from the 67 that it currently is. Well, 3 more years at work may not mean much to a Member of Congress, because we sit down a lot in these comfortable chairs and people bring us things when we need them. But 3 more years of working before you qualify for Social Security means something to a waitress, whose hips and ankles and knees have been bothering her for years, but she has no choice but to get up every morning, go to work, carry those trays, and try to bring enough money home to help a family. It means something to someone who works in a coal mine--I guarantee you that--3 more years at work, exposing yourself to the lung diseases and other things that might come with the job. It means something to a truckdriver, spending days and nights on the road. It means something to people who have to move freight around. It is the kind of thing that means a lot to ordinary working people. It clearly doesn't mean anything to Congressman Mulvaney. Three more years working, as far as he is concerned, is an acceptable alternative. He wants to privatize Medicare and turn Medicare back into the loving arms of private health insurance companies, and let's see what seniors end up experiencing. Almost 60 million Americans now rely on Medicare. In Congressman Mulvaney's point of view, the guarantee of Medicare would end. This is the man President Trump has chosen to head the budget for the United States of America. Mulvaney has called repeatedly for cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, including a ``cut, cap, and balance'' budget, which would cut each of these programs by 25 percent. When you say the word Medicaid, people have an image in their mind: Oh, that is health insurance for poor people. And that is generally correct, although it also covers disabled Americans. But do you know who the major recipients of Medicaid are in America? The largest single group of people receiving help from Medicaid are children--children in poor, low-income families who get medical care through Medicaid. The biggest expenditure for Medicaid is not children though. The biggest expenditure is for the elderly Americans who are living largely at institutional settings, in these care homes, nursing homes. Medicaid keeps them in that place with adequate medical care. So now comes Congressman Mulvaney and says: Let's just cut those by 25 percent. There is one good way to reduce Federal spending. Really? So that means fewer immunizations for children. What does it mean for your mother or your grandmother in the nursing home when it is announced that we don't have enough money to cover the cost to keep her here in a good, safe, positive environment? For Congressman Mulvaney, it is just numbers on paper. For real families across America, it is the reality of life. Much like our new Secretary of Health and Human Services, Congressman Price, Representative Mulvaney wants to dramatically undermine the Medicare Program for our Nation's seniors. Let's look at what Medicare has meant to our country since it was created in 1965. Before Medicare, only 51 percent of Americans 65 and older had health care coverage. Nearly 30 percent lived in poverty. Today, 98 percent of seniors have health care, and less than 10 percent live below the poverty line. Has Medicare work? You bet it has. It has provided health insurance for seniors, and it has given people dignity and independence in their senior years--something that everyone should value. And, incidentally, the life expectancy of Americans has grown by 5 years since we created Medicare. It is working. Medicare helps seniors, helps their families, and it helps America. But Congressman Mulvaney doesn't get it. This man has been chosen by President Trump to write the budget of America. Why is Congressman Mulvaney so hell-bent on ending a program like Medicare that 98 percent of our Nation's seniors depend on? Well, I can tell you, if his comments on Medicare scare you, on Medicaid he is even worse. This program, combined with the Children's Health Insurance Program, ensures health coverage for 70 million Americans. One out of every five nationwide depend on Medicaid. It helps low- income families, pregnant women, children, and those with disabilities. Currently, if you qualify for Medicaid, you are guaranteed to get health coverage. Congressman Mulvaney thinks he has a better idea. He wants to change that. Congressman Mulvaney wants to significantly cut the Federal funding for Medicaid and leave States to fend for themselves when it comes to caring for these 70 million Americans. Faced with less Federal funding, States would be forced to find ways to cut spending and save money. They might start Medicaid waiting lists or impose work requirements or slash benefits. At the end of the day, the result would be catastrophic. I just spent the last weekend in Southern Illinois. We had a roundtable down there to talk about the impact of the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. These hospital administrators from smalltown hospitals came in to tell me that losing Medicaid reimbursement could force them to dramatically cut their workforce and maybe even face closure. Here is Congressman Mulvaney suggesting: Let's just do that across America. I wonder where he lives. I wonder if there are any small towns or rural areas near him. I wonder if he values those hospitals the way the people living in communities that I represent value them. These are not only lifelines for people who desperately need timely, professional medical care, but they are the source of the best jobs in the community. Congressman Mulvaney could care less: Let's just keep cutting on Medicaid and see what happens. What will happen will be devastating. Mr. Mulvaney isn't content with just throwing seniors off Medicare and low-income families off Medicaid. He wants to punish women by taking away their healthcare providers and inserting his own decisions into their medical decisions. Mr. Mulvaney has repeatedly attempted to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide women and men with important cancer screenings, family planning, STD testing, and other important health care services. The laws of the United States of America provide that not one penny can be given to Planned Parenthood for abortion services--not one penny under the law. Most people, if asked what percentage of the Planned Parenthood budget is actually spent on abortion services would get it wrong. The actual number is 3 percent. Ninety-seven percent of what Planned Parenthood does, in terms of family planning, cancer screening, STD screening, has no relation directly to abortion services, and that is compensated, but abortion services are not under the law. Congressman Mulvaney could care less. He would close down the sources of family planning in small towns and communities around America. The concerns I have laid out today are just a few that I have about this nomination. The millions of hard-working Americans who believed President Trump's campaign promises, and as a champion for the most vulnerable, deserve far better than Congressman Mulvaney. There are real problems facing this Nation. Far too many people are struggling, and there is a lot of work to do. We cannot afford to risk our economic recovery, the retirement plans and savings of working Americans, the health of our children, the kind of care we want for our mothers and grandmothers--we cannot afford to risk them by appointing OMB Director Mick Mulvaney. I have no choice but to oppose Mick Mulvaney's nomination for Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Mr. President, Mick Mulvaney is a founder of the House Freedom Caucus, which has made repeal of the Affordable Care Act--without a replacement--one of their main causes. This is not about good policy or the real consequences for people around the country. This is about ideology. Mr. Mulvaney wants to rip health insurance away from nearly 30 million people and deny people the important consumer protections they have come to depend upon. He would once again allow insurers to impose pre-existing condition exclusions and discriminate based on gender and cut off coverage when someone gets sick and needs it most. His answer to fixing our health care system is ``free-market competition'' and ``crackdown on frivolous lawsuits. Those might make good talking points, but they will not stabilize our insurance market and help people in need. The Illinois Hospital Association estimates that Republican plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act will result in the loss of up to 95,000 jobs in Illinois--in hospitals, doctor's offices, construction, real estate, and beyond. Over the last month, I have been going around my State, meeting with hospitals and providers, talking to them about what repeal would mean. They are worried. You see, Illinois hospitals and health systems generate nearly $90 billion in the State and local economies each year, and 1 in 10 jobs in Illinois is in health care. Hospitals are vitally important to our State's economy and vitally important to patients in need. Don't just take my word for it, Franklin Hospital CEO, Jim Johnson told me: In our community, at the time that the hospital in West Frankfort closed, we [Franklin Hospital in Benton] managed to stay open . . . they're just eaten up that they don't have a hospital anymore. It's incredible what the loss of a hospital can do to a small community. And I'm down there talking to those guys every day because naturally I like them to use our hospital . . . but those conversations, it has just torn this community apart. In Illinois and nationwide, rural hospitals would be particularly hurt by Mr. Mulvaney and Republicans' prescription for chaos. In Illinois, 62 of our 102 counties are rural. We have 51 Critical Access Hospitals, which are the hubs of their communities. Rural hospitals typically are more reliant on Medicaid and Medicare, and have tighter operating margins. So what has the ACA meant for them? In States that expanded Medicaid, like Illinois, rural hospitals have seen greater financial stability thanks to the decrease in uncompensated care--or charity care--costs. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, the uninsured rate in rural communities has dropped by nearly 40 percent. This is not only great for those individuals obtaining insurance, it is also great for the rural hospitals who are now getting paid for the health services they provide. Community Health & Emergency Services CEO Fred Bernstein told me: You can look at Cairo as the ghost of the future. Because there is not much left that we have to lose . . . We've lost the only grocery store, and the only drug store in Cairo. If this Affordable Care Act thing isn't resolved and if we go to block grant in the Medicaid program, there's not going to be any resolution to those problems down there. We are not going to be able to stay open. At least 72-74 percent of my patients depend upon Medicaid . . . Without the expansions of Medicaid that we've already seen, and without some of the subsidies that those who can get some insurance will get to keep that insurance, there's not going to be the ability to afford any care for most of the people we serve. Since 2009, the number of rural hospitals in Illinois operating in the red has decreased by 46 percent. Put another way, 16 rural hospitals in Illinois are now on much more solid financial footing thanks to the ACA. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, later today we are going to consider an effort under the Congressional Review Act to change America's background check system when it comes to the purchase of firearms. For months, I have been listening to President Trump and the Republicans talk about gun violence in the city of Chicago. It is a heartbreaking reality. More than 4,300 people were shot in Chicago last year and over 400 so far this year. It is not just Chicago. The American Medical Association has declared that gun violence is a public health crisis in our Nation. So what is Congress doing to save lives in Chicago and across the Nation from gun violence? What is the Senate doing to protect people from being shot? Nothing. Instead, the Republican Congress is trying to weaken one of the gun laws on the books--the NICS Improvement Amendments Act. This is the law passed unanimously by Congress after the Virginia Tech massacre and signed into law in 2008 by President George W. Bush. This law says that every Federal agency needs to let the FBI NICS background check system know when the agency has information about people who fall within the legal prohibitions on gun possession. Everyone agreed we needed to get these records into the NICS system, especially records about those who are seriously mentally unstable, such as the Virginia Tech shooter. That man had a history of mental illness, but he was able to buy guns and kill 32 people because his records were not in the background check system known as NICS. There is a longstanding Federal prohibition on gun possession by those who are suffering from mental illness. This prohibition is so well established that the late Justice Antonin Scalia cited it in the Supreme Court's Heller decision as an example of a restriction that is presumptively lawful and consistent with the Second Amendment. There have been tragic cases where people with serious mental illnesses have used guns to cause great harm. The Newtown, CT, shooter showed signs of severe mental health problems that went untreated before he killed 20 students and 6 educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The Tucson, AZ, shooter, who shot Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and killed six others, was diagnosed after the shooting with schizophrenia. And it was 9 years ago today when a gunman who had been diagnosed and treated for mental illness killed 5 people and injured 17 in a classroom building at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. About two-thirds of shooting deaths each year are suicides. Last year, there were more than 21,000 suicides by gun. The National Alliance on Mental Illness reports that ``about 90% of individuals who die by suicide experience mental illness.'' Mental illness is a challenging issue for our society. I have worked to expand treatment and coverage for mental illness, including through the Affordable Care Act, one of the most important single laws we have ever passed to address mental illness. I wish those who are trying to repeal this commonsense gun safety regulation would drop that effort and join us in stopping this repeal of the Affordable Care Act. We need more and better services for people with mental illness. The reality is that the gun laws on the books are narrowly drawn when it comes to mental illness and so is the rule we are being asked to repeal today. Current Federal law says that a person who has been ``adjudicated as a mental defective'' is prohibited from gun possession. The phrase ``adjudicated as a mental defective'' is defined in the law as a determination by ``a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to himself or others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.'' The 2008 NICS Improvement law, signed into law by President George W. Bush, directed Federal agencies to send their relevant records to the NICS system. Last year, the Social Security Administration issued a rule to implement this law after concluding that certain determinations by the Social Security Administration qualify as an adjudication of mental defectiveness. Let me explain what the SSA rule says. Under this rule, starting in December of this year, the Social Security Administration will begin sending to NICS--the body which gathers information and records for background checks before the possession of firearms--the name, date of birth, and Social Security number of people who meet each of the five threshold criteria. The person must be between the ages of 18 and 65, have filed a claim with SSA for benefits based on disability, have been diagnosed with a serious, long-term mental disorder, have been determined by SSA to be disabled and unable to perform substantial work because of the mental disorder, and have been subject to determination by the Social Security Administration that the mental disorder is so serious that the person needs to have a representative appointed to manage the person's benefits. This is not a situation where the Social Security Administration would notify NICS just because a person can't balance his checkbook. There must be a seriously debilitating, medically diagnosed mental illness involved. The rule is prospective only. Current Social Security disability beneficiaries are not subject to it. The rule is predicted to cover about 75,000 Americans, once it takes effect, out of the estimated 10 million suffering from a serious mental illness. I might add here for the record, I do not suggest that every person who has any form of mental illness is a danger. In fact, exactly the opposite is true. But we do know that those who suffer from serious mental conditions many times are engaged in violent conduct and many times with horrible results when they have firearms. The rule we are being asked to repeal on the floor of the Senate provides for advance notice of the Social Security Administration determination and the right to appeal through an administrative process and in court. A person can obtain relief from the firearms prohibition by having healthcare providers and character witnesses submit statements that the person is not a danger to himself or others. Every politician claims they want to keep deadly firearms out of the hands of those who are seriously mentally unstable. A statement made by a Republican Senator from Texas, Senator Cornyn, the senior Senator from Texas and my counterpart on the Republican side; he said in March 2013: If there was a common thread in the Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, and Newtown massacres, it was the mental illness of the shooter. . . . We should refocus our effort to make sure the current background check system works to screen out the dangerously mentally-ill. Reasonable people can disagree over whether the SSA's rule gets it exactly right. There are mental health groups that have concerns about it, and I respect that. But using the Congressional Review Act is a blunt tool. Instead of fixing the rule, the Congressional Review Act would repeal the rule and--listen to this--permanently bar the Social Security Administration from adopting any substantially similar rule. So it likely would bar the Social Security Administration from ever implementing a rule to submit mental health records to NICS in the future. If there are problems with this rule, they can be addressed by fixing it. But the Republican response is always repeal first. This time, they want to repeal a rule that doesn't start until December and its repeal would preclude the Social Security Administration from even fixing or positively changing it. We also had disputes over the process the Department of Veterans Affairs used to submit names of people with mental illness to the same NICS background check system. Last December, we fixed it on a bipartisan basis. We passed language in the 21st Century Cures Act to ensure that a person can have his own doctor and lawyer involved in the process. If the Social Security Administration rule needs fixing, we can fix it too. But this Congressional Review Act is a sledgehammer, not a tool to fix it. We are being asked to vote today to ban an agency permanently from complying with the NICS law that we enacted in 2008. We are being asked to undermine the gun laws that are on the books. I urge my colleagues to listen to the opposition of this resolution of disapproval. Read the letter from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, who say that the Social Security Administration rule ``is critically important to the fabric of our nation's background check system.'' Read the editorials in newspapers across the country that oppose repealing this rule. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial from the Chicago Tribune be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. We can also read editorials in the St. Louis Post- Dispatch, the Charlotte Observer, the New York Times, and more. Now listen specifically to the pleas of gunshot victims and their family members. Listen to Patrick Korellis, of Chicago, whom I have met. He was shot in a classroom 9 years ago at Northern Illinois University by a man who had a serious mental illness. He wrote to me and he said: I was shot in my classroom by someone who was mentally ill, and was able to obtain guns and a lot of ammunition because the background checks weren't strong enough. Rolling back some of these background checks doesn't make any sense, and will allow more people to get through the loopholes. Now listen to Janet Delana of Wellington, MO. She wrote to Congress: My daughter Colby, a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic who lived at home with her father and I, received monthly Social Security disability payments for her mental illness. In 2012 she used the money from her disability check to buy a gun at a local gun dealer. Because she was ill and suicidal, I had contacted the gun dealer and begged him not to sell her a gun. However, my pleas were ignored and the dealer sold her a gun anyway because Colby passed the background check. An hour later, she shot her father to death and tried once again to take her own life. She is now in an institution for life, and my husband is gone. Janet said: This SSA Rule is vital. I am very concerned this resolution would preclude SSA and possibly even other agencies from enacting any future regulations on this or related matters. We have a public health crisis when it comes to gun violence--in Chicago and in communities across the Nation. We have a responsibility to do what we can on the Federal level to reduce the violence and protect our citizens from getting shot. Voting for this resolution of disapproval today would be a step backward. It would weaken the gun laws on the books and make it easier for severely mentally ill people to get guns. On this, the ninth anniversary of the shooting at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, it is unthinkable that we are going to try to revoke a rule that would keep guns out of the hands of those who should have no business owning them. Let me conclude with a statement from Bloomberg business magazine, published in an edition several weeks ago: Advocates for the mentally ill caution that mental illness shouldn't be equated with a penchant for violence. They're right. But America's tragic experience with mentally ill gunmen--from shootings at Virginia Tech in 2007 to Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012--shows the folly of simply dismissing the danger. In recent years Republicans have prioritized instant gratification for anyone who desires to buy a gun. Last year the National Rifle Association spent $50 million on the campaigns of Donald Trump and six Republican senators. NRA leader Wayne LaPierre, who met with Trump this week, wants payback. The Obama rule established a process for identifying only Social Security beneficiaries who would be prohibited from possessing guns under existing law. It required that beneficiaries be notified of the prohibition, and it provided means to appeal the determination before an administrative law judge or a federal court. Such provisions would safeguard individual rights. But they offend the fundamental principle that drives the NRA, and thus Republican, gun politics: Anyone should be able to get a gun at any time for any reason and bring that weapon, loaded, anywhere. Common sense dictates that we be careful to keep guns out of the hands of those who would misuse them. I sincerely hope that gun owners across my State and across the Nation--and I respect them and their constitutional right--will understand that reasonable limitations on the possession and ownership of firearms is in the best interest of protecting their Second Amendment rights as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, is likely to come to the floor soon, and I will certainly defer to him at a later time, but I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, November 8, 2016, was not just election day. It was a day that will live in cyber infamy because it turns out that one of the leading enemies of the United States, the nation of Russia, was directly engaged in the Presidential campaign that resulted in the election on November 8. This is not speculation. It is a fact based on conclusions that came from 17 different intelligence agencies that confirmed this reality. This is the first time we can point to where a foreign power has tried to influence the outcome of a Presidential election in the United States. Their goal was clear: to elect Donald Trump, to defeat Hillary Clinton. They hacked into computers. They released information on a selective basis. They created fake news stories. They used WikiLeaks--everything within their cyber power to influence the outcome of the election. That was the reality. This morning we were awakened to the headline that President Trump's head of the National Security Council, LTG Michael Flynn, has resigned. That is an incredible blockbuster of a story. And what was the reason for his resignation? It turns out that he had a direct conversation with the Russian Ambassador to the United States, Mr. Kislyak, and that conversation included references to sanctions that President Obama was imposing on Russia because of their involvement in our election. What led to his resignation, of course, was that he misled both the Vice President and the President about that conversation. When the facts came out, he was forced to resign. This is not business as usual in Washington. What we are dealing with here is, in fact, a historic event--a powder keg in history--when it comes to the United States and its security. The obvious question is, Will this Congress of the United States, this branch of our government, respond? Will we initiate thorough investigations as to the involvement of the Russians in that election campaign and, specifically, any involvement with any Presidential campaign during that time? Twenty years ago, when I was elected to the Senate, there was an investigation initiated by the Republicans at the suggestion--the suggestion--that the Chinese Government played some role in the Clinton-Gore campaign. The Governmental Affairs Committee of the Senate was entrusted with the responsibility to do a thorough investigation of that allegation, and Fred Thompson, the Senator from Tennessee, was the chairman of that committee, with John Glenn as the ranking Democrat. The hearings went on for weeks--ultimately, for months--and then there was a formal report issued. No credible evidence was found of the suggestion, but it was taken that seriously by the Republican-led Congress that the Chinese may have been involved in a Democratic Presidential campaign. How seriously is the Republican Congress taking the allegations and statements from our intelligence agencies that the Russians were involved in this last Presidential campaign? It is time for us to have an independent, bipartisan commission beyond Congress to look into this and give us solid answers. We need to appoint people to head this commission of the stature of GEN Colin Powell and Sandra Day O'Connor, who served on the Supreme Court, who are credible people to lead this effort and this investigation and give America the truth. A week or so ago the New York Times published the results of a recent poll that asked Americans what other nations they considered to be our closest allies and worst enemies. The results weren't surprising. Canada, the UK, and Australia topped the list of our best allies. Of America's enemies, the top nations were different, but they included North Korea, Iran, and Russia. That makes me wonder why President Trump, in the span of a week, managed to insult and hang up on the telephone call with the Prime Minister of Australia and then go on national news to once again defend Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, in light of what I just said earlier. Just a few days later, it is revealed that his National Security Advisor, General Flynn, the one who was fired by the previous administration and led chants unworthy of a great democracy about locking up a political opponent, was, in fact, speaking to a Russian official as a private citizen before President Trump took office. Monday, we learned that former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, whom President Trump abruptly fired, had warned the White House that General Flynn had misled senior administration officials about his communications with the Russian Ambassador and warned he was potentially vulnerable to Russian blackmail. Understand what I have just said. The man who was picked by President Trump as his top National Security Advisor misled the President and the Vice President about a telephone conversation with the Russian Ambassador and, in the opinion of our top law enforcement officials, left himself vulnerable to Russian blackmail. In the last days of the Obama administration, then Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan reportedly shared Yates' concerns and concurred with the recommendation to inform the Trump White House. Now that General Flynn has resigned, leaving an already chaotic National Security Council in even greater disarray, perhaps this isn't all that surprising anymore, but it certainly should be. This President has a troubling habit of lashing out at everyone and anyone involved in a perceived slight--dangerous and unbecoming behavior when granted the privilege to become President of this great Nation. In fact, the number and range of those attacked or insulted by Twitter is so significant I wouldn't even start to list them, but it is important to note the list includes Republicans, Democrats, labor leaders, businesses, retired generals, and others in almost every conceivable category. Actually, one looks at the list and you quickly realize the only unifying factor is not about putting America first or America's image but instead about protecting a deeply fragile ego. Listen to this excerpt from a vast list of those who have been attacked by President Trump: President George Bush, President George W. Bush, Speaker Paul Ryan, Florida Gov. Rick Scott, Federal judges, former Governor of New Hampshire John Sununu, the Republican establishment, NATO, Major League Baseball, Macy's Department Store, European leaders, Britain, Germany, New Jersey, the American delegate system, the ``Today'' show, ``Saturday Night Live,'' ``The View,'' Chief Justice John Roberts, Colin Powell, President of United Steelworkers Local 1999, ABC News, NBC News, FOX News, and seemingly every other media outlet. Now that we are in the category of those who have been attacked, we can't leave Nordstrom off the list. The President even insulted the former Governor of South Carolina, then chose her to be U.N. Ambassador. In fact, there are hundreds upon hundreds on this list--a list that in a foreboding, Nixonian way keeps on growing. So if you make any criticism or joke about President Trump, make any perceived slight, run a department store that doesn't carry his daughter's products, lead a labor union, or do just about anything, be prepared for an attack by a Trump tweet--except if you happen to be the former Communist KGB official who now leads the one nation that actually recently attacked our Nation. That would be Vladimir Putin. How is it possible? Russian President Putin launched a cyber attack of war on the United States. He interfered in our election and tried to affect the outcome and pick the winner. The evidence is overwhelming. It has been available in increasing amounts over the last several months. Yet we have a President who not only denies the Russian attack but has a strange infatuation with President Putin--but is also suggesting policies that dangerously puppet those of Putin. It is now revealed that Trump's National Security Advisor, LTG Michael Flynn, lied about discussing sanctions with the Russian Ambassador immediately after the Obama administration announced new sanctions for the attack on our election. Not only had General Flynn and the White House suddenly remembered the facts differently, but more dangerously, did Flynn's conversation undercut U.S. sanctions, especially after Russia's assault on our election? And who instructed General Flynn to have these suspiciously timed conversations with the Russian Ambassador? It is deeply troubling to imagine what might have been insinuated in those talks, but given the blinders this President has shown in ignoring President Putin so far, I worry about a suggested or hinted trading for U.S. sanctions on Russia for little in return. Quite simply, you don't make America great by selling out to a former Communist KGB official. You only negotiate with such a dictator from a position of strength, not denial or naivete. So what has been the response to the cyber attack of war on America, Flynn's dalliance with the Russians, and the dangerous disarray at the Trump National Security Council from the party of Ronald Reagan, who knew the Communist mind pretty well? Near silence. The party of Ronald Reagan has spoken zero times about the Russian attack or Flynn's actions on the floor of the Senate since early October. I waited this morning for the Senate Republican leader to raise the obvious front- page story across America about the resignation of President Trump's National Security Advisor, and not a word was mentioned. Compare this to the 36 times the Republicans have come to the floor to talk about stripping health care away from millions of Americans in the last several weeks. Even President Trump's new Attorney General, who brazenly changed his tune on Russia once having joined the Trump campaign, said he had not yet read intelligence reports on the Russian attack--a position even more stunning in light of the recent reports of Sally Yates' warnings. Yet, incredibly, his colleagues were ready to confirm him for the highest law enforcement position in the land. I see the Democratic leader here, and I want to yield the floor to him, but I will close with this. Are we going to have a fulsome, honest, independent investigation of the Russian involvement in this election campaign? We know it happened. Seventeen of our intelligence agencies confirm it. We also know that an investigation is underway by the Federal Bureau of Investigation about this campaign and the involvement of the Russians, and we know as well now that because of the conversations of our National Security Advisor with the Russian Ambassador, he was forced to resign in the first 4 weeks of this administration. This calls out for a thorough investigation. The Republican Party in Congress, which spent hours and days and weeks and months in investigations involving Hillary Clinton, should at least acknowledge the gravity of this matter and bring this to a full investigation--an open and public one that can be trusted, an independent investigation-- that stands up for our basic democracy and does not allow the invasion of the Russians or any other country into our democratic process. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, on January 20, at his inauguration, President Trump stood before the American people and said: ``For too long, a small group of our nation's Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.'' President Trump is right. The people have borne unimaginable costs: the cost of foreclosure, the cost of inequality, the cost of poverty, and the cost of injustice. Sadly, it doesn't look like that is going to change soon with this administration. Three weeks into this administration, President Trump has already begun to restore power back to Wall Street and the very same people who he said have caused tremendous problems for us. The nomination of Steve Mnuchin, someone who spent his entire career working on behalf of Wall Street at the expense of hard-working Americans, is a clear example. Let me say at the outset, I have not met him, but I tried to, but we couldn't get an agreement as to when we might be able to get together. I wanted to talk to him about some important issues that many of us remember. We know what happened with the recession that greeted President Obama when he was sworn into office 8 years ago. We know about the foreclosures. We know of families being literally wiped out, all their savings gone because of misleading tactics by financiers. I still look at this, and as much as I respect President Obama and his administration, I shake my head and think: Nobody went to jail for all that occurred. People at the highest levels of the financial community on Wall Street and others were engaged in practices that we know now were unfair and just plain wrong and, in many cases, illegal. I have taken a look at Mr. Mnuchin's record. I have read a lot of stories about him. I have heard from homeowners' personally impacted by his conduct, and let me tell you, what I have seen and heard leads me to believe he is not the right person to be Secretary of the Treasury. Like most of President Trump's nominees, Mr. Mnuchin was not chosen for his knowledge and experience on critical issues he will face if confirmed as Secretary of the Treasury. He was not chosen for his commitment to work for average working families. He was chosen for his loyalty to the President, the new litmus test in the Republican Party. Before serving as President Trump's chief fundraiser on the campaign, Mr. Mnuchin worked to help wealthy individuals and powerful special interest groups reap the benefits of what the President has called ``a rigged system.'' He served as an executive at Goldman Sachs and as a hedge fund manager. Perhaps what troubles me the most about Mr. Mnuchin's experience is his tenure at the helm of a group known as OneWest, which came to be known as a foreclosure machine in America because of the aggressive and questionable practices it used to foreclose on the homes of thousands of American families. Mr. Mnuchin was the head of the company that was doing the foreclosure. After our country experienced the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, Congress worked around the clock to prevent the economy from going into free-fall and end some of the worst practices that helped bring the American economy to its knees. As we were working to save American homes, Mr. Mnuchin--like President Trump--saw opportunity to make a profit, personally earning millions from OneWest's success as a foreclosure machine. As the head of OneWest, Mr. Mnuchin had the power to destroy lives through foreclosure or find ways to help homeowners stay in their homes. He chose to aggressively foreclose on families. During his nomination hearing, Mr. Mnuchin defended OneWest's foreclosure practices and said he was proud of the work of the bank during the foreclosure crisis. Let me tell you about some of the stories, and you can decide whether Mr. Mnuchin should be proud of the record of the company he was managing. Rex Schaffer and his wife Rose lost their home of nearly 50 years, despite having qualified for a loan modification. Ossie Lofton, a 90-year-old woman, was foreclosed on because she was short 27 cents in her mortgage payment--27 cents. The locks were changed on Leslie Park's Minneapolis home in the middle of a blizzard. We have seen how organizations headed by Mr. Mnuchin treat people. If confirmed, Mr. Mnuchin would have the ability to use the power of the U.S. Treasury Department to stand on the side of Wall Street and on the opposite side of millions of working Americans. I don't have confidence, based on his professional record, that Mr. Mnuchin will put the needs of hard-working families first over Wall Street. While the foreclosure crisis and its aftermath seem like something in the past for so many people, that is not the case in my home State of Illinois. Foreclosures are devastating for the families forced out of their homes, but they are also devastating to surrounding communities and neighborhoods. If you want to know what a community looks like 50 years after the foreclosure crisis, visit my birthplace, my hometown of East St. Louis, IL, or even some of the neighborhoods on the south side of Chicago, or the west side, for that matter--vacant lot after vacant lot, neglected buildings and homes, an economy devastated. And what is left? Some of the poorest families on earth. While we have made significant progress since the recession of 2008, many families in my State and across the country are still suffering. There is work to do. If confirmed, Mr. Mnuchin will be responsible for protecting these families and ensuring that we don't have another financial crisis. All we have seen from him is his ability to profit from the foreclosure crisis and the devastation left in its wake. In the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008, Congress got together with the President and passed Dodd-Frank. This was Wall Street reform determined not to let another economic crisis follow. The consumer protection act was also passed to prevent these crises and to reform the problems that caused them. Mr. Mnuchin has made no secret of the fact that his No. 1 regulatory priority is to roll back Wall Street reform, to return the barbarians to the gates. Despite the promises President Trump made during his campaign, including ``not letting Wall Street get away with murder,'' Mr. Mnuchin has an ally in President Trump in undoing Dodd-Frank. President Trump signed an Executive order that would begin rolling back the important consumer and financial system reforms we passed as part of Dodd-Frank. The President signed this order sitting among the biggest beneficiaries of his actions, some of Wall Street's high rollers. Make no mistake, if President Trump gets his way and Steven Mnuchin is confirmed, the banks are going to have the best friend they can think of in the Treasury Department, just like they did before the economic crash of 2008. It is clear the American people can't count on Mr. Mnuchin, based on his business experience, to decide with them over Wall Street. But, certainly, he should be committed to basic fairness of the Tax Code. He said he was until he wasn't. Shortly after his nomination, Mr. Mnuchin said there would be ``no absolute tax cut for the upper class.'' Yet he has not spoken out against the significant tax cuts the wealthy would receive from the repeal of the Affordable Care Act or under the President's and the House Republican's tax reform plan. We shouldn't be surprised by this because we are asking Mr. Mnuchin to close the loopholes and raise the taxes on the very people he helped to avoid paying taxes by using offshore tax havens as a hedge fund manager. We are still recovering from the devastation of that financial crisis 8 years ago. We can't afford to have our Nation's top economic official be a man who has only been looking out for Wall Street. For a President who ran on bringing back jobs and being a champion of the working people, the choices of President Trump for his Cabinet are the opposite and have taken advantage of the very system he has derided as rigged against the people. The American people deserve better. When Mr. Mnuchin's nomination is brought to the Senate floor for a vote, I will vote no, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, those following the proceedings of the Senate may be wondering what we are doing. Technically, we are considering the nomination of Congressman Tom Price of Georgia to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services--a position he has been nominated for by President Trump. Other Members have come to the floor and discussed other nominees, as the junior Senator from Arizona just discussed the Supreme Court nominee, but I wanted to make sure I came to the floor for a few minutes to put my thoughts on the record about the nomination of Congressman Tom Price to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. It almost seems like a natural fit. He is an orthopedic surgeon. This man obviously is gifted and talented and educated and skilled when it comes to the healing arts, and he made a living before his election to Congress dealing with complex surgeries. On that alone, he needs to have honest consideration from all Members of the Senate as we advise and consent to his nomination to Secretary of Health and Human Services. But he will not be entering surgery when he goes to the Health and Human Services Department, at least not the kind of surgery experience he has had in the past; he is going to be in charge of the most important health care programs in the United States of America. They are programs that literally tens of millions of Americans count on; 50 or 60 million Americans count on Medicare. Medicare is that program created in the 1970s under President Lyndon Johnson that said: You don't have to reach a point in life where you are so old that you can't work anymore and therefore can't qualify for health insurance at your employment. We are going to create a program that is available for people who are 65 years of age called Medicare. You are going to be able to have health insurance coverage at age 65. It was a dramatic change in the way we looked at health care in America, and it was controversial. The medical professions opposed Medicare. They argued that creating this health insurance plan for senior citizens--and later it was expanded to the disabled--meant socialized medicine, which meant that the government was going to make the decision about your health care--no longer you and your doctor; it would be the government making these critical decisions. So the American Medical Association and many others opposed the creation of Medicare. Despite that opposition, the bill went forward and passed and became law. I would go out on a limb today as a politician and say it may be the most popular single political program, perhaps only second to Social Security, in the history of the United States. Overnight, it changed the treatment of our parents and grandparents. There was a time--and there aren't many left who can remember it--when it reached the point where Grandma had to come and live with you because there was no place for her to go. She perhaps worked in life and perhaps hadn't. She had a limited amount of retirement. She had very modest, if any, Social Security. She was in and out of the doctor's office and hospital. And she was in the spare bedroom. I can remember that growing up as a kid. That was considered somewhat normal at the time. In the 1970s, that started to change. It changed, obviously, with Social Security but also with Medicare. Now your grandmother had access to a doctor and a hospital, and it didn't cost her life savings. What a big change it meant. As we learned when Medicare was created, almost half of the seniors in America had no health insurance. Now that number is 1 or 2 percent. Medicare has worked, and it has worked to give people longer lives. That is the real proof. I can brag about it all I care to, but the bottom line is that senior citizens, starting with the creation of Medicare, started living longer, more independent lives. Isn't that what every senior wants--decent, good health and independence in the way they live? Medicare has been the key to that. It is hard to imagine that here in 2017 we are going to initiate another debate about whether America should have Medicare. Fifty years later, we are going to go through this debate all over again? Apparently so, because the nominee of President Donald Trump to be the head of the Health and Human Services Department, Congressman Tom Price of Georgia, has said some troubling things about Medicare. In Politico, he said: ``Nothing has had a greater negative effect on the delivery of health care than the Federal government's intrusion into medicine through Medicare.'' What was he thinking? He obviously never looked at it from the perspective of someone of limited means who finally had a chance for the protection of health insurance at age 65. I met those people. One of them is a friend of mine. Her name is Judy. Judy lives in Southern Illinois. I met her because she is a sweet lady who is head of hospitality at a motel where I stay in Southern Illinois. She is a happy person with a big smile, and I have gotten to know her over the years. We became friends. I came to learn one day that Judy has spent most of her life in jobs just like that. She is not a lazy person at all, but she is lucky to get part-time jobs. And when I met her at age 63, Judy told me, whispered to me once, ``Senator, I have never had health insurance in my life.'' That is a heartbreaking statement when you think about it, isn't it? This lady lived 63 years never once having health insurance. Then a couple of things happened. She asked me about the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare. Was it good for her or not? I told her that because her income was at a certain level, she was going to qualify for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act with no premium. She was brought into the Medicare Program at age 63. For the first time in her life, she had health insurance through the Affordable Care Act--a low-income wage earner, eligible for Medicaid at no expense to her. And it didn't come a moment too soon. On one of my next trips down South, I saw Judy. She didn't look as healthy as she once looked. Turns out she had been diagnosed with diabetes. And at age 64, she was in need--desperate need of ongoing medical care or complications were likely to set in. It was shortly after that she qualified for Medicare. So Judy has coverage. Judy has a doctor. Judy has people who care about her in her life. That is why I wonder what Congressman Price, who wants to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, is thinking. What is he thinking about people just like her? Let's take a look at what we have before us with his nomination. This Department touches the lives of virtually every American, Health and Human Services. I talked about Medicare and Medicaid, but this is the Department that is responsible for medical research too--the National Institutes of Health, for example. This is the Department that oversees the Centers for Disease Control, and that is the agency which had to fight the outbreak of Ebola in West Africa. This is the Department that is in charge of promoting healthy births of babies in America and, of course, caring for our seniors I have spoken about. On many of these issues I have just outlined, Congressman Tom Price of Georgia has made his views very clear. His legislative record and his core values as a Republican Congressman from Georgia are in contrast with the missions of the very Department President Trump has asked him to lead. Let's take a look. New York Times said Congressman Price's views on the role of government in health care can ``be summed up in one word: Less.'' Congressman Price has spent his political career opposing many of the basic Federal health programs he is now being asked for permission to oversee. He has repeatedly voted against the Children's Health Insurance Program, which is a program that provides health insurance to 8 million kids in America. Even before passing the Affordable Care Act, we decided we were going to extend health insurance coverage to children, making a real commitment at the Federal level on a bipartisan basis to do it. Eight million kids are covered nationwide, 300,000 in Illinois. Congressman Price has spent the last 6 years in a desperate attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare. If he were successful in that effort, it would eliminate health insurance for 30 million Americans and lead to dramatic premium increases for those with health insurance. Last year, it was Congressman Price of Georgia who authored the repeal and retreat reconciliation bill that, thank goodness, was vetoed by President Obama. Bound and determined Congressman Price was to eliminate ObamaCare. And for 6 years, Republicans have never had a replacement. That is why they are changing their rhetoric. It went from repeal, to repeal and replace, and now it is repair. I can't keep up with them. But I will tell you, starting with repeal is inviting a disaster in health care in America and calling into question the health insurance coverage of 30 million people in our country. So if Congressman Price had his way, it would mean less funding, fewer services, and fewer people covered. In addition to wanting to repeal our health care law, Congressman Price wants to fundamentally and negatively change Medicare and Medicaid. Those two programs together serve about one-third of the people living in America, 120 million. He wants to eliminate the Affordable Care Act's expansion of Medicaid. Remember Judy? Her income was too low. She couldn't pay any health insurance premiums. But because her income was so low, she qualified to be brought into the rolls of Medicaid in Illinois. Over 600,000 people just like her were brought into protection of health insurance for the first time in their lives. This is one of our best tools for primary care for people who are in low-income situations--Medicaid. Because we included in the Affordable Care Act a guarantee that health insurance would cover mental illness and substance abuse treatment, in some parts of my State where opioid addiction and heroin deaths are so prevalent, people with health insurance have access to substance abuse treatment. Congressman Price, who would repeal ObamaCare, would eliminate that guarantee in health insurance. Repealing the Medicaid expansion that I mentioned earlier would put 650,000 Illinoisans out of insurance, and our State would lose $37 billion in Federal funding over the next decade. What impact does it have if a person shows up at an emergency room sick, with no insurance? In America, that person still receives care, but who pays for it? Everybody else. People with health insurance end up paying for those who receive care and don't pay for it. Medicaid makes sure that hospital receives a payment. So when Congressman Price wants to eliminate the coverage of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, it means less money coming into the hospitals across America. Some hospitals are big and prosperous, and they can take it; others cannot. In downstate Illinois, where I hail from, smalltown America, hospitals in those communities losing Medicaid, which Congressman Price would eliminate, are going to have a tough time staying open. The Illinois Hospital Association tells us we will lose 90,000 jobs if Congressman Price's plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act goes forward--90,000 in Illinois. I need not tell you they are the best paying jobs in downstate communities. So it is a job-killer, and sadly it endangers the health of the people who count on these hospitals. What is he thinking? He is a doctor. He should be thinking in terms of what it means when you don't protect people with basic health insurance. Right now, if you qualify for Medicaid, you are guaranteed to get health care. Under Congressman Price's plan--the man who wants to be head of Health and Human Services--the guarantee is gone. Illinois would have lost $14 billion in Medicaid funding if Congressman Price had his way. Faced with far less Federal funding, the States would have to be forced to find ways to save money, even worse than what we currently have in our State. They might start Medicaid waiting lists or work requirements or cut benefits. Think about it. A person nominated to lead the Nation's premier health agency supports proposals that would take health care away from people. It gets worse. Congressman Price wants to privatize Medicare. Be careful when you hear a politician stand up and say: I want to guarantee your access to health insurance. Well, I have access to a lot of things. I can walk onto the showroom floor of people who are selling $85,000, $95,000 cars. I mean, I have access to those showrooms. Can I buy one of them? No. I can't afford it. Most people couldn't. But I have access to it. So when they say you have access to health insurance, the obvious next question is, What kind of health insurance? And how am I going to pay for it? Watch out for that word ``access.'' It is a loaded political word. Just the other night my colleague Bernie Sanders was debating Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, and darned if Senator Cruz didn't come up with that word, saying we have to make sure every American has access to health insurance. No, we have to make sure every American has health insurance. How about that? Health insurance they can afford that is worth buying. Congressman Price wants to privatize Medicare. So instead of having a government-run program for tens of millions of Americans, he wants to put seniors and the disabled in America back in the loving arms of health insurance companies. How about that? Do you remember a time when you or your family was on the phone with somebody, begging them for health insurance coverage, waiting and waiting and waiting for your turn? That is what he thinks is access, and that is what he believes is good health insurance. I don't. Ending the guarantee of Medicare for hardworking American seniors and handing them a voucher and wishing them good luck on finding their own insurance--that may be access, but it is not protection. The point of voucherizing Medicare is to save the government money by forcing seniors to pay more out of their own pockets. That is Congressman Price's approach, and now he wants to head up the agency in charge of Medicare. Don't take my word for it. He said: ``Nothing has had a greater negative effect on the delivery of health care than the federal government's intrusion into medicine through Medicare.'' Since 1965, when we created Medicare, listen to what has happened. Before Medicare, 51 percent of Americans 65 or older had health care coverage and nearly 30 percent lived in poverty. That is before 1965. Today, 98 percent of seniors have health care coverage, primarily because of Medicare. Fewer than 10 percent live below the poverty line. It has made a dramatic difference in their quality of life, the length of their lives, and the independence they enjoy in their lives. In addition, by ensuring access to care for more people, Medicare has contributed to life expectancy--5 years higher today than it was in 1965. So Medicare has helped ensure more seniors have health insurance, fewer seniors are living in poverty, and people are living longer. Is that what Congressman Price considers a ``negative effect on the delivery of health care''? There are so many different issues where Congressman Price has taken what I consider to be radical and extreme views, particularly when it comes to health care. I won't go through the long list, but I will say this. We debated the future of Medicare when I was a member of the Simpson-Bowles Commission. We were looking at the deficit situation facing our country and looking, as we should, at entitlements. Many of us said at the time: Be careful about raising the eligibility age for Medicare. For a Congressman or a Senator, a couple more years at a desk before you qualify for Medicare is not a big ask. But if you happen to be a waitress on her feet every day, suffering from arthritis or some other issues, 2 more years in the workplace literally are backbreakers. If you happen to be driving a truck, making deliveries, changing the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 or 70 is where you are going to get in trouble. That is where people actually are going to face a hardship. Sadly, Congressman Tom Price of Georgia doesn't get it. He doesn't understand that part of it. Because he doesn't, I am going to be opposing his nomination and watching carefully and closely. There is going to be a battle royal on the floor of the House and the Senate about funding important programs in America. The Department of Defense, as important as it is for America's security, wants all the money it can get its hands on, and I want to make sure we always spend enough to keep us safe. But the battle is going to be between defense and nondefense. Nondefense includes health care. Nondefense includes medical research. Nondefense includes education. Now we are going to have someone here at the Department of Health and Human Services who, sadly, is not committed to the basics of Medicare and Medicaid. That is not good news for seniors and disabled people across the America. That is why I am going to oppose Congressman Price. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.