Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week the city of Quincy, in my home State of Illinois, lost a tough, principled, and fair public servant-- but more importantly, a fine man. Judge Richard F. Scholz, Jr., passed away at the age of 87. Judge Scholz was the quintessential public servant. He was a voice for the underprivileged and a passionate advocate for the most vulnerable in the community. He spent more than 24 years as a judge, fighting for at risk youths and a more equitable juvenile justice system. Although Judge Scholz could be tough, he had a softer side that put a gentle and compassionate face on the criminal justice system. He was celebrated in the courts for his well-reasoned and thoughtful decisions. Throughout his tenure, he was honored by several civic organizations and community groups, but it was dealing one-on-one with people that gave him the greatest joy and satisfaction. Chuck Scholz, former Quincy mayor and Judge Scholz's nephew, recalled meeting a longtime Quincy resident who told him a story: ``Your uncle sent me to jail, and it was the best thing that ever happened to me.'' He went on to explain how Judge Scholz visited him one day at the correctional facility in St. Charles. The reason for his visit? To make sure he got his diploma while he was incarcerated. And when he was released, Judge Scholz got him a job. That is the kind of man Judge Scholz was. He understood that the job didn't end in his courtroom. Judge Scholz believed in serving the community by serving the individual. He knew the recipe for building strong, healthy communities was getting the right people involved in the right way. And the community was better for it. Born in 1928, Judge Scholz grew up in Quincy and attended St. Francis grade school, Quincy Notre Dame High School, St. Ambrose College, and the University of Illinois. After college, he moved down south and received his law degree from Mercer University in Macon, GA. While studying law, he met and married Ellen W. Scholz and shared 58 wonderful years before her death in 2009. Following law school, the young couple returned to Quincy to raise their family and practice law with his father and brother. In 1958, he was elected judge of the 8th Judicial Circuit and served as chief judge from 1975 to 1979. In 1982, Judge Scholz retired from the bench and returned to private practice. During his time on the bench, Judge Scholz presided over high profile cases, fought for higher pay for the county's chief probation officer and the Youth Home superintendent, and he worked tirelessly with community leaders to build the Adams County Youth Home, now the Adams County Juvenile Detention Center--one of only nine facilities of its kind in Illinois. Hanging above the doorway at the Scholz family farm, there was a sign that read: ``You will only be a stranger here but once.'' Always willing to offer a helping hand, Judge Scholz made time for everyone. He helped young attorneys understand the right way to conduct themselves in and out of the courtroom. As a mentor to countless attorneys, judges, and children, Judge Scholz's mark on the community will endure for years. I will close with one more story. Years ago, a mother from a Quincy family had been murdered. Her children were orphaned, and State welfare officials planned on placing them into different foster homes. Judge Scholz wouldn't hear of it. He said: ``No, you are not breaking up this family.'' The family stayed together, and there is a photo of them standing around Judge Scholz, with the words: our hero, carved into the picture--a hero indeed. The stories of Judge Scholz's kindness and affection to the children and families in Quincy go on and on--what a legacy and what a great friend to the people of Quincy. Judge Scholz will certainly be missed.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, by now we have all seen reports of the neurological damage that is done by the Zika virus. We have seen the damage it can do to newborn infants. It has been clinically linked to serious birth defects in pregnant women who contract it. Since the start of the outbreak, nearly 900 Americans in 41 States, Washington, DC, and 3 U.S. territories--including over 80 pregnant women--have already contracted Zika. In my State of Illinois, 13 people have already tested positive, including at least two pregnant women. But because we have the best scientists and researchers in the world at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we know more today about the virus and prevention measures than we did when most of us first heard the word ``Zika'' a few months ago. We know that mosquitoes spread the disease. We know that the arrival of warm weather signals the start of mosquito season, but America is currently unprepared to deal with an outbreak of this dangerous virus. We must improve vector control. We must expand access to family planning, education, and contraception. We must accelerate efforts to develop a vaccine as quickly as humanly possible. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention desperately needs funding to deal with this crisis, and they need it now before the summer months, when mosquitoes spread north across the United States. Congress has failed to even consider President Obama's emergency Zika funding request. What on Earth is Congress waiting for? Last week Senate Democrats sent a letter to Senate Republican leadership calling for immediate action to pass the Zika supplemental request. I hope this call for action will be heard by all of my Republican colleagues, but I especially hope that it resonates with my colleagues from the Southern States. These are the States that are the most likely to be hit first and hardest by the Zika mosquito virus: Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, and the list goes on. In the absence of congressional action--immediate congressional action--the administration has been forced to divert funding and resources away from other important public health efforts in order to respond to Zika. This morning's Washington Post headline in a few words tells the story: ``Zika crisis costs states funds for emergency preparedness.'' What does that mean? The President asked for this supplemental request weeks ago. The refusal of the Republican-led Congress to respond to the President's request for emergency public health funds to fight Zika means that we are cutting back on public health preparedness in States all across the Nation. Frankly, we are endangering people whom we represent because the Republican majority in Congress refuses to give the President his supplemental request to deal with the Zika virus. For instance, the administration just had to divert $2 million in public health emergency preparedness grants away from Illinois in order to fight Zika in Southern States. Well, let me tell you, I want to help people everywhere, including those in Southern States who are likely to be hit first, but not at the expense of the public health of the people I represent. There is an answer. President Obama suggests it--an emergency public health supplemental for the Zika virus. The Republican majority in Congress has refused to act. Both the Illinois Department of Public Health and the Chicago Department of Public Health received grants to prepare for and to respond to all kinds of public outbreaks, such as Ebola, Zika, and Elizabethkingia, which I will talk about in a moment. These cuts, which are being proposed in order to have the administration have enough resources to respond, are unacceptable and unexplainable. They come at a time when Illinois, my State, is in the middle of the longest budget crisis in our State's history. This current Governor has been unable to reach an agreement on a budget for almost 11 months, making it difficult for Illinois families and State agencies in ordinary circumstances. But because congressional Republican leaders have failed to pass a Zika emergency public health supplemental requested by President Obama, the administration has had to divert money away from States such as Illinois to respond to the threat of the Zika virus in other States. Is this any way to govern a great Nation? Illinois should not have to lose precious funding to deal with public health threats because Republican congressional leaders--from Southern states, I might add--have refused to pass the necessary additional funding to deal with Zika, a virus that will likely impact their States first and hardest. We have to do both. We should pass the Zika supplemental so Illinois and other States can keep the funding they need to deal with current public health threats and receive additional funding to deal with Zika. Let me talk about why diverting $2 million from my State of Illinois to Southern States for Zika is a challenge. Last week the Illinois Department of Public Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed 10 cases of a bacterial infection known as Elizabethkingia. It has resulted in six deaths in my State. This bacterial outbreak is separate from an outbreak in Wisconsin that resulted in over 60 cases of this infection. So in the middle of this outbreak, Illinois is losing 8 percent in core funding for public health contingencies because of the failure of Republican leaders in Congress to pass President Obama's emergency public health supplemental appropriation. This means that the Illinois State Department of health is not going to be as prepared as it should be to conduct the needed epidemiology, laboratory testing, and outbreak control. And four of our health experts say there will be major cuts that hurt our ability to respond to public health crises. What happens tomorrow if there is another outbreak? Last year our State dealt with unexpected serious outbreaks of Legionnaires' disease. Taking money from one State's public health defense effort to give it to another to deal with a public health threat makes no sense in a great nation, particularly when the President showed the appropriate leadership in asking for the $1.9 billion emergency supplemental to deal with the Zika crisis, and the President asked over 2 months ago. I know many Republicans are in denial when it comes to climate change, but if they would have been in Springfield, IL, my home, last Sunday--just 2 days ago--sitting out on the deck in 80-degree weather in April, they might understand warm weather is coming sooner across the United States and with that warm weather, mosquitoes, and with those mosquitoes, the threat of the Zika virus. I don't come to raise an alarm that is unmerited and unwarranted. I believe this is a serious public health challenge, so serious we should not leave Congress this week and take a recess without passing the President's emergency budget supplemental for public health and the Zika virus. The mosquitoes are not going to be on recess next week, they are going to be working, and sadly they are going to be infecting people across the South and across the United States while congressional leaders dither. The supplemental request would provide more than $1.8 billion in emergency funding to improve CDC vector control to control the mosquitoes that threaten us. It would accelerate efforts at the National Institutes of Health to develop a vaccine. I have heard testimony, so I know it takes time to develop a vaccine. Let's do it in an expeditious, safe, thoughtful, and professional way, but let us not shortchange NIH or any other agency that is facing this crisis. We need to expand education. We need to expand access to women's health planning services. The administration provided a comprehensive plan. It cannot be implemented successfully without resources, and we should act on it this week--get it done before we leave. I joined my colleagues Senator Nelson, Leader Reid, Senator Schumer, and Senator Hirono in introducing a bill to fully fund the administration's request. I am pleased to hear my Republican colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations are interested in working with Democrats to reach a deal. I see Senator Alexander on the floor. I know he is sensitive to this, and I hope he will join in calling for leadership on both sides of the Rotunda to move on this issue before we take our recess. Let us not delay this any longer. We need to ensure we aren't diverting necessary Ebola money to be used for the Zika virus. It is naive to believe the Ebola threat is gone and we can ignore the possibility of its reemergence. In my State and others, we know all too well what happens when you divert money from one public health fund to another. This brings to mind the Biblical story of Noah and the great flood. Noah built the arc before the rain, not after it started. It is reckless, it is dangerous to delay. The cases of Zika are continuing to grow, and inaction and further delay put many families, pregnant women, and children in jeopardy. We have seen the Zika threat coming for many months. We have had the President's request for over 2 months. I urge my colleagues this week, before we go home, to take this appropriate action to begin to protect Americans in every State. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am not sure of the man's name, but I want to thank a public policy professor at Western Illinois University. About a decade ago, this astute professor was talking with one of his best graduate students about his future. The professor knew that the young man was hoping to put his talent and training to good use working as a city planner or city manager in a small Illinois town--maybe a town like the one in which the young man had grown up. The professor suggested another possibility. He asked his student: ``Have you ever considered going to Washington and working on Capitol Hill? I think you might like it, and you'd be good at it.'' Fortunately for me and for countless others in my State of Illinois, that young man Bart Ellefritz, loves new challenges and adventures, so he decided to trust his professor's advice. He moved to Washington and landed a job as an intern in Senator Harry Reid's personal office. That is when my office first became aware of him. Before long, I hired Bart to work as a staff assistant on my Judiciary Committee staff. Bart mastered that job in no time flat and was ready for his next challenge, so he moved home to Illinois to work in my Springfield office doing casework. For those who may be unfamiliar with that term, ``casework'' is a word we use to describe efforts by our staff members who work to help people with specific problems--to try to cut through red tape and make government work better for people. Bart Ellefritz is a master of casework because he is smart and he believes that government can be a force for good. Most of all, he cares about people. In 2009, Bart got an offer that was too good to turn down. It was the beginning of President Obama's first term. Former Illinois Congressman Ray LaHood was the new U.S. Secretary of Transportation, and he asked Bart to come work for him, so he left--with my blessing. About 5 years ago, I succeeded in hiring Bart back to be the director of my Springfield office, which serves all of downstate Illinois. Let me tell you, being my downstate director is no 9-to-5 job for Bart Ellefritz. Somedays, it is a 5-to-9 job--from 5 in the morning until 9 at night. Bart is my representative--my eyes and ears--for a large part of my State. He drives hundreds of miles every week in his Mitsubishi Outlander Sport--made in Normal, IL--to meet with people on my behalf, listen to their ideas and concerns, and try to help them solve their problems. I can't begin to count the number of people whom Bart has helped, but let me tell you about one of them. Judy--I won't use her last name--works as a housekeeper at a motel where I often stay, and we have become friends. Several years ago, Judy confided to me that she was 62 years old and had never in her whole life had health insurance--not for a single day. She had worked her whole life in manual labor, working as a cook, a waitress, a housekeeper, and she had never known the security of having health insurance. I asked Bart to see if there was some way to help Judy. Bart spend hours and hours talking on the phone with Judy, driving to see Judy in person, talking with folks at Medicare and Medicaid. A final hurdle came when Judy needed an email account to sign up for health care. Judy had never used email before, so Bart helped her set up her account. Finally, at the age of 62, because of Bart's persistence and the Affordable Care Act, Judy was able to afford health insurance. She was able to sleep more easily knowing that she was no longer just one bad illness or accident away from total financial ruin. I am sorry to report that Bart Ellefritz is leaving my office again next month. He is off on another great challenge. He will be working for CTA, the Chicago Transit Authority, one of the largest transit systems in the world, in one of the greatest cities in the world. I want to thank Bart publicly for the countless ways in which he has helped me and, more importantly, helped the people of Illinois. I also want to thank Bart's wife, Ashley, and their son, Charley, who is just 21 months old, for sharing Bart with the people of Illinois. Bart and Ashley are what some folks in Washington refer to as a mixed marriage. Ashley Messick was working as assistant secretary of the Senate Republican caucus, helping Senator McConnell run the Senate floor, when she and Bart met. Bart was sharing a house in Washington with some other young professionals--one of whom happened to be a close friend of Ashley's. They met at the house, and hit it off immediately. I also want to thank Bart's parents, Keith and Terri Ellefritz, for raising two wonderful sons. Their other son, Bart's brother Ben, is a minister. Keith and Terri raised their two boys in west central Illinois, in a town called Carthage, population 2,605. Bart played on his high school football team, the Carthage Blueboys, in 1998, the year they won the State football championship. Keith and Terri Ellefritz raised their boys to have big hearts and small-town values. Somewhere along the way, Bart also developed a passion for traveling, meeting new people, and seeing the world through their eyes. He has visited all seven Wonders of the World. He took 3 months off after he left the Department of Transportation to hike through sub-Saharan Africa. He ended that trip in Tanzania, where Ashley met up with him and together, they climbed more than 19,000 feet to the top of Mount Kilimanjaro. Bart once took his mom skydiving in Australia. This past October he spent 2 weeks hiking in Ethiopia. When Charley was born 21 months ago, his parents got him a passport, along with his birth certificate. At 7 months old, Charley got his passport stamped for the first time--for a trip to Colombia, South America. Bart Ellefritz pours his whole heart into whatever he does, whether he is riding a camel in the desert, spending time with Ashley and Charley, or listening to people of my State and helping to solve problems. And he is almost always smiling. In closing, I want to thank Bart again for the great skill, caring, and tenacity he has always brought to his job as a member of my staff, and I want to wish him the best of luck as he begins his next professional adventure with CTA in Chicago.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today in support of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. I am pleased to see Senators Alexander and Feinstein working to put together a good, bipartisan bill with no ideological or partisan policy riders. They remind us of the way that we should be doing business here in the Senate. This legislation provides increased funding for infrastructure across the Nation and in my home State of Illinois, and I was proud to support it in the Appropriations Committee. The bill provides strong funding for the National Labs through the Department of Energy, including critical research programs at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. These labs are supporting thousands of scientists from across the country and around the world as they perform pioneering research and transform technologies for science and industry. Lab facilities in Illinois perform cutting-edge research and are a bright example of American innovation. The Energy and Water Appropriations bill would invest $6 billion in the Army Corps of Engineers, which will help support important investments in Illinois infrastructure. Waterways in Illinois, including the Mississippi River, are critical to commerce around the country. They provide access for shipped goods, connecting the Great Lakes with the Gulf of Mexico. The Army Corps also plays an important role in flood control projects, something we saw firsthand in Illinois and across the Mississippi valley area after flooding this past winter. But there is always more work to be done. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, America scores a D-minus in investment in levees and inland waterways, and a D in investment in dams. This bill is a good start to making the critical investments we need in American infrastructure. So I am not sure why, after Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein pulled together such a strong bipartisan bill, Republicans would want to try to add a poison pill rider preventing an EPA rule that keeps our water clean. Many economists and military leaders tell us that water will be to the 21st century what oil was to the 20th century. Water is going to be that indispensable commodity that makes progress possible; an essential commodity over which wars will be fought. The United States has more clean water today than any other nation on the planet, and it is because of the Great Lakes. Why would we knowingly, deliberately, spoil this precious commodity that is a source of conflict between other nations? We can't afford to stop making a real difference in our clean water supply, and let me tell you why. The EPA and Army Corps clean water rule provides stronger water quality standards to protect our Nation's streams, wetlands, and navigable water. These are all resources that we rely heavily on for drinking water and recreation. And one in three Americans, or 117 million people, get drinking water from sources that were vulnerable to pollution before the clean water rule. Now, more than ever, we must work to ensure our water is safe. We know what can happen when our water supply isn't protected. The Flint, MI, water contamination crisis and high lead levels in the water supply in other communities across the country and in Illinois are reminders of this. But it is not just lead that we have to worry about. Pollutants from factories and sewage treatment plants; waste from confined animal feeding operations; pesticides used on crops; and mining wastewater all flow into tributaries that eventually flow into the Great Lakes, the source of clean water for 35 million people. Attempts to roll back the clean water rule will not only return us to a patchwork of water protections that make it difficult for businesses, farmers, and others to know whether waterways are covered by the law. It will also risk one of our greatest commodities that supports agriculture, recreation, tourism, and energy production. To see the impacts of rolling back these protections, we need to look no further than the Gulf of Mexico, which has one of the largest dead zones in the world. Let me tell you what a dead zone is: Dead zones are the result of an overabundance of algae growth, which eventually decompose and steal oxygen from the water, making it hard for anything to live. Nutrient runoff from 12 States along the Mississippi River trickles down into the Gulf of Mexico. Last year, the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico reached 6,474 square miles, roughly the size of the State of Connecticut. The State of Illinois was one of the largest contributors to this nutrient overload, a combination of runoff from our farm fields and point source pollution such as wastewater plants. We need to reduce this nutrient runoff while protecting our agriculture economy in Illinois. The clean water rule does exactly that by exempting agricultural activities from its provisions. I urge my colleagues to vote against any ideological poison pill amendment that would prevent clean water appropriations from moving forward to protect our children, our communities, and our economy. Without ideological riders like the clean water rule amendment, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill is a bipartisan effort that proves we can make smart investments that make the most sense for our country--right now and as we plan for our future. The current lead crisis has shown that we need to get serious about investing in infrastructure programs and support regulations to ensure that every American--especially children--has access to safe, clean drinking water. Now is the time for Congress to act responsibly to develop a budget that enables our country to thrive. Thank you.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent from this afternoon's vote on Franken amendment No. 3833, which was adopted to the pending business--Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, H.R. 2028. On rollcall vote No. 59, had I been present, I would have voted to support the amendment. Senator Franken's amendment will further strengthen the deployment of clean energy by creating a Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program to fund energy projects in Indian Country. This amendment will help Indian tribes access much needed financing as they seek to develop energy projects and create well-paying jobs.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Some may know that there is a section of the Washington Post called the Kids Post--a section of interesting stories written for kids in the Washington area. The writers ask area grade schoolers about their favorite books, tv shows, hobbies, and sports. Sometimes the kids are asked what they think is one of the biggest problems in the world. Last week, a fifth-grade class in Virginia was asked this question. About half the class mentioned an environmental problem such as global warming. In other recent editions when this question was asked, climate change is something these young people consistently worry about. It only makes sense. Failure to do anything about climate change today, when we still have a chance, will leave future generations--our grandchildren and their children--with a changed world--and not for the better. I know every time I look at my beautiful young grandchildren, I feel a responsibility--a moral responsibility-- to address this problem for them and future generations. It makes me wonder why there are still so many here in this chamber and among the leading Republican Presidential candidates who deny climate change even exists, not to mention refuse to even do anything about it. How will future generations look back upon such denial and obstinance in the face of overwhelming evidence? Not kindly, I expect. I know that science tells us that our human brains evolved to address more immediate dangers, and slowly evolving dangers, especially ones that may take decades or more to materialize, don't trigger the same sense of importance. But that is not the only thing at work here. For decades, the fossil fuel industry and those in their pocket have tried to blur the debate--to blur the science--and create divisions among us instead of looking for what we have in common to solve this shared problem. Make no mistake. This is a deliberate campaign financed by the fossil fuel industry, a campaign that peddles the pseudo-science of manufactured doubt. As we approach Earth Day, all you need to do is look at the daily news to see the destructive impact of climate change. Scientists recently gained an improved understanding of the complex climate science of Antarctic ice, and they showed that, if carbon emissions were to continue unabated over the next few decades, the oceans could rise as much as 3 or 4 feet by 2100. The situation would then grow far worse in the 22nd century and beyond, likely forcing people to abandon many coastal cities. How can any member of the Senate ignore this potentially catastrophic and costly disaster? Just the other week, scientists announced troubling evidence in the South Pacific that we are reaching a point where many coral reef ecosystems may not be able to adapt to the relentless progression of climate change. Whole ecosystems that affect all of us and our food chain are being impacted. And just recently, the New York Times reported that forest fires in parts of the United States, from Alaska to New Mexico, were no longer just happening in a single season, as was the case historically. They have become year-around threats. New Mexico has had 140 such fires this year alone, double the number over the same period last year. Such fires have arrived earlier each year, are happening in winters, and in some cases burning all year along. The culprit for the drier conditions leading to these fires? Climate change. Climate change also has significant national security implications, ones we simply cannot ignore because they will impact our shores. The crisis in Syria and the flow of refugees from unstable parts of the world is an early warning of how humanitarian crises, particularly from less stable parts of our shared planet, are likely to get worse if we continue to let climate change go unaddressed. Back in 2011, when pro- democracy protests began in Syria, many of those joining were displaced farmers, who had suffered their fourth year of drought made worse by the effects of climate change. The National Academy of Sciences published findings earlier this year showing that extreme drought in Syria between 2006 and 2009 was most likely due to climate change and that the drought was a factor in the uprisings in 2011. Just last week, Pulitzer Prize Winner New York Times columnist Tom Friedman wrote about massive migration out of parts of West Africa, through the Sahara Desert, to Libya hoping to eventually cross the Mediterranean Sea into Europe. I ask unanimous consent that his April 13, 2016, column ``Out of Africa'' be printed in the Record following my remarks. He writes, ``Just as Syria's revolution was set off in part by the worst four-year drought in the country's modern history--plus overpopulation, climate stresses and the Internet--the same is true of this African migration wave.'' Friedman further explains that a United Nations official in the region showed him three maps of Africa with an outline around dots clustered in the middle of the continent. The first map showed the most vulnerable regions of desertification, made worse by recent droughts, in Africa in 2008. The second map showed conflicts and food riots in Africa during 2007 and 2008. And the third map showed terrorist attacks in Africa in 2012. All three outlines cover the same territory. Anyone serving in the U.S. Senate or running for President who claims to be serious about national security simply isn't credible without addressing the long-term threats posed by weak states and climate change in the decades to come. And now, insurance companies are tuning in because they understand the threat is real and that business assets are at stake. Lloyd's of London, the world's oldest and biggest insurance market, has recognized the threat climate change represents to business assets, risks ranging from property damage to forced displacement to food insecurity. Lloyd's has issued a call for the insurance industry to take into account the effects of climate change in their insurance modeling. The London School of Economics studied the economic impacts of climate change and put out a new report earlier this month. What they found is that, on a global scale, climate change could cost the world as little as $2.5 trillion--or, within the range of possibilities, as much as $25 trillion. This is not only a problem in the Arctic or Africa or in remote corners of the world. This is a problem close to home for us, right here and right now. In the past 6 years, Illinois has experienced historic storms, floods, and droughts that have caused millions of dollars in damage. The city of Chicago has been hit by four historic storms in the last 7 years, meaning that the flooding of basements and overflowing of wastewater systems has become an annual event. Because of climate change, U.S. growing seasons have shifted so drastically that crops which previously could survive only in the southern half of the country can now be successfully grown in northern Illinois. If current global warming trends continue, climate models estimate that Illinois will have a climate similar to that of the Texas Gulf coast by 2100. For Illinois farmers, these changes to the environment have a direct effect on their livelihood. The need to act is urgent. We are reaching the tipping point. The science is clear; the debate is settled. The destructiveness of climate change is clear and growing. Climate change is a dire threat to the global economy and global stability. It will cause catastrophic consequences for global health, food security, and habitats on land and in the ocean. If we don't act in time, there is no backup plan. No one nation can do this alone. The good news is that, together, the nations of the world can act to avoid irreversible disaster. President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and climate envoy Todd Stern have helped lead the way. The Paris climate agreement is a historic step in that direction. Never before have so many nations come together to tackle this threat. The draft Paris climate treaty was negotiated and adopted by consensus by 195 countries, unprecedented international cooperation in the face of the crisis. I want to congratulate President Obama for his leadership in this complex but crucial task. He and his team lead the way for an ambitious, balanced, and fair agreement. And I would like to thank Todd Stern for his contributions, steadily working over several years to build up to the success of the Paris negotiations. I wish him and his family well as he retires from the climate envoy position. Getting 195 countries to consent on the treaty is no small feat, and he achieved all this in the face of so much opposition at home. The agreement opens for signatures on April 22, Earth Day. The United States and China made a joint announcement that we will be signing the agreement on that day, the earliest possible time. I encourage other nations to follow our lead. Our generation has a moral obligation to leave the world in at least as good a shape as we inherited from our parents and grandparents. We cannot run away from our responsibility.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Casper), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, today, the 19th, marks the anniversary of one of the worst terrorist attacks ever to hit the United States. On April 19, 1995, at 9:02 a.m., a rented truck filled with fertilizer and diesel fuel exploded in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The impact of the blast was devastating. One-third of the Federal Building was destroyed, and 168 men, women, and children lost their lives, with several hundred seriously wounded. At that time, it was the deadliest terror attack ever to take place on American soil. The Oklahoma City bombing shocked America. In the days after April 19, Americans mourned the lives which were lost and called for those who committed this evil act to be brought swiftly to justice. It was in this context that the U.S. Department of Justice sent one man to head this investigation and prosecution. His name is Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland was the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General. He had volunteered to lead this investigation, telling his boss, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, he had to do it. Garland would stay in Oklahoma City for a long period of time. By all accounts, he worked around the clock, coordinating the efforts by law enforcement to gather evidence, building the case against Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Every step along the way, Merrick Garland was meticulous. He made sure no corners were cut in the investigation or the prosecution. There was so much at stake. One of the roles Merrick Garland took most seriously was to be in touch with the survivors and the victims' families, keeping them informed, keeping them in the loop. He carried with him at all times a list of the names of the victims so he would never forget the historic importance of his assignment. Merrick Garland would later call his work in Oklahoma City ``the most important thing I have ever done in my life.'' His work helped bring the perpetrators of this terrorist attack to justice and earned him the respect and gratitude of those he worked with and served. That is the definition of public service. The record is clear that Merrick Garland has always done his job diligently and conscientiously. Throughout his decades in public service at the Justice Department and later on the Federal bench, Judge Garland has earned a reputation as a workhorse who leaves no task unfinished. It is instructive to hear what his former law clerks say about him. Several dozen of them recently sent a letter to the Senate. Here is what they said about Judge Garland: ``Unrelenting work ethic.'' They said Judge Garland ``treated every matter before him with the same care and attention to detail, whether it affected the national interest or a single ordinary life.'' Judge Garland's devotion to his work is admired by many. This is a man who has received extraordinary praise because he did his job and did it well. It should come as no surprise, when President Barack Obama announced that Merrick Garland was his choice to be the nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, he dwelled on this experience in Oklahoma City. Unfortunately, Merrick Garland faces a historic blockade in the Senate. The Senate has never in its history denied a hearing to a Presidential nominee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. It has never ever happened before. The death of Antonin Scalia, about 2 months ago, led to an almost immediate announcement by the Republican Senate leader, Senator McConnell, that there would be no consideration, no hearing, and no vote for any nominee sent by President Barack Obama to this U.S. Senate. Senator McConnell went further to say that he would not even meet with the nominee. It has been more than a month since Judge Garland was nominated to the Supreme Court. It has been over 2 months now since Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has passed. Why has the Republican majority leader decided to ignore the precedent of history? Why is he turning his back on our Constitution? That Constitution says explicitly, article II, section 2: The President of the United States shall appoint a nominee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Our Founding Fathers understood that you can play politics with vacancies, and they didn't want that to happen. So the President met his constitutional obligation but, sadly, this U.S. Senate has refused to meet its constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on that nominee. It is not automatic. There is no guarantee that any nominee sent by the President would be approved by the Senate, but it is our responsibility to ask the questions of that nominee. People across the United States have a right to hear this nominee, Merrick Garland, under oath answer important questions about whether he is prepared to serve on the Supreme Court and, if he serves, whether he would bring integrity to that appointment. We have extended that courtesy to every Presidential nominee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court until this moment. The argument that is made on the other side of the aisle is that we have to go through an election--we have an election coming up--and let the American people decide, not the Senate. Let the American people decide, whether it will be a Democratic President or a Republican President. What my friends on the other side of the aisle ignore is that when President Barack Obama was reelected, he was not elected to a 3-year term, he was elected to a 4-year term. He is the President of the United States this year. He has the power of that office this year not because I willed it--although I certainly did--but because by a plurality of 5 million votes the American people made that decision. Five million votes were cast for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. The decision of the American people was that this President shall govern not for 3 years, not for 3 years and 2 months, but for 4 years. A lot of people say: As a Democrat in the Senate, it is easy for you to say that Republicans should treat this Democratic President a little better. What if the shoe were on the other foot? Well, we have a chance to take a look back and see exactly what happened when the roles were reversed. In 1988, during the last year of Republican President Ronald Reagan's term, we had a vacancy on the Supreme Court. He sent his nominee to the Senate, which was then controlled by the Democrats. Did we have an announcement from the Senate Democratic leadership that we will not consider any nominee sent by a Republican President in the last year of his term? Did we have an announcement by the Democratic leaders in the Senate that we won't even meet with the nominee? Exactly the opposite occurred. Anthony Kenney was given the opportunity to have a hearing, where he answered questions under oath, and had a vote which confirmed him on the Supreme Court. A Republican President, during the last year of his Presidency, filled a vacancy on the Supreme Court with the cooperation of a Democratic majority in the Senate. The tables are turned now. We have a Democratic President with a Republican-controlled Senate, and they are ignoring the history and precedent of the Senate and they plan on ignoring this nominee. There is no basis in the Constitution for the position taken by the Senate Republicans. This is an unprecedented obstruction of a nomination to fill a key Supreme Court vacancy. Yesterday I was across the street. It was the second time I have been honored to be included in a very small audience of about 250 people to listen to the oral arguments in a case before the Supreme Court on a critical decision that will affect the lives of millions of people in the United States. I looked up to the chairs on the Supreme Court, and obviously one was vacant. There are only eight Justices. If this Court on this case--or others--cannot resolve it with a majority and has a vote of 4 to 4 on a case, it invites confusion and chaos in one of the most critical branches of our government. It is confusion and chaos that can be avoided if the Senate Republicans simply do their constitutional duty: advise and consent. Give Merrick Garland a hearing under oath so the American people can draw their own conclusions about whether this man is the right person for the Supreme Court, and then let's have a vote on the floor. In the past, even when the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected a Presidential nominee for the Supreme Court, the committee sent that nomination to the floor anyway for a vote so that the whole Senate could speak to the worthiness of that nominee. Merrick Garland deserves nothing less. The Senate Republicans refusal to do their job under the Constitution has real-world consequences. Recently the solicitor general of Illinois, Carolyn Shapiro, came to the Capitol to talk to the Senators about how the vacancy on the Supreme Court is actually hurting States by leaving important legal questions unresolved. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that her speech be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. As an example, Solicitor General Shapiro pointed out how right at this moment numerous States and Federal circuits are governed by different standards on important Fourth Amendment search and seizure issues. These cases are working their way through the courts, but only the Supreme Court can finally resolve the issues. But the Court may be unable to do that. A 4-to-4 Court with a tie will not resolve an issue. Unless the Senate Republicans do their job, the Supreme Court will be stuck with eight members for more than a year. I have a trivia question. When was the last time the Senate left a vacancy on the Supreme Court for a year or more? During the Civil War. It took a war between the States for us to leave a vacancy that long in the Court--a vacancy which the Senate Republicans are continuing by this obstruction. As we reflect on the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will take a step back from politics. I hope they will acknowledge that Merrick Garland stepped up for this Nation, did the right thing, and proved he could do his job. Senate Republicans have no less responsibility. It is time for the Senate Republican majority to do its job. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.