Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this morning I joined many of my colleagues in bidding a formal farewell to our colleague, Senator Bob Bennett, who died last week. It was great to see Senators from both sides of the aisle at Senator Bennett's viewing and funeral service. It was fitting. Bob Bennett was a proud conservative, he was an old- fashioned conservative, but he understood that the Senate only really works when we talk to each other and reason things out. He was old school. He understood that principled compromise is not a moral or political sin. It is an ideal we should strive for. It is how we solve big problems in America. It is the only way the Senate can work.

I served with Bob Bennett for years on the Senate Appropriations Committee. He was an honorable man, a dyed-in-the-wool fiscal conservative. He had an 84-percent lifetime approval rating from the American Conservative Union, but he was a real-world conservative, not an ideologue. No vote demonstrated that more clearly than the vote he cast in 2008 to create the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP.

I am not going to forget the day when Hank Paulson, Treasury Secretary under President George W. Bush, came to talk to us about the economy. Lehman Brothers had just declared bankruptcy. Secretary Paulson told us that the entire U.S. financial system could collapse within days, maybe hours. He warned that such a collapse of the U.S. financial system would trigger a global economic cataclysm.

Bob Bennett knew that he was taking a supreme political risk, but Bob Bennett voted to create the TARP program anyway. He risked his political career rather than risk the life savings of untold millions in America and around the world. He paid a price for it. In 2010 Bob Bennett became the first incumbent Senator in Utah in 70 years to lose reelection after he was toppled in his party caucus.

Senator Bennett challenged orthodoxy on a lot of other issues as well. Bob Bennett, a devout Mormon, supported embryonic stem cell research, with very careful restrictions. In 1996 he was one of only three Senators from his party to vote against amending the U.S. Constitution to criminalize flag-burning. He said that he thought flag- burning was reprehensible--as we all do--but that it occurred far too infrequently to warrant changing the Constitution. That amendment failed in the Senate by one vote.

When the Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform in 2006, Senator Bob Bennett of Utah was one of the many Members of his party to stand up and support it. Four years later, when the Senate voted on the DREAM Act--a key part of that earlier bill and one that I introduced 15 years ago--the political winds on the right had shifted dramatically. There were only three of my colleagues from across the aisle on the Republican side who supported passing the DREAM Act in 2010. Bob Bennett was one of them. I will never forget it. I will always be grateful to him for that courageous vote. He understood that we needed a realistic, humane way to deal with immigration in this Nation of immigrants.

Robert Bennett was a member of one of his State's leading families. His grandfather, Heber J. Grant, was the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His father, Wallace Bennett, served four terms in the Senate.

Bob came to Washington in 1962 to work as an aide in his father's office, when such arrangements were still allowed. In 1969 he took a job as a top congressional liaison for the U.S. Transportation Department under President Nixon. His short tenure at Transportation earned him an unlikely footnote in history. For decades, some conspiracy theorists speculated that he was Deep Throat--the Nixon administration insider who helped steer the Washington Post's Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in reporting the Watergate scandal. That theory was finally disproved with the death of former FBI Deputy Director Mark Felt, who was, in fact, the real Deep Throat.

Bob Bennett did not need public service. He had already built a successful career in business before he decided to run in 1992 for the seat his father once held. He took a pay cut to serve his State and our Nation in the Senate.

Bob Bennett and I disagreed on many issues. When we did, he was always principled and polite. I suspect that was a reflection of his upbringing, watching his father serve in the Senate, where Members of differing political parties could disagree without questioning the other Senator's motives.

In his last political race in 2010, Senator Bennett was targeted by the force we now refer to as the tea party. After his loss, he spoke to a reporter for the Salt Lake Tribune. He said, ``The political atmosphere obviously has been toxic, and it is very clear that some of the votes I have cast have added to that toxic environment.''

Then Bob Bennett said something that any Senator would be fortunate to be able to say at the end of his tenure. ``Looking back on them-- with one or two very minor exceptions--I wouldn't have cast any of them any differently even if I'd known at the time it would cost me my career because I have always done the best I can to cast the vote that I think is best for the state and best for the country.''

I extend my condolences to Senator Bennett's family--a wonderful, large family--that includes his brother and sister, his widow Joyce, their six children--Julie, Robert, James, Wendy, Heather, and Heidi-- and 20 grandchildren. There are so many of Bob Bennett's former staffers and friends who join me in paying this great tribute. Amendment No. 3878

Mr. President, Congress is supposed to be working on an appropriations bill, and we were moving in that direction until the Senator from Arkansas sought to add an amendment to the Energy and Water appropriations bill. This amendment was designed to undermine the historic agreement that the Obama administration reached with Iran for the sole purpose of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The Senator who offered this amendment had led an unprecedented letter to Iranian hardliners in the middle of President Obama's negotiations. He said to the hardliners in Iran--with a letter signed, I believe, by 46 other Republican letters--that they were wasting their time negotiating with this President, that whatever he agreed to would be undermined by Congress and particularly by the next President.

In all of the time I have followed the history of the Senate, I cannot remember a letter of that nature being sent by Senators of either political party to undermine a delicate negotiation involving peace in an important part of the world.

Now we are stuck until we deal with his amendment. Regardless of whether you agree with the Iran agreement, adding this amendment to the Energy and Water appropriations bill would destroy all of the hard work that Senators Alexander and Feinstein have put into drafting this bipartisan bill.

I wish to tell you why this amendment from the Senator from Arkansas is a poison pill. This amendment would prevent the Department of Energy from spending any fiscal year 2017 funds to purchase heavy water produced in Iran.

The JCPOA agreement closed four pathways through which Iran could get to breakout time for a nuclear weapon in less than a year. It bought valuable time for Israel, for other nations in the Middle East, and for the United States before Iran could violate the agreement and build a nuclear weapon.

As part of this agreement, Iran agreed to limit the amount of heavy water it would accumulate. Any heavy water in excess of 130 metric tons had to be disposed of, moved out of Iran.

The Department of Energy has announced that its Isotope Program will purchase 32 metric tons of heavy water from Iran to fulfill a significant amount of the domestic heavy water needed in America for research and industrial applications. There is no American domestic source for this heavy water. This transaction provides U.S. industry with a critical product, and it enables Iran to rid itself of excess heavy water, ensuring this product will never be used for developing a nuclear weapon.

Heavy water is used in the development, production, and sale of compounds used in biomedical and diagnostic research such as MRIs and pharmaceutical development, as well as chemistry, physics, and environmental analysis.

A portion of this heavy water will be used at the Spallation Neutron Source, or SNS, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. The heavy water will increase the intensity of the beam, which will-- according to Laboratory Director Thom Mason--benefit hundreds of research teams.

While the administration does not anticipate undertaking another purchase of heavy water from Iran, we should not give up--with this amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas--the ability to ensure that this material, which potentially could be used in Iran's nuclear industry, is instead put to use in the United States by our industry for peaceful research and product development.

The amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas really focuses on one thing--to undermine this agreement with Iran. After we have seen tons of fissile material removed from Iran, 16,000 centrifuges destroyed, and a major potentially dangerous reactor decommissioned, this Senator from Arkansas believes it was a bad agreement and we ought to let the Iranians go about their business.

I couldn't disagree more. Taking this heavy water out of Iran makes that region of the world safer for Israel and for the other countries in the region. For Iran to keep this heavy water is a temptation that we should eliminate by defeating this amendment by the Senator from Arkansas.

His amendment will jeopardize an historic agreement that limits Iran's ability to produce nuclear arms. That is an important protection for the entire world. It would deny researchers and industries in our country a resource they need to make new scientific discoveries, medical diagnoses, and probably save lives. That is more than enough reason to reject the amendment being offered by the Senator from Arkansas.

I urge my colleagues to do so. Zika Virus

Mr. President, 3 months ago, the President asked Congress for funding to help prepare for and combat the Zika virus. That very week I sat in an Appropriations Committee hearing with the representatives for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, who talked about how time sensitive that request was.

In the 13 weeks since that hearing, Republicans have put up roadblocks, set preconditions, and really mocked the administration for arguing that there was urgency to fight the Zika virus--a virus which is dangerous for pregnant women, children, and many others.

What has happened in the 13 weeks while the President's request for $1.9 billion has languished before the Republican-controlled Congress?

Over 1,100 Americans in 43 States, Washington, DC, and U.S. territories--including over 100 pregnant women--have contracted the Zika virus. Six more have contracted Guillain-Barre syndrome, an autoimmune disorder that can cause paralysis and death.

Recently, the first Zika-caused death was reported in Puerto Rico. In Illinois, 13 people have tested positive for Zika, with at least 3 pregnant women. Over the last 13 weeks, while the Republican leadership in Congress has ignored the President's request for emergency funding, we have learned even more about Zika and its danger. We now know it is linked to serious neurological damage and birth defects. We now know it can be sexually transmitted. Warmer weather is coming, and we know the spread of Zika will grow even worse. It seems as if everyone across the world recognizes the urgency of this public health threat to the United States except for the Republicans in Congress.

Last week, Major League Baseball announced it was canceling two scheduled ball games to be played in Puerto Rico because the players were concerned about contracting the Zika virus.

I spoke with CDC Director Tom Frieden 2 weeks ago. He told me this is no way to seriously fight a public health danger. We need a multiyear commitment so CDC, NIH, and public health departments can begin studies to understand the risks to others, improve our surveillance system, study how long these mosquitoes actually carry the virus, and develop a vaccine as quickly as possible.

The CDC takes this seriously. The Centers for Disease Control is the frontline of defense of the United States of America when it comes to public health danger. How seriously do they take the Zika virus? They have dedicated 1,000 staff members to fighting it. They understand this is a public health emergency, and we have a limited opportunity to catch up and try to stop its spread.

Last week I held a roundtable event in Chicago with local health department officials, medical professionals, and vector control experts. They are doing everything they can to prepare for Zika in high-risk areas--laying traps to collect mosquitoes for testing and ramping up health communications to providers and the public. We are lucky because in our part of the United States there is no evidence of the mosquito that is the carrier. However, travelers who have contracted the virus in other places can bring it back to our region, and they can be the carriers for it to be spread to other people.

As a major transportation hub in Chicago and Illinois, we must be prepared to deal with these travelers carrying the Zika virus. I have the highest confidence in our State and in local health officials, but they need a helping hand.

Because congressional Republicans have refused to pass the emergency supplemental Zika funding, the administration has been forced to divert resources from Illinois to States such as Florida, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi to fight Zika. We are taking public health resources out of other States to send them to the frontline States on the Zika virus. I understand it, but it is totally unnecessary. If the Republican leadership in Congress accepted their responsibility, took this seriously, and realized lives were at stake, we would have approved the President's emergency request long ago.

My State of Illinois and the city of Chicago just lost a total of $2 million in CDC public health emergency preparedness grants--money diverted from our State to deal with local public health challenges with the Zika virus in frontline States.

The Illinois Public Health Director told me: ``We don't get to be eight percent less prepared, even with eight percent less money'' from the CDC.

Health departments across Illinois use these grants to prepare and respond to outbreaks of all kinds, such as Ebola, Zika, and a new bacterial outbreak--Elizabethkingia. Already that has taken six people's lives in my State. So we are removing the money to protect the people in Illinois to go to the frontline of the Zika virus attack because the Republican majority in Congress will not approve the President's emergency supplemental request.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul is shortsighted. We need to ensure we aren't diverting necessary Ebola money to use for the Zika virus. I don't understand it. In the last election, many Republicans were making a big issue about Ebola and its threat to the United States, and now they are so sanguine and so calm as to take the money away from protecting us from the spread of Ebola and spend it on Zika on a temporary basis because they won't address the serious threat of both problems. The CDC, incidentally, is reporting new flare-ups of Ebola in Guinea after learning that the virus can stay in a man's system for over a year. Just because it may not be front-page news anymore, the Ebola crisis, incidentally, is not over. Funding is still needed.

We have seen Zika coming for many months. We were warned, and we have had the administration's detailed comprehensive plan sitting on the desk of the Republican leaders in the House and Senate.

Right before Congress adjourned 2 weeks ago, Senate Democrats sent a letter to Republican leader Senator Mitch McConnell urging immediate action on the Zika supplemental, and we introduced a bill to provide the necessary funding. We tried to bring it up. We were blocked by the Republican leadership.

So what do Republicans think we should do--send a memo to mosquitoes telling them not to buzz and bite until they get around to funding the President's emergency request?

I have news for them. The summer mosquito season is about to hit and hit hard in some parts of our country. Where this mosquito that carries the Zika can be found, people will be in danger.

Researchers at NASA have forecasted that by midsummer, cities nationwide, such as St. Louis, Kansas City, New York City--not just southern cities like Miami and Houston--could possibly be a venue for these Zika-carrying mosquitoes. They found that not just geography but rainfall, transportation hubs, and challenging socioeconomic conditions translate to less air conditioning and worse housing infrastructure. They can all contribute to the presence of these mosquitoes. We are learning more and more about Zika and the cases are growing.

As we near the summer travel season and we start hearing more about the Rio Olympic Games, inaction and further delay will put many women-- particularly childbearing women--and their kids in danger.

I urge my Republican colleagues in both chambers: Work with us to approve this money this week before it is too late.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there are publications given to us on the floor of the Senate. One of them is the Executive Calendar.

This Executive Calendar and parts of it may be characterized as a political obituary column because, you see, these are the nominees of the Obama administration for important posts across America--the names on here--and many of them have been sitting for months and some for over a year, and they are waiting for Senate action.

So far this Congress we have approved 17 Federal judges--2 circuit court judges, and 15 district court judges. There are 20 judicial nominees still sitting on this calendar. You think to yourself: Well, they must be pretty controversial if they are still sitting on the calendar.

Every single one of them was reported unanimously from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Still they just sit and sit and sit on the calendar.

Why? Well, we know we have a serious problem with not just these 20, but there is the fact that we have 87 vacancies in the Federal judiciary, many of them in an emergency situation.

Why? Why in the world would some of these nominees, some of whom have been supported by Republican Senators--why aren't they being called for a vote, a routine vote on the floor of the Senate? It is part of the obstruction that the Republican Party has decided to make part of their leadership in the Senate. And, of course, exhibit A in that obstruction is the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, occasioned by the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

It has been nearly 2 months since President Obama nominated Chief Judge Merrick Garland to fill the Scalia vacancy on the Supreme Court. It has been 3 months since Justice Scalia passed away--3 months--and still the Republican-led Senate has refused to consider President Obama's nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. We ought to be doing that right now.

Today we received all of the investigative materials and binders and questionnaire answers from Judge Garland--boxes and boxes, thousands of pages--available to be reviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee and every Member of the Senate. It is the Senate's constitutional obligation under article II, section 2, to provide advice and consent when the President submits such a nomination.

Mr. President, it is rare for a political figure or a publicly elected official to stand up and use the word ``never,'' but I am about to use it. We have never--never in the history of the U.S. Senate-- denied a Supreme Court nominee from a President a hearing or a vote-- never. For 100 years, these nominees have been sent through the Senate Judiciary Committee with a public hearing. And every pending nominee for an open Supreme Court vacancy has been voted upon at some point by Senators.

We had a press conference today, and we talked about the precedent. Senator Franken of Minnesota noted the time when John Adams had lost the Presidential election but filled a vacancy on the Supreme Court by nominating John Marshall to be a member of that Court. So here was John Adams, a defeated President, making a nomination to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

In the Senate, in those days, there were still Founding Fathers, men who had actually written the Constitution. Five of them were Members of the Senate when John Marshall's nomination came before them. If there was ever a lameduck, it was John Adams, who had been defeated for reelection and had a few months more to serve but who made a nomination for the Supreme Court and, by voice vote, the U.S. Senate approved him, including the five Founding Fathers who joined in that effort.

The argument being made on the Republican side is: Well, we can't fill this vacancy until after the election. We have to wait to see if President Trump will be chosen by the American people, and then he will get to fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court. Interesting. I missed it. I read the Constitution and thought for sure that President Obama was elected for 4 years in 2012. By the Republicans' math, it was 3 years and 2 months. He's a lameduck and has no power left. Well, they are wrong. By a margin of 5 million votes, Barack Obama was reelected President over Mitt Romney. Now this decision by the Republicans to stop this President from exercising his constitutional authority is just wrong.

What about Judge Garland? Judge Garland is one of the most extraordinary nominees ever presented to this Senate. He is now the chief judge of the DC Circuit Court. That is the second highest court in the land. He is well respected. He has received the endorsement of many different groups, and people who are conservative and liberal alike respect his judgment, as they should. He has done his job and done it well, but the Republicans in the Senate refuse to do their job. They say it is because they want the next President to fill that seat. I cannot even imagine the nominee that a President Donald Trump would send to the Senate.

Last week, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, a man named Reince Priebus, announced that Mr. Trump was the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. It is astonishing to me that Senate Republicans would seriously want to put Donald Trump in charge of filling Supreme Court vacancies. How would they explain that to their constituents? Most of them are saying they are not even going to attend the Republican convention for fear of what it will do to their political reputations, and yet they are trusting the judgment of Donald Trump to shape the highest Court of the United States of America?

Make no mistake. By failing to move on Merrick Garland's nomination now in a timely and fair way, Republicans have cast their lot with Mr. Trump. That is a risky bet for the American people. The American people also understand Merrick Garland is well qualified and rock solid. Every week we see more praise for him.

Last week, nine former Solicitors General, Republicans and Democrats alike, sent a public letter praising Judge Garland. The list of people who signed this letter includes prominent Republicans and Democrats: Ken Starr, Drew Days, Walter Dellinger, Ted Olson, and Paul Clement. We know the Solicitor General serves as the Federal Government's chief advocate before the U.S. Supreme Court. They know the Supreme Court as well as anyone, and they know a good judge when they see one. Here is what they said about Judge Garland:

As a group, we have argued hundreds of cases before the United States Supreme Court and the Federal Courts of Appeals. Each of us has served as the United States Government's top representative before the Supreme Court. And while we have served in different administrations, we are unified in our belief that Judge Garland is superbly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court if he were confirmed. We are confident that Judge Garland would bring his brilliance, work ethic, and broad experience to the cases that come before him.

That is very high praise, isn't it? Clearly, President Obama selected a nominee highly regarded by advocates who know the Supreme Court better than most. Yet my Republican colleagues will not even give this superbly qualified nominee the dignity of a public hearing. They would rather keep a Supreme Court seat vacant for more than a year and allow the Court to deadlock for a year with 4-to-4 votes on key cases and wait in hopes they can roll the dice with President Donald Trump and his Supreme Court nominee. It is hard to fathom how this strategy is respectful of the constitution or in the best interest of our Nation.

Not only are Senate Republicans failing to do their job in considering Judge Garland's nomination, they are obstructing 20 other well-qualified judicial nominees who are currently pending on the Senate floor.

The Senate Republicans, as I have said, have held votes on only 17 judicial nominees this Congress. That is the lowest total in decades, far fewer than the 68 judges the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed in the last 2 years of George W. Bush's administration. Republicans are apparently content to leave vacancies on courts across the United States and even on the Supreme Court of the United States. Is that why they were elected, to leave vacancies on these courts? They cannot hide from the fact that there is a need in this country for competent jurists to guide us in these Federal courts.

I hope a few more of my Republican colleagues will come to their senses. Rather than saving judicial seats for Donald Trump to fill, they should do their job and give President Obama's well-qualified nominees a hearing and a vote, and they should start with Merrick Garland.

Hon. Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Harry Reid, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Chuck Grassley, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Reid, Chairman Grassley, and Ranking Member Leahy: Each of us headed the Office of the Solicitor General. Our service took place under both Republican and Democratic Presidents. We write collectively in support of Judge Merrick Garland's qualifications to serve as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. We believe that Judge Garland has demonstrated the temperament, intellect, and experience to serve in this capacity.

Merrick Garland has a history of excellence in the Law. He served in high ranking Justice Department posts, as a partner at a major law firm, an Assistant United States Attorney, a law clerk on the United States Supreme Court, a law clerk on the Second Circuit for the legendary Judge Henry Friendly, and, of course, for nearly the last two decades, as a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He presently serves as the Chief Judge of that Circuit, where he is known for his collegiality and is widely respected by his colleagues and litigants who have come before him.

As a group, we have argued hundreds of cases before the United States Supreme Court and the federal Courts of Appeals. Each of us has served as the United States Government's top representative before the Supreme Court. And while we have served in different Administrations, we are unified in our belief that Judge Garland is superbly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court if he were confirmed.

We are confident that Judge Garland would bring his brilliance, work ethic, and broad experience to the cases that come before him. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions. Respectfully submitted, Neal K. Katyal (Acting Solicitor General, 2010-2011), Gregory G. Garre (Solicitor General, 2008-2009), Paul D. Clement (Solicitor General, 2005-2008), Theodore B. Olson (Solicitor General, 2001-2004), Barbara D. Underwood (Acting Solicitor General, 2001), Seth P. Waxman (Solicitor General, 1997-2001), Walter E. Dellinger III (Acting Solicitor General, 1996-1997), Drew S. Days III (Solicitor General, 1993-1996), Kenneth W. Starr (Solicitor General, 1989-1993).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source