Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019--Conference Report

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I think it is important for us at this moment to reflect on a little Senate history. This goes back to the year 1991, 27 years ago. It was a chapter in the history of the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee that many people who lived through it either as observers or participants will never forget. It refers to the hearings for the approval of the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.

Let me read to you a summary of what occurred.

After Anita Hill alleged that Judge Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her, the full Senate on October 8, 1991, agreed by unanimous consent to delay a vote on Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court until October 15.

Let me underline that. The full Senate agreed by unanimous consent to delay the vote after the allegations surfaced.

Three days later, beginning on October 11, the Senate Judiciary Committee held public hearings over the course of 3 days, enabling Clarence Thomas, Anita Hill, and other witnesses to testify in an opening setting. Two days after the hearings ended, on October 15, the Senate then voted on Thomas' nomination.

However, we have learned subsequently that this process was rushed to a point where information came out after the hearings that, in fact, several other women had made similar allegations.

Having said that, according to press reports from 1991, Anita Hill faxed her four-page statement, making the allegations to the Judiciary Committee on September 23, 1991. Then the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Joe Biden, in turn, passed that information on to the White House and the FBI.

On the same day that this letter was faxed to the Senate Judiciary Committee, on September 23, 1991, White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray ordered the FBI to investigate Anita Hill's allegations. The FBI spent 2 days investigating the allegations, including conducting interviews with Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, and completed its report on September 25, 1991.

I recount that history because it is remarkable in light of what we have witnessed with the allegations of Dr. Ford. First, the Senate, by unanimous consent--Democrats and Republicans--once that allegation surfaced by Anita Hill, voted to delay the vote on Thomas's nomination. Secondly, when the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Joe Biden, turned over the allegation, on the very day it was received at the White House, the White House Counsel, C. Boyden Gray, ordered an investigation by the FBI.

Apparently, at that moment in history, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and on the Judiciary Committee and in the White House at least wanted to maintain an open mind as to whether there was truth to the allegations and ordered an FBI investigation.

Contrast that with what we are going through here. Contrast that with the fact that many, including the majority leader, who just spoke, have already presumed that any allegations by Dr. Ford should not be taken seriously and, as he said over and over again, that Judge Kavanaugh deserves the benefit of the doubt in this circumstance--or more.

That is a departure from where we were 27 years ago when a credible allegation appeared and both sides stepped back and said: Investigate it. Call them both before the Judiciary Committee. Let's hear their testimony before we make a decision.

In many cases since Dr. Ford's allegations have come forward, Republicans have prejudged this and dismissed it as political.

Let me say a word about my friend and the ranking Democrat in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein. Senator Feinstein faced a choice that none of us would want to deal with. I think she did it responsibly. She received, through a Member of Congress, a letter making the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, but it was clear in that letter that the woman making the allegations did not want her identity disclosed. The woman claimed to have been victimized by Brett Kavanaugh, and she did not want her name made public. What was Senator Feinstein to do at that point--ignore her request, make it public to the embarrassment of her and her family?

Senator Feinstein did not believe that is what she should have done, and she didn't. She continued to work with Dr. Ford. She reached out to her personally. She discussed the matter with her attorney. When I hear statements on the floor from the Senate majority leader that suggest there was a leaking to the press, I don't know where he is pointing his finger, but he shouldn't point it at Senator Feinstein. She is an honorable person, and she is a person who is sensitive to the reality of a victim and the fact that some of them are afraid to step forward and tell their story publicly. I think that is what occurred here.

The time came when the story did leak to some credible--or maybe not credible; I don't know, I couldn't characterize them--but some publication known as the Intercept. It started to make the rounds. At that point, things started changing. It changed for the committee. Senate Judiciary Democrats met last week, talked it over, and said that we believe we should refer what we have, redacted, to the Federal Bureau of Investigations. We did. Then it was sent to the White House.

We did that unanimously. Then, of course, the decision was made over the weekend by Dr. Ford that she was willing to go public. I don't think that was an easy decision for her. Clearly, it wasn't, because for weeks she made it clear to Senator Feinstein and others that she didn't want her identity disclosed. It is understandable. Look at the attacks she has faced already and what she is likely to face in the future. It is a reality of sexual harassment and sexual assault that victims are reluctant to speak for fear of what will happen to them and their family as a result of it.

Now we have the situation where we do not have an investigation of Dr. Ford's allegations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This morning, the Senate Judiciary Democrats are making a plea to the President, as well as to the Republicans, to initiate the very FBI investigation that is necessary, certainly of Brett Kavanaugh's comments, as well as Dr. Ford's comments about this episode. I think, at a minimum, that should be done.

What has been said by the majority leader this morning, and I quote him: ``So little order and so little sensitivity''--I think Senator Feinstein from the start showed sensitivity to the reality of the victims of sexual assault. I applaud her for that. I think it was a humane approach, a sensible and rational approach on her part to work with Dr. Ford to the point where she was willing to speak publicly about it. Sensitivity, you know, goes in both directions, both to the Kavanaugh family, as well as to the Ford family in this circumstance.

In terms of order, it is difficult to judge when a person is willing to make a decision. Obviously, after 6 weeks, Dr. Ford made the decision that she would go public. That was not a timetable established by Senator Feinstein for anyone else. It was one she had to come to grips with in her own mind from her personal point of view and her family's point of view.

It is ironic that just a few weeks ago we had a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on this issue. I hope my Republican colleagues will think about that hearing and some of the things that were said. I hope they will treat Dr. Ford's allegations with the seriousness and dignity that survivors of sexual assault deserve.

Chairman Chuck Grassley, who is my friend, made a statement during that committee hearing on June 13. It was a hearing about the sexual harassment perpetrated by a Federal judge, Alex Kozinski. Chuck Grassley was addressing victims who spoke out against Judge Kozinski's harassment. This is what he said:

Speaking out against powerful federal judges in a system that doesn't always protect victims takes tremendous courage. But because of your bravery--

Referring to these witnesses-- we can hopefully begin to make real, significant changes to these power imbalances that allow harassment to thrive.

I think I have a dual responsibility in serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee: a responsibility to fairness when it comes to the allegations made by Dr. Ford and responsibility, when it comes to fairness, to Brett Kavanaugh in this circumstance as well. That means that I am not allowed, in my own mind, to prejudge this and to say automatically that Dr. Ford is right or automatically Judge Kavanaugh is right.

What I need, what the American people need, are the facts. We should harken back to what occurred before with President Bush and C. Boyden Gray, his counsel, when they ordered an investigation by the FBI. That should occur now. If we are going to have a hearing on Monday, we should walk into that hearing after an investigation, which at least involves Brett Kavanaugh being interviewed and at least involves Dr. Ford being interviewed and at least involves Mark Judge, the person who has been identified as an eyewitness to this occurrence being interviewed as well. There could be other relevant witnesses. I will leave it up to the FBI and their investigation to come to that conclusion.

Let's get the facts before the American people. Let's understand the seriousness of this responsibility. A lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land is what is at stake here, as well as attacks on the credibility of an alleged sexual assault victim and others who are watching this carefully in light of their own life experiences.

I hope we meet that responsibility, but we will never meet it if Senators continue to come to the floor and prejudge the facts before any investigation, before any testimony by either of these individuals. If we are truly going to meet our responsibility to advise and consent under the Constitution, it is time for us to step back, put our Democratic and Republican clothes at the door, and stand together in judgment of an important issue that affects the future of this country and future of the Supreme Court.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Defense appropriations bill will soon pass the Senate and be sent to the President's desk. This is a massive spending bill--$675 billion--and it has been 10 years since one was enacted on schedule. Passing appropriations bills on time is about being good stewards of the taxpayer's money.

When appropriations bills are not signed into law on schedule, government programs are put on autopilot, known as a continuing resolution, or CR. CRs create financial headaches, including inefficiency, waste, and unnecessary additional spending. Last year, the Navy estimated that due to CRs, it has wasted $4 billion since 2011--$4 billion. That is enough money to buy 18 F-35s or two new destroyers or 3,000 Harpoon anti-ship missiles. Thanks to good work on both sides of the aisle, we are looking at real savings in every part of the Pentagon just by getting our work done on time.

I am proud of many things in this Defense appropriations bill, including how this bill prioritizes research by including $94.9 billion for defense R&D, a record level for the Defense Department. GPS, the internet, and satellites are all examples of how Federal innovation research dollars have changed the world. On a bipartisan basis, we are building on previous year's investments, and I am confident that we will see similar breakthroughs.

In addition, for the fifth year in a row, this bill increases defense medical research funding by 5 percent real growth for a total of $2.4 billion in defense medical research for fiscal year 2019. Defense medical research is making breakthroughs in a wide range of fields, from trauma medicine to breast cancer treatments. We have all heard of the quick- clotting tools that paramedics use around the country to stop bleeding in gunshot victims; that was a defense medical research breakthrough.

Just this past year, researchers discovered a treatment to speed healing of combat-infected wounds and regrow the skin around them more effectively. Others proved that a particular medical assessment tool can accurately assess potentially suicidal behavior. I encourage everyone to go to the Army's medical research website and read the list yourself--a long list--of worthwhile uses of these funds.

The defense bill is paired with the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill this year, which includes another $2 billion funding increase for medical research at the National Institutes of Health. This will be the fourth year in a row that Congress has provided the NIH with at least a 5-percent budget increase. Every NIH institute and center will see their budgets increase, but there are also noteworthy increases for Alzheimer's disease and cancer research.

I wish we could have given the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention a bigger increase, but I am pleased with what we were able to accomplish here, including the continued investment--with an additional $5 million in fiscal year 2019--for the Open Textbooks Pilot to help save college students money on textbook costs.

I am, however, disappointed that this bill does not include the bipartisan Durbin-Grassley-King amendment, which would have helped ensure that pharmaceutical companies disclose the cost of their drugs television advertising. Our amendment passed the Senate unanimously. It is supported by President Trump, HHS Secretary Azar, the AARP, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, 76 percent of Americans, and many others. House Republicans--apparently more indebted to Big Pharma than their constituents--prevented this commonsense proposal from being included in the final bill, but I will not stop fighting.

In conclusion, the outcome of much of this bill shows what we can accomplish when Democrats and Republicans work together. I want to thank my partner and chairman, Senator Shelby, as well as the ranking member, Senator Leahy.

But our work is only half done. There remain seven other appropriations bills that remain in limbo, dealing with foreign aid, agriculture, and even border security. The Senate will have to make an important choice very soon: either we work together to wrap up the appropriations process or we head back to Washington gridlock and wasteful stalemates.

I urge the Republican leader to look at what we have accomplished in these bills, working together, and use that as a model for finishing our work in the coming weeks.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source