Cloture Motion

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the President's inauguration over 2 years ago was a historic moment. Though my candidate didn't win, I attended it in my capacity here in the U.S. Senate and saw a lot of people, but the one person I saw who was nothing short of remarkable was Jimmy Carter.

The reason why it was remarkable to see the former President, who left office in 1980--39 years ago--was the fact that most everyone had counted him for dead. If you will remember, he was diagnosed with a form of cancer that was supposedly fatal. People were talking about making their last trip to Plains to attend his church on Sunday and hear his last sermon. I thought it was over, and most everyone did, too, but then something amazing happened. There was a new drug that came along, and it turned out to be just the right drug to save his life.

When I saw Jimmy Carter a little over 2 years ago, I thought to myself: I never thought I would see him again, and I never thought I would see him looking this good.

Those things don't just happen. Those drugs aren't just discovered. They are the product of a great deal of work and research and application.

I remember asking Dr. Collins at the National Institutes of Health what Jimmy Carter's story was. He explained that early research at NIH, which is the premier medical research facility in the world, had led to some new possibilities in treating cancers. It just so happened that Jimmy Carter's cancer was responsive to that drug. Others have been, too, and I hope that even more are discovered.

The good news is that the U.S. Senate and Congress understand this. Do you know what has happened over the last 4 years? What has happened over the last 4 years is a dramatic show of bipartisanship when it comes to medical research. Roy Blunt, from Missouri, is in my neighboring State. I, of course, represent Illinois. He is the head of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds the National Institutes of Health. Lamar Alexander, from the State of Tennessee, is the chairman of the authorizing committee for the National Institutes of Health. Patty Murray, my Democratic colleague from the State of Washington, serves in both the appropriations and authorization committees and couldn't be a stronger advocate when it comes to medical research. We have a little team together, the four of us, and we said we were going to do something or try to do something each year.

Here is what we set out to do. We set out to take the appropriations for the National Institutes of Health and give it 5 percent real growth every single year--because Dr. Collins told me: If you do that, Senator, then the people who do the research believe that next year could be a good year, too, to continue their research, and they will stick with it, and when they stick with it, amazing things happen.

So we did. I want to give credit to Senator Blunt, Senator Alexander, and Senator Murray. I was happy to be a part of the effort. For 4 straight years, we added 5 percent real growth to the National Institutes of Health. In total, when you look at all of the increase of that period, there is a 30-percent increase in medical research in a period of 4 years and more to follow--more to follow, if we get a chance.

That is why, when we received President Trump's budget yesterday, it was such a heartbreaking disappointment. He has given up in terms of our continued increases in medical research. In fact, he wants to cut $5 billion out of the appropriations for the National Institutes of Health.

Each of us decides why we want to be here and what is worth fighting for. I think medical research is worth fighting for. The team that has been fighting for it has been a bipartisan team in the Senate, and I hope they felt the same way I did--a feeling of real disappointment in President Trump's budget.

I have to tell you that he believes his wall is the most important thing on Earth. I believe medical research and saving lives are among the most important things on Earth. As for cutting money out of medical research--for whatever reason you are going to use it--I just have to say to the President and others that you are in for a fight. There are a lot of us who are standing up and representing patients that are counting on that research to find a breakthrough and families who are dealing with Alzheimer's.

How many friends of mine and how many families could I tell you about who have some form of Parkinson's or dementia or Alzheimer's that has changed the family dramatically? Can we and should we be looking for more medical research to delay the onset of Alzheimer's and, God willing, to find a cure some day?

We are reaching a point where this is going to absolutely take over the medical budget of America if we are not careful. Shortsighted cuts in medical research jeopardize those new cures for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and dementia.

The President is just wrong in his priorities--just wrong. Some of the other things he has done in the budget are equally troubling. According to his budget request, the President wants to cut $1.5 trillion from Medicaid--$1.5 million from Medicaid.

What is the Medicaid Program? It is health insurance for poor people. Who are those poor people? In my State of Illinois, out of all the babies born in my State each year, half of them are paid for by Medicaid. There are low-income moms delivering babies--we hope healthy babies--because Medicaid as health insurance is there to help them.

But that isn't the biggest charge on the Medicaid Program. The biggest charge on the Medicaid Program--that health insurance program-- is for your mom, your grandmother, or your father. When they reach that stage in life where nothing is left, when there is no savings and maybe a little Social Security check, and they have medical needs, it is the Medicaid Program that comes through for them.

If we cut what the President is suggesting, $1.5 trillion in Medicaid, which of those groups do you want to reduce care for--the mothers with their new babies or the parents and grandparents at a stage in life where they have no place to turn and no savings to turn to? That is not a good outcome.

Then there was the suggested cut of $845 billion in the Medicare Program. Medicare is health insurance for the elderly. When you reach age 65, you have paid into it through your working life and you have that Medicare insurance plan. The President cuts $845 billion out of Medicare.

Does Medicare work? There is one way to test it. What is the life expectancy of senior citizens today, after Medicare, compared to their life expectancy before Medicare? It is dramatically different. People are living longer and more independent lives because Medicare gives them quality care when they reach age 65, and President Trump believes we should cut that program by $845 billion. That, to me, is shortsighted.

When it comes to our health, is there anything more important? When it comes to the health of our families, of seniors, of the disabled, and of women who are about to have a baby, is there anything more important than to make sure that turns out right? It is hard for me to think of what it might be.

The cut to the Centers for Disease Control of $1.3 billion in the President's budget is another one you just shake your head at. The Centers for Disease Control shows up when no one else will enter the room, when they are facing diseases that are life-threatening. For the Ebola crisis in western Africa and the fear that it would spread throughout that continent and maybe to the United States, it was the Centers for Disease Control that stepped in and said: We are going to tackle it. We will take it on.

They did, and they did it successfully.

We are only one plane ticket away from some of those diseases making it into the United States. I want the Centers for Disease Control to stop them in their tracks before they come to the United States, and the President cuts $1.3 billion.

The SNAP food stamp program is another one--a cut of $220 billion. This is a program that provides supplements for food for families. Many of them are working families who just don't make enough money to get by. I can't tell you how many food pantries I visited in Illinois where the people who run it--many of them volunteers with churches and charities--say: The people who are coming in to see us now are folks who are working and not making enough money.

Some of them qualify for food stamps, and some of them don't, but feeding America should be fundamental in this country; shouldn't it? Shouldn't that be one of the basic things we pride ourselves on as Americans?

Remember when President Trump spoke about the aging infrastructure of America during his campaign? Even though I wasn't supporting his candidacy, I certainly cheered those remarks. Infrastructure is bipartisan. The roads and bridges in Arizona and Illinois and in every other State all need help, and they count on us in Congress to come through with it. Well, the budget that the President released this week slashes infrastructure funding by 22 percent. When we should be putting more into making a more modern and more efficient infrastructure to build our economy, the President cuts it. He cuts 31 percent from the Army Corps of Engineers.

Today, I had a visit from the Illinois corn growers. We are proud. There is a lot of corn in Illinois, and we are proud of being No. 2 to Iowa, I might add, when it comes to corn production. But do you know what they talked about in addition to ag programs? They talked about the locks and dams on the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers. Those are the avenues of commerce for agriculture in the Midwest, and they are old and getting older and falling apart.

The Army Corps of Engineers are counted on to modernize them, and the President cuts 31 percent of their budget--one-third of their budget-- and 16 percent of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The President's budget completely ignores the threat of climate change, cutting the Environmental Protection Agency by 30 percent.

Here is one that hits home. The President cut the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative by an outrageous 90 percent. They did a survey a few years ago and asked the people of Chicago, the city I am proud to represent: What do you think is the defining characteristic of the city?

The overwhelming response was Lake Michigan. That beautiful lake, a part of the Great Lakes, is not just a source of pride, but it is a source of good, clean drinking water and of recreation and commerce. We know it is threatened in every direction, from chemical runoffs to invasive species, and we fight to make sure those lakes will survive for another generation. The President cuts the funds for that effort by 90 percent.

These are just a few examples of decisions made in the President's budget.

Needless to say, I have saved the best for last. Though he has cut everything I just talked about--from medical research to protecting our Great Lakes, to transportation and infrastructure, to taking care of senior citizens, to making sure that health insurance is there for expectant mothers--the President needs $8.5 billion for his almighty wall, this wall on our southern border.

We have given the President 120 miles of fencing--new and replacement fencing--over the first 2 years he was in office. That is 120 miles to add to the 640 already on our border. Do you know how many miles have been built, as I stand here today, for the last 2 years that we have given the President? None. It takes a long time to build these fences, and the President is learning it the hard way. Yet he wants to take money out of programs across the board on the possibility that they may be built in the future--needed or not. Congress needs to step up--and I hope on a bipartisan basis--to assert our constitutional authority and to find a bipartisan way to put together a budget that is much more balanced and that realizes the real values of America.

Judicial Nominations

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week, Senate Republicans are looking to confirm two more circuit court nominations, which would make a total of six circuit court confirmations this year.

None of these six circuit court nominees have had any prior judicial experience. Some have had very little courtroom experience at all.

Four of them have been put forward over the opposition of Senators in their home State: Eric Miller, who was opposed by both Washington Senators; Chad Readler and Eric Murphy, who were opposed by Senator Brown; and now Paul Matey, who was nominated over the objections of both Senators Booker and Menendez.

I believe the Republican majority is making a serious mistake by abandoning blue slips for circuit court seats. They have set a precedent that could affect each and every one of our States.

Already, the Trump administration has nominated a person for a Ninth Circuit California seat, Daniel Bress, who has only lived in California for 1 year since high school and who practices in Washington, DC.

It is absurd to see a nominee to a California-based seat with such minimal ties to California. That is what the Republicans have brought about by abandoning circuit court blue slips. It is a big mistake.

This week, Majority Leader McConnell plowed right through with a vote on Paul Matey, President Trump's nominee for a Third Circuit seat based in New Jersey. Mr. Matey had recently served for 4 years as the general counsel for University Hospital in Newark, NJ. While Mr. Matey was there, a patient safety organization gave this hospital annual grades of ``C,'' ``D,'' ``D,'' and ``F'' for patient safety. The grades got worse while Mr. Matey was there.

Previously, Mr. Matey had been a longtime staff member to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. He served as Governor Christie's chief ethics officer and deputy chief counsel. Mr. Matey said he provided a rigorous system of ethics training, monitoring, and oversight for staff members in the Governor's office; yet it is unclear what steps, if any, he took to ensure that ethics rules were followed. It certainly appears that Mr. Matey's ethics guidance fell way short during the so-called Bridgegate scandal in 2013. That is when Christie administration officials arranged to close lanes on the George Washington Bridge as retaliation against a mayor who had not endorsed the Governor's reelection. The deputy chief of staff, Bridget Kelly, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for her role in this scandal.

In addition to being a former staffer to a Republican-elected official, Mr. Matey is a longtime member of the Federalist Society. But just because a nominee meets the ideological litmus tests of the Republican Party and the Federalist Society doesn't mean he has the experience and judgment to be a good circuit court judge. More likely, it is a sign the nominee will be an ideological judge.

New Jersey's two Senators opposed Mr. Matey's nomination, but the White House and Senate Republicans plowed right through with this controversial nominee.

Also this week, Senator McConnell has scheduled a vote on D.C. Circuit nominee Neomi Rao. The DC Circuit is often considered the second most important court in the land, and typically the nominees to this court bring with them a wealth of legal and judicial experience.

Ms. Neomi Rao has virtually no practical experience in law. She has never tried a case in court. She has never argued an appeal in court. She has never made an appearance in an American court, and she has filed one court brief in her entire career.

How in the world could someone suggest that this woman get a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land, never having tried a case, never having argued an appeal, never having made an appearance in the court, and having filed only one court brief in her entire career?

She was a political appointee of the President, working at the Agency known as the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. When she was there, she set out to rescind a lot of Federal regulations-- regulations, however, that might have been better left on the books-- that protected workers, the environment, and Americans facing discrimination. She was out to put an end to those regulatory protections.

She has been an academic. She has written a lot. In the year 2009, she wrote: ``The President may also decide not to follow Supreme Court precedent, and in the rare instance, may decide against the enforcement of a particular judgment.''

That would be considered a radical statement by most standards. It is a radical view of Executive power that Ms. Rao put forward. It flies in the face of Supreme Court rules and decisions, where the final word on constitutional interpretation was decided and established two centuries ago in Marbury v. Madison.

Ms. Rao has also published a number of articles in college, in which I can't even describe to you what she was thinking. They were shocking and inflammatory writings on issues involving race, sexual orientation, sexual assault, and date rape.

In April of 1993, this woman--destined for the circuit court and a lifetime appointment, where she will use her judgment on a daily basis to decide the outcomes of cases and the legal framework of America-- wrote: ``Date rape exemplifies the attempts of the nurture feminists to develop an artificial, alternative world in which women are free from sexual danger and `no always means no.' ''

In October of 1994, she wrote of date rape survivors: ``If she drinks to the point where she can no longer choose, well, getting to that point was part of her choice.''

In September of 1994, she wrote that a group at Yale called the Bisexual, Gay and Lesbian Co-Op was ``spreading myths about AIDS.''

In November of 1993, she wrote:

Myths of sexual and racial oppression propagate themselves, create hysteria, and finally lead to the formation of some whining new group. One can only hope to scream, ``Perspective, just a little perspective, darling!''

These are a few examples of writings, which are difficult to describe in the fairest terms and inflammatory at the least.

While she wrote a letter to the Judiciary Committee apologizing for some of these writings, what does it say about her values, her thinking, and whether she should be in this legal position for the rest of her life?

The bottom line is this. Ms. Rao has minimal practical experience in the law. Her legal views are beyond extreme, and her personal views, as reflected in her own personal writings, are deeply troubling.

I would like to say to the President and those who are in charge of picking his nominees: Please, isn't there a good Republican conservative somewhere in this area who has actually been in a courtroom, who has actually made an appearance in a case, who has maybe even tried a case, who has maybe even filed a motion, or who would know a courthouse if they saw it and not on television? Is that too much to ask for a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land?

This nominee may be ideologically perfect for somebody who decided she was destined for this court, but this nomination is not a perfection when it comes to the legal system in America. It is an imperfection, which, if approved by the Senate, is going to be with us for a lifetime.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source