[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 168 (Wednesday, October 10, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6750-S6752]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                    Confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh

  Mr. President, I want to transition really quickly and just take a 
minute because last week, as we all know, was a very difficult time in 
the Senate as we processed the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to serve 
on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  That vote has concluded. Judge Kavanaugh is now Justice Kavanaugh, 
and I truly wish him all the best as he begins his new term on the 
highest Court in the land. But there is a residue--I don't know if it 
is a residue. I don't know how we make sure we are able to move forward 
after difficult votes that divide us all and work to come back 
together.
  I am going to speak very directly about my friend who sits right here 
next to me on the Senate floor. She and I went through, probably, a 
similar deliberative process. It was probably the same as everybody 
else here on the floor, but we perhaps shared more discussion about it 
than I did with other colleagues. At the end of the day, we came down 
on different sides, but both of us--both of us--agonized over the 
decision and the process.
  She is now enduring an active campaign against her. It is not just an 
active campaign against her, but there are protests at her home every 
weekend, and she cannot travel without a police escort.
  I made comments as I prepared for the final vote last week. I said: 
We are better than this. We have to set the example here.
  I am really touched that after I had taken a hard vote within my 
caucus,

[[Page S6751]]

there are some who are notably angry at me. But we are working together 
on the next issue of the day, and we are moving forward. We need to set 
that example in this body because if we don't set it here, I don't know 
how we can expect anyone on the outside to follow us.
  There is a need for civility. It is a hard time for us, but I would 
urge us all to choose our words carefully. Don't be afraid to speak 
with kindness toward one another. Don't be afraid to call out the good 
in somebody else, even though you have voted against them. We are 
better than what we are seeing right now.
  I am smiling only because I feel I should recommend that my 
colleagues watch a movie, a documentary. I don't do that often, but 
after the vote on Saturday, I just, by chance, picked up a DVD that had 
been sent to me. It is a documentary about the life and career of Fred 
Rogers--Mister Rogers--``Won't You Be My Neighbor?'' I figured I needed 
something kind of calming for the night.
  It is OK to be good to one another. It is OK to accept people for who 
they are. It is OK to just find the good.
  With that, Mr. President, I thank you for allowing me to speak a 
little bit from the heart. I would ask us to be civil with one another 
now, not civil when the next election comes.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will oppose the pending nomination of 
Jeffrey Clark to be the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the 
Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division. This 
is the division that leads the Department of Justice's enforcement of 
environmental laws and regulations. Mr. Clark is not the right person 
for that job.
  In 2014, he said the science of climate change is ``contestable.'' He 
represented British Petroleum in litigation over the Deepwater Horizon 
explosion and oil spill. He has represented the Chamber of Commerce and 
other industry groups in challenging EPA greenhouse gas regulations.
  He is a favorite of the Federalist Society, having chaired that 
group's environmental law and practice group. But his nomination is 
strongly opposed by groups that care about protecting the environment.
  The Sierra Club called him an ``outspoken opponent of environmental 
and public health protection.'' The Natural Resources Defense Council 
described him as an ``enemy of the environment.'' He is exactly the 
wrong person to be in this job of enforcing regulations to protect our 
environment.
  Just during these last few days, the United Nations put out an alert 
to all of the members around the world. We are going to pay dearly for 
this current administration's decision to remove ourselves from the 
Paris Agreement, where literally every country on Earth agreed to try 
to do something to clean up the mess of our environment and leave our 
children a better place to live. We decided, under President Trump, to 
be the only Nation to step away from it. Why? What in the world were we 
thinking? Can you believe that things that are happening that are 
easily documented can be ignored? Do you see the flooding that is going 
on now in Florida on a regular basis? That is just 1 of 1,000 different 
examples.
  If we don't accept responsibility in our generation to make this a 
better world, shame on us. We want to leave our kids a better world, 
but for goodness' sake, do we have the political courage to do it? Will 
we be able to say to the President: You are just wrong.
  We have to work together with nations around the world. The United 
States should be a leader, not an apologist. The President said he 
wants to make America first. How about America first when it comes to 
cleaning up the environment? There is nothing wrong with that 
leadership. It is something we should be proud of.
  This man, Jeffrey Clark, who is aspiring to be the Assistant Attorney 
General, just doesn't buy into what I just said, and I can't support 
him as a result.


                                S. 3021

  Mr. President, the 2018 WRDA bill--the Water Resources Development 
Act--that we are considering on the floor this week is an important 
step in modernizing our Nation's water infrastructure and ensuring 
access to clean drinking water. It goes back to my earlier comment. If 
we are talking about the environment, one of the first things people 
say is, I want safe drinking water for myself and my family. Next to 
that, I want to be able to breathe in air that is not going to make me 
sick or hurt any member of my family.
  Our Nation's infrastructure is aging and in need of significant 
investment. Last year, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave our 
Nation's levees, inland waterways, and drinking water infrastructure a 
D rating in terms of its infrastructure report card. They estimate that 
$80 billion is needed over the next decade to improve our Nation's 
levees--$80 billion. They also estimate that $4.9 billion is needed 
over the next 2 years to maintain our inland waterways--$4.9 billion--
and $1 trillion is needed over the next 25 years to expand our drinking 
water infrastructure. These are massive numbers, and they are going to 
require sustained and significant Federal investment if we are ever 
going to reach these goals.
  This bill--the WRDA bill--is a step in the right direction. It 
authorizes $6.1 billion in funding for the Army Corps flood control, 
navigation, and ecosystem restoration projects around the country. 
These are critical projects in every State.
  I just went down a few weeks ago with Senator McConnell to the Ohio 
River. The Olmsted Locks and Dam that has been under construction for 
decades is finally completed. It is an amazing investment. It is the 
most expensive civil infrastructure project in our Nation's history, 
and it is an indication of the kind of investment that is necessary if 
we are going to try to tame rivers like the Ohio River.
  There are critical projects like that in every State. They improve 
our inland waterways to help deliver $600 million in goods and 60 
percent of our grain imports each year.
  If we want the United States to literally lead the world--if we want 
America first--for goodness' sake, we need to be first in investing in 
our infrastructure. These projects maintain levees and build reservoirs 
that protect millions of people and an estimated $1.3 trillion in 
property, and they protect the environment, they restore wetlands, and 
they prevent the spread of invasive species.
  I am especially proud that this bill includes an important cost share 
change for the future operations and maintenance costs at the Brandon 
Road Lock and Dam in my State of Illinois. I worked with Senator Tammy 
Duckworth on this project.
  The Brandon Road project is integral to ensuring that invasive Asian 
carp never spread to the Great Lakes. Knock on wood. We have held up 
that carp from going into the Great Lakes and, in doing so, we have 
preserved an important part of the fisheries and the lake itself. I 
want to continue those efforts, if not redouble them.
  While I am proud to support passage of this authorizing bill, I also 
implore my colleagues to remember that unless we are willing to work 
together--Republicans and Democrats--to provide these authorized 
projects with consistent and increased appropriations each year, then 
we are sending out press releases and not even getting the job half 
done.
  Let me say it another way: It is not enough to go home and take 
credit for passing the WRDA bill, which is an authorization bill, if 
you aren't also willing to pass an appropriations bill that actually 
provides the money to break ground on these projects. An authorization 
bill is just that: It gives you permission to do a project, but then 
you need to go to the spending bill--the appropriations bill--to come 
up with the money to actually achieve it.
  Listen to this number. I want to make this part of the record as we 
debate water resources and infrastructure. An analysis by the Roll Call 
newspaper from earlier this year found that while Congress has 
authorized more than $25 billion toward Army Corps projects in the last 
decade--$25 billion in the last decade--Congress has

[[Page S6752]]

only appropriated $689 million. So $25 billion authorized, $689 million 
appropriated. What percentage of money have we actually come up with to 
finish these projects? We have come up with only $689 million out of 
$25 billion--2.7 percent.
  We send out all of these press releases congratulating ourselves 
about projects that are never going to happen. We send out the releases 
and say: This is going to be great for future generations. We are not 
doing it. We are not investing in America.
  Slow and inconsistent Federal funding for these projects results in 
years of added delay and millions in added costs. Instead of funding 
new projects, we have to spend more on ongoing projects because 
Congress just doesn't get its act together--Democrats and Republicans.
  I am proud of the work of the Appropriations Committee on which I 
have been honored to serve. Both sides of the aisle do work to get 
their job done in record time and ensure the Corps has stable funding 
for the next fiscal year, but this year's appropriations process should 
not be unusual.
  Unless we as a Congress commit every year to getting our budget work 
done and appropriating these Federal dollars, we will never get ahead 
on investing in our infrastructure. Our competitors like China and 
others around the world are making massive investments in 
infrastructure not just in their own country but in other countries 
that are teaming up with them, with an economic vision for the future.
  What is our goal? What are we trying to achieve right here in the 
United States, and how are we working to build our economy and create 
good-paying jobs for the future?
  Our Nation's water infrastructure is in need of significant 
investment. The good bill we are considering today is just a step in 
the right direction, but an authorization bill without appropriation is 
just an empty press release.
  I hope we can work together to ensure funding gets appropriated each 
year to actually complete these important projects.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.