[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 12, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1777-S1789]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Neomi J. Rao, of the District of Columbia, to be United 
     States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit.
         Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley, Johnny Isakson, John 
           Cornyn, John Barrasso, Roger F. Wicker, James E. Risch, 
           Steve Daines, John Thune, Lindsey Graham, James M. 
           Inhofe, Tim Scott, Pat Roberts, Thom Tillis, John 
           Hoeven, David Perdue, Mike Crapo.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on Neomi 
J. Rao, of the District of Columbia, to be United States Circuit Judge 
for the District of Columbia Circuit, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) 
is necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 43 Ex.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--46

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Murray
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). On this vote the yeas are 53, 
the nays are 46.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The clerk will report the nomination.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Neomi J. Rao, of the 
District of Columbia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the 
District of Columbia Circuit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 94

  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, the entire Senate Democratic caucus and 
I are introducing a resolution that simply asks the Department of 
Justice to do what it is supposed to do--defend the duly enacted laws 
of this country.
  This resolution shouldn't be necessary, but last year, as 19 States 
joined Texas in challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable 
Care Act, Attorney General Jeff Sessions refused to defend the ACA in 
court and, in fact, filed a brief arguing that several vital 
protections of the law should be ruled unconstitutional, including 
protections for Americans living with preexisting conditions.
  In making his decision not to defend a duly enacted law, Jeff 
Sessions himself acknowledged that he was going against a 
``longstanding tradition of defending the constitutionality of duly 
enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their 
defense.''
  Guess what. There are many reasonable arguments for the ACA. Even 
conservative lawyers who previously argued against the ACA agree. One 
attorney filed an amicus brief in opposition to the Department of 
Justice's position calling it ``dangerous,'' ``beyond the pale,'' and 
``effectively [usurping] legislative power.''
  The Justice Department lawyer who authored the brief opposing the 
ACA, Chad Readler, was just rewarded with a confirmation to a lifetime 
position to the Sixth Circuit. In fact, Mr. Readler's circuit court 
nomination came on the exact same day that he filed the brief on behalf 
of the Department of Justice. Talk about yet another Trump nominee who 
auditioned for his position.
  The Justice Department's actions were blatantly political and had a 
specific outcome in mind: accomplishing through the courts what 
Republicans have tried and failed to achieve through the legislative 
process; that is, repealing the Affordable Care Act.
  Three career attorneys at the Department of Justice withdrew from the 
case in protest of their Department's failing to defend the ACA.
  In December, a Federal court in Texas sided with the Trump 
administration, Texas, and 19 other States in declaring the entirety of 
the ACA unconstitutional. Of course, this will be appealed.
  The Fifth Circuit--one of the most conservative appellate courts in 
the country--will hear the case next. The case is destined for 
consideration by the Supreme Court, wherein Trump-appointed Justices 
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will cast two deciding votes on whether to uphold 
the ACA or cast it aside. I shudder to think which way they are likely 
to go.
  The outcome of this case will have a profound impact on virtually 
every American, especially the 133 million people living with 
preexisting conditions.
  This is not a game. Lives are at stake. Without the ACA's 
protections, millions of Americans living with conditions as common as 
diabetes, obesity, heart disease, or cancer could be charged exorbitant 
premiums or denied insurance coverage altogether.
  The stakes in this ongoing court battle are incredibly high. Our 
resolution simply asks the Department of Justice to do its job, defend 
the ACA as a duly enacted act of Congress, and stand up to protect 
Americans living with preexisting conditions.
  Although many of my Republican colleagues profess to support 
protections for those with preexisting conditions, not a single one of 
them has signed on to support this resolution.
  Under new leadership, the Department of Justice can do the right 
thing. During his confirmation hearing, newly confirmed Attorney 
General Bill Barr indicated he was open to reassessing DOJ's decision 
to oppose the ACA in court. We shall see.
  With this resolution, my Democratic colleagues and I urge him to 
reexamine the Department's position, consider the monumental impact 
this case would have on millions of Americans, and stand up for the 133 
million Americans living with a preexisting condition.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee 
be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 94 and the Senate 
proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the resolution be 
agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I often say that I like to see when 
people reveal themselves.
  With this objection today, my colleague from Wyoming has sent a clear 
message to Americans living with preexisting conditions that the 
Republican Party doesn't care about them. I am disappointed with his 
objection, but I can't say that I am surprised. Today's

[[Page S1778]]

action is very consistent with the Republican Party's hostility to the 
ACA and their belief that healthcare is a privilege reserved only for 
those who can afford it.
  To recap, Republicans voted dozens of times over the past 9 years to 
repeal the ACA in its entirety. The Senate came within one vote in July 
2017 of repealing the law--one vote.
  The majority leader and my Republican colleagues from South Carolina 
and Louisiana proposed--and came close to passing--a bill that would 
have gutted the ACA and cut hundreds of billions of dollars from 
Medicaid.
  As part of their huge tax cut for the rich and corporations, Donald 
Trump and congressional Republicans eliminated the individual coverage 
requirement of ACA, driving up premiums across the country.
  So the assault on healthcare continues. The American people are 
paying attention, and Republicans will be held accountable.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today to ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the 
Senate Resolution that is at the desk, expressing the sense of the 
Senate that efforts to create a one-size-fits-all government-run 
healthcare system referred to as ``Medicare for All'' should be 
rejected.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be 
agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Reserving the right to object, this resolution is a 
cynical attempt to divide Democrats where no division exists. The 
Democratic Party is united behind the principle that healthcare should 
be affordable and accessible to all. As far as I am concerned, 
healthcare is a right, not a privilege reserved for those who can 
afford it.
  Medicare for All is one way to get to universal healthcare that is 
affordable for everyone, but it is not the only way. While Democrats 
are working to build on the success of the Affordable Care Act to cover 
even more Americans, Senate Republicans have tried time and again to 
eliminate coverage for tens of millions of Americans. This is 
particularly evident in the President's budget--a budget that would 
make over $2 trillion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, programs that 
provide healthcare coverage to one out of every three people in our 
country.
  I call on my Republican colleagues to join us to improve the ACA and 
expand coverage to more Americans rather than trying to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act time after time.
  It is unfortunate that my colleagues would rather offer this 
distraction than acknowledge that millions of Americans rely on 
Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA for healthcare. In offering this 
resolution, Republicans continue to do nothing except propose cuts to 
all three critical programs.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I would just point out that what my 
friend and colleague from Hawaii described as a distraction is one of 
the key points of the Democratic Party.
  Medicare for All, as they call it, is part of the so-called Green New 
Deal, which would bankrupt the country, which is unaffordable, 
unworkable. The fact is, this Medicare for All proposal, which so many 
of the Democrats have signed on to, would cost a minimum of $33 
trillion and maybe a lot higher after what we have heard from the 
Presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, as to the things he wants to do 
going beyond just Medicare for All.
  We know that taxes would increase significantly under their proposal. 
We know that for Americans who have health insurance right now through 
their work, over 150 million Americans would lose that. We know that 
for people on Medicare, it would make their ability to use Medicare 
much harder. Then, of course, there would be the issue of rationing for 
care--the lines and the time to wait.
  There was an article in the New York Times, an opinion piece by David 
Brooks, on Friday, talking about why the so-called Medicare for All 
will not work, and it made reference to healthcare in Canada.
  I would say to the Presiding Officer that as a Senator who is also a 
surgeon, I operated on people from Canada in my practice prior to 
becoming a U.S. Senator and while practicing in Wyoming. People in 
Canada--where the healthcare is paid for by taxes but is free--I have 
taken care of people who couldn't afford to wait the amount of time it 
would take to get their free operation.
  The article in the New York Times on Friday made reference to the 
fact that the waiting times are so long that after you are actually 
seen by the primary care provider in Canada, the wait time to get to 
see an orthopedic surgeon is 9 months--9 months. The Democrats are 
proposing something that has given the people of Canada a waiting time 
of 9 months.
  So what we see under this Medicare for All proposal--and I have just 
introduced today this Senate resolution saying that Medicare for All 
should be rejected, and there should also be a rejection of the tax 
increases, the loss of choice, and the long lines that will come from 
this Democrat-sponsored proposal for Medicare for All.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Very briefly, I simply want to ask my Republican 
colleagues whether they believe that healthcare should be accessible 
and affordable for all. Apparently, they do not, because they have 
offered absolutely nothing to make sure healthcare is accessible and 
affordable for all.
  In fact, in their continuing efforts to sabotage the Affordable Care 
Act and, in fact, eliminate the Affordable Care Act, they would rather 
have a healthcare system where millions of Americans are without 
healthcare at all.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


          Women's History Month and the Equal Rights Amendment

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, this month we celebrate the storied 
history of incredible women in our country. We recognize the sacrifices 
made and the battles fought to ensure a future where our daughters and 
granddaughters are born into a world of equality and limitless 
opportunity.
  Throughout Women's History Month, we mark the historic strides women 
have taken to advance our culture, our sciences, our States, and our 
Nation. As we recognize these achievements, we must also assess and 
advocate for the work still to be done, including the ratification of 
the Equal Rights Amendment, the ERA. Ratifying the ERA would be a major 
milestone on the road to equality. Not only would ratification enshrine 
equal rights for women in the Constitution, it would also honor all of 
those who have fought for justice along the way.
  One such inspiring woman is civil rights activist Juanita Jackson 
Mitchell. A Baltimore native, Mrs. Mitchell fought to end legally 
sanctioned segregation in her community while she simultaneously 
reached out to young people and mobilized them into civic engagement. 
After she received her law degree from the University of Maryland, she 
was the first African-American woman to practice law in our State, and 
she worked tirelessly on a number of cases to provide more job 
opportunities for African Americans. As the President of the NAACP in 
Baltimore, she advocated for integration and later convinced the city 
to hire Black social workers, librarians, and police officers, which 
bolstered the community by helping to bring an end to long-held 
systemic prejudices.
  As a community activist and champion of women's rights, Mrs. Mitchell 
exhibited true bravery in her engagement with her community. She 
fearlessly paved the way for other women to join the movement. She 
worked with the Kennedy and Johnson administrations to find solutions 
for systemic social and educational discrepancies in communities of 
color. Mrs. Mitchell

[[Page S1779]]

understood the importance of representative democracy and of empowering 
those who could make differences in their communities. Juanita Mitchell 
is a shining example of why a constitutional amendment to guarantee 
women's rights is long overdue.
  The ERA, which Congress approved in 1972, guarantees equal protection 
under the law regardless of one's sex. At that time, Congress imposed a 
7-year deadline--later extended to 10 years--for the States to act. By 
the time this artificial deadline expired in 1982, 35 States had 
approved the Equal Rights Amendment--three short of the 38 States 
necessary to add it to the Constitution. Since then, two more States 
have approved the amendment, which leaves us just one State shy of 
reaching the goal. Congress must act to authorize additional time for 
the remaining States to consider the amendment.
  Earlier this year, I and the senior Senator from Alaska, Ms. 
Murkowski, introduced a bipartisan Senate resolution, S.J. Res. 6, to 
reopen consideration of the ERA. It may come as a shock to many that in 
a country to which the world looks as being an example of liberty and 
justice, our Constitution does not guarantee women the same rights and 
protections as men. That is why this bipartisan resolution is 
imperative as we urge Congress and the remaining States to finish what 
we started nearly 50 years ago to ensure equality under the law for all 
women.
  In the early 20th century, women were disenfranchised and had little 
or no legal, financial, or social opportunities to pursue. Property 
ownership, jobs, and economic equality were privileges women did not 
have. Today, a century later, more women have entered the workforce 
than ever before. Women are filling leadership roles at unprecedented 
levels, and we are finally on the verge of ratifying the ERA. This 
change has boosted our economy, strengthened our families, and brought 
our society to new heights of innovation, enlightenment, and 
opportunity. We see that change is not only possible, it is essential 
to realizing our greatest potential as a nation.
  While ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment is critical to giving 
women in our country the rights they deserve, it is not, in and of 
itself, enough. I will continue to fight for the ERA but also for 
women's economic opportunities and reproductive rights.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Nomination of Neomi J. Rao

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, there are many reasons to care about 
our Federal judiciary. It touches all of us in our everyday lives even 
though we often fail to appreciate its enormous impact. No court of 
appeals in the United States is more important than the DC Circuit, and 
so few of the nominees whom we will consider in this body will be more 
important than Neomi Rao to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC 
Circuit.
  It has a unique jurisdiction that makes it the court to most 
frequently hear challenges to the Federal Government's public 
protections. It considers issues of national consequence, ranging from 
workers' rights, nondiscrimination policies, consumer protections, 
immigration policies, money in politics, reproductive rights, access to 
healthcare, environmental justice, antitrust cases, and regulatory 
action, like the possible grounding of an unsafe airplane by the FAA.
  I have called on the FAA to ground the 737 MAX 8 and MAX 9. I have 
asked the airlines to do it voluntarily. If the FAA does the right 
thing, as it should, and orders these planes grounded, its decision may 
be challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, and the 
safety of our skies and our airline passengers will hang in the 
balance. This is just one example of how the DC Circuit can matter not 
only to the lives of people within a particular geographic area but to, 
literally, the entire United States.
  When I ask nominees questions that are designed to elicit their 
views, their opinions, their past positions, and their present 
policies, I expect direct, candid answers, but I received just the 
opposite from Neomi Rao on some of the critical, bedrock issues that 
are important to all of us in this Chamber when judging a nominee.
  I asked Neomi Rao whether she thought Brown v. Board of Education--a 
pillar of our jurisprudence--was correctly decided. She declined to 
answer. She said she felt it was inappropriate for a nominee to the 
court to be giving views on specific cases. I asked her for her views 
and her position on that case. She declined to give them. She also 
declined to give them on Roe v. Wade and on Griswold v. Connecticut.
  One of my Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee also has 
reservations about Neomi Rao's opinions in some of these cases. He 
fears that Ms. Rao actually supports a woman's right to choose and 
supports the legal doctrine of substantive due process. Unlike me, he 
met Ms. Rao in private, and he got straightforward answers about her 
views on those cases and on the underlying legal theories. She passed 
his test, the President's litmus test, and the test of those outside 
groups--extreme rightwing, conservative groups--that have been given 
authority as a result of the President's outsourcing of these decisions 
to, in effect, decide on the nominees to our highest Court.
  She passed the test established by the President--that he would 
appoint judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
  But as abhorrent and objectionable as I find many of her views and 
her failure to give straightforward answers, she has also written a 
number of very troubling articles and op-eds about her views on women's 
rights and women's healthcare. We have in this Chamber a term called 
``confirmation conversion,'' and I thought Ms. Rao would completely 
disavow and abandon those pieces.
  In an op-ed about date rape, she wrote: ``If [a woman] drinks to the 
point where she can no longer choose, well, getting to that point was 
part of her choice.'' In another op-ed criticizing aspects of feminism, 
Rao wrote that women ``must be thoroughly educated about the 
consequences of their sexuality in order to prevent such problems'' as 
date rape. From early in her career, these writings indicate that she 
believes women bear a major part of responsibility for date rape.
  These writings are from early in her career, and I thought she would 
completely break with them and reject them, but she failed to do so. 
Only after the hearing did she disavow them, without directly 
apologizing, and that kind of confirmation conversion is inherently 
unbelievable.
  Undermining her credibility even more are the actions she took later 
in her career--after those writings and before she was nominated.
  She serves as the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, also known as OIRA. Her job is to review all regulatory 
actions--all of them--proposed by the administration. In that capacity, 
Ms. Rao approved rescinding guidance provided to schools on how to 
address and prevent campus sexual assault. Under the new rules, sexual 
assault survivors would be required to undergo live cross-examination 
by their attacker's representative. In the course of an administrative 
proceeding, there would be cross-examination by the attacker's lawyer 
or other representative. Schools would be required to use a higher 
standard of proof for claims of sexual misconduct.
  Under this administration's own analysis, these rules would have a 
profound, chilling effect on the number of campus sexual assault 
investigations that are conducted. That is the reason they are 
proposing the new rules--to discourage survivors from coming forward to 
seek justice.
  It is not only Rao's early writings that stigmatize and blame women 
survivors of sexual assault; the recent policies she approved and 
authorized institutionalize these really regrettable and unacceptable 
views. Her deeply troubling positions on sexual assault and her victim-
blaming rhetoric--which she tried to excuse initially as the reckless 
musings of a college student rather than breaking with them and 
rejecting them--place the

[[Page S1780]]

rights of women and others at risk. We should deny her confirmation.
  Equally important, she has also used that position at OIRA to 
restrict reproductive rights.
  Let's be clear. One of the important features of the Affordable Care 
Act is a requirement that health insurers cover contraceptives as an 
essential health benefit--no charge to consumers because it is an 
essential health benefit.
  Last year, the Trump administration issued rules that would allow any 
and all private companies to deny contraception coverage if the CEO had 
a moral or religious objection. Two Federal courts found that the rules 
were illegal because they violate the due process clause--the legal 
process required by law to implement the new rules--and that objection 
was found to be an inadequate justification for, in effect, violating 
the rights of women who would seek that kind of care at no charge. As 
the head of OIRA, Neomi Rao not only approved of the substance of the 
new rules but was so committed to implementing them that she signed off 
on an illegal process to do so.
  That is not all Neomi Rao has done to, in effect, discourage and 
deter reproductive health. The Department of Health and Human Services 
recently finalized a new title X regulation. Under this rule, ``Any 
organization that provides or refers patients for abortions is 
ineligible for title X funding to cover STD prevention, cancer 
screenings, and contraception.'' As with any rule, OIRA had to conduct 
a cost-benefit analysis in order to approve that rule, and I am deeply 
troubled by Rao's views and actions on reproductive rights that led her 
to approve that rule and encouraged and condoned the rule and its 
disastrous effects on women's rights and healthcare.
  We are living in an era fraught with abuses of power, under a 
President who has shown nothing but disdain for the rule of law. In 
this dark and dangerous era, it is all the more important that we have 
someone willing to set limits on executive power to prevent an imperial 
Presidency.
  In fact, Ms. Rao is a proponent of a fringe theory on executive power 
known as the unitary executive theory. She believes that the President, 
as the head of the executive branch, holds absolute control over 
executive power.
  As recently as 2014, she outlined the implications of this theory in 
the Alabama Law Review. According to her, the President must be able to 
remove at his sole discretion all principal officers, including the 
heads of independent Agencies.
  She has criticized the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. Olson, 
which upheld the independent counsel statute in effect at that time. In 
her view, the President must be able to fire at will anyone in the 
executive branch. In her view, that includes special prosecutors tasked 
with investigating wrongdoing by the President.
  In 2016, she was interviewed on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. She was 
asked whether she believes the current special counsel regulations have 
similarly restrictive effect on executive power and whether the 
President can direct the actions of the Attorney General or Acting 
Attorney General. Her view? The Constitution vests all executive power 
in the President. He can direct his subordinates. He can fire the 
special counsel.
  I hoped that during her confirmation proceedings, she would disavow 
those views. I asked her whether she thought the President could fire 
Robert Mueller, the current special counsel. She refused to answer my 
question.
  That extreme view of Presidential power is deeply alarming when it is 
held by a member of one of the most important courts in the country, 
which may review decisions of that special counsel to subpoena the 
President or potentially indict the President or take other actions in 
the course of an investigation.
  I am more than alarmed; I am strongly opposed to this nomination. I 
hope my colleagues will join me in voting no on final confirmation.
  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. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 S. 556

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I recently reintroduced the 
Accountability through Electronic Verification Act this Congress, as I 
have in previous Congresses. This commonsense bill would require all 
employers to use E-Verify programs, which in turn would ensure that 
they are employing nothing but a legal workforce.
  As most Americans have realized, the immigration debate here in the 
Congress today--and for a long time--has become highly partisan and 
obviously has been controversial. Of course, worst of all, it has 
become completely unproductive.
  I believe there is a sliver of hope, however, and that is through the 
passage of an E-Verify program that makes E-Verify mandatory.
  Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, whether you are for open 
borders or you want secure borders, we all ought to agree that 
enforcing the law and protecting Americans is a bipartisan goal.
  In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act made it, for the 
first time, a Federal crime to employ undocumented workers. Ten years 
later, in 1996, Congress created a new tool to verify employment 
eligibility known as E-Verify.
  Today, E-Verify is a voluntary program that gives employers a web-
based tool to verify the identify and employment eligibility of new 
employees.
  I have worked to renew and expand the program for use in all 50 
States and to allow for information-sharing between Federal Agencies, 
including the Department of Homeland Security.
  Participating employers then tap into a user-friendly, free 
electronic system that cross-matches documents provided by employees on 
their I-9 forms with Federal records available to show the U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Social Security 
Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security. So the records 
of a worker applying for a job can be compared with government records 
to know whether somebody is legally in the country.
  Today E-Verify provides instant verification for more than 750,000 
employers and businesses all across America. In fact, my Senate office 
uses E-Verify when hiring employees whom the taxpayers pay for, but I 
am responsible for their employment. My Senate office uses E-Verify 
when hiring our staff, and I have found it to be quick and easy to use.
  At my annual 99 county meetings that I have throughout Iowa, I 
regularly hear about the growing economy, rising wages, and the 
vitality on Main Streets. Iowa now ranks first in the Nation for the 
lowest level of unemployment. That also means there are growing 
challenges for employers in my State to hire the workforce needed to 
grow and expand. I will bet a lot of my colleagues hear that in their 
respective States as well.
  We need to make sure hiring practices don't harm U.S. workers or 
those authorized to work in the United States. That is why I 
reintroduced the bill I announced in the first words of my speech 
today, the accountability through electronic verification bill.
  This legislation will help businesses comply with immigration laws by 
certifying the legal status of their workforce. The bill will 
permanently authorize the E-Verify Program, and require employers to 
use the program to determine workers' eligibility. It would then make 
every employer have to use it, except as contrasted for the last couple 
of decades on a voluntary basis.
  For decades, E-Verify has served as a proven tool for employers that 
want to use it. It has helped to reduce incentives for illegal 
immigration and safeguard job opportunities for Americans and other 
legal workers. Expanding the system to every workplace will improve 
accountability for all businesses and take another very important step 
toward putting American workers first.
  Current law requires all contractors doing work for the Federal 
Government to use E-Verify, repeating for a third time now the 
mandatory aspect of this compared to the voluntary aspect of the 
present law.
  States that have passed laws mandating the use of E-Verify also may 
require employers to participate, for example, as a condition of 
business licensing. With low unemployment

[[Page S1781]]

across the country, and with Iowa leading the way, policymakers have a 
responsibility to ensure the growing economy has the workforce it needs 
to continue to do the growth of the last few years.
  As the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I worked 
extensively to protect the integrity of employment visas and work 
permits for foreign workers. A top priority must be to ensure 
immigration policies aren't displacing American workers or depressing 
wages.
  Making E-Verify a permanent and mandatory requirement for all U.S. 
employers will bring across-the-board certainty to hiring practices 
throughout our country. Certifying the legal status for prospective 
hires makes common sense, and having in place the tools at one's 
fingertips makes it a simple, convenient solution.
  E-Verify is a proven tool to encourage legal immigrants to apply for 
unfilled jobs and to deter illegal immigration and human trafficking.
  In addition to making E-Verify permanent and mandatory within 1 year 
of enactment, my bill will increase penalties for employers who 
illegally hire workers unauthorized to work in our country. The bill 
will also require employers to check the status of all current 
employees within 1 year using the E-Verify system and terminate 
employment of those found unauthorized to work in the United States.
  This bill establishes a demonstration project in rural areas without 
internet capabilities to assist small businesses.
  Finally, the bill will require the Social Security Administration to 
improve its efforts to detect identity theft using Social Security 
numbers.
  Expanding E-Verify will help restore integrity and trust in our 
Nation's immigration system by curbing incentives for hiring persons 
unauthorized to work in America.
  I was pleased to hear my colleague, now-Chairman Graham of the 
Judiciary Committee, highlight the benefits of E-Verify in a Judiciary 
Committee hearing held last week. He is right. Nationwide E-Verify 
would go a long way to relieve concerns about illegal immigration and 
workforce displacement.
  Let me repeat. This bill will not change immigration law. All it does 
is ensure that businesses are complying with existing Federal law 
through a quick, cost-efficient, and proven online method of proving 
that people are legally in the country and legally able to work here.
  It is a simple first step toward tackling larger issues within 
immigration; in other words, bringing credibility to our immigration 
system where credibility has been lost because for the last 20 or 25 
years, we in Congress have been telling the American people we are 
going to control the border and people can only come here legally, and 
we haven't done it.
  We have to do things to build up credibility if we are going to deal 
with issues like what do you do about the 10 or 11 million people who 
are unauthorized to live and unauthorized to work in America.
  Some people say: Well, you are going to load them up and get them out 
of the country, but that isn't realistic, and it wouldn't be 
humanitarian. To deal with that issue, we have to have credibility for 
the whole immigration system, and E-Verify will help that, along with 
everything we are doing to control the borders, and we have to do more 
to control the borders.
  Again, to repeat, this is a simple first step to tackling larger 
issues within immigration. Best of all, it has the support of the 
American people.
  A recent Zogby poll showed that mandatory E-Verify enjoys widespread 
support from voters. Seventy-four percent of all voters polled support 
mandatory E-Verify. In fact, the support is very bipartisan. The poll 
showed that roughly 55 percent of Democrats, 78 percent of 
Independents, and nearly 91 percent of Republicans support the idea of 
E-Verify.
  Support for Nationwide E-Verify isn't just nonpartisan, it is 
supported by Americans across all ethnic boundaries. Fifty-eight 
percent of Hispanic voters, 52 percent of Black voters, and 74 percent 
of Asian voters polled all support E-Verify.
  I will close with this. Perhaps it is time that Congress and both 
parties take a very deep breath and listen to the American people 
instead of to our own echo chambers.
  Before we discuss expanding guest worker programs or discuss 
comprehensive immigration reform, let's first codify E-Verify and 
restore the American people's trust in our immigration system.
  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. JONES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                 Military Widow's Tax Elimination Bill

  Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise today to talk about something that, quite 
frankly, I find to be completely abhorrent, and that is the short-
changing of our Nation's military widows when it comes to survivor 
benefits they paid for and earned. It is something that I was dismayed 
to learn is happening to some 65,000 surviving spouses of American 
military servicemembers--including more than 2,000 Alabamians--who were 
killed in action or died as a result of service-connected causes.
  After suffering the loss of a loved one, military widows and their 
families can find themselves unexpectedly losing out on vital survivor 
benefits they had planned to receive in these tragic circumstances. 
That is because, under current law, surviving spouses are entitled to 
receive VA dependency and indemnity compensation benefits, or what is 
known as DIC.
  Some families go a step further. Like many families in the private 
sector, many go a step further by voluntarily paying into the Defense 
Department's Survivor Benefits Plan, which acts like an additional life 
insurance policy. Again, they are entitled to the DIC benefits, but 
they pay for additional coverage should there be a tragic accident or 
tragic death, which acts like an additional life insurance policy. That 
policy is something these families voluntarily pay into, and like any 
other life insurance plan you or I might buy, they expect to get the 
benefits they have paid for.
  For those who are entitled to receive these benefits from both 
programs, they are subject to what has been known as the widow's tax. 
Again, this is only for those folks who are getting benefits from both 
programs--the DIC and the survivor's benefit programs. That is because 
our law prohibits widows from receiving their full benefits from both 
programs. That is the widow's tax. Instead, their SBP annuity is 
prorated because their DIC payment is subtracted from it. They don't 
get the full benefit of both programs when one gets subtracted from the 
other.
  Simply put, it is really a way for the Federal Government to save a 
few bucks by simply ripping off military widows whose family paid extra 
to receive these additional benefits. They voluntarily paid extra to 
receive these benefits.
  This isn't just a problem facing Active-Duty families. It is far 
bigger, folks, because it impacts anyone who has a service-connected 
death.
  To put that in context, in Alabama alone, there are over 60,000 
Department of Defense retirees whose families could be impacted by the 
widow's tax if the veteran were to pass from a service-connected cause.
  Now, I understand that we have to be careful stewards of taxpayer 
dollars. I am fully aware of that. But give me a break when it comes to 
military spouses and widows. This is a benefit that families paid for 
out of their own pockets. If they are not getting the money, then, it 
begs the question: Who is?
  No surviving spouse should be faced with this kind of unexpected and 
completely unfair cut to the benefits they ought to be able to count on 
in these heartbreaking circumstances.
  No surviving spouse should have to fight for what their families are 
owed--in the wake of family tragedy, no less. Again, this is what they 
are owed. This is the thing they have paid for in more ways than one.
  No surviving spouse should have to mount a massive lobbying effort in 
the Capitol of the United States, of this great country, to get folks 
to understand that this is wrong and we need to

[[Page S1782]]

fix it. Every year, there is a campaign to fix this program. Yet, it 
doesn't get done.
  Instead, these families should be focusing on helping their families 
begin to heal and find strength. They should be given the space and 
time to breathe.
  It is an absolute shame that this is even a problem we need to 
address. That is why I have introduced bipartisan legislation with 
several of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--Senators Collins, 
Tester, Crapo, and 31 others--to repeal the law that prevents these 
families from receiving their just due.
  The Military Widows Tax Elimination Act of 2019 reflects our belief 
that people who put their lives on the line for our country deserve to 
know their families will be taken care of if something, God forbid, 
ever happens to them.
  Our bill has support from the Gold Star Wives of America, the VFW, 
the Military Officers Association of America, the National Military 
Family Association, the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, and 
so many others. In fact, some of the most dedicated activists from the 
Gold Star Wives are watching today from the Gallery right now, 
including Crystal Wenum, Harriet Boyden, and Donna Eldridge. I thank 
them all for their leadership and for their continued contributions to 
our country.
  This legislation has been introduced in previous sessions of 
Congress, but it has yet to pass--in large part because of concerns 
about the cost. As I said, while I certainly understand that there is 
going to be a cost associated with this, we are talking about a 
benefits plan that these families paid for on their own accord. It is 
their money that went into this fund, not taxpayer money and not money 
that is appropriated every year. It is their money, and they deserve to 
get it back.
  I think we can all agree that ending the widow's tax is the right 
thing to do for our military families. Why don't we finally get it done 
in this, the 116th Congress? Let's show our troops and their families 
that we support them not just in word but in deed. Let's show these 
surviving spouses and their children that we stand with them long after 
their loved ones have made the ultimate sacrifice for this country and 
long after we know that they, too, have made a sacrifice in the name of 
this country. Let's right this wrong and finally pass the Military 
Widows Tax Elimination Act.
  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. It is never ever too late 
to do it. Even though this has been tried before, it is never ever too 
late to do the right thing and support this bill.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 China

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, China is no doubt a Communist country. 
It also has the largest population on Earth, which means it has the 
largest consumer market on Earth. It is a growing economy, although it 
has had a significant slowdown in the previous couple of years. It is a 
$400 billion market for the United States currently, in our trade, and 
it is a significant place of trade when dealing with agriculture in 
particular.
  We have a lot of issues and differences with China, but we should be 
able to work out those differences long term, as we do with every other 
nation. We have to resolve some of these things.
  I am proud that the administration is full force taking on the issue 
of China. Over the past couple of decades, every administration has 
tried to work out some kind of ongoing conversation with China on 
trade, and all of them have been somewhat successful, but significant 
issues are still prevailing. This administration has had a singular 
focus on trade in dealing with China and trying to resolve those issues 
with them, and I hope it is successful long term. I hope that we will 
be very specific in how we actually handle that strategy and that at 
the end of it, we will still be openly trading and reducing some of 
those barriers.
  It is a Communist country. It doesn't always play by the rules. It 
also uses some of the rules to its own advantage in ways unlike any 
other country. For instance, when they joined the WTO--the World Trade 
Organization--they self-declared themselves as a ``developing nation.'' 
Developing nations are able to waive a lot of the World Trade 
Organization rules because they are developing. May I remind this body 
that China is the second largest economy in the world--second only to 
ours? They are not a developing nation. They have used the rules of WTO 
to call themselves developing so they do not have to live up to the 
international standard of basic trade.
  On March 22, 2018, President Trump signed a Memorandum on Actions by 
the United States related to what is called a 301 investigation. They 
are targeting what the White House calls ``economic aggression'' from 
China. Let me give some specifics on that.
  China uses joint venture requirements on any foreign investment. They 
want to have ownership in those companies actually doing business 
there. They put pressure on technology firms to transfer their 
technology to China if they are going to actually sell to China. The 
result of that is that they may not take the product that is 
manufactured there, that those original companies sell back to the 
United States, but they will take that information and then actually 
sell to other parts of the world from that stolen information from a 
technology transfer.
  Akin to that, China maintains unfair licensing practices. Typically, 
in other parts of the world, our intellectual property that we have is 
guarded by that nation, or we actually have a licensing agreement with 
them that is fair market value. Not so with China. They put pressure on 
entities and actually cheat and steal our intellectual property at 
times. That doesn't happen with every company but especially certain 
types of firms, where, long term, China wants to produce it on their 
own rather than buy it from other countries. If that production is done 
in China, China will take the intellectual property, and the plan is 
clearly to then take that intellectual property and use it for 
themselves in the days ahead.
  China is notorious for supporting cyber intrusions to take the 
information that they can't get, especially from American companies or 
Western companies. If there is a design they are interested in, whether 
that be an airplane or 3D printing or whatever it may be that is 
designed somewhere else, they reach in and try to hack and steal it. 
This is not recent; this has been going on for quite a while. In 2014, 
the Department of Justice indicted five Chinese military actors for 
cyber espionage against multiple U.S. corporations. Recently, in 2017, 
the Department of Justice charged three Chinese nationals with hacking 
and theft of trade secrets. And it goes on and on.
  Just in the past couple of weeks, the World Trade Organization has 
agreed with the United States in our complaint against China and how 
they handle agriculture subsidies. Agriculture subsidies from any 
country are limited in that country, but China uses large ag subsidies 
through their farmers and ag companies to subsidize those products with 
state taxes. Let me give an example of that. Thirty-two percent of the 
return for rice in China is a government subsidy back to rice farmers.
  I have heard folks say: Well, in the United States, we also have a 
farm program. We have a farm bill. We provide subsidies as well.
  That is true, but our rice farmers have a 2-percent subsidy. Chinese 
rice farmers have a 32-percent subsidy.
  The World Trade Organization agreed with us on this, and they have 
determined that China is in violation and the United States can 
retaliate on that.

  China is using that policy and abusing that policy on subsidizing. It 
is not only causing problems in China and with trade with China and 
their pricing, what they sell for, it is also causing uncertainty 
worldwide. Let me give a for-instance. Cotton farming. Oklahoma is big 
in cotton farming, but China has oversubsidized cotton for years 
through its cotton farmers, and so they are overproducing what they 
need or what they can sell. Currently,

[[Page S1783]]

60 percent of the world's cotton supplies are stacked up in China, just 
in piles, not being used anywhere, but because China is subsidizing 
people to produce it, they are overproducing it in mass quantities. 
They have nowhere to send it, and they are just stacking cotton up in 
piles. The same thing with wheat. Forty percent of the world's wheat 
supplies are currently piled up in stacks in China. That destabilizes 
worldwide wheat prices and worldwide cotton prices because no one knows 
what China is going to do with that massive stack. WTO has considered 
them to be in violation for that, and we are allowed to reach back and 
retaliate.
  The United States is not the only one watching China's trade policies 
and how they actually interact and the subsidies they give; the rest of 
the world sees this same issue with China. They would engage with us 
more to cooperate and push back on China, but currently, we have so 
many steel and aluminum tariffs on our friends around the world that 
they are not engaging with us to the level they could be to have a 
clear focus against China.
  We need to not isolate our friends but gather friends and say that 
China and their policies are clearly a worldwide issue, and it needs to 
be resolved. Worldwide collaboration is going to be the only way that 
we are going to really isolate an economy as large as China.
  I encourage our administration to resolve trade issues worldwide and 
resolve tariff issues with our friends worldwide. Instead of saying it 
is a national security threat with Canada and Mexico and others, and so 
we need to have steel and aluminum tariffs, see the real national 
security threat that we have from China, and gather a cooperative group 
and focus on that one area.
  One of those areas is those 301 tariffs that I mentioned before. Any 
tariffs that go into place must first and foremost not hurt American 
consumers, American companies, and American workers. My concern is that 
301 tariffs--as they have grown--will hurt and are currently hurting 
American consumers, American employees, and American companies.
  The 301 tariffs--these are products that are manufactured in China. 
They are often designed so the engineering, the marketing, all of those 
things, the design of those--the intellectual property is here in the 
United States. Companies in the United States look for manufacturing 
expertise. They find expertise in certain types of products, like 
electronics, lighting, and other things, where there is a lot of that 
manufacturing and expertise--in China. It is a natural thing to say: 
There is a large body of groups and individuals and technology that is 
already there to do it. Let's do the manufacturing there and the design 
and engineering here.
  It makes sense just on the supply chain function.
  This administration has laid down tariffs--so far, three different 
tiers of tariffs.
  The first tier. Every American company was allowed to say ``Is there 
any other place that can do it?'' and to ask for exclusions through 
that process. If they could find exclusions, they could petition the 
government and get out of it.
  The second tier. They were also allowed to ask for exclusions through 
the process, to ask for basically a waiver, to say: This is the best 
place to do it. There is no other competition. There is no one 
pressuring us not to do it here.
  But when the third and largest tier came out--$200 billion in 
products--no exclusion process was given for these American companies. 
A 10-percent tariff was laid down on these companies. Here is what that 
means. If you are a company that produces a consumer electronic or 
lighting or one of the other resources that is manufactured in China, 
most of the people you are selling it to--you made a contract a year or 
two ago on what the price would be.
  Whether selling to Lowe's or Home Depot or Walmart or Best Buy or 
whatever it may be, you made a deal about how much you are going to 
sell that product for and how much you are going to sell. With a 10-
percent tariff laid down, who pays that tariff? It is not going to be 
the end user initially because the contract has already been made. It 
is not going to be the Chinese manufacturing location. It is going to 
be the companies doing the production in the United States. The 
American workers and the American companies pay the brunt of all of 
those, and, by the way, there is no way to file an exemption on this 
group. For $200 billion worth of products, Americans are actually 
facing the brunt of that.
  So far, Americans have paid $12 billion in tariffs. It is not 
punishing the Chinese; it is punishing us. By the end of the year, if 
this continues, those contracts will have run out, and they will be 
repricing consumer electronics products all over the country, and the 
American consumer will be the one to pay higher prices on this. So 301 
tariffs disproportionately hurt those in the middle class and those in 
poverty who have fixed incomes. This needs to be resolved.
  First and foremost, there needs to be a way to have a waiver process. 
As we have done in the first two sections, there is no opportunity to 
get it out of the third and largest group. It is a reasonable thing for 
American companies to say: How can we actually produce this?
  I have partnered with Senator Coons in the Senate and Representatives 
Kind and Walorski in the House, and we put together a basic bill 
dealing with import tax relief, dealing with this 301, laying down for 
the first time how we would actually manage tariffs in the days ahead 
and what exclusion process there would be and has to be.
  It is reasonable to have a predictable level to benefit the American 
consumer, especially those in poverty and with fixed incomes, and to 
benefit American workers. We can't have tariffs on a foreign country 
that actually hurt American workers. That is an issue we still have to 
resolve. I am glad to have a partnership with Senator Coons to work on 
that, and we hope to get that done this year to guard workers for the 
future.
  Along with that, in any trade negotiations, we have what is called 
trade promotion authority. We have basic standards. An example would be 
environmental concerns. We don't want to work with another country that 
is ignoring environmental concerns. We are concerned about where we are 
in the environment--the air we breathe and the water we drink. That is 
important to us as Americans because we want to protect our families. 
We understand it pushes up the cost of some products, but the long-term 
benefit is greater, and we are very careful in evaluating our 
regulations. When we overregulate and it drives up costs, we push back 
on that, saying that we don't want to overregulate and drive up costs, 
but we want to have clean air and water.
  For the Chinese, that is not so. In many areas of China, you can't 
breathe, and on a regular daily basis people wear masks over their 
faces because of the exhaust, the fumes, and the toxic air they 
breathe, based on their limitations on the environmental quality of the 
air. It is becoming a worldwide issue because of the amount of trash 
the Chinese are allowing to go into the Pacific Ocean, filling the 
Pacific Ocean with plastic and trash.
  Part of our trade promotion authority and one of the agreements we 
have is to lean in and have dialogue with individuals we trade with, 
saying that we want to resolve trade issues, but we also want to 
protect our environment, and we think it is a reasonable thing to do.
  It is reasonable, as Americans, to place a high value on religious 
liberty and human rights. It is part of our trade promotion authority 
and, in fact, an area I worked very hard to get implemented as a part 
of our trade promotion authority--that when we negotiate trade issues 
with countries, we also deal with the basic issue of human rights and 
freedom of religion.
  We, as Americans, believe that our religious belief is our most 
precious private property, and no government should be able to step in 
and steal private property. Your most private possession is your faith. 
Every individual should have the right to have any faith they choose, 
be able to change their faith, or have no faith at all. That should be 
their choice, but that is not so in China right now.
  In fact, in 1999, the State Department designated China as what is 
called ``a country of particular concern.'' This

[[Page S1784]]

deals with the issue of religious freedom in their country and China's 
aggressive move to limit religious freedom in their country. Recently, 
President Xi has worked toward secularization of religion to try to 
make everything in the country--every area--equal and the same, 
stripping away religious symbols from buildings of all types, stripping 
away religious practice that is not approved by the Government of 
China. This discrimination has impacted Tibetan Buddhists, Muslims, 
Catholics, and Falun Gong practitioners. It has led to the destruction 
of houses of worship, demolition of religious educational institutions, 
restrictions in the practice and study of faith by people of whatever 
culture or language, restrictions on religious attire, religious 
rituals, and imprisonment of religious leaders and followers.
  In fact, right now we are tracking the imprisonment of a pastor named 
Pastor Cao. Pastor Cao and his wife are American citizens, and his 
children are American citizens. He is allowed to have legal residency 
in the United States, but 2 years ago as of this month, he was 
imprisoned in China.
  Pastor Cao has a hearing coming up on the 22nd of this month, and we 
hope for Pastor Cao and for his family that hearing happens. It has 
been postponed again and again.
  On the 22nd of March, we anticipate the Chinese Government will have 
his hearing and will give him a moment to have this finally resolved. 
There is no reason for Pastor Cao to be in prison right now.
  We don't want to see, in China, forced reeducation facilities, 
intimidation, lack of medical attention for people of faith. Let's see 
for the people of China what people worldwide have the opportunity to 
have--freedom of religion. In our trade conversations we think it is 
highly advisable to engage in that type of dialogue for people like 
Pastor Cao, whose children are looking forward to holding him in their 
arms again and for him to be released.
  China is an important part of the worldwide conversation. They are a 
powerful nation. We should be able to work together on key issues. The 
Chinese Government needs to determine how they are going to trade and 
if they are a developing country or if they are really a worldwide 
leader.
  We need to determine how we are going to do fair trade with them, and 
we need to determine who they are going to be on the world stage, 
dealing with human rights and dignity. It is not all about sameness of 
a world; this is about the power of the individual within the country.
  I am sure the people of China are very proud of their country. We 
would love to engage with the people of China, and we appreciate their 
engagement with us as we receive thousands of Chinese students and 
visitors every single year.
  This is a point where we should resolve the trade issues that have 
been lingering for decades now, and we hope we can get to an agreement 
that is right, from our administration being attentive so that the 
tariffs don't hurt our own citizens to the Chinese economy that is 
slowing down due to the ongoing trade conversation. Let's work toward 
the benefit of all of our people to see if we can't resolve trade 
issues together.
  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. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Enes Kanter

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor this 
afternoon to talk about a young man named Enes Kanter, who plays 
basketball for my hometown Portland Trail Blazers.
  I wish I could be here to run through Saturday's box score or preview 
tonight's match up against the Clippers, but, unfortunately, Mr. Kanter 
is facing dangers that are far more serious than the outcome of any 
basketball game. His family is now facing those dangers as well.
  Mr. Kanter is from Turkey. His love of basketball brought him to the 
United States in 2009, and he was selected third overall in the 2011 
NBA draft by the Utah Jazz. Enes is a bright, intelligent, and soft-
spoken guy. He pays attention to what goes on back home in Turkey; he 
cares deeply about his country's future; and he rightfully believes 
that he ought to be able to express his opinion as he sees it on these 
important issues. For that, Turkey's President Erdogan has labeled Enes 
Kanter a terrorist.
  President Erdogan and his cronies are too thin-skinned to tolerate 
Enes Kanter's eloquence and inspirational dissent off the 
court. Erdogan revoked Mr. Kanter's passport based on accusations that 
lacked any real proof. President Erdogan has demanded that INTERPOL 
issue a red notice on Mr. Kanter, which means he has to stay in the 
United States whenever his team travels outside the country. It has 
kept Mr. Kanter from going to London and going to Toronto.

  As Mr. Kanter himself wrote in a recent Washington Post opinion 
article, ``I am definitely a target, and Erdogan wants me back in 
Turkey where he can silence me.''
  Following strategies right out of ``The Dictator's Playbook,'' 
Erdogan has responded like a coward to Mr. Kanter's criticism and has 
tried to silence him by threatening his family--his family who still 
lives in Turkey.
  Mr. Kanter recently told reporters that his father would be going on 
trial this week, in just a few days, in Turkey. The details of that 
trial are shrouded in the fog of secrecy--where authoritarians thrive. 
Yet Mr. Kanter's powerful words cut cleanly through that fog just a few 
days ago. When asked what his father was on trial for, Enes said for 
``just being my dad.''
  Enes is a young man who has already sacrificed so much. As a 
teenager, he moved thousands of miles away from home to pursue his 
dream of playing in the NBA. For the crime of just voicing his opinions 
on the future of Turkey--a nation that is supposedly an American ally--
Enes was labeled a terrorist. Years ago, he cut off contact with his 
family because he believed Erdogan would punish them for speaking with 
someone who was critical of Erdogan's government. Now, without being 
able to contact them, Enes has to live in constant fear of what is 
going to happen to his loved ones back home.
  So, as I stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate, I want to make sure 
there isn't any confusion on two important topics.
  First, Mr. Erdogan, the world is watching how you treat Enes Kanter's 
father this week and in the weeks ahead. Mr. Erdogan, the world is 
watching how you treat Mr. Kanter both when he is on American soil and 
when Enes travels abroad.
  Second, the United States cannot and must not stand idly by while 
Enes and his family are subjected to this autocratic torment.
  I have called on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to raise Mr. Kanter's 
case with his counterparts, and I have asked our Secretary of State to 
state clearly that our country will actively resist these contrived red 
notices or extradition requests. The fact is, our State Department 
should be taking all of the necessary steps to ensure that Mr. Kanter 
can travel safely with the Trail Blazers or to advocate for the freedom 
of his people. Enes Kanter is a young man--an American resident--who is 
exercising the right to free speech that is enshrined in our 
Constitution. The United States must not stay silent in the face of 
such a blatant attack on free thought and expression.
  In my view, this is not exactly an isolated issue. It is certainly 
not just a sports story. The situation ought to be examined in a 
broader context--a government that is taking a supposed NATO ally down 
an increasingly authoritarian road.
  When the Saudis brazenly killed Washington Post columnist Jamal 
Khashoggi in a consulate in Turkey, Erdogan styled himself a fierce 
defender of journalists, but this is a classic situation of actions 
speaking louder than words, for Erdogan jails more journalists than do 
the Saudis. In fact, Erdogan jails more journalists than do the 
Russians, the Chinese, and more than any other authoritarian regime 
that is out there.
  Erdogan does not only target journalists or independent media 
outlets, all of whom knowingly, bravely risk such oppressive actions 
when they just want to report the truth; Erdogan has thrown peaceful 
demonstrators into

[[Page S1785]]

jail as well. Just last Friday, he cracked down on people who were 
assembling peacefully in Istanbul for International Women's Day.
  It gets worse--worse because Erdogan is brazen enough to push his 
assaults on democratic norms right here on American soil. Less than 2 
years ago, Erdogan gave the go-ahead for his security detail to 
brutally attack nonviolent demonstrators right here in the Nation's 
Capital. That assault, to emphasize the point, took place on American 
soil--right here, just a short walk from the White House. Americans 
ought to be outraged over this sort of behavior, especially from a 
supposed friend and ally like Turkey.
  It has not gone unnoticed that Erdogan recently doubled down on his 
decision to make a major military purchase from Vladimir Putin's 
Russia, and his use of fraudulent INTERPOL red notices is right out of 
Vladimir Putin's playbook.
  It is past time for the State Department to stand up to this 
behavior. The State Department needs to call this behavior out. It is 
not a far-off threat to other people the Federal Government can 
conveniently ignore. Erdogan's abuses are happening right here in our 
country, on American soil. People like Enes Kanter are the victims.
  As a younger man back in the day, I went to school on a basketball 
scholarship. I often tell people at my townhall meetings that I wanted 
to play in the NBA--a ridiculous idea because I was too small, but I 
made up for it by being quite slow. My abilities on the court were 
certainly light years removed from Enes Kanter's, but I can tell you, 
from playing in college, I certainly remember the value of a full-court 
press. I am firmly committed and will state once more that our State 
Department must put a full-court press on Turkey to treat Mr. Kanter--
and all of those who speak out against Erdogan's totalitarian regime--
with respect for their human rights and freedom of expression.
  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. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. McSally). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Budget Proposal

  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

[[Page S1786]]

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

  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

[[Page S1787]]

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.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                       Nomination of Neomi J. Rao

  Ms. WARREN. Madam President, I come to the floor to oppose the 
nomination of Neomi Rao to be a judge of the second most powerful court 
in the country.
  My decision boiled down to just this one question: Will Ms. Rao 
advance equal justice for all or will she continue to tilt the courts 
in favor of the rich and powerful?
  Ms. Rao's record shows that she will continue to tilt our courts in 
favor of the powerful few and leave everyone else behind, and that is 
why I oppose her nomination, but that is also exactly why she was 
selected by the President for this important lifetime appointment.
  In the last 2 years, with the Trump administration controlling the 
White House and Republicans, until January, controlling both Houses of 
Congress, the rich and powerful have had unparalleled access to the 
Federal Government, and they have been terrifyingly effective at making 
Washington work even better for themselves.
  Just think of some of their high-profile victories: a tax plan that 
takes away money from working Americans and gives it straight to the 
biggest corporations and wealthiest individuals, rollbacks of countless 
protections to protect public health, consumer welfare, and 
environmental safety. Those are just the policies that people have been 
paying attention to.
  For decades now, billionaire-funded rightwing groups have operated in 
the shadows to take over our courts by installing rightwing judges who 
will put the interests of giant corporations and wealthy individuals 
ahead of everyone else. For those special interests, Neomi Rao is the 
ideal candidate.
  In 2017, I came to the floor to oppose Ms. Rao's nomination to lead 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs--the small but 
powerful Agency that reviews and signs off on economically significant 
Federal rules. I was concerned about Ms. Rao's advocacy for weakening 
or handcuffing Federal Agencies that are there to help protect the 
public from giant corporations that prey on consumers, that mistreat 
their workers, and that pollute our environment.
  I worried that confirming her to lead OIRA would threaten the health 
and safety of all Americans. For example, Ms. Rao attacked the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau--the Agency that has returned $12 billion 
to working families who were cheated--arguing against its authority to 
protect consumers from predatory lending practices.
  That was exactly the kind of candidate that Big Business and 
billionaires wanted, so the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Ms. 
Rao, and the all-too-predictable happened.
  Under Ms. Rao's leadership, OIRA approved the EPA's decision to roll 
back important environmental positions, OIRA rubberstamped changes at 
the Department of Labor that allowed certain employers to hide 
workplace injuries, and Ms. Rao blocked a proposed measure from the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that would have helped uncover 
pay discrimination. The list goes on.
  Ms. Rao pairs her pro-corporate stance with harmful, regressive views 
about sexual assault. In college, she wrote an article placing blame on 
the

[[Page S1788]]

survivors of sexual assault if they drank alcohol, claiming that such 
behavior was ``part of their choice.''
  At her hearing, she refused to fully disclaim this line of thought, 
claiming she was just recommending certain actions women could take to 
make themselves less likely to be assaulted.
  If that wasn't worrisome enough, Ms. Rao also argued in a book review 
that public protections for women, for people of color, and for 
Americans with disabilities are bad because they have eroded the power 
of traditional elites, going so far as to call affirmative action the 
``bane of all good elitists.''
  For President Trump, congressional Republicans, and their billionaire 
buddies, Ms. Rao's commitment to protecting the interests of the rich 
and powerful over everyone else was a feature of her tenure at OIRA, 
not a bug. Now, as a reward for spending a year and a half rolling back 
public protections and rubberstamping corporate America's wish list, 
the Trump administration has selected her to be a judge on the second 
highest court in this country.
  At the DC Circuit, Ms. Rao would have even more power to stop Federal 
efforts to protect Americans from abusive corporations and 
billionaires. She would rule on attempts to protect the air we breathe 
and the water we drink. She would have the power to overturn 
protections for workers from unsafe working conditions, and she would 
have the chance to upend rules to prevent big corporations from 
discriminating against people of color, LGBTQ Americans, and other 
marginalized communities.
  Throughout her career, Ms. Rao has made very clear what her preferred 
hierarchy looks like: corporations and billionaires up at the top, and 
everybody else at the bottom.
  As a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ms. Rao will have an 
opportunity to practice that philosophy at an even larger scale.
  Madam President, our Federal courts are supposed to defend equal 
justice for all Americans, not cater to the wealthy and well connected. 
Neomi Rao's record shows that she will continue the corporate takeover 
of our courts.
  A vote for her is a vote against the millions of Americans who have 
already borne the consequences of the radical, pro-corporate policies 
she has advanced throughout her career. That is why I believe the 
Senate should reject her nomination.


                      Nomination of William Beach

  Madam President, I also want to express my strong opposition to the 
nomination of William Beach to run the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 
BLS's accurate and impartial analysis is crucial to policymakers, 
workers, and businesses.
  In Mr. Beach, President Trump has chosen someone who has spent years 
at so-called think tanks that are funded by radical rightwing 
billionaires pushing so-called studies that criticize Social Security 
and support draconian budget cuts and tax cuts for the richest 
Americans--studies that have since been discredited. That is not whom 
we need running one of our country's most important statistical 
Agencies.
  Besides Mr. Beach's radical, pro-corporate background, I want to join 
Ranking Member Murray in expressing my serious concern with my 
Republican colleagues' refusal to confirm Democratic nominees to other 
important Agencies for workers--the National Labor Relations Board and 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This obstruction is a 
total departure from precedent, and it is preventing these Agencies 
from protecting the rights of millions of American workers to bargain 
collectively and to go to work without worrying about illegal 
discrimination and harassment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as 
in morning business for probably about 15 minutes, and should Senator 
Van Hollen from Maryland--who is scheduled to arrive--arrive, that I be 
able to engage in colloquy with him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, there is now no doubt that climate 
change is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that we 
must act now to avoid the worse of it.
  As science guy, Bill Nye, has said: ``Climate change is happening, 
it's our fault, and we've got to get to work on this.''
  For too long we have seen the fossil fuel industry and its army of 
front groups use manufactured doubt, phony doubt, as their weapon of 
choice to obstruct any solution. Well, science studies things, and it 
even studies doubt. A scientific study published by Nature has found 
that the evidence of human-caused climate change occurring has now 
achieved what scientists call the five sigma level of certainty.
  What does that mean? This scientific standard means there is 99.9999 
percent confidence that Earth is warming due to human activity. Put 
another way, there is a 1 in 3.5 million chance that human-caused 
warming is not occurring.
  To compare, you have a 1 in 15,000 chance that you will be struck by 
lightning in your life. You have a 1 in 100,000 chance of being born a 
conjoined twin, and you have a 1 in 3.5 million chance the fossil fuel 
industry's phony doubt about climate change is true.
  Yet, just one Republican has signed on to Senator Carper's resolution 
stating the basics--that climate change is real and caused by human 
activity, and Congress should take action now to address it.
  In an editorial last week--this one here--even the middle-of-the-road 
USA Today said climate change is ``a true crisis facing the United 
States and the world,'' that ``fossil fuel polluters keep using the 
atmosphere as a free waste dump,'' and, finally, that ``[t]he public is 
growing impatient.''
  Well, last week, here on the Senate floor, we actually had something 
resembling a climate debate break out. It was a little weird. As a 
debate, it coughed and banged and sputtered, and we didn't really 
engage. Many of our Republican colleagues had a very hard time 
mentioning the actual phrase ``climate change.'' They found it 
impossible to talk at all about the costs of climate change--the 
floods, the fires, the rising seas, the worst yet to come. No one could 
mention the 1.5 degree centigrade limit that we need to meet.
  They mostly wanted to have fun bashing an imaginary Koch brothers-
invented version of the Green New Deal. However, some did say that they 
accepted the science. In particular, I was happy to see the chairman of 
the Environment and Public Works Committee clearly accept that climate 
change is real, that it is caused by humans, and that we have a 
responsibility to do something about it.
  I appreciate that he pointed to the bipartisan work he and I have 
done on carbon capture and removal. I enjoyed working with him on that 
legislation, and I hope we can get its successor bill passed too. We 
just had a very good bipartisan committee hearing on it, but put those 
two bills together, and you are still nowhere near the scale of action 
that science demands.
  Our scientists report that we must aim for net zero carbon emissions 
by the middle of this century to avoid the worst consequences of 
climate change. Carbon capture will be a part of that, but there is 
zero chance it alone will be sufficient, and any plan that falls short 
of that mark amounts to its own diluted brand of climate denial. 
Bashing the Green New Deal doesn't solve the problem.
  This is a good moment for me to interrupt my remarks because I see 
the majority leader on the floor. If I may, I will yield to him to 
close out the Senate and then have myself and Senator Van Hollen 
recognized at the conclusion of the majority leader's comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all 
postcloture time on the Rao nomination expire at 12 noon tomorrow; 
further, that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of 
the Senate's action. I further ask unanimous consent that if cloture is 
invoked on the Beach nomination, all postcloture time expire at 1:45 
p.m. tomorrow; and that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table and the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action.

[[Page S1789]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________