[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.
____________________