Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, last month, I launched a new series of floor speeches to recognize what is going on with prescription drug pricing across America.

When you ask the American people about the economic things that are on their minds, it is No. 1--the cost of prescription drugs. No. 2 is, have I saved enough money for my retirement? It really gets to the heart of the concerns families have every day. Each one of us knows that the cost of prescription drugs is going up, and we also realize how vulnerable we may be as individuals if one of those drugs is a matter of life and death.

I came to the floor 2 weeks ago to talk about the cost of insulin. Seven and a half million diabetics across America have seen dramatic increases in the cost of insulin--increases that can't be justified because the same American companies selling the same drugs in Canada do it for a fraction of the cost. Americans pay outrageous prices.

Humalog, which is one of the most popular forms of insulin, costs $329 a dosage in the United States. Twenty years ago, it was about $29. It has gone up in price 35 times in that 20-year period of time. How much does the exact same drug that costs $329 in the United States cost in Canada? It is made by the same company. Thirty-eight dollars. You look at that and you think there is something wrong here. The pharmaceutical industry is not focusing on giving American consumers a break.

What I want to talk about today goes to an issue that is hard to believe but true. A few years ago, the New York Times reported that nearly $3 billion worth of drugs was wasted each year. These are not ordinary drugs; these are cancer drugs used in chemotherapy. Medicare, Medicaid, and private health insurers spend billions of dollars on medications. Many of them are literally thrown in the trash. How could that possibly be?

You see, for many of the most expensive drugs, like new cancer treatments, the pharmaceutical industry produces them in a one-size- fits-all container, a single-use vial that a physician has to draw from to give a treatment to a patient. The dosage for the patient in the cancer therapy is based on the patient's size and weight. The problem is that the pharmaceutical industry insists on selling these drugs in excessively large vials that contain dramatically more medicine than the average patient would need, so doctors administer the proper dosage and throw away the rest.

Here is a graphic to illustrate what I am talking about. Here is why we are wasting billions of dollars each year on cancer drugs. One size does not fit all.

This drug, Velcade--the vial size available is 3.5 milligrams. The patient dose is 2.2. The amount that is left over is 1.3. Oh, you are going to recycle that? You can't do it. That is the end of it, and it is thrown away. In 2016, $300 million was wasted in this way.

This vial, the first one here that is produced, is a vial that would apply to a person who is 6 feet 6 inches tall and weighs 250 pounds, which means our linebacker Khalil Mack on the Chicago Bears--God forbid he would ever need it--that would be his dosage size. Most people are not as big as Chicago linebackers.

Why is Pharma sending us one vial, take it or leave it? Because they make money. They make money when we buy it and have to throw it away.

Takeda Pharmaceutical sells this drug for those who are suffering from multiple myeloma and lymphoma. As I mentioned, it is for a person who is 6 feet 6 inches and weighs 250 pounds. Takeda made $310 million in the year 2016 off of unused Velcade that got thrown in the trash-- $310 million.

What makes this even more appalling is that the pharmaceutical industry titans actually sell the same drug in smaller containers in other countries but not in the United States. Here, we are forced to buy the largest container and throw away the difference.

This chart shows that the same company--Takeda--that makes Velcade sells this drug not in 3.5-milligram vials, as in the United States, but, in Europe, in 1-milligram vials. It seems like a simple thing, doesn't it, that you would dispense this drug in a manner so that it is not wasted? Sadly, wasting and throwing away the drug is part of their marketing strategy.

Another Japanese company, Eisai, sells its chemotherapy drug Halaven only in 1-milligram vials in the United States but sells smaller vials--0.88 milligram--in Europe.

Merck's immunotherapy drug KEYTRUDA, which is truly a breakthrough, an amazing drug--research was done by taxpayers at the National Institutes of Health, which led to the development of this drug--they sell this drug, KEYTRUDA, only in 100-milligram vials in the United States but in 50-milligram vials in Europe. In 2016, Merck made $200 million on KEYTRUDA--this lifesaving drug--that was thrown away.

In 2016, I asked the inspector general of Health and Human Services about this waste of taxpayers' money. The inspector general uncovered that Medicare spent $195 million in just 1 year on 20 identified drugs for medication that was thrown away. That year, Takeda received $47 million in taxpayer funding for amounts of Velcade thrown in the trash. It wasn't alone. Genentech's Rituxan, one of the most common cancer medications, only comes in vials that are 100 milligrams or 500 milligrams. In 2013, Medicare wasted $10 million on Rituxan that was thrown away.

It is for this reason that I am presenting my second Pharma Fleece Award to Takeda, Eisai, Merck, and Genentech. Patients in America should not face higher drug costs because these Pharma fleecers choose to sell their expensive cancer drugs in excessively large drug vials that are necessarily going to be wasted.

Two weeks ago, I teamed up with Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio to introduce the REFUND Act--a simple bill that Senator Portman and I have introduced, and I hope others will join us. It says that taxpayers will only pay for the drug that is given to a patient, not for the part that is thrown away. Medicare already tracks how much of this medication is being discarded, so the REFUND Act simply requires Medicare to determine how much was wasted and to recoup the money from the drug companies. We then provide a portion of that money back to seniors for the 20-percent coinsurance they have to pay for the drugs.

An important point: When Medicare is paying for these drugs, and a lot are being thrown away, the seniors are still paying their 20 percent, even for the drug portion that is being thrown away. So Rob Portman's bill--the one I have introduced with him--says that the money recouped from the drug companies will go back to the benefit of these seniors. Under our new bill, this pharma fleecing for drug vial waste will soon come to an end so that not just the patients but our government will save money.

Remember the bottom line. When you ask the major health insurers today: What is driving the cost of health insurance premiums, they say: Senator, prescription drug pricing is No. 1.

Blue Cross Blue Shield, based out of Chicago, when I sit down with them, say: We spend more money on prescription drugs than we do on inpatient hospital care.

To give you an idea, it is out of sight. You can't turn on a television set, particularly if you are over the age of 50, without being bombarded with all these drug ads, right? You have heard them over and over again.

The No. 1 drug being sold on television today is HUMIRA. What is it for? psoriatic arthritis. It is serious. If you have that arthritis, that may be a lifesaver for you, but it is now being sold for that little red patch on your elbow called psoriasis. Interesting. Do you know how much HUMIRA costs each month? Five thousand dollars.

I have legislation that would require these drug companies to advertise the cost of their drugs on television. They tell us everything else; don't they? They tell us, if you are allergic to HUMIRA, don't take HUMIRA. I have never understood that warning. They tell us everything under the Sun, but they never mention the price. So what I want to do is get the price out in front of the public, and let them know what being perfect in a swimsuit is going to cost you per month.

From my point of view, there are people who need these drugs desperately, and we ought to try to get the prices within their reach. For those who are overusing and abusing the airwaves of America to advertise drugs--to try to push doctors into writing the scripts even when it is not necessary--we have to come to grips with this. If we don't, we are not going to have a serious effort to reduce the cost of health insurance and the healthcare costs that face our Nation.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the President often claims that he knows how to make deals, but when it comes to the border, he seems uninterested in a good deal, a deal to provide effective border security, and he is hurting our military in the process. This week's vote to repeal the President's national emergency is a vote to restore sanity to our border security debate and restore Congress's constitutional power of the purse.

We all remember Donald Trump's idea that we need a 2,000-mile concrete wall from sea to shining sea and his claim that Mexico would pay for it. He said it some 200 times on the campaign trail and in the Oval Office. In December, after asking and failing to receive funding from Congress for this wall, the President said, ``I am proud to shut down the government for border security.''

What followed was the 35-day Trump shutdown, the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. It cost our country $11 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. After the President finally agreed to reopen the government, Congress provided funding to the Department of Homeland Security for smart and effective border security measures, including technology and additional Customs personnel. We did this because the President's own administration has stated that the vast majority of lethal narcotics that cross our southern border come through legal ports of entry.

But within hours of signing this bill, President Donald Trump announced that it wasn't enough. The President went on television to announce that he was declaring a national emergency over the border, and he announced that he was taking $6.5 billion from our military to build it.

Presidents of both parties have declared national emergencies. Each time, it was done in response to a specific crisis, in order to unlock certain statutory authorities. President George W. Bush declared a national emergency after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In the 1970s, President Carter declared a national emergency as it pertained to Iran. Presidents of both parties have declared and updated emergencies relating to instability in Syria.

What Presidents did in those situations varied--sometimes levying sanctions, sometimes seizing assets--but each time, it was accepted on a bipartisan basis as necessary, legitimate, and in defense of our national interests. What President Trump did was different. For the last 2 years, he has struggled to fulfill a campaign promise, so when he didn't get his way, he created a fake crisis and declared a phony emergency.

The good news is that the American people aren't buying it. A poll conducted earlier this month by Quinnipiac University found that 66 percent of voters oppose the President's end-run around Congress and oppose his fake emergency declaration.

Newspapers around the country have concluded the same thing. The Tampa Bay Times editorial board said it clearly a few days after the President's announcement, ``Border wall is no emergency.'' In their words, ``It is not a national emergency just because President Donald Trump didn't get his way.''

West Virginia's Herald Dispatch newspaper concludes much the same, urging the President to ``take a realistic look at whether the wall is needed or if it's simply an unnecessary quest to satisfy his ego.'' That is common sense, but then common sense seems to be in short supply in this White House.

Not only is the President declaring a fake emergency, but he is using that crisis to take money. The President has told us that he will take $6.5 billion that Congress gave to our troops and spend it instead on a wall on the southern border. He is proposing to delay or cancel $3.6 billion in military construction projects--projects that our military told Congress it needed less than a year ago--and divert it to his wall.

Last Friday, Senator Schatz and I sent a letter to Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan demanding to know which projects have been deemed, due to political interference, as less important than the President's wall. There are almost 400 military projects at risk. They cover 43 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and more than a dozen foreign countries, including strong U.S. allies like Japan and the United Kingdom.

The President will have to cancel or postpone approximately 20 percent of these projects for his wall. What are we talking about?-- $800 million for essential training facilities like National Guard Readiness Centers, simulators, and firing ranges in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, and Montana, to name a few; $1.4 billion worth of maintenance-related projects, such as aircraft hangars, and vehicle maintenance shops in Arkansas, Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and elsewhere; $1 billion worth of projects for medical and dental care facilities, schools for military families, military barracks and dining facilities in Arizona, Missouri, Texas, and beyond.

For instance, the Marine Corps needs a new rifle range at Parris Island, SC. This base trains 20,000 new Marine recruits every year. Also on the list is new training center at Fort Bragg, NC, to provide top-notch training and prevent injuries among our special operations forces. They are using old warehouse right now. Are we really going to tell our military that their needs are being put on hold so the President can fulfill his campaign promise to build a wall? I hope those aren't our priorities.

In addition, the President also announced that he would take $2.5 billion in other military funds for his wall. The Pentagon tells me that they may take some of this money from excess military pay and pensions. Meanwhile, each of the military services--Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines--have met with me to discuss a long list of urgent, last-minute needs, but with $2.5 billion being diverted for the wall, none of those leaders were able to say whether or not they would get the funding they need.

Last year, Hurricane Florence damaged 800 buildings at Camp Lejeune, New River, and Cherry Point, causing $3.6 billion in damage from wind and flood waters. A similar hurricane leveled Tyndall Air Force Base, in Florida. Both of them could use billions right now for repairs.

I am also told that the Navy needs hundreds of millions of additional dollars for unexpected ship maintenance. We can't afford not to make sure our sailors are safe on deployment. The National Guard has 2,100 personnel on the border, but it is starting to run low on its pay account. Unless DOD finds $150-300 million this year, the Guard will have to cut short its summer trainings in all 50 States to pay for this.

My subcommittee has identified almost $5 billion in military priorities that need attention now, but after the President takes $2.5 billion to pay for his border wall, which priorities will get cut?

This week, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate should join the House in rejecting the President's phony emergency declaration, and the Senate should reject any effort by the President to take money from our troops to build the wall.

Mr. President, in 1963, Leonard and Phil Chess, brothers and

owners of the legendary Chess Records, bought WHFC-AM 1450 with the goal of promoting their company. They renamed the station WVON--Voice of the Negro. This tiny station with just 1,000 watts of power became a broadcast hit, giving a voice to marginalized communities in the Chicagoland area. Much of their airwaves were filled with music, but politics wasn't far behind.

WVON hosted legends like Robert Kennedy, Jackie Robinson, and Reverend Martin Luther King. King used this station as his bully pulpit to organize around housing and job discrimination. It was Reverend Jesse Jackson that called into the station to report of King's assassination. When riots happened on Chicago's West Side, it was the disc jockeys of WVON that went out with loudspeakers on trucks to calm things down. WVON is a station of history and eventually became more than the Voice of the Negro, it became the Voice of the Nation.

For the last 25 years, my friend Cliff Kelley has been a true voice of the Nation as host on WVON. He has been the ``Governor of Talk Radio'' and formed a bond with listeners that is rare. At the end of this month, he will be stepping down from his daily show, but he will continue hosting his weekly American Heroes show for veterans. Cliff will serve as a community ambassador and a regular fill-in host.

Cliff is a native of Chicago's South Side and a graduate of Englewood High School, Roosevelt University, and John Marshall Law School. Before hosting his show, Cliff served 16 years as a former 20th Ward Chicago alderman. He championed racial equality, was an elected school board member, and a pioneer for LGBTQ rights. He fought for LGBTQ rights long before it was popular.

Cliff continued as a voice of conscience and community as well as a radio personality. He covered stories that weren't in the papers. His show helped launch countless people's careers, including Senators, Governors, congressmen, business leaders, and a President. A former colleague you may remember guest hosted his show quite a few times when Cliff went on vacation. He was a State Senator at the time, but Barack Obama always had time for Cliff's show as a guest or a host.

Luckily for us, Cliff's voice is still going to be heard today. We honor Cliff's decades of daily radio work, but we know that, as long as there are battles for justice to be waged, Cliff Kelley will lead the fight.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am reading a book called ``These Truths''

by Jill Lepore. It is a history of the United States. She is a really gifted historian and writes quite a few things. She has an article in the New Yorker magazine about Eugene V. Debs, an early Socialist in the 20th century who ran for President. She is a skillful historian, and she tells a story in ``These Truths'' about how this Nation came to be.

Of course, we emerged from a colony--a colony of England, Great Britain--and then fought for our independence. One of the reasons we fought for independence was to take the role of Kings out of the lives of the people who lived in what we call America and to say we aren't going to have Kings making decisions for us here. We will make our own decisions. Thank you. We will call it a democracy, and the people will rule.

At that point, we sat down and tried to put it in writing. The first time we put it in writing, it didn't work out too well. The Articles of Confederation really didn't unite our country and move it in the direction that most people wanted. So the constitutional convention followed. The constitutional convention in Philadelphia sat down and wrote this document, the Constitution of the United States, and here we are, over 200 years later, still living by those words that were written over 200 years ago.

There were efforts to change and amend it to reflect changes in America. The end of slavery, for example, was one of the most significant, but, by and large, the principles of this document have guided us for a long time.

Article I, section 8 gives the Congress--the Senate and the House-- the power to declare war. You think to yourself: Well, it is certainly better for the Congress to make that decision than for a President to do it alone. Letting a President do it without the people being involved, or Congress, really would be much like a King deciding whether we would go forward as a nation to be involved in a war.

This week, on the floor of the Senate, we will test that provision in the Constitution and see if the current Members of the Senate believe that the Constitution was right and that the Congress should be declaring war.

My colleagues, Bernie Sanders, well-known to most across America, Mike Lee, a conservative Republican from Utah, and Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, have decided that we should have a test vote as to the United States' involvement in Saudi Arabia's bloody war in Yemen. I am glad to be a cosponsor of that legislation.

Regardless of who has been in the White House during the time that I have served in the House and the Senate, I have tried to consistently argue that the American people, through their elected Congress, must play a constitutional role in declaring a war--whether it was President Bush on the Iraq war or President Obama on the U.S. military intervention in Syria or Libya.

I think the Constitution is very clear and very wise in saying that the American people, before we ask their sons and daughters to give up their lives in a war, should have a say in these decisions through their elected Members of Congress.

What we are doing today is deeply important. It occurs in the 18th year of a war in Afghanistan that hardly anyone could have imagined would be the case. Did anyone here who voted, as I did, 18 years ago-- 18 years ago, voting in this Chamber--for the authorization of the use of force in Afghanistan to go after the perpetrators of 9/11 believe that we were authorizing the longest war in the history of the United States, in Afghanistan--I am sure not a one--or that this authorization would be stretched by Presidents of both political parties to approve U.S. military action in other countries around the world? It became a blanket authorization that has been used time and again.

This brings me to the question before us in the Senate today--the disastrous, bloody war, led by the Saudi Arabians in Yemen, which the United States is supporting.

Has there been a vote in the Senate for that? No. In the House? No. Does anyone here remember authorizing any U.S. military involvement in the war in Yemen? Well, they certainly couldn't find a recorded vote to prove it.

Did anyone who voted in 2001, as I did, to go after the terrorists responsible for 9/11, believe that this would somehow include a Saudi- led quagmire in Yemen?

This war in Yemen is being led by a reckless young Saudi Crown Prince, whom I believe had direct involvement in the brutal murder of a journalist and resident of the United States, Jamal Khashoggi. It is highly unlikely that anybody would have argued that we gave permission for the U.S. Military and taxpayers' dollars to be spent in support of this Saudi Arabian cause.

Not only was this war never authorized by elected representatives or the American people, but it is a humanitarian disaster. An estimated 85,000 children have already died of malnutrition. We have created a famine with this war in Yemen. In a country of 28 million people, nearly half face death through famine.

I have a photo here, which I have displayed once on the floor, but I can't bring myself to do it again. It is a photo of a 7-year-old Yemeni girl, Amal Hussain. It is a heartbreaking photo. It appeared in the New York Times last November. This little girl died shortly thereafter. She starved to death. I just can't bring myself to display this photo again.

Do you know what her mother said after she died? It is what any mother would say: ``My heart is broken.''

This is a reality of the war that the United States supports in Yemen. We have not debated it. We have not approved it. Yet taxpayers' dollars make certain that it continues day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year.

Now, let's take a look at Saudi Arabia, which has asked us to join in this effort in Yemen that is causing such a humanitarian disaster. This is the same Saudi Arabia--the nation that conducted the cold-blooded murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a nation that is detaining and torturing women's rights activists, including Loujain al-Hathoul and Samar Badawi. This is a nation that is detaining and torturing U.S. citizen Dr. Walid Fitaihi. It is jailing Saudi blogger Raif Badawi and his lawyer, Waleed Abu al-Khair, on charges that are ridiculous on their face.

Saudi Arabia is accused of recruiting and using Sudanese children as soldiers in the war in Yemen. Saudi Arabia continues to turn a blind eye to the export of extremist teachings that have shown up and caused great harm around the world, most recently in Bosnia and Kosovo.

There may be some who think this war is justified. I am not one of them. There may be some who think that because Iran is the enemy, we should be engaged in this war. But, ultimately, this war, this debate, and this vote are not about the merits of any of the things that I have raised. It is not about a vindication of the Houthis, whom the Iranians have sided with, and their troubling role in this horrific civil war. It is about whether we in the Senate, who took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, believe it. If we don't believe it, we will just ignore it, let our military wage the war, let the President look the other way, and let this administration come up with another excuse for Saudi Arabia killing that journalist, and we will keep sending our tax dollars in, which prolong this terrible war.

I think the Constitution requires more of us. If you truly believe in what the President is asking us to do in Yemen, if you truly want to stand with Saudi Arabia at this moment in history, show the courage by voting that way. That is all I am asking for.

Our Founding Fathers showed great wisdom. They knew that the decision to send someone's son or daughter into a war was not to be made by a King or a supreme executive but by the people--the people of the United States. So our Constitution wisely rests that responsibility with us-- the Senators and Members of the House of Representatives.

Today, there will be a recorded vote--a historic vote--as to whether we go forward with this involvement in the war in Yemen. I will be voting against any more involvement by the United States in this war.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we cut what the President is suggesting, $1.5 trillion in Medicaid, which of those groups do you want to reduce care for--the mothers with their new babies or the parents and grandparents at a stage in life where they have no

place to turn and no savings to turn to? That is not a good outcome.

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

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

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

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

They did, and they did it successfully.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judicial Nominations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previously, Mr. Matey had been a longtime staff member to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. He served as Governor Christie's chief ethics officer and deputy chief counsel. Mr. Matey said he provided a rigorous system of ethics training, monitoring, and oversight for staff members in the Governor's office; yet it is unclear what steps, if any, he took to ensure that ethics rules were followed. It certainly appears that Mr. Matey's ethics guidance fell way short during the so-called Bridgegate scandal in 2013. That is when Christie administration officials arranged to close lanes on the George Washington Bridge as retaliation

against a mayor who had not endorsed the Governor's reelection. The deputy chief of staff, Bridget Kelly, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for her role in this scandal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In November of 1993, she wrote:

Myths of sexual and racial oppression propagate themselves,

create hysteria, and finally lead to the formation of some

whining new group. One can only hope to scream,

``Perspective, just a little perspective, darling!''

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.