Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones) 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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, if you ask the Trump administration about their highest spending priority in terms of their budget, it is pretty clear--national defense. Over and over, the President has asked and Congress has voted for more money for America's military for operations, readiness, and investment across the board. I don't think there is any question that the votes reflect the bipartisan commitment to our military and the belief

that spending dollars today to train our men and women, to equip them properly, and to make sure they live in the best circumstances is in the best interests of America's future. We have done that year in and year out, but this year we are facing quite a challenge from the Trump administration.

This notion of building a $5.7 billion wall is going to be paid for at the expense of the U.S. military. It is the military that will end up surrendering projects that are underway and investments in our troops that are underway so that the President can build this almighty wall of his that was supposed to be paid for by the Mexicans, right? I heard him say that--only 100 times, but I heard him say it. Now he is off of that. It will not be the Mexicans paying for the President's wall. It will be our military.

So we ought to be very honest about the vote that is coming up. President Trump has decided to declare an emergency and to say that regardless of the Constitution's giving authority to Congress to appropriate funds, he wants to take on that responsibility to decide where funds will be spent. That will be challenged in court, I am sure, as it should be. But for those Members of the Senate who in a few days will be asked to vote, I would like them to reflect on two things. Their vote supporting the President's approach is basically giving the authority of this branch of the government away to the Executive. Make no mistake, that is at the heart of it, and a number of Republican Senators--a handful--have stood up and said: We wouldn't have allowed this under a Democratic President; why would we allow it under a Republican President?

Yet others have said they are prepared to look the other way. If this President is popular back in their home States, the Constitution comes in second. I think that is a mistake.

Secondly, though, Members of the Senate, before they cast this vote giving this President the authority to take money out of our military to build this wall, ought to stop and take a look at where the money is coming from within our military.

I am in the fortunate position to be the ranking member on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. It is the biggest appropriations job on Capitol Hill, and I am happy to have Senator Shelby, a Republican from Alabama, as my chairman of the subcommittee. I am the ranking Democrat on that committee. We have the biggest appropriation bill when it comes to discretionary spending--some 60 percent of the Federal discretionary budget, and we know how important it is to get it right. America never wants to come in second in a war, and we certainly never want to be in a position where we are mistreating or ignoring the needs of our men and women in uniform.

Each year we go through their requests and try to make sure the most important things are funded. The military will tell us: There are certain things that are essential and timely, and we need you to spend money on them. And we have responded, not just in the subcommittee and in the full committee but in the Senate and in the House.

Now comes the President and says: Not so, we are going to take the money that we told you was so critically important this year and spend it on the Mexican border to extend the wall--$5.7 billion worth of it.

As I have met with the heads of the branches of our military service, we have asked basic questions. I did that yesterday to several generals and Secretaries who came before me. I said: Has the administration sat down with you in terms of your branch of the military and told you where they are going to take the money to build the wall?

Consistently, the answer is no, they don't know. We are days or weeks away from that money being taken.

What we have done is to prepare a chart through the Military Construction Subcommittee, which is chaired by Senator Boozman, the Republican from Arkansas, and Senator Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii. I asked them: Where are the unobligated projects? These are projects that have been authorized but haven't been started. They may have had basic engineering and preliminary estimates done and so forth. They are ready to let a contract. The money is sitting there ready to move forward, and these are the projects that are on the target list for President Trump when it comes to cutting the military to pay for his border wail.

We have a long list here. The list includes almost every State-- certainly, every State that has anything near a military facility. The State of Illinois has several key projects that we consider to be essential. There is one in Peoria, IL. It is a fire crash and rescue station that needs to be upgraded for the safety of the men and women who work there and those who use that important airport, and there are other things within our State.

As I said, hardly any State is omitted from this list. Any Senator who is voting to give this President the authority to cut military projects and to stop the spending on military projects should realize that it may come home and require an explanation.

The Presiding Officer is from the State of Oklahoma. I tell him that four of the projects are in Oklahoma that are on the target list--the hit list--for cuts if the President decides to cut those projects or Illinois projects to fund this wall.

I have two or three specific ones that I would like to highlight today because they came to my attention. I thought it would be a shame--in fact, it would be just plain wrong--for us to cut the spending on these projects. Let me tell you about one of them that struck me first.

The Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps came to see me. He is a no- nonsense man. You can understand that if you come to be a four-star general in the Marine Corps, you get down to business in a hurry. We talked about some of the damage done at the premier training facilities for the U.S. Marine Corps. Last year, Hurricane Florence tore through the State of North Carolina. The Marine Corps happened to be one of the victims of that violent storm. The hurricane damaged roughly 800 buildings on base at Camp Lejeune, New River, and Cherry Point.

Here is an overhead shot that is not as graphic because it was taken after the hurricane, but the blue coverings on the tops of these roofs are an indication of the structural damage that was done to these buildings.

As I mentioned, 800 buildings on these bases were impacted and damaged by this hurricane. This overhead shot taken last month indicates the work that needs to be done before these buildings can be successfully inhabited by the Marine Corps and their families.

I have a photo of the Camp Lejeune chapel, too. There is not much left of it. That is an indication of the damage that was done there. This is a worker walking outside of the chapel. That is what is left of the chapel. Insulation is falling from the ceiling. There is no good reason to prolong the cleanup.

The Marine Corps said they want to get down to work as quickly as possible and restore this training facility for the good of the Marine Corps and for our Nation, but this is on the hit list for the President for the wall at the border.

What else needs attention this year? The U.S. Air Force needs $750 million to begin cleaning up Tyndall Air Force Base, which was leveled by Hurricane Michael. The Army leaders need $1 billion for everything from more training to jump-starting new technology to keep our troops safe and effective in the battlefield. The Navy has asked for hundreds of millions of additional dollars for unexpected ship maintenance. We can't afford to shortchange the men and women in the Navy. We saw what happened not that long ago with the fatal accidents involving Navy maneuvers and exercises. We never want that to happen again.

The National Guard has 2,100 personnel on the border, but it is starting to run low in its pay account. So it was hoping some of these unobligated funds, at least a small part of them, might be used so they can continue their border mission.

Unless the Department of Defense finds $150 to $300 million this year, the National Guard will have to cut short its summer trainings in all 50 States.

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

The President has also decided to cut or delay $3.6 billion in military construction projects. The President might not think these projects are timely or important, but it was just weeks or months ago when the administration said just the opposite and asked Congress to appropriate money--examples: $800 million for essential training facilities like the National Guard readiness centers, simulators and firing ranges in the States of 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, and Oklahoma, not to mention many other States affected; $1 billion worth of projects for medical and dental care facilities for the men and women in uniform; schools for military families, military barracks, and other essential facilities in Arizona, Missouri, Texas, and beyond.

Fort Campbell, KY, needs a new middle school for military children. The current building dates back to 1967 and is in serious disrepair. We were told that was a priority, but it could be stopped, cut, and eliminated if we are not careful to build this wall.

Also on this list is a new rifle range at Parris Island, SC, a training base for 20,000 new Marines every single year.

There is a new training center at Fort Bragg, NC, to provide top- notch training and prevent injuries among our Special Forces. They are using an old warehouse right now, and they want a modern facility. If it were your son or daughter serving our military at Fort Bragg, you would give them nothing less. The list goes on and on.

Are we really going to tell our military--the very people who are protecting and defending this Nation--that the needs they have identified and we have appropriated money for are going to be put on hold because President Trump made a campaign promise that he can't keep--that the Mexicans were going to build the wall?

Republicans and Democrats in the Senate should join the House in rejecting the President's emergency declaration. The Senate should reject any effort by the President to take money from our troops, from the military--from the Marines, from the Air Force, the Navy, the Army, the National Guard units--to build this wall. We may not agree on much, but we used to agree on fundamental things. The Department of Defense was a priority. The men and women serving there deserve not only our gratitude but the investment in their training, operations, readiness, and a way of life that shows our respect for what they are doing in service to this country. We can do nothing less.

When we face the vote--quite likely a week from today or tomorrow--on whether we agree with the House, I hope that the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, will put the national defense of our Nation first and our military first and vote no on President Trump's effort to extend this emergency designation and to try to assume constitutional responsibilities beyond what is already written.

We are a branch of government--article I of the Constitution. Our responsibility is to appropriate funds. When we give away that responsibility, we walk away from the reason we were elected. I hope that Members on both sides of the aisle will consider that as we face this historic vote.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) is necessarily absent.

Madam President, when I hear my friend from South Dakota describe the state of the economy, it is amazing how political amnesia can take over on the floor of the Senate Chamber.

Do you remember the election of 2008 when Barack Obama was elected President of the United States? Was there anything going on with the economy when he took office? Oh, something that the Senator failed to mention--our country was facing the one of the worst recessions in the history of the United States.

You had to go back to the Great Depression to see the impact of this recession on the American economy, and it happened under a Republican President--George W. Bush. President Obama inherited that, and most people will never forget it because in 2008 and 2009, many people saw their savings devastated by the drop in value in the stock market. They saw this economy teetering on the edge and financial institutions failing. This all happened on President George W. Bush's watch. President Obama inherited it and had to turn it around--without the cooperation of the Republican Party, I might add. A handful of them stepped up to join him in a bipartisan effort, but most of them opposed him. He did everything he needed to do to save this economy and then started turning it around with job creation--unprecedented job creation--throughout the 8 years of his term.

Now, of course, along comes a new President who wants to take credit for all of it and, as the Senator from South Dakota suggested, blame President Obama for the state of the economy he inherited. History tells us a different story.

After this tax cut that the Senate Republicans are so proud of, I think you ought to ask the American families paying their taxes now to take a look at their taxes and tell you how the Trump tax cut helped them as working families. For some, there is some value to it, but for most, there is none. You see, over a long period of time, the vast majority of the benefits of this Republican tax cut go to people in the highest income categories. If there were ever a group who didn't need a break, it is people who are already making millions of dollars each year. Yet this Republican tax cut gave them the break. It added trillions of dollars to our deficit, it helped the richest people in America, and it forgot working families and left them behind. Yet Republican Senators still come to the floor and boast about it with regularity.

There is a better way to approach this. Yes, I want to give tax incentives and tax relief to working families because we know they are not getting the paychecks they need to meet their obligations, to save for the future, and to make sure their kids have a better life. We should be focused on them, not the wealthiest among us--they are doing quite well, thank you. Let's focus on working families instead. The Trump tax cut forgot that.

(Mr. SCOTT of Florida assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, millions of Americans got up this morning and faced the challenge of diabetes. For most of them, it is now routine to measure their blood sugar and to inject insulin when necessary so that they avoid the terrible outcomes of untreated diabetes.

At the highest levels of government, the person I think about immediately is Sonia Sotomayor, who is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Hers is an amazing life story. This woman from a Puerto Rican family went to law school, became recognized as a talented and brilliant lawyer, and eventually ascended to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I got to meet her during the period of time when she was going through her nomination process. She slipped and fell at an airport in New York and broke her ankle and couldn't get around as much as she wanted to, so she parked herself in my office upstairs and invited Senators to come in to meet her. Between those meetings, I stepped in the room and got to know her and learned a lot about her.

It turns out, to no surprise, that this wonderful Supreme Court Justice from the Bronx is a passionate fan of the New York Yankees baseball team. We talked about baseball, and I said to her: Occasionally, the Yankees play the Cubs at Wrigley Field. Would you join me there?

She said: Sure. Invite me.

Well, I wasn't sure she would actually show up if I did, but I invited her. A few years ago, Justice Sotomayor came to Wrigley Field. She was a great sport. They had a Cubs jersey for her to wear, which I am sure she didn't exactly feel comfortable in, and she went

out and threw the first pitch. We had a wonderful time.

The reason I tell that story is, during the course of that baseball game, as we sat together at Wrigley Field, I noticed that several times she tested herself and her blood sugar because of the diabetes she battles with every day. That is not an uncommon experience with diabetics.

What is uncommon is what has happened to the price of insulin facing people with diabetes in America. You have to go back almost 100 years to the discovery of insulin. This is not a drug that just appeared on the market.

Almost 100 years ago, researchers in Canada ended up discovering insulin extracted from animals, and they ended up making it available to Americans and everyone, for that matter, because they surrendered their patent rights. Those who discovered insulin said: We don't want to make money off of this. This is a lifesaving drug.

Over the years, insulin has evolved from human-based insulin to what is known as analogue insulin and synthetic insulin in different dosage, but the fundamental chemical that is saving the lives of those who suffer from diabetes has been known for almost a century.

What has happened to the cost of the insulin that has been around for many decades? It has risen dramatically. Last week, I took to the floor for the first pharma fleecing award, which went to the three companies that make insulin and sell it in America today. Those companies are Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly.

I took them to task for this increasing cost of insulin, a drug that has been around for so long. They are just raising the cost way beyond the reach of many people who have to pay for this lifesaving drug. I told the story of a young man covered by his parent's insurance--thanks to ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act--who, when he reached age 26, was on his own, managed a restaurant, couldn't afford the insulin dosage that was required, rationed his own insulin, and died as a result of that decision.

I made the point on the floor of the Senate that these pharmaceutical companies are not sensitive to the reality of life and death in what they are charging Americans for the cost of insulin.

Yesterday, there was a news flash. Eli Lilly, a pharmaceutical company, one of the producers of insulin products, announced that they were going to reduce the cost of a generic form of insulin known as Humalog to $140 a dosage. That is bringing it down from as much as $329 to $140--dramatic.

Let's put this in perspective for one moment. We checked the records, and it turns out you can buy that exact product made by that same company for sale in Canada for as little as $38. They are expecting--I think Eli Lilly is expecting all of us to send flowers to their corporate headquarters in Indianapolis--to send flowers because they reduced the cost of their drug from $329 to $140 a dosage. I am not going to send them any flowers, and I am not going to express any great gratitude. They are charging Americans, under this new bargain approach, almost four times what Canadians are paying for exactly the same product--four times.

To the other drug companies involved in this that are producing insulin: America is watching. If you are going to continue to kite the cost of this lifesaving drug, pressure is going to grow politically even to the point where the U.S. Senate may take action. I think that day is coming.

So, for Eli Lilly: Nice first step. When you bring the cost of insulin in the United States for the same products that you are selling in Canada to the same level, then I will send you some flowers.

Mr. President, we have three judges before us on the floor of the Senate this week. It turns out that the filling of judicial vacancies is the highest single priority of the Republican leadership in the Senate.

Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, has gone to extraordinary, precedent-breaking lengths to fill vacancies. Of course, the most notorious example was when Senator McConnell, then in charge of the Republican majority, announced that despite the death of Justice Scalia and a vacancy on the highest court of the land, he would refuse to fill that vacancy for almost 1 year because President Obama was in office.

The man President Obama wanted to put in that position, Merrick Garland from the D.C. Circuit Court, was widely respected by Democrats and Republicans alike, but his qualifications meant nothing to Senator McConnell. The end game, in his mind, was the chance that a Republican President might be elected and fill that vacancy with a Republican nominee.

Well, Senator McConnell's dream came true when Donald Trump was elected President, and he turned around and nominated Justice Gorsuch, who now serves on the Supreme Court, filling the Scalia vacancy. That was the most extreme example that we have, in the history of the U.S. Senate, of the defiance of tradition and precedent, a defiance by Senator McConnell with one goal in mind: to make sure that the judicial branch of our government became a political branch of our government, to make sure that as many Republican conservatives, some with the most extreme views, were appointed to the bench. That has been his goal, and he pursues that goal to this day.

There are three nominations before us that amply demonstrate his efforts. When Donald Trump became President, Senate Republicans stopped their obstruction of judicial nominations and started moving nominations through at a breakneck speed.

During the last 2 years, Republicans in the Senate bragged about filling the courts with Trump nominees at record pace. The Republican philosophy, when it comes to Trump judges, seems to be, in Senator McConnell's words, ``plow right through'' no matter how questionable the nominee's credentials or judgment.

There are three more confirmation votes scheduled this week. Let me tell you about these nominees whom they want to put on the court.

Allison Jones Rushing is President Trump's nominee to fill a North Carolina seat on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. For those who are students of the Constitution, you know that the circuit court of appeals is the highest court below the Supreme Court.

Allison Jones Rushing checks a lot of the standard Trump nominee boxes. She is a member of the Federalist Society, an absolute requirement if Trump is going to nominate you for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench, and--this is a recurring theme as well--she clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

She is 36 years old. She has practiced law for 9 years. How many cases has she tried to verdict or judgment? Four. Has she been the lead attorney on any of those cases? No. She is not a member of the bar association of the State of North Carolina, the State in which she would sit if she is confirmed. That is the most scant, weakest legal resume imaginable for someone who is seeking a lifetime appointment to the second highest court of the land.

At our hearing--which, by the way, was held during a Senate recess over the objection of committee Democrats; we weren't even in town when her hearing was scheduled--Senator Kennedy of Louisiana, who is becoming famous for this, started questioning her about her breadth of legal experience.

Senator Kennedy is a real lawyer. On the Republican side, he has put some of Trump's nominees on the spot by asking them some pretty tough questions about legal procedure in a courtroom.

Senator Kennedy said: ``I think, to be a really good federal judge, you've got to have some life experience.'' Ms. Rushing struggled to describe how her life experience actually prepared her for this lifetime appointment to the second highest Federal court.

Senator Kennedy made a valid point. The fact that a judicial nominee meets all of the litmus tests of being a loyal Republican doesn't mean the nominee has the experience or the legal ability to be a good Federal judge. It is inconceivable to me that in the State of North Carolina, they couldn't find a qualified and experienced conservative Republican judge.

The Federal circuit courts are critically important. Since the vast majority of cases don't reach the Supreme Court, the circuit courts are often the last word. This is a position where experience matters, and, unfortunately, Ms. Rushing doesn't have enough of it. I am going to oppose her.

Mr. President, the second nominee is Chad Readler, a 46-year-old attorney in the Trump Justice Department. When he was nominated to another circuit court of appeals, the Sixth Circuit, it was a clear sign of the Trump administration's strong negative feelings about the Affordable Care Act and the fact that that act covers preexisting conditions.

Mr. Readler filed the Trump administration's brief in the Texas v. United States case, in which he opposed the Affordable Care Act's preexisting coverage requirement. Do you remember that issue from the last election? It was a big one. It might have been the biggest one.

We basically said that we think health insurance should be available to you even if you don't have a perfect medical record. And who does? Hardly any of us. Certainly, each of us knows someone in their family who struggles with a medical challenge, and without a perfect medical record, you can be denied insurance or charged premiums you can't pay, unless you have the protection of the law. The law is known as the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare.

Mr. Readler argued that this requirement of covering people with preexisting conditions, which benefits tens of millions of Americans, had to be stricken from the law. The brief Mr. Readler signed was deeply controversial. Our colleague Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican from Tennessee, called the argument that Mr. Readler made in his brief opposing ObamaCare ``as far-fetched as any I ever heard.'' Thank you, Lamar.

Two Department of Justice attorneys withdrew from the case when they were asked to sign the crazy arguments in this brief, and a senior Department of Justice litigator resigned in protest of the bizarre arguments that Mr. Readler signed up for.

However, almost immediately, after Mr. Readler signed this crazy brief, he was nominated by the White House for a lifetime appointment to a Federal judiciary.

What message is the Trump administration sending with this nomination? They are doubling down on their attack on coverage of people with preexisting conditions. They are putting in a lifetime appointment a circuit court judge who will be watching for vindication. They are rewarding those who have led the fight against the preexisting coverage requirement. This is deeply troubling.

That is not my only concern with Mr. Readler. He has also defended the Trump administration's unconscionable family separation policy. Do you remember that one? Remember when, in March of last year, Attorney General Sessions came forward and proudly announced the family separation policy? Do you remember then that 2,800 infants, toddlers, and children were forcibly, physically removed from their parents and placed in detention and that these infants, toddlers, and children were then lost in the system? They didn't keep a computer check on where they were sent or who their parents were.

It took a Federal judge in San Diego, CA, to mandate and require this administration to account for these children. It is one of the most shameful chapters in recent American history, and, of course, Mr. Readler, this nominee, defended it.

He argued in favor of the Trump administration's efforts to end the DACA Program--790,000 young people brought here as children to this country, who went through all of the hoops and paid the fees and qualified to have a chance to stay in America without fear of deportation. Well, it turns out Mr. Readler thinks that is a bad idea.

He litigated against the rights of same-sex couples and opposed anti- discrimination protections for LGBTQ Americans. He advocated for making the death penalty more widely available and applying it to children. He argued for denying Byrne JAG violence prevention funds to a city I represent: Chicago.

It is hard to imagine a more controversial partisan nominee than Mr. Readler. Yet his nomination is going to be rammed through this week.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.