Floor Statements

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

Madam President, throughout the country and in the great State of Illinois, a host of environmental issues are plaguing Americans. From air pollution, to groundwater contamination, to the increases in climate change-related harm that we are already facing, there is no more crucial time to have strong national leadership on environmental issues than right now. However, in the midst of all these issues comes the nomination of Andrew Wheeler--a former lobbyist for corporate polluters--to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.

If there is one major thing we have learned from the Clean Air Act, it is that regulations save lives and money. Regulations that ensure clean air mean fewer premature deaths and health issues, as well as fewer asthma attacks in children and health-related missed work days. However, the EPA under this administration that is now led by Acting Administrator Wheeler, consistently works to roll back clean air and water rules. This exposes the most vulnerable members of our society-- including children and the elderly--to toxic and deadly chemicals. The people in Illinois are no exception. We are facing several environmental issues in Illinois that require immediate action by the EPA, and so far, I am not satisfied that EPA is doing everything it can and should be doing under Mr. Wheeler's leadership.

The Sterigenics facility is causing is a public health threat in Willowbrook, IL due to emissions from cancer-causing ethylene oxide. The EPA's own risk assessment from 2016, showed that ethylene oxide exposure increases the risk of cancer more than what was previously thought. However, given this

information, the EPA has still not taken sufficient actions to protect people of Willowbrook who are exposed to this gas. Concerns about ethylene oxide exposure is not limited to the people of Willowbrook--it is also of concern to the people of Gurnee and Waujkegan, IL who also have plants that use ehtylene oxide in the middle of their towns. Every time I have spoken with Acting Administrator Wheeler about this issue, I have been disappointed by the lack of urgency to do anything more than monitor and collect more data. When it comes to the facilities in Gurnee and Waukegan, the EPA won't even commit to monitor and collect data, even though I have joined my colleague Senator Duckworth in requesting that monitoring begin immediately. The EPA is 4 years overdue to begin the process to promulgate new standards for this gas, even though they know the increased cancer risk. So I, along with my colleague Senator Duckworth and my colleagues in the House, introduced legislation to require the EPA to promulgate new rules for ethylene oxide. However, the EPA's failure to act to limit toxic chemicals being emitted into neighborhoods does not end with ethylene oxide. There is manganese pollution on the Southeast side of Chicago. Manganese exposure results in serious neurological effects, such as learning difficulties, lower IQ scores in children, and manganese poisoning--a condition that resembles Parkinson's disease. There are several facilities on the Southeast side of Chicago that emit manganese, and EPA is now monitoring these facilities after my colleague Senator Duckworth and I pressed EPA to do so. These facilities contaminate both the air that people breathe and the soil that children play on.

Although the EPA knows how dangerous this neurotoxin is and how high the concentrations are, they will not commit to strengthening manganese standards or take immediate action to clean up sites with soil contamination. We need someone at the EPA that will be aggressive in enforcing the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.

We also need an EPA Administrator who recognizes how urgent it is to address climate change. The Trump administration's own Department of Defense issued a report last month identifying national security threats to defense missions, operations, and installations, due to climate change. Yet Acting Administrator Wheeler continues to undermine independent science for climate change by appointing members to the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board who are biased by industry or actively deny that climate change is a problem. How can we expect the EPA to lead efforts to address climate change if its leadership doesn't believe it requires immediate action?

I would also like to mention one more thing before I close. This administration promised farmers, biorefineries, and fuels stations that they would ensure stations could sell E15 fuels this summer. The EPA is coming close to failing to fulfil that promise. I hope the EPA will work with me to ensure stations are able to sell E15 fuels this summer.

We need someone leading the EPA who will put the health and well- being of the people of this country above the profits of corporate polluters. We need someone who is willing to protect families and communities from toxic chemicals in our air and water by fully enforcing the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. And we need someone who will lead the charge to address climate change. I am not convinced that Acting Administrator Wheeler will do these things. As a result, I cannot support his nomination. I hope he proves me wrong.

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) 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, if you are a student of history, the speech you just heard is not a new speech. It is a speech that has been given repeatedly in the Senate Chamber. It was back in the 1930s, when a President named Franklin Delano Roosevelt had an idea, and the idea was radical at the time. Here was the radical idea: Shouldn't we allow people, during the course of their work-life, to put a little money away and to invest for their retirement so that when they reach the age of 65, they will have a program called Social Security?

That was considered a radical socialist idea, taking money from everyone to create a positive program to help retirees across America when they reach retirement age. It takes away our freedom, they said. We ought to be able to make our own choices in life. They resisted it, but, fortunately, they failed and in their failure allowed the creation of the Social Security Program, which is the single most popular government program in America today. Over 95 percent of Americans count on Social Security to make sure that when they reach retirement, there is something there to take care of them, but that wasn't the end of the speech you just heard. It was repeated again in the 1960s because another Democratic President by the name of Lyndon Baines Johnson came up with a notion that, perhaps, if people are going to live a little longer and have Social Security, they should also be able to have affordable healthcare. So Lyndon Baines Johnson suggested the creation of Medicare.

What did the critics say about Medicare? Socialism; that you would collect money from people all across America just to provide for the benefits to those who are retired; that you would take away our freedom to make our own savings plans for our future by saying we have to pay into Medicare. It is an attack on our freedom, they said. It is a socialist idea, they said. Thank goodness they lost in that debate as well.

What happened, of course, was a creation of a Medicare Program, and we can see what came about as a result of it, a dramatic increase in the number of hospitals in America and doctors in America. We started taking healthcare seriously when it came to senior citizens. What is the proof in the pudding? Senior citizens started living longer and longer lives. They were healthier, they were independent, they were strong because of this so-called socialist program of Medicare.

So if you listened this morning as Republican leaders came to the floor and decried socialism again, what is their point now? Their point now is, they believe that if we make a national effort toward dealing with climate change and global warming, it is socialism. It takes away our freedom.

I would agree with them in this respect. If we do something as a nation, a sensible approach that is moderate, constructive, and positive, it is going to change the future. It is going to take away the opportunity that some of us will have to leave a planet for our children that is uninhabitable.

Does anyone doubt--does anyone doubt--that we are dealing with some change in the climate that we face around this world? Does anyone doubt that the scientific evidence, year after year after year, about the increased temperature of this planet has had a negative impact on the world we live in--more extreme weather events than we have ever seen, tornadoes in Taylorville, IL, in December?

Listen, I grew up in Illinois. I was awakened many times in the summer to get down in the basement because there was a tornado warning. My parents were worried about it. It was part of growing up in the Midwest, part of growing up in Illinois. I don't recall ever going down to the basement around Christmas. It turns out that tornado season in Illinois, and many other places, is now becoming a year-round event and flooding and fires and flooding in the city of Miami. All of these things are evidence to me that something is going on, and we have the scientific explanation. Greenhouse gas emissions are creating a different environment, warming our planet, changing our weather patterns.

I have come to the floor repeatedly over the last several years and asked one basic question, can anyone name any major political party in the world today--any major political party in the world today--that, like the Republican Party of the United States, denies climate change?

I make that open challenge over and over again on the floor and have never had a Republican come to me and say: No, there is another party somewhere that takes our position on the issue that climate change is a fallacy and a fiction. I will tell you, though--maybe I am not supposed to repeat this--but one Republican Senator, after I made that challenge over and over again, drew me aside in the elevator, looked in both directions, and said: I think there is a political party in Australia that also denies climate change. That is as good as it gets--one more party somewhere halfway around the world.

When Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, comes to the floor and challenges the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, with the basic questions, I believe we have the right to ask for an answer.

To the Republicans, to my friend from South Dakota who just spoke, to Senator McConnell of Kentucky, the first question is this: Do you believe that there is such a thing as climate change and global warming? That is a pretty easy question. The scientists overwhelmingly believe it. I do too.

The second question that Senator Schumer has posed to them is this: Do you believe that our human activity has something to do with it? Well, the scientific evidence is overwhelming again. Once we got into the industrial age and starting spewing all of the smoke and chemicals into the air, things started warming up on this planet Earth.

The third question that Senator Schumer has posed to the Republicans is basically fundamental, as well: What

are you going to do about it? The answer is obvious. For the 4 years the Republicans have been in control in the Senate, they have done nothing--nothing. Now they have a President who has the United States as the only country in the world--the only Nation on Earth--that has withdrawn from the Paris accord, which tried to create a global strategy to deal with climate change.

The President is enthralled by the notion that climate change is a fallacy, a fiction, and so are the Senate Republicans. So any effort to address this is socialism. Any idea that we should come together as a nation and work toward a planet that our kids can live on is taking away our freedom. Well, we know better.

Under President Obama, we started moving toward more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. A gallon of gas is giving us more mileage because of government policy. Well, I guess it took away the freedom of gas guzzlers, but we can at least say we made a positive step forward, and this administration is stepping backward, and they are doing it for the fossil fuel industry--for oil and gas and coal interests. They are coming to the floor and trying to get us into a fight, once again, over socialism when we talk about government policies that would guide us in the right direction for the future.

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) is necessarily absent.

Madam President, I listened to the statements of my colleague from South Dakota. I would like to make a suggestion.

Since the Republicans are in control of the U.S. Senate, since there is a Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I would suggest to my colleague that perhaps we have a hearing on this bill he just described. You see, it came to the floor yesterday without any hearing. And the reason why we need a hearing is that many of us--many of us--voted for an infanticide law, which is currently on the books--a law that says that a child needs to be protected and that those who don't protect that child are subject to criminal penalties, as they should be.

Now, if this is a different approach to it, doesn't it at least merit a hearing from the Republican majority before it comes to the floor for a vote? There are many questions I would like to ask of those who propose this. I want to understand why the law that has been on

the books now for 17 years, as I remember, is inadequate to the challenges it faces.

I supported the infanticide law. I will continue to. If there are any changes that the Republicans want to make, is it too much to ask them to have a hearing in their own committee, which they chair, on this subject matter? I hope they will take it seriously enough to do it. Critics have said this has nothing to do with changing the law. It is just a ``gotcha'' vote on the floor--an amendment which may be used against candidates in future elections.

When it comes to children, something as serious as life and death should be taken much more seriously by the Republican majority.

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

Madam President, I rise in opposition to the pending nomination of Eric Miller to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a seat based out of the State of Washington.

If the Senate chooses to confirm Mr. Miller, it will be a historic decision because it will be the first time ever since the introduction of blue slips over 100 years ago that the Senate has confirmed a nominee who is not supported by either of the home State Senators from the State in which he will be seated.

What is a blue slip? It is basically a consultation with the Senate before we move forward on a nomination. It is a courtesy that has been extended. It is an effort to try to find some common ground, some understanding, perhaps some moderation when it comes to the choice of nominees. It has been abused in some cases, but the two Senators here-- Senator Cantwell and Senator Murray--are well known in this body for being reasonable people who try to find solutions to problems and work well with both sides of the aisle. Yet, in this case, the Trump White House has decided that they are going to push this nominee for the Ninth Circuit in their home State of Washington against their wishes. If Mr. Miller is confirmed, we will have taken away yet another guardrail in the Senate advice and consent process.

If you follow what has happened in the Senate over the last 2 years and a few months, you know that the highest single priority of Senator McConnell's--the Republican leader--is to fill the Federal judgeships, to put in place men and women who will serve literally for a lifetime, as long as they live. He is determined to do it. There is a template for the people who they find acceptable. If you have been a law

clerk for Clarence Thomas, you check the box, you are ready to go--a lifetime appointment. If the Federalist Society decides you are the right person for the Supreme Court of the United States, box checked, off we go.

Instead of relying on common sense, moderation, and judgment, we are going through a formula here to put people on the bench for a lifetime--those who have been approved on the Republican side of the aisle. Make no mistake--under Democratic Presidents, we look to nominees who are closer to our value system, for sure, but we never walked away from the blue slip process until this nominee--the first time ever it has been done.

We have seen so many things change under the Republican leadership in the Senate when it comes to the selection of judges.

We used to say that if you are found unqualified--not qualified--by the American Bar Association, forget it. Go about your business. Do something else. We are not going to put you on the bench for life. Well, we have decided, under the Republican leadership, that is no longer the case. Simply being unqualified is not enough to disqualify you.

We have also said that when it comes to the process of making these decisions, we will have hearings where we will consider multiple candidates in the same day. Let's run them through. Of course, you know what happens when you do that: You get in a hurry, and you end up putting people on the bench for life who shouldn't be there.

We have also decided in this White House that we will send people off to be Federal judges who have never been in a courtroom in their lives--not once. Maybe they watched ``Perry Mason'' on some retro channel, but that is about as good as it ever was for some of them.

I recall one of the nominees from the Trump White House. It was a moment in the history of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana asked him some basic questions about what it meant to be a judge and some of the things he would have to rule on. It was a sad moment. It reminded me of my worst days in law school when I didn't know the answers to the test or to the question being asked by the professor. This nominee, thankfully, withdrew. He never should have been nominated.

In this case, when it comes to Mr. Miller, neither of the Washington Senators returned a blue slip on him, and they have a reason. He is 43 years old; he may serve on the bench for three decades or more. In his relatively short legal career, he has demonstrated that his views are far outside the legal mainstream, particularly when it comes to one legal issue--the issue involving Indian Tribes.

I don't know if you watched the Oscars, but I did, and I was watching for a movie that I saw that I was impressed with. It was called ``Roma.'' It was a movie about Mexico. It received quite a few awards, and I thought it deserved them. It raised some painful questions for people living in Mexico. I know because I have spoken to Mexican Parliamentarians at a dinner a few weeks ago. It is the treatment of indigenous people.

Most countries in the world, including the United States, haven't written a very admirable record when it comes to the treatment of people who were here before we ``arrived.'' What we have done to Native Americans in this country, sadly, is nothing to brag about. They were dispossessed, relocated for their lands, and many times treated in the poorest possible fashion. The movie ``Roma'' was about indigenous people of Mexico who are servants, and some would say slaves, to families who have more money in Mexico. So the question of the treatment of Native Americans is not something that we can just push back in the pages of history; it still confronts us in the United States today, as it does in other countries, like Mexico and Australia and so many others.

So what does this have to do with this nominee? It turns out that in a rare moment, the National Congress of American Indians weighed in against Eric Miller for this circuit court nomination. The National Congress of American Indians opposed his nomination. Here is what they wrote in a letter to the Judiciary Committee, and I want to quote it in its substance:

Our concern is that he chose to build a law practice on

mounting repeated challenges to tribal sovereignty, lands,

religious freedom, and the core attribute of federal

recognition of tribal existence. His advocacy has focused on

undermining the rights of Indian tribes, often taking extreme

positions and using pejorative language to denigrate tribal

rights. Indeed, his law firm website touts his record, with

over half of his private practice achievements coming at the

expense of tribal governments. Given his strong preference

for clients who oppose tribes, there are considerable

questions about whether he would be fair in hearing cases

regarding tribal rights.

You might say to yourself: Well, that has to be a narrow area of the law--Tribal rights--and if he happens to consistently get that wrong, how important could it be?

Take a look at the fact that he has aspired to be a nominee to the circuit court--the second highest court in the land--in the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit includes 427 of the 573 federally recognized Tribal nations of America. That circuit he aspires to for a lifetime appointment hears more cases involving Tribal issues than any other Federal circuit. It is deeply troubling to see a Ninth Circuit nominee whose impartiality on Tribal legal matters is in question.

Mr. Miller's nomination is opposed by not only the National Congress of American Indians; he is also opposed by a broad array of civil rights, environmental, labor, and other organizations that are concerned about his record and legal views. He is 43 years old--43 years old--three more decades to hand down decisions.

It is astonishing that the Senate would vote to confirm a nominee this controversial over the objection of home State Senators and to break a century-old tradition in the Senate to do it. These Senators represent millions of people in the State of Washington. Their good judgment has been recognized by election and reelection. But when it comes to having a voice in the selection of a circuit court nominee who will be serving their State for the next three decades, they have been shunned and pushed aside.

I think the Republican majority is making a mistake. They are so bound and determined to fill these vacancies that they are abandoning basic Senate traditions--which, in fact, will slow things down from time to time, I am ready to admit, but also put at least a note of caution into a critical judgment process.

Blue slips encourage consensus and cooperation between the Senate and the White House. There isn't a single one of us serving in the Senate who hasn't counted on that cooperation to make sure that lifetime appointments to the Federal judiciary are people who can stand the test of time. Although they may not agree with any Senator every single time, they bring judgment, experience, balance, and moderation to their service. Blue slips ensure that the voices of the American people, through their Senators, are heard in this process, and they help steer the nomination process toward the middle of the road. Without blue slips, the White House can ignore home State interests and pick extreme judges who do not have the confidence of that State's legal community.

This decision--for the first time in a century--to abandon blue slips for the sake of putting this man in a lifetime position on the circuit bench could affect every one of our States someday. I can't understand why my Republican colleagues want to diminish their authority, their ability to safeguard against judges who should not be appointed for life. That is what we are doing on the vote to confirm Eric Miller to the Ninth Circuit.

I will oppose his nomination. I urge my colleagues to do the same, if for no other reason, so that when the time comes--if it ever comes-- that you ask for the respect of this body when it comes to the selection of an important Federal judge, you will receive it regardless of who the President may be.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 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.