Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to honor my constituent, Dr. Nancy L. Spruill, who will be retiring this year after more than 47 years of service to our country.

Since 1999, Dr. Spruill has served as Director of Acquisition, Resources and Analysis for the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment. In this capacity, she is responsible for all aspects of A&S's participation in the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting and Execution System, the congressional process, and the Defense Acquisition System.

Dr. Spruill serves as the Executive Secretary to the Defense Acquisition Board and is responsible for the timely submission to Congress of reports for Major Defense Acquisition Programs. She performs systematic analysis to improve acquisition policy and education and leads the Department in developing plans to manage property, plant and equipment, inventory, operating material, supplies/ deferred maintenance, and environmental liabilities. She also manages a broad portfolio of information technology applications and infrastructure supporting the mission of the organization. Dr. Spruill has played a key role in improving the way the Department acquires major automated information systems. A strong advocate of improving the acquisition workforce, she works closely with the Defense Acquisition University and the rest of the Department in leading and training the thousands of personnel performing cost analysis and financial management for acquisition programs to improve acquisition outcomes.

Dr. Spruill graduated with a bachelor of science degree from the University of Maryland in 1971. She joined the Center for Naval Analyses from 1971-83. In 1975, she earned a master of arts in mathematical statistics from George Washington University, followed by a doctorate in 1980. Dr. Spruill served on the staff of the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 1983, first as senior planning, programming, and budget analyst in the Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics Secretariat, and then as Director of Support and Liaison for the Assistant Secretary for Force Management and Personnel and Senior Operations Research Analyst for the Assistant Secretary for Program Analysis and Evaluation.

In 1993, Dr. Spruill served as Chief of the Programs and Analysis Division for the Comptroller of the Defense Mapping Agency. She also served as Acting Deputy Comptroller and was a member of the Reinvention Task Force for the Vice President's National Performance Review.

Dr. Spruill has received many prestigious awards, including the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Civilian Service, the Hammer Award, the Acker Skill in Communications Award, and numerous awards of the Secretary of Defense Medal for Meritorious Civilian Service, the Secretary of Defense Medal for Exceptional Civilian Service, and the Presidential Rank Award. A member of the Senior Executive Service since 1995, she has published many papers on her work for the statistical community and the public. Her expertise on these important issues has been invaluable.

I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Dr. Spruill for her distinguished service to our country and in wishing her a fulfilling and enjoyable retirement.

Madam President, Mr. Clark's nomination is yet another example of the Trump administration nominating individuals to lead government offices whose missions they have opposed.

The Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice is uniquely charged with the ``stewardship of the nation's natural resources and public lands.'' Yet, in the face of the overwhelming evidence of climate change, Mr. Clark says the science is debatable. It isn't, and this is not the time to have someone in this position who refuses to acknowledge facts and confront the costs and risks of inaction.

In addition, like many Trump nominees, Mr. Clark is skeptical of the longstanding Chevron doctrine which states that courts must give deference to agency regulations because agencies are staffed with subject matter experts and that judges, who are only supposed to interpret the law, are not qualified to substitute their opinions. Large corporate polluters frequently challenge EPA regulations designed to safeguard our waters, endangered species, and natural resources, and we need a person in this position who will side with the scientists and public health experts, not big polluters.

Americans deserve an associate attorney who is committed to protecting their interests and not big-monied special interests. I do not believe that Mr. Clark is that person, and I will be voting against his nomination.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Eric Dreiband to serve as Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division. His nomination is an affront to the mission of the Civil Rights Division, the career attorneys, and to everyone in our country dedicated to advancing civil rights.

Created in 1957, the mission of the Civil Rights Division is to ``enforce[e] federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, disability, religion, familial status and national origin.'' The Civil Rights Division has been indispensable in helping our country combat housing discrimination, voting rights abuses, and hate crimes. It has also intervened in cases of police misconduct in certain situations.

Mr. Dreiband is the wrong person to lead the Civil Rights Division. He has spent his entire career advocating for weaker antidiscrimination laws. He has testified in Congress against the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, and ban- the-box regulations.

Looking at this record, Mr. Dreiband will do more to undermine than to protect efforts to prevent discrimination. How can someone devoted to fighting against antidiscriminatory laws now be charged with leading an agency that enforces antidiscrimination laws? It is almost as if the Trump administration is ``trolling'' the agency itself with Mr. Dreiband's nomination.

Unfortunately, under Attorney General Sessions, the Department of Justice has already rolled back Obama-era guidance that terminated the Federal Government's use of private prisons, helped protect vulnerable transgender students, and the Cole memo which allowed prosecutorial discretion in sentencing for drug cases. Mr. Dreiband's record suggests he will continue these attacks on civil rights.

The Assistant Attorney General of Civil Rights Division should be someone that will vigorously protect minority rights and aggressively expand civil rights for all Americans. Mr. Dreiband has shown that he is not that person.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time has expired.

The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Eric S. Dreiband, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Attorney General?

Mr. President, this week the Senate completed work on America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, a new water resources development bill that authorizes U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works activities and drinking water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.

The legislation will invest in numerous infrastructure projects in Maryland and across the country and includes funding to repair aging drinking water, wastewater, and irrigation systems, protect Americans from dangerous floodwaters, and increase public participation and State funding flexibility in local infrastructure projects.

This bill rejects the Trump administration's proposed reclassification of the Poplar Island restoration project, which could imperil the progress of this national model for restoration success located in Talbot County and extends the original 7-year authorization of the Mid-Bay Islands Ecosystem Restoration Project, focused on James and Barren Islands in Dorchester County, by an additional 3 years, to total 10 years.

To allow for greater involvement of local governments in project selection, the bill requires the Army Corps of Engineers to increase public participation by, at a minimum, holding annual public meetings at the district level, providing information about the administration's budget requests, and allowing non-Federal interests the opportunity to collaborate and share in concept development and decision making to solve problems.

The bill also authorizes $8 million in new EPA grants through a Drinking Water System Infrastructure Resilience and Sustainability Program for water systems that will assist in planning, design, construction, implementation, operation, or maintenance to improve resilience to natural hazards.

I am pleased to support this bill, and I look forward to working with the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure more transparency in the process.

Mr. President, article II, section 2 of the Constitution gives this body, the Senate, the responsibility to advise and consent on judicial appointments. It is an important check on executive power. We are invested with this special responsibility to ensure that individuals nominated by the President to be Supreme Court Justices will be people who will make decisions fairly and impartially, without favor and without bias. That is why Lady Justice wears a blindfold and holds a balance scale on which to weigh the merits of arguments and claims that come before her. The integrity of the Supreme Court requires that every person who comes before that Court has confidence that each Justice will fairly weigh the evidence and the arguments. Judge Kavanaugh does not meet that standard.

I had that concern at the very beginning of this process, and I fear it more than ever today at the end of the process. Any remaining hope that Judge Kavanaugh could be trusted to be an impartial Justice or could be perceived to be an impartial Justice was shattered by his opening statement at his last hearing. In that statement, which he emphasized he wrote in his own words, Judge Kavanaugh launched into an ultra-partisan diatribe and into wild conspiracy theories. He suggested that Dr. Ford's compelling testimony about her sexual assault was somehow manufactured by Democrats as payback for his participation in the Starr investigation, as if Dr. Ford were an actor in a bitter partisan battle rather than a brave citizen who had come forward to tell her story.

While Judge Kavanaugh attempted the other day to walk back his words in his Wall Street Journal op-ed, the damage he had done was irreversible. If he is confirmed, hundreds of people who go before the Supreme Court and the millions of Americans whose lives will be affected by his decisions will believe that Judge Kavanaugh has already put his hands on the scales of Justice before they have had their say in court.

That is why hundreds of law professors, Jesuits, and personal friends withdrew their previous support for his nomination after his statement at that hearing. That is why the American Bar Association has called a meeting to reconsider its endorsement, and that is why former Justice John Paul Stevens took the extraordinary step of saying that Judge Kavanaugh was not fit to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States.

It didn't have to be this way. The process was flawed from the start, and it got worse as time went on. It started when President Trump contracted out the process of picking a Supreme Court nominee to rightwing groups like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. During his campaign, candidate Trump said he was going to pick Supreme Court nominees based not on who would be impartial, based not on who would be independent but based on who would do his bidding on certain issues. He had a number of litmus tests.

For example, during the campaign, when talking about the Affordable Care Act, candidate Trump promised that, unlike Chief Justice Roberts, his nominee would ``do the right thing'' and get rid of the Affordable Care Act. The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation didn't need much coaxing, but they dutifully compiled lists of names of people to fit the bill. Judge Kavanaugh fit the bill, and he fit the bill according to his own former law clerks.

One of his former law clerks wrote an article entitled ``Brett Kavanaugh Said ObamaCare was Unprecedented and Unlawful'' in order to assure people that Judge Kavanaugh would be the Justice Kavanaugh to undo the protections of the Affordable Care Act. Another one of Judge Kavanaugh's own law clerks said that no other contender on President Trump's list is on record so vigorously criticizing the Affordable Care Act. These are Judge Kavanaugh's law clerks.

We all know that the case of Texas v. United States, which threatens to take away protections for millions of people with preexisting conditions, is currently making its way through our Federal courts as we gather here today. It was filed by a group of 20 Republican attorneys general. The Trump administration decided not to defend the current law and decided not to defend the Affordable Care Act, and he said to these Republican attorneys general to have at it--to get rid of the Affordable Care Act.

We know that the Texas case is very likely to end up in the Supreme Court of the United States. In Judge Kavanaugh, President Trump has his man, according to Judge Kavanaugh's own law clerks, to rule against the Affordable Care Act--in doing so, stripping millions of Americans from their protections for preexisting health conditions.

On the issue of a woman's right to reproductive freedom and choice, Candidate Trump promised he would appoint a Justice to take those rights away. Specifically, he said overturning Roe ``will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am appointing pro-life justices on the court.'' Again, he found his man in Judge Kavanaugh, and we have Judge Kavanaugh's own law clerks saying as much.

In a July 3, 2018, National Review article, one of his former clerks wrote: ``No court-of-appeals judge in the nation has a stronger, more consistent record of enforcing restrictions on abortion.''

Now, at the confirmation hearing, we all heard Judge Kavanaugh say that Roe v. Wade was an important precedent, and he said to some Senators that it was settled law. We know from many Republican judicial nominees who have testified before the Senate about settled law that as soon as they have gotten on the Supreme Court, it has no longer been settled. In fact, Judge Kavanaugh, before he was a judge, said himself in a 2003 memo that came to light: ``I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since the Court can always overrule its precedent''--a clear indication of where Judge Kavanaugh's reasoning lies, especially in light of the testimony from his own law clerks.

If you look at other parts of his record, you will find that Judge Kavanaugh consistently rules in favor of powerful special interests and against the public interest. He has sided with those who want to lift all of the restrictions on political campaign expenditures. In one opinion, Judge Kavanaugh wrote that PACs are constitutionally entitled to raise and spend unlimited money in support of candidates for elected office because it was ``implausible'' that contributions to independent groups could corrupt candidates.

Those million-dollar expenditures on behalf of candidates have no impact on the thinking of those candidates once they are elected. This is according to Judge Kavanaugh and, of course, according to the Citizens United decision. In fact, Judge Kavanaugh has been

credited by one campaign finance expert as ``the man who created the super-PAC.''

Judge Kavanaugh has gone further. He has even suggested that limits on direct contributions to candidates are unconstitutional. Back in March of 2002, in an email, he wrote: ``I have heard very few people say that the limits on contributions to candidates are unconstitutional, although I, for one, tend to think those limits have some constitutional problems.''

We can see that if it is Justice Kavanaugh, not only will he double down on Citizens United, which says that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money, including unlimited amounts of secret money, but he will question the constitutionality of putting limits not only on independent expenditures but on direct contributions to candidates.

We know Judge Kavanaugh was also the pick for those who want corporate power to trump workers' rights, consumers' rights, and environmental protections. The day that Judge Kavanaugh was nominated for the Supreme Court, the White House circulated a letter to corporate leaders that touted the fact that he would protect their interests. The White House proudly noted that he had overruled Federal regulators 75 times on cases involving clean air, consumer protections, net neutrality, and other issues.

When it comes to workers' rights, Judge Kavanaugh has routinely sided with corporations that want to prevent workers from unionizing, even at President Trump's own hotel in Atlantic City, which at the time had admitted its refusal to bargain with workers in a 2012 case.

When the card dealers across several hotels voted to unionize, Judge Kavanaugh and a panel of judges invalidated the will of the workers, overturned an administrative law judge's ruling that the union be certified, and allowed the Trump hotel to continue violating workers' rights.

On environmental issues, Judge Kavanaugh's record shows that time and again, he favors polluters over clean water and clean air. With his confirmation, it will be much harder for Americans to seek redress in the courts, and it will be easier for polluters to continue to pollute the environment. As a circuit court judge, he has written 10 dissenting opinions in environmental cases, and in each one, he has argued against the side that sought to protect the public health and the environment.

Judge Kavanaugh's sweeping view of executive power should cause alarm among every Member of this Senate, Republican and Democrat alike. We have all heard the testimony, and we have seen the writings. It appears to be no surprise that President Trump, who is watching that Mueller investigation get closer and closer to his doorstep, would want a judge who will give excessive deference to the executive branch--somebody who may be on the Supreme Court when that Court has to decide whether or not President Trump can be subpoenaed in that case or otherwise or be brought to justice in that case, if that is what the conclusions demand.

It is clear on all of these issues that President Trump and the Republicans had their man in Judge Kavanaugh. They have someone they believe will overturn the Affordable Care Act, once again giving insurance companies a green light to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions.

They think they have someone who will overturn Roe v. Wade or dramatically limit a woman's right to reproductive freedom and choice; someone who will gut environmental regulations, undermine workers' rights, and consumer protections; someone who will give corporations the ability to continue to spend unlimited amounts of money in elections and who might even argue that the contribution limits to candidates are unconstitutional and can be limited; and, finally, someone the President believes will get him off the hook if the Mueller investigation gets too close to him.

So here we had Republicans in this Senate and a President on the verge of getting someone they thought could do all of those things, and then something unexpected happened: The country learned about what happened to Dr. Ford.

Our Republican colleagues seem to have forgotten that Dr. Ford did not want to come publicly to report her sexual assault. It was only when she found out that Judge Kavanaugh was on the second short list that was released that she became concerned. Even then, she didn't want to come forward publicly. But she thought it was her civic duty to let people know what had happened to her, so she reached out to her Representative in Congress on a confidential basis.

The story did become public, and when it did, she felt dutybound to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and tell Senators what happened to her on that awful day. We all know she had nothing to gain. She has been subjected to all sorts of awful death threats and other kinds of verbal abuse. She had nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Our Republican Senators who listened to her testimony, for the most part, said that her testimony was both powerful and credible; we know she answered questions directly. By contrast, Judge Kavanaugh's testimony was partisan, evasive, and, on many points, even under oath, untruthful.

When the female prosecutor Republicans hired to ask questions for them could not discredit Dr. Ford's testimony, we saw many of our Republican colleagues launch into full partisan attack mode; no longer did the facts matter. They picked up on Judge Kavanaugh's opening statement about partisanship rather than seeking to get to the truth about what happened to Dr. Ford and others who have alleged sexual assault.

What mattered was ramming through their nominee. The majority leader, Senator McConnell, said they would ``plow right through'' and, by God, nothing was going to stop them. They even scheduled the vote on Judge Kavanaugh before they had heard the testimony about sexual abuse and sexual assault from Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh.

It was only when Senator Flake recognized what a sham the process was that he at least forced the Republican leadership to do what they did not want to do and agree to a short FBI investigation into the allegations of Dr. Ford and Deborah Ramirez, but the goal never changed. The goal of ramming through the nomination never changed.

That is why Senate Republicans and the White House dramatically limited the scope of the FBI investigation. They tied the hands of the FBI. They told the FBI whom they could interview. The investigation that was already going to be short at about a week was cut even shorter and was finished up in a matter of days.

What is the result? The result is completely predictable. The result is we have lots of key witnesses who were not interviewed who say they have corroborating evidence to support the allegations of Dr. Ford and Deborah Ramirez. The country will continue to hear from these witnesses after today's vote.

Because the investigation was orchestrated by the White House and the Senate Republican leadership, the FBI was not allowed to do its full job. It would have been better for all parties involved--and I mean all parties, including Judge Kavanaugh--to have had a thorough investigation where, at the end of the day, the public could have confidence that all of the available evidence could have been tracked down and reviewed. That would have been best for the integrity of the Court and the integrity of the Senate.

We all know there is no requirement that we rush this confirmation. We all know that. After all, it was the Republican leader who kept a seat open on the Supreme Court for months and months and months after President Obama had nominated Judge Merrick Garland. So this notion that there is some kind of artificial deadline is simply untrue. This is all being done, as the majority leader said, to ``plow right through.''

Taking time to do the investigation right would have put the entire enterprise at risk--the entire plan to put on the Supreme Court the person President Trump and Republicans believe will deliver the legal outcomes they want. Even if all of the testimony shows he can no longer be impartial, in this case, his record and testimony indicate that he will deliver the legal outcomes they want.

Dr. Ford's courage in coming forward and telling what happened to her has empowered many of my Maryland constituents and many others around the country to come forward with their own stories of abuse.

I have received written statements from over 50 Marylanders--over 50 Marylanders--telling me about the sexual abuse they had encountered. Some of them told me they have shared with me what they have not shared with their own family members. They felt it was important that I know why they did not report their abuse at the time, why they did not tell their parents, and why their memories were not perfect decades later.

They told me what they do remember. They told me they remember the clothing they wore the day they were assaulted. They told me they remember the scent, the cologne, and the feeling of unwanted hands. Those memories haunt them.

These stories are reminders of how our society has let down survivors of sexual assault for decades. The way that these survivors have been treated has been shameful. I am humbled by the trust they have shown in sharing these experiences with me, and I will let the stories of a few of them speak for themselves here on the floor of the Senate.

Here is what one woman wrote:

Once [when] I was 16, I was at a party. There was alcohol.

He was popular, I wasn't. He was big and strong, I have never

been. He threatened me afterwards. He needn't have bothered.

He told me no one would believe me. He told me I wanted it. I

showed a friend the bruises. He said everyone would say I was

a slut. I told another friend I was frightened. She said I

should just avoid him in school. I told an adult I trusted at

my job. She told me about how when she reported when she was

young, how the police treated her, how her parents reacted.

How she regretted saying anything. I never told my parents. I

went to a free clinic and the ``therapist'' asked how could I

know it was rape if I had been drinking.

Those are the powerful words from one Marylander.

Another wrote:

I remember the assault vividly. I was on my way home from

church. I don't remember the sermon before. Details are

fuzzy. But I remember the assault. I remember looking at a

nearby home where I knew elderly people lived. I could see

that their TV was on and I wondered, ``Would they even hear

me scream?'' I didn't tell people. I didn't think people

would believe me.

Another constituent wrote me this quickly, without editing. She told me she cried when she read it to her husband. Here is what she wrote:

Having experience in working with victims in a

prosecutorial manner, or as a judge, or even defending the

accused does not make you an expert. The expert is the

victim. I am that victim. I am that expert. And as such I can

tell you absolutely, without hesitation, that what haunts you

most, what affects how you relate in the future with your

loving spouse, what affects how you feel about yourself, and

what affects even your sense of smell, is the memory of the

person who abused you. Not the address where it took place,

not the time on the clock, not the day of the week--but the

smell of the person assaulting you, the feel of their hands,

the confusion in your head because you don't know what is

happening because it's all happening so fast, and yes--their

name. You never forget their name.

She went on to say:

Then comes the shame. What did I do to cause this? What

will people think of me now because I've been touched, I've

been tarnished, I'm not pure. Will I be believed? At this

point my life has already been altered beyond repair, but

it's an internal alter. If I talk, it alters my external

world as well. Maybe it's better to just not talk because

then at least I can pretend things are as they have always

been. I can just pretend that I'm exactly the same person--

but I'm not.

Another wrote that she understood that a man could move on from assaulting a woman particularly if they were drunk at the time. She said:

The man who assaulted me later acted as if he was catching

up with an old friend and had no memory of the event. I have

several friends who have experienced the same thing.

Another echoed a similar experience, writing:

He had been drinking heavily with friends at a restaurant

or bar. I had not. Later that night, he raped [me]. He was

very inebriated and displayed a complete personality change.

He was violent and angry and did not even seem to see me. I

was paralyzed and probably saved my own life by not fighting

back as he had essentially become a rabid animal. The next

day I confronted him about what happened and he had no memory

of the crime he committed.

These are not isolated incidents for survivors. As I have said, I have gotten over 50--over 50--personal testimonials from survivors since Dr. Ford had the courage to come forward. These are people who have not shared what happened to them with some of their closest friends or family members. These are stains etched in their memories. Many of them never told a soul. Others were ignored or dismissed when they brought up these awful experiences and were told to stay quiet.

It is an insult to these survivors when some have called them partisan. In many cases, they went out of their way in their messages to me to say their concerns had nothing to do with ideology or partisanship--nothing. Some told me they are Republicans, and others are Independents. Some of them grew up in families who had no care about politics. Others told me they were Democrats but they would be more than willing to accept a different, conservative judge--but not this one.

When Donald Trump went to a campaign rally and mocked Dr. Ford, he mocked every one of those 50 survivors who wrote to me. He mocked every survivor of sexual abuse around the country. And this Senate's decision to do as the majority leader said, ``plow right through'' without undertaking a thorough and serious investigation into the charges from Dr. Ford, Deborah Ramirez, that also disrespects these survivors. That is what they say to me.

Of course, Judge Kavanaugh did the same thing in his opening statement at his most recent hearing because his entire opening statement suggested that Dr. Ford's coming forward was part of some political conspiracy. Unfortunately, that is where this conversation has gone ever since--not an effort to really get to the truth, to really get all the facts but just to do what the majority leader said before she even testified: ``Plow right through.''

We know that etched above the Supreme Court are the words ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' It does not say ``plow right through.''

The decision to ``plow right through'' will undermine and haunt the integrity of the Supreme Court for decades to come, and it will also haunt and undermine the integrity of this U.S. Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senate finally completed its work on a new longterm FAA Reauthorization bill. This 5-year bill will give the aviation industry the certainty it needs in order to plan for future investments and service enhancements. This bill also gives the FAA the direction and tools necessary to address customer and community concerns that arise from those activities.

Stable funding for the Airport Improvement Program, AIP, is an essential program for both large and small airports. In this fiscal year, in my home State of Maryland, 13 airports received 16 separate grants to aid in construction related improvements. These are projects that likely would have been delayed or postponed if it were not for

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the people and leaders of Taiwan on their National Day to take place on October 10. The United States and Taiwan have a long history of friendship that has promoted prosperity and security on both sides of the Pacific. The U.S.-Taiwan bilateral relationship continues to grow based on our shared democratic values and common strategic interests. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating the people of Taiwan.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Stamatios ``Tom'' Krimigis on the occasion of his 80th birthday and 50th anniversary of service to the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory.

Dr. Krimigis is one of our Nation's brightest minds in the field of space science, and I and countless others rely on his knowledge and good counsel. He has had an amazing journey from humble beginnings on the Greek island of Chios to become one of the world's most brilliant and renowned space scientists.

The launch of Sputnik in 1957 drew his eye to the sky and inspired him to study physics and space science, so he came to the United States at the age of 18 to enroll at the University of Minnesota.

Upon finishing college, he went to the University of Iowa to work for James Van Allen, who had been the principal investigator on Explorer 1, which was the U.S. first satellite. In 1968, he joined Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory. He was the head of the space department from 1991 to 2004 and has been the emeritus head and principal staff scientist since then.

Dr. Krimigis has led pioneering research into the Earth's environment, its magnetosphere, the Sun, the interplanetary medium, and the magnetospheres of the planets. He was critical in helping NASA shape its approach to planetary exploration and has published more than 600 articles in scientific journals and books. He remains the only scientist to lead investigations of every planet in our solar system. In 1999, the International Astronomical Union named the asteroid 8323 Krimigis, previously 1979 UH, in his honor.

In addition to being a brilliant scientist in his own right, Dr. Krimigis has mentored countless scientists, engineers, and staff at the Applied Physics Lab, showing extraordinary generosity with his time to develop new generations of leaders. He is always willing to share his insights and provide thoughtful guidance. I am lucky to have Tom as a friend and adviser who has provided insights and infectious enthusiasm for the work being done by he and his colleagues at the Applied Physics Lab. I was thrilled to join Tom to witness some of his major successes, like the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous in 1998 and the Pluto fly-by in 2015.

Dr. Tom Krimigis has a special ability to help people understand the value of investing in our ability to explore our planets and peer into the depths of space, both to maintain America's technological edge and to help answer basic universal questions about our place in the universe. I am honored to recognize him today and to wish him a happy 80th birthday.

Mr. President, the Senate passed 3 of the required 12 appropriations bills needed to fund the Federal Government starting on October first. The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, Energy and Water, and Legislative Branch appropriations bills fund vital programs that care for our military, protect our infrastructure, and support the dedicated Federal employees that work for the U.S. Congress.

Within the minibus, programs and projects such as the VA's National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Army Corps dredging for the Port of Baltimore, and a new paid-internship program in the Senate are just a few of the hundreds of items funded in these bills that will benefit the people of Maryland and the Nation. However, I do not support the $65 million appropriated in fiscal year 2019 for a new low- yield nuclear warhead for a submarine-launched ballistic missile. I believe this is an unnecessary new weapon that increases the risk of miscalculation and unintended escalation.

As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am pleased that we have gotten this far and I look forward to working with my colleagues on moving the other bills to final passage.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to my constituent and dear friend, Sheldon S. Cohen, who passed away earlier this week. Sheldon Cohen left an extraordinary legacy of accomplishment and service to our country.

A proud native Washingtonian and graduate of DC public schools, Sheldon was a World War II Navy veteran. One of the world's leading tax attorneys, he served as chief counsel and then Commissioner of the IRS under President Lyndon B. Johnson, becoming the youngest person to hold that position. Among his countless other accomplishments was his creation of the first Presidential blind trust. Significantly, the 1978 Ethics in Government Act made blind trusts the preferred vehicle for public officials who do not want to dispose of holdings that raise potential conflicts. In addition, he was instrumental in helping to computerize the IRS and in drafting an overhaul of the Federal income Tax Code. Following his government service, he had an extensive career in private practice, including founding the law firm of Cohen & Uretz. He served as general counsel to the Democratic National Committee and helped settle a civil case stemming from the break-in of DNC offices at the Watergate office complex by Nixon campaign operatives.

Sheldon Cohen's work was influential internationally as well. He advised many countries on their tax systems, was a founder of the Inter-American Center of Tax Administrations, and was a senior fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration. He participated on UN Special Missions to advise developing countries on tax systems, including meeting with Nelson Mandela. He vetted the tax returns of numerous Democratic Presidential and

Vice Presidential candidates, set up the Presidential Commission on Debates as a nonprofit organization, was a frequent author and speaker on tax policy and ethics, and often testified on Capitol Hill. He taught at his alma mater, George Washington University Law School, from which he had graduated first in his class, and at Howard and Miami law schools.

Sheldon Cohen was deeply involved in the community and held numerous leadership roles. These included serving as president of the Jewish Social Service Agency, president of the Order of the Leaf of Camp Airy, chair of the American Jewish Historical Society, trustee and chair of the GW board of trustees, founder and trustee of the United Jewish Endowment Fund, founding member and treasurer of the Supreme Court Historical Society, and trustee of the Jewish Theological Seminary and Adas Israel Congregation.

Sheldon Cohen was a decent, compassionate man, known for his high standards of integrity, his brilliant mind, his concern for those in need, and his devotion to his family and friends. I knew Sheldon Cohen well and will miss his friendship and wise counsel, as I do that of his wonderful and beloved wife Faye, who left us earlier this year. Their partnership and warm hospitality were known throughout our community and will always be remembered by the many friends and activists with whom they teamed up in support of important civic causes.

I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this fine man and in sending condolences to his family, including his children Melinda and her husband Alberto Goetzl, Laura and her husband Perry Apelbaum, Jonathan and his wife Joanne, and Sharon and her husband Michael Liebman; his 10 grandchildren; his brother Gerald Cohen and his wife Joanne; and his sister Barbara and her husband Dick Wolf.

Mr. President, today I wish to express my opposition to the confirmation of Lynn Johnson to become Assistant Secretary for Family Support at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Time and again, this administration has shown a complete lack of good judgement on immigration policy. Most recently, the Trump administration implemented their family separation policy, which caused the cruel separation of thousands of children from their parents, a number of whom have still not been reunited.

The sheer inhumanity of a policy that involves forcibly separating children from their families has traumatized these children. Experts have said that this trauma will compound the trauma many of these children have already experienced fleeing their violent home countries, exacerbate learning difficulties, increase depression and post- traumatic stress disorder, and may make some children more prone to substance use disorders.

These traumatized children have then gone into the care of facilities overseen by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which Ms. Johnson will oversee. There have been a number of concerning reports about facilities caring for these separated children, including medical neglect, physical and sexual abuse, overzealous restrictions on phone contact with their parents, and inappropriate use of psychotropic drugs without parental consent.

While I understand that Ms. Johnson was not in charge of the agency when this policy was implemented, I could not in good conscience vote to confirm a nominee who will be charged with carrying out this administration's misguided policies.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize an extraordinary educator, Dr. Juliette Bell, for her 6 years of outstanding service as president of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore. Dr. Bell has left a lasting legacy of accomplishment.

During Dr. Bell's tenure, UMES reached new levels of achievement, including being ranked as one of the Nation's best Historically Black Colleges and Universities, being a top producer of African-American pharmacists, becoming a doctoral research university, establishing the engineering and aviation science complex, experiencing an increase in student graduation rates, and improving relationships and collaboration between the university and the community. Thanks to her focus on inclusion and her commitment to the success of all students, Dr. Bell truly made a difference in the lives of UMES' students.

Dr. Bell's leadership has been recognized beyond the UMES campus. A renowned biochemist and scholar, she has received numerous prestigious national honors and awards, including the Millennium Award for Excellence in Teaching from the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, the NAFEO Research Excellence Award, the Minority Access, Inc., National Role Model Mentoring Award, and the University of North Carolina Board of Governors' Award for Excellence in Teaching. She has also been named a Giant in Science by Quality Education for Minorities and was featured as one of 10 African-American life scientists in an exhibition at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry entitled ``Defying Tradition: African American Women in Science and Technology.'' She has also been named one of Maryland's Top 100 Women.

Throughout her distinguished career, Dr. Bell has been a role model for many, including women and women of color, especially those seeking to pursue careers in STEM fields. I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Juliette Bell for all that she has done for students, the State of Maryland, and our entire Nation.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Maine and Rhode Island who were here today to draw attention to the Trump administration's very dangerous proposal that takes a wrecking ball to the Clean Power Plan that has been put in place. It has been put in place to try to reduce the costs we are facing from climate pollution and carbon pollution.

What we see in the Trump administration's plan is going to drag us backward. In fact, an analysis was done of their plan, and it will be worse than doing nothing at all.

We know, and my colleagues have talked about this, that every day the American people are already paying the costs of carbon pollution in extreme weather events, whether those are forest fires, whether they are droughts that are wreaking havoc on crops, whether it is flooding. My colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin, and I were just in Ellicott City, MD, 2 days ago, where within a 2-year period they have been hit by what are called 1,000-year floods because there is only supposed to be one-tenth of 1 percent of a chance that happens. Yet we have seen two of them in 2 years, causing loss of human life and incredible property damage.

The cost of doing nothing is huge. That is why the previous administration adopted the Clean Power Plan. With this administration taking us backward, those costs of doing nothing are going to rise again. As the Senator from Maine said, it is not just incredible property damage, but you will see loss of life and greater asthma deaths and other negative healthcare effects.

I know there is a vote coming up. I wanted to say a lot more about this, but the main point was made by the Senator from Rhode Island, which is, this is not going to stand. This will not be accepted in the courts. We will fight this in the courts because the American people deserve to have a system where the American people don't pay for the pollution being spewed out by others. Polluters should pay, not the public.

Let's defeat this new plan put forward by the Trump administration that takes us backward, and let's try to work together to address what is a very serious national and international issue.

Mr. President, I wish to speak in order to honor the achievements of Steven A. Hildreth, Specialist in Missile Defense, Congressional Research Service, CRS, on the

occasion of his retirement from the Service on August 31, 2018.

Steve Hildreth served Congress with distinction for more than 32 years at the Library of Congress as a Specialist in U.S. and Foreign National Security Programs for the Congressional Research Service. He earned a bachelor's degree from Brigham Young University in Provo, UT, a master's degree in international relations from Georgetown University in Washington, DC, graduate work at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, DC, and a master's degree in national security strategy from the National War College in Washington, DC.

Steve is recognized throughout Congress, the military services, the defense community, and the arms control community as an expert in U.S. nuclear weapons and ballistic missile defense, arms control, military space, and nonproliferation issues. He wrote extensively on missile defense programs, from the Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980s through the current guided-missile defense and Aegis programs. He also assisted the House Armed Services Committee, after the first gulf war, with assessments of the effectiveness of the Patriot system in taking down Iraqi scud missiles. In that capacity, he assisted Congress in 8 hours of testimony, leading a group of CRS researchers in providing open source analysis of the international aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks before the 9/11 Commission. Halfway through, the staff director for the Commission told Steve, ``I never believed in open source analysis until today.''

Steve also exercised true leadership at CRS. For 9 years, he led the Central Research Unit in the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of CRS, where he created and managed an extensive internship program and oversaw many of the research experts of the Service.

Steve published many influential CRS reports on such subjects as challenges to the United States in space, Iran's ballistic missile and space launch programs, long-range ballistic missile defense in Europe, ballistic missile defense in the Asia-Pacific region, ballistic missile defense, and offensive arms reductions, cyber warfare, and the Strategic Defense Initiative.

Long before I thought of running for office, I worked on national security issues for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In that capacity, I always found Steve's expertise valuable. As a Senator, I have continued to utilize Steve's analysis and insights. I am grateful for his service and wish him the best as he begins a new journey.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and thank Donald Shriber for his more than 30 years of public service. In addition to being an outstanding public servant who has dedicated his career to government service, Donald is also a proud Marylander. At the end of the month, Donald will retire from the Federal Government after a distinguished career at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate.

Donald began his career with the CDC as the head of the agency's Washington, DC, office and went on to lead policy and communications for CDC's important work in global health. Donald leaves a legacy of deep engagement in public health policy and a cadre of colleagues mentored to think creatively to solve complex public health challenges. Before starting at the CDC, Donald began his policy career on Capitol Hill, working in the House and Senate on healthcare and public health- related legislation. He served as a senior adviser to the legendary John Dingell, writing laws that continue to have a major impact on public health and healthcare today.

During his tenure at CDC, Donald was awarded two prestigious Presidential Rank Awards for his leadership. A steady hand during a public health emergency, Donald helped advise four CDC Directors, three Acting Directors, and countless administration officials over three administrations through complex policy discussions during some of the biggest public health challenges of the 21st century, including 9/11, the anthrax attacks of 2001, SARS, Hurricane Katrina, the H1N1 flu pandemic, and the Ebola epidemic.

Among his many contributions to the agency, the one most appreciated by many of his colleagues has been his thoughtful mentorship to the next generation of CDC leaders. Always a voice of wisdom, Donald is a reliable source of thoughtful strategic advice and novel approaches to public health policy. He challenged the agency to think about how policies in all areas of government can affect public health, and he made the agency stronger by working to leverage those areas across government to improve public health.

Today, I want to recognize Donald for his career at the CDC, his dedication to public service, and a lifetime of work that has truly made a difference to the health of our Nation and around the world. On behalf of the U.S. Congress, his fellow Marylanders, and a grateful nation, I want to thank Donald for the important work he has done and wish him the very best in his next phase of life.