Floor Statements

Mr. President, earlier this month, we mourned the loss of a wonderful public servant in Illinois. Naperville's mayor emeritus, Arthur George Pradel, passed away at the age of 80. He was a soldier, a policeman, a mayor, father, and friend.

To some, George was ``Officer Friendly.'' Local radio called him the Nicest Mayor in the World. I just was honored to be one of his friends--but so was everyone around him. He had a supernatural ability to know everyone and always have time to say hi. George was Naperville's longest serving mayor, with a tenure of 20 years.

When George was a small child, his family packed up from Chicago's Hyde Park and moved to Naperville in 1939. The town had just 4,500 people at the time. When George finished his tenure as mayor in 2015, Naperville had grown to a population of 142,000.

George graduated from Naperville Community High School in 1955 and served in the Marines as two of his uncles had done during World War II. After 3 years in the Marines, George came home to Naperville.

George's dream job was to be the head of an orphanage, but in the 1950s, the orphanage system had changed. Smaller group or children's homes and foster care had replaced much of it. George was in a bit of a quandary. A friend of his encouraged him to consider police work. When an opportunity at the Naperville Police Department came up in 1966, he applied immediately. It was a beginning of a 29-year career with the Naperville Police Department.

There was just one small problem. George was not even 57" in height. Naperville Police Department required officers to be at least 511" at the time. After acing his interview with the Board of Police and Fire Commissioners, the board had to consider if they could let him into their ranks, even though he was too short. One of the board members asked a marine family member if someone like George could make it. The family member told him that anyone who could get through Marine Corps training could be a great police officer. The board agreed.

George earned the nickname ``Officer Friendly'' in his almost 30 years on the force by visiting schools and speaking to children. He wanted youth to understand that police were not to be feared, but they were there to protect them and give guidance. George worked to bring Safety Town, a miniature village where children learn pedestrian, bike, and railroad safety, to Naperville in 1977 and was the first police instructor. The ``town'' village now bears his name and that of his late wife Pat.

George retired as a lieutenant when he was elected mayor, despite no previous political experience in 1995. He originally envisioned retiring from the police force and being a greeter at Walmart, but a bunch of residents asked him to run. He never really mastered the art of diplomatically saying no. George wasn't even planning to win the race, but all those children that knew him as Officer Friendly were adults now, and they voted for him. He was so surprised that he did not even have an acceptance speech prepared for when he won.

As mayor, George continued being Naperville's greatest champion. His schedule was packed with events from collecting food for charity shopping events for Loaves & Fishes Community Services to charity dinners, fundraising walks, anniversaries, and graduations. He even did first flush ceremonies for toilets in a new building. When snow fell, he would hop in a city

plow and help out. Helping people and trying to make Naperville better was his nature.

I used to kid him that he was my favorite Republican. I invited him as my guest to a State of the Union address in Washington awhile back, and he was a joy to be around.

George always had time for people. His door was open to anyone. A Chicago columnist wrote a sarcastic piece about Naperville, and George invited him to tour the town and changed his opinion. His state of the city addresses had a flare to them, as he sported a tuxedo and silk tophat to present them.

George loved Naperville and thought the best of it. When he stepped down from being mayor to spend more time with his wife in 2015, his successor invented the title mayor emeritus so George could still stay involved with the community and represent the mayor on occasion.

In addition to Safety Town, a park, a street, and an Officer Friendly statue all bear George's name in Naperville. He even has a bobblehead in his likeness, which I own, too. Because George loved chicken wings and the lunch buffet, Braconi's Restaurant and Pizzeria has a room named after George. At Schmaltz's Deli, George is the only person to have a sandwich named after him. Why did all these places name things after him? Because they loved him the way he loved Naperville. Naperville will miss him, and so will I.

George is survived by his children Carol, Gary, and George.

Mr. President, last week, Chicago lost a giant in media when Ken Smikle passed away at the too young age of 66. For over 40 years, Ken redefined coverage of the Black American experience and brought to light the economic potential of Black communities in the United States.

It is hard to believe that an audience with $1.2 trillion in buying power in 2017 did not have a publication geared toward understanding the African-American market 30 years ago, but that was the reality before Ken founded Target Media News in 1987. Ken saw the potential there throughout his career.

Hailing from Harlem, NY,--in 1974, Ken, his brother, Dawoud Bey, and friend, Gerald Gladney started a business that published two magazines. They did this with no financial backing besides savings from various jobs.

Ken wrote for several publications, including Essence Magazine and the National Leader Magazine. He went on to serve as the arts editor for Harlem's Amsterdam News, the Black music editor at Record World Magazine, and the editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer.

In 1983, Ken's life had a revolution. He became the senior editor at Black Enterprise magazine. Ken also met the love of his life, Renee Ferguson, who was among the first female African-American women to work at CBS Network News in New York. Both of them were dedicated to telling the untold story of African Americans. It was at Black Enterprise that Ken got the idea that no one was tracking what businesses were doing to market to Black consumers.

In 1987, Ken and Renee moved to Chicago. Ken founded Target Market News, while Renee worked as an investigative reporter for NBC5 News. Target Market News became the leading publication showing the research into marketing to African Americans. His work was pivotal in changing the way corporations viewed African Americans as an economic force. He published an annual ``Black Buying Power'' report for many years. For many years, Ken was the only one doing it, until Forbes and the University of Georgia Selig Center joined the bandwagon.

Ken was the expert quoted on marketing to African Americans in numerous publications. He cofounded the African American Marketing and Media Association, hosted annual conferences, and was a proud member of the National Association of Black Journalists.

In Chicago's Hyde Park's Kenwood community, Ken and Renee were staples for 30 years. They were neighbors to a young couple named Barack and Michelle Obama. Before Barack Obama was President Obama, he was Ken's friend at the Hyde Park co-op.

While trailblazing the marketing industry, Ken was a Little League basketball coach at the YMCA. He was a loving father to his son, Jason, going to his son's baseball, basketball, and swimming competition.

Ken loved his jazz and the music of life. His leadership and vision will be missed.

Ken leaves behind his wife, Renee, son, Jason, brother, Dawoud Bey, and sisters, Sandra Bernard and Georgianna Machicote.

(At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Madam President, I think it is important for us at this moment to reflect on a little Senate history. This goes back to the year 1991, 27 years ago. It was a chapter in the history of the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee that many people who lived through it either as observers or participants will never forget. It refers to the hearings for the approval of the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.

Let me read to you a summary of what occurred.

After Anita Hill alleged that Judge Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her, the full Senate on October 8, 1991, agreed by unanimous consent to delay a vote on Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court until October 15.

Let me underline that. The full Senate agreed by unanimous consent to delay the vote after the allegations surfaced.

Three days later, beginning on October 11, the Senate Judiciary Committee held public hearings over the course of 3 days, enabling Clarence Thomas, Anita Hill, and other witnesses to testify in an opening setting. Two days after the hearings ended, on October 15, the Senate then voted on Thomas' nomination.

However, we have learned subsequently that this process was rushed to a point where information came out after the hearings that, in fact, several other women had made similar allegations.

Having said that, according to press reports from 1991, Anita Hill faxed her four-page statement, making the allegations to the Judiciary Committee on September 23, 1991. Then the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Joe Biden, in turn, passed that information on to the White House and the FBI.

On the same day that this letter was faxed to the Senate Judiciary Committee, on September 23, 1991, White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray ordered the FBI to investigate Anita Hill's allegations. The FBI spent 2 days investigating the allegations, including conducting interviews with Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, and completed its report on September 25, 1991.

I recount that history because it is remarkable in light of what we have witnessed with the allegations of Dr. Ford. First, the Senate, by unanimous consent--Democrats and Republicans--once that allegation surfaced by Anita Hill, voted to delay the vote on Thomas's nomination. Secondly, when the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Joe Biden, turned over the allegation, on the very day it was received at the White House, the White House Counsel, C. Boyden Gray, ordered an investigation by the FBI.

Apparently, at that moment in history, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and on the Judiciary Committee and in the White House at least wanted to maintain an open mind as to whether there was truth to the allegations and ordered an FBI investigation.

Contrast that with what we are going through here. Contrast that with the fact that many, including the majority leader, who just spoke, have already presumed that any allegations by Dr. Ford should not be taken seriously and, as he said over and over again, that Judge Kavanaugh deserves the benefit of the doubt in this circumstance--or more.

That is a departure from where we were 27 years ago when a credible allegation appeared and both sides stepped back and said: Investigate it. Call them both before the Judiciary Committee. Let's hear their testimony before we make a decision.

In many cases since Dr. Ford's allegations have come forward, Republicans have prejudged this and dismissed it as political.

Let me say a word about my friend and the ranking Democrat in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein. Senator Feinstein faced a choice that none of us would want to deal with. I think she did it responsibly. She received, through a Member of Congress, a letter making the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, but it was clear in that letter that the woman making the allegations did not want her identity disclosed. The woman claimed to have been victimized by Brett Kavanaugh, and she did not want her name made public. What was Senator Feinstein to do at that point--ignore her request, make it public to the embarrassment of her and her family?

Senator Feinstein did not believe that is what she should have done, and she didn't. She continued to work with Dr. Ford. She reached out to her personally. She discussed the matter with her attorney. When I hear statements on the floor from the Senate majority leader that suggest there was a leaking to the press, I don't know where he is pointing his finger, but he shouldn't point it at Senator Feinstein. She is an honorable person, and she is a person who is sensitive to the reality of a victim and the fact that some of them are afraid to step forward and tell their story publicly. I think that is what occurred here.

The time came when the story did leak to some credible--or maybe not credible; I don't know, I couldn't characterize them--but some publication known as the Intercept. It started to make the rounds. At that point, things started changing. It changed for the committee. Senate Judiciary Democrats met last week, talked it over, and said that we believe we should refer what we have, redacted, to the Federal Bureau of Investigations. We did. Then it was sent to the White House.

We did that unanimously. Then, of course, the decision was made over the weekend by Dr. Ford that she was willing to go public. I don't think that was an easy decision for her. Clearly, it wasn't, because for weeks she made it clear to Senator Feinstein and others that she didn't want her identity disclosed. It is understandable. Look at the attacks she has faced already and what she is likely to face in the future. It is a reality of sexual harassment and sexual assault that victims are reluctant to speak for fear of what will happen to them and their family as a result of it.

Now we have the situation where we do not have an investigation of Dr. Ford's allegations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This morning, the Senate Judiciary Democrats are making a plea to the President, as well as to the Republicans, to initiate the very FBI investigation that is necessary, certainly of Brett Kavanaugh's comments, as well as Dr. Ford's comments about this episode. I think, at a minimum, that should be done.

What has been said by the majority leader this morning, and I quote him: ``So little order and so little sensitivity''--I think Senator Feinstein from the start showed sensitivity to the reality of the victims of sexual assault. I applaud her for that. I think it was a humane approach, a sensible and rational approach on her part to work with Dr. Ford to the point where she was willing to speak publicly about it. Sensitivity, you know, goes in both directions, both to the Kavanaugh family, as well as to the Ford family in this circumstance.

In terms of order, it is difficult to judge when a person is willing to make a decision. Obviously, after 6 weeks, Dr. Ford made the decision that she would go public. That was not a timetable established by Senator Feinstein for anyone else. It was one she had to come to grips with in her own mind from her personal point of view and her family's point of view.

It is ironic that just a few weeks ago we had a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on this issue. I hope my Republican colleagues will think about that hearing and some of the things that were said. I hope they will treat Dr. Ford's allegations with the seriousness and dignity that survivors of sexual assault deserve.

Chairman Chuck Grassley, who is my friend, made a statement during that committee hearing on June 13. It was a hearing about the sexual harassment perpetrated by a Federal judge, Alex Kozinski. Chuck Grassley was addressing victims who spoke out against Judge Kozinski's harassment. This is what he said:

Speaking out against powerful federal judges in a system

that doesn't always protect victims takes tremendous courage.

But because of your bravery--

Referring to these witnesses--

we can hopefully begin to make real, significant changes to

these power imbalances that allow harassment to thrive.

I think I have a dual responsibility in serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee: a responsibility to fairness when it comes to the allegations made by Dr. Ford and responsibility, when it comes to fairness, to Brett Kavanaugh in this circumstance as well. That means that I am not allowed, in my own mind, to prejudge this and to say automatically that Dr. Ford is right or automatically Judge Kavanaugh is right.

What I need, what the American people need, are the facts. We should harken back to what occurred before with President Bush and C. Boyden Gray, his counsel, when they ordered an investigation by the FBI. That should occur now. If we are going to have a hearing on Monday, we should walk into that hearing after an investigation, which at least involves Brett

Kavanaugh being interviewed and at least involves Dr. Ford being interviewed and at least involves Mark Judge, the person who has been identified as an eyewitness to this occurrence being interviewed as well. There could be other relevant witnesses. I will leave it up to the FBI and their investigation to come to that conclusion.

Let's get the facts before the American people. Let's understand the seriousness of this responsibility. A lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land is what is at stake here, as well as attacks on the credibility of an alleged sexual assault victim and others who are watching this carefully in light of their own life experiences.

I hope we meet that responsibility, but we will never meet it if Senators continue to come to the floor and prejudge the facts before any investigation, before any testimony by either of these individuals. If we are truly going to meet our responsibility to advise and consent under the Constitution, it is time for us to step back, put our Democratic and Republican clothes at the door, and stand together in judgment of an important issue that affects the future of this country and future of the Supreme Court.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Defense appropriations bill will soon pass the Senate and be sent to the President's desk. This is a massive spending bill--$675 billion--and it has been 10 years since one was enacted on schedule. Passing appropriations bills on time is about being good stewards of the taxpayer's money.

When appropriations bills are not signed into law on schedule, government programs are put on autopilot, known as a continuing resolution, or CR. CRs create financial headaches, including inefficiency, waste, and unnecessary additional spending. Last year, the Navy estimated that due to CRs, it has wasted $4 billion since 2011--$4 billion. That is enough money to buy 18 F-35s or two new destroyers or 3,000 Harpoon anti-ship missiles. Thanks to good work on both sides of the aisle, we are looking at real savings in every part of the Pentagon just by getting our work done on time.

I am proud of many things in this Defense appropriations bill, including how this bill prioritizes research by including $94.9 billion for defense R&D, a record level for the Defense Department. GPS, the internet, and satellites are all examples of how Federal innovation research dollars have changed the world. On a bipartisan basis, we are building on previous year's investments, and I am confident that we will see similar breakthroughs.

In addition, for the fifth year in a row, this bill increases defense medical

research funding by 5 percent real growth for a total of $2.4 billion in defense medical research for fiscal year 2019. Defense medical research is making breakthroughs in a wide range of fields, from trauma medicine to breast cancer treatments. We have all heard of the quick- clotting tools that paramedics use around the country to stop bleeding in gunshot victims; that was a defense medical research breakthrough.

Just this past year, researchers discovered a treatment to speed healing of combat-infected wounds and regrow the skin around them more effectively. Others proved that a particular medical assessment tool can accurately assess potentially suicidal behavior. I encourage everyone to go to the Army's medical research website and read the list yourself--a long list--of worthwhile uses of these funds.

The defense bill is paired with the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill this year, which includes another $2 billion funding increase for medical research at the National Institutes of Health. This will be the fourth year in a row that Congress has provided the NIH with at least a 5-percent budget increase. Every NIH institute and center will see their budgets increase, but there are also noteworthy increases for Alzheimer's disease and cancer research.

I wish we could have given the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention a bigger increase, but I am pleased with what we were able to accomplish here, including the continued investment--with an additional $5 million in fiscal year 2019--for the Open Textbooks Pilot to help save college students money on textbook costs.

I am, however, disappointed that this bill does not include the bipartisan Durbin-Grassley-King amendment, which would have helped ensure that pharmaceutical companies disclose the cost of their drugs television advertising. Our amendment passed the Senate unanimously. It is supported by President Trump, HHS Secretary Azar, the AARP, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, 76 percent of Americans, and many others. House Republicans--apparently more indebted to Big Pharma than their constituents--prevented this commonsense proposal from being included in the final bill, but I will not stop fighting.

In conclusion, the outcome of much of this bill shows what we can accomplish when Democrats and Republicans work together. I want to thank my partner and chairman, Senator Shelby, as well as the ranking member, Senator Leahy.

But our work is only half done. There remain seven other appropriations bills that remain in limbo, dealing with foreign aid, agriculture, and even border security. The Senate will have to make an important choice very soon: either we work together to wrap up the appropriations process or we head back to Washington gridlock and wasteful stalemates.

I urge the Republican leader to look at what we have accomplished in these bills, working together, and use that as a model for finishing our work in the coming weeks.

Madam President, our Nation is in the midst of the worst drug epidemic in its history. There is no town too small, no suburb too wealthy to be spared. Every day, more than 115 Americans die from an opioid overdose. In the past 3 years, there has been a 53-percent spike in drug overdose deaths in Illinois, with more than 2,400 lives lost in 2016. I am glad we are finally doing something to address this crisis.

To truly prevent addiction and stop the next drug epidemic, we need to look at the factors driving this crisis.

I am pleased that several of my bills to help prevent opioid addiction have been included in the bill before us. Whether it is witnessing violence, experiencing a parent's opioid addiction, or facing abuse in the home, traumatic experiences can harm a child's brain.

Thanks to the Adverse Childhood Experiences, ACEs, study and advancements in brain science, we know that, left unaddressed, these events can have an impact on future health problems, mental illness, drug use, and the cycle of violence. But with the right care and support, we can help heal children who experience trauma and prevent serious, negative consequences.

I want to thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray for including legislation I introduced with Senators Heitkamp, Capito, and Murkowski. Our language will help train more teachers, doctors, social services, first responders, and the justice system to recognize signs of trauma in children and provide help to those in need.

Our provisions will improve coordination between Federal agencies, ensure more Federal funding is used to promote these skills and awareness, and expand the workforce capable to providing care.

In 2016, Big Pharma produced 14 billion opioid doses--enough for every adult in America to have a 3-week supply of opioids. Each year, the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, sets the amount of opioids allowed to be produced in the United States. Between 1993 and 2015, DEA allowed production of oxycodone to increase 39-fold and hydrocodone to increase 12-fold. The sheer volume of opioids manufactured each year increases risk of abuse--four of five new heroin users started with painkillers.

One problem is that, when setting annual quotas, DEA is unable to look at how a drug is abused or leads to overdose deaths. Why should DEA be handcuffed from considering the real-world misuse of oxycodone pills when it sets the production levels? This package includes my bipartisan bill to strengthen DEA's ability to adjust quotas to reflect the risk of opioid misuse, while improving flexibility to avoid any shortages.

I want to thank Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, and DEA for working so closely with me and Senator Kennedy. It is a good thing that we are now talking about drug addiction as a treatable disease, not a moral failing that should be punished. Sadly, it has taken us too long to get here.

The opioid epidemic also underscores the importance of having quality health insurance--coverage that includes mental health and substance abuse treatment. But once again, President Trump wants to allow insurance companies to discriminate against people with a preexisting condition--such as an opioid addiction--and promote ``junk'' insurance plans that don't cover substance abuse treatment. I will fight tooth and nail against efforts to repeal, gut, or sabotage this quality care so that we do not return to the dark days of coverage denials and sky- high premiums.

The legislation before us addresses several important factors, and I am happy to support it today, but it neglects many more actions we need to take.

This opioid package fails to include my bipartisan bill with Senators Brown and Portman, which would lift an outdated barrier to addiction treatment that restricts Medicaid from paying for care in facilities larger than 16 beds.

We have worked in a thoughtful, open process to improve this legislation and address any policy concerns, and I look forward to including our revised bill in conference with the House.

We must also hold the pharmaceutical industry accountable for its role in creating the epidemic through their deceptive conduct. Drug companies have profited from flooding the market with painkillers, often with misleading information, and should have to pay for the addiction treatment that their products have caused. Additionally, executives from Perdue Pharma, Janssen, Abbott, Endo, Insys, and other manufacturers must testify before the Senate to explain their role in this epidemic.

Today's bipartisan opioid legislation is an important step forward, but we need to do more, and quickly, to meet this destructive crisis head-on.

Mr. President, American jobs have changed dramatically in the last century, but the reasons Americans work have not changed.

Work is about more than a paycheck. A job is--or ought to be--a source of dignity. Men and women who work hard may not be able to live on Easy Street, but they ought to be able to walk down Main Street with their heads held high, knowing that they can provide for the basic needs of their families, and they ought to be able to retire with dignity and security.

Keith Kelleher understands this. He understands that treating workers--all workers--fairly is not an outdated idea; it is a requirement for a sound economy and solid future. He has devoted more than four decades of his life to improving the lives of some of the lowest paid workers in our economy, including nursing home workers and home health aides.

As founding president of SEIU Healthcare in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Kansas, Keith Kelleher has helped secure the right to form and join a union for more than 91,000 traditionally low-paid healthcare workers and to negotiate for better wages and working conditions.

Not only that, like Walter Reuther and other great labor leaders of the last century, Keith Kelleher has championed broader causes of social justice. In 2014, Keith Kelleher and the members of SEIU Healthcare helped lead the fight in Illinois for marriage equality, a year before the U.S. Supreme Court made marriage equality the law of the land.

This week, Keith Kelleher is stepping down officially from the union he helped found. He is retiring after more than 30 years at the helm of SEIU Healthcare, and I want to thank him for his contributions to economic and social justice in Illinois and in our Nation.

Keith Kelleher moved to Chicago in the early 1980s from Detroit. He was working with a group called the United Labor Unions, an organization that trained people on how to organize and work together to advance their common good.

He lived as simply as the people he came to help. He focused on the home care industry because it had some of the lowest paid workers in the state. Private-sector workers hired by the State to provide services for seniors and people with disabilities earned an hourly rate of $3.35, with no benefits. They were a forgotten group, one largely ignored by traditional labor unions.

In 1983, Keith Kelleher gathered seven home health aides in the basement of the United Methodist Temple in downtown Chicago, and they voted to organize a union. That moment was the beginning of Union Local 880. Twenty-five years later, Local 880 had grown from 7 members to 68,000 members. All great things come from small beginnings.

Keith Kelleher built Local 880 from the ground up by going door-to- door in some of Chicago's poorest, most neglected neighborhoods. He helped convince thousands of workers to pay membership fees even before Local 880 could engage in collective bargaining. They won that right in 1984, when the National Labor Relations Board officially recognized Local 880.

He convinced people that they mattered and that they could change their own lives though collective action.

He found innovative ways to raise funds for the fledgling union, canvassing for donations, selling chicken dinners on payday, and holding tag sales. Keith and his wife even figured out how to turn their wedding into a union fundraiser.

In 1985, the independent Local 880 merged with SEIU, the Service Employees International Union.

In 2007 and 2008, Local 880 merged with two other SEIU local unions in Indiana, Local 20 and Local 4. In 2009, SEIU Healthcare Illinois/ Indiana merged with the SEIU Healthcare local unions in Missouri and Kansas. Keith Kelleher was elected founding president of the new combined union.

For nearly 40 years, Keith Kelleher has helped forge new partnerships and fought new battles. He is as determined as they come. One battle took nearly 20 years to win, but SEIU Local 880 never gave up, and in 2005, Illinois' Governor finally signed an executive order recognizing unionized home care workers who work as contractors for State agencies as public employees. That victory gave 50,000 workers the legal right to bargain collectively for better wages and working conditions. They have since won a 35 percent wage increase over 4 years and other improvements in benefits.

Under Keith Kelleher's leadership, Local 880 has become a significant political force. You cannot miss SEIU Health members at public events. They are often known as ``the purple people'' because of the color of the t-shirts they wear.

Keith Kelleher has fought for justice for union members and for those who don't have the benefit of union membership.

In addition to marriage equality, he has fought for a higher minimum wage across the country.

Like Tom Joad in ``The Grapes of Wrath,'' wherever there are people in need of justice, Keith Kelleher seems to be there.

As he steps down officially this week from the union he helped create, I want to thank Keith personally and wish him, his wife Madeline, and his two daughters Ryan and Aileen well. He has made a real difference in the lives of tens of thousands of workers, and his life's work will continue to lift workers up for generations to come.

Mr. President, earlier this year, I had the opportunity to visit Venezuela, a once proud Latin American democracy that is now in a state of collapse. The country was planning a Presidential election a few weeks after my visit in late May.

My message to President Maduro and members of his government during this visit was clear and simple. They should run a clean election in which opposition candidates are released from detention and allowed to participate. Local and international observers should be allowed to observe the entire electoral process. The election should be administered in a fair and open manner by credible nonpartisan election commissioners.

These were the same messages told to Venezuela by its neighbors in Latin America.

I suggested that meeting these obvious international norms and restoring the power of the country's duly elected National Assembly would help ease Venezuela's isolation and the suffering of its people.

Tragically, obstinately, President Maduro and his circle of corrupt colleagues chose to double down. They held a sham election.

Its legitimacy was rejected by the international community and the consequences have been predictable: continued mass exodus of desperate Venezuelans to neighboring countries, inflation nearing 1 million percent, deepening international isolation, and of course, an increasingly ruthless crackdown on political opponents to further solidify the regime's illegitimate hold on power.

This regime already had a shameful history of jailing political opponents. Their victims include Judge Maria Afiuni, who had the courage to rule against the government on a case before her, Leopoldo Lopez, the former mayor of Caracas who was a highly popular national candidate and therefore remains under house arrest and unable to compete in elections, and so many others including a number of dual American-Venezuelan citizens.

And now, it has jailed young elected National Assembly Member Juan Requesens on highly questionable charges.

His crime? Criticizing President Maduro and the staggering human suffering and the demise of democracy under his dictatorial rule.

Haunting videos of Requesens in detention have surfaced which strongly suggest torture and inhumane treatment.

Several months ago, I had the great pleasure of sitting down with several of Juan's colleagues when I was in Caracas. These are the next generation of young leaders, brave men and women who won at the ballot box in many areas previously won by Hugo Chavez and Maduro.

They won because they made an effort to understand voters' economic concerns and how former ruling parties had too often become corrupt or ignored the poor. They were the hope for the future, but to this Maduro regime, they were a threat.

So voter and candidate registrations were manipulated to make it harder for opposition parties and candidates to compete. Elected National Assembly Members were harassed and threatened. In some cases, their passports were confiscated.

I will never forget when they told me that, if I returned a year later, that half of them might be gone, jailed or chased into exile. Sadly, they were right.

My colleagues Senators Menendez, Nelson, Rubio, Cornyn, and I will introduce legislation in the days ahead that will further targeted sanctions against those Venezuelan officials responsible for this scandalous regime and those responsible for Juan's detention. It will also provide additional aid to help with the humanitarian crises in and along Venezuela's borders.

I wish we had not reached this desperate moment. I wish the Maduro regime would play by basic democratic rules and let the Venezuelan people freely decide their leaders. I wish the Maduro regime had the courage to compete in a free and fair election.

But it didn't.

So until it does and until Leopoldo, Juan, and the many other Venezuelan political prisoners are freed, the National Assembly's powers restored, and a legitimate democratic process is reestablished, I will continue to support pressure on this corrupt regime and sanctioning those responsible for the Venezulea's misery.

I announce that the Senator from Florida Mr. Nelson) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

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

Madam President, this is a sad time for the Senate and our Nation. With the passing of John McCain, our country lost a legend, and this Senate has lost a towering figure. I have lost a friend. America owes John McCain and his family our gratitude and respect for his courage and sacrifice and for the trials he endured to serve the Nation he loved.

John McCain entered this world with big shoes to fill. His father and grandfather were four-star admirals in the U.S. Navy. John McCain met and exceeded his family legacy.

I first met him 35 years ago, in 1982. We were brand-new freshmen Congressmen elected to the U.S. House. I spotted him on the other side of the floor in the Senate and, of course, I knew instantly who he was and worked up the courage to go over and introduce myself. Then, I asked him a favor.

I said: John, would you consider doing a cable TV show that I could send back to my Central Illinois district?

He said: Sure, I would be glad to.

I thought: That is amazing--a Democratic Congressman asking a new Republican Congressman to help him back in his district, and John McCain said yes.

It was the beginning of a friendship. That cable show wasn't shown beyond Central Illinois, but I still remember it and still thank John for his act of kindness. It was my first exposure to a unique style of communication that America would come to know as the ``Straight Talk Express.'' Sitting for that interview is a typically generous John McCain act, for which I am still grateful.

There is an old joke about an Irishman who walked past a brawl and said: Is this a private fight or can anyone get into it?

I think that man's name may have been McCain. Everyone who knew or served with John for any period of time got crosswise with him. I can remember there, in the well of the Senate, John McCain walking up to me, getting within an inch of my face and chewing me out about some article that he had read in the Chicago Tribune. He was so mad he was about to explode, and he wheeled around and walked away.

I thought: What did I say? I can't even remember the article.

I raced back to look up the Chicago Tribune article he referred to and still couldn't understand his anger, and I thought: How am I going to make amends with John. He has been my friend for so long.

The next day he came up to me, and I got ready for the second round. He put his arm around me and said: It wasn't that bad after all. We are still friends.

That was typical John McCain--a volcanic temper but an embracing, loving approach when it came to friendship. That was John. He was passionate in his beliefs, but he was not a man to hold grudges. He understood that two people can disagree on issues today, and still both love this country and work together tomorrow.

Occasionally, he would invite you on a trip. Be careful. I said yes several times. A John McCain trip over a weekend was something you don't soon forget. If there is anybody out there who thinks that Senators with John McCain were sitting poolside drinking these mixed drinks with paper umbrellas, they have it all wrong. John McCain's trips on the weekend were more like Bataan death marches. From the minute you got on that plane until you got back to Washington, it was a nonstop schedule. Everything had to be done. We had to see three countries, not two, and we had to get it done and get back to Washington. You learned so much.

I went to Ukraine with John. I remember walking the streets of Kiev in Ukraine. People were coming up to John--people who remembered that he showed up in the Maidan Square when the revolution was underway and spoke for those who were defying Moscow--and they still remembered John McCain and couldn't wait to come up and say hello and thank him. It was that way in so many places of the world. I was lucky to be there. I was lucky to be a part of it, lucky to see history unfold, and lucky to count John as a friend.

John and I had our disagreements. In fact, there was one solid year when we barely spoke. At the end of that year, I found an excuse to walk over to his office to see him on some issue. I remember that he stood up and greeted me. He shook my hand. He looked me in the eye and said: I am glad this is over between us.

So was I. It was one of the happier days I served in the Senate.

His ability to see beyond party labels was one of the qualities that so many of us loved and admired about him. It was a lesson he learned from his family. It is a truth, I imagine, that he came to see even more clearly during the 5\1/2\ torturous years--two of them in solitary confinement--that he spent as a prisoner of war in that hellish place known as the Hanoi Hilton.

We are stronger together than we are divided. John McCain knew that. His entire life was a testimony to that powerful truth. It is why, as a prisoner of war, John McCain refused offers of release. He knew what the rules were. The rules were ``first in, first out.'' He was not the first in. He just happened

to be the son of an admiral, and the North Vietnamese were going to make him a symbol and release him. He wouldn't do it. He wouldn't accept it. His body was broken by the torture and the plane crash, but he stayed in that cell and waited his turn, until the moment came when he could leave with his head up.

John didn't want to be defined as a professional prisoner of war. I love the story about a party that was given for John and his fellow captives after they got home. One young man was telling the story of his confinement in some detail when he happened to look over and see John McCain. He suddenly felt conspicuous and said to John: I shouldn't be going on about my time as a prisoner of war. I was there for 6 weeks, and you were there for 5\1/2\ years.

With typical John McCain humor and wit, John replied: Oh, no, go right ahead. The first 6 weeks were the toughest.

Like Abraham Lincoln, John McCain knew that laughter helped to make the unbearable bearable, and like President Lincoln, he was secure enough in his own reputation and in his own achievements to be modest.

John endured the hell of the Hanoi Hilton more than many. He served in the Senate longer than many. He leaves his mark on this body and our Nation.

When the issue of torture and detention was front and center before the American people, when we were trying to decide what were the boundaries for this democracy, faced with the threat of terrorism, there was one voice in the Senate who was credible. It was John McCain.

I made speech after speech on the subject, but when John McCain got up and spoke about the issue of torture, there was silence on the floor of the Senate as we listened carefully. He proposed a resolution establishing humane standards of treatment, realizing the humanity we showed toward our prisoners is the same humanity we expected if Americans were taken prisoner. His effort was enacted by the Senate with over 90 votes, a strong bipartisan rollcall.

John McCain, more than anything, was a champion of the U.S. military--the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. They never had a better friend. Our Nation's veterans and their families never had a stronger ally. He was a leader in the fight to curb the influence of special interests in politics and to make our government truly a government of, by, and for the people.

Russ Feingold and John McCain moved us toward what America is longing for--putting the special interests behind us, putting the people first, ending soft money.

He treasured our heritage as a nation of immigrants. I have such profound respect for John McCain's efforts to reach across the aisle and try to find solutions for America's broken immigration system. Even as his own party railed against him, we spent almost a year together-- eight Senators, four Democrats and four Republicans, led by John McCain--to write a comprehensive immigration reform bill. It was one of my proudest moments in the Senate. It was why I ran for the Senate. It was what John McCain told us over and over was to be our mission in life as Senators: To solve the problems facing America and not to be worried about taking some heat.

He took a lot of heat as a Republican who stepped up and offered a real solution to our comprehensive immigration challenge. We put together a bill over the course of a year. I think it was an extraordinary effort. We all had to compromise. John compromised and I compromised, but we ended up with a bipartisan bill that passed overwhelmingly on the floor of the Senate.

There hasn't been another moment like that in the time I have been here, and John led the way. He took a lot of grief for it. His poll numbers were not that good, particularly among the most conservative Republicans, but John knew we had a problem to solve, and he stepped out and did it. I was honored to be a part of the small group that worked night after night, week after week to put that effort together.

Of course, what I remember now more than anything is that middle-of- the-night vote a little over a year ago. He walked through that door, just having spoken on the telephone with President Trump, and he came to the well of the Senate and stood right next to that table. Because he had limited motion in his arm because of that plane crash and torture in Vietnam, he barely lifted his right arm and pushed his thumb down and said no. With that ``no'' vote, he preserved health insurance for millions of Americans, and he invoked the ire of conservative Republicans, who will never forgive him for that moment. It was one of the proudest, most courageous votes and moments in the history of the Senate. I was honored to be here and had a chance to thank him personally that night.

I also remember when he came to the floor and spoke at that desk, which is now bearing the vase of roses, a tribute to John McCain, and reminded all of us why we run for this office. Sure, it is a great title and a lot of Americans never get close to a title like U.S. Senator, but to John McCain and to many of us, it is much more. It is not only a great honor. It is a great challenge for us to do something with this title to solve the problems that face this country.

I didn't always agree with John, but I always respected the fact that he wanted the Senate to be an institution that was serving the people in this country and solving the problems we face.

John was principled and courageous time and again. There were times when we had our differences. I can recall when he came to Illinois to campaign against me. He was campaigning on behalf of a State Representative in Illinois named Jim Durkin--not Durbin, but Durkin-- who had been John's supporter for President in the State of Illinois. John returned the favor by campaigning for Jim Durkin against me. You might wonder, in this world of politics, how you react to a person who is trying to take your job away, which John was doing. I understood it. I expected it. Jim Durkin was loyal to John McCain, and John McCain was loyal to him and came in and campaigned for him.

After the election was over, the people of Illinois decided I should be the Senator. It didn't deter John McCain one bit from working with me from that point forward.

There is an empty space in this Chamber without John McCain. There is an empty space in America without his spirit. He will be missed, but he certainly will never be forgotten. I endorse the proposal to rename the Russell Senate Office Building in honor of Lieutenant Commander and Senator John McCain. Like Senator Schumer, I hope that decades from now, children who are visitors to the Capitol grounds will ask: Who was this McCain they named the building after? They will discover he was a man worthy of our respect, a man who in his heart was a public servant, a man who was an American hero.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) is necessarily absent.

[Rollcall Vote No. 195 Ex.]

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) is necessarily absent.