Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 180, submitted earlier today.

I know of no further debate on the measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 848 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Wednesday, April 28; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; finally, that the cloture motion on the Power nomination ripen at 12:30 p.m.

For the information of Senators, members attending the joint session of Congress should gather in the Senate Chamber at 8:15 p.m. to proceed as a body to the Hall of the House for President Joe Biden's address.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, from police reform to anti-Asian hate crimes, Americans across the Nation are pushing, pulling, and tugging with all their might to make sure that the United States lives up to our founding ideals of equality and justice for all. At the same time, the Biden administration is charged with the immense responsibility of restoring confidence and integrity to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Donald Trump's political appointees undermined the Department's mission and demoralized its dedicated career civil servants through years of gross mismanagement and improper politicization. We desperately need leaders with integrity, honor, and just basic competence to restore morale at the Department of Justice and empower the Agency to meet the moment.

Fortunately, I am confident that both Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke are among the most qualified and prepared public servants to take on the daunting challenges that lie ahead.

For far too many people in this country, equal protection under the law is not a reality. All across this country, there are communities that believe--and for good reason--that the law is not on their side. Individuals fear coming forward to report that they have been a victim of a hate crime, or, even worse, law enforcement fails to identify and report racist violence and discrimination.

And the senseless killing of unarmed Black and Brown Americans at the hands of law enforcement has become an all-too-common occurrence. Just a few days ago, the country was shocked by video footage documenting local law enforcement officers brazenly threatening and assaulting an Army second lieutenant who was in his military uniform and simply asking to know why he had been pulled over.

If this is how the Windsor Police Department, while knowing it is being videotaped, treats an Army officer in uniform--a man who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States with his own life, if necessary--one wonders if such misconduct represents a systemic pattern or practice of abuse. This incident simply reinforces why our Nation must have a strong and proactive DOJ Civil Rights Division.

Additionally, the promise of the ADA is still not a reality for far too many Americans with disabilities. After years of disability rights being neglected or, at worst, undermined by partisan efforts, it is time for the DOJ to step up and ensure that the rights of Americans with disabilities are fully recognized, enforced, and protected.

I look forward to working with Kristen Clarke and Vanita Gupta to fulfill the promise that America made to people with disabilities, including myself, over 30 years ago.

We need Ms. Gupta and Ms. Clarke's leadership at DOJ to energize and inspire the Department as it refocuses on its mission of ensuring the fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

As a former head of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and leader of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which is one of the largest civil rights organizations in the Nation, Ms. Gupta's record shows that she is committed to advancing the rights of all Americans.

Her decades of effective leadership and advocacy are why her nomination has garnered widespread support not only from civil rights groups but also from prominent law enforcement organizations like the Fraternal Order of Police.

Likewise, Ms. Clarke is widely respected and admired as one of our country's leading legal experts on civil rights. She has proven her effectiveness in defending the civil rights of all Americans as a Federal and State official, as well as a leader of the NAACP, and, most recently, as the president of the national Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

Representation matters. Confirming these barrier-breaking women, who would both be the first women of color to formally occupy the positions to which they have been nominated, sends a clear message we are committed to having our Federal Government's leadership look like the country that it serves.

There should be no doubts about these nominees' qualifications for these critical DOJ leadership positions, and I urge my Senate colleagues in joining me to confirm Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Thank you, Georgia.

Madam President, I rise today in celebration of the George Washington University's bicentennial. As a proud alumna of this great institution of higher education, I would like to recognize the GW's achievement in reaching this historic milestone.

Founded as a modest Columbian College 200 years ago, there was no guarantee that the George Washington University would succeed. Ultimately, it was the dedication, ingenuity, and hard work of many generations of world-class faculty, impressive students, and accomplished alumni over the past two centuries that accounts for why GW evolved into the preeminent, global research university it is today.

Aspiring citizen-leaders worldwide attend the George Washington University precisely because of the opportunities GW provides its students to not only learn inside the classroom from leading thinkers and researchers, but to grow by applying this academic knowledge outside the classroom in a wide-range of settings throughout our Nation's Capital.

In fact, the George Washington University's vast network of world- class academic opportunities, partnerships, and policy-research initiatives is not only responsible for educating our future leaders, but also for advancing technological innovation, driving improvements in public health and policy, and developing a greater understanding of both our world and humanity in ways that have made an impact on millions of lives.

At this moment, GW faculty are conducting pioneering research to fight global poverty, HIV/AIDS, cancer, climate change, terrorism and many other urgent challenges. Many of GW's researchers, doctors, and public health officials have been at the forefront in responding to the deadly Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

As the George Washington University celebrates its bicentennial, it is a good time to reflect on the incredible legacy established by thousands of distinguished GW alumni. Graduates include current and former heads of state from around the world, scores of dedicated public servants, and leading experts that have accumulated a vast record of accomplishments across many academic fields.

Last, but certainly not least, and a point of great personal appreciation for this GW alum, is GW's longstanding commitment to U.S. servicemembers, veterans, and military families. Indeed, the very first recipient of the original Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944--more commonly known as the GI Bill of Rights--was Donald Balfour, a GW student. Today, GW is consistently recognized as one of our Nation's best institutions of higher education for veterans and military- affiliated students because it recognizes the invaluable leadership experience and unique perspectives these men and women bring to the classroom.

As GW enters its third century, I look forward to watching as the George Washington University builds on its 200-year legacy of academic excellence and ground-breaking research by attracting, educating, and inspiring future generations of leaders who will make a positive impact on the world.

Mr. President, this amendment is a direct attack on the Midwest and America's hundreds of thousands of farmers. Capping the price of biofuel credits at 10 cents per gallon would stifle the RIN market and destroy the Renewable Fuel Standard Program.

When my good friend the Senator from Texas last proposed this 10 cent cap in 2017 and 2018, it was opposed by the National Corn Growers Association, the American Soybean Association, and the American Farm Bureau, to name just a few. Now, farmers get up pretty darn early in the morning, but, even tonight, I did not bother to call any of these associations to get their response on this amendment.

So I will quote the National Farmers Union's previous president, who, in 2017 and 2018, said that not only is a RIN cap harmful to American agriculture, it is a sellout of America's farmers and a handout to refiners.

America's corn and soybean growers have suffered for years under the Trump administration's anti-biofuel policies.

I urge all my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

(Applause.)

Vote on Amendment No. 871

In 2004, I packed up my rucksack, laced up my boots, and deployed to Iraq, ready to sacrifice whatever was asked of me, all because I love this Nation--willing to sacrifice my life, if needed, because I believe in the sanctity of our electoral system, which had declared George W. Bush my Commander in Chief.

I earned my wounds proudly fighting in a war I did not support on the orders of a President I did not vote for because I believed in and I still do believe in the values of our Nation; because I believe in a government of, by, and for the people, where voters--voters--choose who leads them, not the other way around.

I have spent my entire adult life defending our democracy, but I never--never--thought it would be necessary to defend it from an attempted violent overthrow in our Nation's own Capitol Building. Well, I refuse to let anyone intent on instigating chaos or inciting violence deter me from carrying out my constitutional duties.

You know, when my Army buddies and I raised our right hands, when 45,000 troops in Arizona raised their right hands and swore to protect and defend the Constitution, we did not qualify our oaths by saying that we would follow orders only when the Commander in Chief was someone whose election we were happy with.

Just like when every Senator in this Chamber was sworn into office, we didn't mutter under our breath that we discharge our duties only when it served our political interests or helped us to avoid the wrath of a petty, insecure, wannabe tin-pot dictator on the precipice of losing power and relevance. No, there is no ambiguity here--Joe Biden won the election with a record number of votes. Republican officials nationwide confirmed those results, including in Arizona, as has judge after Trump-appointed judge. Even Trump's Attorney General admitted that the U.S. Department of Justice had not found widespread fraud that would have affected the outcome.

Yet still many of my Republican colleagues are asking us to ignore all of that. With no evidence of their own, they are asking us to ignore court rulings, ignore Republican-elected officials, and even worse, ignore the will of the people across this vast, great Nation by trying to overturn this election. They are placing more trust in Reddit conspiracy theories than the Constitution, proving that appeasing Trump is more important to them than protecting the most basic tenet of our Republic--the adherence to free and fair elections.

If there is one thing I know, it is that my troops didn't sign up to defend our democracy in war zones thousands of mile away only to watch it crumble in these hallowed halls here at home. Yet that is what this effort amounts to--an attempt to subvert our democracy. In the process, it is threatening what makes America American, because in this country--in this country--the power of the people has always

mattered more than the people in power.

That is the ideal that this Nation was founded upon. That is why a few patriots threw some tea in Boston Harbor, why Washington crossed the Delaware, why suffragists were arrested a century ago, and why my friend John Lewis crossed that bridge in Selma in 1965. It is why millions spent a Tuesday in November standing in line, braving a pandemic to make their voices heard.

Listen, this administration has always had an adversarial relationship with the truth. Trump always cries conspiracy, always foments chaos whenever something doesn't go his way. But today, we here in this Chamber have the opportunity to prove that here in this country, truth matters, that right matters, that the will of the people matters more than the whims of any single powerful individual.

I have no tea to throw in Boston Harbor tonight, and I regret that I have no rucksack to pack for my country, no Black Hawk to pilot, nor am I asking for any grand gesture from my Republican colleagues. All I am asking of you is to reflect on the oaths that you have sworn, on the damage done to our Union today, and on the sacrifices made by those who have given so much to this Nation, from the servicemembers at Arizona's Fort Huachuca and Marine Corps Air Station Yuma to the marchers who bent America's moral arc a little bit more toward justice with every single step that they took, every bridge that they crossed.

Then ask yourself whether the democracy they were willing to bleed for, the country that each of us in this Chamber has sworn to defend, is worth damaging in order to protect the porcelain ego of a man who treats the Constitution as if it were little more than a yellowing piece of paper.

I think we all know the right answer.

Mr. President, amendment No. 861 fully captures the utter failure of the modern Congress to assert and defend congressional war powers that the U.S. Constitution solely vests in the legislative branch. It treats matters of life and death as mere fodder for political ``gotcha''

votes and represents an approach to legislating that is ultimately as simplistic as it is dangerous.

If one asked 10 attorneys to analyze the text of amendment No. 861, one might very well receive 10 wildly different interpretations of what the undefined terms in the amendment mean, from the use of the term ``attack by the government, military forces, or proxies of a foreign nation or by other hostile forces'' to the phrase ``used to ensure the ability of the Armed Forces of the United States to defend themselves, and United States citizens.''

As the authors plausibly argue, the intent of the amendment may very well be to simply reaffirm existing legal interpretations and norms that authorize the U.S. Armed Forces to defend itself and our citizens against attack by a foreign nation or other hostile force. As supporters argue, the amendment language avoids using the specific phrase ``authorization for use of military force,'' and thus one may argue that it is technically not an ``AUMF.''

Yet adopting such an interpretation requires ignoring years of executive branch overreach when it comes to taking unilateral military action without seeking an authorization for use of military force or a declaration of war from Congress.

It requires willfully forgetting the behavior of our current President and past Presidents of both parties, who have chosen to define the concept of Commander in Chief under Article II of the U.S. Constitution to be less a commander and more an emperor while the legislative branch has sat idly by as its war powers were rapidly seized by the modem imperial Presidency.

Congress is a coequal branch of government. It is time we started acting like it. We cannot trust any President to take a blank check and fill in a reasonable number. I must oppose amendment 861 because, in my reading, any President of any party would adopt the broadest legal interpretation possible in defining what constitutes an ``other hostile force'' or an ``attack'' or what it means to ``ensure the ability of the Armed Forces of the U.S. to defend themselves.''

This language risks unintentionally authorizing President Trump to order all types of military strikes against any number of potential entities that the President deems to be a threat. How would the Trump administration determine the precise baseline that defines the term ``ability'' of the military to defend itself? Would allowing the degradation of any platform or capability qualify as failing to ``ensure the ability'' of the U.S. Armed Forces to defend itself? If so, that would authorize the use of funds in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 to take unilateral, preemptive action again a foreign nation or hostile force to preserve the current capabilities of the U.S. military.

I am confident the author of this amendment would disagree with this interpretation of his legislative language. However, would the sponsor argue that such an interpretation is unreasonable or not possible? Would a Federal Court not defer to the Federal Agency's interpretation of a vague and ambiguous statute? I do not know the answer to either question; yet I know this: I am not willing to take that risk.

We are living with the consequences of a previous Congress that rushed to pass a concise authorization for use of military force that appeared targeted and limited at first. We have watched as Republican and Democratic administrations alike subsequently employed creative and broad legal interpretations of that authorization to continually expand which parties were connected with the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

To this very day, the Trump administration cites this authorization for use of military force as legal justification to unilaterally deploy Americans all around the world, even though it was authorized in response to an event that took place before some of these troops were even born. To be clear, I am not asserting that I oppose the premise or substantive motivation of every military action that has taken place under the recent Presidential administrations. I am simply stating that such actions must be debated and voted on by Congress.

I deployed to fight in a war I personally opposed because it was ordered by the Commander in Chief, and these orders were pursuant to an authorization for use of military force that was publicly debated and passed by a majority of our Nation's elected representatives. Opposing a vaguely worded amendment whose own author and proponents assert is duplicative and unnecessary and which I believe may unintentionally open the door to unlimited unilateral military action, ultimately is a vote to make our Nation stronger, more accountable, and a more perfect union in living out the principles contained in our founding document.

Critics may falsely allege that opposing amendment No. 861 is voting against our national defense and military. I will strongly reject any such ridiculous claim that slanders me with the accusation that I would ever risk the security and safety of the Nation I have proudly served in uniform. In voting against amendment No. 861, I am safeguarding our military from excessive use without congressional oversight. I am simply making clear that we, in Congress, must begin exercising the same care and attention in doing our job as our troops do when executing their missions downrange.

One of my primary motivations for serving the great State of Illinois in the U.S. Senate is to help restore congressional war powers. To remind my colleagues that whether one favors military action or opposes the use of military force, every Member of Congress should agree that such matters deserve to be debated and carefully considered by our Nation's duly elected representatives in the broad light of day. To remind my colleagues that we must always demand the Commander in Chief clearly outline our desired strategic end state before authorizing military action that puts our troops in harm's way.

The bottom line is that only Congress has the power to declare war. We are the ones tasked with deciding when and how we send Americans into combat. We are the ones the Constitution charged with that most solemn duty.

For too long, too many elected officials have avoided the responsibility and burden of declaring war. Fearing electoral risks and staring down coming elections, multiple Congresses have shirked their constitutional responsibility to our troops by refusing to repeal the existing authorization for use of military force, while avoiding consideration any new authorizations for use of military force. Enough--enough of being so worried about political consequences that we fail to do our own jobs, even as we expect our troops to do theirs without complaint every day.

We need to do better by our servicemembers. We owe it to them to honor their sacrifices. Part of that means ensuring that no American sheds blood in a war Congress has not authorized, or unintentionally authorized by passing vague language such as in amendment No. 861 that can be twisted to be read as empowering President Trump to take preemptive military action.

We should be disciplined in forcing any President who wishes to go to war to bring their case to Congress and give the American people a vote through their elected representatives. That is how we truly respect our servicemembers and military families: by demanding debate that is honest and clear-eyed about the likely loss of life and the risks of escalation that accompany any use of force. It is our duty, and it is the least we can do for those willing to risk their lives in safeguarding our democracy, our way of life, and our Constitution.

So with the drums of war beating louder and louder by the day, I must oppose amendment No. 861 and keep my promise to all who served or are serving now in defense of this country we love. I must continue seeking to hold all of us who have the honor of serving in Congress accountable for taking back congressional war powers. Moving forward, I urge the leadership of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees to work with me to strike or significantly restrict this language during the conference negotiations that will take place over the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020.

Mr. President, the past week has lain bare just how dangerous it can be to have a President who approaches foreign policy as if it were a reality show, when the worst thing that can happen is to get kicked off before the next episode airs--a President who doesn't seem to recognize that his words and his decisions can have life-and- death consequences for the brave Americans who wear our Nation's uniform. No matter your political party, what we have seen from the White House of late should worry every single one of us.

In one breath, Trump is beating the drums of war, thumping his chest, and pushing for a conflict that would kill an unimaginable number of people--servicemembers and civilians alike. In the next breath, he tries to act like a peacemaker who wouldn't even think

of starting a new war. It is gaslighting, plain and simple. Yet it is the closest thing to a Trump foreign policy doctrine since his inauguration.

So, while I am glad he called off a military strike last week, it hasn't made me forget that he and aides like John Bolton are the ones who brought us to the brink of war in the first place. Trump will not get any points from me for taking a small step to avert a disaster he himself created, and I have no confidence whatsoever that his carelessness will not lead us right back to that same brink today, tomorrow, or a week from now because, when it comes to Iran, Trump's erratic, incoherent strategy isn't just worrisome, it is potentially deadly for the men and women who are willing to sacrifice everything to keep the rest of us safe.

Look, I ran for Congress so that when the drums of war were sounded, I would be in a position to make sure our elected officials would fully consider the true costs of war not just in dollars and cents but in human lives. That was the vow I made to the troops with whom I deployed and to all those who have served since I hung up my uniform. I am standing here today, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, to keep that promise.

Right now, more and more Americans are preparing to head to a war zone that is 6,000 miles east in order to protect this Nation. They are ready to do their jobs no matter what, just as they have done time after time, even as their President and, yes, the Representatives in this very Chamber have neglected theirs.

Again and again, this administration has laid out two scenarios it says would justify war with Iran. Then it has taken actions to make sure those circumstances become a reality, which sets us on a collision course that has life-and-death stakes and no easy off-ramp.

The first scenario is if Iran edges closer to making a nuclear weapon. Well, you don't need to be a physicist to understand that Trump himself made that possibility more likely by unilaterally pulling the United States out of the nuclear agreement. In doing so, he freed Iran from having to abide by the deal that limited its nuclear production. Now he is raging about Iran's doing the very things his actions encouraged Iran to do. It is circular logic with potentially fatal consequences.

The second scenario it has laid out is an attack on U.S. troops in the region--another possibility that has been made more likely by a series of Trump's recent moves, as he has made clear through his bombastic statements and tweets that he is looking for excuses to send more troops to the area. Now we are dealing with the entirely predictable fallout from those actions--the raised stakes, the stoked tensions, and the louder calls for war from some on the far right.

Iran is no friend of ours. We were adversaries long before Trump took office. Yet what we are facing today is, in part, a manufactured crisis by this President. The Trump administration seems to be making foreign policy decisions not based on our Nation's interests but to serve some ideological or political purpose. In that effort, it is using our troops as bait, as if it is trying to manufacture its own 21st century ``Gulf of Tonkin'' crisis that it can use to justify war.

In some sort of nightmare deja vu, it is as if it is drawing from the same script that led us into Iraq--sowing chaos, shrouding intelligence, putting troops in harm's way--for no clear reason and with no clear end state in mind. On some days, it almost seems like it is provoking--even promoting--war just for war's sake, repeating those mistakes of years past that have cost us so many heroic lives.

It is as if Trump and the extremists in his administration don't remember the sacrifices our troops have made in the war we are still waging just west of Iran. It is as if it has forgotten all those flagged-draped coffins that have returned home from Iraq and the many veterans who have come home with scars, both visible and otherwise, most of whom will never be the same.

Look, I am no dove. I understand that war is sometimes necessary, and our troops certainly do as well. While Trump and Bolton may have never deigned to put on the uniform, I volunteered and served in the military for 23 years. I chose to fight in a war I did not support on the orders of a President I did not vote for. Why? I did it because, while I may not have believed in the war, I believed--and still believe--in the Constitution, and my Commander in Chief gave a lawful order after his having been authorized to do so by Congress. So, while I may not have supported the war or that President, I am proud to have deployed to Iraq in order to have served my country.

I know what is at stake for the thousands of troops this administration is sending into harm's way, and I can tell you it is a whole lot easier to cover your eyes and order other Americans to sacrifice if you don't have to sacrifice anything yourself. Trump may have responded ``no'' all five times to his Nation's calling him to duty, but our troops respond with a salute, and time after time, they report for duty every single time. One, two, three, four--I know of troops who have done eight deployments. It is much easier to ignore the everyday realities of war from inside the security of the White House, but it is nearly impossible if you have been outside the wire yourself.

So, with the drums of war beating loudly again, I am standing here, under the great Capitol dome, trying to keep my promise to hold the Members of this body accountable--trying to make sure we do our jobs. Our troops do their jobs every single day. Because the costs of war in both dollars and cents and human lives will no longer just be theoretical if we keep to the path aides like Bolton are pursuing, our homeland will be in more danger; more wounded warriors will be sent to Walter Reed; and more fallen heroes will be laid to rest at Arlington.

Even if you are OK with that, the fact is, the President does not have the authority to declare war; only Congress has that power. We are the ones tasked with deciding when and how we send Americans into combat. We are the ones the Constitution has charged with that most solemn duty, not Donald Trump and certainly not unelected warmongers like Bolton. Lately, though, the White House has acted as if article I simply doesn't exist. Trump has acted as if he can just usurp his power from the legislative branch as though obeying the Constitution is optional. Well, it is not.

This should not be a partisan issue. No matter if you are a factory worker who pulls double shifts or the President of the United States, no one is above the law. No matter if you struggle to pay rent or your name is plastered in gold on the front of a building on Fifth Avenue, no one can overrule the Constitution. Our troops should never ever be chess pieces in some reckless ideological game. Now, in the midst of the very week that is dedicated to Congress's evading next year's defense funding, it is past time for Congress to reclaim that solemn responsibility--that sacred responsibility--of declaring war.

For too long, too many on the Hill have shrugged off that most solemn duty. Scared of the political risks in staring down election days, Congress has shirked its constitutional responsibility to our troops in its refusal to take up any new authorizations for use of military force. For decades, Congress has ceded its authority to the White House by failing to act. It has handed Presidents from both parties the ability to command our military without having clear authorization, effectively cutting the people's elected Representatives out of the war-making process entirely.

Enough. Enough of being so worried about political consequences that we fail to do our own jobs even as we expect our troops to do theirs every damned day without complaint. We need to do better by our servicemembers. We owe it to them to honor their sacrifices. Part of that means ensuring that no American sheds blood in a war that Congress has not authorized. Despite what some in the administration say, there is just no way that the AUMF that passed in order to go after the perpetrators of 9/11 can justify military action against Iran nearly two decades later and send our troops overseas who may not have even been alive when that AUMF was voted on.

If Trump and company want to go to war, they must bring their case to Congress and give the American people a say through their elected Representatives. They must respect our servicemembers enough to provide and prove

why war with Iran is worth turning more moms and dads into Gold Star parents, and they must testify about what the end state in Iran actually needs to look like. Then, when their case has been made and when Congress's debate is done, we in this body should vote. It is our duty. It is the least we can do for those who are willing to safeguard our democracy--our way of life, our Constitution--even if it means laying down their lives.

In the days ahead, vigilance is key. We can't simply believe the people who try to convince us that, in order to support our troops, we need to pass the NDAA as soon as possible. As a former unit commander, I know this is not true. The best thing we can do for our servicemembers is to make sure they know their actions are legally justified by their government. If that takes a week or two or three, then it is worth the discussion.

If the vote to authorize military force then passes, whenever that is, I will be the first person to volunteer to deploy. I will be ready to pack my ruck and dust off my uniform. I may no longer have legs, but I can man a truck. I can take on the grunt work or do whatever else it takes to uphold that oath to which all servicemembers and veterans have sworn--to, no matter what, protect and defend this Nation we love.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 137 on the confirmation of David Schenker to be an Assistant Secretary of State. On vote No. 137, had I been present, I would have voted yea on confirmation.

I was also necessarily absent for vote No. 138 on the confirmation of Heath Tarbert to be Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and for vote No. 139 on the confirmation of Heath Tarbert to be Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. On vote No. 138 and vote No. 139, had I been present, I would have voted yea on confirmation to be Chairman and Commissioner.

I was also necessarily absent for vote No. 140 on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Susan Combs to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior. On vote No. 140, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the motion to invoke cloture.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to honor some of the Founders of our Nation who all too often don't get their due--

Founders whose gender or skin tone may not be represented on Mount Rushmore but whose brilliance, whose resilience, helped ensure that the democracy we have today is strong and true.

This democracy wasn't just built by George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. It wasn't perfected in the 18th century when the ink dried on the four original pages of the Constitution.

It was shaped by women like Abigail Adams, whom I named my first daughter after. It was strengthened by suffragists like Sojourner Truth, who worked tirelessly to better the country that had kept her in chains, who used her emancipation to call for freedom and a voice for all women--Black, White, you name it. It was formed by Illinoisans like Ida B. Wells, who demanded that women of color have a place at the forefront of the suffrage movement. It was forged by women like Mary Livermore, who channeled her frustration over women's inequality into action, spearheading Chicago's first-ever suffrage convention 150 years ago and marking Illinois as a leader in the fight for women's rights.

Our democracy was sharpened by a group of Illinoisans who traveled to Washington, DC, in 1913, joining thousands of other women in their march down Pennsylvania Avenue--protesters who were vilified, berated, jostled, tripped, and even jailed but who withstood it all to call for a constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote.

This Union was made more perfect when the 19th Amendment finally passed Congress 100 years ago today.

These women raised their voices on the picket lines so that we could make ours heard at the polls. They risked safety and security, withstood hypocrisy and overcame misogyny, refusing to stay silent so that their daughters and their daughters' daughters would inherit the democracy they deserved. For that, we are forever in their debt.

Of course, every American's right to vote wasn't truly secured that day in 1919, nor was it secured later that week, when Illinois became one of the first States to ratify the amendment, or in 1965, when Lyndon B. Johnson picked up a pen and signed the Voting Rights Act into law.

It still is not secure today--not when voter suppression tactics still block so many people of color from the ballot, when voter roll purges are still common and some in power are still fighting to install modern-day poll taxes.

So we can't get complacent. What began at Seneca Falls continues with us today, as it now falls to our generation to keep alive the work of yesterday's suffragists, to keep pushing for bills like the Voting Rights Advancement Act to ensure that bigoted State laws don't disenfranchise any American. It falls on us to keep fighting for that more perfect Union, to keep making our voices heard--whether that is here on the Senate floor or anywhere else--so that finally, some day soon, every American can make theirs heard at the ballot box.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in 1902, a little known machinist by the name of Charles Edward Taylor began working for Orville and Wilbur Wright at the Wright Cycle Company in Dayton, OH. Over the course of 6 weeks, using only a metal lathe, drill press, and hand tools, Mr. Taylor built a 12-horsepower engine that was used to power the Wright brothers' first successful aircraft in 1903.

Today, Charles Taylor's May 24th birthday is observed as Aviation Maintenance Technician Day to recognize the thousands of men and women who follow in Mr. Taylor's footsteps and fulfill a critical safety role in the U.S. aviation industry. Whether maintaining military, commercial, general aviation, private, space, or experimental aircraft, aviation maintenance technicians use their specialized knowledge and skillset to ensure that all aircraft are safe and reliable.

I want to thank aviation maintenance technicians across Illinois and throughout the Nation for their hard work and dedication. Their expertise and integrity ensures the U.S. aviation system will remain the safest and most reliable in the world.

Madam President, I might be the luckiest person in the world because I get to wake up on Sunday and spend Mother's Day, well, being a mom. I will probably spend the morning helping my 1-year-old take a few wobbly steps and then the afternoon watching my 4-year-old draw or chasing her around the house, celebrating the holiday surrounded by the people I cherish the most.

But that isn't the case for far too many other moms and kids around the country. That isn't the case for women like Denise Reed, Sybrina Fulton, or Valerie Castile, who lost their children to gun violence. That isn't the case for the hundreds of children born in the past year alone whose mothers died from preventable, pregnancy-related deaths. That certainly isn't the case for the families whom the Trump administration separated at our southern border and who still have not yet been reunited, the kids who were thrown in cages because their parents had the nerve to strive for a better life.

This Mother's Day, I am thinking of those whose hearts are hurting, those moms who would give anything for another lazy Sunday with their sons or those daughters who would do anything to hear their mother's laugh one more time.

The truth is, the women--moms or otherwise--in this country deserve better than the status quo. We deserve more than the Trump administration, which in just 2-plus years has already changed title IX sexual assault rules to favor the accused over the survivor, tried to defund health clinics that provide prenatal care and mammograms, pushed forward healthcare proposals that would have gutted maternity coverage, and handed employers the power to decide whether women should have access to birth control.

All this--well, it is shocking but unfortunately not surprising because we knew who Donald Trump was when we elected him. He is the man who has long made clear that he does not care about women or our autonomy. He is the man who once argued that women should be punished for taking up the right to choose; who has taken pride in trying to put the government between us and our doctors; who would rather throw those doctors in jail than even pretend to care about the women who make up 51 percent of this Nation; who just 10 days ago stood on a stage in Wisconsin and lied, lied, lied, prioritizing a roar from the crowd over the safety of patients and providers at health clinics nationwide; and who just last week issued two rules that would make it easier for doctors to either discriminate against women or deny them care altogether.

So don't tell me that Trump is ``pro-life'' when he is pushing for rules that endanger women's lives and when he spent years trying to strip healthcare away from Americans. Don't claim that he is just trying to protect families when he is the one to blame for the inhumane policy that is ripping toddlers and babies away from mothers' arms. Don't you dare argue that he is leading the ``party of life'' when he will not lift a finger to stop first graders from getting massacred in classrooms by the dozen. No, Donald Trump's anti-choice stance isn't about looking out for families; it is about getting a slap on the back from his base and exerting even more control over women's bodies. It is sexist, regressive, and flatout dangerous.

But even while this administration's agenda is a travesty, it is not an anomaly; rather, it is just the latest step in the far-right's long march to strip away women's rights. I am tired of it, sick of their trying to shame women when they are the ones who should be ashamed.

So enough with the hypocrisy, with the misogyny, with some men in hallowed halls in DC arguing that they know better than moms in Illinois or Arizona or Missouri. We can and we must do better. That means fighting for everything from equal pay to better parental leave. It means proving that we care about women every day of the year, not just on one Sunday in May. That is the least that our mothers, our daughters, and our sisters deserve.

Thank you.

With that, I yield the floor.