Floor Statements

Madam President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 65 on the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 21, nomination of Daniel Desmond Domenico, of Colorado, to be United States District Judge for the District of Colorado. On vote No. 65, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 21.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor in opposition to Andrew Wheeler's nomination to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.

Americans across this country depend on EPA to protect their public health, yet under this administration, EPA has failed again and again to reassure my constituents that their basic rights to breathe in clean air and sip clean water are being prioritized.

Listen, I am proud that EPA's Region 5 office is headquartered in Chicago. Region 5 has led the country in enforcing the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and other bedrock environmental policies that Congress has passed. But under Mr. Wheeler and this administration, EPA has made it harder for the scientists, engineers, and public health experts in Region 5 to do their jobs.

EPA is severely understaffed and underfunded, and in 2018, major enforcement actions dropped to their lowest levels in more than 10 years. Last year, EPA competed fewer than 11,000 inspections and evaluations of polluters across the country--the lowest number in almost two decades.

In 2018, EPA sent just 123 civil pollution violation cases to the Justice Department for prosecution. That is about 40 percent less than the annual average during the Obama administration. So, sadly, it should come as no surprise that a report from the Environmental Integrity Project this month found that communities across the country are now being put at risk of exposure to dangerous contaminants.

To make matters worse, the EPA's enforcement workforce has been shrinking for years, and the Trump administration wants to cut it back even further.

These cutbacks are leaving communities, especially low-income communities and those of color, exposed to public health risks. Meanwhile, polluters are being let off the hook for serious violations of the law.

I have seen firsthand what happens when EPA fails to enforce our laws and protect public health. It causes fear and confusion. For months, residents in Willowbrook, IL, have lived in fear that the air they breathe in has been making their family sick.

Here is a little background. A facility in their community has been releasing cancer-causing emissions for decades. Unfortunately, even since EPA discovered just how toxic this chemical was years ago--years ago--they have refused to issue new regulations updating safety standards based on the latest science.

Making matters even worse, EPA officials refused to notify local public health or elected officials about their discovery, leaving communities in the dark even while their health is at risk, leaving more families more likely to get sick, leaving more children more likely to die.

As a mother, this is heartbreaking. As a Senator, this is outrageous.

When Willowbrook residents first started to raise concerns, EPA wasn't the least bit transparent. The Agency had to be pushed by Senator Durbin, other Members of the Illinois congressional delegation, and me just to hold community forums.

My office also received alarming information alleging that senior political appointees instructed EPA personnel not to inspect any facility in Region 5 that emits the same carcinogen found at this facility. If true, this type of political interference is beyond unacceptable. If true, it is happening on Mr. Wheeler's watch.

I have asked EPA to take several steps to fix this crisis, and I am still waiting for their response.

In the absence of leadership from EPA, Senator Durbin and I have authored two pieces of legislation to ensure that this kind of crisis never happens again.

Here is what Gabriela, a resident of Willowbrook, said when she saw the list of health problems associated with this facility: ``It was like reading our medical history.''

Since she moved to her home in 2009, Gabriela has suffered from intense headaches, dizziness, nausea, inability to concentrate, and memory loss. She has found it difficult to read through briefs and almost instantly forgets movie plots and even some conversations.

Both of her children, who have lived in the house for most of their lives, have had respiratory problems since they were little. Her 12- year-old daughter has often coughed to the point of vomiting and has developed a bone cyst.

One of her 9-year-old daughter's classmates was recently diagnosed with leukemia, as was Gabriella's next-door neighbor, an otherwise healthy man in his early fifties.

Another woman I have gotten to know from Willowbrook is named Neringa. She told me that when she and her husband were moving to Chicago 5 years ago, they picked their home because it seemed like a place where their children would be safe.

She went on:

You look for sexual predators, good schools, taxes. You

don't think you would have to look at air and water. You feel

like it is the one thing in our country we wouldn't have to

think about.

Exposure from toxic pollution is a matter of life and death for these residents. It was uncovered only when career civil servants did their job and flagged a risk they observed in a routine model that EPA publishes.

I am extremely concerned that other areas in Illinois could face similar issues and that other kids in other communities could be breathing in air full of cancer-causing chemicals when they are playing on the swings at recess or walking home from school later that afternoon.

I need EPA to respond to the requests I have made on behalf of Lake County and actually conduct the kind of monitoring that exposed the problem in Willowbrook there and in every community that may be at risk.

Not far from Willowbrook, residents in Chicago have also been facing several public health threats for decades.

Chicago, IL, is the birthplace of Hazel Johnson, the ``Mother of the Environmental Justice Movement,'' a pioneer of environmental justice activism on the South Side of Chicago.

She founded People for Community Recovery in 1979 in an effort to get asbestos out of the buildings in her community. Soon she managed to trace air and water pollution in her community to nearby industry, which was using the predominantly lower income African-American community as a dumping ground.

Hazel Johnson knew what I know: Every American has a right to breathe in safe air, drink clean water, and live

on uncontaminated land, no matter where they live, no matter the color of their skin, no matter their tax bracket.

Yet I still hear about manganese pollution, petcoke, particulate matter, and lead exposure from these residents on a daily basis.

Chicago residents deserve--no, they need--environmental justice. But for some reason, this administration has dismantled the office that is supposed to lead this work, even trying to eliminate EPA's environmental justice funding and drive out the office's top talent.

Lead exposure is an issue that impacts low-income families and communities of color disproportionately. I had high hopes that I would be able to work with Mr. Wheeler on the administration's response to this crisis. Yet after months and months of delays, I am very disappointed by their so-called plan.

Mr. Wheeler's lead action plan falls short of what was promised and the ``war on lead'' his predecessor declared. This is not a plan with goals, strategies, and deadlines. Instead, it is a repackaged version of a report published under the Obama administration. Little has changed, other than the window dressing.

What disappointed me most was that the administration appears to be walking back our goal of eliminating lead exposure, settling simply for reducing it. That is unacceptable.

Even to this day, in a post-Flint crisis world, too many in power are sitting idly by as countless Americans are exposed to lead. More than 6 million homes get water from lead service lines, and 24 million homes have lead hazards in paint, dust, or soil. Nearly half a million children have elevated levels of lead in their blood.

Let's be clear. For children, there is no safe level of lead allowable in drinking water. Even low levels can cause permanent brain damage in kids, lowering IQ, and inflicting other cognitive damage. Imagine if your child were one of those who had gotten sick because the EPA refused to take action on such an obvious crisis. Imagine how infuriating, how devastating that would be.

We must make meaningful progress in tackling sources of exposure, and EPA must take up an aggressive, comprehensive, and practical strategy.

I know we can make real progress in reducing lead in our society, but the new lead action plan is a missed opportunity to advance those efforts.

I also believe that Mr. Wheeler has far too many conflicts of interest to be running the EPA. As a former lobbyist for Murray Energy, Mr. Wheeler has worked closely with the industries he would regulate as the leader of the EPA. It is well reported that Mr. Wheeler's former firm lobbied the EPA on efforts Wheeler now oversees.

Even after he took temporary reins of the EPA, he made no secret of meeting with former clients and fossil fuel industry representatives. CNN and Reuters have both reported that Wheeler is heavily prioritizing meetings with industry over anyone else and has attended more than 50 meetings with companies or industry groups that EPA regulates.

If this news doesn't alarm you, it may be because corruption is becoming routine under this administration. After all, just earlier this week, the Washington Post reported that the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Bill Wehrum, has been routinely meeting with former clients in the fossil fuel industry from his not- so-long-ago lobbying days.

I placed a hold on Mr. Wehrum's nomination because I did not think he could be trusted with our Nation's air. I feel the same way about Mr. Wheeler's leading the EPA.

According to the Sierra Club, every third day during his first 100 days as Acting Administrator, Mr. Wheeler either, one, rolled back a new climate policy; two, ignored or contradicted science; three, met with big polluters; four, limited the EPA's ability to protect us from pollution; or, five, gave in to corporate polluter demands--all of that in just his first 3 months and change. Imagine what would happen if we gave him the reins for good.

Mr. Wheeler's position on climate change policy alone is disqualifying. Consider, for example, his attack on the Clean Power Plan. Climate change is a major threat to our environment, our economy, and our national security--something that even Donald Trump's own intelligence officials admit.

My home State of Illinois is already experiencing the consequences of inaction. Growing seasons are changing, heat waves are increasing, and extreme floods are becoming more frequent and more severe. Just this December we had a hurricane. Mitigating these effects will require sensible policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and invest in clean energy.

Under the Clean Water Act, EPA is legally required to limit carbon pollution from powerplants, pollution that we know is the primary driver of climate change.

That is why the Obama administration established a Clean Power Plan-- to provide States the flexibility they need to meet a national goal of 32 percent reductions in carbon pollution by 2030. This plan was the culmination of robust and rigorous public participation, and EPA received millions of comments supporting the program from States, through its utilities, communities of color, Tribes, environmental groups, labor unions, and the public at large.

The Clean Power Plan was not only good for the environment; it was good for the economy, too. In Illinois, residents are expected to save an average of up to 4 percent on electricity bills by 2030. Illinois energy efficiency investments alone are estimated to grow our economy by $2 billion in that same year, and we lead the Midwest in clean energy jobs.

But no matter the obvious global, national, and economic benefits, Mr. Wheeler has led the administration's efforts to roll back the Clean Power Plan. His replacement proposal would adversely impact public health and lead to as many as 1,400 premature deaths from increased soot, up to 15,000 new cases of upper respiratory problems, and 100,000 missed school and work days annually by 2030.

Internationally, this proposal would leave the United States further behind our allies that have taken aggressive action on climate change. The proposal also fails low-income communities and communities of color, which bear the brunt of our environmental and public health burdens. Unlike the Clean Power Plan, this platform doesn't even require States to engage environmental justice and community groups in their plan development processes. It also fails to encourage States to conduct environmental justice analysis of their own as they develop implementation plans.

EPA should be working to strengthen policies like the Clean Power Plan. It is more than troubling that Mr. Wheeler and the Trump administration are instead seeking to repeal them entirely. Now is not the time to move backward.

Here is what Evan, who grew up in Libertyville, IL, shared with me:

I write because I am concerned about the future. The future

of the world, the future for the United States and my own

future. At this time, I feel that perhaps the greatest threat

to that future is climate change. The current

Administration's stance towards the issue has discouraged me

to no end, and I can't help but despair as the President

makes light of this existential threat to the wellbeing of

the planet.

I know, of course, that not all lawmakers share the

President's stance towards this issue. Please, make some

noise.

Evan, I hear you. I hear your fear, and I want you to know that I believe the Nation should be focused on building a clean energy economy and a climate-safe future for your generation. I hear you, and I am going to make that noise for you.

I am also angry at EPA's abuse of the small refinery waiver program under the renewable fuel standard. The RFS includes a policy to help small refineries that cannot afford to comply with the RFS. Before Donald Trump took power, this policy was rarely used. Under the Trump administration, however, nearly every exemption application has been secretly granted. This includes applications from large, multibillion dollar companies like Exxon and Chevron that are earning record profits. These companies' CEOs have even pointed to hardship waivers on earnings clauses as contributing to their profitability.

The administration's stance reduces incentives for blending--slashing demands for biofuels and feedstocks--actively hurting farmers and biofuels

companies. These waivers could hurt the markets for years to come, holding back homegrown biofuels while creating windfall profits for large oil refiners--the exact opposite of this administration's promise to voters.

Let's be blunt. EPA is taking money out of farmers' hands and giving it to billionaire oil companies. These actions come at a time when biofuel producers and farmers across our country are already hurting. Farm income is at its lowest since 2006, and retaliatory trade measures from China threaten to deepen the crisis.

Yet early reports indicate that the small refinery waivers EPA has granted under President Trump and Mr. Wheeler will reduce demand for biofuels by billions. Over the past 6 months, we have seen more ethanol plants sold, idled, or closed than ever before. When I asked Mr. Wheeler during the confirmation hearing about EPA's apparent change in policy to now seemingly granting every exemption application, he made excuses justifying them. We need a leader at the EPA who is going to stand up for our farmers, not capitulate to the demands of Big Oil.

We also need a leader at the EPA who is going to protect the Great Lakes. The 1,000 employees in Region 5 work tirelessly to protect the environment, health, and safety of Americans living in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. They live, work, and raise their families in the communities they protect, and they are leaders in the fields of water quality, Superfund cleanup, and Great Lakes restoration.

Region 5 is also home to the Great Lakes Program Office, which ensures that we keep the promises we made to Canada under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. It also leads the Nation's Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which has funded more than 2,000 projects that improve water quality, protect wildlife, and clean up toxic pollutants that threaten our water supply.

To date, the program has invested more than $2.2 billion in Great Lakes restoration projects. Coordinated in both the United States and Canada, GLRI sets the standards for interagency and international cooperation. Every $1 invested in Great Lakes restoration results in a $2 return in the form of increased fishing, tourism, and home values. But in addition to enduring a shutdown, the employees in Region 5 who lead these programs have been bought out, undermined, and reorganized into positions they are not suited for, and that is unacceptable.

What is also unacceptable is Mr. Wheeler's attacks on science and science integrity. Science does not have a political affiliation. Science is about learning, and it never stands still. It gives us the building blocks to help us increase our knowledge over time and to find ever-better solutions to the challenges we face. Unfortunately, this EPA has led the administration's attacks on science when it doesn't fit with their pro-polluter agenda.

What is at stake is not just our health and future but also America's standing and influence in the world. Just this month, EPA released the names of eight new members of its science advisory board. I am concerned that several of the new members represent interests who seek to undermine the independence and quality of the scientific advice given to the EPA. University researchers are now in the minority on the board, while the number of industry-affiliated members and members listed as consultants has increased.

Here is how the Union of Concerned Scientists summarized the new appointments made by Wheeler to the Science Advisory Board. Take Dr. John Christy. He has a reputation for controversial climate research and denying the evidence of global warming.

Then, there is Dr. Brant Ulsh, a consultant who argues that radiation at low doses isn't a big deal, contrary to the conclusions of the National Academy of Science.

New member Dr. Richard Williams has received compensation from the American Chemistry Council's formaldehyde panel, which was set up to obfuscate the health impacts of this carcinogen. He is also on the board of trustees of the International Life Sciences Institute, an industry-funded organization that is notorious for pushing out shoddy nutrition science.

Dr. Barbara Beck is a consultant with Gradient, which has itself earned a reputation for helping industry defend their products with favorable scientific studies. Beck herself helped to write a paper arguing that exposure to lead at low doses is not necessarily harmful to children, which is in stark contrast to the CDC's assessment that there is no safe level of exposure to lead.

The common thread among these individuals is that they are practitioners of the widely used disinformation playbook. They frequently work to inject uncertainty into science by criticizing risk assessments and underlying models. They argue that exposure to pollutants at low doses is not worth worrying about. That is not true. Pollution is pollution, and it is bad for communities, and it is bad for public health.

I also want to spend some time discussing the administration's new clean water rule. For more than 45 years, the Clean Water Act has preserved, protected, and restored our Nation's most important natural resource and radically transformed how our Nation uses water. That is why admirers of CWA appropriately labeled this law as one of the most successful public health initiatives ever enacted. Continued success of the CWA requires developing a clear, concise rule for determining which bodies of water are protected by the Clean Water Act. However, Mr. Wheeler and the Trump administration have proposed a rule that fails to provide the clear-cut certainty requested by my constituents. It would cancel protections for drinking water sources of tens of millions of people. It would also cancel protections for streams and wetlands that provide habitat for wildlife and protect communities from flooding.

Communities across the country, particularly low-income communities and communities of color, already struggle to access clean water. Mr. Wheeler's proposed rule will make it even harder for these communities. Mr. Wheeler's water rule puts the profits of corporate polluters before our health and clean water for our families.

Alan, from Wheeling, IL, wrote to me and said:

This is insanity. There is nothing more important than

protecting the sources of water that many people in this

country drink from.

No source of drinking water should be open for pollution or

destruction, but that is exactly what this proposal does by

stripping protections from critical streams and wetlands

across the country.

Senator Duckworth, please do anything that is possible to

protect our environment and industries that depend upon clean

water.

Alan, thank you for writing to me. I agree with you. This rule makes no scientific, legal, public health, or fiscal sense.

Another constituent, Dave from Rockford, shared with me similar concerns. He wrote:

Clean water is not a political issue. Protecting our

watersheds and ensuring that clean, fresh water is available

for fish, farms and communities is not an option--it's a

responsibility.

I cannot think of a more enjoyable satisfaction [than] just

standing in a clean river, seeing all the life teaming in it,

and knowing that our hard work is paying off.

Dave is right. Streams and wetlands work as natural filters and sponges, keeping our drinking water supplies safe, while reducing the impact of floods.

Like our water, I am concerned by this administration's attacks on clean air. One group that comes to mind that has been fighting for our clean air is Mom's Clean Air Task Force. They are a group of moms who know how painful it is when their child can't play outside because they have asthma or there is smog outside. They are fighting for cleaner air and stronger kids.

They list ten reasons they oppose Mr. Wheeler, and among those reasons are his attacks on rules to control mercury pollution, to make our cars more fuel efficient, and to reduce smog.

Mr. Wheeler's attacks on these priorities hits close to home for me. Currently, the rate of asthma in Illinois is 13 percent higher than the national average. The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America ranks Chicago in the top 10 percent of the most challenging places to live with asthma. Asthma is hitting the frontline neighborhoods in Chicago harder than in many other

places in the Nation, with asthma rates in some neighborhoods soaring as high as 33 percent. As the climate gets hotter, air pollution, allergies, and temperatures will trigger more asthma attacks in children.

I want to end on a high note. I commend Mr. Wheeler for following through on his promise to make himself accessible and to conduct proactive outreach. Compared to Mr. Pruitt, he is an upgrade in terms of professionalism, but that is an incredibly low bar.

At the end of the day, my constituents are depending on me to protect them from pollution, even if it upsets some in industry. I believe we need an Administrator who is ready to fight for our kids, to fight for the Great Lakes, to fight for the civil servants that work at EPA, and to fight for every American's right to clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment. I believe EPA will achieve its mission when it requires rigorous enforcement when human health is at stake.

Mr. Wheeler believes that public health must be balanced against the health of corporations and industry interests who always want less rules, less oversight, and certainly less enforcement. That is why I must vote no.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the floor for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, imagine the joy, the emotion, and the anticipation that comes with being in the third trimester of your pregnancy. Imagine choosing the crib and the mobiles that will hang above it. Imagine telling your toddler that he was getting a little sister to play with. Then, imagine the heartbreak of going to the doctor one day and learning that there is no chance your baby will survive, that there is no hope your baby girl will ever speak her first word or take her first step, or that delivering her would put your own life at risk, leaving your firstborn to grow up without a mother. These are the types of scenarios that lead to the heart-wrenching decision to terminate a pregnancy later on.

As the mom of two little girls--one, age 4, and one, 10 months old--I can't begin to fathom that kind of pain. Yet today some on the other side of the aisle are trying to use those parents' suffering for political advantage, making worst-case scenarios like these all the more difficult by pushing a bill aimed to criminalize reproductive care no matter the cost.

If it becomes law, this bill would force doctors to perform ineffective, invasive procedures on fetuses born with fatal abnormalities, even if it is against the best interests of the child, even if it goes against recommended standards of care and they know that it wouldn't extend or improve the baby's life, and even if it would prolong the suffering of the families, forcing women to endure added lasting trauma, making one of the worst moments of their lives somehow even more painful. If physicians refuse, they would be punished and could be sentenced up to 5 years in prison.

We have seen this kind of political stunt before. We know the partisan extremist playbook it comes out of--one based not in fact but in fiction, steeped in ignorance and misogyny. The goal here is obvious: to bully doctors out of giving reproductive care, to scare them out of business--one potential lawsuit or jail sentence at a time--making it even harder for women to get the care they need when they need it most, as the number of physicians available shrinks.

This is just the latest step in the far right's long march to strip away women's rights--a march whose pace has now quickened under our current President, a man who once argued that women should be punished for taking up their right to choose, who has taken pride in trying to put the government between women and their doctors, and who just 72 hours ago issued a gag rule that could gut family planning clinics.

I have said this a thousand times before, and I will keep saying it until I go hoarse: A woman's medical decisions should be between her and her physician and her family and not dictated by some politician in Washington, DC. When lives are on the line, the folks with MDs are the ones who should be deciding what care is appropriate, not those with partisan agendas.

Mothers and doctors know that every pregnancy is different--both of mine

certainly were--and physicians are trained with exactly this in mind.

It is offensive and just plain ignorant for my colleagues to claim they know better than a doctor or an expectant mom. It shows an alarming disrespect for a woman's moral compass and her ability to make sound decisions.

I can't begin to conceive of the pain of the mom-to-be who learns that the baby she already loves isn't viable and that the child whose name she has already chosen and whose life she has already imagined will never open their eyes. All this bill would do is to sharpen that family's suffering. All it would do is to make it harder for the next woman to get the care that could save her life. How dare we think of passing legislation like that. How dare we put extremist politics over empathy, over science, and over women's health and families' pain.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against S. 311--a bill that is as heartless as it is dangerous.

Thank you.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I wish to honor supervisory Transportation Security Officer Milos Grubnic for going above and beyond his duties while serving with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Transportation Security Administration, TSA, at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, IL.

On November 26, 2018, Officer Grubnic was featured in TSA Today after he and a fellow Transportation Security officer, John Kozcur, helped a passenger recover his stolen cell phone. Not only did they handle the situation in a thorough and professional manner by reviewing security footage, tracking the individual down and returning the item, but they were able to do so before the passenger boarded his flight. Many times, the hard work of our Transportation Security officers goes unnoticed and unreported, and I am thankful for all they do to keep us safe.

Officer Grubnic's actions in November displayed his steadfast dedication and passion for public service. Throughout his time at O'Hare International Airport, Officer Grubnic has worked to support all aspects of TSA's mission, including assisting my family and me at security checkpoints as we travel.

I commend Officer Grubnic's hard work, passion, and commitment to safeguarding the public and achieving TSA's mission to protect our Nation's transportation systems. May his continued dedication serve as an inspiration to us all.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to the remarkable life of Lynda DeLaforgue. DeLaforgue was an activist and friend who passed away on January 12, 2019, in her Chicago, IL, home due to complications from metastatic colon cancer.

DeLaforgue, a graduate from Rockford College, had over 30 years of experience working in the public interest. She was a longtime activist and was also, for many years, the codirector of Citizen Action/ Illinois. She was an instrumental voice in the progressive movement, serving as a leader in the fight to preserve healthcare by engaging local stakeholders against the repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act. She was instrumental in organizing many townhalls and galvanizing local groups for causes on behalf of working men and women.

DeLaforgue was a sustaining board member of the Healthy Schools Campaign and a member of the USAction board of directors, as well as a 2013 recipient of the Chicago Coalition of Labor Union Women's Olga Mader Award.

Her service to her community was remarkable, and she will be greatly missed by the countless people she came across, including myself.

DeLaforgue is survived by her daughter Katy DeLaforgue Hintzen, her son Jordan, her life partner Brian Reizfeld, her mother June Kaczur- Tate, and her sister Laura.

Mr. President, while the Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act is clearly far from perfect, the majority of the legislation addresses several key priorities that are particularly important to me: formalizing long-term security aid to Israel, supporting our Jordanian allies' fight against the Islamic State, and sanctioning the Syrian financial system over the Assad regime's human rights abuses.

These provisions represent important measures to concretely support our allies and address serious national security concerns. The legislation as a whole also preserves Obama administration international agreements that promote regional security while providing the Trump administration with more tools to levy sanctions against human rights abusers in the Assad regime in Syria.

I also strongly oppose the BDS movement. However, I have long had concerns about the Combating BDS Act and similar legislation, which could be interpreted to change longstanding U.S. policy towards Israeli settlement activity and could have negative implications on domestic freedom of speech protections. Those concerns are rightly being litigated in Federal court. This bill does not protect a state or local BDS law from being challenged in court by an individual on constitutional grounds.

While this was among the more difficult votes I have taken, ultimately the national security and other benefits of the entirety of this legislation could not be ignored or passed up.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut.

Right now, tens of thousands of American heroes are suffering and even dying while some folks in government are looking the other way, refusing to heed their calls for help. Our blue water veterans answered the call when their Nation needed them in the thick of the Vietnam war. They left their loved ones, boarded ships, fought the Viet Cong, and risked their lives hour after hour, day after day, in service to the country they love.

We made a promise to them: Fight for us overseas, and we will fight for you when you get back home. When you step back on U.S. soil, we will bandage the wounds you earned in combat, making sure you never feel you sacrificed in vain.

I am ashamed to say that promise has been broken. For decades now, our government has refused to give them the healthcare and disability benefits needed to treat diseases linked to Agent Orange exposure despite the fact that they serviced the very aircraft that sprayed and spread the chemical. Despite that they breathed in the air and brushed their teeth with water that was likely laced with the poison, they have not been given the healthcare they need.

Those same healthcare benefits have been extended to other troops who fought in the same war during the same years, but because these blue water veterans fought the enemy on the water rather than on Vietnam soil itself, our government won't lift a finger to stop their suffering. Tell me that is fair. Tell me that makes a shred of sense. Tell me that our Nation should abandon the heroes who risked their lives for the rest of us, that we should leave them to die from cancer or heart disease or the litany of other diseases we know this chemical causes.

Look, I have also gone to war, and just as those Americans lost their health, I was wounded for this country. But from the moment I woke up in Walter Reed, I knew that the VA would give me the care I needed to recover. These nearly 90 thousand veterans deserve the same. It is long past time we pass legislation ensuring that these heroes are not left in pain.

Unfortunately, legislation that would recognize their sacrifice suffered a setback last week, but with the time remaining in this Congress, we still have the chance to make those veterans whole, to do the right thing, the obvious thing, the American thing.

To every one of my fellow Senators, please, if we actually want to honor their service, we can't just give them an ovation on Veterans Day; we need to take action to help them lead full, healthy lives every other day of the year too. Right now, that means joining me in working to pass the Blue Water Navy Veterans Act before even one more hero dies a preventable death on our watch. It is the right thing to do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of Shirley Ann McCombs who passed away on Tuesday, October 2, 2018, at the age of 81. Shirley was born June 30, 1937, in Schuyler County, IL, to Harry and Stella Derry Hunter. Shirley married Charles H. McCombs on May 30, 1956. She was employed by the Illinois State government in numerous positions and was ultimately promoted to the speaker's staff as a fiscal officer until her retirement. Shirley played on the Rushville Rushettes Softball Team and she was a past member of the Oakford United Methodist Church, where she served as secretary and on many committees. She was also a current member of the West Side Christian Church in Springfield.

Shirley was elected State central committeewoman for the 18th Congressional District in 1986 and served in the position until present. She served as secretary of the Democratic Party of Illinois, second vice president of Illinois Democratic Women, and Annual Convention Ad Book chair and editor/graphic artist. Shirley also had served as the Menard County chairman, precinct committeewoman, and as the first vice president of the Illinois County Chairman's Association.

Shirley served as an elector on the Illinois Electoral College since 1992. She served at many of the Democratic National Conventions as a delegate and as an assistant whip. Shirley also served for numerous State Democratic Conventions, co-chaired IDW Luncheon for Convention Delegates and Dignitaries at the Democratic National Convention. She was the State fair committee chairman for the IDP. Shirley received the Chairman's Award for Commitment and Service to the Democratic Party and Certificate of Appreciation Award for Outstanding and Dedicated Service.

In addition to her work in politics, she was also passionate about helping her community. She was a founding member of the Menard County Tourism Council and former treasurer. Shirley was a founding board member of the IWIL and served on the board for the Area Agency on Aging and served on the advisory council. She was on the Menard Caring Board and a volunteer at the Menard County Food Pantry. She was a lobbyist for AARP.

Shirley attended both of President Clinton's and President Obama's inaugurations.

Shirley is survived by her daughter, Robin and her husband Rick Mathieu; grandchildren Vickie Mathieu and Jackie and her husband Gus Tserpelis; three great-grandchildren; siblings Nelda, Susan and husband Larry, Larry, Lois and her husband Stuart, and Deloris and her husband Robert; sisters-in-law Phyllis, Doris, and Betty; and numerous nieces, nephews, and cousins.

Her service to her community is remarkable and her story inspiring. I

stand here today to applaud my dear friend and to honor her legacy.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Lisa C. Freeman for becoming the first female president of Northern Illinois University, NIU.

Lisa C. Freeman was appointed president of NIU in September of 2018, becoming the first permanent female president in NIU's 123-year history. She has been a member of NIU's senior leadership team and a professor of biology since 2010. She became executive vice president and provost in May 2014. Throughout her time at NIU, Freeman has worked to support all aspects of the university's mission, emphasizing NIU's continued commitments to promoting the social mobility of students, producing high impact scholarship, and engaging with the region. Prior to joining NIU, Freeman dedicated 16 years to serving as a faculty member at Kansas State University. She also served as the associate vice president for innovation for K-State Olathe.

Freeman has been widely recognized for her important contributions to her professions. Among those honors and awards are Outstanding Veterinarian of the Year, 2002, Castle Bank Community Leader, 2015, and the NIU Trans-Action Ally, 2018.

I commend Lisa's hard work, passion, and commitment to inspiring and empowering our next generation of leaders, entrepreneurs, educators, artists, engineers, and professionals. May her continued leadership serve as an inspiration to us all.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of Richard Gray.

Richard, 89, died in his sleep on Wednesday, May 16, 2018, at his Gold Coast home in Chicago.

Richard was the dean of Chicago art dealers, a collector, and benefactor whose wide-ranging intellect, taste, and support helped many of the city's most celebrated cultural institutions.

Richard prevailed in the bidding wars that brought Sue, the famed T. rex, to the Field Museum, and he helped preserve the Farnsworth House, the architectural jewel in Plano, IL, designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.

He dealt in works by Magdalena Abakanowicz, Willem de Kooning, David Hockney, Roy Lichtenstein, Louise Nevelson, Picasso, Jackson Pollock, and Mark Rothko. Today, the Richard Gray Gallery which he opened in 1963, operates from 875 N. Michigan and Manhattan. The gallery has a warehouse on West Carroll Avenue in Chicago and also deals in Old Masters.

He and his wife, the former Mary Kay Lackritz, were supporters of the Chicago Humanities Festival, the Art Institute of Chicago, the Arts Club of Chicago, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the Goodman Theatre, WFMT, WTTW, and the Smart Museum of Art at the University of Chicago, among other institutions.

He was born at Woodlawn Hospital, the middle of seven kids of Pearl and Edward Gray. His father, a native of Siedliszcze, Poland, came to America alone as a teenager and helped to start a business in Providence, RI, cleaning buildings in that then-sooty city, eventually coming to Chicago.

Richard studied architecture at the University of Illinois Urbana- Champaign.

Richard is survived by his wife Mary, his son Paul and his wife Dedrea, his daughter Jennifer, his son Harry, brothers Robert and Melvin, five grandchildren, and a great-grandchild.

Richard was a lover of the arts and a dear friend. I am proud to stand here today to honor his legacy.

Mr. President, as I begin speaking tonight, we are less than 24 hours away from handing a seat on the Supreme Court to a man credibly accused of sexual assault--a lifetime appointment that would give him immense power to determine the right of every American to access healthcare, to start or grow a family, or even have access to what the Founders called the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

From the beginning, this nomination process has been a sham. The confirmation hearing was rushed. Bush- and Trump-era Republicans worked shoulder to shoulder to ensure that thousands of documents never saw the light of day. Questions about Kavanaugh's seeming habit of perjuring himself only grew by the day. That was all before Dr. Christine Blasey Ford stood up and spoke out, before she took a deep breath and began to relive the worst moment of her life over and over again on the national stage, credibly accusing Brett Kavanaugh of pinning her down, covering her mouth, and changing her life forever.

Now, even after she has testified about the night she was nearly raped, even after she talked of the memories indelibly etched into her mind and her 100 percent certainty that it was Brett Kavanaugh that night, some on the other side of the aisle have prioritized partisan tribalism over justice, over truth--two of the pillars that supposedly define our Supreme Court.

How can the FBI investigation be considered anything but a GOP-led sham when Dr. Ford was not even interviewed, when Mr. Kavanaugh himself wasn't even questioned or the dozen-plus people Dr. Ford and Deborah Ramirez have said could help collaborate their stories?

Why the rush? What are the Republicans afraid of? If they are so convinced that their nominee is not a serial sexual assaulter, why have they done everything in their power to curb and hinder investigations into the incidents in question?

The Republicans who angrily claimed on TV yesterday that this nomination is taking too long, that the Democrats are obstructing for the sake of obstructing, are literally the same people who delayed the consideration of Merrick Garland's nomination for 293 days simply because he was nominated by President Obama.

For the chairman to claim that this nomination has gone on longer than the ``average'' Supreme Court nomination ignores the reality that their nominee, who has been credibly accused of multiple sexual assaults, is being jammed through at lightning speed compared to the only other nomination he has ever overseen as chairman--Merrick Garland.

To Leader McConnell, Chairman Grassley, and my Republican colleagues, I warn you, history has its eyes on you. I beg you to slow down and consider the stakes of this debate.

Like Neil Gorsuch just a year ago, there are countless other conservatives scattered throughout the Federal judiciary who could be confirmed instead of Judge Kavanaugh, potential nominees with zero credible allegations of sexual assault, who are willing to release their records, who are capable of demonstrating the thoughtful, careful temperament we should demand from any possible Supreme Court Justice.

As a nominee, Kavanaugh brought his confirmation hearings two things: his record and his character. His record revealed that he would eagerly be the deciding vote in cases that would take away a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions, tear healthcare away from millions of Americans with preexisting conditions, and even empower this President to act as though he were above the law.

Equally important, his character can be summed up in just a few words: untruthful, dishonest, intemperate, and unfit to serve. Anyone who watched the Judiciary Committee hearing last Thursday should have serious, if not disqualifying, doubts about Brett Kavanaugh. He spewed out conspiracy theories about the Clintons, went on partisan rants, appearing belligerent and outraged that anyone would dare keep him from getting what he appears to feel entitled to. He shouted over Senators, attacked and insulted them personally, even pledged to exact revenge on his political adversaries.

Only a man who has never served in harm's way would dare complain that tough questioning was equivalent to his enemies trying to ``blow him up.''

Judge Kavanaugh, I have been on the receiving end of an RPG blast, so I can tell you that sitting in a fancy, air-conditioned hearing room with a nice glass of ice water for a few hours is nothing at all like being under attack in the desert and fearing for your life in the middle of a war zone.

Over and over again, he told what seemed to be bald-faced lies. He lied about the meaning of his yearbook page, about whether he had any possible memory loss or had ever become aggressive while drinking, about what he knew at age 53 and what he did at age 17.

Sadly, we shouldn't even be surprised. Kavanaugh has a habit of appearing to lie under oath. Over the years, he has dissembled and been dishonest under oath on a number of issues, including his role in developing the Bush administration's policies on torture.

This consistent dishonesty, this disregard, even distaste for the truth should be disqualifying for any Supreme Court nominee, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are turning a blind eye, seemingly not bothered one bit by his dishonesty, much less the credible allegations of sexual assault against him.

Today is the 1-year anniversary of the New Yorker's Harvey Weinstein story that broke open the #MeToo movement. Now, exactly 365 days later, we in the Senate are faced with a choice: Do we believe the survivors who come forward to tell their stories, or would we rather take the easy route, dismissing their claims as misguided or mixed up, as one of my colleagues put it, ignoring their claims, ignoring their pain?

Well, I, for one, believe Dr. Ford and Deborah Ramirez. ``Courage'' is the word that comes to mind when I think of these women. They didn't ask for this burden. They did not want this spotlight or the death threats and fear that have come right along with it. They have put country before self and have spoken out anyway, knowing full well that some would vilify them for doing so.

Take a moment to imagine what they have gone through. Imagine being a teenage girl alone and scared, outnumbered and overpowered and terrified. Imagine carrying that trauma with you every day for decades, then having to relive it in front of the entire country, and then being called a liar, having your life threatened, and being victimized all over again in the process.

It now rests on the U.S. Senate to listen. We must set an example for the rest of the country and avoid repeating

the sins of confirmations past. We must condemn efforts to shame survivors even when--especially when it is the President himself doing the bullying.

By refusing to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, we can send the message that victims of sexual assault matter, that their voices will be heard, and that seeking justice for these survivors is more important than the confirmation of any single individual. We can recognize the bravery it took for these women to speak out. Doing so would make clear that, at least in the U.S. Senate, if not in the White House, time is truly up for any judicial nominee credibly accused of sexual assault. Doing so would at least begin to restore integrity to how the Senate carries out its constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent.

To any of my colleagues considering voting yes on this nominee, please take just a few minutes to listen again to the opening words of Dr. Ford last Thursday. Hear the pain in her words, the truth in her voice.

I will be voting no on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. On behalf of Dr. Ford and survivors everywhere, I am begging--begging--each of my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, by the time Dr. Ford was sharing her story last Thursday afternoon, I was heartbroken. Then, by the time Judge Kavanaugh was done speaking, just a few hours later, I was horrified.

Dr. Ford spent her time talking about the laughter she still hears ringing in her ears from that night--the night that an older, stronger, drunker boy forced her to learn what it was like to feel helpless. Her voice quivered, but she herself never wavered, steadfast in the truth-- in the memory of those few moments that changed her life forever.

Judge Kavanaugh, meanwhile, spent his time interrupting and attacking the committee members, shouting over Senators and dressing them down-- appearing belligerent and outraged that anyone would dare keep him from getting what he feels entitled to, as though he--or anyone--is entitled to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Time after time, he made brazenly political statements that should disqualify any candidate from serving as a Federal judge. Over and over again, he told what appeared to be blatant lies despite his being under oath. He seems to have lied about the meaning of his yearbook page, about when he learned of some of the recent accusations, about what he knew at age 53 and what he did at age 17.

Sadly, this was hardly even surprising. Kavanaugh has a habit of appearing to lie under oath, as we know from when he was questioned about his role in the Bush administration's torture policy back in 2006. This consistent dishonesty--this disregard, even distaste for the truth--should be unacceptable in any judicial nominee, let alone one nominated to serve on the highest Court of the land for a lifetime appointment.

Let's be clear: How Republicans went about restricting the FBI investigation this past week was questionable at best, sabotage at worst. Yet the reality is that that suspiciously limited background check was not even necessary to prove that he was unfit; it was his inappropriate public outbursts and his lack of candor that were so deeply troubling, that should be so obviously disqualifying.

This has nothing to do with his conservative beliefs. This has to do with the fact that the belligerent partisan operative who revealed himself last week is wholly unsuited for a job that demands a level- headed temperament. It is not just I who is saying that. It is a sentiment that some of Kavanaugh's own former law clerks have expressed in the wake of his hostile outbursts.

No one is entitled to a Supreme Court seat, not even someone who went to Yale College or Law School as he reminded us one, two, three, four times last Thursday. In this #MeToo moment we are living through, we need to recognize the bravery it took for these women--Dr. Ford but also Deborah Ramirez--to speak out and not deride them and shame them as some on the other side of the aisle and even the President are doing.

The other night, Trump stood in the middle of a political rally in Mississippi and told joke after joke about Dr. Ford and the worst moment of her life--mocking a survivor, making fun of her trauma, riling up thousands of people to laugh at her just as she says Brett Kavanaugh did in that bedroom that night. That makes me sick. It makes me furious. Donald Trump may sit in the Oval Office, but it is obvious he cannot live up to even the minimal standards of what we should expect of any President. He doesn't even understand or care how cruel it is to try to bully a survivor back into the shadows.

You know, I have two daughters. The younger, Maile, was just born this April. The older, Abigail, is nearly 4 years old now. Her drawings line the walls of my Senate office, and her smile is the first thing I see in the morning. Well, I just can't stop thinking about how Dr. Ford was also once that age. She too probably had her hair brushed and then braided by her mom. She too probably loved that too-big set of Crayola crayons and proudly took to her mom drawing after drawing like those my Abigail brings to me. I can't stop thinking about how that little

girl, just a decade later, found herself cornered and alone and scared--outnumbered and overpowered and terrified--in hearing that boy's laughter that she remembers all of these years later.

I am voting against Brett Kavanaugh because I believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, because I believe Deborah Ramirez, because we need a nominee who will not cover up, abet, and lie about torture, but also because I know the American people deserve a fair-minded Supreme Court Justice who actually cares about honesty and the truth. That is the bare minimum we should expect from a nominee to the Supreme Court, and Brett Kavanaugh can't even clear that low hurdle.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am here today to honor the life of GEN John Abrams--a father, a husband, a friend, a soldier, and to so many, a hero. He passed away last month at the age of 71 after spending more than half of his life in the U.S. Army.

Rising from the son of a general to become himself a four-star general, John Abrams embodied the spirit of selflessness and of sacrifice for which our military is known. He spent his life fighting to defend the freedoms that we all too often take for granted. He was wounded in battle, returned to duty, and then wounded again, but he refused to let any injury deter him. He was a soldier's soldier from the very start, and those who knew him were made better by being in his orbit.

He served in the Armed Forces for 36 years, first enlisting in 1966 before becoming commissioned as an officer just 1 year later. He made it to four stars the hard way: by starting as a private--the lowest rank.

Soon after he was commissioned, he deployed to Vietnam, where he served two consecutive tours and volunteered for a third before being sent home. Then, he was off to a Korean province just north of Seoul. After that, he went to Germany for five tours, serving in Hungary, Bosnia, and Kuwait as well--all this in service to his country, all in an effort to add to the greater good.

He made history, becoming just the second American ever to command the same unit as his father when he was promoted to lieutenant general and tasked with commanding the V Corps in Germany--yes, that V Corps, the same unit that stormed the shores near Normandy and fought at Omaha Beach, that liberated Paris and took on the German troops during the Battle of the Bulge.

His own heroism in Vietnam did not go unnoticed. He was decorated with a Silver Star and a Purple Heart. But he would tell you that his greatest decoration was that of being a father, a husband, and a leader of soldiers.

He went on to lead the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, overseeing the Army's training in its entirety. He continued to rise in the ranks alongside his own brothers, one of whom just testified in front of the Senate today and is set to be confirmed as the next commander of U.S. Forces Korea.

Looking back, it is little wonder where General Abrams' strength of character came from. His father served as the Army Chief of Staff, commanding all forces across Vietnam from 1968 through 1972. His mother founded the Army's chapter of the Arlington Ladies around that same time, organizing volunteers to attend funerals to make sure that no troop was ever buried alone. He combined his father's courage with his mother's compassion, and in the process, he made this Nation a better, safer place for the rest of us--for his children and their children and my children.

He couldn't have done any of this without the loving support and service of his family, his wife Cecelia and his two daughters. As the quintessential

military family, they served alongside of him. To each of them, I express my gratitude and that of this grateful Nation.

My thoughts are with all of General Abrams' loved ones today, along with my deep gratitude. Thank you for sharing your father, your husband, your brother with the rest of this country that he served so valiantly for so long. God bless him and his legacy. God bless the troops he cared so deeply about and led so ably. God bless the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of Aubrey McGinnis.

Aubrey was born on December 26, 1960, and passed away on Saturday, March 18, 2017.

Aubrey joined the U.S. Army in 1981, serving the Illinois Army National Guard for 22 years and retiring as a chief warrant officer 4 pilot.

During his service, Aubrey graduated from the Illinois Institute of Technology, where he earned a bachelor's of science degree in electrical engineering in 1986. After working for a few years at Amoco, he earned an additional degree in aviation technology at Vincennes University on a Tuskegee Airman Scholarship. Aubrey then pursued his lifelong passion to fly commercially with, first, Comair, Inc., and later with United Airlines as an airline pilot.

As a loving husband to Ericka McGinnis and devoted father, Aubrey enjoyed being a provider and spiritual guide to his beautiful family.

Aubrey was a dear friend to many, and he left a profound mark on the lives of all those he loved and met. He was a quiet voice of reason and wisdom, and I am proud to stand here today and honor his legacy.