Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this year, the Young Women's Christian Association, YWCA, celebrates its 160th anniversary in the United States. It is the world's oldest and largest multicultural women's organization, fighting at the forefront of the most critical social movements, from women's empowerment and civil rights to affordable housing, pay equity, violence prevention, and healthcare. The YWCA traces its origins to the battlefields of the Crimean War in 1855. Formed in London, philanthropist Mary Jane Kinnaird and her friends, the organization helped nurses returning from the war find homes and improved the lives of those caught up in the Industrial Revolution. Women were working long hours in poor and unsafe conditions, and they had few opportunities for healthy activity. The YWCA's early hostels evolved to become the organization we know today. By 1858, the year we are honoring, the YWCA crossed the Atlantic and created residences in New York and Boston. It opened its first U.S. boarding house for female students, teachers, and factory workers in 1860. Since forming in the United States, the YWCA has grown to include 2.6 million members and 300 local associations in the country. Throughout history, the YWCA has been the vanguard for social change. In the 1870s, it held the first typewriting classes for women. Typewriting was considered a man's job at the time. During the same time, it also opened an employment bureau for women. Normal, IL, had the first YWCA student association in 1873. In 1877, the YWCA Chicago started providing medical services at the homes of the sick. This is the precursor to the Visiting Nurses Association. In the 1890s, the first African-American YWCA branch opened in Dayton, OH. A YWCA opened for Native Americans in Oklahoma during the same time. The YWCA was helping immigrant women adapt to the United States in 1909 with bilingual instruction. These were revolutionary changes. In 1919, the YWCA convened the first meeting of doctors, the International Conference of Women Physicians, with attendees coming from 32 countries to focus on women's health issues. The YWCA Convention in 1920 was an early advocate for the 8-hour workday with no night work and the right of labor to organize. The YWCA also fought on the frontlines of civil rights. In 1915, the YWCA held the first interracial conference in the South in Louisville, KY. In the 1930s, it worked toward desegregation and encouraged its members to speak out against the violence against African Americans. In 1946, the YWCA adopted its interracial charter, a full 8 years before the U.S. Supreme Court decided against segregation. The Charter declared, ``Wherever there is injustice on the basis of race, whether in the community, the nation, or the world, our protest must be clear and our labor for its removal, vigorous and steady.'' From opening Atlanta's first integrated public dining facility in 1960 to being a sponsor of Dr. Martin Luther King's March on Washington, the YWCA continued the fight for equality. In 1970, the YWCA created `One Imperative' to end racism wherever it exists. The modern YWCA is just as committed to the same principles that it's always had and is needed more than ever in the times we live in right now. The YWCA's annual Stand Against Racism campaign and its racial justice programs and services engage 140,000 people every year. It serves more than 122,000 women annually with economic empowerment programs, including job training, financial literacy, salary negotiation, and leadership development. And it continues to offer housing and childcare programs, helping build a supportive foundation for families. More than 900,000 women and families participate in the YWCA health and safety programs and services, including domestic violence and sexual assault services, fitness programs, and health resources. These programs often are critically important to communities of color where high-quality health wellness programs are not readily available. For twenty years, the YWCA has hosted a Week Without Violence to help end gender-based violence with workshops, community service opportunities, and public awareness events. As we celebrate the YWCA's 160 years of work here in the United States, we are reminded daily that we need to continue the fight against racism, sexism, and economic inequality. And the YWCA is leading the way--just as it did 160 years ago.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have been waiting for 10 minutes. I didn't realize it was going to be an alternating situation, but I will defer to him because of his seniority and our friendship. I wish to ask how long he will speak, and I wish to ask unanimous consent to follow him.

Mr. DURBIN. Ten minutes.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is hard to believe that it was 3 weeks ago when we first heard the name Christine Blasey Ford. It seems like a lot longer; doesn't it? In that period of time, a lot of things have occurred. The first thing was the announcement from Kellyanne Conway at the White House when she said that Dr. Ford's testimony and complaint would neither be ignored nor would she be insulted. Last night at a rally in Mississippi, the President of the United States mocked Christine Blasey Ford for her lack of specific memory about this terrible sexual assault, which occurred 36 years ago. I think most people realize that she testified under oath, gave us all the information she knew, and conceded there were things she couldn't remember. Neither she nor any victim should be in any way belittled because they can't remember all of the details of something that happened in the distant past, something they would much rather forget. Let me also remind those who are following this debate that it was Dr. Ford who stepped forward and called for an FBI investigation. She was willing to step forward before the FBI and tell her story. It was Judge Kavanaugh who resisted it, even when I asked him directly. Now the FBI investigation is under way. For the good of the Senate and for our Nation, I hope this is a complete, professional, nonpartisan investigation, and I hope we are given the time to at least read the report from the FBI before the Republican majority leader in the Senate plows through, as he said over and over, to a vote in this Senate. I hope those who come to this issue in good faith, regardless of their position, will be respectful of the process, which we may be using in the future and should respect as it reaches its conclusion. Forced Family Separation Mr. President, on a separate issue, I wish to tell the Senate about an experience I had several months ago. I was at an immigration court in Chicago. I had never been there before. It was at a high-rise office building in the Chicago Loop. The corridors were packed with those who were waiting for an opportunity for a hearing. I went into this courtroom where a judge was sitting, and I saw the two people who were before the court that day to have their case heard. The judge called the courtroom to order. She was very respectful to the two individuals who were there, but she had a problem. One of the people before her could not get into the chair to sit down for the proceeding. The reason that young girl, whom I will call Maria, could not get into the chair was because she was 2 years old--2 years old. One of the volunteer attorneys lifted her up and put her in the chair and handed her a stuffed owl, which she clung to through the whole hearing. The other person who was being subject to a hearing that day had no trouble getting into the chair. He scrambled into the chair and sat down because he was anxious to play with the Matchbox car that was on the table. This young man, whom I will call Hamilton, was 4 years old. In the United States of America, in the city of Chicago, at an immigration court of this Federal Government, these two individuals were up for a hearing because they had been separated forcibly from their parents. There was no real conclusion to the hearing. They reset the next hearing date for these two children--2 years old and 4 years old--for 4 days before Christmas. How did we get to this point in America where we are actually having a Federal court hearing of an immigration court for a 2-year-old and a 4-year-old--one too small even to get into a chair by herself and the other who, thank goodness, found a Matchbox car to play with during the proceeding? We reached this point because of the announcement of the Trump administration of something called zero tolerance and the decision to separate over 2,700 children from their parents at the border. Where are we today? We are in a situation where 136 of these children--months after this policy was started and then discontinued-- are still being held by the government. Ninety-six of them have parents who we believe to be outside the United States. Just this last week, the Department of Homeland Security inspector general came out with a report, which I commend to everyone, analyzing what the zero tolerance policy meant. I will tell you what it meant. It meant the absolute ultimate when it came to cruelty and incompetence. What they tell us in this report was that a decision was made by the Trump administration and by the Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Nielsen to separate children from their parents, even before these children had the ability to speak. They were called preverbal children. They separated them without any plastic bracelets on their wrists, without any fingerprints to trace them back to their parents. They were separated not by blocks or even a few miles but sometimes 1,000 miles. I came to learn the story of a little boy I will call Hamilton because it was published in The New Yorker. It was a story about his mom from El Salvador and the little boy being taken from her in March-- taken from this mother. They left the mother in Texas in detention, and they transported the child to Chicago. Initially, a volunteer lawyer came in and bought a phone card and said to the mother: You can call him. And she did. They would talk for a little while and sing a little song. The next time she called him, he wasn't as responsive. It has now reached a point where this 4-year-old little boy will not speak to his mother on the telephone, will not communicate with her. The people at the shelter in Chicago had begged the mother: Tell him he has to eat. Did you ever see a little 4-year-old boy you would have to tell to eat? It says something about his state of mind. Sadly, this 4-year-old has now reverted back to diapers and will not say a word to his mother on the phone--separated by a zero tolerance program of this Trump administration. What they tell us from the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's Office is that we are far from the end of this sad, disgraceful chapter in American history. Who is going to be held accountable for this? Will it be the President, perhaps in some election in the future? Will it be the Attorney General, who proudly announced this new program separating mothers from children? Will it be the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, who separated these children, according to the inspector general's report, putting them in confined spaces, which were unacceptable by humane standards, which we actually have been governed by for years in the United States? I believe Secretary Nielsen should be held responsible. I believe she should resign. Someone has to answer for this disgraceful chapter in American history, and we still must remember that 136 eligible children are still being held by our government under this policy. It is time for us to reunite these children with their parents. Except in the most extraordinary circumstances, it is time for us to try to put these families back together again. I want Hamilton to start eating again. I want him to be in his mother's arms again. I want him to try to get over this chapter in his young life. It can affect him for as long as he lives. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I wish to engage in a colloquy with Senator Portman to speak about section 5052 of H.R. 6, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act. Section 5052 of H.R. 6 takes a long-overdue step of lifting the ``Institutions for Mental Disease,'' or IMD, exclusion for individuals with a diagnosis of substance use disorder. For more than half a century, this arcane provision has restricted access to care for patients struggling with addiction by prohibiting Medicaid from reimbursing for residential substance abuse treatment in facilities with more than 16 beds. Sixteen beds? That might suffice in some parts of the country, but certainly not in many Illinois communities suffering from the opioid epidemic. I have visited facilities down in Carbondale, IL, where they told me they have hundreds of people waiting for treatment and a 12- week wait for an open bed. We don't restrict cancer or diabetes or heart disease patients to only receiving care in certain-sized facilities, and we should not do the same for substance use disorders. In the face of the Nation's worst ever drug overdose epidemic, this Federal law has prohibited treatment centers from expanding services to accommodate the growing demand for recovery services and blocking an entire class of high-quality providers from providing care. It is unacceptable. For years, I have worked in a bipartisan manner to lift this IMD exclusion. I have led bipartisan groups of Senators in writing to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, urging them to provide flexibility from this treatment barrier and also worked to ensure Illinois's section 1115 Medicaid waiver includes authority to partially waive the IMD exclusion. I have also worked on legislation for multiple years to lift the IMD exclusion for individuals with a diagnosis of substance use disorder. I first reintroduced the Medicaid CARE Act in a prior Congress and then last year teamed up with Senators Portman, Brown, King, and others to reintroduce the legislation, which lifted the bed cap from 16 beds to 40 beds and allowed for up to 60 days of residential treatment if it was deemed medically necessary. Later, we joined to introduce the Improving CARE Act, which removed the bed cap altogether, allowed for inpatient stays for up to 90 days, and introduced measures to ensure that patients would have access to all necessary treatments, in the highest quality facilities, with a plan for successful transitions to outpatient and community-based care. Section 5052 of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act took much of our proposal from the Improving CARE Act, including ensuring that we lift the IMD exclusion for individuals with all diagnoses of substance use disorder and improving the array of patient treatment options when seeking care. This work will have an incredible impact on improving access to care in my State and nationwide, and I would like to thank all of our bipartisan colleagues who helped to secure this important language to break down the IMD exclusion. Unfortunately, section 5052 does not include a policy that matters a lot to me and my colleagues: directly allowing for eligible individuals seeking such care to stay up to 90 days in a facility for treatment. Inpatient and residential stays for substance use disorder treatment should by no means be indefinite, and I believe that individuals should seek outpatient treatment as quickly as possible so that they can return to their homes and communities. However, section 5052 raises the statutory length of stay for only 30 days, which in many cases is insufficient for individuals that need more intensive treatment for their substance use disorder. I know Senator Portman is going to discuss this further, but section 5052 includes language defining eligibility under this new authority to include Medicaid enrollees enrolled under a State plan or a waiver of such plan. Given that Illinois and other States do have Medicaid 1115 waivers to provide substance use disorder treatment in IMDs, I want to affirm that this new statutory authority for 30 days of care can be woven seamlessly together with separate State waivers to maximize the length of stay for patients to include additional days under a waiver.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to reiterate my appreciation to Senators Portman, Brown, Cardin, King, and others and echo what Senator Portman said about flexibility to elongate lengths of stay as medically necessary for patients, beyond the 30 days under this new statutory authority. Earlier this year, Illinois obtained a Medicaid 1115 waiver to address behavioral healthcare in the State, which allowed for a partial waiver of the IMD exclusion to allow for Medicaid beneficiaries in my State to receive up to 30 days of treatment in these IMD facilities. That was good news. Nonetheless, I expect that section 5052 of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act will still be able to help residents of Illinois and those in other States with 1115 waivers, because, similar to the authority that Senator Portman noted that Medicaid managed care plans have, States will be able to pair this new authority under section 5052 with the existing authorities under State waivers. Thus, Medicaid enrollees in Illinois will be able to combine the 30-day stay under our waiver with the 30 days under this new authority, thus giving my constituents the opportunity to receive up to 60 days of inpatient, substance use disorder treatment a year. That is an important new step forward, and I look forward to working with our State and CMS to fully implement this policy for States to coordinate waivers and statutory authority for longer lengths of stay. This is by no means a uniform policy for each of the States, and I hope that we can come together again to lengthen these stay limits.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I agree with Senator Portman on stitching together this new statutory authority with existing managed care and waiver authorities to elongate patients' lengths of stay, as medically appropriate. I would once again like to thank all of my colleagues, including Chairman Hatch, Ranking Member Wyden, Chairman Alexander, and Ranking Member Murray, for their help in getting this important policy across the finish line.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I have been in politics for a long time, but I have never seen anything like what I witnessed when I went back to Chicago last Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. From the minute the plane landed at Midway Airport in Chicago through the entire weekend, everyone--everyone--was engaged. People were coming up to me--total strangers--expressing themselves about the hearing that had just been completed with Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. I was stunned, and I have done this for a long time. There was the doorman in the rain holding an umbrella at the hotel talking about what he heard and what he remembered from the hearing. The taxicab driver, the person on the street--everyone wanted to speak to me about this. It has been estimated that 6 out of 10 Americans listened or watched the hearing last week. I am not at all surprised. The response I found on the street and in the neighborhoods and in meetings around my State of Illinois and in the city of Chicago certainly gave evidence to that. It was an interesting response, too, primarily from women but not exclusively--women who came up to me, and I could tell by the look in their eyes and the tone of their voice that something had just happened publicly in America that touched them personally. Some would confide in me and whisper about a personal experience they had. Others would look into my eyes, and I realized this meant a lot to them for reasons they didn't want to share. That hearing last week was a moment I have never seen before in American politics in the time I have been around. The second thing I noted was the comments about Dr. Ford. Except for a still photograph, I had never seen her before she walked into the committee room last week to testify under oath. I didn't know what to expect as she sat down, after taking the oath, and began her testimony. Time and again the people who worked with her described her condition as fragile. In her own words during the course of her testimony, she said she was terrified--terrified. And why wouldn't she be--at this point in her life, to become a national person, a national profile, a national celebrity; to see her experience turn her family life upside down to the point where she was forced to move out of her home and she and her family had to take refuge and safety in a secure location. There was all of the attention that was being paid to her, some with praise and some with criticism. It is the kind of thing that even politicians are supposed to get used to and never do. So imagine that scenario for an ordinary person. I listened to her testimony, and I heard what she had to say about why this event took place. I realized that this woman from California believed she had what she called a civic duty to come forward before the White House made its final decision on the choice of a Supreme Court nominee because she believed she had important information about Brett Kavanaugh that the President should know and that Congress should know, and she didn't know where to turn. For those who argue that she was part of some political conspiracy, she didn't know which way to turn. She ended up turning to the place most would, to her local Congresswoman, Anna Eshoo, and sitting down with her in California and talking about this confidential letter that she wanted to put in the hands of somebody who would make a decision about the future of the Supreme Court. It was a perfectly reasonable explanation of what an ordinary citizen would do, and that is what she did. When she finally got in contact with the Senate Judiciary Committee with this same confidential letter and had communications with Senator Feinstein, she stressed over and over that she wanted this to remain confidential and that she didn't want her identity to be disclosed for fear of what it would mean to her and her family--a natural human reaction. I want to say a word about Senator Feinstein. You may quibble, you may debate, you may argue with the way she handled this, but I think she did what she thought was right for the very right reasons. She believed that she had an obligation to Dr. Ford--an obligation to protect her identity. I know Senator Feinstein. She is a person of character and values and principles. I have been saddened and, in fact, angry at times when my colleagues from the other side of the aisle accused her of so many things--of plotting some political conspiracy to bring down this nominee. In fact, two of them suggested she was the one who leaked the letter to the press. I am as certain as I stand here, after years of working with her, that neither of those things are even close to the truth. She was trying to do what she felt was the right thing--first, for this woman, this mother, this resident of her home State, and, second, for this country. I don't question in any way whatsoever--and no one should--her efforts and good faith to serve this Nation in a very difficult process. But Dr. Ford came forward and told her story. I asked her a question point-blank: ``We are now being told that perhaps you were mistaken. Perhaps it wasn't Brett Kavanaugh who assaulted you in that bedroom in the Maryland suburbs. I wanted to ask you: With what degree of certainty do you believe that Brett Kavanaugh was the assailant?'' Her answer to me was very short and direct: ``100 percent.'' She was 100 percent certain. You think to yourself: It happened 36 years ago. How could she be so certain? It was so long ago, but then you realize that, at that moment, it impacted her life in a way that few people ever want to experience. For 36 years she has been carrying the memory of that party, that bedroom, that assault in her life, to the point where she sought therapy--couples therapy with her husband--and told her therapist, as well as her husband, the name of the assailant 6 years ago, long before Judge Kavanaugh was proposed as a nominee for the Supreme Court. I came away with strong feelings about Dr. Ford--her credibility, her composure, the fact that she was resolute, and the fact that she showed a degree of character that is extraordinary under the circumstances. I believe Dr. Ford, and I believe what she told us. That is why I am troubled to hear Republican Senators come to the floor today and say: Well, you know, we feel that she was mistreated. Some of the same Senators, including the majority leader, have said that. They came to the floor on 3 successive days last week and dismissed her complaint as a smear. That is the word that was used-- ``smear''--on the floor of the Senate. Even before she had testified, even before they had seen her under oath say what she did, they dismissed this as a smear. I don't think that is an indication of respect for Dr. Ford to have said that on the floor of the Senate, and I think that she deserves more, as anyone would, who is willing to testify under oath. I would also say that the testimony of Brett Kavanaugh last week was a revelation. He stayed with his story that he was mischaracterized and was improperly and wrongly accused, and he, too, was certain that this event had never occurred, but in his testimony, in his opening statement last week before our Judiciary Committee, I saw something that I had never seen before in the Senate. I saw a level of emotion, which was understandable, considering the accusations that had been made, but there was a level of anger that I have seldom seen, and perhaps have never seen, in the Senate. Judge Kavanaugh attacked those who had raised these questions about him. He said that he bore no ill will toward Dr. Ford, but then he called her allegations ``a calculated and orchestrated political hit,'' citing ``apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election,'' and then he added: ``revenge on behalf of the Clintons.'' It is hard to imagine that a person aspiring to serve on the highest Court of the land--where your temperament is so important, where you have to make certain, as best you can, that you take politics out of your legal equation--would be so direct and so specific in blaming his plight on ``revenge on behalf of the Clintons.'' This political grace note from Brett Kavanaugh--this ``lock her up'' grace note--may be appealing to some on the political spectrum, but it speaks volumes about this judge and how he would serve if he ever had an opportunity to be on the Supreme Court. It has been said over and over by the Republican majority leader that the Democrats are in the midst of a big delay tactic. I have to echo the comments of Senator Schumer earlier. It is very difficult to take the Senate majority leader credibly when he makes a statement that we are trying to delay filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The Senate majority leader set the record in delaying Merrick Garland's nomination for more than 300 days when he even refused to meet with the man, let alone consider a hearing, when Judge Garland was nominated by President Obama. To have this majority leader now tell us that we are the ones responsible for delaying really is to ignore history and to ignore the reality of what has occurred here, because of the courage of his Members, three of whom have stepped up and said: We will not dismiss Dr. Ford's allegations with just a staff phone call; we want an actual hearing. That was inspired by three Republican Members of the Senate, and we backed them up. We thought their request was right. As for this FBI investigation, I know a little bit about that because I asked Judge Kavanaugh directly during the course of this hearing what he wanted us to do. I did not ask him what the White House wanted us to do and not what the Senate Judiciary Committee Republican leadership wanted to do, but what he, Judge Kavanaugh, wanted to do when it came to this FBI investigation. My point was, if Dr. Ford is willing to submit her allegations to an FBI review, why wouldn't you, Judge Kavanaugh? If you believe there are no credible witnesses and no credible evidence, otherwise, why wouldn't you want a complete investigation done by the nonpartisan professionals at the FBI? But even then, he refused that thought of an FBI investigation. It wasn't until Senator Jeff Flake, a Republican of Arizona, made it clear that he would not move forward on a vote on the floor without that FBI investigation, joined by Senator Coons of Delaware and many others, that this FBI investigation was under way. So give credit where it is due. Any delay of a week for us to consider this is really inspired by Senator Flake's request, with the support on the Democratic side of the aisle. So to blame us for this delay, unfortunately, again, is not accurate. It appears now that Senator McConnell, the Republican majority leader, is determined to plow through this, as he has said. He has said this nomination will be on this floor this week. If the FBI investigation is completed Thursday or Friday, there will be a report that is available for Senators to review, as they should, and to read the results of this investigation and draw their own conclusions. That is the regular process of the Senate, but it appears that Senator McConnell can't wait. He can't wait for that to be completed and thoughtfully considered by his colleagues in the Senate. It has to be this week, he has determined, and has said it over and over again. He blames us for delay, delay, delay. If we take a day or two or more to thoughtfully consider whatever the FBI finds, isn't that our constitutional responsibility filling a vacancy, a lifetime appointment, to the highest Court in the land? That, I think, is my responsibility and should be his as well. Let me close by saying, this has been a celebrated chapter in history and will be remembered. To have a Supreme Court nomination for the swing vote of the Court that may tip the balance for decades before us is something we obviously consider seriously. That it would come at a moment when these allegations have been made about sexual harassment as we are facing this issue at every level and every sector of American culture really dramatizes the importance that we get this right; most importantly, that we be fair--fair both to Dr. Ford, who had the courage to step forward, and fair to Judge Kavanaugh, who has the right to tell us his memory of events and to be taken seriously as well. The FBI investigation, though it was resisted by Judge Kavanaugh, is a step in the right direction. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have not declared where they are and how they will vote on the Kavanaugh nomination will wait until the FBI investigation is complete, review their findings, and reflect on the very basic question: Is Brett Kavanaugh the right person at this moment in history to be given a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land? I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, one of the clearest indicators of the success or failure of any public health system is average life expectancy. Between the United States and other countries around the world, there are dramatic differences in life expectancy compared to the United States. But you don't have to fly thousands of miles to see a place where people live sicker and die younger than their neighbors. In Chicago, hop on the Blue Line and go from the Loop to the ``L'' stop in West Garfield Park. Between those two neighborhoods--just 5 miles apart-- life expectancy plummets 16 years. How can that possibly be? Chicago is home to some of the greatest hospitals in the world. The best doctors, the best nurses, the best technology--it is all there, but not for them. As it turns out, how healthy we are and how long we live depends more on our ZIP Code than our genetic code. While countries overseas face challenges with infectious disease or high child mortality rates, children in Chicago are dying preventable deaths of another form: an epidemic of gun violence. Yes, we need better gun laws, but the reality is that this Congress and this President do not want to take commonsense action. So what else can be done to address the root causes of violence? Last year I introduced a bill that would increase funding to train more teachers, doctors, and social service providers to identify and provide care to children with emotional scars left from witnessing violence and exposure to other adverse childhood experiences. Major parts of this bill were included in the opioid package that already passed the House and I hope will pass the Senate soon. But I asked myself: What else can we do? Then it hit me: hospitals. The hospitals in Chicago are on the frontlines of the city's gun violence epidemic, providing high-quality care to heal bodies ripped apart by bullets, but the ability of hospitals to reduce violence in Chicago goes far beyond the extraordinary, lifesaving care they provide in the ER. Hospitals in Cook County, IL, pump $49 billion a year into the local economy, and they employ 232,000 people. Hospitals are often the largest employers in their communities. For several months, I brought together the CEOs of the 10 largest hospitals serving the city of Chicago. I asked them three questions: What is your hospital is doing to make your neighborhoods safer and better? What more can you do? And how can I help? We identified a number of Chicago neighborhoods that they serve--or are too often underserved--to focus our efforts. Remember, these institutions compete with each other every day, but together, we came up with unified roadmap--a set of common goals and commitments that are endorsed by all 10 hospitals. Over the next 3 years, these 10 hospitals will expand economic opportunities for local residents by: increasing local hiring by 15 percent--that means hundreds, or thousands, of new local hires; increasing the goods they purchase from local businesses by 20 percent--meaning millions in procurement dollars; and expanding summer employment, internships, and job training programs for residents in health fields. The 10 hospitals are committing to opening new health clinics in schools and community centers and expanding the availability of mental health services. They will enhance their clinical healthcare practices by increasing lead screening rates by 15 percent, reducing opioid prescribing by 20 percent, prioritizing maternal and infant health outcomes, and researching gun violence. This new hospital-led effort is focused on two things: reducing gun violence and healthcare inequality. It is called the Chicago HEAL Initiative: ``Hospital Engagement, Action and Leadership.'' According to the American Hospital Association, it may be the first such regional hospital partnership to tackle a local issue. The hospitals in the Chicago HEAL Initiative are already working on many these goals through an impressive variety of programs, but this new initiative will drive real change by bringing a new sense of partnership and focusing on activities outside of hospitals' traditional services within their four walls. I am pleased to launch this new effort, and will do whatever I can in Washington to help reduce violence and uplift communities.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Saturday, August 25, 2018, marked 1 year since the brutal attacks in Burma that sent more than 700,000 Rohingya fleeing for their lives to Bangladesh. Horrific stories were reported, including mass murder, rape, babies being thrown into fires, and entire villages razed to the ground at the hands of Burmese military officials. In Bangladesh, these desperate refugees joined hundreds of thousands of others who fled in waves of previous violence. The Rohingya sadly have a long history of being discriminated against and even violently attacked in Burma. In fact, UN Secretary General Antonio Gutteres said recently of the Rohingya, ``there is no population in the world that I have seen more discrimination against.'' While we have seen changes in Burma recently, the horrible treatment of ethnic minorities such as the Rohingya has continued. Saturday, August 25, 2018, is also the day we lost our Senate colleague, the great patriot, John McCain. John McCain and I historically partnered with Senators Feinstein and McConnell to renew sanctions against Burma until it released Aung San Suu Kyi and moved toward democracy. More recently, John McCain was the sponsor of bipartisan Senate legislation that would narrowly sanction those Burmese military officials response for the violence against the Rohingya. I was proud to join him in that effort. The bill has nearly two dozen cosponsors, Members from across the country and the political spectrum. We all recognize as John McCain did that, despite the historic changes in Burma, we must not allow the Burmese military to continue to act with impunity. We appreciate the efforts of our administration--humanitarian aid, sanctions on a few security officials and units, interviewing refugees and documenting crimes--but it is not enough, especially as Burmese officials continue to deny that any crimes took place and ignore calls of safe and voluntary repatriation and accountability. There are even reports that the Burmese military continues to bulldoze and overtake former Rohingya villages, as well as engage in attacks in Shan and Kachin State against other ethnic minorities. It is no wonder that the UN's Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar reported recently that the Burmese military acted with ``genocidal intent''--genocide, not a term taken lightly and not a term applied often. This comes on the heels of reports by others, such as Fortify Rights, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. Presented by the UN's Human Rights Council, the latest report is the result of interviews with nearly 900 witnesses, and it calls for the international community to act. Our State Department has similarly reported that the Burmese military's operations against the Rohingya were ``well-planned and coordinated,'' although I am disappointed that the Department stopped short of making a legal determination on the crimes. Senator McConnell continues to block any action on the late John McCain's bipartisan legislation. A year after the latest wave of violence, report after damning report documents the Burmese military's scorched-earth tactics. The international community calls for immediate action: accountability, humanitarian relief, conducive conditions in Burma for safe and voluntary repatriation. Congress has its hands tied by the majority leader. Like Senator McConnell, I have also been a big fan of Aung San Suu Kyi and had high hopes for her, and I recognize the near impossible position she is in with the Burmese military, but her blindness to the suffering of her own people, not to mention her defense of the absurd jailing of the two Reuters reporters, troubles me deeply. That is not the Aung San Suu Kyi that John McCain called his ``personal hero.'' John McCain's bill is about ensuring that we hold the Burmese military accountable for its operations. I hope the majority leader will finally recognize that and allow this bipartisan bill to move.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. DURBIN. Thank you. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, plow through this nomination. That is what the Republican majority leader said over the weekend, that we are going to plow through this nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. It doesn't sound to me like a recipe for fairness, and it certainly doesn't sound like a recipe for getting to the truth. Plow through. That was what the Republican majority leader said the Republican majority would do. When this all started, I was surprised when a spokesperson for President Trump--Kellyanne Conway, who is not noted for her moderation--made what I thought was a very moderate and thoughtful statement at the beginning of the consideration of Dr. Ford's charges. She said that we are neither going to ignore nor insult Dr. Ford. I thought that was a good standard. Unfortunately, since she has said that, neither the President nor many Republican leaders have lived up to it. I really come to this as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who is trying to think about the gravity of the situation and what is fair. In this situation, we have Dr. Ford's coming forward. I have thought long and hard and have talked to many of my staffers and friends back home about her motivation. What in the world does she have to gain by putting herself and her family through this? What is at the end of it for her? I can't see any positives other than the satisfaction that she is pursuing what she believes to be true. She is exposing herself to ridicule, harassment, and attack even by the President of the United States in his tweets. Her family is in danger, and they have had to move out of their home. Her computers have been hacked, and she has had to engage attorneys and get into lengthy negotiations with Republicans in the Senate just for a chance to come and tell her story. This woman had a family and a life and was well respected by her colleagues and the people in her community. It has been turned upside down. Why? What is in this for Dr. Ford? What is she trying to achieve here? The more I have thought about it, the more I have concluded that she just believes it is so critically important for the American people to hear her story and understand what she believes to be true about this nominee. So I come to this, certainly, with an open mind in terms of her presentation. When I hear the Republican leader come to the floor and talk about her situation, he zigs and zags. In one moment, he sounds like he is sympathetic to Dr. Ford and to what she has been through and calls for fairness. Then, before he catches a breath, he calls her charges an unsubstantiated smear. I would say to my colleague from Kentucky that he can't have it both ways. He can't be respectful of Dr. Ford and of the reason she comes to Washington and then dismiss and discredit everything she has said as a smear. He just can't have it both ways, but he has tried for 2 straight days. He argues that this situation that we face has been carefully choreographed by the Democrats. There is the old cliche by Will Rogers: ``I don't belong to any organized political party--I am a Democrat.'' It, certainly, applies to this situation because this has been an unusual development. Senator Dianne Feinstein receives a letter from Dr. Ford through a Member of Congress, Anna Eshoo. When she receives the letter, it reads at the top ``confidential,'' that she doesn't want her identity to be disclosed. Senator Feinstein told me and others over and over again that she felt duty bound not to victimize Dr. Ford, who claimed to have been victimized already. She tried to find a way to get to the bottom of this--to establish whether Dr. Ford's charges were accurate. After weeks of trying, she came to the conclusion that she couldn't do it through the U.S. Senate and through the resources available to her. She spoke to Dr. Ford. She took the charges seriously. She was in communication with her attorneys. She tried her best to find a way to establish the credibility of these charges before moving forward and was always constrained by Dr. Ford's admonition: Don't let my identity become public. That is why it took longer than it should have. Now Senator McConnell has come to the floor for 2 straight days and has somehow suggested that the Democrats leaked this letter to the press. Well, I don't have any knowledge of that whatsoever. I do know, as far as Senator Feinstein was concerned, she was scrupulous in making certain that Dr. Ford's identity was protected as long as she wanted it protected. So I don't know what he is saying or whether he has information to back up these charges that he has made for 2 straight days on the floor. I take a look at this situation, and I understand where we are today. The bottom line is that Dr. Ford had nothing to gain by doing this-- nothing--and still has nothing to gain. Yet then there is one overriding fact here that Senator McConnell continues to ignore. Let me take you back in history. Twenty-seven years ago was the Clarence Thomas hearing. I was in the House at the time, but I read about it and followed it as most Americans did. On the very day that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden received the letter from Anita Hill, which charged sexual misconduct against Clarence Thomas, Chairman Biden sent the letter to the President George H.W. Bush White House--to the White House Counsel, C. Boyden Gray. Then on that very day, C. Boyden Gray, the White House Counsel, ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate the charges by Anita Hill. There has been a lot of comment on whether that investigation had been adequate or preemptory. There has been a lot more comment on whether the following hearing had been fair, adequate, and not preemptory. Yet the fact is that the instinct of Joe Biden and the instinct of the George H.W. Bush White House was the same: Investigate it. Don't assume it is true, and don't assume it is false. Now look at this case. Look at where we are today despite repeated requests to the White House and the Republicans for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to look into this matter. Despite repeated requests for them to ask the FBI to do this, they have refused. The Republicans have refused an investigation of the charges by Dr. Ford. Dr. Ford has called for the FBI to investigate her own charges. They have refused. If they truly believed that there was no evidence, no witness to back up Dr. Ford's charges, wouldn't they, obviously, have called the FBI and said, ``Do your job, and find what you can. We are confident, at the end, that Judge Kavanaugh will be exonerated''? Yet they have not. Despite all of the calls for fairness over and over again by Senator McConnell, fairness would dictate a nonpartisan investigative group like the FBI to look into this matter and come to conclusions, whatever they may be. I listened as Senator McConnell said this morning that justice matters. Evidence matters, he said. Facts matter, he said. I might add that an FBI investigation matters, too, because it would get to the bottom of all three of those things. Yet, the White House, the President, Senator McConnell, and the Republicans have resisted this FBI investigation despite Dr. Ford's asking for it. As far as the presumption of innocence, I listened to Senator McConnell say that someone suggested that Judge Kavanaugh is not entitled to that. I disagree with whoever said that. Both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh are entitled to the presumption of innocence. The case has to be proven; the facts have to be shown as best they can. I want to add something else too. I am troubled by what President Trump said over the weekend about Dr. Ford's charges--the suggestion that it has been so long that her charges are not credible, the suggestion that if they were truly credible, she would have told her parents what had happened that night in the bedroom and that her parents would have reported it to law enforcement, and we could have read the police reports. That is not the real world when it comes to this kind of sexual harassment and sexual violence--not at all. It is the reason it took 40 years for altar boys in the Catholic Church to come forward and finally tell their stories. It is the reason many women who have been victims never come forward. It is hard. It is difficult. It is painful. It is divisive. Many of them step away from it and carry those memories for their lifetimes without ever telling anyone. If you want to be fair to Dr. Ford, and if you want to be fair to the victims of sexual violence, harassment, and assault, then you have to acknowledge the obvious. This is something no one wishes on any member of their family, friend, or person they have met. In fairness, if it occurs, we should be sensitive to the fact that many don't want to come forward at all, and some only do it reluctantly much later. I want a fair and open hearing this Thursday when both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh come before us. This is not a smear campaign, as far as I am concerned. Dr. Ford, with nothing to gain, has stepped forward and told her story. She has subjected her family and her name to the kind of publicity no one would wish on their family, and she has done it because she believes the truth is important. By the same token, Judge Kavanaugh is entitled to tell his story, and I hope he will. He will have to explain to this committee why he didn't call for a Federal Bureau of Investigation effort on his own behalf to establish the facts, the evidence, and the witnesses, if there were any. He didn't, and that is a fact. We also know this charge Senator McConnell made that Senator Schumer made up his mind on the Kavanaugh nomination early in some respects is true. Senator Schumer announced his position on this nomination early, but if you have been listening to the speeches given by Senator McConnell on the floor from the start, you certainly know where his vote has been. He says he is looking forward to hearing the testimony on Thursday. Well, clearly, he has made up his mind before he hears that testimony. So to fault Senator Schumer for taking a position on this nomination early, that he is ignoring the obvious--so did Senator McConnell. At this point, I will say we face an awesome responsibility. A nation divided politically, a nation where people have strong feelings on both sides in an effort to find the truth--I don't know what the legal standard is for this hearing. When it comes to criminal law, we certainly know the matter of probable cause, which leads to investigation and prosecution, and beyond a reasonable doubt to prove the guilt of someone. We know on the civil side there are different standards. No one has quite spelled out what our standard of proof is, but this much I know. No one--not any single American--is entitled to a seat on the Supreme Court. They have to come before the American people first and certainly the Senate, under the Constitution, and make their case for the advice and consent of the Senate to that nomination. It is a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land. The person who fills that seat can make decisions which swing history one way or the other, decisions which affect justice and privacy and fairness in American life. For that reason, all of us--all the Members of the Senate, certainly the Senate Judiciary Committee--have to take it seriously. I am going to take this very seriously, and I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will. I also will say this. Senator McConnell followed up with his ``plow through this matter'' comment and told us: We will stay through the weekend, if necessary, to get this done. We have to get it behind us. We have to move on. Where was Senator McConnell's sense of urgency when the vacancy was created by the death of Antonin Scalia? For almost a year, Senator McConnell left that seat vacant in the hopes that a Republican would be elected President. The idea now of giving a few days to go through the evidence, to go through an investigation, to have a reasonable review of the record of Judge Kavanaugh is now pushed away. This has to be done, it has to be done this weekend, and that is it--why? Why the urgency, Senator McConnell? Shouldn't we value fairness over urgency? I ask Senator McConnell: Set your ``plow'' aside for a few minutes, would you? Take a look at the Senate, this deliberative body, and make sure that in fairness to both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, we don't push this through, and we don't rush to judgment. Let us use our opportunity in the Senate and our responsibility in the Senate to treat our constitutional requirement seriously. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I would like to bring attention to the southernmost city in my State, Cairo, IL. Sitting at the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, Cairo was once a booming port town and was home to Fort Defiance during the Civil War. In the 1960s, Civil Rights icon Representative John Lewis even spent a summer there to help integrate a number of businesses and public spaces. However, in recent years, this southern city has faced a new challenge, as uninhabitable living conditions have force hundreds of public housing residents to relocate from their homes--and in many cases from their beloved community. Public housing in the city suffered years of neglect at the hands of local officials who are now accused of misusing Federal funds to bankroll lavish personal expenses, including multiple trips to Las Vegas and steak dinners. And how was life for residents? By the time residents were forced to relocate, 185 families--including roughly 200 children--were living in housing overrun with rodents, bedbugs, roaches, crime, mold, asbestos, and lead. I am talking about rats in the couch, maggots in the freeze, and plumbing and heating that simply refused to work. It was local officials who failed to provide its residents with safe and healthy housing; yet these families were the ones whose lives were uprooted as a result. Today, all 185 families have relocated, and the vacant housing complexes are set to be demolished. While the strength and resilience of these residents and their community in the face of this situation is inspiring, there is no question they deserved far more from their government. It has been more than 2 years since the HUD Inspector General's Office began investigating alleged misuse of Federal funds by local officials, and it is beyond time for that investigation to be finalized and for the results to be made public. Today I am calling--once again--for the HUD inspector general to do just that, but more remains to be done to restore the faith and confidence of public housing residents in our government. Transparent accountability must be had at all levels of government where mismanagement played a role in creating this crisis. This is why, in May of last year, Senator Duckworth and I called for the HUD inspector general to also look into HUD's oversight of Alexander County Housing Authority. This July, the IG released its report that found that despite having early knowledge of bad conditions at Alexander County, HUD hesitated to intervene, while residents suffered. This is unacceptable, and it cannot be repeated. HUD is responsible for ensuring public housing authorities meet their responsibility to provide safe and affordable housing, and it must be capable of performing this vital oversight. Senator Duckworth and I have urged HUD to quickly implement the recommendations included in the report to more effectively oversee public housing authorities, to which HUD has agreed. I look forward to continuing to work with HUD to improve its oversight of public housing authorities. We cannot allow the local and Federal mismanagement that jeopardized living conditions in Cairo to be repeated in any other community.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, earlier this month, we mourned the loss of a wonderful public servant in Illinois. Naperville's mayor emeritus, Arthur George Pradel, passed away at the age of 80. He was a soldier, a policeman, a mayor, father, and friend. To some, George was ``Officer Friendly.'' Local radio called him the Nicest Mayor in the World. I just was honored to be one of his friends--but so was everyone around him. He had a supernatural ability to know everyone and always have time to say hi. George was Naperville's longest serving mayor, with a tenure of 20 years. When George was a small child, his family packed up from Chicago's Hyde Park and moved to Naperville in 1939. The town had just 4,500 people at the time. When George finished his tenure as mayor in 2015, Naperville had grown to a population of 142,000. George graduated from Naperville Community High School in 1955 and served in the Marines as two of his uncles had done during World War II. After 3 years in the Marines, George came home to Naperville. George's dream job was to be the head of an orphanage, but in the 1950s, the orphanage system had changed. Smaller group or children's homes and foster care had replaced much of it. George was in a bit of a quandary. A friend of his encouraged him to consider police work. When an opportunity at the Naperville Police Department came up in 1966, he applied immediately. It was a beginning of a 29-year career with the Naperville Police Department. There was just one small problem. George was not even 57" in height. Naperville Police Department required officers to be at least 511" at the time. After acing his interview with the Board of Police and Fire Commissioners, the board had to consider if they could let him into their ranks, even though he was too short. One of the board members asked a marine family member if someone like George could make it. The family member told him that anyone who could get through Marine Corps training could be a great police officer. The board agreed. George earned the nickname ``Officer Friendly'' in his almost 30 years on the force by visiting schools and speaking to children. He wanted youth to understand that police were not to be feared, but they were there to protect them and give guidance. George worked to bring Safety Town, a miniature village where children learn pedestrian, bike, and railroad safety, to Naperville in 1977 and was the first police instructor. The ``town'' village now bears his name and that of his late wife Pat. George retired as a lieutenant when he was elected mayor, despite no previous political experience in 1995. He originally envisioned retiring from the police force and being a greeter at Walmart, but a bunch of residents asked him to run. He never really mastered the art of diplomatically saying no. George wasn't even planning to win the race, but all those children that knew him as Officer Friendly were adults now, and they voted for him. He was so surprised that he did not even have an acceptance speech prepared for when he won. As mayor, George continued being Naperville's greatest champion. His schedule was packed with events from collecting food for charity shopping events for Loaves & Fishes Community Services to charity dinners, fundraising walks, anniversaries, and graduations. He even did first flush ceremonies for toilets in a new building. When snow fell, he would hop in a city plow and help out. Helping people and trying to make Naperville better was his nature. I used to kid him that he was my favorite Republican. I invited him as my guest to a State of the Union address in Washington awhile back, and he was a joy to be around. George always had time for people. His door was open to anyone. A Chicago columnist wrote a sarcastic piece about Naperville, and George invited him to tour the town and changed his opinion. His state of the city addresses had a flare to them, as he sported a tuxedo and silk tophat to present them. George loved Naperville and thought the best of it. When he stepped down from being mayor to spend more time with his wife in 2015, his successor invented the title mayor emeritus so George could still stay involved with the community and represent the mayor on occasion. In addition to Safety Town, a park, a street, and an Officer Friendly statue all bear George's name in Naperville. He even has a bobblehead in his likeness, which I own, too. Because George loved chicken wings and the lunch buffet, Braconi's Restaurant and Pizzeria has a room named after George. At Schmaltz's Deli, George is the only person to have a sandwich named after him. Why did all these places name things after him? Because they loved him the way he loved Naperville. Naperville will miss him, and so will I. George is survived by his children Carol, Gary, and George.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, earlier this month, we received the sad news that Mayor Lorraine Morton had passed away just a few months short of her 100th birthday. For decades, she was a force for change in Evanston, IL. For so many people, she was the ``Principal of Evanston.'' In June of this year, more than a hundred people gathered with Lorraine at the Northwestern University Segal Visitors Center to celebrate the premier of the documentary ``Lorraine H. Morton: A Life Worthwhile.'' The title comes from something her father instilled into her, ``Only a life of service is a life worthwhile.'' Her life of service was extraordinary as a teacher, mentor, friend, and Evanston's first African-American mayor. Lorraine's story is that of shattering boundaries and bringing Evanston into the 21st century. Lorraine was one of the first Black teachers to break the color barrier in a community that was integrated statistically, but not geographically. She championed desegregation efforts and pioneered equity in Evanston's schools. As one of the few Black educators on the North Shore, her firsts were many: from serving as the first Black educator to teach summer school, to breaking the color line at Nichols Middle School, to leading the Haven Middle School as principal. Haven was on the frontier of all the changes coming to the community in the 1960s and 1970s. As principal, Lorraine thrived and developed a reputation for kindness and listening. In the early 1980s, then-Mayor Jay Lytle asked Lorraine if she were interested in joining the city council as the Fifth Ward alderman. After he talked her into it, Lorraine took the job in 1982. Three years later, she ran again and was elected alderman with the support of the families she had taught. Lorraine had a successful 9-year run on the council. While Fifth Ward alderman, she served on the housing and community development, police services, planning and development, human services, and rules committees, as well as on the unified budget panel. Additionally, she also served on special committees on fair housing, libraries, and gangs, and she was Evanston's legion commissioner. In 1989, Lorraine stepped away from her role as Haven Middle School principal to focus on politics. Word started to go around that then- Mayor Joan Barr was considering stepping down. Many of Lorraine's former students recommended she run. She had a built-in power base in all the schools she taught and made a difference, but the race was no easy picnic. Lorraine nabbed second place out of five candidates. This set up a runoff election where Lorraine came from behind to win. Lorraine went on to be the longest serving mayor in Evanston's history in 1993. Lorraine led the city through the development of partnerships with Northwestern University and changing the culture of the city council itself. Downtown Evanston is filled with Northwestern buildings these days. The university has a deep relationship with Evanston and the Chicagoland area, but it was Lorraine that brought Northwestern closer to the community through programs like increased student-to-student tutoring and donating resources like a firetruck. Downtown Evanston's large-scale renovation and revitalization also is a part of her legacy. Anyone seeing a movie in the Century Theater should thank her. An agreement negotiated by Lorraine and the city council with Northwestern to create a research park eventually led to a mixed-use zone, including that movie theater and all those restaurants and bistros. In the 16 years she was mayor, she was a role model to future mayors. She was tough on the budget, making every dollar stretch as much as possible. There were many budget battles, but more business came to Evanston, and it grew again. Lorraine did it famously with an open-door policy to all constituents. Her successor continued many of her policies. At the end of Lorraine's time as mayor, the city dedicated the Lorraine H. Morton Civic Center on Ridge Avenue as a thank you for a legendary career. After stepping down from mayor, she continued to serve the community as a representative for the mayor on an economic board. She remained active till the very end as the ``Principal of Evanston,'' having a life of service that was worthwhile. I always enjoyed working with Lorraine. She was professional, cheerful, and her focus was always on building a better Evanston. I can still see her sitting on the reviewing stand at the end of Evanston's legendary Fourth of July parade, with a big smile and appreciation for all of the people who came to join in celebrating her hometown. Lorraine is survived by her daughter, Elizabeth Morton Brasher, and two granddaughters, Elizabeth Keziah and Constance Moriah Brasher.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week, Chicago lost a giant in media when Ken Smikle passed away at the too young age of 66. For over 40 years, Ken redefined coverage of the Black American experience and brought to light the economic potential of Black communities in the United States. It is hard to believe that an audience with $1.2 trillion in buying power in 2017 did not have a publication geared toward understanding the African-American market 30 years ago, but that was the reality before Ken founded Target Media News in 1987. Ken saw the potential there throughout his career. Hailing from Harlem, NY,--in 1974, Ken, his brother, Dawoud Bey, and friend, Gerald Gladney started a business that published two magazines. They did this with no financial backing besides savings from various jobs. Ken wrote for several publications, including Essence Magazine and the National Leader Magazine. He went on to serve as the arts editor for Harlem's Amsterdam News, the Black music editor at Record World Magazine, and the editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer. In 1983, Ken's life had a revolution. He became the senior editor at Black Enterprise magazine. Ken also met the love of his life, Renee Ferguson, who was among the first female African-American women to work at CBS Network News in New York. Both of them were dedicated to telling the untold story of African Americans. It was at Black Enterprise that Ken got the idea that no one was tracking what businesses were doing to market to Black consumers. In 1987, Ken and Renee moved to Chicago. Ken founded Target Market News, while Renee worked as an investigative reporter for NBC5 News. Target Market News became the leading publication showing the research into marketing to African Americans. His work was pivotal in changing the way corporations viewed African Americans as an economic force. He published an annual ``Black Buying Power'' report for many years. For many years, Ken was the only one doing it, until Forbes and the University of Georgia Selig Center joined the bandwagon. Ken was the expert quoted on marketing to African Americans in numerous publications. He cofounded the African American Marketing and Media Association, hosted annual conferences, and was a proud member of the National Association of Black Journalists. In Chicago's Hyde Park's Kenwood community, Ken and Renee were staples for 30 years. They were neighbors to a young couple named Barack and Michelle Obama. Before Barack Obama was President Obama, he was Ken's friend at the Hyde Park co-op. While trailblazing the marketing industry, Ken was a Little League basketball coach at the YMCA. He was a loving father to his son, Jason, going to his son's baseball, basketball, and swimming competition. Ken loved his jazz and the music of life. His leadership and vision will be missed. Ken leaves behind his wife, Renee, son, Jason, brother, Dawoud Bey, and sisters, Sandra Bernard and Georgianna Machicote. (At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I think it is important for us at this moment to reflect on a little Senate history. This goes back to the year 1991, 27 years ago. It was a chapter in the history of the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee that many people who lived through it either as observers or participants will never forget. It refers to the hearings for the approval of the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Let me read to you a summary of what occurred. After Anita Hill alleged that Judge Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her, the full Senate on October 8, 1991, agreed by unanimous consent to delay a vote on Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court until October 15. Let me underline that. The full Senate agreed by unanimous consent to delay the vote after the allegations surfaced. Three days later, beginning on October 11, the Senate Judiciary Committee held public hearings over the course of 3 days, enabling Clarence Thomas, Anita Hill, and other witnesses to testify in an opening setting. Two days after the hearings ended, on October 15, the Senate then voted on Thomas' nomination. However, we have learned subsequently that this process was rushed to a point where information came out after the hearings that, in fact, several other women had made similar allegations. Having said that, according to press reports from 1991, Anita Hill faxed her four-page statement, making the allegations to the Judiciary Committee on September 23, 1991. Then the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Joe Biden, in turn, passed that information on to the White House and the FBI. On the same day that this letter was faxed to the Senate Judiciary Committee, on September 23, 1991, White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray ordered the FBI to investigate Anita Hill's allegations. The FBI spent 2 days investigating the allegations, including conducting interviews with Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, and completed its report on September 25, 1991. I recount that history because it is remarkable in light of what we have witnessed with the allegations of Dr. Ford. First, the Senate, by unanimous consent--Democrats and Republicans--once that allegation surfaced by Anita Hill, voted to delay the vote on Thomas's nomination. Secondly, when the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Joe Biden, turned over the allegation, on the very day it was received at the White House, the White House Counsel, C. Boyden Gray, ordered an investigation by the FBI. Apparently, at that moment in history, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and on the Judiciary Committee and in the White House at least wanted to maintain an open mind as to whether there was truth to the allegations and ordered an FBI investigation. Contrast that with what we are going through here. Contrast that with the fact that many, including the majority leader, who just spoke, have already presumed that any allegations by Dr. Ford should not be taken seriously and, as he said over and over again, that Judge Kavanaugh deserves the benefit of the doubt in this circumstance--or more. That is a departure from where we were 27 years ago when a credible allegation appeared and both sides stepped back and said: Investigate it. Call them both before the Judiciary Committee. Let's hear their testimony before we make a decision. In many cases since Dr. Ford's allegations have come forward, Republicans have prejudged this and dismissed it as political. Let me say a word about my friend and the ranking Democrat in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein. Senator Feinstein faced a choice that none of us would want to deal with. I think she did it responsibly. She received, through a Member of Congress, a letter making the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, but it was clear in that letter that the woman making the allegations did not want her identity disclosed. The woman claimed to have been victimized by Brett Kavanaugh, and she did not want her name made public. What was Senator Feinstein to do at that point--ignore her request, make it public to the embarrassment of her and her family? Senator Feinstein did not believe that is what she should have done, and she didn't. She continued to work with Dr. Ford. She reached out to her personally. She discussed the matter with her attorney. When I hear statements on the floor from the Senate majority leader that suggest there was a leaking to the press, I don't know where he is pointing his finger, but he shouldn't point it at Senator Feinstein. She is an honorable person, and she is a person who is sensitive to the reality of a victim and the fact that some of them are afraid to step forward and tell their story publicly. I think that is what occurred here. The time came when the story did leak to some credible--or maybe not credible; I don't know, I couldn't characterize them--but some publication known as the Intercept. It started to make the rounds. At that point, things started changing. It changed for the committee. Senate Judiciary Democrats met last week, talked it over, and said that we believe we should refer what we have, redacted, to the Federal Bureau of Investigations. We did. Then it was sent to the White House. We did that unanimously. Then, of course, the decision was made over the weekend by Dr. Ford that she was willing to go public. I don't think that was an easy decision for her. Clearly, it wasn't, because for weeks she made it clear to Senator Feinstein and others that she didn't want her identity disclosed. It is understandable. Look at the attacks she has faced already and what she is likely to face in the future. It is a reality of sexual harassment and sexual assault that victims are reluctant to speak for fear of what will happen to them and their family as a result of it. Now we have the situation where we do not have an investigation of Dr. Ford's allegations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This morning, the Senate Judiciary Democrats are making a plea to the President, as well as to the Republicans, to initiate the very FBI investigation that is necessary, certainly of Brett Kavanaugh's comments, as well as Dr. Ford's comments about this episode. I think, at a minimum, that should be done. What has been said by the majority leader this morning, and I quote him: ``So little order and so little sensitivity''--I think Senator Feinstein from the start showed sensitivity to the reality of the victims of sexual assault. I applaud her for that. I think it was a humane approach, a sensible and rational approach on her part to work with Dr. Ford to the point where she was willing to speak publicly about it. Sensitivity, you know, goes in both directions, both to the Kavanaugh family, as well as to the Ford family in this circumstance. In terms of order, it is difficult to judge when a person is willing to make a decision. Obviously, after 6 weeks, Dr. Ford made the decision that she would go public. That was not a timetable established by Senator Feinstein for anyone else. It was one she had to come to grips with in her own mind from her personal point of view and her family's point of view. It is ironic that just a few weeks ago we had a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on this issue. I hope my Republican colleagues will think about that hearing and some of the things that were said. I hope they will treat Dr. Ford's allegations with the seriousness and dignity that survivors of sexual assault deserve. Chairman Chuck Grassley, who is my friend, made a statement during that committee hearing on June 13. It was a hearing about the sexual harassment perpetrated by a Federal judge, Alex Kozinski. Chuck Grassley was addressing victims who spoke out against Judge Kozinski's harassment. This is what he said: Speaking out against powerful federal judges in a system that doesn't always protect victims takes tremendous courage. But because of your bravery-- Referring to these witnesses-- we can hopefully begin to make real, significant changes to these power imbalances that allow harassment to thrive. I think I have a dual responsibility in serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee: a responsibility to fairness when it comes to the allegations made by Dr. Ford and responsibility, when it comes to fairness, to Brett Kavanaugh in this circumstance as well. That means that I am not allowed, in my own mind, to prejudge this and to say automatically that Dr. Ford is right or automatically Judge Kavanaugh is right. What I need, what the American people need, are the facts. We should harken back to what occurred before with President Bush and C. Boyden Gray, his counsel, when they ordered an investigation by the FBI. That should occur now. If we are going to have a hearing on Monday, we should walk into that hearing after an investigation, which at least involves Brett Kavanaugh being interviewed and at least involves Dr. Ford being interviewed and at least involves Mark Judge, the person who has been identified as an eyewitness to this occurrence being interviewed as well. There could be other relevant witnesses. I will leave it up to the FBI and their investigation to come to that conclusion. Let's get the facts before the American people. Let's understand the seriousness of this responsibility. A lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land is what is at stake here, as well as attacks on the credibility of an alleged sexual assault victim and others who are watching this carefully in light of their own life experiences. I hope we meet that responsibility, but we will never meet it if Senators continue to come to the floor and prejudge the facts before any investigation, before any testimony by either of these individuals. If we are truly going to meet our responsibility to advise and consent under the Constitution, it is time for us to step back, put our Democratic and Republican clothes at the door, and stand together in judgment of an important issue that affects the future of this country and future of the Supreme Court. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Defense appropriations bill will soon pass the Senate and be sent to the President's desk. This is a massive spending bill--$675 billion--and it has been 10 years since one was enacted on schedule. Passing appropriations bills on time is about being good stewards of the taxpayer's money. When appropriations bills are not signed into law on schedule, government programs are put on autopilot, known as a continuing resolution, or CR. CRs create financial headaches, including inefficiency, waste, and unnecessary additional spending. Last year, the Navy estimated that due to CRs, it has wasted $4 billion since 2011--$4 billion. That is enough money to buy 18 F-35s or two new destroyers or 3,000 Harpoon anti-ship missiles. Thanks to good work on both sides of the aisle, we are looking at real savings in every part of the Pentagon just by getting our work done on time. I am proud of many things in this Defense appropriations bill, including how this bill prioritizes research by including $94.9 billion for defense R&D, a record level for the Defense Department. GPS, the internet, and satellites are all examples of how Federal innovation research dollars have changed the world. On a bipartisan basis, we are building on previous year's investments, and I am confident that we will see similar breakthroughs. In addition, for the fifth year in a row, this bill increases defense medical research funding by 5 percent real growth for a total of $2.4 billion in defense medical research for fiscal year 2019. Defense medical research is making breakthroughs in a wide range of fields, from trauma medicine to breast cancer treatments. We have all heard of the quick- clotting tools that paramedics use around the country to stop bleeding in gunshot victims; that was a defense medical research breakthrough. Just this past year, researchers discovered a treatment to speed healing of combat-infected wounds and regrow the skin around them more effectively. Others proved that a particular medical assessment tool can accurately assess potentially suicidal behavior. I encourage everyone to go to the Army's medical research website and read the list yourself--a long list--of worthwhile uses of these funds. The defense bill is paired with the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill this year, which includes another $2 billion funding increase for medical research at the National Institutes of Health. This will be the fourth year in a row that Congress has provided the NIH with at least a 5-percent budget increase. Every NIH institute and center will see their budgets increase, but there are also noteworthy increases for Alzheimer's disease and cancer research. I wish we could have given the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention a bigger increase, but I am pleased with what we were able to accomplish here, including the continued investment--with an additional $5 million in fiscal year 2019--for the Open Textbooks Pilot to help save college students money on textbook costs. I am, however, disappointed that this bill does not include the bipartisan Durbin-Grassley-King amendment, which would have helped ensure that pharmaceutical companies disclose the cost of their drugs television advertising. Our amendment passed the Senate unanimously. It is supported by President Trump, HHS Secretary Azar, the AARP, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, 76 percent of Americans, and many others. House Republicans--apparently more indebted to Big Pharma than their constituents--prevented this commonsense proposal from being included in the final bill, but I will not stop fighting. In conclusion, the outcome of much of this bill shows what we can accomplish when Democrats and Republicans work together. I want to thank my partner and chairman, Senator Shelby, as well as the ranking member, Senator Leahy. But our work is only half done. There remain seven other appropriations bills that remain in limbo, dealing with foreign aid, agriculture, and even border security. The Senate will have to make an important choice very soon: either we work together to wrap up the appropriations process or we head back to Washington gridlock and wasteful stalemates. I urge the Republican leader to look at what we have accomplished in these bills, working together, and use that as a model for finishing our work in the coming weeks.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, our Nation is in the midst of the worst drug epidemic in its history. There is no town too small, no suburb too wealthy to be spared. Every day, more than 115 Americans die from an opioid overdose. In the past 3 years, there has been a 53-percent spike in drug overdose deaths in Illinois, with more than 2,400 lives lost in 2016. I am glad we are finally doing something to address this crisis. To truly prevent addiction and stop the next drug epidemic, we need to look at the factors driving this crisis. I am pleased that several of my bills to help prevent opioid addiction have been included in the bill before us. Whether it is witnessing violence, experiencing a parent's opioid addiction, or facing abuse in the home, traumatic experiences can harm a child's brain. Thanks to the Adverse Childhood Experiences, ACEs, study and advancements in brain science, we know that, left unaddressed, these events can have an impact on future health problems, mental illness, drug use, and the cycle of violence. But with the right care and support, we can help heal children who experience trauma and prevent serious, negative consequences. I want to thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray for including legislation I introduced with Senators Heitkamp, Capito, and Murkowski. Our language will help train more teachers, doctors, social services, first responders, and the justice system to recognize signs of trauma in children and provide help to those in need. Our provisions will improve coordination between Federal agencies, ensure more Federal funding is used to promote these skills and awareness, and expand the workforce capable to providing care. In 2016, Big Pharma produced 14 billion opioid doses--enough for every adult in America to have a 3-week supply of opioids. Each year, the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, sets the amount of opioids allowed to be produced in the United States. Between 1993 and 2015, DEA allowed production of oxycodone to increase 39-fold and hydrocodone to increase 12-fold. The sheer volume of opioids manufactured each year increases risk of abuse--four of five new heroin users started with painkillers. One problem is that, when setting annual quotas, DEA is unable to look at how a drug is abused or leads to overdose deaths. Why should DEA be handcuffed from considering the real-world misuse of oxycodone pills when it sets the production levels? This package includes my bipartisan bill to strengthen DEA's ability to adjust quotas to reflect the risk of opioid misuse, while improving flexibility to avoid any shortages. I want to thank Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, and DEA for working so closely with me and Senator Kennedy. It is a good thing that we are now talking about drug addiction as a treatable disease, not a moral failing that should be punished. Sadly, it has taken us too long to get here. The opioid epidemic also underscores the importance of having quality health insurance--coverage that includes mental health and substance abuse treatment. But once again, President Trump wants to allow insurance companies to discriminate against people with a preexisting condition--such as an opioid addiction--and promote ``junk'' insurance plans that don't cover substance abuse treatment. I will fight tooth and nail against efforts to repeal, gut, or sabotage this quality care so that we do not return to the dark days of coverage denials and sky- high premiums. The legislation before us addresses several important factors, and I am happy to support it today, but it neglects many more actions we need to take. This opioid package fails to include my bipartisan bill with Senators Brown and Portman, which would lift an outdated barrier to addiction treatment that restricts Medicaid from paying for care in facilities larger than 16 beds. We have worked in a thoughtful, open process to improve this legislation and address any policy concerns, and I look forward to including our revised bill in conference with the House. We must also hold the pharmaceutical industry accountable for its role in creating the epidemic through their deceptive conduct. Drug companies have profited from flooding the market with painkillers, often with misleading information, and should have to pay for the addiction treatment that their products have caused. Additionally, executives from Perdue Pharma, Janssen, Abbott, Endo, Insys, and other manufacturers must testify before the Senate to explain their role in this epidemic. Today's bipartisan opioid legislation is an important step forward, but we need to do more, and quickly, to meet this destructive crisis head-on.