Tammy Duckworth

Ms. DUCKWORTH

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to begin the vote immediately.

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud my colleagues for passing H.R. 4803, Citizenship for Children of Military Members and Civil Servants Act, without amendment by unanimous consent. Last year, Senator Johnny Isakson joined me in introducing the bipartisan Senate companion to H.R. 4803 to make sure that when children of U.S. citizens serving in the U.S. Armed Forces or working for the U.S. Government are born abroad because their parents are serving our Nation overseas, they automatically acquire U.S. citizenship. The unanimous passage of the Citizenship for Children of Military Members and Civil Servants Act by the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate sends a strong message that children born to American parents serving our country abroad are just as worthy of automatic citizenship as any other child in this country. This principle should not be controversial. That is why for the past 15 years, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services considered children of members of the U.S. Armed Forces and Federal Government employees stationed outside the United States to be deemed as ``residing in the United States'' for the purpose of automatically acquiring citizenship. This policy was pragmatic and cut burdensome redtape for American parents willing to serve our Nation abroad as U.S. servicemembers or civil servants. It provided flexibility and allowed U.S. citizen parents to meet residency requirements for acquisition of citizenship while serving overseas. It kept American parents from cutting their overseas commitment short to establish residency so their children could earn citizenship. This policy allowed their children to enjoy the same privileges of acquiring citizenship, as if their parents were working and living within our country's borders. However, in August 2019, the Trump administration enacted a policy change to reverse this practice. Under this new policy, certain Americans serving their Nation abroad, in uniform or in the civil service, must apply for citizenship on behalf of their children. These parents now have to navigate a complex bureaucratic process and spend hundreds of dollars on an application, with no guarantee that their children will receive citizenship of the very country they are serving abroad in uniform or as a Federal employee. In fact, this policy change caused Republican and Democratic lawmakers to recognize that current citizenship laws disadvantage these patriotic families. Our citizenship laws and bureaucratic requirements inflict undue burden on these families and make American parents ``prove'' that their children are worthy of U.S. citizenship. As a combat veteran, I understand the challenges and family stressors that face Active-Duty members deployed to defend our Nation overseas. Congress should be helping U.S. servicemembers focus on achieving their mission. Providing U.S. servicemembers and civil servants with the peace of mind that they will not have to navigate a lengthy and expensive process to apply for U.S. citizenship for their children advances this important goal. Our commonsense legislation codifies the previous policy by clarifying the Immigration and Nationality Act to clearly require that children of U.S. citizen parents born in a foreign nation while their parents are stationed abroad automatically acquire U.S. citizenship. I urge the President to honor the service and dedication of our U.S. servicemembers, military families, and Federal workforce by signing the Citizenship for Children of Military Members and Civil Servants Act into law.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, from the first words in the Constitution, the weight that lies on every American's shoulders has been clear: We the people are the ones who dreamed up this wild experiment that we call America, and we the people are the ones charged with ensuring its survival. That is the tension--the push and the pull--behind our democracy because, while there is no greater privilege than living in a country whose Constitution guarantees our rights, there is no greater burden than knowing that our actions could sap that very same Constitution of its power; that our inaction risks allowing it to wither like any other piece of parchment from some bygone era. For the past few weeks, it has been my sworn duty as a U.S. Senator to sit as an impartial juror in the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump. While I wish the President had not put our Nation in this position, after having listened closely with an open mind to both sides, it is now my duty as an American to vote on whether to remove him from office. Other than sending our troops into harm's way, I cannot think of a more serious, more somber vote to take in this Chamber, but as sobering as it is, the right path forward is clear. Throughout this trial, we have seen unprecedented obstruction from the Trump administration--obstruction so flagrant that it makes Nixon, when in the thick of Watergate, look like the model of transparency. Yet the facts uncovered still prove the truth of the matter: Trump abused his power when he secretly withheld security aid and a White House meeting to try to force Ukraine to announce investigations into a political rival in order to help him swing November's election. He put his political self-interest ahead of our national security. He smeared the name of an American Ambassador, even seemingly risking her safety because she was simply too principled to further his corruption, because she was too clean to help him strong-arm Ukraine into that favor he demanded. When the reports first emerged about what he had done, he denied it. Then his explanation changed to: Well, maybe I did do it, but it was only because I was trying to root out corruption. If that were true, there would be some documentary record to prove that, and we have seen absolutely none, even after I asked for it during the questioning period. Now his defense team has gone so far as to claim that, well, it doesn't matter if he did it because he is the President, and the President can do anything he wants if it will help him get reelected. Breathtaking. To put it another way, when he got caught, he lied. Then, when that lie was found out, he lied again, then again, then again. Along the way, his own defense counsel could not papier-mache together even the most basic argument to actually exonerate him. The best case they could muster boiled down to: When the President does it, it is not illegal. Nixon already tried that defense. It did not work then, and it does not work now because--here is the thing--in America, we believe not in rulers but in the rule of law. Through all we have seen over the past few months, the truth has never changed. It is what National Security Council officials and decades-long diplomats testified to under oath. It is what foreign policy experts and Trump administration staffers--and, yes, an American warrior with a Purple Heart--have raised their right hands to tell us, time after time, since the House hearings had begun. Even some of my Republican colleagues have admitted that Trump ``cross[ed] a line.'' Some said it as recently as this weekend, but many more said months ago that, if Trump did do what he is accused of, then it would, indeed, be wrong. Well, it is now obvious that those allegations were true, and it is pretty clear that Trump's defense team knows that also. If they actually believe Trump did nothing wrong--that his call was ``perfect''--then why would they fight so hard to block the witnesses and the documents from coming to light that could exonerate him? The only reason they would have done so is if they had known that he was guilty. The only reason for one to vote to acquit Trump today is if one is OK with his trying to cover it up. Now, I know that some folks have been saying that we should acquit him--that we should ignore our constitutional duty and leave him in office--because we are in an election year and that the voters should decide his fate. That is an argument that rings hollow because this trial was about Trump's trying to cheat in the next election and rob the voters of their ability to decide. Any action other than voting to remove him would give him the license and the power to keep tampering with that race, to keep trying to turn that election into as much of a sham as an impeachment trial without witnesses. You know, I spent 23 years in the military, and one of the most critical lessons anyone who serves learns is of the damage that can be done when troops don't oppose illegal orders, when fealty becomes blind and ignorance becomes intentional. Just as it is the duty of military officers to oppose unlawful orders, it is the responsibility of public servants to hold those in power accountable. Former NSC official Fiona Hill understood that when she testified before Congress because she knew that politics must never eclipse national security. Ambassador Bill Taylor understood that as well. The veteran who has served in every administration since Reagan's answered the question that is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry. He said under oath that, yes, there was a ``clear understanding'' of a quid pro quo-- exactly the sort of abuse of power no President should be allowed to get away with. LTC Alexander Vindman--the Purple Heart recipient who dedicated decades of his life to our Armed Forces--understood the lessons of the past, too, in his saying that, here in America, right matters. My colleagues in this Chamber who have attacked Lieutenant Colonel Vindman or who have provided a platform for others to tear him down just for his doing what he believes is right should be ashamed of themselves. We should all be aware of the example we set and always seek to elevate the national discourse. We should be thoughtful about our own conduct both in terms of respecting the rule of law and the sacrifices our troops make to keep us safe because, at the end of the day, our Constitution is really just a set of rules on some pieces of paper. It is only as strong as our will to uphold its ideals and hold up the scales of justice. So I am asking each of us today to muster up just an ounce of the courage shown by Fiona Hill, Ambassador Taylor, and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman. When our names are called from the dais in a few hours, each of us will either pass or fail the most elementary, yet most important, test any elected official will ever take--whether to put country over party or party over country. It may be a politically difficult vote for some of us, but it should not be a morally difficult vote for any of us because, while I know that voting to acquit would make the lives of some of my colleagues simpler come election day, I also know that America would have never been born if the heroes of centuries past made decisions based on political expediency. It would have been easier to have kept bowing down to King George III than to have pushed 342 chests of tea into the Boston Harbor, and it would have been easier to have kept paying taxes to the Crown than to have waged a revolution. Yet those patriots knew the importance of rejecting what was easy if it were in conflict with what was right. They knew that the courage of just a few could change history. So, when it is time to vote this afternoon, we cannot think of political convenience. If we say abuse of power doesn't warrant removal from office today, we will be paving the way for future Presidents to do even worse tomorrow--to keep breaking the law and to keep endangering our country--one ``perfect'' call, one ``favor,'' one high crime and misdemeanor at a time. Time and again, over these past few months, we have heard one story about our Founders, perhaps, more than any other. It was the time when Benjamin Franklin walked out of Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention and someone asked: ``What have we got--a republic or a monarchy?'' We all know what he said: ``A Republic if you can keep it.'' Keeping it may very well come down to the 100 of us in this very Chamber. We are the ones the Constitution vests with the power to hold the President accountable, and through our actions, we are the ones who vest the Constitution with its power. In this moment, let's think not just of today but of tomorrow too. In this moment, let's remember that, here, right matters; truth matters. The truth is that Donald Trump is guilty of these Articles of Impeachment. I will vote to do the right thing, and I hope my colleagues will as well. For the sake of tomorrow and the tomorrow after that, we must. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk for the House managers.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I am here to speak on two matters. The first is the nomination for Ambassador to the Kingdom of Thailand of Michael DeSombre. The Kingdom of Thailand has been a longtime U.S. ally and is a key partner for our efforts in the Southeast Asia region, both economically and militarily. Unfortunately, this nominee has failed to reach out to either me or my colleague and my senior Senator, Dick Durbin, both of whom are his home-State Senators. He has not reached out to me. So I am asking my colleagues to please vote no on cloture on Michael DeSombre to be our Ambassador to the Kingdom of Thailand until such time as I am able to have a chance to sit down with him.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I rise today to recognize my colleague and friend, Senator Johnny Isakson, for a lifetime of service to our Nation that started with his time as a loadmaster in the Georgia Air National Guard, to his tenure in the Georgia General Assembly, to his years of public service in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. With Johnny's retirement, the Senate is losing a truly great leader; a man of courage, whose dedication to this country has inspired me more times than I can count; a man of honor, who has worked tirelessly for the veteran community; and a man of compassion, who I am so grateful to be able to call a dear friend. We will never be able to fully thank Johnny for all he has done for the rest of us, but today, I want to try. Johnny, thank you for being there for me at Walter Reed when I was a Wounded Warrior, just home from combat. Thank you for being by my side last spring, a decade and a half later, on my first trip back to Iraq. Thank you for always being there when it matters the most, for being such an incredible advocate for our veterans, for giving the absolute best birthday and holiday presents, and for showing what it means to lead a life guided by integrity, a life defined by service. You have made our Nation stronger and our Union more perfect. You will be missed every time this Chamber is gaveled into session.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 395 on confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 452, Aurelia Skipwith, of Indiana, to be Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. On vote No. 395, had I been present, I would have voted nay on confirmation. I was also necessarily absent for vote No. 396 on confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 530, John Joseph Sullivan, of Maryland, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Russian Federation. On vote No. 396, had I been present, I would have voted nay on confirmation. I was also necessarily absent for vote No. 397 on confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 543, Stephen Hahn, of Texas, to be Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health and Human Services. On vote No. 397, had I been present, I would have voted nay on confirmation.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the outstanding career of Michael T. Carrigan. Mr. Carrigan is retiring as president of the Illinois AFL-CIO following a long and distinguished career in public service. After growing up in Bradley, IL, Mr. Carrigan graduated from MacMurray College in Jacksonville. He then completed a 4-year apprenticeship program and became a wireman before serving as business manager and financial secretary for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 146. In 1995, Mr. Carrigan was elected to the Decatur City Council. He was appointed mayor of Decatur in 2008 to complete the term of another, retiring mayor. In 2010, he became president of the Illinois AFL-CIO, where he has spent the last 20 years advocating for workers and families across my State. Among the many victories Mr. Carrigan has secured for working families, he recently helped successfully push for a minimum wage increase in Illinois and a $45 billion State infrastructure package. He has been lauded for his ``steady hand'' and leadership and will no doubt be missed by his membership and everyone in Illinois that supports the rights of working people. I thank Mr. Carrigan for his service to the State of Illinois, and I wish him all the best in retirement.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

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

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1573 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I am disappointed that the majority has objected to passing our bipartisan legislation. Every Senator should support a simple fix to assure veterans enrolled in the VA system can obtain preventive medications without out-of- pocket costs. All Americans deserve access to the best healthcare possible, especially the veterans who signed up to defend our Nation. Yet, because of this objection, our veterans will continue to pay more for essential preventive medications compared to every other insured American. One of the Affordable Care Act's critical patient protections was prohibiting insurance companies and other health systems, including the Department of Defense's own TRICARE, from charging copayments for drugs that are designated as preventive by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The ACA recognized that preventing serious illness, such as heart disease and breast cancer, may help avoid complex and costly medical treatments down the line. Most importantly, preventive medicine may also increase patient survival odds. That is why the ACA required every insurer to cover preventive medications at no additional cost to enrollees. The time has come to expand this vital patient protection to cover veterans enrolled in VA healthcare. Congress has the power to stop veterans from being the only ensured Americans who are charged copays and out-of-pocket fees for essential drugs and potentially lifesaving preventive health medication. This includes everything from critical vaccinations to common medications such as aspirin to lower the risk of heart disease and more advanced drugs such as tamoxifen inhibitors to lower the risk of breast cancer. The question is simply, Does the Senate majority in this Congress have the will to exercise this power to swiftly fix the problem? Unfortunately, today's objection provided a disappointing answer. I hope the majority will reconsider its opposition to passing the bipartisan Veterans Preventive Health Coverage Fairness Act by unanimous consent. I am confident that a Democratic House majority would act swiftly to pass S. 1573 if we can get this commonsense bill to that Chamber. After all, I am confident that if asked, the majority of Americans--if not all Americans--would agree it is simply wrong to force veterans to pay more for essential preventive medications that are critically important to heart disease and building bone density. This should not be controversial. It is certainly viewed as a commonsense legislative update by the veterans community. That is why my bipartisan bill has been endorsed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America. Making sure veterans enrolled in the VA system can obtain preventive medications without paying out of pocket should be something every Senator can agree on. Senate Democrats certainly share this conviction. That is why every Member of the Democratic caucus agreed to pass the bipartisan Veterans Preventive Health Coverage Fairness Act right now. Unfortunately, today's objection proves that not every Member of the Republican conference shares this conviction. With deep disappointment, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I come before the Senate today to honor the life of Kay Hagan, who I had the honor of serving in Congress with from 2013 to 2014. A beloved public servant, businesswoman, mother, wife and friend, Kay passed away last month at the age of 66. I admired Kay's ability to find common ground and work in a bipartisan manner without compromising her core beliefs, as evidenced by both her many legislative successes and her many courageous votes, including healthcare reform and expanded background checks. She was also a tireless voice for women's rights, and advocated for hard- working North Carolinians and U.S. Servicemembers by fighting to crack down on predatory payday lending. Roughly a decade before I brought my daughter Maile onto the Senate floor, Kay took on an outdated Senate rule of her own by leading the successful charge to force the Senate swimming pool to allow women. Making the Senate a welcoming place for everyone is an ongoing struggle, but her efforts certainly made it a little bit better for women Senators for years to come. Kay was an inspirational role model to young girls and young women in North Carolina, often encouraging them to run for office at her events. I have no doubt that many of them now hold public office. My deepest sympathies are with Kay's loved ones. I am grateful for her passionate service to her State and our country, and I am proud to continue her work in the U.S. Senate.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today to honor the life of Marca Bristo: a trailblazer, an activist, a mother and--to me and so many others--a hero. She passed away this month at the age of 66, after spending the last four decades on the frontlines of the disability rights movement. With every day that passed and every fight she took on, Marca redefined the word resilience. It was thanks in large part to her decision to get out of her wheelchair and crawl up the steps of the Capitol Building to help pass the Americans with Disabilities Act that I can roll through its corridors to cast my vote in its Chamber three decades later. She climbed up those steps to tear down the barriers that had been holding us back. She got onto her hands and knees so the rest of us could rise, working tirelessly to turn the ADA from a dream to a law that enshrines the basic civil rights that those of us with disabilities rely on to live our daily lives. I and countless others am devastated that we lost her so soon, but I am also deeply grateful to have known her, deeply thankful that, in one of the toughest times of my life, when I was still adjusting to life in a wheelchair after being wounded in Iraq, she decided to reach out. Through her kindness and her wisdom, her strength and her grit, she quickly went from stranger to mentor to dear friend. Marca was raised on a farm in upstate New York before moving to Chicago and earning her nursing degree at Rush University, but less than a year after becoming a nurse, a diving accident left her paralyzed from the chest down. She lost her home because she could no longer access it. She lost her job because there were no labor protections for those with disabilities. She lost her health insurance because her injuries and care were too expensive. But she didn't lose her resolve, and our country is far, far better because of that and because she believed that, even if you get knocked down, it doesn't mean you are knocked out. Marca's entire life changed the day of her accident. Suddenly, she looked around and saw a world hostile to her, hostile to all who couldn't walk or see, couldn't speak or hear. So she set about changing the world. She saw a country that pushed people with disabilities into the margins, a nation that treated them as less than, one that overlooked or ignored their needs, making it impossible for many to work or even to get to work, impossible to go to school or to lead the normal lives they deserved. She saw discrimination, and she refused to call it anything else, refusing to stop fighting until disability issues weren't just relegated to the doctor's office, weren't just treated as medical matters, but were recognized as civil rights. So she spoke out. She chained herself to public buses to demand wheelchair lifts. She fought for fair housing and founded Access Living, which she built into one of the leading disability rights groups in the country. She wheeled herself to the front of the Capitol Building, got down out of her chair and, one stair at a time, crawled up its 83 steps, demanding that Congress give Americans with disabilities the basic rights the Constitution promised. She set up camp outside GOP offices to tight against cuts to Medicaid, letting herself get arrested because that is what it took. In the process, she reframed how this country thought about our rights. As she famously said, ``My wheelchair wasn't too wide for the doors. The doors were too narrow for my wheelchair.'' Through all her work over all these decades, she didn't just widen the doors. She opened ones that had previously been closed to all of us who happen to be in a chair. No one used to think about how we couldn't get from sidewalk to street when there wasn't a curb cut. No one used to question the fact that we couldn't climb onto the bus or get down to the subway. Marca changed all that. She refused to accept a status quo that didn't accept all of us. She saw us, she fought for us, and she made our voices heard. Her work, her friendship, her activism meant so much to me. It is the reason I am here in the Senate today, and it is the reason I will keep fighting tomorrow. My thoughts are with all of Marca's loved ones. Thank you for sharing your mother, your wife, your sister with the rest of us. We will continue her legacy. We will keep widening those doors, unlocking them, crashing through them if need be, just as Marca would have wanted. Doing everything we can to bring about that more fair, more just, more accessible world that she worked so hard for, for so long. Thank you.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I could stay here all day, listening to the names of the brave men and women whom I was lucky enough to serve with in the military. I could stay here all night, telling stories about their heroism and courage. I could stay here all week, all month, talking about the troops who are serving overseas right now and about those who are on their eighth or ninth tours of duty or about those teenagers who weren't even alive when the Twin Towers fell, yet who are ready to ship off to Afghanistan at this very moment if that is what is asked of them. I could go on and on all year if I wanted, and I still wouldn't be able to convey the sacrifices they are making because they love this country and would do anything to defend her. I will not stand idly by and let a single one of them shed blood in an avoidable conflict because Donald Trump has abdicated matters of war and peace to a despot who regularly flouts basic human rights and openly murders journalists. Yet, after tensions spiked between Saudi Arabia and Iran this past weekend, that is exactly what he seemed to be willing to do. He tweeted that the U.S. was ``locked and loaded'' and just waiting for the Crown Prince to tell him how to proceed. We can't let that slip by. The President--the Commander in Chief of the greatest military of the greatest democracy on the face of the Earth--just suggested that he was outsourcing the powers of war to a foreign monarch--powers that aren't even his to hand over--and he did it in a tweet. While Trump may have never read the Constitution, I have, so let me direct his attention to article I, which makes it clear that the President does not have the authority to declare war. Only Congress has that power. We are the ones tasked with deciding when and how Americans are sent into combat. We are the ones charged with that most solemn duty, not Donald Trump and certainly not Muhammad bin Salman. Yet Trump is acting as if article I simply doesn't exist, as if he could just usurp this power from the legislative branch and trade it to whomever he pleases, as if obeying the Constitution is optional even while he tweets that he is willing to obey a foreign prince. This should not be a partisan issue. No matter if you are struggling to pay rent or if your name is plastered in gold on the front of a building on Fifth Avenue, no one can overrule the Constitution. Trump doesn't get to mire us in yet another Middle East conflict just because he has a bizarre tendency to bow down and kiss up to the world's cruelest tyrants. Whether you ask constitutional scholars or high school students taking U.S. history classes, they will tell you the same thing--that on matters of military force, whether they are our allies or our adversaries, American Presidents do not get to choose to take orders from foreign leaders. They take direction from Congress--full stop. I am here to say that we have not authorized him to ensnare us in another endless, senseless war. We haven't debated and passed a new authorization for the use of military force in more than 15 years, and there is just no way that the AUMF passed to go after the perpetrators of 9/11 can justify military action against Iran nearly two decades later, sending troops overseas who may not have even been alive when that AUMF was voted on. Listen, it is not just me who believes this. It is not just my fellow Democrats in the Senate either. During the confirmation hearing for now-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, I asked Trump's own nominee point- blank whether the existing AUMF gives this administration the right to conduct a war with Iran. His answer? His answer was: No. No, they do not. Even in decades past, when prior Presidents have gotten us entangled in bad wars based on bad intelligence, at the very least they made sure to loop in the United Nations, but Trump is acting as if he wouldn't even do that. He is too busy thumping his chest and catering to the whims of autocrats. He is too infatuated with maximum pressure to consider even minimum diplomacy, too distracted beating the drums of war to even think about how many troops he would be sending into harm's way. For what? To protect the Saudi oil industry or the Crown Prince's personal profits? Once again, the Trump foreign policy doctrine has proven reckless, senseless, and dangerous, full of gaslighting and bluster, a doctrine in which fact and fiction are one in the same. It is shameful. It is terrifying that we have a Commander in Chief who comes to military decisions by virtue of temper tantrum and then announces them via tweet, a President who doesn't seem to care that if he keeps on the path of fire and fury he has been treading, our own homeland will be in greater danger, more wounded warriors will be sent to Walter Reed, and more fallen heroes will be laid to rest in the hallowed grounds of Arlington. Donald Trump may never have deigned to put on our Nation's uniform, so he probably doesn't know that the commander's greatest responsibility is to safeguard the troops so they are able to carry out the mission. That means we do not send them into harm's way recklessly and without full support both logistically and legally. As a former unit commander, I ran for Congress so that when the drums of war sounded, I would be in a position to make sure our elected officials fully consider the true costs of war, not just in dollars and cents but in the sacrifices of our troops and their families. That was the vow I made to my buddies that I deployed with and all those who have served since I hung up my uniform. Now, as the drums of war are pounding once again, I am here today to keep my promise to do our troops justice and to make sure Donald Trump does not outsource overseas yet another American job--Congress's job to declare war. If the Trump administration wants to go to war, they must bring their case to Congress and give the American people a say through their elected representatives. They must respect our servicemembers enough to prove why war with Iran is worth turning more moms and dads into Gold Star parents. They must testify about what the end state in Iran actually looks like. Then, when their case has been made, when Congress's debate is done, we should vote. It is our duty. It is the least we owe to the troops we would be sending into harm's way. If the vote to authorize military force passes, then I will be the first person to volunteer to deploy. I am ready to pack my rucksack, to dust off my uniform. I am ready to fly helicopters, take on the grunt work, do whatever else it takes to uphold that oath that all servicemembers and veterans have sworn: to protect and defend this Nation we love, no matter what. It would be nice if we had a President willing to do the same instead of one who thinks he looks tough by pushing us to the brink of a needless conflict. Listen, Trump may think he comes off as strong by using phrases like ``locked and loaded'' and by spewing threats 280 characters at a time, but he has never seemed weaker to me. A real Commander in Chief would not dole out matters of war to the highest bidder. A true leader would not bend to the whims of despots just because of the size of their bank accounts. A strong President would not care more about keeping tyrants happy than safeguarding our most precious resource: the brave men and women willing to lay down their lives to defend our Nation. Yet, day after day, Donald Trump wraps himself in the flag in the morning and then abandons our servicemembers and our democratic norms by the afternoon. While he may have already shirked his duty as an elected official, I refuse to abandon mine. So as many times as is necessary, I am going to keep coming back to this Chamber, keep raising my voice under this great Capitol dome, and keep demanding what is actually in our Nation's best interest because, you see, I don't take my orders from war criminals or dictators or princes or monarchs. I don't serve foreign regimes. I serve the American people. Trump would do well to try that sometime. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, in this day and age, it would be easy to grow cynical and simply tune out the noise of a 24-hour cable news cycle that feeds off the latest Trump tweet. From Donald Trump's recent decision to invite the Taliban to join him for a retreat at Camp David for the weekend of the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to his earlier statements caught on tape, bragging about sexually assaulting women, I fear that too many--including Members of this Chamber--have become numb to this repeated debasing of the Presidency, numb to a President who lacks even a hint of remorse or shame as he spews lies to the people he was elected to serve. We cannot afford to be numb. We cannot let this become normal. No, we must hold Donald Trump accountable for his false promises and for his lies. We must ask what happened to Mexico's paying for the wall. Trump promised every American over and over again that they wouldn't have to spend a dime on his wall, pledging that Mexico would pick up the tab 100 percent. He even said, ``It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-$10 billion.'' Of course, it wasn't so easy, and now Trump has done a 180, falsely claiming that he never said Mexico would write that check, trying to gaslight us all with every lie that he tells. We simply can't let him get away with it. The truth is that Donald Trump already revealed whom he really wants to pay for his wall. He discloses it every time his administration begs Congress to spend billions of your tax dollars building it. He doesn't care that many who live on the border believe building a wall from sea to shining sea is the least effective and most expensive way to secure the border. Trump may not care, but that helps explain Trump's failure to convince Congress to fund his vanity project--even when Republicans controlled both Chambers for 2 years. His outrageous response to his failure revealed another sad truth: The Presidency hasn't changed Donald Trump one bit. President Donald Trump is the very same old Donald Trump whose true character was revealed on the leaked ``Access Hollywood'' tapes. In Trump's mind, when you are the President, you can do anything. Congress didn't appropriate funds for your ineffective wall? Well, just grab funds that Congress authorized for more important programs. Tired of failing to convince Congress to spend American tax dollars on your wall? Well, just declare a fake emergency. Senate Republicans will let you do it. Listen, Trump's decision to build his vanity wall with funds stolen from military construction projects and Homeland Security initiatives isn't really about border security; it is about politics. If he actually wanted to secure our Nation's border, he wouldn't be stripping away funding from the dedicated men and women who are responsible for defending it: the U.S. Coast Guard. Yet that is exactly what he has done--ripped tens of millions of dollars away from Coast Guard programs. He has ignored that his actions could endanger our national security, and he has ignored that we are right in the middle of hurricane season. As if that were not bad enough, he has also defunded facilities that are dedicated to cyber warfare operations and bomb defusing training. He is slashing money from schools and childcare centers for our servicemembers' children too. Donald Trump told us over and over again that Mexico would pay for his wall. That was a lie. Mexico isn't paying for his wall. Our servicemembers and their families are. The families at Fort Campbell are, as their children will now have to keep eating lunch in their school's library because President Trump decided that revving up his political base was more important than upgrading an aging military school. My blood boils when I hear that the children of U.S. servicemembers are being forced to learn in makeshift classrooms within classrooms. No child should have to learn in that kind of environment. In my view, that is the true national emergency. Let me tell you about three other cases in which the President is stealing money in order to pay for his wall. One is at the Channel Islands Air National Guard Station in California. The project that is losing funds will supply the Colorado Air National Guard with an adequately sized and properly configured space to support a Space Control Squadron functions in accordance with force structure changes. The facility must provide adequate space to support the squadron's operations, maintenance, security, command and administration, and storage areas. The facility must have an unobstructed view of the southern horizon. The current situation is that this Space Control Squadron, most likely happening at Peterson Air Force Base, does not currently exist, and there is no adequate facility located at either Peterson or Buckley Air Force Base for this Space Control Squadron. The only solution that meets all mission requirements is to construct a new facility on Peterson Air Force Base. If this facility is not provided, the squadron will be unable to beddown the space control mission and equipment, with operational and strategic mission impacts due to inadequate facilities. This is what he is stealing money from in order to build his vanity wall. A second project is at Fort Greely, AK. The impact of taking the money from this project will mean that Fort Greely, AK, will not have the enhancements and capabilities for the Ballistic Missile Defense System. The mission of the Agency is to develop and field an integrated, layered Ballistic Missile Defense System to defend the United States, our deployed forces, allies, and friends against all ranges of enemy ballistic missiles in all phases of flight. This expansion project will provide the BMDS with increased ground-based interceptor capabilities, to allow for operational capability. What happens if the funds are not provided? The planned enhancements and capabilities of the Ballistic Missile Defense System to meet the emerging threats will not be available for our Nation's homeland defense. He is stealing money away from our Nation's homeland defense to build his vanity wall. Finally, at Fort Huachuca, AZ, the current situation is that the facilities do not meet the current mandatory criteria specified for vehicle testing and maintenance facilities. The current facilities date back to the 1930s and 1940s and have surpassed their estimated life expectancies. The facilities violate current antiterrorism/force protection standards. Existing utility systems, such as water, sewer, electric, and gas, require replacement. There are no other suitable buildings on the installation that are available in support of this mission. If they lose the funding for this project, the personnel will continue to work in substandard and unsafe facilities. The motor pool facilities do not comply with current life, safety building codes and quality-of-life standards. The current HVAC, fire suppression, the existing AT/FP and infrastructure deficiencies jeopardize the personnel's health, security, and safety. This is what he is taking money from to build this wall. The Senate could put a stop to this. It is up to us and our actions, and this very Chamber will determine whether the children of Fort Campbell, whether the personnel at Fort Huachuca, and whether the staff at Fort Greely, AK, can do their jobs. We can defend the power of the purse or we can be complicit in its destruction. Look, I am not naive. I know some don't share my outrage, that some believe that overcrowded military schools, a decrease in our national security defense, and our ability to defend against hostile ballistic missiles are not a crisis, let alone a national disgrace. These Trump loyalists cower to his bullying tactics, and in the coming days, they will try to reward his abuse of power. They will not stop Trump and return the stolen taxpayer dollars. Rather, they will argue that we should dig even deeper into the Nation's funds to spend more of your tax dollars to replace the money Trump stole. This is wrong. The Constitution entrusts Congress to authorize and to appropriate funds, not the President. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in condemning this raid of taxpayer funds. We must block these outrageous cuts that will harm military readiness, weaken our border security, and hurt the families of those who are brave enough to serve. I yield the floor.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 231 on overriding the veto, shall the Joint Resolution S.J. Res. 36 pass, the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding. On vote No. 231, had I been present, I would have voted yea to override the veto. I was also necessarily absent for vote No. 232 on overriding the veto, shall the Joint Resolution S.J. Res. 37 pass, the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding. On vote No. 232, had I been present, I would have voted yea to override the veto. I was also necessarily absent for vote No. 233 on overriding the veto, shall the joint resolution S.J. Res. 38 pass, the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding. On vote No. 233, had I been present, I would have voted yea to override the veto. I was also necessarily absent for vote No. 234 on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Michael T. Liburdi to be a U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona. On vote No. 234, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the motion to invoke cloture. I was also necessarily absent for vote No. 235 on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Peter D. Welte to be U.S. District Judge for the District of North Dakota. On vote No. 235, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the motion to invoke cloture.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, amendment No. 861 fully captures the utter failure of the modern Congress to assert and defend congressional war powers that the U.S. Constitution solely vests in the legislative branch. It treats matters of life and death as mere fodder for political ``gotcha'' votes and represents an approach to legislating that is ultimately as simplistic as it is dangerous. If one asked 10 attorneys to analyze the text of amendment No. 861, one might very well receive 10 wildly different interpretations of what the undefined terms in the amendment mean, from the use of the term ``attack by the government, military forces, or proxies of a foreign nation or by other hostile forces'' to the phrase ``used to ensure the ability of the Armed Forces of the United States to defend themselves, and United States citizens.'' As the authors plausibly argue, the intent of the amendment may very well be to simply reaffirm existing legal interpretations and norms that authorize the U.S. Armed Forces to defend itself and our citizens against attack by a foreign nation or other hostile force. As supporters argue, the amendment language avoids using the specific phrase ``authorization for use of military force,'' and thus one may argue that it is technically not an ``AUMF.'' Yet adopting such an interpretation requires ignoring years of executive branch overreach when it comes to taking unilateral military action without seeking an authorization for use of military force or a declaration of war from Congress. It requires willfully forgetting the behavior of our current President and past Presidents of both parties, who have chosen to define the concept of Commander in Chief under Article II of the U.S. Constitution to be less a commander and more an emperor while the legislative branch has sat idly by as its war powers were rapidly seized by the modem imperial Presidency. Congress is a coequal branch of government. It is time we started acting like it. We cannot trust any President to take a blank check and fill in a reasonable number. I must oppose amendment 861 because, in my reading, any President of any party would adopt the broadest legal interpretation possible in defining what constitutes an ``other hostile force'' or an ``attack'' or what it means to ``ensure the ability of the Armed Forces of the U.S. to defend themselves.'' This language risks unintentionally authorizing President Trump to order all types of military strikes against any number of potential entities that the President deems to be a threat. How would the Trump administration determine the precise baseline that defines the term ``ability'' of the military to defend itself? Would allowing the degradation of any platform or capability qualify as failing to ``ensure the ability'' of the U.S. Armed Forces to defend itself? If so, that would authorize the use of funds in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 to take unilateral, preemptive action again a foreign nation or hostile force to preserve the current capabilities of the U.S. military. I am confident the author of this amendment would disagree with this interpretation of his legislative language. However, would the sponsor argue that such an interpretation is unreasonable or not possible? Would a Federal Court not defer to the Federal Agency's interpretation of a vague and ambiguous statute? I do not know the answer to either question; yet I know this: I am not willing to take that risk. We are living with the consequences of a previous Congress that rushed to pass a concise authorization for use of military force that appeared targeted and limited at first. We have watched as Republican and Democratic administrations alike subsequently employed creative and broad legal interpretations of that authorization to continually expand which parties were connected with the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. To this very day, the Trump administration cites this authorization for use of military force as legal justification to unilaterally deploy Americans all around the world, even though it was authorized in response to an event that took place before some of these troops were even born. To be clear, I am not asserting that I oppose the premise or substantive motivation of every military action that has taken place under the recent Presidential administrations. I am simply stating that such actions must be debated and voted on by Congress. I deployed to fight in a war I personally opposed because it was ordered by the Commander in Chief, and these orders were pursuant to an authorization for use of military force that was publicly debated and passed by a majority of our Nation's elected representatives. Opposing a vaguely worded amendment whose own author and proponents assert is duplicative and unnecessary and which I believe may unintentionally open the door to unlimited unilateral military action, ultimately is a vote to make our Nation stronger, more accountable, and a more perfect union in living out the principles contained in our founding document. Critics may falsely allege that opposing amendment No. 861 is voting against our national defense and military. I will strongly reject any such ridiculous claim that slanders me with the accusation that I would ever risk the security and safety of the Nation I have proudly served in uniform. In voting against amendment No. 861, I am safeguarding our military from excessive use without congressional oversight. I am simply making clear that we, in Congress, must begin exercising the same care and attention in doing our job as our troops do when executing their missions downrange. One of my primary motivations for serving the great State of Illinois in the U.S. Senate is to help restore congressional war powers. To remind my colleagues that whether one favors military action or opposes the use of military force, every Member of Congress should agree that such matters deserve to be debated and carefully considered by our Nation's duly elected representatives in the broad light of day. To remind my colleagues that we must always demand the Commander in Chief clearly outline our desired strategic end state before authorizing military action that puts our troops in harm's way. The bottom line is that only Congress has the power to declare war. We are the ones tasked with deciding when and how we send Americans into combat. We are the ones the Constitution charged with that most solemn duty. For too long, too many elected officials have avoided the responsibility and burden of declaring war. Fearing electoral risks and staring down coming elections, multiple Congresses have shirked their constitutional responsibility to our troops by refusing to repeal the existing authorization for use of military force, while avoiding consideration any new authorizations for use of military force. Enough--enough of being so worried about political consequences that we fail to do our own jobs, even as we expect our troops to do theirs without complaint every day. We need to do better by our servicemembers. We owe it to them to honor their sacrifices. Part of that means ensuring that no American sheds blood in a war Congress has not authorized, or unintentionally authorized by passing vague language such as in amendment No. 861 that can be twisted to be read as empowering President Trump to take preemptive military action. We should be disciplined in forcing any President who wishes to go to war to bring their case to Congress and give the American people a vote through their elected representatives. That is how we truly respect our servicemembers and military families: by demanding debate that is honest and clear-eyed about the likely loss of life and the risks of escalation that accompany any use of force. It is our duty, and it is the least we can do for those willing to risk their lives in safeguarding our democracy, our way of life, and our Constitution. So with the drums of war beating louder and louder by the day, I must oppose amendment No. 861 and keep my promise to all who served or are serving now in defense of this country we love. I must continue seeking to hold all of us who have the honor of serving in Congress accountable for taking back congressional war powers. Moving forward, I urge the leadership of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees to work with me to strike or significantly restrict this language during the conference negotiations that will take place over the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, the past week has lain bare just how dangerous it can be to have a President who approaches foreign policy as if it were a reality show, when the worst thing that can happen is to get kicked off before the next episode airs--a President who doesn't seem to recognize that his words and his decisions can have life-and- death consequences for the brave Americans who wear our Nation's uniform. No matter your political party, what we have seen from the White House of late should worry every single one of us. In one breath, Trump is beating the drums of war, thumping his chest, and pushing for a conflict that would kill an unimaginable number of people--servicemembers and civilians alike. In the next breath, he tries to act like a peacemaker who wouldn't even think of starting a new war. It is gaslighting, plain and simple. Yet it is the closest thing to a Trump foreign policy doctrine since his inauguration. So, while I am glad he called off a military strike last week, it hasn't made me forget that he and aides like John Bolton are the ones who brought us to the brink of war in the first place. Trump will not get any points from me for taking a small step to avert a disaster he himself created, and I have no confidence whatsoever that his carelessness will not lead us right back to that same brink today, tomorrow, or a week from now because, when it comes to Iran, Trump's erratic, incoherent strategy isn't just worrisome, it is potentially deadly for the men and women who are willing to sacrifice everything to keep the rest of us safe. Look, I ran for Congress so that when the drums of war were sounded, I would be in a position to make sure our elected officials would fully consider the true costs of war not just in dollars and cents but in human lives. That was the vow I made to the troops with whom I deployed and to all those who have served since I hung up my uniform. I am standing here today, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, to keep that promise. Right now, more and more Americans are preparing to head to a war zone that is 6,000 miles east in order to protect this Nation. They are ready to do their jobs no matter what, just as they have done time after time, even as their President and, yes, the Representatives in this very Chamber have neglected theirs. Again and again, this administration has laid out two scenarios it says would justify war with Iran. Then it has taken actions to make sure those circumstances become a reality, which sets us on a collision course that has life-and-death stakes and no easy off-ramp. The first scenario is if Iran edges closer to making a nuclear weapon. Well, you don't need to be a physicist to understand that Trump himself made that possibility more likely by unilaterally pulling the United States out of the nuclear agreement. In doing so, he freed Iran from having to abide by the deal that limited its nuclear production. Now he is raging about Iran's doing the very things his actions encouraged Iran to do. It is circular logic with potentially fatal consequences. The second scenario it has laid out is an attack on U.S. troops in the region--another possibility that has been made more likely by a series of Trump's recent moves, as he has made clear through his bombastic statements and tweets that he is looking for excuses to send more troops to the area. Now we are dealing with the entirely predictable fallout from those actions--the raised stakes, the stoked tensions, and the louder calls for war from some on the far right. Iran is no friend of ours. We were adversaries long before Trump took office. Yet what we are facing today is, in part, a manufactured crisis by this President. The Trump administration seems to be making foreign policy decisions not based on our Nation's interests but to serve some ideological or political purpose. In that effort, it is using our troops as bait, as if it is trying to manufacture its own 21st century ``Gulf of Tonkin'' crisis that it can use to justify war. In some sort of nightmare deja vu, it is as if it is drawing from the same script that led us into Iraq--sowing chaos, shrouding intelligence, putting troops in harm's way--for no clear reason and with no clear end state in mind. On some days, it almost seems like it is provoking--even promoting--war just for war's sake, repeating those mistakes of years past that have cost us so many heroic lives. It is as if Trump and the extremists in his administration don't remember the sacrifices our troops have made in the war we are still waging just west of Iran. It is as if it has forgotten all those flagged-draped coffins that have returned home from Iraq and the many veterans who have come home with scars, both visible and otherwise, most of whom will never be the same. Look, I am no dove. I understand that war is sometimes necessary, and our troops certainly do as well. While Trump and Bolton may have never deigned to put on the uniform, I volunteered and served in the military for 23 years. I chose to fight in a war I did not support on the orders of a President I did not vote for. Why? I did it because, while I may not have believed in the war, I believed--and still believe--in the Constitution, and my Commander in Chief gave a lawful order after his having been authorized to do so by Congress. So, while I may not have supported the war or that President, I am proud to have deployed to Iraq in order to have served my country. I know what is at stake for the thousands of troops this administration is sending into harm's way, and I can tell you it is a whole lot easier to cover your eyes and order other Americans to sacrifice if you don't have to sacrifice anything yourself. Trump may have responded ``no'' all five times to his Nation's calling him to duty, but our troops respond with a salute, and time after time, they report for duty every single time. One, two, three, four--I know of troops who have done eight deployments. It is much easier to ignore the everyday realities of war from inside the security of the White House, but it is nearly impossible if you have been outside the wire yourself. So, with the drums of war beating loudly again, I am standing here, under the great Capitol dome, trying to keep my promise to hold the Members of this body accountable--trying to make sure we do our jobs. Our troops do their jobs every single day. Because the costs of war in both dollars and cents and human lives will no longer just be theoretical if we keep to the path aides like Bolton are pursuing, our homeland will be in more danger; more wounded warriors will be sent to Walter Reed; and more fallen heroes will be laid to rest at Arlington. Even if you are OK with that, the fact is, the President does not have the authority to declare war; only Congress has that power. We are the ones tasked with deciding when and how we send Americans into combat. We are the ones the Constitution has charged with that most solemn duty, not Donald Trump and certainly not unelected warmongers like Bolton. Lately, though, the White House has acted as if article I simply doesn't exist. Trump has acted as if he can just usurp his power from the legislative branch as though obeying the Constitution is optional. Well, it is not. This should not be a partisan issue. No matter if you are a factory worker who pulls double shifts or the President of the United States, no one is above the law. No matter if you struggle to pay rent or your name is plastered in gold on the front of a building on Fifth Avenue, no one can overrule the Constitution. Our troops should never ever be chess pieces in some reckless ideological game. Now, in the midst of the very week that is dedicated to Congress's evading next year's defense funding, it is past time for Congress to reclaim that solemn responsibility--that sacred responsibility--of declaring war. For too long, too many on the Hill have shrugged off that most solemn duty. Scared of the political risks in staring down election days, Congress has shirked its constitutional responsibility to our troops in its refusal to take up any new authorizations for use of military force. For decades, Congress has ceded its authority to the White House by failing to act. It has handed Presidents from both parties the ability to command our military without having clear authorization, effectively cutting the people's elected Representatives out of the war-making process entirely. Enough. Enough of being so worried about political consequences that we fail to do our own jobs even as we expect our troops to do theirs every damned day without complaint. We need to do better by our servicemembers. We owe it to them to honor their sacrifices. Part of that means ensuring that no American sheds blood in a war that Congress has not authorized. Despite what some in the administration say, there is just no way that the AUMF that passed in order to go after the perpetrators of 9/11 can justify military action against Iran nearly two decades later and send our troops overseas who may not have even been alive when that AUMF was voted on. If Trump and company want to go to war, they must bring their case to Congress and give the American people a say through their elected Representatives. They must respect our servicemembers enough to provide and prove why war with Iran is worth turning more moms and dads into Gold Star parents, and they must testify about what the end state in Iran actually needs to look like. Then, when their case has been made and when Congress's debate is done, we in this body should vote. It is our duty. It is the least we can do for those who are willing to safeguard our democracy--our way of life, our Constitution--even if it means laying down their lives. In the days ahead, vigilance is key. We can't simply believe the people who try to convince us that, in order to support our troops, we need to pass the NDAA as soon as possible. As a former unit commander, I know this is not true. The best thing we can do for our servicemembers is to make sure they know their actions are legally justified by their government. If that takes a week or two or three, then it is worth the discussion. If the vote to authorize military force then passes, whenever that is, I will be the first person to volunteer to deploy. I will be ready to pack my ruck and dust off my uniform. I may no longer have legs, but I can man a truck. I can take on the grunt work or do whatever else it takes to uphold that oath to which all servicemembers and veterans have sworn--to, no matter what, protect and defend this Nation we love. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 137 on the confirmation of David Schenker to be an Assistant Secretary of State. On vote No. 137, had I been present, I would have voted yea on confirmation. I was also necessarily absent for vote No. 138 on the confirmation of Heath Tarbert to be Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and for vote No. 139 on the confirmation of Heath Tarbert to be Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. On vote No. 138 and vote No. 139, had I been present, I would have voted yea on confirmation to be Chairman and Commissioner. I was also necessarily absent for vote No. 140 on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Susan Combs to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior. On vote No. 140, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the motion to invoke cloture.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I come to the floor today to honor some of the Founders of our Nation who all too often don't get their due-- Founders whose gender or skin tone may not be represented on Mount Rushmore but whose brilliance, whose resilience, helped ensure that the democracy we have today is strong and true. This democracy wasn't just built by George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. It wasn't perfected in the 18th century when the ink dried on the four original pages of the Constitution. It was shaped by women like Abigail Adams, whom I named my first daughter after. It was strengthened by suffragists like Sojourner Truth, who worked tirelessly to better the country that had kept her in chains, who used her emancipation to call for freedom and a voice for all women--Black, White, you name it. It was formed by Illinoisans like Ida B. Wells, who demanded that women of color have a place at the forefront of the suffrage movement. It was forged by women like Mary Livermore, who channeled her frustration over women's inequality into action, spearheading Chicago's first-ever suffrage convention 150 years ago and marking Illinois as a leader in the fight for women's rights. Our democracy was sharpened by a group of Illinoisans who traveled to Washington, DC, in 1913, joining thousands of other women in their march down Pennsylvania Avenue--protesters who were vilified, berated, jostled, tripped, and even jailed but who withstood it all to call for a constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote. This Union was made more perfect when the 19th Amendment finally passed Congress 100 years ago today. These women raised their voices on the picket lines so that we could make ours heard at the polls. They risked safety and security, withstood hypocrisy and overcame misogyny, refusing to stay silent so that their daughters and their daughters' daughters would inherit the democracy they deserved. For that, we are forever in their debt. Of course, every American's right to vote wasn't truly secured that day in 1919, nor was it secured later that week, when Illinois became one of the first States to ratify the amendment, or in 1965, when Lyndon B. Johnson picked up a pen and signed the Voting Rights Act into law. It still is not secure today--not when voter suppression tactics still block so many people of color from the ballot, when voter roll purges are still common and some in power are still fighting to install modern-day poll taxes. So we can't get complacent. What began at Seneca Falls continues with us today, as it now falls to our generation to keep alive the work of yesterday's suffragists, to keep pushing for bills like the Voting Rights Advancement Act to ensure that bigoted State laws don't disenfranchise any American. It falls on us to keep fighting for that more perfect Union, to keep making our voices heard--whether that is here on the Senate floor or anywhere else--so that finally, some day soon, every American can make theirs heard at the ballot box. I yield the floor.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, in 1902, a little known machinist by the name of Charles Edward Taylor began working for Orville and Wilbur Wright at the Wright Cycle Company in Dayton, OH. Over the course of 6 weeks, using only a metal lathe, drill press, and hand tools, Mr. Taylor built a 12-horsepower engine that was used to power the Wright brothers' first successful aircraft in 1903. Today, Charles Taylor's May 24th birthday is observed as Aviation Maintenance Technician Day to recognize the thousands of men and women who follow in Mr. Taylor's footsteps and fulfill a critical safety role in the U.S. aviation industry. Whether maintaining military, commercial, general aviation, private, space, or experimental aircraft, aviation maintenance technicians use their specialized knowledge and skillset to ensure that all aircraft are safe and reliable. I want to thank aviation maintenance technicians across Illinois and throughout the Nation for their hard work and dedication. Their expertise and integrity ensures the U.S. aviation system will remain the safest and most reliable in the world.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I might be the luckiest person in the world because I get to wake up on Sunday and spend Mother's Day, well, being a mom. I will probably spend the morning helping my 1-year-old take a few wobbly steps and then the afternoon watching my 4-year-old draw or chasing her around the house, celebrating the holiday surrounded by the people I cherish the most. But that isn't the case for far too many other moms and kids around the country. That isn't the case for women like Denise Reed, Sybrina Fulton, or Valerie Castile, who lost their children to gun violence. That isn't the case for the hundreds of children born in the past year alone whose mothers died from preventable, pregnancy-related deaths. That certainly isn't the case for the families whom the Trump administration separated at our southern border and who still have not yet been reunited, the kids who were thrown in cages because their parents had the nerve to strive for a better life. This Mother's Day, I am thinking of those whose hearts are hurting, those moms who would give anything for another lazy Sunday with their sons or those daughters who would do anything to hear their mother's laugh one more time. The truth is, the women--moms or otherwise--in this country deserve better than the status quo. We deserve more than the Trump administration, which in just 2-plus years has already changed title IX sexual assault rules to favor the accused over the survivor, tried to defund health clinics that provide prenatal care and mammograms, pushed forward healthcare proposals that would have gutted maternity coverage, and handed employers the power to decide whether women should have access to birth control. All this--well, it is shocking but unfortunately not surprising because we knew who Donald Trump was when we elected him. He is the man who has long made clear that he does not care about women or our autonomy. He is the man who once argued that women should be punished for taking up the right to choose; who has taken pride in trying to put the government between us and our doctors; who would rather throw those doctors in jail than even pretend to care about the women who make up 51 percent of this Nation; who just 10 days ago stood on a stage in Wisconsin and lied, lied, lied, prioritizing a roar from the crowd over the safety of patients and providers at health clinics nationwide; and who just last week issued two rules that would make it easier for doctors to either discriminate against women or deny them care altogether. So don't tell me that Trump is ``pro-life'' when he is pushing for rules that endanger women's lives and when he spent years trying to strip healthcare away from Americans. Don't claim that he is just trying to protect families when he is the one to blame for the inhumane policy that is ripping toddlers and babies away from mothers' arms. Don't you dare argue that he is leading the ``party of life'' when he will not lift a finger to stop first graders from getting massacred in classrooms by the dozen. No, Donald Trump's anti-choice stance isn't about looking out for families; it is about getting a slap on the back from his base and exerting even more control over women's bodies. It is sexist, regressive, and flatout dangerous. But even while this administration's agenda is a travesty, it is not an anomaly; rather, it is just the latest step in the far-right's long march to strip away women's rights. I am tired of it, sick of their trying to shame women when they are the ones who should be ashamed. So enough with the hypocrisy, with the misogyny, with some men in hallowed halls in DC arguing that they know better than moms in Illinois or Arizona or Missouri. We can and we must do better. That means fighting for everything from equal pay to better parental leave. It means proving that we care about women every day of the year, not just on one Sunday in May. That is the least that our mothers, our daughters, and our sisters deserve. Thank you. With that, I yield the floor.