Tammy Duckworth

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 103 on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 608, the nomination of Dana Baiocco to be a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission for a term of 7 years from October 27, 2017. On vote No. 103, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 608. I was also necessarily absent for vote No. 104 on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 2372, the VA MISSION Act of 2018. On vote No. 104, had I been present, I would have voted yea on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 2372.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 102 on the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 608, the nomination of Dana Baiocco to be a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission for a term of 7 years from October 27, 2017. On vote No. 102, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 608.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Dr. Arol Augsburger who will be retiring from his position as the president of the Illinois College of Optometry, ICO, on June 30, 2018. During his 16-year tenure at the ICO, which is located on the near southside of Chicago, the performance of the student body exceeded national averages. This achievement showcases Dr. Augsburger's positive impact on the college. In addition, ICO doubled its investable assets, and its on-campus clinic was able to grow to accommodate over 110,000 visits annually. This on-campus clinic, the Illinois Eye Institute, is the largest safety net provider of eye and vision care in Illinois, and it offers ICO students a unique opportunity for robust clinical training-- something that is not available at other institutions. Prior to Dr. Augsburger's appointment at ICO in 2002, he served for 30 years in a variety of leadership positions in higher education. He served as the interim provost of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, UAB, dean and professor of the UAB School of Optometry, and professor of clinical optometry at the Ohio State University College of Optometry. Dr. Augsburger has also served as president of Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry, the National Board of Examiners in Optometry and the Rotary Club of Chicago, Rotary 1, the world's first Rotary Club and as the immediate-past chairman of the ROTARY/One Foundation. Additionally, Dr. Augsburger served as the 2014-2015 chairman of the board of the Federation of Independent Illinois Colleges and Universities, on the Near South Planning Board of Chicago, and the Jackson Park Hospital Foundation Board. He was also on the Special Medical Advisory Group of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. In addition to being named Optometrist of the Year in three States, Dr. Augsburger was named National Doctor of Optometry of the Year and a Distinguished Service Award recipient by the American Optometric Association. In June of 2014, he was inducted into the National Optometry Hall of Fame. I applaud Dr. Augsburger's commendable work as the president of ICO and in the field of optometry. Students, patients, and Illinois constituents have greatly benefited from his lifetime of commitment to education and optometry.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 92 on May 14 on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 780, Michael Y. Scudder, of Illinois, to be United States circuit judge for the Seventh Circuit. On vote No. 92, had I been present, I would have voted yea on confirmation. I was also necessarily absent for vote No. 93 on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 781, Amy J. St. Eve, of Illinois, to be United States circuit judge for the Seventh Circuit. On vote No. 93, had I been present, I would have voted yea on confirmation. (At the request of Mr. Durbin, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I supported the nomination of Michael Scudder, of Illinois, to be a United States circuit judge for the Seventh Circuit. Mr. Scudder is a dedicated public servant with a distinguished legal career. Upon graduating from Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, Mr. Scudder served as a clerk for a Supreme Court Justice, clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Later in his career, Mr. Scudder served as general counsel to the National Security Council, counsel to the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, and senior associate counsel to the President. In the private sector, Mr. Scudder managed complex civil litigation and white-collar defense for more than a decade. He also serves as an adjunct professor at his alma mater and a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. Mr. Scudder's commitment to pro bono work was recognized by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Mr. Scudder also volunteers for the Federal Defender Program, which provides free legal representation to individuals accused of Federal crimes. Mr. Scudder's experience, expertise, and devotion to his community and access to justice makes him well prepared to serve as a United States circuit judge for the Seventh Circuit. (At the request of Mr. Durbin, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I supported the nomination of the Honorable Amy St. Eve, of Illinois, to be a United States circuit judge for the Seventh Circuit. Judge St. Eve hails from Belleville, IL. Since her 2002 confirmation by voice vote in the U.S. Senate, Judge St. Eve has made Illinois proud with her service as a Federal judge on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Judge St. Eve possesses extensive experience in the public and private sectors. Her diverse legal career includes serving as senior counsel of Abbott Laboratories in Illinois, working as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and serving as an associate independent counsel for the Office of Independent Counsel conducting the Whitewater investigation. In addition to an accomplished professional career, Judge St. Eve is active in our community, serving on the board of directors of the Chicago branch of the Federal Bar Association and as a member of the American Bar Association, the Chicago Bar Association, the Illinois State Bar Association, and the Women's Bar Association in Chicago. Judge St. Eve is also an adjunct professor at Northwestern Law School where she teaches trial advocacy. Judge St. Eve has established a reputation as being an efficient and fair jurist presiding over high-profile cases and is prepared to be an effective United States circuit judge for the Seventh Circuit.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the remarkable life of Larry Leong Hong, who passed away peacefully on April 20, 2018, surrounded by his loving family. Born in China in 1922, his family immigrated to Burma when he was an infant, to seek better fortune. Larry was the oldest son of six children; he had three sisters and two brothers. His family sent him back to China to get his schooling and to learn about his heritage and his culture. At age 13, shortly after he returned home to Burma, he left to seek a better future for himself and for his family. He came by himself to America, to the Golden Mountain, where it was believed the streets were paved with gold. In 1935, when he arrived in America, he found no streets paved in gold bricks. Instead, he found a country in the grips of the Great Depression, and life was hard. But that did not deter him. He worked hard at the family restaurant. Larry learned the value of hard work, determination, and self-sufficiency. He worked in the restaurant until the clarion call of World War II. In 1942 Larry joined the war effort, working at a factory as an engine lathe operator and was promoted to be an inspector until he was called to serve. Larry--also known as Wing Q. Hong--was inducted into the Army of the United States on March 2, 1943. He was an infantryman and rose to TEC 4 as a cook. He served in the European theater, landing with his regiment in Normandy and went on to serve in Ardennes-Rhineland, Northern France, and Central Europe, serving as the acting mess sergeant for the officers. He was honorably discharged on October 19, 1945. He was awarded the Good Conduct Medal AR 600-68 and the EAMETO Medal with one Silver Service Star. This patriotic and hard-working immigrant started a tradition of service to his country. All of his descendants and their spouses served this Nation, either in Active Duty as members of the military or as civilians. Upon discharge, Larry returned to civilian life and went back to the restaurant business. Two years after his discharge from the Army, his only son, Kenneth, was born. He met the love of his life, Annette Moy, at the restaurant in which they both worked, and they were married in 1942. This was a love affair that lasted for almost 62 years, until his beloved wife passed in January of 2000. Even though Larry came to America by himself, as a young teen, when he married Annette, he married into the Moy Clan--very large, very tight-knit, and very loving family. He learned through Annette the value and the strong bonds of family. Larry was devoted to his immediate and extended family. He was generous, strong, dependable, and stable. He and his wife were the anchor for their very large family. The family took every opportunity to gather together, whether it was to celebrate a holiday, to celebrate a special milestone or just to get together for a picnic. They were fun, and of course these gatherings always featured good food. Each weekend the extended family came together at one of the sisters' house to play mah-jongg, while the young children went to sleep to the sound of the click-clicking of the mah-jongg game. Larry loved good Chinese food; he especially loved lobster and Chinese-style chicken. Larry was a fighter. He met several challenges throughout his life, and each time he fought it--and he won. His love of family, his love of food, his strength, and his fighting spirit will be missed. Larry is survived by his son, Kenneth Leong Hong--wife Belkis--of Gaithersburg, MD, and his only granddaughter, Denise Williams--husband Dan--of National Harbor, MD.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 74 on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 140. On vote No. 74, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 140.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 70 on the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 666, Andrew Wheeler, to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. On vote No. 70, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 666. Mr. President, I was also necessarily absent for vote No. 71 on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 666, Andrew Wheeler, to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. On vote No. 71, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 666.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the ``Strength and Honor'' event being hosted by Naperville Responds to Our Veterans on April 11, 2018. This event aims to honor and give thanks to veterans around the community. This year's feature speaker, Mike Barbour, is a well-known Army veteran who has devoted his life to advocating for those who have so bravely fought for our country. I encourage veterans around the community to attend this event, enjoy a free lunch, and be paid the respect they so well deserve. I applaud the commendable work being done by Naperville Responds to Our Veterans and hope they have a successful event.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, thank you. I thank the chairman and my colleagues from Wisconsin for their support of this bipartisan legislation, which I introduced in January and filed as an amendment to S. 2155. As the chairman stated, as a result of the 2016 regulation, many of the FHLB system's captive insurance members have had or will soon have their membership terminated. Our legislation seeks to ensure that captive insurer affiliates of institutions that are active providers of private capital in the mortgage market are eligible to restore or continue their membership. Their membership is crucial to reliable access to low-cost funding for home mortgages and affordable housing initiatives in Illinois. For the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago, these members serve as an important source of private capital in the mortgage market. Their membership broadens access to credit to financial institutions that would otherwise not be able to access credit through their local markets and creates a reliable source of liquidity for affordable housing initiatives. Our bipartisan bill only seeks to redress those captives that were previously granted FHLB membership prior to February 19, 2016. By allowing captive insurers to continue to invest in mortgages and mortgage-related securities through the FHLB system, they can continue to provide both credit and liquidity to the market. Such sources of private capital are critical to the long-term financing of the FHLB system, and therefore, eligibility in the system should be preserved. Our legislation will achieve this purpose. I wish to turn to my friend from Wisconsin, Senator Johnson.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to the remarkable life of Charles Pence Slichter, a University of Illinois professor emeritus of physics and of chemistry, who died on Monday, February 19, 2018, in Boulder, CO, at the age of 94. Slichter was a pioneer in the development and application of nuclear magnetic resonance, NMR, spectroscopy to elucidate the structure and behavior of matter at the atomic scale and a renowned expert on superconductivity. Slichter's seminal contributions to the fields of condensed matter physics and chemistry have been recognized with numerous awards, including the 2007 National Medal of Science. Slichter is revered at the University of Illinois, where he served on the faculty for 57 years, for his fostering of the ``Urbana style,'' a way of tackling longstanding scientific problems by a combination of theory and experiment that emphasizes close interdisciplinary collaboration and mutual respect. Known by everyone for his brilliant smiles, infectious enthusiasm, and trademark bowties, Slichter exemplified science at its finest: creative, rigorous, curious, and scrupulously honest. His inspired teaching trained generations of American physicists and chemists and, through them, enabled a host of modern technologies. NMR studies atomic nuclei by probing them with radio waves and measuring their response. The nuclei respond only when the radio waves are tuned to specific resonance frequencies, which depend on both the properties of the nuclei and their local magnetic field. The measured spectrum of resonance frequencies, as well as the time dynamics of the resonance response, gives information about the local environment of the nuclei. Magnetic resonance imaging, MRI, widely used in medicine, is an extension of NMR that enables 2D and 3D images to be reconstructed from NMR spectra. Slichter pioneered many fundamental techniques in NMR. He was a codiscoverer, with H.S. Gutowsky and D.W. McCall, of indirect spin-spin coupling, known as J-coupling, in molecules. This phenomenon enables structural information about molecules to be deduced from their NMR spectrum and is a key analytical tool in modern chemistry. With T.R. Carver, Slichter performed the first dynamic polarization of nuclei using electron spins. Dynamic nuclear polarization can be used to increase the sensitivity of NMR dramatically, enabling the study of more complex molecules and smaller samples. Extensions of the technique are used to determine aspects of molecular structure or to provide a method of operation for the three-level maser, a microwave-frequency precursor to the laser. Slichter and his student L.C. Hebel performed the first NMR studies on superconductors, materials in which electric current can flow without resistance. This was a major feat in itself because superconductors exclude the magnetic fields and radiowaves used to perform NMR spectroscopy. The results of their experiments are recognized as the first proof of the electron-pairing concept central to the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer, BCS, theory of superconductivity, which was developed concurrently, also at the University of Illinois, and was honored with the 1972 Nobel Prize in Physics. Slichter conceived of the experiment while listening to a presentation from Bardeen, and the analysis was carried out with substantial collaboration from the BCS authors, even while they raced to prepare their own theoretical work. This strong collaborative interaction between theory and experiment typified the ``Urbana style'' of research, and Slichter played an important role in setting this tone for colleagues. Another research ``first'' of Slichter's, the measurement of the Pauli spin susceptibility, came after a chance hallway meeting with colleague David Pines, who had just derived a more precise theoretical model for the effect, but lamented to Slichter that ``no one can measure it.'' Slichter, who had worked on some related problems as a graduate student, replied, ``David, I know how to measure it,'' and the experimental results were published shortly thereafter. Other notable research achievements include discoveries on the behavior of high-temperature superconductors, fundamental studies of metal surfaces for catalysis, the introduction of phase sensitive detection to pulsed NMR, the theory of chemical exchange and its effects on NMR spectra, studies of charge density waves and the Kondo effect, and the theory of chemical shifts in fluorine. At the University of Illinois, Slichter directed the research of 63 doctoral students and more than 15 postdoctoral researchers, including Nobel laureate Sir Peter Mansfield, coinventor with Paul Lauterbur of MRI. Slichter's textbook, Principles of Magnetic Resonance, now in its third edition, has trained students around the world for nearly 60 years. Slichter said in 2004, ``I really love doing physics; the personal connection is the way I love to do it. If I were not in a university setting, I would have to find students to work with.'' Slichter's contributions to science were not limited to the laboratory and the classroom. He served the Nation with distinction as a member of the President's Science Advisory Committee from 1965 to 1969; the President's Committee on the National Medal of Science from 1969 to 1974; the President's Committee on Science and Technology Policy in 1976; and the National Science Board from 1975 to 1984. In 1975, Slichter chaired a delegation of U.S. solid-state physicists selected by the National Academy of Sciences in an initiative to open scientific exchanges with the People's Republic of China. On this trip, he met his future wife, Anne FitzGerald, who worked for the National Academy of Sciences and acted as translator for the U.S. delegation. In academia, Slichter served for 25 years from 1970 to 1995 as a fellow of the seven-member Harvard Corporation, Harvard University's highest governing body, including 10 years as senior fellow. He chaired the selection committee that chose Neil Rudenstine as the president of Harvard in 1991. Slichter was the president of the International Society of Magnetic Resonance from 1986 to 1989. His service to U.S. industry included membership on the board of directors of Polaroid from 1975 to 1995, and on science advisory committees to IBM from 1978 to 1993, and United Technologies from 1972 to 1982. Among his many honors and awards are the National Medal of Science in 2007; the Comstock Prize, shared with E.L. Hahn, of the National Academy of Sciences in 1993; the Irving Langmuir Prize in Chemical Physics in 1969 and the Oliver E. Buckley Prize in Condensed Matter Physics in 1996 from the American Physical Society; the Citation for Chemical Breakthrough Award, shared with H.S. Gutowsky and D.W. McCall, from the American Chemical Society in 2016; and the Triennial Prize of the International Society of Magnetic Resonance in 1986. He received honorary doctor of science degrees from the University of Waterloo in 1993 and the University of Leipzig in 2010 and an honorary doctor of laws degree from Harvard University in 1996. He was elected a member of the National Academy of Sciences in 1967, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1969, and the American Philosophical Society in 1971. Sir Anthony J. Leggett, Nobel laureate and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Professor and Center for Advanced Study Professor of Physics at the University of Illinois, described Slichter as ``a towering figure in condensed matter physics, on both the national and international stage. He was a warm and supportive figure in the Urbana physics department right up to his last years.'' University of Illinois emeritus professor Gordon Baym said, ``Charlie was a remarkable colleague, one of the last of the great physicists of the postwar generation. He was always intellectually curious and remarkably wise. At the same time he was a great human being, amazingly encouraging and supportive of his colleagues, students, and friends, whether young or old. Just seeing his warm smile would brighten everyone's day.'' Head of the University of Illinois Department of Physics and professor Dale Van Harlingen said, ``Charlie Slichter was a legend, a role model, and a friend to everyone who ever had the opportunity to meet him. His passion for good science, his contagious kindness, and his remarkable energy has inspired me throughout my career, and I think everyone else at the University of Illinois and beyond. In many ways, Charlie has best defined the Urbana style that characterizes the culture and spirit of the Department of Physics at Illinois through his stellar contributions in NMR that have significantly impacted our understanding of condensed matter physics, especially superconductivity, and the chemistry of materials, his excellence in teaching and mentoring of students, and his unparalleled warmth and friendliness. He is truly one the great scholars and gentlemen of our generation. Charlie has made a lasting impression on all of us--he will be missed but never forgotten.'' Slichter was born on January 21, 1924, in Ithaca, NY, to Sumner Huber Slichter, a labor economist who became the first Lamont University Professor at Harvard University, and Ada--nee Pence--Slichter. Slichter was named after his paternal grandfather, Charles Sumner Slichter, a noted professor of applied mathematics and dean of the graduate school at the University of Wisconsin. His maternal grandfather, William David Pence, was a professor of railway engineering at the University of Wisconsin. From a young age, Slichter was interested in science and mathematics. It was his senior-year physics course at the Browne & Nichols School in Cambridge, MA, that made it clear, without a doubt, that he wanted to be a physicist. Slichter studied physics at Harvard University, receiving his A.B. in 1946; M.A. in 1947; and Ph.D. in 1949 degrees there. During World War II, while an undergraduate at Harvard, he worked as a research assistant at the Underwater Explosives Research Laboratory at Woods Hole, MA, where he constructed oscilloscopes, an experience that prepared him for his doctoral research with Edward Purcell, who led the group at Harvard that codiscovered nuclear magnetic resonance. Slichter was his third graduate student, beginning research with Purcell shortly after that discovery. Slichter came to the University of Illinois in 1949 as an instructor, recruited by then-department head F. Wheeler Loomis as an integral part of an effort to build a world-class faculty in the emerging field of solid-state physics. Slichter was appointed assistant professor 2 years later and quickly rose through the ranks to full professor in 1955. At Illinois, he held additional professorial appointments at the Center for Advanced Study from 1968 to 1997 and the Department of Chemistry from 1986 to 1997. After his retirement in 1996, Slichter maintained an active research program at Illinois, holding an appointment as research professor of physics and continuing to advise graduate students from 1997 to 2006. Slichter is survived by his wife, Anne FitzGerald Slichter, of Champaign, IL; by his children William Almy Slichter of Minneapolis, MN; Jacob Huber Slichter of Brooklyn, NY; Ann Thayer Slichter of Los Angeles, CA; Daniel Huber Slichter of Boulder, CO; and David Pence Slichter of Binghamton, NY; and by his grandchildren, Sarah Thayer Slichter of Kingston, NY; Thayer Ellery Slichter and Lila Mackinnon Slichter of Minneapolis, MN; and Trevor Hagar Slichter and Isabela Hagar Slichter of Boulder, CO. He was preceded in death by his son Sumner Pence Slichter, policy director for U.S. Senator Russ Feingold. He is also survived by his first wife, Gertrude Thayer Almy of Mitchellville, MD, who is the mother of Sumner, William, Jacob, and Ann.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Commander Paul Bauer, a 31-year veteran of the police force who was fatally shot on Tuesday February 13, 2018, while in the line of duty. Commander Bauer had a remarkable career with the Chicago Police Department and will be remembered by his colleagues as a model police officer. Commander Bauer made the ultimate sacrifice while protecting our city and its people, and I am thankful for all of his years of service. He leaves behind his wife, Erin, of 16 years and his 13-year- old daughter, Grace. May his service, sacrifice, and kind spirit serve as an inspiration to us all.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to the remarkable life of Fong Gay Leon Wu, who passed away peacefully on January 24, 2018. Fong Gay Leon Wu was born in a village in Guangdong, China, in the early 1920s. She was the first female in her large extended family to finish her secondary education. This was not a common practice in China in those days because girls were not generally allowed to go to school. Subsequently, she married Yung Chi and settled to care for her new family during very turbulent times in China. She survived the Chinese civil war and the rise of the Communist Party. In 1949, her new family was facing increasingly belligerent villagers. Motivated by the presence of imminent danger to her family and armed with courage, strength, and ingenuity, she led her infant daughter and mother-in-law out of their fratricidal home village in the early days of communism in China, narrowly escaping death. Fong Gay and her family fled Guangdong to a safe haven in Hong Kong, where they were protected by family and friends, until she was able to rejoin her husband and start a new life in Santiago de Cuba. In her new home in Cuba, she gave birth to her second daughter. Shortly after the Cuban Revolution succeeded in 1959, she recognized signs of communism in the early days of Castro's Cuba and once again planned her family's escape from a communist regime. With her family in tow, Fong Gay Leon Wu arrived to the United States. Her indomitable spirit, her strength, and her courage, which she has shown throughout her life, helped the family forge a new life here in the United States. Twice in her life, she had to start all over again, with little or nothing but the clothes on her back. Although raised as a child of privilege, Fong Gay was not afraid of hard work and challenges. She was dedicated to the ideals of America, most importantly to the importance of freedom, because she experienced firsthand what it meant to live under a regime that limited freedom. In those early days after she arrived with her family in the United States, even though she could not speak English, she helped supplement the family income by helping with a family business startup in Chicago and later by working in the garment industry in New York City's Chinatown. After overcoming countless hardships and challenges throughout her life, Fong Gay never lost her big heart. Her love for her family and courage on their behalf has set an example for us all and especially for her daughters and granddaughters, each of whom has followed her lead and committed herself to a life and career of service. Her spirit and warmth will be missed.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from New York, who is on the floor today, for her leadership on this very important issue. I am here to join in the discussion on one of the most pressing issues facing American families all across our country--our Nation's outdated family leave policy. About 2 weeks ago, I announced that I am expecting a baby girl in April. The support for my announcement has been overwhelming, and I am grateful for it. I have received so many congratulations and lots of questions about my daughter-to-be. I have also gotten questions about how I balance being a working mother and a legislator, how I expect to handle having a newborn and a 3-year-old as I continue my work here in the U.S. Senate. I know these questions come from a good place, but let's be real. It is 2018. Women have been having children since the beginning of humanity, and I am nowhere near the first person to be a working mom. In fact, my colleague was a working mom and legislator long before I was. Millions of women have been balancing the demands of their job and their families ever since female trailblazers first joined the working world, but you wouldn't know that based on the policies we have adopted as a country. The United States is one of just a handful of developed countries in the world that doesn't offer paid maternity leave, and one of the very few industrialized nations that doesn't offer paid parental or family leave to parents. Across our Nation, working parents face barriers to staying in the workforce. Lack of access to affordable child care and paid family medical and parental leave forces people to choose between taking care of their children or a sick family member and losing their job and their health insurance. That hurts our entire country. That is why, as we mark the 25th anniversary of the Family and Medical Leave Act today, I want to highlight the commonsense legislation my colleagues and I have introduced to make the workplace more accommodating for working parents. Senator Gillibrand has a great bill, the FAMILY Act, which would do just that by creating a universal family and medical leave insurance program that would cost employers and employees less than $1.50 per week on average. This is the ultimate in self-help. This is people helping themselves so that they can have the leave they need when their families need it. Senator Patty Murray's Child Care for Working Families Act would ensure every family has access to affordable and high-quality child care. And my Child Care Access Means Parents in Schools Reauthorization Act would increase access to on-campus care for student parents, who make up more than one-quarter of all college students in America. These bills are a great place to start, and we should take them up in the Senate as soon as possible. After all, the FMLA passed in 1993. While it was an important step forward for our country, it is not comprehensive and it is nowhere near enough. Many workers across the country are ineligible for it, don't qualify to receive unpaid time off, and can't afford it. The FMLA does little to help Americans who cannot afford to take unpaid time off from work, forcing people to choose between a paycheck and being able to pay their mortgage and support their own loved ones. We need to do what we can to change that--to finally offer paid parental leave like the rest of the world has. There is no reason we can't get this done today, and we should get to work on it today. I yield the floor.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 36, H.R. 1301; that the amendment at the desk, providing for continuing appropriations for pay and death benefits for members of the Armed Services, be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. DUCKWORTH. I object to the modification.

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, as we enter day 2 of the Trump shutdown, I am here on the floor again imploring my colleagues to take action right now on something we can all agree on--that we ensure this shutdown and the partisan gridlock do not harm the troops who are in harm's way right now, holding the line, defending our Nation. We all agree they have enough to worry about without having to worry if their paycheck will come in on time this month. We need to take immediate action to pass the Pay Our Military Act to eliminate any threat of our military personnel not being paid or, even worse, our military families not receiving death benefits when their loved one has made that last full measure of devotion for this country. We have work to do. We have to do better by our constituents and this great Nation. But in the meantime, let's at least take this simple, commonsense step that we all agree on. Let's remove any possibility that military pay and, even worse, military death benefits will be used and held hostage as political leverage. That would be unconscionable. Let's take this off the table right now. The reality is that quickly passing the Pay Our Military Act is the least we can do. We must continue working for as long as it takes to develop and pass a bipartisan solution to fund our government. However, if acting now to ensure military pay and death benefits continue during this shutdown brings relief to even just one military family, that would be worth it. If it prevents just one survivor from experiencing even more pain and hardship as they struggle with the utter grief of losing a loved one killed in action while defending our great Nation, then it will be worth it. The time to act is now. This should not be a partisan issue. Every Member of Congress supports paying our military personnel and ensuring that military death benefits are not delayed, so why delay now? There is no good reason. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

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

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, this morning Donald Trump tweeted that ``Democrats are holding our military hostage'' in this shutdown--just the latest in a string of recent comments wherein he accuses Democrats like me of not caring about our military, and it is the latest example of his failing to show leadership, to take responsibility for leading this Nation. Does he even know that there are servicemembers who are in harm's way right now watching him, looking for the Commander in Chief to show leadership rather than to try to deflect blame, or that his own Pentagon says that the short-term funding plans he seems intent on pushing are actually harmful to not just the military but to our national security? I spent my entire adult life looking out for the well-being, the training, and the equipping of the troops for whom I was responsible-- sadly, this is something the current occupant of the Oval Office does not seem to care to do--and I will not be lectured about what our military needs by a five-deferment draft dodger. I have a message for Cadet Bones Spurs: If you cared about our military, you would stop baiting Kim Jong Un into a war that could put 85,000 American troops and millions of innocent civilians in danger. Last night, after the lights had been turned out in the White House and the President had gone to his private quarters, I voted to better train and equip our troops, to stop wasting taxpayers' dollars with yet another CR. I voted to make sure that our military men and women--who are standing on the line in the DMZ, who are in Iraq and Afghanistan, across Africa, in Asia--get the help, the support, and the equipment they need. If the President truly cared about them, then he would stop hiding behind his Twitter account and stop blaming everyone else. And he can tell his party--a party that controls the House, the White House, and the Senate--to do their job, to govern, to stop allowing the most extreme wing of your party to prevent us from passing a long-term funding solution that the military itself--your own leaders whom you nominated and appointed--is asking for. At the very least, you could ask your party to guarantee military pay and death benefits for our servicemembers and their families so that the troops downrange aren't putting their lives at risk overseas while also worrying about whether they are going to be able to feed their families or if our government will take care of those families if, God forbid, they must make that last full measure of devotion for our Nation. I am so disappointed that my Republican colleagues refused to allow us a vote for our troops last night, and I encourage them to please reconsider that vote. Let's get to a full budget. Let's move on. We can compromise. We can do this together. So many of the options on the table are bipartisan. In fact, a majority of them are Republican- authored. Our troops know how to work together. They stand shoulder-to- shoulder when they protect and defend this country. We surely in these Chambers can do the same. So let's stop blaming each other, and let's get to work. I will be here, as I was today, tomorrow and the day after until we get this done. Our men and women in uniform deserve nothing less. Thank you.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

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

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to this body's attention and to the attention of all Americans what can best be characterized as a modern-day slave trade. It is an outrage that is hard to fathom but that still exists today. I was recently speaking to a group of pastors from my home State of Illinois who do wonderful work advocating on behalf of human rights and human dignity. One of them, Rev. Walter Johnson of the Greater Institutional Church in Chicago, shared his frustration that abuses and atrocities being inflicted upon migrants and refugees in Libya have received not nearly enough attention or outrage in the American public, government, or in the press. I couldn't agree more. That is why I have come to the Senate floor today to speak on this alarming human rights crisis. Every American should be appalled by chilling images of modern-day slave auctions. Earlier this month in an investigative piece, CNN released video of an auction taking place. It was not an auction for a piece of art or another item one might bid on but an auction for human beings--human beings sold for the equivalent of $400. The reports were a wake-up call for the world about the gravity of this situation in North Africa as migrants fleeing danger and economic hardship face new horrors on their journey to seek a better future. The wars in the Middle East and instability in North Africa have upended huge swaths of the region, displacing thousands of vulnerable men, women, and children. Thousands of people fleeing Africa and the Middle East make their way through Libya, hoping to cross the Mediterranean. Unfortunately, many of them face horrifying human rights abuses and danger along the way. Because of Libya's limited capacity to govern, its restrictive policies against migrants, and its inability or refusal to accommodate the migrants, conditions are ripe for exploitation and abuse in their detention centers. Particularly horrifying have been reports from survivors about the exploitation at the hands of smugglers who are openly engaging in human slavery, preying on the most vulnerable, who have surrendered everything for a shot at the future. Migrants have been subjected to horrible human rights abuses in Libya over the past few years, including forced labor, torture, and sexual violence. The administration must put this issue front and center when we engage with Libyan officials and demand accountability and progress. Sadly, it appears the administration missed such an opportunity to address this issue during Prime Minister Fayiz al-Saraj's visit to Washington earlier this month. The United Nations-backed Government of National Accord in Tripoli, however, has taken an important step in acknowledging these abuses and is requesting international support. The European Union and African Union evacuation plan to repatriate the detained migrants that was agreed upon in the Ivory Coast is a move in the right direction. In 2016, the United States provided emergency funding for the International Organization for Migration--the IOM--to help shut down migrant detentions centers in Libya. While the EU rightly picked up the majority of funding to repatriate migrants, the United States should once again consider another emergency infusion to the IOM to help accelerate the closure of these facilities in addition to the $31 million in foreign operations funding for Libya that the administration requested this year. Additionally, we have a former American Ambassador, William Lacy Swing, who is the Director General of the International Organization for Migration. He is on the frontlines of this fight and stands ready to work with Libyan authorities, the European Union, and African Union countries so that he can help address this crisis. The United States can play an important role in supporting Director General Swing and other international efforts to protect these migrants from exploitation and abuse. Human rights are essential to the functioning and well-being of our global community, and that community is threatened when migrants fleeing persecution are forced into inhumane, exploitative conditions and slavery. Given this country's own dark history with slavery, we cannot afford to remain silent in the face of such suffering. We must stand together with the help of the United Nations and other international partners to eradicate slavery and the conditions that precipitate it. Thank you. I yield back.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for all the work he does on behalf of Dreamers throughout the country. His leadership in this effort is absolutely inspiring. I am here to speak out in favor of passing a clean Dream Act to create a pathway to citizenship for young immigrants who enrich our country and strengthen our economy and national security. The passage of the Dream Act is critical to the thousands of Dreamers living in Illinois. I want to share one young woman's story. This is Christian Villalobos. Christian traveled from Mexico with her mother and younger sister because her mother was fleeing an abusive marriage. At only 6 years old, Christian was brought to the United States not knowing a word of English. She needed to adapt quickly to her new home. Christian worked hard in school to learn English and made great efforts to excel in all of her academic subjects. Then, when she was in the third grade, she was diagnosed with a learning disability, which might have caused her to become frustrated and to see a decline in her grades. However, in her own words, she said: I didn't let that get in the way and I did not let bad influences in my neighborhood get to me. There, in the back of my head, there was always a little voice saying, ``Education is the way to a better life.'' Christian pushed through and finished middle school and high school as an honor student and, despite her constant hard work and proven academic record, she faced an unexpected obstacle--adults in her life who doubted her ability to attain a college education. As she tells it, many adults in her life simply assumed that an undocumented student like Christian could not obtain a college education. While these doubts broke her heart, she was not deterred. Christian's hard work, grit, and academic merit all earned her admission to Northern Illinois University where she received a private scholarship. She also worked multiple retail jobs selling flowers, shoes, and clothing to fund her education. Although her future was uncertain, Christian never let up on her academics or her many work responsibilities to put herself through school. Finally, in the last few years of her college education, she received some relief with the implementation of the DACA Program. In 2015, she became the first person in her family to graduate with a bachelor's degree. She had a job offer right after graduation which, as anyone can tell you, is not an easy feat. Although her DACA work permit expired that summer, when she had intended to start working full-time, her company was so invested in having her come on board that they worked with Christian to ensure that her DACA work permit was renewed. Their investment was worthwhile. Within the first 2 years at her company, Christian reached No. 1 in sales nationwide. She is now a branch manager of her company and consistently one of the top performers in sales. Christian also opened doors for other DACA recipients who have joined her at her company and are also excelling in their roles. She is just one of thousands of Dreamers who positively contribute to our Nation. It is evident that our businesses and communities benefit and thrive from the work ethic and the perseverance Dreamers like Christian possess. There are no truer American values than to work hard, accomplish your goals, and to have the ability to fully contribute to society. Unfortunately, due to the Trump administration's elimination of DACA, nearly 800,000 of our young people like Christian are now vulnerable to deportation. Thousands of young people who participated in the DACA Program and who are legally in the United States may no longer be able to serve as doctors, teachers, students, and, yes, even servicemembers in our military. This decision will also tear families and communities apart. I implore my colleagues in the Senate to recognize the contributions of our DACA recipients throughout the country. I urge my colleagues to not shortchange the thousands of Dreamers who learn and work alongside our families and friends. We must do everything we can to make sure the Dream Act is addressed before the holidays. I will not turn my back on Dreamers like Christian, and I will fight to protect DACA recipients as we work to make the Dream Act the law of the land. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from Rhode Island, and I join him in strong opposition to the nomination of Mr. Steven Bradbury to be the general counsel of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Mr. Bradbury is a deeply flawed nominee for many reasons, including his unwillingness to recuse himself from issues involving his former clients and dodging commitments to forgo accepting waivers for recusals. However, my opposition to his nomination is rooted in his troubling record while serving at the Department of Justice during the Bush administration. As we know, Mr. Bradbury was Acting Attorney General at the Department of Justice from 2005 to 2007 and led the Office of Legal Counsel there from 2005 to 2009. When he was nominated by President George W. Bush to be Assistant Attorney General in 2004, his nomination was so unacceptable that the majority leader at the time offered to confirm 84 stalled nominees in exchange for the withdrawal of his nomination. Let me repeat that. The Senate majority leader at the time was willing to accept 84 other nominees in exchange for President Bush withdrawing Mr. Bradbury's nomination. What Senators objected to then--and the reason I am so strongly opposed to Mr. Bradbury's nomination now--is that Mr. Bradbury is the chief architect of the legal justification that authorized waterboarding and other forms of enhanced interrogation techniques we used to hear a lot about during the last Bush Presidency. For those who might not be familiar with the term ``enhanced interrogation,'' there is another term for it that most Americans probably are familiar with. It is called ``torture.'' The ``torture memos,'' as they are commonly referred to today, represent a dark period in our Nation's recent history that we must never repeat. In my opinion, his connection to these memos alone should disqualify Mr. Bradbury from government service. I understand he is nominated to serve at the Department of Transportation and not the Department of Justice, but his very willingness in the past to aid and abet torture demonstrates a failure of moral character that makes him dangerous to the American people and to our troops regardless of which agency he is nominated to serve in. Those torture memos displayed a disturbing disregard for the intent of Congress and flouted both international and U.S. law. If confirmed, Mr. Bradbury will swear a solemn oath to serve the interests of the American public by providing honest and objective legal analysis to the Department and the administration. I doubt he can carry out that oath. The American Government would, once again, rely on his counsel to make sure Department of Transportation employees do not subvert the law, the intent of Congress, or the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, he has let both the government and the American people down before, and I have no confidence that he is capable of carrying out this critically important role. Public servants are supposed to serve the public interests, not the political whims of any President, Democratic or Republican. The public should be alarmed by Mr. Bradbury's history of demonstrating complete deference to a President's policy goals, and we in the Senate should do everything we can to prevent the likelihood of that history continuing in the Trump administration. For my colleagues who may not be familiar with the programs Mr. Bradbury justified in his legal opinion, let me clarify. Detainees, in his opinion, could be sleep-deprived for up to 180 hours--approximately 7\1/2\ days--forced into stress positions. Sometimes they were shackled to the ceiling, subjected to rectal rehydration and feeding, confined in boxes the size of small dog crates. It was also Mr. Bradbury's legal opinion that led CIA personnel to conduct mock executions. His legal opinion led to one man being waterboarded to the point that he became ``completely unresponsive, with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth.'' His legal opinion also led to another man being frozen to death. Some of these abuses were authorized; others were not, but brutality, once sanctioned, is not easily contained. In 2005, this body voted 90 to 9 to enact the Detainee Treatment Act to prohibit ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.'' That law was enacted after the Supreme Court decided that terrorism detainees in U.S. custody were protected by the Geneva Conventions. However, Mr. Bradbury still found legal loopholes to allow torture to continue. Even the Department of Justice's own Office of Professional Responsibility criticized him for ``uncritical acceptance'' of the CIA's representations about the torture program. This is stunning, and it cannot simply be dismissed. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007, Mr. Bradbury defended the President's questionable interpretation of the Hamdan case, a case where the Supreme Court ruled that President Bush did not have the authority to set up military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, by famously suggesting the ``President is always right.'' This rubberstamp mentality is extremely dangerous, especially in the Trump administration. What will Mr. Bradbury do if President Trump asks him to come up with a legal justification to abolish laws mandating seat belt use or to come up with ways to negate drunk driving laws? Let me be clear. Mr. Bradbury didn't make America safer, and he certainly didn't make our men and women in uniform safer either--quite the opposite. The actions Mr. Bradbury helped to justify put our troops and diplomats deployed overseas in greater danger. This is personal to me because perhaps most disturbingly Mr. Bradbury's efforts to enable torture compromised our Nation's values. Our Nation's military men and women are taught the laws of armed conflict, the proper way to care for detainees, the importance of acting in accordance with American values. Mr. Bradbury's actions at the Department of Justice undermined those values. This type of twisted legal wrangling done at a desk far from the field of battle puts larger targets on the backs of our troops. If captured, are they now at greater risk of being tortured themselves? How we treat prisoners under our control affects how our troops are treated. Let me read to you Warrant Officer Michael Durant's account of what happened to him when he was shot down and captured in Mogadishu, Somalia. This is from his book. DURANT'S fear of being executed or tortured eased after several days in captivity. After being at the center of that enraged mob on the day he crashed, he mostly feared being discovered by the Somalian public. It was a fear shared by Firimbi-- Who was one of the people guarding him-- The ``propaganda minister'' had clearly grown fond of him. It was something Durant worked at, part of his survival training. The two men were together day and night for a week. Firimbi spoke Italian and Durant spoke some Spanish, languages similar enough for them to minimally communicate. Firimbi considered Durant a prisoner of war. He believed that by treating the pilot humanely, he would improve the image of Somalis in America upon his release. Mr. Durant talked at length about how he was treated when he was captured in Somalia. He talked about going for days without his wounds being cared for, being dragged out of his downed Black Hawk by a mob. He talked about being beaten. He talked about someone sticking a rifle into his room and firing and shooting him, where he had to pull the round out of his own shoulder. He talked about being shackled. All of that is still better than the treatment that Mr. Bradbury's justifications allow to happen now. It makes our troops' jobs harder and more dangerous, and their job is already pretty dangerous. Take it from me, our troops will do any job we ask of them, but we shouldn't be trying to make those jobs more difficult or dangerous than they already are. I can tell you from firsthand experience, as someone who has bled behind enemy lines, legal gymnastics are a luxury not afforded our men and women in the field. They are at battle and, more importantly, these justifications do not protect our troops who are sitting on the floor of a POW cell. When you are stuck bleeding in a helicopter behind enemy lines, you hope and pray that if the enemy finds you first, they treat you humanely. When I was in flight school, I began the first of several periods when I was trained in the art of survival, escape, evasion, and rescue. All pilots received this training. Then, when we were deployed to Iraq, we also, as members of the U.S. troops overseas who were identified as most likely at risk of being captured among U.S. troops deployed there, received additional training. This is what the Army told me I could expect upon being captured: I could expect to be raped. I could expect to be beaten. I could expect to be starved. As I sat in my helicopter thanking God that there was another aircraft there to pull me out, even as the enemy were jumping into their pickup trucks, speeding toward us to try to capture us, the very realities of what Mr. Bradbury was justifying happened to me. It is not something that you can look at from the safety and security of a desk in Washington. Our troops face this every single day. This is why this nomination is so incredibly, incredibly troubling. If the warlords in Somalia recognized the Geneva Conventions and treated Chief Warrant Officer Durant's capture more humanely, what does that say about Mr. Bradbury and his willingness to allow far greater forms of torture than what the Somali warlords were willing to do? Mr. Bradbury lacked the moral conviction in the Bush White House that Somali warlords possessed in Mogadishu, and I don't think he can be trusted to stand up for the values I fought to defend, especially not in the current administration. You don't just need to take my word for it. Mr. Bradbury's record speaks for itself, but in case this point isn't clear enough, here is what retired Marine Corps General Charles Krulak wrote to the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee about this nominee just this year on June 26 of 2017: In his role as acting head of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel . . . Mr. Bradbury displayed a disregard for both U.S. and international law when authorizing the use of so-called ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' to interrogate terrorism suspects. The general goes on further to say: These interrogation techniques, which Mr. Bradbury repeatedly approved, included methods that the United States has acknowledged and even prosecuted as torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. The use of these techniques not only violated well- established law and military doctrine, but also endangered U.S. troops and personnel, hindered the war effort, and betrayed the country's values, damaging the United States' stature around the world as a beacon for human rights and the rule of law. We know that the United States is strongest when it remains faithful to its core values. The use of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment undermines those values, and Mr. Bradbury continually represented their use as legal and advisable during his time serving in the Bush Administration. The general goes on to say further: In recommending these techniques, Mr. Bradbury also displayed a discomforting deference to the executive branch's wishes, tailoring his legal recommendations to fit the White House's preferred outcome, and even testified in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that ``the President is always right.'' Mr. Bradbury's recommendations also contradicted the intent of Congress. In 2005, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act with a vote of 90-9. The law prohibited abuse of detainees by the U.S. military and agencies, but Mr. Bradbury authored a legal memo specifically designed to undermine the will of Congress and to provide the Bush Administration with authorization to continue using interrogation methods that constitute torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. I believe that this is more important than political affiliation. Mr. Bradbury has time and again shown his willingness to contravene established law and the intent of Congress in service to the will of the executive branch. Though the position to which he is nominated likely will not involve decisions on national security issues, I believe that based on his past governmental service, Mr. Bradbury is not fit for this political office. I ask you respectfully to oppose his nomination. That letter is signed: Semper Fidelis, Charles C. Krulak, General, USMC (Ret.) 31st Commandant of the Marine Corps. Also opposing Mr. Bradbury's nomination are 14 former national security law enforcement, intelligence, and interrogation professionals whose experience include service in the U.S. military, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Army Criminal Investigation Command, and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. They wrote: We write today to express our opposition to the nomination of Mr. Steven Bradbury to serve once again in a position of significant responsibility within the U.S. government as general counsel of the Department of Transportation. Our opposition stems from the necessary judgment and personal courage this office requires to provide candid and objective legal advice to policymakers that may be seeking politically expedient policy solutions. We dedicated our professional lives to keeping our nation safe. That work demanded using every resource at our disposal, including and especially our moral authority. Our enemies act without conscience. We must not. Mr. Bradbury spent many years serving in the Department of Justice--including as acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel--during the George W. Bush Administration. In this position, he prepared official memoranda that provided legal cover for other agencies in the U.S. Government to employ a program of interrogation tactics that amounted to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. These brutal methods--which included waterboarding-- fundamentally violated domestic and international law governing detainee treatment and caused untold strategic and operational harm to our national security. As former interrogators, intelligence, and law enforcement professionals with extensive firsthand experience in the field of interrogation, we were shocked by Mr. Bradbury's attempt to defend the use of the waterboard and other torture tactics based on the incorrect assertions that their use would not cause severe physical pain or suffering and would produce valuable intelligence. In our professional judgment, torture and other forms of detainee abuse are not only immoral and unlawful, they are ineffective and counterproductive in gathering reliable intelligence. They also tarnish America's global standing, undermine critical alliances, and bolster our enemies' propaganda efforts. If the Senate confirms Mr. Bradbury, it would send a clear message to the American public that authorizing the use of torture is not only acceptable, but is not a barrier to advancement into the upper ranks of our government. We understand that Mr. Bradbury did not act alone in authorizing torture, but as his nomination is before you, we ask you to take this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to the ideals we strive to uphold by rejecting his nomination. Torture is not a partisan issue. Our respect for human dignity is timeless, and we must never risk our national honor to prevail in any war. Your vote to reject this nomination would reflect the morally sound leadership that this country needs and would not forget. In another letter dated July 27, 2017, to the Commerce Committee, retired U.S. Air Force Col. Steven Kleinman wrote: I write to express my deep concerns about confirming Mr. Bradbury to serve once again in a position of significant trust and responsibility within the U.S. Government. I do not for a moment question his legal credentials; rather, my apprehension centers around the equally important elements of judgment and personal courage necessary to provide legal advice that might run counter to the positions advocated by his superiors. History records that we have been down this road once before with Mr. Bradbury and he was found sadly wanting. As I trust you are aware, Mr. Bradbury served in senior positions within the Department of Justice--including as acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel--during the George W. Bush Administration. In that capacity, he prepared official memoranda that provided legal cover for other agencies of the U.S. Government to implement a program of severely coercive interrogation practices. These practices included an array of tactics--to include waterboarding--that fundamentally violated domestic and international law prohibiting cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. As an officer with extensive experience in both strategic interrogation and in training members of the U.S. Armed Forces to resist hostile interrogation, I was taken aback by Mr. Bradbury's attempt to defend the use of the waterboard based on wholly unfounded conjecture that it would not cause severe physical pain or suffering. If the committee were to favorably report this nomination to the full Senate, it would be sending a clear and undeniable message to the world, and, more importantly, to the American public: Definitive action to support the institutional use of torture is acceptable. Clearly, Mr. Bradbury acted in concert with an untold number of others within our government, and I am not asking that he be singled out for his actions. At the same time, his nomination is the one before you . . . and with it an opportunity for the committee members to act on behalf of all Americans in taking a vital step toward reclaiming the moral high ground. From the perspective of this American, the debate over torture is not one that can be subject to partisan debate. Instead, torture is something that is so inherently wrong and so contrary to this nation's traditional values that it can be one issue around which the entire country--and the U.S. Senate--can rally. Your vote to unfavorably report this nomination to your colleagues would be a much-needed demonstration of ethical leadership that would not soon be forgotten. It is signed ``Very Respectfully, Steven M. Kleinman, Colonel, U.S. Air Force, Retired.'' Former Navy general counsel Alberto Mora wrote: While acting as the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Steven Bradbury proved himself to be an advocate for the brutal treatment of detainees, and then, when the Congress enacted the McCain amendment to strengthen the legal prohibitions against cruelty, he counseled the administration on legal strategies on how to circumvent the law and the Congress's will. In exercising its advice and consent duty with respect to the nominations of senior counsel to serve in this, or any, administration, the Senate should take care to confirm only those individuals with a clear record of respect for the law and for the power of Congress as a coordinate and equal branch of government. Steven Bradbury's record, unfortunately, demonstrates a disrespect for both. In a June 22, 2017, letter to the Commerce Committee, 14 human rights organizations highlighted their opposition to Mr. Bradbury's nomination: We write to express our serious concerns regarding the nomination of Steven G. Bradbury for general counsel of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Mr. Bradbury's role in justifying torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of individuals held in U.S. custody marked him as an architect of the torture program. Not only should the Senate be concerned about confirming a nominee who had a central role in the criminal violation of human rights, but his work during that period calls into question his ability to provide the kind of rigorous, independent legal analysis that is required of any top government lawyer. Mr. Bradbury was acting head of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) from 2005 to 2009. During that time, Mr. Bradbury wrote several legal memoranda that authorized waterboarding and other forms of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. As such, he is most prominently--and correctly--known as one of the authors of the ``torture memos.'' His analysis directly contradicted relevant domestic and international law regarding the treatment of prisoners and helped establish an official policy of torture and detainee abuse that has caused incalculable damage to both the United States and the prisoners it has held. Mr. Bradbury's role in the torture program, even then, was notorious--so much so that the Senate refused to confirm him as assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush Administration. The Senate now knows even more about Mr. Bradbury's record, and the harm caused by his opinions, based on oversight by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and its report on the Central Intelligence Agency's use of torture and abuse. In Mr. Bradbury's time as acting head of the OLC, he demonstrated an unwavering willingness to defer to the authority and wishes of the president and his team instead of providing objective and independent counsel. During congressional testimony in 2007, Mr. Bradbury responded to questions about the president's interpretation of the law of war by declaring, ``The President is always right''--a statement that is as outrageous as it is inaccurate. The DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility reviewed Mr. Bradbury's ``torture memos'' and determined they raised questions about the objectivity and reasonableness of Mr. Bradbury's analyses; that Mr. Bradbury relied on uncritical acceptance of executive branch assertions; and that in some cases Mr. Bradbury's legal conclusions were inconsistent with the plain meaning and commonly held understandings of the law. Senior government officials from the Bush Administration who worked with Mr. Bradbury have said that they had ``grave reservations'' about conclusions drawn in the Bradbury torture memos and have described Mr. Bradbury's analysis as flawed, saying the memos could be ``considered a work of an advocacy to achieve a desired outcome.'' Moreover, Mr. Bradbury's 2007 torture memo was written with the purpose of evading congressional intent and duly enacted Federal law. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, legislation that passed the Senate with a vote 90-9, stated, ``No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.'' However, Mr. Bradbury's memo explicitly allowed the continuation of many of the abusive interrogation techniques that Congress intended to prohibit in the DTA. Perhaps most concerning from a congressional oversight perspective, Mr. Bradbury affirmatively misrepresented the views of members of Congress to support his legal conclusions. Specifically, in his 2007 memo, he relied on a false claim that when the CIA briefed ``the full memberships of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and Senator McCain . . . none of the Members expressed the view that the CIA detention and interrogation program should be stopped, or that the techniques at issue were inappropriate.'' In fact, Senator McCain had characterized the CIA's practice of sleep deprivation as torture both publicly and privately, and at least four other Senators raised objections to the program. As a senior government lawyer, Mr. Bradbury authorized torture and cruel treatment of detainees in violation of U.S. and international law. Mr. Bradbury demonstrated either an inability or an unwillingness to display objectivity and reasonableness in evaluating the president's policy proposals. We ask that in reviewing Mr. Bradbury's nomination for general counsel of the Department of Transportation, another profoundly important position of public trust, you take these serious and disturbing factors into consideration. That letter was signed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Appeal for Justice, Center for Constitutional Rights, Center for Victims of Torture, the Constitution Project, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Defending Rights and Dissent, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, Open Society Policy Center, Physicians for Human Rights, and Win Without War. Earlier this year, a group of 176 of the most respected retired generals and admirals wrote to then President-Elect Trump urging him to reject the very kinds of torture and cruel treatment Mr. Bradbury authorized. They wrote: We have over six thousand years of combined experience in commanding and leading American men and women in war and in peace, and believe strongly in the values and ideals that our country holds dear. We know from experience that U.S. national security policies are most effective when they uphold these ideals. For these reasons, we are concerned about statements made during the campaign about the use of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. The use of waterboarding or any so-called ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' is unlawful under domestic and international law. Opposition to torture has been strong and bipartisan since the founding of our republic, through the administration of President Ronald Reagan to this very day. This was reinforced last year when the Congress passed the McCain-Feinstein anti- torture law on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. Torture is unnecessary. Based on our experience--and that of our Nation's top interrogators, backed by the latest science--we know that lawful, rapport-based interrogation techniques are the most effective way to elicit actionable intelligence. Torture is also counterproductive because it undermines our national security. It increases the risk to our troops, hinders cooperations with allies, alienates populations whose support the United States needs in the struggle against terrorism, and provides a propaganda tool for extremists who wish to do us harm. Most importantly, torture violates our core values as a nation. Our greatest strength is our commitment to the rule of law and to the principles embedded in our Constitution. Our servicemen and women need to know that our leaders do not condone torture or detainee abuse of any kind. I know some people might not understand why these enhanced interrogation techniques are a problem so let me just take a few moments to explain what they are. Waterboarding. Waterboarding is a well-known torture tactic. Waterboarding creates the sensation of asphyxiation or drowning. The detainee is immobilized on his back and water is poured over a cloth covering his face. Far from the ``dunk in the water'' Dick Cheney has referred to, internal CIA reports describe instances of waterboarding as ``near drownings.'' Detainees were often waterboarded repeatedly. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was waterboarded at least 183 times. Another detainee, Abu Zubaydah, was waterboarded so often that it led him at least once to become completely unresponsive, with bubbles rising through his mouth. This torture tactic may also lead to bleeding from the ears, severe lung and brain damage, and lasting psychological damage. If we waterboard our prisoners, they will waterboard our men and women when they become prisoners. Walling. Walling is a torture technique that involves encircling the detainee's neck with a collar or a towel and slamming him against the wall. Despite a requirement to use a false wall to avoid injury, Abu Zubaydah was slammed against a concrete wall. Even in the event of using a false wall, detainees suffered extreme injury. Abu Ja'far al-Iraqi suffered from an edema, or swelling on his head, as a consequence of walling with the use of a false wall. If we use this technique on our prisoners, they will use this technique on our men and women in uniform if they were to capture them. Sleep deprivation. The detainees were kept awake by being shackled, forced to stand, or kept in stressed positions in an attempt to destroy their capacity for psychological resistance. This was routinely combined with nudity and/or round-the-clock interrogation. Although not overtly violent, extended periods of sleep deprivation can have painful and damaging mental and physical effects. After being forced to stand for 54 hours, Abu Ja'far al-Iraqi required blood thinners to treat the swelling in his legs. Following 56 hours without sleep, Arsala Khan suffered from violent hallucinations of dogs mauling and killing his family. If we--the United States of America--use this technique on our prisoners, our enemies will use this technique on our men and women in uniform should they be captured. Standing on broken feet. As an extreme form of sleep deprivation, two detainees--Abu Hazim and Abd al-Karim--were forced to stand for hours with broken feet. Despite recommendations that he avoid weight bearing for 3 months, Abu Hazim underwent 52 hours of standing sleep deprivation on his broken foot barely a month after his diagnosis. While injured, these detainees were also subject to walling. Again, when we do this to our prisoners, our enemies would do this to our troops. Solitary confinement. Detainees were regularly confined with no opportunity for social interaction. This is often combined with nudity, sensory deprivation, total darkness, or constant light, and shackling. Abu Zubaydah was isolated naked in a cell with bright lights and white noise or loud noise playing. At one point, he was kept for 47 days in total isolation. The dangers of solitary confinement were recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as early as 1890 in In re Medley, where the Court described prisoners becoming violently insane, committing suicide, and the partial loss of their mental activity. If we do this to our prisoners, they would do it to our troops. Stress positions. These positions are designed to cause pain and discomfort for extended periods of time and were often used in combination with sleep deprivation. Detainees were shackled with their arms over their heads, forced to stay standing, or were placed in cramped confinement, such as coffin-sized boxes. Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri was subjected to improvised stress positions that not only caused cuts and bruises but led to the intervention of a medical officer who was concerned that his shoulders would be dislocated. Abu Zubaydah was confined to a coffin-shaped box for a total of over 11 days. If we do this to our prisoners--and Mr. Bradbury justified this--they would do it to our troops. Rectal feeding and rectal exams. Rectal feeding was used for prisoners who refused food and entails insertion of a tube containing pureed food into the detainee's anal passage. This was used for behavioral control, without medical necessity, despite risks of damage to the colon and rectum or of food rotting inside the digestive tract. One detainee, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, suffered a rectal prolapse likely caused by overly harsh rectal exams. If we do this to our prisoners--and Mr. Bradbury's memo made it so we could--they would do this to our troops should our troops be captured by the enemy. Nudity. This form of sexual humiliation relies on cultural and religious taboos and required detainees to be fully or partially naked during interrogations or when shackled. Nudity was also regularly combined with cold temperatures and cold showers. One detainee, Gul Rahman, died of suspected hypothermia following 48 hours of sleep deprivation, half naked, in an extremely cold room. Again, if we do this to our prisoners--and Mr. Bradbury wrote the legal justification allowing this to happen--they will do this to our troops. We do not want this man in the U.S. Government making more decisions about what is right and what is wrong and how to protect the American public. If he was willing to do this and allow this to happen, what can we trust him to have good judgment on? In a September 6, 2006, article by Sean Alfano at CBS/AP entitled ``U.S. Army Bans Torture Of Prisoners,'' he wrote: A new U.S. Army manual bans torture and degrading treatment of prisoners, for the first time specifically mentioning forced nakedness, hooding and other procedures that have become infamous since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Delayed more than a year amid criticism of the Defense Department's treatment of prisoners, the new Army Field Manual was released Wednesday, revising [a previous] one from 1992. It also explicitly bans beating prisoners, sexually humiliating them, threatening them with dogs, depriving them of food or water, performing mock executions, shocking them with electricity, burning them, causing other pain and a technique called ``water boarding'' that simulates drowning, said Lt. Gen. John Kimmons, Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence. Officials said the revisions are based on lessons learned since the U.S. began taking prisoners in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Release of the manual came amid a flurry of announcements about the U.S. handling of prisoners, which has drawn criticism from Bush administration critics as well as domestic and international allies. The Pentagon also announced an overall policy statement on prisoner operations. And President George W. Bush acknowledged the existence of previously secret CIA prisons around the world where terror suspects have been held and interrogated, saying 14 such al Qaeda leaders had been transferred to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay and will be brought to trial. An international outcry about prisoner rights began shortly afterward. Human rights groups and some nations have urged the Bush administration to close the prisons at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since not long after it opened in 2002 with prisoners from the campaign against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Scrutiny of U.S. treatment of prisoners shot to a new level in 2004 with a release of photos showing U.S. troops beating, intimidating and sexually abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq--and then again with news of secret facilities. Though defense officials earlier this year debated writing a classified section of the manual to keep some interrogation procedures a secret from potential enemies, Kimmons said Wednesday that there is no secret section to the new manual. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said from the start of the counter-terror war that prisoners were treated humanely and in a manner ``consistent with Geneva Conventions.'' But President George W. Bush decided shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks that since it was not a conventional war, ``unlawful enemy combatants'' captured in the fight against al Qaeda would not be considered prisoners of war and thus would not be afforded the protections of the convention. The new manual, called ``Human Intelligence Collector Operations,'' applies to all the armed services, not just the Army. It does not cover the Central Intelligence Agency, which also has come under investigation for mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan and for allegedly keeping suspects in secret prisons elsewhere around the world since the Sept. 11 attacks. Sixteen of the manual's 19 interrogation techniques were covered in the old manual and three new ones were added on the basis of lessons learned from the counter-terror war, Kimmons said. The additions are that interrogators may use the good-cop/ bad-cop tact with prisoners, they may portray themselves as someone other than an American interrogator, and they may use ``separation,'' basically keeping prisoners apart from each other so enemy combatants can't coordinate their answers with each other. The last will be used only on unlawful combatants, not POWs, only as an exception and only with permission of a high-level commander, Kimmons said. The Pentagon also on Wednesday released a new policy directive on detention operations that says the handling of prisoners must--at a minimum--abide by the standards of the Geneva Conventions and lays out the responsibilities of senior civilian and military officials who oversee detention operations. ``The revisions . . . took time,'' Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs Cully Stimson said at the briefing. ``It took time because it was important to get it right, and we did get it right.'' It is interesting that the Department of Defense took the time and the effort to rewrite their manuals as a result of the abuses that came about following Mr. Bradbury's legal justification for the use of torture. Here is what the Army Field Manual 2-22.3 says. This is the Human Intelligence Collector Operations manual, dated September 6, 2006. This is what the Army now teaches our soldiers: All captured or detained personnel, regardless of status, shall be treated humanely and in accordance with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and DOD Directive 2310.1E, ``Department of Defense Detainee Program,'' and no person in the custody or under the control of DOD, regardless of the nationality or physical location, shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, in accordance with and as defined in US law. All intelligence interrogations, debriefings, and tactical questionings to gain intelligence from captured or detained personnel shall be conducted in accordance with applicable law and policy. Applicable law and policy include US law; the law of war; relevant international law, relevant directives, including DOD Directive 3115.09, ``DOD Intelligence Interrogations, Detainee Debriefings, and Tactical Questioning''; DOD Directive 2310-1E, ``The Department of Defense Detainee Program''; DOD instructions; and military execute orders including FRAGOs. Use of torture is not only illegal but also it is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the HUMINT collector wants to hear. Use of torture can also have many possible negative consequences at national and international levels. All prisoners and detainees, regardless of status, will be treated humanely. Cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment is prohibited. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 defines ``cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment'' as the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment provided by the Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This definition refers to an extensive body of law developed by the courts of the United States to determine when, under various circumstances, treatment of individuals would be inconsistent with American constitutional standards related to concepts of dignity, civilization, humanity, decency, and fundamental fairness. All DOD procedures for treatment of prisoners and detainees have been reviewed and are consistent with these standards as well as our obligation under international law as interpreted by the United States. Questions about applications not resolved in the field by reference to the DOD publications must be forwarded to higher headquarters for legal review and specific approval by the appropriate authority. Isn't it amazing that it took the Army to contradict and to come up with the procedures to counter the very actions Mr. Bradbury was willing to condone? And we want this man back in government? He doesn't belong back in government. This is a man who has, as his first priority, not America's values, not the morality of this Nation, not humanity--his first value is: What is it that my boss wants me to say, and I will find a way to do it. He said just as much in testimony. That is not who we want as a top lawyer over in the Department of Transportation. It is simply not acceptable. In that same Army Field Manual, there is a section that talks about how interrogation should be conducted and the prohibited actions included, which are not limited to forcing the detainee to be naked, to perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner, placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee, using duct tape over the eyes, applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain, waterboarding, using military working dogs, inducing hypothermia or heat injury, conducting mock executions, depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care. The field manual goes on to say: While using legitimate interrogation techniques, certain applications of approaches and techniques may approach the line between permissible actions and prohibited actions. It may often be difficult to determine where permissible actions end and prohibited actions begin. In attempting to determine if a contemplated approach or technique should be considered prohibited, and therefore should not be included in an interrogation plan, consider these two tests before submitting the plan for approval: If the proposed approach technique were used by the enemy against one of your fellow soldiers, would you believe the soldier had been abused? Could your conduct in carrying out the proposed technique violate a law or regulation? Keep in mind that even if you personally would not consider your actions to constitute abuse, the law may be more restrictive. I wish those questions had been made available to Mr. Bradbury when he was writing his memo, because the actions he condoned in his memo certainly would have failed this very simple two-question test. The manual says: If you answer yes to either of these tests, the contemplated action should not be conducted. If the HUMINT collector has any doubt that an interrogation approach contained in an approved interrogation plan is consistent with applicable law, or if he believes that he is being told to use an illegal technique, the HUMINT collector should seek immediate guidance from the chain of command and consult with the SJA to obtain a legal review of the proposed approach or technique. . . . If the HUMINT collector believes that an interrogation approach or technique is unlawful during the interrogation of a detainee, the HUMINT collector must stop interrogation immediately and contact the chain of command for additional guidance. This is not something that Steven Bradbury did or has even now stated that he wished he had done, because his memo, which allowed all the torture techniques I have already detailed, would truly have failed these two tests, and he would have failed in moving forward with his memo to do the basic thing, which is to stop an illegal activity from occurring. At this point, the Army Field Manual provides some caution: Although no single comprehensive source defines impermissible coercion, certain acts are clearly prohibited. Certain prohibited physical coercion may be obvious, such as physically abusing the subject of the screening interrogation. Other forms of impermissible coercion may be more subtle, and may include: Threats to turn the individual over to others to be abused; subjecting the individual to impermissible humiliating or degrading treatment; implying harm to the individual or his property. Other prohibited actions include implying a deprivation of applicable protections guaranteed by law because of a failure to cooperate; threatening to separate parents from their children; or forcing a protected person to guide US forces in a dangerous area. Where there is doubt, you should consult your supervisor or servicing judge advocate. This is the problem. Mr. Bradbury, in writing this memo, showed absolutely no attempt or even desire to figure out whether what he was trying to justify was truly legal, in keeping with American values, or was the right thing to do for the United States. He simply moved forward with drafting this memo because the President of the United States wanted it to happen. That is not the democracy we live in. We don't live in a dictatorship. We are the greatest democracy on the face of the Earth because we are individuals who have the right to exercise a moral authority and to speak up. Mr. Bradbury showed none of that. Even in testimony, he has expressed no regrets in the legal wranglings that he went through in order to justify torture. He showed no introspection, no thought as to whether it was the right thing to do. As far as he was concerned, his superiors wanted him to do this, so he did it. What is he going to do at the Department of Transportation? What is he going to do when someone there tells him: The airbag manufacturers have decided it is just too expensive, so we need you to come up with justification for us to stop using airbags? What he is going to do when people come to him and say: We really want to increase alcohol sales, so I think we should get rid of drunk driving laws? What he is going to do? He has shown that he is willing to do whatever his superiors have asked him to do and that he is just the right guy for the job if they want a lawyer who is going to execute legal gymnastics to find a way to make something happen. Do we really want that person at the very top of the legal department of the Department of Transportation--not to mention the fact that once he is Senate-confirmed and in the Department of Transportation, it is that much easier to move him to another Senate-confirmed position, and there is no guarantee that he will not make his way back over to the Department of Justice to create more harm. I ask my colleagues, if you care about this country, if you care about our troops who are in harm's way right now, please understand what it means to our troops who are downrange right now in all corners of the globe--facing the enemy, facing potentially being captured in the execution of their duties, protecting and defending our great United States--to know that the enemy believes that America tortures and to know that they are at that much greater risk, if they were to be captured, to be tortured themselves. I can't oppose Mr. Bradbury's nomination strongly enough. His most prominent, consequential work was to justify unlawful torture and detainee abuse. His comments in testimony during his confirmation hearings did not alleviate any of my concerns. I know many of my colleagues are considering voting yes on this man because they think: Well, he is going to be over in the Department of Transportation. That was years ago; he will not have to write legal justification for the use of torture again, and we have passed laws about it since then. But he has shown that despite existing laws, he was able to find a way to get around them to justify torture. How do we know he will not do the same thing again at the Department of Transportation when it comes to public safety? What about our kids who ride school buses to school? They deserve protections. The American public deserves protections. What they don't deserve is a man who has no moral compass when it comes to what is right and what is wrong but only a compass that asks: What do my bosses want me to do? That is not what the American people need. That is certainly not something we should be voting for. If, in conversations with Mr. Bradbury, he promised you that he would be independent, I just ask you to look at his record. He has never been independent. In fact, when asked if he would recuse himself from various cases, he, in committee, avoided answering those questions, did not answer them straightforwardly, and showed he is simply not willing to commit to doing what is right. I don't know how anyone can vote for him. I don't know what he has said in private conversations--what he says he thinks he would do at the Department of Transportation. All I can ask is for my colleagues to please look at the evidence, and the evidence is overwhelming. This is a man who cannot be trusted with the values of this country. He cannot be trusted to do what is right on behalf of the American people. He is not someone who will speak truth to power. If anything, this is a time in this country that we need more people who will speak truth to power, not someone who will kowtow to power, and that is exactly the kind of person Mr. Bradbury is. He is an unprincipled lawyer who will be paired with an unprincipled executive, and that is a dangerous combination regardless of what agency he serves. Again, I ask my colleagues to please vote no on Mr. Bradbury. I cannot oppose his nomination strongly enough. If you have any questions, please come talk to those of us who have worn the uniform of this great Nation, who know what it is like to be in jeopardy of being captured by the enemy, who know what it is like to hope and pray that the nations around the world--which view America's conduct as the bellwether for how we treat others--know that they themselves will be treated in the same manner that we treat our prisoners. Those troops in harm's way right now know that because of Mr. Bradbury, they are less safe and they are less able to do their jobs. When our troops go into harm's way, they should focus only on getting the job done, not on what might happen should they get captured. Thanks to Mr. Bradbury, that is a real threat for them now. Again, I ask my colleagues to please say no. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. DUCKWORTH

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Maryland for his thoughtful words on North Korea. I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to oppose the nomination of William Wehrum to lead the Office of Air and Radiation at the EPA. If confirmed, Mr. Wehrum would be responsible for implementing critical programs like the Renewable Fuel Standard Program and other key public health standards under the Clean Air Act. Mr. Wehrum is part of a larger trend within President Trump's administration. Many of the nominees who are being sworn in are unqualified, incompetent, and have actually built their careers on dismantling the agencies they are now leading. To be clear, Mr. Wehrum's nomination represents yet another broken promise by President Trump--this time, to our Nation's farmers. As a candidate, Mr. Trump pledged to champion the RFS, a policy with broad bipartisan support that reduces our greenhouse gas emissions, helps us revive rural economies, and makes our Nation less dependent on foreign oil. Yet the President continues to surround himself with advisers intent on sabotaging the RFS, like Scott Pruitt, Carl Icahn, and, now, Mr. Wehrum. Mr. Wehrum has proven, time and again, that he is not a friend of the Renewable Fuel Standard Program. He sued the biofuels industries--not once, not twice, not three times, but at least four times--representing groups like the American Petroleum Institute which are strong opponents of the RFS. During his nomination hearings, Mr. Wehrum refused to commit to supporting the RFS, claiming he was ``unfamiliar'' with the program. He wouldn't even acknowledge the unprecedented attacks launched on the biofuel industries by this administration. If you support the RFS, as Illinois farmers and I do, it should be obvious that the right thing to do is to oppose Mr. Wehrum. This is not about having blanket opposition to President Trump's nominees; this is about our national security, our rural communities, and our environment. I have already fought a war over oil, and I would rather run my car on American-grown corn and soybeans than oil from the Middle East. Our farmers deserve better than a President who makes campaign promises to protect the RFS in Iowa but will not honor them when he gets to the White House. I understand that Administrator Pruitt has written a letter to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle regarding a pending petition requesting to move the ``point of obligation'' and a rulemaking on renewable volumetric obligations. Both of these decisions, as Administrator Pruitt's letter states, will be final in the coming days. That is why I am calling on my colleagues to simply hold Mr. Wehrum's nomination until after EPA finalizes these decisions. There is no rush to confirm Mr. Wehrum this week. Better yet, let's oppose his nomination altogether. I am also concerned that he will gut key public health protections that we all rely on to protect our families and the air we breathe. One of the most serious responsibilities I have, as both a U.S. Senator and a mother, is to protect children and families from harmful pollutants and to make sure the air they breathe is safe from toxic chemicals. After reviewing Bill Wehrum's previous work in the Office of Air and Radiation, it is clear that he made dismantling the Clean Air Act--and all of the air pollution safeguards and public health protections guaranteed by it--one of his top priorities. In that office, he actively fought to roll back commonsense safeguards against lead, fine particulate pollution, and ozone smog. But he didn't stop there. He even led efforts to weaken standards designed to reduce emissions of mercury--one of the most deadly, toxic pollutants in the world--from coal-fired powerplants. Bill Wehrum wasn't looking out for us; he was looking out for the fossil fuel industry. When Mr. Wehrum was originally nominated for this position under the Bush administration, the Senate had the good sense to reject his nomination. He was never confirmed, and I hope we do not confirm him now. Again, I urge all my colleagues to oppose Mr. Wehrum's nomination and, instead, support our farmers, our children, and our families. Thank you.