Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, President Trump has nominated Bernard McNamee to be a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC. FERC is an independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil. FERC also reviews proposals to build liquefied natural gas, LNG, terminals and interstate natural gas pipelines, as well as licensing hydropower projects. Historically, FERC has been independent and nonpartisan. I am concerned that, if confirmed, Mr. McNamee would threaten the nonpartisan independence of FERC. Mr. McNamee has a long-standing history of being an opponent of clean energy and led Texas's efforts to challenge the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. In remarks before the Texas Public Policy Foundation, TPPF, and sponsored by Koch Industries in February 2018, Mr. McNamee said fossil fuels are ``key to our way of life,'' but renewable energy ``screws up the whole physics of the grid.'' He also portrayed industry lawsuits with environmental groups as a ``constant battle between liberty and tyranny.'' While at the Department of Energy, Mr. McNamee was a key player in the agency's failed attempt to bail out the coal industry and upend wholesale energy markets. Furthermore, I am very concerned that Mr. McNamee will take us backwards in the fight to combat climate change. Just recently, the Trump administration tried to bury the release of the Fourth National Climate Assessment report and its alarming statistics on the realities of climate change. The report found that annual average temperatures in the United States are projected to continue to increase in the coming decades and that human health and safety, our quality of life, and the rate of economic growth in communities across the U.S. are increasingly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. In my home State of Maryland, the report found that one of Maryland's crown jewels, the Chesapeake Bay, will experience stronger and more frequent storms, an increase in heavy precipitation events, increasing bay water temperatures, and a rise in sea level. FERC's independence is critical to its mission, and Mr. McNamee, if confirmed, would be a significant departure from that. His history as being a supporter of the fossil fuel industry, an opponent of clean energy, and an opponent of progress to combat climate change are alarming. I oppose his nomination to be a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, there has been a lot of activity in the Senate today, and I wish to cover a couple of topics, starting with the nomination of Thomas Farr to be a U.S. District Court judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina. I understand we will not be voting on that nomination today. I hope our colleagues will take the time between now and whenever we may cast a final vote on that nomination to take another look at the record because a number of very informative things have come out in recent days about Mr. Farr's record. I want to take us back to a moment where this Senate Chamber was back in 2006. Back in 2006, the U.S. Senate passed the Voting Rights Reauthorization Act by a vote of 98 to 0. Ninety-eight Senators in favor of the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization--none opposed. The House passed the same bill by a vote of 390 to 33. President Bush signed that bill into law. Fast forward to 2013, we have a case in the Supreme Court, Shelby County v. Holder. The Supreme Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, took a big bite out of the enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act. They eliminated the preclearance provisions. What we saw within a matter of weeks and months were States around the country that had previously been subject to the preclearance provisions beginning to enact laws putting up barriers to people's ability to vote, especially minority voters. Texas enacted legislation and North Carolina enacted legislation, among others. I want to focus for a moment on what happened in North Carolina because in North Carolina the State legislature passed a bill that put up all sorts of obstacles that made it much harder--for African Americans especially--to cast their vote, to exercise their right to vote. When that bill was appealed to the Fourth Circuit, the Fourth Circuit found that North Carolina State legislation had targeted African-American voters with almost ``surgical precision,'' and they threw out that North Carolina law. Well, just a few days ago, this Senate confirmed a nominee to be legal counsel at the Department of Agriculture, Stephen Vaden, who was one of the people who filed and coauthored an amicus brief in support of the North Carolina law that was overturned. The Senate acted, and we did that. It turns out that just a few days later, we have a nomination not for the general counsel for the Department of Agriculture but for somebody to be on the U.S. courts who was the architect and the defender of these North Carolina laws, Thomas Farr. That same law which the Court said targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision, trying to deny them their right to vote, was also found by the Court to be ``the most restrictive voting law North Carolina has seen since the era of Jim Crowe.'' Thomas Farr wasn't just a key player in that case in defending North Carolina's discriminatory law, he was also a key player in passing other North Carolina laws that have been thrown out because of their discriminatory impact. He was in the middle of North Carolina's effort to redraw State legislative lines for both State House districts and State Senate districts that the U.S. Supreme Court threw out on the grounds that it was racially discriminatory, but his history in trying to put up barriers to minority voting rights goes back even further. I have in my hand a memorandum, dated June 19, 1991, from within the Justice Department. It was during the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush. It is a memo recommending that the United States bring a lawsuit against the North Carolina Republican Party and the Helms for Senate Committee--that would be Jesse Helms, former Senator--for conducting a postcard mailing program designed to intimidate and threaten Black voters throughout the State of North Carolina in order to discourage them from participating in the November 6, 1990, general election. I urge all of my colleagues to read this memorandum from the Justice Department during the time George Bush was President. I especially direct them to page 12. There is a footnote on page 12 that talks about Thomas Farr's work in this area of trying to put up barriers to voting, going way back to not just the 1990 election but back to the 1984 election of Senator Jesse Helms. In fact, this Department of Justice memorandum states that Farr was the primary coordinator of the 1984 ``ballot security'' program conducted by the North Carolina GOP and the 1984 Helms for Senate Committee. He--referring to Thomas Farr--coordinated several ``ballot security'' activities in 1984, including a postcard mailing to voters in predominantly Black precincts which was designed to serve as a basis to challenge voters on Election Day. I don't know what has happened to the Senate between 2006, when it unanimously voted to extend the Voting Rights Act, and today, when we have on the floor the nomination of Thomas Farr, who has a history of being the point person in trying to limit the ability of Americans to exercise their right to vote and, according to the Fourth Circuit of the United States, did so with ``surgical precision'' in denying African-American voters. How can we in good conscience put someone on the Federal Court of the United States who has that history? How can people who come before that court have the confidence that the person--that judge--is really going to uphold their rights? I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims commemorates the millions of people killed and injured on the world's roads. It is also a day to thank emergency services for their role in saving lives; to reflect on the impact of road deaths on families and communities; and to draw attention to the need for improved legislation, awareness, infrastructure, and technology to save more families from the tragedy of losing a loved one. Since the United Nations recognized the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims, its observance has spread to a growing number of countries on every continent. The day has become an important advocacy tool in global efforts to reduce road casualties, and the theme of this year's World Day of Remembrance is ``Roads have Stories.'' Additionally, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3.6 calls on governments and their stakeholders, including NGOs and private citizens, to address the personal, medical, and financial burdens associated with road deaths and injuries. More than 1 million people die from road crashes every year and tens of millions are seriously injured. Road traffic crashes are the number one killer of young people aged 15-29 and the eighth leading cause of death among all people worldwide. Rochelle Sobel, president of the Association for Safe International Road Travel, said, ``The World Day of Remembrance is an important opportunity to stand together with the global community to commemorate road victims and call for an end to the crisis on our roads. No one should have to go through the needless, preventable loss of a child, a brother, a mother, a friend, killed in a road traffic crash. This year's theme reminds us that roads and streets are more than connections from point A to point B. They tell stories, some of them tragic, which are worth remembering. We owe it to our loved ones to do what we can to educate our children, drive responsibly and advocate with our governments to implement and enforce policies that will protect road users and prevent more families from suffering the pain of losing a loved one on the road.'' We all need to do our part to take action to prevent these avoidable tragedies and to save lives.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, President Trump nominated Stephen Vaden to be General Counsel for the Department of Agriculture. In that role, Mr. Vaden will oversee all of the legal services for all operations and programs of the Department and 250 attorneys nationwide. Most of Mr. Vaden's experience is not in agriculture or natural resources issues. Much of his work at the law firm Jones Day focused on election law, and during the 2016 election cycle, he coauthored amicus briefs in States where State legislatures had enacted discriminatory voting laws designed to suppress minority votes following the Supreme Court ruling in Shelby County v. Holder which gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965. State legislatures in North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia took full advantage of the Shelby County ruling that removed previous preclearance requirements. In North Carolina, the legislature passed a law changing various State voting procedures. The legislature utilized racial data on voting practices in drafting the law, and where they saw voting practices that were predominately utilized by African American voters, they changed those voting practices. Mr. Vaden was one of three attorneys who submitted an amicus brief in support of the State of North Carolina, for Senators Tillis, Graham, Cruz, Lee, and the Judicial Education Project. The Jones Day amicus brief argued that ``North Carolina's race-neutral regulations of the time, place, and manner of its elections do not violate Section 2 [Of the Voting Rights Act].'' They further wrote, ``Quite to the contrary, North Carolina allows all citizens to vote. Although members of minority races may disproportionately choose, for socio-economic or other reasons, not to take advantage of this equal opportunity, North Carolina's practices are not the proximate cause of this phenomenon.'' In its published opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals strongly disagreed with that argument and found that the North Carolina State election law ``targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision.'' The court further stated, ``We cannot ignore the evidence that, because of race, the legislature enacted one of the largest restrictions of the franchise in modern North Carolina history,'' and ``Faced with this record, we can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions with discriminatory intent.'' At the November 9, 2017, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry hearing to consider Mr. Vaden's nomination, I questioned him about his role in the amicus brief in the North Carolina voting rights case. I am a firm believer in the right to vote and deeply troubled by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals findings that the North Carolina case involved voter discrimination. I did not find Mr. Vaden's answers to my questions to be sufficient. When I asked him if the Judicial Education Project paid Jones Day in full for their work on the North Carolina case, he simply said, ``As an associate I did not have access, nor did I participate in the billing function of the firm.'' I find this answer insufficient. Also, I noted in my questions to Mr. Vaden that, in my experience as having been an associate at a law firm, if an associate indicated to a partner that they did not want to participate in a case, the firm would certainly defer to their wishes. When I asked Mr. Vaden if he expressed any concern with participating in the voting rights cases to his partners at Jones Day, he replied that he did not. I also note Mr. Vaden's lack of experience in the area of agriculture. Prior to joining USDA last January, Mr. Vaden had no particular involvement in any agriculture-specific issues or any agriculture-specific clients during his tenure at Jones Day. His nomination is a significant departure by the Trump administration from the background and experience of previous USDA General Counsel nominees, Republican or Democrat. For example, during the Obama administration, Jeff Prieto was a longtime attorney at the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division before becoming USDA General Counsel. His predecessor, Ramona Romero, was an attorney with a major U.S. agribusiness company involved in a wide range of agricultural policy and legal issues. Going back to the administration of George W. Bush, Nancy Bryson was a long-time environment and natural resources attorney both at the Justice Department and in private practice. I am also troubled to learn that the American Federation of Government Employees, AFGE, came out in opposition to Mr. Vaden's nomination, citing that one of Mr. Vaden's first official acts at USDA was to terminate the labor contract between the office and its staff of 250 lawyers and legal professionals nationwide. In their statement, the AFGE stated that, due to his lack of collaboration and partnership with Office of General Counsel workers, they believe he will ``continue creating an agency culture that results in even more unprecedented levels of poor worker morale, with the potential to negatively impact the quality of services provided to virtually all Americans.'' For these reasons, I opposed Stephen Vaden's nomination for General Counsel of the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, as the late Senator John McCain once wrote, ``We are a country with a conscience. We have long believed moral concerns must be an essential part of our foreign policy, not a departure from it.'' He believed, as I do, that human rights and the rule of law are the cornerstones of a just and free society. More than any President before him, however, President Trump has shirked our Nation's values. This is especially true in his engagement abroad; across the globe, President Trump has embraced autocrats and derided our democratic allies. The Kingdom of Bahrain is no exception to this disturbing trend. Just 2 months into his tenure, President Trump lifted all human rights conditions on a multibillion dollar sale of American fighter jets to Bahrain, imposed by President Obama. President Trump has attached no human rights conditions to any successive arms sale to Bahrain, including the arms identified in S.J. Res. 65. The message President Trump has sent is clear: Bahrain has a green light to act with total impunity against its citizens. The Trump administration's decision coincided with an intensified government campaign against civil society and peaceful political opposition. In its 2017 Human Rights Report, the State Department cited Bahrain's unlawful killings by security forces, arbitrary arrest and detention of civilians, restrictions on freedom of expression, arbitrary citizenship revocation, and limits on Shia political participation, among a litany of other abuses by the state. I recognize that, in every relationship, the United States must carefully weigh our national security interests. Bahrain is an important strategic partner and hosts our Navy's Fifth Fleet. The arms identified in S.J. Res. 65 are intended for Bahrain's territorial defense, which I support. However, I reject the notion, supported by this President, that our values and our interests are at odds. Our values, our willingness to consider the human costs of our actions, are what make the United States and what keep the United States exceptional. President Trump should not have abandoned human rights conditions in our arms sales to Bahrain, which is why I voted against the motion to table S.J. Res. 65.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, USU, as the Nation's first ``National Stop the Bleed Campus.'' USU is located in Bethesda, MD and is one of our Nation's greatest treasures. As our country's only Federal health sciences university, USU educates, trains, and prepares uniformed health professionals, scientists, and leaders to support the readiness of our Armed Forces. USU is a global leader in state-of-the-art research in traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, precision medicine, rehabilitation and prosthetics, emerging infectious diseases, tropical medicine, and cancer, and its researchers generate high-impact militarily relevant discoveries and products to protect the health of our Forces and strengthen the national health security of the United States. USU is leading efforts in a nation-wide ``Stop the Bleed'' campaign, launched by the White House on October 6, 2015. This initiative involves several agencies, Federal and private entities, public health groups, and medical societies working collaboratively to educate and empower our citizens on how to stop life-threatening hemorrhage after traumatic injuries, such as car crashes, acts of violence, and natural disasters. Today trauma is the leading cause of death in the U.S. for people between the ages of 1-40. Hemorrhaging, in particular, accounts for almost 40 percent of deaths in the first 24 hours after a traumatic injury. ``Stop the Bleed'' aims to teach our citizens how to save lives from major traumatic events, just as a bystander would know how to use CPR to save someone in cardiac arrest. Through this campaign, the goal is to ensure that the general public knows the ``Stop the Bleed'' phrase and logo and has access to effective personal and public bleeding control kits that will allow even an untrained person to effectively apply a tourniquet just by learning on the spot. ``Stop the Bleed'' directly translates important lessons learned on the battlefield to benefit the American public and is based on a decade of research by the U.S. military. As our country faced a record number of vascular trauma and extremity injuries from high-velocity gunshot wounds and explosive devices during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military began to quickly reassess and revamp its tactical combat casualty care. They began to equip troops with individual first aid kits containing tourniquets and newly-developed hemostatic dressings to control severe blood loss. Simultaneously, they revamped training to educate both our medical and nonmedical forces, emphasizing the importance of immediate recognition and control of blood loss with these newly designed tool kits. These efforts paid off. Military studies demonstrated that immediate control of severe blood loss, in fact, saved many lives on the battlefield. With this knowledge, the military joined forces with members of the Hartford Consensus, a committee formed in the wake of the tragic Sandy Hook school shooting. Together, they worked to push these vital lessons out to the public. That effort led to the White House's launching the ``Stop the Bleed'' campaign. As part of this initiative, USU sent teams of its staff and students out into the community to educate the public on how to ``Stop the Bleed.'' Their researchers have published studies looking at the layperson's ability to apply tourniquets and measuring which tactics are most effective for teaching the public how to apply tourniquets. They are conducting a study looking at the usability of several types of dressing to control severe blood loss in the hope of determining which would be easiest for the lay person to apply. USU researchers have found that the layperson will know what to do to ``Stop the Bleed'' about 50 percent of the time with ``just-in-time'' training, learning on the spot. If they have just 15 minutes of web-based training, combined with ``just-in-time training,'' the success rate for applying tourniquets rises to 75 percent. USU researchers have taken the lead in this initiative and developed a mobile ``Stop the Bleed'' app for the public to use for education on how to stop severe blood loss and for emergency reference in case of a traumatic event that results in life-threatening bleeding. They have developed a website, https://stopthebleed.usuhs.edu, with information and resources aimed at bystander education and saving lives. In addition, the university has installed ``Stop the Bleed'' kits throughout every floor on its campus, both in Bethesda and local satellite offices, and its regional offices in San Antonio, TX, and San Diego, CA. These kits contain tourniquets, instructions on how to apply them, and other lifesaving tools needed in an emergency. Because of their ongoing efforts to educate our Nation's citizens about this lifesaving initiative, I would like to recognize USU as our Nation's first ``National Stop the Bleed Campus,'' to encourage others across the country to follow in their footsteps and, ultimately, continue to improve national preparedness in response to traumatic events. Thank you.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today the Senate will complete work on a new 2-year authorization for the U.S. Coast Guard, the Federal Maritime Commission, and on regulations related to vessel discharges and other matters. This bill is intended to give our Coast Guard the certainty it needs to operate in a constantly changing environment, and I appreciate the significant bipartisan work that has gone into the legislation we vote on today. Maryland is home to the Coast Guard yard in Curtis Bay, our Nation's facility for maintaining and repairing the Coast Guard fleet, and I am proud of the work they do every day to support the security of our Nation and ships at sea. However, I remain concerned with title IV of this bill, the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, VIDA, which would regulate ballast water discharge from ships in the United States. While these provisions have improved since they were first brought to the floor, the title continues to preempt State authority on ballast water discharge from ships. The State of Maryland currently has a more protective standard that is critical to maintaining a healthy Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed is enormous: 64,000 square miles, part of six States and the entire District of Columbia, and almost 18 million people. The Chesapeake Bay is one of Maryland's crown jewels, and it is of upmost importance to me that we continue the progress in cleaning up the bay. The Chesapeake Bay is a delicate ecosystem that is particularly sensitive to invasive species that can be spread through ballast water discharge. These invasive species could compete with our native species in the bay like blue crab, oysters, and striped bass. There are many provisions of this bill that I will support through the conference process, including additional funding for operating expenses and acquisition funding and $30 million for environmental compliance and restoration. The Coast Guard yard in Curtis Bay is currently on EPA's National Priorities List and the Coast Guard's priority list and is eligible for this funding. The bill also includes a provision that allows for incentive payments to go to Curtis Bay's wage-grade employees who demonstrate improvements in performance or delivery during a project. I hope to gain clarity on section 310 of the bill, which claims to provide more flexibility to choose where ship alterations or repairs can occur. I am concerned that this provision may have unintended consequences in certain situations, particularly with respect to the Coast Guard yard. As this bill moves to conference and eventually the President, I hope to work with my colleagues to clear up this provision and will continue to advocate for the rights of States like Maryland to protect their clean water. I will vote no today, but believe that we can continue to improve this bill in the conference process. I look forward to working with my colleagues to do so.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today, on the week we celebrated Veterans Day, I wish to pay particular tribute to our Nation's women veterans. Maryland women served our Nation long before they were permitted to serve in the military, from Mary Digges Lee, who collected money and supplies to support the Revolutionary Army, to Harriet Tubman who spied for the Union in the Civil War. Today Maryland is home to over 50,000 women veterans. Our Maryland National Guard is led by the extraordinary Adjutant General Linda L. Singh and, for the first time this year, an all-woman command staff. As we honor our veterans, we must also keep the promises we made, as a nation, to them. That requires understanding and addressing the unique and complex needs of our women veterans. We know that they suffer higher rates of PTSD and suicide than their civilian counterparts and have medical issues that are too often overlooked or ignored. Later this week, I will be meeting with some truly heroic Maryland women who have served their Nation and continue to serve each other. I look forward to their insight on the programs and services they use and the ways we can expand the networks that might deliver the support our women veterans deserve. This Congress has worked on a bipartisan basis to support our Nation's veterans, and we must continue those efforts. There is still much to do, from ensuring that the VA system delivers the care and programming that Congress has authorized, to assessing the feasibility of peer-to-peer assistance for women veterans, with emphasis placed on women who suffered service-related sexual trauma or who are at risk of becoming homeless. We live in freedom because of those brave Americans who have chosen to take up the mantle of service in uniform; they deserve our full support in making the transition to civilian life, on an equal footing, regardless of gender, after that service is finished. Women veterans should not face unequal treatment; we need to broaden the discussion and strive to make things better for America's daughters who have served. Every veteran must know that they have our respect and gratitude and that we will support them as thanks for their sacrifice.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I wish to honor my constituent, Dr. Nancy L. Spruill, who will be retiring this year after more than 47 years of service to our country. Since 1999, Dr. Spruill has served as Director of Acquisition, Resources and Analysis for the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment. In this capacity, she is responsible for all aspects of A&S's participation in the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting and Execution System, the congressional process, and the Defense Acquisition System. Dr. Spruill serves as the Executive Secretary to the Defense Acquisition Board and is responsible for the timely submission to Congress of reports for Major Defense Acquisition Programs. She performs systematic analysis to improve acquisition policy and education and leads the Department in developing plans to manage property, plant and equipment, inventory, operating material, supplies/ deferred maintenance, and environmental liabilities. She also manages a broad portfolio of information technology applications and infrastructure supporting the mission of the organization. Dr. Spruill has played a key role in improving the way the Department acquires major automated information systems. A strong advocate of improving the acquisition workforce, she works closely with the Defense Acquisition University and the rest of the Department in leading and training the thousands of personnel performing cost analysis and financial management for acquisition programs to improve acquisition outcomes. Dr. Spruill graduated with a bachelor of science degree from the University of Maryland in 1971. She joined the Center for Naval Analyses from 1971-83. In 1975, she earned a master of arts in mathematical statistics from George Washington University, followed by a doctorate in 1980. Dr. Spruill served on the staff of the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 1983, first as senior planning, programming, and budget analyst in the Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics Secretariat, and then as Director of Support and Liaison for the Assistant Secretary for Force Management and Personnel and Senior Operations Research Analyst for the Assistant Secretary for Program Analysis and Evaluation. In 1993, Dr. Spruill served as Chief of the Programs and Analysis Division for the Comptroller of the Defense Mapping Agency. She also served as Acting Deputy Comptroller and was a member of the Reinvention Task Force for the Vice President's National Performance Review. Dr. Spruill has received many prestigious awards, including the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Civilian Service, the Hammer Award, the Acker Skill in Communications Award, and numerous awards of the Secretary of Defense Medal for Meritorious Civilian Service, the Secretary of Defense Medal for Exceptional Civilian Service, and the Presidential Rank Award. A member of the Senior Executive Service since 1995, she has published many papers on her work for the statistical community and the public. Her expertise on these important issues has been invaluable. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Dr. Spruill for her distinguished service to our country and in wishing her a fulfilling and enjoyable retirement.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, this week the Senate completed work on America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, a new water resources development bill that authorizes U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works activities and drinking water and wastewater infrastructure improvements. The legislation will invest in numerous infrastructure projects in Maryland and across the country and includes funding to repair aging drinking water, wastewater, and irrigation systems, protect Americans from dangerous floodwaters, and increase public participation and State funding flexibility in local infrastructure projects. This bill rejects the Trump administration's proposed reclassification of the Poplar Island restoration project, which could imperil the progress of this national model for restoration success located in Talbot County and extends the original 7-year authorization of the Mid-Bay Islands Ecosystem Restoration Project, focused on James and Barren Islands in Dorchester County, by an additional 3 years, to total 10 years. To allow for greater involvement of local governments in project selection, the bill requires the Army Corps of Engineers to increase public participation by, at a minimum, holding annual public meetings at the district level, providing information about the administration's budget requests, and allowing non-Federal interests the opportunity to collaborate and share in concept development and decision making to solve problems. The bill also authorizes $8 million in new EPA grants through a Drinking Water System Infrastructure Resilience and Sustainability Program for water systems that will assist in planning, design, construction, implementation, operation, or maintenance to improve resilience to natural hazards. I am pleased to support this bill, and I look forward to working with the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure more transparency in the process.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, Mr. Clark's nomination is yet another example of the Trump administration nominating individuals to lead government offices whose missions they have opposed. The Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice is uniquely charged with the ``stewardship of the nation's natural resources and public lands.'' Yet, in the face of the overwhelming evidence of climate change, Mr. Clark says the science is debatable. It isn't, and this is not the time to have someone in this position who refuses to acknowledge facts and confront the costs and risks of inaction. In addition, like many Trump nominees, Mr. Clark is skeptical of the longstanding Chevron doctrine which states that courts must give deference to agency regulations because agencies are staffed with subject matter experts and that judges, who are only supposed to interpret the law, are not qualified to substitute their opinions. Large corporate polluters frequently challenge EPA regulations designed to safeguard our waters, endangered species, and natural resources, and we need a person in this position who will side with the scientists and public health experts, not big polluters. Americans deserve an associate attorney who is committed to protecting their interests and not big-monied special interests. I do not believe that Mr. Clark is that person, and I will be voting against his nomination.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Eric Dreiband to serve as Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division. His nomination is an affront to the mission of the Civil Rights Division, the career attorneys, and to everyone in our country dedicated to advancing civil rights. Created in 1957, the mission of the Civil Rights Division is to ``enforce[e] federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, disability, religion, familial status and national origin.'' The Civil Rights Division has been indispensable in helping our country combat housing discrimination, voting rights abuses, and hate crimes. It has also intervened in cases of police misconduct in certain situations. Mr. Dreiband is the wrong person to lead the Civil Rights Division. He has spent his entire career advocating for weaker antidiscrimination laws. He has testified in Congress against the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, and ban- the-box regulations. Looking at this record, Mr. Dreiband will do more to undermine than to protect efforts to prevent discrimination. How can someone devoted to fighting against antidiscriminatory laws now be charged with leading an agency that enforces antidiscrimination laws? It is almost as if the Trump administration is ``trolling'' the agency itself with Mr. Dreiband's nomination. Unfortunately, under Attorney General Sessions, the Department of Justice has already rolled back Obama-era guidance that terminated the Federal Government's use of private prisons, helped protect vulnerable transgender students, and the Cole memo which allowed prosecutorial discretion in sentencing for drug cases. Mr. Dreiband's record suggests he will continue these attacks on civil rights. The Assistant Attorney General of Civil Rights Division should be someone that will vigorously protect minority rights and aggressively expand civil rights for all Americans. Mr. Dreiband has shown that he is not that person. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time has expired. The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Eric S. Dreiband, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Attorney General?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, article II, section 2 of the Constitution gives this body, the Senate, the responsibility to advise and consent on judicial appointments. It is an important check on executive power. We are invested with this special responsibility to ensure that individuals nominated by the President to be Supreme Court Justices will be people who will make decisions fairly and impartially, without favor and without bias. That is why Lady Justice wears a blindfold and holds a balance scale on which to weigh the merits of arguments and claims that come before her. The integrity of the Supreme Court requires that every person who comes before that Court has confidence that each Justice will fairly weigh the evidence and the arguments. Judge Kavanaugh does not meet that standard. I had that concern at the very beginning of this process, and I fear it more than ever today at the end of the process. Any remaining hope that Judge Kavanaugh could be trusted to be an impartial Justice or could be perceived to be an impartial Justice was shattered by his opening statement at his last hearing. In that statement, which he emphasized he wrote in his own words, Judge Kavanaugh launched into an ultra-partisan diatribe and into wild conspiracy theories. He suggested that Dr. Ford's compelling testimony about her sexual assault was somehow manufactured by Democrats as payback for his participation in the Starr investigation, as if Dr. Ford were an actor in a bitter partisan battle rather than a brave citizen who had come forward to tell her story. While Judge Kavanaugh attempted the other day to walk back his words in his Wall Street Journal op-ed, the damage he had done was irreversible. If he is confirmed, hundreds of people who go before the Supreme Court and the millions of Americans whose lives will be affected by his decisions will believe that Judge Kavanaugh has already put his hands on the scales of Justice before they have had their say in court. That is why hundreds of law professors, Jesuits, and personal friends withdrew their previous support for his nomination after his statement at that hearing. That is why the American Bar Association has called a meeting to reconsider its endorsement, and that is why former Justice John Paul Stevens took the extraordinary step of saying that Judge Kavanaugh was not fit to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. It didn't have to be this way. The process was flawed from the start, and it got worse as time went on. It started when President Trump contracted out the process of picking a Supreme Court nominee to rightwing groups like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. During his campaign, candidate Trump said he was going to pick Supreme Court nominees based not on who would be impartial, based not on who would be independent but based on who would do his bidding on certain issues. He had a number of litmus tests. For example, during the campaign, when talking about the Affordable Care Act, candidate Trump promised that, unlike Chief Justice Roberts, his nominee would ``do the right thing'' and get rid of the Affordable Care Act. The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation didn't need much coaxing, but they dutifully compiled lists of names of people to fit the bill. Judge Kavanaugh fit the bill, and he fit the bill according to his own former law clerks. One of his former law clerks wrote an article entitled ``Brett Kavanaugh Said ObamaCare was Unprecedented and Unlawful'' in order to assure people that Judge Kavanaugh would be the Justice Kavanaugh to undo the protections of the Affordable Care Act. Another one of Judge Kavanaugh's own law clerks said that no other contender on President Trump's list is on record so vigorously criticizing the Affordable Care Act. These are Judge Kavanaugh's law clerks. We all know that the case of Texas v. United States, which threatens to take away protections for millions of people with preexisting conditions, is currently making its way through our Federal courts as we gather here today. It was filed by a group of 20 Republican attorneys general. The Trump administration decided not to defend the current law and decided not to defend the Affordable Care Act, and he said to these Republican attorneys general to have at it--to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. We know that the Texas case is very likely to end up in the Supreme Court of the United States. In Judge Kavanaugh, President Trump has his man, according to Judge Kavanaugh's own law clerks, to rule against the Affordable Care Act--in doing so, stripping millions of Americans from their protections for preexisting health conditions. On the issue of a woman's right to reproductive freedom and choice, Candidate Trump promised he would appoint a Justice to take those rights away. Specifically, he said overturning Roe ``will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am appointing pro-life justices on the court.'' Again, he found his man in Judge Kavanaugh, and we have Judge Kavanaugh's own law clerks saying as much. In a July 3, 2018, National Review article, one of his former clerks wrote: ``No court-of-appeals judge in the nation has a stronger, more consistent record of enforcing restrictions on abortion.'' Now, at the confirmation hearing, we all heard Judge Kavanaugh say that Roe v. Wade was an important precedent, and he said to some Senators that it was settled law. We know from many Republican judicial nominees who have testified before the Senate about settled law that as soon as they have gotten on the Supreme Court, it has no longer been settled. In fact, Judge Kavanaugh, before he was a judge, said himself in a 2003 memo that came to light: ``I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since the Court can always overrule its precedent''--a clear indication of where Judge Kavanaugh's reasoning lies, especially in light of the testimony from his own law clerks. If you look at other parts of his record, you will find that Judge Kavanaugh consistently rules in favor of powerful special interests and against the public interest. He has sided with those who want to lift all of the restrictions on political campaign expenditures. In one opinion, Judge Kavanaugh wrote that PACs are constitutionally entitled to raise and spend unlimited money in support of candidates for elected office because it was ``implausible'' that contributions to independent groups could corrupt candidates. Those million-dollar expenditures on behalf of candidates have no impact on the thinking of those candidates once they are elected. This is according to Judge Kavanaugh and, of course, according to the Citizens United decision. In fact, Judge Kavanaugh has been credited by one campaign finance expert as ``the man who created the super-PAC.'' Judge Kavanaugh has gone further. He has even suggested that limits on direct contributions to candidates are unconstitutional. Back in March of 2002, in an email, he wrote: ``I have heard very few people say that the limits on contributions to candidates are unconstitutional, although I, for one, tend to think those limits have some constitutional problems.'' We can see that if it is Justice Kavanaugh, not only will he double down on Citizens United, which says that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money, including unlimited amounts of secret money, but he will question the constitutionality of putting limits not only on independent expenditures but on direct contributions to candidates. We know Judge Kavanaugh was also the pick for those who want corporate power to trump workers' rights, consumers' rights, and environmental protections. The day that Judge Kavanaugh was nominated for the Supreme Court, the White House circulated a letter to corporate leaders that touted the fact that he would protect their interests. The White House proudly noted that he had overruled Federal regulators 75 times on cases involving clean air, consumer protections, net neutrality, and other issues. When it comes to workers' rights, Judge Kavanaugh has routinely sided with corporations that want to prevent workers from unionizing, even at President Trump's own hotel in Atlantic City, which at the time had admitted its refusal to bargain with workers in a 2012 case. When the card dealers across several hotels voted to unionize, Judge Kavanaugh and a panel of judges invalidated the will of the workers, overturned an administrative law judge's ruling that the union be certified, and allowed the Trump hotel to continue violating workers' rights. On environmental issues, Judge Kavanaugh's record shows that time and again, he favors polluters over clean water and clean air. With his confirmation, it will be much harder for Americans to seek redress in the courts, and it will be easier for polluters to continue to pollute the environment. As a circuit court judge, he has written 10 dissenting opinions in environmental cases, and in each one, he has argued against the side that sought to protect the public health and the environment. Judge Kavanaugh's sweeping view of executive power should cause alarm among every Member of this Senate, Republican and Democrat alike. We have all heard the testimony, and we have seen the writings. It appears to be no surprise that President Trump, who is watching that Mueller investigation get closer and closer to his doorstep, would want a judge who will give excessive deference to the executive branch--somebody who may be on the Supreme Court when that Court has to decide whether or not President Trump can be subpoenaed in that case or otherwise or be brought to justice in that case, if that is what the conclusions demand. It is clear on all of these issues that President Trump and the Republicans had their man in Judge Kavanaugh. They have someone they believe will overturn the Affordable Care Act, once again giving insurance companies a green light to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. They think they have someone who will overturn Roe v. Wade or dramatically limit a woman's right to reproductive freedom and choice; someone who will gut environmental regulations, undermine workers' rights, and consumer protections; someone who will give corporations the ability to continue to spend unlimited amounts of money in elections and who might even argue that the contribution limits to candidates are unconstitutional and can be limited; and, finally, someone the President believes will get him off the hook if the Mueller investigation gets too close to him. So here we had Republicans in this Senate and a President on the verge of getting someone they thought could do all of those things, and then something unexpected happened: The country learned about what happened to Dr. Ford. Our Republican colleagues seem to have forgotten that Dr. Ford did not want to come publicly to report her sexual assault. It was only when she found out that Judge Kavanaugh was on the second short list that was released that she became concerned. Even then, she didn't want to come forward publicly. But she thought it was her civic duty to let people know what had happened to her, so she reached out to her Representative in Congress on a confidential basis. The story did become public, and when it did, she felt dutybound to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and tell Senators what happened to her on that awful day. We all know she had nothing to gain. She has been subjected to all sorts of awful death threats and other kinds of verbal abuse. She had nothing to gain and everything to lose. Our Republican Senators who listened to her testimony, for the most part, said that her testimony was both powerful and credible; we know she answered questions directly. By contrast, Judge Kavanaugh's testimony was partisan, evasive, and, on many points, even under oath, untruthful. When the female prosecutor Republicans hired to ask questions for them could not discredit Dr. Ford's testimony, we saw many of our Republican colleagues launch into full partisan attack mode; no longer did the facts matter. They picked up on Judge Kavanaugh's opening statement about partisanship rather than seeking to get to the truth about what happened to Dr. Ford and others who have alleged sexual assault. What mattered was ramming through their nominee. The majority leader, Senator McConnell, said they would ``plow right through'' and, by God, nothing was going to stop them. They even scheduled the vote on Judge Kavanaugh before they had heard the testimony about sexual abuse and sexual assault from Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. It was only when Senator Flake recognized what a sham the process was that he at least forced the Republican leadership to do what they did not want to do and agree to a short FBI investigation into the allegations of Dr. Ford and Deborah Ramirez, but the goal never changed. The goal of ramming through the nomination never changed. That is why Senate Republicans and the White House dramatically limited the scope of the FBI investigation. They tied the hands of the FBI. They told the FBI whom they could interview. The investigation that was already going to be short at about a week was cut even shorter and was finished up in a matter of days. What is the result? The result is completely predictable. The result is we have lots of key witnesses who were not interviewed who say they have corroborating evidence to support the allegations of Dr. Ford and Deborah Ramirez. The country will continue to hear from these witnesses after today's vote. Because the investigation was orchestrated by the White House and the Senate Republican leadership, the FBI was not allowed to do its full job. It would have been better for all parties involved--and I mean all parties, including Judge Kavanaugh--to have had a thorough investigation where, at the end of the day, the public could have confidence that all of the available evidence could have been tracked down and reviewed. That would have been best for the integrity of the Court and the integrity of the Senate. We all know there is no requirement that we rush this confirmation. We all know that. After all, it was the Republican leader who kept a seat open on the Supreme Court for months and months and months after President Obama had nominated Judge Merrick Garland. So this notion that there is some kind of artificial deadline is simply untrue. This is all being done, as the majority leader said, to ``plow right through.'' Taking time to do the investigation right would have put the entire enterprise at risk--the entire plan to put on the Supreme Court the person President Trump and Republicans believe will deliver the legal outcomes they want. Even if all of the testimony shows he can no longer be impartial, in this case, his record and testimony indicate that he will deliver the legal outcomes they want. Dr. Ford's courage in coming forward and telling what happened to her has empowered many of my Maryland constituents and many others around the country to come forward with their own stories of abuse. I have received written statements from over 50 Marylanders--over 50 Marylanders--telling me about the sexual abuse they had encountered. Some of them told me they have shared with me what they have not shared with their own family members. They felt it was important that I know why they did not report their abuse at the time, why they did not tell their parents, and why their memories were not perfect decades later. They told me what they do remember. They told me they remember the clothing they wore the day they were assaulted. They told me they remember the scent, the cologne, and the feeling of unwanted hands. Those memories haunt them. These stories are reminders of how our society has let down survivors of sexual assault for decades. The way that these survivors have been treated has been shameful. I am humbled by the trust they have shown in sharing these experiences with me, and I will let the stories of a few of them speak for themselves here on the floor of the Senate. Here is what one woman wrote: Once [when] I was 16, I was at a party. There was alcohol. He was popular, I wasn't. He was big and strong, I have never been. He threatened me afterwards. He needn't have bothered. He told me no one would believe me. He told me I wanted it. I showed a friend the bruises. He said everyone would say I was a slut. I told another friend I was frightened. She said I should just avoid him in school. I told an adult I trusted at my job. She told me about how when she reported when she was young, how the police treated her, how her parents reacted. How she regretted saying anything. I never told my parents. I went to a free clinic and the ``therapist'' asked how could I know it was rape if I had been drinking. Those are the powerful words from one Marylander. Another wrote: I remember the assault vividly. I was on my way home from church. I don't remember the sermon before. Details are fuzzy. But I remember the assault. I remember looking at a nearby home where I knew elderly people lived. I could see that their TV was on and I wondered, ``Would they even hear me scream?'' I didn't tell people. I didn't think people would believe me. Another constituent wrote me this quickly, without editing. She told me she cried when she read it to her husband. Here is what she wrote: Having experience in working with victims in a prosecutorial manner, or as a judge, or even defending the accused does not make you an expert. The expert is the victim. I am that victim. I am that expert. And as such I can tell you absolutely, without hesitation, that what haunts you most, what affects how you relate in the future with your loving spouse, what affects how you feel about yourself, and what affects even your sense of smell, is the memory of the person who abused you. Not the address where it took place, not the time on the clock, not the day of the week--but the smell of the person assaulting you, the feel of their hands, the confusion in your head because you don't know what is happening because it's all happening so fast, and yes--their name. You never forget their name. She went on to say: Then comes the shame. What did I do to cause this? What will people think of me now because I've been touched, I've been tarnished, I'm not pure. Will I be believed? At this point my life has already been altered beyond repair, but it's an internal alter. If I talk, it alters my external world as well. Maybe it's better to just not talk because then at least I can pretend things are as they have always been. I can just pretend that I'm exactly the same person-- but I'm not. Another wrote that she understood that a man could move on from assaulting a woman particularly if they were drunk at the time. She said: The man who assaulted me later acted as if he was catching up with an old friend and had no memory of the event. I have several friends who have experienced the same thing. Another echoed a similar experience, writing: He had been drinking heavily with friends at a restaurant or bar. I had not. Later that night, he raped [me]. He was very inebriated and displayed a complete personality change. He was violent and angry and did not even seem to see me. I was paralyzed and probably saved my own life by not fighting back as he had essentially become a rabid animal. The next day I confronted him about what happened and he had no memory of the crime he committed. These are not isolated incidents for survivors. As I have said, I have gotten over 50--over 50--personal testimonials from survivors since Dr. Ford had the courage to come forward. These are people who have not shared what happened to them with some of their closest friends or family members. These are stains etched in their memories. Many of them never told a soul. Others were ignored or dismissed when they brought up these awful experiences and were told to stay quiet. It is an insult to these survivors when some have called them partisan. In many cases, they went out of their way in their messages to me to say their concerns had nothing to do with ideology or partisanship--nothing. Some told me they are Republicans, and others are Independents. Some of them grew up in families who had no care about politics. Others told me they were Democrats but they would be more than willing to accept a different, conservative judge--but not this one. When Donald Trump went to a campaign rally and mocked Dr. Ford, he mocked every one of those 50 survivors who wrote to me. He mocked every survivor of sexual abuse around the country. And this Senate's decision to do as the majority leader said, ``plow right through'' without undertaking a thorough and serious investigation into the charges from Dr. Ford, Deborah Ramirez, that also disrespects these survivors. That is what they say to me. Of course, Judge Kavanaugh did the same thing in his opening statement at his most recent hearing because his entire opening statement suggested that Dr. Ford's coming forward was part of some political conspiracy. Unfortunately, that is where this conversation has gone ever since--not an effort to really get to the truth, to really get all the facts but just to do what the majority leader said before she even testified: ``Plow right through.'' We know that etched above the Supreme Court are the words ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' It does not say ``plow right through.'' The decision to ``plow right through'' will undermine and haunt the integrity of the Supreme Court for decades to come, and it will also haunt and undermine the integrity of this U.S. Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, the Senate finally completed its work on a new longterm FAA Reauthorization bill. This 5-year bill will give the aviation industry the certainty it needs in order to plan for future investments and service enhancements. This bill also gives the FAA the direction and tools necessary to address customer and community concerns that arise from those activities. Stable funding for the Airport Improvement Program, AIP, is an essential program for both large and small airports. In this fiscal year, in my home State of Maryland, 13 airports received 16 separate grants to aid in construction related improvements. These are projects that likely would have been delayed or postponed if it were not for AIP. This bill contains language that I supported to address the negative effects of airplane noise on homeowners. Directing the FAA to review how they work with communities impacted by airplane noise and study the health impacts of noise is a step in the right direction toward tackling the impacts of NextGen implementation. I look forward to working with the FAA to ensure the provisions in this bill are implemented and to strive for additional ways to address the perpetual problem of noise in our communities. Reauthorizing the Essential Air Service Program and Small Community Air Service Development Program is important to make sure that the rural airports in our country, like Hagerstown Regional Airport in Maryland, receive the funding they need to maintain service in remote areas. I am also pleased that the bill contains S. 2792, a bill to modernize training programs at aviation maintenance technician schools and S. 2506, a bill to establish an aviation maintenance workforce development pilot program. The Pittsburgh Institute of Aeronautics has a satellite campus at Hagerstown Regional Airport where they are training the next generation of aviation technicians. As our airplanes modernize, so too must aviation technician curriculum. While the bill contains several provisions that seek to improve customer service including the language that I offered to the TICKETS Act that prevents the forcible removal of passengers after boarding, setting passenger seat size minimums, and improving accessibility for travelers with disabilities, I am disappointed that the bill does not include the Fair Fees Act. The Fair Fees Act would have protected consumers by prohibiting an air carrier from imposing fees for basic services like checking a bag or rescheduling a flight that are unreasonable or disproportional to the cost incurred by the air carrier. In addition, I am concerned about the potential impact of sections 1602 and 1919 on privacy, press freedoms, and other civil liberties. I strongly urge the administration to implement these provisions in a manner consistent with the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution and other applicable provisions of Federal law. Providing for the security of the American people is one of our greatest responsibilities; however, we must equally ensure that we safeguard the individual liberties enshrined in our Constitution.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the people and leaders of Taiwan on their National Day to take place on October 10. The United States and Taiwan have a long history of friendship that has promoted prosperity and security on both sides of the Pacific. The U.S.-Taiwan bilateral relationship continues to grow based on our shared democratic values and common strategic interests. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating the people of Taiwan.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Stamatios ``Tom'' Krimigis on the occasion of his 80th birthday and 50th anniversary of service to the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory. Dr. Krimigis is one of our Nation's brightest minds in the field of space science, and I and countless others rely on his knowledge and good counsel. He has had an amazing journey from humble beginnings on the Greek island of Chios to become one of the world's most brilliant and renowned space scientists. The launch of Sputnik in 1957 drew his eye to the sky and inspired him to study physics and space science, so he came to the United States at the age of 18 to enroll at the University of Minnesota. Upon finishing college, he went to the University of Iowa to work for James Van Allen, who had been the principal investigator on Explorer 1, which was the U.S. first satellite. In 1968, he joined Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory. He was the head of the space department from 1991 to 2004 and has been the emeritus head and principal staff scientist since then. Dr. Krimigis has led pioneering research into the Earth's environment, its magnetosphere, the Sun, the interplanetary medium, and the magnetospheres of the planets. He was critical in helping NASA shape its approach to planetary exploration and has published more than 600 articles in scientific journals and books. He remains the only scientist to lead investigations of every planet in our solar system. In 1999, the International Astronomical Union named the asteroid 8323 Krimigis, previously 1979 UH, in his honor. In addition to being a brilliant scientist in his own right, Dr. Krimigis has mentored countless scientists, engineers, and staff at the Applied Physics Lab, showing extraordinary generosity with his time to develop new generations of leaders. He is always willing to share his insights and provide thoughtful guidance. I am lucky to have Tom as a friend and adviser who has provided insights and infectious enthusiasm for the work being done by he and his colleagues at the Applied Physics Lab. I was thrilled to join Tom to witness some of his major successes, like the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous in 1998 and the Pluto fly-by in 2015. Dr. Tom Krimigis has a special ability to help people understand the value of investing in our ability to explore our planets and peer into the depths of space, both to maintain America's technological edge and to help answer basic universal questions about our place in the universe. I am honored to recognize him today and to wish him a happy 80th birthday.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, the Senate passed 3 of the required 12 appropriations bills needed to fund the Federal Government starting on October first. The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, Energy and Water, and Legislative Branch appropriations bills fund vital programs that care for our military, protect our infrastructure, and support the dedicated Federal employees that work for the U.S. Congress. Within the minibus, programs and projects such as the VA's National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Army Corps dredging for the Port of Baltimore, and a new paid-internship program in the Senate are just a few of the hundreds of items funded in these bills that will benefit the people of Maryland and the Nation. However, I do not support the $65 million appropriated in fiscal year 2019 for a new low- yield nuclear warhead for a submarine-launched ballistic missile. I believe this is an unnecessary new weapon that increases the risk of miscalculation and unintended escalation. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am pleased that we have gotten this far and I look forward to working with my colleagues on moving the other bills to final passage.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to my constituent and dear friend, Sheldon S. Cohen, who passed away earlier this week. Sheldon Cohen left an extraordinary legacy of accomplishment and service to our country. A proud native Washingtonian and graduate of DC public schools, Sheldon was a World War II Navy veteran. One of the world's leading tax attorneys, he served as chief counsel and then Commissioner of the IRS under President Lyndon B. Johnson, becoming the youngest person to hold that position. Among his countless other accomplishments was his creation of the first Presidential blind trust. Significantly, the 1978 Ethics in Government Act made blind trusts the preferred vehicle for public officials who do not want to dispose of holdings that raise potential conflicts. In addition, he was instrumental in helping to computerize the IRS and in drafting an overhaul of the Federal income Tax Code. Following his government service, he had an extensive career in private practice, including founding the law firm of Cohen & Uretz. He served as general counsel to the Democratic National Committee and helped settle a civil case stemming from the break-in of DNC offices at the Watergate office complex by Nixon campaign operatives. Sheldon Cohen's work was influential internationally as well. He advised many countries on their tax systems, was a founder of the Inter-American Center of Tax Administrations, and was a senior fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration. He participated on UN Special Missions to advise developing countries on tax systems, including meeting with Nelson Mandela. He vetted the tax returns of numerous Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, set up the Presidential Commission on Debates as a nonprofit organization, was a frequent author and speaker on tax policy and ethics, and often testified on Capitol Hill. He taught at his alma mater, George Washington University Law School, from which he had graduated first in his class, and at Howard and Miami law schools. Sheldon Cohen was deeply involved in the community and held numerous leadership roles. These included serving as president of the Jewish Social Service Agency, president of the Order of the Leaf of Camp Airy, chair of the American Jewish Historical Society, trustee and chair of the GW board of trustees, founder and trustee of the United Jewish Endowment Fund, founding member and treasurer of the Supreme Court Historical Society, and trustee of the Jewish Theological Seminary and Adas Israel Congregation. Sheldon Cohen was a decent, compassionate man, known for his high standards of integrity, his brilliant mind, his concern for those in need, and his devotion to his family and friends. I knew Sheldon Cohen well and will miss his friendship and wise counsel, as I do that of his wonderful and beloved wife Faye, who left us earlier this year. Their partnership and warm hospitality were known throughout our community and will always be remembered by the many friends and activists with whom they teamed up in support of important civic causes. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this fine man and in sending condolences to his family, including his children Melinda and her husband Alberto Goetzl, Laura and her husband Perry Apelbaum, Jonathan and his wife Joanne, and Sharon and her husband Michael Liebman; his 10 grandchildren; his brother Gerald Cohen and his wife Joanne; and his sister Barbara and her husband Dick Wolf.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today I wish to express my opposition to the confirmation of Lynn Johnson to become Assistant Secretary for Family Support at the Department of Health and Human Services. Time and again, this administration has shown a complete lack of good judgement on immigration policy. Most recently, the Trump administration implemented their family separation policy, which caused the cruel separation of thousands of children from their parents, a number of whom have still not been reunited. The sheer inhumanity of a policy that involves forcibly separating children from their families has traumatized these children. Experts have said that this trauma will compound the trauma many of these children have already experienced fleeing their violent home countries, exacerbate learning difficulties, increase depression and post- traumatic stress disorder, and may make some children more prone to substance use disorders. These traumatized children have then gone into the care of facilities overseen by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which Ms. Johnson will oversee. There have been a number of concerning reports about facilities caring for these separated children, including medical neglect, physical and sexual abuse, overzealous restrictions on phone contact with their parents, and inappropriate use of psychotropic drugs without parental consent. While I understand that Ms. Johnson was not in charge of the agency when this policy was implemented, I could not in good conscience vote to confirm a nominee who will be charged with carrying out this administration's misguided policies. Thank you.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize an extraordinary educator, Dr. Juliette Bell, for her 6 years of outstanding service as president of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore. Dr. Bell has left a lasting legacy of accomplishment. During Dr. Bell's tenure, UMES reached new levels of achievement, including being ranked as one of the Nation's best Historically Black Colleges and Universities, being a top producer of African-American pharmacists, becoming a doctoral research university, establishing the engineering and aviation science complex, experiencing an increase in student graduation rates, and improving relationships and collaboration between the university and the community. Thanks to her focus on inclusion and her commitment to the success of all students, Dr. Bell truly made a difference in the lives of UMES' students. Dr. Bell's leadership has been recognized beyond the UMES campus. A renowned biochemist and scholar, she has received numerous prestigious national honors and awards, including the Millennium Award for Excellence in Teaching from the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, the NAFEO Research Excellence Award, the Minority Access, Inc., National Role Model Mentoring Award, and the University of North Carolina Board of Governors' Award for Excellence in Teaching. She has also been named a Giant in Science by Quality Education for Minorities and was featured as one of 10 African-American life scientists in an exhibition at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry entitled ``Defying Tradition: African American Women in Science and Technology.'' She has also been named one of Maryland's Top 100 Women. Throughout her distinguished career, Dr. Bell has been a role model for many, including women and women of color, especially those seeking to pursue careers in STEM fields. I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Juliette Bell for all that she has done for students, the State of Maryland, and our entire Nation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Maine and Rhode Island who were here today to draw attention to the Trump administration's very dangerous proposal that takes a wrecking ball to the Clean Power Plan that has been put in place. It has been put in place to try to reduce the costs we are facing from climate pollution and carbon pollution. What we see in the Trump administration's plan is going to drag us backward. In fact, an analysis was done of their plan, and it will be worse than doing nothing at all. We know, and my colleagues have talked about this, that every day the American people are already paying the costs of carbon pollution in extreme weather events, whether those are forest fires, whether they are droughts that are wreaking havoc on crops, whether it is flooding. My colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin, and I were just in Ellicott City, MD, 2 days ago, where within a 2-year period they have been hit by what are called 1,000-year floods because there is only supposed to be one-tenth of 1 percent of a chance that happens. Yet we have seen two of them in 2 years, causing loss of human life and incredible property damage. The cost of doing nothing is huge. That is why the previous administration adopted the Clean Power Plan. With this administration taking us backward, those costs of doing nothing are going to rise again. As the Senator from Maine said, it is not just incredible property damage, but you will see loss of life and greater asthma deaths and other negative healthcare effects. I know there is a vote coming up. I wanted to say a lot more about this, but the main point was made by the Senator from Rhode Island, which is, this is not going to stand. This will not be accepted in the courts. We will fight this in the courts because the American people deserve to have a system where the American people don't pay for the pollution being spewed out by others. Polluters should pay, not the public. Let's defeat this new plan put forward by the Trump administration that takes us backward, and let's try to work together to address what is a very serious national and international issue.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I wish to speak in order to honor the achievements of Steven A. Hildreth, Specialist in Missile Defense, Congressional Research Service, CRS, on the occasion of his retirement from the Service on August 31, 2018. Steve Hildreth served Congress with distinction for more than 32 years at the Library of Congress as a Specialist in U.S. and Foreign National Security Programs for the Congressional Research Service. He earned a bachelor's degree from Brigham Young University in Provo, UT, a master's degree in international relations from Georgetown University in Washington, DC, graduate work at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, DC, and a master's degree in national security strategy from the National War College in Washington, DC. Steve is recognized throughout Congress, the military services, the defense community, and the arms control community as an expert in U.S. nuclear weapons and ballistic missile defense, arms control, military space, and nonproliferation issues. He wrote extensively on missile defense programs, from the Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980s through the current guided-missile defense and Aegis programs. He also assisted the House Armed Services Committee, after the first gulf war, with assessments of the effectiveness of the Patriot system in taking down Iraqi scud missiles. In that capacity, he assisted Congress in 8 hours of testimony, leading a group of CRS researchers in providing open source analysis of the international aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks before the 9/11 Commission. Halfway through, the staff director for the Commission told Steve, ``I never believed in open source analysis until today.'' Steve also exercised true leadership at CRS. For 9 years, he led the Central Research Unit in the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of CRS, where he created and managed an extensive internship program and oversaw many of the research experts of the Service. Steve published many influential CRS reports on such subjects as challenges to the United States in space, Iran's ballistic missile and space launch programs, long-range ballistic missile defense in Europe, ballistic missile defense in the Asia-Pacific region, ballistic missile defense, and offensive arms reductions, cyber warfare, and the Strategic Defense Initiative. Long before I thought of running for office, I worked on national security issues for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In that capacity, I always found Steve's expertise valuable. As a Senator, I have continued to utilize Steve's analysis and insights. I am grateful for his service and wish him the best as he begins a new journey.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and thank Donald Shriber for his more than 30 years of public service. In addition to being an outstanding public servant who has dedicated his career to government service, Donald is also a proud Marylander. At the end of the month, Donald will retire from the Federal Government after a distinguished career at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. Donald began his career with the CDC as the head of the agency's Washington, DC, office and went on to lead policy and communications for CDC's important work in global health. Donald leaves a legacy of deep engagement in public health policy and a cadre of colleagues mentored to think creatively to solve complex public health challenges. Before starting at the CDC, Donald began his policy career on Capitol Hill, working in the House and Senate on healthcare and public health- related legislation. He served as a senior adviser to the legendary John Dingell, writing laws that continue to have a major impact on public health and healthcare today. During his tenure at CDC, Donald was awarded two prestigious Presidential Rank Awards for his leadership. A steady hand during a public health emergency, Donald helped advise four CDC Directors, three Acting Directors, and countless administration officials over three administrations through complex policy discussions during some of the biggest public health challenges of the 21st century, including 9/11, the anthrax attacks of 2001, SARS, Hurricane Katrina, the H1N1 flu pandemic, and the Ebola epidemic. Among his many contributions to the agency, the one most appreciated by many of his colleagues has been his thoughtful mentorship to the next generation of CDC leaders. Always a voice of wisdom, Donald is a reliable source of thoughtful strategic advice and novel approaches to public health policy. He challenged the agency to think about how policies in all areas of government can affect public health, and he made the agency stronger by working to leverage those areas across government to improve public health. Today, I want to recognize Donald for his career at the CDC, his dedication to public service, and a lifetime of work that has truly made a difference to the health of our Nation and around the world. On behalf of the U.S. Congress, his fellow Marylanders, and a grateful nation, I want to thank Donald for the important work he has done and wish him the very best in his next phase of life.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act of 2019, NDAA, provides crucial resources to our Armed Forces and our national defense. Although I have serious concerns with this law, many of its provisions play a vital role in strengthening our national security. I championed numerous initiatives in this law that directly benefit the people of Maryland and our nation as a whole. The NDAA increases pay for our brave men and women in uniform by 2.6 percent. It authorizes essential funding for Federal agencies in Maryland, including the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command. It includes resources for important infrastructure projects in Maryland, such as cleanup efforts in Edgewood and Aberdeen Proving Ground and road improvements at Fort Meade. It also ensures that the mission of the Defense Information Systems Agency and those working on it at Fort Meade will continue and protects thousands of jobs from potential loss. I also support the NDAA's reforms to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. These reforms, which I debated and supported in the Senate Banking Committee, balance our ability to maintain an open environment for foreign direct investment and to protect our national security. The reforms are essential in responding to foreign nations that strive to gain a strategic advantage over the United States through the acquisition of our advanced technologies. However, I find several elements of this law detrimental to our national security. For instance, the law eliminates the requirement for congressional authorization for the development of low-yield nuclear weapons. It also authorizes $65 million in funding for a new low-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile, an unnecessary new weapon that increases the risk of miscalculation and unintended escalation. In addition, the NDAA authorizes over $716 billion in defense funding for fiscal year 2019, a $133 billion increase in the defense budget since President Trump assumed office. I look forward to working with the Defense Department to ensure additional funds are prioritized to improve readiness, enhance training, and focus our procurements on tomorrow's challenges--particularly those in the information space--but this steep expansion in military spending may reduce the Pentagon's incentives to address cost overruns of weapons systems. This dramatic increase in defense spending follows massive tax cuts for the wealthy and proposals from the administration to slash healthcare and other basic needs for middle-class families, which sets a fiscal course that weakens the Nation's long-term prosperity and security. Furthermore, in his fiscal year 2019 budget request for the Defense Department, President Trump elevated the possibility of great power conflict with China. Secretary of Defense Mattis reiterated this in the 2019 National Defense Strategy, asserting that China was a ``revisionist power'' and ``strategic competitor using predatory economics'' to its advantage. Despite this, Republican conferees stripped a bipartisan provision that imposed tough sanctions on ZTE--a Chinese telecommunications company that has stolen U.S. technology, repeatedly violated our laws, and poses an espionage threat. Republicans removed this critical provision at the request of President Trump, who tweeted his intention to provide ZTE with sanctions relief because ``Too many jobs in China lost.'' I remain deeply disappointed that Republican conferees caved to White House pressure and ZTE's lobbying efforts at the expense of the American people and our national security. I will continue to work with like-minded colleagues in the Senate to hold ZTE accountable. Ultimately, however, the benefits of this law--for our country, for our security, and for the American people--outweigh my concerns; therefore, I voted in support of the fiscal year 2019 NDAA.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to express my disappointment that my Republican colleagues are not making better use of our legislative days in August. We could be working together to pass strong bipartisan bills that secure our elections and punish foreign nations and companies that hurt our national security. We could be working on healthcare and protecting people with preexisting health conditions and reducing the cost of prescription drugs. We could be working on legislation to strengthen our Nation's guns laws. My colleague, Senator Nelson, introduced emergency legislation to prevent the Trump Administration from allowing 3-D gun plans to be posted on the internet. We spoke on the floor and asked unanimous consent to have a vote on his bill, and Republicans blocked that effort. Instead, we are here, voting on Judge Quattlebaum's nomination to the Fourth Circuit. Judge Quattlebaum was confirmed to his present seat, as judge on the district court a mere 6 months earlier. Republicans think it is more important to promote a novice judge than to work on legislation to secure our elections, protect our national security, or prevent dangerous people from accessing guns. I urge Senator McConnell to reconsider the August legislative agenda and bring substantive bills to the floor for a vote.