A resolution relative to the death of Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, Former Chaplain of the United States Senate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

First, Madam President, on my way coming down to Washington, I heard that a helicopter crashed onto the roof of a building on Seventh Avenue in my hometown of New York City. We are still learning the circumstances of the crash and the extent of the damage, the injuries and casualty it may have caused. But, as all of America saw after 9/11, the Fire Department of New York and the Police Department of New York are truly some of the very, very best we have. They are strong, they are brave, they are smart, and I have every faith they will do their duty to protect New Yorkers and make sure everyone is safe.

Border Security

Madam President, on another subject--the border--the President ultimately, of course, backed off his threat of tariffs against Mexico, but really, anyone who has observed the President's foreign policy efforts could have predicted how this would play out. It is a pretty simple pattern. The President stakes out a maximalist position but never clearly defines his objectives. That way, after he backs himself into a corner, he can use a deal of any kind, even if it is merely a fig leaf, to justify retreating from whatever misguided policy he has threatened. Then he declares victory, having done little or nothing to solve the underlying problem.

Well, that is exactly what happened right here. According to public reports, the agreement President Trump reached with Mexico contains policies negotiated months ago--nothing more than warmed-up leftovers-- and then today, after the President tweeted that we have ``a fully signed and documented . . . Immigration and Security deal with Mexico,'' the Mexican Foreign Minister said that no secret deal exists. He clarified that the only agreement reached was to revisit the issue in the future. This is the headline of the New York Times: ``No Secret Immigration Deal Exists With U.S., Mexico's Foreign Minister Says.'' It is amazing how this President will just make stuff up--there is an ``L'' word here--he just makes it up, and then it is refuted.

So, to recap, in February, the President declared a bogus emergency to build a wall he said would solve the problem. Then he made a bogus threat to shut down the border completely, which, of course, never materialized. Then he made a bogus threat to impose tariffs, which the business community and Republicans in Congress rejected. And now the President claims a bogus agreement with Mexico, which contains policies Mexico volunteered to do months ago. Bogus, bogus, bogus.

It is no wonder our problems don't go away in this country because of the way the President does things both on the domestic front and the foreign policy front. What he did here is typical of the President's game-show foreign policy: a big production without very much progress. He generates a lot of coverage and attention around big summits, photo- ops, scare tactics, and belligerent threats, but because the President doesn't set clear goals, because the President doesn't have a defined strategy about how to achieve them, and because he is impatient to always declare victory prematurely even when it doesn't occur, his negotiations with foreign countries are ineffective.

We saw this play out in North Korea last June. The President returned from his meeting with Chairman Kim and tweeted: ``There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.'' One year later, North Korea continues to conduct weapons tests. We are seeing it play out now with Mexico, which has not agreed to anything new. And I am deeply concerned the same pattern may play out with China--perhaps the most serious of them all.

We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform China's economic relations with the world. But despite the President's success in getting China to the table--and he has with the tariffs--the President has never clearly defined what an effective agreement with China looks like. So I am afraid that, in the end, just like he did with Mexico, the President could retreat from his position on China in exchange for a face-saving deal that doesn't accomplish much of anything. I hope and pray that is not the case. I hope and pray he stands strong because the state of the future of jobs in America, of businesses in America, and of wealth in America is at stake.

For the sake of all of those things, I hope that, unlike this charade with Mexico, President Trump is willing to stay the course on China and not come up with another bogus solution that doesn't solve any problem.

One final point on this matter, and a very important point, and I hope everyone will listen because we have talked about this in the last week or two, but so far, the media hasn't written much about it. I hope they will today.

President Trump tweeted this morning that Democrats have no plan to deal with the surge of migrants at the border. That is another bogus claim. Democrats do have a plan. We proposed it, actually, last year. I have talked about it here on the floor of the Senate two or three times in the last 2 weeks, and it would be far more effective at dealing with the actual problem than what President Trump announced on Friday. Let me outline the three things in our plan.

First, we would allow asylum seekers to apply for asylum within their own countries.

If you are a Guatemalan, a Honduran, or an El Salvadoran, your child is threatened with being beat up, brutalized, or killed by gangs, and your daughter is threatened with rape, you want to leave the country. But it is a long, dangerous trek to go across Mexico. You have to pay the coyotes a lot of money.

Let them apply for asylum in their home countries, not at the border with the United States.

Second, we would provide security assistance to Central American countries to crack down on the violent gangs and the drug cartels and the human trafficking. That is what most of these people are fleeing. If you look at their pictures, most all of them are not criminals. They are not gang members. They are average people seeking desperate relief.

What we could do to stem the tide--and it wouldn't cost that much--is crack down on violent gangs, drug cartels, and trafficking. President Obama began to do this, and President Trump has rescinded it. It is logical, and it could work. These countries don't have our knowledge, our ability, or our resources to go after these horrible gangs and these horrible drug dealers, but we can help them. We should.

Third, here at our border, we could increase the number of immigration judges to process the cases faster so people wouldn't have to wait so long. Their case could be adjudicated. If they meet the asylum requirements, fine, and if they don't, they don't get in.

Those are three commonsense solutions to the problem that President Trump has talked about. As the President's illusory deal with Mexico continues to unravel, as the situation doesn't get better, please-- there are Republicans on the other side of the aisle who agree with this solution. Please, Mr. President, look at this solution. It can work. It can be bipartisan. No, you don't get to pound the table and make a lot of demands that won't ever affect anything, but it might get the job done. Let's give it a shot in a bipartisan way.

Election Security

Madam President, finally, on election security and my friend the Republican leader's graveyard, which continues to grow, ever since the Democrats won the majority in the House of Representatives, Leader McConnell has hardly considered legislation on the floor of the Senate. Instead of bringing up bills passed by the House, Leader McConnell has turned the Senate, as now widely quoted and known, into a legislative graveyard where pretty much the only thing we debate around here is nominations. It is frustrating not just to Democrats but to Americans. They say: Can't we get something done for the country? And it is frustrating, I am sure, for my Republican friends who didn't come here just to rubberstamp nominees.

One of my biggest frustrations about Leader McConnell's legislative graveyard is that even on the nonpartisan issues, there is virtually no movement. Take election security. We all know--on a good day, even President Trump agrees--the Russians interfered in our elections in 2016. That is uncontroverted. Senior intelligence officials and Director Wray, the head of the FBI--well-regarded and appointed by the President--issued multiple warnings that foreign powers will try to interfere in our elections again in 2020.

We have to make sure our election systems are resilient and our cyber defenses are up to date. There is nothing partisan about that. When a foreign country can twist an American election one way or the other, that eats at the wellspring of our democracy. We shouldn't allow it. So why, when there is bipartisan legislation, is Leader McConnell just sitting on his hands and refusing to bring it up? He is not moving any legislation having to do with election security--Democrat, Republican, or, best of all, bipartisan. We have multiple bipartisan bills that would harden our election infrastructure and punish any adversary that tries to interfere in our elections. Why will Leader McConnell not bring them to the floor?

Now, I am certainly glad that he has agreed to my request to at least hold a secure briefing on the risks we face in the next election. I am looking forward to a date soon. I hope the leader will update us all on when it might be scheduled. It should be ASAP. This is serious stuff. The Founding Fathers were worried about foreign interference in our elections, and in our modern digital world it has taken a new, new dangerous turn.

But a briefing alone isn't enough. We have to take legislative action. Democrats and Republicans, we all know, disagree on a whole lot of issues, but surely we can all agree that nothing matters more in our democracy than defending the integrity of our elections, and I hope that we as a body can take bipartisan action soon.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I come to the floor of the Senate today, as I do every year at this time, to remember what Rhode Island abolitionist Frances Whipple McDougall called ``the first blood [drawn] in the Revolution.'' This past Sunday marked the 247th anniversary of the Gaspee raid.

This is an image of what happened to the Gaspee. We ought to remember. Most Americans do not know about the Gaspee Affair. They have learned about a far tamer incident in Boston Harbor a year later, when some tipsy Bostonians toppled bales of tea into the water.

I get why Bostonians are proud of their tea party. It is a decent story that tea was ruined, the British East India Company was out some money, the Crown got angry, and the American patriots gained notoriety and momentum for our cause.

But the Gaspee raid offers so much more--a true villain, a daring escape, a vigorous call to action, the storming of a ship, the vanquishing of an enemy, a blast in the night, and an earlier stirring of revolutionary spirit.

The story begins in the 1760s, with King George and the English Parliament trying to raise money. The Crown needed to recoup losses from expensive recent wars, and the Colonies seemed like a convenient place to turn. Their solution was to allow the powerful British Navy to enforce customs laws, transforming naval officers into well-armed tax collectors.

The Admiralty commissioned sloops and schooners to troll the Colonies' most profitable waters for tax revenue. In Narragansett Bay the Crown sent Lieutenant William Dudingston in an eight-gun schooner, the Gaspee. The boat and its captain quickly earned a nasty reputation. Dudingston stopped virtually every vessel in sight, from the biggest schooners to the smallest packet boats. He harassed sailors, seized cargo, and annexed Rhode Island vessels, merchants, and watermen, often on shaky or nonexistent charges.

Historian George Washington Greene, a Rhode Islander and grandson of Rhode Island's legendary Revolutionary War hero, Major General Nathaniel Greene, described Dudingston's conduct this way:

Not contented with performing the duties of his office,

still vexatious even when considerately executed, he

multiplied its annoyances by a thousand acts of petty

tyranny. He stopped vessels of every kind without

discrimination--ships just from sea and market boats on their

way to Providence and Newport with their perishable freights,

and to increase the indignity refused to show his commission

or the authority by which he acted.

A further insult, Dudingston sent prisoners and cargo to Boston to face justice before a British tribunal, not the Rhode Island court established in Newport. This violated the Colony's agreement with the Crown to adjudicate such disputes on Rhode Island's soil, an offense to our Colony's sovereignty.

From winter to spring of 1772, tensions in Narragansett Bay rose. Among the incidents involving the loathed Gaspee, Dudingston commandeered Fortune, the ship belonging to the influential merchant and later Revolutionary War hero, Nathaniel Greene. Rhode Islander Daniel Harrington notes in a 2017 Providence Journal article that ``the patriotic fervor'' that had swept ``the colonies [had] seemed to elude [Greene]--until Dudingston snagged his Fortune and ignited the righteous spirit of resentment.''

When Greene later led the Continental Army's successful Southern Campaign, British General Cornwallis would lament: ``That damned Greene is more dangerous than Washington.'' The ignited spirit was a forceful one.

On June 9, 1772, the coastal trader Hannah caught Lieutenant Dudingston's eye as she sailed up Narragansett Bay en route to Providence. The Gaspee pursued the Hannah and ordered her to stop for inspection. The Hannah refused. The Gaspee fired a warning shot. The Hannah sailed on.

Off Warwick's shore, near Pawtuxet Village, things came to a head. According to the account of Rhode Islander Ephraim Bowen, the Hannah's skipper, Benjamin Lindsey, sailed his lighter boat over shallows around Namquid

Point. Dudingston followed in chase taking his Gaspee, a heavier boat, into waters too shallow for it. The Gaspee ran aground in a falling tide.

The Hannah sped on to Providence. Captain Lindsey alerted respected local merchant John Brown, later a founder of Brown University. Brown ``immediately concluded that [the Gaspee] would remain immovable until after midnight,'' Ephraim Bowen recalls, and saw what he calls the ``opportunity offered of putting an end to the trouble and vexation she daily caused.''

A Providence man named Daniel Pearce ``passed along the main street, beating a drum and informing the inhabitants of the fact that the Gaspee was aground on Namquid Point and would not float until 3 o'clock the next morning,'' Bowen recalled. Pearce invited ``those persons who felt a disposition to go and destroy that troublesome vessel to repair in the evening to Mr. James Sabin's house,'' presumably for some strong spirits and discussion of an attack.

Once assembled and refreshed, the Rhode Islanders set off into a moonless night in eight longboats with muffled oars. The group's ``powder was prepared and bullets run'' as it ``set forth on its mission of vengeance,'' George Washington Green recorded.

Aboard the Gaspee, the seaman standing watch, Bartholomew Cheever, first thought he saw light dancing off rocks in the near-blackness. Suddenly, however, Cheever realized the glints he saw were more than rocks. The Rhode Islanders and their long boats encircled the Gaspee. Cheever alerted Dudingston, and Dudingston ordered his men to fire on the assault party. The Rhode Islanders, however, outnumbered the British crew by more than 4 to 1 and quickly overwhelmed the Gaspee. A brief and decisive melee ensued. Soon, Dudingston lay on the quarterdeck with musket wounds to his arm and groin. The Gaspee would never again be under British command.

The Rhode Islanders ferried the British crew to shore, where they were awaited by the Pawtuxet Rangers, a group that exists still today. The raiders then returned once more to set fire to the Gaspee. The fire burned until it reached the powder magazines below the Gaspee's decks, and when the fire reached the magazines, the Gaspee was blown to bits and was no more.

King George soon learned of the Gaspee raid and was not pleased. The raiders would face charges of treason, he said, and the gallows, were they to be found guilty and convicted. The Crown put up the colossal reward of 500 pounds sterling for the capture of the rebels--50 times what a colonial farmer would earn in a year.

No Rhode Islander would give up the raiders. Try as they might, British authorities never found and never convicted the brave raiders who burned the Gaspee. Word of the Gaspee raid spread swiftly through the Colonies and stirred revolutionary spirit. George Washington was actually hosting a British officer when he heard the story. The officer exclaimed that the Rhode Islanders ought to be ``phlebotomized'' and that he would personally march 5,000 British regulars ``from Boston to Charleston, South Carolina, and put down all opposition to the revenue acts.'' To that assertion, Washington shot back:

I question not, Sir, that you could march from Boston into

Charleston, South Carolina, at the head of 5,000 British

regulars; but do you mean to say, Sir, that you could do so,

as a friend, or as an enemy? If as the latter, and you will

allow me a few weeks' notice of your intention, I will engage

to give you a handsome check with the Virginia riflemen

alone.

Washington punctuated his retort, as an onlooker reported, by ``[striking] the table so violently with his clenched hand that some wine glasses and a decanter near him with difficulty maintained their upright positions.''

Every year, Rhode Islanders gather for a celebration and parade through Warwick, the neighborhood off of which this event took place. We gather to remember the daring assault on the Gaspee. We recall our forebears' resolve for independence, freedom of religion, and the rule of law. We are also glad to remember that Rhode Islanders are not to be trifled with. This is a story worth remembering.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise today to recognize Lt. Gen. Steve Basham, who recently departed his position as Director of Air Force Legislative Liaison and assumes his new duties as Deputy Commander of the U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Air Forces in Africa.

As the Director of Legislative Affairs of the Air Force, Lieutenant General Basham worked directly with the Senate and the House of Representatives on all aspects of organizing, training, and equipping our airmen to project global combat power abroad. Throughout this time, then-Major General Basham prepared the Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, as well as other senior Air Force leaders, for engagements on Capitol Hill, to include extensive testimony before congressional committees.

A product of some of these strategic engagements was the decision to select Ellsworth Air Force Base as the first unit to host the B-21 Raider bomber, a strategic decision that I personally thank the Secretary of the Air Force for making. I also thank Lieutenant General Basham for his steadfast efforts in the deliberate decision-making process.

In 1989, following his graduation from Western Kentucky University, Lieutenant General Basham was commissioned through Air Force Officer Training School and achieved his flying wings. Over the course of his distinguished career, he has attained a command pilot rating with more than 3,400 flying hours in the T-37, T-38, B-1, B-2, and B-52 aircraft. He holds the honor of being one of the first four pilots to fly the B-2 stealth bomber in combat.

Throughout his career, Lieutenant General Basham has held numerous other positions of strategic importance, including Deputy Director of Requirements for the Joint Staff at the Pentagon and as the Director of Strategy, Plans, and Programs for Headquarters Pacific Air Forces at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii.

Of course, none of this could be done without the support of his wife Angie and their two daughters, Lauren and Sarah.

On behalf of the U.S. Congress and a grateful Nation, I extend our deepest appreciation to Lt. Gen. Steven L. Basham and his family for their dedicated service to the Air Force and to our Nation. We wish them all the best as they move on to his next assignment and continue working to keep our Nation and our allies safe from potential Russian aggression in Europe, as well as violent extremists in Africa.

There is no question that the Air Force, the Department of Defense, and the United States will continue to benefit greatly from Lieutenant General Basham's outstanding leadership.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of S. Res. 240, submitted earlier today.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''