Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I want to briefly add my personal thanks to the Senators from Wyoming and Pennsylvania, who just spoke. Their work on getting this bipartisan solution to the Perkins CTE reauthorization is nothing short of admirable. I have worked with the Senator from Florida, Mr. Rubio, for 7 years on an education demonstration program called the American Dream Accounts. Both of these terrific Senators were gracious in including it in this bill.

This is a bill that is going to make possible programs all over this country that will smooth and clear the pathway toward meaningful employment for young Americans. I wish more people knew about this kind of work, this kind of effort that these two Senators have made to move forward the sort of bipartisan, responsible solutions to the real problems facing Americans, which we need, and I just wanted to take one moment and thank them both for their tireless work to achieve this good result today.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague, Senator Lankford of Oklahoma, in bringing our committee bill--the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill--to the floor.

I thank the full committee chair and the vice chairman, Senators Shelby and Leahy, for their leadership and their bipartisan work that has laid out the process we are now following to make real progress on our appropriations process.

I thank Chairman Lankford for working with me on this bill, and to my colleague Senator Lankford, of Oklahoma, I express my appreciation for his being a great partner, for our positive experience in working together, and for how much I value our collegial relationship.

I also thank the key staff of this subcommittee--Andy Newton, Lauren Comeau, and Brian Daner--as well as my own staff--Ellen Murray, Diana Hamilton, and Reeves Hart. These six folks are, I think, exemplars of the people who work here year in and year out, week in and week out and who help make it possible for us to craft large and complicated, bipartisan compromise bills like this one. We are grateful for the positive working experience they have had together and for the spirit with which they have worked to make this bill possible.

I am confident this bill fairly allocates funding among many competing priorities, given the subcommittee's allocation and its broad jurisdiction. Senator Lankford and I have followed the guidance of the full committee chair and vice chair and have kept this bill free of new controversial riders. Overall, this bill appropriates $23.688 billion, which is a small increase over that in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus bill that was enacted earlier this year.

I would like to take this opportunity to briefly highlight how this bill will impact both Delawareans, whom I represent, and Americans across our whole country.

The bill provides $250 million for the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which supports development in some of America's poorest communities. The President's budget had recommended cutting this vital program down to just $14 million, which would have completely eliminated any new grant funding, but I am proud this bipartisan Senate bill restores all of the funding for this effective and vital program.

This bill rejects the transfer of two vital anti-drug programs--the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program, known by its acronym HIDTA, and the Drug-Free Communities--from the Office of National Drug Control Policy to the Justice Department.

I am grateful that at this time when opioids are a crisis of academic proportions, which I hear about week in and week out in my home State of Delaware, that we have rejected an ill-conceived proposal to move these programs to other agencies, where I have been concerned they would receive reduced funding and scant attention. I

am pleased, instead, that they will stay with the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

This bill provides $281.5 million for the CFTC, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This is an increase of $32.5 million. It is critical the CFTC is able to keep pace with the dramatic changes in the marketplace as it regulates, particularly with the emergence of cryptocurrencies and complex financial products and international trading platforms. I think it is critical that the CFTC be able to modernize its investments, as this is what it is responsible for.

The Federal judiciary will receive $7.251 billion in funding, an increase of $140 million over the fiscal year 2018 enacted level. In particular, the defender services and court security accounts, which I have long been attentive to, will receive robust funding.

This bill vitally increases funding for the basic operations of the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS may not be the most popular of Federal agencies, but it touches almost every American and is central to the legal and appropriate and efficient collection of revenue and for being responsive to constituents and customers. This bill increases funding for the basic operations of the IRS, and it fully funds the request for the cost of implementing the comprehensive new tax law.

I hope we continue to work to increase funding for this vital agency in conference because the IRS has IT systems that are out of date, and customer service can still improve. As the chairman and I have both commented in previous hearings, we need to continue to make progress in closing the $400 billion tax gap--the gap between what is owed and what is collected in tax revenues every year.

This bill includes $1.66 billion for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC. Given the number of publicly traded firms that have an incorporation footprint in my home State of Delaware, I am particularly interested in making sure the SEC has the resources it needs and is investing those funds efficiently and effectively, as it is the watchdog that helps to make sure our securities are being exchanged in ways that are transparent and legal and appropriate.

There is a provision within the Department of the Treasury that I want to highlight briefly of $159 million being appropriated specifically for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. It is an increase of $17 million over last year, just over 10 percent. This office has the responsibility of enforcing economic sanctions across the globe.

It also has a very broad and very important responsibility, and it is key that we have been able to work on a bipartisan basis to ensure funding is adequate not only to continue the implementation of sanctions against North Korea and Iran but also to make sure we are fully enforcing the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act and that we are enforcing sanctions in other places in the world-- Africa, for example--where we have longstanding sanctions that need more thorough enforcement.

This bill provides funding for the Small Business Administration--a remarkably effective Federal agency that punches above its weight. This bill rejects the President's proposed cuts to the SBA's grant programs by either restoring or increasing funding to virtually every initiative within the SBA.

These grants are essential to the SBA's mission of supporting small businesses so local communities across our country have greater economic opportunity. I am particularly pleased, within the suite of SBA-related services, to support the SCORE Program, which has one of the highest ratios of volunteers and civic outreach and impact to Federal investment. Groups of volunteers all over the country offer business tools, workshops, and mentoring to dedicated entrepreneurs and small business owners. SCORE was initially founded in my home State of Delaware, in the city of Wilmington. So I have enjoyed working in a bipartisan way to reauthorize it during this Congress.

This bill also includes a well-deserved pay adjustment for Federal civilian workers. Last year, Federal employees received a cost-of- living increase of 1.9 percent. The cost of living is growing at a faster rate than that. So, this year, the bill includes that same level, which, I think, is an important bipartisan compromise to ensure that our civilian workforce receives the support it has earned.

Lastly, we did include, last year, election security grants of about $380 million in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus to help protect States and their voting systems from cyber attacks. The chairman is the cosponsor of an authorizing bill that is critical we take up and move independent of the appropriations process. I also do think, this year, we should have provided more for appropriations to our States to make sure they are strengthening their cyber security as we are just 4 months from a general election.

In closing, let me again thank the staff members of the subcommittee who worked so well together.

Let me thank Senator Lankford, my colleague from Oklahoma, for his great and positive attitude and for his determination in making sure these dollars are spent wisely. We may not agree on everything, but we have been able to agree on this thing, which is significant and historic progress, as the very first ever floor markup of the FSGG bill now begins.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment that I look forward to advancing as a member of the relevant Appropriations subcommittee--in fact, the ranking Democrat. I was pleased to work in a bipartisan way to secure $380 million in the last fiscal year that has been distributed to the States to secure our elections.

As you may have heard, some who opposed this in the Appropriations Committee, when we took it up and debated it, asked a few simple questions, which I will try to address quickly.

Aren't elections a State and local responsibility? Why should the Federal government be providing funding for States and localities to secure their elections? It is true that elections are overwhelmingly run at the State and local levels. The cost of securing and modernizing our voting machines and voting systems will be overwhelmingly borne at the State and local levels.

Second, this $380 million was just made available, and I don't think it has even gone out yet. Have they used it well, and have they used it properly?

Third, why is this something we need to do now? Is there any indication that our upcoming elections are actually under threat?

Let me briefly speak to those three questions.

This morning, it was publicly reported that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, outside of a classified setting for the first time, revealed that not one, not two, not a dozen, but more than 100 American power utilities had been successfully hacked by Russian military intelligence and that air-gapped control rooms--meaning control rooms that are designed so they are not connected to the internet--in power- generating or distributing utilities around the country had been compromised by Russia. There is a level of sophistication in their invasion and interference in our physical infrastructure that is matched by their sophistication in interfering and intruding in our election infrastructure. I think the present danger is very clear and very real.

As my colleagues stated at great length, our Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, our former colleague, has said repeatedly that our election structure is at risk.

On July 13, Special Counsel Mueller indicted 12 Russian military officials for cyber attacks on our 2016 elections, and we know those attacks are coming again.

Michael Chertoff, the former Bush Department of Homeland Security Secretary, and Grover Norquist, long known as an advocate for reduced Federal spending, jointly wrote an editorial earlier this year--I think it was in the Washington Post. They said, and I quote, that ``we can replace all paperless voting machines in the country for less than the cost of an F-22 fighter jet.''

As Senator Klobuchar has said repeatedly and correctly: ``Election security is national security.''

Chertoff and Norquist concluded with this thought: It is not practical to expect State and local election administrators in rural Missouri or small town Maine or in my State of Delaware or in my colleague's State of Iowa to go toe-to-toe with the premier government- backed cyber mercenaries of Russia or China or North Korea. Just as Federal agencies prudently provide support for State law enforcement in dealing with terrorism, Federal officials should give guidance for support of the election cyber security threat.

My home State of Delaware is one of five with no paper trail for our election systems, and our election systems are air-gapped. I just received a letter from our State election commissioner, Elaine Manlove, who has made clear that with the $380 million already distributed through the money made available last year, they will begin to make a downpayment on replacing our current, antiquated election machinery with those that will have a verifiable paper trail.

I have many more examples I can cite, but I will be brief because I have a colleague who has waited long for his opportunity to speak.

All States have now requested the funding, and 90 percent of the funding has been disbursed. The EAC is working with States to make sure that they are addressing cyber security issues and, in particular, replacing outdated, antiquated systems.

I will give you one of many examples. The State of Louisiana last purchased voting equipment in 2005. Its 10,000 voting machines are antiquated, and their spare parts are dwindling and are no longer being manufactured. Louisiana's secretary of state estimated the replacement cost would be between $40 million and $60 million. A $3 million downpayment of Federal money is just barely enough to get Louisiana started, not enough to complete the job.

Let me close by saying that election security is not a partisan issue; it is about protecting who we are as a nation. Free and fair and regular elections define us as a democracy. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--all Americans--who want to know that their votes are counted and our elections are free and fair should care about a Federal role in supporting States and localities as they work to ensure that our election systems are protected and our equipment can't be compromised.

This is an issue not just for the November 2018 elections but for the 2020 elections.

The amendment we hope to call up later today should not be controversial. This is about protecting our democracy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Washington and Connecticut for being here, for speaking out, and for being so remarkable in their persistence in defending America's concerns about healthcare. I want to add my voice for just a few moments, if I might.

Let me look back 8 years to when I first joined the Senate in 2010. At that point, the Affordable Care Act was barely a year old. Since then, in the early years of the Affordable Care Act, we saw some very positive patterns: More Americans gained access to health insurance; the growth of healthcare costs slowed; insurance markets put in place under the ACA proved to be resilient, despite repeated challenges. As a result of the ACA, 20 million more Americans, including 38,000 Delawareans, gained access to high-quality, comprehensive healthcare coverage.

It is through the ACA exchange that my own family and I get our healthcare, and so many others in Delaware have a chance to get access to healthcare. The 190,000 people, in my little State of 900,000 people, who have preexisting conditions no longer had to worry about being denied coverage, and lifetime caps were a thing of the past. This matters; it has saved lives.

Just listen briefly to the story of Nicole from my little hometown of Hockessin, DE, a small farming town of just a few thousand people. Nicole's 3-year-old daughter was born with cystic fibrosis, a horrible disease that robs children and people of the ability to breathe. Nicole's 3-year-old daughter with cystic fibrosis spent at least an hour a day getting breathing treatments from her mother. At $5,000 a month for her medications--not cheap--Nicole was confident that without the ACA she would have exceeded her annual caps and her medical expenses well before the end of the year.

Nicole, in reaching out to me, made it clear that without the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act, she would have had one of three choices: hope she would qualify for Medicaid--unlikely, due to her income; go into debt to pay for her daughter's treatments; or stop giving her daughter some of the medication she depends on to save her life. All of that assumed that her daughter's cystic fibrosis wasn't considered a preexisting condition that would prevent her from getting any insurance at all. Because of that circumstance, Nicole's story exemplifies the life-changing gains and positive trends that the ACA provided.

Unfortunately, there were some other challenges as well, which I will summarize quickly, that have developed over time.

Let me transition to where we are today. Today we are in a place where, just a year ago, consistent, repeated efforts after the 2016 election by Republicans in Congress to repeal without a plan to replace the ACA resulted in a situation where, as my colleague from Connecticut has laid out, the Trump administration has done its best to roll back ways in which progress was made to extend quality, affordable healthcare to more Americans.

After a number of efforts to repeal the law failed last year, thanks to the American people who stood up and had their voices heard, the administration has decided to take a different approach--a slow and steady unraveling and undermining of the protections that made the ACA work.

It started with a decision to stop cost-sharing reduction payments, which help working families afford their premiums and access care. It continued when they changed the rules and encouraged people to sign up for plans that didn't have all the benefits and consumer protections of the ACA--really, junk plans--which made it possible to bring back discrimination against women and those with preexisting conditions. It culminated last month with something that was done in a fly-by-night way and may not have been visible at all to my constituents and viewers: a decision to no longer defend the core components of the ACA in court, including protections for those with preexisting conditions, in a lawsuit brought by 20 attorneys general from States that overwhelmingly opposed the ACA. This decision was so shocking that three career Justice Department attorneys withdrew from the case, and one with over 20 years' experience resigned from his job. Make no mistake, this was the administration sabotaging the ACA and our healthcare system. President Trump even admitted at a campaign event, just cited by my colleague from Connecticut, that he had gutted the

Mr. President, I just want to offer my response to the very disappointing renewed objection to the resolution that Senator Flake and I have attempted to move through this body now twice.

Last week, Senator Flake and I came to call on our Senate colleagues to speak clearly in support of our intelligence community, our Federal law enforcement community, and to state unequivocally that Russia's attacks on our democracy will not be tolerated and that we will take action in a firm and bipartisan and swift way.

Some have said this is merely a simple or symbolic message. I say there are powerful symbols that motivate our Nation, like our flag, and that, although symbolic, are substantive in their consequences.

After the narrow objection of one Senator to this resolution last week, we hear another objection tonight saying what we should be focused on is confirming nominees and funding the Federal Government. I, frankly, don't get the point. If this symbolic resolution, which calls on this Senate to act on hearings, on receiving notes, and on imposing sanctions, in order to push back against Russia's attack on our democracy--if we cannot find 2 minutes to adopt by unanimous consent this simple resolution, then I worry that we continue to have a problem. We continue to have a problem of lack of clarity about what actually happened in 2016 and what may happen in 2018.

I will remind my colleagues, briefly, that President Trump's own Director of National Intelligence has warned that Russia's attacks on our digital infrastructure are ``persistent, pervasive, and they are meant to undermine America's democracy.''

I know I don't need to remind my colleagues that what defines us as a democracy is free, fair, and open elections that our people find credible.

Just this morning, the Department of Homeland Security publicly released that air-gapped control centers for utilities in more than 100 places across our country had been penetrated successfully by Russian military intelligence.

The threat to our 2018 election continues to build, the clarity that we have been attacked in our 2016 election continues to build, and the sanctions that our President could be fully exercising were passed by this body by a vote of 98 to 2 last summer through the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.

This resolution is simple. Because of a lack of clarity at the Helsinki summit between President Trump and President Putin, it calls for prompt hearings, the release of relevant information and notes to better understand the impact of what was committed to in that meeting in Helsinki, and the full implementation of the sanctions adopted by this body by a vote of 98 to 2.

Either we mean it or we don't. Either we care about knowing what happened in Helsinki or we don't. Either we get the threat to our upcoming election or we don't. In my view, we continue to face threats to our elections and to our critical infrastructure, and it is long past time for Congress to work together to secure our democracy.

I will close by thanking my colleague and friend from Arizona for being a partner in this effort, for seeing clearly what is happening, and for standing up and asking this body to act. He gave, I think, a haunting opening quote from ``1984.''

I am concerned that if our President thinks it is appropriate to invite President Putin of Russia to meet with him in our White House or in our Nation's Capital, that he may not yet fully get the point. I am encouraged that Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell said clearly earlier today that President Putin is not welcome in this Nation's Capitol, in this building, in the Capitol where this Congress meets. I wonder what more it will take for there to be clarity on the part of the administration that President Putin is our adversary, has attacked our election, is a threat to our democracy, and should not be welcome in this Nation's Capital as a whole.

I call on my colleagues to support this resolution, to stand with our intelligence and law enforcement communities and against this dangerous foreign adversary, Russia.

Again, I thank and compliment my colleague from Arizona for joining me in this important effort.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor with my colleague Senator Flake from Arizona to send a strong, clear, and, importantly, a bipartisan message to the American people that we stand with the men and women of the Department of Justice and the men and women of the U.S. intelligence community.

We support the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in our elections, and we must act--and act unequivocally--to hold Russia accountable for its actions.

Just 3 days after the U.S. intelligence community issued a detailed and staggering finding that led to an indictment against 12 Russian military intelligence officers for interfering in our 2016 election, President Trump stood shoulder to shoulder with President Putin and failed to challenge Putin's claim that his government played no role in the effort to undermine our democracy.

In fact, when asked, at the time, whether he believed Putin's denial or the U.S. intelligence community, President Trump said: ``I have confidence in both parties.''

He has subsequently walked back those comments, but I think it is important that the Senate be on the record as saying that our intelligence community is clear, our law enforcement community is clear, and today the Senate should be clear.

So today Senator Flake and I are putting forward a resolution that, in its language, commends the Department of Justice for its ongoing investigation into Russia's interference in our last election--the one that led to last week's 11-count indictment, offering the most thorough and detailed accounting to date of Russia's complex effort to sow doubt and create chaos in the months leading up to our last election.

The resolution also reaffirms the intelligence community's assessment of Russian interference and asserts that Russia must be held to account for its actions. This can be accomplished in part by immediately and responsibly implementing sanctions provided for in the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, or CAATSA, which this body passed 98 to 2 this summer.

Finally, following the President's summit with Putin in Helsinki, today's resolution calls for prompt hearings and the release of notes to better understand what the two leaders discussed and may have agreed to during their one-on-one meeting, which ran for over 2 hours.

I am encouraged by hearings that have already been scheduled, but I think it is important that it be clear that our Senate seeks a role in engagement and oversight.

Congress and the American people deserve to know what promises or concessions may have been made to President Putin, and thorough hearings with senior officials, including Secretary Pompeo, are critical.

This resolution is a first step--a good first step--but we need to be clear-eyed. President Putin of Russia will not stop until we stop him. We know we face continued threats to our elections in 2018 and beyond. Just last week, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, our former colleague here in the Senate, cautioned that the warning lights are blinking red again on cyber attacks against our Nation. He said:

These actions are persistent, they are pervasive, and they

are meant to undermine America's Democracy. Attacks on our

country's digital infrastructure [are] made principally by

Russia.

He said:

Russia is the most aggressive foreign actor and the worst

offender.

So we know that we continue to face hostile threats. FBI Director Chris Wray said just yesterday: ``Russia is still working to sow division in the United States and continues to engage in malign actions against our country.''

So we need to join arms and look forward to protecting our next election. Today's resolution is an important first step, but I think we should work together to take up and pass the DETER Act, introduced by Senators Rubio and Van Hollen, to deter Russia from interfering in our next election.

I think we should take up and consider the Lankford-Klobuchar Secure Elections Act to strengthen election cyber security.

Of course, I would like to see my Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act taken up as well. We can build on $380 million invested in election security, grants provided by this Congress to the States back in March to help bolster their election systems against threats.

It is important to remember that Putin and Putin's Russia are attacking other democratic processes throughout Europe. As Americans, as Senators, we need to stand up and fight for our democracy and the rule of law.

I had a memorable conversation with the Ukrainian leader last year, who said to me: If you don't defend your own elections, your own democracy, how can the rest of us count on you to defend ours?

This resolution makes clear that, on a bipartisan basis, we intend to defend our democracy. Russia's attacks on our last elections where attacks on every American--Republicans and Democrats. The threat is great, it is pressing, and it demands that we act.

Today's resolution is a first step and an important one, and I call on my colleagues to join us in supporting it. If there is any Senator who disagrees with this very basic resolution, I look forward to hearing their reasons.

Let me close by thanking my colleague and friend Senator Flake, from Arizona, for having taken the initiative and the lead in introducing this important resolution. We may not agree on everything, but we agree on this important principle: We should stand up and be counted in defense of our democracy.

Madam President, I join my colleague from Arizona in briefly remarking on my regret that our resolution was not adopted today.

It does call for the full implementation of mandatory sanctions as discussed at some length. It does not call for the reckless implementation of mandatory sanctions.

There is a significant range of sanctions already provided for in this law, adopted 98 to 2 by this body, that have not yet been adopted. I recognize that this resolution, standing strong behind the Department of Justice, the intelligence community, and its ongoing investigation is, as was referenced, a symbolic act, but there are moments when symbolism and standing together are important.

I look forward to continuing to work closely with my colleague and friend from Arizona to ensure that this resolution is adopted, that the American people and the men and women of our Federal law enforcement agencies and our intelligence community understand that this body strongly supports them and their work and sees clearly the ongoing and continuing threat to

our democracy posed by President Putin and Putin's Russia.

Thank you.

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

Mr. President on this date a century ago, an extraordinary life began that would change the lives of millions of others. One hundred years ago today, Nelson Mandela was born in the village of Mvezo in a countryside of grass-covered rolling hills in the Eastern Cape of South Africa. That day began a 95-year journey of one man who led the South African people to liberation and whose legacy continues to reverberate through time.

Over the course of his life, Nelson Mandela, known by his nickname ``Madiba,'' became venerated as a global advocate for justice and equality by millions--arguably, more than any other political figure of our time. Through political activism and resistance, Madiba led a revolution by shepherding his people from racial division, hate, and subjugation to freedom, tolerance, and democracy.

One of the most striking aspects of Nelson Mandela's leadership as the first President of a truly free, nonracial, nonsexist South Africa was his enormous capacity for forgiveness and his ability to open his heart to those who were once his brutal oppressors.

Twenty years after he was released from a lifetime in prison, Nelson Mandela invited to dinner at his own home one of his former jailers, a man with whom he had become close friends, saying that their friendship reinforced his belief in the essential humanity of even those who had kept him for so long behind bars. How long? Twenty-six years, 6 months, and 1 week.

Despite all of those years, months, and days of continuous imprisonment, Nelson Mandela never himself became a prisoner to hate. Madiba set the example of healing, forgiveness, and reconciliation that ultimately allowed South Africa's rainbow nation to emerge from the ashes of brutal racial oppression.

His example is particularly timely and powerful in light of the polarization, distrust, and division in our world and even in our own Nation today. History reminds us, though, that this reconciliation, this openness, is not a new phenomenon.

Fifty-two years ago this summer, in June of 1966, then-U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy delivered a memorable speech at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. Speaking to a nation then deep in the throes of the cruel injustices of apartheid, Senator Bobby Kennedy began his speech by describing ``a land in which the native inhabitants were at first subdued, but relations with whom remain a problem to this day; a land which defined itself on a hostile frontier; a land which was once the importer of slaves, and must now struggle to wipe out the last traces of that former bondage.'' Kennedy then paused before famously concluding: ``I refer, of course, to the United States of America.''

Then, as now, the differences between the United States and South Africa are significant. Yet Americans and South Africans share more than we might recognize or want to acknowledge. On the positive side, we share remarkable constitutions and inspiring foundational documents in South Africa's Freedom Charter and our own Declaration of Independence, whose fundamental principles are profound and inspiring but whose lived experiences have so far fallen short. We also share a deep commitment to democracy, societies grounded in the rule of law, a vibrant and free press, and capable and independent judiciaries. We are also multilingual, multifaith democracies, Federal republics that have incredible human histories and deep and rich natural resources. Both South Africa and the United States have demonstrated how important civic institutions are to sustaining democracy and preserving the progress of humanity.

Today, on what would have been Nelson Mandela's 100th birthday, the United States is itself facing serious challenges to the very institutions that underpin and preserve our hard-won democracy. As we weather these challenges together as a nation, let us find inspiration in Mandela's life and legacy. Let us remember that on his long walk to freedom, Nelson Mandela taught the need to study not only those with whom we agree but also those with whom we disagree and to be willing to compromise and find common ground.

In Madiba's words:

It is easy to break down and destroy. The real heroes are

those who make peace and build.

In the years to come, it is my hope that the United States and South Africa will look to each other as both nations continue to struggle against the legacy of racial injustice, reverse our growing economic inequality, and protect our evolving experiments in democracy.

Nelson Mandela ventured to shape the world as it should be. He showed us that values such as forgiveness, respect, and tolerance are not just words but concrete actions we can all take.

I am inspired by Madiba's example to keep fighting for a better, more just world here in the U.S. Senate, as I was first inspired in the fall of 1986 when I traveled to South Africa to volunteer for the South African Council of Churches during the anti-apartheid struggle.

Just 2 years ago, I had a chance as a now Senator to revisit Johannesburg and Cape Town with a delegation that included Senator Kennedy's daughter, Kerry Kennedy, and a whole host of the Kennedy clan. Our own Congressman John Lewis, a leader in America's civil rights struggle; my friend and colleague Congressman Steny Hoyer; and two survivors of the racially motivated shooting in a church in downtown Charleston, Polly Sheppard and Felicia Sanders, were there to serve as a living example of the challenges and the difficulties of reconciliation, of forgiveness, and of grace.

We had remarkable experiences. We met with Desmond Tutu, my former supervisor at the Council of Churches decades ago, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and someone who helped lead the peace and reconciliation process in South Africa. We also heard from today's chancellor of the University of Cape Town, Nelson Mandela's widow, Graca Machel.

Our reflections were interrupted by student protesters demanding a more just dispensation in today's South Africa--a jarring reminder that even the greatness of the remembrance of Bobby Kennedy and Nelson Mandela is not enough to still the relentless yearning for more--more justice and more equality--by the youngest among us.

I still today believe in Nelson Mandela's vision for the world--a world governed by justice and equality and peace and cooperation for the common good. But it is important to remember just how much we have to do together as a global community to hear each other, forgive each other, and get there.

Nelson Mandela once famously said: ``I am not a saint, unless you think of a saint as a sinner who just keeps trying.'' So today let us remember Nelson Mandela's relentless trying, his historic contribution to South Africa and the world, and the example of his struggle to promote human rights and justice for all. Madiba's service is an enduring reminder of what it means to place the good of a nation's people above one's own narrow self-interests--a lesson from which we can all benefit.

I am pleased to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the birth of a giant of history and to honor Nelson Mandela's lifetime of extraordinary service with a bipartisan resolution submitted today. Today, let us rededicate ourselves to his vision for our world and together work tirelessly to make it a reality.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to raise concerns both about the next vote we will take--a vote that will or will not confirm President Trump's nominee Brian Benczkowski to be the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice--and to express my concern about our President's actions at the NATO summit and his upcoming meeting with Vladimir Putin, the President of the Russian Federation.

Let me start with Mr. Benczkowski. I come to the floor to speak in opposition to our proceeding to his confirmation. Mr. Benczkowski has been nominated to serve as an Assistant Attorney General and will be in charge of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Department of Justice.

How big of a division is that--10, 50, 100? It actually has 900 employees and 600 career Federal prosecutors. The U.S. Department of Justice takes up, handles, investigates, and prosecutes cases of an unbelievable range, complexity, and sophistication in every district court in the entire United States. One would have to assume that to take on such a significant--such an important--role as overseeing, supervising, and managing 900 professionals and 600 career prosecutors that Mr. Benczkowski must be very qualified to serve.

As someone who is himself an admitted member of the Delaware bar and serves on the Judiciary Committee, I hesitate to suggest that I have the qualifications because I have never tried a criminal case in court, so I am not sure how I would directly supervise a whole team of career Federal prosecutors. Mr. Benczkowski has never prosecuted a case. He has never supervised a criminal prosecution. In fact, he has not ever appeared in Federal court, by his own admission, except for on one or two limited occasions in order to address routine scheduling or other matters.

Mr. Benczkowski is before us, in his having been nominated to supervise the single largest, most complex, most sophisticated law firm in America for criminal matters on behalf of the people of the United States, without his having the relevant experience. In my view, that alone is disqualifying. That alone should lead us to pause in terms of whether we should confirm this man to lead the Criminal Division as the Assistant AG.

Virtually all of the last several Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorneys General for the Criminal Division have had extensive prior experience as prosecutors, as former U.S. attorneys, as career or elected folks who have either been within the Department of Justice or have been attorneys general. This is for good reason, for the Federal Government holds enormous power and discretion when it comes to criminal prosecutions. The Assistant Attorney General is responsible for overseeing offices that investigate and prosecute money laundering, fraud, organized crime, public corruption, and a host of other serious offenses. It is that AAG who ultimately signs off on some of the edgiest or most difficult or most questionable prosecutorial decisions. Every American should expect that the person who is nominated for this important job is qualified to meet the weighty demands of this job.

Secondly, every American is entitled to the assurance that the Department of Justice will be independent and that criminal prosecutions will rise and fall with the facts and the law and nothing else. Sadly, Mr. Benczkowski fails to pass this test too.

He led the Department of Justice's transition team for the Trump administration. He previously served with our now-Attorney General and former Senator Jeff Sessions. Yet, after leaving the transition team for the Trump

administration, he went on to private practice in a law firm where he represented Alfa-Bank, which is one of the largest Russian banks. It is a Russian bank which, through its owner, a Russian oligarch, has close ties to Vladimir Putin.

At times, it is hard for me to believe how many people immediately around the President, his Cabinet, his campaign team, or around him personally have had concerning, inexplicable, difficult-to-understand ties to Russian entities, but here we are again. To be frank, I am concerned that Mr. Benczkowski's position--if confirmed by this Senate in just 5 minutes in a vote we are about to take--could enable him to directly interfere with Special Counsel Mueller's ongoing investigation into Russian interference.

I have raised concerns about this, about ensuring that Attorney General Sessions fully complies with his recusal from matters related to the last election. Adding Mr. Benczkowski to the mix in his absolutely central role as the Assistant Attorney General who will oversee the Criminal Division raises these concerns even further. Adding another senior person to the Justice Department's leadership team who raises these concerns about real independence gives me real pause.

I joined all of the Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats in a letter that asked the administration to move Mr. Benczkowski to some other position and to send us a qualified, capable nominee who does not have concerning Russian connections. Unfortunately, the administration hasn't done that. My friends on the other side of the aisle seem poised to confirm this gentleman today.

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

Mr. President, this morning, the hot Sun rose on a tent city 20 miles outside El Paso, TX. That tent city stands as a makeshift detention facility to house children who have crossed our border and have been separated from their parents. This tent city, I would suggest, is hopefully a temporary monument to modern-day American cruelty.

Across South Texas, so-called tender age shelters have sprung up to house very young children, even infants, who have been taken from their parents in an act that pediatricians, psychologists, and frankly anyone who has raised a child themselves know is the most traumatizing and upsetting thing you can do to a young child, which is to take them away from their parents by force, with no understanding of what is happening or expectation of when they will be reunited.

This morning, thousands of children woke up to the voices of strangers in strange places and started another day in institutionalized, fenced-in confinement. This is happening in our Nation.

I have heard from dozens--hundreds of Delawareans by every means they could communicate with me, and I am sure my colleagues have also heard from hundreds or thousands of their constituents, as we, as a nation, have been haunted by the sounds and images of vulnerable children crying out for help.

On one hand, I think this is a simple issue of right and wrong, but on the other, this issue, like so many others that affect us in the Senate, has been complicated by politics and by rhetoric and by statements, frankly, meant to mislead.

The American people, though, I think deserve clarity about what has been happening along our southern border in recent weeks and what its impacts have been and may be to families, to children, and to parents who have crossed our border. So let's be clear about what is happening.

President Trump and his administration created--created--a humanitarian crisis by adopting a so-called zero tolerance policy to compel prosecution of all who cross our southern border, many of whom are people fleeing unspeakable violence in their home countries in Central America. Then the President and leaders in his administration excused or even misled people about this policy--this cruel policy--in a variety of different, conflicting, and, frankly, at times, even absurd ways in the past week.

Administration officials claim they didn't actually have this policy or claimed they were compelled to do this by a nonexistent law or claimed their policy was a deterrent to prevent people from seeking asylum in the United States.

Regardless of the explanations given, the American people spoke clearly and forcefully over the past week and said the President's policy was unacceptable. They said this treatment of children was an un-American tragedy that should not continue.

Under that sustained pressure from the American people, our President relented and yesterday signed an Executive order, but even then he has only created new problems with the Executive order he just issued.

As a Senator and as a person of faith, my own public service is closely tied to the values taught to me by my Christian faith and by my parents. I know many of my colleagues with whom I have spoken, on both sides of the aisle, feel the same way. We have to ask ourselves as parents, as people of faith: How can we stomach the human suffering of a child being ripped from his mother's arms and that intentional, willful child abuse being imposed to make that child a hostage or a bargaining chip in our long-running and unresolved conflicts here about immigration policy? How can we tolerate even one father being left in torment, searching for his baby or child, not knowing where they are or even if he will ever see them again, and having that torment imposed as a tool of policy, and how can we stomach multiplying those individual tragedies by 2,342?

By my count, since May, 2,342 children have been forcibly separated from their parents after crossing our border. In just 6 weeks, 2,342 lives have been changed in ways that will have lasting consequences.

Now, the President has issued the Executive order that he claims will end this separation of families, but that Executive order is seriously flawed and will create as many problems and questions as it seeks to address. Of course, it doesn't change the fact that this policy, this zero tolerance policy, has already inflicted trauma and suffering for thousands of families and children. I think it creates a new humanitarian challenge, a new humanitarian crisis, because the consequences of this new Executive order will be to detain entire families in what may well prove to be ill-equipped tent cities.

This policy does nothing to clarify what will become of the more than 2,300 children already separated from their families, some of whom have been lost track of by the agencies responsible for them.

We live in the world's most powerful and prosperous Nation, but I am afraid we are watching, day after day, the way in which the administration has chosen to treat children, through their indefinite detention or separation from their parents, in a way that will have lasting and negative consequences for our human rights record.

As a nation, we were founded as an idea, a place to which people came fleeing persecution, fleeing countries in collapse or authoritarian regimes, and seeking a brighter, newer future in this country. I think we are being dishonest or shortsighted about our own family's history if any one of us stands and says that none of our ancestors came here-- none of our ancestors came here seeking relief from oppression or outside the legal mechanisms of the time. I think we are forgetting our family's history if we say: Today we must close our border absolutely and prevent anyone seeking asylum from coming to our country.

Frankly, I have struggled as leaders in this administration have chosen to cite Scripture and to use their faith as an explanation or justification for why this zero tolerance policy was required.

Our Attorney General, a former colleague of mine, someone whose knowledge of Scripture I know to be thorough, cited Paul's Epistle to the Romans to justify this policy. In fact, I think it is specifically Romans 13:1 through 5.

He said Romans 13 requires us ``to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for His purposes.''

I, too, am somewhat familiar--in a passing way--with Scripture. I try to read my Bible daily, and, with all due respect, I disagree with Attorney General Sessions's reading.

In Paul's letter to the Romans, he says, just before Romans 13--in Romans 12, and then just a little later in Romans 13--so if you just read a few verses on either side, I think the message is clear: We are urged to share with the Lord's people in need; we are urged to live in harmony with one another, and we are reminded most pointedly later on in Romans 13 that love is the fulfillment of the law and that ``love thy neighbor'' is the greatest Commandment of all.

If there is one common theme, not just in this epistle but in the Gospel, it is that Jesus radically opened His heart and His preaching to those considered outcasts and ordinary and marginalized in His society in His time. With whom did He spend His time? Outstanding citizens? Respected leaders? No, with prostitutes, with tax collectors, with lepers, with Samaritans, with the others, and with the outcasts.

I just ask those who heard what Attorney General Sessions had to say and who thought it was the right answer to rethink whether this strained and cramped reading of Paul's letter is truly a faithful reading.

Romans 13 does, indeed, instruct us to follow the law and to respect those in authority, but I will say this particular passage--and it is being misquoted in order to support oppression--has a long and storied history.

It was cited by Tories in this country who opposed those who stood up for freedom in the American Revolution. It was cited by slaveholders who opposed abolition in the runup to the Civil War. I heard it cited by those who defended the Apartheid regime in South Africa.

Yes, it does teach us to obey the law and respect the law. It does teach us that God ordains those in authority, but it does not mean we should simply accept unjust and inhumane laws and the abuses that flow from them. As a person of faith, I simply cannot accept the current policies for the treatment of those who cross our borders seeking asylum and refuge in our Nation.

In the last few days, as I have heard on my television and social media, the sounds of crying children and the images of children being kept in what certainly looked to me to be little more than cages, I have been thinking about something written by one of America's most famous former slaves, Frederick Douglass--a man who spent much of his life in this very city and who wrote about the consequences on the oppressor of cruelty.

In his book, ``My Bondage and My Freedom,'' he recounted his life as a slave, and he wrote about the brutalizing impact of slavery on the people of faith who tolerated it. I think his words bear briefly repeating today. He said at one point in that book:

The mistress of the house was a model of affection and

tenderness. Her fervent piety and watchful uprightness made

it impossible to see her without thinking and feeling--``that

woman is a Christian.'' There was no sorrow nor suffering for

which she had not a tear, and there was no innocent joy for

which she had not a smile. She had bread for the hungry,

clothes for the naked, and comfort for every mourner that

came within her reach.

Frederick Douglass goes on to say:

Slavery soon proved its ability to divest her of these

excellent qualities, and [slavery soon proved its ability to

divest] her home of its early happiness. Conscience cannot

stand much violence. Once thoroughly broken down, who is he

that can repair the damage?

I think we should reflect, as people of conscience motivated to public service, in many cases by a shared faith, about our responsibility to speak up for the values upon which our Republic was founded and through which it has been improved.

When we promote humanity, kindness, love, tolerance, and openness, we advance our Nation. I have been heartened by the calls I have heard from across my State and country by people of many different backgrounds, many different faith traditions, many different political views. I am reminded of that passage of Frederick Douglass of the harm it causes us to be a part of a nation that imposes such a cruel and thoughtless policy and turns away and fails to look at it and fails to step forward and fails to change it. I am encouraged by what change there has been so far, but I will remind those listening that we must redouble our efforts.

Let me quote just a few. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called forceful family separation ``immoral'' and ``contrary to our Catholic values.'' The Holy Father, Pope Francis himself, expressed his agreement with that opinion, saying he is on the side of the bishops conference in this debate.

Rev. Franklin Graham, one of President Trump's most ardent defenders, called this policy ``disgraceful'' and said: ``It's terrible to see families ripped apart and I don't support that one bit.''

A personal friend of mine, Rev. Jim Wallis, of Sojourners, has worked with a broad group from across faith leadership, from the evangelical community to the Protestant community, to put together a group that goes by reclaiming Jesus and to post online an important statement that speaks to how across so many different faith traditions this practice, this policy of forcibly separating children--and now a subsequent policy of family detention--speaks ill of all of us.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, humanists, people of all traditions have been calling on our President to end this treatment of fellow human beings. I have heard from colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, from all over this country, their voices of concern. So it is my hope that we will refuse to tolerate this; that we as a body will take a stand; and that we as a nation will urge our President and this administration to adopt new, more humane policies for people crossing our border and seeking refuge in this country; and that we will support bipartisan legislation to fix our broken immigration laws. It is only by the action and leadership of this administration that we have gotten into this space; it is only by their action and leadership that we can get out of it.

I pray it is not too late for us to restore this Nation's reputation as a country that welcomes those seeking refuge from around the world. I will continue to pray every day for our President, for our Senators, for our Nation, for its values, and for our ability to stand up for the treatment of children in distress.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as we await a 12:15 p.m. vote, I want to urge my colleagues to support the first amendment that we will be voting on today--the Gardner-Coons sense-of-the-Senate resolution, a resolution that focuses on the importance of federally sponsored research for the advancement of scientific innovation.

There are many great things to like about the program that is funded in this Energy and Water appropriations bill that is about to be before us, especially the work funded by the U.S. Department of Energy. Our bipartisan resolution reinforces that message by acknowledging that the United States has long been a leader in innovation, in large part because of a critical role played by Federal funding for both basic and applied research.

For decades, we have made investments that have led to incredible breakthroughs instrumental to our current prosperity, economy, and jobs. The Department of Energy National Labs--the 17 labs across 11 States--have been at the forefront through that process since their founding. It is the creative, generative, innovative partnership among these federally funded national labs, our network of universities and colleges that conduct federally funded and privately funded research, and the entrepreneurs and companies that take, through applied research, their innovations and inventions to the marketplace that in combination have created one of the most innovative, most competitive economies in global history.

I am grateful for the leadership of Senators Alexander and Feinstein, the chair and ranking member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee of Appropriations, for having brought forward this balanced and thoughtful bill. I will remind my colleagues that for several years now, budgets presented by the executive branch have proposed deep and harmful cuts to the foundational, federally funded scientific research upon which the success of our innovation economy rests. I am thrilled that once again this year, on a bipartisan basis, we are rejecting those cuts and, instead, investing significantly more in Federal scientific research.

I am grateful for the opportunity to partner with my colleague, the Senator from Colorado, in moving the sense of the Senate. I am hopeful that it begins to clarify on a bipartisan basis that this Chamber is committed to innovation, science, competitiveness, and research. With that, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Pancreatic Cancer Research

Mr. President, while we are waiting for floor action, I will briefly share with my colleagues that my day began with my speaking to the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, which is made up of more than 500 Americans who have come from all 50 States and who are all across Capitol Hill right now, meeting with those in offices of the House and the Senate. They are folks who have lost loved ones--family members, relatives, neighbors--to one of the deadliest cancers, pancreatic cancer. They are here to urge that we invest more in medical research. This is a cancer that has affected families all over our country, but without greater investment in research, we cannot bend the trajectory of this dread disease.

It was just last February that I lost my own father to pancreatic cancer, and this year was my first Father's Day without him. I am grateful for the opportunity to have joined this morning with these Americans from every State. I join with them in urging my colleagues to consider investing more this year in research to end this scourge of pancreatic cancer.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues on the floor this afternoon to address the mounting concerns we have with the foreign policy of the Trump administration. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Menendez of New Jersey, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and comment at the outset on two things that have been widely said that I don't think are true.

First is that Democrats are bottling up the President's vitally needed nominees for senior ambassadorial positions

or senior Department of State nominations and that we are holding key nominees.

Frankly, nothing could be further from the truth. Earlier today, in a business meeting, our Foreign Relations Committee, which works well on a bipartisan basis, voted out a whole series of Ambassadors, treaties, and Assistant Secretaries of State.

Second, I heard it said by some pundits that Democrats wish President Trump ill, that we are working to do everything we can to hold him back and prevent him from being successful.

Let me start by saying that I think all of us know that we are strongest when we stand together and work together. All of us have at some point heard the old adage that politics should stop at the water's edge, and nothing would make me happier then to see our foreign policy, our military, and our diplomatic efforts succeed around the world.

I do not wish our President ill or our State Department a lack of success, but I think it deserves mentioning for the few minutes I am taking on the floor today that President Trump, who promised as a candidate to be unpredictable and nontraditional, has overperformed in that category. His foreign policy has been defined by inconsistency, volatility, unpredictability, and at times, a failure to advance our values. This comes exactly at a time, as my colleague from Connecticut was just reciting, when our allies and partners crave stability and leadership and when the threats to our democratic way of life from Russia and China are on the rise.

Trump's ``shock and awe'' style of governing was demonstrated recently by his abrupt firing of the Secretary of State in a tweet and his further humiliation of the Secretary of State in stories that dribbled out about exactly how and when and where he was fired. We should not be conducting foreign policy in the same way that one might host a reality TV show like ``The Apprentice.''

In just a year, as I have attended a variety of conferences and meetings around the world, I have been struck by the number of ways in which the President has undermined alliances and friendships that have taken decades to build. Let me briefly review a few of the ways our European and Asian allies have been puzzled or confounded--by our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership; by imposing a travel plan on citizens from majority Muslim countries; by withdrawing from the Paris climate accord; by imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum, including against our close North American and European allies; by questioning our commitments to NATO; and by denigrating an entire continent when discussing the value of potential immigrants from Africa.

Real and consistent leadership around the world that reflects American values is needed now more than ever. In the dozen countries I have visited for regional security conferences in the past year, I have heard the same from our vital allies. Senator McCain and I traveled to Halifax in Canada and to Singapore in Southeast Asia for a series of bilateral meetings of representatives of close and trusted allies. Senator Flake and I have traveled to Africa. Senator Graham and I have traveled to the Middle East. In all of these trips, what I have heard is that our allies are concerned, that they need reassurance about how and where we stand, and that in many cases, yes, they are beginning to move on past us and to reach accommodations with China or Russia, having concluded that we are not committed to engagement with the world.

Every time I go on a visit to a foreign embassy--an embassy of the United States overseas--I sit down with our Foreign Service officers and I ask about their work and service, and I am overwhelmingly impressed with the professionalism and dedication of our career development professionals and our diplomats. Yet, overwhelmingly, the big number of vacancies at the State Department and a budget that proposes a more than 30-percent cut in the State Department and USAID have had a significant, demoralizing impact on these people whom we count on to advance America's interest and values around the world.

Let me also say briefly that on the continent of Africa, where I have spent a great deal of my time on the Foreign Relations Committee, we are missing Ambassadors to some of the biggest and most important countries--South Africa and Tanzania being just two, for example. It is a continent where China's pervasive presence is not being countered by an America that is robustly engaged. Why does this matter? Because in this century, Africa will become the fastest growing and largest market for our goods and should be the continent in which we have the closest alliances and partnership. But instead of building partnerships and helping to extend markets here at home, the Trump administration is squandering the current momentum and watching from the sidelines as democratic norms deteriorate.

As a member of both the Appropriations and Foreign Relations Committees, I was gravely concerned that for a second year in a row, the Trump administration budget proposed deep cuts in diplomacy and development. We must recognize that while these investments serve a humanitarian purpose, they also make us stronger by spreading American values, safer by building coalitions, less susceptible to terrorism by creating a more stable world, and more prosperous by creating stronger export markets for our goods. If we want to remain a global leader, we need a strong State Department and USAID that are sufficiently funded.

Let me turn to the matter of Russia before I conclude. Throughout his administration, President Trump has not only turned away from some of our critical allies and weakened our commitments to international coalitions but has also refused to head-on, clearly address the real and multifaceted threats we face from Russia.

Russia's activities, as has been testified to by senior administration officials over many hearings, now are directly interfering with our democracy--our last election and likely our next election, as well as those of our closest allies throughout the world. Rather than sending a clear and forceful signal to Russia that our political affairs are not to be meddled with, President Trump has instead at times turned aside from this challenge and failed to address it.

Let me conclude by simply saying that now more than ever, the United States must lead in the world, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee on a bipartisan basis to advance our interests.

Thank you, Mr. President.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, today is 1 month to the day from a tragic shooting in Parkland, FL, where 17 high-school-aged students lost their lives. As so many of my colleagues have done, I come to the floor to remember them, to honor their loss, to speak to their classmates, colleagues, and families, and to share from the experience of my own home State of Delaware.

This morning, today, there are high school students across our country and across my home State of Delaware who are walking out of class to try and draw the attention of those of us in Washington to the urgent need that we work across the aisle to tackle the plague of gun violence that affects communities all over this country. That is why we see young people not just across the country but including in my home State of Delaware demanding that we take action. We need to answer their call.

Let me speak to my hometown of Wilmington, DE. Just last month, 5 people--5 people, last month--under the age of 21 were shot in Wilmington,

and 2017 ended as one of the worst years ever for gun violence and homicides--197 individuals shot, 32 wounded fatally.

If I could, I wish to read the names of 31 individuals who were victims of gun violence in the city of Wilmington in 2017. We are working--Federal, State, and local officials; police departments and community and civic leaders--to try to tackle these challenges, but some of the core causes can only be addressed here. We need to find a way to work together, to respect each other, to compromise, and to tackle the very real epidemic of gun violence in our country.

These 31 Delawareans lost their lives in the city of Wilmington to gun violence in the year 2017: Dariberto Velazquez Mendez, age 32; Santanu Muhuri, age 64; Jermaine Francois, age 34; Charles Mays, age 66; Jamiere Harris, age 21; Kayden Young, age 21; Ainsley Cumberbatch, age 23; Jamiel Congo, age 23; Keevan Hale, age 38; Tajuane Helton, age 41; Richard Crosby, age 30; Yaseem Powell, age 18; Tyree Robinson, age 23; Bryan Brooks, age 29; Tynesia Cephas, age 16; Joquon Coverdale, age 22; Derrius Jackson-Paul, age 23; Sherman Pride, age 22; Shamar Lindsay, age 25; Cyree Watson, age 22; David Bailey, age 23; Nycire Mills, age 23; Kai'Mel Ennals, age 20; Barry White, age 19; Allen Melton, age 28; Albert Hazzard, age 33; Dwayne Grimes, age 19; Justin McDermott, age 18; Andrew Pennewell, age 25; Shawn Lockhart, age 29; and Keanan Samuels, age 20.

The facts of all of these different episodes of violence and loss vary widely, but the conclusion must be the same: We have to find ways to listen to each other, to work across the aisle, and to stop deadly shootings in our country.

I am encouraged that many of my colleagues today have introduced legislation that would take meaningful steps to tackle gun violence and make all of us safer. We must act. We must listen to the voices of young Americans demanding that we do our job and make our country safer.

I yield floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening inspired by the determined efforts of my colleague Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

My colleague has made clear, by delivering his 200th floor speech on climate change, that he is committed to raising awareness about and urging action on this very real threat to our environment.

Let me speak briefly as someone trained in science as a chemist. I am troubled that time and again I am called to this Chamber to defend and advocate for science. We live in a time of unprecedented scientific advances. Throughout our history, we have turned to science to help us solve both domestic and international crises. Science was there, for example, to do battle against the Ebola outbreak, threats from hurricanes and other natural disasters, and the dangers of cigarette smoke and lead exposure. It was scientists who helped find a cure, provide early warning, who educated us, and who influenced politics to lead to policies that led to stronger industry and consumer safety standards in facing all of these threats. The scientific method has saved lives and ensured our survival, so why don't we more widely embrace the science of prediction, mitigation, and adaptation to the effects of climate change?

Climate change is real. We know climate change is already happening, although it is slow, gradual, and often hard to perceive. Its effects will impact human health, agricultural production, national security-- an unbelievable range of concerns that should motivate us together. Yet I have colleagues who either aren't convinced or don't understand that climate change is a real and pressing threat.

Let me briefly cite one meta-study of scientific opinion. It surveyed 13,950 peer-reviewed articles and studies on climate change and found that only 24 of them rejected global warming--less than 0.2 percent. Although there is not unanimous opinion, when there is 99.8 percent agreement in the scientific community, we should agree that this degree of certainty is enough to take action.

``An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'' is an aphorism that dates back to the early 1700s. Why are we waiting? Let's change our ways. Let's work together to lower greenhouse gases, combat pollution, and slow the impact of climate change.

As someone who represents the State of Delaware, I am passionate about this because we are the lowest mean elevation State in America. I have heard from folks up and down the First State--from my colleague Senator Carper, from our Governor, from our community leaders, and from concerned citizens from Wilmington, to Rehoboth, to Middletown--that they are concerned about sea level rise and its likely impact on our State. We need to do more because, in my small State, sea level rise is happening at twice the national rate. In about 100 years, everyone in Delaware will finally have a beach house--just not the way they want it.

Let me conclude by saying we need to look forward, not backward, when addressing climate change and sea level rise. We need action, not reaction. We need policy, not politics. We should act today, not tomorrow.

Again, I thank Senator Whitehouse. It was my pleasure to have him visit my home State of Delaware and see what we are doing to plan for and to combat sea level rise as a result of climate change. It was my honor to join him this evening and lend my support to him, to our environment, and to the fight against climate change.

I yield to my senior colleague from our shared home State of Delaware.

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

Mr. President, I rise in this historic Chamber to offer my thanks, my respect, and to pay homage to an incredibly valued member of my staff who is about to retire from the U.S. Senate after decades of dedicated service.

A New Englander by birth and a Delawarian by choice, Mary Ann Kelley has served as my deputy scheduler now for 7 years and is due to retire tomorrow, March 9.

Mary Ann Kelley--or MAK, as she is affectionately called in my office--started a career with the U.S. Senate way back in December 1990 as a staff assistant for then-Senator Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. Except for a break in service, Mary Ann served on Senator Biden's team until he resigned to become Vice President in 2009. She stayed on through the tenure of Senator Ted Kaufman and joined my scheduling team late in 2010.

In her having served now three U.S. Senators, Mary Ann brings a breadth of knowledge and experience to my front office and scheduling team. She helps to maintain my schedule, helps to organize and evaluate and to track hundreds of invitations and scheduling requests to coworkers and constituents. Mary Ann's professionalism and business acumen are unwavering and valued. She always maintains her composure despite the stress and sometimes craziness this unique position offers. My team in Delaware appreciates her ready wit, balanced judgment, and calming presence.

Krista Brady, my talented casework manager, said:

MAK adds that something extra Irish to the office. Every

morning, she comes in wearing her snazziest outfit, drinking

her cappuccino from Starbucks, and ready to tell a funny

story.

Krista reminded me about Mary Ann's love for cats, her famous Halloween mask, her curry chicken, and,

of course, her wicked New England spirit.

Mary Ann's story is rooted deeper than in just her years of Senate service. MAK's authenticity, personality, and devotion to friends and family make her a staff favorite and valued member of my team. To properly honor Mary Ann, let me share some details about her background and her persona.

A graduate of Cardinal Spellman High School and Framingham State University, Mary Ann was born and lived in Massachusetts until she moved to Delaware in 1979. Ask MAK about her hometown, and she will quickly chime in with ``Brockton, MA--home of Rocky Marciano and Marvin Hagler!'' Thanks to Rocky and Marvin, world heavyweight and middleweight boxing champions, Brockton is recognized as the City of Champions.

If Rocky and Marvin are Brockton's boxing champions, Mary Ann is the city's undisputed world champion in cooking, whether it be baking, roasting, or toasting. Like Rocky and Marvin, Mary Ann has a passion and talent for her own chosen sport, one that she has practiced and refined over many years. Marvin Hagler explained what makes a winner, and what Mary Ann did to become a well-seasoned top chef is the same thing. Marvin Hagler, the boxer, once said, ``Every fighter has got [to] be dedicated, learn how to sacrifice, know what devotion is all about, make sure you're paying attention and studying your art.''

Mary Ann learned to cook at an early age. She will say that she was born with a love of cooking. This interest is something she has pursued through her college years and into today. She earned a bachelor's of science in food and nutrition from Framingham State in 1967 and subsequently mentored and educated students as a home economics teacher for 5 years. Mary Ann taught classes on food, nutrition, and, of course, cooking.

Over the decades, our very own MAK perfected a wide range of delicacies to soothe and feed family, friends, and fellow Delawarians. Often, the people she fed and cared for were through her efforts at the Ministry of Caring in Wilmington, DE. Mary Ann worked for a decade as the head chef at the Ministry of Caring, a community-based nonprofit that provides a network of social, health, and support services for those who are living in poverty or who are homeless. Mary Ann used her professional education, her faith, and her experience to feed the souls of people and provide them comfort through food served at the Ministry's Emmanuel Dining Room.

When Mary Ann returned to the Senate after her break in service, she rallied her coworkers to volunteer and serve food monthly at the Emmanuel Dining Room, where I, too, have volunteered. When I took office as a Senator, we continued this outreach, and it served as a great opportunity for my casework team and others to connect with constituents.

Besides MAK's involvement with the Ministry of Caring, for many years, she owned and operated her own excellent business, Creative Catering Cuisine. To this day, she still receives catering requests and calls from friends for cookies, cakes, and other treats. Mary Ann's depth and variety of dishes are unique and storied. Staff favorites include MAK's mouth-watering filet mignon, cranberry coffee cake, Irish cake, banana pudding, and a wide variety of pound cakes. Lynne Phifer, my intern coordinator, speaks highly of Mary Ann's homemade oatmeal cookies and other confections. Lynne and the rest of the team, however, are unanimous in their vote for MAK's curry chicken.

Mary Ann's food is influential and, I would say at times, even transcendent. I am confident, if MAK's menu had existed in earlier times, it could have changed the course of history as we know it. If this sustenance had been available in 1775, Founding Father Patrick Henry may have exclaimed, ``Give me Mary Ann's curry chicken or give me death!''

Mary Ann goes to great lengths, in all seriousness, to prepare meals for those she loves. She gets the best and freshest ingredients. Some on my staff remember the day Mary Ann returned from her lunch break with a half dozen lobsters--the main course for a dinner prepared in honor of her son's birthday.

Desiree Burritt, my immigration case worker, who also worked for Senators Biden and Kaufman before me, said:

Mary Ann has always been our in-house chef, always there to

pull up a chair, quick to smile, laugh, and listen. MAK is

like a mother to all of us.

Mary Ann may not know just how much she inspires and influences those around her. I have been moved to hear and witness the impression that she has made on my staff, on her friends, and her family.

Terry Wright, who also previously worked for Senator Biden--a member of my Service Academy Selection Board--has known Mary Ann for many years. Terry said Mary Ann is ``generous with an absolute willingness to help anyone in any way she can. When she's your friend,'' Terry said, ``you have a friend for life.''

Elena Sassaman, a newer member of my casework team, said:

Mary Ann is one of the nicest and most thoughtful people

I've met both here, working in the Senate, and in everyday

life. MAK was one of the first people to include me in the

office family dynamic when I first started.

Elena has developed a love for knitting, crocheting, and other crafts thanks to Mary Ann's encouragement and valued friendship.

When I am not in DC, I am usually in my Wilmington office in Delaware, and we enjoy the opportunity to have lunch as a group with everybody on the Delaware staff. I love those lunches, listening to Mary Ann tell funny stories, share observations, even show photos of or brag about her grandkids.

My dad, whom I miss dearly, was born in Boston, MA, himself, and Mary Ann, who never lost her remarkable Boston accent, has provided me a familiar and comforting presence whenever she speaks.

I love her Massachusetts spirit, her soul, and her positive attitude. Mary Ann is a good and decent person and a great presence in our office. She is at the same time both a fixture and a breath of fresh air.

Mary Ann's work in the Senate and her career as a chef shows us all the importance of working hard and embracing what you love, using your strengths to help your friends and neighbors and to better the country and community.

Mary Ann said she would miss all aspects of working with us in the Senate. It has been such a big part of her life, I know. Mary Ann, I know you will also miss the comradery of your coworkers in the Delaware office.

As a longtime chef, I am confident, Mary Ann, that you already have a recipe for retirement and will embrace the joy of not working. Your retirement will surely be filled with activities such as cooking, knitting, and outings with your friends Jill, Norma, Sue, and Tanya, and you will spend more time with your sons Michael and Terence, daughters-in-law Nell and Jennifer, and beloved grandchildren Cole, Mitch, Meredith, and Nolan, who all live right nearby, just over the line in Pennsylvania. Whether their Nan is joining them for dinner or attending a Unionville High School rowing event, I know you will be there in high spirits, prepared with a great story and an even better dessert.

Mary Ann, I know you look forward to trips to Westborough, MA, and to spending holidays and warmer weekends with Terence, Jennifer, Meredith, and Nolan.

Let me conclude by saying to Mary Ann, thank you for your years of service to the Senate, to our community, and to the people of the First State. You have been a valued member of my team, and I will close with a traditional Irish blessing:

May there always be work for your hands to do.

May your purse always hold a coin or two.

May the sun always shine on your windowpane.

May a rainbow be certain to follow each rain.

May the hand of a friend be always near you.

May God fill your heart with gladness to cheer you.

With that, Mary Ann, I offer you a fond farewell and a thanks to you for all you have done for Delaware and the Senate.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.