Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes before we proceed to the cloture vote scheduled at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I was honored when my good friend Senator John McCain reached out to me 2 weeks ago to suggest that we introduce bipartisan legislation here in the Senate that would attempt to solve two of our most pressing immigration issues and keep our country and Congress moving forward. The bill we have introduced--and which the Senate will soon proceed to vote on--doesn't solve every immigration issue we face, and it doesn't try to. What our bill does is focus on the issues on which we can agree. It is an attempt to break through the messy political debates and substantive disagreements here and find compromise.

Our bill would do two simple things: Move to secure our border, and finally give Dreamers the path to citizenship they deserve.

First, to address border security, our bipartisan bill would ensure that we gain operational control of the border by 2020 with new investments, new technology, new resources for Federal, State, and local law enforcement. It would also reduce current immigration court backlogs by funding new judges and attorneys, while addressing one of the root causes of immigration from Central America.

Second, our bill would give legal certainty to 1.8 million Dreamers who are American in every way but the paperwork--young Americans who have known no other country but this one. Dreamers who continue to play by the rules by going to school, serving in our military, and maintaining consistent employment can become lawful permanent residents and, 5 years later, U.S. citizens.

Senator McCain and I aren't the only ones who think this bipartisan solution makes sense; 54 Members of the House--an even split of 27 Republicans and 27 Democrats--have cosponsored and led this effort. It has been championed by Republican Congressman Will Hurd of Texas, whose district has 800 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, and Democratic Congressman Pete Aguilar of California.

Our bill is more than just a set of policies. It is a way for us to agree when we can agree and not let our disagreements get in the way of making progress. There have been misrepresentations and half-truths said in attacking this bill, and I will simply say this: Would a true American hero and patriot like Senator McCain have lent his name to this bill if all these attacks were true? I think not.

Our message is simple. We may not fix every immigration issue right now, but we can take a historic step forward, and with new technology, new manpower, a new pathway to citizenship, address Dreamers and allow them to succeed in American schools and in the American military and to enrich American communities without fear of deportation. These are tough issues, but the solution is simple. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the McCain-Coons bill.

I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about an issue that has occupied this floor, this body, this Congress for some time now: the challenge of how to fix our broken immigration system. As many of us have debated and talked and tried to find common ground and a bipartisan path forward, I wanted to speak about why I have optimism that we can find a bipartisan solution to this challenge.

I know I am not alone in my optimism about this. One of my very dearest friends in the Senate, someone I respect and admire deeply, someone who knows more about sacrifice and patriotism than anyone I have ever met, believes the same thing. This friend of mine is not just any Senator. It is Mr. John McCain, the senior Senator from Arizona, who also happens to be an American hero and someone who has literally fought for this country and its values throughout his entire life. He is someone whom our mutual friend, former Vice President Joe Biden, calls a ``man of . . . deep conviction, and unmatched character.''

John McCain is exactly the person the Senate and this country needs in times like this, when the way forward is unclear, when our disagreements seem too wide, when our instincts are to argue rather than listen. This Chamber and this country need someone who is able to show us a way forward and lead us out of our stubborn, sometimes too partisan fights--someone like Senator McCain.

As this debate has progressed in recent days, I have been reminded of something I heard Senator McCain say late last year when he accepted the Liberty Medal from the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. When speaking about our country and when speaking about the opportunity he has had here, he said:

What a privilege it is to serve this big, boisterous,

brawling, intemperate, striving, daring, beautiful,

bountiful, brave, magnificent country. With all our flaws,

all our mistakes, with all the frailties of human nature as

much on display as our virtues, with all the rancor and anger

of our politics, we are blessed. We are living in the land of

the free, the land where anything is possible. The land of

the immigrants' dream, the land with the storied past

forgotten in the rush to an imagined future.

What a country, indeed. Beautiful, brave, and magnificent, as John said, but also challenged by occasional frailty, rancor, and anger that we have seen too much of in this sustained debate over immigration.

The point Senator McCain made that night in Philadelphia--and the point he has made every day serving our Nation for more than six decades--is that working through our disagreements, our divisions is worth it, not just as Senators but as citizens.

The whole point is, we may be boisterous and intemperate, which John has certainly also been accused of being a time or two, but we don't stop striving for our ideals, believing in our future, and respecting one another. That is often difficult--especially here in politics--but it is the challenge that comes with the blessings of living and serving this great country.

So I was honored when Senator McCain reached out to me a week ago to say: Let's work together to introduce in the Senate legislation that could help solve our most pressing immigration issues and keep our country moving forward.

The bipartisan bill we have introduced--the McCain-Coons bill--in the Senate doesn't solve every immigration issue we face, and it doesn't try to. What our bill does is focus on two issues right in front of us that I believe we can address and resolve. It is an attempt to break through what have been messy and divisive political debates and to address, through a compromise, legitimate, substantive issues in front of us.

Our bill would do two things: secure our border and finally give Dreamers the pathway to citizenship they have long awaited for, and they deserve.

First, to address border security, our bill would ensure we gain operational control of the border by 2020 with new technology, new resources for Federal, State, and local law enforcement, and new infrastructure.

It would reduce the existing immigration case backlogs by funding new judges and new attorneys, while also addressing one of the root causes of migration into our country from Central America.

Our legislation would give certainty to 1.8 million Dreamers brought here as children through no fault of their own, who are American in every way but the paperwork. Dreamers who continue to play by the rules by going to school, serving in the military, or being consistently employed can become lawful, permanent residents and, at least 5 years later, U.S. citizens.

Senator McCain and I aren't the only ones who think this bipartisan solution makes sense. In fact, the reason we filed it here was because of the strength of its development in the other Chamber, the people's House, the House of Representatives. This bill was crafted by Republican Congressman Will Hurd of El Paso, TX, whose district has more than 800 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border--more than any district in our country with a U.S.-Mexico border--and his partner, Democratic Congressman Pete Aguilar, who is from Southern California. The two of them put this bill together after a lot of consultation and meetings with their colleagues in the House. Today, it enjoys 27 Republican cosponsors and 27 Democratic cosponsors. I often hear we shouldn't take up and consider anything that can't pass the House, but a bill that has 54 bipartisan cosponsors in the House is certainly on the right track.

Now, I am clear-eyed about the fact that this McCain-Coons bill is not perfect, and I understand some of my colleagues may want to make changes to it. Some of my Republican friends I have met with and heard from and talked to in recent days have suggested it needs more investments in border security to win their support, and that is fine because our bill is more than just a set of policies. It is a way to provide a framework for us to agree and not let our disagreements prevent us from moving forward.

So my message is simple about this bill: We may not be able to fix our entire immigration system this week--in fact, I am certain we can't--but we can, over the next few days, perhaps

even over the next few hours, take important, even historic steps forward. We can lay the groundwork for securing our border with new investments, new technology, and new manpower. We can help Dreamers succeed in American schools, serve in our American military, and enrich American communities without living in constant fear of imminent deportation.

These are tough issues, but the solution can be fairly simple. I think our legislation offers a real solution for right now. There have been developments in recent days.

I have been proud to participate in a large bipartisan effort by the Common Sense Coalition, and as it has, as a group, tried to hammer out a bipartisan deal, I have been honored to have started this discussion, this debate, with Senator McCain by filing our bill that we brought over from the House. It is a bipartisan bill that I believe is the most bipartisan bill currently before this Chamber on this issue. If we can make more progress, if we can attract more bipartisan support through some amendments or revisions, I welcome that.

I believe this week, this day, this opening on our Senate floor is not only a challenge but an incredible opportunity to do the right thing. We don't have to agree on everything. We just have to agree on some things, and we can find a way forward together.

It is an enormous honor to have the opportunity to partner with Senator McCain in this legislative effort. While he is not with us today, I know he is with us in spirit and watching our deliberations, and he is someone who has shown not just courage on the battlefield but courage in American politics--a determined willingness to compromise and to work tirelessly to advance the interests of the American people. I can only hope my colleagues, when we get a chance to vote on this bill--which I hope we will later today--will join me in supporting it in recognition of his lifetime of service to our Nation and his commitment to bipartisanship.

It is my hope that as this day and tomorrow unfolds, we will have the open and fair process that has been promised, and that all of us, together, can do what we were sent to do: listen to each other, trust each other, work together, and find a path through compromise that can solve these two most important and pressing issues in the field of immigration.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

(The Acting President pro tempore assumed the Chair.)

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join my colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, in raising the alarm about a decision I believe represents politicized policymaking at its very worst. Just a few weeks ago, we were notified that the Trump administration's Interior Department seeks to open up 90 percent--90 percent--of America's waters to oil and gas drilling.

This was startling news for Americans everywhere but particularly for those of us who come from States along the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines who had no expectation that our coastal waters were about to be subjected to the search for oil and gas. The objections to the Trump administration's decision came swiftly from elected officials in both parties, Republicans and Democrats, because protecting America's fragile coastlines isn't--or shouldn't be--a partisan issue.

This decision by President Trump and Secretary of the Interior Zinke was not rooted in public input or scientific analysis. This decision was not based on concerns about community safety or economic prosperity. This decision was our administration putting their ``energy dominance'' goals above all else.

I know several of my colleagues have already spoken out to discuss what this means for their States and how it will impact their constituents, but I am here today to raise my voice for mine, to fight for Delaware. In Delaware, our coasts are critical to our local environment and our robust economy. Delaware has 28 miles of Atlantic coastline--some of the most pristine, most beautiful beaches in the entire country.

As you can see in this graphic of our boardwalk at Rehoboth Beach, DE, our 28 miles of coastline employ 10 percent of our total State workforce. That is a remarkable amount of economic activity in a very small space. Our coastline generates $6.9 billion in economic activity every year and hosts thousands of acres of protected land. It includes on our bay shore side two national wildlife refuges that serve as critical

habitat for bald eagles, white-tailed deer, and striped bass. The future of our coastal economy depends on recreational access, fishing, and tourism, which are now potentially at risk because of this ill- advised decision to open the coastline off of Delaware and the rest of the mid-Atlantic to potential oil and gas exploration and production.

My colleagues know that I make an effort to promote pragmatic and bipartisan ideas. It is one of my top priorities, day in and day out, to work across the aisle and do what is right for our constituents and for the United States.

Let me be clear. My view is not based on an anti-oil or anti-natural gas message. I support an ``all of the above'' energy strategy and have advanced legislation that will embrace an ``all of the above'' energy strategy, and I acknowledge there are many places in the United States where we can, and do, safely produce these resources, both onshore and offshore. But what if we happen to face a spill of the scale and size of Deepwater Horizon?

This is an overlay of the footprint of the 2010 oil disaster of the Deepwater Horizon and how it spread to impact the gulf coastline. It is perhaps a little hard to see here, but the State of Delaware and New Jersey and its fragile coastline are underneath that footprint. It suggests how we might end up facing dramatic impacts, negative impacts on tourism and fishing that depend on clean coastlines to support tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of economic activity in my home State.

If we are going to think seriously about doing this, we need to think about the impacts. We need to ask whether the costs outweigh the benefits. When it comes to the Trump-Zinke plan to drill off the coast of Delaware, I am here to tell you that the potential costs dramatically outweigh the benefits. As you can see in this graphic, a spill the size of the Deepwater Horizon could devastate all of our beach communities and protected wildlife areas in Delaware and the region.

Again, protecting our coastlines, an idea supported by scientists and coastal residents alike, should not be a partisan issue. In Delaware alone, multiple city councils, all up and down our coast, have openly opposed offshore drilling through letters and resolutions they have sent to me and the rest of our congressional delegation.

Coastal lawmakers from both parties have opposed offshore drilling. I know for a fact the same is happening in virtually every other coastal State potentially impacted by this unwise decision. These are the people we should be listening to--the people who don't just visit the coast for a week in the summer but who live on it, who rely on it, who have built their lives and their local economy around it.

Instead, as this decision shows, the Trump administration is prioritizing the oil and gas industry and partisan politics over those of independent scientists, coastal residents, and the elected officials who speak for our coastal communities. That was made painfully clear when the Republican Governor of Florida, a close ally of the President, petitioned to shield just Florida from potential oil and gas exploration and production.

Sure enough, Florida promptly got a public promise from Secretary Zinke that its coastlines would be spared. I am sure Florida's coastline is beautiful. In fact, I visited Florida's coastline, and I can tell you it is beautiful. But guess what; so is Delaware's. We deserve to be able to protect our coastline just as much as Floridians do. I invite Secretary Zinke to once again come to Delaware but to instead see the coastline and see these fragile resources and see what they have to offer for wildlife, for conservation, for fishing, for hunting, and for tourism.

Secretary Zinke promising to exempt Florida is the Trump administration deciding which States have to deal with oil and gas drilling based purely on partisan, political considerations. I think the state of our coastal communities and local economies shouldn't be auctioned off to the highest bidder and shouldn't be subject to partisan politics. Instead, they should be protected based on science and based on the views of coastal communities.

I am here today to voice my profound disappointment in this blatant neglect of local voices and the well-being of individual States and coastal communities. I came to the floor to fight for my State and to raise the local voices I have heard from our coastal communities. Our coastlines are just too fragile and too vital and too important to let partisan politics get in the way of their future.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Hatch for his leadership on intellectual property issues throughout his distinguished career in the Senate. I was pleased to join him in securing the passage of the Defend Trade Secrets Act in the last Congress, which established a Federal civil right of action to protect this valuable form of intellectual property.

Likewise, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch as a cosponsor on the Music Modernization Act. This important piece of legislation will bring much-needed transparency and efficiency to the music marketplace and more fairly compensate songwriters for their valuable creative work. I note that there are some outstanding issues in the latter part of the bill that remain to be resolved with broadcasters and other

music licensees. Senator Hatch has indicated to me that he intends to work through these issues as the bill moves from introduction to markup so that we can have the broadest consensus possible for this legislation. I thank Senator Hatch for this commitment and commend him for his leadership on ensuring that the copyright laws stay apace with evolving technology.

Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Hatch for his leadership on intellectual property issues throughout his distinguished career in the Senate. I was pleased to join him in securing the passage of the Defend Trade Secrets Act in the last Congress, which established a Federal civil right of action to protect this valuable form of intellectual property.

Likewise, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch as a cosponsor on the Music Modernization Act. This important piece of legislation will bring much-needed transparency and efficiency to the music marketplace and more fairly compensate songwriters for their valuable creative work. I note that there are some outstanding issues in the latter part of the bill that remain to be resolved with broadcasters and other

music licensees. Senator Hatch has indicated to me that he intends to work through these issues as the bill moves from introduction to markup so that we can have the broadest consensus possible for this legislation. I thank Senator Hatch for this commitment and commend him for his leadership on ensuring that the copyright laws stay apace with evolving technology.

Mr. President, as we know all too well, the Senate of the United States has an annual job to do--to adopt a budget and then appropriate it; to lay out the framework for what to spend and then to make deliberate decisions in the Appropriations Committee and move forward by the end of the fiscal year.

This may not be well or widely known, but the Federal fiscal year begins October 1. It is by October 1 that we are supposed to figure out what we are going to spend and how we are going to spend it and why we are going to spend it.

As we all head home to celebrate the holidays on December 21, I just wanted to take a moment and go over the list of things that are unaddressed and unresolved at the end of this calendar year.

The way it is supposed to work here and the way it is actually working here are strikingly different. In my 7 years now in the Senate on both the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee, I have seen people of good will of both parties try mightily and so far consistently fail to get us back to regular order and to end this process of moving crisis to crisis, continuing resolution to continuing resolution.

While I didn't hope that tonight the Federal Government of the United States would shut down, it is depressing, concerning, even alarming to me that we head home having not resolved so many issues.

We have heard from other Members here about the pressing needs of their home States. We have concerns all over our country, such as the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP, which is a literal lifeline to 9 million low-income children. Authorization and funding ran out months ago. Some States are already notifying parents that their children's health insurance coverage will lapse. There are community health centers on which 26 million patients rely. There is the pressing need to fund a response to the opioid crisis, the need to fund veterans' care, infrastructure, shore up pension plans, invest in education, and, of course, respond to natural disasters. From Americans in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands to Americans in Texas and Florida and Louisiana, to those in California and the West--whether it is hurricanes or forest fires, parts of our Nation are literally flooding and burning. Yet we head home having not addressed their challenges.

Of course, I feel concerned that we have failed to act to protect the Dreamers here in our country, the young men and women brought here who have never known any other country, men and women who reflect the best of our country. I met many in my home State of Delaware. They are high school and college students, members of our military, parts of our neighborhoods and communities. But given the Trump administration's decision, the President's decision to end an administrative policy allowing these young people to come out of the shadows and

live without fear of being deported, we wait for bipartisan legislative action to give them the security they deserve and the ability to participate wholly in the American Dream.

I believe we can pass a bipartisan Dream Act that both protects Dreamers and makes our borders more secure, but all of these issues seem to become more partisan and more difficult fights than they need to be. We should be able to work together to resolve our differences and not have to go home with yet another continuing resolution, keeping the government afloat while we head out to celebrate. Our constituents didn't send us here to fight endless partisan battles, to avoid the strictures of the Budget Act and the appropriations process, and when things get tough, to just kick the can down the road.

Before I leave the floor, I want to speak about one other pressing concern I have, and that is about the importance of maintaining the independence of the investigation currently underway under the leadership of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. I have heard concerning, even alarming attacks on the special counsel by colleagues in the other Chamber and by folks in the press.

I just want to take a moment to say that our Nation relies on a few key institutions and principles that protect this experiment in democracy, and none are more important than the rule of law and the institutions that make up our system of justice. As partisanship, gridlock, and distress have become more prevalent in our country and corrosive to our politics, these institutions that sustain our democratic system are more important than ever.

I have traveled to other countries that have on pieces of paper Constitutions and legal systems that literally mirror our own, but they are ineffective and their systems are nondemocratic because their courts are not independent and their national leaders are not held accountable.

Across our country for generations, from classrooms to courtrooms, in Congress and communities, we have affirmed to Americans of all backgrounds the importance of the principle that no one is above the rule of law. Our country has been able to grow and change and improve because we are a nation of laws--laws that can be debated and changed but must be followed and respected.

The Department of Justice isn't respected because of its role on a piece of paper, no matter how treasured and important, or because of its title engraved above the door of the building or its motto; it is respected, trusted, and relied upon because it has strived to uphold our highest ideals and to enforce the law.

It is easier to save an institution like the rule of law than it is to restore it once torn down. This is why I helped author bipartisan legislation that would seek to further affirm the rule of law and the independence of the Department of Justice specifically by protecting special counsel investigations from unwarranted political interference.

We have spirited debates over taxation, immigration, our Federal budget, but this issue is too important for me to yield the floor before this end of the year without urging my colleagues to seriously consider the important task we face to maintain the independence of the Department of Justice and uphold the rule of law.

I hope folks in this Chamber will consider the importance of protecting this investigation and this special counsel and, frankly, of continuing to protect the independence and integrity of the Department of Justice and our system of courts and law into the future. It is part of the bedrock on which our democracy rests, a bedrock which we cannot afford to have shaken.

Mr. President, 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 today to talk about the vital importance of the connection between the arts, education, and progress.

I am from a little town in Delaware named Hockessin. Hockessin was not much when I grew up there. We had about 1,500 people, some dairy farms and mushroom farms. Over the last 40 years, it has gradually developed.

A not much widely noted big day happened back in 1994 in Hockessin, DE, when one of America's greatest jazz performers, Cab Calloway, passed away in the little town of Hockessin, DE. Cab Calloway gave his name to a remarkable performing arts school. This is a school that 25 years ago was created dedicated to the idea that if you want to elevate learning, if you want to strengthen education, you should make sure you have a robust range of opportunities to engage with the arts.

I thought I would use that as an example today to talk for a few minutes about why what we do here can be important across our whole country and why a connection between the arts and education can make a lasting difference for families all across our country.

Back in 1965, when I was just 2 years old, a group of Senators, Republican and Democratic, came together to create two things--the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts. These two federally funded national programs are absolutely critical educational, economic, and cultural drivers that have impacted thousands of communities across the United States.

Why is this a subject of any contention or discussion here? Well, because unfortunately our President's budget this year proposed to eliminate funding for both of these organizations--both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities-- proposed to be removed, zeroed out, cancelled, despite their almost more than 50-year record of successful impact and service across the country.

In my little State of Delaware, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities funded all sorts of valuable programs with significant impacts. Last year, I invited the head of the National Endowment for the Arts to come and visit us in Delaware and to pull together the whole range of folks who received some grants from them--$681,000 last year. It is about 17 percent of all the funding for arts in my State. It helped support 100 grants to nonprofits all up and down our State.

I will give a few examples. The Grand Opera House has a summer in the park series because of the National Endowment for the Arts. The University of Delaware Community Music School holds a musical theater camp every summer, serving dozens of kids--about 80 kids. The Christiana Cultural Arts Center in downtown Wilmington brings vibrant, cutting-edge arts programming to a neighborhood that might not otherwise enjoy it. The Creative Vision Factory provides individuals with behavioral health disorders an opportunity for self-expression, empowerment, and recovery through the arts. I

can give many more examples, but these are four of the hundreds.

The National Endowment for the Humanities gives a comparable number of grants and supports programs up and down our State. I will mention one--art conservation at Winterthur. Winterthur, which is a magnificent museum and collection of the American arts, has a partnership with museums in places around the world--from Haiti, to Iraq, to Syria-- where, because of conflict, critical pieces of cultural history have been at risk of being lost. Because of these NEH grants to Winterthur, those partnerships have been strengthened.

We have been blessed to have in my friend Governor Jack Markell and his wife Carla, over the last 8 years, strong, longstanding support for the arts in our State. We have lots of leading individuals in our State. Tatiana Copeland, for example, helped build the Queen Theater and helped support the Delaware Symphony Orchestra. They work in partnership with the Delaware Division of the Arts. A gentleman named Paul Weagraff is now the executive director of the Delaware Division of the Arts under the new administration of Governor Carney.

I am hopeful that we here in the Senate can sustain bipartisan support for arts and humanities funding and that the young people of Delaware, our communities, and our families will continue to enjoy the blessings that these investments in creativity bring. How much are we talking about? It is about $150 million--$149.8 million, to be specific--this fiscal year for each of these two endowments. That is a tiny percentage of the total Federal budget. Now, $150 million may sound like a lot, and $680,000 of grants for my whole State of Delaware may sound like a lot, but across these two endowments for the arts and humanities, $300 million in Federal money has a dramatic impact. It leverages private funding 9 to 1. In recent studies looking at the impact of the National Endowment for the Arts, they concluded that they were particularly focused and particularly effective and that where there is a leadership grant given by the NEA, it leverages $9 more for every Federal dollar used.

I think Federal funding for the arts and humanities has to remain a priority. I think it is important that we embrace the model that the Cab Calloway School has championed in Delaware and across the country where educational excellence is shown by working together with the expressive and creative arts.

It was William Butler Yeats--a famous Irish poet--who once said that education is not the mere filling up of a pail, it is the lighting of a fire. If you want to ignite the aspirations, hopes, and dreams of young people, don't just engage them in trigonometry, biology, chemistry, and physics--although those subjects can be interesting, engaging, or challenging--light the fire of their spirit with art, give their spirit room to soar, give them an opportunity to paint on the canvas of their lives, and give them the gift of artistic training and skills, and there is no limit to where they can go. That has been our experience in Delaware. That has been our experience across the country.

It is my hope that we will find a way on a bipartisan basis to continue to sustain investment in the humanities and the arts.

In 1960, President Kennedy said:

There is a connection, hard to explain logically but easy

to feel, between achievement in public life and progress in

the arts.

Citing three important periods in history, he said:

The age of Pericles was also the age of Phidias. The age of

Lorenzo de Medici was also the age of Leonardo da Vinci. The

age of Elizabeth was also the age of Shakespeare, and the new

frontier for which I campaign in public life can also be a

new frontier for American art.

It is important that we remember here that the modest amounts of Federal money we invest in the arts bear enormous positive, multiplied benefits to the people of our country and to our place in the world.

I am grateful for all who work in arts education, and I am grateful for the opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis to sustain our Federal investment in the arts and humanities.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a tribute to a friend, a leader, and one-of-a-kind, Rich Heffron.

My colleagues in the Delaware congressional delegation--Senator Carper and Congresswoman Blunt Rochester--join me in congratulating Rich Heffron on his long record of service to Delaware. Rich will soon be retiring as the president of the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce, and I wanted to take the time today to honor his many contributions not just to Delaware's business community but to our legal, educational, and governmental communities, to all of Delaware.

Rich moved from Philadelphia to Wilmington back in 1971, attending Delaware Law School and serving as an intern for then-Senator Joe Biden. Rich later functioned as finance director for Joe Biden's 1978 senatorial campaign. Rich's career took off in 1985 when he started as a special assistant and top aide to then-Wilmington mayor Dan Frawley. Mayor Frawley wisely recognized Rich's business acumen and promoted him to director of the Department of Real Estate and Housing in 1987. There, Rich helped establish the Wilmington Housing Partnership and became one of Mayor Frawley's most trusted advisers, a key part of his ``kitchen cabinet.''

Rich later departed Wilmington city government in 1992 to embark on his journey with the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce, where he would serve for more than a quarter of a century. Mayor Frawley was sad to lose Rich but recognized his great value to our entire State through the chamber. ``If I were the president of the state chamber, I would want to be able to communicate across political lines, across community and business lines,'' then-Mayor Frawley said. ``Rich has demonstrated that reach that goes beyond partisan.''

At the State chamber, Rich managed the government affairs department and was the organization's chief advocate for Federal, State, and local issues, and it was in this role that I first met him. Under Rich's great and lasting leadership, the State chamber has been a strong organization, representing the business community on a very wide range of issues. He expanded the chamber's advocacy role across the State and recently helped guide the modernization of the Coastal Zone Act and advocated for the creation of the Delaware Prosperity Partnership to help Delaware's economic development for the future.

His insight was and still is frequently sought after in many policy areas, including government fiscal and tax policy, healthcare issues, land use management, and workers' compensation. Rich's depth of knowledge has been a resource for everyone who has spoken with him. His weekly emails, webcasts, and television and radio appearances are insightful, informative, and engaging. In short, he has long had his finger on the pulse of Delaware.

Throughout his tenure at the chamber, Rich has served on many boards and commissions, and I will mention just a few: the Governor's Workers Compensation Advisory Commission, the Workers Compensation Health Care Advisory Panel, and the Delaware Health Care Commission.

Rich also made educating the next generation of Delawareans of all backgrounds a priority as an adjunct faculty member teaching business and political science at Delaware Technical and Community College and at Wilmington University.

Rich's opinions, his style, and his voice have been sought out for nearly 30 years by business leaders, elected officials, and Delawareans alike up and down our State, and all those who got to know Rich Heffron got to know him as a friend.

Our Governor, John Carney, had this to say about Rich just the other day:

Rich exemplifies the Delaware Way. He has great

relationships with legislators and elected officials on both

sides of the aisle. He takes a long-term approach to issues

rather than an ideological or short-term approach because he

realizes we are here to work together and get something done

that will benefit our state. We owe Rich an incredible debt

of gratitude for what he has done for the Delaware State

Chamber of Commerce, for what he's done to support job

creation for Delawareans, and for what he has done to improve

the Great State of Delaware.

Former Delaware State representative Bobby Byrd, a longtime friend and former coworker of Rich's, also spoke of his long career of service to our community. Bobby Byrd said:

Not only has Rich been a lifelong Democratic Party

activist, he has also been a very competent advocate for

Delaware's business community. He is truly an example of the

Delaware Way.

Although Rich is now retiring, his voice and his counsel will never be far away, and, in retirement, his Temple Owls sports teams will be just a bit closer.

I personally wanted to say to Rich my great thanks for the many ways in which you have encouraged and advised and supported me in the 8 years I worked in the private sector in manufacturing and the 10 years I served in county government and now in my 7 years here in the Senate.

Many in this body find it hard to understand when Senator Carper and I talk about this Delaware Way, where we all work together and find ways to solve problems, but the idea that a Democratic Party activist is the long-serving and well-regarded head of our State chamber of commerce is just one small example of that Delaware Way.

Rich, no one has been a better, more trusted source of advice to business leaders, community leaders, and political leaders alike than you.

It is appropriate that this is the eve of Delaware Day, when almost 230 years to the day tomorrow, the brave Delaware delegates, risking their lives and everything they had, met at the Golden Fleece Tavern in Dover, DE, and unanimously voted to make Delaware the first State to ratify our Constitution. Tonight, we will celebrate again our annual Taste of Delaware event in honor of Delaware Day.

Tonight, Rich, we will toast you at our seventh annual Taste of Delaware event, an event that wouldn't be possible without you and the State chamber's unyielding support. The Taste of

Delaware event is a great example of what it means to bring people together from across our State, from our three counties, from north and south, and to travel to Washington and share with all of our colleagues here in the Senate some of what makes Delaware special.

Rich, you and your team have created a wonderful Washington tradition, attracting literally thousands of guests and dozens of Delaware's culinary staples to celebrate the First State here in the Nation's Capital. And, Rich, you yourself have been the best example I could provide to my colleagues of what it is that makes Delaware so special.

You will be missed, Rich, in your role at the State chamber, and I wish you and Colleen and your family all the best in your well-deserved years of retirement.

Thank you.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, when we were last here together, it was roughly 2 a.m. Saturday morning as this Chamber took up and passed by a very narrow margin--I believe 51 to 49--one of the biggest, broadest, most comprehensive pieces of financial legislation likely in our lifetime. The last time this Congress took up and passed comprehensive tax reform, I was 21 years old. It has been a long time since a bill of this scope and reach and impact has been considered, debated, and passed in this Chamber. I wanted to give some reflections this evening on what happened very early Saturday morning and what it means.

First, it did not have to be this way. That bill passed on a straight party-line vote. Not one Democrat voted for it, and all but one Republican Senator voted for it. I joined more than a dozen of my colleagues in a press conference I think 2 weeks ago, saying that we wanted to work across the aisle and that we were trying yet getting no opportunity to do so.

Weeks and weeks ago, a group of us put out a letter to our colleagues saying that we wanted to work together on tax reform that would make our country more competitive and that would deal with some of the long- unaddressed issues in our Tax Code and yet be fiscally responsible. And right up until Saturday, I was working with a group of Republicans and Democrats to try to find a way to move forward on tax reform that would not blow up our deficit and debt, give real tax relief to middle-class Americans, and significantly reduce the corporate tax rate. Alas, we came up short.

I wanted to give just a few moments of reflection on how I see the tax bill that ultimately moved through this Chamber last week.

First, on the process, the idea that you do your best work at something like 2 in the morning--adopting a nearly 500-page piece of legislation without anyone having had the chance to really read it and understand it--I think defies common sense.

Second, I think that the idea that the best legislating is done by only one party has been proven to be incorrect, whether it is big pieces of legislation done by only Democrats or big pieces done by only Republicans. Part of the point of this Chamber--and the balance and the separation of powers that our Founders crafted into the Constitution-- was the idea that when we listen to each other and compromise, we produce better legislation, better laws, better justice.

Last, I would like to talk for a moment about the values that underlie not just this process but the outcome of this bill, because in speeches and comments and debates here on the floor and in materials put out over the last 2 weeks, there has been a lot of talk about financial matters, about percentages, about numbers, and about the Joint Committee on Taxation or the Congressional Budget Office. There has been a lot of jargon and a lot of insider talk that has frankly left a cloud that has made it difficult for most Americans to understand what was at stake and what was at work in the steady progress toward that partisan passage of the tax bill so early on Saturday morning.

Let's talk for a moment, if we could, about the human values implicated by this bill. Let's talk less about fiscal jargon and financial details and more about where it will land.

I am sure it comes as no surprise to you that ultimately I voted against the bill. I was willing to do bipartisan tax reform that would allow President Trump to meet his expressed goal of delivering a Christmas gift to the American people--in particular, to the American middle class--but I wasn't willing to sign off on a bill that would add $1 trillion to our national debt and that laid the groundwork we are already hearing for calls to slash Medicare and Medicaid. Once this Christmas package is opened, the middle class will realize that its real impact is the steady increase of the tax burden on them and the steady decrease, over the years ahead, of critical, vital Federal programs like Medicare and Medicaid that have made such a difference to so many in need for so long.

For reasons that elude me, most of this country was not actively engaged in this tax debate. I had about 230 calls from Delaware on last Friday--200 opposed and 20 in favor, so 10 to 1 against. But I didn't hear from folks who might have understood and might have spoken up about the long-term, grinding impact this tax bill will have on those in real need in our country.

I wanted to take a moment here on the floor to reflect on something that happened late last week in the Budget Committee as they were marking up the bill. As several dozen clergymen, men and women of different faiths, gathered together outside in a moment of civil disobedience, a few of them--friends of mine--were arrested--arrested in a cry they had hoped would be heard to express their concern about the impact of this tax bill on the poor and needy in our Nation.

I stand tonight as a Senator. I stand tonight as someone who represents Delaware. I stand tonight as someone who was elected not to serve one particular faith tradition but who is deeply informed by my faith tradition and the Gospel that I read. In the Gospel According to Luke, Jesus said: ``He has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.''

I just wanted to stand here for a moment and say that while the Gospel is good news to the poor, this tax bill surely is not. Some of the best known, simple passages in the New Testament of the Christian Bible say you cannot serve both God and wealth. Jesus's call in Matthew 25: Inasmuch as you did this to the least of these, you did it unto me.

This preference for the poor, this focus on the least among us, is not new to the New Testament; it is deeply rooted in the Torah and in the Judeo-Christian values that underlie all of Christianity. In Proverbs, the Torah teaches that those who oppress the poor insult their Maker. Deuteronomy Chapter 15 teaches that you should open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.

Lastly, it seems to me that while the Bible, the New Testament, and the Torah teach these things about God's deep preference that we be kind to one another, that we care for one another, that we support those in need around us, that doesn't inevitably lead to one party's position or another. It doesn't inevitably lead to one clear economic

theory or policy or another. But it does say that before we took dramatic action that will reset the ground for a generation, that I believe will inevitably lead to a loss of security and stability and opportunity for those in need in our country, we should have reflected. We should have listened to each other. We should have respected the greatest traditions of this country that say that we are most American when we open the doors of opportunity to all, when we create chances for those who are struggling amongst us to have a brighter future. And as I searched through what I understood of this 500-page bill thrust upon us late on a Friday night and marked up and voted on early on a Saturday morning, I found none of that. I found an incredibly expensive bill that even some titans of industry have said will add little to the growth of this economy and much to the burden of debt of this country.

I know people of good faith on both sides have differing views about the impact of this bill, but I, for one, felt called tonight to come to this floor and say that I think we have made not just a mistake of fiscal policy, but I think that in moving this bill forward, we have failed in our most fundamental call to hear each other, to work together, and to be mindful that we do not cause harm to those in our society who look to us to make the future brighter, to open the doors of opportunity wider, and to listen to some of the most ancient and profound voices in the traditions that lay the foundation of this free society; that we legislate worst when we legislate against the least of our brethren.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I wanted to briefly ask my friend, the Senator from Florida, if I correctly heard, as I believe I just did, that an entire range of economic groups--advocates from the National Association of Manufacturers, Business Roundtable, even Grover Norquist--as recently as the last Presidential campaign believed that a corporate rate cut from 35 to 25 would be significantly stimulative, would accomplish the goals of improving growth; is that roughly what you were just saying?

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the conclusion of my remarks, the Senator from Rhode Island be recognized.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern with the tax reform bill that the Senate Finance Committee is likely to approve later this week. The latest version of this massive tax bill, which will impact every single American, was only released to the public late Tuesday night. Less than 48 hours later, the Finance Committee is ramming through this bill on a party-line vote without any hearings and without a thorough review of the bill.

I strongly disagree with the closed-door process of developing the substance of a bill which skews the benefits to the wealthy at the expense of middle-class families and with this bill's irresponsible cost of $1.7 trillion over 10 years. I also want to tell my colleagues and the President that there is still an opportunity for us to do the right thing and to work together on tax reform.

We should follow the example of the last time there was successful tax reform enacted by Congress. This was led by Republican President Ronald Reagan, Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill, and Members of Congress from both parties, who worked together back in 1986 to pass major tax reform legislation. Sure, they had strong disagreements, but they held lengthy public debates, compromised on both sides of the aisle, and eventually passed a major tax reform bill that was bipartisan, was fair, and did not add to our deficits and national debt.

For some reason, my Republican colleagues seem to have forgotten the example of the last time the Congress actually passed tax reform. It happened because both parties worked together. It happened because both parties compromised. And while I believe there is still time for us to undertake this approach, what we are seeing right now is the exact opposite. I think that is a big mistake.

When I am on the train back to Wilmington or when I am at home in my State of Delaware hearing from my constituents, my message about this bill is simple: I am worried what this bill will do to our fiscal health as a country and the middle class, and you should be too.

Let me start by quoting a story from the Washington Post today whose headline reads ``Senate tax bill cuts taxes of wealthy and hikes taxes on families earning under $75,000 over a decade.'' Let me repeat that. The Senate tax bill cuts the taxes of the wealthy and hikes taxes on families earning under $75,000. The story is based on a report from the nonpartisan Joint Commission on Taxation which shows that the claims from President Trump and my Republican colleagues that this bill is all about tax relief for the middle class are simply wrong.

I will quote from this story:

By the year 2027, Americans earning $30,000 to $75,000 a

year--

Solidly middle-class folks--

would also be forced to pay more in taxes even though people

earning over $100,000 would continue to get substantial tax

cuts.

Unfortunately, though, that is not the end of my concerns with this legislation. I am also alarmed by how much this bill would add to our Nation's budget deficits and by the long-term impacts it would have on our debt.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, this tax bill--this Republican-only tax bill--will cost over $1.7 trillion over 10 years. That is $1.7 trillion with a ``t.'' What happened to my colleagues who spent years talking about the danger posed by a growing national debt? Now these very same Senators and Representatives are willing to put almost $2 trillion on our Nation's credit card. It is an astounding figure--more than twice as large as the emergency stimulus package Congress passed in 2009 to prevent the next Great Depression. It is more than twice as much as the much maligned so-called bailout that Congress authorized to prevent the collapse of the financial system.

What does $1.7 trillion buy us? What is the great return on investment that would justify borrowing $1.7 trillion--mostly from China--in a time of near record-low unemployment? The Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, publicly bragged that their tax plan would produce 1 million jobs. That sounds good but not when you consider the cost. My math may not be great, but if you spend $1.7 trillion to get 1 million jobs, that is $1.5 million per job. That is not a great return on investment.

To add insult to injury, the majority believes they can use this bill to also cut access to healthcare for millions of Americans because they have decided at the last moment to include a repeal of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate--a critical part of that bill--law, which helps ensure a healthy risk pool, which, in turn, lowers premiums.

Those who actually work in healthcare know this is a bad idea. That is why the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Hospital Association, and America's Health Insurance Plans have all come out against the inclusion of the individual mandate repeal in this bill, saying that ``eliminating the individual mandate by itself likely will result in a significant increase in premiums, which would substantially increase the number of uninsured Americans.''

The nonpartisan CBO agrees. They found that repealing the mandate will cause 13 million people to lose their healthcare by 2027, and average premiums would increase about 10 percent each year.

The inclusion of the mandate repeal to pay for corporate tax cuts will hurt middle-class families across our country. It is politics at its worst, throwing aside the needs of our constituents to ensure that a small group of the wealthy get wealthy. That is because the core of this bill is based on a promise proven false time and again--that tax cuts for the richest Americans and most profitable corporations will somehow trickle down to help the majority of working Americans. We know that is not how our economy has actually worked. Even President Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, said yesterday that this bill isn't going to increase wages for the middle class.

The Senate bill proposes we cut the top corporate rate nearly in half; exempt more wealthy individuals from the estate tax, which impacts only the top 0.2 percent of Americans; repeal the alternative minimum tax, which affects those making hundreds of thousands annually; and cut tax rates for those earning over $1 million.

Altogether, the core elements of this plan amount to $1.7 trillion in tax cuts, and my Republican colleagues are simply asking us to trust them that the benefits will somehow reach the middle class.

If that isn't enough to prove that this bill being rushed through in today's markup is bad policy, my colleagues in the majority went one step further in this latest version by eliminating all tax breaks for middle-class families in 8 years while making the tax cuts for corporations permanent. This means that millions of middle-class families will see a tax hike in the future in order to fund permanency for corporate tax breaks. That is just not right.

So here is what I think we should do. Let's slow down. Let's work together, Republicans and Democrats, to pass a bill that is actually good for all Americans. I believe we can get that done. I think it is our job and our duty. We don't have to start from scratch. There are bipartisan ideas. There are introduced, bipartisan tax bills that could make our code simpler and fairer and more effective.

I will mention two examples of bills I have introduced--one with Republican Senator Shelley Moore Capito and another with Republican Senator Pat Roberts--that encourage manufacturers to use made-in- America parts and incentivize companies that invent something here to make it here. I have introduced another bill with Republican Senator Jerry Moran--it has eight bipartisan cosponsors--and with Republican Congressman Ted Poe that would alter the Tax Code to boost

every aspect of the American energy industry, from oil and gas to the latest renewable and clean energy technologies. These are just a few ideas, but they represent a simple truth: that we can and should work together on tax reform instead of making this one more pointless, partisan battle.

The same thing is true for our healthcare system. The American people have overwhelmingly said they want a bipartisan and open process to fix healthcare, not a one-party scheme by either party that throws our system into chaos with no plan to replace it.

I encourage President Trump and Republican leaders to stop trying to pass tax reform with only Republicans and to reach across the aisle to work with Democrats and pass something we can all get behind.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join several of my colleagues in raising concerns about nominations to the Federal judiciary and the Senate's role in carrying out its constitutional advice and consent responsibilities. From my vantage point as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I can see all too clearly that an alarming trend of more and more extreme judicial candidates appearing before us is growing, that more extreme judicial candidates are being nominated, and that the safeguards here in the Senate that are important to our vetting process are being threatened.

Let me start by giving a simple overview of what has happened, first in terms of the speed at which we are considering critical lifetime appointments to some of the most central courts in our whole Federal judicial system.

Just this week, my Republican colleagues have brought forward four circuit court nominees--four nominees in one week--beginning to end. That is more than the number of circuit court nominees than were confirmed in the entire first year of President Obama's Presidency.

More important to me than the speed is the quality of our process of reviewing these important nominations. The

American Bar Association has issued unanimous ``not qualified'' ratings for two current judicial nominees. That hasn't happened in over a decade--since 2006. The American Bar Association is not a partisan or a political group. Founded in 1878, the ABA is a national professional organization with over 400,000 attorney members. The ABA's uncontroversial objectives are to serve its members, improve the legal profession, enhance diversity, and advance and secure the rule of law in our Nation. Its contributions to the legal profession are significant. It is the ABA that accredits law schools and establishes model ethical codes.

Additionally, since 1953, when President Eisenhower invited the ABA to provide specific, timely input on candidates for Federal judgeships, the ABA has evaluated nominees for professional competence, integrity, and judicial temperament. This is a rigorous process that involves collecting impartial, peer-review evaluations of candidates.

It is startling that less than a year into this administration, two nominees have already received ``not qualified'' ratings from the ABA, and two more nominees are under consideration of what is called a second evaluator. This is concerning. You see, the ABA does not take giving a ``not qualified'' rating lightly. Any time an evaluator is considering recommending ``not qualified,'' a second evaluator is brought in to conduct an independent review. I believe all nominees to lifetime article III appointments on the Federal bench should have the competence, integrity, and temperament to do the important work that Federal judges are called on to perform.

The nominees we are seeing not only raise concerns about professional qualifications and the speed with which they have been processed. Many of the President's recent candidates are notable for their polarizing, divisive, even offensive rhetoric, rather than the depth of their legal experience or the quality of their judicial temperament. I will give just a few selections from a broad range.

We have recently considered candidates on the Judiciary Committee who had blogged at length in support for birtherism, the discredited and untrue conspiracy theory that suggested that our immediate past President wasn't born in the United States. Another suggested that ``Mama Pelosi'' should be ``gagged.'' Another called Supreme Court Justice Kennedy a ``judicial prostitute,'' compared abortion to slavery, complained that Americans overreacted to Sandy Hook, repeated anti-gay slurs, and said transgender children are proof that ``Satan's plan is working.'' Many alarming, even extreme comments are in the records of folks brought forward for confirmation--a startling number of them.

Frankly, this isn't about party allegiance--being a Republican or a Democrat, being a conservative or a liberal. This is about having the judgment and the temperament to be a Federal judge.

The mechanisms we have for completely evaluating nominees are today being strained. The American Bar Association has been cut out of some of the White House's efforts, its prenomination vetting process. That means that when the ABA conducts an evaluation and seeks feedback from a candidate's peers, they discover the nomination has already been announced by the White House. The candidate has already been chosen. Understandably, lawyers are reluctant to provide candid feedback when they know a potential judge has already been nominated. Additionally, it is concerning that we have had hearings in the Judiciary Committee before the ABA rating process is completed. When that happens, it prevents the ABA, our professional organization of attorneys, from being called to testify to explain a ``not qualified'' rating at a hearing where a nominee is considered. In fact, just earlier today, we had two judicial nominees listed on our agenda who do not yet have an ABA rating.

I am not suggesting that every Senator needs to vote in lockstep with the ABA rating, but I feel strongly that the ABA's evaluation must be available to Senators before they are asked to vote on a nominee for a lifetime position as a Federal judge.

Another tool that is under attack that is a century-old tradition of the Judiciary Committee is the so-called blue slip. This is a practice that allows the two home-State Senators to give a positive or negative recommendation on a nominee before they receive a hearing and are considered for lifetime tenure. It allows each Senator to approve the judicial nominations for vacancies in their home States or in the circuit courts where a seat is traditionally associated with that home State. By requiring that blue slips be returned before a nominee is considered, each Senator is afforded the courtesy to evaluate whether a judicial nominee will meet the needs of his or her constituents and the priorities and values of their home State. It is an important tool for ensuring that the White House of either party consults with Senators about the judicial candidates the President is considering for nomination. In the end, this tool promotes consensus candidates by ensuring all Senators' views are taken into account, without respect to partisan registration.

As a Senator from Delaware--a State with two current judicial vacancies in one of the busiest district courts in America, which only has four active judgeships--I have been focused on working collaboratively with the White House in a productive manner that ensures that my State gets qualified consensus nominees from the White House. I am pleased to report that Senator Carper and I have had a very positive experience so far working with the White House on these potential nominations, and it is my hope that we will soon see nominees I can support without reservation. But the blue slip process ensures that this consultative, constructive experience is the rule, not the exception. It is unfortunate that this blue slip practice--this century-old tradition of the Judiciary Committee--is under sustained attack. I believe we should maintain it for all Senators, in the best interests of this institution and our Federal judiciary.

Article III judges, as I have said, serve with lifetime tenure. They decide issues of civil rights, of personal freedom, commercial disputes of enormous value, and even life and death. These judges can and should, on occasion, also serve as checks on Presidential power overreach. Just in the past few months, article III judges have enjoined executive orders, including the so-called travel ban, the transgender military ban, and the decision to strip funding from sanctuary cities.

We should be advancing nominees who can earn broad support from Members of both parties, nominees with the experience to handle some of the most complex and demanding judicial issues of our time, nominees who have demonstrated the temperament to administer justice fairly. These nominations matter. The nominees who will fill the 140 current judicial vacancies on district and circuit courts across our country will play a critical role in either protecting or undermining the constitutional rights that are the bedrock of our Republic. Our courts must continue to be the place where everyone is treated fairly and the legal rights of our citizens can be vindicated.

I wish to close by calling on my colleagues to reconsider how we are conducting the judicial nominee process. This race to confirm as many nominees as possible is not how we respect the rule of law--one of the most treasured American values.

I have come to the floor multiple times since the beginning of this Congress to convey and speak about the importance of bipartisanship, and I will continue to do that today.

As we have seen in important public policy matters, from the healthcare debate to the current debate on tax reform, Republicans and Democrats need to work together to get things done. Purely partisan processes will not succeed in this or future Congresses. We have to work together to protect our democracy and our rule of law.

I would also like to note that today Sam Clovis withdrew as a nominee for Chief Scientist at the USDA.

I am not here to comment on any connection to any ongoing investigations or other social issues but, rather, would like to comment on a simple concern I have had since his nomination; namely, that Mr. Clovis is unqualified to serve as Chief Scientist, lacking any professional training in the hard sciences. This is not just my opinion but a matter of statutory requirement. It is a requirement in statute to have a background in science.

Science is critically important to agriculture, and this is another Federal agency that depends on good science.

Given the serious challenges facing America's farmers and our food system--from pollinator declines, to deteriorating soil health, to a changing climate--USDA's science mission is extremely important. As someone whose home State university has a vibrant department of agriculture, as someone who knows the very broad range of Federal funding for USDA that supports agriculture-related scientific research--the USDA is critical in helping provide our farmers with the information they need to improve plant and animal resilience, to be more effective stewards of the land, and to adopt new technologies and practices on their farms. This could all be at risk if the agency's head of science has no relevant scientific training and even rejects current scientific thinking.

I believe that science, not mere opinion or partisan attitude, should underpin our decisions when it comes to our Nation's agricultural policy.

It is my hope that the administration will now go back and recommend a nominee who is scientifically trained and who cares deeply about the role of science in our Nation's agriculture.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, it is with great pleasure that I rise, along with Senator Tom Carper of Delaware and Representative Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware, to recognize Allen Chorman & Son, Inc., a longstanding Delaware business that has provided exemplary service to the State and its surrounding areas for 30 years.

Since 1987, Allen Chorman & Son, Inc., has played a vital role in the success of one of Delaware's key economic resources: farming. With the largest aerial spraying business in the State, Allen Chorman & Son, Inc., has assisted farmers in increasing crop efficiency via pesticide spraying and fertilizer spraying--sometimes in instances when ground conditions are not conducive to tractor services. Allen Chorman & Son, Inc., also provides critical mosquito spraying for both rural and urban areas. We are honored to extend our sincere thanks for their commitment and unyielding efforts to support one of our Nation's most valuable industries: agriculture.

In addition to aiding farmers within Delaware and the surrounding areas with critical crop services, Allen Chorman & Son, Inc., has assisted in environmental preservation efforts, monitoring artificial reefs off of the Delaware and Maryland coasts, as well as spraying invasive plants that, if uncontrolled, can choke area wetlands. We are truly honored to extend our appreciation for everything the business has accomplished.

We wholeheartedly congratulate the many staff members past and present of Allen Chorman & Son, Inc., on 30 years of service to the State of Delaware and surrounding areas. Your quality of service and continued care for our farms and environment set an exemplary standard of service for many others to follow. We wish you continued growth and success.