Floor Statements

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 honor one of Delaware's longstanding businesses that has provided exemplary service to the State of Delaware for the past 50 years: King Crop Insurance, Inc.

Since 1967, King Crop Insurance, Inc., has played an essential role in meeting the needs of Delaware farmers and those in its surrounding areas. From providing financial assistance and support--ensuring that farms have the economic security to repay loans--to aiding those same farmers in expanding and growing their businesses, King Crop Insurance has committed itself to the people of our great State, while exhibiting unyielding support of one our Nation's most valuable industries: agriculture.

The values of hard work and giving back to their community have always been a part of the King family. Catherine, Jackie, Donna, and the entire family are known throughout the State of Delaware for their generosity and support of local agricultural programs, such as the 4-H. The Kings are visible examples of serving others, as well as sowing seeds of success for the future. We are truly grateful for all they have done to inspire business growth and development, as well as preparing future generations for success in farming.

We wholeheartedly congratulate King Crop Insurance, Inc., on 50 years of service to the State of Delaware and surrounding areas. Your quality of service and continued care for our farming community serves as a wonderful example for many others. We wish everyone the best.

Mr. President, I rise in support of my colleagues who have come to the floor to urge the Senate to quickly pass funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP.

CHIP provides comprehensive health insurance to 9 million low-income children who don't qualify for Medicaid, including 18,000 children in my home State of Delaware. Lots of other States would say that 18,000 children is a small number, but in Delaware that is a significant population. Bluntly, whether it is 1 or 100 or 1,000 or 18,000, how can we allow inaction in this Chamber to put at risk the healthcare of millions of children across our country?

It has now been more than 3 weeks since funding for CHIP expired. While some States have enough money in their accounts to carry them through to the end of the year or just beyond, the uncertainty about when or if CHIP funds will be reauthorized is causing chaos, concern, and anxiety across the country. Some States will have to start issuing notices to households that they will face the loss of CHIP coverage. Imagine the unnecessary fear this will bring to parents and families and struggling households across the country as they are facing other challenges in their life.

This is totally unnecessary. We can stop this uncertainty right now and bring needed stability for parents, children, and States and show some kind of leadership from our Federal Government. I am a proud cosponsor of the bipartisan KIDS Act, S. 1827, being led by Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah and Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon. This KIDS Act would extend funding for CHIP for 5 years. I urge the Senate to do right by America's children and America's working families and swiftly take up and pass this bill.

While we are on the topic of programs desperately in need of reauthorization, I also want to draw attention to the expiration of the Community Health Center Fund, which ensures access to cost-effective primary and preventive care for 26 million patients across the country. In my home State of Delaware, about 50,000 Delawareans benefit from several community health centers that are widely respected, well run, and provide affordable, accessible, and preventive healthcare in communities up and down my State. Funding for this critical program also lapsed more than 3 weeks ago, and now, sadly, community health centers across my State and across the country are struggling to make key decisions--decisions like signing new leases or signing on new medical personnel to positions. Without certainty that the Federal Government will authorize their funding, how can we expect health centers to plan, to provide services, and to provide preventive healthcare that improves health and strengthens our community?

We should do everything we can to swiftly pass a 5-year reauthorization for funding for community health centers, such as the bipartisan bill that Senator Blunt of Missouri and Senator Stabenow of Michigan have introduced, the Community Health Investment, Modernization, and Excellence Act of 2017, S. 1899, which I am proud to support.

Folks, I urge that we work together in a bipartisan way. We should not be using children's access to healthcare as a bargaining chip. We should be taking up these two bills to provide reauthorization, funding, and certainty immediately for both CHC and CHIP funding now and without hesitation.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join my colleague from the State of Virginia, Senator Warner, in offering an amendment that will prevent tax reform from ballooning our deficits.

The Republican budget, which we are currently considering, includes a troubling provision that would exempt a $1.5 trillion tax reform bill from the important requirement that legislation that adds costs to the U.S. Government must be paid for rather than merely added to our deficit. This rule, well known to our colleagues, is one by which I am troubled to see a number of my longtime friends choose to ignore this time around--a rule long known in the Senate as the pay-as-you-go rule, or pay-go. It is an important rule that forces Congress to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. It forces Congress to find ways to actually pay for new programs or find offsets for reductions in revenue rather than to add to our national debt. It is the right policy, and it has been in place for years. So it is, frankly, jarring that this budget document would include a provision that explicitly exempts a $1.5 trillion tax reform bill from the pay-go rule.

Look, I agree that we need to work together toward a bipartisan tax reform bill, one that reduces taxes on the middle class and simplifies our overly complicated Tax Code, but we cannot simply pass a budget that allows Congress to put $1.5 trillion more on the government's credit card, on our credit card.

I thank Senator Warner for his long leadership on the need for fiscally responsible governing. Senator Warner is a former Governor and a successful business leader, and he understands the importance of sound fiscal management and the danger that our national debt poses to our long-term economic prosperity. I am proud to work with him and to remind our colleagues of the Senate's longstanding support of pay-go. I encourage all Members, especially my Republican colleagues, to support this amendment.

Now, with the forbearance of my colleague, I will speak to one other amendment for a moment.

There is an amendment that I have introduced that I know may well not get a vote but that I wanted to speak to. It would ensure that, as we consider tax reform, we do not forget those who are the most in need of our assistance right now and in the future.

The United States was hit very hard by three hurricanes and many wildfires this year. In particular, Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory of 3.4 million people, was devastated by Hurricane Maria, which was wider than the entire island. It caused massive damage and is now resulting in a humanitarian crisis. Puerto Rico's 3.4 million people is several times more than live in my State of Delaware. It is about the size of Connecticut.

Once we get past this initial crisis and restore power, provide clean drinking water, get hospitals functioning, and ensure people have housing, then Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the areas of Houston, TX, and Miami, FL, as well as areas affected by wildfires in all of these other parts of our country will have significant rebuilding needs.

We have representatives of the Governor of Puerto Rico and the Governor himself here on the Hill this week to clarify just how much more will be needed for the Marshall Plan-style investment to rebuild Puerto Rico. I am going to be advocating that we provide further support for folks from the Corporation for National and Community Service, AmeriCorps volunteers, and NCCC volunteers. Thousands of them have served in response to these emergencies. We are going to need investments in CDBGs for parks and for infrastructure.

Before I hand it over to my colleague from Virginia, I want to reference a second amendment that would prevent us from moving forward with tax reform until we first provide for the needs of Americans who have been affected by these disasters and emergencies. I wish we would take that up.

Let me close by thanking my colleague from Virginia for his long leadership on the issue of responsible fiscal management for our country.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Lou Amabili, a true Delawarean, a fantastic, dedicated, and tireless volunteer, a gentleman who dedicated his life and service to others.

Mr. Louis J. Amabili, the son of Italian immigrants, rose from volunteering at his local volunteer fire company to become one of the most important and trusted voices in the American fire service. Lou passed away last Thursday, September 28.

Lou was a giant in the fire service community, and his decades of dedicated service are a testament to how much he cared about his calling and his neighbors. Lou was a legend in the Delaware firefighting community, especially in my small hometown of Hockessin, DE. Lou proudly served the Hockessin Fire Company for 70 years, holding every position one could possibly hold--chief engineer, first and second assistant chief, along with vice president, president, president emeritus, and director.

Lou was a humble, down-to-earth, passionate, and caring gentleman. He rarely sought the limelight, even as he was often thrust into it. He could walk into any event, whether a national convention or just a local meeting, and know an individual's name, making them feel as if they were the most important person in the room.

Lou embodied the term ``public servant,'' which so many of us aspire to, yet he quietly and with dignity achieved this for decades. He heard his calling to serve his community, and he embraced it with dedication and a quiet passion.

There was no greater ally of firefighters in Delaware or across the country than Lou. His continued service of seven-plus decades set the highest standard of dedication to the volunteer fire service.

I first had the honor of meeting Lou around 2000 when I was county council president. Over my decade of service in New Castle County government, Lou was a frequent source of powerful advice, encouragement, insight, and occasional correction. I always looked forward to seeing him, whether at a county meeting, a State meeting, or at a national organization meeting. I was always certain I would get honest, direct, and constructive feedback from Lou about how things were going at home and how things were going nationally for America's firefighters.

Lou's nationally recognized service is long and impressive. He first gained national recognition in the fire service when President Richard Nixon appointed him to serve on the National Commission for Fire Prevention and Control in 1970--the Commission that produced the landmark report, ``America Burning.''

A graduate of Conrad High School and of the University of Delaware with a degree in chemistry, Lou was appointed the first director of the Delaware State Fire School in 1964 and served in that capacity for more than three decades through 1996. Upon his retirement, then-Governor Tom Carper, my senior Senator, signed a resolution naming the Delaware State Fire School the Louis J. Amabili Fire Training Center.

From 1973 to 1980, Lou served as president of the International Society of Fire Service Instructors. From 1978 to 1986, he served as a charter member of the National Fire Academy Board of Visitors. Lou also served on the NFPA board of directors for 6 years in the 1980s and was chairman of the Fire Department Instructors Conference in 1979 and 1980.

Widely respected by his colleagues, the president of Congressional Fire Services Institute, William F. Jenaway, said:

Throughout his entire career, Lou was fully committed to

the health and safety of the men and women who have served in

the fire service. He was always willing and eager to share

his knowledge with both aspiring and veteran firefighters and

cared deeply about preserving the fire service's rich

heritage. It was an honor to serve with him for many years on

the CFSI Board of Directors. I valued his friendship as did

my fellow board members. . . . His contributions to our

organization and to the nation's fire service will preserve

his legacy as a legendary leader for many years to come.

While the fire service and the safety of his fellow firefighters was his passion, his family was his love. Lou's wife of nearly 60 years, Carmella, was his constant companion as he traveled extensively to national conventions, local meetings, or speaking engagements. Lou's daughter Janice; his son Louis Junior and his wife Bridget; his grandson Louis J. Amabili III and his wife Lacie; and Lou's great- grandchildren, Lyza and Silas, will be forever proud of his legacy of service to Hockessin, to Delaware, and to our Nation.

Lou was an inspiration to generations of volunteers, first responders, and firefighters, not just in his home company in our small town of Hockessin but to all the firefighters of Delaware and our country.

Lou Amabili was exactly the sort of man on whom the safety of our Nation has been built and whose service and dedication to his community and his neighbors will never be forgotten.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, yesterday we learned that, once again, my Republican colleagues do not have the votes to pass their latest effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, even though the budget reconciliation process we are currently under requires only 50 votes. There are not 50 votes.

Many of my colleagues have spoken on this floor about the challenges, the problems, or the issues with the latest iteration of the Graham- Cassidy bill. We have also heard as a body from many organizations all over the country that represent Americans in healthcare: the American Medical Association, which speaks for America's doctors; the American Hospital Association, which speaks for our hospitals; America's Health Insurance Plans; the American Cancer Society; many other patient advocacy groups; and the AARP, which advocates for seniors. All have weighed in about the challenges with this legislation.

But rather than continuing to bear down on that point, I would like to quote a colleague and hero of mine. Senator John McCain said on this floor:

We should not be content to pass healthcare legislation on

a party-line basis. . . . The issue is too important, and too

many lives are at risk, for us to leave the American people

guessing from one election to the next whether and how they

will acquire health insurance. A bill of this impact requires

a bipartisan approach.

Senator McCain also said:

I hope that in the months ahead, we can join with

colleagues on both sides of the aisle to arrive at a

compromise solution that is acceptable to most of us, and

serves the interests of Americans as best we can.

Senator McCain is right. Fixing and improving our healthcare system cannot be done on a partisan basis. When it has been attempted to turn big bills into law on a narrow party-line basis, the results are often not sustainable. That is why we have work to do together, because this issue of providing for America's healthcare is too complex, too big, and too important for us to do with only one wing or one party.

I was encouraged, as were many colleagues, Republican and Democratic, when Senators Alexander and Murray, the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Health and Education Committee, held bipartisan hearings. They brought in Governors, insurance commissioners, healthcare experts, physicians, and hospital leaders from across the country to talk about what we need to do short term and long term to stabilize healthcare markets and to lay the foundation for improvements to our healthcare system.

So let's listen to Senator McCain. Let's give that bipartisan effort another chance. Let's work together and do this the right way.

I ride the train back and forth almost every day from Wilmington to Washington, and the Delawareans I hear from on that train or at home in the grocery store or around my State are simply tired of Congress fighting endless partisan battles with their healthcare. And it is not just frustrating to hear about on television; we

know for a fact that uncertainty in the healthcare markets is causing premiums to go up for Americans all over the country. The CEO of Highmark, which is the sole provider of individual market health insurance to the ACA market in Delaware now, conveyed to me that half of the rate increase for this coming year was due to uncertainty about whether the Trump administration would continue to enforce the individual mandate, to make the CSR payments, and other things that are part of the ACA.

So today, recognizing that the only way this gets fixed in such a closely divided and partisan Senate is if we work together, I would like to commit again to my constituents and colleagues that I am willing to work to find bipartisan solutions to our healthcare problems.

Let's sit down together, and let's bring in organizations like the AMA, the AARP, the American Cancer Society, the American Hospital Association, and let's listen. Let's listen to them, to healthcare leaders, and to patient advocates, and frankly I think we should listen to thousands of faith leaders from across the country as well. We have received letters--all of us as a body--from leaders of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, and Buddhist communities across our country. They jointly wrote a letter to Congress urging us to reject the Graham- Cassidy bill and to immediately address urgent matters that are right in front of us.

The next one is CHIP reauthorization. CHIP--the Children's Health Insurance Program--serves nearly 9 million American children, 17,000 in Delaware alone, and it is going to expire. There are a lot of Federal health programs that expire at the end of this week: the Children's Health Insurance Program, the Community Health Center Fund, which provides access to cost-effective primary and preventive care for 26 million patients throughout the country; the teaching health centers funding; the special diabetes program. There is a whole list of healthcare-related programs that expire at the end of this week. So I think we need a sense of urgency. We need a sense of urgency to finding ways to work together in the short term to stabilize the market, to extend these programs, such as CHIP, that have long enjoyed bipartisan support and to begin the steps needed to show flexibility and compromise by both parties.

First, as I said, we have to stabilize the individual ACA marketplace. Fortunately, we know how to do that. As I mentioned, there have already been hearings in which testimony was received from Governors, insurance commissioners, healthcare experts, and they said the No. 1 priority was funding the ACA cost-sharing reduction subsidies, or CSR payments. That is something the Trump administration can do today. The administration can simply announce that they will continue to meet the law and make those payments. At least in my State, that will reduce the rate of increase of individual insurance premiums by a significant percentage.

We can also work together to establish a reinsurance program, to support enrollment outreach activities, and to enforce the individual mandate. All of this would translate to lower premiums. As I said, the President is already authorized under the ACA to take a few of these steps and stabilize the marketplace.

From there, we are going to have to find bipartisan ways that we can make this a more workable system. I have introduced legislation in the past to make the ACA small business tax credits more appropriately sized for the small businesses I have heard from in Delaware, many of which can't afford the increased costs of the Affordable Care Act.

There are ways we can work together to reduce the reporting requirements so they are less burdensome to employers. I introduced a bill on that in the last Congress and would welcome a chance to work with a Republican colleague to introduce and pass that legislation now.

We could also look at ways to make the tax credits--or the way that subsidies are provided through the ACA--both more affordable and more sustainable, so that families who qualify aren't caught in a situation where they qualify for tax credits, but they are nowhere near enough to afford comprehensive health insurance.

We also have to take a hard, bipartisan look at what is driving up healthcare costs across this country. We aren't just challenged with resolving issues around health insurance; we also have to find a bipartisan path toward addressing healthcare costs.

The bottom line to all of this is that we must work together to return to regular order and to give these programs the stability and certainty they need to serve patients across the country and our constituents at home.

In my view, the Affordable Care Act has helped millions of Americans live healthier, safer, more secure lives. Repealing it and replacing it with one of the proposals we have seen in recent months would have been very harmful to millions of Americans. But that doesn't mean the ACA is perfect. There is hard work to do. Compromise is needed on both sides. And I think the call that Senator McCain has issued to this Chamber is one we should hear.

So let's work together. Let's listen to our constituents. Let's listen to faith leaders. Let's listen to doctors and healthcare experts. Let's do the hard work and together improve, not tear down, our healthcare system.

Thank you.

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 speak briefly about the amendment just voted upon by this Chamber, an amendment brought forward by Senator Paul.

As my colleagues know, the Paul amendment would have repealed the 2001 authorization for the use of military force, or so-called AUMF, which authorized military operations against al-Qaida and the Taliban. It would also repeal the 2002 AUMF, which authorized operations against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. These repeals would take effect 6 months after the adoption of the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act.

Senators of both parties owe it to the men and women of our Armed Forces to debate in public the merits of continued conflict against ISIS, al-Qaida, and the Taliban in places such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, where the brave men and women who serve us and keep us safe are currently engaged in service to our Nation and our security.

I am very sympathetic to my colleagues' concerns about the potential consequences of repealing the 2001 and 2002 authorizations. I don't want our troops fighting overseas to see our debate on this amendment as a lack of support for their vital mission. I don't want to see our enemies emboldened.

I, however, chose to support the Paul amendment, but my commitment to our troops and my commitment to defeating our enemies is as strong as ever. This body can and must immediately get to work to craft a legal authorization relevant to our current conflict. That is why I supported the Paul amendment, which would have provided a 6-month window to allow Congress to demonstrate oversight, vigorous review of the status of our military operations around the world, and to pass a new authorization relevant to our current national security threats. In other words, it would have required Congress to do its job.

Although the Paul amendment was tabled, I look forward to continuing to discuss this important and pressing issue with my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee, where it should more appropriately be debated, and bringing it forward for a final vote in this Chamber.

If we are to do our job under the Constitution of the United States, we owe those who fight and serve and strive to keep us safe nothing less than clarity about Congress's willingness to do its job under the Constitution and our willingness to consent to the actions that are essential to keeping us safe.

Mr. President, I intend to offer the following motion to H.R. 1628 and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. The motion is supported by Senator Blumenthal.

Mr. President, I intend to offer the following motion to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. The motion is supported by Senator Blumenthal.

Mr. President, I intend to offer the following motion to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. The motion is supported by Senators Durbin, Blumenthal, Baldwin, and Brown.

Mr. President, I intend to offer the following motion to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. The motion is supported by Senators Van Hollen, Baldwin, Brown, Leahy, Harris, Franken, Stabenow, Carper, Udall, Hirono, Menendez, Reed, Durbin, Warren, Blumenthal, Duckworth, Markey, Feinstein, Klobuchar, and Shaheen.

Mr. President, I intend to offer the following motion to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. The motion is supported by Senators Blumenthal and Menendez.

Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes on the floor to answer the calls I am getting into my office, the texts and the emails I am getting with people asking: What is going on? What is happening in the U.S. Senate? They can't keep track of what it is we have moved to.

We don't know either.

We are here probably all night waiting for the majority to finally produce the bill that they will use to attempt to repeal and maybe replace--or not--the Affordable Care Act.

All we know is, every single proposal that has been brought forward in recent days has two features: It reduces coverage, and it raises costs.

It may be that 16 million Americans will lose healthcare coverage. It might be 20 million, might be 32 million. Those are different scores for different proposed bills.

It may raise costs by 15 percent, 20 percent, or 30 percent. Sometime later tonight, we will see the final bill presented on this floor, and hopefully we will get some score so we know what we are voting on before we finally get there, but what is so scary to families I am hearing from, is that after 7 months of majority rule, where the Republican Party controls the Senate, House, and White House, we don't have a finished bill for us to debate tonight in detail, and we don't know yet exactly what we will vote on later tonight. We just know a simple theme--every proposal that has been brought forward when scored by the CBO, the independent scorekeeper, offers less coverage and higher costs.

Folks, I want to remind you about something because I just ran into a family out on the steps of the Capitol, outside the building, not inside the building--a family who is raising two typical children and one child with Down syndrome, a family where the father of the family is Active-Duty U.S. military. They asked me: ``Why can't we be heard?''

The process that brought us here tonight did not include committee hearings, where doctors, nurses, patient advocates, folks who run hospitals, or folks who are specialists on insurance were heard.

In a press conference earlier this evening, four of our colleagues said they are going to vote for this bill later tonight so it can go to conference and get fixed. They said the current expected skinny repeal bill is a fraudulent disaster, to paraphrase a colleague.

Well, what I really think we should do is heed the advice that Senator McCain laid out on the floor a few days ago and go back to regular order.

Just earlier today, there was an inspiring moment when we took up and passed by a vote of 97 to 2 the Russia

sanctions bill. We heard the chair and ranking Republican and Democrat of the Foreign Relations Committee speak positively of each other and positively of the process and they said the outcome is in the best interest of our country.

As we have seen, we don't always follow regular order. Both parties have responsibility for moving things over the years without fully consulting each other and without going through the committee process. I think this is the moment where we should look at what happened earlier today on this very floor and follow that process, where the committees are included and consulted, and where we find a bipartisan resolution to what ails America. I am afraid that is not what is going to happen, and later tonight we will be forced to vote for or against a bill that raises healthcare costs for Americans and lowers the number of Americans who get healthcare coverage. If that is the case, this Senator will vote no.

Thank you.

With that, I yield the floor to my colleague from Connecticut.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to join my colleagues in opposing the nomination of John Bush to serve on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Bush's record leaves me deeply concerned that he has not demonstrated the civility, the temperament, and the judgment that are the most basic requirements to be a judge on a U.S. Federal circuit court.

I also have some concerns with Mr. Bush's legal philosophy. At Mr. Bush's confirmation hearing, I asked questions about his interpretation of due process and the right to privacy. These constitutional rights protect the freedoms that are the linchpin of our modern, diverse, and inclusive society. They impact real people.

My concerns about Mr. Bush extend far beyond disagreements about legal philosophy. I worry more deeply about his judgment and temperament.

He has published statements that demonstrate not just a lack of judgment and temperament but also a fundamental lack of civility and decency.

There are many examples which I could read, but let me cite just a few. He referred to the first female Speaker of the House as ``Mama Pelosi'' and said she should be gagged. He depicted a threat that Obama supporters stealing a campaign sign would ``find out what the Second Amendment is all about.'' He chose to repeat the use of a well-known, anti-gay slur in a speech he gave. All of this was not while he was in middle school or high school but after he had been practicing law more than 15 years.

There is much more I could cite--some of it more offensive and more derogatory--but I frankly think they don't expand upon my core argument.

These are not the statements of someone fit to serve on a Federal circuit court bench.

Don't get me wrong. Mr. Bush has every right to put these views out into the world. Even now, over in the Senate office buildings, there are folks exercising their First Amendment rights, protesting and, in some cases, being arrested today, expressing strongly their feelings. I am sure some of them are saying things that are forceful, vigorous, even perhaps personally offensive to Members of the Senate as they are protesting.

The vote this body will take on the nomination of Mr. Bush isn't about his First Amendment rights, it is about whether he is capable of conducting himself in a civil way such that he can give fair treatment to all litigants who come before his court.

Our vote isn't about Mr. Bush's own constitutional rights of free expression; it is about upholding all Americans' constitutional rights to fair treatment before the courts and what sort of expectations litigants will have when they stand before him.

Mr. Bush's judgment and his repeated choice to utilize not just negative, not just provocative but inflammatory and derogatory language when expressing himself do not suggest to me that he is capable of the fairness, the civility, and the impartiality we expect.

Mr. Bush owns the reputation he has built for himself in many speeches, op-eds, blogs, and newsletters. I heard very little in the way of disavowing these prior statements at his confirmation hearing, suggesting that he either stands by them, doesn't see what is wrong with them, or simply doesn't care. I am not sure which is worse, but, to me, each of these is disqualifying.

If my Republican colleagues have reservations about this nominee putting on the robe, sitting on a circuit court bench, and interpreting the law for years to come, I hope you will deliver that message with your vote on the floor.

I haven't shied away from supporting President Trump's nominees when I believe they are fully qualified for the job--even when their politics have sharply diverged from my own, but this case isn't about partisan politics. The Senate should not be a rubberstamp for nominees of any President of any political party. We must guard the balance of power and the integrity of the Federal judiciary as an unbiased and fairminded institution.

President Trump has more than 100 judicial vacancies to fill. If we don't demand any other standard of the White House than this, this problem will extend beyond the nomination of Mr. Bush to this circuit court seat, and the precious and vital reputation of our Federal judiciary will be damaged as a result.

I pray we do not reach that outcome.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor tonight to join my colleagues in opposing the Senate healthcare reform bill, what I will call the Senate TrumpCare bill. I am also here to thank the thousands of my constituents, the thousands of Delawareans who called and emailed my office to express their opposition to this bill that is about neither health nor care. It is because of your efforts, because of the efforts of thousands of Americans across the country who have made their voices heard, that today the Senate doesn't have enough votes to pass this TrumpCare bill.

I urge everyone watching and listening to remember that this fight is not over. The Senate will be back next month, and Republicans will be doing everything they can to make tweaks or shaves or changes or amendments to the bill to get it past this body. We need the engagement, the persistence, even the resistance of Delawareans and Americans to make sure the Senate TrumpCare bill never becomes law.

This is as urgent now as ever because of how fundamentally heartless this bill is. As many nonpartisan organizations, including the Congressional Budget Office, have pointed out, this bill is essentially a massive tax break for the wealthy paid for on the backs of some of America's most vulnerable citizens.

Many of my colleagues have already discussed the devastating impact this bill would have over time on millions of Americans. This Senate bill would make hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid, it would slash tax credits that help Americans buy health insurance, and it would force 22 million Americans off their health insurance and drive up costs for many millions more.

If that is not bad enough, the Senate TrumpCare bill does all of this slashing and cutting in large part to give another tax break to our wealthiest citizens. If this bill becomes law, the very richest Americans would get an extra $700 billion in tax breaks over the next decade.

If it only affected the millions of Americans who depend on Medicaid or who purchase insurance on the individual market, it would be unconscionable, but it is even worse. Let me explain.

Many of our constituents don't realize that even Americans who get their health insurance through their employer--the 150 million Americans who get their health insurance through their employer--have benefited from the Affordable Care Act. In fact, I think that in some ways, the consumer protections put in place by the ACA are the most important accomplishment of that bill.

A core requirement of the ACA was that all health insurance plans cover what are known as essential health benefits. These are basic services, such as emergency care, prescription drugs, pediatric services, maternity and newborn care, hospitalization, healthcare for the mentally ill, and substance

abuse treatment for the addicted. To put it more succinctly, these are all the reasons many people want health insurance in the first place. Thanks to the ACA, almost every insurance plan in the country today has to carry these core services, and that includes the more than 150 million Americans and the half a million Delawareans who get their health insurance through their jobs.

The Senate TrumpCare bill would allow States, through waivers over time, to gut these essential health benefit requirements, gradually making many Americans' health insurance less and less valuable and less and less protective of their and their families' health.

That provision of the Senate TrumpCare bill would also allow States to waive the ban on insurers imposing annual and lifetime limits on essential healthcare coverage. Even if you get good insurance through your employer, if you have an unexpected development--let's say the premature birth of a child, who develops serious medical challenges, or a terrible diagnosis that requires expensive and repeated surgery--you either have to come up with that money on your own or you are forced into bankruptcy once you hit the lifetime cap.

Let me demonstrate with an all-too-real example. About 1 in 10 newborns has to spend time in the neonatal intensive care unit, or NICU, after they are born. According to the American Medical Association, in the NICU, ``it is not unusual for costs to top $1 million for an extended stay.'' That means even a baby born to parents with great insurance coverage through their employer hit their lifetime insurance cap before they even leave the hospital for the first time.

As Americans are scrambling to find ways to pay for their astronomical out-of-pocket costs under the so-called Senate TrumpCare bill, wealthier Americans and corporations will be given big tax breaks.

Moreover, while Senate Republicans may claim their bill still covers preexisting conditions, insurance under this bill would be rendered meaningless if it doesn't cover what you need to treat your preexisting condition through these essential health benefits.

Let's briefly recap this Senate TrumpCare bill. Millions of Americans lose health insurance. Those who managed to keep it end up paying more but get less coverage. The wealthiest Americans get another big tax break. That is a painful, even cynical, political calculation.

Since I came to the Senate 7 years ago, I have said more times than I can count that I want to work with Republicans to fix the parts of the Affordable Care Act that need fixing. Let's simplify the reporting requirements that burden small businesses and increase the tax credits that help small business employers offer insurance to their employees. Let's find ways together to increase competition and expand the tax credits to bring down premiums and deductibles on the individual market. Let's explore new mechanisms that control healthcare costs by incentivizing reforms and producing healthier outcomes, rather than more tests and services. Sadly, this Senate TrumpCare bill does none of these things.

It is my hope that after today's developments, that after the next few weeks, that after hearing from their constituents and returning in the next month, that my colleagues will recognize that if we work together, we can address the broken parts of the ACA and sustain the best of what it has done to expand insurance and healthcare for millions of Americans.

Let me close with a story I shared earlier today on the steps of the Capitol. This is Kerry Orr. Kerry is from my hometown of Wilmington, DE. Kerry is a massage therapist and self-employed yoga instructor. Like many Americans, she considers the Affordable Care Act ``nothing short of miraculous.''

Kerry signed up for health insurance in 2014, thanks to a subsidy that made it available to her through the ACA. She had some nagging abdominal and lower back pain for years but didn't think much of it, considering she had no family history of disease and had never even had stitches before. But that next year, in January of 2015, a routine procedure covered by her new insurance--which she told me she wouldn't have even gone for if it hadn't been covered by this new health insurance--revealed that Kerry, in fact, had stage III colon cancer. She had surgery a week later. She had 6 months of chemotherapy, and she ultimately faced no out-of-pocket expenses and is fully in remission. Kerry's cancer has now been in remission since September 2015.

She wrote to me earlier this year:

The ACA came along at the last possible moment to save my

life. I am certain that without it, I would have continued to

live with the discomfort and try to self-treat until the

cancer was too advanced to be successfully treated.

I am opposing the Senate TrumpCare bill for Kerry and for the thousands of Delawareans and millions of Americans just like her. I have heard stories from Delawareans about things that need to be fixed in the Affordable Care Act, and I hope I get a chance to work across the aisle to do that, but I have also heard from hundreds of Delawareans whose lives have been improved or, in cases just like Kerry's, saved by the Affordable Care Act. I will not yield on defending the best parts of the ACA that have saved the lives of Americans across this country.

In the days and the weeks to come, I hope all Americans will stay active, stay engaged, and stay the course so that we can push aside this cruel, cynical bill and find an opportunity to work together on a bill with real heart. That fight is not yet over, and I will not yet yield.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to honor the remarkable service of the Polytech School District superintendent, Dr. Deborah Zych, and to recognize her commitment and service to the district. Throughout her career, Debbie has been an outstanding leader and innovative thinker, serving in many positions throughout Delaware's school districts. Her hard work, perseverance, and dedication will truly be missed by students, parents, and Delawareans up and down our State.

Since 2011, Debbie has played an active and integral role within the Delaware Department of Education, the New Castle County School District, and the Polytech School District, serving as a teacher, administrator, director of curriculum, assistant superintendent, and superintendent. Throughout her time in Polytech School District, Debbie has been a major leader, instrumental in guiding POLYTECH through facility enhancements, the expansion of educational opportunities for students, as well as a marked growth in student certifications. She also played a significant role in establishing a more visible link between Polytech's highly recognized high school and adult education programs. I join the many Delawareans who have had the opportunity to work alongside Debbie, and we are truly grateful for all she has done to improve the lives of Delaware's youth and adults.

In addition to ensuring that Kent County students got quality educations, I got to know Debbie through a lot of the work she and her staff did with manufacturers in Delaware and with their impressive apprenticeship programs they ran. She came down to a Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee meeting we hosted on workforce training, and last year, she hosted an event I helped organize on National Manufacturing Day. Debbie and her staff recognized that what manufacturers in Delaware needed was for the training to be done on the shop floor rather than in the school, and they have made dozens of companies stronger as a result. Under Debbie's leadership, Polytech School District also expanded the number of English language learners in Delaware.

Beginning her career in Maryland, Debbie has always been an advocate for students, teachers, and the local community. She was committed to ensuring that each student--no matter their age--was equipped with the tools and skills necessary to go out into the world and take advantage of each opportunity that came their way.

We cannot simply attribute Debbie's long service in Delaware's school systems to her hard work and advocacy, but also to her genuine passion for seeing each student and program participant excel. Her forward- thinking ability and insight into the value of incorporating all district resources has undoubtedly laid the foundation for helping all students succeed.

Debbie's work has been nothing short of incredible, and I am sincerely grateful for all that she has done on behalf of the students and families across our State. It is my privilege to offer my sincerest congratulations on a job well done and wish her much success in her future endeavors at the University of Delaware where she will continue to serve Delaware in the UD Professional Development Center for Educators.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from Missouri.

Madam President, I come to the floor today, along with my colleague the Senator from Missouri, as the cochair of the bipartisan Law Enforcement Caucus. We have come to express our concern and our gratitude.

This morning our colleagues and our friends, including Congressman Steve Scalise from Louisiana, were senselessly attacked while at a practice in Alexandria for tomorrow's annual bipartisan congressional baseball game.

Our deepest thoughts and prayers are with the members of the Capitol Police and Congressman Scalise and everyone who was injured, as well as their families.

While we still don't know all of the details of this morning's event, one fact is true. Were it not for the skill, bravery, prompt response, and professionalism of the Capitol Police and Alexandria police, this tragic event would have been much, much worse.

For those of us who serve and work every day in Congress at the Capitol, we see the men and women of the Capitol Police. They protect the Members of Congress, our staffs, and the Capitol itself, but that doesn't begin to describe the vital and noble work they do, because the Capitol Police don't simply protect the people in the buildings on the Capitol campus. They protect, they serve, and they honor our Capitol, our country, and our democracy itself. They sacrifice and they risk their lives each and every day to ensure that this Capitol is a Capitol for the people, a Capitol for every man, woman, and child in the United States. It is the Capitol Police, in close and important partnership with local police, who ensure that everyone and anyone can come to this place to make their voices heard and to take part in our democracy.

They make these sacrifices and take these risks every day, and this morning's events are a sobering reminder of what the men and women of law enforcement all across the country--and yes, today, here among the Capitol Police--take on each and every day.

I urge everyone who works and serves here in the Capitol to take a moment to pray for and be grateful for the men and women of the Capitol Police, the men and women of the Alexandria police, and the men and women of law enforcement all across the Nation.

With that, I yield to my colleague from Missouri.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for the chance to work together to lift up in a bipartisan way the men and women of law enforcement and to express our prayers and our gratitude for the men and women of law enforcement--for the Alexandria police and everyone who serves in our entire Nation to help keep it safe and secure.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from the State of Missouri. Working with Senator Blunt, my cochair of the Law Enforcement Caucus, has been a terrific experience. We have had the opportunity over several years and several Congresses now for more than a dozen conversations, where we invite law enforcement leaders from around the country to talk about partnership between Federal, State, and local law enforcement, intelligence sharing, equipment issues, policy and operational issues to allow us to provide needed support for the men and women of law enforcement.

It is my honor to join with several of my colleagues today to recognize the men and women of law enforcement as part of National Police Week. Together, we offer our gratitude and our support to the men and women of law enforcement and their families, who together support our communities.

It is only May, and yet my home State of Delaware has already been reminded of the tremendous risks and great sacrifices made by law enforcement officers and their families.

In February of this year, Lieutenant Steven Floyd of the Delaware Department of Correction was killed on the job in a prison riot in Smyrna, the Delaware correctional center. He was a 16-year veteran of the department and left behind his wife of 28 years, Saundra; his children, Candyss, Steven, Jr., and Chyvante; and two grandsons.

Just last month, Corporal Stephen Ballard of the Delaware State Police was senselessly gunned down while investigating a suspicious vehicle. Corporal Ballard had served with the Delaware State Police for 8\1/2\ years and left behind his wife Louise and his daughter Abigail.

Delawareans are still grieving for the loss of both of these brave men in the line of duty.

As we recognize the entire law enforcement community from across our country during National Police Week, we should honor their sacrifice by serving them as well as they serve us. This week and every week, we must do everything we can to honor our obligations to fallen heroes and their families.

In the wake of these losses in Delaware, I am committed to continuing to

work with my colleagues across the aisle and across the country, like Senators Klobuchar, Cornyn, and Senator Blunt, to make sure our officers have the resources they deserve to do their jobs and to come home safely at the end of every shift. That means continuing to champion programs like the Bulletproof Vest Partnership, which literally saves officers' lives. Delaware knows the importance of this long-running program all too well. Two of our Delaware Capitol Police officers who were shot in the line of duty survived due to bulletproof vests provided through this vital and ongoing Federal-State partnership.

I will also continue to work here in the Senate with colleagues to reform the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program to make sure the families of officers who lose their lives or are permanently disabled in the line of duty receive the benefits they deserve.

Chairman Grassley, who has joined us here on the floor, is one of the lead cosponsors of this bill, along with Senators Hatch, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar--is one of many cosponsors. This is a bill that will take important steps in these reforms, and it is just one step away from passing the Senate, and my understanding is it could head to the House of Representatives as early as later today.

Of course, our commitment to serving the men and women of law enforcement has to extend beyond the patrol car and the police station. Building and maintaining trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve is essential to preventing and reducing crime and keeping officers safe. That is why Senator Blunt and I have both taken steps to encourage the strategy of community policing, which helps officers do their job more effectively in partnership with local communities. We have also continued to support local officials who are working to bring Federal resources, expertise, and convening power to help strengthen the bonds between the police and the communities they serve.

In light of all these important efforts, we can't let ideology or partisan politics in this Chamber prevent us from doing our job in support of law enforcement. We will fail those who serve us if we do so. We have to move forward in a bipartisan way to improve and invest in officer safety. That is why I am proud to stand with my colleague and partner from Missouri as cochairs of the Law Enforcement Caucus. The mission of this bipartisan group of Senators is simple: to bring law enforcement, community leaders, issue experts, and Republicans and Democrats together to share ideas and generate solutions to challenges facing State and local law enforcement. We have hosted more than a dozen briefings and events.

Now more than ever, Senator Blunt and I are committed to this mission. We are on the floor today to honor women and men, like Corporal Ballard and Lieutenant Floyd from Delaware, who put on the uniform and the badge every day, not knowing whether they will come home at the end of their shift. We are here today for their families, whose sacrifice and burden are heavy.

When I attended Corporal Ballard's moving memorial service earlier this month, the most powerful speaker among many was his widow, Louise. She stood up, stood tall, and with a smile on her face thanked the 3,000 officers from 36 States across the country who had come to stand in solemn procession and honor Corporal Ballard's sacrifice and pay their respects.

Louise Ballard said:

This is my Stephen's victory, when I get to see men and

women from all over the country who every single day get up

and do a job. A job that's hard, a job that requires heart.

Few jobs are as hard or require as much heart as patrolling the streets and protecting our communities.

This week, together we honor the service and sacrifice of those law enforcement officers whose names have been added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial this year and the hundreds of thousands, even millions, who even today, even tonight, will be on patrol keeping our communities and our families safe.

Mr. President, I yield to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, my colleague from Iowa and partner in legislating in the interest of law enforcement.

Mr. President, in conclusion, I thank my colleagues, Senators Klobuchar, Grassley, Cornyn, and Blunt, for joining us today in a colloquy on the floor. It is a small but important gesture of bipartisan support, sustained and long-lasting bipartisan support for the community of law enforcement that serves each of us and our communities every day.

I wish to yield to my friend Senator Blunt for his closing remarks.

Mr. President, I rise today to address President Trump's proposed budget for fiscal year 2018. My predecessor in this seat, my friend, former Vice President Joe Biden, once said to me years ago: Show me your budget and I will show you your values.

One of my concerns about the proposal we have received--the initial slimmed-down overview proposal we have received--is that it suggests values that I think are quite out of line with what my home State of Delaware would look for me to be doing in this body, what I think addresses the real needs and priorities of the American people.

Last month President Trump released an overview of his budget--what is called a skinny budget--and we haven't yet received a full and detailed budget proposal. Even though what we have received is just an overview, it indicates that the cuts President Trump is proposing will significantly weaken vital domestic programs, often with the goal of completely eliminating existing and valued initiatives.

This chart gives a rough summary of all the different Federal agencies that would take double-digit hits in order to be able to pay for the significant $54 billion increase to defense spending. Targeting only nondefense programs that millions of Americans and Delawareans rely on ignores commitments made over the last couple of budget cycles and years, as Republicans and Democrats have worked together to ensure placing equal priority on defense and nondefense spending.

Under sequestration, under the Budget Control Act, we have already made significant cuts to important domestic programs. After the difficult budgets of the last few years, in my view, we have already made too many cuts to some of the programs that helped build our Nation.

To be clear, I am as passionate as anyone in this body about supporting our Armed Forces, particularly when they are in harm's way and particularly as we continue to conduct operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

But Democrats will not stand for cutting domestic programs simply to pay for a $54 billion military expansion that hasn't been explained or justified through a thorough review of what are the appropriate investments in defense that will respond to the challenges and threats we face in this world.

To pay for that $54 billion increase in defense by cutting investments in education, housing, job training, and more here at home strikes me as the wrong set of priorities and the wrong direction. If anything like these proposed Trump budget cuts are enacted, I know my home State of Delaware would lose millions and millions of dollars for valuable and effective Federal programs that help my constituents each and every day. Trump's budget proposal would cut research and health programs. It would cut job-creating infrastructure programs. It would cut grants for higher education. It would cut housing and so much more.

I wish to take a few minutes to focus on a few of many proposed budget cuts to give a sense of the impact it might have on our livelihood, our security, and our prosperity at home. Let me start with some cuts that would directly affect our national security, our safety.

In my view, the deep cuts made in the proposed Trump budget would simply make us less safe. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard, which has a station in Delaware, would be cut by more than $1.3 billion. The Transportation Security Administration, or TSA, has just as high a cut. Ironically, even though these are the very agencies that protect our ports and other points of entry, Trump proposes cutting their funding so that a southern border wall can be built for an estimate well above $25 billion. This simply makes no sense. If you listen to the words of the Coast Guard Commandant, ADM Paul Zukunft, he warned that simply focusing all those resources on building a wall along the border with Mexico would make our ports and waterways even more appealing to smugglers and those who seek to bring illicit drugs or to bring people into the United States through unlawful entry.

That is not all. The Trump budget would make us less safe by depleting Federal protection from natural disasters, starting with a proposed $600 million cut to FEMA State and local grants. The budget also proposes restructuring fees for the National Flood Insurance Program, which would lead to raising rates for homeowners who get flood insurance.

My home State of Delaware is the lowest mean elevation State in America--literally the lowest lying State and ground zero for sea level rise. These cuts would have a significant impact on homeowners up and down my State, those at our seashore and those in my home community of Wilmington who face steadily rising flood insurance premiums.

It is not just our safety, though, that would be impacted by the President's budget; it also threatens job growth and economic security. As a President who ran a campaign on a middle-class jobs agenda, I am struck that his proposed budget would endanger Americans across the country financially by also undermining support for development in both rural areas and urban areas. Take the Department of Agriculture, which provides critical support through the Rural Development Program. In Delaware, at least, Rural Development, or RDA, has played a critical role in supporting housing, businesses, and communities in the rural parts of Delmarva--Delaware and Maryland.

The Trump budget would also eliminate the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, or RBS, which promotes economic development in distressed rural areas. That is a program which has supported things like Del Tech automotive technician training and architectural services for the Seaford Historical Society, among many other things.

Something I am much more familiar with and more passionate about is the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. Across the State of Delaware, the MEP, as it is known, has helped small and medium manufacturing companies to be better at taking advantage of cutting-edge technology, understanding how to manage their inventory, how to invest more wisely in new capital equipment, and how to grow and compete around the world.

Since 2000, Delaware's Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program has used Federal support to help Delaware manufacturers increase sales by more than $120 million, helping create more than 1,600 good-paying jobs and finding over $100 million in cost savings in Delaware's small and medium manufacturers. These are great impacts for a fairly small program. Why that program specifically targeted at helping small and medium manufacturing companies would be a priority for elimination is beyond me.

Cuts to other areas that impact research and energy in our economy also strike me as unwise and ill-considered. It is not just our economy and national security; Trump's budget would also threaten our infrastructure, our transportation, and our housing.

As a Delawarean and someone who rides Amtrak between Wilmington and Washington almost every day we are in session, I know how important our passenger rail system is for the Northeast, as well as for connecting the rest of our country. Amtrak's long-distance routes are critically important to the Nation's economy and to sustaining passenger rail as a nationwide Federal service. Yet, as our competitors around the world are investing billions of dollars in high-speed rail and in efficient rail networks that connect whole countries, President Trump's proposal would eliminate all Federal funding for Amtrak's long-distance routes.

Another effective Federal program that has made a difference in my home State in infrastructure is the so-called TIGER Program, which invests in a whole range of infrastructure options--highway, transit, rail and port--by leveraging private capital and supporting competitive, innovative solutions to infrastructure challenges. The TIGER Program has supported projects like a new regional rail transportation center at the University of Delaware, taking advantage of the former Chrysler rail yard, and the significant new growth we are seeing at the University of Delaware's STAR campus. This is an investment that will have several multiples that will leverage private sector benefits by promoting economic development, accessible housing, and multimobile transportation choices in the area.

Many of my colleagues have similar experiences in their States about the impact of the TIGER Grant Program. In the last year, it had a demand nearly 20 times the available funding. Yet the Trump budget would again eliminate all Federal funding to this vital transportation infrastructure program that creates jobs and helps to leverage private sector investment.

There are so many other programs on the chopping block, it is hard to even begin to touch on them: Community Development Block Grants, which I relied on in my previous job as county executive to provide support for low-income and disabled individuals to have access to high quality housing; the funds that support things like Meals on Wheels, that allow our low-income seniors to age in place rather than having to be moved to institutions; and many other programs through the Federal Department of Housing that have a positive impact in communities up and down my State, from Newark and Wilmington to Dover and Seaford.

If you take the U.S. Department of Agriculture's rural water and wastewater loan and grant programs, these would be eliminated entirely. These programs are critical to ensuring that rural communities can access funds to support safe drinking water and sewer systems. Many communities in Southern Delaware rely on rural water funds to ensure safe drinking water supplies for the families that live there. As I have suggested, the list of potential cuts to programs goes on and on.

Let me move to some impacts on the environment, briefly. The Chesapeake Bay is one of the world's largest estuary systems, and Delaware is a State that borders on the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Economists insist that there is nearly $1 trillion worth of economic value to the Chesapeake Bay watershed, yet the Trump budget cuts nearly half of the funding for the EPA to allow States to get grants that will help improve air quality, clean up contaminated waste sites, and remove lead from drinking water. Delaware alone would lose $3 million in these vital initiatives.

There are millions of Americans who rely on many more programs listed

here--AmeriCorps, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the African Development Foundation, and many more--all eliminated in this budget in order to prioritize a focus on our military and defense.

I don't think the President understands that we cannot maintain our status as a global leader with defense and military alone. We need to ensure that a complementary strength exists in our development and diplomacy programs, which are less than one-tenth of our spending on national defense.

I recently had the opportunity to see the impact that USAID and our programs to assist the hungry and needy around the world can make in stabilizing fragile states and preventing them from becoming failed states. We spent less than one percent of the Federal budget on these sorts of programs. They provide a critical connection to parts of the world where a positive understanding of America and our values would be a good thing.

The international affairs budget, which includes needed funding for USAID, the State Department, and other related programs, would be cut by one-third under the Trump budget--a 29 percent cut to the State Department alone.

If history is any indicator, the last 70 years show these investments in diplomacy and development are critical. Foreign assistance is not charity. It serves a humanitarian purpose, but it also makes us stronger by promoting American values around the world, building coalitions that isolate our adversaries, and helping make tens of millions less susceptible to terrorism and to extremism around the world.

This is a false choice between significantly increasing our defense spending and the need to sustain our investments in diplomacy and development. I hope my colleagues and constituents will take time to think about the many different Federal programs that I have briefly discussed in these remarks about the proposed budget and all the different ways that these Federal programs have invested in our quality of life, in our national security, and our economic prosperity. Many of them are scheduled for elimination under this budget.

As I have heard both Republicans and Democrats say in press interviews and on this floor: No President's budget is adopted without change. It is my hope that this budget will be set aside and that the folks who represent our States here will begin anew the process of building an appropriations path forward that actually protects our country, protects our livelihood, and invests significantly in sustaining and saving the very best of these programs that have benefited my home State and my constituents for so very long.

With that, I yield the floor.