Floor Statements

Mr. President, today is a day when many Senators are speaking about Judge Gorsuch and about the Supreme Court. As I think many know, in the last week, in the Judiciary Committee hearings and in other settings, I have announced that I will vote against Judge Gorsuch on the final vote tomorrow. I believe I have made my reasons for my opposition clear. I have thoroughly reviewed and considered Judge Gorsuch's record and where he fits within American jurisprudence, and I have no second thoughts about my decision.

As I look around at what has just happened on this Senate floor, I am sick with regret. So I rise now to speak in defense of the Senate.

The Senate has been hailed by many, including our nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Gorsuch, as the world's greatest deliberative body. Yet today I think one more blow has been struck at that title and reality.

The late Senator Robert Byrd, who served in this Chamber for 51 years, would famously remind new Senators that ``in war and in peace, [the Senate] has been the sure refuge and protector of the rights of the states and of a political minority.''

Of course, although Senator Byrd was the longest serving Senator, as a Delawarean, I grew up in the tradition of Senator Joe Biden, a 36- year veteran of this body who left its ranks only to ascend to the Vice Presidency and spend 8 more years as its Presiding Officer.

Since I have had the honor of assuming Senator Biden's former seat, I have committed to following his example of working across the aisle, through Republican and Democratic administrations, with whoever is willing to roll up their sleeves and get to work for the American people. I know my colleagues share in this foundational commitment to serve our constituents and country.

As I look around at what just happened on this floor, with too little discussion of its lasting consequences and too little visible concern or even emotion, I must ask the question: Where are we headed?

You can't see it, but around this Chamber are white marble statues, busts of former Presiding Officers, of former Vice Presidents of the United States. They are in the halls outside this Chamber. They are at the upper level of this Chamber, in the Galleries. All the former Vice Presidents are memorialized in white marble busts.

Former Vice President Adlai Stevenson, the grandfather of the Illinois Governor who ran for President in the middle of the 20th century--former Vice President Adlai Stevenson, when he delivered his farewell address to the Senate on his last day in office as the Presiding Officer of the Senate in 1897, said:

It must not be forgotten that the rules governing this body

are founded deep in human experience; that they are the

result of centuries of tireless effort . . . to conserve, to

render stable and secure, the rights and liberties which have

been achieved by conflict.

By its rules, the Senate wisely fixes the limits to its own

power. Of those who clamor against the Senate and its mode of

procedure, it may be truly said, ``They know not what they

do.''

In this Chamber alone are preserved, without restraint, two

essentials of wise legislation and of good government--the

right of amendment and of debate.

It was exactly that right, those rules that were assaulted today, but they have been under assault for a long time.

In recent days, I have reached out to my Republican and Democratic colleagues, trying to see if there was some way we could reach a reliable consensus agreement to safeguard these institutional values and avoid the events of today and tomorrow.

I told my colleagues that I was not ready to end debate on Judge Gorsuch's nomination until we could chart a course for the Senate to move forward on a bipartisan basis when considering future Supreme Court nominations.

I think for us to get to any constructive conversation about moving this Senate forward requires owning the role that all of us--each of us has played over our time here, whether a few years or decades, in bringing us to this point.

I, for one, will say I have come over time to regret joining my Democratic colleagues in changing the rules for lower court nominations and confirmations in 2013. Of course, I could give an entire speech on the obstruction that led us to that point. I could document the Republican and Democratic deeds and misdeeds of the last Congress and the Congress before that and the decade before that.

As my more seasoned and senior colleagues demonstrated in the Judiciary Committee deliberations, those who have served here longest know best the record of grievance of Congresses in decades past.

I anticipate that many of my colleagues will come to regret the decisions and actions taken today in this Congress and in Congresses ahead. Instead of focusing on that shared regret, I want to work together not to continue to tear down the traditions and rules of the Senate but to find ways to strengthen and fortify and sustain them.

I worked to try to find a solution to get past this moment on the brink. I wanted to ensure our next Supreme Court nominee would be the product of bipartisan consultation and consensus, as was safeguarded for years by the potential of the 60-vote margin. I wanted certainty that the voice of the minority would still be heard when the next vacancies arise. Among many, this effort to forge consensus was met with hopelessness or even hostility.

Back home, thousands of constituents called my office, urging a vote against Gorsuch and urging I support the filibuster. Some even urged me to stop talking about any sort of deal. In fact, back home in Delaware, some national groups ran ads against me when there was even a rumor of a hint that there might be conversations about avoiding this outcome.

There were even Senators on both sides of the aisle who told me that an agreement was impossible. They said any agreement is based on trust, and we simply do not trust each other anymore.

Given the events of the last years, the disrespect and mistreatment of Merrick Garland, the course of the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, I can understand how there is a raw wound right now in this Chamber, where each side feels the other has mistreated a good and honorable and capable nominee for the Supreme Court.

Let me say my last point again. Senators on both sides told me we could not find a durable compromise because we do not trust each other anymore. If we cannot trust each other anymore, then are there any big problems facing this country which we can address and solve?

This morning, I gave an address at the Brookings Institution about the

threat Russia poses to our democracy, to our allies, to our national security, and to the endurance of our Republic. If that threat is not something that deserves determined, bipartisan effort, I don't know what is.

There are many threats to our future I could lay out today, but let me simply emphasize that in the absence of trust, this body cannot play its intended constitutional role, and without trust, we will not rebuild what is necessary to sustain this body.

Everyone likes to point the finger at the other side as the source of this distrust. The reality is, there is abundant blame to go around.

Folks like to remember the good old days when Justice Scalia was confirmed by this body 98 to 0, when Justice Ginsburg was confirmed 96 to 3, but if we look at our five most recent nominees to the Supreme Court who got votes, you can see a clear trend: Nine Senators, all Republican, voted against Justice Breyer. Then 22 Senators voted against Justice Roberts. Then 42 Senators, mostly Democrats, voted against Justice Alito. For President Obama's nominees, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, more than 30 Republican Senators opposed each one. Only nine Republican Senators voted for Sotomayor, and only five Republicans voted for Justice Kagan. We have been on this trajectory-- both parties--for some time.

Then, of course, we have Chief Judge Merrick Garland, the first Supreme Court nominee in American history to be denied a hearing and a vote, and we have Judge Gorsuch, the first to be the object of a partisan filibuster on this floor.

We did not get here overnight. We have become increasingly polarized. How can we work together to repair this lack of trust so we can face the very real challenges that face our Nation?

My own attempts of recent days--although I was blessed to be joined by Senators of good will and good faith and great skill in both parties--were ultimately not successful. I wish I had engaged sooner and more forcefully. I wish I had been clearer with my colleagues how determined I was to seek a result, but this doesn't mean I am disappointed that I tried, and it also doesn't mean I am going to stop. I am not going to stop trying to fix the damage that has been done, trying to find a better pathway forward.

I ask my colleagues: If you know what you have done today, then what will we do tomorrow? How could we avoid the further deepening, corrosive partisanship in this body? What past mistakes can each of us own up to? What steps can we take to mend these old wounds? What more can we do to move forward together?

We sometimes talk about the dysfunction of this body as if it is external to us, as if we bear no accountability for it, but at the end of the day, here we are: 100 men and women sent to represent 50 States of this Republic and 325 million people. In many ways, we have all let them down today.

I can tell you what I am going to do tomorrow. I commit to working with anyone who wants to join me to try to strengthen and save the rules and traditions of this body and its effectiveness as an absolutely essential part of the constitutional order for which so many have fought and died. It is what all of our predecessors would have wanted.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from the great State of Maryland and to commend him for his leadership on the Foreign Relations Committee and on the floor today, as well as his great work with the Helsinki Commission, his tireless bipartisan work with our committee chairman, and with many others.

We have just heard detailed, in terms of the legislation he has put forward, the effort, the time, and the engagement he has put forward in terms of standing up. I think it is important for all of our colleagues and the American people to hear us working together to push back on Russian aggression and on Vladimir Putin's regime for its interference in our most recent election and its long and sad record of appalling human rights violations.

In 1950, the CIA delivered a report to then-President Harry Truman that outlined two key goals of the Soviet Government. The first goal was ``destruction of the unity among the Western countries, thereby isolating the United States.'' The second goal was ``alienating the Western people from their governments so that the efforts of the Western countries to strengthen themselves would be undermined.''

Nearly 70 years later, the regime of Vladimir Putin in Russia remains fundamentally committed to these same two goals, but today his government has a whole new arsenal of cyber tools and information tools which it uses to interfere in democratic elections here in the United States and across Europe--among the nations that are our vital allies-- to launch propaganda and misinformation campaigns that spread falsehoods and create a climate of doubt and uncertainty among citizens and democracies around the world.

Last week, on this floor, I rose to speak with my friend and colleague, Senator Marco Rubio, to highlight the threat that we know Russia poses to the American-led, rules-based international order that has been sustained by both Republican and Democratic Presidents and leaders in this body since the Second World War.

Just yesterday, several of us participated in a hearing of the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. We heard directly from representatives of the Governments of Ukraine, Poland, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. All of these nations know better than any others just how serious the Russian Government is today about fulfilling the goals the CIA quoted and outlined in that report from the 1950s. Russian troops today are massing on the borders of many of these countries. In the case of Ukraine, Russia has recently invaded and continues to illegally occupy Crimea while arming and supporting separatists in the eastern 20 percent of the country.

Russia previously invaded Georgia in 2008 and continues to occupy about one-fifth of its territory, backing rebels in the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Russian Government has tried and, in several cases, succeeded in executing cyber attacks against these countries' governments, most famously against Estonia in 2007. Its ongoing disinformation campaigns have created widespread doubt about Western institutions like NATO, the European Union, the OSCE-- institutions that have helped to maintain a stable and peaceful world for seven decades.

These Ambassadors and the Foreign Ministers who testified yesterday before our appropriations subcommittee made clear their countries depend on the United States not just for leadership, not just for military strength but for leadership and our commitment to effective foreign assistance. These are the same requests I heard last August from Eastern European leaders, when I led a bipartisan congressional delegation--two Republican House Members, two Democratic Senate Members, and I. The five of us went to Ukraine, Estonia, and the Czech Republic, and we heard exactly the same message--that they are threatened by a constant wave of attacks of disinformation, both overt and covert efforts to subvert their democracies and to change the direction of their nations.

Maintaining our forms of American leadership, our support for the democracies, the civil societies, and the military, and the strength of these nations in Eastern Europe is not charity. A world committed to democracy and the rule of law is a more stable world. A stable world means Americans are safer and more economically secure. It

is that simple. That is why we must push back against Russian aggression in a bipartisan way and stand up for our allies and our values.

Conversations like this one on the floor today are important to educate our American people about the true nature of the Russian threat we face. The Russian Government's current strategy relies on disinformation and propaganda in an effort to divide the American people, both from their government and from each other.

Our discussion this afternoon makes clear that both Republicans and Democrats in Congress haven't lost our will to highlight, to condemn, and to fight Russian actions. Unassailable facts must serve as the basis for a bipartisan foreign policy. A clear-eyed understanding of Russian intentions and actions will protect us from their anti-Western propaganda and avoid the internal divisions that Russia seeks to leverage in an attempt to project its influence worldwide.

To that end, I am determined to support the efforts of Senator Cardin. I am also determined to support the efforts of Senator Graham to provide sufficient funding that specifically targets the Russian Government's subversive actions. I will also continue to work with my colleagues, such as Senator Cardin, to see that his bill, S. 94, the Counteracting Russian Hostilities Act, is marked up this work period so the full Senate can consider this important legislation. As Senator Cardin commented, there are 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans who have already cosponsored this important bill.

Why is this bill, the Counteracting Russian Hostilities Act, so important? It will make sure the Russian Government pays a price for breaking the rules by supporting sanctions for its occupation and illegal annexation of Crimea, for its egregious human rights violations in Syria and elsewhere, and, most importantly, for directly interfering in our election. This bill would prevent the lifting of sanctions on Russia until its government ceases these activities that caused those sanctions to be put in place in the first place. The bill would also support civil society, pro-democracy, and anti-corruption activists in Russia and across Europe.

Today Vladimir Putin has a whole array of powerful modern tools that he intends to use to undermine democracy and promote his brand of authoritarianism, but as that 1950 memo to President Harry Truman made clear, Russia's goals haven't changed. Russia's goals are to oppose us, our vision, our values, and our democracy. We must make it clear that America's vision of a freer, safer, and more democratic world hasn't changed either.

I thank Senator Cardin for organizing this discussion, thank Senator Menendez for everything he has done to support these important efforts, and thank Senator Graham for hosting yesterday's important hearing. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to continue with this fight.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I would like to thank my friend, the Senator from Florida, my colleague on the Foreign Relations Committee and on the Appropriations Committee. I would like to answer his question by saying, it seems clear to all of us on the Foreign Relations Committee who have had the opportunity to travel to Eastern Europe to visit with our NATO allies that Vladimir Putin has a world view and an agenda that is in sharp contrast with our own.

Vladimir Putin dreams of returning Russia to the days of the Russian Empire, to reexerting influence over a broad geographic region from the Baltic Sea and Poland and Ukraine to the Caucasus and Central Asia. He has internally used the West and NATO as a scapegoat for Russia's internal economic woes. He has, as we know, launched invasions or extended his influence through forces and supported illiberal and separatist fighters in Georgia and Ukraine and Moldavia, former Soviet republics, and has launched cyber attacks and propaganda campaigns and coordinated the use of all his tools of state power against our NATO allies in the Baltic region and Central and Western Europe.

All of these things suggest a very different world view, a different set of values than we have in the United States and a different set of values in a way that really worries me. As my colleague from Florida has suggested, when Foreign Minister Lavrov talks about a world order defined by sovereignty, he is challenging us. He is challenging what the West really stands for, what we in America stand for.

I believe what we stand for is the universal values on which we forged the Transatlantic Alliance more than 70 years ago, a Transatlantic Alliance that has been a force for stability and good in the world, a Transatlantic Alliance that has secured peace in Western Europe, North America ever since the close of the Second World War but a Transatlantic Alliance that is rooted in values, values of freedom of speech, freedom of press, rule of law and democracy, and in opposition to authoritarianism.

We support American leadership because a stable and prosperous world makes us safer and more economically secure. So I would ask my friend from Florida what he views as the agenda or the objective of Russia and whether we can be hopeful, in any way, that Vladimir Putin's Russia has an agenda that is harmonious with ours, that can be put in the same direction as ours or whether it is fundamentally at odds.

We have worked together on a number of bills in this area. Let me respond to my friend the Senator by saying it is clear that Vladimir Putin's Russia has been a serial human rights violator. When we talk about human rights, we talk about things that belong to everyone, and they are necessary as a check on state power. When nations break these rules, we believe they should be held accountable.

Russia continues to engage in efforts, as my colleague said, that undermine democracy in free elections throughout Europe. We have shared concerns about the upcoming elections--the Dutch elections, French, and German elections--where there are overt actions and covert actions by Russia to influence the outcome of those elections, but part of why they are doing that, part of why they are violating these norms around Europe is because they are seeking to distract from their brutal rule at home.

The reality is, many of the critics of Putin's regime end up dead or incapacitated.

Boris Nemtsov, a Russian politician who supported the introduction of capitalism into the Russian economy and frequently criticized Vladimir Putin, was assassinated 2 years ago, on February 27, on a bridge just near the Kremlin in Moscow.

Vladimir Kara-Murza, a Russian politician and journalist, was apparently poisoned last month, the second time in recent years. He had been actively promoting civil society and democracy in Russia.

Back in September of 2012, Putin threw USAID out of Russia altogether, claiming that U.S. efforts were undermining Russian sovereignty when, in fact, we had been working in Russia since the nineties, supporting human rights, independent journalism, and promoting fair elections.

Most importantly, in my view, Russia doesn't just violate the human rights of its own citizens, it exports brutality.

Russia's support for Bashar al-Assad's murderous regime and brutal war in Syria continues. Their military has targeted hospitals, schools, and Syrian first responders. They have blocked the provision of food and medicine to starving families and children. Russia's diplomats have vetoed any efforts at the United Nations to act to stop the suffering in Syria. Also, Russia, having illegally invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea, continues to promote violence and instability in eastern Ukraine, in the Donbas region, leading to the deaths of thousands.

All of these human rights violations within Russia and in countries around its sphere of influence, in its region, suggest to us that they need to be held accountable for these violations of basic human rights.

Like the Senator from Florida, I led a codel to Eastern and Central Europe. Mine was not last week. It was last August, but with two Republican House Members and two Democratic Senate Members, the five of us went to the Czech Republic, to Ukraine, and to Estonia. We heard widespread concern about this record of human rights and a disrespect for democracy in Russia and about this aggressive hybrid warfare campaign that threatens Ukraine's very stability and existence, that puts Estonia, our NATO ally, on warning, and that is putting at risk Czech independence and Czech elections all across Central and Western Europe.

We have heard from Ambassadors, experts, those who have testified in front of committees on which we serve, about a Russian campaign--a brutal campaign--to undermine human rights within Russia and to undermine democracy throughout Western Europe, with a larger strategic goal of separating the United States from our Western allies and undermining the Transatlantic Alliance that has been so essential to our peace, security, and stability for 70 years. We cannot let this stand.

There is no moral equivalence between Russia and the United States. If we believe in our democracy and if we believe in our commitment to human rights, we must stand up to this campaign of aggression. So I ask my colleague what he believes we might be able to do on the Foreign Relations Committee, on the Appropriations Committee, or here in the Senate, what we might do, as voices working in a bipartisan way, to stand up to these actions undermining democracy and human rights?

Well, briefly, if I could. Two bills that are currently gathering cosponsors--and which I hope our colleagues will review and consider joining us in cosponsoring--one is S. 341, the Russia Sanctions Review Act of 2017, which currently has 18 cosponsors. The other is S. 94, the Counteracting Russian Hostilities Act of 2017, that has 20 cosponsors--10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. In both cases, we are proud to have a very broad range of both Republicans and Democrats engaged in this important legislation, which ensures that Russia pays a price for breaking the rules. It starts by taking action to support the sanctions against the Russian Government for its occupation, its illegal annexation of Crimea, for its egregious human rights violations in Syria, and for meddling in the U.S. election. It prevents the lifting of sanctions on Russia until the Russian Government ceases the very activities that caused these sanctions to be put in place in the first place. It supports civil society, pro-democracy, anti-corruption activists in Russia and across Europe to show that many of us are determined, as members of the Foreign Relations Committee, as members of the Appropriations Committee, as Senators--not as partisans--that we intend to fund the tools that will enable the United States and our NATO allies to push back on Russia's aggression. Most of these tools come from the international affairs budget: State Department and foreign assistance accounts.

I want to commend you, Senator, for giving a strong and impassioned speech on the floor today about the importance of our keeping all of these tools in our toolkit so that as we confront our adversaries around the world, we have the resources and the ability to partner with and strengthen our allies as well.

We have no quarrel with the Russian people, but we are here because there is nothing Vladimir Putin's regime would love more than to see his actions divide us in this Chamber and divide us in this country from our vital allies in Europe and divide the whole North Atlantic community that for seven decades has brought peace and stability to

Europe, has brought prosperity to the United States, not as an act of charity but as an investment in the best interests of security.

We are here to say with one voice that we will stand up to Russian aggression that undermines democracy and violates human rights.

I am grateful for my colleague, for the chance to join him on the floor today, and I look forward to working together with any of our colleagues who see these issues as clearly as my friend and colleague, the Senator from Florida.

Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of Senator Isakson, chairman of the Select Committee on Ethics, and for myself as vice chairman of the committee, that the rules of procedure of the Select Committee on Ethics, which were adopted February 23, 1978, and revised November 1999, be printed in the Record for the 115th Congress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of Senator Isakson, chairman of the Select Committee on Ethics, and for myself as vice chairman of the committee, that the annual report of the Select Committee on Ethics for calendar year 2016 be printed in the Record. The committee issued this report on January 27, 2017, as required by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I want to initially begin by thanking my colleague from Oklahoma for graciously allowing me to proceed first ahead of him. He is, as ever, a terrific colleague. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Minnesota. I, too, led a bipartisan delegation--two Republican House Members and two Senate Democrats--to Eastern European in August and observed many of the same issues and concerns that she just raised and have joined her, along with 10 Republican Senators and 8 other Democratic Senators, in the legislation she mentioned. I think this is an important issue on which all of us should focus.

Mr. President, let me turn to the matter at hand, the nomination of Scott Pruitt to serve as the director of the EPA. I thank my colleagues, many of whom have come to the floor to speak about the nomination of Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA, and most essentially, my senior Senator and friend from my home State of Delaware, Tom Carper, ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who has ably led this fight.

I am glad to be able to join my colleagues to make clear why, in my view, someone who does not believe in a core Federal role in protecting the environment is not the right person to lead the Federal Agency charged with just that mission. It is possible that we in this Chamber have now forgotten why the Environmental Protection Agency was created in the first place. The idea of Federal protection of our environment really started to take hold when the Cuyahoga River caught fire, again, in June of 1969. The public outrage that rightfully followed this near- spontaneous combustion of a river helped lead to the EPA's creation in 1970 and the passage of the Clean Air Act the same year and the Clean Water Act in 1972.

Now, nearly a half century later, it is precisely because these laws and others like them have been successful in making us healthier and safer that it is easy to forget why we need them.

Institutions like the EPA don't run themselves. The environment does not protect itself, and big oil and gas and coal companies certainly don't police themselves. That is why the EPA exists. You would certainly hope that at the very least the Administrator of that Agency would support that core mission. Yet this evening we are considering the nomination of someone whose main experience with environmental protection at the Federal level is filing lawsuits against the Federal Environmental Protection Agency.

In fact, he has filed 14 of those lawsuits in just 6 years as attorney general of the State of Oklahoma. That is not all he has done. Scott Pruitt, in his confirmation hearing, refused to recuse himself from consideration of future cases which he brought against the EPA if confirmed.

Mr. Pruitt has also suggested that Senators who want more information about the details of his record should file FOIA requests rather than providing that information voluntarily. He has described himself as ``a leading advocate against the Federal EPA's activist agenda.'' Scott Pruitt has not been able to name in confirmation hearings one single environmental protection statute he supports. In my view, that is unacceptable for a State attorney general let alone someone nominated to be our Nation's highest ranking environmental protection official.

Mr. Pruitt's disdain for the core mission of the EPA leaves me without a doubt that he is unfit to take on this important role, but that is not all. Scott Pruitt either ignores or is ignorant of the core and important science of climate change, mercury, lead exposure, ocean acidification, to name just a few of many topics uncovered in his confirmation hearing.

Mr. Pruitt acknowledges the climate is changing but says the role, the influence of human activity is ``subject to debate.'' I am here to say this evening, that is simply not true. Only in an alternative universe, based on alternative facts, is the human impact on climate change still subject to debate. That is like saying that Scott Pruitt is fit to lead the EPA is subject to debate. I think after an exhaustive confirmation hearing and a review on the floor of the facts, it is not. It is simply not true.

Scott Pruitt also led a lawsuit against EPA rules that would reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired powerplants. He argued it was too expensive, too burdensome, but he also questioned whether mercury itself was

harmful to health. On that issue, the science is clear. Mercury has devastating effects on the development of the human nervous system.

Does Mr. Pruitt not get that or does he not care? Those are pressing questions for me. During his confirmation process, Mr. Pruitt was confused about ocean acidification, a process explained by very basic science. A question I was left with was whether Mr. Pruitt just did not get it or just did not care.

In that same hearing, he made statements that indicated he was unfamiliar with the Federal standards regarding lead in drinking water. I had to ask myself whether he simply has not heard of Flint, MI, or was not concerned.

My office alone has received nearly 1,000 calls and emails from Delawareans expressing concern about Scott Pruitt and the future of the EPA under his potential leadership, expressing concern and opposition. Delawareans have reached out to me saying they are worried about their kids with asthma; they are worried about clean drinking water for their families; they are worried about protecting our rivers, our wetlands, and other outdoor spaces in Delaware and around the country.

With Scott Pruitt potentially at the helm of the EPA, they are right to be worried. Let me end by sharing a brief excerpt of a letter from one of my constituents who lives in my hometown of Wilmington, DE. She wrote:

Please vote against Scott Pruitt as leader of the EPA. Our

children's future, their health and well-being, and their

right to inherit a world we have not irreversibly destroyed

may depend on it.

She is absolutely right. Our kids do deserve a better environmental future. To her and all the Delawareans who have contacted me and my friend and colleague from my home State, I hear you. I intend to vote against Scott Pruitt. If my colleagues in the Senate really want to stop pollution, we can start by keeping Scott Pruitt from going to lead the EPA.

Our environment should not be for sale, should not be neglected, and should not be turned aside from being the core mission of the Environmental Protection Agency. I think we all should stand firm against the nomination of Scott Pruitt to lead that important Agency.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to honor the exemplary service of the Smyrna Delaware School District Superintendent, Deborah Wicks, and recognize her upcoming retirement. For nearly half a century, she has been an exceptional teacher and leader, serving in many positions throughout Delaware's fastest growing school district. Her hard work, perseverance, and dedication will truly be missed by students, parents, and Delawareans up and down our State.

Since 1967, Debbie has played an active and integral role within the Smyrna Delaware School District, serving as a special education teacher for 16 years and an associate principal for 4 years, before serving as the district's superintendent for 19 years. Throughout her time in the district, Debbie has been a key leader, instrumental in the successful completion of many projects like the John Bassett Moore Intermediate School and the School Special Services Building. As she steps down from her position as superintendent in June, I join the many Delawareans she has worked with in thanking Deborah for her diligent efforts to improve the education system for Delaware's children through hard work and diligence.

A native of Smyrna, DE, and educated in the same school system that she serves so faithfully, Debbie has always been a champion for students, teachers, and the local community. Being a champion to Debbie means helping to instill values of integrity, compassion, perseverance, respect, and responsibility--values visible in the hallways and classrooms of the schools in Smyrna and in the hearts of its graduates.

Debbie's success can be attributed not only to a commitment to instill essential values in district students, but also to a genuine passion for the betterment of her community. Her ability to develop and foster community relationships essential to the district's long-term educational success can be seen in numerous completed projects and building upgrades, as well as the annual ``I Love Smyrna School District Day,'' which has drawn close to 7,000 attendees in recent years.

Debbie's work has been nothing short of inspirational, and we are sincerely grateful for all that she has done on behalf of the students and families of Smyrna. Her model leadership and dedication has touched so many lives in Smyrna and beyond. It is my privilege to offer my sincerest congratulations on a job well done and wish her many happy, healthy, and successful years to come.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Leah Rubin Shen of my staff be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. President, I yield my postcloture debate time to Senator Schumer.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to agree, briefly, with the remarks of my friend, the senior Senator from Illinois, and to comment that the nomination of Congressman Tom Price of Georgia to be Secretary of Health and Human Services is concerning, even alarming, to all of us who have reviewed his record--his record, his public statements, his work--that threatens to privatize Social Security, that threatens to restructure and fundamentally change the promise of Medicare, and that offers the promise of repealing the Affordable Care Act without any plan to replace.

I could not agree more with the words of the Senator from Illinois that we should all be cautious about being promised access without any pathway toward the ability to actually afford quality health care.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my postcloture debate time to Senator Wyden.

Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague from the State of Oregon for his detailed, lengthy, and compelling remarks on the floor this morning about why he will vote against Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education for the United States. You have heard from my colleagues last night, this morning, and for an entire day the concerns they have come away with from her confirmation hearing and the concerns they heard from their home State and from educators and parents, teachers, and administrators--all concerned about education in their home State.

I am honored to have a chance to add my few brief words this morning to explain to my constituents and to everyone in this Chamber why I, too, believe that Betsy DeVos is not qualified to serve as Secretary of Education of the United States. A simple question for any parent out there is this: Why would a parent want a classroom teacher who wasn't qualified to stand before that class and teach their children? Why would any community leader, civic leader, parent, or educator want a principal who wasn't qualified to lead the school building, to lead instruction, and to make sure that the school was moving forward in a good and positive way? The answer is that they wouldn't. Why would any parent, why would any business leader, why would any legislator want a superintendent for a school district who had no previous experience in public education and whose agenda was well outside the mainstream in education? The answer is that they wouldn't.

So I think the question before us in the Senate today is, Why would any of us want, support, or vote for a nominee to be Secretary of Education who has demonstrated a lack of grasp for the basics of education, which makes her, obviously, unqualified? The answer is, I don't. We don't. We shouldn't.

As we saw during her abbreviated Senate hearing, Mrs. DeVos has no grasp of basic public education issues. She has zero direct experience. She hasn't taught in the public schools. She hasn't sent her kids to public schools. She hasn't been educated or trained in teaching in the public schools. She doesn't seem to understand, for example, that Federal law provides basic protections for students with disabilities. She has no idea what the IDEA is and why it is a central part of protecting, supporting, and serving students with intellectual disabilities. She refused to rule out privatizing public schools and refused to commit to enforcing Federal laws that protect women and girls in schools from sexual assault.

But that is not all. As if that weren't enough, Betsy DeVos has spent her entire career and millions--even tens of millions of dollars-- methodically undermining the public school system in the United States, from privatizing and defunding public education to undermining accountability standards in Michigan and across the country. Betsy DeVos has turned Michigan into the biggest school choice experiment in the Nation. Unfortunately, for Michigan students and families, that experiment has gone terribly wrong. There is a lot of talk in education circles about two key issues--access and accountability.

What is stunning about Betsy DeVos's record in Michigan is that she worked tirelessly to ensure access to taxpayer dollars for the widest possible range of private and parochial schools, charters, and through vouchers--schools of all types--academies newly established to take advantage of taxpayer dollars and to siphon them into nontraditional nonpublic schools but without accountability.

Without accountability, charters and choice can lead to tragic results, can literally lead to siphoning desperately needed dollars out of our public schools and into the pockets of those who would profit from experiments in public education. Why would we allow access to taxpayer dollars with no accountability for the performance? When did it become something the other party would champion, that they would have access to taxpayer dollars without accountability for results?

I understand the drive, the desire, even the passion for experimentation in public education. I spent more than 20 years working with the ``I Have A Dream'' Foundation. We served parents and students in some of the toughest, most struggling public schools in the entire United States.

I heard from parents that they wanted better schools for their kids. I understand that in some communities there is a passion for experimentation with charters and with choice, but to embrace that without accountability, to ensure that the outcomes are better without making any serious effort to ensure that these diverted taxpayer dollars are not simply wasted or turned into a mill and a machine for profit, I think is the worst sort of taking advantage of the hopes and dreams of parents and students who are seeking progress, and it ends up undermining and defunding and devaluing traditional public schools all across our country.

As my colleagues, my friend from the State of Washington and many others have pointed out, there are serious concerns with how Republicans have considered her nomination. Mrs. DeVos was rushed into her confirmation hearing before she had submitted the basic and appropriate ethics paperwork, meaning Senators had no way of clearing her from potential conflicts of interest.

Traditionally, this has not been much of a concern, since we have often had Secretaries of Education with long public careers who had been subject to some transparency and some review previously. I cannot remember a time when we had a Secretary of Education who was a billionaire and thus subject to much broader potential conflicts of interest. I frankly cannot remember a time when we had a President who was a billionaire and declined--refused to release his taxes or to address his manifest conflicts of interest.

So, frankly, the fact that the Senate HELP Committee raced forward with Mrs. DeVos's confirmation without addressing some of these basic issues is more concerning in this context than at any previous time.

As the members of this committee, who represent a broad range of views and experiences--and it is exactly what the Senate is for--were limited to one round of 5 minutes for questions, hardly sufficient for any nominee, let alone a controversial nominee with no public education experience other than undermining the underpinnings of the public school system, we can only conclude that there was something behind this effort to race Mrs. DeVos forward.

We have seen here on the floor, she has become so unpopular that the other party has had to delay the confirmation vote in order to ensure her confirmation. It is my guess that later this morning, we will see the President of the Senate cast the deciding vote, something that although not unprecedented, is certainly unusual and suggests that other Senators have heard from their States, as I have from mine, a chorus of opposition.

In her confirmation hearing, Mrs. DeVos struggled to articulate basic concepts central to current debates in public education. In trying to identify and reconcile the simple concepts of growth and proficiency, she showed neither growth nor proficiency. She showed neither a grasp of the basics, nor an ability to learn, nor a mastery of simple concepts central to how we make progress in public education.

You know in the Senate, the Congress in recent years, after years of disagreement and fighting with the Every Student Succeeds Act, we had reached a modicum of agreement. We had reached a point of equilibrium and had hopefully turned to a point where we could work together in a bipartisan and balanced way on some of the pressing issues in higher education, in elementary education, in career and technical education.

Instead, we see one of the more radical nominees ever for Secretary of Education, someone who brings, I am afraid, an agenda, a strong and forceful agenda that if it is continued nationally, as it was in Michigan, I am concerned predicts a difficult future even for those who are most in need of support, of engagement, of quality schools.

Even those who Mrs. DeVos claims to have dedicated her education activism to advancing I think will be deeply harmed. None of these reasons that I just laid out about the timing, about the length of the hearing, about the disclosures, about her performance in the confirmation hearing, none of them would, necessarily taken alone, be cause for grave concern and alarm, but taken in combination, they are fundamentally disqualifying.

Don't take my word for it. I am on five different committees. I have lots of other confirmations I am challenged to be engaged in. I have other issues going on that have made it hard for me to attend every single meeting and hearing about Mrs. DeVos, but there are folks in my home State of Delaware who have watched every minute, who have followed it very closely, and who have, in an unprecedented wave of input, reached out to my office.

Now, these numbers, if I were from a State like California or Texas or New York, might not seem striking, but from my little State of 900,000 constituents, the idea that more than 3,000 Delawareans have reached out to me urgently and directly is fairly striking. I have gotten more than 450 phone calls in opposition to Mrs. DeVos.

My office in Wilmington received a signed petition with 800 signatures from Delawareans asking me, urging me to vote no. Someone buttonholed me, literally, on the train this morning to make certain that I was going to vote no. I have received more than 2,200 letters from Delawareans, letters from educators, from parents, from community and civic leaders, of all different backgrounds, all up and down my State.

Those 2,200 letters make this one of the top issues that Delawareans have reached out to me on in this past year. As I said, that may not sound like a lot of input if I were from California, New York, Oklahoma, Washington State--3,000 would be relatively few--but in my State, that is a loud and clear message. So let me be just as loud and clear in my reply. I hear you, and I will today vote against Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education. Let me take a minute and share with you some of the concerns I have heard from Delawareans, constituents who followed her confirmation hearing closely, who followed the record of its progress from committee to floor closely and who raised the alarm and who shared that with me.

One educator, a career teacher, somebody who is very agitated about the record she showed in Michigan and what it might mean for our State of Delaware, said--concisely: Why should we welcome a billionaire President who nominates a billionaire friend who sees children not so much as children to be educated and supported and served but as tokens to be used as an experiment in privatization and profit made off our public school system.

That educator said he was terrified. Jen, a middle school teacher at Redding Middle School in Appoquiniminck School District tells me that ``her first thought after watching Mrs. DeVos's Senate hearing was that students deserve better than her.''

Jen goes on to say that ``students deserve a national leader in education who has real experience working in public schools, someone who knows the strengths and challenges that each student brings to the classroom.''

Jen said: ``As a teacher, I need someone who will fight for all students--low-income, gifted and talented, and especially our students with disabilities.'' Jen said: ``I work in a classroom filled with students like these,'' students of every background, skill level and need, and ``they deserve someone better.''

Cheri wrote to me from Lewes, DE. She is a retired lifetime educator, a district supervisor and coordinator. Just a few years ago, she retired to Lewes after spending her life advancing public education. She wrote that until now she never felt it necessary to write my Senators to oppose a presidential nomination. But here's why this time is different. As Cheri writes, Betsy DeVos is ``a proponent of school vouchers which siphon dollars off from public schools. She does not have a degree in education, has no experience in public education, and has not shown a willingness to listen to and learn from practitioners and experts in the field.''

Cheri is exactly right. Our kids deserve better. That is why, when it comes to Betsy DeVos's nomination to serve as Secretary of Education, I am not just voting no, I am voting no way.

It is important to me that everybody here knows that my constituents in my State have spoken with nearly a unanimous voice. A very, very few have conveyed any support whatsoever for Mrs. DeVos, and an overwhelming voice of thousands have expressed concern, agitation, even alarm at the idea that this person, with this record, would be handed the reins of the Federal Department of Education with likely disastrous results.

For this most foundational experiment, that is at the core of American democracy, that is essential to our being a country where equality of opportunity, the freedom to pursue our own skills and gifts and have them enlightened, educated, uplifted is at the very core of what it means to be American--public schools in which any child of any background has a free and fair opportunity to pursue their God-given talents and to rise through our society and contribute at the highest levels--is not something to be played with, isn't something to be experimented with casually.

It is something to be taken deeply seriously. We have challenges in our public schools. We have challenges in our society. They are reflected in our schools, but if our schools are not strong, if our schools are not educating our children, we have no hope of becoming a more just, a more equal, a more constructive, a more coherent, and a more inspiring society.

Our public schools are the very foundation of what it means to be American. To put in charge of our Department of Education someone who does not share that view pains me deeply, concerns my constituents, and alarms many of us who have spent year after year trying to support, to improve, and to advance public education in the United States.

For all these reasons, it is my intention to vote no; in fact, no way today on Mrs. DeVos.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, after two long one-on-one meetings with Mr. Rex Tillerson, after a thorough confirmation hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee that stretched over some 9 hours, and after extensive additional research and reading and digging into his record, his public statements, and his views, I announced last week that I would oppose the nomination of Rex Tillerson to be Secretary of State of the United States.

I will say that over our meetings, our conversations, and my review of his record, I have come to respect Mr. Tillerson as a thoughtful and seasoned and capable professional in his line of work, with impressive international business experience. And I will say that his quick action to sever financial ties with ExxonMobil is a strong example that I wish President Trump had followed with regard to his own private business interests.

I found encouraging some of Mr. Tillerson's statements in the confirmation hearing and his public stances, including his commitment to NATO, his respect for U.S. leadership in multilateral initiatives, from the Paris climate change agreement to the Iran deal, and his support for development programs throughout the world but especially in Africa, a continent where I have been engaged in my 6 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

His nomination has the support of highly respected former officials, from Brent Scowcroft and Bob Gates to James Baker and Condoleezza Rice, former Secretaries and National Security Advisors.

But Mr. Tillerson and I disagree strongly on key issues. I believe, for example, that climate change is a pressing national security threat that must be addressed. Mr. Tillerson saw it somewhat differently. I believe in advocating for human rights, for a free press, and for democracy around the world because these principles advance our security and our economic interests here at home. I don't believe that human rights, press freedom, and democracy are add-ons, are things that we can address and deal with after national security is addressed. These are core to who we are as a nation and to the advocacy and engagement that I hope for and expect from our State Department and our next Secretary of State.

These are just a few of the reasons why I ultimately decided to oppose Mr. Tillerson's confirmation, but that is not why I have come to the floor today. I am here today principally because the challenge we face is not whether a single nominee is the perfect person for this particular role; the challenge we and the American people now face is to determine the future we seek for our country and the world stage and whether we will choose to continue to lead the free world.

Do we envision the United States leading by example through actions that show we will stand by our values, especially when it is challenging or difficult? Do we envision the United States leading a coalition of democratic allies and Muslim partners around the world in the global fight on terrorism, defending each other and promoting values of human rights, the rule of law, and democracy? Or do we accept a dark and dystopian vision that sees the world in strict zero-sum terms whereby any win for our allies or partners is automatically a loss for America; a vision in which we could abandon our values for political gain; a vision that distances us from the world both by a literal wall and a growing gulf in priorities?

For decades, Republicans and Democrats have agreed on foundational principles of U.S. leadership in the world. We engage with the world. We consistently and reliably support our allies. We lead by example, especially on our core values. We fight for the rule of law, for human rights, and for democratic institutions because doing so makes us safer and more secure.

Consider our alliances. The Heritage Foundation accurately pointed out that supporting our allies overseas and in particular our treasured and enduring alliance with our NATO partners in Western Europe isn't charity but, rather, a proven method for keeping the United States safe and secure. As Heritage puts it, alliances prevent wars by driving up the cost of aggression. Alliances deter our rivals and adversaries. Alliances promote stability, help us project power, and enhance our legitimacy.

Why does this matter? Why is this a current matter of debate? Why is this a pressing concern in the context of this nomination and in the work of this body? Take, for example, Russia under Vladimir Putin. It is the unanimous view of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia conducted and organized an intentional campaign of interfering in our 2016 Presidential election and that Russia conducted a cyber attack, authorized at the highest level, with the intention to influence the outcome of our election.

I cannot imagine a more direct frontal assault on who we are as a nation than to seek to influence our democratic election. But on top of that unprecedented attack on who we are as a nation, Vladimir Putin's Russia illegally annexed the Crimean Peninsula and continues to support the murderous Assad regime in Syria. Today, Russia is preparing--even threatening--to intervene in upcoming elections across Central and Western Europe, including elections in our longtime close allies, France and Germany. It has been amassing troops on the borders of our NATO partners, such as Estonia and the other Baltic States, and conducting snap exercises up and down the border with NATO. It is precisely because of these acts of aggression that the NATO alliance is more relevant and more important than ever.

These aren't groundbreaking or controversial conclusions that I am reaching today. Yet President Trump's rhetoric as a candidate, his early actions as President, his compliments to Vladimir Putin, his claims that NATO is obsolete, and his intimation that he may not honor our article 5 mutual defense commitment to our NATO allies all call into question the President's understanding of the role that our alliances play. It also calls into question whether his administration understands the consequences of weakening or abandoning these alliance.

More than perhaps any nation on Earth, the United States has deeply benefited from the stable world order that we helped shape following the Second World War. After Americans went throughout the world to fight the forces of fascism and imperialism in the Pacific and the European theater in the Second World War, we sat astride the world as the most powerful country on Earth, with weapons possessed by no other, with the greatest manufacturing and military might on the planet, and we set about establishing an inclusive, rules-based, democratically oriented world order, from which we have benefited more than any other nation. NATO has become a key part of the alliances that we have relied on for that peace and stability in the seven decades since.

Let's not forget that the only time NATO invoked its mutual defense provision article 5 clause was when our allies came to our defense after 9/11. So to suggest that NATO is obsolete or outdated because it wasn't developed in a time where terrorism was a central threat gives a lie to the reality that our NATO allies have stood shoulder to shoulder with us and have fought alongside American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly 1,000 have given their lives, and our NATO allies have poured their blood and treasure into our defense and into our joint conduct against our enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Interpreters from Iraq and Afghanistan have kept our troops safe, and yet today those espousing ``America First'' would break our promises to these vital partners. I have to ask: To what end? When we turn our backs on our allies and friends, there are consequences. They may be prompted to seek to help themselves in new or unexpected or dangerous ways, such as developing their own nuclear capability or seeking armaments from Russia rather than working in partnership with us for their own security. They may seek to find new allies who do not,

in fact, share our values. In all these cases, ``America First'' may gradually, tragically, become instead ``America Alone.'' That leaves us less safe and closes off economic opportunities around the world. So in seeking out a strategy that is purported to make us safer and stronger, President Trump may, in fact, accomplish neither.

A policy of ``America First'' doesn't just mean turning our backs on our allies and partners. It may also mean turning our backs on some of the world's most vulnerable people, with real consequences here at home. The Executive order signed by President Trump just on Friday, banning all refugees from the United States for 120 days, banning refugees for 90 days from seven countries and indefinitely from Syria, caused chaos and confusion at our airports and instilled concern--even fear--in American families across our country.

I have a key question today, introduced earlier by Senator Cardin, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, but not yet answered: Where does Rex Tillerson stand on this Executive order? How does he see it in our place in the world? How does he understand the centrality of the example that we show to the world in how we embrace human rights?

Sadly, I think this Executive order has validated the claims of jihadist groups like ISIS that recruit young men on the false claim that the West is at war with Islam, which is why these very terrorist groups are today cheering this Executive order. I think it has made us less safe by alienating Muslims in the United States and around the world. Why would we want to alienate the very Iraqis with whom we are training, serving, and fighting in the war against ISIS when they are a critical part of the ground forces that we are counting on to liberate Mosul from the tyranny of ISIS?

Most significantly, this Executive order may violate our Constitution and values by banning people based not on security concerns but on the basis of their religion, and by turning our backs on a decades-long commitment to welcome those fleeing credible fears of persecution, fleeing violence and chaos in their home countries. These may be the consequences of ``America First.''

It is well known but bears repeating that in 1939, a ship called the St. Louis approached American shores bearing nearly 1,000 mostly Jewish refugees fleeing the horrors of the Nazi regime and the impending Holocaust. In one of our Nation's most shameful chapters, the United States turned away these refugees seeking our shores. One passenger on board the St. Louis received a telegram from the U.S. Government instructing him that passengers must ``await their turns on the waiting list and qualify for and obtain immigration visas before they may be admissible.'' Most of these refugees were forced to return to Europe, where they were murdered by the Nazis.

This tragic episode from 1939, born of isolationism and, tragically, anti-Semitism and a mistaken sense that we could isolate ourselves from the challenges and the violence of the world was also part of a period when a group whose name was the America First Committee mobilized to try to prevent our entry into the Second World War.

I will say that these are the consequences of ``America First.'' The United States ultimately is less safe. Our allies may be made to feel uncertain or even betrayed. Americans will find themselves more fearful, and, our values, with which we have sought to lead the world, are cast aside.

That is why I believe this debate today is about far more than a single nominee for an important post in our State Department. American leadership on the world stage is not as simple as ``America First,'' and the consequences of truly embracing the dystopian vision of ``America First,'' I think, will be tragic.

If Mr. Tillerson is confirmed, it is my sincere and earnest hope that he will challenge President Trump to rethink the dark and dystopian view of the world that he laid out in his inaugural address, and that he will instead bend his skills, character, and qualities to the hard work of realigning our role in the world to the course that Republicans and Democrats together have steered from this floor and from this body for seven decades.

As the world saw last weekend, the new Trump administration desperately needs someone in the room to speak truth to power and to temper its worst impulses.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?

On behalf of the many Delawareans who will be without health care through repeal without replace--

--I vote no.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in raising the alarm about the possible impact for all of us in America and, in particular, for my constituents in my home State of Delaware should we indeed as a body proceed with barreling forward and repealing the Affordable Care Act without a plan to replace it, as seems to be the intention of the majority.

When I was first elected to the Senate back in 2010, the Affordable Care Act wasn't even a year old. Yet Republicans were already trying to repeal it, without offering any comprehensive plan with which to replace it. Now, more than 6 years and 60 repeal attempts later, it is truly disheartening to see that when it comes to plans for the American health care system, seemingly nothing has changed. Instead of working across the aisle to find constructive fixes to this Affordable Care Act that could win bipartisan support, instead of finding new ways to invest in infrastructure or strengthen American manufacturing or coming together to respond to the Russian attack on American democracy or even waiting a week to take this upcoming vote so we Senators can give our full focus to vetting the President-elect's Cabinet nominees, instead of pursuing any of these priorities, it seems we are once again spending--even wasting--the American people's time to fulfill a misguided and, in my view, mean-spirited promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act at all costs, without a clear plan to replace it. Sadly, in that sense, nothing has changed since I first came here in 2010, not so for the American people, as plenty has changed for them and for my home State of Delaware.

More than 20 million Americans now have gained access to high-quality health insurance across our whole country, including 38,000 more Delawareans. Now, 38,000 is not a big number of people, but in my little State of 900,000, 38,000 more people who couldn't get access to health insurance before and can now is a big deal. Across the whole country, the rate of uninsured Americans is at a record low of just 11 percent, and in Delaware fewer than 8 percent, and this is well down below pre-ACA levels.

Let me focus on what I think is the biggest, broadest, and most important benefit of the Affordable Care Act, not just those tens of thousands in my State who have gotten coverage on the exchanges, but in my little State of 900,000, 560,000 Delawareans get their health insurance through their employer, as the vast majority of Americans do. For those half a million or more Delawareans, they have gained lifetime improvements to the quality of the health insurance they have through the ACA: no discrimination against preexisting conditions, young people can stay on their parents' health insurance until they turn 26, free preventive care, no lifetime limits on coverage and recovery, and a requirement that insurance companies spend 80 cents of every dollar on health care versus overhead. These five key consumer protections have been the center of the best of what the Affordable Care Act has delivered to Delawareans and Americans. Americans no longer have to make the phone calls they used to make to their Senators, their Congressmen, their local representatives, pleading that they could somehow find access to quality and affordable coverage. These reforms have made a real and tangible impact on Americans across the country.

I have also come to this floor, on a number of occasions over many years, and recognized the challenges of the Affordable Care Act, the ways in my home State that it has fallen short of our hopes and goals when it was initially passed, and I have offered, with an open hand, to work across the aisle

to find vehicles to repair and improve elements of it that haven't worked as had been hoped.

Before I turn to that, though, let us focus for a few minutes on hearing the stories of Delawareans who have reached out to me because at the end of the day, my passionate defense of the Affordable Care Act is rooted in individuals I have met and heard from, people whose lives have been changed by access to quality, affordable, accessible health care.

As Republicans move us forward to a repeal vote, it is my hope that they will listen to these and other stories and think about what possible alternative pathway there might be that would save the opportunity for them to have access to decent, quality health care.

I grew up in this tiny town of about 1,500 called Hockessin, DE, and Nicole is also from Hockessin. She reached out to me to tell me her 2- year-old daughter has cystic fibrosis. She spends at least an hour every day administering her daughter's breathing treatments and at least $5,000 a month. Her medications aren't cheap. Nicole is confident that without the Affordable Care Act, she would have exceeded her annual cap on medical expenses well before the end of each year.

Nicole makes it pretty clear to me that without the consumer protections put in place by so-called ObamaCare--the ACA--she would have one of three choices, choices tragically faced by many Delawareans and Americans before the Affordable Care Act. One, hope she somehow qualifies for Medicaid, which she probably doesn't because she is hard- working enough and successful enough that her income makes her ineligible for Medicaid. Option No. 2, go into deep debt to pay for her daughter's needed and lifesaving treatment. Option No. 3, stop giving her daughter some of the medication she depends on and just hope and pray that she will not suffer needlessly. That is all assuming that her daughter's cystic fibrosis was not a preexisting condition, preventing her from getting any insurance at all.

Let me review that because Nicole's story starkly outlines the reality that millions of Americans could face if we continue barreling down this misguided path of repealing the Affordable Care Act wholesale without coming together around a plan for replacement. That reality for so many sick Americans or Americans with sick children is this: First, hope you don't get sick. If that fails and you don't qualify for some other form of government assistance, either go into debt or try to get by without health care. That is it. That is what it was before the Affordable Care Act, and following its repeal, that may sadly be what it is again.

Over the last few weeks, I have heard many other stories, and I will cover a few quickly, if I may. Kim, from Wilmington, DE, is a thyroid cancer survivor who was able to get insurance because her cancer is no longer considered a preexisting condition. Will her ability to access affordable, quality health care be repealed?

There is Sue from Frankford, DE, whose husband got sick a decade ago--desperately sick--and hasn't been able to work since. They are retired but not quite eligible for Medicare. Yet, despite his illness, they have been able to find coverage now on the individual market. Will repeal of the Affordable Care Act deny Sue and her husband access to quality health insurance?

There is Carla from Odessa, DE, whose son was able to stay on her health insurance when his employer didn't cover it. Not only that, but Carla's sister--a self-employed gardener with a 40-year history of insulin-dependent diabetes, also known as a preexisting condition, was able to get health insurance when she tragically divorced at age 63 and lost coverage through her husband's employer.

There is Matthew from Wilmington, whose son was diagnosed with brain cancer. The year before his son's diagnosis, Matthew and his family were on a non-ACA-compliant health insurance plan. As Matthew wrote me, ``Our family was all young and healthy, and we thought this plan was right for us. Then, my 11-year-old got sick right out of the blue. It can happen to anyone at any time.''

Matthew is right. Illness can strike any one of us at any time--and not just the flu, not just a cold, but tragic, expensive, terminal illnesses can strike any family in America at any time.

Just listen to the story of Kerry from Wilmington, DE, a massage therapist who considers the Affordable Care Act, as she puts it, ``nothing short of miraculous.'' Here is why. Kerry signed up for health insurance in 2014 thanks to the subsidies, the tax credits provided through the Affordable Care Act. She had long had nagging abdominal and lower back pain. She didn't think much of it considering she had no family history of terrible diseases and had never even had a stitch before. Fast forward to January of 2015, when a routine diagnostic procedure covered by her new health insurance revealed that Kerry had stage III colon cancer. She had surgery a week later, followed by 6 months of chemotherapy, and ended up facing no out-of- pocket expenses besides her annual deductible. Kerry's cancer has now been in remission since September of 2015, and as she writes, ``The ACA came along at the last possible moment to save my life. I am certain that without it, I would have just continued to live and work with the discomfort and try to self-treat until the cancer was so advanced it could not have been successfully treated.''

I have many more, but stories like Kerry's and Matthew's and Carla's and Sue's and Kim's have been pouring into the inboxes of my colleagues in States around the country.

My Democratic colleagues and I know, and have known since the day it was signed into law, that the ACA is not perfect. I have talked to small businesses that want to offer health insurance for their employees but have struggled to find affordable options in Delaware. I have met plenty of Delawareans whose deductibles or premiums are higher than they would like to see, and I have heard from economists and budget forecasters who know our country's fiscal health depends on doing even more to control health care costs.

That is exactly why 2 years ago I came to this floor with a simple, commonsense request of my Republican colleagues: work with us to make the Affordable Care Act better. A colleague, a physician from the State of Louisiana, happened to be listening that day, and we have had a number of constructive and positive conversations since. Sadly, despite many attempts over many years, I so far have been unable to find a Republican partner willing to actually cosponsor meaningful, constructive fixes to the law.

In my view, and as I said 2 years ago, no conversation about the Affordable Care Act and how to improve it can be complete without reconciling the reality of the millions of Americans it has helped and the many others for whom it has fallen short.

I have sought to address the affordability of health care coverage for all families. I have cosponsored bills to increase tax credits to make it more affordable for small businesses, looked for ways to make sure there is more competition in the marketplace, especially in small States like Delaware, and pursued commonsense regulatory reforms and cost-containment efforts to further slow the growth in health care costs. For years, my colleagues and I have asked our Republican friends to put aside their rhetoric and focus on pursuing bipartisan fixes like these.

Today, the bottom line is still this: I know the Affordable Care Act has helped millions of Americans just like the Delawareans whose stories I have read. Kerry, Carla, Matthew, Sue, and Kim today live healthier, safer, and more secure lives.

Let's take a look at the alternative. There is no single proposed plan. There are dozens of bills in the House and Senate that would do lots of different things, but it would be very hard to predict with precision what the alternative really is. We know what repeal will do. As of today, the alternative--let's call it TrumpCare--is nothing more than a wholesale repeal with no clear plan to replace.

TrumpCare, a simple repeal, by one estimate would kick 26 million Americans--more than 50,000 Delawareans--off their health insurance. Even for those who don't lose their insurance, those hundreds of thousands of Delawareans who get their insurance through their employer, it would be much lower quality because it would

remove all the consumer protections that we have all come to embrace. It would give a nearly $350 billion tax cut to the wealthiest 1 percent of our country and a nearly $250 billion tax cut to big corporations. While tax cuts have their day and their reason, pushing aside all of that revenue with no plan for how to replace the Affordable Care Act and how to pay for it will become a desperate and dangerous move. TrumpCare, a simple repeal of the Affordable Care Act, would cut 3 million jobs and trigger negative economic impacts well beyond the health care sector by creating profound uncertainty. Lastly, it would burden State and local governments, which would lose nearly $50 billion in tax revenue.

That is the reality. Describing a repeal of the Affordable Care Act as anything other than the injection of wild uncertainty into our daily lives, into the health insurance and health care markets is just not square. That is the reality. Describing it any other way is political rhetoric, and that is, sadly, what this debate is about. It is repeal without replace.

Matthew from Wilmington, whose 11-year-old son was diagnosed unexpectedly with brain cancer, concluded his note to me with one last thought. He wrote of his son: ``He's my hero and I will fight for him and all others who continue to suffer similarly every day.''

Thank you, Matthew. Thank you for sharing your story and continuing the fight. I promise you and all the Delawareans who have reached out to me to do my level best to stand with you and fight for you every step of the way every day until we find a better path together.

I yield the floor.

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