Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I understand that we had originally scheduled for, in about 1 minute, a vote on cloture on the new Iran sanctions bill. I understand that the cloture vote has been delayed until early this afternoon.

This comes on the heels of an announcement of very sad news from Iran. I would certainly be among the first to note that some of the people in Iran, the Revolutionary Guard and some of their leadership, support terrorism. They wish ill for us and for our country.

That same country had elections about 2 weeks ago, and the results of those elections were surprising, even for me, but encouraging. The results of the election found that President Rouhani, one of the leaders of reform and one of the modern elements within that country, was reelected by a resounding majority--close to 60 percent of the vote. Although the Supreme Leader thought it would be a one-on-one race for the Presidency, in spite of that, Rouhani was reelected, and we congratulate him. There were a number of municipal elections across the country, most prominently in Tehran where the hard-line mayor of Tehran has been ousted, and moderate forces seem to have made real, encouraging progress from my perspective and I think the perspective of most Americans.

One of the things the Iranians do, which is troubling to me and I think to others in this country, is continue to test ballistic missiles in what we believe is in violation of the United Nations' decision. Iranians are not violating the agreement that was entered into among five nations, including the United States and Iran, roughly 2 years ago in Iran's nuclear joint agreement. They are not violating that, but they are violating other U.N. sanctions.

So this revised sanctions bill, which was scheduled to be debated today and maybe voted on later this week--at least the start of the debate on whether they are going to proceed to the bill--has been delayed until this afternoon. I urge us to consider delaying further action on this Iran sanctions measure today or this week.

The term ``adding insult to injury'' comes to mind. I try to use the Golden Rule to figure out what I should do and how I should behave as a human being, and I think maybe we ought to consider the Golden Rule in this case as well. Iran is not necessarily our close friend. They are not our close ally. I think the potential is there for having a much better relationship as a young generation of Iranians grows up and eventually assumes the leadership of their country.

It is a country of 80 million people, over half of them under the age of 25. They had a revolution in 1979 and captured our Embassy. They held our people for a year or more until after the 1980 Presidential election. Our relations with Iran have been difficult since that time but more encouraging of late--again, a young country of 80 million people, more than half under the age of 25.

The younger generation there wants to have a good relationship with the rest of the world, a better relationship with the rest of the world, and certainly a better relationship with us. I have talked with a number of American leaders, including senior American leaders, who have been to Iran in recent years and were surprised by the warm welcome they received.

It reminds me very much of the warm welcome I received leading a congressional delegation to Vietnam in August of 1991 to find out what happened to thousands of MIAs. We were expecting to be met by suspicion and hostility, and we were warmly embraced at that time. Six of us-- Democratic and Republican Congressmen--were there to present to the leadership of Vietnam on behalf of the George Herbert Walker Bush administration a roadmap to normalize relations if they would do a number of things to enable us to find out what happened to thousands of our MIAs. We presented that proposal. John Kerry and John McCain worked very hard on the Senate side and at the same time in Southeast Asia as well. We ended up with normalized relations within a few years of our visit. One of the members of my delegation, Pete Peterson, became our first U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam.

I mention that today because of the hostility we felt toward Vietnam for

many years during the war and after the war and the suspicion that they were holding thousands of our MIAs as POWs, which turned out not to be true. But our efforts, along with those of Senator McCain, Senator Kerry, and others, ended up providing information about the missing and the closure we hoped for hundreds of families of Americans who had lost their loved ones in Vietnam and never recovered their remains--although some of their remains were recovered and returned to the families.

I mention it today because a year ago in Vietnam, with President Obama and Secretary Kerry, and at a time when the Vietnamese were announcing they were going to buy billions of dollars' worth of our Boeing aircraft--we are their top trading partner, and they were going to be an integral part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership that we negotiated, along with other nations. Sadly, that has gone away. I think one of the biggest mistakes of this Congress and the last was to let the transpacific trade partnership die. But Vietnam was a key member of that.

It is kind of ironic to me that a nation with whom we fought in a war, where the names of 55,000 who died are at the Vietnam Memorial-- not even 2 miles from where I am standing right now--yet, since the 1970s we have let bygones be bygones and have a much better relationship with Vietnam. They are still Communist, and they are still a one-party system, but they have high regard toward Americans.

Rather remarkably, we learned last April when we were there that they had two surveys done of the Vietnamese people this last year. One survey found that 85 percent of the people surveyed had favorable opinions of the United States, more than any other nation in the world. In the second survey, we learned that about 95 percent of the Vietnamese people had favorable opinions of the United States, more than any other nation on Earth.

Again, we are their top trading partner these days, and they are buying a lot of the products we manufacture and sell. If that relationship can change, I think there is reason to hope our relationship with Iran can change.

We have our pages here. If it were left to the generation the age of our pages or maybe their parents, it would be a brandnew day in Iran. But change is happening there.

The question is, on the heels of this attack by ISIS, with whom we have bitter differences and a hotly contested armed conflict--for us to somehow, on the heels of two attacks by ISIS in Iran, one on the Parliament and the other apparently on the mausoleum for the former Ayatollah, where a dozen or more people have been killed, 40-something wounded--does it make sense for us to take up the Iran sanctions bill today? I don't think so.

My reading of the Golden Rule, treating other people the way we want to be treated, would suggest this might not be the right day to do this--next week, maybe; today, no. I call on our leadership to hit the pause button. There is not a need to rush on this.

The Iran sanctions bill, which is coming to us today, is a much more thoughtful approach than was originally contemplated by the Foreign Relations Committee. They have done a very nice job of improving what I thought was a badly flawed earlier effort. But this might be a good day to hit the pause button. Instead of rubbing salt into a wound, let's wait a few days and consider what to do. If we were in their shoes, I think we would appreciate that gesture. If we were in their shoes, I think the idea of their taking this kind of action or step against us on a day that we have been attacked by ISIS would not be well received. It would be badly received. So I think we ought to treat them the same way.

I think that is pretty much it. I appreciate the chance to come to the floor and say a few words. I call on leadership to delay this vote on cloture and to delay the vote on the underlying bill until next week. When we do the underlying bill on Iran sanctions, let's couple it with something that includes some of the very thoughtful work going on with respect to Russia, which really is creating mischief in this country--not just with elections but otherwise as well--and maybe do a package that includes both together. That might make a lot more sense, and the timing would be a lot better.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon.

Thank you.

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

Mr. President, there is probably nobody in the Senate I admire more than the Senator from Wyoming, except maybe his colleague, Mike Enzi, who is also from Wyoming.

I come to the floor not to talk about these issues but to talk about others. I feel compelled to respond to some of what he said.

There's no need for Senator Barrasso to remain. So don't feel as though you have to, but thank you just the same.

Mr. President, a little background: As the Presiding Officer knows, having spent some time in the military--'06, the Marine Corps; the Navy salutes the Marine Corps. I am a retired Navy captain, three tours in Southeast Asia in the Vietnam war. I served as a P-3 aircraft mission commander right at the end of the Cold War. The month I stepped down as a Navy captain, I led a congressional delegation back into Vietnam. Six of us--Democrats, Republicans--went at the behest of former President George Herbert Walker Bush's administration to find out what happened to thousands of MIAs to see if we could get information about them and to provide that information to their families for closure. That was the beginning of an effort in the House, mirrored by the one over here led by John McCain and John Kerry, to move us toward normalized relations to see if the Vietnamese would cooperate with us in providing information that we wanted and the families wanted and deserve.

In fact, a year ago, I learned, along with President Obama, that we are there to kind of close the circle on our relationship with Vietnam, which has changed a lot over the last 30 years. Interestingly enough, we are Vietnam's best trading partner, and they are a very good trading partner to us.

When we were there, they announced they were going to buy something like $10, $12, $14 billion worth of our aircraft--not fighter aircraft, not military aircraft, but civilian aircraft from, I believe, Boeing.

I learned about some polling data. They had taken two polls, two surveys of the Vietnamese people early last year, and the question asked of Vietnamese people was: How do you feel about other countries, the people from other countries? How do you feel about the Chinese, the Russians, Filipinos, Malaysians, Indians, Pakistanis, Americans, and others? How do you feel about them? In one survey, 85 percent of the Vietnamese people said they had favorable opinions toward America and Americans--85 percent, the highest of any other nation surveyed. Another survey said: No, no, 95 percent of Vietnamese have favorable opinions of the United States, which is higher than their opinions of any other nation.

The reason I mention Vietnam--they were a bitter enemy of this country. The names of 55,000 men and women with whom I served in Southeast Asia are on a wall just down 2 miles from here, down by the Lincoln Memorial. While we were bitter enemies, we resolved those differences in the 1990s.

We are now close trading partners. We don't agree with them on every single thing, but they like us a lot. We have much more of a relationship than we have ever had in the past, and it is a much better economic relationship than we have ever had in the past.

The reason I mention Vietnam is that there are some corollaries here with Iran. In 1978, that was when some will recall--the pages are too young to remember this. But in 1978, Iranians, led by their religious leader, captured, took control of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. They held our folks for a year or two as part of their cultural revolution or religious revolution.

When they did that, do you know what we did? We seized a lot of their assets in this country, in other countries as best we could. And that was not just a couple of dollars, not just a couple million dollars; it was hundreds of millions of dollars, and, man, maybe even more. Maybe it was even billions of dollars.

We held those assets, and we kept the Iranians from reclaiming those assets for, gosh, over 30 years--maybe close to 40 years. They have litigated in court. They say that they feel they should have access to what is theirs, what was theirs.

We are told by lawyers--I am not a lawyer--but we are told by some pretty smart lawyers on our side and others that they had a very good chance of getting all that and more in court if we didn't settle.

What we did, at the end of the day, when the Iranians agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement, which was reached with not just the United States but with the Germans, the French, the Brits, the Chinese, and the Russians--the idea was to make sure that Iran didn't have a quick path, a fast track to continuing their development of nuclear weapons. They were clearly wanting to do it, and we wanted them not to do that.

So we ended up negotiating this agreement. Part of the agreement was to settle these claims from almost 40 years ago, financial claims, valuable assets that we basically seized and refused to return.

It turns out, we have to mention how highly the Vietnamese people think of us today. As it turns out, Vietnam is a very young country, very young. So is Iran.

Iran has about 80 million people. In Iran, the majority of the people are under the age of 25. They like this country a lot, but they have people over there who are more in line with the old regime, who don't like us. The Revolutionary Guard, some of the military leadership--they don't like us.

They have newly elected leadership from 4 years ago, President Rouhani, Foreign Minister Zarif, and others who, frankly, want to be able to work with us, if they can. They are willing to agree to what I think is a very harsh agreement to ensure that they don't move forward on developing weapons and developing nuclear weapons. If they do, then we are going to impose these really stringent sanctions on them, shut down their economy--double-digit rates of inflation, economy in the tank. Finally, they said: OK, uncle. We will agree to this agreement.

Since then, the Iranians have done what the Vietnamese did a year ago; they have a more abundant civilian air fleet. Their civilian aircraft are old, decrepit, and they need new ones. They are doing what the Vietnamese have already done: buying a lot of American-made aircraft, passenger aircraft by Boeing. We are not talking about just a couple billion dollars' worth but certainly more than $10 billion worth.

I think they have already taken orders on one and have made one of the very first ones, and there is more to come. I think they are also going to buy a bunch of airbuses. I think more than half of the airbuses have components made in America, and that is another boost to our economy.

I don't remember who said it, but a Chinese military leader once said: The greatest victory of all is the one that we win without firing a shot. That is what he said: The greatest victory of all is the one we win without firing a shot.

Well, for a Navy guy who has seen some time in a combat area and the Presiding Officer, who knows a little bit about this stuff as well--I think he probably agrees with me that if you can win one without shooting anybody or getting anybody killed, I think that is worth doing.

The other thing I would say is, that doesn't mean we just trust Iran that they are going to do what they said they are going to do in the deal. There is an agency--I think it is called the International Atomic Energy Agency. They are all over them in terms of monitoring the deal and making sure that what the Iranians agreed to do, they actually do. What is it, trust but verify? That is really what the Iranian deal is all about: trust but verify. We will see how it all works out.

Color me hopeful. A lot of times when we vote on stuff, we vote our hopes as opposed to our fears. Sometimes we vote our fears, as opposed to our hopes. On the Iran deal, I voted my hopes. We will see how it goes, and I am hopeful.

Mr. President, that is not why I came to the floor. There is a lot of talk about a wall. I heard a song by Pink Floyd the other day: ``All in all it was just a brick in the wall.''

The President wants us to build a wall on our southern border with Mexico. It is about 2,000 miles between the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf Coast. I have been down there any number of times as the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and still as the senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee. The ranking member is Claire McCaskill of Missouri.

I have not been on every square mile of the border with Mexico, but I can tell you that there are some places on the border where a wall makes some sense, and there are frankly a lot of places where it doesn't, including where you have hundreds of miles of river where it doesn't make any sense.

Also, I have heard from folks from Yuma down there, where the Border Patrol told me--where they had an area where they had some wall. I think the wall was maybe 15 feet high, and they kept finding like 18-, 19-foot ladders on the other side of the wall, where people would come up with a ladder to the wall and go over and above the wall. So you can go over a wall. You can even go over a high wall with a ladder that is high enough. A lot of that has been done.

You can go under a wall, tunnel under. A lot of people tried to get out of Mexico into the United States by tunneling under the wall.

As it turns out, walls in some places make sense. Fences in some places make sense. Boats in some places, like on the river that happens to be our border, the Rio Grande border with Mexico--boats make sense. Sometimes fast boats, really fast boats make sense. Sometimes it makes sense to build a ramp so you can get boats into the water in different places. Sometimes it makes sense to build a road on our side of the border to give us mobility. Sometimes it makes sense to put surveillance equipment in drones. Sometimes it makes sense to put surveillance equipment in helicopters. Sometimes it makes sense to put surveillance equipment in fixed-wing aircraft and also not just binoculars to try to find people.

There is something called VADER. It is an acronym for Vehicle and Dismount Exploitation Radar, to find people. It is very highly sophisticated surveillance equipment to go on our drones, go on our helicopters, and go on our fixed-wing aircraft.

What is so special about this? It can see at night. It allows us to see dozens of miles into Mexico at night--through fog, through rain. We have a system and if we need to, rather than just send out aircraft or drones or whatever without that kind of surveillance equipment, let's put the surveillance equipment on it. That makes far more sense than building a 2,000-mile wall.

Other things that make sense are surveillance towers. We have to go 100 feet up in the air, 200, 300 feet. Some of them are mobile. Some of them are stationary. We have motion detectors. In some places, that makes a lot of sense.

There is no shortage of ideas that make sense. What I like to do to try to figure out what to do is I ask people like the Border Patrol: What do you think makes sense? And what they pretty much say is an ``all of the above'' approach.

We have an ``all of the above'' approach in energy. If we are smart about securing our border with Mexico, I think we have gotten smarter as we

have gone on. We certainly have a lot more people down there than we had before that. We have 20,000 people, our men and women in the Border Patrol. They work hard and do a good job.

It is an ``all of the above'' approach. So I wanted to get that off my chest.

Does it make sense to spend $25 billion to build a wall that we may need less than 100 miles? Probably not. Absolutely not.

The people who are coming across our border with Mexico are not Mexicans. They used to be. There are more Mexicans going back into Mexico from the United States than are coming into the United States from Mexico. The places where a lot of illegal immigration is coming from are three countries: Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador.

Here is why they come. It is because they live lives of desperation. They live lives without economic hope, economic opportunity, murder, mayhem, some of the highest murder rates in the world. I think El Salvador--I don't know if we have the numbers here. They have a number of different routes they take from the three countries of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, mostly coming into the United States right here. They don't so much go over to El Paso. They certainly don't head over here on land to get in on the western side of our border. Some try to come by air, but mostly they come by--it used to be by train, now mostly it is by land, and they are dangerous missions. The reason they come is because there is not much hope there.

Frankly, the reason there is not much hope there, in part, is because of us. There used to be a comic strip called ``Pogo.'' The Presiding Officer remembers ``Pogo.'' One of the lines from ``Pogo'' is, ``I found the enemy, and it is me.''

We are the enemy. The chairman of the Homeland Security Committee said many times, the root cause of what is going on down there is our addiction to drugs in this country. The drugs are trafficked through here, they come into the United States, are sold, and the money from the drugs goes back there along with guns. When we deport the bad guys, what do we do? We take the bad guys who were selling the drugs, and we put them right back down here. It is a toxic mix of guns, weapons, and bad guys. They make life down here miserable for people.

As it turns out, Colombia, a few years ago, was a miserable place to live too. One time, about 20 years ago, a bunch of gunmen in Colombia rounded up the supreme court justices of the Colombian supreme court, took them into a room and shot them to death--shot them to death.

There was a time when the FARC, the rebel groups, the leftist groups, and the drug gangs were trying to take down the Government of Colombia, and it looked like they could. And some great people in Colombia stood up and said: Not on my watch. This is not going to happen on my watch. They came up with Plan Colombia in order to make sure this didn't happen. President Clinton and a guy named Joe Biden, who was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, led an effort to--not for us to fully fund Plan Colombia, but they basically said: This is on you. You can do it like at Home Depot. You can do it. We can help. They did the heavy lifting. They did most of the raising of revenues, and we played our role. We continued to play our role for 20 years and Colombia is a different place today.

The same thing can happen to these three countries down here. Joe Biden was playing a significant role as Vice President. I was helpful, as was Jeh Johnson, former Secretary of Homeland Security, and others as well. These folks, along with these three countries, came up with something they called the Alliance for Prosperity. It is really like Plan Colombia--find out what works, do more of that. Plan Colombia worked, and they are trying an approach like this down here. The idea is to restore the rule of law, to focus on infrastructure, to focus on making good government work and be effective, to really tamp down on the corruption they have there, the obstruction that goes on with small businesses. The idea is to create a safer, better place. Most people don't want to leave here. I talked to plenty of them. They want to stay there. Some of them want to come up here and work but then go home. This is their country, and they love their country, like we love ours.

Finally, as we have been joined on the floor by one of my colleagues, I ask him to allow me just maybe another minute or two.

Mr. President, there has been talk about NAFTA. There has been talk-- and I don't know if these are alternative facts coming out of the White House or what--that the President is going to pull out of NAFTA.

I would just state this. I met with Robert Lighthizer, who is going to be our Trade Rep--and I understand that he will be a good one. He will succeed Michael Froman, who was an excellent Trade Rep for a number of years. When I met with Mr. Lighthizer in my office a couple of months ago, he talked about renegotiating NAFTA. When we negotiated the Trans-Pacific Partnership with 11 other countries around the world--40 percent of the world's markets--we did that over the last couple of years, we were renegotiating NAFTA. We fixed a lot of things in NAFTA that needed to be fixed, not just in the Mexico part of NAFTA but also Canada.

One of the things that needed to be fixed was in our top market--we raise a lot of chickens in Georgia, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and other places. Our top market for poultry is Mexico. Canada doesn't buy our chickens. They keep us out. The Trans-Pacific Partnership renegotiated NAFTA, not just for poultry but for a variety of other commodities we want to sell.

So my friendly advice to the President is, before he goes ahead and pulls out of NAFTA, why doesn't he and the administration take a closer look at what we renegotiated in the Trans-Pacific Partnership when we renegotiated NAFTA. I think we will find a lot of what we need to do, want to do, and what we can agree to do.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to serve with the Presiding Officer on the Committee on Homeland Security. Part of our responsibilities on homeland security is to make sure, to the extent that we can, that our borders are secure. We do that in a variety of ways. We do that, in some cases, with our Border Patrol officers. We have a lot of them. We appreciate the work they do.

We also have, in many places, particularly along the border of Mexico--as the Presiding Officer knows--a lot of fencing that is there. We have a lot of roads that our vehicles can travel along to have mobility on the ground. Our President has proposed, at least earlier this year, that we spend about $25 billion to build a wall, maybe 10-, 15-, 25-feet high along the 2,000 miles between the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico.

I have never been convinced that that is the best way--to put all of our money in the basket--that that is really the best way to better ensure the security of our border with Mexico. As it turns out, most of the folks who are coming into the United States from that part of the world are not Mexicans. Actually, more Mexicans are going back into Mexico than Mexicans coming across the border into the United States.

Most of the illegal immigration--not all but most of it--is coming from three countries: Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The reason why they come here is because their lives are miserable. They are miserable because we buy drugs. We have this insatiable appetite for illegal drugs. So a lot of them are trafficked through Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador.

We send money down to those three countries for the drugs, and we send guns down to that part of the world. When we catch bad guys in this country from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, we send them back to those three countries.

So part of the security of our southern border involves actually trying to help those three countries figure out ways to keep their people home, rather than wanting to come to our country. Part of it is making sure that they have decent lives to live. Twenty years ago, as you all may remember, a bunch of gunmen rounded up the supreme court justices in Colombia, took them into a room, and shot and killed them-- shot them all to death.

It was a time when the government was tottering and there was a question of whether they were going to survive in Colombia. Some very brave people stood up in Colombia and said: No, no, we want to survive, we want to fend off the drug cartels, and we want to fend off the leftist guerillas. Ultimately, they were successful. It has taken 20 years.

They worked on something called Plan Colombia to help turn around their country. We came in, and we helped them. They did the heavy lifting, and we helped out as well. I like to say that it is sort of like at Home Depot: ``You'' can do it--using, in that case, Colombia-- and ``we'' being the United States.

A similar kind of thing is going on in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. They have come up with their own Plan Colombia. You might call it ``Plan Central America.'' The three countries have come up with things they are responsible for doing to improve the quality of life for their folks and the ability to have economic growth and opportunity and hope. We are helping out as well. We have done

that in some appropriations bills for the last fiscal year. We are trying to spend a little bit more. Wisely invested, it will be a fraction of what they are actually spending on their own.

To the extent that those three countries can be more attractive to people who live there, that actually helps a whole lot in terms of the pressure on our own borders. Plus, it is the right thing to do. The other thing I would mention, as to our energy policy in this country, is that sometimes we have had an ``all of the above'' energy approach. It is not just coal, it is not just wind, it is not just solar, it is not just geothermal, it is not just nuclear, and it is not just natural gas. It is all of the above. It is conservation as well.

We need a similar approach to continuing to protect our borders, whether it is in the South or other places. But it should involve a variety of things. There are some places along the 2,000 miles where it will actually make some sense. There are a lot of places where a fence makes more sense. There are a lot of places where it makes more sense just to pave the roads alongside the border.

The Presiding Officer actually spent, as he said, his ``misspent youth''--but I will say his youth--earlier in his life where he and other kayakers were in boats along the Rio Grande River. Part of border security is boats along that stretch of the river, that stretch of the border because it is literally hundreds of miles where the border is defined by a river. So in some places, boats make sense. In other places, boat ramps make sense.

Sometimes it makes sense to have drones up in the air that can surveil up to 100 miles into Mexico for folks coming our way. Sometimes it makes sense to put helicopters, sometimes fixed-wing aircraft. But you can't just send them up with binoculars. You need to put the right kind of surveillance equipment on there. We have that equipment. The key is to put it on the aircraft.

Sometimes stationary towers going up 200, 300 feet makes sense. Sometimes it makes sense to make those mobile. Sometimes we can put those surveillance systems 5,000 feet up in the air to look literally 100 miles into Mexico to see what is coming our way. If we have the right surveillance system, they could see not just during daylight, sunny skies, but they could see at night. They can see in fog and dense fog. So the key is all of the above--it is not any one thing--and to find out what works. The other thing is, maybe to continue to support and ask our Border Patrol: What do you guys and gals think? What do you think makes sense? And listen to them.

No, I am not smart enough to figure out how much money we put exactly in each one of those, but I think it makes sense, depending on what the needs are and on the advice of the folks who really are the experts on the ground, what they suggest, and we can do an ``all of the above'' approach. But we also have to consider that the reason most of the illegals are coming to our country is that they live their lives in misery. If we don't do something to help them help themselves, we are going to be falling short of where we want to be.

I just wanted to share that before we recognize the next Senator.

I am looking forward to the inaugural address of the new Senator from Illinois.

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

Mr. President, last week on this Senate floor, I made the case for Democrats and Republicans joining together to confirm one of the most qualified individuals ever nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. I was referring, of course, to Chief Judge Merrick Garland.

I don't wish to belabor the point here this evening, but it bears repeating that Judge Garland brought with him more Federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in the history of the United States.

It bears repeating that Judge Garland is an extraordinary man, a good man, a brilliant man, a fair judge, and a consensus builder on the bench in a day and age when we need consensus builders on the Supreme Court and other courts across the country. Frankly, we also need them right here on this floor, in this body.

It bears repeating that the obstruction of Judge Garland's nomination was unprecedented in the history of the United States of America and in the history of the Senate.

Since the Senate Judiciary Committee began holding public hearings on Supreme Court nominations in 1916, no Supreme Court nominee had ever been denied a hearing and a vote--until Judge Garland. Many of our Republican colleagues refused to meet with him. When his nomination expired at noon on January 3, 2017, 293 days had passed--293 wasted days.

A good man was treated badly. I believe our Constitution was treated badly. I believe that the obstruction of Judge Garland's nomination was unprecedented. I believe it was shameful. From my view, we cannot pretend that this vacant seat on the Supreme Court--what I believe should be Judge Garland's seat--is anything other than blatant partisanship.

I believe that upholding my oath to protect the Constitution means finding agreement on moving Judge Garland's nomination forward at the same time--at the same time as that of Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's Supreme Court nominee.

I have no choice but to oppose Judge Gorsuch's nomination this week because anything else would be a stamp of approval for what I believe is playing politics with Supreme Court nominees. I cannot support Judge Gorsuch's nomination because we cannot have one set of rules for Democratic Presidents and another set of rules for Republican Presidents.

Some of my colleagues and maybe some of the Americans listening at home tonight may be asking themselves: Well, Senator Carper, didn't the Democrats change the rules for judges when they were in the majority? That is a fair question. To that, I would say yes. That is true for lower court nominees, nominees to Federal district courts and courts of appeals.

But it wasn't because Senator Harry Reid woke up one morning and decided that was the day to change the rules of the Senate. A decision of this magnitude didn't happen on a whim. It was because, by the time November 2013 had arrived, our Republican friends had attempted to block--get this--more nominations in the first 5 years of President Obama's tenure than all other Presidents combined. Let me say that again. It was because, by the time November 2013 had arrived, our Republican friends had attempted to block more nominations in the first 5 years of President Obama's tenure than all other Presidents combined.

It wasn't the unprecedented use of cloture motions--79 cloture motions--during those 5 years that precipitated Democrats' seeking a solution to restore the capability of the Senate to do its job. It was because our Republican friends refused to consider any nominee--any nominee--to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, despite three critical vacancies on our Nation's second highest court.

So, yes, it is true that Democrats supported a change that allowed a vote on those nominees, but it was because our Republican friends took the unheard of position that no nominees--no nominees, no matter their qualifications--were entitled to a vote.

I should note that Democrats were careful to preserve the 60 votes for Supreme Court nominees.

Let me just say that, if there is any position in the Federal Government that should require at least 60 votes, my view is it should be the Supreme Court, and that is the rule under which we operate as of this moment.

One of the reasons why is because Supreme Court vacancies come around quite rarely. When they do, we need to ensure that debate is robust, we need to ensure that the nominee is from the judicial and the political mainstream, and we need to ensure that these lifetime appointments are held to the highest standards. In other words, I believe we need a nominee like Judge Merrick Garland.

Despite his own impressive resume, I have concerns with Judge Gorsuch's nomination beyond the treatment of Judge Garland, and I have concerns with the way that our debate has not been, frankly, robust. I have concerns that Judge Gorsuch's views are outside the judicial and political mainstream, and I have concerns about what others have termed ``evasiveness.'' His evasiveness before the Judiciary Committee does not meet the high standards that we should expect for those lifetime appointments.

I would be remiss if I did not mention what I referred to last week as the cloud that lingers still over President Trump's campaign. Like many Americans, I read the news related to Russia and the Trump campaign, and I come to the inescapable conclusion that the cloud is darkening and the forecast is a matter of grave concern for our Constitution.

FBI Director Jim Comey has testified under oath that there is an ongoing investigation to determine the links between the Trump campaign and Russia, an adversary that attacked our election and undermined a free and fair election to change the outcome of that election. From all appearances, they did.

To hastily move forward with Judge Gorsuch--who is 49 years old, who could serve on the Supreme Court well into the middle of this century-- without first getting to the bottom of the suspicious and irregular actions of Trump campaign officials would be, in my view, a mistake.

For many Americans, this Supreme Court seat will always come with an asterisk attached to it. They believe and I believe that it was a stolen seat that belonged to Judge Merrick Garland.

Many Americans are wondering why we are rushing to fill a lifetime vacancy while President Trump's campaign remains under investigation and will for at least some while.

I believe we have some time. Judge Garland waited 293 days for a hearing and a vote that never came. Judge Gorsuch has waited 48 days for a hearing and many of our Republican friends would like to see him seated this week.

Again, I would say: Judge Merrick Garland waited 293 days for a hearing and a vote that never, never came.

What we face here today, I think, is a rush to judgment. I would just say that we have time. We ought to hit the pause button on this nomination.

The American people are watching us, and history will judge us. I fear that history may judge us poorly if anyone other than Merrick Garland is confirmed at this time. I fear that history may judge us poorly if we do not insist that the Trump campaign is first cleared of any wrongdoing before we move forward. We need to get this right. We have time to get this right.

The Senate has been through it all. The good men and women of the Senate have always disagreed--sometimes passionately, oftentimes loudly. I understand that this disagreement before us may seem irresolvable, but that is only if we seek to cut off debate and admit defeat. Personally speaking, I am not ready to do that today or this week.

I believe we have time. I believe we have the opportunity to right a historic wrong. We have not just an opportunity to right a historic wrong but also an obligation to get this right.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today, on behalf of Delaware's congressional delegation--Senator Chris Coons, Congresswoman Lisa Blunt Rochester, and myself--to honor the exemplary service of Delaware Supreme Court Justice Randy J. Holland. His talent and expertise is admired by both Republicans and Democrats alike. Justice Holland was the youngest person to serve on the Delaware Supreme Court when he was appointed and confirmed by Delaware Governor Mike Castle in 1986. I had the honor of reappointing him to a second 12-year term when I was Governor of Delaware in 1999. Then, in March 2011, he was reappointed again by Governor Markell and unanimously confirmed by the Senate for an unprecedented third 12-year term. His length on the Delaware Supreme Court--30 years and the longest in history--is a result of his broad knowledge of the law and of our State and the respect and professionalism he upholds on and off the bench.

Delaware's supreme court has a reputation for handling complex disputes in a knowledgeable, reliable, and expedient way. It is no doubt that Justice Holland was an integral part of making Delaware's highest court one of the

most respected in the Nation and highly regarded internationally. Over the course of three decades, Justice Holland has written more than 700 opinions and several thousand orders and gained the reputation as an expert in Delaware's constitutional law. He has done this all with a unique sense of humility and respect for others, something that fellow judges and attorneys have and will continue to emulate. He is the embodiment of the ``Golden Rule,'' always treating others the way he would like to be treated.

It is perhaps his homegrown knowledge of Delaware and his experience as a general practitioner of the law that allowed Justice Holland to make his mark in the Supreme Court. He grew up in Milford, DE, and went on to graduate from Swarthmore College, University of Pennsylvania Law School, and the University of Virginia Law School. Before joining the bench at age 39, Justice Holland was a partner at Morris, Nichols, Arsht and Tunnell in Georgetown, DE, where he was known for his ability to draw clients from all over the State on issues ranging from corporate and contract law to zoning and real estate transactions. During this time, he had the opportunity to appear before almost every judge in every court of the State. It was this wide breadth of knowledge that made him an excellent choice for Delaware's supreme court, even though he had no judicial experience at all.

Justice Holland's colleagues describe him as a mentor and a role model and have relied on him throughout the years for his institutional knowledge of Delaware and the court. This especially came into practice during an unprecendeted turnover in the Delaware Supreme Court. That turnover allowed Governor Jack Markell to appoint four justices, including the chief justice, to the five-officer court. Justice Holland's help and guidance to his colleagues throughout this transitional time proved vital as they became acclimated to their new roles.

When Justice Holland was not in his role as an officer of the court, he was writing. Regarded internationally as an author and historian, Justice Holland has written, coauthored, or edited nine books including ``Delaware Supreme Court Golden Anniversary,'' ``Delaware Constitution of 1897,'' ``The First One Hundred Years,'' ``Magna Carta: Muse & Mentor,'' ``Delaware's Destiny Determined By Lewes,'' and ``Delaware Corporation Law, Selected Cases.'' He has also published several law review articles, primarily dealing with judicial ethics and legal history.

Over his three decades on the Delaware Supreme Court, Justice Holland has received numerous awards, including the 2014 American Inns of Court Powell Award for Professionalism and Ethics, 2012 First State Distinguished Service Award, and the 2011 Dwight D. Opperman Award. In 2004, he was elected to be an Honorable Master of the Bench by Lincoln's Inn in London. He was also recognized by members of our Nation's highest court--Chief Justices William Rehnquist and John Roberts--when they appointed him as the State judge member of the Federal Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules.

On behalf of Senator Coons and Congresswoman Blunt Rochester, let me express our heartfelt thanks to Justice Holland for his service to our State and judicial system. Today we are honored to be able to offer him our sincere congratulations on a job well done. It will be quite a change not to see him sitting on the second chair in from the left, but we look forward to him continuing to share his deep knowledge about the history and legacy of Delaware law. From our hearts, we wish him and his wife, Ilona, along with their son Ethan and daughter-in-law Jennifer and granddaughters Aurora and Chloe, many happy, healthy, and successful years to come.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to lend my voice in support of perhaps one of the most qualified individuals ever nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. I am referring, of course, to Chief Judge Merrick Garland.

Over 1 year ago, on March 16, 2016, a President who was twice elected by significant margins in both the popular vote and the electoral college nominated Judge Garland to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. President Obama upheld his constitutional duty by submitting a name to the Senate to fill this vacancy.

By submitting the name of Merrick Garland, he gave the Senate a man who has spent his career working to build consensus and to find principled compromises. His impeccable credentials speak for themselves: Harvard undergrad, top of his class; Harvard Law, top of his class; law clerk to Judge Friendly on the Second Circuit and Justice Brennan on the Supreme Court. He served in the Justice Department after a time in private practice.

When tragedy befell Oklahoma City in April of 1995, Merrick Garland led the investigation that brought justice to the perpetrators of that unthinkable act of terrorism. Judge Gorsuch called this work ``The most important thing I have ever done in my life.''

His career was far from over at that point. In 1997, Republicans and Democrats joined together to confirm Judge Garland to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which is often called the ``second highest court in the land.''

Here is what Senator Orrin Hatch, former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and currently the President pro tempore of the Senate, said of him at the time:

Merrick B. Garland is highly qualified to sit on the DC

Circuit. His intelligence and his scholarship cannot be

questioned. . . . His legal experience is equally impressive.

. . . Accordingly, I believe Mr. Garland is a fine nominee. I

know him personally, I know of his integrity, I know of his

legal ability, I know of his honesty, I know of his acumen,

and he belongs on the court.

Those are not my words. Those are the words of Senator Orrin Hatch, a good friend and colleague.

Over the past two decades on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Garland established a reputation as a thoughtful judge, a fair judge, a man of high integrity, a judicial moderate, and a consensus builder in a day and age when we need consensus builders--not here but on the Supreme Court and other courts.

Even those who may disagree with him tend to find themselves thinking a little harder about their own views after hearing his.

During his 2005 confirmation hearing to serve as Chief Justice, John Roberts, who served with Judge Garland on the DC Circuit, stated these words: ``Any time Judge Garland disagrees, you know you're in a difficult area.''

Thank you, Chief Justice Roberts.

In 2013, Judge Garland was promoted to chief judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the second highest court in the land--the chief judge, presiding over that court.

When President Obama nominated him to the Supreme Court over 1 year ago, Judge Garland brought with him more Federal judicial experience than any nominee in the history of the United States.

When I met with Judge Garland last year, I got to know him beyond just his resume. Ironically, he had actually performed the marriage ceremony for my former chief of staff and his bride several years ago.

I was struck by Judge Garland's humility and by his personal character, his personal traits. Even as a nominee for the Supreme Court, he continued to serve his community as a mentor to elementary school students right here in Washington, DC. Imagine that. A chief judge of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals taking time every week to mentor some kid who needs another good role model in his or her life. That is something that Judge Garland has done for about two decades.

Over 1 year later, as I stand here today, a seat on the Supreme Court--what should be, in my view, Judge Garland's seat--remains vacant. Our Republican colleagues, in an unprecedented display of what I think is obstructionism and partisanship, denied Judge Garland a hearing and a vote. Many of our Republican colleagues refused to even meet with him. He was denied both a hearing in the Judiciary Committee and a cloture vote in the full Senate.

Well, since the Senate Judiciary Committee began holding public hearings on Supreme Court nominees 101 years ago, in 1916, no Supreme Court nominee had ever been denied a hearing and a vote.

I will say that again. No Supreme Court nominee had ever been denied a hearing and a vote--well, until Judge Garland.

According to the highly respected website, SCOTUSblog, we read these words:

The historical record does not reveal any instances since

at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the

Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential

election year because of the impending election.

That is right off the blog.

Judge Garland was denied a hearing and a vote. In fact, during the 1988 Presidential election year, Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by the Senate 97 to 0--not 51 to 49, not 60 to 40, but 97 to 0. But Judge Garland was denied a hearing and a vote.

Our Constitution, the one that every Member of this great deliberative body has sworn an oath to uphold, standing right over there, requires the Senate to provide its advice and consent to Supreme Court nominees.

Over the years, there have been a lot of questions as to what advice and consent entails. Judge Garland was denied a hearing and a vote. A good man--I think an extraordinary man--was treated badly, as was our Constitution.

I believe the unprecedented obstruction our Republican colleagues mounted last year against Judge Garland was a shameful chapter for the U.S. Senate. Mr. Garland, a consensus builder, one of the most qualified judges in our country, waited 293 days for a hearing and a vote that ultimately never came. I am still deeply troubled by those 293 wasted days, and I am still deeply troubled by the way Judge Garland was treated. I believe Judge Garland still deserves a hearing and still deserves a vote.

While I do not believe that two wrongs make a right, I believe this may be our only opportunity to right a wrong and erase the enormous black mark that the Senate's failure to consider Judge Garland leaves on this chapter of American history. I think it is unacceptable to put partisan politics over fidelity to our U.S. Constitution. Confirming anyone for this vacancy other than Judge Garland would be a stamp of approval for playing politics with Supreme Court nominees.

From where I sit, upholding our oath to protect the Constitution means finding agreement on moving Judge Garland's nomination forward at the same time as that of Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee. When President Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes last year and narrowly won the electoral college, he promised to be a President for all Americans. I think a fair question is, Has he upheld that promise?

Well, let's decide--an unconstitutional Muslim ban, an unnecessary and overpriced wall on the southern border, a failed healthcare bill that would have provided less coverage for more money, a rollback of environmental protections for all of us who don't want to drink dirty water and don't want to breathe dirty air. If you ask me, the President has broken the promise to be a President for all Americans. Now I realize that others may differ and disagree, but his nomination of Judge Gorsuch represents what I believe is another broken promise.

I have heard from middle-class folks, from workers up and down my State, from special education teachers, from immigrant communities, from women who depend on access to healthcare, and my guess is my colleagues have as well. Many of them fear that Judge Gorsuch is not on their side. Despite his impressive resume, I share those same concerns.

At this time, I believe it is appropriate to hit the pause button until an agreement can be reached that provides justice for Judge Garland while restoring credibility to the U.S. Senate. I believe that is only bolstered by the cloud that lingers over President Trump's campaign.

As FBI Director Comey testified last week, there is an ongoing investigation to determine the links between Russia and the Trump campaign and whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. It has also been widely reported in the media that officials from the upper echelon of the Trump campaign have close ties to Vladimir Putin's interests in weakening democratic governments throughout the West. There are many Americans who believe that Judge Gorsuch has been nominated for a stolen Supreme Court seat. There are also a number of Americans who believe that he has been nominated by a man whose campaign may have coordinated with foreign adversaries on stealing a Presidential election.

Let me be clear. At the moment, no evidence has been made public to indicate that this is the case, but there are few nominations that any President will make that will have more of an impact on our Constitution and on the lives of everyday Americans than the U.S. Supreme Court. To hastily move forward with Judge Gorsuch, who is 49 years old and can serve on the Supreme Court well into the middle of this century, without first getting to the bottom of the suspicious and irregular actions of the Trump campaign officials, I believe, would be a mistake.

The American people need to know that the President's campaign was above reproach before we decide whether Judge Gorsuch merits approval for a lifetime appointment.

I will close my remarks by offering a word of caution to my colleagues. We have maintained and preserved a 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees to prevent Democrats and Republicans from choosing political expediency over bipartisan consensus. If Judge Gorsuch fails to obtain 60 votes on the cloture vote next week, I think it could signal one of three things. First, that Judge Gorsuch's views are outside the judicial mainstream; second, that we still have an opportunity to rectify the injustice done to Judge Garland and to our Constitution; or third, that we still do not know the nature of the relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia--a country whose leadership has ordered an attack on our election and our democracy, as well as a whole lot of other countries around the world.

If Judge Gorsuch fails to achieve 60 votes on the first try or the next try, it does not mean that his nomination will not move forward at some point in the future. It means we have hit the pause button. It may very well be that while we pause, another vacancy on the Court could emerge. Who knows when another vacancy might occur? But if you ask me, another vacancy might present the Senate with an opportunity to right what I believe is a historic wrong, and we should see if the other objections that have been raised about Judge Gorsuch could be addressed before we change the rules of the Senate in favor of the party in power.

In closing, I will say again that Judge Garland waited 293 days for a hearing and a vote that never came. Judge Gorsuch waited 48 days for a hearing, and we will be voting on his nomination next week. Talk about a rush to judgment.

I would ask the Presiding Officer for 15 seconds, please.

Talk about a rush to judgment. We have time. The American people are watching us, and history will judge us. Let's make sure we get this right.

Let's make sure we get this right.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is good to be with my colleagues and the chair of the Senate Finance Committee. I am pleased to say a few words about the President's nominee, Seema Verma, who, if confirmed, will lead us at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. She is from Indiana, and folks I know in Indiana have said that she knows a lot about Medicaid, but not nearly so much about Medicare, which is a cause for some concern.

If confirmed, let me just say we certainly look forward to working with her and with the team she will have around her in that responsibility. It is a very tough job, as the Presiding Officer knows.

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

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Representative Zinke to become Secretary of the Interior.

As is always the case, I take this opposing position with some trepidation. Having served as the Governor of my State, I appreciate the importance of deference to a chief executive's decisions to build his or her team, but at the same time, I think we in the Senate have a constitutional obligation to provide our advice and to provide our consent because in the end not all nominees are best for the country we are pledged to protect.

Some of my western colleagues may wonder what stake a small State like Delaware on the east coast would have in the selection of a Secretary of the Interior. It turns out, there is plenty.

As the chief land steward of our great Nation, the Secretary of the Interior will be asked to manage our collective interests in the conservation, use, and appropriate management of the abundant land, wildlife, mineral and other resources found on our public lands. For that reason alone, we should expect a firm commitment from such a leader that the American taxpayer will receive full value for private use and profit from the use of our Nation's resources, and we need assurances that the use of those resources will not abuse the quality of life for Americans while enhancing the profits of a very limited few.

That, I am very sad to say, does not appear to be Mr. Zinke's track record.

For example, as a Congressman, I am told he opposed the Federal coal leasing moratorium ordered by his predecessor, Secretary Jewell. Some would call this an appropriate reaction to an alleged War on Coal, but let's just take a moment to take a closer look.

As you know, I live in a small State, Delaware, that is, as it turns out, getting smaller almost every day. With each passing tide and every coastal storm, a part of us--our land--disappears forever. We are fighting a valiant and, some would say, futile war against an encroaching sea. This is not a result of variability in weather patterns or long-term trends in ocean dynamics, this is climate change at work.

We are not alone in feeling the effects of our Nation's dependence on and robust use of carbon-based fuels--like coal--over the past couple of centuries.

There are Native Alaskan communities that have to move in their entirety. Think of that. They have to move in their entirety because tides, storms, and waves--assisted by the absence of ice that used to protect them from fierce winter storm surges--are literally eating away at their communities. I am trying to imagine what it would be like as a family to get the news that you have to leave a place that has been your home for generations, the place from which your ancestors derived their sustenance, honored their forbears, and raised their legacies.

I also can't imagine being a person who represents those people and families, having to help them come to grips with the realities of a changing world that we--if we act quickly and assertively--can begin to stabilize.

It means a whole lot to us in Delaware that we take a very careful look at when and how we use the bounty of mineral resources under our public lands. At the very least, that should include--as Secretary Jewell's order envisioned--an assurance that we, as Americans, are paid a price for the coal and other public resources our lands provide that matches the value they represent.

It is the least among us who need our government's help, not those with the most.

We should also, as Secretary Jewell's policy recommended, be aware of and responsible about the climate change implications of the coal sales from public lands. If we humans, as Mr. Zinke admits, are responsible for our changing climate and the fact that my State is slowly eroding away, then we should embrace--not ignore--the commonsense wisdom of the former Secretary of the Interior. Given the chance to agree with this common sense in his response to questions from my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Zinke repeatedly demurred.

Continuing on this theme, Mr. Zinke, in response to questions from Energy and Natural Resource Committee members, supported the Congressional Review Act resolution to eliminate the Obama administration's rule to curb wasteful releases of methane from Bureau of Land Management land-based operations--yet another example of willingness to sell the American people short in favor of a handful of energy companies.

Wasted gas is wasted public revenue. Let me say that again. Wasted gas is wasted public revenue. Wasted methane is adding yet more of a very potent greenhouse gas to our atmosphere.

Given the opportunity to reflect some concerns for Americans, our climate, Delaware's and Alaska's shorelines, and our global obligation to put a lid on climate contributions, this nominee demurs.

We have seen this pattern of helping the few at the expense of the most across the board with too many of this President's nominations. I believe this is ultimately un-American, unwise, unfair, and unacceptable.

I am also concerned with Mr. Zinke's stance toward the use of the Antiquities Act by the President to designate lands as national monuments. Specifically, during his confirmation, we heard a willingness from Congressman Zinke to take the legally uncertain step of revisiting the use of the Antiquities Act by the President to designate lands and historic sites across the Nation as national monuments.

Undermining the Antiquities Act is--I believe and a lot of people believe--bad for conservation, is bad for historical preservation, and is bad for economic development opportunities associated with national monuments and our national parks.

For those who don't know, the Antiquities Act has been used by Presidents dating back to the early 20th century--roughly 100 years--to preserve and protect our Nation's historic sites and preserve Federal lands for all of us--all of us--to enjoy.

During his time in office, President Obama utilized the Antiquities Act to safeguard and preserve Federal lands and cultural and historic sites. Ultimately, he designated over 550 million acres of land as national monuments, including what we call the Delaware national monument.

Delaware, as it turns out, has a special history with the Antiquities Act, which I will take just a moment to talk about today. Before Delaware saw the establishment of national parks in our borders, we had a national monument for a couple of years.

In 2013, President Obama recognized Delaware's important contributions to the founding of the United States, including its role as the first State to ratify the U.S. Constitution, by creating the First State National Monument, with our urging and support.

Before that designation, Delaware was the only State in the Nation that had neither a national monument or a national park. We were the first State to ratify the Constitution but until a couple of years ago no national park. We were the only State that was in that situation. Simply put, Delaware was missing out on tourism and economic development that a national monument or park can bring.

The economic opportunities afforded to States with national monuments and national parks, as it turns out, are significant--quite significant. Each State with a park or monument sees economic benefits of at least $1 million, I am told, if not much more, in tourism and economic development, and every year millions of Americans and countless others from across the world plan their vacations around America's national parks and monuments.

Believe it or not, if someone in some other country--whether it is Europe, Asia, Latin America, or Central America--if they are interested in coming to the United States, they go on the National Park Service website, and they look up all of the national parks and monuments across the country and decide which ones they might want to visit. The single most popular destination within the U.S. borders for tourists from other parts around the world, believe it or not, are our national parks. Isn't that extraordinary. The economic opportunities afforded to States with national monuments and national parks are significant-- again, around $1 million or more.

Delaware's national park celebrates Delaware's rich colonial history as the first State to ratify the U.S. Constitution. As it turns out, the Constitution was first ratified on December 7, 1787.

Many years before that--maybe 150 years before that--the first Finns and Swedes came to America, and they landed in what is now Wilmington, DE. They sailed across the ocean in the Kalmar Nyckel and the Fogel Grip from Sweden and Finland. It was before they even had a Finland, and the Swedes and Finns were one.

They sailed through the Delaware Bay and north to the Delaware River and came to an uncharted, unnamed river that headed off to the west, off of the Delaware River. They went about a mile. When they came, there were a lot of big rocks along the coastline, and they landed there at the rocks. They declared that spot the colony of New Sweden, which later became Wilmington, DE. They built a fort called Fort Christina, and they built a church, the Old Swedes Church. It is the longest continuously operating church in America.

About 15 miles south of that spot on the Delaware River is actually the river they sailed up on and planted their flag, the Christina River. They named it after the 12-year-old child Queen of Sweden, but about 50 miles south of the Christina River, further down the Delaware River, is a town of New Castle. There is a big statue of William Penn in the town of New Castle, and it is because William Penn first landed in America--not in an area

close to Philadelphia where they have Penn's Landing. He landed in New Castle, DE, and he brought with him the deeds to the land that later became Pennsylvania and Delaware.

Further down the coast toward where the Delaware Bay meets the Atlantic Ocean is a town called Lewes, DE. Lewes, DE, was settled by the Dutch, the first time unsuccessfully. The settlers lost their lives. The second time they came back in greater numbers and successfully settled Lewes, DE, and it endures to this day.

The Brits didn't much like the idea that the Dutch had a foothold in that part of Delmarva, in what is now Sussex County, DE, and one night many years ago--several hundred years ago--the British surrounded Lewes, DE, which was then inhabited by the Dutch, and they burned it to the ground. The next morning when the sun came up, there was one house standing in Lewes, DE, and it was Ryves Holt House. It is believed to be one of the oldest standing houses in all of North America.

If you drive up from Lewes headed north on Route 1 toward Dover Air Force Base, just before the Dover Air Force Base is a colonial plantation called the Dickinson Plantation, named after John Dickinson who was a penman, an early writer who spoke about and wrote some of the early writings that had been cited and encouraged the colonists in what is now America to rise up against the tyranny of the British Crown.

As you go a little further up Route 1 to Dover and go to downtown Dover, you come across an area where there used to be a tavern called the Golden Fleece Tavern, and that was the place where, on December 7, 1787, after three days and nights of debate and discussion, luckily, 25 early colonists decided to ratify the Constitution, which had come down the week before from Pennsylvania. We were the first State to ratify the Constitution.

A few years before that, a fellow named Caesar Rodney, who had been president of Delaware and later held any number of offices in the State even before it was a State, actually rode his horse right past the area where the Golden Fleece Tavern was--where the Constitution was ratified--and rode his horse all the way up to Philadelphia, PA, in order to cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the Declaration of Independence. That is a little bit of the history of Delaware.

The National Park Service decided 3 years ago that the early colonial settlement leading up to the ratification of the Constitution is what made Delaware unique, and our national park includes a number of those different components. Think of it almost as a necklace with different stones of value and interest around our State. That is what it is.

That is the national park today. It started off really as a national monument from the Antiquities Act. Given that kind of history, we need to make sure that future administrations and future Presidents have the ability to utilize the Antiquities Act to safeguard the country's history, protect the outdoors for all of us to experience and to enjoy.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to send what I think is an important message that we want people in our government who are there to help people. I will be voting no on the Zinke nomination as a result, and I encourage my colleagues to consider doing the same.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today on behalf of Delaware's congressional delegation--Senator Chris Coons, Congresswoman Lisa Blunt Rochester and myself--to honor the exemplary service of MG Frank Vavala, the adjutant general for Delaware for the past 18 years. As Governor of Delaware, I had the distinct pleasure of nominating him to serve as Adjutant General in February 1999, and I believe to this day it is one of the best appointments I have ever made. Over the past 17 years, General Vavala has been responsible for the mission readiness of all Delaware National Guard units for both Federal and State missions. He served as a cabinet member and trusted military adviser to me when I was Governor, as well as to the three Governors who succeeded me: Governor Ruth Ann Minner, Governor Jack Markell, and Governor John Carney. In January 2017, he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant general Delaware, becoming the first three-star general to lead the Delaware National Guard.

During General Vavala's tenure, the Delaware National Guard has deployed close to 11,000 soldiers and airmen to support our State and country. Nearly half of them were deployed abroad to Bosnia, South America, Africa, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan, among other countries. Once in theater, these men and women accomplished almost every mission imaginable. They ran entry control points, provided security, established and maintained communications and conducted medical evacuation from the battlefield. They also transported supplies, patients, personnel, and dignitaries in both UH- 60 Blackhawk helicopters and C-130 aircraft. Back at home, the Delaware Guard activated nearly 5,000 soldiers and airmen to provide support during 11 snowstorms, 8 hurricanes--including Hurricane Katrina, where hundreds of Delawareans went to help in Mississippi and Louisiana just 24 hours after the devastating storm made landfall, 1 tornado, dozens of floods, Noreasters, and three Presidential inaugurations. General Vavala oversaw all operations as soldiers and airmen helped transport emergency workers and patients, evacuate flooded areas, get residents to shelter, safety, and medical assistance, and even set up emergency communications around the state.

Like many successful leaders, General Vavala did not keep regular office hours. He routinely came to work early, stayed late, and worked on weekends. He was known for taking the time to recognize, thank, console, and care for everyone under his command from the newest private to the most senior officer. He valued every person who wore the uniform equally. I have met Guard men and women for years who say that when they were in a time of need, General Vavala was there for them, even if it was just taking time to drop them an email or note. Sometimes they wondered how he found out about what was going on in their lives, but however he did it, he found out. He prioritized his soldiers and airmen over his own career. Instead of focusing the spotlight on his individual accomplishments, General Vavala put the focus on his soldiers and airmen, and it made his career a success by default.

In addition to holding dozens of leadership positions in the Delaware Guard, General Vavala held prominent national positions as president of the Adjutants General Association of the United States and chairman of the board of the National Guard Association of the United States, NGAUS. During his tenure as chairman of the board, NGAUS was the main driver responsible for passing one of the most significant pieces of military legislation in a generation--the National Guard Empowerment Act. General Vavala provided key testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and was instrumental in advocating for the passage of this important legislation. In January 2012, Delaware's 146th General Assembly passed H.J. Res. 10, recognizing General Vavala for his leading role in helping to reshape the U.S. military.

General Vavala is from a proud military family, having served with both his father, COL Frank P. Vavala, and brother MSG Gerard P. Vavala. Before serving as Adjutant General, he worked full time for the DuPont Company, where he was employed as marketing services supervisor for 31 years. He has been honored with the Anthony of Padua Founders' Award and the Italian-American Man of the Year Award. He also cares about his community, organizing food drives for the Food Bank of Delaware, and he is a person of deep faith who takes seriously what the Bible tells us about caring for others and focused that into his career as Adjutant General.

I believe General Vavala has been successful in no small part because he possesses some of the finest leadership qualities that I have ever observed in a military leader. Frank Vavala understands that leaders are humble, not haughty. They have the heart of a servant. They understand that their role is to serve, not be served. General Vavala leads by example. It is not do as I say, but do as I do. He knows that the best leaders aren't afraid to keep out of step when everyone else is marching to the wrong tune. Leaders unite, not divide. They build bridges not walls. They are aspirational--purveyors of hope, if you will--and they appeal to our better angels. Like the very best leaders, Frank has always sought to do what is right, not what is easy or expedient. He embraces the Golden Rule and treats other people the way he would want to be treated. General Vavala surrounds himself with the best people he can find. When his team does well, he gives the credit to them. And when the team falls short of the mark, this leader takes the blame. Finally, when General Frank Vavala knows he is right, he never gives up. As a leader, General Frank Vavala is in a class of his own, and he is one whom other leaders, both civilian and military would do well to emulate.

On behalf of Senator Coons and Congresswoman Blunt Rochester, let me wholeheartedly thank General Vavala for his service to our country and our State. The leadership and commitment he modeled helped keep Delaware and our Nation more safe and secure. Today, we are honored to be able to offer General Vavala our sincere congratulations on a job well done. From our hearts, we wish him and his wife Jane, who he has been married to for 50 years--along with their children Anne, Jane, and Nick and their three granddaughters--many happy, healthy, and successful years to come. Bravo Zulu.