Thomas Carper

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, something the Senator from Washington said just reminded me--after we heard the news that Republicans are going to go back to the drawing board and see what they can come up with maybe during the Fourth of July recess, I did a radio interview with a station back in Delaware. One of the questions the interviewer asked me was: Well, the Republicans have a lot of money to play with; I hear a couple hundred billion dollars. Won't the Republican leaders just offer money to one Senator after the other after the other to find out what they need in order to get them to support this? I said: I hope not. I hope that is not what happens. This is a time when we need to hit that pause button and, rather than dole out money to try to draw this Republican or that Republican to come into the fold, if you will, why don't we just spend some time in the rooms the Senator from Washington was talking about. We spent all that time--a lot of time together, with Democrats and Republicans in hearings, public hearings, private meetings, roundtables, and so forth. That is the kind of thing we need to do over again. If we do that, we might be surprised. We might surprise the rest of the country about how well that would work out. Thank you.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Oregon to yield for about 30 seconds?

Mr. CARPER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, it is good to see you this afternoon. I rise in support of the nomination of Kristine Svinicki to hold a third term as a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, known as the NRC. Many Senators heard from our chairman on the Environment and Public Works Committee in support of this nominee last week, just prior to our cloture vote. I want to add my voice in support of her nomination as well. Since joining the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have worked closely with my colleagues to strengthen what we call the ``culture of safety'' within the U.S. nuclear energy industry. In part, due to our collective efforts and the NRC leadership and the Commission's dedicated staff, the NRC continues to be the world's gold standard for nuclear regulatory agencies. However, as I say time and again, that does not mean we can become complacent when it comes to nuclear safety and our NRC oversight responsibilities, a perspective that I am certain is shared by every Member of this body. Ensuring that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission continues to have experienced and dedicated leadership is one of the most important things that our committee, the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and the Senate can do to maintain a high level of safety and excellence in our Nation's nuclear facilities. I am quite impressed with our NRC Commissioners, and I am encouraged with their ability to work cooperatively with each other. Each Commissioner, including our current chair, Kristine Svinicki--let me say her name again: Svinicki. People have a hard time saying her name. It is Svinicki. She brings a unique set of skills to the table--something that has served the Commission and our country well. I continue to have ongoing discussions with our friend, the chairman of the committee, Senator John Barrasso, about the strong interest I and our minority members of the committee have with ensuring parity, as the Senate looks to confirm other nominees to the NRC. This is in order to ensure that we have a balance of Democratic and Republican members on the Commission for years to come. It continues to be a priority for me and our Democratic colleagues. At this time, I support moving Chairman Svinicki through the confirmation process. I do so out of respect for her long service to the NRC and for the need to ensure certainty and predictability within the NRC and its leadership. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting her nomination. Mr. President, as to this particular nominee, not everybody on the committee or probably in the Senate will support the nomination of Kristine Svinicki. They could have held her up. No one has, and she has moved through our committee expeditiously. She, in my view, should have moved through expeditiously and will be coming before us for an up-or- down vote in a few minutes.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to adjust the boundary of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, CBRA, map unit for North Bethany Beach, Delaware. I am pleased to be working in this effort with the junior Senator from Delaware, Mr. Coons, who joins me as an original cosponsor. This map change implements a recommendation made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service discovered during its recent digital mapping pilot project that a portion of the North Bethany Beach unit encompassing the South Shore Marina development was included by mistake when the map was created in 1990. The Fish and Wildlife released a report to Congress in November of 2016 on the results of the mapping pilot project required by the 2006 Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act (PL 109-226). Delaware was part of the pilot project, and the report contains the recommendation for this map change. This map change can occur only through an act of Congress. CBRA is a map-based law enacted in 1982 recognizing that certain actions and programs of the Federal Government subsidize and encourage development on coastal barriers. This coastal building contributes to the loss of natural resources and threatens human life, health and property. The CBRA system currently contains 859 geographic units in 23 States and territories along the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico coasts. The CBRA units are depicted on a set of maps that is maintained by the Secretary of the Interior through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. While CBRA does not prohibit or regulate development, it removes the Federal incentives to build on these undeveloped, unstable and environmentally sensitive areas. CBRA seeks to save taxpayers' money, keep people out of harm's way, and conserve natural resources by restricting most new Federal expenditures and financial assistance (e.g., beach nourishment, disaster assistance, and flood insurance) in areas designated within the CBRA system. That is why Mr. President, it is important to make sure these maps are accurate and that they do not include previously developed property. This bill will achieve that objective for the North Bethany Beach area. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to adjust the boundary of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, CBRA, map unit for North Bethany Beach, Delaware. I am pleased to be working in this effort with the junior Senator from Delaware, Mr. Coons, who joins me as an original cosponsor. This map change implements a recommendation made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service discovered during its recent digital mapping pilot project that a portion of the North Bethany Beach unit encompassing the South Shore Marina development was included by mistake when the map was created in 1990. The Fish and Wildlife released a report to Congress in November of 2016 on the results of the mapping pilot project required by the 2006 Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act (PL 109-226). Delaware was part of the pilot project, and the report contains the recommendation for this map change. This map change can occur only through an act of Congress. CBRA is a map-based law enacted in 1982 recognizing that certain actions and programs of the Federal Government subsidize and encourage development on coastal barriers. This coastal building contributes to the loss of natural resources and threatens human life, health and property. The CBRA system currently contains 859 geographic units in 23 States and territories along the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico coasts. The CBRA units are depicted on a set of maps that is maintained by the Secretary of the Interior through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. While CBRA does not prohibit or regulate development, it removes the Federal incentives to build on these undeveloped, unstable and environmentally sensitive areas. CBRA seeks to save taxpayers' money, keep people out of harm's way, and conserve natural resources by restricting most new Federal expenditures and financial assistance (e.g., beach nourishment, disaster assistance, and flood insurance) in areas designated within the CBRA system. That is why Mr. President, it is important to make sure these maps are accurate and that they do not include previously developed property. This bill will achieve that objective for the North Bethany Beach area. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank my friend for yielding. I take the train back and forth from time to time to my home State. I am going to try to get on a train later tonight to go home. Thank you for letting me have a few minutes.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, earlier, just before the leader came to give his closing remarks for the day, I was talking about that Michael Davis is going to be a freshman at Middletown High School about 20 miles south of Newark where 896 intersects with I-95. I was mentioning that Michael has succeeded in life as an athlete in ways that a lot of people think could just never happen. He has a disease called cystic fibrosis, and it was diagnosed very early in his life, but it is a genetic disease. I talked with him and his mom Jennifer about that disease and how it affects our bodies. It is a disease that causes persistent lung infection. According to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the condition is caused apparently by a defective gene that causes a thick buildup of mucus in our lungs and in other organs; and that mucus can clog our airways and trap bacteria that leads to infection, can lead to extensive lung damage and, in worst cases, to respiratory failure and then possibly maybe even likely death. This is a disease that 14-year-old Michael Davis lives with. I have heard, for somebody who has cystic fibrosis to run any distance at all, they--I ran this morning, and I felt like I had some kind of disease. It was humid out there. I think it was probably higher levels of ozone than I like to run in. For folks with cystic fibrosis like Michael, breathing is like they are breathing through a straw. Imagine that, trying to run 5 kilometers or a half marathon, which is 13.1 miles, and to be able to breathe through a straw effectively and still run distances like that is truly, truly remarkable, but that is what he does. Earlier this year, he completed, as I said, the New York City half marathon, and one of the people who ran with him was my son Christopher, who is a triathlete in his own right. He is 28 years old and a great runner. He, also like Michael, can run me into the ground, and I am proud of them both. Michael was diagnosed during a screening, I think, just 3 weeks after he was born. He was 3 weeks old, and he was diagnosed with this disease. His mom said she was shocked. To her knowledge, there weren't any members of her family on her side or the father's side who had cystic fibrosis, but this was a diagnosis made 3 weeks into Michael's life--imagine that, 3 weeks. After the diagnosis, his mom Jennifer faced some scary unknowns as she learned more about his condition, including average life expectancy for those who have cystic fibrosis. She immediately sought care for Michael at the Children's Hospital that is up the road from us--I live in Wilmington, DE--but it is up the road 25 miles north of Wilmington. For the last 14 years, Michael has been treated at that hospital. Obviously, the fact that he can run a half marathon with cystic fibrosis suggests that he is getting exceptional care there. Michael sees the doctor about every 8 weeks when he is feeling well. He sees a doctor more often when he is not feeling well, when he is feeling really sick. He wakes up every morning at 4:30. I get up around 5:30, and he has already been up for an hour when I get up in Wilmington, DE. He does it to use a high-frequency chest wall oscillation device. They call it The Vest. What it does is, it helps break up the mucus in his lungs, and he continues to use The Vest several times throughout the day. He must also take over--are you ready for this--40 medications every day. So that is his regimen. He gets up every day at 4:30, straps on The Vest, uses it several times throughout the day. The Vest shakes up his lungs and the mucus there so he can live, and he takes all his medications as well. He told me, when we met with him and his mom a couple weeks ago, that cystic fibrosis is very frustrating, but he copes by trying to lead a healthy lifestyle. Just last week, Michael received national attention when he was named the Boomer Esiason Co-Athlete of the Year. Boomer was a great football quarterback, if I am not mistaken--I am tempted to say with the Cincinnati Bengals. I am looking for the pages to tell me whether I am right or wrong, but I think I am right. The Boomer Esiason Co-Athlete of the Year is Delaware's own Michael, and we are very proud of Michael, very proud of Michael. The fact is, access to these treatments and medications are really a matter of life and death for people with cystic fibrosis. If something should happen and Michael and his family would lose healthcare, they would reach out and try to get coverage. Before we had the Affordable Care Act, there was a pretty good likelihood that finding that coverage would be very difficult, and it would be difficult because he has cystic fibrosis. He is not an inexpensive young man to take care of. To keep him alive and well and able to go to school and do the amazing regimen that he does takes money and resources, medicine and medical technology. The way healthcare used to be provided in this country, when somebody had a preexisting condition like cystic fibrosis and they lost their healthcare--maybe a parent was working, had coverage, and lost the healthcare, lost the job--the person, in this case Michael, would have been out of luck because a lot of the health insurers used to say: Well, we don't want to cover this person because it is going to cost us a boatload of money. I know there are problems with the Affordable Care Act. There are things I would like to change. What I hope we will do at the end of the day is not get rid of it and not just repeal it, but I hope we will retain that which is good and fix the things that ought to be fixed. One of the things that needs to be retained is the idea that there should be a prohibition against insurance companies simply saying that if somebody has a preexisting condition and they lose coverage, they can continue to be denied coverage. They can get the coverage they need, and that is one of the very, very good things about the Affordable Care Act. Our new pages here, you guys are about 2 years older than Michael Davis. Hopefully, you guys will live to be 100 or more. The only reason he is alive today is because he has access to the kind of healthcare we all want for our children and really for our parents. I am a big believer--our pages hear me. I know they will only be here for 3 weeks, but they will probably hear me, when they come to the floor, talk about the Golden Rule. It is something that was impressed upon me at an early age, about the age of all of you. The Golden Rule goes something like this: Treat other people the way we want to be treated. It is pretty simple. I grew up in a Protestant Church, but I don't care whether you are Protestant, Catholic, Jew, I don't care if you are Muslim, I don't care if you are Buddhist, Hindu--you name it--all of those religions, every one of them, has something in their Sacred Scriptures something like the Golden Rule: Treat other people the way you want to be treated. I think we try to do that in the Affordable Care Act, imperfect as it is. I think one of the best examples of the Golden Rule in the legislation, in the law, is the idea that if somebody loses coverage and they have a preexisting condition, we don't just cast them aside and say: Well, that is too bad. We give them another shot to get the coverage they need. In the case of Michael Davis, the coverage, the access to healthcare, keeps him alive and not just alive to mope around and feel sorry for himself but to go out and run circles around the rest of us. He is an inspiration to me, and I think he is an inspiration to all who know him. Mr. President, I think I may possibly be the last speaker. I am going to bid you good night and see you next week.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank my friend, my neighbor from Maryland, for inviting a number of us to come to the floor today, this afternoon, to talk a bit about the Affordable Care Act. I am really honored to stand next to him here as we do sit next to each other on the Finance Committee and on the Environment and Public Works Committee. He is a great leader on both of those committees.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, it is nice to see the Presiding Officer again today--again and again. I don't know if I will be your last speaker, but I will try not to keep you here too long just in case. I know the Presiding Officer has been through Delaware a time or two and the Senator from Louisiana has been through my State. I have been through theirs. I am going to talk about a 14-year-old young man who lives in Delaware. I used to say to my friend from Louisiana: Thanks for working, trying to get us to pull together and do something across the aisle on healthcare. We will see how it turns out. If you come up I-95 on your way to Philadelphia, PA, Trenton, NJ, New York City, Boston, or Maine, you pass through Delaware. As you cross from Maryland into Delaware heading north, you cross into Delaware and go through the toll plaza, and then almost immediately you are at the intersection of a road called State Route 896, a north-south highway. If you happen to go north on 896, you go into Newark, DE, and you go right by the University of Delaware, which is there in Newark, DE. We don't pronounce it Newark. We pronounce it New-ark, as if it were two words--New-ark. Even though it is one word, we pronounce it as if it were two words, New-ark. If you go north, you go on 896, you go right into the University of Delaware. I took that road over 40 years ago while I was still in the Navy and on leave with the Navy, trying to figure out where to go to graduate school. I went north on 896 and ended up falling in love with the University of Delaware and applied to graduate school there, and I made my life in Delaware. If you go south on 896--when you intersect 896 and I-95, you don't go to the University of Delaware. You don't go to Newark. You go south to a town called Middletown. It is one word. There are some extraordinary athletes, high school athletes in Middletown. For many years, their principal high school was Middletown High School. They have a couple of other schools there now, but one is Appoquinimink High School. In Middletown, they are the Cavaliers. The other is the Jaguars. The Jaguars have a new school; Appoquinimink is a newer school. Middletown has been around forever. They have a history of great athletes. Year after year, they have won championships, including football-- State football championships--and men's sports and women's sports. The key to their successes is that these kids grew up together, and they played sports when they were Peewees. They played sports when they were in middle school. By the time they got to high school, they had worked together, trained together, and knew each other, and they did well as a team. I met another athlete from Middletown a couple of weeks ago. He came by my office with, I believe, his mom. I think it was his mom. We have a photograph of him right here. He is an unlikely athlete. He is 14 years old. He is from Middletown, DE. His mom's name is Jennifer. They told me what it was like for Michael--Michael Davis--to grow up in and live with a disease called cystic fibrosis. Before we talked much about cystic fibrosis and his preexisting condition, we talked about something we have a passion about, and that is running. I am all of 70 years old. I still work out every day. I have been doing this since I was a brandnew ensign in the Navy and on my way to Pensacola, FL, to become a naval flight officer and serve our country around the world. I like to run every day. This guy does, too--almost every day. There is a difference. The difference is that he has cystic fibrosis. I will talk about what that means in a minute, but despite the lung condition he has, he has defied the odds to be alive today--and not just to be alive today, but to become quite an athlete. I don't know how many people in the Chamber--I look at our new pages who are here, their first week on the job, and I don't know how many of them have run half marathons. I run have run quite a few in Delaware over the years, but I don't have cystic fibrosis. This guy can run a half marathon and beat me into the floor and beat me into the road, at least. I need to yield to him when he goes by. We have been joined on the floor today by the majority leader. When he shows up, along with a guy who is a fast runner, I yield to them. I will yield to the leader so he can take care of business, and then I will pick up when he finishes.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I wanted to express my support for the Wildlife Innovation and Longevity Driver Act, also known as the WILD Act. I commend my Senate colleagues for passing this legislation last week. I firmly believe that we have a moral duty to be good stewards of our planet, and that includes working together to conserve species and their habitat in the United States and around the world. We face many pressing wildlife management challenges; yet we have heard in the Environment and Public Works Committee that State and Federal agencies do not have adequate resources to face these troubling challenges. That is what makes innovation and collaboration so important, and the WILD Act inspires both. The WILD Act incentivizes innovators by establishing cash-prize competitions for new technologies that prevent poaching, promote conservation, manage invasive species, protect endangered species, and use nonlethal methods to control wildlife. It directs Federal agencies to manage invasive species on public lands and reauthorizes effective government conservation programs, including those that protect some of our most loved species--elephants, great apes, tigers, rhinos, and marine turtles. The WILD Act also reauthorizes the Department of Interior's Partnership for Fish and Wildlife Program, which leverages Federal funding by working with hard-working private landowners to restore and improve fish and wildlife habitats on their land. Wildlife conservation is not a partisan issue, which is why I was so pleased to join with Chairman Barrasso and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle in support of this legislation. The WILD Act has also been endorsed by a diverse group of stakeholders, including the World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited, and the Family Farm Alliance. I want to thank these organizations for their commitment to this issue and their interest in helping our challenged fisheries and threatened ecosystems, as well as internationally treasured rhinos and elephants. I urge the House to pass the WILD Act and the President to sign it into law. Thank you.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, when I came onto the floor, you were not presiding; you were on the floor talking about the Visa Waiver Program. It is an agreement we have with almost 40 other nations that allows for the free flow of visitors from those countries to our country. It is viewed, in part, as a way to promote tourism and help grow that part of our economy and the economies of the other 38 or 39 nations with which we already have this agreement. Some people believe it is a gaping hole for fomenting terrorism and giving terrorists the ability to infiltrate our countries and do mischief here and other places around the world. I applaud the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Missouri, for actually explaining how the system works. It is actually not just a way to enhance and promote tourism, which is important to all of our economies, it actually enhances our security if done well, done right, and done correctly. I say to the Presiding Officer, the former chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, I appreciate very much your making those comments today. Resolution Condemning Recent Terrorist Attacks I am going to do something today, Mr. President, that I have never done before. I have never come to the floor and actually read a resolution or a piece of legislation that we are going to be voting on later today. This is a resolution that came out of discussions yesterday as we were contemplating voting on additional sanctions with respect to Iran--sanctions not related to violations of the joint agreement on nuclear weapons. They appear to be in full compliance with what they professed to do, promised to do a year or two ago. There doesn't seem to be a question that they are doing what they promised to do, and that is good. There is what we believe is an obvious violation of U.N. requirements that say the United Nations doesn't believe that Iran should be testing ballistic missile systems. Even though they have no nuclear weapons--we don't believe they are going to have them anytime soon; hopefully not, because that would help spark a nuclear arms race in that part of that world--we still have, along with the U.N., this prohibition against them developing and testing ballistic missiles. They have violated that a number of times, and a lot of other nations, including us, are concerned about that. We have before us this week and again next week legislation dealing with that. My hope is that next week we will consider that legislation and have a chance to offer amendments to it. My strong hope is that we will not only be talking about our desire to see Iran fully comply with the U.N. guidelines but that we will also couple with that legislation sanctions dealing with Russia. This is a country that continues to make mischief in this country and countries around the world. Today, a lot of attention was riveted on the testimony by former FBI Director Jim Comey on whether there was an attempt by the Russians to influence our Presidential election last year. All 17 intelligence agencies in this country have decided unanimously that the question is not only did they attempt or want to influence the outcome of the Presidential election--they all say yes. The answer is yes. All those intelligence agencies say yes. The second thing they said is that they feel the Russians succeeded in what they wanted to accomplish because the person they wanted to see defeated--Secretary Clinton--lost, and the person they wanted to see win--Donald Trump--won and now serves as President of the United States. The issue that is going on right now in the hearings before the Intelligence Committee involve whether there was collusion between the Trump organization and the Russians during or prior to the time of the election. Ultimately, we will find out the truth, and we will let the chips fall where they may. I think we make a mistake in simply going forward and admonishing the Iranians for testing ballistic missile weapons while at the same time this effort by the Russians to really make a mockery of our election system and change the governance of this country is a far greater threat. My hope is that when we come back and take up these issues next week, that we will not address only the one involving Iran but that we will address in a thoughtful way the actions the Russians have taken and not let them get away with this. That is the debate for next week. In Iran, actually 2 or 3 weeks ago, they had elections. I have spoken about this before on the Senate floor. The elections they had were Presidential elections. Here in this country, we have Presidential elections every 4 years. As it turns out, in Iran they have them every 4 years as well. In this country, most people age 18 and older are eligible to vote. The percentage of people among the electorate who actually vote is not great. Actually, for the longest living democracy in the history of the world, it is sometimes a bit disappointing. But the percentage of people who turned out to vote in the Presidential election in Iran a few weeks ago approached 75 percent, which is a good deal higher, I believe, than what we have accomplished in recent years. They have a lot of young people in that country, and the average age of the 80 million people who work there is under the age of 25. It turns out that the young people--not like the young people in Vietnam and a bunch of other countries--they like our country. They want a better relationship with our country, and the voting that occurred in Iran 2 or 3 weeks ago actually reflected that. President Ruhani ran on a campaign that included better relations with, among others, the United States. And I think the election of a lot of mayors in places like Tehran, the capital of Iran, which has changed from a hardliner who didn't agree with President Ruhani's views on this matter--they were turned out of office. That is all a very encouraging development. There are still people in that country who don't like us, and they wish us harm, wish us ill, and they support terrorism. This is a source of concern. But, particularly with the younger people there, it is a new day there, and I think that is encouraging. We shouldn't be blind to the mischief that some in their country would create, but we also shouldn't be blind to the encouraging things happening among the young people, especially reflected in the voting. We congratulate them on actually having an election where that many people voted. In some other countries around the world where Muslim is the principal faith, they don't allow women to vote. They don't allow women to participate in the elections, and they don't allow them to get elected. In Iran, the elections in I think Tehran, in the city council alone--women do vote in Iran. They get to run for office. I think in the city council in Tehran alone, six women were elected to serve on the city council. So that is a positive. We commend them for having elections, and it is their job to figure out whom they are going to elect. I am personally encouraged by the turnout and the participation, especially of women, the election of women, and the President and a lot of young leaders in that country who have different view of us and their willingness to work with us and other like-minded nations in the future. On the heels of the election, roughly 2 weeks later, there were terrorist attacks in London, in Britain, I think in Australia in the last couple of weeks, and, in the last few days, in Iran. Their Parliament was attacked. You can imagine terrorists coming in and attacking those of us who work in this building, whether they happen to be the pages or Senators or staff. That is what happened in Tehran a couple of days ago at 10 o'clock in the morning, with folks breaking into Parliament and trying to kill folks. They also attacked a sacred site--I think a mausoleum--in another part of the country. Close to 15 people were killed, and many times that number were wounded, some very seriously. On the heels of that attack and on the heels of the election, on the heels of the attack by ISIS--in both of the attacks on Iran, the attacks were masterminded apparently by ISIS. We don't know for sure given that ISIS tries to take credit for attacks they had nothing to do with or little to do with. But there are people in Great Britain who have lost loved ones, family members, friends. They are suffering, they are hurting, and they are mourning today, and the same is true of Iran. Great Britain is one of our two or three closest allies in the world. They are like brothers and sisters to us, and we feel a special kinship and extend our condolences to those whose lives have been ended, whose lives have been shattered, and whose lives will be forever changed. While we do that with our friends and allies in Britain who suffered from these attacks by ISIS, on the heels of a different kind of election in Iran--an encouraging election in Iran--and similar attacks by ISIS on Iran--some suggest it is because they have a willingness to actually have a better relationship with us, and maybe that is what drew the attacks by ISIS. In any event, we certainly express our condolences to the good people in Iran who lost their brothers, sisters, parents, aunts, uncles, and sons, and we remember them today. The resolution has been drafted by Senator Corker, the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, and by Senator Cardin. It is a resolution that is not very long. I am going to read it. It is a resolution that dates to these attacks and mentions both countries I just mentioned-- Great Britain, our ally, and Iran, with which we have had difficulty for the last 30, 40 years but which is now interested in a new day with us. To the extent that we can find a way to work together, especially in commerce, the Iranians want to buy aircraft from us. They want to buy Boeing aircraft. They don't want military aircraft. They have an airline which is just awful. It is decrepit, old, aged, and they want to buy $10 to $12 billion worth of Boeing aircrafts, passenger airlines. I would say let's sell to them. The idea is, if we would do that, we would not just put 5 or 10,000 people to work, we would provide job employment opportunities for even more people than that in this country. Why wouldn't we be interested in that? I hope we will allow that to go forward. It would be good for us and also it would be good for them, and maybe it would provide a foundation for working more closely together. I don't know if we would have the kind of relationship that we have with Britain, but as a veteran of the Vietnam war, I can state that when I go for a run some mornings--when I stay down here and go for a run early in the morning, I run down to the Lincoln Memorial. I always run by the Vietnam Memorial. I take my fingers, and as I go along the wall, I let my fingers brush over the names of the people with whom I served, and there are 55,000 who died in that war. They were our friends, our colleagues, our family members, people we literally served with at that time, and they are gone. Yet somehow we have been able to let bygones be bygones and develop a close, august friendship with the Vietnamese. We are their strongest trading partner. They are buying a lot of aircraft from us these days, and we are now going to sell weaponry to them. We are not going to do anything like that with Iran, certainly with respect to weaponry, but if we can get over finally our difficulties of war and hostilities and so forth with the Vietnamese, maybe we can someday, with a change in leadership with Iran, begin to look more toward a constructive relationship in the future. The other thing I want to do is, I just want to take this resolution and actually read that which Senators Corker and Cardin and their staffs have worked on and thank them for their good work. There will probably be a vote later this evening in wrapup, where there will be a unanimous consent request that this bipartisan resolution be approved. I think it is a good thing, it is the right thing, it is a fair thing. How would we want to be treated by other countries if ISIS attacks us and kills our people? We want them to be sympathetic and have some feeling for us and not be quiet about it. That is essentially what we want to do here. The resolution goes something like this: Condemning the recent terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom, the Philippines, Indonesia, Egypt, Iraq, Australia, and Iran. It offers ``thoughts and prayers and sincere condolences to all of the victims, their families, and the people of their countries.'' Whereas since May 22, 2017, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has claimed responsibility for multiple terrorist attacks against civilians that have left more than 180 dead and many more wounded. Whereas ISIS frequently claims attacks perpetrated by individual actors or other groups for propaganda purposes. Whereas the people of the United Kingdom are grieving following two terrorist attacks claimed by ISIS in London on June 4 and Manchester on May 22 that targeted and killed innocent men, women, and children. Whereas government forces in the Philippines are currently fighting ISIS militants in Mindanao, including ISIS- affiliated fighters from the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Chechnya, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, who launched an assault in Marawi City on May 23 in an apparent effort to establish a caliphate in Southeast Asia. Whereas ISIS has claimed responsibility for two explosions in Jakarta, Indonesia, killing three policemen. Whereas ISIS targeted Coptic Christians in Egypt during an attack on a bus on May 26, killing 29 people. Whereas 22 people were killed when ISIS detonated a car bomb at a Baghdad ice cream parlor, killing Iraqi families gathering with their children to break the Ramadan fast, and then detonated a second bomb killing elderly Iraqis collecting their pensions. Whereas a terrorist attack claimed by ISIS killed one person in Melbourne, Australia, and wounded three police officers. Whereas on June 7, in an attack claimed by ISIS, at least 12 people were killed when gunmen and suicide bombers targeted Iran's parliament and a shrine-- I believe it was a mausoleum or where one of their earlier leaders was entombed, enshrined-- in two coordinated attacks across Tehran. Whereas these reprehensible attacks have no place in a peaceful world: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) condemns ISIS' horrific terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom, Philippines, Indonesia, Egypt, Iraq, Australia, and Iran; (2) expresses its deepest condolences to the victims of these attacks and their families; (3) expresses solidarity with the people of the United Kingdom, the Philippines, Indonesia, Egypt, Iraq, Australia, and Iran; (4) recognizes the threat posed by ISIS and recommits to U.S. leadership in the Global Coalition working to defeat

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

Mr. CARPER

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

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon.

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

Mr. CARPER

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

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Thank you.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. 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. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. 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. CARPER

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

Mr. CARPER. 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. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. 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. CARPER

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