Christopher Coons

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a tribute to a friend, a leader, and one-of-a-kind, Rich Heffron. My colleagues in the Delaware congressional delegation--Senator Carper and Congresswoman Blunt Rochester--join me in congratulating Rich Heffron on his long record of service to Delaware. Rich will soon be retiring as the president of the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce, and I wanted to take the time today to honor his many contributions not just to Delaware's business community but to our legal, educational, and governmental communities, to all of Delaware. Rich moved from Philadelphia to Wilmington back in 1971, attending Delaware Law School and serving as an intern for then-Senator Joe Biden. Rich later functioned as finance director for Joe Biden's 1978 senatorial campaign. Rich's career took off in 1985 when he started as a special assistant and top aide to then-Wilmington mayor Dan Frawley. Mayor Frawley wisely recognized Rich's business acumen and promoted him to director of the Department of Real Estate and Housing in 1987. There, Rich helped establish the Wilmington Housing Partnership and became one of Mayor Frawley's most trusted advisers, a key part of his ``kitchen cabinet.'' Rich later departed Wilmington city government in 1992 to embark on his journey with the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce, where he would serve for more than a quarter of a century. Mayor Frawley was sad to lose Rich but recognized his great value to our entire State through the chamber. ``If I were the president of the state chamber, I would want to be able to communicate across political lines, across community and business lines,'' then-Mayor Frawley said. ``Rich has demonstrated that reach that goes beyond partisan.'' At the State chamber, Rich managed the government affairs department and was the organization's chief advocate for Federal, State, and local issues, and it was in this role that I first met him. Under Rich's great and lasting leadership, the State chamber has been a strong organization, representing the business community on a very wide range of issues. He expanded the chamber's advocacy role across the State and recently helped guide the modernization of the Coastal Zone Act and advocated for the creation of the Delaware Prosperity Partnership to help Delaware's economic development for the future. His insight was and still is frequently sought after in many policy areas, including government fiscal and tax policy, healthcare issues, land use management, and workers' compensation. Rich's depth of knowledge has been a resource for everyone who has spoken with him. His weekly emails, webcasts, and television and radio appearances are insightful, informative, and engaging. In short, he has long had his finger on the pulse of Delaware. Throughout his tenure at the chamber, Rich has served on many boards and commissions, and I will mention just a few: the Governor's Workers Compensation Advisory Commission, the Workers Compensation Health Care Advisory Panel, and the Delaware Health Care Commission. Rich also made educating the next generation of Delawareans of all backgrounds a priority as an adjunct faculty member teaching business and political science at Delaware Technical and Community College and at Wilmington University. Rich's opinions, his style, and his voice have been sought out for nearly 30 years by business leaders, elected officials, and Delawareans alike up and down our State, and all those who got to know Rich Heffron got to know him as a friend. Our Governor, John Carney, had this to say about Rich just the other day: Rich exemplifies the Delaware Way. He has great relationships with legislators and elected officials on both sides of the aisle. He takes a long-term approach to issues rather than an ideological or short-term approach because he realizes we are here to work together and get something done that will benefit our state. We owe Rich an incredible debt of gratitude for what he has done for the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce, for what he's done to support job creation for Delawareans, and for what he has done to improve the Great State of Delaware. Former Delaware State representative Bobby Byrd, a longtime friend and former coworker of Rich's, also spoke of his long career of service to our community. Bobby Byrd said: Not only has Rich been a lifelong Democratic Party activist, he has also been a very competent advocate for Delaware's business community. He is truly an example of the Delaware Way. Although Rich is now retiring, his voice and his counsel will never be far away, and, in retirement, his Temple Owls sports teams will be just a bit closer. I personally wanted to say to Rich my great thanks for the many ways in which you have encouraged and advised and supported me in the 8 years I worked in the private sector in manufacturing and the 10 years I served in county government and now in my 7 years here in the Senate. Many in this body find it hard to understand when Senator Carper and I talk about this Delaware Way, where we all work together and find ways to solve problems, but the idea that a Democratic Party activist is the long-serving and well-regarded head of our State chamber of commerce is just one small example of that Delaware Way. Rich, no one has been a better, more trusted source of advice to business leaders, community leaders, and political leaders alike than you. It is appropriate that this is the eve of Delaware Day, when almost 230 years to the day tomorrow, the brave Delaware delegates, risking their lives and everything they had, met at the Golden Fleece Tavern in Dover, DE, and unanimously voted to make Delaware the first State to ratify our Constitution. Tonight, we will celebrate again our annual Taste of Delaware event in honor of Delaware Day. Tonight, Rich, we will toast you at our seventh annual Taste of Delaware event, an event that wouldn't be possible without you and the State chamber's unyielding support. The Taste of Delaware event is a great example of what it means to bring people together from across our State, from our three counties, from north and south, and to travel to Washington and share with all of our colleagues here in the Senate some of what makes Delaware special. Rich, you and your team have created a wonderful Washington tradition, attracting literally thousands of guests and dozens of Delaware's culinary staples to celebrate the First State here in the Nation's Capital. And, Rich, you yourself have been the best example I could provide to my colleagues of what it is that makes Delaware so special. You will be missed, Rich, in your role at the State chamber, and I wish you and Colleen and your family all the best in your well-deserved years of retirement. Thank you. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, when we were last here together, it was roughly 2 a.m. Saturday morning as this Chamber took up and passed by a very narrow margin--I believe 51 to 49--one of the biggest, broadest, most comprehensive pieces of financial legislation likely in our lifetime. The last time this Congress took up and passed comprehensive tax reform, I was 21 years old. It has been a long time since a bill of this scope and reach and impact has been considered, debated, and passed in this Chamber. I wanted to give some reflections this evening on what happened very early Saturday morning and what it means. First, it did not have to be this way. That bill passed on a straight party-line vote. Not one Democrat voted for it, and all but one Republican Senator voted for it. I joined more than a dozen of my colleagues in a press conference I think 2 weeks ago, saying that we wanted to work across the aisle and that we were trying yet getting no opportunity to do so. Weeks and weeks ago, a group of us put out a letter to our colleagues saying that we wanted to work together on tax reform that would make our country more competitive and that would deal with some of the long- unaddressed issues in our Tax Code and yet be fiscally responsible. And right up until Saturday, I was working with a group of Republicans and Democrats to try to find a way to move forward on tax reform that would not blow up our deficit and debt, give real tax relief to middle-class Americans, and significantly reduce the corporate tax rate. Alas, we came up short. I wanted to give just a few moments of reflection on how I see the tax bill that ultimately moved through this Chamber last week. First, on the process, the idea that you do your best work at something like 2 in the morning--adopting a nearly 500-page piece of legislation without anyone having had the chance to really read it and understand it--I think defies common sense. Second, I think that the idea that the best legislating is done by only one party has been proven to be incorrect, whether it is big pieces of legislation done by only Democrats or big pieces done by only Republicans. Part of the point of this Chamber--and the balance and the separation of powers that our Founders crafted into the Constitution-- was the idea that when we listen to each other and compromise, we produce better legislation, better laws, better justice. Last, I would like to talk for a moment about the values that underlie not just this process but the outcome of this bill, because in speeches and comments and debates here on the floor and in materials put out over the last 2 weeks, there has been a lot of talk about financial matters, about percentages, about numbers, and about the Joint Committee on Taxation or the Congressional Budget Office. There has been a lot of jargon and a lot of insider talk that has frankly left a cloud that has made it difficult for most Americans to understand what was at stake and what was at work in the steady progress toward that partisan passage of the tax bill so early on Saturday morning. Let's talk for a moment, if we could, about the human values implicated by this bill. Let's talk less about fiscal jargon and financial details and more about where it will land. I am sure it comes as no surprise to you that ultimately I voted against the bill. I was willing to do bipartisan tax reform that would allow President Trump to meet his expressed goal of delivering a Christmas gift to the American people--in particular, to the American middle class--but I wasn't willing to sign off on a bill that would add $1 trillion to our national debt and that laid the groundwork we are already hearing for calls to slash Medicare and Medicaid. Once this Christmas package is opened, the middle class will realize that its real impact is the steady increase of the tax burden on them and the steady decrease, over the years ahead, of critical, vital Federal programs like Medicare and Medicaid that have made such a difference to so many in need for so long. For reasons that elude me, most of this country was not actively engaged in this tax debate. I had about 230 calls from Delaware on last Friday--200 opposed and 20 in favor, so 10 to 1 against. But I didn't hear from folks who might have understood and might have spoken up about the long-term, grinding impact this tax bill will have on those in real need in our country. I wanted to take a moment here on the floor to reflect on something that happened late last week in the Budget Committee as they were marking up the bill. As several dozen clergymen, men and women of different faiths, gathered together outside in a moment of civil disobedience, a few of them--friends of mine--were arrested--arrested in a cry they had hoped would be heard to express their concern about the impact of this tax bill on the poor and needy in our Nation. I stand tonight as a Senator. I stand tonight as someone who represents Delaware. I stand tonight as someone who was elected not to serve one particular faith tradition but who is deeply informed by my faith tradition and the Gospel that I read. In the Gospel According to Luke, Jesus said: ``He has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.'' I just wanted to stand here for a moment and say that while the Gospel is good news to the poor, this tax bill surely is not. Some of the best known, simple passages in the New Testament of the Christian Bible say you cannot serve both God and wealth. Jesus's call in Matthew 25: Inasmuch as you did this to the least of these, you did it unto me. This preference for the poor, this focus on the least among us, is not new to the New Testament; it is deeply rooted in the Torah and in the Judeo-Christian values that underlie all of Christianity. In Proverbs, the Torah teaches that those who oppress the poor insult their Maker. Deuteronomy Chapter 15 teaches that you should open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land. Lastly, it seems to me that while the Bible, the New Testament, and the Torah teach these things about God's deep preference that we be kind to one another, that we care for one another, that we support those in need around us, that doesn't inevitably lead to one party's position or another. It doesn't inevitably lead to one clear economic theory or policy or another. But it does say that before we took dramatic action that will reset the ground for a generation, that I believe will inevitably lead to a loss of security and stability and opportunity for those in need in our country, we should have reflected. We should have listened to each other. We should have respected the greatest traditions of this country that say that we are most American when we open the doors of opportunity to all, when we create chances for those who are struggling amongst us to have a brighter future. And as I searched through what I understood of this 500-page bill thrust upon us late on a Friday night and marked up and voted on early on a Saturday morning, I found none of that. I found an incredibly expensive bill that even some titans of industry have said will add little to the growth of this economy and much to the burden of debt of this country. I know people of good faith on both sides have differing views about the impact of this bill, but I, for one, felt called tonight to come to this floor and say that I think we have made not just a mistake of fiscal policy, but I think that in moving this bill forward, we have failed in our most fundamental call to hear each other, to work together, and to be mindful that we do not cause harm to those in our society who look to us to make the future brighter, to open the doors of opportunity wider, and to listen to some of the most ancient and profound voices in the traditions that lay the foundation of this free society; that we legislate worst when we legislate against the least of our brethren. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

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

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

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

Mr. COONS

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

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

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern with the tax reform bill that the Senate Finance Committee is likely to approve later this week. The latest version of this massive tax bill, which will impact every single American, was only released to the public late Tuesday night. Less than 48 hours later, the Finance Committee is ramming through this bill on a party-line vote without any hearings and without a thorough review of the bill. I strongly disagree with the closed-door process of developing the substance of a bill which skews the benefits to the wealthy at the expense of middle-class families and with this bill's irresponsible cost of $1.7 trillion over 10 years. I also want to tell my colleagues and the President that there is still an opportunity for us to do the right thing and to work together on tax reform. We should follow the example of the last time there was successful tax reform enacted by Congress. This was led by Republican President Ronald Reagan, Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill, and Members of Congress from both parties, who worked together back in 1986 to pass major tax reform legislation. Sure, they had strong disagreements, but they held lengthy public debates, compromised on both sides of the aisle, and eventually passed a major tax reform bill that was bipartisan, was fair, and did not add to our deficits and national debt. For some reason, my Republican colleagues seem to have forgotten the example of the last time the Congress actually passed tax reform. It happened because both parties worked together. It happened because both parties compromised. And while I believe there is still time for us to undertake this approach, what we are seeing right now is the exact opposite. I think that is a big mistake. When I am on the train back to Wilmington or when I am at home in my State of Delaware hearing from my constituents, my message about this bill is simple: I am worried what this bill will do to our fiscal health as a country and the middle class, and you should be too. Let me start by quoting a story from the Washington Post today whose headline reads ``Senate tax bill cuts taxes of wealthy and hikes taxes on families earning under $75,000 over a decade.'' Let me repeat that. The Senate tax bill cuts the taxes of the wealthy and hikes taxes on families earning under $75,000. The story is based on a report from the nonpartisan Joint Commission on Taxation which shows that the claims from President Trump and my Republican colleagues that this bill is all about tax relief for the middle class are simply wrong. I will quote from this story: By the year 2027, Americans earning $30,000 to $75,000 a year-- Solidly middle-class folks-- would also be forced to pay more in taxes even though people earning over $100,000 would continue to get substantial tax cuts. Unfortunately, though, that is not the end of my concerns with this legislation. I am also alarmed by how much this bill would add to our Nation's budget deficits and by the long-term impacts it would have on our debt. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, this tax bill--this Republican-only tax bill--will cost over $1.7 trillion over 10 years. That is $1.7 trillion with a ``t.'' What happened to my colleagues who spent years talking about the danger posed by a growing national debt? Now these very same Senators and Representatives are willing to put almost $2 trillion on our Nation's credit card. It is an astounding figure--more than twice as large as the emergency stimulus package Congress passed in 2009 to prevent the next Great Depression. It is more than twice as much as the much maligned so-called bailout that Congress authorized to prevent the collapse of the financial system. What does $1.7 trillion buy us? What is the great return on investment that would justify borrowing $1.7 trillion--mostly from China--in a time of near record-low unemployment? The Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, publicly bragged that their tax plan would produce 1 million jobs. That sounds good but not when you consider the cost. My math may not be great, but if you spend $1.7 trillion to get 1 million jobs, that is $1.5 million per job. That is not a great return on investment. To add insult to injury, the majority believes they can use this bill to also cut access to healthcare for millions of Americans because they have decided at the last moment to include a repeal of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate--a critical part of that bill--law, which helps ensure a healthy risk pool, which, in turn, lowers premiums. Those who actually work in healthcare know this is a bad idea. That is why the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Hospital Association, and America's Health Insurance Plans have all come out against the inclusion of the individual mandate repeal in this bill, saying that ``eliminating the individual mandate by itself likely will result in a significant increase in premiums, which would substantially increase the number of uninsured Americans.'' The nonpartisan CBO agrees. They found that repealing the mandate will cause 13 million people to lose their healthcare by 2027, and average premiums would increase about 10 percent each year. The inclusion of the mandate repeal to pay for corporate tax cuts will hurt middle-class families across our country. It is politics at its worst, throwing aside the needs of our constituents to ensure that a small group of the wealthy get wealthy. That is because the core of this bill is based on a promise proven false time and again--that tax cuts for the richest Americans and most profitable corporations will somehow trickle down to help the majority of working Americans. We know that is not how our economy has actually worked. Even President Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, said yesterday that this bill isn't going to increase wages for the middle class. The Senate bill proposes we cut the top corporate rate nearly in half; exempt more wealthy individuals from the estate tax, which impacts only the top 0.2 percent of Americans; repeal the alternative minimum tax, which affects those making hundreds of thousands annually; and cut tax rates for those earning over $1 million. Altogether, the core elements of this plan amount to $1.7 trillion in tax cuts, and my Republican colleagues are simply asking us to trust them that the benefits will somehow reach the middle class. If that isn't enough to prove that this bill being rushed through in today's markup is bad policy, my colleagues in the majority went one step further in this latest version by eliminating all tax breaks for middle-class families in 8 years while making the tax cuts for corporations permanent. This means that millions of middle-class families will see a tax hike in the future in order to fund permanency for corporate tax breaks. That is just not right. So here is what I think we should do. Let's slow down. Let's work together, Republicans and Democrats, to pass a bill that is actually good for all Americans. I believe we can get that done. I think it is our job and our duty. We don't have to start from scratch. There are bipartisan ideas. There are introduced, bipartisan tax bills that could make our code simpler and fairer and more effective. I will mention two examples of bills I have introduced--one with Republican Senator Shelley Moore Capito and another with Republican Senator Pat Roberts--that encourage manufacturers to use made-in- America parts and incentivize companies that invent something here to make it here. I have introduced another bill with Republican Senator Jerry Moran--it has eight bipartisan cosponsors--and with Republican Congressman Ted Poe that would alter the Tax Code to boost every aspect of the American energy industry, from oil and gas to the latest renewable and clean energy technologies. These are just a few ideas, but they represent a simple truth: that we can and should work together on tax reform instead of making this one more pointless, partisan battle. The same thing is true for our healthcare system. The American people have overwhelmingly said they want a bipartisan and open process to fix healthcare, not a one-party scheme by either party that throws our system into chaos with no plan to replace it. I encourage President Trump and Republican leaders to stop trying to pass tax reform with only Republicans and to reach across the aisle to work with Democrats and pass something we can all get behind.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join several of my colleagues in raising concerns about nominations to the Federal judiciary and the Senate's role in carrying out its constitutional advice and consent responsibilities. From my vantage point as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I can see all too clearly that an alarming trend of more and more extreme judicial candidates appearing before us is growing, that more extreme judicial candidates are being nominated, and that the safeguards here in the Senate that are important to our vetting process are being threatened. Let me start by giving a simple overview of what has happened, first in terms of the speed at which we are considering critical lifetime appointments to some of the most central courts in our whole Federal judicial system. Just this week, my Republican colleagues have brought forward four circuit court nominees--four nominees in one week--beginning to end. That is more than the number of circuit court nominees than were confirmed in the entire first year of President Obama's Presidency. More important to me than the speed is the quality of our process of reviewing these important nominations. The American Bar Association has issued unanimous ``not qualified'' ratings for two current judicial nominees. That hasn't happened in over a decade--since 2006. The American Bar Association is not a partisan or a political group. Founded in 1878, the ABA is a national professional organization with over 400,000 attorney members. The ABA's uncontroversial objectives are to serve its members, improve the legal profession, enhance diversity, and advance and secure the rule of law in our Nation. Its contributions to the legal profession are significant. It is the ABA that accredits law schools and establishes model ethical codes. Additionally, since 1953, when President Eisenhower invited the ABA to provide specific, timely input on candidates for Federal judgeships, the ABA has evaluated nominees for professional competence, integrity, and judicial temperament. This is a rigorous process that involves collecting impartial, peer-review evaluations of candidates. It is startling that less than a year into this administration, two nominees have already received ``not qualified'' ratings from the ABA, and two more nominees are under consideration of what is called a second evaluator. This is concerning. You see, the ABA does not take giving a ``not qualified'' rating lightly. Any time an evaluator is considering recommending ``not qualified,'' a second evaluator is brought in to conduct an independent review. I believe all nominees to lifetime article III appointments on the Federal bench should have the competence, integrity, and temperament to do the important work that Federal judges are called on to perform. The nominees we are seeing not only raise concerns about professional qualifications and the speed with which they have been processed. Many of the President's recent candidates are notable for their polarizing, divisive, even offensive rhetoric, rather than the depth of their legal experience or the quality of their judicial temperament. I will give just a few selections from a broad range. We have recently considered candidates on the Judiciary Committee who had blogged at length in support for birtherism, the discredited and untrue conspiracy theory that suggested that our immediate past President wasn't born in the United States. Another suggested that ``Mama Pelosi'' should be ``gagged.'' Another called Supreme Court Justice Kennedy a ``judicial prostitute,'' compared abortion to slavery, complained that Americans overreacted to Sandy Hook, repeated anti-gay slurs, and said transgender children are proof that ``Satan's plan is working.'' Many alarming, even extreme comments are in the records of folks brought forward for confirmation--a startling number of them. Frankly, this isn't about party allegiance--being a Republican or a Democrat, being a conservative or a liberal. This is about having the judgment and the temperament to be a Federal judge. The mechanisms we have for completely evaluating nominees are today being strained. The American Bar Association has been cut out of some of the White House's efforts, its prenomination vetting process. That means that when the ABA conducts an evaluation and seeks feedback from a candidate's peers, they discover the nomination has already been announced by the White House. The candidate has already been chosen. Understandably, lawyers are reluctant to provide candid feedback when they know a potential judge has already been nominated. Additionally, it is concerning that we have had hearings in the Judiciary Committee before the ABA rating process is completed. When that happens, it prevents the ABA, our professional organization of attorneys, from being called to testify to explain a ``not qualified'' rating at a hearing where a nominee is considered. In fact, just earlier today, we had two judicial nominees listed on our agenda who do not yet have an ABA rating. I am not suggesting that every Senator needs to vote in lockstep with the ABA rating, but I feel strongly that the ABA's evaluation must be available to Senators before they are asked to vote on a nominee for a lifetime position as a Federal judge. Another tool that is under attack that is a century-old tradition of the Judiciary Committee is the so-called blue slip. This is a practice that allows the two home-State Senators to give a positive or negative recommendation on a nominee before they receive a hearing and are considered for lifetime tenure. It allows each Senator to approve the judicial nominations for vacancies in their home States or in the circuit courts where a seat is traditionally associated with that home State. By requiring that blue slips be returned before a nominee is considered, each Senator is afforded the courtesy to evaluate whether a judicial nominee will meet the needs of his or her constituents and the priorities and values of their home State. It is an important tool for ensuring that the White House of either party consults with Senators about the judicial candidates the President is considering for nomination. In the end, this tool promotes consensus candidates by ensuring all Senators' views are taken into account, without respect to partisan registration. As a Senator from Delaware--a State with two current judicial vacancies in one of the busiest district courts in America, which only has four active judgeships--I have been focused on working collaboratively with the White House in a productive manner that ensures that my State gets qualified consensus nominees from the White House. I am pleased to report that Senator Carper and I have had a very positive experience so far working with the White House on these potential nominations, and it is my hope that we will soon see nominees I can support without reservation. But the blue slip process ensures that this consultative, constructive experience is the rule, not the exception. It is unfortunate that this blue slip practice--this century-old tradition of the Judiciary Committee--is under sustained attack. I believe we should maintain it for all Senators, in the best interests of this institution and our Federal judiciary. Article III judges, as I have said, serve with lifetime tenure. They decide issues of civil rights, of personal freedom, commercial disputes of enormous value, and even life and death. These judges can and should, on occasion, also serve as checks on Presidential power overreach. Just in the past few months, article III judges have enjoined executive orders, including the so-called travel ban, the transgender military ban, and the decision to strip funding from sanctuary cities. We should be advancing nominees who can earn broad support from Members of both parties, nominees with the experience to handle some of the most complex and demanding judicial issues of our time, nominees who have demonstrated the temperament to administer justice fairly. These nominations matter. The nominees who will fill the 140 current judicial vacancies on district and circuit courts across our country will play a critical role in either protecting or undermining the constitutional rights that are the bedrock of our Republic. Our courts must continue to be the place where everyone is treated fairly and the legal rights of our citizens can be vindicated. I wish to close by calling on my colleagues to reconsider how we are conducting the judicial nominee process. This race to confirm as many nominees as possible is not how we respect the rule of law--one of the most treasured American values. I have come to the floor multiple times since the beginning of this Congress to convey and speak about the importance of bipartisanship, and I will continue to do that today. As we have seen in important public policy matters, from the healthcare debate to the current debate on tax reform, Republicans and Democrats need to work together to get things done. Purely partisan processes will not succeed in this or future Congresses. We have to work together to protect our democracy and our rule of law. I would also like to note that today Sam Clovis withdrew as a nominee for Chief Scientist at the USDA. I am not here to comment on any connection to any ongoing investigations or other social issues but, rather, would like to comment on a simple concern I have had since his nomination; namely, that Mr. Clovis is unqualified to serve as Chief Scientist, lacking any professional training in the hard sciences. This is not just my opinion but a matter of statutory requirement. It is a requirement in statute to have a background in science. Science is critically important to agriculture, and this is another Federal agency that depends on good science. Given the serious challenges facing America's farmers and our food system--from pollinator declines, to deteriorating soil health, to a changing climate--USDA's science mission is extremely important. As someone whose home State university has a vibrant department of agriculture, as someone who knows the very broad range of Federal funding for USDA that supports agriculture-related scientific research--the USDA is critical in helping provide our farmers with the information they need to improve plant and animal resilience, to be more effective stewards of the land, and to adopt new technologies and practices on their farms. This could all be at risk if the agency's head of science has no relevant scientific training and even rejects current scientific thinking. I believe that science, not mere opinion or partisan attitude, should underpin our decisions when it comes to our Nation's agricultural policy. It is my hope that the administration will now go back and recommend a nominee who is scientifically trained and who cares deeply about the role of science in our Nation's agriculture. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COONS

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

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Madam President, it is with great pleasure that I rise, along with Senator Tom Carper of Delaware and Representative Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware, to recognize Allen Chorman & Son, Inc., a longstanding Delaware business that has provided exemplary service to the State and its surrounding areas for 30 years. Since 1987, Allen Chorman & Son, Inc., has played a vital role in the success of one of Delaware's key economic resources: farming. With the largest aerial spraying business in the State, Allen Chorman & Son, Inc., has assisted farmers in increasing crop efficiency via pesticide spraying and fertilizer spraying--sometimes in instances when ground conditions are not conducive to tractor services. Allen Chorman & Son, Inc., also provides critical mosquito spraying for both rural and urban areas. We are honored to extend our sincere thanks for their commitment and unyielding efforts to support one of our Nation's most valuable industries: agriculture. In addition to aiding farmers within Delaware and the surrounding areas with critical crop services, Allen Chorman & Son, Inc., has assisted in environmental preservation efforts, monitoring artificial reefs off of the Delaware and Maryland coasts, as well as spraying invasive plants that, if uncontrolled, can choke area wetlands. We are truly honored to extend our appreciation for everything the business has accomplished. We wholeheartedly congratulate the many staff members past and present of Allen Chorman & Son, Inc., on 30 years of service to the State of Delaware and surrounding areas. Your quality of service and continued care for our farms and environment set an exemplary standard of service for many others to follow. We wish you continued growth and success.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Madam President, it is with great pleasure that I rise, along with Senator Tom Carper of Delaware and Representative Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware, to honor one of Delaware's longstanding businesses that has provided exemplary service to the State of Delaware for the past 50 years: King Crop Insurance, Inc. Since 1967, King Crop Insurance, Inc., has played an essential role in meeting the needs of Delaware farmers and those in its surrounding areas. From providing financial assistance and support--ensuring that farms have the economic security to repay loans--to aiding those same farmers in expanding and growing their businesses, King Crop Insurance has committed itself to the people of our great State, while exhibiting unyielding support of one our Nation's most valuable industries: agriculture. The values of hard work and giving back to their community have always been a part of the King family. Catherine, Jackie, Donna, and the entire family are known throughout the State of Delaware for their generosity and support of local agricultural programs, such as the 4-H. The Kings are visible examples of serving others, as well as sowing seeds of success for the future. We are truly grateful for all they have done to inspire business growth and development, as well as preparing future generations for success in farming. We wholeheartedly congratulate King Crop Insurance, Inc., on 50 years of service to the State of Delaware and surrounding areas. Your quality of service and continued care for our farming community serves as a wonderful example for many others. We wish everyone the best.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise in support of my colleagues who have come to the floor to urge the Senate to quickly pass funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP. CHIP provides comprehensive health insurance to 9 million low-income children who don't qualify for Medicaid, including 18,000 children in my home State of Delaware. Lots of other States would say that 18,000 children is a small number, but in Delaware that is a significant population. Bluntly, whether it is 1 or 100 or 1,000 or 18,000, how can we allow inaction in this Chamber to put at risk the healthcare of millions of children across our country? It has now been more than 3 weeks since funding for CHIP expired. While some States have enough money in their accounts to carry them through to the end of the year or just beyond, the uncertainty about when or if CHIP funds will be reauthorized is causing chaos, concern, and anxiety across the country. Some States will have to start issuing notices to households that they will face the loss of CHIP coverage. Imagine the unnecessary fear this will bring to parents and families and struggling households across the country as they are facing other challenges in their life. This is totally unnecessary. We can stop this uncertainty right now and bring needed stability for parents, children, and States and show some kind of leadership from our Federal Government. I am a proud cosponsor of the bipartisan KIDS Act, S. 1827, being led by Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah and Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon. This KIDS Act would extend funding for CHIP for 5 years. I urge the Senate to do right by America's children and America's working families and swiftly take up and pass this bill. While we are on the topic of programs desperately in need of reauthorization, I also want to draw attention to the expiration of the Community Health Center Fund, which ensures access to cost-effective primary and preventive care for 26 million patients across the country. In my home State of Delaware, about 50,000 Delawareans benefit from several community health centers that are widely respected, well run, and provide affordable, accessible, and preventive healthcare in communities up and down my State. Funding for this critical program also lapsed more than 3 weeks ago, and now, sadly, community health centers across my State and across the country are struggling to make key decisions--decisions like signing new leases or signing on new medical personnel to positions. Without certainty that the Federal Government will authorize their funding, how can we expect health centers to plan, to provide services, and to provide preventive healthcare that improves health and strengthens our community? We should do everything we can to swiftly pass a 5-year reauthorization for funding for community health centers, such as the bipartisan bill that Senator Blunt of Missouri and Senator Stabenow of Michigan have introduced, the Community Health Investment, Modernization, and Excellence Act of 2017, S. 1899, which I am proud to support. Folks, I urge that we work together in a bipartisan way. We should not be using children's access to healthcare as a bargaining chip. We should be taking up these two bills to provide reauthorization, funding, and certainty immediately for both CHC and CHIP funding now and without hesitation. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I join my colleague from the State of Virginia, Senator Warner, in offering an amendment that will prevent tax reform from ballooning our deficits. The Republican budget, which we are currently considering, includes a troubling provision that would exempt a $1.5 trillion tax reform bill from the important requirement that legislation that adds costs to the U.S. Government must be paid for rather than merely added to our deficit. This rule, well known to our colleagues, is one by which I am troubled to see a number of my longtime friends choose to ignore this time around--a rule long known in the Senate as the pay-as-you-go rule, or pay-go. It is an important rule that forces Congress to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. It forces Congress to find ways to actually pay for new programs or find offsets for reductions in revenue rather than to add to our national debt. It is the right policy, and it has been in place for years. So it is, frankly, jarring that this budget document would include a provision that explicitly exempts a $1.5 trillion tax reform bill from the pay-go rule. Look, I agree that we need to work together toward a bipartisan tax reform bill, one that reduces taxes on the middle class and simplifies our overly complicated Tax Code, but we cannot simply pass a budget that allows Congress to put $1.5 trillion more on the government's credit card, on our credit card. I thank Senator Warner for his long leadership on the need for fiscally responsible governing. Senator Warner is a former Governor and a successful business leader, and he understands the importance of sound fiscal management and the danger that our national debt poses to our long-term economic prosperity. I am proud to work with him and to remind our colleagues of the Senate's longstanding support of pay-go. I encourage all Members, especially my Republican colleagues, to support this amendment. Now, with the forbearance of my colleague, I will speak to one other amendment for a moment. There is an amendment that I have introduced that I know may well not get a vote but that I wanted to speak to. It would ensure that, as we consider tax reform, we do not forget those who are the most in need of our assistance right now and in the future. The United States was hit very hard by three hurricanes and many wildfires this year. In particular, Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory of 3.4 million people, was devastated by Hurricane Maria, which was wider than the entire island. It caused massive damage and is now resulting in a humanitarian crisis. Puerto Rico's 3.4 million people is several times more than live in my State of Delaware. It is about the size of Connecticut. Once we get past this initial crisis and restore power, provide clean drinking water, get hospitals functioning, and ensure people have housing, then Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the areas of Houston, TX, and Miami, FL, as well as areas affected by wildfires in all of these other parts of our country will have significant rebuilding needs. We have representatives of the Governor of Puerto Rico and the Governor himself here on the Hill this week to clarify just how much more will be needed for the Marshall Plan-style investment to rebuild Puerto Rico. I am going to be advocating that we provide further support for folks from the Corporation for National and Community Service, AmeriCorps volunteers, and NCCC volunteers. Thousands of them have served in response to these emergencies. We are going to need investments in CDBGs for parks and for infrastructure. Before I hand it over to my colleague from Virginia, I want to reference a second amendment that would prevent us from moving forward with tax reform until we first provide for the needs of Americans who have been affected by these disasters and emergencies. I wish we would take that up. Let me close by thanking my colleague from Virginia for his long leadership on the issue of responsible fiscal management for our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

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

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Lou Amabili, a true Delawarean, a fantastic, dedicated, and tireless volunteer, a gentleman who dedicated his life and service to others. Mr. Louis J. Amabili, the son of Italian immigrants, rose from volunteering at his local volunteer fire company to become one of the most important and trusted voices in the American fire service. Lou passed away last Thursday, September 28. Lou was a giant in the fire service community, and his decades of dedicated service are a testament to how much he cared about his calling and his neighbors. Lou was a legend in the Delaware firefighting community, especially in my small hometown of Hockessin, DE. Lou proudly served the Hockessin Fire Company for 70 years, holding every position one could possibly hold--chief engineer, first and second assistant chief, along with vice president, president, president emeritus, and director. Lou was a humble, down-to-earth, passionate, and caring gentleman. He rarely sought the limelight, even as he was often thrust into it. He could walk into any event, whether a national convention or just a local meeting, and know an individual's name, making them feel as if they were the most important person in the room. Lou embodied the term ``public servant,'' which so many of us aspire to, yet he quietly and with dignity achieved this for decades. He heard his calling to serve his community, and he embraced it with dedication and a quiet passion. There was no greater ally of firefighters in Delaware or across the country than Lou. His continued service of seven-plus decades set the highest standard of dedication to the volunteer fire service. I first had the honor of meeting Lou around 2000 when I was county council president. Over my decade of service in New Castle County government, Lou was a frequent source of powerful advice, encouragement, insight, and occasional correction. I always looked forward to seeing him, whether at a county meeting, a State meeting, or at a national organization meeting. I was always certain I would get honest, direct, and constructive feedback from Lou about how things were going at home and how things were going nationally for America's firefighters. Lou's nationally recognized service is long and impressive. He first gained national recognition in the fire service when President Richard Nixon appointed him to serve on the National Commission for Fire Prevention and Control in 1970--the Commission that produced the landmark report, ``America Burning.'' A graduate of Conrad High School and of the University of Delaware with a degree in chemistry, Lou was appointed the first director of the Delaware State Fire School in 1964 and served in that capacity for more than three decades through 1996. Upon his retirement, then-Governor Tom Carper, my senior Senator, signed a resolution naming the Delaware State Fire School the Louis J. Amabili Fire Training Center. From 1973 to 1980, Lou served as president of the International Society of Fire Service Instructors. From 1978 to 1986, he served as a charter member of the National Fire Academy Board of Visitors. Lou also served on the NFPA board of directors for 6 years in the 1980s and was chairman of the Fire Department Instructors Conference in 1979 and 1980. Widely respected by his colleagues, the president of Congressional Fire Services Institute, William F. Jenaway, said: Throughout his entire career, Lou was fully committed to the health and safety of the men and women who have served in the fire service. He was always willing and eager to share his knowledge with both aspiring and veteran firefighters and cared deeply about preserving the fire service's rich heritage. It was an honor to serve with him for many years on the CFSI Board of Directors. I valued his friendship as did my fellow board members. . . . His contributions to our organization and to the nation's fire service will preserve his legacy as a legendary leader for many years to come. While the fire service and the safety of his fellow firefighters was his passion, his family was his love. Lou's wife of nearly 60 years, Carmella, was his constant companion as he traveled extensively to national conventions, local meetings, or speaking engagements. Lou's daughter Janice; his son Louis Junior and his wife Bridget; his grandson Louis J. Amabili III and his wife Lacie; and Lou's great- grandchildren, Lyza and Silas, will be forever proud of his legacy of service to Hockessin, to Delaware, and to our Nation. Lou was an inspiration to generations of volunteers, first responders, and firefighters, not just in his home company in our small town of Hockessin but to all the firefighters of Delaware and our country. Lou Amabili was exactly the sort of man on whom the safety of our Nation has been built and whose service and dedication to his community and his neighbors will never be forgotten. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Madam President, yesterday we learned that, once again, my Republican colleagues do not have the votes to pass their latest effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, even though the budget reconciliation process we are currently under requires only 50 votes. There are not 50 votes. Many of my colleagues have spoken on this floor about the challenges, the problems, or the issues with the latest iteration of the Graham- Cassidy bill. We have also heard as a body from many organizations all over the country that represent Americans in healthcare: the American Medical Association, which speaks for America's doctors; the American Hospital Association, which speaks for our hospitals; America's Health Insurance Plans; the American Cancer Society; many other patient advocacy groups; and the AARP, which advocates for seniors. All have weighed in about the challenges with this legislation. But rather than continuing to bear down on that point, I would like to quote a colleague and hero of mine. Senator John McCain said on this floor: We should not be content to pass healthcare legislation on a party-line basis. . . . The issue is too important, and too many lives are at risk, for us to leave the American people guessing from one election to the next whether and how they will acquire health insurance. A bill of this impact requires a bipartisan approach. Senator McCain also said: I hope that in the months ahead, we can join with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to arrive at a compromise solution that is acceptable to most of us, and serves the interests of Americans as best we can. Senator McCain is right. Fixing and improving our healthcare system cannot be done on a partisan basis. When it has been attempted to turn big bills into law on a narrow party-line basis, the results are often not sustainable. That is why we have work to do together, because this issue of providing for America's healthcare is too complex, too big, and too important for us to do with only one wing or one party. I was encouraged, as were many colleagues, Republican and Democratic, when Senators Alexander and Murray, the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Health and Education Committee, held bipartisan hearings. They brought in Governors, insurance commissioners, healthcare experts, physicians, and hospital leaders from across the country to talk about what we need to do short term and long term to stabilize healthcare markets and to lay the foundation for improvements to our healthcare system. So let's listen to Senator McCain. Let's give that bipartisan effort another chance. Let's work together and do this the right way. I ride the train back and forth almost every day from Wilmington to Washington, and the Delawareans I hear from on that train or at home in the grocery store or around my State are simply tired of Congress fighting endless partisan battles with their healthcare. And it is not just frustrating to hear about on television; we know for a fact that uncertainty in the healthcare markets is causing premiums to go up for Americans all over the country. The CEO of Highmark, which is the sole provider of individual market health insurance to the ACA market in Delaware now, conveyed to me that half of the rate increase for this coming year was due to uncertainty about whether the Trump administration would continue to enforce the individual mandate, to make the CSR payments, and other things that are part of the ACA. So today, recognizing that the only way this gets fixed in such a closely divided and partisan Senate is if we work together, I would like to commit again to my constituents and colleagues that I am willing to work to find bipartisan solutions to our healthcare problems. Let's sit down together, and let's bring in organizations like the AMA, the AARP, the American Cancer Society, the American Hospital Association, and let's listen. Let's listen to them, to healthcare leaders, and to patient advocates, and frankly I think we should listen to thousands of faith leaders from across the country as well. We have received letters--all of us as a body--from leaders of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, and Buddhist communities across our country. They jointly wrote a letter to Congress urging us to reject the Graham- Cassidy bill and to immediately address urgent matters that are right in front of us. The next one is CHIP reauthorization. CHIP--the Children's Health Insurance Program--serves nearly 9 million American children, 17,000 in Delaware alone, and it is going to expire. There are a lot of Federal health programs that expire at the end of this week: the Children's Health Insurance Program, the Community Health Center Fund, which provides access to cost-effective primary and preventive care for 26 million patients throughout the country; the teaching health centers funding; the special diabetes program. There is a whole list of healthcare-related programs that expire at the end of this week. So I think we need a sense of urgency. We need a sense of urgency to finding ways to work together in the short term to stabilize the market, to extend these programs, such as CHIP, that have long enjoyed bipartisan support and to begin the steps needed to show flexibility and compromise by both parties. First, as I said, we have to stabilize the individual ACA marketplace. Fortunately, we know how to do that. As I mentioned, there have already been hearings in which testimony was received from Governors, insurance commissioners, healthcare experts, and they said the No. 1 priority was funding the ACA cost-sharing reduction subsidies, or CSR payments. That is something the Trump administration can do today. The administration can simply announce that they will continue to meet the law and make those payments. At least in my State, that will reduce the rate of increase of individual insurance premiums by a significant percentage. We can also work together to establish a reinsurance program, to support enrollment outreach activities, and to enforce the individual mandate. All of this would translate to lower premiums. As I said, the President is already authorized under the ACA to take a few of these steps and stabilize the marketplace. From there, we are going to have to find bipartisan ways that we can make this a more workable system. I have introduced legislation in the past to make the ACA small business tax credits more appropriately sized for the small businesses I have heard from in Delaware, many of which can't afford the increased costs of the Affordable Care Act. There are ways we can work together to reduce the reporting requirements so they are less burdensome to employers. I introduced a bill on that in the last Congress and would welcome a chance to work with a Republican colleague to introduce and pass that legislation now. We could also look at ways to make the tax credits--or the way that subsidies are provided through the ACA--both more affordable and more sustainable, so that families who qualify aren't caught in a situation where they qualify for tax credits, but they are nowhere near enough to afford comprehensive health insurance. We also have to take a hard, bipartisan look at what is driving up healthcare costs across this country. We aren't just challenged with resolving issues around health insurance; we also have to find a bipartisan path toward addressing healthcare costs. The bottom line to all of this is that we must work together to return to regular order and to give these programs the stability and certainty they need to serve patients across the country and our constituents at home. In my view, the Affordable Care Act has helped millions of Americans live healthier, safer, more secure lives. Repealing it and replacing it with one of the proposals we have seen in recent months would have been very harmful to millions of Americans. But that doesn't mean the ACA is perfect. There is hard work to do. Compromise is needed on both sides. And I think the call that Senator McCain has issued to this Chamber is one we should hear. So let's work together. Let's listen to our constituents. Let's listen to faith leaders. Let's listen to doctors and healthcare experts. Let's do the hard work and together improve, not tear down, our healthcare system. Thank you. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly about the amendment just voted upon by this Chamber, an amendment brought forward by Senator Paul. As my colleagues know, the Paul amendment would have repealed the 2001 authorization for the use of military force, or so-called AUMF, which authorized military operations against al-Qaida and the Taliban. It would also repeal the 2002 AUMF, which authorized operations against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. These repeals would take effect 6 months after the adoption of the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act. Senators of both parties owe it to the men and women of our Armed Forces to debate in public the merits of continued conflict against ISIS, al-Qaida, and the Taliban in places such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, where the brave men and women who serve us and keep us safe are currently engaged in service to our Nation and our security. I am very sympathetic to my colleagues' concerns about the potential consequences of repealing the 2001 and 2002 authorizations. I don't want our troops fighting overseas to see our debate on this amendment as a lack of support for their vital mission. I don't want to see our enemies emboldened. I, however, chose to support the Paul amendment, but my commitment to our troops and my commitment to defeating our enemies is as strong as ever. This body can and must immediately get to work to craft a legal authorization relevant to our current conflict. That is why I supported the Paul amendment, which would have provided a 6-month window to allow Congress to demonstrate oversight, vigorous review of the status of our military operations around the world, and to pass a new authorization relevant to our current national security threats. In other words, it would have required Congress to do its job. Although the Paul amendment was tabled, I look forward to continuing to discuss this important and pressing issue with my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee, where it should more appropriately be debated, and bringing it forward for a final vote in this Chamber. If we are to do our job under the Constitution of the United States, we owe those who fight and serve and strive to keep us safe nothing less than clarity about Congress's willingness to do its job under the Constitution and our willingness to consent to the actions that are essential to keeping us safe.

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

Mr. COONS

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

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

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

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

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