Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with my friend and colleague, the Dean of the Senate women, Senator Barbara Mikulski, in sponsoring this resolution to commemorate the 25th anniversary of NIH's Office of Research on Women's Health. This office has improved and saved the lives of countless women not only in our country but worldwide. It has been a great success. Our resolution, as Senator Mikulski mentioned, is cosponsored by every single one of the women serving in the Senate today. I always point out that just as the men of the Senate span the ideological spectrum, so do the women of the Senate. But we have come together to endorse this resolution because each and every one of us recognizes the critical, lifesaving work that has been done by this office at NIH. As the Senator from Maryland has pointed out, this was a collaborative effort among women--including my former colleague, Olympia Snowe--in both the House and the Senate 25 years ago to redress the fact that so many clinical trials that were being conducted by NIH or through NIH funding excluded women. I remember one on heart disease that was called Mr. Fit. Mr. Fit. Not a single woman was included in this groundbreaking study despite the fact that women die of heart disease more than any other disease and despite the fact that women react differently than men do to different therapies, to different drugs. Our resolution commends the office for its work over the past 25 years to improve and save the lives of women. It recognizes that there remain striking gender differences among many diseases and conditions on which this office should continue to focus. It also encourages the office to continue to focus on ensuring that NIH supports biomedical research that considers gender as a biological variable across the spectrum of research projects that we are doing. And it encourages the Director of the NIH to continue to consult and involve the Office of Research on Women's Health on all matters related to the influence of gender on health, especially those pertaining to the consideration of gender as a biological variable in research with humans. I am delighted that we have now been able to clear the obstacles to the adoption of this resolution and that it has been approved without dissent. As my colleague has indicated, it is an example of a development that was taken 25 years ago in response to a real problem of women being excluded from clinical trials, from health care research, and we have made a difference with this office. That is why I am proud to join with my friend the senior Senator from Maryland, the Dean of the women of the Senate, in sponsoring this legislation with each of our female colleagues serving the United States as Members of this great body.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in March of 1925, President Calvin Coolidge signed into law the Probation Act, making that sentencing option available in the Federal courts. Six months later, on September 22, the first Federal probation officers were appointed, taking on the crucial dual task of promoting rehabilitation and protecting public safety. On this 90th anniversary, we pay our respects to the probation officers who serve the public, helping to keep our communities safe. The advent of probation at the Federal level was driven by the success and spread of probation by individual States. Between 1909 and 1925, some 34 bills were introduced to establish a Federal probation law. President Coolidge, who as Governor of Massachusetts was familiar with probation at the State level, provided key support for the law's final passage. A significant impetus for the law's eventual enactment was the fact that the National Prohibition Act of 1919 made Federal criminals out of many non-violent, otherwise law-abiding Americans. Under the auspices of the U.S. Courts, Probation and Pretrial Services has been operating a Federal re-entry court since 2008, along with programs aimed at addiction recovery. Among those first Federal probation officers was George Grover, who, 20 years before the Probation Act became the first state-authorized probation officer in Maine, serving Cumberland County. Mr. Grover was a vigorous advocate of probation as an alternative to incarceration. Allowing a non-violent offender, under rigorous supervision, to remain at home and in the community, on the job and supporting a family, Mr. Grover often said, ``Gives a man a chance to try again.'' Probation officers are important members of the law enforcement community. Together with pretrial services and other law enforcement agencies, they help individuals become productive, responsible, and law-abiding citizens. Balancing corrections and rehabilitation with safeguarding the public is difficult and, far too often, dangerous. On this 90th anniversary, we pay our respects to the probation officers who have lost their lives or been assaulted in the line of duty. In particular, I salute the men and women of Probation and Pretrial Services in Maine and across the country for their dedication to the public they serve.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for his leadership on this issue, for briefing us, for arranging for briefings, and for his very thorough analysis. I also want to commend the Senator from Maryland for his vote of conviction, for doing what he believed was correct, for showing the courage to cast a vote of true conscience. I was honored to be here on the Senate floor to listen to his comments today. President Obama's agreement with the Iranian Government with respect to its nuclear program is one of the most important foreign policy decisions ever to face the Senate. The vote that we shall cast will not be an easy one. The security of our Nation and the stability of the Middle East, as well as America's leadership in the world, are affected by this agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the JCPOA. Thus, I have devoted countless hours to studying the agreement and its annexes, attending Intelligence Committee sessions and other classified briefings, questioning Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Energy Ernie Moniz, and our intelligence officials, including the top manager for Iran, talking with our negotiators and with ambassadors, and discussing the agreement with experts with divergent views to ensure that my decision is as well informed as possible. Let me begin by making clear that I supported the administration's undertaking these negotiations with Iran. Indeed, I was heartened when President Obama initially said in October of 2012 that ``our goal is to get Iran to recognize it needs to give up its nuclear program and abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.'' He went on to say: ``The deal we'll accept is, they end their nuclear program. It's very straightforward.'' I was optimistic that the administration would produce an agreement that would accomplish the goals the President laid out. Along with six of my Republican colleagues, I did not sign a letter to the leaders of the Iranian Government sent in the midst of the negotiations because I wanted to give the administration every opportunity to complete an agreement that would have accomplished the goals the President himself originally set forth as the purpose of these negotiations. I have long believed that a verifiable diplomatic agreement with Iran that dismantled its nuclear infrastructure and blocked its pathways to the development of a nuclear weapon would be a major achievement--an accomplishment that would make the world a safer place. Regrettably, that does not describe the agreement that the administration negotiated. The agreement is fundamentally flawed because it leaves Iran as capable of building a nuclear weapon at the expiration of the agreement as it is today. Indeed, at that time, Iran will be a more dangerous and stronger nuclear threshold state--exactly the opposite of what these negotiations should have produced. Mark Dubowitz, a noted expert on sanctions, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: ``Even if Iran doesn't violate the JCPOA . . . it will have patient pathways to nuclear weapons, an ICBM program, access to heavy weaponry, an economy immunized against sanctions pressure, and a more powerful regional position . . .'' Under the agreement, not a single one of Iran's 19,000 centrifuges, used to enrich uranium to produce the fissile material for a nuclear bomb, will be destroyed. Not a single one. Iran will be able to continue its research and development on advanced centrifuges able to enrich uranium more rapidly and more effectively. Not only will Iran retain its nuclear capability, but it will also be a far richer nation and one that has more conventional weapons and military technology than it possesses today. The lifting of sanctions will give Iran's leaders access ultimately to more than $100 billion in the form of frozen assets and overseas accounts. Iran also will once again be able to sell its abundant oil in global markets. The administration has repeatedly argued that Iranian leaders will invest those billions of dollars into their own country to improve the lives of their citizens. The record strongly suggests otherwise. Iran today is the world's foremost exporter of terrorism, pouring billions of dollars into terrorist groups throughout the region and into funding the murderous Assad regime in Syria. If Iran is financing, arming, and equipping terrorist groups in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, and Yemen when its own economy is in shambles and its citizens are suffering, why would anyone believe that it would invest the proceeds of sanctions relief only in its own economy? I do expect that Iran's leaders will invest in a few high-profile projects to help their own citizens. But given their history, it is inevitable that billions more will be used to finance terrorism and strengthens Iran's power and proxies throughout the Middle East. It is deeply troubling that the administration secured no concessions at all from Iran, designated by our government--by the Director of National Intelligence--as the number one state sponsor of terrorism, to cease its support of terrorist groups. Whether it is Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Shiite militias in Iraq or the Houthis in Yemen, Iran's proxies are terrorizing innocent civilians, forcing families to flee their homes, and causing death and destruction. And incredibly, the JCPOA will end the embargoes on selling Iran intercontinental ballistic missile technology and conventional weapons, which the Russians, among others, are very eager to sell them. Think about that for a moment. Why would Iran want to buy intercontinental ballistic missile technology? It already has the deeply troubling capacity to launch missile strikes at Israel, which it has pledged to wipe off the face of the Earth. ICBM technology poses a direct threat to our Nation from a nation whose leaders continue to chant ``Death to America.'' We should also remember that the Iranian Quds forces were the source of the most lethal improvised explosive devices that were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of our servicemembers in Iraq. Why would we ever agree to lift the embargo on the sales of conventional weapons that could endanger our forces in the region? Let me now turn to the issue of the enforcement of the agreement by posing the obvious question: Will Iran abide by the agreement and the corresponding U.N. Security Council resolution or will it cheat? Despite being a signatory to the U.N. Charter, Iran has repeatedly violated or ignored the United Nations Security Council resolutions aimed at curbing its nuclear program. In 2006, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution prohibiting Iran from enriching uranium. What happened? Iran cheated. It has literally thousands of centrifuges spinning to enrich uranium. Multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions require Iran to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, and to come clean on what is known as the possible military dimensions of its nuclear activities to understand how far Iran has progressed toward developing a nuclear device and to have a verified baseline to evaluate future nuclear-related activities. What happened? Iran cheated. Not only did it never report to international arms control experts about the experiments at its military installation at Parchin, where Iran is suspected of developing detonators for nuclear devices, but also Iran sanitized buildings at Parchin in a manner that the IAEA has described as likely to have undermined the agency's ability to conduct effective verification. Remarkably, according to public reporting, Iran has continued these sanitation activities while Congress was holding hearings on the agreement this summer. In 2010, the U.N. Security Council adopted another resolution requiring Iran to cease any activities related to ballistic missile activities capable of delivering nuclear weapons. What happened? Iran cheated. It launched ballistic missiles in July 2012. Given this history, there is no question in my mind that Iran will try to cheat on the new agreement and exploit any loophole in the text or in the implementing Security Council resolution that was, by the way, as the chairman has pointed out, adopted before Congress even had a chance to vote on the agreement. Given Iran's history of noncompliance, one would think an ironclad inspection process would be put in place. Sadly, that is far from the reality of this agreement. Let me make four points about how Iran can stymie inspections. First, throughout the term of the agreement, Iran has the authority to delay inspections of undeclared sites. Those are the sites where inspectors from the IAEA believe that suspicious activities are occurring. Inexplicably the JCPOA establishes up to a 24-day delay between when the agency requests access to a site and when access is granted. The former Deputy Director General for Safeguards at the IAEA notes that 24 days is sufficient time for Iran to sanitize suspected facilities and points out that past concealment activities carried out by Iran in 2003 left no traces to be detected. This is a long way from the anytime, anywhere inspections that should have been part of this agreement given Iran's sorry history. Second, no American or Canadian experts will be allowed to be part of the IAEA inspection team unless these countries reestablish official diplomatic relations with Iran. I recognize that the IAEA has many highly qualified experts, but the exclusion of some of the most highly skilled and experienced experts in the world does not inspire confidence. Third, and most outrageous, according to press reports, the Iranians themselves will be responsible for the photographs and environmental sampling at Parchin, a large military installation where nuclear work is suspected to have been conducted and may still be underway. IAEA weapons inspectors will be denied physical access to Parchin. Note that I said ``according to press reports.'' That is because the actual agreement between the IAEA and Iran is secret and has been withheld from Congress. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I have been briefed on the agreement, but like every other Member of Congress, I have been denied access to the actual document despite how significant this issue is. The actual text matters because of Iran's repeated efforts to exploit loopholes and particularly in light of press reports on what is in that document. Fourth, Iran is not required to ratify the Additional Protocol before sanctions relief is granted, if ever. The Additional Protocol allows the IAEA permanent inspection access to declared and suspected nuclear sites in a country in order to detect covert nuclear activities. Ratification of the protocol would make the AP permanently and legally binding in Iran. Mr. President, 126 countries, including our country, have already ratified the Additional Protocol. Yet the agreement negotiated by the administration only requires Iran to ``seek ratification'' of the Additional Protocol 8 years from now--in the 8th year of the agreement--and to comply with its terms until then. If Iran's past behavior is any guide, Iran may never ratify the Additional Protocol and thus be subject to its permanent, legally binding inspection regime. To prevent Iran from cheating, the administration has repeatedly pointed to the prospect of an immediate snapback of sanctions as the teeth of the agreement. I will be surprised if they work as advertised. First, the rhetoric on the snapback of sanctions is inconsistent. On the one hand, the administration says the United States can unilaterally cause the international sanctions to be reimposed. At the same time, the administration repeatedly warns us that the sanctions regime is falling apart. Which is it? Second, Iran has already made explicit in the text of the agreement that the imposition of any sanctions will be treated as grounds to restart its nuclear program. Included in the JCPOA is this clear statement: ``Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.'' In effect, Iran has given advance notice that if the United States or any of its partners insist on reimposing sanctions, Iran can simply walk away from the deal. Given their investment in the deal, I am very skeptical that any of the P5+1 countries will be willing to take that action. After the United Nations Security Council endorsed this agreement on July 20, the Iranians actually released a statement saying they may reconsider its commitments if new sanctions impair the business and trade resulting from the lifting of nuclear sanctions, ``irrespective of whether such new sanctions are introduced on nuclear-related or other grounds.'' Let's think about the implications of that for a moment. The Iranians are saying a sanction is a sanction is a sanction, and Iran appears ready to resume its nuclear activities if any sanctions are reimposed, even if the purpose is nonnuclear, even if the purpose is to halt Iran's financing of terrorists groups. That means, if the United States reimposes a sanction in response to the Iranians continuing to finance, train, arm, and equip terrorist groups all over the world, Iran, the foremost exporter of terrorism, according to our own Director of National Intelligence, can just walk away from the agreement we are being asked to approve. Third, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the agreement states that sanctions would not be applied ``with retroactive effect to contracts signed between any party and Iran or Iranian entities prior to the date of application.'' This grandfathering clause will create an immediate rush of businesses to lock in long-term business contracts with Iran. Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif assured Iranian lawmakers that the swarming of business for reinvesting their money is the biggest barrier to the reimposition of sanctions, and he is right. The State Department insists that each case will be worked on an individual basis, but there is no guarantee that any case, much less every case, will be resolved in the short time period necessary. There are alternatives to the deeply flawed agreement reached in Vienna. While I recognize that it would be difficult, the fact is, the administration could renegotiate a better deal. As Orde Kittrie, the former lead State Department attorney for nuclear issues, recently noted in the Wall Street Journal, the Senate has required changes to more than 200 treaties that were ultimately ratified after congressional concerns were addressed. This is not unusual. For example, the 1997 resolution of ratification regarding the multilateral Chemical Weapons Convention included 28 conditions inserted by the Senate. The treaty was ultimately ratified and currently is in force in 191 participating nations, including Iran and the United States. Similarly, the Senate insisted that the Threshold Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union have additional provisions strengthening compliance measures before it was ratified. Of course, one of the problems with this agreement is that it is not in the form of a treaty, which precludes the Senate from inserting reservations, understandings, or declarations. But that does not mean this agreement cannot be renegotiated, and there are so many precedents for side agreements or renegotiations of treaties themselves--more than 200 times. Another alternative to this agreement would be to further wield our unilateral financial and economic power against those conducting business with key Iranian entities. Juan Zarate, the first Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: We can't argue in the same breath that ``snapback'' sanctions as constructed offer a real Sword of Damocles to be wielded over the heads of the Iranians for years while arguing that there is no way now for the United States to maintain the crippling financial and economic isolation which helped bring the Iranians to the table. Every country and every business would have to choose whether to do business with a nuclear Iran or with the United States. I am confident that most countries and most businesses would make the right choice. Despite these options, the administration negotiated a pact in which its redlines were abandoned, compromised, or diluted, while the Iranians held firm to their core principles. The Iranians have secured the following if this agreement moves forward: broad sanctions relief, a U.N.-blessed domestic uranium enrichment capability, international acceptance of Iran as a nuclear threshold state, international acceptance of its indigenous ballistic missile program, the lifting of the arms and the ICBM embargoes, repeal of all previous U.N. Security Council resolutions, and removal of the Iranian nuclear issue from the U.N. Security Council agenda. Accordingly, I shall cast my vote for the motion of disapproval. I believe Iran will bide its time, perfect its R&D on advanced centrifuges, secure an ICBM capability, and build a nuclear weapon as the JCPOA is phased out. It is time for Congress to reject the JCPOA and for the administration to negotiate a new agreement, as has been done so many times in the past when the Senate raised serious concerns. The stakes are simply too high and the risks too great for us to do otherwise. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on September 5, 1995, York County Technical College opened its doors in a hotel in Wells, ME, with five associate's degree and certificate programs and 156 students. Now known as York County Community College, the college in 2015 has three campuses, more than 30 programs, and some 1,700 full and part-time students. I congratulate this remarkable institution for 20 years of contributions to the people of Maine's southernmost county and to our entire State. This truly is a community effort. In the years before the school was established, business, civic, and education leaders in York County formed Partners for Progress, a coalition to address the challenge of developing a better-trained workforce for a fast-changing global economy. The demand for technical education was immediately apparent: by 1997, in just its third year, the numbers for enrollment and programs both tripled. In recent years, York County Community College has twice been named one of the fastest-growing community colleges in the Nation. In 2003, Maine's outstanding technical college system expanded its mission to become a community college system that enhances skills, strengthens our State's economy, and increases access to college. Nearly one-half of York County Community College students are first- generation college students, and some 40 percent of graduates go on to enroll at a 4-year college. Under the leadership of President Barbara Finkelstein, a dedicated faculty and staff, and a committed YCCC Foundation, York County Community College reaches out in many ways. With programs for seniors and students of high school age and younger, lifelong learning is a core part of the school's mission. The Center for Entrepreneurship encourages the innovation that is essential to our economy. Arts and culture offerings and the ``Eggs and Issues'' speakers program enrich the entire community. The people of Maine are proud of our community college system. The reason is clear: students of all ages and backgrounds are finding affordable tuition and the skills they need to succeed. They are finding real value. York County Community College is an important part of that success. Since its inception, the college has educated more than 20,000 people in many fields, including medical fields, technology, business management, skilled trades, and many other occupations. It has fueled the economy, created opportunity, and helped improve the quality of life for all. The accomplishments of York County Community College during the past 20 years are inspiring, and I know the best is yet to come.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 5, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act: Opportunities to Improve Student Success.''

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 5, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled `` `All' Means `All': the Justice Department's Failure to Comply With Its Legal Obligation to Ensure Inspector General Access to All Records Needed for Independent Oversight.''

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 5, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Implications of Sanctions Relief Under The Iran Agreement.''

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 5, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 5, 2015.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 5, 2015, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Implications of the JCPOA for U.S. Policy in the Middle East.''

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 5, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, I just wanted to list the cosponsors of the amendment that I described having to do with critical infrastructure. I listed the cosponsors of the amendment that deals with protecting civilian agencies but neglected to do so on the other. It is a bipartisan amendment. It is cosponsored by three other members of the Intelligence Committee: Senator Warner, Senator Coats, and Senator Hirono. I just wanted that to be clear. I think it is significant that those members of the Intelligence Community do believe we need to go further in this arena. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015. I wish to first recognize the hard work of Chairman Burr and Vice Chairman Feinstein and their leadership on this very important legislation. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am well aware of the need to strengthen our computer networks against our adversaries, whether they be nation-states, such as China, Russia, and Iran, or terrorist groups or international criminal gangs or hacktivists. Along with former Senator Joe Lieberman, I authored the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. This bill implemented many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report in the wake of Al Qaeda's terrorist attack on our country that took the lives of nearly 3,000 people. Many of the reforms enacted in our law were well-known and recommended prior--far before--the attacks on our country on 9/11, but they simply were never implemented, despite the clear and present threat posed by Al Qaeda. Today, my concern is that we are repeating much the same mistake when it comes to the cyber domain. Our Nation has unparalleled strength, but cyber space allows much weaker adversaries to target our people, our economy, and our military. Just as modern passenger planes designed in the United States were turned against us and used as weapons back in September of 2001, so too could the digital tools designed in the United States be turned against us to deal a devastating blow to our economy, our national security, and our way of life. We already know many of the steps necessary to reduce the likelihood of a cyber 9/11, yet many of these actions have not yet been taken in either the government or the private sector. As one former official told the 9/11 Commission last year in preparation for its 10th anniversary report, ``we are at September 10th levels in terms of cyber preparedness.'' How many experts have to tell us that it is not a matter of if we are going to be the subject of a major cyber attack but when? How many more serious intrusions do we have to have in the private sector with banks, major retailers affected or in the public sector, where we have had the huge and serious OPM breach which affects some 21 million Americans? How many more of these do we have to have occur before Congress finally acts? Consider the fact that the economic and technological advantages that the United States enjoys today required decades of research and development and investment of literally billions of dollars. Yet these competitive edges are eroding because hackers and other countries are stealing the intellectual property that gives us our competitive edge in the world. Three years ago, when I stood on the Senate floor with Senator Joe Lieberman to urge the passage of the Cyber Security Act of 2012, which we wrote, I quoted the then-NSA chief, General Keith Alexander, who said that we are in the midst of the greatest transfer of wealth in our Nation's history. Yet this transfer of wealth continues and accelerates. Information sharing remains fragmented, and the private sector is still hesitant about sharing and receiving information with government. We have lost 3 years and endured endless, expensive data breaches since the Senate refused to stop a filibuster on our cyber bill in 2012. I urge my colleagues: Let's not make the same mistake today. Passing the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 would make it easier for public and private sector entities to share cyber threat vulnerability information to stop the theft of trade and national security secrets, to stop the theft of personally identifiable information, and to help stop the theft of important information that all of us hold dear and consider to be private. The bill would eliminate some of the legal and economic disincentives impeding voluntary two-way information sharing between private industry and government. It is a modest but essential first step, especially for businesses, large and small, trying to protect their networks and information. Just this week, I met with an individual whose trade association has been compromised, according to the FBI. Indeed, back in 2012, when we were debating whether to bring the Lieberman-Collins cyber security bill to the Senate floor, one of the chief opponents was being hacked at that very time but did not know it until the FBI went to that business organization and informed them. While this bill promotes sharing between the government and the private sector--and that is an important and essential step--it does little to harden the protection of Federal networks or to guard the critical infrastructure on which we rely every day. Thus, I am introducing, with several of my colleagues, two amendments to further strengthen our Nation's cyber security posture. It would be a good first step if we could just pass this bill as it was reported by the Intelligence Committee, but I believe also strengthening the civilian side of the Federal Government and our critical infrastructure is essential for us to do the job completely and effectively. I want to make clear that I recognize there is no law we could ever write that is going to prevent every cyber attack. That is not possible. But there are effective actions we can and should take that would lessen the chances of these attacks occurring and that would decrease the opportunities for these intrusions. So we must act. It is incumbent upon us. For the millions of current, former, and retired Federal employees whose personal data was stolen from the poorly secured databases at the Office of Personnel Management, the threat posed by adversaries to inadequately protected Federal networks is all too real. As the FBI Director testified before the Intelligence Committee in open session last month, this breach is a ``huge deal'' and represents a treasure trove of information for potential adversaries. But this cyber hack also points to a broader problem--the glaring gaps in the process for protecting sensitive information stored in Federal civilian agency networks. To respond, 2 weeks ago I introduced bipartisan legislation with Senators Warner, Mikulski, Coats, Ayotte, and McCaskill that would strengthen the security of the networks of Federal civilian agencies. Most importantly, our legislation would grant the Department of Homeland Security the authority to issue binding operational directives to Federal agencies to respond in the face of a substantial or imminent threat to Federal networks to ensure that immediate action is taken. Think of all those IG reports that OPM leaders completely ignored. They go back to 2008. Last fall the IG issued a report which sounded a warning which was so serious that he recommended that certain networks be taken down until they were better protected. But OPM officials largely ignored those warnings, those calls for action. That is why we need to empower the Department of Homeland Security in a situation like that to act, just as NSA acts to protect the dot-mil domain, the military and intelligence agencies in the Federal Government. I am pleased to report that all of the key elements of our bill were incorporated into legislation unanimously approved last week by the Senate homeland security committee. I thank the chairman, Senator Ron Johnson, and the ranking member, Senator Tom Carper, for making those improvements in their bill and incorporating our bill. We have joined together to file an amendment to add the committee-approved bill to the cyber security legislation. The primary problem our amendment would solve is that the Department of Homeland Security has the mandate to protect the dot-gov domain, but it only has limited authority to do so. As I said, this approach contrasts sharply with how the National Security Agency defends the dot-mil domain, the information in the military and intelligence agency networks. The Director of the NSA has the responsibility and the authority from the Secretary of Defense to monitor all DOD networks and to deploy countermeasures on those networks. If the Director finds that there is an insecure computer system and wants to take it off the network, he has the authority to do so. Although the Secretary of Homeland Security is tasked with a similar responsibility to protect Federal civilian networks, he has far less authority to accomplish this task. Yet--think about it--Federal civilian agencies, such as OPM, the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration, and Medicare, are the repositories of vast quantities of very sensitive personal data of Americans that must be better protected. We have that obligation. Our bill would help ensure that occurs. Our amendment would harden Federal computer networks from cyber threats. I urge my colleagues to support the Johnson-Carper-Collins- Warner amendment. I have also filed a second amendment aimed at protecting our country's most vital critical infrastructure from cyber attacks. For 99 percent of private sector entities, the voluntary information sharing framework established in this cyber legislation will be sufficient, and the decision to share cyber threat information should be left up to them. It should be voluntary. A second tier of reporting is necessary to protect the critical infrastructure that affects the safety, health, and economic well-being of every American. My amendment would create a second tier of reporting to the government that would be mandatory but only for critical infrastructure where a cyber intrusion could reasonably be expected to result in catastrophic regional or national threats on public health or safety, economic security, or national security. The Department of Homeland Security has already identified fewer than 65 entities--that is all we are talking about--out of all the hundreds of thousands of businesses and private sector entities in the United States, they have identified 65 entities where damage caused by a substantial but single cyber attack could cause catastrophic harm. How is ``catastrophic harm'' defined? It is defined as causing or having the likelihood to cause $50 billion in economic damage, 2,500 fatalities, or a severe degradation of our national security. My amendment would just take that definition and require reporting from those entities--that would be mandatory if there were a cyber attack-- and no one else. Without information about intrusions into our most critical infrastructure, our government's ability to defend our country against advanced persistent threats will suffer in a domain where speed is critical. Let me further explain why this amendment is necessary. The fact is that 85 percent of our country's critical infrastructure is owned by the private sector, and we are not nearly as prepared as we should be for a cyber attack that could cause deaths, destruction, and devastation. A recent study by the University of Cambridge and Lloyds Insurance found that a major cyber attack on the U.S. electric grid could result in a blackout in 15 States and Washington, DC, that could cause more than $1 trillion in economic impact and $71 billion in insurance claims. Under my amendment, the owners and operators of our country's most critical infrastructure would be required to report significant cyber intrusions, similar to the manner in which incidents of communicable diseases must be reported to public health authorities and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Think about the ironic situation we have. Does it make sense that we require a single case of measles to be reported to the Federal Government but not an intrusion into the industrial controls controlling a piece of critical infrastructure that if it were attacked successfully could result in the deaths of 2,500 people? The threats to our critical infrastructure are not hypothetical; they are already occurring in increasing frequency and severity. ADM Mike Rogers, the Director of NSA, has described the cyber threat posed against critical infrastructure this way: ``We have . . . observed intrusions into industrial control systems. . . . What concerns us is that . . . this capability could be used by nation-states, groups or individuals to take down the capability of the control systems.'' Multiple natural gas pipeline companies were the targets of a sophisticated cyber intrusion campaign beginning in December of 2011, and our banks have been under cyber attacks repeatedly, most likely from Iran during the past 2 years. By implementing this tiered reporting system for our country's critical infrastructure at greatest risk of a devastating cyber attack, our government can develop and deploy countermeasures to protect its own networks as well as the information systems of other critical infrastructure and help these critical infrastructure owners and operators to better safeguard their systems from further attacks. Simply put, the current threat is too great and the existing vulnerability too widespread for us to depend solely on voluntary measures to protect the critical infrastructure on which our country and citizens depend. Again, I want to emphasize, 99 percent of private sector entities would just have a voluntary system. I am talking about fewer than 65 entities that operate critical infrastructure that the Department of Homeland Security has identified as at risk and has described that the consequences would be either $50 billion in economic damage, 2,500 deaths or a severe degradation of our national security. Surely, if we have a cyber attack of that severity, we want to know about it. We will need to act. Our laws have simply not kept pace with the digital revolution. We must not wait any longer to make these reforms or be lulled into the mistaken belief that small incremental steps will be enough to stay ahead of our adversaries in cyber space or, worse yet, that we take no action, that we allow a filibuster against even a modest bill to help us be more secure. By adopting the underlying legislation, plus the two amendments my colleagues and I have offered, we can begin the long overdue work of securing cyber space. In doing so, we will be securing our economic and national security for the next generation. I was in the Senate on that terrible day in September of 2001, on 9/ 11/2001, when our Nation was attacked. I was assigned the responsibility, along with Joe Lieberman and the other members of what was then the Governmental Affairs Committee, to look at whether that attack could have been prevented if the dots had been connected. The 9/ 11 Commission's conclusion was that most likely it could have been. I don't want to be here after a massive cyber attack that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of our fellow Americans, severe economic damage or a terrible degradation of our national security and ask the question: Why did we not act? I am not saying any law can prevent every attack. Clearly, that is not the case. Our adversaries are infinitely creative, and they will keep probing our computer systems, our cyber networks, but surely we ought to be doing everything we can to make it far more difficult for any of these attacks to be successful, surely we ought to pass the bill reported with only one dissenting vote by the Intelligence Committee, and surely we ought to strengthen the protection of our critical infrastructure and our Federal civilian agencies. We need to make sure we are doing everything we responsibly can do to lessen the possibilities of a cyber 9/11. I urge my colleagues to proceed to consider this important bill. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on August 14, 1945, World War II came to an end. The official ceremony aboard the battleship USS Missouri 2 weeks later was brief, barely 18 minutes long. The low-key nature of the event stood in stark contrast to the unprecedented horror and violence of the preceding years, years in which the fate of civilization itself hung in the balance. I rise today to express our Nation's gratitude to all veterans of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and Merchant Marine for their service and sacrifice seven decades ago. It is said that crisis builds character. For an entire generation of Americans, crisis did not build character; it revealed it. With the perfect hindsight history books provide, the Second World War can seem today to be a series of events that followed an inevitable course from Pearl Harbor to Normandy to Iwo Jima to the deck of the Battleship Missouri. Yet those who were there, those who made that history, know that the outcome was far from certain. All that stood between humanity and the abyss of tyranny was their courage, their faith, and their devotion to duty. As the war began, the United States was not a rich or powerful country. We had only the 17th largest army in the world. Our industries were still struggling to overcome a decade of economic depression. With two great oceans as a buffer, many Americans thought the answer to aggression was isolationism. Yet when the crisis came, Americans responded. More than 16 million American men put on the uniforms of our Armed Forces. More than 400,000 died wearing those uniforms. Thousands of American women also put on the uniform, serving--and dying--in field hospitals and in such dangerous work as ferrying aircraft from production plant to airfield. They rolled up their sleeves and turned the factories of a peacetime economy into the arsenal of democracy. Throughout the country, Americans of all ages worked and saved and rationed and sacrificed as never before. Families planted victory gardens--20 million of them, producing 40 percent of the Nation's vegetables in backyards and on rooftops. Two out of every three citizens put money into war bonds. The people of Maine were part of this great endeavor. Some 80,000 Mainers served in World War II, more than any previous war. More than 2,500 laid their lives upon the altar of freedom. I have had the honor of meeting many of Maine's heroes. Edward Dahlgren of Perham--just a few miles from my hometown of Caribou-- fought his way through Italy, France, and Germany, and received the Medal of Honor for his astonishing rescue of a trapped American platoon. Charles Shay, a member of the Penobscot Nation, was among the first wave ashore at Omaha Beach and the first Native American to be awarded the Legion of Honor Medal, France's highest tribute. Bert Skinner of Belfast answered the call for volunteers for the extremely dangerous mission of serving behind enemy lines with Merrill's Marauders in Burma. Through his uncommon service to his community and to his fellow veterans, Galen Cole of Bangor has kept the promise he made to himself on a battlefield in Germany in early 1945. Maine women served with distinction. Patricia Chadwick Ericson of Houlton stepped forward to serve as a Women's Airforce Service Pilot, or WASP, flying newly built aircraft from the factories to combat zones. Mary Therese Nelson of Indian Island was the first Native American woman from Maine to enlist in the Marine Corps. Each of the stories of the men and women from Maine are unique. Yet they are united by valor and devotion to duty. On the homefront, Maine was on the frontlines. Eighty-two destroyers were built at Bath Iron Works during the war, more than the entire Japanese output. The South Portland shipyard launched 274 Liberty ships that carried troops and arms overseas. More than 70 submarines were built at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, with 3 of those vital warships launched on the same day. Maine's seafaring heritage contributed greatly to the Merchant Marine, and at least 60 Mainers lost their lives to enemy attack. The Coast Guard and the Civil Air Patrol protected our shores against Nazi U-boats and saboteurs. These men and women did not come from a society steeped in militarism and the lust for conquest. Whether they came from our cities, farms or fishing villages of Maine, they came from places that desired peace and that cherished freedom. When the crisis came, the American character bound the ``greatest generation'' together in a great common cause on behalf of humanity. I am fortunate to be a daughter of that generation. One of my earliest childhood memories is going with my father to the Memorial Day parade in our hometown. He hoisted me high above his head and from the best vantage point along the route--my father's shoulders--I saw hats go off and hands go over hearts as Caribou paid its respects to our flag and honored our veterans. Some Memorial Days, my father would wear his Army jacket to the parade. As a child, I thought it was just an old jacket. Only as an adult did I learn the price he had paid for it. Donald Collins enlisted in the Reserve Corps as a college freshman in November of 1943 and was called to Active Duty in the U.S. Army before the year's end. He saw action in the European theater and fought at the Battle of the Bulge. He earned the Combat Infantry Badge, two Purple Hearts, and the Bronze Star. Sergeant Collins was discharged in January of 1946. Then he did what truly distinguishes the men and women of America's Armed Forces. He came home, gratefully and modestly. He never talked much about his sacrifice and the hardships of war. Instead, he worked hard raising six children, running a business, serving as Scout leader, Rotarian, mayor, and State senator. From the strong shoulders of those like him who defended our freedom, all Americans learn about commitment, service, and patriotism. We learn that the burden of service must be borne willingly. We learn that challenges must be met and threats must be confronted. We learn that the mantle of hero must be worn with humility. It is because of the quiet courage of those who serve our country that we take those lessons to heart and resolve to pass them on to the generations to come. On this 70th anniversary of victory in World War II, let us recommit ourselves to the spirit that guided our Nation through its darkest days and that lights our way into the future.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate will be voting on a motion to proceed to a bill that would completely eliminate all Federal funding for Planned Parenthood. While I do not support this legislation, I have received assurances from the majority leader that should the motion to proceed succeed, there will be ample opportunity to offer amendments. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to propose an alternative approach which Senator Kirk and I will offer as a substitute for the bill. Throughout my service in the Senate, I have been a strong proponent of family planning and measures to promote and protect women's health. The fact is that the best way to reduce the number of abortions in this country is to ensure that women have access to family planning services they need to protect against unintended pregnancies. That is why I have long supported title X family planning programs. My support for family planning aside, however, I was sickened when I viewed the recently released videos featuring Planned Parenthood physicians in both their edited and unedited versions. The callousness with which Planned Parenthood employees discuss the sale of fetal tissue is appalling. It deserves our attention. The videos also raise valid questions about the ethics and legality of Planned Parenthood's practices in some of its clinics, albeit a minority of its clinics. As a result, I believe a full investigation is warranted to determine whether Planned Parenthood broke the law prohibiting the sale of fetal tissue. Reviews by State medical boards are also warranted because it appears that some Planned Parenthood doctors may have been putting the procurement of fetal organs ahead of the well-being of their patients. We do, however, need to keep in mind the fact that Planned Parenthood provides important family planning, cancer screening, and basic preventive health care to millions of women across this country. For many women, Planned Parenthood clinics provide the only health care services they receive. The title X Federal family planning funding that goes to Planned Parenthood already cannot be used for abortions, and the Federal Medicaid funding it receives can only be used for abortions in the case of rape, incest, and where the life of the mother is at risk. In other words, the Hyde amendment--which has been on the books for so many years--applies fully to this Federal funding. Some contend that other health care providers such as community health centers could somehow fill the gap in family planning and other women's health services if Federal funding were to be cut off to Planned Parenthood. In my State, the four Planned Parenthood clinics see almost 40 percent of the patients seeking title X family planning services, and they treat virtually all of the patients seeking those services in southern Maine. By way of contrast, the 20 community health sites in Maine that receive title X funding see just 17 percent of the patients seeking those services. If we were to defund Planned Parenthood, other family planning clinics in Maine, including community health centers, would see a 63-percent increase in their patient load. They would be forced to absorb 8,583 more patients if Federal funds to Planned Parenthood were eliminated. Moreover, these other family planning clinics are predominantly in central, western, and the northern parts of my State. None is in the area that is served by Planned Parenthood in southern Maine. I don't see how we can ensure that all of the patients currently served by Planned Parenthood can be absorbed by alternative health care providers. The bill that has been proposed by several of my colleagues would require women to give up the health care provider of their choice, when we don't yet know all of the facts about Planned Parenthood's actions. Therefore, I am joining my colleague from Illinois Senator Kirk in introducing legislation, which we intend to turn into an amendment if we proceed to this bill, that would require the Department of Justice to investigate whether Planned Parenthood or its affiliates have engaged in any illegal activity pertaining to fetal tissue and support a report to Congress on its findings within 90 days. Activities involving fetal tissue have no relationship to Planned Parenthood's primary mission of promoting and protecting women's health. While Planned Parenthood claims that only a very small number of its affiliates engage in the sale of fetal organs and tissue, let's determine the facts. Those organizations that do engage in this reprehensible practice are the ones that have sparked this outrage and rightly so. I believe these are the organizations that should be the focus of our efforts. I know none of the Planned Parenthood clinics in my State engage in the practice of the procurement and sale of fetal tissue. I think we should keep in mind that we can come up with a more tailored and targeted approach that is aimed at those clinics that do engage in this practice. Therefore, our legislation would defund any affiliate or subsidiary of Planned Parenthood Federation of America that received any compensation for engaging in these activities. So the more targeted approach proposed by Senator Kirk and me accomplishes three important goals: First, it would not cause women served by Planned Parenthood clinics that do not engage in these reprehensible fetal tissue sales to lose their health care provider for basic services like family planning and cancer screening. After all, many of us have been critical of ObamaCare because it has forced families in this country to give up the doctor of their choice. Well, that is what this amendment would do. It would require women and other patients to find alternative health care providers, even if their Planned Parenthood clinic has done nothing wrong and is not engaged in the reprehensible sale of fetal tissue. How is that fair? How is that a targeted approach? Second, our legislation would allow Congress to get the facts to determine if those few Planned Parenthood affiliates that do engage in fetal tissue procurement have broken Federal law and violated medical ethics. We need to know the answer to those questions, and we need to know how widespread this practice actually is. Third, our legislation would defund those affiliates, subsidiaries, and clinics that do receive compensation for procuring fetal organs and tissues, thus putting an end to this reprehensible trafficking in fetal tissue. I believe the proposal that Senator Kirk and I offer to our colleagues is a more targeted approach, a fairer approach, an approach that will be based on the facts, and is the best way forward as we deal with this important issue. I encourage my colleagues to join us in support of our more targeted legislation. This is the bill that should we proceed to the underlying legislation, would be offered as a substitute to the bill by Senator Kirk and me.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate will be voting on a motion to proceed to a bill that would completely eliminate all Federal funding for Planned Parenthood. While I do not support this legislation, I have received assurances from the majority leader that should the motion to proceed succeed, there will be ample opportunity to offer amendments. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to propose an alternative approach which Senator Kirk and I will offer as a substitute for the bill. Throughout my service in the Senate, I have been a strong proponent of family planning and measures to promote and protect women's health. The fact is that the best way to reduce the number of abortions in this country is to ensure that women have access to family planning services they need to protect against unintended pregnancies. That is why I have long supported title X family planning programs. My support for family planning aside, however, I was sickened when I viewed the recently released videos featuring Planned Parenthood physicians in both their edited and unedited versions. The callousness with which Planned Parenthood employees discuss the sale of fetal tissue is appalling. It deserves our attention. The videos also raise valid questions about the ethics and legality of Planned Parenthood's practices in some of its clinics, albeit a minority of its clinics. As a result, I believe a full investigation is warranted to determine whether Planned Parenthood broke the law prohibiting the sale of fetal tissue. Reviews by State medical boards are also warranted because it appears that some Planned Parenthood doctors may have been putting the procurement of fetal organs ahead of the well-being of their patients. We do, however, need to keep in mind the fact that Planned Parenthood provides important family planning, cancer screening, and basic preventive health care to millions of women across this country. For many women, Planned Parenthood clinics provide the only health care services they receive. The title X Federal family planning funding that goes to Planned Parenthood already cannot be used for abortions, and the Federal Medicaid funding it receives can only be used for abortions in the case of rape, incest, and where the life of the mother is at risk. In other words, the Hyde amendment--which has been on the books for so many years--applies fully to this Federal funding. Some contend that other health care providers such as community health centers could somehow fill the gap in family planning and other women's health services if Federal funding were to be cut off to Planned Parenthood. In my State, the four Planned Parenthood clinics see almost 40 percent of the patients seeking title X family planning services, and they treat virtually all of the patients seeking those services in southern Maine. By way of contrast, the 20 community health sites in Maine that receive title X funding see just 17 percent of the patients seeking those services. If we were to defund Planned Parenthood, other family planning clinics in Maine, including community health centers, would see a 63-percent increase in their patient load. They would be forced to absorb 8,583 more patients if Federal funds to Planned Parenthood were eliminated. Moreover, these other family planning clinics are predominantly in central, western, and the northern parts of my State. None is in the area that is served by Planned Parenthood in southern Maine. I don't see how we can ensure that all of the patients currently served by Planned Parenthood can be absorbed by alternative health care providers. The bill that has been proposed by several of my colleagues would require women to give up the health care provider of their choice, when we don't yet know all of the facts about Planned Parenthood's actions. Therefore, I am joining my colleague from Illinois Senator Kirk in introducing legislation, which we intend to turn into an amendment if we proceed to this bill, that would require the Department of Justice to investigate whether Planned Parenthood or its affiliates have engaged in any illegal activity pertaining to fetal tissue and support a report to Congress on its findings within 90 days. Activities involving fetal tissue have no relationship to Planned Parenthood's primary mission of promoting and protecting women's health. While Planned Parenthood claims that only a very small number of its affiliates engage in the sale of fetal organs and tissue, let's determine the facts. Those organizations that do engage in this reprehensible practice are the ones that have sparked this outrage and rightly so. I believe these are the organizations that should be the focus of our efforts. I know none of the Planned Parenthood clinics in my State engage in the practice of the procurement and sale of fetal tissue. I think we should keep in mind that we can come up with a more tailored and targeted approach that is aimed at those clinics that do engage in this practice. Therefore, our legislation would defund any affiliate or subsidiary of Planned Parenthood Federation of America that received any compensation for engaging in these activities. So the more targeted approach proposed by Senator Kirk and me accomplishes three important goals: First, it would not cause women served by Planned Parenthood clinics that do not engage in these reprehensible fetal tissue sales to lose their health care provider for basic services like family planning and cancer screening. After all, many of us have been critical of ObamaCare because it has forced families in this country to give up the doctor of their choice. Well, that is what this amendment would do. It would require women and other patients to find alternative health care providers, even if their Planned Parenthood clinic has done nothing wrong and is not engaged in the reprehensible sale of fetal tissue. How is that fair? How is that a targeted approach? Second, our legislation would allow Congress to get the facts to determine if those few Planned Parenthood affiliates that do engage in fetal tissue procurement have broken Federal law and violated medical ethics. We need to know the answer to those questions, and we need to know how widespread this practice actually is. Third, our legislation would defund those affiliates, subsidiaries, and clinics that do receive compensation for procuring fetal organs and tissues, thus putting an end to this reprehensible trafficking in fetal tissue. I believe the proposal that Senator Kirk and I offer to our colleagues is a more targeted approach, a fairer approach, an approach that will be based on the facts, and is the best way forward as we deal with this important issue. I encourage my colleagues to join us in support of our more targeted legislation. This is the bill that should we proceed to the underlying legislation, would be offered as a substitute to the bill by Senator Kirk and me.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am informed that it is in order for me to file the substitute amendment that I just described, and I send that to the desk.

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Delaware for his very eloquent statement. I know how passionate he is about helping people, particularly in Africa. He has extraordinary expertise about that region of the world, about that continent, and has been there many times. I look forward to working with him to make this bill a law. It is bipartisan, and it should bring people together across party lines. I hope we will be able to get it signed into law this year.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am very pleased to be joined by my colleague from Delaware, Senator Chris Coons, in introducing the Reach Every Mother and Child Act of 2015. The purpose of our bill is to improve the health and well-being of women and children in developing countries. Every day approximately 800 women will die from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth. In addition, more than 17,000 children under the age of 5 will die each day of treatable conditions such as prematurity, pneumonia, and diarrhea, with malnutrition being the underlying cause in nearly half those deaths. While progress has been made in improving the health of mothers and their children, it is a tragedy that so many preventable deaths still occur, especially given that there are many effective and established lifesaving maternal and child health protocols and policies. These lifesaving interventions include clean birthing practices, vaccines, nutritional supplements, hand washing with soap, and other basic needs that remain elusive for far too many women and children in developing countries. Our legislation would strengthen the American government's commitment to ending preventable deaths of mothers, newborns, and young children in the developing world. There are simple, proven, cost-effective interventions which we know will work if we can reach the mothers and children who need them to survive. Our bill will also allow us to leverage greater investments from other parties, especially the private sector, partner governments, private foundations, and multinational organizations. According to USAID, a concentrated effort could end preventable maternal and child deaths worldwide by the year 2035. However, U.S. leadership and support of the international community are critical to meeting this goal. The U.S. Agency for International Development--USAID--has set an ambitious interim goal of preventing the deaths of 15 million children and 600,000 women in the next 5 years to ensure steadfast progress toward the ultimate goal. Due in part to American leadership and generosity, many lives have already been saved. Since 1990 the annual number of deaths of children under the age of 5 has been cut in half. Nevertheless, far too many mothers, newborns, and young children under the age of 5 still succumb to disease and malnutrition that could easily be prevented. The deployment of interventions that have proved to be successful must be accelerated. Our bill would require the administration to develop a 10-year strategy to achieve the goal of preventing these deaths by the year 2035. Our bill would charge USAID with meeting that goal. One provision of our bill would establish a maternal and child survival coordinator at USAID who would focus on implementing the 10- year strategy and verifying that the most effective interventions are scaled up in target countries. Our bill would also establish an interagency working group to assist the coordinator in promoting greater collaboration among all the Federal agencies involved in this effort. To promote transparency and greater accountability, our bill requires that detailed reporting be published on the Foreign Assistance Dashboard, where it can be assessed by the public, Congress, and nongovernmental organizations to track the implementation of the strategy and the progress being made. Finally, the United States cannot and should not take on the goal of eradicating these preventable deaths alone. Our bill recognizes this reality and requires the administration to develop a financing framework which would allow the use of U.S. Government dollars to leverage additional commitments from the private sector, nonprofit organizations, partner countries, and multinational organizations. As other investments grow, the need for U.S. Government assistance would decline. At a time when we must make very difficult decisions regarding Federal priorities in our budget, this is an important and responsible provision that ultimately will reduce the reliance on U.S. Government contributions. Improving the health and well-being of mothers and children around the world has far-reaching social and economic benefits as well. An independent group of economists and global health experts from around the world, known as the Lancet Commission, indicated that the return on investment in global health initiatives is very high. In fact, for every $1 invested, there is a return of $9 to $20 in growing the gross domestic product of the country receiving the investment. Other global health initiatives, such as the successful President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, which was started by President George Bush, demonstrate that results-risen interventions can turn the tide for global health challenges such as maternal and child survival. Taking lessons learned from past initiatives, our bill would provide the focus and the tools necessary to accelerate progress toward ending preventable maternal and child deaths. I urge my colleagues to take a close look at the bill we are introducing today and to join Senator Coons and me in supporting this bill to save the lives of mothers and children around the world. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Coons, and I be permitted to proceed as in morning business.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am very pleased to be joined by my colleague from Delaware, Senator Chris Coons, in introducing the Reach Every Mother and Child Act of 2015. The purpose of our bill is to improve the health and well-being of women and children in developing countries. Every day approximately 800 women will die from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth. In addition, more than 17,000 children under the age of 5 will die each day of treatable conditions such as prematurity, pneumonia, and diarrhea, with malnutrition being the underlying cause in nearly half those deaths. While progress has been made in improving the health of mothers and their children, it is a tragedy that so many preventable deaths still occur, especially given that there are many effective and established lifesaving maternal and child health protocols and policies. These lifesaving interventions include clean birthing practices, vaccines, nutritional supplements, hand washing with soap, and other basic needs that remain elusive for far too many women and children in developing countries. Our legislation would strengthen the American government's commitment to ending preventable deaths of mothers, newborns, and young children in the developing world. There are simple, proven, cost-effective interventions which we know will work if we can reach the mothers and children who need them to survive. Our bill will also allow us to leverage greater investments from other parties, especially the private sector, partner governments, private foundations, and multinational organizations. According to USAID, a concentrated effort could end preventable maternal and child deaths worldwide by the year 2035. However, U.S. leadership and support of the international community are critical to meeting this goal. The U.S. Agency for International Development--USAID--has set an ambitious interim goal of preventing the deaths of 15 million children and 600,000 women in the next 5 years to ensure steadfast progress toward the ultimate goal. Due in part to American leadership and generosity, many lives have already been saved. Since 1990 the annual number of deaths of children under the age of 5 has been cut in half. Nevertheless, far too many mothers, newborns, and young children under the age of 5 still succumb to disease and malnutrition that could easily be prevented. The deployment of interventions that have proved to be successful must be accelerated. Our bill would require the administration to develop a 10-year strategy to achieve the goal of preventing these deaths by the year 2035. Our bill would charge USAID with meeting that goal. One provision of our bill would establish a maternal and child survival coordinator at USAID who would focus on implementing the 10- year strategy and verifying that the most effective interventions are scaled up in target countries. Our bill would also establish an interagency working group to assist the coordinator in promoting greater collaboration among all the Federal agencies involved in this effort. To promote transparency and greater accountability, our bill requires that detailed reporting be published on the Foreign Assistance Dashboard, where it can be assessed by the public, Congress, and nongovernmental organizations to track the implementation of the strategy and the progress being made. Finally, the United States cannot and should not take on the goal of eradicating these preventable deaths alone. Our bill recognizes this reality and requires the administration to develop a financing framework which would allow the use of U.S. Government dollars to leverage additional commitments from the private sector, nonprofit organizations, partner countries, and multinational organizations. As other investments grow, the need for U.S. Government assistance would decline. At a time when we must make very difficult decisions regarding Federal priorities in our budget, this is an important and responsible provision that ultimately will reduce the reliance on U.S. Government contributions. Improving the health and well-being of mothers and children around the world has far-reaching social and economic benefits as well. An independent group of economists and global health experts from around the world, known as the Lancet Commission, indicated that the return on investment in global health initiatives is very high. In fact, for every $1 invested, there is a return of $9 to $20 in growing the gross domestic product of the country receiving the investment. Other global health initiatives, such as the successful President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, which was started by President George Bush, demonstrate that results-risen interventions can turn the tide for global health challenges such as maternal and child survival. Taking lessons learned from past initiatives, our bill would provide the focus and the tools necessary to accelerate progress toward ending preventable maternal and child deaths. I urge my colleagues to take a close look at the bill we are introducing today and to join Senator Coons and me in supporting this bill to save the lives of mothers and children around the world. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Delaware for his very eloquent statement. I know how passionate he is about helping people, particularly in Africa. He has extraordinary expertise about that region of the world, about that continent, and has been there many times. I look forward to working with him to make this bill a law. It is bipartisan, and it should bring people together across party lines. I hope we will be able to get it signed into law this year.