Christopher Coons

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to recognize a close friend from Delaware, Fred Sears, a community leader and a passionate advocate for all in our community, a man whose name is synonymous with business leadership and public service in my home State of Delaware and a man I am proud to call my friend. Fred is known statewide for his generosity, his enthusiasm, and his business acumen. For decades, his impact has been felt by elected officials, nonprofit, community leaders, and countless Delawareans of all backgrounds and careers. He is a true leader, an authentic champion of the community, and the embodiment of what service means in Delaware. Fred Sears is a Delawarean through and through. He was born blocks away from his boyhood home at what was then called Wilmington Hospital, and he grew up across the river from Brandywine Zoo. This Delaware native attended Mt. Pleasant Elementary, Aldred I. DuPont Junior High, and Wilmington Friends for high school. Fred went on to earn a business degree from the University of Delaware. He had a great deal of fun, including a truly memorable spring break trip to the Bahamas with Joe Biden, his classmate and friend. After graduating from UD in 1964, Fred began a nearly 40-year career in banking. Fresh out of college, Fred was scheduled to interview for a job with the Bank of Delaware but accidentally walked into Delaware Trust instead. Fortunately, Delaware Trust was also hiring. After starting as a management trainee, he rose to become the institution's first vice president of business development. From there, Fred went on to later work at Wilmington Trust, then Beneficial National Bank, and ultimately Commerce Bank, where he was Delaware market president. While Fred was widely known as a leader in our financial services industry, he found many other ways to serve our community as well. Early in his career, Mayor Tom Maloney asked his friend Fred to take a leave of absence from Delaware Trust to serve as the city's director of finance and then later as director of economic development. Fred not only fulfilled those two roles terrifically, but decided afterward to run for an at-large city council seat in 1976. Fred won and went on to serve two full terms. Many of us in younger generations in politics after Fred's elected service have called on his wisdom, his insight, and his ability to bring people together as we had important decisions to make. Fred served on the transition teams of Wilmington Mayor James Sills, Delaware Gov. Ruth Ann Minner, and co-chaired my transition team after I was elected New Castle county executive in 2004. For many of us, decades of success in finance, business, and politics might be the hallmark of a complete and successful career, but for Fred these experiences were just a few of the ways he fulfilled a lifelong passion for service in our State of Neighbors. Just over 13 years ago, while Fred was at Commerce Bank, our mutual friend Jim Gilliam, Jr., called Fred one day and said to him: I have a job for you. After some convincing, Fred accepted the job. Since then, he has served admirably at the helm of one of the most important organizations in Delaware--the Delaware Community Foundation. The DCF plays an integral role in my home State, helping local nonprofits direct philanthropy to Delaware's most worthy causes and encouraging long-term charitable giving to improve our State. Since Fred began as CEO in 2002, the DCF has tripled its long-term charitable funds. It built its assets to $285 million. Dozens of nonprofits and community funds have flourished under Fred's leadership. He and his team and their astute financial guidance continues to generate the funding that enables them to serve. Fred didn't join the DCF, though, just to raise money and to be important and recognized; rather, he sought to improve the entire philanthropic community and the quality of community life in Delaware. His success in doing so reflects his values and his vision. Fred is a true leader: honest, insightful, thoughtful, creative, positive, and confident. Fred possesses that rare quality, the ability to inspire others. He has used his passion for service to motivate the next generation of great leaders in our State. Take one of Fred's many initiatives called the Next Generation. It is one he is most proud of and justifiably so. Next Gen takes groups of civic-minded young professionals, with limited or no experience in philanthropy, and with just the right amount of guidance and encouragement, helps mold them into nonprofit board leaders. Since 2004, Next Gen's chapters up and down the State have helped direct over $300,000 in grants to community needs all over my home State of Delaware. My good friend Tony Allen, who also calls Fred a mentor and a friend and a brother, tells a story of how Fred helped establish the African American Empowerment Fund. The fund today is known as the Council on Urban Empowerment, and it promotes philanthropy that supports educational, social, and economic empowerment of African-American Delawareans. As Tony notes, Fred didn't just help establish the fund, he wasn't just one of its first donors, he attended every meeting of the group. In 2010, Tony introduced Fred when Fred Sears was set to receive an award for nonprofit leadership. As Tony put it then, while patience is a virtue, impatience is a weapon--and Fred can be appropriately impatient. Fred doesn't demur to what others would call insurmountable tasks or taboo topics of conversation. He takes every opportunity to constructively push the status quo. Tony is absolutely right. Given that legacy of leadership, it is no surprise Fred has been honored by countless organizations for his business and community efforts. He has received the Lifetime Achievement in Philanthropy Award from the Association of Fundraising Professionals. He has been given a Distinguished Service Award by the Wilmington Rotary Club. He has been deemed a Superstar in Business by the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce and was named Citizen of the Year by the Delmarva Council of the Boy Scouts of America. Those awards and merits are certainly a reflection of Fred's values and his many successes, but those of us who have had the privilege to work closely with Fred and to know him know that his commitment to service shines most brightly in the hundreds of interactions he has with Delawareans every day, whether he is offering ideas or advice or saying a quick hello. We know that even though Fred is leaving the Delaware Community Foundation, he will undoubtedly continue to serve the community he loves. In fact, Fred just accepted an appointment from Governor Markell to chair Delaware's Expenditure Review Commission, suggesting Fred has no intention of taking retirement literally. In a testament to Fred's thoughtfulness, leadership, and sense of compassion, just a day after the passing of our beloved friend Beau Biden earlier this year, Fred spoke to the Bidens and offered to help the family establish an organization in Beau's name. That idea became the Beau Biden Foundation for the Protection of Children. Two days after it was launched, they had already raised over $125,000. If this is all there was to Fred's story, it would be a remarkable one, but there is even more to Fred as a businessman, philanthropist, and a person. If you speak to those who have been around him the longest, they will tell you his true passion is his family: his wife JoAnn, his son Graham, his daughter-in-law Kathryn, his son Jason, his daughter-in-law Jen, and his treasured grandchildren, Kylie, Paxton, and Charlie. I have no doubt Fred's retirement means he will be spending a lot more time as Pop Pop to his three treasures, becoming even more of a fixture at their frequent school functions and baseball and soccer games. Fred's friends and family will also tell you how much he adored his mother Marjorie, visiting her daily at Stonegates until her passing, and how much he cares for his father-in-law today. They will tell you that Fred loves dancing, snappy suspenders, and vinyl records. Fred's friend Tom Shopa will tell you about Fred's passion for golf and how for decades he has kept track of all of his golf scores, the number of putts he made, the weather that day--recording every single detail just as his father did. Friends and colleagues will tell you that they hear Fred say thank you dozens of times every day. Today I pause for a moment on the floor of this great institution to say thank you to Fred. Thank you for giving your time and talents, over decades, to more than 40 community nonprofit organizations, for serving on countless boards from Christiana Care to Rodel Foundation, from the Wilmington Housing Partnership to the United Way. Thank you for your decades of service to Wilmington and Delaware, for your lifelong commitment to family, friends, and community. Fred, as our friend Tony Allen puts it, everyone in Delaware is better off because of your efforts. Thank you, Fred Sears, and congratulations on many jobs well done. I eagerly look forward to seeing where your so-called retirement will take you next.

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, 3 short weeks ago, many of us, many of my colleagues enthusiastically welcomed the budget agreement reached between the White House and congressional leaders of both parties. It was a budget agreement that put aside the short-term shutdown politics and gave us the opportunity to finally give American families and businesses the longer term economic certainty they need and deserve. It was a budget agreement that made balanced increases in both defense and nondefense discretionary spending--increases that were fully paid for. It was a budget agreement that was negotiated in good faith by Republican and Democratic leadership and the White House. It was a preview of what we might be able to accomplish if we put the politics of the moment, the partisan politics of the 2016 campaign, and other issues aside and actually focus on getting some things done. Barely 3 weeks later, barely 3 weeks since bipartisan majorities approved the agreement in both letter and spirit, here we are again staring down a potential government shutdown we all thought we had avoided because there was some insistence here--some colleagues who are insisting on poisoning the appropriations bills with policy riders which they know are opposed and which would undermine the ability of the Federal Government to function. Let's be clear. The policy riders we are discussing, the policy riders I am objecting to don't represent a good-faith policy debate. These are predominantly partisan political priorities that Republicans are otherwise unwilling to bring to the floor of this Chamber because they know they aren't popular with the American people. For example, in my view, we shouldn't be using the appropriations process to try to dismantle or sideline the Environmental Protection Agency and put clean air, clean water, and climate action at risk. If the majority chooses to make devesting cuts to Planned Parenthood, which more than 8,000 residents of my home State of Delaware rely on for health care and family planning, I think my colleagues should bring it to the floor in a separate bill so the American people know that is the focus of the legislation. I join my colleagues today to make it clear that we are not going to use the appropriations process to pass narrow ideological riders that would not otherwise have been considered on this floor and have not made it through the appropriate process. As the ranking member of the Appropriations financial services subcommittee, I want to be clear that it is particularly unacceptable to me to use the appropriations process to roll back many of the critical Wall Street reforms put in place over 5 years ago in response to the financial crisis that was devastating to the economy, to families, and to businesses throughout Delaware and the country. If the majority wants to bring a bill to the floor that rolls back some of the key consumer protections put in place in the Dodd-Frank bill, then let's have that debate. Frankly, it is a debate we at times have been engaged in on large- and small-scale issues. The problem for my colleagues is that they don't have enough support in the Senate to pass these changes in a stand-alone bill. That is why they have taken the troubling step of jamming a 200-page bill--an entire banking bill loaded with controversial riders--right into a must-pass, last-minute government funding bill. I ask my colleagues--it is my hope and my expectation that many of my Republican colleagues would say that I give honest and thorough consideration to new policy proposals, even ones I am disinclined to agree with. I am open to discussing ways to improve existing reforms so we don't unfairly burden, for example, small community banks that weren't responsible for the financial crisis. No legislation is perfect, but compromising and improving is what authorizing bills and policymaking bills are all about. But the examples I referenced are a few of many areas that should not be jammed into an appropriations bill at the last minute without being fully and carefully vetted by the authorizing committee. It would be difficult for me today to address all the different policy riders that are in the various pieces of the appropriations bills currently under consideration. They range from education, to health, labor, natural resources, environment, civil rights, justice, housing, immigration, voting rights, telecommunications, to name just a few. Our budgets--how we spend the taxpayers' dollars--are a reflection of our priorities. But there is a substantial difference between using the appropriations process to support a specific program, department, or Federal activity and using it to sneak around the legislative process and to jam new, big changes into last-minute appropriations bills. Instead of manufacturing another crisis here in the days ahead, instead of having to look over the cliff of a government shutdown, let's get back to regular order, fulfill our responsibility to responsibly fund the government, and separately engage in positive discussions about how we can make the policy changes we need to ensure that our economy is competitive, that our country is innovative, and that our society continues to benefit from the work we all do here together. Paul Ryan has barely had time to set up his new office and settle into his new role and we are already back in crisis mode, walking back an agreement that, as I said at the outset, a majority of this Congress supported and a majority of America cheered. I urge my colleagues to put the middle class and the stability and future of our economy ahead of partisan politics. Let's negotiate a clean and honest, a clear omnibus spending bill that is free of poison pill policy riders that only serve to divide this body and to unite special interests who at times work against us. With that, I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to shine a spotlight on apprentices, one of our Nation's oldest forms of education and still one of the smartest investments we can make as a nation. The week we are in the middle of right now--this very week--is National Apprenticeship Week. I am honored to be joined today by Senator Franken, who will also be making remarks in support of the value of apprenticeships. In this body, we often discuss the importance, the value of expanding early childhood education, strengthening our public schools, and making college more affordable. Indeed, these investments are critical, but let's not forget about what I call the other 4-year degree. It is a degree that guarantees you a well-paying job and a career path after graduation. It is a degree that gives you experience that employers demand and teaches you skills that last a lifetime. It is a degree that provides a paycheck even while you are still in school. And it is a degree that leaves you debt-free. But where is the catch? Well, you might have to wake up early every day. You might have to work on nights and weekends. You will definitely have to complete thousands of hours of hands-on on-the-job training and 4, 5, or more years of work in your trade. In many apprenticeship programs, if you miss even a few days of work, that is it, you are done. On-the-job training, years of work experience, and a limited number of absences does not sound like a typical college curriculum, and it is not. It is an apprenticeship. Broadly defined, apprenticeships are programs that train workers in highly skilled occupations by providing instruction and on-the-job training. After apprentices complete their programs, they receive journeyman papers and are set up for a job with the employer, the union, or the association that sponsored the program. These programs are long, challenging, and competitive. An appropriate question at the outset is, Do they work? Well, ask Ed Woodrum, an instructor at the Carpenters Joint Apprenticeship Center in New Castle, DE. Ed tells the story of Scotty. Scotty is a Delawarean who was literally living on the streets, destitute, who was blessed to land an opportunity through the Challenge Program, a not-for-profit rehabilitation and skills organization in Wilmington which I know well and have always supported and have enjoyed seeing the impact of their work, both the materials they introduce and the impacts on the lives of the young men and women they train. The Carpenters have a partnership with the Challenge Program, and through that relationship Scotty began working as an apprentice with the Carpenters. Fast-forward to today, years later, and Scotty is still a journeyman with the Carpenters. He recently got engaged, he owns a car, and he is living in a townhouse in Wilmington. So do apprenticeship programs work? In Scotty's case, it transformed his life. If you want to know if they really work, ask Jim Maravelias with Laborers Local 199, also from Delaware. The laborers apprenticeship program requires 4,000 hours in the field and at least five core classes in heavy construction, although most apprentices take over a dozen classes in that time. Jim has seen his laborers journey men and women go on to leadership and management roles in construction as foremen or shop stewards or business agents. Jim knows how important apprenticeships are not only for the construction industry but for the lives and futures of the Delawareans who are so deeply affected positively by their apprenticeship experience. As Jim puts it, through these apprentices, ``we offer them a career, not just a job.'' So do apprenticeship programs work? Ask Tony Papili, my friend from the Glasgow area who runs the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 74. Fresh out of college with a traditional bachelors's degree, Pip went back to school as an apprentice. Today Pip know from firsthand experience how valuable apprenticeship programs are, which is why Local 74 trains fitters, plumbers, HVAC service technicians, welders, and instrument technicians. Local 74's program is no cakewalk. Once an applicant is accepted, they are committed to 5 years of night classes, on top of the 8,500 hours they will spend in the field learning their trade before becoming a journeyman. Apprenticeship programs are not just difficult, they are competitive too. Take the program at the IBEW 313 in New Castle, DE, of which Doug Drummond is one of the leaders and a trustee. The IBEW's apprenticeship program is the largest in Delaware today with 120 active apprentices. Each year, 313's apprenticeship program has 2,500 applicants competing for just 1 of 24 open spots. That is a 1-percent acceptance rate. The fitters, the electricians, and the carpenters in these programs are just some of the 1,100 Delawareans actively working through apprenticeship programs with lots of different businesses, unions, and organizations. Last year, my home State saw 119 apprentices complete their programs and get their journeyman papers. So far, 109 have gotten their papers this year, and we want to see these numbers continue to steadily rise. Right now, across the entire country, over 440,000 aspiring journeymen are working through apprenticeship programs, knowing that if they put in the time and effort, they will earn an opportunity to unlock a steady, high-paying job. On average, the starting salary for an apprentice is $50,000, which is several thousand dollars more than the average starting salary for a college graduate with a bachelor's degree, and typically there is no debt for an apprentice. The benefits of apprenticeship programs are sustainable. Over the course of their career, American workers who complete an apprenticeship program can expect to earn $300,000 more than their peers who don't go through a comparable program. If that is not the ticket to the middle class, I don't what is. I want to commend today the 150,000 employers across this whole country who host apprentices, who partner with apprenticeship programs. Businesses are not doing it as a public service; they are investing in apprenticeships because they typically get $1.50 in return for every $1 they invest. Tony Papili and the members of Local 74 pay for their own apprenticeship program out of pocket. They take money that would otherwise go to a pay raise or their benefits and put it back into the program. The electricians at Local 313 put in over 1 million hours of work a year, and for every hour they work, they put 55 cents back into their apprenticeship program. These are significant investments. More importantly, they are smart investments that are helping to fill a much needed gap in the American workforce with high-quality, high-paying jobs and by helping train workers for skilled trades and the vital manufacturing jobs of this century. Strengthening America's 21st-century workforce is essential to the competitiveness of our economy in the world today and to the continued revitalization of our manufacturing sector. That is why it is one of the four core pillars of the Manufacturing Jobs for America Initiative, which includes a number of additional proposals to strengthen career development and on-the-job training programs. Last year's reauthorization of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which was a real win for job-training programs across the country, included five different policy ideas, many of them bipartisan, which came from the Manufacturing Jobs for America Initiative. I would like to see this momentum continue by making a sustained commitment to expanding apprenticeship programs. The thousands of hours of on-the-job experience produce journeymen with a keen understanding of the techniques and the tools they need to do their jobs, and it makes them safer, more skilled, and more productive employees. Employers know this too. Electrical contractors in Delaware are hiring journeyman straight out of the IBEW's apprenticeship program because they know they are well trained, well equipped, and ready to work. Same for the pipefitters. Pip said he is training apprentices to be ``smarter and better skilled than the last generation,'' but he adds, ``I don't think people realize what we do to train these young men and women to become journeymen in the field.'' Pip is right. That is why after I get off the 5 o'clock train I am taking home to Wilmington tonight, my first stop will be a trade and apprenticeship open house at Delcastle High School. I urge my colleagues to learn about the apprenticeship programs in your States. Go and visit employers who depend on apprentices and talk to your constituents who have gone through these programs. I know you will be impressed. Too often we define ``education'' too narrowly here. We talk about education as a ticket to the middle class, but we often don't include apprenticeship programs. That has to change. Apprenticeship programs work. Ed Woodrum with the Carpenters sees it as simple math. He describes apprenticeship programs as ``opportunity plus resources plus support which equals changed lives.'' Ed is right. That is why I am so proud to join Senator Franken in cosponsoring Senator Murray's bipartisan resolution honoring the inaugural National Apprenticeship Week this week. I am also proud to join President Obama and Delaware's own Vice President Joe Biden in support of their goal to double the number of apprenticeships in 5 years--a goal all of us should share. I especially want to recognize and thank the Vice President for his effective and long leadership in reviewing our Nation's job-training programs and finding ways to meaningfully improve them. I commend the administration's efforts to expand access to registered apprenticeships to make it easier for apprentices to turn their experience into college credit. Besides apprenticeships, there are very few other Federal programs we know that are estimated to return $27 in economic productivity for every dollar we invest. Budgets are tight today, and we are all looking for smart, cost-effective investments that create jobs and that can help revitalize manufacturing. That is why apprenticeship programs deserve our continued support. Before I yield the floor, I want to thank my colleague Senator Franken for his passionate, engaged, and sustained leadership on making sure that community colleges and apprenticeship programs work for the working men and women of this country and help create new opportunities for manufacturing jobs that are high-skill, high-wage, and high-quality for folks all over this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support my amendment to make sure that this bill strikes the right balance between privacy and security. I respect the very hard work of Senators Burr and Feinstein and the constructive amendment that my senior Senator Tom Carper added to the managers' amendment. I do believe this bill has made significant movement in the right direction. But I remain concerned, and my amendment's purpose is to require that DHS review all cyber threat indicators it receives and to remove personally identifying information by the most efficient means practicable. It would not necessarily-- according to the amendment in the managers' package--be required that DHS scrub, unless multiple agency heads unanimously agree on the scrubbing process. My amendment's purpose is to simply ensure that these privacy scrubs--done at machine speed, done in a responsible way--protect citizen privacy and our security. I don't think we should be forced to choose between those two. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I stand to join in with the voices we have already heard from, including Senator Murphy of Connecticut and Senator Portman of Ohio--bipartisan, of course--who have stood in support of the unanimous consent request of Senator Baldwin, blocked by the opposing party, that we move forward with reauthorizing the Perkins Loan Program. The voice that I think is so often missing from the deliberations in the Senate is the voice we just heard brought forward by Senator Murphy of Connecticut, the voice of our constituents--the constituents who connect with us when we are home in our States; the constituents who reach out to us by letter and by email. I just wanted to add the voices of my constituents from the State of Delaware. Apparently, our colleagues have failed to hear from thousands--even hundreds of thousands--of our home State constituents who rely on Federal Perkins loans. This program is a critical lifeline for students across the country who would be well on their way to a college degree if it weren't for the skyrocketing, unsustainable costs of higher education. I think Congress's failure to reauthorize the Perkins Loan Program is already having a negative impact on students and on households across our country. We can see the real-world impact in our home States if we will but listen to our constituents. Let me give two examples of Delawareans who have recently reached out to me. Frank, an incoming University of Delaware student, was counting on the Perkins Loan Program to help cover a gap in affording the cost of his higher education. Now that those funds are no longer available, now that the Perkins loans have expired, his family is struggling to figure out how they will pay for his education. There is also Taylor, a Delawarean, already a college student, who had signed up for a promising new course of study because of a Perkins loan that would make the additional cost possible. Without this funding moving forward, future students like Taylor will also have to turn to private loans--sometimes less accessible, sometimes less affordable--to fill that gap. Frank and Taylor's stories are just a few examples of many that I have received in my office from constituents or conversations I have had at home in Delaware. When I am with working Delawareans, there is no topic raised more frequently amongst those in my age bracket of how they can afford to send their kids to college. Just the other night, standing around on the sideline of a soccer game, I heard a whole group talking about how can we possibly afford the skyrocketing expenses of higher education. So the question we are here today to address isn't the great big question of how can we make college affordable, it is just a simple question of how can we extend the Perkins Loan Program. I am proud to join with my colleagues in calling for a permanent extension of this program. In my State of Delaware, nearly 2,000 Delawareans last year received Perkins loans from 2013 to 2014. Those are 2,000 of my constituents who had the chance to go to college, invest in their education, improve their lives for the better, and that is in just 1 year of the program. In the 50 years since Perkins was created, the program has awarded nearly $30 billion through 26 million loans across this entire country. Those are big, abstract numbers, but for my colleagues who remain undecided on whether to support the extension, I urge them to think about the Franks, the Taylors, their constituents, and folks from towns and cities, big and small, all across this country. They are not asking for a free education. The average Perkins loan is just $2,000. It is not even a rounding error in the scope of the total Federal budget that we fight over here week in and week out, but that is an amount that one student, one family can singlehandedly determine--for an aspiring teacher or a business owner or an inventor or someone who just wants to advance themselves through education--whether they can continue their steady forward progress. This extension alone is not the Higher Education Act reauthorization many of us have been calling for; it is not the substantial education investment many of us know would be a huge boost to our country, its competitiveness, and our constituents' well-being; it is not a perfect solution to the Delawareans I talk to every day who wonder how they can afford college; it is an important start. So let's come together and act. Even the House of Representatives, of all places, has acted on a bipartisan basis to extend the Perkins Loan Program. We can and should do the same. I thank my colleagues for their work on this critical issue, and I urge this Chamber to come together to approve an extension of the Federal Perkins Loan Program without delay. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Absolutely, Senator Hatch, I do. I think when you talk about an important issue such as trade secret theft, which poses such a great threat to American innovation, economic growth, and competitiveness, it really is past time that we act on this issue. This bill is truly bipartisan. I was the lead sponsor in the last Congress, and you are the lead sponsor in this Congress. Along the way we have worked closely together and undertaken an inclusive and iterative process to make sure we have heard from all stakeholder perspectives so that we have legislation that creates winners only, not winners and losers. Senator Hatch, it has been an honor to work with you on this. You have been a big part of the reason we were able to undertake such a successful and constructive process. I would ask, Senator Hatch, in your view, has this process now produced a bill that is ready to move in the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which we both serve?

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hatch for his leadership on this important issue. As the Senator from Utah has mentioned, trade secrets are the only form of intellectual property not protected from theft under Federal civil law, which is particularly striking when one considers the value of trade secrets to the economy. According to some estimates, they are worth $5 trillion for the U.S. economy, on par with IP protected by patent. The scope of the loss due to theft or misappropriation is huge, somewhere between $160 and $480 billion annually. I submit that there is not a State in the country that has not been affected by this problem, and Delaware is no exception. In the 1960s, DuPont--one of our signature manufacturing chemistry-based companies-- invented Kevlar, a para-aramid fiber with extraordinary strength that is also very lightweight. These properties make Kevlar versatile, but its best known use is in lifesaving body armor worn by our police officers and the brave men and women in the American Armed Forces. It has saved thousands of lives, including more than 3,000 police officers here in the United States whose lives have been saved by Kevlar vests. About 10 years ago, DuPont developed the next generation of Kevlar, which is even lighter and better able to withstand penetrating trauma from a broader range of rifle rounds and IED-generated shrapnel. It represented a real breakthrough in safety, but it cost millions of dollars to develop. Chemically, para-aramid fibers are not that complicated, but the fabrication method, the manufacturing technique, which is what gives them their strength and flexibility, is actually incredibly difficult to develop and implement. So one day about 6 years ago, a rogue employee of DuPont took the know-how behind DuPont's creation of next- generation Kevlar and began to work with a rival manufacturing company in Korea, using DuPont trade secrets. The potential loss to DuPont alone from this one instance of trade secret theft or misappropriation approaches $1 billion. So I ask Senator Hatch, if you were a CEO and your employees were ripping off your trade secrets, your intellectual property, and taking it to another country at the cost of $1 billion a pop, would that affect your willingness to invest the resources in future R&D here in the United States that are needed to make similar lifesaving technological breakthroughs?

Mr. COONS. I thank Senator Hatch for the opportunity to go into more detail about this terrific bipartisan, bicameral Defend Trade Secrets Act. It is actually relatively simple. It creates a Federal private right of action for misappropriation of trade secrets. It uses an existing Federal criminal law, the Economic Espionage Act, to define trade secrets. It draws heavily from the Uniform Trade Secrets Act which has been enacted by many States to define what is misappropriation. Simply put, our bill harmonizes U.S. law. Each State has a different trade secret law, and they vary in a range of different ways. Not all of these differences are major, but they affect in small but real ways the definition of a trade secret, what an owner must do to keep a trade secret a secret, what constitutes misappropriation, and what damages are available. So our Defend Trade Secrets Act creates a single, national baseline or a minimum level of protection and gives trade secret owners access to both a uniform national law and our excellent Federal courts, which provide nationwide service of process and execution of judgments. It is important to note that this bill does not preempt State law because States are free to add further protections on top of what is in this bill. The proposed legislation does one more thing, and trade secret owners tell us this is a critical component of the law not available in States. It creates an ex parte seizure ability. Trade secrets are different from other forms of intellectual property because they are protected under the law only if they remain a secret. Once the public learns of a trade secret, even if it does so wrongfully, the trade secret loses its legal protection. So this bill provides a limited right of action for the owner of a trade secret to go to court ex parte and get it back before the misappropriator, the thief of the trade secret, has a chance to share it with a competitor or the world, thus exposing it. This is a commonsense idea to help address a very serious problem, but when talking about Federal private rights of action and ex parte injunctive relief, we had to be very careful to avoid any unintended consequences. So, Senator Hatch, would you address how you took concerns about unintended consequences into account as we worked together to draft this bill?

Mr. COONS. Yes, it is, I say to Senator Hatch. After all that work together, all that consultation, when we introduced this bill last Congress, we wanted to make sure the ex parte provision couldn't be used for abuse, so we required that the party seeking ex parte review must make a rigorous showing that they owned the trade secret, that the trade secret had been stolen, and that third parties would not be harmed if an ex parte order were granted. We also included damages for wrongful seizure, including attorneys' fees. And with that whole combination of important measures to ensure that the ex parte seizure capabilities under the statute are not misused, I think we achieved real consensus at that time. Isn't that right, Senator Hatch?

Mr. COONS. Yes, I would, thanks in no small part to you, I say to Senator Hatch, and to Senator Flake, who insisted both last Congress and this Congress that we put everything on the table and invite all stakeholders to come forward and share their concerns. We worked together, we did that, and we found an incredible consensus. In addition to talking with industry, we have gone to think tanks and academic institutions about this bill. Some people with whom we have spoken raised concerns that our bill, as previously drafted, could harm employee mobility. So, Senator Hatch, I don't want to restrict employee mobility, and I don't think you want to either; is that right?

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dan Podair, a legal fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

Mr. COONS

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

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, before I proceed to the consideration of a colloquy with my colleague from Wisconsin, I just wanted to take a moment. My colleague from Wisconsin brought to my attention that there are news reports that have just come out of a tragic mass shooting at a community college in Oregon. I believe it is called Umpqua Community College. I just wanted to ask all who might be watching or are with us in the Chamber to keep in your thoughts and prayers the families of the victims, which number somewhere around 10, and of the wounded, somewhere around 20, and to also keep the first responders and students and faculty and our colleagues who represent the State of Oregon and all who have been affected by this tragedy in Oregon in your thoughts and prayers. It is just now being reported. I appreciate the forbearance of my colleague and the Chair and the other Members present for my taking a moment just to bring that to everyone's attention. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might enter into a colloquy with my colleague from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Baldwin, for her hard work on manufacturing and for her deep and broad experience in what it takes for manufacturing to continue to grow in the State of Wisconsin, in the State of Delaware, and across our country. Let me pick up on a theme through both of our previous comments, which is that skills are a key challenge for us. If we are going to take advantage of the enormous opportunities, the hundreds of thousands of unfilled jobs in this sector, one of the key issues is a mismatch in skills. One other theme across both of our comments was how we can't work together across the aisle. Bad things happen, such as the Export-Import Bank going unauthorized, but when we can team up and work together, we can make remarkable progress. Let me briefly reference two of the bills we have worked on in the past which enjoy strong bipartisan support and which I hope can move forward in this Congress. One is the Manufacturing Skills Act, and the lead sponsor is Senator Ayotte of New Hampshire. It would help cities and States to modernize their job-training programs and equip workers with the skills they need. Another bill, the Manufacturing Universities Act of 2015, of which Senator Lindsey Graham is the lead cosponsor, would designate 25 manufacturing universities across the country and invest up to $5 million per year, per school to redesign their engineering programs so they are focused on the needs of modern manufacturing. Many of the other ideas that have been brought to the floor by colleagues also focus on skills, and let me briefly reference two. Senator Merkley has drafted and introduced the BUILD Career and Technical Education Act to focus on some of the issues the Senator from Wisconsin was just speaking to--finding innovative ways to improve CTE education in our K-12 system to draw more talented students into the pipeline for these unfilled but lucrative manufacturing careers. Last but certainly not least, Senator Franken of Minnesota has tirelessly worked to promote greater cooperation between community colleges and their local manufacturing partners. I know in a moment he will share with us his vision for how we can improve skills training in manufacturing. Let me close by simply saying that tomorrow, as we celebrate National Manufacturing Day, I will be honored to welcome U.S. Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker to Delaware to look at and visit several of the manufacturers I mentioned--Accudyne and M. Davis--and to talk about how, working together at the State and the Federal level, private sector and public sector, we can create and maintain strong 21st- century manufacturing jobs. We see the revitalization that is going on in American manufacturing, and we see the opportunity we have in front of us and we want to seize it. By enacting bipartisan bills that tackle the challenges I have discussed, we hope to have the opportunity to make the very difference our Nation requires. With that, I yield the floor to the Senator from Minnesota for his remarks on National Manufacturing Day.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in marking National Manufacturing Day, which will be celebrated across the country tomorrow. The simple fact is that manufacturing has been and continues to be a vital part of our economy. But coming from the State of Delaware, I know firsthand the challenges manufacturing has faced in the 20th century and the challenges it continues to face today. Almost every day I ride the Amtrak train from Wilmington, DE, to Washington, DC, and as I look out the window as we pass through the city of Newark, DE, I see the site of the old Chrysler assembly plant. Each time I see it, I think about what it was like going to the plant gates and visiting with friends and family and the thousands of men and women who worked shifts for decades at this tremendous automobile manufacturing plant that made the Durango and, for decades before that, other models. Every time I see that site, which has now been leveled and is now being rebuilt, I am reminded that for decades there were men and women there who had one thing in common--good-paying, steady, high-quality manufacturing jobs. Chrysler, General Motors, and other manufacturers, which used to be at the center of my State's economy, each employing thousands of Delawareans, are today gone, and many families and many of our communities still feel the impact of those losses. But for the thousands of Delawareans who grew up with friends and family working every day at GM, Chrysler, the steel mill, the Avon plant or other now- gone manufacturing sites across our State, it is easy to be skeptical about the prospects for a revival of American manufacturing. I am here today with my colleague from the State of Wisconsin to tell our fellow Americans that despite those harsh realities, there are real reasons for hope. Manufacturing still supports 25,000 jobs in my State. Since 2010, our economy, the growing American manufacturing sector, has created 870,000 new jobs. As production costs have gone up in our competitors--countries such as China--and as the key input cost of energy has steadily come down, businesses have seen over the last decade that more reliable financial, legal, and engineering structures and resources, and cheaper energy here in the United States have made American manufacturing more competitive than it has been in decades. Just as important as the number of jobs created in the manufacturing sector is the quality and compensation for those jobs. American manufacturing is also responsible today for three-quarters of all private sector research and development, just illustrating once again how innovative this sector has always been. To stay ahead and to thrive in the modern-world economy, manufacturing has to be on the cutting edge. While American manufacturing is resurgent today, there is much more we can do together to build on this momentum. That is why Senator Baldwin and I are leading a campaign called Manufacturing Jobs for America, to focus on four key areas where we together can strengthen American manufacturing--first by investing in America's workforce; second, by expanding access to capital; third, by opening up markets abroad; and fourth, by creating the conditions necessary for growth. In the last Congress, the Manufacturing Jobs for America Initiative brought together 27 Senators to introduce 36 different manufacturing bills, half of which were bipartisan. Provisions from eight of those bills are now law, including our bill to create a national manufacturing strategy that will, for the first time, lay out a proactive, comprehensive long-term policy for investing and strengthening American manufacturing, something that all of our major competitors have long had. The administration has also come forward with strong ideas and initiatives from their investment in nine new manufacturing hubs, innovation institutes around the country, to new Department of Labor jobs skills programs that would strengthen apprenticeships and job training. It is our hope that Manufacturing Jobs for America can continue to play an important role in investing and scaling up these ideas so they have national impact. We are optimistic that we can continue together to build on the progress we made and pass more of these bills in this Congress. Already, for example, the Career Ready Act has passed the Senate and is waiting to be taken up by the House. This bill would help prepare students for advanced manufacturing jobs by strengthening school counseling programs and educator professional development. Another important bill is the Innovators Job Creation Act, which recently passed the Senate Finance Committee, and if passed into law, would help small manufacturers to invest in and scale up their R&D. Still, as we know all too well, passing legislation is never easy, and it could take months or even years to get these commonsense bipartisan bills passed into law. But there is something Congress can do right now to help support our manufacturing sector. Just last week I stood on this floor and urged my colleagues to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank that was allowed to expire earlier this year. The Ex-Im Bank has helped American companies, many of them manufacturers, to sell their goods around the world for more than 80 years, supporting 150,000 American jobs in just this past year. Each day we fail to reauthorize this critical tool for American manufacturers who are exporters, we put more and more American jobs at risk. Manufacturers, such as Boeing and GE, are already moving good American jobs overseas. GE's announcement that it is moving 350 jobs from Wisconsin to Canada is a stark example of this new reality, and the reason is simple. GE, and similar companies, can't risk staying in a country that doesn't have a reliable export credit agency, a tool all of our competitors provide, often with much more robust resources than Ex-Im used to enjoy. Without the backing of such an agency, other countries won't even consider accepting project bids from GE, Boeing or others. I think that is unacceptable, and it should be unacceptable to all of our colleagues. It is time for Congress to recognize what is at stake for our economy, our manufacturing sector, and American workers if we continue to fail to step up and reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank. Finally, I wish to briefly address a broader issue we face with American manufacturing, and that is its reputation and its public relations image. While the changing face of manufacturing is a great thing, it is also a challenge because too often perceptions about manufacturing are stuck in the past. I have personally heard from parents and guidance counselors who tell me that they are reluctant to encourage their kids and their best students to pursue a career in manufacturing. Why? Because to them, folks from an older generation, manufacturing brings to mind dirty factory floors, dangerous work environments, and lower wages. Understandably, they don't see these as the viable, promising career paths that today's advanced manufacturing truly offers. Their worries don't match up with today's reality, where manufacturing jobs require higher skills than ever before, from hard math and engineering skills to the ability to think critically and work as part of a team. Most modern manufacturing jobs require a 2-year college degree, and many require more. In my 5 years as a Senator, I have had the opportunity to visit dozens of manufacturers up and down my State of Delaware that are creating new high-quality, high-paying jobs, and I am certain my colleague from Wisconsin has had the same insight. In Delaware, one of those manufacturers is M. Davis, a woman-run, family owned manufacturer that has been around for over 140 years. They produce sophisticated equipment for industrial companies, such as Philips 66, Air Liquide, and DuPont. Jobs at that manufacturing plant require high-skilled workers. Another advanced manufacturer in my State is Accudyne, which is far more than a typical company. They produce products, not for average consumers, but they solve highly complex engineering and design problems for some of the world's most prominent firms, from Boeing to Airbus to Rolls Royce. Both of these companies understand that the only way to remain successful is to develop a highly skilled workforce by encouraging and supporting professional development and recruiting graduates from schools such as Delaware Technical Community College and the University of Delaware. Unfortunately, it is not just public perception that hasn't kept up with manufacturing's transformation. Job training programs have also lagged behind in preparing people with the skills they need to succeed in the advanced manufacturing jobs of today. While I have more I would like to say on that topic, at this moment I would like to invite my colleague from the State of Wisconsin to add her views and comments to this important conversation about manufacturing in America.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that today I rise to honor a friend and a true force for good in my home State of Delaware who recently passed away but whose impact will be felt for many years to come. He was, first and foremost, a loving husband, father, and grandfather. He was married to his wife Louise for 68 years and had always been the rock of his family. He was incredibly proud of the many accomplishments of his son Jim, Jr., and his daughter Dr. Patrice Gilliam-Johnson, after instilling in them his own passion of service to others. This man stood as a great leader in the First State. He was a veteran, a trailblazer, a mentor, and to so many of us a trusted adviser and friend. It was Mr. James H. Gilliam, Sr.--or Mr. G., as he was known to so many of us--who left our world early Wednesday morning on September 10, but before he left us, he made a profound impact on thousands of Delawareans from every walk of life, as a teacher, as a mentor, and a leader. His 95 years on this Earth marked a life well lived. Whether he was helping communities to heal and to grow together or helping to establish local and national organizations committed to social justice and equity, advising Governors, Members of Congress or even the Vice President, he never wasted an opportunity to make the case for our community. Jim Gilliam, though, actually didn't grow up in Delaware. He was originally raised in Baltimore and earned a bachelor's degree in sociology from Morgan State and a master's degree in social work from Howard University. From 1944 to 1948, he served his country with honor as a member of the Army's 92nd Infantry Division, the famed Buffalo Soldiers, where he became a decorated soldier during the Second World War and beyond. He was actually recalled to duty again as a captain during the Korean war, and for all his service, he received many awards, including two Bronze Star Medals and the Combat Infantryman Badge. I will never forget the opportunity I had last year when I was able to help him retrieve a number of his missing or, in several cases, never awarded medals, and to reissue them to him in a public ceremony. Hundreds of Delawareans from across our community came together at that event--hundreds whose lives he touched, and I don't think there was a dry eye in the house. Jim Gilliam didn't come to Wilmington for good until 1965, when he was hired as director of neighborhood and housing services for the Greater Wilmington Development Council. Shortly after, in 1968, he was one of the few trusted to walk the Wilmington streets promoting reconciliation during the riots in our city and the National Guard occupation that lasted too long after the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, confirmation and expiration are issues before us today. As we have heard from the Member from New Hampshire, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which we both serve, months ago considered the nomination of Gayle Smith to be the next Administrator of USAID. Today, 60 million people around the world are displaced, either within their countries or as refugees spreading throughout the world. It is the single greatest refugee crisis since the end of the Second World War. Gayle Smith came before our committee and received commendations and plaudits from Republicans and Democrats for her long experience as a journalist, as a leader in humanitarian agencies, as a member of the National Security Council, as a cofounder of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network, and as a seasoned and senior leader who can help bring strong leadership to USAID at this difficult and important time. Four months later, she has yet to be confirmed by this body. We have broad bipartisan support for this nominee yet fail to move her forward due to a hold by one Member. I think this points to a longer challenge that this body faces because you also heard from the Senator from New Hampshire of an attempt to move forward the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which yesterday expired. Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program and Child Advocacy Centers Mr. President, I cannot yield without commenting on how hard I worked in the previous Congress to get reauthorized two critical programs, a bulletproof vest partnership program that for years provided tens of millions of dollars to State and local law enforcement for lifesaving bulletproof vests, and a reauthorization effort I led for years--both of these with bipartisan support--to restore authorization to child advocacy centers--centers that critically support families who have been harmed by child abuse and allow local law enforcement to pursue effective prosecutions. It is unconscionable that this body yesterday, September 30, allowed the Land and Water Conservation Fund to expire, allowed a whole range of child nutrition and school lunch authorizing programs to expire, and allowed the James Zadroga 9/11 first responders act to expire. One of the very first bills I cosponsored and was proud to support as a new Senator 5 years ago was the James Zadroga 9/11 first responders act, which provides support for those who raced to the site of the 9/11 catastrophe, risked their lives, and today suffer lasting health effects from it. The idea that this body allowed that funding to expire yesterday and that many of the folks who are the beneficiaries of that fund now face the extinction of their medical support is unacceptable to me. So before I yield the floor, I simply wanted to commend my colleague for raising the issue of Gayle Smith's nomination at this unique time of global humanitarian challenges. USAID cannot effectively do its job without a confirmed leader. I remind everybody in this body that when we fail to work together, when bills expire, it has real consequences, not just for humanitarian issues overseas but for our own first responders who we are pledged to support. I say it is a shame on this body that we allowed the 9/11 James Zadroga first responders act to expire, that we allowed the authorizing statutes for the summer lunch and school lunch programs to expire, and that we have allowed the Land and Water Conservation Fund to expire. It is my hope that we will begin to work together in this place and to stop allowing nominations to rest for months and to stop allowing the expiration of valuable statutes that underlie our security at home and abroad. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I wish to address the issue of the Export- Import Bank reauthorization, if I might, for a few moments. My colleague, the Senator from the State of Maine, has just spoken to it, and I expect my colleague from the State of North Dakota will also follow along the same lines. I wish to join with my colleagues here today in standing up for American manufacturing and in standing up for American businesses that rely on the Export-Import Bank for the critical financing they need to export their products to the markets of the world. Many of us have said the same thing on this floor over the weeks or months since its authorization expired. It is striking to me that because of the views of a few Members of the House and Senate, this valuable tool which has helped American companies sell their goods around the world for more than 80 years has been allowed to expire. As we just heard from the Senator from Maine, the Export-Import Bank actually operates at no cost to the taxpayer, and it is something that has helped American businesses sell almost $30 billion in goods and supported more than 150,000 American jobs last year alone. So I really think the opposition to the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank is badly misguided. It is my hope that we will find some bipartisan path toward the restoration of this critical tool. In my first 4 years in the Senate, I was the chair of the Africa subcommittee on the Foreign Relations Committee, and I took advantage of that opportunity to learn a great deal more about this vast continent with 54 countries and the opportunities it provides for American companies to sell their exported products to their growing markets. Most folks think of the Export-Import Bank as principally providing financing for a few very large companies--companies such as General Electric and Boeing--and it does provide essential financing for their export sales, but those big companies also have enormous supplier chains that employ folks all over the country. I could focus today on the important sales that Boeing and GE have made to Africa and its growing market, but I wish to focus on a very small company with an important story that I think helps illuminate why Ex-Im financing matters. This little company is called Acrow Bridge. Although it is headquartered in New Jersey, it has a manufacturing plant right near Lewisburg, PA. That plant rolls out steel bridges. It is in Milton, PA. It has been making bridges from the same model Patton's troops used as they rolled across France and Germany during the Second World War, modular bridges that are easy to install in remote places without a whole lot of infrastructure support. Why does that matter? Because they recently successfully competed for big contracts to sell hundreds of bridges to areas in Africa, including countries like Cameroon or Zambia that badly need infrastructure. Who are their competitors? Comparable companies from China and from Europe that are also seeking to sell into these growing markets. Why do I care? I am from Delaware. I care about manufacturing all over this country, but this Acrow Bridge company ships their bridges from Pennsylvania to Delaware, where, in New Castle, the Voigt & Schweitzer hot dip galvanizing company takes each bridge and dips it in zinc and galvanizes it before it is put on a ship and sent off to places all over the world. Voigt & Schweitzer doesn't employ thousands of people, but it employs dozens of people. Acrow Bridge in Milton, PA, doesn't employ thousands of people, but it employs dozens of people. Manufacturing across our country critically depends on access to export markets. I recently had a chance to meet up with the Acrow Bridge export sales specialist at a conference in Gabon in Africa. He was alarmed that in the absence of Ex-Im financing, his key competitors are much more likely to succeed in the next contract and the next contract and the next contract. We folks are just unilaterally disarming here in the fight to access the growing markets of the world, and I can't for the life of me fathom why we have done this. As my colleague from Maine said, if there are issues with the Ex-Im Bank, put them on the floor, put them on the table, and let's address them. In my experience, when the Bank makes a loan to American businesses, it is not replacing private capital that would otherwise have been making that loan. Most often, it supplements private capital or makes a private bank more inclined to put up its own. And more often than not, Ex-Im serves as the lender of last resort, especially when you are financing sales into risky, growing markets in countries like Cameroon, Zambia, or elsewhere in Africa. I don't think the Export-Import Bank is doing something best left to the private sector; I think it picks up where the private sector leaves off and it provides key financing to level the global playing field and make it possible for our manufacturers, for our small businesses to compete around the world. Frankly, most of our competitors have much more robust financing available for their export sales than the Export-Import Bank provides. I just can't fathom why we would allow American businesses to be put at such a key competitive disadvantage. It is my real hope that before it is too late, we will take up and reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. There were disappointing and concerning announcements just in recent weeks by General Electric and by Boeing that they are already moving employment overseas or they are seriously considering it. GE just announced they are moving a turboprop engine development center to Europe because they can't remain competitive in the absence of Ex-Im financing. That is going to cause the loss of 500 jobs in a community here in America. And Boeing has made even more concerning announcements. I think it is critical that we in Congress come together and show that we care about American jobs and that we care about fighting for American manufacturers because we recognize that 95 percent of the opportunity in the world is in the growing sectors that are represented by the export markets of the world. It is my hope that we can find a way through this, that the unwillingness to reopen the Bank, which is sending the wrong message to the world markets, is something we can come together and address. At a time when our economy is gaining steam and Americans are going back to work, we need to continue to help American companies to compete around the world, not make it harder. So I think we should stop playing politics with American jobs, stop pursuing an ideological agenda, and reauthorize the Export-Import Bank immediately. Thank you. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague from the great State of Virginia and a number of other colleagues who have dedicated a great deal of time to reflecting and to consulting together about what is the wisest and best path forward. The Senator from Maryland who is ably leading the floor debate and is the minority ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee and my colleague, and the Senator from Colorado, who will speak following me, are among many whom I have closely consulted. As was just remarked upon on the floor by the talented Senator from Virginia, this is a deal with flaws and with challenges that we must work together to address. I am hopeful and eager to find that path with the administration and with my colleagues to ensure that we do everything we can to deploy the full measure of America's military and economic capabilities to ensure the security of Israel and to ensure that this agreement--now that it is clear it will move forward--is fully, thoughtfully, and thoroughly implemented. I want to rise briefly to address what I understand is now a scheduled cloture vote at 3:45 today. On critical and historic issues such as the nuclear agreement with Iran, I think the American people deserve to know how their individual Members of Congress--whether in the Senate or the House--will vote as their representatives. Over the years that I have served here, there have been far too many issues that were decided by a procedural vote--by a cloture vote--rather than by getting to the substance of the underlying issue. I think the American people deserve better than to have a critical issue such as this complex deal ultimately resolved with a procedural vote. As we proceed to that vote later today, I wanted to let those who are watching know that is not the end of debate on this issue. If the cloture vote fails, as I believe it will, it means we will simply continue the debate and may take up another vote or several votes next week. This morning leader Reid made a fair offer to Senator McConnell, the majority leader, on this floor to have a single up-or-down vote by a 60-vote margin, to clearly show the American people how every Member of this Chamber feels about this deal--to allow us to vote on the substance. It is my hope that the majority leader will reconsider and that either today or next week we will have the opportunity to have that up-or-down vote and to let the American people know exactly where each of us stands and then get to the demanding and difficult work of building a bipartisan coalition to deal with the challenges of this deal, to insist on effective deterrence of Iran's nuclear ambitions and to find a path together to joining the international community that is joined in the implementation of this deal. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss one of the greatest threats we face today in America, a great threat to our vital ally Israel and to global security--the nuclear weapons ambitions of Iran and the options that remain before us for blocking those ambitions. On July 14, after years of negotiations between the United States, our international partners, and Iran, the administration reached a comprehensive agreement to freeze and roll back aspects of Iran's nuclear program in exchange for relief from the sanctions that have crippled Iran's economy. Our key partners in imposing and enforcing the sanctions that drove Iran to the negotiating table--the UK, Germany, France, the EU, China, and Russia--also joined in negotiating and ultimately ratifying this deal. Thanks to bipartisan legislation that passed this Chamber nearly unanimously, Congress is now fulfilling its duty to review this deal under the authority of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. As a public servant and Member of this body, I am grateful for the opportunity to join my colleagues to thoughtfully debate this vital and important issue. As a body, we owe that to the American people. As a Senator from Delaware, I owe that to Delawareans--to participate in a vigorous debate on an issue with profound and far-reaching consequences, not just for our Nation but for the whole global community. In preparation for this vote, I have dedicated myself to studying and understanding the content and consequences of the deal, and I am grateful to the bipartisan leadership of Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Cardin in convening more than a dozen hearings of the Foreign Relations Committee, as well as classified briefings; to the dozens of experts who came before us, both against and in favor of the deal, to provide us with analysis and insight; and to the thousands of Delawareans who have reached out to me by phone, by email, by text, and in person to express their strongly held views both against and for this agreement. As are many of my fellow Delawareans and Americans, I am deeply suspicious of Iran, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. I am also deeply suspicious of Iran's intentions for its nuclear program, given its long record of cheating on past deals and of consistently expressing virulently anti-American, anti-Semitic, and anti-Israel views. Iran is a dangerous regime that is today dangerously close to having enough fissile material to build a nuclear bomb. A nuclear-armed Iran would be a profound threat to our Nation's security and our interests around the world, as well as the security of our vital ally, Israel, and all of our partners in the Middle East. In response to these undeniable realities, we have successfully built a global coalition over the past decade united in their determination to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They, too, see clearly the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. Bipartisan actions by Congress and the administration to enact and enforce sanctions have brought us to this point where our major European allies, as well as Russia and China--countries with which we often disagree--have all signed off on a comprehensive agreement to roll back and restrain Iran's nuclear program. The challenge we are discussing on the floor today is whether to move ahead with our partners in this deal or to turn aside from it and attempt to seek a stronger deal. From the day it was announced, this agreement has been sharply criticized by many in Congress and by the leaders of our vital ally Israel. After a close reading of this lengthy and complex agreement, I, too, have deep and persistent concerns about this deal. If Iran simply complies with the plain language of this deal, it will first gain tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief that it will likely use to strengthen its support for terrorism and its proxies and rogue regimes and that will make it more resilient to future sanctions. Most importantly, the deal leaves in place key nuclear facilities and programs that over 10 to 15 years or more will allow Iran to develop a large-scale uranium enrichment capability that could be used to quickly make material for nuclear weapons if it decides to violate this agreement and the nonproliferation treaty. To look at those realities and not recognize them as significant challenges or flaws would be to miss the core content of this deal. On the other hand, the agreement achieves several critical goals that could not be easily achieved by any other means, that freeze or roll back Iran's nuclear ambitions. To get any sanctions relief, Iran must give up 97 percent of its existing stockpile of 12 tons of enriched uranium. It must disable two-thirds of their 19,000 centrifuges and permanently restructure its heavy water reactor at Arak so it can no longer produce weapons-grade plutonium. I have heard no questions or challenges to the technical aspects of these significant accomplishments in the deal. Most importantly, in my mind, Iran has agreed to thorough, intrusive, around-the-clock inspections of all of its declared and known nuclear sites, its uranium mines, uranium mills, centrifuge production, and uranium enrichment facilities for 15 years and more. Iran pledges under this agreement to abandon all efforts to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon, and the U.N. has ratified a unique arrangement under which the United States alone is able to reimpose U.N. sanctions on Iran for cheating on this deal at any point. Finally, our own military and intelligence community confirm that the option of military action against Iran remains available at all times and will only be strengthened by the significant additional intelligence we will likely gain through regular inspections of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. While many Americans, including thousands in my home State, have expressed strong opinions about this agreement, and while I, too, agree with many criticisms of this deal, none of us knows with certainty what will happen if instead Congress rejects this agreement. Will the strength of the U.S. banking system and our unilateral sanctions genuinely be strong enough to force our key allies and Iran back to the negotiating table? Is it possible to negotiate a stronger deal than this or will the nations that have dedicated years, along with us, to these negotiations now abandon sanctions and proceed without us to implement the deal with Iran, simply isolating us rather than Iran? Meetings and discussions I have held with ambassadors of our key partners, as well as with leaders in financial policy and foreign policy, have ultimately persuaded me we are unlikely to be able to reimpose effective multilateral sanctions and renegotiate our way to a better deal if we reject this one. Don't just take my word for it. Former Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson and former Chairman of the Fed Board Paul Volcker have reached the same conclusion publicly and in a whole series of private conversations have reinforced my conclusion. Last week I delivered an address at the University of Delaware in my home State to explain in more detail why I have ultimately decided to support this deal. Today I am here to speak to my colleagues in the Senate because I believe strongly this floor must be a place of vigorous, spirited, and honest debate. Though nearly every one of my colleagues--in fact, probably as of today all of my colleagues--have made their arguments, announced their positions and decisions, and discussed their conclusions, as I have in my home State and as many others have with the media, I still believe we cannot ignore this floor as an important place for debate and discussion. I think it is particularly important on an issue that has always in the past garnered such strong and bipartisan support as our Nation's enduring support for Israel. So let me be clear about my position and where I stand. I will support this agreement and vote against measures to disapprove it in this Congress. I will support this agreement because it puts us on a known path of limiting Iran's nuclear program for 15 years with the full support of the international community. The alternative, I fear, is a scenario of uncertainty and isolation. Finally, I will support this agreement despite its significant flaws because it is the better strategy for the United States to lead a coalesced global community in containing the spread of nuclear weapons. I support this deal aware of its flaws, and I am committed to working tirelessly with my colleagues to overcome the limitations of the agreement, to ensure the security of Israel, and to contain and deter Iran's ambitions. That is why I did not make my final decision to support this deal until I secured, to me, valuable additional commitments from the administration--including a letter from the President offering specific reassurances across seven different areas, including that our allies and other members of the P5+1 will stick by us in strictly enforcing this deal, even as their economic engagements with Iran grow, and that we will continue to aggressively and by all means necessary address Iran's support for terrorism and its proxies, and that our commitment to Israel's security will remain unshakeable. Moving forward, I hope to work with colleagues to focus on strengthening Israel's conventional military deterrent against Iran, vigorously interdicting and countering Iranian support for terrorism and its proxies, strengthening the nonproliferation treaty, so that in 15 years Iran leaves one cage--the JCPOA--and enters another--the constraints of an appropriately strengthened and bolstered NPT, and developing a clear and thorough plan with our European allies for active enforcement to enact a policy of zero tolerance of Iranian cheating on the agreement. There are few votes in the Senate that will have as much consequence to the security of our Nation and Israel's as this one. I am voting to support this agreement not because I think it is perfect or because I believe it is a perfect mechanism to end nuclear proliferation. I am voting for it because I believe it is our most credible opportunity in our current situation to lead a global community in containing a profound nuclear threat while preserving America's ability in the future to use economic power and military might to successfully dismantle Iran's nuclear program should diplomacy fail. My support for this agreement also represents a statement about U.S. leadership of an international system based on institutions that we developed following the Second World War to help bring about a rules- based international system of mutual security. The United Nations and the IAEA were established following the great conflict of the Second World War to help prevent the spread and threat of nuclear war. We, the United States, helped lead the establishment of these institutions just as we led the international community to reach this deal to limit Iran's nuclear program. While neither our current international system nor this deal with Iran is perfect, they represent the collective will of our international partners and a vision for America's place in the world for which I will fight. While we reserve the right to use force, if necessary, to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, we should uphold the international system that we helped create, and to do so we should support this deal. The legitimacy of this order is yet another reason we must ensure adequate oversight and verification of this nuclear deal because its failure will be a blow to the international system which gave it birth. In closing, Scripture offers us many stories, from Genesis to Deuteronomy to Isaiah and the gospels, in which we are encouraged to pursue diplomacy before resorting to conflict. My support of this agreement in no small part is an attempt to heed that advice. We cannot trust Iran. But this deal, based on distrust, verification, deterrence, and strong multilateral diplomacy, ultimately, I have concluded, offers us our best opportunity to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. I support this deal with my eyes wide open, aware of its flaws as well as its potential, and I will remain committed to work with my colleagues to minimize the negative consequences and ensure we reap the maximum benefits of this agreement. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Maine on the floor this afternoon to talk about what we can do to save the lives of newborn children and their mothers in some of the poorest communities around our globe. I wish to start by thanking Senator Collins for her impressive leadership and for the energy she has brought to this work. I share her belief that our bipartisan bill, which is called the Reach Every Mother and Child Act or just the REACH Act, will go a long way toward eliminating preventable maternal and child deaths and will do so in an impressively targeted and cost-effective way. The preventable death of newborns, their mothers, and children under 5 is a genuine tragedy that remains a widespread reality in far too many places around our world today. As Senator Collins said, 17,000 children a day lose their lives to preventable diseases such as pneumonia, diarrhea, and malaria--illnesses we know how to not just treat but prevent--and worldwide, 3 million children will lose their lives to malnutrition this year. Nearly 3 million newborns die every year, 1 million of whom don't live to their second day, and 300,000 women don't get to experience the joy of raising their child as either pregnancy or birth takes their lives. I doubt it would come to any surprise to those in this Chamber today that it is the families who are living in the poorest communities in the developing world who are most at risk. So what brings Senator Collins and me to the floor today is the fact that there are things we can do to prevent these deaths from ever happening and to do so in a cost-effective and transparent way. Since I first entered office, I have been confronted with challenges both at home and around the world that demand our action but where real solutions remain out of the reach of this Senate or our government. This is not one of those issues. Some doubt that we can make a lasting and meaningful impact on the poorest of the poor in the developing world, but the fact is, we have made real progress. It was time spent in east Africa 30 years ago that first really changed my life and engaged me passionately in these issues. What is striking is how much progress we have actually made. Over the past 25 years, we have cut in half the number of children and mothers who have died, the number of children under 5, and mothers who die in illnesses associated with childbirth. Mortality rates are now declining faster than ever. And while we do face real and seemingly intractable challenges across the international landscape, our progress on this issue remains a telling sign of what is possible when we pull together and apply thoughtful interventions. Just last year the administration took an important next step, laying out a new strategy with ambitious goals--saving the lives of 15 million children and 600,000 women by the end of this decade. Think about the scope and reach of the change that would mean for families and for communities in some of the poorest places on this planet. These goals are based in the lessons we have learned about what really works. Providing neonatal care to expectant mothers works. Vaccinating young children works. Providing access to clean water so that children don't die from diarrhea works. Providing HIV-positive mothers with antiretroviral drugs works. I am hopeful about our ability to find cost-effective solutions because many of these remedies are simple things which are already at work here in our own country and which we as Americans take for granted. In the United States, what would be a fairly routine complication of childbirth would, in many communities in the developing world, be a life-or-death situation. For example, let me talk for a moment about something called a resuscitation bag--a simple piece of plastic that costs just a few dollars. Most American parents have either seen one used or ready to be used in the delivery room. We know that in an American hospital--and it should be in the hospital of any developed country--when a nurse needs a resuscitation bag for a newborn who is struggling to breathe, it is right there and waiting. But in the poorest communities, where newborns are losing their lives at astounding rates, a significant factor is the simple absence of these bags to save the lives of newborns. When a nurse--if there is even a nurse--reaches for one, there is none to be found. Yet these simple devices that cost just a few dollars could save literally hundreds or thousands of lives. So what our bipartisan REACH Act does is recognize that many of the steps we can take are very much within our grasp, and our bill would take these solutions a step further by reforming them and scaling them up so they have a larger, longer term impact. Our bill would increase coordination to better implement U.S. strategies with the goal of ending preventable maternal, newborn, and child deaths within 20 years. It would build new partnerships with the private sector, improve coordination across agencies, and insist on real targets and transparent and measurable progress. It would also, as Senator Collins referenced, allow U.S. Government dollars to be leveraged. And I love it when we leverage our resources with the private sector, with multilateral donors, and with our partner countries in the developing world. Critically, it would focus on the most effective interventions in the poorest and most vulnerable communities and put in place targets that can be effectively tracked. These communities in the poorest parts of our planet face many challenges, but when it comes to saving the lives of young mothers and children, we know exactly what it will take to make a meaningful difference. Today, together, we are offering a strong path forward. I close by urging my colleagues to follow the real leadership of Senator Collins and to join both of us in ensuring that American ingenuity and leadership can continue to save lives and to offer communities around our world a brighter future. Thank you.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Maine on the floor this afternoon to talk about what we can do to save the lives of newborn children and their mothers in some of the poorest communities around our globe. I wish to start by thanking Senator Collins for her impressive leadership and for the energy she has brought to this work. I share her belief that our bipartisan bill, which is called the Reach Every Mother and Child Act or just the REACH Act, will go a long way toward eliminating preventable maternal and child deaths and will do so in an impressively targeted and cost-effective way. The preventable death of newborns, their mothers, and children under 5 is a genuine tragedy that remains a widespread reality in far too many places around our world today. As Senator Collins said, 17,000 children a day lose their lives to preventable diseases such as pneumonia, diarrhea, and malaria--illnesses we know how to not just treat but prevent--and worldwide, 3 million children will lose their lives to malnutrition this year. Nearly 3 million newborns die every year, 1 million of whom don't live to their second day, and 300,000 women don't get to experience the joy of raising their child as either pregnancy or birth takes their lives. I doubt it would come to any surprise to those in this Chamber today that it is the families who are living in the poorest communities in the developing world who are most at risk. So what brings Senator Collins and me to the floor today is the fact that there are things we can do to prevent these deaths from ever happening and to do so in a cost-effective and transparent way. Since I first entered office, I have been confronted with challenges both at home and around the world that demand our action but where real solutions remain out of the reach of this Senate or our government. This is not one of those issues. Some doubt that we can make a lasting and meaningful impact on the poorest of the poor in the developing world, but the fact is, we have made real progress. It was time spent in east Africa 30 years ago that first really changed my life and engaged me passionately in these issues. What is striking is how much progress we have actually made. Over the past 25 years, we have cut in half the number of children and mothers who have died, the number of children under 5, and mothers who die in illnesses associated with childbirth. Mortality rates are now declining faster than ever. And while we do face real and seemingly intractable challenges across the international landscape, our progress on this issue remains a telling sign of what is possible when we pull together and apply thoughtful interventions. Just last year the administration took an important next step, laying out a new strategy with ambitious goals--saving the lives of 15 million children and 600,000 women by the end of this decade. Think about the scope and reach of the change that would mean for families and for communities in some of the poorest places on this planet. These goals are based in the lessons we have learned about what really works. Providing neonatal care to expectant mothers works. Vaccinating young children works. Providing access to clean water so that children don't die from diarrhea works. Providing HIV-positive mothers with antiretroviral drugs works. I am hopeful about our ability to find cost-effective solutions because many of these remedies are simple things which are already at work here in our own country and which we as Americans take for granted. In the United States, what would be a fairly routine complication of childbirth would, in many communities in the developing world, be a life-or-death situation. For example, let me talk for a moment about something called a resuscitation bag--a simple piece of plastic that costs just a few dollars. Most American parents have either seen one used or ready to be used in the delivery room. We know that in an American hospital--and it should be in the hospital of any developed country--when a nurse needs a resuscitation bag for a newborn who is struggling to breathe, it is right there and waiting. But in the poorest communities, where newborns are losing their lives at astounding rates, a significant factor is the simple absence of these bags to save the lives of newborns. When a nurse--if there is even a nurse--reaches for one, there is none to be found. Yet these simple devices that cost just a few dollars could save literally hundreds or thousands of lives. So what our bipartisan REACH Act does is recognize that many of the steps we can take are very much within our grasp, and our bill would take these solutions a step further by reforming them and scaling them up so they have a larger, longer term impact. Our bill would increase coordination to better implement U.S. strategies with the goal of ending preventable maternal, newborn, and child deaths within 20 years. It would build new partnerships with the private sector, improve coordination across agencies, and insist on real targets and transparent and measurable progress. It would also, as Senator Collins referenced, allow U.S. Government dollars to be leveraged. And I love it when we leverage our resources with the private sector, with multilateral donors, and with our partner countries in the developing world. Critically, it would focus on the most effective interventions in the poorest and most vulnerable communities and put in place targets that can be effectively tracked. These communities in the poorest parts of our planet face many challenges, but when it comes to saving the lives of young mothers and children, we know exactly what it will take to make a meaningful difference. Today, together, we are offering a strong path forward. I close by urging my colleagues to follow the real leadership of Senator Collins and to join both of us in ensuring that American ingenuity and leadership can continue to save lives and to offer communities around our world a brighter future. Thank you.