Christopher Coons

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about our Nation's war against ISIS and why we must pay for it responsibly. As our Nation's Armed Forces continue their critical mission to degrade and destroy ISIS, which is already months underway, we need to consider another part of our strategy--paying for the war. This is not a new concept. Our Nation has a long history of paying for our military missions. In fact, every war since the Revolutionary War, to the first Gulf War, was paid for. Through each of our Nation's armed conflicts, new revenue streams not only provided the resources our military needed, they reminded the American people that our country was at war and we all needed to contribute to the effort. But after 14 years and 2 wars that have cost our Nation trillions of dollars, I fear we have forgotten this important lesson from our history. We cannot write another blank check for a war. Paying for a war against ISIS is the right thing to do. It is fiscally, morally, and militarily responsible. As we continue to debate this war authorization in Congress, we need to be honest with the American people and each other about what it will cost our Nation. That is why, as we debate the budget this week, I have offered an amendment that requires us to raise the revenue to pay for the fight against ISIS. The American people deserve no less. I urge my colleagues to join me on this amendment to pay for a critically important war against ISIS and ensure we fight this battle together as one country. Thank you. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up the following amendments en bloc: Nos. 343, 391, 392, 394, and 802.

Mr. COONS. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly about four of the amendments I have brought up this evening to provide some background and detail. Amendment No. 391 First, I would like to speak about amendment No. 391, an amendment I have offered that would help small businesses to provide health insurance to their employees. The Affordable Care Act made important strides toward making health care more affordable and accessible to millions of Americans. One of the ways the ACA was intended to expand coverage was through business tax credits, to help business owners who want to do right by their workers and provide health insurance. These tax credits were a good first step. But over the past 2 years, it has become clear we need to do more, to expand and simplify them to help more small businesses. Although many people I speak with have benefitted greatly from the new coverage afforded by the ACA, I have also spoken to many small business owners in Delaware who have wanted to take advantage of the tax credit but could not because it was too complicated or they did not qualify. We need to listen to these concerns and strengthen our health care system so it works for everyone. That is why I am offering my amendment to expand access to the ACA's small business tax credit, which is based on legislation I have introduced with eight of my colleagues. The small business owners I speak with who do not see their employees as labor costs or lines on a balance sheet, who see them as members of their family and a key part of their business and community, those small business owners want to do right by their workers and help ensure that their health care needs are covered. We should do everything we can to help them meet those goals. So I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to expand health care tax credits for small business owners. If I might very briefly speak to the three remaining amendments I have made pending. Amendment No. 394 Amendment No. 394 is cosponsored by Republican Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas and is also cosponsored by Senator Schumer. It is the startup innovation credit. It makes the research and development tax credit accessible to early-stage and startup companies, an important way that we can take a long-established tax credit that is of real benefit to significant, profitable companies that invest heavily in R&D and make it accessible to those fast-growing, early-stage companies in our economy. Amendment No. 392 Second, I have the college savings bill. This is amendment No. 392 with Senator Rubio of Florida. It is a deficit-neutral reserve fund that encourages the use of college savings accounts. Study after study has shown that if young children have even as little as $500 in a savings account for college, they are three times more likely to enroll in college. Access is also reliant on affordability. College savings accounts make college more affordable and thus more accessible, but it also lifts young people's sights and helps them focus on the importance of a college education. Amendment No. 343 The last amendment is No. 343, which provides for support for farm bill conservation programs, which have been cut over the last 5 years by $2 billion. It is important that we preserve the long bipartisan-supported conservation programs in our farm bill that make a huge difference for farms of all kinds across our Nation. I urge my colleagues to support each of my amendments I discussed. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this afternoon to speak about our budget and how the choices we will make over the next few days will reflect our values and priorities. As someone who has acted as a countywide elected official writing balanced budgets, I have long viewed them as not just a collection of numbers and programs but also really a statement about our basic values and a reflection of what we hold dear. We can say we believe in this or that, but at the end of the day, our budgets tell the true story. Over the last 2 years in this body, following the hard work and leadership of Democratic Senators Patty Murray and Barbara Mikulski, the previous chairs of Budget and Appropriations Committees, we have taken important strides to stabilize our government's finances, invest in our middle class, and protect the most vulnerable among us. After a few really hard years, our economy has begun to heal and grow again. We are now in the longest period of uninterrupted private sector job growth in our Nation's history--a period in which our businesses have created 12 million new jobs. Today, our national unemployment rate stands at 5.5 percent, and the deficit has fallen nearly two-thirds since the depths of the great recession. At a time when the economies around the world are slowing down, ours remains, relatively speaking, a global bright spot. We need to continue on this path. We need to invest in this growth. And in my view, it is the wrong time to hit the brakes on our economy's resurgence. Unfortunately, the budget proposed by Senate Republicans misses the mark and would, I fear, reverse these gains. It denies our basic values by balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class while cutting investments essential for our Nation's competitiveness and future. It relies on some budget gimmicks to actually increase defense spending while making broad cuts elsewhere, and it uses overly rosy predictions about growth and our debt that has time and again proven false. It does all this while protecting tax breaks for the very wealthiest and corporations at the expense of working families. It is my hope that we can reach a budget that is responsible, balanced, and fair, that takes stock of our needs today and what the future will demand of us. So I would like to take a few minutes and outline broadly what I think our budget priorities should be. First, we need a budget that preserves our social safety net by building a circle of protection around the most vulnerable among us and protecting the promises we have made to our seniors. Part of the basic bargain we make in this country is that when one of our neighbors falls on truly hard times, their country offers a hand up. We need to ensure these basic protections to health care, food, and a home are there for those of our neighbors in deepest need. It is also part of that same bargain that after a lifetime of work, you will be able to retire with dignity and some security. As workers, we all pay in to Medicare and Social Security, and we need to ensure that as future generations of Americans grow up, raise their families, and contribute to our economy, the benefits they have spent their lives paying into will be there for them, just as they were for previous generations. Yes, we should have a conversation about how to responsibly bring our long-term health care costs under control, but we can't do it the way this budget does, by irresponsibly shifting costs to seniors and the poor. For retired Delawareans, for instance, the Republican budget would reverse an important reform in the Affordable Care Act and would raise prescription drug costs by an average of $1,100 a year. Second, just as we are there for each other when times are hard, we must rebound and grow together by making specific and thoughtful investments in our future. We need a budget that understands that without critical investments in infrastructure, research, and science, our economy will struggle to grow and support a strong middle class. We need a budget that invests in our middle class and gives working families a fair shot--an economy that is built on growth and opportunity. These investments in growth are the basic building blocks of our economy. They make up our economic backbone and help create an environment for our Nation's drive and dynamism to flourish. Growth, however, requires infrastructure. We have a roughly $3.6 trillion infrastructure debt--investments in infrastructure that are due by 2020. Every year we put off investing in our roads, bridges, tunnels, and ports. Every year we fall behind our competitors, and we make it harder for our businesses to grow and create jobs. Growth also requires investing in research and development. Our long-term competitiveness depends on our ability to innovate faster than our competitors. Although businesses already invest a huge amount in R&D, the Federal Government plays a critical role through our national labs, through the manufacturing extension partnership, and other grant programs that either directly invest in or incentivize the research that leads to innovation. Finally, growth in our country requires ensuring that every child has access to a quality education. It requires making it easier for families to send their kids to college and easier for young people to manage the costs of their college through managing student loans after school, and it requires strengthening the real connection between the classroom and workplace so education can be a sturdier rung to a longer ladder of opportunity. Throughout our history our middle class has thrived and our economy has been strong when we made these sorts of investments in our economy and middle class. We need a budget that continues those investments. Finally, we need a budget that lowers our deficit responsibly, in a way that is fair and forward-looking--not on the backs of the middle class and poor and not done in a way that kills jobs and stifles growth. Over the last few years we have done a lot to get our deficit under control, using about three-quarters of spending cuts and about a quarter of increased revenue. We have also benefitted from a steadily growing economy which has lowered our deficit. As we move forward, we need balanced deficit reduction that preserves our investments in our future and our promises to each other. That will mean raising some revenues by asking the wealthy and corporations to pay a bit more, just as it will mean making hard choices over the long run about the true causes of our deficits and debt. But let's be clear. We can do this while investing in our future and keeping our promises to our seniors, to our veterans, and to each other. The best way to lower our deficit is to grow our economy. So we need to invest in that growth. After all, an airplane needs an engine to take off, even in strong headwinds. Over the coming days we will be voting on a wide series of amendments that will say a lot about our values and priorities. I would urge my colleagues to keep in mind that which has always powered our economy and will continue to into the future--an economy that gives families a fair shot and invests in the strength and opportunity of the middle class and those fighting to get into the middle class. That is how we build an economy. I hope we will dedicate ourselves to a budget that will help us do so, far into the future. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Madam President, today is the 50th anniversary of the introduction of the bipartisan Voting Rights Act of 1965, a day we are reminded of what is possible when we come together across party lines. It was 50 years ago today that Republican minority leader Senator Everett Dirksen and Democratic majority leader Senator Mike Mansfield came together on this floor to introduce landmark legislation that sought to fulfill the promise of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution and ensure that no person would be denied the right to vote because of the color of his or her skin. I was reminded of the power of their example just 2 weeks ago when I gathered with Republicans and Democrats from the House and Senate in Selma, AL, to honor the Americans who came from across our country 50 years ago to march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma and demand equal voting rights. Their example was one of unity, as was the example of Members from both sides of the aisle who came together to introduce and eventually pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965. So I am concerned as I come to the floor this afternoon about our troubling inability to come together in this Chamber on issues where there clearly should be broad agreement as well. I have with me a photographic reminder that the last time the Voting Rights Act was signed into law--was reauthorized--it was signed by Republican President George Bush, with the support of both Democrats and Republicans in the then Congress. Those of us who gathered 2 weeks ago at the bridge at Selma were treated both to a stirring speech by our current President, and the cheering presence of President Bush, when a challenge was issued to those Members of Congress present that we should come together, fix the Voting Rights Act, and reintroduce it in this Chamber. When it comes to voting rights, it surely is true that today's America is not the America of half a century ago, just as today's hurdles to the ballot box are not the same as in the time of Jim Crow. Yet it is also true that in too many cities, towns, States, and counties across our country, new roadblocks are being built to make it more difficult for Americans to vote. It is clear that, as President Obama said to us on the Edmund Pettus Bridge 2 weeks ago, ``our march is not yet finished.'' In the coming weeks, as Senator Leahy, I, and others work to bring to the Senate a new voting rights act that reflects today's challenges, it is my sincere hope and my prayer that Republican colleagues will partner with us to continue the work that remains undone. Lynch Nomination Madam President, this was also to be the week that we would take up, consider, and vote on the nomination of Loretta Lynch to serve as Attorney General. I must say that the Senate's proceedings this week do not portend well, because we find ourselves, yet again, stuck in regrettable partisan gridlock. For the past 129 days, we have had before us an incredibly qualified and talented nominee for Attorney General. Loretta Lynch was first nominated by President Obama in November. She has now waited for a vote longer than any Attorney General nominee in 30 years. As of today, her confirmation has waited longer on the floor than the last five Attorneys General combined. That is unacceptable, and I frankly haven't heard a single good reason from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for why Ms. Lynch's nomination deserves such a delay. Instead, her nomination is being used by many to continue their fight with the President over his immigration policy, and this is after nearly shutting down the Department of Homeland Security because of those same disagreements. While we do need to have a focused and functional debate in this Congress about immigration, it is simply irresponsible to hold up a highly qualified nominee for Attorney General because some don't like that she agrees with the very President who nominated her. I take very seriously the Senate's role to advise and consent on Presidential nominations. So let's just take a minute and look at Loretta Lynch's experience, her background. She is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. She spent 8 years in private practice at a prestigious law firm, then known as Hogan & Hartson. She served on the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. She has served the public and previously been unanimously confirmed by this body--twice, I should add--to be the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York. That is a job where she has prosecuted drug crimes, violent crimes, and where she has taken on corrupt politicians. At her nomination hearing in the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, our chairman called an outside witness panel of nine witnesses. When asked, not one of them said they opposed Ms. Lynch's confirmation to be Attorney General on the basis of her skills or experience. The committee was, in fact, unable to produce one shred of testimony in opposition to her nomination. Yet we stand today in the middle of March and the first African- American woman ever to be nominated Attorney General of the United States, our Nation's top law enforcement official, has foundered on this floor longer than the five prior nominees combined. I think this is unacceptable and sets an unfortunate, even dangerous precedent. We should not play political games with the Department of Justice, an executive branch agency with 125,000 employees and a $28 billion departmental budget that is charged with all sorts of different law enforcement functions, from running the Federal prisons to enforcing the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, to making sure we fight human trafficking and money laundering. Frustratingly, we find ourselves this week also considering a bill to combat human trafficking, which we don't seem to be able to move forward. It is important legislation that includes broad bipartisan support, except for a simple, partisan, political provision that has now turned it into a divisive issue. The Republican leader this week has argued that once we finished work on this human trafficking bill, we could then move on to Loretta Lynch's nomination vote. But I am forced to wonder when the delay tactics here will end. Not only is it seemingly untrue that we can't do human trafficking legislation and this nomination at the same time--because if my memory serves, we just confirmed two other executive branch nominees last night--but the Republican leader knows well that if he truly wanted to move this bill forward, Democrats would be ready to partner with him with just a minor revision to the bill. There is, in fact, a bitter irony that, as was reported last night, Loretta Lynch's confirmation is being held up over an issue--human trafficking--which she herself said she would prioritize if confirmed. I ask my Republican colleagues: Let's find a way to move forward on all of these issues--on combatting human trafficking and confirming Loretta Lynch to serve as Attorney General and on reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, which is such an important linchpin of civil rights in this country. We agree that we need to combat human trafficking. So let's work together on the broad areas where we are, in fact, united. Let's confirm an Attorney General nominee who is qualified, smart, and will give the fight against human trafficking the dedication it deserves. Ms. Lynch would make a superb Attorney General. As someone who has herself served in law enforcement and served in that role at the State level, I think the Presiding Officer appreciates the importance of having a confirmed Attorney General to lead our Federal Department of Justice. Loretta Lynch has demonstrated--throughout her confirmation process and through her many years of service to her country--that she is well and amply prepared and qualified to take on this vital and important role. I urge my colleagues to end the delays and give Loretta Lynch the vote our country deserves. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. COONS

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

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this evening to speak about the impending shutdown this week of the Federal Department of Homeland Security. At a time when the folks I hear from in Delaware, and I suspect what all of the Members in this Chamber are hearing, as we return from a week spent in our home States, are concerns about our national security. Whether it is the heinous acts of ISIS abroad, or the real threats of the weather and recent weather-related events here at home, a central concern all of us should share in the Senate here tonight is about keeping our country and our constituents safe. Yet shutting down the whole Department of Homeland Security later this week would show a reckless disregard for our national security by the Republican leader and some of the hard-line conservatives who are, sadly, setting this agenda. In my view, we do not need to be here. The Democrats and Republicans working together on the Appropriations Committee negotiated a strong bipartisan Homeland Security funding bill months ago. It is a bill that if it got a vote before the full Senate would absolutely pass. It makes wide, needed, broad investments in strengthening all sorts of different organs of our government at the Federal, State, and local level that strengthen our homeland security. Instead, the other party has insisted on attaching political provisions to the bill that would overturn the President's Executive action on immigration. I know I do not need to remind the Presiding Officer or any of our colleagues that we have already debated and passed comprehensive immigration reform in this Chamber which, if taken up by the House, would have made the President's action completely unnecessary. I think we all agree that congressional action is the preferred path toward fixing our broken immigration system. If that is what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are really concerned about, then I am eager to discuss how we can fix our badly broken immigration system in a bipartisan manner by the preferred path of congressional action rather than Executive action. But I think we should separate that debate over immigration and what is the right path toward a resolution of our broken system from a discussion about responsibly and sustainably funding our Department of Homeland Security. If we fail to fund Homeland Security, it would have damaging consequences to our economy, to the security of our communities, and to our reputation around the world. At this time of heightened concern about our cohesion, about our unity, and about our security as a country, failing to fund the Federal Department of Homeland Security I think sends the worst possible message to our allies around the world about our capacity as a mature democracy of reaching responsible resolutions on difficult and divisive issues. If the Department of Homeland Security shuts down this week, tens of thousands of its staff would be furloughed without pay. They include the FEMA disaster and preparedness staff, the very personnel who check the immigration status of new employees through E-Verify, critical security intelligence analysts, and the folks who run the domestic nuclear detection offices, just to name a few. The list of these tens of thousands of Homeland Security employees and the vital functions they perform would take longer than the evening could take. My own State of Delaware has the lowest mean elevation in the country. That means we are a really low-lying State. We are incredibly vulnerable to storms and to flooding, and we simply can't afford to have FEMA's staff suspended, furloughed, laid off. Whether we shut down or just have a short-term funding bill, funding for Homeland Security grants can't go out. Some of the folks who watch this debate in the week ahead will have difficulty discerning between folks on my side who will advocate for a so-called clean bill and others who will advocate for a CR. This is where the difference really is: in the areas of grants for State and local emergency preparedness-- the difference between actually moving forward the bipartisan bill that was worked through the Appropriations Committee in the last Congress and simply continuing by continuing resolution the previous year's authorization. That difference is $1.5 billion for State and local emergency management all over this country. In my community, which is part of the Greater Philadelphia area, we are about to welcome the Pope. Something like 2 million people are expected in the Greater Philadelphia area as we welcome His Holiness to Philadelphia for the first time in a long time. I have heard from State and local law enforcement, first responders, emergency managers, and planners that they are counting on some of the grants from FEMA that are currently on hold, while they wait to discover the outcome of this week's debates, to prepare for that important, very large event. In my own home community, there are volunteer fire companies which even now are working on submitting grants. The SAFER Act and the fire grants act have become an important part of making sure that our local volunteer fire companies have the equipment they need, the training they need to keep our communities safe. In Delaware the overwhelming majority of the crash response, the fire education, and the fire suppression are done by volunteer fire companies, which often have badly outdated equipment and insufficient funding. To sustain their training and their personnel, they need the grants that have been made available through FEMA and through the Department of Homeland Security over the last decade to upgrade and update their equipment, their materials, and their training. They have been vitally important. They have made a big difference in the fire service in my home State. There are grants to police departments that help ensure they have the tools, the training, and the equipment to be part of emergency preparedness and to keep our communities safe. If we shut down the Department of Homeland Security, 130,000 other DHS workers will be compelled to remain at work but without pay. I think the idea that there are Americans who work to keep us safe at the border, at our airports, on our coasts and that we don't value them enough to ensure they will receive their pay for a hard day's work just goes against the grain of what we stand for as a country. So are my colleagues really willing to send a message to everyone at Homeland Security that their work isn't important enough to our Nation to ensure that they can provide for their family? That is the message if the Department of Homeland Security shuts down. It hurts families, it hurts morale, it hurts our preparedness, and it hurts our safety. I wish to say, as someone who is privileged to serve on the Foreign Relations Committee and regularly gets the chance to meet with and talk with leaders from around the world, it sends the message that our democracy isn't up to the task. I know this isn't what my Republican friends want to do, and I urge us to come together and work in a way that will end this era of politics by crisis once and for all--no more shutdowns, no more manufactured crises, and no more demonstrating that we are better at stopping progress than at enacting progress. Democrats are ready to work together with Republicans to pass a bipartisan, bicameral bill that we all know we can pass and that will fund the Department of Homeland Security and keep our country safe. I hope that after we--this afternoon--voted down for the fourth time a bill that seeks to repeal the President's actions on immigration, we can put aside that partisan issue and come together to find a bipartisan solution to fund the Department of Homeland Security. We already know what that solution looks like. We just need to come together and give it a vote. In my view, this is too important to trivialize as part of the ongoing posturing and partisan games that for so long have dominated this Chamber. I urge my colleagues to work with us. Fund Homeland Security and then let's talk meaningfully in this Congress about how we can fix our broken immigration system together. I know we are all eager to continue that conversation. First, we need to solve this challenge and make sure that our communities, our States, and our country are safe. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, we need to take steps now to prepare for the coming impact of climate change on our Nation's infrastructure. The Federal Government plays a crucial role in protecting our infrastructure and partnering with State and Federal, tribal, and local governments to prepare. The Federal Government, including our Pentagon and the highway administration, is already planning and preparing for these impacts. Many States are as well. From my home State of Delaware to Alaska to Florida, all are already planning responsibly for the future impacts of climate change. Preparing now is only responsible, because every dollar invested in planning and preparing is projected to save us up to $4 in future disaster relief. This amendment is supported by a number of organizations--the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Wildlife Federation, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and others. This amendment does not speak to the human role in climate change or emissions. It simply acknowledges that climate change is having an impact on our infrastructure and suggests that planning is responsible. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I wish to honor Howard George Hitchens and highlight his service to the Slaughter Beach community and the State of Delaware. Howard George Hitchens is a charter member of the Memorial Volunteer Fire Company of Slaughter Beach, DE, which he and several others established in 1954. Howard previously served as fire chief, assistant chief engineer, and director of the fire company. He also started its Santa Claus show for children, which still occurs each year during the holiday season. Howard has served the fire company for more than 60 years and is the only living charter member. On February 14, 2015, the Memorial Volunteer Fire Company will honor Howard for his service. Howard is a true Delawarean and a model community leader. I would like to honor Howard and his more than six decades of service to his family, friends, community, and the State of Delaware.

Mr. COONS

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

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about President Obama's State of the Union Address last week. It was a speech that I believe laid out a positive and forceful agenda for strengthening our middle class and for accelerating our Nation's economic recovery. Over the past year, our Nation's economic progress has become unmistakable and undeniable. In our home State of Delaware, more people are working. People spend much less time looking for work, and job growth has been the strongest it has been since the 1990s. Nationally, we are amidst the longest period of sustained private- sector job growth on record. Of particular interest to me is that our manufacturing sector has come back and come back strongly as manufacturers have created nearly 800,000 jobs in the last 4 years-- jobs that make up the foundation of our 21st century middle class and our economy. Our unemployment rate has dropped to its lowest level since before the great recession. Our growing private sector is not just creating jobs now. They are also laying the foundation for the jobs of the future. As test scores continue to improve, high school graduation rates reach record highs, and, as our President said, ``More Americans finish college than ever before,'' we are laying a path that ensures that future generations of Americans can thrive as well. But our work remains unfinished. Although we are right to turn the page on the crisis here at home, crises do remain real in the lives of far too many Americans--families I listen to who are struggling to get into and stay in our middle class. For many in the middle class, wages have remained stubbornly stagnant as incomes for the wealthy have continued to grow. At the same time, too many Americans just stopped looking for work altogether during the recession and haven't begun that job search again. So we have a lot of work to do together to ensure that the middle class experiences the benefits of this recovery. On that note, I appreciated President Obama's call for an agenda that would do a lot to strengthen our middle class. Although this isn't what we will hear about on the news, many of these ideas should enjoy bipartisan support. I wish to spend a few minutes on some of the areas that I think are ripe for bipartisan cooperation and that would go a long way toward actually helping middle-class families and our Nation as a whole. First, it is no secret to anyone that our country's infrastructure is badly outdated and in need of repair. From our ports and roads, to our bridges and railways, we have steadily racked up a national debt of investment that we will need to pay for. The only question is when and how we do it. Historically, infrastructure--fixing roads and bridges and ports and railways--has not been a partisan issue. It is something that has been a core value of our Federal Government from its very founding. It is in no small part what the Federal Government was created to help do. Last Tuesday the President laid out ideas for thinking more creatively about how to make these core investments--from improving efficiency to bringing private capital off the sidelines--and I am encouraged to hear Republican colleagues discussing infrastructure as an initiative they can work on with us. So let's get this done. Let's solve our highway trust fund challenges for good and make the long-term investments that will put people back to work and strengthen our Nation's economic backbone. Second, the President's proposal to expand access to community colleges is an initiative that I hope will spark a broader discussion about how to make higher education more accessible and more affordable. I understand there is real disagreement here about how best to pay for it or how wide its scope should be, but that is what we can and should work on together. We all know that higher education is necessary to ensure Americans have the skills they will need in the 21st century. We know community colleges can and should play a central role in achieving that mission. In manufacturing in particular, community colleges such as Delaware Tech in my home State play a central role in partnering with local businesses to create a talent pipeline that sustains a community and its economy. In Delaware the SEED and Inspire scholarships give students who are willing to work hard the chance to go to college and to learn the skills that will help them to contribute to Delaware's economy after they finish school. We can replicate Delaware's example across the country and find ways to work together to make community college and further higher education affordable and accessible. So let's work on this together. Lastly, the President laid out some commonsense tax and work proposals to help give middle-class families more of a realistic leg up. Expanding the tax credits for families with children and streamlining childcare support makes sense to me. Making it easier for middle-class families to save for their kids' college education and to save for retirement at the same time would go a long way toward helping families to plan for the long term. Around the country, too many of our work places lack family and medical leave policies that appreciate what it really takes to raise a family and live a healthy life. The President's proposal to work with States to improve their policies would be a great step and would help those communities that choose to, to create policies that suit their own local situations. Let's work together on these ideas. Let's do something for middle- class families in our country. With a Republican Congress and a Democratic White House, we need to come together if we are going to get anything meaningful done. As President Obama made clear, we have a lot of important and difficult work to do. Our economy has come a long way from the great recession, but there is still work to do to strengthen our middle class. There is still work to do to broaden the opportunity that has always been at the heart of the American dream. We can move forward together, and it is my sincere hope that we will rise to that occasion, that we will seize this opportunity and do the critical work of building and sustaining our vital middle class. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. COONS. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so that I can call up my amendment No. 115.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, this amendment recognizes that climate change is not a hoax, that climate change is a reality, and that we need to do some things together to begin to plan for and prepare for the inevitable consequences and impacts on our infrastructure. As someone who was in local government for a long time before coming to this body--I was a county executive--I have a sense of what it means for our States, our municipalities, and our county governments to have to plan for and deal with the inevitable consequence, the impacts on our local infrastructure of the coming changes through climate change. I happen to represent the lowest mean elevation State in America, and our Governor Jack Markell and his able folks in the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control have led a grassroots statewide effort to begin planning for the future impacts of climate change. Because of the combination of subsidence and sea level rise, Delaware will see earlier than many States impacts on vital local infrastructure. So whether it is our sewer systems, our roads, our water systems or other infrastructure, we need to begin to plan now to bake resiliency into the future of our community. Given the unique and important role that the Federal Government plays in financing infrastructure and in responding to disasters such as Superstorm Sandy that destroyed a lot of the infrastructure in the nearby States of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut, we need to be mindful of what these costs could be. The U.S. Department of Defense is already preparing plans to understand how climate change will impact its infrastructure. My thinking is that the entire Federal Government should make responsible, timely, and thoughtful plans to assess and to prepare for prudent mitigation of the future impacts of climate change on our infrastructure. So I am hopeful that this will be among the many amendments that will be taken up, debated, discussed, and passed in the coming hours and days. I am grateful that we continue to have an open amendment process and the opportunity to discuss and debate the issues in front of us, and I very much look forward to passage of Coons amendment No. 115. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes about our Nation's economic relationship with Africa and one area of concern I have as we work toward further strengthening our ties. Since its passage under President Clinton, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, known as AGOA, has been a powerful tool for increasing trade and boosting economies across the African Continent, and no country has taken greater advantage of the opportunities provided through AGOA than South Africa. Over the past 4 years, as the chairman of the African Affairs Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I have worked closely with African leaders and know the importance of AGOA to their economies and to their growing middle classes. Just last week I met with a group of African trade ministers who emphasized to me how important prompt reauthorization of AGOA is to them, to their nations, and to tens of thousands of men and women who work in reliance upon AGOA. AGOA is not a partisan issue. I have worked closely with my Republican colleague and friend from Georgia Senator Isakson on its reauthorization. But, as I have also long believed, trade must be fair, and with increased trade comes a responsibility by both parties to play by the same set of rules. I am concerned because I fear that South Africa's refusal to drop its antidumping duties that prevent American poultry from having free and fair access to the South African market will have negative repercussions for our relationship and South Africa's economy. Much of the time, nations will use antidumping duties to prevent other countries from exporting artificially cheap goods into their economies, putting their own businesses at an unfair disadvantage. But what South Africa has done for years in this area lacks any merit. They are using the same justification that China has used to ban American poultry imports. They claim our poultry is being sold below market value. Not only is this claim false, the World Trade Organization recently deemed China's nearly identical ban to be illegal. American companies want the chance to sell healthy, affordable, and safe poultry to South Africa and at a fair market value. So during the Africa leaders summit last August, which brought the heads of state of more than 50 African nations here to Washington and to our Capitol, I had the opportunity to meet with President Zuma of South Africa as well as other South African senior officials. During our meeting we discussed their country's policies toward our country, the importance of renewing AGOA, and also my concerns about their unfair practices with regard to our poultry industry. I was optimistic that following our constructive conversations, we could work together with them and with South Africa's poultry industry to get rid of this inappropriate trade barrier. In September we also had constructive meetings where our Ambassador and their Ambassador were present, and leaders of both poultry sectors began constructive conversation. But soon thereafter their willingness to engage abruptly stopped. They apparently think they can continue to benefit from AGOA and shirk their most basic trade responsibilities. In my home State of Delaware the poultry industry supports more than 13,000 jobs and has long been the backbone of our agriculture sector. I have made clear to our friends and partners in South Africa that although I deeply believe in their nation's promise and future, my first responsibility is and always will be to my home State and my constituents. Across the country--and Senator Isakson's State of Georgia is the single biggest poultry-growing State in the country--the United States supports 1.8 million American jobs, contributing more than $470 billion to our Nation's economy. So I want to be clear about this tonight, as I have been before. I support AGOA's reauthorization, and I hope we can negotiate a fair path forward. But South Africa cannot expect to continue to reap the benefits of increased trade without following fair trade rules. They can't expect us to open up our markets wide to duty-free and quota-free access for South African goods if they will not fairly open theirs. If they insist on maintaining their longstanding and illegal antidumping duties on American poultry, I will do everything in my power to ensure they do not continue to benefit from AGOA. The choice is theirs. Senator Isakson of Georgia and I communicated this concern to President Zuma back in December in writing, and this week we will write to the Senate Finance Committee with the same message. We only have a short period of time where we can get a long-term extension of AGOA done, and I will work hard to reauthorize and improve AGOA so its benefits are even more widely felt on the continent of Africa, but I won't allow it to include countries that violate fair trade rules, which means an important ally and partner of the United States--South Africa--won't be included if they are not willing to play by the rules. There are too many jobs at stake, too much work to do to allow a critical trading partner such as South Africa to continue its unfair treatment of American industry. I hope and pray we can still resolve this needless impasse, but if we don't, my commitment and my path forward is clear. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to speak about our ongoing debate about the Keystone XL Pipeline and the need for this debate to shift to a much larger conversation. Tonight, as we are continuing in what has been 1\1/2\ weeks of debate in our Senate about this single, foreign-owned pipeline, it is my hope that we will begin a larger, broader conversation about America's energy and climate needs. We have so far voted on amendments confirming that climate change is real, on the future of natural gas and oil exports, on energy efficiency provisions, on rules to ensure that we buy American, and on funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the oilspill fund. I, myself, have an amendment, No. 115, that I am hoping we will have a chance to take up, debate, vote on, and pass--one that recognizes that given that the Senate has acknowledged the reality of climate change, we must now move forward to take action to prepare to adapt to those changes--changes that have already begun. I come from the State of Delaware, the lowest mean-elevation State in America, where our Governor, Jack Markell, has led a community-driven process of preparing for adapting to the coming impact on our infrastructure--our public, private, State, local, and Federal infrastructure in Delaware. We have to recognize that our Federal Government will have financial liabilities to help State, local, and tribal governments prepare for the impacts of climate change on their infrastructure and to prepare for the impacts of climate change on our Federal infrastructure. My amendment, I hope, will be taken up, debated, and passed, but the larger point I want to make is this is just the beginning of the much larger debate we need to have about our Nation's energy and climate future. Energy has long been and will remain central to a strong, diverse, and vibrant economy for our Nation. Throughout our history, Americans have benefited greatly from abundant sources of energy at home. From coal to oil to natural gas, we have been blessed by natural resources that have powered our economy. But new challenges today require new approaches. As human-generated greenhouse gas pollution wreaks havoc on our global climate, we need to come together to create a cleaner and lower-carbon energy future. There is no single pathway to stop climate change or to deal with it, but there are a number of approaches we need to look at and that I hope we will consider taking. Tonight I wish to briefly mention four different areas where there were bipartisan bills in the last Congress--areas that I hope, in the spirit of comity and debate in the Senate, we could reconsider and make them part of this broader energy and climate debate. First, we could start by establishing and implementing a national quadrennial energy review which would ensure that every administration, current and future, takes a hard look at our Nation's energy landscape, the challenges that we face, and to build a blue print for how we will deal with these challenges and overcome them. Today we already conduct these kinds of quadrennial reviews for the Pentagon, for the State Department, and for the Department of Homeland Security. They allow us to take a big picture and strategic look at our policies, our challenges, and to chart a predictable, longer term path forward. It is time we did the same for our country's energy challenges. This administration is already at work doing this, but Congress needs to act to ensure that future administrations will continue this practice. Second, we can invest in clean and renewable energy and in energy efficiency technology so that we can out-innovate the rest of the world and lay the groundwork for job creation, not only for today but for tomorrow. We can do this through sustained, annual program funding and through smart and innovative financing models that lower the cost of clean energy, such as expanded master limited partnerships. Third, we can improve the way our national labs collaborate with the private sector so that the innovation pipeline that takes ideas from the lab to the market is smooth, efficient, and predictable so that today's discoveries are tomorrow's world-changing products. And, fourth, we can improve STEM education and skills training throughout America so that every day we are training tomorrow's future energy innovators. We can do this. We need to do these things. I will admit that at times it can seem quite daunting. But in this country we should have no doubt that if we focus our greatest minds on these challenges, there is no limit to what we can achieve. The bottom line to all this is that we don't have a choice. Pretending otherwise is an exercise in denial. We need to curb emissions from transportation. We need to reduce pollution from powerplants. We need to better finance clean energy solutions. We need to strengthen our infrastructure so we are more resilient in the face of coming climate challenges. We need to address the real challenges of energy and water demand. We need to improve our regulations so that we do more to protect and conserve our land. And we need to invest in research, development, and the demonstration of new and innovative technologies. Overall, we can and should institute smart and market-based regional and national policies that will lower carbon pollution and send businesses and households the signal that the future is in cleaner not in dirtier energy technology. We need to do all this and bring the rest of the world along as well because our national energy and climate challenges are not just ours, they are the world's, and we need to come together around the world to get this done. The administration's clean power plan rules and the recently announced accord with China are all great initial steps in this direction. It is my hope as we continue this debate that we will come together in the Senate to show we are willing to rise to these challenges as a nation as well. Mr. President, for me, all of this ultimately comes down to our obligations--yes, of course, to our Nation, to our constituents, to our home States, but particularly as parents to our children and to future generations. Every day when I get to return home from the train station after taking what is often a late-evening train from Washington to Delaware, I get to see my family, and it is my children who leave me most concerned about the question of whether I will be leaving them a safer and healthier world than we received. My daughter Maggie in particular is passionate about the environment and is concerned about whether what we do here is not just helping to create jobs today--although that is an important issue for us to turn to--but whether we are helping to preserve our world for tomorrow. Maggie helps keep me focused not just on this quarter, this month, this election, or this term, but on the next 50 years and on whether what we do here leaves to our children and their children a cleaner and a better and brighter future. That is what our focus should be--on the future, on what we are doing not just for today but for tomorrow and all the days after that. I hope when the debate about this one pipeline is over we will refocus our energies on the bigger picture and on the great and big challenges we face together. That is what we get elected to do, and that is what our time demands.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, today I highlight the service of William ``Bill'' Harrison Bullock to his country, commitment to his family, and contribution to both the city of Wilmington and the State of Delaware. Bill was born on November 11, 1926, in Wilmington, DE, to William and Amy Bullock. He graduated from P.S. DuPont in 1945 and was immediately drafted to serve as an aircraft mechanic in the Asia-Pacific theater during the Second World War. Upon his return to the United States, Bill joined and ultimately took over the five generation family business, Bullock Iron Works, which allowed him to meld his passions of building and construction with artistry. Bill invented a process for the precision bending of cold steel for decorative applications, including railings. The family business gave him an opportunity to work with his brother-in-law James Broad--husband to his sister Amy--and his nephew Jim Broad. Bill very much enjoyed and spoke often of the bond created by working and creating beautiful ornamental steel creations with his family members. Bill had a long-standing bet with his brother-in-law that he would not get married before he turned 30 years old. Bill married Norma McBride on November 10, 1956--1 day before his 30th birthday. They had two children, William and June. Through his management of Bullock Iron Works, Bill developed a very strong set of business principles and ethics, which he was able to pass along to his children, even though neither went into the family business. His friends often joked with Bill that Delaware is not flat and that if he left he would not fall off a cliff into a chasm. He retorted that he never left the State because he had no need or reason to do so. Bill loved Delaware and found there everything he needed to raise a family, to grow the family business, and to enjoy his hobbies and passions: fresh and salt water fishing, cultivating beautiful phalaenopsis and cattleya orchids, and enjoying the comradery of his fellow veterans at the Delaware Veterans Club, Post #1. Bill was preceded in death by his wife of 33 years Norma, his sister Amy, and brother-in-law James Broad. He is survived by his daughter Blake McBride, son William H. Bullock II, and daughter-in-law Marci Hanlon, three grandchildren, his sister and brother-in-law, and several nieces and nephews. Bill was a true Delawarean and one of the best and brightest of the Greatest Generation. He helped to win the Second World War, raised a strong and loving family, grew and bolstered his business, and was a true friend to his neighbors, war buddies, and the wider Wilmington community. He will be missed.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today at the start of this new year and this new Congress to speak about how we can and why we must work together to improve the Affordable Care Act. Since work on health care reform really began in earnest in 2009, debate in this Chamber and across this country has too often been defined by fantastic claims and fearmongering. In the midst of this division, I believe that too often the experiences of real people have been lost. While politicians on both sides cling to their sacred cows, too many Americans become casualties of our divided politics. On few issues has this been more true than on health care. Critics of the Affordable Care Act seem locked into the belief that it will bring about America's demise--despite little evidence to support them. Too often they have been unable or unwilling to grapple with the reality of those whose lives the law has forever changed for the better. Now, on the other side of the aisle, we--mostly Democrats--have often shied away from acknowledging some of the law's weaknesses. I know many of my colleagues have been eager and have offered fixes to the law. But without willing Republican partners, we have not made enough progress. As I have spent time in my home State of Delaware in recent months listening to families and other folks who have been affected by the law--for better or for worse--it has become clear to me that this stalemate is unsustainable. On many days, I have met Delawareans who love the Affordable Care Act, whose lives have literally been saved by it. But in between those encounters, I have also met many, small business owners in particular, who want to offer health insurance to their workers and are struggling to afford it. This much has become clear to me: No conversation about the Affordable Care Act and how to improve it can be complete without reconciling the reality of the millions of Americans it has helped and the many others for whom it falls short. Michelle Reed is the Delawarean whom I have come to know and admire with breast cancer and who contacted me first about this issue last fall. She is an example of why the Affordable Care Act is so important. Michelle was first diagnosed with cancer back in 2008 and went through month after painful month of chemo and radiation therapy as well as surgery. Over the next few years since her cancer nightmare began she faced problems that were sadly typical of how our health insurance system used to work. At the time she was first diagnosed, she and her husband received health insurance through her husband's employer. Her husband is an auto mechanic and worked for a small auto body shop. But though the insurance he got through his work was helpful for routine minor health care needs, it was a barebones insurance policy, as she explained it to me. It left her and her husband with extremely high copays, straining their family budget. Naturally her husband began looking for a new job to provide better health insurance. But this ended up being much more difficult than it seemed, because transitioning to a new job often required accepting a large 3-month gap in coverage, a gap Michelle just could not afford, as insurance companies would then deny her care considering her cancer a preexisting condition. At one point during Michelle's years of treatment, her husband's employer switched health care plans and in the process missed one premium payment. Suddenly, after months of having had steady, positive progress in her care, without any warning or notification, Michelle started getting bills--not just small bills but huge bills, a bill for $23,000 for radiation. It took her months of going back and forth between employer and insurance company, all the while as she is also trying to overcome her disease, before Michelle and her husband got a straight answer about why they were suddenly facing these huge costs. Now, let's step back for a second. Just imagine where she was. Michelle has cancer. She is shuttling from chemo to radiation. Her husband is working constantly to try to cover the high premiums, trying to get all of the overtime he can. During this, they are also going back and forth between employer and insurance company, trying to figure out where this new high charge they cannot afford had come from. Meanwhile, Michelle's husband was out looking for a new job with better insurance, struggling to find one because Michelle would face discrimination and could not get coverage. The emotional strain on a family and a loved one battling cancer is enormous, almost unimaginable. But if you add to that the financial and the emotional stress caused by our relic of a health care insurance system of that time, that is unimaginable. Yet this is the reality that Michelle and her family faced. Unfortunately, it is the reality that millions of Americans used to face before the Affordable Care Act. These problems all changed last year when the ACA exchanges came on line. As Michelle wrote to me: The ACA open enrollment began and we could not get signed up quick enough, although it did take her a little while because the administration's Web site had some problems. She persevered. As she said to me in her note: We have no problems now. We have what we need, and we need what we have. People like Michelle are why Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act in the first place. It is because of the law that millions of Americans now have access to quality and affordable health insurance that was once desperately out of reach for them. But the story is not complete, unless we are clear-eyed about where this law also falls short. As the President and many have recognized, any significant reform such as the Affordable Care Act is going to have weaknesses and unintended consequences that only become apparent after the law is being implemented. This has been true throughout our history with every major event, and health care reform is no different. In Delaware, among the many whom the law has helped, I have also seen how some of those reforms in the costs they have incurred have hurt small business. To the small business owners with whom I have sat down and listened to, their employees are not labor costs or rows on a balance sheet. They are family. They have worked together for years and owners provide health insurance because they believe it is the right thing to do for the workers who help their business grow. Many of the folks I have sat down and visited with are not required to provide insurance because they have fewer than 50 full-time workers. They still want to do so because it is the right thing to do. It helps them incentivize and support their best employees. Many, though, are struggling today because of higher costs and the challenges that come with navigating a changed insurance market. This year the biggest issue they face is how higher quality standards have also caused premiums to increase--often to unaffordable levels. This has been especially true for a small State such as like Delaware, where there is not a lot of competition in the provision of health care or in our insurance market. Unfortunately, some of the increases are also due to insurance companies using the health care law as an excuse to charge more. Some of this is simply the result of plans that now cover more are costing more. For the most part, that is not a bad thing. But the Affordable Care Act was designed to compensate for increased quality with financial assistance to those who cannot afford it. In Michelle Reed's case, this increased quality was great--almost literally life saving. For people such as her, those insurance plans now need to meet certain standards, and in particular, that they can no longer discriminate against preexisting conditions. But we have also seen that even though there is assistance to many, some individuals and some small businesses have fallen into gaps where they have to deal with higher costs and they are not getting the help they deserve. Here is where we are. The Affordable Care Act has helped millions of Americans. It also can be improved to help many more. When we talk about health care, it is simply dishonest to leave one side out when talking about others. In this new Congress, I know many of my Republican colleagues are eager to continue the efforts of their colleagues in the House. In their majority, I know many will seek an opportunity to vote on repealing or dismantling the Affordable Care Act. But I ask them for an answer to Michelle Reed and to the many Americans such as her who have had their lives changed or even saved by this law. I know many of my Democratic colleagues are as well eager to work together to improve our health care system, to ensure small businesses do the right thing and can be successful and to ensure that no American gets left behind. We know this is possible. There is no reason to believe that we as a body lack the creativity, the drive, and the ability to work together across the aisle on these important issues. Surely there is much we can do to reduce the costs through more competition, to develop new and more efficient delivery systems and innovative payment models. The Affordable Care Act took critical steps to move forward in each of these areas. Millions more have health insurance and costs across our health care system have actually increased at the slowest rate in decades. For most, costs have been manageable or even decreasing. But critical work remains. We now have the opportunity, to take the next step to build a health care system that works for every American. It is my sincere hope that we can come together and seize that opportunity. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I wish to offer my heartbroken condolences to the people of Pakistan and to the friends and family, the parents and loved ones, of those murdered yesterday at the Army Public School in Peshawar. As the Pakistan military continues its assault on the Pakistani Taliban in North Waziristan, the terrorist group responded yesterday with an act of murder and barbarity that simply has no parallel, as nine gunmen murdered more than 140 students and teachers who together were simply gathered to ensure a brighter future for their country. This is a crime that simply passes comprehension. As the father of three, I can only imagine in my worst nightmares the reality that those parents are now living. Unfortunately, as a nation, Americans have in our not so distant past also felt the grief that now envelops Pakistan. Two years ago this past weekend, a gunman stormed the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT and murdered 26 of our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters. Two years later we remain in mourning, for the lives taken from us and for the futures that were so quickly extinguished. My prayers are with all Pakistanis who mourn today and with the loved ones of the victims of Newtown who remain in mourning. May we pray for the safety of those who are most precious and sacred to us, and may we remain undeterred in the face of such evil.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Madam President, As Senator Carper noted, the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act should not reduce the Affordable Care Act's health insurance coverage protections based on U.S. workers' immigration status, including those employed with nonimmigrant work visas. We intend that the definition of ``qualified expatriate'' be closely adhered to in the implementation of this legislation by the administration, the health insurance companies that seek to offer expatriate health plans, and the employers who utilize these plans on behalf of their workers who are transferred or assigned both within or outside the United States. It is my expectation that expatriate health plan enrollment should remain relatively constant, accounting for the normal ebbs and flows of the demand of and supply for expatriate workers. The provisions of this bill apply to the two Federal laws that it seeks to modify--the Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act. It is not Congress's intent to affect other Federal law. As Senator Carper stated, the legislation would not change existing immigration law or regulations--including those that govern benefit equivalency between nonimmigrant visa holders and their U.S. counterparts. It is also not Congress's intent to impact or diminish in any way an employee's rights under title VII of the Civil Rights Act or any other antidiscrimination protections or to preempt any relevant State law governing employees' rights. The Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act is a bipartisan, technical clarification of health insurance law, intended to place U.S. expatriate health insurers on equal footing with their foreign counterparts. We look forward to the passage of this bill and are grateful for the bipartisan coalition that has worked so constructively to find a path forward on this issue.