Christopher Coons

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in honor of a friend, a fellow congregant--Betty Dewhirst Russell--someone I have known for a long time and someone I knew as a member of my home church, First and Central Presbyterian in Wilmington, DE. Earlier today, Betty passed away. I am so honored to have an opportunity on the floor of the Senate to briefly recognize her for her remarkable service to the United States and for her great and soaring spirit. Betty was a young midwestern girl when she ventured to St. Louis, MO, in 1940, to begin her schooling as a nurse. Upon graduation, she volunteered for service in the U.S. Army. Betty was posted to Longview, TX, for basic training. While in Longview, she would meet her future husband, Lloyd Byron Russell, known as Russ, of Wilmington, DE. Betty served her country as a first lieutenant in the Army Nurse Corps from April 1943 until January 1946 through the 70th General Hospital. Betty served alongside her uncle, Chief Surgeon Colonel L.D. Cassidy. In something that she recounted to me a number of times once I was elected to this body, Betty, during the Second World War and as part of the 70th General Hospital, cared for hundreds and hundreds of American soldiers, among them two who returned home to serve in this body as Senators--Bob Dole of Kansas and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. Betty received a battle star as the 70th General Hospital was awarded the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Ribbon. Betty was, understandably, proud of her service, saving so many American lives. One cherished memory that Betty shared with her family was that when she was caring for one particularly badly wounded GI, his last request was to hold close an American flag--a big one, he said. She went to the Red Cross, and they gave her a big American flag. She spread it over his body. He put his arms around it, smiled, and took his last breath. Betty and Russ were married in Oran, Algeria. Being military and married in a foreign country required cutting through a lot of redtape. They were eventually married twice--once by the French Government and once by the U.S. Army. Betty and Russ returned to live in our hometown of Wilmington, DE, and eventually settled in Hockessin. They were married for 53 years before Russ passed in 1998. Betty and Russ's four children were born and raised in Delaware. She served her community faithfully, by helping to establish the Hockessin Well Baby Clinic, by serving as a Cub Scouts den mother, as a volunteer at the junior board of Memorial Hospital, at the Wilmington Flower Market for over 50 years, and as a charter member of the Hockessin Community Club. Betty was also a longtime board member of the Lamborn Library and of the Friends of the Hockessin Library in Hockessin and a faithful member of First and Central Presbyterian Church for 70 years. Betty has lived a full and wonderful life--full of dedicated service to her faith, her family, and her country. She always saw the best in others, and she always had a hopeful attitude about the day that lay ahead. So I am grateful for having had the opportunity to know Betty for just a few years in our wonderful home State. I am so grateful for the career and the life of service that Betty Russell gave as a gift to all of us in Delaware and in this grateful Nation. Thank you.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with Senator Carper for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an urgent and long overdue reform to address how the United States houses and treats prison inmates in our Federal criminal justice system. We are losing millions of Americans--disproportionately African- American men--to a criminal justice system that robs them of any meaningful opportunity to find gainful employment or participate in our democracy after they served their time. Fortunately, Americans across the country have come to recognize that our so-called criminal justice system is broken. Here in the Senate, I am encouraged that many of my colleagues, including Senator Durbin, Senator Booker, and many others have joined together in support of a broad bipartisan bill entitled the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act. Our criminal justice system should be about justice and rehabilitation, not just punishment. Passing this Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act would be a significant step in that direction. Today I have come to talk about a specific and targeted bill that Senators Durbin, Booker, Leahy, Franken, and I are introducing. Far too often Federal inmates find themselves placed in 6-by-8-foot cells for 23 hours a day in solitary confinement, colloquially called restrictive housing units. These units are intended to segregate dangerous prisoners from the rest of the prison population or to punish individuals for crimes or misdeeds committed behind bars, but when one looks at the actual evidence surrounding the use of solitary confinement, they find it doesn't actually stop or reduce crime or bad behavior and it doesn't keep us safer. What it does cause is lasting, often irreparable, harm to those inmates subjected to it, and oftentimes it makes it harder for them to later successfully reenter society after they served their time. Senator Durbin, who was to join me and Senator Booker on the floor this afternoon but for a change of schedule, first held hearings on this topic when he was Chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights. He held a hearing on solitary confinement--the first-ever congressional hearing on the topic--back in 2012. In fact, he held two hearings. He left a note for me that says at one of his first hearings on solitary confinement, one of the witnesses was a man named Anthony Graves, whose testimony forever affected the Senator from Illinois. Anthony spent 18 years in prison, including 16 years in solitary confinement. In 2010, he became the 12th death row inmate to be exonerated in the State of Texas. Think about that. Mr. Graves spent 16 years in solitary confinement for a crime he was later proved never to have committed. At that hearing, Mr. Graves testified about his experience, and here is what he said: I lived under some of the worst conditions imaginable, with the filth, the food, the total disrespect of dignity. I lived under the rules of a system that literally drives men out of their minds. He later said: Solitary confinement does one thing--it breaks a man's will and he ends up deteriorating. He is never the same person again. In those hearings, Senator Durbin asked: How big is the impact of solitary confinement in our prison system? It is difficult to determine exactly how many inmates are housed in these so-called restrictive settings. One recent study estimated as many as 80,000 State and Federal inmates in total. In my home State of Delaware, 453 inmates, about 8 percent of our State prison population, were held in restrictive housing units in 2015. Nearly one-third of them were receiving mental health treatment. To fully understand the extent to which our prisons utilize solitary confinement, we need to look at not just the total number of inmates being placed in restrictive housing but the duration of time they spend there. One recent report by the nonpartisan Vera Institute of Justice found that inmates, even those not overly disruptive or violent, stay for long periods of time--months or years. In Washington State, in 2011, the average length of stay in solitary confinement was 11 months. In the State of Texas, in 2013, the average stay was 4 years. The overwhelming majority of individuals sentenced to prison will return to our communities. Rehabilitating those who have paid their debt to society is a key goal of our criminal justice system, and that is why we shouldn't subject inmates to practices like solitary confinement which lessens their ability to successfully reenter society. Mounting evidence shows that solitary confinement physically and mentally harms and destabilizes inmates in ways that then threatens the very communities--our communities--to which they will later return. Over a year ago, President Obama asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch to review the overuse of solitary confinement in our Federal prisons. Earlier this year, the Department of Justice released a report recommending reforms, which the Bureau of Prisons is now implementing. Today Senator Durbin, Senator Booker, Senator Leahy, Senator Franken, and I are introducing a bill, the Solitary Confinement and Reform Act, to codify into law many of the recommendations the Bureau of Prisons is working to put in place and to lay the groundwork for broader reform. This bill is grounded in two key observations: First, that our prison system has grown in population beyond any reasonable scope. Second, restrictive housing or solitary confinement is employed far too frequently for minor behavioral infractions, not as a sanction of last resort. This act will establish limits on the use of solitary and require that it be limited to the briefest amount of time and under the least restrictive conditions that make sense in the setting. The bill requires the Bureau of Prisons to limit the use of solitary confinement for inmates nearing their release date and to establish a transitional process for inmates who must remain housed in solitary confinement up to their release. Most importantly, the bill mandates that the Federal Bureau of Prisons may not place an inmate in solitary confinement if the inmate is a minor, has a serious mental illness, has intellectual or physical disabilities, is pregnant or in the first eight weeks after delivery, except--in all of those cases, except--under limited and temporary circumstances. Finally, the bill requires an annual report to Congress from the Bureau of Prisons about their assessment of their progress in improving solitary confinement practices and regulations. The time to reform our criminal justice system is now, and this bill would mark an important step forward. Some might ask why this is a passion of mine. When I was a young man, my father volunteered through our church and prison ministry, and I was a young man exposed to the impact that prison conditions can have on those who are serving time. But, more importantly, few individuals have captured the urgency of this issue as powerfully as a fellow Delawarean and friend, Bryan Stevenson. Bryan Stevenson is the author of a book entitled ``Just Mercy'' that chronicles his efforts founding and leading the Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery, AL. Since long before sensible reforms to our criminal justice system seemed possible, Bryan has been fighting to improve this badly broken system. In his book he tells the powerful and painful story of a 13-year-old child, Ian, incarcerated as an adult in an adult prison and who spent 18 years in solitary. As Bryan Stevenson recounts, ``Ian's mental health unraveled, and he attempted suicide several times. Each time he hurt himself, his time in solitary was extended.'' I remember being brought to tears by a number of passages in Bryan's book, and I profoundly agree with his concluding assessment that ``the true measure of our character is how we treat the poor, the disfavored, the accused, the incarcerated, and the condemned.'' When it comes to fairly distributing justice in America, Congress has long failed this central test of character. With this bill, this Senate has a rare opportunity to right some of the wrongs that have too long plagued every step of our criminal justice system. We also need to step up and take up and move forward the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act as well, an important and broad bill which would reduce mandatory minimums and give judges more discretion in sentencing. In this effort, we have a broad coalition of Democrats and Republicans and a diverse group of faith and reform and advocacy groups, and in President Obama we have a leader who has acted to end solitary confinement for juveniles in Federal prison and who is ready and willing to sign a broader package of criminal justice reforms into law. Now it is up to Congress. I would like to transition, if I might, to a man who, from his very first days here in the Senate of the United States, has been a powerful, passionate, and engaged advocate for criminal justice reform broadly and for a change to our solitary confinement practices in particular. Far too many Americans have grown up in a society where they are defined by the worst thing they have ever done. When an inmate leaves prison with his sentence complete and time served, with his mind and spirit broken because of solitary, we are all less safe and our world is less just. I wish to thank Senator Durbin for his efforts on this bill, but in particular I want to thank Senator Booker for his passion, for his engagement, for his effectiveness. He is my colleague who has been most engaged in the changes of solitary confinement from his first days here, and he is the deserving partner of Senator Durbin's long record going back to the hearings he first held in 2012. With that, I yield the floor to my colleague from the great State of New Jersey.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an urgent and long overdue reform to address how the United States houses and treats prison inmates in our Federal criminal justice system. We are losing millions of Americans--disproportionately African- American men--to a criminal justice system that robs them of any meaningful opportunity to find gainful employment or participate in our democracy after they served their time. Fortunately, Americans across the country have come to recognize that our so-called criminal justice system is broken. Here in the Senate, I am encouraged that many of my colleagues, including Senator Durbin, Senator Booker, and many others have joined together in support of a broad bipartisan bill entitled the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act. Our criminal justice system should be about justice and rehabilitation, not just punishment. Passing this Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act would be a significant step in that direction. Today I have come to talk about a specific and targeted bill that Senators Durbin, Booker, Leahy, Franken, and I are introducing. Far too often Federal inmates find themselves placed in 6-by-8-foot cells for 23 hours a day in solitary confinement, colloquially called restrictive housing units. These units are intended to segregate dangerous prisoners from the rest of the prison population or to punish individuals for crimes or misdeeds committed behind bars, but when one looks at the actual evidence surrounding the use of solitary confinement, they find it doesn't actually stop or reduce crime or bad behavior and it doesn't keep us safer. What it does cause is lasting, often irreparable, harm to those inmates subjected to it, and oftentimes it makes it harder for them to later successfully reenter society after they served their time. Senator Durbin, who was to join me and Senator Booker on the floor this afternoon but for a change of schedule, first held hearings on this topic when he was Chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights. He held a hearing on solitary confinement--the first-ever congressional hearing on the topic--back in 2012. In fact, he held two hearings. He left a note for me that says at one of his first hearings on solitary confinement, one of the witnesses was a man named Anthony Graves, whose testimony forever affected the Senator from Illinois. Anthony spent 18 years in prison, including 16 years in solitary confinement. In 2010, he became the 12th death row inmate to be exonerated in the State of Texas. Think about that. Mr. Graves spent 16 years in solitary confinement for a crime he was later proved never to have committed. At that hearing, Mr. Graves testified about his experience, and here is what he said: I lived under some of the worst conditions imaginable, with the filth, the food, the total disrespect of dignity. I lived under the rules of a system that literally drives men out of their minds. He later said: Solitary confinement does one thing--it breaks a man's will and he ends up deteriorating. He is never the same person again. In those hearings, Senator Durbin asked: How big is the impact of solitary confinement in our prison system? It is difficult to determine exactly how many inmates are housed in these so-called restrictive settings. One recent study estimated as many as 80,000 State and Federal inmates in total. In my home State of Delaware, 453 inmates, about 8 percent of our State prison population, were held in restrictive housing units in 2015. Nearly one-third of them were receiving mental health treatment. To fully understand the extent to which our prisons utilize solitary confinement, we need to look at not just the total number of inmates being placed in restrictive housing but the duration of time they spend there. One recent report by the nonpartisan Vera Institute of Justice found that inmates, even those not overly disruptive or violent, stay for long periods of time--months or years. In Washington State, in 2011, the average length of stay in solitary confinement was 11 months. In the State of Texas, in 2013, the average stay was 4 years. The overwhelming majority of individuals sentenced to prison will return to our communities. Rehabilitating those who have paid their debt to society is a key goal of our criminal justice system, and that is why we shouldn't subject inmates to practices like solitary confinement which lessens their ability to successfully reenter society. Mounting evidence shows that solitary confinement physically and mentally harms and destabilizes inmates in ways that then threatens the very communities--our communities--to which they will later return. Over a year ago, President Obama asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch to review the overuse of solitary confinement in our Federal prisons. Earlier this year, the Department of Justice released a report recommending reforms, which the Bureau of Prisons is now implementing. Today Senator Durbin, Senator Booker, Senator Leahy, Senator Franken, and I are introducing a bill, the Solitary Confinement and Reform Act, to codify into law many of the recommendations the Bureau of Prisons is working to put in place and to lay the groundwork for broader reform. This bill is grounded in two key observations: First, that our prison system has grown in population beyond any reasonable scope. Second, restrictive housing or solitary confinement is employed far too frequently for minor behavioral infractions, not as a sanction of last resort. This act will establish limits on the use of solitary and require that it be limited to the briefest amount of time and under the least restrictive conditions that make sense in the setting. The bill requires the Bureau of Prisons to limit the use of solitary confinement for inmates nearing their release date and to establish a transitional process for inmates who must remain housed in solitary confinement up to their release. Most importantly, the bill mandates that the Federal Bureau of Prisons may not place an inmate in solitary confinement if the inmate is a minor, has a serious mental illness, has intellectual or physical disabilities, is pregnant or in the first eight weeks after delivery, except--in all of those cases, except--under limited and temporary circumstances. Finally, the bill requires an annual report to Congress from the Bureau of Prisons about their assessment of their progress in improving solitary confinement practices and regulations. The time to reform our criminal justice system is now, and this bill would mark an important step forward. Some might ask why this is a passion of mine. When I was a young man, my father volunteered through our church and prison ministry, and I was a young man exposed to the impact that prison conditions can have on those who are serving time. But, more importantly, few individuals have captured the urgency of this issue as powerfully as a fellow Delawarean and friend, Bryan Stevenson. Bryan Stevenson is the author of a book entitled ``Just Mercy'' that chronicles his efforts founding and leading the Equal Justice Initiative in Montgomery, AL. Since long before sensible reforms to our criminal justice system seemed possible, Bryan has been fighting to improve this badly broken system. In his book he tells the powerful and painful story of a 13-year-old child, Ian, incarcerated as an adult in an adult prison and who spent 18 years in solitary. As Bryan Stevenson recounts, ``Ian's mental health unraveled, and he attempted suicide several times. Each time he hurt himself, his time in solitary was extended.'' I remember being brought to tears by a number of passages in Bryan's book, and I profoundly agree with his concluding assessment that ``the true measure of our character is how we treat the poor, the disfavored, the accused, the incarcerated, and the condemned.'' When it comes to fairly distributing justice in America, Congress has long failed this central test of character. With this bill, this Senate has a rare opportunity to right some of the wrongs that have too long plagued every step of our criminal justice system. We also need to step up and take up and move forward the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act as well, an important and broad bill which would reduce mandatory minimums and give judges more discretion in sentencing. In this effort, we have a broad coalition of Democrats and Republicans and a diverse group of faith and reform and advocacy groups, and in President Obama we have a leader who has acted to end solitary confinement for juveniles in Federal prison and who is ready and willing to sign a broader package of criminal justice reforms into law. Now it is up to Congress. I would like to transition, if I might, to a man who, from his very first days here in the Senate of the United States, has been a powerful, passionate, and engaged advocate for criminal justice reform broadly and for a change to our solitary confinement practices in particular. Far too many Americans have grown up in a society where they are defined by the worst thing they have ever done. When an inmate leaves prison with his sentence complete and time served, with his mind and spirit broken because of solitary, we are all less safe and our world is less just. I wish to thank Senator Durbin for his efforts on this bill, but in particular I want to thank Senator Booker for his passion, for his engagement, for his effectiveness. He is my colleague who has been most engaged in the changes of solitary confinement from his first days here, and he is the deserving partner of Senator Durbin's long record going back to the hearings he first held in 2012. With that, I yield the floor to my colleague from the great State of New Jersey.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Madam President, I rise today to join my Democratic colleagues on the floor in opposition to this Chamber's inability to do its job and fulfill our constitutional obligation by holding a public hearing and taking a vote on President Obama's nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court. As this body appears to apparently head home for the next month and a half, let me share yet another reason why it is so important that we put partisan politics aside and do our jobs. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have had the opportunity to travel to many other countries. Just this past June, I spent a week in South Africa to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Robert F. Kennedy's ``Ripples of Hope'' speech in Cape Town. Robert F. Kennedy, a former Senator himself, inspired the early, nascent anti-apartheid movement in South Africa with this uplifting and challenging speech. Just earlier today, I had a chance to meet with a friend from South Africa with whom I connected on that trip. I had a reminder in our conversation--a reminder that what we do teaches, engages, and challenges much of the rest of the world. The United States and South Africa, although we are very different countries with different histories, are similar in important ways. What struck me on this trip to South Africa back in June and in the months since has been some of our important similarities and our important current challenges. We share powerful foundational commitments to our original documents--to the Freedom Charter in South Africa and to our Declaration of Independence here--and to our respective constitutions. We have historically shared a strong respect for the rule of law. We share deep understanding of the importance of capable and independent judiciaries to preserving our multiparty democracy. But, today in the United States, as in South Africa, divisiveness and dysfunction are beginning to genuinely challenge the institutions that protect our constitutional order. Here we need look no further than the matter that drives us to the floor today--the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court that is now approaching 200 days without any sign of promise or compromise from our Republican colleagues, without any expression of a willingness to do what has been done routinely for a century here. On the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, we have not had a hearing, and we have not had a vote. I have heard no significant issues or questions raised about the qualifications of Chief Judge Garland. Frankly, I don't think one could raise significant questions. This is one of the most seasoned, most experienced judges ever nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet no progress--no hope of progress--seems to be heard on our committee or here on the floor. Even if we were to confirm Chief Judge Garland today, I think we need to realize that our inaction has already had a significant impact. All around the world, what the United States says and does sends a strong message. It matters what we say. It matters what we do. In this case, it matters deeply what we aren't doing. This Chamber alone cannot heal a divided country with a single committee hearing. We cannot heal congressional dysfunction with just one vote, but these actions could serve as the first in a series of concrete steps to help repair the dysfunction and the division in our Senate. We should start by holding public hearings, by letting the people of the United States understand what, if any, questions or concerns there might be about this talented, capable, decent man, Judge Merrick Garland, who has been nominated to the Supreme Court, and then build on that momentum by giving timely, thorough consideration to the President's other nominees for judgeships across the country. With 89 judicial vacancies--with 89 current judicial vacancies--from district courts to courts of appeals, to the U.S. Supreme Court itself, our inaction doesn't just create uncertainty for those involved, it impairs our courts and actively harms our constitutional commitment to justice. From Justice Marshall to Justice Warren, to Justice Scalia himself, the Supreme Court has been home to many icons of American jurisprudence, men and women whose work, writings, and reflections are known around the world, but as I suspect they might themselves have been the very first to remind us, nations don't endure because of unique or historic individuals, free nations endure because of institutions. When it comes both to ensuring the proper functioning of our treasured American institutions and to ensuring its future independence and liberty, we are not doing our job. We are failing to fulfill our constitutional obligations and, in doing so, we are directly challenging the strength of our constitutional order. We must not forget that everything we do here and everything we do not do here sends forth a message to the rest of the world, to those who we hope watch and imitate our democracy. This inaction is something I hope they do not imitate. If we were to take action on Chief Judge Garland's nomination, we would have the opportunity not only to strengthen our own institutions but to return to setting a constructive and positive example for the rest of the free world. We must leave no doubt that our democratic institutions can handle all the challenges they face. I urge all my colleagues to seriously consider the consequences of this tragic inaction, for nearly 200 days, to consider this able and qualified nominee. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 459, H.R. 2494.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I am going to take a few minutes, if I might, to celebrate something that we, frankly, have a chance to celebrate far too rarely--a bipartisan legislative success. I am thrilled to be here to celebrate the passage of the End Wildlife Trafficking Act, a bill Senator Flake and I have been working on for months since it was introduced in December of last year, an idea which we have been working on for well over a year. This bill has been a long time in coming. I first saw the tragic consequences of poaching and wildlife trafficking decades ago when I was a young man in Kenya, and I first visited Africa with a number of my colleagues on a trip to look at the dramatic increase in wildlife trafficking just a few short years ago. President Obama issued an Executive order to combat wildlife trafficking back in 2013, and Senator Cardin and I held a joint hearing on the topic in 2014 when I chaired the African Affairs Subcommittee. Senator Flake, now the chair of the African Affairs Subcommittee, and I introduced this bill together last December, and now we are excited to see it pass this body and be one step closer to becoming law. Why is this bill important? Why does wildlife trafficking in Africa matter? Because nearly 100 elephants are killed every single day so their ivory tusks can be sold on the black market. Ivory now commands prices higher than heroin or gold, and it has become one of the principal ways of financing transnational networks of terrorists and of criminals. The tragic consequences for the African elephant were recently noted in a report that showed that the population of elephants across the continent shrank by one-third in the last decade. In 2014, more than 1,000 rhinoceroses were illegally killed in South Africa, a several thousand-percent increase since the decade before. And as rhino horn and elephant tusks command outrageous prices on the world market, the demand has driven both wildlife poaching and trafficking steadily upward. Until today, it has become a multibillion-dollar industry that threatens wildlife, fragile ecosystems, and our national security. Wildlife poaching and trafficking is one of those problems about which it is tempting to throw up our hands and ask: What could we possibly do about this? It happens on the other side of the world and it affects wildlife most of us will never see in person. But we didn't. And because of that, because of our persistence and determination and because so many people on the committee staff in the Senate and in the executive branch have devoted time and effort to coming up with a strategy and a pathway toward addressing it, we have lots of reasons today to be optimistic. In President Obama, we have a President engaged in the continent of Africa and committed to combating trafficking and poaching. In Secretary Kerry, we have a former Senator who, when he was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, dedicated personal time and effort to highlighting the issue of wildlife trafficking. As I mentioned, in 2013, the President created a task force on wildlife trafficking that produced a national strategy for working together to combat wildlife trafficking. Now, just today, we have a strong bill--the End Wildlife Trafficking Act--that has passed the Senate and is on its way to the House. Based on a recent conversation, I am optimistic that Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel, of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, will move this forward in the week ahead. Both Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel deserve great credit for passing a complementary bill in the House, and it is because they have already acted on this that I am optimistic we will be able to together reach our end goal. What exactly does that bill do? Let me briefly say, it requires a strategy, it authorizes an interagency approach to working with the governments of many countries affected by wildlife trafficking, and it produces recommendations on how to address those threats in coordination with nongovernmental organizations. It authorizes the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID to support efforts to combat poaching and wildlife trafficking and to encourage community conservation programs--an initiative, a direction, that Senator Flake and I have seen in person on the ground in southern Africa. It also includes strategic regular reviews to monitor progress being made, and it gives prosecutors more tools to go after individuals involved in high-value wildlife crime. Last, but not least, it encourages diplomatic efforts around the world to try and reduce the demand for wildlife trafficking and for the markets that consume so much of this illicit traffic, whether in China, Vietnam, Malaysia, or elsewhere. Finally, it requires an annual report back to us in Congress to let us know how any taxpayer dollars appropriated in this fight against wildlife trafficking are being spent. This bill isn't just good policy. In a Congress that is all too often paralyzed by division and by dysfunction, the passage of this act is an important example of what it can look like when we put good policy before partisan politics. I want to briefly thank the staff of Senators Corker and Cardin; my own staff, including Lisa Jones, who spent a great deal of time on this; the staff of Senator Flake, Colleen Donnelly and Sarah Towles; and three terrific people, all of them AAAS fellows who have helped bring this bill to passage: Rosa Mutiso, Allie Schwier, and Leah Rubin Shen, who has moved from being an AAAS fellow to my office and has done a terrific job getting us to the finish line today. I am so grateful for all of the work of the dedicated folks in Congress and in the executive branch who have made this possible. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported amendment be withdrawn; the Coons amendment at the desk be agreed to; and the bill, as amended, be read a third time.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on this measure.

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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following five nominations: Calendar Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, if I might on the question of the Court of Federal Claims, today, currently, there are just 10 active judges, although it is authorized to have 16. The five nominees whom I brought to the floor today and have asked unanimous consent to proceed on were first nominated in April or May of 2014 and have waited more than 2 years for their confirmation here by the Senate. No one has raised an objection to their qualifications, and each of them has twice now unanimously been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee without concerns being raised or advanced about either their qualifications or the need to fill these judicial vacancies. With fewer active judges, cases have piled up in the Court of Federal Claims, which is often called ``the people's court'' because of its role in hearing cases brought by citizens and businesses against the Federal Government. From 2012 to 2015, the number of pending general jurisdiction cases per active judge has nearly doubled, jumping from 70 to about 130 in just 3 years. The court has also seen an increase in bid protest cases--some of the most complex and resource-intensive cases heard by the court. These delays harm the citizens and businesses that are waiting to have their cases decided. Delays also come at significant cost to the Federal Government, which will pay greater interest once judgments are finally rendered. As my colleague commented, it is true that senior judges are helping this overburdened court, but their efforts are limited by statute--they cannot work more than 90 days per year. Last year I called for these same five judges to be confirmed by unanimous consent. One of my colleagues objected and argued that the number of pending cases has decreased and that additional judges are not needed. But this is, in my view, only the case if one counts cases that are referred to special masters. Special masters have significantly reduced their caseload in recent years, but these cases are not significant contributors to the workload of the Court of Federal Claims judges. We have received letters from the chief judge of the Court of Federal Claims and the past president of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Bar Association urging our swift action on these nominees. The Court of Federal Claims is in need of the service of these candidates, whose experience and qualifications are beyond question. I want to briefly highlight a few of these nominees and their backgrounds. One of the nominees is Jeri Somers, who spent her career in service to our Nation, a decade in the Department of Justice as a Federal prosecutor and Civil Division trial attorney, and an extensive background as well in military service. She retired from the U.S. Air Force Reserves at the rank of lieutenant colonel, having spent two decades in the military serving as a judge advocate and then subsequently as a military judge in the U.S. Air Force and the District of Columbia's Air National Guard. Another pending nominee, Armando Bonilla, spent his entire career-- over two decades--as an attorney for the Department of Justice. He was hired out of law school in the Department's prestigious Honors Program and has risen to become the Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Department. Mr. Bonilla would be the first Hispanic judge to hold a position on this court and was strongly endorsed by the Hispanic National Bar Association. Thomas Halkowski, a third pending nominee, is a respected partner at Fish & Richardson in Wilmington, one of the preeminent IP law firms in the Nation. He practices in Wilmington, DE, my hometown. He is a former Department of Justice attorney, with 8 years of experience in the Environment and Natural Resources Division, and would bring the Court of Federal Claims a wealth of experience relevant to his work. All five of these pending nominees to the Court of Federal Claims are qualified candidates who have languished for 2 years on the Senate Calendar. They represent part of a pattern of obstruction extending all the way up to our country's highest Court, the Supreme Court. I believe it is time we come together in a bipartisan fashion to do our job, confirm these five nominees to these judicial vacancies, and allow them to get to work serving our Nation on the Court of Federal Claims. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

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

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise because of three numbers--three simple but important numbers--100, 176, and 9. What do all of those have to do with the matter that I think should be before us today? Well, it has been 176 days since President Obama did his job under the Constitution and nominated Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the DC Circuit Court, a consensus candidate, to our Nation's highest Court following the untimely passing of Justice Scalia. We have, of course, 100 Senators whose challenge it is to find ways to work together across the aisle and do our job and make progress for our country. It has also been 100 years that the U.S. Senate has had a Judiciary Committee--a committee on which I have the honor of serving. In the 100 years we have had a Judiciary Committee in the U.S. Senate, we have never had this situation, where the President does his job under the Constitution and nominates an eminently qualified jurist and the Senate Judiciary Committee refuses--just refuses--to conduct a hearing, to give a vote, to bring it to the floor, and to offer a final vote. Obviously, we have disagreements. We have disagreements in this body over principles and ideology. That is part of our job to come here representing our States and their different priorities and values. But to steadfastly refuse for 176 days to even convene a hearing, to even begin the process to allow the American people to have some insight into the quality and caliber of the man nominated by our President strikes me as an unprecedented refusal. It is the first time in a century that we have so blatantly had one group in this body refusing to proceed. Our window for acting is closing because in just a few weeks, on October 3, the Supreme Court's new term begins. So the refusal to act and to fill the ninth vacant seat has now had a serious ongoing impact on one term of the Supreme Court and now soon on a second term of the Supreme Court. We have never had a Supreme Court vacancy go this long in modern history. In terms of the qualifications of the candidate, let's just take a quick look at the public record so far. A bipartisan group of former Solicitors General--the lawyers of the United States, the persons who represent the United States in court and often before the Supreme Court--including Paul Clement, Ted Olson, and Ken Starr, have endorsed Judge Garland as ``superbly qualified,'' having ``demonstrated the temperament, intellect, and experience to serve'' on the Supreme Court. This is not a sharply divisive nominee who is pursuing a particular ideological agenda. This is a well- regarded, well-respected, seasoned senior member of the Federal judiciary. Top lawyers at 44 U.S. companies have written to the Senate calling Judge Garland ``exceptionally well-qualified'' and noting that a prolonged vacancy continues to leave important, even vital, business issues unresolved before the Court, giving them a lack of predictability and leading them to have to make decisions in the absence of clear guidance from the Court. Just yesterday my colleagues and I joined some of Judge Garland's former law clerks in front of the Supreme Court. Sometimes when I have had the opportunity to review nominees for Federal judgeships, I like to hear from those who previously worked for them. In a letter to the Senate, a group of Judge Garland's former clerks noted that ``Chief Judge Garland deeply believes that our system of justice works best when those who see things differently are able to work together, in a collegial manner, to arrive at a just result.'' Yesterday we heard again firsthand accounts from Judge Garland's clerks of his wisdom, mentorship, decency, and commitment to justice. I wish we could follow the same approach in the Senate that Judge Garland's clerks and other former coworkers said he followed in the Department of Justice, as a career prosecutor, and as a judge on the DC Circuit--an approach that focuses on collegiality and success. I had the honor of meeting with Judge Garland on April 7. In addition to his truly impressive intellect and compelling and long judicial experience, our conversation revealed to me a person of real character, good judgment, deep sensitivity, and thoughtfulness. I wish I had the opportunity in front of a public hearing of the Judiciary Committee to ask him similar questions that would allow my constituents, the President's constituents, and other Members of this body to ask and answer important questions before the American people, before a committee of this body, and before our colleagues so that we could do our job and move forward. Yet we haven't had this hearing--the hearing that the American people so need and deserve. In May, my Democratic colleagues held a public meeting to try to further explore and air Judge Garland's background, where we heard from four esteemed, significant, and experienced individuals deeply familiar with Judge Garland's experience and character--a former court of appeals judge, a former U.S. attorney, a former Cabinet Secretary, and a U.S. law professor who clerked for Judge Garland. All four of them urged us to move forward and consider his nomination. Of those four, Judge Lewis' testimony has particularly stuck with me. He was nominated by President George H.W. Bush in September of 1992, which, to the best of my recollection, was an election year. He was then confirmed by a Democratic-led Senate in October of 1992, less than a month before a hotly contested Presidential election. Judge Lewis previously came to testify in support of then-Judge Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit before his elevation to the Supreme Court. Judge Lewis warned us earlier this year in this meeting that what we are doing is not only deadlocking the Supreme Court, but it is diminishing it. Our system of justice, our Federal courts, and our constitutional order are one of America's most precious assets. As a Member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have the honor of traveling to other countries to represent our country, most often on bipartisan delegations, where we urge them to follow our model. Sadly, in too many countries I have visited, they cannot depend upon their judiciary to be truly independent, to enforce the rule of law, to issue judgments that are in keeping with their laws, traditions, or, most importantly, their constitution. That is why I am disappointed that we are engaging in this unprecedented refusal to follow the rules, to follow the process of the Constitution and the Senate and to give this important nominee a hearing. That is why I am disappointed by Leader McConnell and Chairman Grassley in their refusal to consider Judge Garland's qualifications. It is my hope they will reconsider. In Chief Judge Garland's nomination, President Obama fulfilled one of his most important constitutional responsibilities. Now all 100 Senators, on this 176th day that we are waiting to fill this 9th vacancy on the Supreme Court, must do our job and provide appropriate advice and possibly consent to the President's nominee. The Senate has a valuable opportunity to show our constituents, the American people, and the world that even in the midst of a divisive Presidential campaign, our democratic and constitutional system still works. We cannot allow yearlong Supreme Court vacancies to become routine, and I am deeply concerned about the manner in which the Senate is conducting itself and the possibility that this unprecedented inaction will set a precedent for future vacancies and send a signal to the world that our constitutional order cannot still function. I remain hopeful that my colleagues will give serious thought to the systemic consequences of what we are doing through our refusal to even hold a hearing on Judge Garland. It is long past time to put the good of our Nation and the Constitution above the politics of the day and to get to work on this confirmation.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, with Senator Chuck Grassley, I am proud to cosponsor a resolution designating July 2016 as the ``National Anti- Counterfeiting Consumer Education and Awareness'' Month in celebration of the 70th anniversary of the Lanham Act, which provided the foundation for our modern Federal trademark registration system. Not only are trademarks a source of significant value for companies, but they also play an important role in communicating the authenticity and integrity of products and services to customers, thereby promoting consumer safety. For example, counterfeit batteries, sometimes featuring fake trademarks, have been linked to increased risks of spontaneous fires--a clear safety hazard if that battery is in a consumer product such as a children's toy. According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency, seizures related to counterfeit intellectual property increased almost 25 percent between 2014 and 2015. While the government must continue its interception of fake goods at our borders, these numbers and the apparent rise of this problem also call for greater consumer awareness of the risks of buying counterfeit products. By designating this month the ``National Anti- Counterfeiting Consumer Education and Awareness'' Month, I hope to foster such an awareness and the role that intellectual property--here, the trademark system--plays in helping to protect consumers.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sydney Jones, Macon Sheppard, William Aulgar, and Jemel Green-Harris, of my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of today's legislative session.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, tomorrow will mark 1 year since the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China, and Iran reached an agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining or developing a nuclear weapon. This afternoon, I intend to review where we are today 1 year after the deal--also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. I am grateful a number of my colleagues will come to the floor today as well, or are submitting statements for the Record, reviewing where we are 1 year later. As I said 1 year ago, roughly--in September--when I ultimately decided, after long and thorough and detailed consideration, to support the agreement, those of us determined to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran have a real, enduring, and ongoing responsibility to undertake consistent and clear-eyed assessments of how this agreement fares and not just over the course of its first year but over the many years to come. In short, in my assessment so far, this deal has done what it intended to do. Because of aggressive enforcement of the terms of the agreement, the JCPOA has cut off Iran's most likely short-term uranium and plutonium pathways to building a nuclear weapon. The time it would take for Iran to break out, to assemble enough fissile material for one nuclear weapon has extended significantly from just 2 to 3 months to well over a year. The international community, in turn, has upheld its commitments under the deal, providing Iran with relief from nuclear-related sanctions. More importantly, the agreement has given the IAEA, or the International Atomic Energy Agency--the world's nuclear watchdog-- unprecedented searching access to oversee all of Iran's nuclear activities with intrusive inspections and round-the-clock remote monitoring. I will review for a few more minutes all the different ways I and some of my colleagues have worked to ensure effective enforcement of this agreement. First, as to the IAEA inspections I just mentioned. At my urging, the Senate State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee provided nearly $95 million in funding for the IAEA--a $5 million increase over the level requested by President Obama. On top of giving the IAEA greater resources, this increase, I believe, sends a strong signal to Iran and our international partners that we intend to enforce the JCPOA; that we intend to encourage voluntary contributions by our international partners to strengthen the agency and to sustain its ability to take advantage of the unique opportunities under this agreement for a searching and continuing insight into Iran's nuclear activity. Advocating for additional U.S. support for the IAEA is just one of the steps my colleagues and I have taken over the past year to ensure the nuclear agreement is implemented effectively and enforced strictly. In a series of 15 floor speeches since December, during which I have been joined by nearly a dozen members of my caucus, I have sought to keep this agreement on our radar to ensure that Congress is effectively monitoring it and that we are relentlessly enforcing its terms. Holding Iran accountable doesn't just mean enforcing the JCPOA. It also means pushing back on that regime's bad behavior across the Middle East--behavior that falls outside the scope of the nuclear agreement. That is why I have called for the Obama administration to strengthen its efforts to interdict Iranian arms shipments to the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and--like a police department after a successful drug bust--to then publicize that those interdictions have occurred and the weapons they have seized, demonstrating to the American people and our partners in the Middle East the full scope of Iran's destabilizing activities and our intention to keep cracking down on those activities, which is crucial to building a broad coalition that will sustainably counter Iranian aggression. That is why I have also worked with my colleagues to provide $117 million this year for the U.S. Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, which enforces American sanctions against bad actors, including enforcing some of the very sanctions that crippled Iran's economy and forced it to the negotiating table in the first place. That funding represents a significant increase of $17 million since 2013, and I am fighting for an additional $6 million this next fiscal year. I have also held discussions with foreign leaders, from Israel to Saudi Arabia, India, Qatar, Turkey, and Russia, about how we can work together to sustainably counter Iranian aggression. I have called on the administration to levy new sanctions against an entity affiliated with Iran's hardline Revolutionary Guard Corps, known as Mahan Air, and I will make the same demand of the next administration. I have worked to impose penalties on Iran for its dangerous and provocative behavior, which means taking action against their destabilizing support for the murderous Assad regime in Syria and their promotion of terrorism throughout the Middle East, Iran's ongoing ballistic missile tests, and the regime's human rights abuses, from its executions of juveniles to its detention of journalists and Iranian- American citizens. I have also joined my colleague Senator Graham in leading a letter to President Obama calling on the administration to include a strengthened 10-year MOU, or memorandum of understanding, on defense priorities with our vital ally Israel. I am determined to continue these efforts in the months and years to come. We cannot avert our eyes from Iran's destructive behavior, even as we review what progress has been made in the year since the JCPOA. If we are to ensure that agreement remains intact, if we are to succeed in our task of preventing Iran from developing or obtaining a nuclear weapon, Congress must play an active role. If the agreement succeeds, we should recognize those successes. If Iran falls short of the terms of the agreement, we need to make certain the international community reacts swiftly to bring Iran back into compliance. Regardless of whether my colleagues opposed or supported this agreement a year ago, regardless of where one stood then, we all have an interest today in working together to ensure we prevent Iran from ever being able to develop a nuclear weapon. We have a responsibility then to review Iran's actions and hold them accountable through aggressive enforcement of the deal, pushing back on their bad behavior, and maintaining a credible conventional deterrent. As my colleagues comments later today will make clear, in addition to holding Iran to the terms of the nuclear deal, we have to push back against their dangerous nonnuclear bad behavior--as I mentioned, the ballistic missile tests, human rights violations, and support for terrorism. I know my colleagues and I remain committed to overseeing strict enforcement of the nuclear agreement with Iran and protecting the security of our allies and partners in the Middle East, especially our vital ally Israel. I also know we remain committed to showing that international engagement and multilateral diplomacy can be effective, even with rogue regimes like Iran. These commitments are why my colleagues and I are on the floor this afternoon and evening. These commitments will continue tomorrow, as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which I serve, holds a hearing that will review closely where we are 1 year since the JCPOA. I thank Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Cardin for regularly holding hearings to assess the nuclear deal and for convening tomorrow's hearing, which I look forward to attending. Our commitment to overseeing the implementation of this important agreement can and must continue for its entire duration. Even if another crisis emerges, we must remain vigilant and push for the most aggressive enforcement of this deal and not be distracted by developments in other parts of the world. That is my commitment for as long as I have the honor of representing the people of Delaware in the Senate. I am grateful to some of my colleagues who will join me on the floor later today--Senator Carper, Senator Peters, and Senator Blumenthal. I would also like to thank the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Casey, for his steadfast effort to support our vital ally Israel and ensure swift multilateral consequences for JCPOA violations. In closing, let me say this. We--this body, this Congress, the people of this country--must make a clear distinction between the Iranian regime and the Iranian people. The Iran regime deserves scrutiny, condemnation, and opposition for a decades-long pattern of human rights abuses, support for terrorism, and bad behavior, but the Iranian people deserve our support in their fight for freedom, democracy, and human rights. With that, I am hopeful we will hear soon from my good friend and fellow Delawarean, the senior Senator from our State of neighbors, who has been a leader in my State for decades. I know later this evening we will also hear on these important topics from Senators Peters and Blumenthal as well. I am grateful to all of my colleagues who have joined me in colloquies and statements on the floor on this important topic in the past, and I just hope we can, in a sustainable and bipartisan way, insist on effective and rigorous enforcement of this deal throughout its entire term. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Madam President, I wish to thank my great colleague, the Senator from Rhode Island, for his tireless efforts to keep climate change on this Chamber's radar. One day I hope that we can move it from our radar to our to-do list and ultimately to the history books. Today I am pleased and proud to join my colleagues to speak about something I thought we had established in grade school but apparently bears repeating; that is, the importance of science. It is troubling that today in the 21st century, there is any doubt about the importance of real, sound science in many facets of our lives. It is troubling that we still need to defend science here on the Senate floor. Scientific discovery and invention are the engine of our economy. Science leads to transformative technologies and new ways of thinking in a wide range of fields, including health care, manufacturing, agriculture, clean energy, and national security. Scientific inquiry is also the foundation of good public policy. It shapes and informs how we inform global threats such as ozone depletion, an issue on which the international community has made real progress. Science must play an equally central role in how we address climate change. When we want to know what to do about a public health or environmental crisis, we turn to science. For example, rigorous, careful data collection and analysis are critical to understanding long-term trends. Data can show the effectiveness of a medication in treating a disease, for example, or the ability of a new material to withstand extreme conditions over time. And data can help us make good decisions based on those trends. Never have we had a greater ability to collect and analyze data than today. That is why more than ever in today's world, science should drive policy, not the other way around. In a number of areas, I have worked with my Republican colleagues on bipartisan bills that help substantially advance scientific inquiry, from encouraging citizen science projects to improving public-private partnerships with our national labs. So why is climate science so threatening to some? Sadly, there are far too many organizations in existence today that have it backwards. These organizations have attempted to distort science for purely political ends because the facts threaten the bottom line of those who have created and sustained them. These organizations claim to use sound science to support policy objectives, but their actions indicate that the only science they find sound is the kind that sounds like profits. One of these organizations is the now-defunct The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, known as the TASSC--an organization that played a key role in obscuring the facts around the dangers of tobacco use. TASSC was originally founded back in 1993 under the guise of promoting ``sound science in policymaking.'' In reality, as was later uncovered in the documents that came to light in the course of litigation against the tobacco industry, TASSC actually had the opposite goal. The year it was founded, it stated in private documents at the time that one of its goals was to lay the groundwork to help Phillip Morris advance its agenda of promoting tobacco use nationally and at the State and local level. How? Let me quote from one of these discovered documents: by ``encouraging the public to question--from the grassroots up--the validity of scientific studies.'' These are not the statements of an organization devoted to scientific inquiry and data-driven policy. Let me be clear. The problem doesn't lie in industry hiring scientists to argue their case. That is well within the rights of industry and of any organization in our country. The problem is when groups like this one misrepresent their very motives, hide their sources of funding and industry ties, and push out misleading or even incorrect information under the guise of ``sound science.'' We all know today that smoking tobacco is profoundly harmful to our health. Yet these same organizations, the ones that decades ago promoted ``science'' that hid the truth about tobacco and threatened public health for far too long, are now in sadly too many cases doing the same with climate change. Fortunately, today, this group I am discussing, TASSC, is now defunct. But its former executive director, Steve Milloy, is still an active climate change denier who helped draft the 1998 ``Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan.'' It included the statement: ``Victory Will Be Achieved When Average citizens `understand' . . . uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the `conventional wisdom.' '' Quite simply, his goal was and continues to be to persuade people, using incorrect, scientifically unsound information, to doubt the science about climate change, one of the greatest global challenges we face. His policy goal is to halt action on climate change, and he is using science incorrectly to achieve this political end. Frankly, this is irresponsible and it flies in the face of the foundation of the scientific method. As someone who trained in chemistry in college, I am familiar with how scientists are trained to formulate hypotheses, carefully construct experiments to test those hypotheses, and without bias or preformed assumptions, then draw conclusions about those hypotheses. Starting with the answer and considering only evidence that supports the answer--that is not science; that is politics. The very existence of groups like TASSC and others that my colleagues will speak about this evening and tomorrow make clear that we must work even harder to defend and support science throughout our society. That means providing robust funding for our national lab system. That means establishing a Federal effort to coordinate research in a new subfield of chemistry that I have been excited about promoting. That means supporting the use of crowdsourcing and citizen science methods in Federal agencies. That means supporting policies that will support industry-relevant training in engineering, including advanced manufacturing. All of these are efforts that I have been involved in and that enjoy bipartisan support. My colleagues know that I make an effort to promote pragmatic, bipartisan policy ideas. Science should not be a partisan issue, and neither, frankly, should climate change. Climate change is all too real for those of us who live in low-lying coastal States like my home State of Delaware, where flooding has already devastated homes and communities up and down the State. The science is clear: This severe flooding is only going to increase as temperatures continue to rise around the globe and as the sea level rises as well. We live in an era of unprecedented scientific and technological advantages. The NASA Juno spacecraft mission to Jupiter; the ability to use 3-D printing to manufacture custom products, specifically prosthetics; the evolution of new developments in robotics and genomics--these advances capture our imagination, and they can change our world. These developments happen because America's best trained scientists and engineers have spent decades undertaking rigorous and innovative research and applying their findings to address the big questions of our world. Certainly the challenges of climate change are daunting and urgent, and so we should be focused on using the best science available to tackle these challenges with the best policy solutions possible--not convincing people who prefer denial and deception that the science isn't even real. I wish to thank my friend and colleague Senator Whitehouse for his tireless leadership in addressing climate change and for assembling today's important colloquy. If I might, with the forbearance of my colleague from New Mexico who I see has come to the floor, I wish to take just a few more minutes to address an unrelated but urgent topic. Tragedy in Dallas Madam President, before I invite one of my colleagues to continue today's colloquy, I just want to say a few words about the tragic events in Dallas. Just four days ago, a peaceful protest in Dallas that brought together protesters and police in an example of the very best of our Nation was torn apart by a cowardly and savage act that reflected the very worst. Five police officers were murdered, leaving their families, friends, and country in shock, in mourning, and in search of answers, and six of their colleagues were injured. Last week was a very difficult one for America. From Dallas to many other cities, including Baton Rouge and St. Paul, MN, far too many lives were cut short by violence, far too many families will never be whole again. But as our President said this weekend, America is not as divided as we may appear. We are united in mourning the tragic deaths of Brent Thompson, Patrick Zamarripa, Michael Krol, Lorne Ahrens, and Michael Smith, and in mourning Philando Castile and Alton Sterling. We are united in our grief for their families and communities. We are united in our respect and admiration for police and first responders, the overwhelming majority of whom do their dangerous jobs with bravery and selflessness. But we are also united in our awareness that we have so much more work to do to strengthen the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve and protect. We are united in our understanding that moving beyond this tragic and unacceptable status quo--to heal our wounds and build toward a national community of respect and compassion--will challenge us in ways both new and uncomfortable. But as Franklin Roosevelt said in an address exactly 80 years ago today: ``There are no limits to this Nation's capacity to obtain and maintain true freedom, no limits except the strength of our Nation's desire and determination.'' I am confident our desire and determination will build an America in which police officers can serve their communities, worrying only about how to make their communities safer, not whether they will come home that night. Our desire and our determination can and should build a Nation in which every American can live, work, play, and worship free of concerns about discrimination, a Nation in which all of us are able to abide by the law as written with a law as lived. We must do better and we will do better. I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to join in this colloquy, and I wish to yield the floor to my colleague from the State of New Mexico.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I am coming to the floor today to join so many of my colleagues who have spoken over the last day to encourage bipartisan cooperation on commonsense legislation to address the gun violence epidemic that plagues our Nation and my home State of Delaware. I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Murphy and Blumenthal, for their consistent and unwavering commitment in addressing this very real national crisis. In the aftermath of the tragic mass shooting of Orlando, I have been filled with many emotions, as have so many of my colleagues--grief for the victims and their families, concern for the city of Orlando, grief for the greater LGBTQ community across our Nation and world, anger toward the perpetrator and the extremists who spread hatred, violence, and fear around the world, and a powerful, deep-seated frustration that our government, our Congress, this Senate, has not taken needed steps to keep dangerous and unstable individuals from getting access to guns. The atrocity that took place at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, FL, was more than just a cowardly act of terrorism and a despicable, violent rampage of hate against our LGBTQ brothers and sisters; it was also an attack on the very freedoms in our way of life. From the brave first responders and law enforcement officers who rushed to the scene, to the hundreds, even thousands, of Floridians who lined up in the days since to donate blood, tragedies like these so often showcase the very best and worst of humanity in the same heartbreaking moment. This mass shooting--the worst mass shooting in American history-- should force us to confront a number of powerful but unanswered questions: Are we going to be a nation that celebrates our diversity or one that stokes fear, division, and hatred? Are we going to engage the American Muslim community in pursuing our shared goal of defeating the scourge of terrorism, or are we going to malign and alienate 1.6 billion people from one of the world's great religions? Are we together going to pass commonsense safety measures addressing gun violence, or is this Senate, yet again, going to accept the status quo? Our Nation, my State, my constituents, my neighbors, are crying out for the Members of this body to have the courage of our convictions and to address this moment. Regardless of the Orlando attacker's intentions or his background, Congress must act to prevent known or suspected terrorists from having the unfettered ability to purchase high-powered military grade weaponry. That means ensuring that we have a universal system of background checks when a firearm is purchased. It also means ensuring that the U.S. Department of Justice gets notified when a known or suspected terrorist goes to buy a gun so that the Department can investigate or stop a transaction that might immediately endanger citizens' lives. Today an estimated 40 percent of all gun sales are sold by unlicensed dealers who are not required to conduct any criminal background checks under Federal law. In the aftermath of the atrocity in Orlando, Deputy Attorney General Yates noted that the Justice Department ``would have liked to have known'' that Omar Mateen had gone to purchase an assault rifle. Our Constitution protects the fundamental individual right to bear arms, but no freedom is absolute, and no one amendment can subvert all the others. Orlando deserved to have the security of a functioning universal background check system that keeps guns out of the hands of people known to be dangerous. So, too, do the people of my hometown of Wilmington. Earlier this week, late Tuesday night, in my hometown of Wilmington, less than a block away from a business owned by one of my treasured staff members, four young teenagers, ages 12, 13, 15, and 16, were shot. The 15-year-old boy remains in critical condition in Christiana Hospital. He was shot in the stomach, hand, and leg. Earlier this week in Wilmington, a 15-year-old girl was shot during an argument at a party. There have been so many instances of gun violence on the streets of my hometown in the weeks and months of this year, last year, and the year before that we have become numb to it. We have almost lost count of them. Yet this daily carnage continues in my hometown and in towns all across this country. Orlando deserves the amount of attention it has received as one of the worst mass American atrocities occurring in history. Yet we cannot forget the week-in and week-out tragedies where one, two, and three individuals are shot in what now seems to be, sadly, routine gun violence all across this country. We have heard in speeches given by my colleagues about incidents all over our country. From Orlando to San Bernardino to Newtown, from Wilmington to Chicago to Los Angeles, Americans fall victim to gun violence each and every day. It doesn't have to be this way. Americans are 25 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than people in any other developed country. We can and we must do more to prevent senseless acts of gun violence. So today, this week, we mourn the lives taken from us too soon in Orlando, and I mourn and many of my neighbors and constituents mourn the lives lost in Wilmington. But we all pray that the families and friends grieving the loss of their loved ones will find strength and purpose in the days to come and will bring encouragement from actions by this Senate. Tragedies like these don't just draw our attention, don't just hold our gaze, and don't just break our hearts; they also challenge our values as a nation. In response to the atrocities in Orlando, America's message to the world must not be one of fear and anger and isolation as some propose. Instead, I think we can and should take action to protect all of our citizens of any ethnicity, any faith, and any sexual orientation with commonsense gun legislation. I am encouraged to know there have been filed bills that this body will take up and act upon next week and that my colleagues, Senators Murphy and Feinstein, have been able to submit for consideration by this body--bills relating to background checks and to closing the terror gap that I look forward to supporting next week when we return. I would like to thank all of my colleagues of both parties who have advanced proposals or have come to the floor to participate in an important effort to show the people across the country that we can work across the aisle, that we can listen to each other, and that we can, I hope, legislate. I specifically thank my colleague Senator Murphy for his discipline, his engagement, and his work in an important filibuster to show the people of our country that we are listening, we are paying attention, we are working, and we will soon take action. With that, I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COONS

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

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two members of my staff, J Francis and Chelsea Moser, both from Wilmington, DE, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I am so pleased to join my colleague, the Senator from Rhode Island, to discuss one of the most important issues facing future generations in our world, which is climate change, an issue that also directly affects both of our coastal and low-lying States. Many may know Delaware's status as the first State to ratify the Constitution, but I think few of my colleagues are aware that Delaware is also our country's lowest lying State. We have the lowest mean elevation. This status comes with certain challenges, especially with nearly 400 miles of exposed shoreline. That means no part of our State is more than 30 miles from the coast, so the good news is that no matter where you live in my home State, it takes less than 30 minutes to get to sun and sand. But the challenge is that we are particularly vulnerable to the increasing effects of climate change. In recent years, we have seen how flooding can devastate homes and communities up and down our State. Low-lying neighborhoods often don't have the resources to cope with steadily increasing flooding. A community such as Southbridge in Wilmington--pictured to my right--has been disproportionately affected. Environmental justice has long been a concern of mine and of Senator Whitehouse. We had the opportunity to visit the neighborhood of Southbridge. Southbridge is significantly flooded every time it rains more than an inch or two. With subsidence, the steady sinking of the land, and with sea level rise acting in combination in my State, we will simply see more and more challenges from severe flooding due to sea level rise around the globe and in my home State. It is not just houses and neighborhoods that are threatened by sea level rise; it also affects businesses and entire industries. There is a broad range of long-established industries and businesses in my State that are placed in coastal areas because of the history of our settlement and development. Somewhere between 15 and 25 percent of all the land used for heavy industry in my State will likely be inundated by sea level rise by the end of the century, and that doesn't even include all of the other productive land use for agriculture and tourism that contribute to jobs and revenue in my home State. Despite our small size and our significant exposure, we also punch above our weight when it comes to tackling the challenges of climate change. In places like Southbridge, our communities have come together at the State and local level to find creative solutions to cope with the flooding that is increasingly caused by climate change. This image demonstrates a plan that has been developed for the South Wilmington wetlands project. Senator Whitehouse may describe his visit to the State of Delaware in more detail, but I wanted to open simply by describing this community response to the flooding that we saw in the previous slide. We have come together as a community to plan a cleanup of a brownfield area to create a safe and attractive park for the neighborhood and to improve water quality and drainage in a way that also creates new ecosystems, new opportunities for recreation, and a new future for a community long blighted and often under water. That is not the only example of the many actions that have been taken by my home State of Delaware. Delaware also participates in RGGI, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a collection of nine mid-Atlantic and northeastern States, including Rhode Island, that have joined together to implement market-based policies to reduce emissions. Since 2009, the participating States have reduced our carbon emissions by 20 percent while also experiencing stronger economic growth in the rest of the country, which I view as proof that fighting climate change and strengthening our economy are not mutually exclusive exchangeable goals. In fact, over the past 6 years, Delaware has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions more than any State in the entire United States. We have done that by growing our solar capacity 6,000 percent through multiple utility-scale projects and distributed solar. We have also done our best to adapt to climate change through community and State-led planning. Our Governor Jack Markell and former Delaware Secretary Collin O'Mara led a fantastic bottom-up, State-wide level planning effort to address the impacts of climate change on water, agriculture, ecosystems, infrastructure, and public health. In December of 2014, they released their climate framework for Delaware--an impressive statewide effort to be prepared for what is coming before it is too late. I believe Delaware is an example of how communities that are most vulnerable to climate change can work together across public and private sectors to meet the challenges of climate change head-on. That is why I invited my friend and colleague Senator Whitehouse. He is a true leader in the work to address climate change, not only in his home State of Rhode Island but across our country, and he has paid a visit to my State. Every week, Senator Whitehouse gives a speech on a different aspect of climate change, and I was proud to participate today in his weekly speech on the topic and thrilled to welcome him to my home State in May as part of his ongoing effort. Before I yield the floor to Senator Whitehouse, I just want to talk about one other stop on our statewide tour--a stop in Prime Hook, one of Delaware's two national wildlife refuges. The beach in Prime Hook over the last 60 years has receded more than 500 feet. Over the last decade, storms have broken through the dune line several times, flooding 4,000 acres of previously freshwater marsh. When Hurricane Sandy hit this already fragile shoreline, leaving this coastline battered, as we can see here, it broke through completely and permanently flooded and destroyed the freshwater marsh. The storm deepened and widened the beach from 300 feet to about 1,500 feet and exacerbated routine flooding on local roads used by the community to access the beach. For a delicate ecosystem like this wildlife refuge, this type of severe weather and flooding can be devastating. Over the last 3 years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has worked in tandem with other Federal agencies, State partners, and NGOs to restore this highly damaged fragile ecosystem and rebuild the beach's defenses. It is a long story, but you can see the punch line here. As of 2016, construction of a newly designed, resloped, redeveloped barrier has been completed. Senator Whitehouse has also had the opportunity to visit this area. The finished project will be a saltwater marsh that I am confident will contribute significantly to a durable, resilient, and long-term ecosystem. This is just one example of the creative things we are doing in Delaware to address the impacts of climate change and sea level rise. In some ways I think the most important and exciting was the last stop in our statewide visit. With that I will turn it over to Senator Whitehouse to discuss in more detail his visit to Delaware and our last visit to the southernmost part of my home State.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island for up to 20 minutes.