Christopher Coons

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague from the State of Oregon for his detailed, lengthy, and compelling remarks on the floor this morning about why he will vote against Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education for the United States. You have heard from my colleagues last night, this morning, and for an entire day the concerns they have come away with from her confirmation hearing and the concerns they heard from their home State and from educators and parents, teachers, and administrators--all concerned about education in their home State. I am honored to have a chance to add my few brief words this morning to explain to my constituents and to everyone in this Chamber why I, too, believe that Betsy DeVos is not qualified to serve as Secretary of Education of the United States. A simple question for any parent out there is this: Why would a parent want a classroom teacher who wasn't qualified to stand before that class and teach their children? Why would any community leader, civic leader, parent, or educator want a principal who wasn't qualified to lead the school building, to lead instruction, and to make sure that the school was moving forward in a good and positive way? The answer is that they wouldn't. Why would any parent, why would any business leader, why would any legislator want a superintendent for a school district who had no previous experience in public education and whose agenda was well outside the mainstream in education? The answer is that they wouldn't. So I think the question before us in the Senate today is, Why would any of us want, support, or vote for a nominee to be Secretary of Education who has demonstrated a lack of grasp for the basics of education, which makes her, obviously, unqualified? The answer is, I don't. We don't. We shouldn't. As we saw during her abbreviated Senate hearing, Mrs. DeVos has no grasp of basic public education issues. She has zero direct experience. She hasn't taught in the public schools. She hasn't sent her kids to public schools. She hasn't been educated or trained in teaching in the public schools. She doesn't seem to understand, for example, that Federal law provides basic protections for students with disabilities. She has no idea what the IDEA is and why it is a central part of protecting, supporting, and serving students with intellectual disabilities. She refused to rule out privatizing public schools and refused to commit to enforcing Federal laws that protect women and girls in schools from sexual assault. But that is not all. As if that weren't enough, Betsy DeVos has spent her entire career and millions--even tens of millions of dollars-- methodically undermining the public school system in the United States, from privatizing and defunding public education to undermining accountability standards in Michigan and across the country. Betsy DeVos has turned Michigan into the biggest school choice experiment in the Nation. Unfortunately, for Michigan students and families, that experiment has gone terribly wrong. There is a lot of talk in education circles about two key issues--access and accountability. What is stunning about Betsy DeVos's record in Michigan is that she worked tirelessly to ensure access to taxpayer dollars for the widest possible range of private and parochial schools, charters, and through vouchers--schools of all types--academies newly established to take advantage of taxpayer dollars and to siphon them into nontraditional nonpublic schools but without accountability. Without accountability, charters and choice can lead to tragic results, can literally lead to siphoning desperately needed dollars out of our public schools and into the pockets of those who would profit from experiments in public education. Why would we allow access to taxpayer dollars with no accountability for the performance? When did it become something the other party would champion, that they would have access to taxpayer dollars without accountability for results? I understand the drive, the desire, even the passion for experimentation in public education. I spent more than 20 years working with the ``I Have A Dream'' Foundation. We served parents and students in some of the toughest, most struggling public schools in the entire United States. I heard from parents that they wanted better schools for their kids. I understand that in some communities there is a passion for experimentation with charters and with choice, but to embrace that without accountability, to ensure that the outcomes are better without making any serious effort to ensure that these diverted taxpayer dollars are not simply wasted or turned into a mill and a machine for profit, I think is the worst sort of taking advantage of the hopes and dreams of parents and students who are seeking progress, and it ends up undermining and defunding and devaluing traditional public schools all across our country. As my colleagues, my friend from the State of Washington and many others have pointed out, there are serious concerns with how Republicans have considered her nomination. Mrs. DeVos was rushed into her confirmation hearing before she had submitted the basic and appropriate ethics paperwork, meaning Senators had no way of clearing her from potential conflicts of interest. Traditionally, this has not been much of a concern, since we have often had Secretaries of Education with long public careers who had been subject to some transparency and some review previously. I cannot remember a time when we had a Secretary of Education who was a billionaire and thus subject to much broader potential conflicts of interest. I frankly cannot remember a time when we had a President who was a billionaire and declined--refused to release his taxes or to address his manifest conflicts of interest. So, frankly, the fact that the Senate HELP Committee raced forward with Mrs. DeVos's confirmation without addressing some of these basic issues is more concerning in this context than at any previous time. As the members of this committee, who represent a broad range of views and experiences--and it is exactly what the Senate is for--were limited to one round of 5 minutes for questions, hardly sufficient for any nominee, let alone a controversial nominee with no public education experience other than undermining the underpinnings of the public school system, we can only conclude that there was something behind this effort to race Mrs. DeVos forward. We have seen here on the floor, she has become so unpopular that the other party has had to delay the confirmation vote in order to ensure her confirmation. It is my guess that later this morning, we will see the President of the Senate cast the deciding vote, something that although not unprecedented, is certainly unusual and suggests that other Senators have heard from their States, as I have from mine, a chorus of opposition. In her confirmation hearing, Mrs. DeVos struggled to articulate basic concepts central to current debates in public education. In trying to identify and reconcile the simple concepts of growth and proficiency, she showed neither growth nor proficiency. She showed neither a grasp of the basics, nor an ability to learn, nor a mastery of simple concepts central to how we make progress in public education. You know in the Senate, the Congress in recent years, after years of disagreement and fighting with the Every Student Succeeds Act, we had reached a modicum of agreement. We had reached a point of equilibrium and had hopefully turned to a point where we could work together in a bipartisan and balanced way on some of the pressing issues in higher education, in elementary education, in career and technical education. Instead, we see one of the more radical nominees ever for Secretary of Education, someone who brings, I am afraid, an agenda, a strong and forceful agenda that if it is continued nationally, as it was in Michigan, I am concerned predicts a difficult future even for those who are most in need of support, of engagement, of quality schools. Even those who Mrs. DeVos claims to have dedicated her education activism to advancing I think will be deeply harmed. None of these reasons that I just laid out about the timing, about the length of the hearing, about the disclosures, about her performance in the confirmation hearing, none of them would, necessarily taken alone, be cause for grave concern and alarm, but taken in combination, they are fundamentally disqualifying. Don't take my word for it. I am on five different committees. I have lots of other confirmations I am challenged to be engaged in. I have other issues going on that have made it hard for me to attend every single meeting and hearing about Mrs. DeVos, but there are folks in my home State of Delaware who have watched every minute, who have followed it very closely, and who have, in an unprecedented wave of input, reached out to my office. Now, these numbers, if I were from a State like California or Texas or New York, might not seem striking, but from my little State of 900,000 constituents, the idea that more than 3,000 Delawareans have reached out to me urgently and directly is fairly striking. I have gotten more than 450 phone calls in opposition to Mrs. DeVos. My office in Wilmington received a signed petition with 800 signatures from Delawareans asking me, urging me to vote no. Someone buttonholed me, literally, on the train this morning to make certain that I was going to vote no. I have received more than 2,200 letters from Delawareans, letters from educators, from parents, from community and civic leaders, of all different backgrounds, all up and down my State. Those 2,200 letters make this one of the top issues that Delawareans have reached out to me on in this past year. As I said, that may not sound like a lot of input if I were from California, New York, Oklahoma, Washington State--3,000 would be relatively few--but in my State, that is a loud and clear message. So let me be just as loud and clear in my reply. I hear you, and I will today vote against Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education. Let me take a minute and share with you some of the concerns I have heard from Delawareans, constituents who followed her confirmation hearing closely, who followed the record of its progress from committee to floor closely and who raised the alarm and who shared that with me. One educator, a career teacher, somebody who is very agitated about the record she showed in Michigan and what it might mean for our State of Delaware, said--concisely: Why should we welcome a billionaire President who nominates a billionaire friend who sees children not so much as children to be educated and supported and served but as tokens to be used as an experiment in privatization and profit made off our public school system. That educator said he was terrified. Jen, a middle school teacher at Redding Middle School in Appoquiniminck School District tells me that ``her first thought after watching Mrs. DeVos's Senate hearing was that students deserve better than her.'' Jen goes on to say that ``students deserve a national leader in education who has real experience working in public schools, someone who knows the strengths and challenges that each student brings to the classroom.'' Jen said: ``As a teacher, I need someone who will fight for all students--low-income, gifted and talented, and especially our students with disabilities.'' Jen said: ``I work in a classroom filled with students like these,'' students of every background, skill level and need, and ``they deserve someone better.'' Cheri wrote to me from Lewes, DE. She is a retired lifetime educator, a district supervisor and coordinator. Just a few years ago, she retired to Lewes after spending her life advancing public education. She wrote that until now she never felt it necessary to write my Senators to oppose a presidential nomination. But here's why this time is different. As Cheri writes, Betsy DeVos is ``a proponent of school vouchers which siphon dollars off from public schools. She does not have a degree in education, has no experience in public education, and has not shown a willingness to listen to and learn from practitioners and experts in the field.'' Cheri is exactly right. Our kids deserve better. That is why, when it comes to Betsy DeVos's nomination to serve as Secretary of Education, I am not just voting no, I am voting no way. It is important to me that everybody here knows that my constituents in my State have spoken with nearly a unanimous voice. A very, very few have conveyed any support whatsoever for Mrs. DeVos, and an overwhelming voice of thousands have expressed concern, agitation, even alarm at the idea that this person, with this record, would be handed the reins of the Federal Department of Education with likely disastrous results. For this most foundational experiment, that is at the core of American democracy, that is essential to our being a country where equality of opportunity, the freedom to pursue our own skills and gifts and have them enlightened, educated, uplifted is at the very core of what it means to be American--public schools in which any child of any background has a free and fair opportunity to pursue their God-given talents and to rise through our society and contribute at the highest levels--is not something to be played with, isn't something to be experimented with casually. It is something to be taken deeply seriously. We have challenges in our public schools. We have challenges in our society. They are reflected in our schools, but if our schools are not strong, if our schools are not educating our children, we have no hope of becoming a more just, a more equal, a more constructive, a more coherent, and a more inspiring society. Our public schools are the very foundation of what it means to be American. To put in charge of our Department of Education someone who does not share that view pains me deeply, concerns my constituents, and alarms many of us who have spent year after year trying to support, to improve, and to advance public education in the United States. For all these reasons, it is my intention to vote no; in fact, no way today on Mrs. DeVos. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, after two long one-on-one meetings with Mr. Rex Tillerson, after a thorough confirmation hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee that stretched over some 9 hours, and after extensive additional research and reading and digging into his record, his public statements, and his views, I announced last week that I would oppose the nomination of Rex Tillerson to be Secretary of State of the United States. I will say that over our meetings, our conversations, and my review of his record, I have come to respect Mr. Tillerson as a thoughtful and seasoned and capable professional in his line of work, with impressive international business experience. And I will say that his quick action to sever financial ties with ExxonMobil is a strong example that I wish President Trump had followed with regard to his own private business interests. I found encouraging some of Mr. Tillerson's statements in the confirmation hearing and his public stances, including his commitment to NATO, his respect for U.S. leadership in multilateral initiatives, from the Paris climate change agreement to the Iran deal, and his support for development programs throughout the world but especially in Africa, a continent where I have been engaged in my 6 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His nomination has the support of highly respected former officials, from Brent Scowcroft and Bob Gates to James Baker and Condoleezza Rice, former Secretaries and National Security Advisors. But Mr. Tillerson and I disagree strongly on key issues. I believe, for example, that climate change is a pressing national security threat that must be addressed. Mr. Tillerson saw it somewhat differently. I believe in advocating for human rights, for a free press, and for democracy around the world because these principles advance our security and our economic interests here at home. I don't believe that human rights, press freedom, and democracy are add-ons, are things that we can address and deal with after national security is addressed. These are core to who we are as a nation and to the advocacy and engagement that I hope for and expect from our State Department and our next Secretary of State. These are just a few of the reasons why I ultimately decided to oppose Mr. Tillerson's confirmation, but that is not why I have come to the floor today. I am here today principally because the challenge we face is not whether a single nominee is the perfect person for this particular role; the challenge we and the American people now face is to determine the future we seek for our country and the world stage and whether we will choose to continue to lead the free world. Do we envision the United States leading by example through actions that show we will stand by our values, especially when it is challenging or difficult? Do we envision the United States leading a coalition of democratic allies and Muslim partners around the world in the global fight on terrorism, defending each other and promoting values of human rights, the rule of law, and democracy? Or do we accept a dark and dystopian vision that sees the world in strict zero-sum terms whereby any win for our allies or partners is automatically a loss for America; a vision in which we could abandon our values for political gain; a vision that distances us from the world both by a literal wall and a growing gulf in priorities? For decades, Republicans and Democrats have agreed on foundational principles of U.S. leadership in the world. We engage with the world. We consistently and reliably support our allies. We lead by example, especially on our core values. We fight for the rule of law, for human rights, and for democratic institutions because doing so makes us safer and more secure. Consider our alliances. The Heritage Foundation accurately pointed out that supporting our allies overseas and in particular our treasured and enduring alliance with our NATO partners in Western Europe isn't charity but, rather, a proven method for keeping the United States safe and secure. As Heritage puts it, alliances prevent wars by driving up the cost of aggression. Alliances deter our rivals and adversaries. Alliances promote stability, help us project power, and enhance our legitimacy. Why does this matter? Why is this a current matter of debate? Why is this a pressing concern in the context of this nomination and in the work of this body? Take, for example, Russia under Vladimir Putin. It is the unanimous view of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia conducted and organized an intentional campaign of interfering in our 2016 Presidential election and that Russia conducted a cyber attack, authorized at the highest level, with the intention to influence the outcome of our election. I cannot imagine a more direct frontal assault on who we are as a nation than to seek to influence our democratic election. But on top of that unprecedented attack on who we are as a nation, Vladimir Putin's Russia illegally annexed the Crimean Peninsula and continues to support the murderous Assad regime in Syria. Today, Russia is preparing--even threatening--to intervene in upcoming elections across Central and Western Europe, including elections in our longtime close allies, France and Germany. It has been amassing troops on the borders of our NATO partners, such as Estonia and the other Baltic States, and conducting snap exercises up and down the border with NATO. It is precisely because of these acts of aggression that the NATO alliance is more relevant and more important than ever. These aren't groundbreaking or controversial conclusions that I am reaching today. Yet President Trump's rhetoric as a candidate, his early actions as President, his compliments to Vladimir Putin, his claims that NATO is obsolete, and his intimation that he may not honor our article 5 mutual defense commitment to our NATO allies all call into question the President's understanding of the role that our alliances play. It also calls into question whether his administration understands the consequences of weakening or abandoning these alliance. More than perhaps any nation on Earth, the United States has deeply benefited from the stable world order that we helped shape following the Second World War. After Americans went throughout the world to fight the forces of fascism and imperialism in the Pacific and the European theater in the Second World War, we sat astride the world as the most powerful country on Earth, with weapons possessed by no other, with the greatest manufacturing and military might on the planet, and we set about establishing an inclusive, rules-based, democratically oriented world order, from which we have benefited more than any other nation. NATO has become a key part of the alliances that we have relied on for that peace and stability in the seven decades since. Let's not forget that the only time NATO invoked its mutual defense provision article 5 clause was when our allies came to our defense after 9/11. So to suggest that NATO is obsolete or outdated because it wasn't developed in a time where terrorism was a central threat gives a lie to the reality that our NATO allies have stood shoulder to shoulder with us and have fought alongside American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly 1,000 have given their lives, and our NATO allies have poured their blood and treasure into our defense and into our joint conduct against our enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Interpreters from Iraq and Afghanistan have kept our troops safe, and yet today those espousing ``America First'' would break our promises to these vital partners. I have to ask: To what end? When we turn our backs on our allies and friends, there are consequences. They may be prompted to seek to help themselves in new or unexpected or dangerous ways, such as developing their own nuclear capability or seeking armaments from Russia rather than working in partnership with us for their own security. They may seek to find new allies who do not, in fact, share our values. In all these cases, ``America First'' may gradually, tragically, become instead ``America Alone.'' That leaves us less safe and closes off economic opportunities around the world. So in seeking out a strategy that is purported to make us safer and stronger, President Trump may, in fact, accomplish neither. A policy of ``America First'' doesn't just mean turning our backs on our allies and partners. It may also mean turning our backs on some of the world's most vulnerable people, with real consequences here at home. The Executive order signed by President Trump just on Friday, banning all refugees from the United States for 120 days, banning refugees for 90 days from seven countries and indefinitely from Syria, caused chaos and confusion at our airports and instilled concern--even fear--in American families across our country. I have a key question today, introduced earlier by Senator Cardin, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, but not yet answered: Where does Rex Tillerson stand on this Executive order? How does he see it in our place in the world? How does he understand the centrality of the example that we show to the world in how we embrace human rights? Sadly, I think this Executive order has validated the claims of jihadist groups like ISIS that recruit young men on the false claim that the West is at war with Islam, which is why these very terrorist groups are today cheering this Executive order. I think it has made us less safe by alienating Muslims in the United States and around the world. Why would we want to alienate the very Iraqis with whom we are training, serving, and fighting in the war against ISIS when they are a critical part of the ground forces that we are counting on to liberate Mosul from the tyranny of ISIS? Most significantly, this Executive order may violate our Constitution and values by banning people based not on security concerns but on the basis of their religion, and by turning our backs on a decades-long commitment to welcome those fleeing credible fears of persecution, fleeing violence and chaos in their home countries. These may be the consequences of ``America First.'' It is well known but bears repeating that in 1939, a ship called the St. Louis approached American shores bearing nearly 1,000 mostly Jewish refugees fleeing the horrors of the Nazi regime and the impending Holocaust. In one of our Nation's most shameful chapters, the United States turned away these refugees seeking our shores. One passenger on board the St. Louis received a telegram from the U.S. Government instructing him that passengers must ``await their turns on the waiting list and qualify for and obtain immigration visas before they may be admissible.'' Most of these refugees were forced to return to Europe, where they were murdered by the Nazis. This tragic episode from 1939, born of isolationism and, tragically, anti-Semitism and a mistaken sense that we could isolate ourselves from the challenges and the violence of the world was also part of a period when a group whose name was the America First Committee mobilized to try to prevent our entry into the Second World War. I will say that these are the consequences of ``America First.'' The United States ultimately is less safe. Our allies may be made to feel uncertain or even betrayed. Americans will find themselves more fearful, and, our values, with which we have sought to lead the world, are cast aside. That is why I believe this debate today is about far more than a single nominee for an important post in our State Department. American leadership on the world stage is not as simple as ``America First,'' and the consequences of truly embracing the dystopian vision of ``America First,'' I think, will be tragic. If Mr. Tillerson is confirmed, it is my sincere and earnest hope that he will challenge President Trump to rethink the dark and dystopian view of the world that he laid out in his inaugural address, and that he will instead bend his skills, character, and qualities to the hard work of realigning our role in the world to the course that Republicans and Democrats together have steered from this floor and from this body for seven decades. As the world saw last weekend, the new Trump administration desperately needs someone in the room to speak truth to power and to temper its worst impulses. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS.--I vote no.

Mr. COONS. On behalf of the many Delawareans who will be without health care through repeal without replace--

Mr. COONS. Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in raising the alarm about the possible impact for all of us in America and, in particular, for my constituents in my home State of Delaware should we indeed as a body proceed with barreling forward and repealing the Affordable Care Act without a plan to replace it, as seems to be the intention of the majority. When I was first elected to the Senate back in 2010, the Affordable Care Act wasn't even a year old. Yet Republicans were already trying to repeal it, without offering any comprehensive plan with which to replace it. Now, more than 6 years and 60 repeal attempts later, it is truly disheartening to see that when it comes to plans for the American health care system, seemingly nothing has changed. Instead of working across the aisle to find constructive fixes to this Affordable Care Act that could win bipartisan support, instead of finding new ways to invest in infrastructure or strengthen American manufacturing or coming together to respond to the Russian attack on American democracy or even waiting a week to take this upcoming vote so we Senators can give our full focus to vetting the President-elect's Cabinet nominees, instead of pursuing any of these priorities, it seems we are once again spending--even wasting--the American people's time to fulfill a misguided and, in my view, mean-spirited promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act at all costs, without a clear plan to replace it. Sadly, in that sense, nothing has changed since I first came here in 2010, not so for the American people, as plenty has changed for them and for my home State of Delaware. More than 20 million Americans now have gained access to high-quality health insurance across our whole country, including 38,000 more Delawareans. Now, 38,000 is not a big number of people, but in my little State of 900,000, 38,000 more people who couldn't get access to health insurance before and can now is a big deal. Across the whole country, the rate of uninsured Americans is at a record low of just 11 percent, and in Delaware fewer than 8 percent, and this is well down below pre-ACA levels. Let me focus on what I think is the biggest, broadest, and most important benefit of the Affordable Care Act, not just those tens of thousands in my State who have gotten coverage on the exchanges, but in my little State of 900,000, 560,000 Delawareans get their health insurance through their employer, as the vast majority of Americans do. For those half a million or more Delawareans, they have gained lifetime improvements to the quality of the health insurance they have through the ACA: no discrimination against preexisting conditions, young people can stay on their parents' health insurance until they turn 26, free preventive care, no lifetime limits on coverage and recovery, and a requirement that insurance companies spend 80 cents of every dollar on health care versus overhead. These five key consumer protections have been the center of the best of what the Affordable Care Act has delivered to Delawareans and Americans. Americans no longer have to make the phone calls they used to make to their Senators, their Congressmen, their local representatives, pleading that they could somehow find access to quality and affordable coverage. These reforms have made a real and tangible impact on Americans across the country. I have also come to this floor, on a number of occasions over many years, and recognized the challenges of the Affordable Care Act, the ways in my home State that it has fallen short of our hopes and goals when it was initially passed, and I have offered, with an open hand, to work across the aisle to find vehicles to repair and improve elements of it that haven't worked as had been hoped. Before I turn to that, though, let us focus for a few minutes on hearing the stories of Delawareans who have reached out to me because at the end of the day, my passionate defense of the Affordable Care Act is rooted in individuals I have met and heard from, people whose lives have been changed by access to quality, affordable, accessible health care. As Republicans move us forward to a repeal vote, it is my hope that they will listen to these and other stories and think about what possible alternative pathway there might be that would save the opportunity for them to have access to decent, quality health care. I grew up in this tiny town of about 1,500 called Hockessin, DE, and Nicole is also from Hockessin. She reached out to me to tell me her 2- year-old daughter has cystic fibrosis. She spends at least an hour every day administering her daughter's breathing treatments and at least $5,000 a month. Her medications aren't cheap. Nicole is confident that without the Affordable Care Act, she would have exceeded her annual cap on medical expenses well before the end of each year. Nicole makes it pretty clear to me that without the consumer protections put in place by so-called ObamaCare--the ACA--she would have one of three choices, choices tragically faced by many Delawareans and Americans before the Affordable Care Act. One, hope she somehow qualifies for Medicaid, which she probably doesn't because she is hard- working enough and successful enough that her income makes her ineligible for Medicaid. Option No. 2, go into deep debt to pay for her daughter's needed and lifesaving treatment. Option No. 3, stop giving her daughter some of the medication she depends on and just hope and pray that she will not suffer needlessly. That is all assuming that her daughter's cystic fibrosis was not a preexisting condition, preventing her from getting any insurance at all. Let me review that because Nicole's story starkly outlines the reality that millions of Americans could face if we continue barreling down this misguided path of repealing the Affordable Care Act wholesale without coming together around a plan for replacement. That reality for so many sick Americans or Americans with sick children is this: First, hope you don't get sick. If that fails and you don't qualify for some other form of government assistance, either go into debt or try to get by without health care. That is it. That is what it was before the Affordable Care Act, and following its repeal, that may sadly be what it is again. Over the last few weeks, I have heard many other stories, and I will cover a few quickly, if I may. Kim, from Wilmington, DE, is a thyroid cancer survivor who was able to get insurance because her cancer is no longer considered a preexisting condition. Will her ability to access affordable, quality health care be repealed? There is Sue from Frankford, DE, whose husband got sick a decade ago--desperately sick--and hasn't been able to work since. They are retired but not quite eligible for Medicare. Yet, despite his illness, they have been able to find coverage now on the individual market. Will repeal of the Affordable Care Act deny Sue and her husband access to quality health insurance? There is Carla from Odessa, DE, whose son was able to stay on her health insurance when his employer didn't cover it. Not only that, but Carla's sister--a self-employed gardener with a 40-year history of insulin-dependent diabetes, also known as a preexisting condition, was able to get health insurance when she tragically divorced at age 63 and lost coverage through her husband's employer. There is Matthew from Wilmington, whose son was diagnosed with brain cancer. The year before his son's diagnosis, Matthew and his family were on a non-ACA-compliant health insurance plan. As Matthew wrote me, ``Our family was all young and healthy, and we thought this plan was right for us. Then, my 11-year-old got sick right out of the blue. It can happen to anyone at any time.'' Matthew is right. Illness can strike any one of us at any time--and not just the flu, not just a cold, but tragic, expensive, terminal illnesses can strike any family in America at any time. Just listen to the story of Kerry from Wilmington, DE, a massage therapist who considers the Affordable Care Act, as she puts it, ``nothing short of miraculous.'' Here is why. Kerry signed up for health insurance in 2014 thanks to the subsidies, the tax credits provided through the Affordable Care Act. She had long had nagging abdominal and lower back pain. She didn't think much of it considering she had no family history of terrible diseases and had never even had a stitch before. Fast forward to January of 2015, when a routine diagnostic procedure covered by her new health insurance revealed that Kerry had stage III colon cancer. She had surgery a week later, followed by 6 months of chemotherapy, and ended up facing no out-of- pocket expenses besides her annual deductible. Kerry's cancer has now been in remission since September of 2015, and as she writes, ``The ACA came along at the last possible moment to save my life. I am certain that without it, I would have just continued to live and work with the discomfort and try to self-treat until the cancer was so advanced it could not have been successfully treated.'' I have many more, but stories like Kerry's and Matthew's and Carla's and Sue's and Kim's have been pouring into the inboxes of my colleagues in States around the country. My Democratic colleagues and I know, and have known since the day it was signed into law, that the ACA is not perfect. I have talked to small businesses that want to offer health insurance for their employees but have struggled to find affordable options in Delaware. I have met plenty of Delawareans whose deductibles or premiums are higher than they would like to see, and I have heard from economists and budget forecasters who know our country's fiscal health depends on doing even more to control health care costs. That is exactly why 2 years ago I came to this floor with a simple, commonsense request of my Republican colleagues: work with us to make the Affordable Care Act better. A colleague, a physician from the State of Louisiana, happened to be listening that day, and we have had a number of constructive and positive conversations since. Sadly, despite many attempts over many years, I so far have been unable to find a Republican partner willing to actually cosponsor meaningful, constructive fixes to the law. In my view, and as I said 2 years ago, 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 has fallen short. I have sought to address the affordability of health care coverage for all families. I have cosponsored bills to increase tax credits to make it more affordable for small businesses, looked for ways to make sure there is more competition in the marketplace, especially in small States like Delaware, and pursued commonsense regulatory reforms and cost-containment efforts to further slow the growth in health care costs. For years, my colleagues and I have asked our Republican friends to put aside their rhetoric and focus on pursuing bipartisan fixes like these. Today, the bottom line is still this: I know the Affordable Care Act has helped millions of Americans just like the Delawareans whose stories I have read. Kerry, Carla, Matthew, Sue, and Kim today live healthier, safer, and more secure lives. Let's take a look at the alternative. There is no single proposed plan. There are dozens of bills in the House and Senate that would do lots of different things, but it would be very hard to predict with precision what the alternative really is. We know what repeal will do. As of today, the alternative--let's call it TrumpCare--is nothing more than a wholesale repeal with no clear plan to replace. TrumpCare, a simple repeal, by one estimate would kick 26 million Americans--more than 50,000 Delawareans--off their health insurance. Even for those who don't lose their insurance, those hundreds of thousands of Delawareans who get their insurance through their employer, it would be much lower quality because it would remove all the consumer protections that we have all come to embrace. It would give a nearly $350 billion tax cut to the wealthiest 1 percent of our country and a nearly $250 billion tax cut to big corporations. While tax cuts have their day and their reason, pushing aside all of that revenue with no plan for how to replace the Affordable Care Act and how to pay for it will become a desperate and dangerous move. TrumpCare, a simple repeal of the Affordable Care Act, would cut 3 million jobs and trigger negative economic impacts well beyond the health care sector by creating profound uncertainty. Lastly, it would burden State and local governments, which would lose nearly $50 billion in tax revenue. That is the reality. Describing a repeal of the Affordable Care Act as anything other than the injection of wild uncertainty into our daily lives, into the health insurance and health care markets is just not square. That is the reality. Describing it any other way is political rhetoric, and that is, sadly, what this debate is about. It is repeal without replace. Matthew from Wilmington, whose 11-year-old son was diagnosed unexpectedly with brain cancer, concluded his note to me with one last thought. He wrote of his son: ``He's my hero and I will fight for him and all others who continue to suffer similarly every day.'' Thank you, Matthew. Thank you for sharing your story and continuing the fight. I promise you and all the Delawareans who have reached out to me to do my level best to stand with you and fight for you every step of the way every day until we find a better path together. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise in support and recognition of the tireless efforts of my friend and colleague from West Virginia. We were sworn in the same day, moments apart, and we were sworn in by a man who held this seat and this desk for 36 years. Born in Scranton, PA, Joe Biden, our Vice President, served Delaware for 36 years. I know Joe and I know one of the things he tirelessly fought for, and that was the working men and women of this country--just like my colleague from Missouri, who speaks from the desk long held by Harry Truman and in whose honor she spoke about our keeping our promises that date back to a law passed by this Congress and signed into law by Harry Truman that promised pensions and health care to 100,000 coal miners. I too have to keep faith with my predecessor in this seat, Joe Biden, and our neighboring State to the north, Pennsylvania; my great and good friend, Joe Manchin from West Virginia; Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota; and many others who have spoken before me and simply say: I understand that large, complicated appropriations bills never include every item that every Member wants. I wanted a provision that would help a manufacturing company in my State, the 48 ITC provision. The investment tax credit would help keep a company that manufactures fuel cells in my State alive and running. I heard an awful lot of talk in this campaign about saving American manufacturing, about doing the things we need to do to help working people and to help manufacturing. I am as upset as my colleagues about the ``Buy American'' provision being taken out of WRDA and our not keeping our word to buy American steel. But what all of us are here to stand for in common today is to keep our promises to the coal miners and their widows, for whom the Senator from West Virginia has fought so tirelessly. When told that is a provision that can't be taken care of, that can't be done, when they were sent back 30 yards, they dropped back and said: Fine, we will work on the Miners Protection Act. They held hearings. They held a markup. They found an offset. They moved through regular order, and they found bipartisan support. It got out of the Finance Committee by 18 to 8. Yet here we stand, likely on the very last night of this Congress, with a promised path being blocked and a 4-month extension, rather than a permanent solution--seemingly, the only option before us--and 16,000 miners and their families would lose health care this December 31 without a longer extension. Four months--that is all we can do--4 months, when these good Senators worked so hard and so tirelessly to find a bipartisan solution that doesn't take money out of the Federal checkbook, that has a proper path? This is a sad day when we can't keep our promises to the widows of coal miners, to folks who did dirty, dangerous, and difficult work for decades, to the people who built this country. I think in some ways this is just a symbol of so many other ways we have failed to keep faith with those who have worked in this Nation for us. I have not ever voted against a CR. I have always taken, I believe, the responsible path of making sure that we are able to craft a responsible compromise and get it done. But as an appropriator in this year and in this instance, it was upsetting to me that we were kept completely out of the process of crafting and finalizing this appropriations bill. So without hesitation, I will vote against it tonight because it is important we send a signal that we and many other Senators are determined to fix this problem. As the Senator from West Virginia said, there are no coal mines in my State, but there are many retired coal miners and their widows. I have joined as a cosponsor of the Miners Protection Act, and I am determined to support the great and good work of my friend, the Senator from West Virginia, my friend the Senator from North Dakota, and so many others--from my neighboring State of Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, and from States across the country and regions that are determined to do right by the people who built this Nation for us. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the continuing resolution that is the business before the Senate. We are here once again today, as we have too often been in the 6 years that I have served here in the Senate, working at the last minute to avoid shutting down our Federal Government later tonight. As we have before, to avoid a shutdown we appear likely to pass yet another continuing resolution. As an appropriator, as someone who is on the committee that is responsible for putting together all the provisions that will help keep this government moving forward, it is a real disappointment to me that this continuing resolution fails to address issues of real concern to folks all over this country. Earlier this evening, I joined a number of my colleagues to draw attention to coal miners and their widows and the concerns we have about extending their health care through the adoption of the Miners Protection Act. Although that is an issue that dozens of Senators are concerned about, I wanted to speak tonight about another unacceptable omission in this legislation. This continuing resolution does not include a lesser known but, to me, no less important provision, one that my senior Senator Tom Carper and I have fought tirelessly for and one that is important to a manufacturing company in my home State of Delaware and dozens of companies in dozens of States. Last year, when Congress passed at the end of the year the omnibus spending package, we left on the cutting room floor, through an inadvertent staff error, provisions to extend a series of clean energy tax incentives known as the 48C investment tax credit, or ITC--not all of them, just for a few narrow and defined areas and, in a case that I care most about, for fuel cells. Those incentives have bipartisan support and have already proved successful at creating new technologies and good manufacturing jobs in this country. We have heard a lot of talk in the last campaign about bearing in and fighting hard to save manufacturing jobs here in the United States. Well, extending the ITC is exactly the chance we had here today--we have had in the past year--to do just that. There are tens of thousands of jobs and hundreds, likely thousands, of companies across our country that rely on this ITC. In my home State, Bloom Energy, a company that manufactures in a number of States, has a significant presence. Built on the site of a former Chrysler plant, it was taken down when Chrysler closed its facility. Bloom Energy offers real promise for the hundreds of Delawareans who work there in a cutting-edge clean energy business that was growing. But without the benefit of that section 48 investment tax credit, they are not growing. They may even have to lay people off. In my home State and in States all over this country, that is a concern I wish we had worked together to address. These are incentives that have been proven to bring good jobs to the United States. If we don't extend section 48, as I think is very unlikely to happen tonight, tens of thousands of jobs across our country and dozens, at least in my home State, are at risk. All over the country, we have heard in writing from hundreds of companies in 48 different states that support this extension. These companies want to invest in the research and development, the scaling up of new clean energy technology. They require long-term certainty and stability. But the extension of those credits has been pushed into next year sometime, after a year in which it was promised over and over this would get addressed. The fault here lies predominately in the other Chamber, in the House, which did not respond to requests from the leadership of this Chamber for this to be addressed. Republicans in the House are trying to push this issue, this extension, into a tax reform package planned for next year. But tax reform has been on the agenda here for year after year after year, and these credits expire this year, December 31. With countless jobs at stake across the country, punting this to next year after a year in which it failed to be brought up and addressed has real world implications in my State and States across the country. So, after mistakenly, admittedly by error, dropping this extension a year ago, leaders promised that this issue would be addressed. A year later, it has not been. So on the stack of reasons why I will cast an unprecedented no vote on the CR tonight, this is just one more reason-- a failure to fulfill a longstanding promise that these tax credits would be extended. Companies can't invest and grow if they can't have a predictable path forward for investment and know about what is the possibility for their incremental investment in R&D and manufacturing. Real American businesses today, like Bloom Energy in my State and hundreds of others, need this reliability. There is no reason this could not have gotten done. There is no reason promises made could not have been kept. There is no reason this could not have been resolved. So with real disappointment and regret, I am going to vote no for the first time on a continuing resolution that puts at risk keeping this government open because of a whole series of missed opportunities in this year's bill. It is my hope, it is my prayer, that next year, with a new Congress and with a new President, we will renew an attempt to find a bipartisan consensus around what it is we have to do to be competitive as a country, to sustain an all-of-the-above energy strategy, and to work together to find solutions that will grow manufacturing in our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators who wish to speak in honor of the Presiding Officer be recognized in the following order for up to 4 minutes each: me, the majority leader Senator McConnell, the minority leader Senator Reid, Senator Schumer, Senator Hatch, Senator Leahy, Senator McCain, Senator Durbin, Senator Isakson, Senator Murray, Senator Feinstein, Senator Collins, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Carper.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the presence in the Chamber of five former Senators--Senators Bayh, Harkin, Kaufman, Salazar, and Sarbanes--and to thank many Senators who have asked that their comments be placed in the Record. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, given the lateness of the hour, the lengthy and moving remarks that former Senator and now Secretary of State Kerry has provided.

Mr. COONS. We have five Senators remaining who have asked to speak briefly: Senator Alexander, Senator Cardin, Senator Casey, and Senator Kaine. My senior Senator, Tom Carper of Delaware, will conclude this session today. I yield the floor to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President--and it does bring me some joy to call you Mr. President. I am honored to be here today with so many of our colleagues, and I am grateful to Majority Leader McConnell and Leader Reid for their enthusiasm in pulling together this bipartisan tribute. I am honored to be joined by my senior Senator from Delaware, Tom Carper, who will make closing remarks this afternoon. Before I begin, I would like to remind my colleagues that there will be a reception for the Vice President in the Mansfield Room, after we conclude here, beginning sometime after 4. We have many Senators who wish to speak so we will move quickly through the order. I encourage my colleagues to submit their remarks for the Record, those who are not able to speak in the next hour. Their remarks will be combined with all the other remarks given on the floor, and the resulting speeches printed, bound, and presented to the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, in a place known these days for some disagreements, my colleagues--our colleagues, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents-- are all here today because we agree on one powerful and simple thing: our deep gratitude for the difference you have made in your decades in public service. The greatest honor of my life is to serve in the seat that you held for 36 years--and not just literally this seat in the Senate but also a seat on the 7:15 Amtrak train down from Wilmington every morning. You logged over 2 million miles on Amtrak and millions more traveling around the world fighting for our country, and as long as I have the privilege of representing our State in the Senate, I will be humbled by the challenge of living up to your legacy of fighting for and making a real difference for the people of our shared home. Like so many Americans, I have long been inspired by your loyalty to your family, and I am so glad to see so many familiar faces in the Gallery today. This job requires a strong partner and teammate, and to Dr. Biden, Jill, your unwavering support for your family, for Delaware, and your country is something for which we are all deeply grateful. As a son of Delaware, and of Catherine Eugenia and Joe Senior, you have never forgotten from where you came or for whom you are fighting. Even as Vice President, our fellow Delawareans have the blessing of a surprise visit week in and week out, to see you at the Columbus Day breakfast or Return Day or St. Anthony's Procession. Whether meeting personally with world leaders you have known for decades, whether chairing the Judiciary or Foreign Relations Committees or just stopping by a Claymont diner, there is universal agreement about what you have brought to this work--your passion, your heart, your character, and your integrity. That is because you genuinely listen to people, you ask them questions, and then you lift them up. We know that when you give us your word as a Biden, you mean it, and you will keep it. Your service as a Senator stands as a model for all of our colleagues and for me. Through challenging times, you always worked across the aisle, through eight Presidents. You were willing to reach across to anyone willing to roll up their sleeves and get to work for the American people. So many families across Delaware and this country and I, myself, as we have struggled with loss--maybe the loss of a job or loss of hope or the impending loss of a loved one--have experienced the incredible personal comfort and power of a call from you. When it comes to providing advice and inspiration that touches our hearts and makes a real difference, no one--no one--is better than you. We know you will share our challenges, you will give us meaningful comfort and encourage us, and you will fight for us. As we look ahead to next year and beyond, I know you and Jill have so much more great and good work to do, starting with the fight to cure cancer through the Cancer Moonshot. This next chapter will be every bit as exciting and meaningful as the life of service you have led for 44 years. What an honor to see you in that chair earlier this week as the majority leader led the Senate in a unanimous vote to rename a title of the 21st Century Cures cancer initiative after Beau. That bill, which we passed finally just an hour ago, would not have happened without your leadership. Now, let me close with a line you know all too well, a line you shared countless times in this Chamber, sometimes from this very desk. As the Irish poet Seamus Heaney once wrote, ``History says, don't hope on this side of the grave. But then, once in a lifetime, the longed-for tidal wave of justice can rise up, and hope and history rhyme.'' No one, sir, no one has done more to make hope and history rhyme than you. Thank you, Mr. President, for your service, your counsel, your advice, your friendship, and your leadership. It is now my pleasure to yield to the majority leader, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, who has been so generous with floor time and support this afternoon.

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

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I would like to invite all of my colleagues to join us in a reception in honor of the Vice President. I remind any colleagues who wish to speak who did not have the opportunity to submit their comments for the Record, and I very much look forward to our jointly presenting a bound copy to the Vice President. Thank you for your service, and we look forward to hearing from you at the reception. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Madam President, I wish to offer a few brief comments, if I might, so I may thank and congratulate Senator Mikulski for her tireless contributions to the State of Maryland and the whole country. As many know, she is a passionate, capable, effective champion for people of all backgrounds, and she got her start in local government. One of the things we have in common is that I, too, started in a very humble office as a county council member in my home community of New Castle County, DE. The way I first met Barbara Mikulski and first saw her toughness, grit, passion, and determination was in a fight over a program she helped give life to, the national service program known as AmeriCorps. AmeriCorps is a fantastic national program that partners with the Federal Government, State, and local governments, the private sector, and nonprofit volunteers. She has been a tireless champion for AmeriCorps over many years and has made a lasting difference in its areas of focus and work. During my short 6 years here, she has been a great friend and a mentor to me and to so many others on both sides of the aisle. Joe Biden, our Vice President, has often said: Show me your budget, and I will show you your values. As leader of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Mikulski helped to lift up our values and helped to make sure we invested in effective programs that made sure we fed the hungry, housed the homeless, fought for manufacturing, and ensured that Federal workers who lived in Maryland and Federal agencies that were rooted, not just in Maryland but around the country, had the resources, support, and capacity to make a lasting difference here in our region and for the entire country. I just wanted to add my voice to colleagues who stood here on the floor and said: We are so grateful to Senator Barbara Mikulski for her decades of service to Baltimore, to Maryland, and to our country and for all she has done to lift us up together. Thank you.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Wyden and Senator Daines. They have worked tirelessly to address this pressing issue of the pending change to privacy protections contained in a proposed change to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. As you have heard, if Congress fails to act today and thoroughly consider and debate these rule changes, they will go into effect at midnight tonight. They will take effect tomorrow, December 1. I believe it is essential that these rules strike a careful balance, giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate cyber attacks and cyber crimes to keep us safe while also protecting Americans' constitutional rights to freedom from unreasonable searchs, our right to privacy. Neither the Senate nor House has held a single hearing or markup to evaluate these changes to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The body of government closest to the people has utterly failed to weigh in on an issue that can immediately and directly impact our constituents-- our citizens. While the proposed changes are not necessarily bad or good, they are serious and present significant privacy concerns that warrant careful consideration and debate. All Americans should want criminal investigations to proceed quickly and thoroughly, but, as I have said, I am concerned that these changes would remove important judicial safeguards by having one judge decide on a search that would give our government the ability to search and possibly alter thousands of computers owned by innocent and unknowing American citizens all over our country. Members of Congress should have an opportunity to consider this information seriously. We should carefully evaluate the merits of these proposed changes and their ramifications. I think it is our duty to have a frank and open discussion so we can think about the unintended consequences and protect our constituents' rights. Two weeks ago, I introduced legislation that would give Congress the time to have that conversation. The Review the Rule Act, or S. 3475, would delay the changes to rule 41 until July 1, 2017. That bill is cosponsored by Senators Wyden, Leahy, Baldwin, and Franken, as well as Republican Senators Daines, Lee, and Paul. That list of Senators from every part of our ideological spectrum is just a reminder that this is not a partisan issue. This is a bipartisan group of Senators raising questions and challenges to a proposal by the Obama administration's Justice Department. I think it is important to remind anyone watching or listening that we want to ensure that the American people are kept safe from hackers and online criminal activity. We want law enforcement to have the tools to investigate and address potential threats, but we shouldn't have to sacrifice our rights to privacy and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures just to achieve that protection. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and working together to evaluate these changes to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3475 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business on a matter related to privacy protection, to be succeeded by Senator Ron Wyden and, if he arrives during the time of our remarks, by Senator Daines.

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

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to address a pending change to privacy protection contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. But before I proceed to the details, the sometimes wonky details of what we actually do here legislatively, let me just start by speaking to concerns I have heard. As early as this morning, on my train ride down from Wilmington, DE, in the halls here in Congress, by email, text, and by phone from friends from my State of Delaware and all over the country, folks are concerned about what this election means and about whether we can work together in ways that defend the fundamental liberties on which this country rests. I wish to start by remarking that Senator Wyden and I are on the floor today talking about a bill that we have crafted and we are introducing in partnership with other Senators--with Senators Mike Lee, Steve Daines, and Al Franken who represent, literally, the farthest edges of this Chamber in terms of ideology. If you look at the top five issues on which we agree, we agree on relatively little. But as a group of Republicans and Democrats, we have agreed to work together to restrain an attempt--frankly, initiated by the current Department of Justice--to modify the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in a way that we are concerned implicates or invades our Fourth Amendment constitutional protections. I hope those who watch what happens on this floor find encouragement in the fact that Republicans and Democrats before this election's outcome had come together to craft this bill, this approach, and to move forward in a way that shows the bipartisan commitment to protecting our constitutional liberties remains alive and well in this Chamber. Let me briefly address what it is I am talking about because I think it has serious and far-reaching implications for the privacy of ordinary Americans. These rules, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, govern the procedures for investigation and prosecution of individuals within our American criminal justice system, and it is essential that these rules strike a careful balance, giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate crimes and keep us safe while also protecting Americans' constitutional rights to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, our rights to privacy. Earlier this year on April 30, the Supreme Court approved changes to the Federal rules that would shift this balance, potentially greatly expanding the scope of search warrants. Neither the Senate nor the House held a hearing or a markup in the relevant committees to make these changes. The body of government closest to the people has failed to weigh in at all on an issue that immediately and directly impacts our constituents' rights. If we in the Congress do nothing, the proposed rule changes will go into effect December 1 of this year. While the proposed changes are not necessarily good or bad, they are serious, and they present significant policy concerns that I think warrant careful consideration and debate. I wish to quickly outline two of them today. One change would allow any magistrate judge in any district in America to issue a warrant for information outside that magistrate's district if the location of the information that law enforcement is seeking has been concealed. This change ensures investigators have a jurisdiction to go to where they can seek a warrant, particularly for cyber information that is concealed and where it is impossible to know the district in which the attack originated. Another change would allow a judge to issue a warrant for information on devices located in five or more judicial districts. While the Department of Justice argues this change will improve the efficiency of investigations by eliminating the need to seek multiple warrants to reach all the devices that are suspected of being the same cyber criminal network, this represents a sweeping change to how search warrants are traditionally reviewed, issued, and executed. I think all Americans should want criminal investigations to proceed quickly and thoroughly, but I am concerned these changes could remove important judicial safeguards by allowing one judge--one judge--to decide on a search that would give the government the ability to search and possibly alter hundreds or even thousands of computers owned by innocent Americans across the country. These changes would also incentivize investigators to forum shop--to seek a multijurisdictional warrant from the official most likely to approve a sweeping search. So, in October, a bipartisan group of 23 Members of Congress wrote Attorney General Lynch to request more information about these changes to Rule XLI, and we are still waiting for a response. With so many complex questions unanswered, it is important the Department of Justice and this body have time to carefully answer these questions. So today we are introducing legislation that gives Congress that time, and Senators Daines, Lee, and Franken have joined Senators Wyden and me to delay these changes until July 1 of next year. We all want to ensure the American people are kept safe from cyber hackers and online criminal activity. We all want law enforcement to have the tools they need to keep us safe, but our desire for safety and our desire for an efficient criminal justice system should not require us to forfeit our fundamental constitutional rights to privacy and protection from searches and seizures. Let me now yield the floor to my friend and colleague Senator Wyden, who has been such a tireless, effective, and engaged advocate on exactly these issues. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to address a pending change to privacy protection contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. But before I proceed to the details, the sometimes wonky details of what we actually do here legislatively, let me just start by speaking to concerns I have heard. As early as this morning, on my train ride down from Wilmington, DE, in the halls here in Congress, by email, text, and by phone from friends from my State of Delaware and all over the country, folks are concerned about what this election means and about whether we can work together in ways that defend the fundamental liberties on which this country rests. I wish to start by remarking that Senator Wyden and I are on the floor today talking about a bill that we have crafted and we are introducing in partnership with other Senators--with Senators Mike Lee, Steve Daines, and Al Franken who represent, literally, the farthest edges of this Chamber in terms of ideology. If you look at the top five issues on which we agree, we agree on relatively little. But as a group of Republicans and Democrats, we have agreed to work together to restrain an attempt--frankly, initiated by the current Department of Justice--to modify the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in a way that we are concerned implicates or invades our Fourth Amendment constitutional protections. I hope those who watch what happens on this floor find encouragement in the fact that Republicans and Democrats before this election's outcome had come together to craft this bill, this approach, and to move forward in a way that shows the bipartisan commitment to protecting our constitutional liberties remains alive and well in this Chamber. Let me briefly address what it is I am talking about because I think it has serious and far-reaching implications for the privacy of ordinary Americans. These rules, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, govern the procedures for investigation and prosecution of individuals within our American criminal justice system, and it is essential that these rules strike a careful balance, giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate crimes and keep us safe while also protecting Americans' constitutional rights to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, our rights to privacy. Earlier this year on April 30, the Supreme Court approved changes to the Federal rules that would shift this balance, potentially greatly expanding the scope of search warrants. Neither the Senate nor the House held a hearing or a markup in the relevant committees to make these changes. The body of government closest to the people has failed to weigh in at all on an issue that immediately and directly impacts our constituents' rights. If we in the Congress do nothing, the proposed rule changes will go into effect December 1 of this year. While the proposed changes are not necessarily good or bad, they are serious, and they present significant policy concerns that I think warrant careful consideration and debate. I wish to quickly outline two of them today. One change would allow any magistrate judge in any district in America to issue a warrant for information outside that magistrate's district if the location of the information that law enforcement is seeking has been concealed. This change ensures investigators have a jurisdiction to go to where they can seek a warrant, particularly for cyber information that is concealed and where it is impossible to know the district in which the attack originated. Another change would allow a judge to issue a warrant for information on devices located in five or more judicial districts. While the Department of Justice argues this change will improve the efficiency of investigations by eliminating the need to seek multiple warrants to reach all the devices that are suspected of being the same cyber criminal network, this represents a sweeping change to how search warrants are traditionally reviewed, issued, and executed. I think all Americans should want criminal investigations to proceed quickly and thoroughly, but I am concerned these changes could remove important judicial safeguards by allowing one judge--one judge--to decide on a search that would give the government the ability to search and possibly alter hundreds or even thousands of computers owned by innocent Americans across the country. These changes would also incentivize investigators to forum shop--to seek a multijurisdictional warrant from the official most likely to approve a sweeping search. So, in October, a bipartisan group of 23 Members of Congress wrote Attorney General Lynch to request more information about these changes to Rule XLI, and we are still waiting for a response. With so many complex questions unanswered, it is important the Department of Justice and this body have time to carefully answer these questions. So today we are introducing legislation that gives Congress that time, and Senators Daines, Lee, and Franken have joined Senators Wyden and me to delay these changes until July 1 of next year. We all want to ensure the American people are kept safe from cyber hackers and online criminal activity. We all want law enforcement to have the tools they need to keep us safe, but our desire for safety and our desire for an efficient criminal justice system should not require us to forfeit our fundamental constitutional rights to privacy and protection from searches and seizures. Let me now yield the floor to my friend and colleague Senator Wyden, who has been such a tireless, effective, and engaged advocate on exactly these issues. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that Senator Carper and I come to the floor this evening to honor Chris Leach and Jerry Fickes, two brave Wilmington firefighters who lost their lives this past Saturday night. In any State or in any community, the loss of a firefighter or police officer is devastating, but in our small State of neighbors, a close-knit State with an even closer knit first responder community, a community that includes families and multiple generations, it is especially hard. To those who knew Chris and Jerry, it must be little comfort now that we are here on the floor of the U.S. Senate to pay tribute to their lives, but in the next few minutes, we hope to capture just a fraction of the light they brought to their families and our community with their love and service. Lieutenant Christopher Leach wasn't supposed to be working on Saturday night, but he filled in for another firefighter, likely thinking it would be a shift like any other shift. He was always willing to step forward and serve. After getting the call that there was a fire in a Canby Park row house, Chris did what he had been training to do since 1993. Chris did what he told his friends, all the way back to Salesianum High School, he always wanted to do as long as they could remember--fight fires. Chris grew up in the volunteer fire service. He joined the Tallyville Fire Company in 1993 at the age of 18, rising steadily through the ranks of the volunteer fire service to captain. The more time he spent at the firehouse, the more he loved it. Four years later, at age 22, Chris joined the Claymont Fire Company and served as a full-time firefighter and EMT there. Chris was a lifelong learner, doing whatever he could to develop new skills to support his crewmates and help save lives. Chris took classes all over our country, from Virginia to Texas, to California, and his training paid off. In July 2002, at a house fire in Claymont, a firefighter from the ladder company fell through the first floor and into the basement. Chris and two others saved that firefighter's life, earning Chris a series of recognitions, including Fireman of the Year from New Castle County Volunteer Fire Service and the Claymont Fire Company. Several months later, Chris joined the Wilmington Fire Department, where he was assigned to Engine 4B Platoon. He was only there for a couple of years before being transferred to the Special Operations Command of Engine 1B, where he was quickly recognized for his work, and then Rescue 1B. At the time of his passing, he was serving with Engine 6. All this time, Chris never stopped learning and improving. He never stopped acting on his passion for firefighting. He researched and applied for and earned a $200,000 grant for extra training and equipment. He wrote the standard operating procedures for the Special Operations Command. He trained as an instructor in NIMS, the National Incident Management System, and made sure that every Talleyville volunteer member became certified in the NIMS system. He served on the Newcastle County Task Force Rescue Team and earned a bachelor of science degree in fire service administration from Waldorf University. Throughout a long and distinguished firefighting career, Chris was constantly achieving and growing, saving lives and building new skills. Described by so many I have spoken to as a ``firefighter's firefighter,'' his commitment to his brothers and sisters at the firehouse was relentless. If he thought the department needed something done, he would go do it himself. If the fire company couldn't afford something, he would find a way to make it happen. That commitment went beyond just his professional leadership. I have heard from so many who said Chris was a good, loyal, and faithful friend. He was a softball teammate and also a practical joker, a lover of Billy Joel and Lynyrd Skynyrd, a so-called Mr. Fix-It, and king of nicknames. He was a big guy with a big heart and a deep voice who couldn't hide when he entered a room. Chris was someone who volunteered at the firehouse on his days off and visited elementary schools to talk about his love of firefighting and to help persuade a young generation to join him. As his friend Andy Millis described him, Chris ``was a lieutenant you wanted to work for.'' He loved his job, he loved his colleagues, and he loved his responsibility, but there was nothing he loved more than his family. His mother Fran, his sister Katie and Katie's wife Carolee, his fiancee Kate and her boys Landon and Casey. Most of all, Chris loved his beautiful children. He said there was nothing greater than being a father to his kids, Brendon, age 16; Abby, 14; and Megan, 12. He took them camping and fishing, to the beach and Cub Scouts, and always found a way to be there for their every activity. Chris lived for his kids. Chris lost his own father Michael to cancer in 2004 and always kept his dad's funeral card in his helmet. Chris honored his father by being a great dad himself, just as Michael was to him. We can only hope that in the brief time each of us has here, that we shine brightly and relentlessly for the people we love and the community we serve. Few shine as brightly as Chris Leach did. With that, I yield the floor to my colleague from Delaware Senator Carper, who will share some words about another hero we also lost on Saturday, senior firefighter Jerry Fickes.

Mr. COONS

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