Christopher Coons

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I intend to offer the following motion to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. The motion is supported by Senators Van Hollen, Baldwin, Brown, Leahy, Harris, Franken, Stabenow, Carper, Udall, Hirono, Menendez, Reed, Durbin, Warren, Blumenthal, Duckworth, Markey, Feinstein, Klobuchar, and Shaheen.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to join my colleagues in opposing the nomination of John Bush to serve on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Bush's record leaves me deeply concerned that he has not demonstrated the civility, the temperament, and the judgment that are the most basic requirements to be a judge on a U.S. Federal circuit court. I also have some concerns with Mr. Bush's legal philosophy. At Mr. Bush's confirmation hearing, I asked questions about his interpretation of due process and the right to privacy. These constitutional rights protect the freedoms that are the linchpin of our modern, diverse, and inclusive society. They impact real people. My concerns about Mr. Bush extend far beyond disagreements about legal philosophy. I worry more deeply about his judgment and temperament. He has published statements that demonstrate not just a lack of judgment and temperament but also a fundamental lack of civility and decency. There are many examples which I could read, but let me cite just a few. He referred to the first female Speaker of the House as ``Mama Pelosi'' and said she should be gagged. He depicted a threat that Obama supporters stealing a campaign sign would ``find out what the Second Amendment is all about.'' He chose to repeat the use of a well-known, anti-gay slur in a speech he gave. All of this was not while he was in middle school or high school but after he had been practicing law more than 15 years. There is much more I could cite--some of it more offensive and more derogatory--but I frankly think they don't expand upon my core argument. These are not the statements of someone fit to serve on a Federal circuit court bench. Don't get me wrong. Mr. Bush has every right to put these views out into the world. Even now, over in the Senate office buildings, there are folks exercising their First Amendment rights, protesting and, in some cases, being arrested today, expressing strongly their feelings. I am sure some of them are saying things that are forceful, vigorous, even perhaps personally offensive to Members of the Senate as they are protesting. The vote this body will take on the nomination of Mr. Bush isn't about his First Amendment rights, it is about whether he is capable of conducting himself in a civil way such that he can give fair treatment to all litigants who come before his court. Our vote isn't about Mr. Bush's own constitutional rights of free expression; it is about upholding all Americans' constitutional rights to fair treatment before the courts and what sort of expectations litigants will have when they stand before him. Mr. Bush's judgment and his repeated choice to utilize not just negative, not just provocative but inflammatory and derogatory language when expressing himself do not suggest to me that he is capable of the fairness, the civility, and the impartiality we expect. Mr. Bush owns the reputation he has built for himself in many speeches, op-eds, blogs, and newsletters. I heard very little in the way of disavowing these prior statements at his confirmation hearing, suggesting that he either stands by them, doesn't see what is wrong with them, or simply doesn't care. I am not sure which is worse, but, to me, each of these is disqualifying. If my Republican colleagues have reservations about this nominee putting on the robe, sitting on a circuit court bench, and interpreting the law for years to come, I hope you will deliver that message with your vote on the floor. I haven't shied away from supporting President Trump's nominees when I believe they are fully qualified for the job--even when their politics have sharply diverged from my own, but this case isn't about partisan politics. The Senate should not be a rubberstamp for nominees of any President of any political party. We must guard the balance of power and the integrity of the Federal judiciary as an unbiased and fairminded institution. President Trump has more than 100 judicial vacancies to fill. If we don't demand any other standard of the White House than this, this problem will extend beyond the nomination of Mr. Bush to this circuit court seat, and the precious and vital reputation of our Federal judiciary will be damaged as a result. I pray we do not reach that outcome. I yield the floor. 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. COONS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor tonight to join my colleagues in opposing the Senate healthcare reform bill, what I will call the Senate TrumpCare bill. I am also here to thank the thousands of my constituents, the thousands of Delawareans who called and emailed my office to express their opposition to this bill that is about neither health nor care. It is because of your efforts, because of the efforts of thousands of Americans across the country who have made their voices heard, that today the Senate doesn't have enough votes to pass this TrumpCare bill. I urge everyone watching and listening to remember that this fight is not over. The Senate will be back next month, and Republicans will be doing everything they can to make tweaks or shaves or changes or amendments to the bill to get it past this body. We need the engagement, the persistence, even the resistance of Delawareans and Americans to make sure the Senate TrumpCare bill never becomes law. This is as urgent now as ever because of how fundamentally heartless this bill is. As many nonpartisan organizations, including the Congressional Budget Office, have pointed out, this bill is essentially a massive tax break for the wealthy paid for on the backs of some of America's most vulnerable citizens. Many of my colleagues have already discussed the devastating impact this bill would have over time on millions of Americans. This Senate bill would make hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid, it would slash tax credits that help Americans buy health insurance, and it would force 22 million Americans off their health insurance and drive up costs for many millions more. If that is not bad enough, the Senate TrumpCare bill does all of this slashing and cutting in large part to give another tax break to our wealthiest citizens. If this bill becomes law, the very richest Americans would get an extra $700 billion in tax breaks over the next decade. If it only affected the millions of Americans who depend on Medicaid or who purchase insurance on the individual market, it would be unconscionable, but it is even worse. Let me explain. Many of our constituents don't realize that even Americans who get their health insurance through their employer--the 150 million Americans who get their health insurance through their employer--have benefited from the Affordable Care Act. In fact, I think that in some ways, the consumer protections put in place by the ACA are the most important accomplishment of that bill. A core requirement of the ACA was that all health insurance plans cover what are known as essential health benefits. These are basic services, such as emergency care, prescription drugs, pediatric services, maternity and newborn care, hospitalization, healthcare for the mentally ill, and substance abuse treatment for the addicted. To put it more succinctly, these are all the reasons many people want health insurance in the first place. Thanks to the ACA, almost every insurance plan in the country today has to carry these core services, and that includes the more than 150 million Americans and the half a million Delawareans who get their health insurance through their jobs. The Senate TrumpCare bill would allow States, through waivers over time, to gut these essential health benefit requirements, gradually making many Americans' health insurance less and less valuable and less and less protective of their and their families' health. That provision of the Senate TrumpCare bill would also allow States to waive the ban on insurers imposing annual and lifetime limits on essential healthcare coverage. Even if you get good insurance through your employer, if you have an unexpected development--let's say the premature birth of a child, who develops serious medical challenges, or a terrible diagnosis that requires expensive and repeated surgery--you either have to come up with that money on your own or you are forced into bankruptcy once you hit the lifetime cap. Let me demonstrate with an all-too-real example. About 1 in 10 newborns has to spend time in the neonatal intensive care unit, or NICU, after they are born. According to the American Medical Association, in the NICU, ``it is not unusual for costs to top $1 million for an extended stay.'' That means even a baby born to parents with great insurance coverage through their employer hit their lifetime insurance cap before they even leave the hospital for the first time. As Americans are scrambling to find ways to pay for their astronomical out-of-pocket costs under the so-called Senate TrumpCare bill, wealthier Americans and corporations will be given big tax breaks. Moreover, while Senate Republicans may claim their bill still covers preexisting conditions, insurance under this bill would be rendered meaningless if it doesn't cover what you need to treat your preexisting condition through these essential health benefits. Let's briefly recap this Senate TrumpCare bill. Millions of Americans lose health insurance. Those who managed to keep it end up paying more but get less coverage. The wealthiest Americans get another big tax break. That is a painful, even cynical, political calculation. Since I came to the Senate 7 years ago, I have said more times than I can count that I want to work with Republicans to fix the parts of the Affordable Care Act that need fixing. Let's simplify the reporting requirements that burden small businesses and increase the tax credits that help small business employers offer insurance to their employees. Let's find ways together to increase competition and expand the tax credits to bring down premiums and deductibles on the individual market. Let's explore new mechanisms that control healthcare costs by incentivizing reforms and producing healthier outcomes, rather than more tests and services. Sadly, this Senate TrumpCare bill does none of these things. It is my hope that after today's developments, that after the next few weeks, that after hearing from their constituents and returning in the next month, that my colleagues will recognize that if we work together, we can address the broken parts of the ACA and sustain the best of what it has done to expand insurance and healthcare for millions of Americans. Let me close with a story I shared earlier today on the steps of the Capitol. This is Kerry Orr. Kerry is from my hometown of Wilmington, DE. Kerry is a massage therapist and self-employed yoga instructor. Like many Americans, she considers the Affordable Care Act ``nothing short of miraculous.'' Kerry signed up for health insurance in 2014, thanks to a subsidy that made it available to her through the ACA. She had some nagging abdominal and lower back pain for years but didn't think much of it, considering she had no family history of disease and had never even had stitches before. But that next year, in January of 2015, a routine procedure covered by her new insurance--which she told me she wouldn't have even gone for if it hadn't been covered by this new health insurance--revealed that Kerry, in fact, had stage III colon cancer. She had surgery a week later. She had 6 months of chemotherapy, and she ultimately faced no out-of-pocket expenses and is fully in remission. Kerry's cancer has now been in remission since September 2015. She wrote to me earlier this year: The ACA came along at the last possible moment to save my life. I am certain that without it, I would have continued to live with the discomfort and try to self-treat until the cancer was too advanced to be successfully treated. I am opposing the Senate TrumpCare bill for Kerry and for the thousands of Delawareans and millions of Americans just like her. I have heard stories from Delawareans about things that need to be fixed in the Affordable Care Act, and I hope I get a chance to work across the aisle to do that, but I have also heard from hundreds of Delawareans whose lives have been improved or, in cases just like Kerry's, saved by the Affordable Care Act. I will not yield on defending the best parts of the ACA that have saved the lives of Americans across this country. In the days and the weeks to come, I hope all Americans will stay active, stay engaged, and stay the course so that we can push aside this cruel, cynical bill and find an opportunity to work together on a bill with real heart. That fight is not yet over, and I will not yet yield. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I wish to honor the remarkable service of the Polytech School District superintendent, Dr. Deborah Zych, and to recognize her commitment and service to the district. Throughout her career, Debbie has been an outstanding leader and innovative thinker, serving in many positions throughout Delaware's school districts. Her hard work, perseverance, and dedication will truly be missed by students, parents, and Delawareans up and down our State. Since 2011, Debbie has played an active and integral role within the Delaware Department of Education, the New Castle County School District, and the Polytech School District, serving as a teacher, administrator, director of curriculum, assistant superintendent, and superintendent. Throughout her time in Polytech School District, Debbie has been a major leader, instrumental in guiding POLYTECH through facility enhancements, the expansion of educational opportunities for students, as well as a marked growth in student certifications. She also played a significant role in establishing a more visible link between Polytech's highly recognized high school and adult education programs. I join the many Delawareans who have had the opportunity to work alongside Debbie, and we are truly grateful for all she has done to improve the lives of Delaware's youth and adults. In addition to ensuring that Kent County students got quality educations, I got to know Debbie through a lot of the work she and her staff did with manufacturers in Delaware and with their impressive apprenticeship programs they ran. She came down to a Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee meeting we hosted on workforce training, and last year, she hosted an event I helped organize on National Manufacturing Day. Debbie and her staff recognized that what manufacturers in Delaware needed was for the training to be done on the shop floor rather than in the school, and they have made dozens of companies stronger as a result. Under Debbie's leadership, Polytech School District also expanded the number of English language learners in Delaware. Beginning her career in Maryland, Debbie has always been an advocate for students, teachers, and the local community. She was committed to ensuring that each student--no matter their age--was equipped with the tools and skills necessary to go out into the world and take advantage of each opportunity that came their way. We cannot simply attribute Debbie's long service in Delaware's school systems to her hard work and advocacy, but also to her genuine passion for seeing each student and program participant excel. Her forward- thinking ability and insight into the value of incorporating all district resources has undoubtedly laid the foundation for helping all students succeed. Debbie's work has been nothing short of incredible, and I am sincerely grateful for all that she has done on behalf of the students and families across our State. It is my privilege to offer my sincerest congratulations on a job well done and wish her much success in her future endeavors at the University of Delaware where she will continue to serve Delaware in the UD Professional Development Center for Educators.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Madam President, I come to the floor today, along with my colleague the Senator from Missouri, as the cochair of the bipartisan Law Enforcement Caucus. We have come to express our concern and our gratitude. This morning our colleagues and our friends, including Congressman Steve Scalise from Louisiana, were senselessly attacked while at a practice in Alexandria for tomorrow's annual bipartisan congressional baseball game. Our deepest thoughts and prayers are with the members of the Capitol Police and Congressman Scalise and everyone who was injured, as well as their families. While we still don't know all of the details of this morning's event, one fact is true. Were it not for the skill, bravery, prompt response, and professionalism of the Capitol Police and Alexandria police, this tragic event would have been much, much worse. For those of us who serve and work every day in Congress at the Capitol, we see the men and women of the Capitol Police. They protect the Members of Congress, our staffs, and the Capitol itself, but that doesn't begin to describe the vital and noble work they do, because the Capitol Police don't simply protect the people in the buildings on the Capitol campus. They protect, they serve, and they honor our Capitol, our country, and our democracy itself. They sacrifice and they risk their lives each and every day to ensure that this Capitol is a Capitol for the people, a Capitol for every man, woman, and child in the United States. It is the Capitol Police, in close and important partnership with local police, who ensure that everyone and anyone can come to this place to make their voices heard and to take part in our democracy. They make these sacrifices and take these risks every day, and this morning's events are a sobering reminder of what the men and women of law enforcement all across the country--and yes, today, here among the Capitol Police--take on each and every day. I urge everyone who works and serves here in the Capitol to take a moment to pray for and be grateful for the men and women of the Capitol Police, the men and women of the Alexandria police, and the men and women of law enforcement all across the Nation. With that, I yield to my colleague from Missouri.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for the chance to work together to lift up in a bipartisan way the men and women of law enforcement and to express our prayers and our gratitude for the men and women of law enforcement--for the Alexandria police and everyone who serves in our entire Nation to help keep it safe and secure. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from Missouri.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from the State of Missouri. Working with Senator Blunt, my cochair of the Law Enforcement Caucus, has been a terrific experience. We have had the opportunity over several years and several Congresses now for more than a dozen conversations, where we invite law enforcement leaders from around the country to talk about partnership between Federal, State, and local law enforcement, intelligence sharing, equipment issues, policy and operational issues to allow us to provide needed support for the men and women of law enforcement. It is my honor to join with several of my colleagues today to recognize the men and women of law enforcement as part of National Police Week. Together, we offer our gratitude and our support to the men and women of law enforcement and their families, who together support our communities. It is only May, and yet my home State of Delaware has already been reminded of the tremendous risks and great sacrifices made by law enforcement officers and their families. In February of this year, Lieutenant Steven Floyd of the Delaware Department of Correction was killed on the job in a prison riot in Smyrna, the Delaware correctional center. He was a 16-year veteran of the department and left behind his wife of 28 years, Saundra; his children, Candyss, Steven, Jr., and Chyvante; and two grandsons. Just last month, Corporal Stephen Ballard of the Delaware State Police was senselessly gunned down while investigating a suspicious vehicle. Corporal Ballard had served with the Delaware State Police for 8\1/2\ years and left behind his wife Louise and his daughter Abigail. Delawareans are still grieving for the loss of both of these brave men in the line of duty. As we recognize the entire law enforcement community from across our country during National Police Week, we should honor their sacrifice by serving them as well as they serve us. This week and every week, we must do everything we can to honor our obligations to fallen heroes and their families. In the wake of these losses in Delaware, I am committed to continuing to work with my colleagues across the aisle and across the country, like Senators Klobuchar, Cornyn, and Senator Blunt, to make sure our officers have the resources they deserve to do their jobs and to come home safely at the end of every shift. That means continuing to champion programs like the Bulletproof Vest Partnership, which literally saves officers' lives. Delaware knows the importance of this long-running program all too well. Two of our Delaware Capitol Police officers who were shot in the line of duty survived due to bulletproof vests provided through this vital and ongoing Federal-State partnership. I will also continue to work here in the Senate with colleagues to reform the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program to make sure the families of officers who lose their lives or are permanently disabled in the line of duty receive the benefits they deserve. Chairman Grassley, who has joined us here on the floor, is one of the lead cosponsors of this bill, along with Senators Hatch, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar--is one of many cosponsors. This is a bill that will take important steps in these reforms, and it is just one step away from passing the Senate, and my understanding is it could head to the House of Representatives as early as later today. Of course, our commitment to serving the men and women of law enforcement has to extend beyond the patrol car and the police station. Building and maintaining trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve is essential to preventing and reducing crime and keeping officers safe. That is why Senator Blunt and I have both taken steps to encourage the strategy of community policing, which helps officers do their job more effectively in partnership with local communities. We have also continued to support local officials who are working to bring Federal resources, expertise, and convening power to help strengthen the bonds between the police and the communities they serve. In light of all these important efforts, we can't let ideology or partisan politics in this Chamber prevent us from doing our job in support of law enforcement. We will fail those who serve us if we do so. We have to move forward in a bipartisan way to improve and invest in officer safety. That is why I am proud to stand with my colleague and partner from Missouri as cochairs of the Law Enforcement Caucus. The mission of this bipartisan group of Senators is simple: to bring law enforcement, community leaders, issue experts, and Republicans and Democrats together to share ideas and generate solutions to challenges facing State and local law enforcement. We have hosted more than a dozen briefings and events. Now more than ever, Senator Blunt and I are committed to this mission. We are on the floor today to honor women and men, like Corporal Ballard and Lieutenant Floyd from Delaware, who put on the uniform and the badge every day, not knowing whether they will come home at the end of their shift. We are here today for their families, whose sacrifice and burden are heavy. When I attended Corporal Ballard's moving memorial service earlier this month, the most powerful speaker among many was his widow, Louise. She stood up, stood tall, and with a smile on her face thanked the 3,000 officers from 36 States across the country who had come to stand in solemn procession and honor Corporal Ballard's sacrifice and pay their respects. Louise Ballard said: This is my Stephen's victory, when I get to see men and women from all over the country who every single day get up and do a job. A job that's hard, a job that requires heart. Few jobs are as hard or require as much heart as patrolling the streets and protecting our communities. This week, together we honor the service and sacrifice of those law enforcement officers whose names have been added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial this year and the hundreds of thousands, even millions, who even today, even tonight, will be on patrol keeping our communities and our families safe. Mr. President, I yield to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, my colleague from Iowa and partner in legislating in the interest of law enforcement.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, in conclusion, I thank my colleagues, Senators Klobuchar, Grassley, Cornyn, and Blunt, for joining us today in a colloquy on the floor. It is a small but important gesture of bipartisan support, sustained and long-lasting bipartisan support for the community of law enforcement that serves each of us and our communities every day. I wish to yield to my friend Senator Blunt for his closing remarks.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to address President Trump's proposed budget for fiscal year 2018. My predecessor in this seat, my friend, former Vice President Joe Biden, once said to me years ago: Show me your budget and I will show you your values. One of my concerns about the proposal we have received--the initial slimmed-down overview proposal we have received--is that it suggests values that I think are quite out of line with what my home State of Delaware would look for me to be doing in this body, what I think addresses the real needs and priorities of the American people. Last month President Trump released an overview of his budget--what is called a skinny budget--and we haven't yet received a full and detailed budget proposal. Even though what we have received is just an overview, it indicates that the cuts President Trump is proposing will significantly weaken vital domestic programs, often with the goal of completely eliminating existing and valued initiatives. This chart gives a rough summary of all the different Federal agencies that would take double-digit hits in order to be able to pay for the significant $54 billion increase to defense spending. Targeting only nondefense programs that millions of Americans and Delawareans rely on ignores commitments made over the last couple of budget cycles and years, as Republicans and Democrats have worked together to ensure placing equal priority on defense and nondefense spending. Under sequestration, under the Budget Control Act, we have already made significant cuts to important domestic programs. After the difficult budgets of the last few years, in my view, we have already made too many cuts to some of the programs that helped build our Nation. To be clear, I am as passionate as anyone in this body about supporting our Armed Forces, particularly when they are in harm's way and particularly as we continue to conduct operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. But Democrats will not stand for cutting domestic programs simply to pay for a $54 billion military expansion that hasn't been explained or justified through a thorough review of what are the appropriate investments in defense that will respond to the challenges and threats we face in this world. To pay for that $54 billion increase in defense by cutting investments in education, housing, job training, and more here at home strikes me as the wrong set of priorities and the wrong direction. If anything like these proposed Trump budget cuts are enacted, I know my home State of Delaware would lose millions and millions of dollars for valuable and effective Federal programs that help my constituents each and every day. Trump's budget proposal would cut research and health programs. It would cut job-creating infrastructure programs. It would cut grants for higher education. It would cut housing and so much more. I wish to take a few minutes to focus on a few of many proposed budget cuts to give a sense of the impact it might have on our livelihood, our security, and our prosperity at home. Let me start with some cuts that would directly affect our national security, our safety. In my view, the deep cuts made in the proposed Trump budget would simply make us less safe. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard, which has a station in Delaware, would be cut by more than $1.3 billion. The Transportation Security Administration, or TSA, has just as high a cut. Ironically, even though these are the very agencies that protect our ports and other points of entry, Trump proposes cutting their funding so that a southern border wall can be built for an estimate well above $25 billion. This simply makes no sense. If you listen to the words of the Coast Guard Commandant, ADM Paul Zukunft, he warned that simply focusing all those resources on building a wall along the border with Mexico would make our ports and waterways even more appealing to smugglers and those who seek to bring illicit drugs or to bring people into the United States through unlawful entry. That is not all. The Trump budget would make us less safe by depleting Federal protection from natural disasters, starting with a proposed $600 million cut to FEMA State and local grants. The budget also proposes restructuring fees for the National Flood Insurance Program, which would lead to raising rates for homeowners who get flood insurance. My home State of Delaware is the lowest mean elevation State in America--literally the lowest lying State and ground zero for sea level rise. These cuts would have a significant impact on homeowners up and down my State, those at our seashore and those in my home community of Wilmington who face steadily rising flood insurance premiums. It is not just our safety, though, that would be impacted by the President's budget; it also threatens job growth and economic security. As a President who ran a campaign on a middle-class jobs agenda, I am struck that his proposed budget would endanger Americans across the country financially by also undermining support for development in both rural areas and urban areas. Take the Department of Agriculture, which provides critical support through the Rural Development Program. In Delaware, at least, Rural Development, or RDA, has played a critical role in supporting housing, businesses, and communities in the rural parts of Delmarva--Delaware and Maryland. The Trump budget would also eliminate the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, or RBS, which promotes economic development in distressed rural areas. That is a program which has supported things like Del Tech automotive technician training and architectural services for the Seaford Historical Society, among many other things. Something I am much more familiar with and more passionate about is the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. Across the State of Delaware, the MEP, as it is known, has helped small and medium manufacturing companies to be better at taking advantage of cutting-edge technology, understanding how to manage their inventory, how to invest more wisely in new capital equipment, and how to grow and compete around the world. Since 2000, Delaware's Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program has used Federal support to help Delaware manufacturers increase sales by more than $120 million, helping create more than 1,600 good-paying jobs and finding over $100 million in cost savings in Delaware's small and medium manufacturers. These are great impacts for a fairly small program. Why that program specifically targeted at helping small and medium manufacturing companies would be a priority for elimination is beyond me. Cuts to other areas that impact research and energy in our economy also strike me as unwise and ill-considered. It is not just our economy and national security; Trump's budget would also threaten our infrastructure, our transportation, and our housing. As a Delawarean and someone who rides Amtrak between Wilmington and Washington almost every day we are in session, I know how important our passenger rail system is for the Northeast, as well as for connecting the rest of our country. Amtrak's long-distance routes are critically important to the Nation's economy and to sustaining passenger rail as a nationwide Federal service. Yet, as our competitors around the world are investing billions of dollars in high-speed rail and in efficient rail networks that connect whole countries, President Trump's proposal would eliminate all Federal funding for Amtrak's long-distance routes. Another effective Federal program that has made a difference in my home State in infrastructure is the so-called TIGER Program, which invests in a whole range of infrastructure options--highway, transit, rail and port--by leveraging private capital and supporting competitive, innovative solutions to infrastructure challenges. The TIGER Program has supported projects like a new regional rail transportation center at the University of Delaware, taking advantage of the former Chrysler rail yard, and the significant new growth we are seeing at the University of Delaware's STAR campus. This is an investment that will have several multiples that will leverage private sector benefits by promoting economic development, accessible housing, and multimobile transportation choices in the area. Many of my colleagues have similar experiences in their States about the impact of the TIGER Grant Program. In the last year, it had a demand nearly 20 times the available funding. Yet the Trump budget would again eliminate all Federal funding to this vital transportation infrastructure program that creates jobs and helps to leverage private sector investment. There are so many other programs on the chopping block, it is hard to even begin to touch on them: Community Development Block Grants, which I relied on in my previous job as county executive to provide support for low-income and disabled individuals to have access to high quality housing; the funds that support things like Meals on Wheels, that allow our low-income seniors to age in place rather than having to be moved to institutions; and many other programs through the Federal Department of Housing that have a positive impact in communities up and down my State, from Newark and Wilmington to Dover and Seaford. If you take the U.S. Department of Agriculture's rural water and wastewater loan and grant programs, these would be eliminated entirely. These programs are critical to ensuring that rural communities can access funds to support safe drinking water and sewer systems. Many communities in Southern Delaware rely on rural water funds to ensure safe drinking water supplies for the families that live there. As I have suggested, the list of potential cuts to programs goes on and on. Let me move to some impacts on the environment, briefly. The Chesapeake Bay is one of the world's largest estuary systems, and Delaware is a State that borders on the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Economists insist that there is nearly $1 trillion worth of economic value to the Chesapeake Bay watershed, yet the Trump budget cuts nearly half of the funding for the EPA to allow States to get grants that will help improve air quality, clean up contaminated waste sites, and remove lead from drinking water. Delaware alone would lose $3 million in these vital initiatives. There are millions of Americans who rely on many more programs listed here--AmeriCorps, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the African Development Foundation, and many more--all eliminated in this budget in order to prioritize a focus on our military and defense. I don't think the President understands that we cannot maintain our status as a global leader with defense and military alone. We need to ensure that a complementary strength exists in our development and diplomacy programs, which are less than one-tenth of our spending on national defense. I recently had the opportunity to see the impact that USAID and our programs to assist the hungry and needy around the world can make in stabilizing fragile states and preventing them from becoming failed states. We spent less than one percent of the Federal budget on these sorts of programs. They provide a critical connection to parts of the world where a positive understanding of America and our values would be a good thing. The international affairs budget, which includes needed funding for USAID, the State Department, and other related programs, would be cut by one-third under the Trump budget--a 29 percent cut to the State Department alone. If history is any indicator, the last 70 years show these investments in diplomacy and development are critical. Foreign assistance is not charity. It serves a humanitarian purpose, but it also makes us stronger by promoting American values around the world, building coalitions that isolate our adversaries, and helping make tens of millions less susceptible to terrorism and to extremism around the world. This is a false choice between significantly increasing our defense spending and the need to sustain our investments in diplomacy and development. I hope my colleagues and constituents will take time to think about the many different Federal programs that I have briefly discussed in these remarks about the proposed budget and all the different ways that these Federal programs have invested in our quality of life, in our national security, and our economic prosperity. Many of them are scheduled for elimination under this budget. As I have heard both Republicans and Democrats say in press interviews and on this floor: No President's budget is adopted without change. It is my hope that this budget will be set aside and that the folks who represent our States here will begin anew the process of building an appropriations path forward that actually protects our country, protects our livelihood, and invests significantly in sustaining and saving the very best of these programs that have benefited my home State and my constituents for so very long. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, today is a day when many Senators are speaking about Judge Gorsuch and about the Supreme Court. As I think many know, in the last week, in the Judiciary Committee hearings and in other settings, I have announced that I will vote against Judge Gorsuch on the final vote tomorrow. I believe I have made my reasons for my opposition clear. I have thoroughly reviewed and considered Judge Gorsuch's record and where he fits within American jurisprudence, and I have no second thoughts about my decision. As I look around at what has just happened on this Senate floor, I am sick with regret. So I rise now to speak in defense of the Senate. The Senate has been hailed by many, including our nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Gorsuch, as the world's greatest deliberative body. Yet today I think one more blow has been struck at that title and reality. The late Senator Robert Byrd, who served in this Chamber for 51 years, would famously remind new Senators that ``in war and in peace, [the Senate] has been the sure refuge and protector of the rights of the states and of a political minority.'' Of course, although Senator Byrd was the longest serving Senator, as a Delawarean, I grew up in the tradition of Senator Joe Biden, a 36- year veteran of this body who left its ranks only to ascend to the Vice Presidency and spend 8 more years as its Presiding Officer. Since I have had the honor of assuming Senator Biden's former seat, I have committed to following his example of working across the aisle, through Republican and Democratic administrations, with whoever is willing to roll up their sleeves and get to work for the American people. I know my colleagues share in this foundational commitment to serve our constituents and country. As I look around at what just happened on this floor, with too little discussion of its lasting consequences and too little visible concern or even emotion, I must ask the question: Where are we headed? You can't see it, but around this Chamber are white marble statues, busts of former Presiding Officers, of former Vice Presidents of the United States. They are in the halls outside this Chamber. They are at the upper level of this Chamber, in the Galleries. All the former Vice Presidents are memorialized in white marble busts. Former Vice President Adlai Stevenson, the grandfather of the Illinois Governor who ran for President in the middle of the 20th century--former Vice President Adlai Stevenson, when he delivered his farewell address to the Senate on his last day in office as the Presiding Officer of the Senate in 1897, said: It must not be forgotten that the rules governing this body are founded deep in human experience; that they are the result of centuries of tireless effort . . . to conserve, to render stable and secure, the rights and liberties which have been achieved by conflict. By its rules, the Senate wisely fixes the limits to its own power. Of those who clamor against the Senate and its mode of procedure, it may be truly said, ``They know not what they do.'' In this Chamber alone are preserved, without restraint, two essentials of wise legislation and of good government--the right of amendment and of debate. It was exactly that right, those rules that were assaulted today, but they have been under assault for a long time. In recent days, I have reached out to my Republican and Democratic colleagues, trying to see if there was some way we could reach a reliable consensus agreement to safeguard these institutional values and avoid the events of today and tomorrow. I told my colleagues that I was not ready to end debate on Judge Gorsuch's nomination until we could chart a course for the Senate to move forward on a bipartisan basis when considering future Supreme Court nominations. I think for us to get to any constructive conversation about moving this Senate forward requires owning the role that all of us--each of us has played over our time here, whether a few years or decades, in bringing us to this point. I, for one, will say I have come over time to regret joining my Democratic colleagues in changing the rules for lower court nominations and confirmations in 2013. Of course, I could give an entire speech on the obstruction that led us to that point. I could document the Republican and Democratic deeds and misdeeds of the last Congress and the Congress before that and the decade before that. As my more seasoned and senior colleagues demonstrated in the Judiciary Committee deliberations, those who have served here longest know best the record of grievance of Congresses in decades past. I anticipate that many of my colleagues will come to regret the decisions and actions taken today in this Congress and in Congresses ahead. Instead of focusing on that shared regret, I want to work together not to continue to tear down the traditions and rules of the Senate but to find ways to strengthen and fortify and sustain them. I worked to try to find a solution to get past this moment on the brink. I wanted to ensure our next Supreme Court nominee would be the product of bipartisan consultation and consensus, as was safeguarded for years by the potential of the 60-vote margin. I wanted certainty that the voice of the minority would still be heard when the next vacancies arise. Among many, this effort to forge consensus was met with hopelessness or even hostility. Back home, thousands of constituents called my office, urging a vote against Gorsuch and urging I support the filibuster. Some even urged me to stop talking about any sort of deal. In fact, back home in Delaware, some national groups ran ads against me when there was even a rumor of a hint that there might be conversations about avoiding this outcome. There were even Senators on both sides of the aisle who told me that an agreement was impossible. They said any agreement is based on trust, and we simply do not trust each other anymore. Given the events of the last years, the disrespect and mistreatment of Merrick Garland, the course of the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, I can understand how there is a raw wound right now in this Chamber, where each side feels the other has mistreated a good and honorable and capable nominee for the Supreme Court. Let me say my last point again. Senators on both sides told me we could not find a durable compromise because we do not trust each other anymore. If we cannot trust each other anymore, then are there any big problems facing this country which we can address and solve? This morning, I gave an address at the Brookings Institution about the threat Russia poses to our democracy, to our allies, to our national security, and to the endurance of our Republic. If that threat is not something that deserves determined, bipartisan effort, I don't know what is. There are many threats to our future I could lay out today, but let me simply emphasize that in the absence of trust, this body cannot play its intended constitutional role, and without trust, we will not rebuild what is necessary to sustain this body. Everyone likes to point the finger at the other side as the source of this distrust. The reality is, there is abundant blame to go around. Folks like to remember the good old days when Justice Scalia was confirmed by this body 98 to 0, when Justice Ginsburg was confirmed 96 to 3, but if we look at our five most recent nominees to the Supreme Court who got votes, you can see a clear trend: Nine Senators, all Republican, voted against Justice Breyer. Then 22 Senators voted against Justice Roberts. Then 42 Senators, mostly Democrats, voted against Justice Alito. For President Obama's nominees, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, more than 30 Republican Senators opposed each one. Only nine Republican Senators voted for Sotomayor, and only five Republicans voted for Justice Kagan. We have been on this trajectory-- both parties--for some time. Then, of course, we have Chief Judge Merrick Garland, the first Supreme Court nominee in American history to be denied a hearing and a vote, and we have Judge Gorsuch, the first to be the object of a partisan filibuster on this floor. We did not get here overnight. We have become increasingly polarized. How can we work together to repair this lack of trust so we can face the very real challenges that face our Nation? My own attempts of recent days--although I was blessed to be joined by Senators of good will and good faith and great skill in both parties--were ultimately not successful. I wish I had engaged sooner and more forcefully. I wish I had been clearer with my colleagues how determined I was to seek a result, but this doesn't mean I am disappointed that I tried, and it also doesn't mean I am going to stop. I am not going to stop trying to fix the damage that has been done, trying to find a better pathway forward. I ask my colleagues: If you know what you have done today, then what will we do tomorrow? How could we avoid the further deepening, corrosive partisanship in this body? What past mistakes can each of us own up to? What steps can we take to mend these old wounds? What more can we do to move forward together? We sometimes talk about the dysfunction of this body as if it is external to us, as if we bear no accountability for it, but at the end of the day, here we are: 100 men and women sent to represent 50 States of this Republic and 325 million people. In many ways, we have all let them down today. I can tell you what I am going to do tomorrow. I commit to working with anyone who wants to join me to try to strengthen and save the rules and traditions of this body and its effectiveness as an absolutely essential part of the constitutional order for which so many have fought and died. It is what all of our predecessors would have wanted. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from the great State of Maryland and to commend him for his leadership on the Foreign Relations Committee and on the floor today, as well as his great work with the Helsinki Commission, his tireless bipartisan work with our committee chairman, and with many others. We have just heard detailed, in terms of the legislation he has put forward, the effort, the time, and the engagement he has put forward in terms of standing up. I think it is important for all of our colleagues and the American people to hear us working together to push back on Russian aggression and on Vladimir Putin's regime for its interference in our most recent election and its long and sad record of appalling human rights violations. In 1950, the CIA delivered a report to then-President Harry Truman that outlined two key goals of the Soviet Government. The first goal was ``destruction of the unity among the Western countries, thereby isolating the United States.'' The second goal was ``alienating the Western people from their governments so that the efforts of the Western countries to strengthen themselves would be undermined.'' Nearly 70 years later, the regime of Vladimir Putin in Russia remains fundamentally committed to these same two goals, but today his government has a whole new arsenal of cyber tools and information tools which it uses to interfere in democratic elections here in the United States and across Europe--among the nations that are our vital allies-- to launch propaganda and misinformation campaigns that spread falsehoods and create a climate of doubt and uncertainty among citizens and democracies around the world. Last week, on this floor, I rose to speak with my friend and colleague, Senator Marco Rubio, to highlight the threat that we know Russia poses to the American-led, rules-based international order that has been sustained by both Republican and Democratic Presidents and leaders in this body since the Second World War. Just yesterday, several of us participated in a hearing of the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, chaired by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. We heard directly from representatives of the Governments of Ukraine, Poland, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. All of these nations know better than any others just how serious the Russian Government is today about fulfilling the goals the CIA quoted and outlined in that report from the 1950s. Russian troops today are massing on the borders of many of these countries. In the case of Ukraine, Russia has recently invaded and continues to illegally occupy Crimea while arming and supporting separatists in the eastern 20 percent of the country. Russia previously invaded Georgia in 2008 and continues to occupy about one-fifth of its territory, backing rebels in the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Russian Government has tried and, in several cases, succeeded in executing cyber attacks against these countries' governments, most famously against Estonia in 2007. Its ongoing disinformation campaigns have created widespread doubt about Western institutions like NATO, the European Union, the OSCE-- institutions that have helped to maintain a stable and peaceful world for seven decades. These Ambassadors and the Foreign Ministers who testified yesterday before our appropriations subcommittee made clear their countries depend on the United States not just for leadership, not just for military strength but for leadership and our commitment to effective foreign assistance. These are the same requests I heard last August from Eastern European leaders, when I led a bipartisan congressional delegation--two Republican House Members, two Democratic Senate Members, and I. The five of us went to Ukraine, Estonia, and the Czech Republic, and we heard exactly the same message--that they are threatened by a constant wave of attacks of disinformation, both overt and covert efforts to subvert their democracies and to change the direction of their nations. Maintaining our forms of American leadership, our support for the democracies, the civil societies, and the military, and the strength of these nations in Eastern Europe is not charity. A world committed to democracy and the rule of law is a more stable world. A stable world means Americans are safer and more economically secure. It is that simple. That is why we must push back against Russian aggression in a bipartisan way and stand up for our allies and our values. Conversations like this one on the floor today are important to educate our American people about the true nature of the Russian threat we face. The Russian Government's current strategy relies on disinformation and propaganda in an effort to divide the American people, both from their government and from each other. Our discussion this afternoon makes clear that both Republicans and Democrats in Congress haven't lost our will to highlight, to condemn, and to fight Russian actions. Unassailable facts must serve as the basis for a bipartisan foreign policy. A clear-eyed understanding of Russian intentions and actions will protect us from their anti-Western propaganda and avoid the internal divisions that Russia seeks to leverage in an attempt to project its influence worldwide. To that end, I am determined to support the efforts of Senator Cardin. I am also determined to support the efforts of Senator Graham to provide sufficient funding that specifically targets the Russian Government's subversive actions. I will also continue to work with my colleagues, such as Senator Cardin, to see that his bill, S. 94, the Counteracting Russian Hostilities Act, is marked up this work period so the full Senate can consider this important legislation. As Senator Cardin commented, there are 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans who have already cosponsored this important bill. Why is this bill, the Counteracting Russian Hostilities Act, so important? It will make sure the Russian Government pays a price for breaking the rules by supporting sanctions for its occupation and illegal annexation of Crimea, for its egregious human rights violations in Syria and elsewhere, and, most importantly, for directly interfering in our election. This bill would prevent the lifting of sanctions on Russia until its government ceases these activities that caused those sanctions to be put in place in the first place. The bill would also support civil society, pro-democracy, and anti-corruption activists in Russia and across Europe. Today Vladimir Putin has a whole array of powerful modern tools that he intends to use to undermine democracy and promote his brand of authoritarianism, but as that 1950 memo to President Harry Truman made clear, Russia's goals haven't changed. Russia's goals are to oppose us, our vision, our values, and our democracy. We must make it clear that America's vision of a freer, safer, and more democratic world hasn't changed either. I thank Senator Cardin for organizing this discussion, thank Senator Menendez for everything he has done to support these important efforts, and thank Senator Graham for hosting yesterday's important hearing. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to continue with this fight. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. I would like to thank my friend, the Senator from Florida, my colleague on the Foreign Relations Committee and on the Appropriations Committee. I would like to answer his question by saying, it seems clear to all of us on the Foreign Relations Committee who have had the opportunity to travel to Eastern Europe to visit with our NATO allies that Vladimir Putin has a world view and an agenda that is in sharp contrast with our own. Vladimir Putin dreams of returning Russia to the days of the Russian Empire, to reexerting influence over a broad geographic region from the Baltic Sea and Poland and Ukraine to the Caucasus and Central Asia. He has internally used the West and NATO as a scapegoat for Russia's internal economic woes. He has, as we know, launched invasions or extended his influence through forces and supported illiberal and separatist fighters in Georgia and Ukraine and Moldavia, former Soviet republics, and has launched cyber attacks and propaganda campaigns and coordinated the use of all his tools of state power against our NATO allies in the Baltic region and Central and Western Europe. All of these things suggest a very different world view, a different set of values than we have in the United States and a different set of values in a way that really worries me. As my colleague from Florida has suggested, when Foreign Minister Lavrov talks about a world order defined by sovereignty, he is challenging us. He is challenging what the West really stands for, what we in America stand for. I believe what we stand for is the universal values on which we forged the Transatlantic Alliance more than 70 years ago, a Transatlantic Alliance that has been a force for stability and good in the world, a Transatlantic Alliance that has secured peace in Western Europe, North America ever since the close of the Second World War but a Transatlantic Alliance that is rooted in values, values of freedom of speech, freedom of press, rule of law and democracy, and in opposition to authoritarianism. We support American leadership because a stable and prosperous world makes us safer and more economically secure. So I would ask my friend from Florida what he views as the agenda or the objective of Russia and whether we can be hopeful, in any way, that Vladimir Putin's Russia has an agenda that is harmonious with ours, that can be put in the same direction as ours or whether it is fundamentally at odds.

Mr. COONS. We have worked together on a number of bills in this area. Let me respond to my friend the Senator by saying it is clear that Vladimir Putin's Russia has been a serial human rights violator. When we talk about human rights, we talk about things that belong to everyone, and they are necessary as a check on state power. When nations break these rules, we believe they should be held accountable. Russia continues to engage in efforts, as my colleague said, that undermine democracy in free elections throughout Europe. We have shared concerns about the upcoming elections--the Dutch elections, French, and German elections--where there are overt actions and covert actions by Russia to influence the outcome of those elections, but part of why they are doing that, part of why they are violating these norms around Europe is because they are seeking to distract from their brutal rule at home. The reality is, many of the critics of Putin's regime end up dead or incapacitated. Boris Nemtsov, a Russian politician who supported the introduction of capitalism into the Russian economy and frequently criticized Vladimir Putin, was assassinated 2 years ago, on February 27, on a bridge just near the Kremlin in Moscow. Vladimir Kara-Murza, a Russian politician and journalist, was apparently poisoned last month, the second time in recent years. He had been actively promoting civil society and democracy in Russia. Back in September of 2012, Putin threw USAID out of Russia altogether, claiming that U.S. efforts were undermining Russian sovereignty when, in fact, we had been working in Russia since the nineties, supporting human rights, independent journalism, and promoting fair elections. Most importantly, in my view, Russia doesn't just violate the human rights of its own citizens, it exports brutality. Russia's support for Bashar al-Assad's murderous regime and brutal war in Syria continues. Their military has targeted hospitals, schools, and Syrian first responders. They have blocked the provision of food and medicine to starving families and children. Russia's diplomats have vetoed any efforts at the United Nations to act to stop the suffering in Syria. Also, Russia, having illegally invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea, continues to promote violence and instability in eastern Ukraine, in the Donbas region, leading to the deaths of thousands. All of these human rights violations within Russia and in countries around its sphere of influence, in its region, suggest to us that they need to be held accountable for these violations of basic human rights. Like the Senator from Florida, I led a codel to Eastern and Central Europe. Mine was not last week. It was last August, but with two Republican House Members and two Democratic Senate Members, the five of us went to the Czech Republic, to Ukraine, and to Estonia. We heard widespread concern about this record of human rights and a disrespect for democracy in Russia and about this aggressive hybrid warfare campaign that threatens Ukraine's very stability and existence, that puts Estonia, our NATO ally, on warning, and that is putting at risk Czech independence and Czech elections all across Central and Western Europe. We have heard from Ambassadors, experts, those who have testified in front of committees on which we serve, about a Russian campaign--a brutal campaign--to undermine human rights within Russia and to undermine democracy throughout Western Europe, with a larger strategic goal of separating the United States from our Western allies and undermining the Transatlantic Alliance that has been so essential to our peace, security, and stability for 70 years. We cannot let this stand. There is no moral equivalence between Russia and the United States. If we believe in our democracy and if we believe in our commitment to human rights, we must stand up to this campaign of aggression. So I ask my colleague what he believes we might be able to do on the Foreign Relations Committee, on the Appropriations Committee, or here in the Senate, what we might do, as voices working in a bipartisan way, to stand up to these actions undermining democracy and human rights?

Mr. COONS. Well, briefly, if I could. Two bills that are currently gathering cosponsors--and which I hope our colleagues will review and consider joining us in cosponsoring--one is S. 341, the Russia Sanctions Review Act of 2017, which currently has 18 cosponsors. The other is S. 94, the Counteracting Russian Hostilities Act of 2017, that has 20 cosponsors--10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. In both cases, we are proud to have a very broad range of both Republicans and Democrats engaged in this important legislation, which ensures that Russia pays a price for breaking the rules. It starts by taking action to support the sanctions against the Russian Government for its occupation, its illegal annexation of Crimea, for its egregious human rights violations in Syria, and for meddling in the U.S. election. It prevents the lifting of sanctions on Russia until the Russian Government ceases the very activities that caused these sanctions to be put in place in the first place. It supports civil society, pro-democracy, anti-corruption activists in Russia and across Europe to show that many of us are determined, as members of the Foreign Relations Committee, as members of the Appropriations Committee, as Senators--not as partisans--that we intend to fund the tools that will enable the United States and our NATO allies to push back on Russia's aggression. Most of these tools come from the international affairs budget: State Department and foreign assistance accounts. I want to commend you, Senator, for giving a strong and impassioned speech on the floor today about the importance of our keeping all of these tools in our toolkit so that as we confront our adversaries around the world, we have the resources and the ability to partner with and strengthen our allies as well. We have no quarrel with the Russian people, but we are here because there is nothing Vladimir Putin's regime would love more than to see his actions divide us in this Chamber and divide us in this country from our vital allies in Europe and divide the whole North Atlantic community that for seven decades has brought peace and stability to Europe, has brought prosperity to the United States, not as an act of charity but as an investment in the best interests of security. We are here to say with one voice that we will stand up to Russian aggression that undermines democracy and violates human rights. I am grateful for my colleague, for the chance to join him on the floor today, and I look forward to working together with any of our colleagues who see these issues as clearly as my friend and colleague, the Senator from Florida.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of Senator Isakson, chairman of the Select Committee on Ethics, and for myself as vice chairman of the committee, that the rules of procedure of the Select Committee on Ethics, which were adopted February 23, 1978, and revised November 1999, be printed in the Record for the 115th Congress.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of Senator Isakson, chairman of the Select Committee on Ethics, and for myself as vice chairman of the committee, that the annual report of the Select Committee on Ethics for calendar year 2016 be printed in the Record. The committee issued this report on January 27, 2017, as required by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Leah Rubin Shen of my staff be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I want to initially begin by thanking my colleague from Oklahoma for graciously allowing me to proceed first ahead of him. He is, as ever, a terrific colleague. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Minnesota. I, too, led a bipartisan delegation--two Republican House Members and two Senate Democrats--to Eastern European in August and observed many of the same issues and concerns that she just raised and have joined her, along with 10 Republican Senators and 8 other Democratic Senators, in the legislation she mentioned. I think this is an important issue on which all of us should focus. Mr. President, let me turn to the matter at hand, the nomination of Scott Pruitt to serve as the director of the EPA. I thank my colleagues, many of whom have come to the floor to speak about the nomination of Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA, and most essentially, my senior Senator and friend from my home State of Delaware, Tom Carper, ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who has ably led this fight. I am glad to be able to join my colleagues to make clear why, in my view, someone who does not believe in a core Federal role in protecting the environment is not the right person to lead the Federal Agency charged with just that mission. It is possible that we in this Chamber have now forgotten why the Environmental Protection Agency was created in the first place. The idea of Federal protection of our environment really started to take hold when the Cuyahoga River caught fire, again, in June of 1969. The public outrage that rightfully followed this near- spontaneous combustion of a river helped lead to the EPA's creation in 1970 and the passage of the Clean Air Act the same year and the Clean Water Act in 1972. Now, nearly a half century later, it is precisely because these laws and others like them have been successful in making us healthier and safer that it is easy to forget why we need them. Institutions like the EPA don't run themselves. The environment does not protect itself, and big oil and gas and coal companies certainly don't police themselves. That is why the EPA exists. You would certainly hope that at the very least the Administrator of that Agency would support that core mission. Yet this evening we are considering the nomination of someone whose main experience with environmental protection at the Federal level is filing lawsuits against the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. In fact, he has filed 14 of those lawsuits in just 6 years as attorney general of the State of Oklahoma. That is not all he has done. Scott Pruitt, in his confirmation hearing, refused to recuse himself from consideration of future cases which he brought against the EPA if confirmed. Mr. Pruitt has also suggested that Senators who want more information about the details of his record should file FOIA requests rather than providing that information voluntarily. He has described himself as ``a leading advocate against the Federal EPA's activist agenda.'' Scott Pruitt has not been able to name in confirmation hearings one single environmental protection statute he supports. In my view, that is unacceptable for a State attorney general let alone someone nominated to be our Nation's highest ranking environmental protection official. Mr. Pruitt's disdain for the core mission of the EPA leaves me without a doubt that he is unfit to take on this important role, but that is not all. Scott Pruitt either ignores or is ignorant of the core and important science of climate change, mercury, lead exposure, ocean acidification, to name just a few of many topics uncovered in his confirmation hearing. Mr. Pruitt acknowledges the climate is changing but says the role, the influence of human activity is ``subject to debate.'' I am here to say this evening, that is simply not true. Only in an alternative universe, based on alternative facts, is the human impact on climate change still subject to debate. That is like saying that Scott Pruitt is fit to lead the EPA is subject to debate. I think after an exhaustive confirmation hearing and a review on the floor of the facts, it is not. It is simply not true. Scott Pruitt also led a lawsuit against EPA rules that would reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired powerplants. He argued it was too expensive, too burdensome, but he also questioned whether mercury itself was harmful to health. On that issue, the science is clear. Mercury has devastating effects on the development of the human nervous system. Does Mr. Pruitt not get that or does he not care? Those are pressing questions for me. During his confirmation process, Mr. Pruitt was confused about ocean acidification, a process explained by very basic science. A question I was left with was whether Mr. Pruitt just did not get it or just did not care. In that same hearing, he made statements that indicated he was unfamiliar with the Federal standards regarding lead in drinking water. I had to ask myself whether he simply has not heard of Flint, MI, or was not concerned. My office alone has received nearly 1,000 calls and emails from Delawareans expressing concern about Scott Pruitt and the future of the EPA under his potential leadership, expressing concern and opposition. Delawareans have reached out to me saying they are worried about their kids with asthma; they are worried about clean drinking water for their families; they are worried about protecting our rivers, our wetlands, and other outdoor spaces in Delaware and around the country. With Scott Pruitt potentially at the helm of the EPA, they are right to be worried. Let me end by sharing a brief excerpt of a letter from one of my constituents who lives in my hometown of Wilmington, DE. She wrote: Please vote against Scott Pruitt as leader of the EPA. Our children's future, their health and well-being, and their right to inherit a world we have not irreversibly destroyed may depend on it. She is absolutely right. Our kids do deserve a better environmental future. To her and all the Delawareans who have contacted me and my friend and colleague from my home State, I hear you. I intend to vote against Scott Pruitt. If my colleagues in the Senate really want to stop pollution, we can start by keeping Scott Pruitt from going to lead the EPA. Our environment should not be for sale, should not be neglected, and should not be turned aside from being the core mission of the Environmental Protection Agency. I think we all should stand firm against the nomination of Scott Pruitt to lead that important Agency. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to honor the exemplary service of the Smyrna Delaware School District Superintendent, Deborah Wicks, and recognize her upcoming retirement. For nearly half a century, she has been an exceptional teacher and leader, serving in many positions throughout Delaware's fastest growing school district. Her hard work, perseverance, and dedication will truly be missed by students, parents, and Delawareans up and down our State. Since 1967, Debbie has played an active and integral role within the Smyrna Delaware School District, serving as a special education teacher for 16 years and an associate principal for 4 years, before serving as the district's superintendent for 19 years. Throughout her time in the district, Debbie has been a key leader, instrumental in the successful completion of many projects like the John Bassett Moore Intermediate School and the School Special Services Building. As she steps down from her position as superintendent in June, I join the many Delawareans she has worked with in thanking Deborah for her diligent efforts to improve the education system for Delaware's children through hard work and diligence. A native of Smyrna, DE, and educated in the same school system that she serves so faithfully, Debbie has always been a champion for students, teachers, and the local community. Being a champion to Debbie means helping to instill values of integrity, compassion, perseverance, respect, and responsibility--values visible in the hallways and classrooms of the schools in Smyrna and in the hearts of its graduates. Debbie's success can be attributed not only to a commitment to instill essential values in district students, but also to a genuine passion for the betterment of her community. Her ability to develop and foster community relationships essential to the district's long-term educational success can be seen in numerous completed projects and building upgrades, as well as the annual ``I Love Smyrna School District Day,'' which has drawn close to 7,000 attendees in recent years. Debbie's work has been nothing short of inspirational, and we are sincerely grateful for all that she has done on behalf of the students and families of Smyrna. Her model leadership and dedication has touched so many lives in Smyrna and beyond. It is my privilege to offer my sincerest congratulations on a job well done and wish her many happy, healthy, and successful years to come.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I yield my postcloture debate time to Senator Schumer.

Mr. COONS. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to agree, briefly, with the remarks of my friend, the senior Senator from Illinois, and to comment that the nomination of Congressman Tom Price of Georgia to be Secretary of Health and Human Services is concerning, even alarming, to all of us who have reviewed his record--his record, his public statements, his work--that threatens to privatize Social Security, that threatens to restructure and fundamentally change the promise of Medicare, and that offers the promise of repealing the Affordable Care Act without any plan to replace. I could not agree more with the words of the Senator from Illinois that we should all be cautious about being promised access without any pathway toward the ability to actually afford quality health care. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my postcloture debate time to Senator Wyden.

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.