Christopher Coons

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Senator Boozman is right. There is a real challenge to the United States in Africa, and it is not just a economic challenge. We face competition from China, from Russia, from Brazil, from India, from other rapidly growing countries. But there is also a values change because, frankly, in countries I visited--and I know both Senators, in their service to the public in the House and Senate, have visited more countries on the continent than I have--but I am concerned that China's agenda in Africa is sometimes different from ours. It is not a values agenda. They are not there to promote democracy, tolerance, transparency, protection of intellectual property from piracy, from counterfeiting. There are lots of different things we advance in partnership with trade opportunities that are not part of their issues and are not part of what they try to advance. I am impressed Senator Durbin has pulled together an all-of-government strategy for dealing with this opportunity, and I would be interested in hearing more about how the mechanics of this bill would actually work to deploy all the great resources of the American Government.

Mr. COONS. That is right. I am grateful Senator Boozman has been an active participant in helping pull together on this bill what has been a bipartisan consensus in this body and in the House on the importance of improving the access to the export opportunities of Africa for businesses large and small in the United States. Both of our States are well known for poultry exports. All three of our States also have manufacturing exports, across all the different sectors of our economy. We can't help but do better if we increase our exports to Africa. Fifty years ago, 70 percent of all U.S. funds that flowed toward Africa were development or relief assistance from U.S. Government sources. Today that is inverted. Today more than 80 percent of all resources that go to Africa are direct investment by the private sector. So Senator Durbin has led the effort to create a wise and smart bill that uses that leverage, that makes, as Senator Boozman said, the rapidly growing markets of Africa accessible to our home State businesses, large and small, but also makes a more efficient, more focused use of the dramatic resources of our Federal Government and makes it more accessible. What is next and where do we go from here?

Mr. COONS. Senator Boozman is absolutely right. The significant investments that have been made by the last administration and the current administration, by Congresses controlled by both parties, in relief of the very broad health challenges throughout sub-Saharan Africa have produced dramatic results. It has been both positive results in terms of relieving human misery but also positive results in terms of the view that most Africans have of the United States. This is the continent on the Earth where we are most positively viewed. We need to take that platform and use the tools Senator Durbin is trying to craft through this legislation we support to make sure that businesses large and small all across the United States see this continent clearly as a continent of opportunity, as a continent where we have strong potential partners, and get us back in the race. Frankly, right now we have a wakeup call. When those of us who have been to Africa repeatedly see it as a continent of great opportunity perceive that we are allowing other countries to rapidly move past us, with Senator Durbin's leadership with this bill, we can take that opportunity, refocus our resources and make this the decade where the United States and Africa, working in partnership, build and sustain tremendous growth in imports, exports, and trade.

Mr. COONS. I thank Senator Boozman and Senator Durbin for the opportunity to join together in this colloquy. As Senator Boozman referenced, this is another example of how when America leads with its values, America will find success for our workers, our families, our communities at home in terms of increased export opportunities, but also in terms of higher regard for our values, for our priorities throughout the world. When we are willing to take on the challenge of combating terrible diseases such as HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria in partnership with research universities, in partnership with African universities, and doctors and health care professionals, we can achieve remarkable results. When we pull together with Senator Durbin's leadership on this bill and we pull together all of our government, OPEC, Ex-Im, the Trade Development Administration, the Department of Commerce, the Department of State, and we deploy the strength and the capabilities of America's entrepreneurs and small businesses, the sky is the limit in terms of the difference we can make for the people of Africa and the people of the United States. I wish to thank Senator Durbin for his leadership on this important bill. I am grateful for the chance to join him and Senator Boozman in the colloquy today.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. What strikes me most about this, Madam President, and to the good Senator from Alaska, is that of all the sectors in the entire American economy--at least in my home State--that have suffered since the financial collapse of 2008, construction was hit the hardest. We already knew that we were far behind in investment. We have tens of thousands of bridges that are out of compliance with basic engineering standards. Half of our roads are below the standards we would expect from a modern economy. This is money that can and should be invested in putting people to work in construction, which has suffered from the highest unemployment. It has the support from the Chamber of Commerce to the AFL CIO, where we wrestled through the tough processes here over several weeks, and we have a strongly bipartisan bill sitting and ready to go. There are other things we debate in this Chamber that will maybe create jobs, maybe won't. There is no question--even those who have the strongest concerns about the Federal role in our economy cannot disagree that Federal highway projects put people to work, strengthen our economy, and make us more competitive. This bill is ready to go. Why you would not take it up and enact it today, I cannot imagine. To the good Senator from Alaska, I might say Alaska may have a shorter summer season than we do, but if you have 18,000 jobs at risk, I can only imagine the kinds of calls the Senator is getting from his home State, as I am getting from my State, urging that the House of Representatives take up this strong and bipartisan bill and pass it so we can all move forward and create some real jobs.

Mr. COONS. Madam President, the Senator from Alaska is absolutely right. In my county, we didn't do roads, our State does the roads, but we did sewers, and heavy capital investments in infrastructure would cost our little county tens of millions of dollars. We would be on a project, off a project, on a project, off a project. We were fortunate that our county in good times had enough money in reserve that we could go ahead and authorize the bond issue and authorize the project. But as the economy turned and as our balance sheet got tougher, we had to wait, we had to put things on hold, and we had to put off key projects. I know the good Senator from Alaska, as a former mayor of Anchorage, also saw that happen in transportation. Is that not the case, that certainty was an enormous challenge when the Senator was relying on a Federal partner who was unreliable?

Mr. COONS. Absolutely. I yield to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. COONS. Madam President, I rise today to address a simple but important issue about what our path forward is to building a stronger and safer America. I was deeply frustrated to hear earlier today that the Transportation bill, which was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan consensus in this Chamber, has gone over to the House and they cannot find a way forward to respond to this bill from us or find any clarity or certainty about whether to simply take up, debate, amend, or consider and enact, hopefully, our bill from the Senate or ask for short-term extensions of 30, 60, or 90 days. Madam President, as you know as a former Governor and as I know as a former county executive, when investing in work as important as bridges and highways and roads that make infrastructure, transportation, and a reliable and predictable future for our economy possible, nothing is more important than certainty. Financing major highway projects, buying major pieces of equipment, and hiring the crews to do the work are exactly the sorts of things where certainty is critical. I have a simple question to our friends in the other Chamber, which is when will they take up this bill that passed this Chamber by such an overwhelming margin and when will they take seriously the broad bipartisan input from every imaginable group in support of this. I was active in my previous elected role as county executive with the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFL CIO. All have weighed in. In fact, if I remember correctly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote every single office at the Senate in support of this legislation, calling for specific action that both the Congress and administration could take right now to support job growth and economic productivity without adding to the deficit. This bill came out of the committee after remarkable work by Senator Boxer of California and Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, two Senators who are widely viewed as being at the opposite ends of our political spectrum here in this Chamber. When I go home to Delaware, I hear folks say over and over again: Why can't you work together? Why can't you iron out your differences and put America on a clearer, straighter track toward a stronger recovery? Well, this is exactly the sort of bill that will accomplish that end. A 2-year reauthorization, a $109 billion bill that in my small State of Delaware would create 6,700 jobs now hangs in the balance. It will expire at the end of this month. Rather than take up and consider and hopefully pass this bill, folks in the other Chamber--and frankly, sadly, largely folks on the other side of the partisan aisle here--are refusing to do so and will instead take a short-term chip shot of an extension. I simply wanted to say, if I might, that certainty is something I respect from my years in the private sector. Certainty is something I hear from the other side of the aisle in the other Chamber all the time. And this is a moment when certainty can be served by the House taking up and passing the Senate-passed bill.

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

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with Senator Durbin and Senator Boozman for up to 30 minutes. And, as Senator Durbin indicated, we will suspend when Leader Reid arrives.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Madam President, I am honored to follow my good friend and colleague from the State of Georgia in recognizing the remarkable contributions of Senator Mikulski, now the longest serving woman in the history of the Congress. Today we have been joined by many great Marylanders. We have had Governor O'Malley and Senator Cardin, and former Senator Sarbanes, and Senator Mikulski's own family, her sisters and brother-in-law in attendance. I am also pleased that we have got two of her favorite constituents, my father and my brother, who are with us today as well. They live in Annapolis and they have known what I have known since childhood when I lived in the suburbs of Baltimore, that Senator Mikulski is a remarkable, a tireless, a passionate, and an effective Senator. Reference has been made to her start as a community organizer, someone who saved Fells Point from a 16-lane superhighway, someone who was not afraid to get into the gritty issues of a local community and standing up for folks who did not have anyone to fight for them. We have also heard about her early years as a social worker, helping folks in need understand the programs available to them and then fighting for the programs that should have been available to them. It is no surprise to any of us that the district she first represented in the House of Representatives, the Third, was known as the ``steel district'' where lots of men and women worked in the Bethlehem Steel plant. It is no surprise that she has earned a reputation here in the Senate as a woman of steel, who fights for manufacturers, who fights for Federal workers, who fights for Western Maryland, who fights for poultry on the peninsula of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, who fights for her constituents day in and day out. It is indeed just that in this Woman's History Month we would be recognizing Senator Barbara Mikulski, who has stood up for Maryland each and every day. And though like me she comes up a little short every time she stands, she stands incredibly tall in the company of Senators throughout American history. She is someone who is passionate for people, who has determination to continue in the tradition of her father, that fair deal grocer, who asked every day that simple question: How can I help, and then gets busy answering it. She is a role model for me, for all of us, for my daughter, for my family, for our community. She is the only Senator I have heard say to me, fiercely, before going on a vote on the floor: To the barricades. And she is the only person who could say that and mean it. For a lifetime, she has been at the barricades of justice. She has been at the barricades of service. She has been at the barricades of making a difference. And for that, we are all grateful. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. today.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I am glad this Chamber is focused on job creation, on access to capital, on ways we can help strengthen the speed and growth of high promise, startup companies. I am grateful for the input and leadership of the Senator from Louisiana, for her hard work in trying to make sure we pay attention to the matter that is before this body and making sure we strike the right balance between continuing to ensure investor protection, while also providing relief from regulations that may hold the promise of accelerating capital formation and job growth in this country. When I go home to Delaware every night and when I attend events across our State every weekend, I most frequently hear from those deeply affected by our two long recessions, from which we are still growing and recovering, families who are still dealing with unemployment, with loss of their homes or with the threat to loss of their life savings, businesses that are facing a credit crunch and struggling to expand or to retain their employment. Americans, I have heard over and over, and Delawareans want us to come together and find solutions in this body. The good news is that today, in a rare bipartisan spirit, that is exactly what we are doing. I am glad we are taking up two different versions of this legislation to create a positive climate for capital formation for early stage companies that have enormous potential to grow, one of which has passed overwhelmingly in the House--and I understand has earned the public support of President Obama--but the other of which, as we have heard a number of Democratic Senators speak to today, tries to mirror those same core provisions but insists on investor protection and on ensuring that we do not overreach in opening markets in ways we may regret later. Sometimes, as the Chair knows all too well, this body deliberates overly long. In fact, in my first year and a half here, I have been struck at just how long we deliberate before acting and on how many measures have sat on the floor without action that should have been taken up promptly and quickly. In this case, I am concerned about the opposite; that we are rushing through a measure that deserves some careful consideration and review. In any event, making progress in access to capital for entrepreneurs and startup businesses is something on which I hope we can all agree. In both the versions of the bill that we will consider later today or tomorrow, there are great ideas. I continue to believe that ensuring investor protection, market transparency, and the vibrancy of our capital markets through preventing fraud and ensuring clarity about what investors are getting is a fundamental principle that all of us should share. But without the right time to consider this legislation, I am worried about the potential, the potential risks for investors, the potential burden it may place on business. I am worried about a proposal around beneficial ownership in one proposal, and I am worried about concerns that may overly open the market to fraudsters and those who would scam investors on the Internet. There is much to like about these proposals, though, and let me dedicate the remainder of my time to focusing on two of them. Two of the strongest proposals we will consider today or tomorrow address a critical need for our business community, which is access to capital. Capital is what allows businesses to invest in new technology, new facilities, new workers, and in growth. Credit has, as we all know, been far too hard to come by in the last 2 years. But we can and should take action to make it more available to small business owners with high growth potential. One option, as we have heard a number of Senators address, is to continue to expand the opportunity for financing from the Export-Import Bank. The other is to make somewhat easier the pathway to initial public offerings. Today's legislation would ease both processes. That is the right kind of positive movement that will help create opportunity all over the United States and for companies in my home State of Delaware. First, if I can, the Export-Import Bank has long established its record of promoting exports and job growth. It has provided essential capital to help manufacturers and small businesses all over the country export more American-made goods. The reauthorization measure we take up, hopefully later today, has passed unanimously out of the Senate Banking Committee and has already enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Last year, financing from the Ex-Im Bank supported hundreds of jobs in my home State and thousands more across the country. The bank supported one dozen companies in Delaware. For example, one, Air Liquide, has a proprietary MEDAL membrane, a selectively permeable membrane that turns landfill gas into usable energy; one example of many innovative, local Delaware companies creating high-quality jobs in our communities and able to sell these products by export through Ex-Im Bank financing. Equally important, the Ex-Im Bank has not added a single cent to the deficit. It works to give American businesses a fair share in the global market. If American businesses and workers are going to be competitive, we have to ensure they have the support they need, otherwise they will continue to lose out. China already provides three to four times as much export financing as we do to help their exporters. Our companies, our manufacturers, our communities, simply ask for a level playing field. In my view, reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank is especially vital to these companies and our manufacturing sector. Given the realities of the global economy, it is not enough for American companies to just make great products. They also have to be able to sell them to the burgeoning global middle class. As we all know, 95 percent of current and future customers and consumers live outside the United States. Reaching these consumers who are hungry for American products is essential to the steady growth of businesses of all types. Boosting American exports will be central to creating the kind of growth that will continue to sustain this ongoing economic recovery and allow our businesses to hire new workers. Financing from Ex-Im can come in at a critical time for businesses in need of capital, but it does not meet the needs of every company. For some other early stage companies, Delaware businesses in particular, when they are in need of capital, one solution is to move toward an initial public offering by becoming a publicly traded company. Today's legislation also includes an onramp to ease the path to an IPO. By reducing the regulatory burden on highly innovative companies poised for significant growth, we can encourage job creation on a great scale. At the moment, we are simply not seeing the rate of IPOs in our economy that we need to be helpful, and 92 percent of the jobs a company typically creates over its entire life cycle come after it goes public. In the 1990s, nearly half of all global IPOs happened in the United States. Today, that number is less than 10 percent. There are many reasons companies choose not to go public. But one of them that I have recited repeatedly in Delaware and in Washington is regulatory compliance under Sarbanes-Oxley section 404(b). That is a mouthful, but it essentially requires some auditing, some disclosures, some pre-IPO work, which while the spirit of the law is, in my view, the right one--ensuring transparency and investor protection is the right direction--this particular section has proven, in practice, to be overly burdensome to businesses with potential to be the greatest job creators. After hearing about this issue many times, I got together last fall with my colleague Senator Rubio to craft a solution. We found bipartisan agreement on this and six other issues, which we included in our joint legislation, the so-called AGREE Act, which we introduced last November. That legislation was chock-full of job-creating potential proposals designed to spur ideas and encourage more of our colleagues to come together on this sort of bipartisan jobs legislation we can and should move to. In the case of encouraging IPOs, that is exactly what has happened. Senators Schumer and Toomey have also picked up this particular proposal and moved further along with it. Then, on the House side, my longtime friend and fellow Delawarean Congressman Carney worked with his Republican colleague Congressman Fincher to write and pass legislation on this exact issue which has now come to us as part of this bipartisan jobs package, H.R. 3606. I wish to specifically congratulate Congressman Carney, who with this bill became the first freshman Democrat in the House to pass a major piece of legislation. But as we heard Senator Landrieu speak to just a few minutes ago and as several Senators have stood on this floor and raised today and last week, the question we have to ask is: In providing this relief from Sarbanes-Oxley 404(b), what is the appropriate level? What is the appropriate duration? Where do we strike the right balance between investor protection and accelerating capital formation and job growth? Is it at $250 million, as we proposed in the AGREE Act, $350 million as the democratic alternative proposes that is on the floor today or $1 billion? That is what is provided in the bill that came over from the House. In my view and the view of many Democratic Senators, we need to take the time to debate this, discuss it, and ensure we are striking the balance. It is worth a few more hours of our time to get this matter right. Creating a favorable environment for businesses to create jobs can and should be our top priority in Washington. Since I arrived a year and a half ago, that has not always been the case. But today it can and should be the primary focus of our work. There is no reason we have to rush to pass this today. We can and should take some time to deliberate, to work through the appropriate process. It is my hope we will reauthorize and extend the reach of the Export-Import Bank and that we will move to a consensus, bipartisan bill that will strengthen access to capital for entrepreneurs and for early stage companies and that will show all the people of the United States that the House, the Senate, and the President can and will stand together on the side of job creators in this economy.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, parents in my home State of Delaware and all across this country worry so much and work so hard for the future of their children--for their health, their safety, their education, and their future. I rise today as a parent of three young children and the son and grandson of classroom teachers to talk about how we can pull together to provide all the tools and resources parents, teachers, mentors, and students need to understand, to afford, and to connect with college opportunities in this country. Why do we need a new solution to this longstanding problem of college access? Well, let's just look at some statistics from this recent tough recession we are still growing our way out of. The unemployment rate amongst high school dropouts was 13 percent; amongst those who had finished high school, 8 percent; and amongst those who had a college degree, just 4 percent. That is an enormous difference. That is millions of people unemployed because they didn't finish their high school education and go on to some higher education. In the new global economy, Americans who don't go on to college have less than $1 million in lifetime earning potential compared to those who do go to college. That $1 million difference is something that--if parents and teachers and students were aware of it at the beginning of their education--it might drive them to make very different choices. As a Senator, I have met with dozens of folks who lead companies or who are innovators and job creators who have said they have vacant positions they can't fill because we are not graduating enough Americans with advanced degrees and training in critical opportunities--engineering, science, technology, and math. Filling the gap of opportunity by connecting students, teachers, parents, and mentors and creating a new generation of higher education achievers is something we can and should do to help create a competitive economy and workforce for the future. That is why today I am introducing the American Dream Accounts Act of 2012. This legislation encourages partnerships between schools, colleges, local nonprofits, and businesses to develop secure, Web-based, individual, portable student accounts that contain information about each student's academic preparedness, financial literacy, connects them to high-impact mentoring, and is tied to a college savings account. Instead of having each of these different resources be available to students separately, it connects them across existing silos and across existing education programs at the State and Federal level and, by connecting across these different silos, deploys a powerful new tool and resource for students, teachers, parents, and mentors. This bill is a modest but I think powerful step toward helping more students of all income levels and backgrounds access, afford, and complete a college education. And I am grateful to Senator Rubio of Florida and to Senator Bingaman of New Mexico in joining me as original cosponsors of this innovative solution. Too many American kids today are cut off from the enormous potential and value of higher education. Today, just about 1 out of 10 children from low-income families will complete a college degree by the time they are 24. As I have already said, the economic consequences of that are one of the main drivers of unemployment and poverty in our modern economy. But with early action, with early engagement, we can help millions of Americans beat those odds. Many years ago, early in my career, I had the opportunity to work with something called the national I Have a Dream Foundation, founded by Gene Lang, through which my family and I adopted a whole class of elementary kids from the East Side of Wilmington. All over this country, more than 100 similar groups, motivated individuals, and donors have engaged in sponsoring college education opportunities for kids beginning at a very early age. What I saw firsthand in the dozen years I was actively engaged with the 50 kids in our I Have a Dream program was that young people who come from a community, a family, a school where there is little to no experience of college education get powerful and negative messages from an early age that college is not for them, that it is not affordable, that it is not accessible, and that it is not part of the plan for their future. Similarly, kids who grow up in families where their parents went to school, their teachers went to school, went to college, get constant messages--subtle but powerful messages--about the value and importance of college. Folks who come from those backgrounds--whether it is college sports or pride in their own graduation or constant conversations about one's alma mater or visits to college campuses-- from childhood hear about college as something that is an expected part of life. Very few of the 50 Dreamers my family and I worked with had any expectation of a college education, and the most powerful thing we did was to change that, to open the door to college as a possibility from elementary school on. It showed and this program has shown time and again across the country that exciting and engaging not just young students but their parents, their teachers, and an array of mentors has a cumulative, powerful, positive impact. The American Dream Accounts Act will expand on this idea and use modern social networking technology to bring together existing programs and deliver ideas that will work for more kids. And the good news is that by utilizing existing Department of Education funds, this legislation comes at no additional cost to taxpayers. What makes the American Dream Accounts Act work is the unique ability to harness the power of currently available technology to address some of the biggest challenges in college access--first, connectivity. The journey from elementary school to finishing high school is long, and the journey from there to higher education is a longer one. So many students in our public schools all over this country disengage or even drop out along the way because they are not connected. They attend large and sometimes anonymous schools. Their parents are stretched too thin in this tough economy, trying to hang on to their jobs and housing, and, frankly, a dedicated cadre of teachers can only do so much. These kids, as they become less and less connected to a clear vision of their future, drop out or make choices that make it unlikely they will finish high school and go on to college. American dream accounts take advantage of modern technology. They are a Facebook-inspired opportunity to deliver on secure, personalized hubs of information that would connect these kids, sustain and support them throughout the entire journey of education. Second, it connects them with college savings opportunities. Senator Roth of Delaware long served as the chairman of the Finance Committee, and one of the greatest pieces of his legacy was the Roth IRA, helping to empower working families to save for retirement. Part of the American dream accounts is the idea of connecting young people to college savings accounts. Virtually every State has college savings programs. Yet they are not accessed by most working- and middle-class Americans. Connecting students to college savings accounts from their earliest ages has a powerful impact. Studies show that students who know there is a dedicated college savings account in their name are seven times more likely to go to college than their peers without one. So this legislation would help open an individual savings account for each enrolled student from the beginning of elementary school. It matters less how much money is in the account than that students are aware there is one. The third piece of this program is early intervention. State and Federal governments already spend billions of dollars on higher education--on Pell grants at the Federal level and in my State of Delaware on SEED grants. We provide these millions of dollars of support to afford college, but we don't tell kids they are there until they are in high school. Most kids have already made decisions by then that make them ineligible to finish high school or attend college. So why not tell them earlier, particularly given the powerful potential impact of that information. By letting children know these opportunities exist from the earliest age, we can change outcomes. Last is portability. One of the things I saw in my own experience with my own Dreamers in Delaware was how often they moved and how often overstretched teachers with full classrooms didn't get any information or background on students who moved into their classroom halfway through the year. So instead of being welcomed and engaged in a positive way, they became discipline problems or were difficult to teach. This robust, online, secure account would empower teachers to connect with parents and mentors and understand the students who are before them. That is why portability and persistence is an essential feature of American dream accounts. This way, no matter what disruptions or challenges a student might face as they travel through education, their American dream account would travel with them. Supportive adults, teachers, mentors, and guidance counselors would be able to access this information, and kids would get a consistent understanding of the value and impact of a future college education. One of my favorite parts of drafting this legislation was the meetings and conversations we had with those on the front lines of education in Delaware. As a community, I heard over and over again: We are hungry for innovative solutions. One of the many groups I met with was the Delaware PTA. In endorsing the American Dream Accounts Act, they said that it ``incorporates the school, the parent and the student to ensure each child will be closely monitored with resources and support that is needed to access a postsecondary education.'' The fact is our Nation's long-term economic competitiveness requires a highly trained, highly educated workforce. We can meet that challenge by connecting students with a broad array of higher education options-- vocational school, job training, community college, or a 4-year university. This legislation will help students identify the type of higher education that is best for them, the career they most want, and give them the tools to get there. I have visited with schools across Delaware, and one thing is clear. One vision stays with me from my time at I Have a Dream to my service as a Senator. When you ask a roomful of elementary school kids, what do you dream of being when you grow up, they all shoot their hands in the air and they all answer the question in the same way regardless of their background or income or community. Every child begins with dreams of a full, positive educational experience and career. All of our kids start with big dreams, but the numbers show that not all of our kids get them. The American Dream Accounts Act of 2012 is a modest but powerful bill designed to empower students and parents of all backgrounds to achieve those dreams from an early age. Mr. President, I welcome support from other of my colleagues to make this bill a reality.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. COONS pertaining to the introduction of S. 2194 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend from Tennessee to show appreciation for the efforts of General Hargett and General Vavala. As he says, it is about much more than recognizing good work done, it is about preparing for the natural and manmade threats to Americans, and I would like to associate myself with his remarks. My State is particularly blessed to have General Vavala as our world- class adjutant general, providing invaluable leadership to the Delaware National Guard on behalf of our Governor. I think that people who have had just a few minutes to chat with him come away understanding that he is a dynamic force. They would be able to instantly understand how he and General Hargett helped guide a compelling, grassroots campaign of hundreds of thousands of National Guard men and women and their State leadership to make clear to their representatives that their Guard strategy was a national defense concept to be taken seriously. Defense of our homes begins at home, something the National Guard has specialized in for 375 years. At a time when it seems nothing in Washington works right, General Vavala insisted time and again that the voice of the people matters and worked tirelessly to prove it. Congress recognized the wisdom of investing in the National Guard, and responded appropriately, with the most important piece of legislation since the modern, dual-mission National Guard was established in 1903. Now, the leadership of the National Guard stands ready to support the President and Secretary of Defense in the new strategic guidance released in January. It is clear that tough decisions have to be made in this budget environment and that we will have a military with a different look and operational approach in the future. However, we are confident that the National Guard will not shrink from its responsibility to defend our Nation and its interests around the world as well as meeting every home State emergency and challenge it faces. We are grateful to GEN Frank Vavala, GEN Gus Hargett, and the members of NGAUS, for the important roles they played in this momentous legislation.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, parents in my home State of Delaware and all across this country worry so much and work so hard for the future of their children--for their health, their safety, their education, and their future. I rise today as a parent of three young children and the son and grandson of classroom teachers to talk about how we can pull together to provide all the tools and resources parents, teachers, mentors, and students need to understand, to afford, and to connect with college opportunities in this country. Why do we need a new solution to this longstanding problem of college access? Well, let's just look at some statistics from this recent tough recession we are still growing our way out of. The unemployment rate amongst high school dropouts was 13 percent; amongst those who had finished high school, 8 percent; and amongst those who had a college degree, just 4 percent. That is an enormous difference. That is millions of people unemployed because they didn't finish their high school education and go on to some higher education. In the new global economy, Americans who don't go on to college have less than $1 million in lifetime earning potential compared to those who do go to college. That $1 million difference is something that--if parents and teachers and students were aware of it at the beginning of their education--it might drive them to make very different choices. As a Senator, I have met with dozens of folks who lead companies or who are innovators and job creators who have said they have vacant positions they can't fill because we are not graduating enough Americans with advanced degrees and training in critical opportunities--engineering, science, technology, and math. Filling the gap of opportunity by connecting students, teachers, parents, and mentors and creating a new generation of higher education achievers is something we can and should do to help create a competitive economy and workforce for the future. That is why today I am introducing the American Dream Accounts Act of 2012. This legislation encourages partnerships between schools, colleges, local nonprofits, and businesses to develop secure, Web-based, individual, portable student accounts that contain information about each student's academic preparedness, financial literacy, connects them to high-impact mentoring, and is tied to a college savings account. Instead of having each of these different resources be available to students separately, it connects them across existing silos and across existing education programs at the State and Federal level and, by connecting across these different silos, deploys a powerful new tool and resource for students, teachers, parents, and mentors. This bill is a modest but I think powerful step toward helping more students of all income levels and backgrounds access, afford, and complete a college education. And I am grateful to Senator Rubio of Florida and to Senator Bingaman of New Mexico in joining me as original cosponsors of this innovative solution. Too many American kids today are cut off from the enormous potential and value of higher education. Today, just about 1 out of 10 children from low-income families will complete a college degree by the time they are 24. As I have already said, the economic consequences of that are one of the main drivers of unemployment and poverty in our modern economy. But with early action, with early engagement, we can help millions of Americans beat those odds. Many years ago, early in my career, I had the opportunity to work with something called the national I Have a Dream Foundation, founded by Gene Lang, through which my family and I adopted a whole class of elementary kids from the East Side of Wilmington. All over this country, more than 100 similar groups, motivated individuals, and donors have engaged in sponsoring college education opportunities for kids beginning at a very early age. What I saw firsthand in the dozen years I was actively engaged with the 50 kids in our I Have a Dream program was that young people who come from a community, a family, a school where there is little to no experience of college education get powerful and negative messages from an early age that college is not for them, that it is not affordable, that it is not accessible, and that it is not part of the plan for their future. Similarly, kids who grow up in families where their parents went to school, their teachers went to school, went to college, get constant messages--subtle but powerful messages--about the value and importance of college. Folks who come from those backgrounds--whether it is college sports or pride in their own graduation or constant conversations about one's alma mater or visits to college campuses-- from childhood hear about college as something that is an expected part of life. Very few of the 50 Dreamers my family and I worked with had any expectation of a college education, and the most powerful thing we did was to change that, to open the door to college as a possibility from elementary school on. It showed and this program has shown time and again across the country that exciting and engaging not just young students but their parents, their teachers, and an array of mentors has a cumulative, powerful, positive impact. The American Dream Accounts Act will expand on this idea and use modern social networking technology to bring together existing programs and deliver ideas that will work for more kids. And the good news is that by utilizing existing Department of Education funds, this legislation comes at no additional cost to taxpayers. What makes the American Dream Accounts Act work is the unique ability to harness the power of currently available technology to address some of the biggest challenges in college access--first, connectivity. The journey from elementary school to finishing high school is long, and the journey from there to higher education is a longer one. So many students in our public schools all over this country disengage or even drop out along the way because they are not connected. They attend large and sometimes anonymous schools. Their parents are stretched too thin in this tough economy, trying to hang on to their jobs and housing, and, frankly, a dedicated cadre of teachers can only do so much. These kids, as they become less and less connected to a clear vision of their future, drop out or make choices that make it unlikely they will finish high school and go on to college. American dream accounts take advantage of modern technology. They are a Facebook-inspired opportunity to deliver on secure, personalized hubs of information that would connect these kids, sustain and support them throughout the entire journey of education. Second, it connects them with college savings opportunities. Senator Roth of Delaware long served as the chairman of the Finance Committee, and one of the greatest pieces of his legacy was the Roth IRA, helping to empower working families to save for retirement. Part of the American dream accounts is the idea of connecting young people to college savings accounts. Virtually every State has college savings programs. Yet they are not accessed by most working- and middle-class Americans. Connecting students to college savings accounts from their earliest ages has a powerful impact. Studies show that students who know there is a dedicated college savings account in their name are seven times more likely to go to college than their peers without one. So this legislation would help open an individual savings account for each enrolled student from the beginning of elementary school. It matters less how much money is in the account than that students are aware there is one. The third piece of this program is early intervention. State and Federal governments already spend billions of dollars on higher education--on Pell grants at the Federal level and in my State of Delaware on SEED grants. We provide these millions of dollars of support to afford college, but we don't tell kids they are there until they are in high school. Most kids have already made decisions by then that make them ineligible to finish high school or attend college. So why not tell them earlier, particularly given the powerful potential impact of that information. By letting children know these opportunities exist from the earliest age, we can change outcomes. Last is portability. One of the things I saw in my own experience with my own Dreamers in Delaware was how often they moved and how often overstretched teachers with full classrooms didn't get any information or background on students who moved into their classroom halfway through the year. So instead of being welcomed and engaged in a positive way, they became discipline problems or were difficult to teach. This robust, online, secure account would empower teachers to connect with parents and mentors and understand the students who are before them. That is why portability and persistence is an essential feature of American dream accounts. This way, no matter what disruptions or challenges a student might face as they travel through education, their American dream account would travel with them. Supportive adults, teachers, mentors, and guidance counselors would be able to access this information, and kids would get a consistent understanding of the value and impact of a future college education. One of my favorite parts of drafting this legislation was the meetings and conversations we had with those on the front lines of education in Delaware. As a community, I heard over and over again: We are hungry for innovative solutions. One of the many groups I met with was the Delaware PTA. In endorsing the American Dream Accounts Act, they said that it ``incorporates the school, the parent and the student to ensure each child will be closely monitored with resources and support that is needed to access a postsecondary education.'' The fact is our Nation's long-term economic competitiveness requires a highly trained, highly educated workforce. We can meet that challenge by connecting students with a broad array of higher education options-- vocational school, job training, community college, or a 4-year university. This legislation will help students identify the type of higher education that is best for them, the career they most want, and give them the tools to get there. I have visited with schools across Delaware, and one thing is clear. One vision stays with me from my time at I Have a Dream to my service as a Senator. When you ask a roomful of elementary school kids, what do you dream of being when you grow up, they all shoot their hands in the air and they all answer the question in the same way regardless of their background or income or community. Every child begins with dreams of a full, positive educational experience and career. All of our kids start with big dreams, but the numbers show that not all of our kids get them. The American Dream Accounts Act of 2012 is a modest but powerful bill designed to empower students and parents of all backgrounds to achieve those dreams from an early age. Mr. President, I welcome support from other of my colleagues to make this bill a reality.

Mr. COONS

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

Mr. COONS. Madam President, I rise today to continue to address an issue which I have just had the joy of hearing the Presiding Officer and the Senators from New York and Illinois speak to, and that concern I raise today is the ongoing crisis in our courts, the nearly 10- percent vacancy rate in judicial positions all across the United States. I rise today as the junior Senator from Delaware but also as a member of the Delaware Bar and as a former Federal court clerk, and as someone who has, I think, a personal sense, from that experience and my service on the Judiciary Committee, of the consequences of these delays--the consequences of steadily climbing caseloads, significant judicial vacancies, judicial emergencies in districts across our great country, including in the State of California, and what that means for people, for companies, for communities for whom justice is being delayed and thus denied. Earlier this month I attended the investiture ceremony of Judge Richard Andrews who was sworn into the U.S. District Court for Delaware. This is the first time in 6 years the very busy District Court of Delaware has had a full complement of district court judges. Although I am relieved and the people of Delaware are grateful to have a full bench, and although Judge Andrews is an extremely talented lawyer and a devoted public servant and utterly nonpartisan--just the sort of district court nominee about whom the Presiding Officer just spoke--his nomination took nearly 6 months to be confirmed by the Senate. I am glad Judge Andrews has made it through because in the Senate the confirmation process seems to be more broken this year than last. When I joined the Senate in 2010, judicial nominations had slowed to a crawl. I watched with dismay as folks whom I viewed as highly qualified were blocked. Goodwin Liu, for example--a brilliant and qualified legal scholar, a nominee twice to the Ninth Circuit--could not overcome a GOP filibuster, in part payback for a view, I believe, on the other side of the aisle of the rough handling of Miguel Estrada, whose nomination was defeated during the Bush Presidency. What I have been most concerned about as a freshman Senator is how the history lying about this Chamber seems to steadily pile up session after session, and the process seems to be weighed down by this burden of history. But next, Caitlin Halligan--an extremely competent attorney without a single partisan blemish on her record--was nominated to the DC Circuit, and her nomination, in my view, was also blocked based on a grotesque misrepresentation of her actual record. The major talking point against her nomination, if I recall right, was that the DC Circuit already had more than enough judges. Judge Halligan would have been the 9th judge on that court. Notably, all the GOP Members who spoke against her had no qualms when the Senate confirmed the 10th and 11th judges to sit on that very same circuit during the Bush nomination period. But I think these sorts of fine points of history are lost on the people, the communities, and the companies across our Nation who go to the courthouse seeking justice and find none. In 2012, as some of the previous Senators have stated, we have so far confirmed just five judges. Today, there are 19 nominees on the floor, 12 of whom came out of our Judiciary Committee unanimously, who are now languishing on our Executive Calendar. Republicans have not stated objection to these nominees but refuse to grant consent for a vote to be scheduled. President Obama's nominees have waited four times longer after committee approval than did President Bush's nominees at this point in his first term, and the Senate is more than 40 confirmations behind the pace set during the Bush administration. It is not just judges who have been the subject of this ongoing weighting down. The Executive Calendar, which I have the privilege to flip through every time I preside, is filled with nominees for vacancies in every major department and in every major independent agency in this government. It is more than a dozen pages long of nominations that have sat for months and months. Last month, in response to the Republican obstructionism in moving this Executive Calendar and in filling these administrative vacancies, President Obama made recess appointments: the Consumer Financial Protection chief, Richard Cordray, and members of the National Labor Relations Board. Some of us on both sides of the aisle do agree that Congress, and not the President, has the right to declare when the Senate is in recess. But whatever one's view of these appointments, there is no questioning that in either case, Republicans forced the issue through their unprecedented refusal to vote the President's nominees up or down and allow him to proceed with the progress of our Nation. As Senators, we have a responsibility to advise the President as to his nominations and, where we agree, to consent; where we do not, each of us is free to vote no. Some Senators have suggested they will oppose all nominations in opposition to the President's recess appointments. In my opinion, a pledge to oppose all nominations is a pledge not to do his or her job. In my view, we ought not to make such a pledge. In my view, while so many Americans are out of work, and so many of us are here on the public payroll, we can, we should, and we must move forward with the judicial nominees. This morning, this session began with a very encouraging moment of harmony between the majority leader and the Republican leader on the concept of moving ahead with appropriations. It is my hope and prayer we will do the same on judicial nominations as well. I call upon my colleagues on the other side to rethink this strategy of obstruction at all costs because it is the American people who pay the price in the end. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Last week, President Obama unveiled his Startup America Legislative Agenda. It marked the 1-year anniversary of his Startup America initiative, an ambitious, impressive, national energetic effort led by, among others, legendary innovator and entrepreneur Steve Case, the founder of AOL. It was a strategy that focused on how the Federal Government can best help young companies and, in particular, entrepreneurs all over this country get into the game of starting and growing businesses. It is smart and it is important. Entrepreneurs are driving our economic recovery and will drive our economic recovery into the future. They are taking the risk personally to turn their ideas into startup companies in fields from biotech and clean energy to manufacturing. Among these innovators could be the next American giant, a General Electric or DuPont. But in order for these startup companies to grow, we have to support them in their critical early stages. Today, I take that as our challenge. Whenever I visit a factory in Delaware or meet with the young owner of a company that he or she has just started, I ask the same question: How can we best help you to grow? Small business, it is often said, is the engine of job creation in this country. In the 1990s and the early 2000s, small firms created more than 65 percent of the new jobs in this country. But I want us to particularly focus on those small businesses that have enormous potential, so-called gazelle startups, those that grow not from 5 to 10 or 5 to 20 employees but from 5 to 50 to 500 to 5,000, whether it is Facebook or other startups that have gone from literally bench top or dorm room to being employers of thousands or tens of thousands. Our economy has grown dramatically because of these rapidly growing innovative startups. Typically, they are startups that focus on a disruptive technology or product, something that fundamentally changes a whole sector of our marketplace, and they have the most promising potential for job creation. Between 1980 and 2005, most of the net new jobs in America were created by firms that were 5 years old or less. That is about 40 million jobs over those 25 years. This summer, I hosted in Delaware a series of roundtables with business owners. The focus of these conversations was on how we can help their businesses to grow and grow quickly. A lot of these businesses were young and innovative companies. They have a great idea and a good start on their research. But I often found, particularly in this economy, they are struggling to capitalize on their innovations. Innovation is the spark that drives and sustains entrepreneurship, particularly entrepreneurship in disruptive technologies. But it is research and development that drives that innovation, and government only has so many tools we can use to help promote innovation. Today, I wish to talk about a piece of the Tax Code that is one of the most powerful tools in our toolbox. Thirty years ago, Congress created the Research and Development Tax Credit, the R&D Tax Credit, to help incentivize companies to invest in innovation, to invest in the people who are doing the research and the development that drives innovation. In fact, 70 percent of R&D- qualified expenses today are for wages. In many ways, it is an innovative jobs credit. It has helped tens of thousands of companies and has been extremely successful at getting companies to invest in innovation. But it has one key weakness: It expires. It expires all too often. It has, in fact, expired 8 times and been extended 13 times and it has most recently expired in December of last year. The first bill I introduced as a Senator last April was entitled the ``Job Creation Through Innovation Act.'' It did two things. First, and most important, it made the R&D tax credit permanent--important, in my view, to sustain and extend this successful program. But there is another issue we still need to address to make the tax credit relevant to these early stage, innovative, high-growth companies. Right now, the tax benefits of the R&D tax credit are available only to more established companies that are already turning a profit. We have to have a tax liability on their profits for that credit to be of any value to them. That is a roadblock in the way of success for startups and small businesses in Delaware and around the country and a place where I think we can and should come together across the aisle to address this gap in the R&D tax credit program because, in my view, it is the small early startups that most need a cash infusion to support their confidence, their stability, and their innovation. We can, and should, take this tax credit and retool it in a way that makes it more relevant and more effective. If entrepreneurs are the ones taking risks in this economy and creating jobs, they should be the ones we support in this tough economy through our Tax Code. As I said before, history shows it is those young companies that are creating the most jobs the most quickly and that have the best return on tax expenditures. Here is what I have been working on. As I have met with innovative young businesses in Delaware, one of the ideas that has come to me more than once is to change the R&D tax credit so it is accessible not just by being permanent to big and profitable companies but by being tradable so smaller or startup companies that have no tax liability can take advantage of it. How would that work? It allows startups to sell their tax credit to a larger company, giving them a much needed infusion of cash. Let me give an example. Elcriton is a small but high promise, high potential Delaware company. It has patented strains of bacteria that are designed to consume duckweed--also called pond scum--and produce biobutanol, a promising drop-in alternative fuel. It has tremendous potential. Elcriton today is run by two Ph.D.s who have put together all the money they can raise, from family and friends and angel investors and early funds into research and development. But for them to grow, and grow quickly, they need access to more capital to fund more innovation. Evozym Biologics also is a 2-year-old Delaware company trying to bring to market cutting-edge innovations in computing and in the development of proteins from the University of Delaware and the Desert Research Institute. They are doing incredible things there. Both these companies need more funding to invest in R&D and to capitalize on their potential to grow rapidly and grow high-quality jobs. If they were already bigger, well-established, successful companies, they might well qualify for the existing R&D tax credit. But because they are so small and just getting started, our current tax credit doesn't help them at all. Fortunately, Delaware is also home to a few great well-established companies. Since those companies turn a profit and pay taxes, they could actually utilize a tax credit. In this case, Elcriton or Evozym would sell their innovation credit to one of the larger established companies. The bigger company gets the tax credit. The newer company gets the infusion of cash it needs to sustain its innovation. It would be a win-win. This is just one idea of a number that I have introduced, that I have proposed, and that I have discussed with Senator Baucus and others on Finance. I hope that in discussing it today, some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and leaders in the business and innovation communities will work with me to further refine it, focus it, and make it part of our greater conversation about tax reform and the economic recovery. We can and should put our heads together to find commonsense solutions to the problems, challenges, and opportunities of innovation and competitiveness. We have to give American business the support they need to compete in an increasingly competitive global economy because, in my view, we are falling behind in the race for innovation. In the 1980s, the United States was routinely ranked as having the best R&D tax incentives and overall support for innovation in the world, but today some studies have us ranked 17th in the world in supporting and sustaining innovation. I refuse to let American companies, American inventors, and American workers fall behind. With the right resources, American ingenuity will continue to outcompete any country on Earth every time. I know it is possible. I have seen it week in and week out as I have visited small and medium startup companies in Delaware. Just a few weeks ago in Bridgeville, DE, a town many from here have traveled as they have gone to the Delaware beaches, I stopped to visit a small company, Miller Metal, that is proving day in and day out that with investment, with innovation, with continuous improvement, they can go head to head with Chinese metal fabricators and win: manufactured in Delaware, competitive in the global marketplace. Although we need a full overhaul of our corporate tax structure, making this one small tweak to the R&D tax credit to make it accessible to early stage innovative companies will, in my view, give us a running start into the headwinds of the global economy, and I think we have no more time to waste. It is small businesses and innovative strategies that will create the jobs we need to put our neighbors back to work and turn this economy around more quickly. Let's work together, let's help them, and let's make progress on this most important proposal to change the R&D tax credit, make it permanent, and make it accessible for early stage companies. I am eager to hear what people think about this idea, and I hope they will connect with me and my office and let me know how to improve on it, how to execute on it, and how to deliver this as a new tool in the toolkit of American innovation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of tens of thousands of Delawareans affected by domestic violence each year, as well as their families, their friends, and their allies across our State and our country. Just a few minutes ago, my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee took up the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. It has earned strong bipartisan support through the nearly two decades since its original passage, and it was voted out earlier today. Law enforcement agencies across this country are counting on us to move forward with the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, depending on the training and the resources to advocate for victims and to provide critical and lifesaving interventions that it funds. As I asked for input from Delawareans in the last few weeks, one of the hundreds who took the time to write or call my office in strong support of the reauthorization of VAWA was a former New Castle County police officer. He e-mailed me to tell me he had seen firsthand that dedicated resources and innovative policing methods made possible by VAWA made a real difference in combating these types of crimes and improving the lives of victims. The Violence Against Women Act has been extraordinarily effective, with the annual incidence of domestic violence falling by more than 50 percent since it was first passed. Yet we still have so far to go. Just this week, I heard from hundreds of constituents in Delaware for whom this legislation has a deep and resounding importance. From young women in their twenties to senior citizens, Delawareans from all walks of life have reached out to ask us, as Members of the Senate, to take action without delay, to work with our colleagues in the House, and to reauthorize this most important bill. Paul from Yorklyn, DE, wrote to say that as a father of two young daughters, he worries that if the Violence Against Women Act is not reauthorized, then victims of sexual assault will once again be subject to two traumas--first, horrific attacks and, second, trying to pursue justice against their attackers. Linda from New Castle, DE, had the courage to write me personally and say: First of all, I am a victim and I am not ashamed to say that [today]. Linda's willingness to lift the cloud of fear and shame that for so long enveloped victims of domestic and dating violence is brave and important in that she was able and willing to do that, but she also highlights the ongoing challenges we face. She described her hesitation to discuss abuse out loud and stressed the importance of talking about these crimes in the open in order to break what she called the generational curse. As a son, as a husband, as a father, I too am deeply concerned about this curse that has moved from generation to generation and has affected families all throughout this country's history. Evils such as domestic violence thrive in darkness. The Violence Against Women Act is a spotlight, and it deserves to be strengthened and sustained by this Senate today and this year. The Violence Against Women Act requires reauthorization every 5 years. This signifies a belief that protecting victims of domestic and dating violence is so important that we must revisit it to make sure we are getting it right. Each time we go through the process of reauthorizing this bill, we learn more about what is needed. This time around, that process, I believe, has resulted in several critical enhancements; first, by bolstering the tools available to law enforcement. Along with my friend and colleague Senator Blunt, I cochair the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus. I am determined to ensure local agencies have the tools they need to support victims and to prosecute abusers. This reauthorization will do just that. Second, our review made clear that perpetrators find their victims throughout our society without regard for sexual orientation or gender identity. So the reauthorization that was passed out of the Judiciary Committee just earlier today addresses that challenge by making this the very first Federal grant program to explicitly state that grant recipients cannot discriminate on the basis of a victim's status. Whether they are or are not a member of the LGBT community should be irrelevant to whether they are able to access the vital services funded by the VAWA. Finally, this reauthorization recognizes our current difficult fiscal situation as a country and promotes accountability to make sure these dollars are well spent. It reduces authorization levels while protecting the programs which have been most successful. This VAWA reauthorization merges 13 existing programs into 4 streamlined and consolidated programs. This will prevent wasted time and effort and make the application and administrative processes more efficient. I am honored to be joined today by an old and dear friend, a former countywide-elected official, Paulette Moore, now vice president of public policy for the National Network to End Domestic Violence. I am grateful to my dear friend Carol Post, who leads the Delaware Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and my friend Amy Barasch, a tireless advocate in the ongoing efforts to bring to light the challenges of domestic violence in the State of New York. There are folks all across this country who turn to this task week in and week out. It is long and tiring and difficult work, but it is uplifting because it is part of making this a more just, more safe, and more secure nation. It is important for me to note that, unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle see the enhancements I just referred to in this reauthorization as a reason to abandon their long- term support for it, even though they have been strong backers of VAWA in the past. In fact, the vote we just took in the Judiciary Committee was 10 to 8. It only narrowly passed. I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle will review the details of these changes one more time and see their way clear to join us in this effort to strengthen and sustain the Violence Against Women Act. It is and should remain a bipartisan bill and a bipartisan effort. My predecessor in this seat, our great Vice President, Joe Biden of Delaware, took an absolutely central leadership role in writing and passing the first Violence Against Women Act in one of the most enduring legacies of his 36-year Senate career, representing Delaware and advocating for women all over this country. His efforts broke barriers and laid the groundwork for this current bill. But it is up to all of us to keep pushing tirelessly for Federal, State, and local governments to do more to save lives and to serve victims. I urge my colleagues to come together and promptly pass the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Thank you to the men and women of this country who work so hard to end this terrible scourge of domestic violence in our country. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lieberman. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, today I rise to express my deep concern that the 2012 National Department of Defense Authorization Act provisions pertaining to detainee treatment fail to strike the appropriate, important balance between national security, due process, and civil liberties. Sections 1021, 1022, and 1023 are the latest in a series of legislative proposals that provide ever-narrowing latitude for dealing with terrorism suspects, whether in the U.S. or abroad. I am concerned, that these provisions take us one small, but significant, step down the road towards a state in which ordinary citizens live in fear of the military, rather than the free society that has marked this great nation since the Bill of Rights was ratified 220 years ago, in 1791. The new detention authorities thrust upon our military in this bill are an assault on our civil liberties and do not belong on our books. They were not requested by the Pentagon, in fact they have been resisted by the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the directors of National Intelligence and the FBI. They do not make us safer and, to the contrary, they will create dangerous confusion within our national security community. Under these sections, a terrorism suspect must be remanded to U.S. military custody, even when that suspect presents no imminent threat to public safety and is being held under suspicion of committing a U.S. crime. The suspect may be held indefinitely. Indeed, if the suspect is transferred to Guantanamo, it may be a practical reality that the suspect must be held indefinitely, thanks to the onerous certification requirements contained in Section 1023. If not sent to Guantanamo, the suspect may be rendered to a foreign power, where he may be subject to coercive interrogation, torture, or death. Or, the individual may simply remain in custody of our own military, waiting for the cessation of an endless conflict against an idea. As my colleagues from Vermont and Oregon, from Colorado and California, have already said so eloquently, these provisions reflect an unfortunate and unwise shift away from the current law, in which the criminal justice system is presumed to be sufficient for those who commit crimes on U.S. soil. No system is perfect, but the federal criminal justice system is considered by many around the world to be the gold standard for fairness, transparency and reliability. Since 9/ 11, the civilian criminal process has been successful in securing convictions and lengthy sentences against hundreds of terrorism suspects. This is compared to just six convictions in military tribunals, and two of these individuals are walking free today. A third, Ibrahim al Qosi, was convicted of being a Taliban fighter. Under his sentence of 2 years, he would be due to be released next summer. But when he serves his sentence, he likely will not be released. Instead, he will be detained until our undefined hostilities against Islamic extremism and terrorism conclude. In other words, he will be detained indefinitely. Criminal process like this is little better than no process at all. It ought to be reserved for the rarest cases where the civilian criminal justice system is not suitable. It should not be made the new standard. If we are going to short-circuit the criminal justice system, we ought to at least have good reason to do so. At a minimum, I would expect the President, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, or the Director of National Intelligence to make the case that military custody is the only way to appropriately handle terrorists. But that is not what happened here. No one is calling for these new powers. They are being thrust upon our military. President Obama has said that these provisions will hinder his ability to prosecute the campaign against terrorists. The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence have said that these provisions threaten to undermine the collection of intelligence from suspected terrorists. They don't want these authorities. The military does not want them either. The Secretary of Defense has said that the provisions will unnecessarily complicate its core mission of protecting our nation and projecting military force abroad. These provisions do not make sense as a matter of defense policy, and, because the meaning of some of the key terms is deliberately unclear, we can not even predict the precise impact that they will have. In the best-case scenario, we will end up in a situation with minor changes to an existing detainee policy that has already proven to inspire and sustain this and the next generation of extremists who wish to destroy this country. In the worst-case scenario, we make several significant changes that hinder our ability to find and destroy this current generation of extremists. I do not accept the underlying assumption of these unnecessary new provisions that the threat the United States faces is one that can be defended by more guns, taller walls, and deeper holes that we ``disappear'' people into. In fact, defense from the threats of today and tomorrow called ``asymmetric'' because they do not attempt to meet us on the battlefield with equal capabilities requires a new paradigm, the concept of defense in depth. To address asymmetric threats, including networks of extremists determined to carry out acts of terrorism, law enforcement and the Defense Department must work cooperatively to protect U.S. interests using their respective strengths in authorities and levels of response. Instead of strengthening our ability to confront asymmetric threats, these unwelcome new authorities reinforce the philosophy that the military is the only preeminent institution of national security, with law enforcement relegated to a limited support role. That may have been an appropriate philosophy for the world in 1961, but it did not help us in 2001, and will not help us in 2021. These new authorities do nothing to change that and will not make us any safer. The only effective comprehensive model for national security is one that strengthens both our law enforcement and military to fight threats within their respective areas of expertise. Another deeply concerning aspect of the detainee provisions in the Defense Authorization bill is what they say about the ability of the military to detain U.S. citizens. Section 1021 expands the 2001 Authorization of the Use of Military Force to include the authority to detain and hold indefinitely any person, even a U.S. citizen, if the military suspects that such a person has supported any force associated with al-Qaeda. While I believe it acceptable for lethal military actions to be taken against U.S. citizens abroad who have clearly taken up arms against this Nation, I am concerned about the slow but steady creep of the military into areas that traditionally have been reserved for civilian law enforcement. Testifying yesterday before the Judiciary Committee, FBI Director Robert Mueller said he has serious concerns about the potential future ramifications of introducing military forces into the criminal justice process. At the local level, it is often difficult to distinguish whether an individual in possession of bomb-making components is a hardened terrorist coordinating with al-Qaeda; is a troubled, dangerous, but affiliated teenager; or is completely innocent of any crime at all. In the rush to ``repel borders'' at the early stages of investigations, mistakes will be made. We need to make sure that these mistakes do not overrun the constitutional protections we all enjoy as Americans. It is true, as supporters of these provisions have argued, that Section 1021 contains a limitation that the authorization of force does not include the right to hold citizens in violations of their constitutional rights. That is some comfort, but not enough. As I sat in the presiding chair during debate over this bill, I heard my colleagues argue that we are in a time of war and that, during times of war, U.S. citizens have no constitutional protections against being treated as a prisoner of war. Even if there was broad agreement about the constitutional protections citizens enjoy against extrajudicial killing or indefinite detention, who will enforce them? Under this bill, that task would seem to be left to the President and to the military. Were my life or liberty at stake, I would want the benefit of an independent judiciary. So, too, I think would the vast majority of my fellow citizens. Mr. President, we are in conflict against terrorists. I do not doubt or dispute that. But this is not the first time that has been the case. During the beginning part of the last century, anarchists committed a string of bombings, usually targeting police officers or civilians. In 1901, an anarchist assassinated President McKinley. In the First Red Scare during the early part of the century, a plot was uncovered to bomb 36 leaders of government and industry. During the 1960s and 70s, the Weather Underground declared as its mission to overthrow the U.S. government. Members planted bombs in the Capitol, the Department of State and the Pentagon. Each of these threats, and others, has before placed an existential fear in the minds of Americans. We have not always acted well. The Sedition Act of 1918, the internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War, and the House Un-American Activities Committee and Hollywood blacklisting following the war are three notable examples of action, taken in the face of severe threat, which now the vast majority of Americans look back upon with deep regret. As technology has advanced, so has the ability of the government to reach into our lives, whether through unseen drones and hidden electronic surveillance, omnipresent cameras and advanced facial recognition programs, or unfettered access to our telephone and Internet records. The advance of technology, however, is not justification for the retreat of liberty, especially not when we have at our disposal a criminal justice system that is up to the task of keeping us safe. I plan to vote for the Conference Report of the National Defense Authorization Act because I agree with much of what is within it. During a time of war, we cannot allow our military to go unauthorized. We cannot allow our troops to go unpaid. The NDAA provides oversight of and spending limitations for the military. It elevates the head of the National Guard to the Joint Chiefs level, which is necessary to ensure that military leadership adequately considers the unique reserve capacity role now filled by the Guard. The bill will also begin to address the inability of Customs and Border Patrol agents to share information necessary to identify military and other counterfeits at our borders. Though we were not able to remove the dangerous and counterproductive provisions contained in Sections 1021, 1022 and 1023 from the NDAA today, we are not done trying. I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that we maintain the balance between security and liberty.