Congress must do more to stem opioid tide

“Overdose deaths from prescription opioid painkillers and related heroin use have reached epidemic levels in Delaware and across the country. Each time we open the newspaper, it seems we’re confronted with new, jarring headlines that capture the painful reality of this crisis.

In 2017, nearly 350 people died from overdoses in Delaware, up 12 percent from the 308 people who died in 2016. Even worse, August 2018 was the deadliest month on record for drug-related overdoses, claiming 39 lives in 31 days.”

This epidemic is ravaging families and communities, and without significant attention and investment, our country will not be able to stem the tide of this crisis and break the cycle of addiction. That’s why I’m urging my colleagues in Congress to do more.

The good news is that Republicans and Democrats have made progress. Last year, we passed a funding bill that included $3.7 billion to help states like Delaware fight the opioid epidemic, an increase of $2.7 billion over 2017.

This bipartisan bill recognized the strain the epidemic has placed on our first responders and our communities. It included funding to enhance opioid overdose surveillance and prevention efforts, improve State Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs, and increase access to opioid and substance use disorder treatment in rural and underserved areas.

Democrats and Republicans also worked together to pass the bipartisan SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, which will improve our ability to tackle opioid abuse through our healthcare and law enforcement systems.

I’m glad that members of Congress on both sides of the aisle could work together to get these bills signed into law, but there’s still more that we can do to end this epidemic once and for all.

One important step we should take is to pass the bipartisan DEA Clearinghouse Act that I introduced with Republican Sen. Cory Gardner from Colorado. This bill will help prevent drug diversion in real time before it has the ability to inflict damage in our communities.

What is drug diversion? It’s one of the ways opioids and other pharmaceuticals are getting into our communities. Bad actors are taking advantage of a blind spot in the supply chain to ship a disproportionate amount of prescription drugs to pharmacies across the country. These drugs can then get into the hands of users and dealers, continuing the cycle of addiction.

Think about it this way: a small pharmacy in a sparsely populated town orders one million oxycodone pills. Seems like a lot for a town that size, right?

Unfortunately, though, the Drug Enforcement Agency, using the Automated Reports and Consolidated Ordering System, currently has no way of knowing in real time that this is happening.

That means distributors – who fill orders from pharmacies – do not necessarily know that one of their customers might be placing orders with multiple distributors, thus ordering more controlled substances than they actually need.

DEA is the only law enforcement entity that can see all of that data and flag any suspicious orders that are submitted, but they do not currently track this information instantaneously. So, once DEA finds a suspicious order, it’s already too late and these dangerous drugs have already been distributed to our communities.

Our bill would require DEA to notify the distributor in real time if a potentially suspicious order is detected. If, after further evaluation, the DEA is able to see that drug diversion is taking place, they would be able to flag this for distributors and notify them that something suspicious is going on.

The bipartisan DEA Clearinghouse Act is a commonsense proposal that will shore up our drug supply chain, eliminate blind spots, and prevent prescription opioids from flooding our communities, and we will work closely with DEA to ensure this bill leads to effective improvements.

As we continue to fight the opioid epidemic, our focus should be on putting forward commonsense proposals like the DEA Clearinghouse Act that will keep our communities safe.

The U.S. must stand with, not alienate, our allies

I recently returned from a gathering of the world’s top security officials in Munich, Germany, deeply concerned about America’s standing in the world.

Last month, I joined more than 50 senators and representatives at the Munich Security Conference. The annual gathering began in 1963, during the height of the Cold War, to bring Americans and their transatlantic allies together to discuss the world’s most pressing security challenges.

It is clear from my discussions in Munich that our allies have serious doubts about American leadership and the current course of U.S. foreign policy. It’s normal for us to at times disagree with our allies — sometimes it can be a useful exercise to reach a better outcome. But I am worried that this administration’s treatment of our allies has further alienated them at a time when we need them most.

As the world evolves, we must make necessary adjustments to our foreign policy to ensure it continues to serve U.S. interests. But the United States cannot tackle — much less resolve — the multitude of global challenges we face on our own. We cannot stop Russian and Chinese aggression, cyber crime, terrorism, drug trafficking, global pandemics, or climate change, to name a few, without partners. The partners we have relied on over the last 70 years are those that share our values — a respect for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

Take a look at our approach on Iran. I agree with the administration that the Iranian government is a destabilizing force in the Middle East and a threat to key allies like Israel. It subjects its citizens to terrible human rights violations, flouts international norms, and supports terrorist activity — recently on European soil.

But this administration’s decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal, imperfect though it is, has created a rift between the U.S. and our European allies that Iran is masterfully exploiting. Just consider the audible silence that met Vice President Mike Pence in Europe when he publicly lambasted our European partners for remaining in the JCPOA. Instead of working with our allies to find ways to stop destabilizing Iranian activity, the administration is publicly feuding with them.

Part of this erosion in America’s standing is due to our sinking credibility. How can our allies trust in the U.S. when the president announces precipitous withdrawals from Syria and Afghanistan by tweet before consulting with our partners or Congress, much less his own advisers? What will happen the next time we ask countries to help share the burden of fighting terrorism in a country far from home?

Part of our credibility gap is the result of our own domestic problems. How can our diplomats credibly encourage other governments to respect their own people’s basic rights when our president lauds authoritarian leaders, calls the press the enemy of the people, and undermines the legitimacy of his own judicial system? How will we persuade countries to act on the warnings of our intelligence agencies when the president regularly seeks to undermine and discredit them?

In Munich and later in London, I met with presidents, ministers, and other top officials from around the world and made clear that there remains a strong bipartisan commitment in Congress to stand by our longtime allies and partners. I emphasized that I would do my part to try to convince the administration that it is better to work in partnership with — instead of in opposition to — our allies.

The congressional delegation that traveled to Munich this year was named in honor of my friend Sen. John McCain, who long championed the historic ties between the U.S. and Europe. I am confident he would agree that we can keep America at the forefront while recommitting to the longstanding alliances that have advanced global peace and prosperity for 70 years. Failing to do so would be to the detriment of our own security.

Coons and Klobuchar: Most Americans can’t save for retirement. We want to fix that.

By some measures, it’s true that the American economy appears to be in good shape, but look a little closer and you’ll find that tens of millions of middle-class Americans who are working full time are still just barely getting by.

What do we mean by barely? Four in 10 American adults do not have cash savings to meet a $400 emergency expense, and unfortunately, $400 emergency expenses are pretty common. So, for far too many Americans, a broken bone, a minor car repair or even school supplies could mean that all the bills can’t be paid at the end of the month.

For these families, saving for retirement is nearly impossible, and the numbers confirm it: Among families in the bottom half of the income scale, only about 40%hold any kind of a retirement plan.

That’s a crisis waiting to happen, and it’s why we’re introducing an ambitious but achievable proposal to ensure that all Americans are able to prepare for retirement and cover emergency costs.

Our legislation, the Saving for the Future Act, would guarantee that if you’re working full time, in addition to your pay, you would receive a savings contribution of at least 50 cents per hour worked, or a little over $1,000 per year. The amount would rise to 60 cents after two years and then keep pace with wage growth after that.

If a worker sticks with their own automatic contributions, which start at just 4% of pay, their savings over the course of a career would grow to more than $600,000 by retirement, according to the think tank Third Way.

Here’s how it works: Men and women who work at a company with 10 or more employees would be entitled to an employer savings contribution of at least 50 cents per hour worked. Many companies already pay at least this amount into a 401(k) or other type of plan and would have to change nothing. Other employers would have to select a retirement plan that they would pay into.

To make it easy for smaller employers, those with fewer than 100 workers would have the option of simply paying into what we call “UP Accounts.” These federally provided accounts would charge low fees, could easily be transferred from job-to-job, and would be tailored to the employee’s age and savings needs.

Our legislation also offers a tax credit to help businesses of all sizes comply, but especially the smaller ones: The credit covers half the required contributions for any business’s first 15 workers — even those businesses that already provide retirement benefits. People working independently or for very small companies get access to UP accounts and an individual tax credit to help them contribute.

To pay for the tax credit, we propose a 2% increase in the corporate tax rate and an increase on the wealthiest households from 37% to 39.6%. It is also important to note that the bill has no effect on Social Security.

We both believe in the power of capital markets to create broadly shared wealth, but we’ve also seen that parts of our financial system have been badly broken, and the savings crisis is a perfect example of that.

Despite the relatively strong economy, too many American workers make too little to invest any savings in capital markets, and as a result, they don’t benefit when the market succeeds. To put it simply, if you don’t have enough money to invest, you don’t benefit when the market rises. The Saving for the Future Act is a way to help all American workers hold some equity in the economy so that when corporations do well, they do, too.

For many workers, savings isn’t — or can’t always be — a priority. That’s why, under Saving for the Future, a portion of workers’ UP Accounts is devoted to emergency savings. The first $2,500 of contributions would go, by default, to an emergency savings account. So, when participants encounter an unforeseen, unavoidable expense, they can tap that account easily and without penalty. After that initial $2,500, all additional contributions would go toward retirement.

Americans need more than just ideas to address the challenges of our often-unfair economy — they need a legislative plan that can pass our divided Congress and start the long process of closing the wealth gap in our country. We believe this bill can do that.

For Americans who don’t have retirement savings or a pension, it would provide income on top of Social Security. It would also help younger workers make the crucial first step onto the savings ladder, making them more likely to avoid the trap of high-interest loans and financial trouble down the road.

Saving for the Future will help ensure that we’re leveling the economic playing field. Today, 60% of part-time workers, who are disproportionately women, don’t even have access to a workplace retirement plan, and Black and Latino households each have just about one-tenth of the average household wealth that white families have. That’s clearly not indicative of an economy working for everyone.

For many Americans, those with a 401(k) savings plan and a competitive salary, the economy appears to be humming along, but more and more of our family, friends and neighbors are financially insecure, even if they’re working full time.

As senators who represent Delawareans and Minnesotans who are in exactly this situation, we believe our bill is the kind of direct action to address income inequality that working Americans deserve.

As Democrats, we also believe it’s the kind of market-based, deliverable and bold plan we should coalesce around as a party.

Americans expect the government to set reasonable ground rules for our economy — rules like a minimum wage, workplace safety requirements and anti-discrimination policies — that help ensure successful economies and benefit everyone involved. Guaranteeing minimum savings for full-time workers won’t just benefit the millions of Americans dreading an unforeseen expense; it will also make our entire economy stronger and more equitable.

Reimagining our commitment to national service

Our nation’s young people face several challenges: the high cost of college and the burden of student loans, concerns about how to develop the skills and experience to launch a successful career, and our country’s bitter partisan divisions that make many question our future.

I have long been confident that the answers to these and a number of other problems may lie in something that helped previous generations of Americans come together, make a difference and afford a higher education: national service.

For decades, military service, now in combination with the GI Bill, has connected veterans to skills, a better understanding of their fellow citizens, and access to higher education.

My dad once told me that he didn’t fully understand what it meant to be an American until he was serving in the Army, responsible for a squad of men who were black and white, Northern, Southern, Western, Catholic, and Protestant. “We had to live together, work together, and serve together,” he said, explaining how military service shaped his life and deepened his commitment to our country and its citizens.

You can read the full column here.

Congress must stand up for victims of child abuse and reauthorize Children’s Advocacy Centers

The physical or sexual abuse of a child is an unconscionable crime. As parents, it is our worst nightmare — a fear that keeps us awake at night each time we hear the news of another predator apprehended in our communities.

For children whose innocence has been shattered by violence and families whose lives have been thrown into chaos by unthinkable tragedy, Children’s Advocacy Centers are a refuge. Bringing together a coordinated team of child-focused professionals and criminal investigators, these facilities secure the evidence needed to bring abusers to justice without re-traumatizing child victims.

Stepping into a Children’s Advocacy Center, it’s almost possible to forget the horrors that bring children and families through the doors. The walls are brightly colored, the waiting room filled with cartoon pictures and children’s toys. Forensic interviews are conducted by professional staff wearing plain clothes — not police uniforms — and are structured in a way that is both compassionate and effective.

Despite their success in communities in Delaware, Alabama, and across the country, and despite strong support on both sides of the aisle, these centers have faced an uncertain future. Congress has not reauthorized the Victims of Child Abuse Act – the law that provides federal support for Children’s Advocacy Centers – for nearly a decade, and the President’s recent budgets have slashed the funding that allows them to operate.

In December, we joined together – along with Senators Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) – to introduce bipartisan legislation that would reauthorize the Victims of Child Abuse Act and save our nation’s Children’s Advocacy Centers. Just a few days ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which we both serve, voted unanimously to send this bill to the Senate floor.

Congress must pass this reauthorization because the alternative is a justice system that fails to meet the needs of our most vulnerable children. In the early 1980s, Bud Cramer – an Alabama District Attorney who would later go on to become a U.S. Congressman – observed the ordeal faced by child victims as they navigated the criminal justice system. Social services were not coordinated with the work of law enforcement and prosecutors, forcing children to endure repeated questioning – at police stations, in hospitals, and again in the courtroom – and relive horrifying traumas over and over again.

Together with members of the Huntsville community, Cramer pioneered a new model to better serve child victims. The nation’s first Children’s Advocacy Center brought all the resources victims and law enforcement needed together under one roof. With one interview, child victims could tell their stories and law enforcement could obtain the testimony required to carry the case forward to trial.

In 1990, Congress passed the Victims of Child Abuse Act to expand on this successful model, and today more than 800 Children’s Advocacy Centers serve victims and families nationwide.

Their programs are working. In 2012, Children’s Advocacy Centers helped nearly 300,000 kids get the care they needed, and put more of our society’s worst criminals behind bars. By consolidating services, Children’s Advocacy Centers are even saving taxpayers money.

Our bipartisan reauthorization bill would modestly increase support available for Children’s Advocacy Centers, for the first time since 1990, to help centers keep up with growing demands for services and improve training programs for their remarkable staffs of caregivers. State and local governments, as well as private donors, would continue to provide their own funding support. The bill would also provide opportunities to build Children’s Advocacy Centers in some of the 1,000 counties that currently lack access to these critical services.

Though we wish our communities didn’t need these centers, we know all too well that the evil we have witnessed in our home states exists in big cities and small towns across the country.

No family should have to confront these horrors alone. Children’s Advocacy Centers have transformed our nation’s response to child abuse, giving families hope in their darkest moments and delivering justice to those who have endured the worst kind of abuse.

We cannot and should not go back to a system that fails the most vulnerable children in our society. It’s time to reauthorize the Victims of Child Abuse Act.

(United States Senator Jeff Sessions is the Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee and a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. United States Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) also serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Budget Committee.)

Congress must stand up for victims of child abuse

We have no more sacred duty as parents, as neighbors and as a nation than the protection of our children.

Despite our best efforts, too many children in Delaware, Missouri, and around the country still fall victim to abuse, often at the hands of adults they trusted. We need to do everything we can to protect our children and, when they are harmed, deliver justice without inadvertently causing any further damage.

More than 20 years ago, Congress passed a landmark law, the Victims of Child Abuse Act, to partner with states in the funding of a network of innovative Children’s Advocacy Centers – secure and comforting facilities that have become critical tools for our communities to deliver justice for child victims of abuse. That law expired in 2005, and the Obama Administration has zeroed-out or reduced funding for the centers in its last three budget requests.

We are determined to save these centers.

With our colleagues Senators Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), in December, we introduced a bill to reauthorize the landmark Victims of Child Abuse Act. Last week, it passed unanimously out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and we’re looking forward to working together to make sure it is passed by the full Senate and the House of Representatives. Although we come from different parties and different states, we’ve seen the positive impact these centers have had in our communities.

Children’s Advocacy Centers bring everyone together under one roof – law enforcement, prosecutors and child-service professionals – all focused on what’s best for the child.

A specially trained forensic investigator interviews the child to learn what happened. Critically, they structure the conversation in a non-leading way so the testimony can be used later in court – preventing the need for a child to have to go through the re-traumatizing experience of telling his or her story on the witness stand. While prosecutors take the information obtained in the interview through the court system to bring justice for the victim, doctors, counselors, and other professionals ensure the child gets the help he or she needs to begin the healing process.

The results are impressive. The involvement of Children’s Advocacy Centers has increased the prosecution of perpetrators, with one study showing an average 94 percent conviction rate for center cases that are carried forward to trial. Child victims of abuse who receive care at a center are more likely to receive medical exams and mental health treatment than children in communities without a center. Although no parent would ever want to need a Children’s Advocacy Center, when they have, 97 percent say they would tell others to seek help at one if they need it.

In 2012, Children’s Advocacy Centers helped nearly 300,000 kids get the care they needed, and put more of our society’s worst criminals behind bars. By consolidating services, Children’s Advocacy Centers are even saving taxpayers more than $1,000 per case in the process.

Our bipartisan bill would modestly increase federal support for Children’s Advocacy Centers for the first time in 24 years to help centers keep up with growing demands for services and improve training programs for their remarkable staffs of caregivers. State and local governments, as well as private donors, would continue to provide their own funding support. The legislation would also provide opportunities to build Children’s Advocacy Centers in some of the 1,000 American counties that currently lack access to these critical services.

We’re lucky to have three Children’s Advocacy Centers in Delaware and 22 in Missouri. Each time we visit one, we walk away struck by how strategically and thoughtfully the centers were put together to deliver justice without harming the long-term healing process.

No family should have to confront the horrors of abuse alone. Children’s Advocacy Centers have transformed our nation’s response to child abuse, giving families hope in their darkest moments and delivering justice to those who have endured the worst kind of abuse.

We cannot and should not go back a system that fails the most vulnerable children in our society. It’s time for Congress to reauthorize the Victims of Child Abuse Act.

Senators Chris Coons of Delaware and Roy Blunt of Missouri co-chair the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus.

The Founding Fathers would have protected your smartphone

Privacy is a core American value. For 235 years, the Fourth Amendment has protected us from unwarranted searches of our personal belongings. All the while, technology has been changing where and how we keep those belongings. On April 29, the Supreme Court held oral arguments in two cases, Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie. At question is whether the police can search the contents of a phone without a warrant during an arrest. At stake is whether technological advancements have rendered one of our most treasured civil liberties obsolete.

Today, many Americans keep their entire lives on their phones: family photos, emails, calendar appointments, Internet searches and even location history. Considered separately, each of these categories can reveal very private information. Taken together, they can present a pretty good picture of who you are, what you do, where you go, what you read and what you write. What protection does the Constitution offer them from suspicionless search by the government?

The Fourth Amendment grants to the people the right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” It did not find its way into the Constitution by accident. It was, rather, a specific response to a principal grievance of colonial Americans under British rule — namely, the use of the “general warrant” whereby the crown gave officials almost unfettered authority to search colonial homes, rifle through papers and scour personal belongings.

As the Constitutional Accountability Center explains in its friend-of-the-court brief in Riley and Wurie, “Stated simply, the Framers wanted to strip the government of the arbitrary power to rifle through a person’s belongings in the hope of finding something incriminating.”

There can be little doubt that the modern smartphone is today’s equivalent of our Founders’ “papers and effects.”

The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable, warrantless searches of these modern-day versions of “papers and effects.” Indeed, as the Cato Institute observes in its own friend-of-the-court brief, allowing for warrantless searches of cellphones “would throw open too-wide a door onto suspects’ personal and private information without judicial supervision. Cellphones are doorways into people’s lives as broad as the front doors of their homes.”

The government argued that public safety demands the police have unfettered liberty to search a person under arrest. This is a false tension between liberty and security; robust protection of our Fourth Amendment rights can coexist with the prerogatives of law enforcement. The Supreme Court already recognizes an exception when a search is necessary to protect officer safety or the destruction of evidence; that’s not at issue.

At issue is: What happens when a police officer has absolutely no reason to believe that a cellphone poses such a threat? In that case, the Fourth Amendment and the privacy values that it enshrines require that a police officer go to a judge and get a warrant, justified by probable cause, before conducting a search.

The evolution of technology and modern life creates challenges for a Constitution ratified 235 years ago. Riley and Wurie will not be the last time the Supreme Court will have to contend with the intersection of the Fourth Amendment, modern communications technology and our long-standing constitutional abhorrence of general warrants. How the Supreme Court addresses this challenge will set an important precedent as technology continues to present capabilities and threats never specifically considered by our Founders.

Technology will continue to evolve, but our Constitution endures. We took an oath to uphold the Constitution. So did every member of the U.S. Supreme Court. The government says that it has the authority to search phones without a warrant.

As a matter of text and history, however, the Fourth Amendment says that they do not. We hope the Supreme Court agrees.

Solar and wind energy deserve same tax break as oil and gas

Members of Congress have said it over and over again: the United States needs an all-of-the-above strategy for our energy future. But what does that actually mean?

An all-of-the-above approach should be more than just rhetoric. It should be about taking real steps to harness all of our energy resources and focus them toward a common goal: an energy-independent future for the United States. If we’re going to succeed in securing homegrown and affordable sources of energy for the next generation, we need to use all the options at our disposal.

America is home to a wealth of untapped energy resources with the power to transform our energy landscape and accelerate our energy independence. Traditional sources of energy like oil and natural gas currently dominate U.S. energy production, and our domestic supplies continue to grow. These sources will be a key part of our energy portfolio well into the future, but they are only part of the equation.

The U.S. has led the world in the development of new technologies that will allow us to tap our nation’s vast supply of clean and renewable energy. Once prohibitively high, the cost of technologies like solar panels and wind turbines has fallen significantly during the past five years. These innovations are poised to bring new energy sources into the marketplace, but their widespread deployment has been stifled — in part by a lack of reliable financing.

For nearly 30 years, oil, natural gas, coal extraction and pipeline projects have used a beneficial tax structure called Master Limited Partnerships to obtain low-cost private capital. An MLP is a business structure that is taxed as a partnership, but whose ownership interests are traded like corporate stock on a market. This structure prevents double taxation and leaves more cash available for distribution back to investors.

Because they are so attractive to investors, MLPs have played a key role in drawing the private investment needed to finance capital-intensive projects like oil and gas pipelines. They could do the same for renewable energy projects, but our outdated tax laws prevent them from doing so. By statute, MLPs are currently available only to investors in fossil fuel-based energy portfolios, starving a growing portion of our domestic energy sector of the capital it needs to build and grow.

The Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act — legislation I introduced last year with a bipartisan coalition of senators — would extend this valuable investment tool to wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable energy projects, leveling the energy playing field and expanding access to low-cost capital for a broader range of energy sources.

A House version of the bill, championed by Texas Republican Ted Poe and California Democrat Mike Thompson, has more than 30 bipartisan cosponsors. The bill also has support from more than one hundred businesses, trade associations and investment firms. Furthermore, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently echoed the call for MLP energy parity in a January 2014 report.

This small tweak could bring billions of dollars off the sidelines and into the renewable energy marketplace, accelerating the deployment of affordable alternative energy and creating new jobs in a fast-growing field. It would, at last, harmonize our tax code with the all-of-the-above energy parity called for by Democrats and Republicans alike.

The bill is simple, but its implications for our energy supply are substantial. We can’t afford to handicap our growing renewable sector and squander promising new sources of domestic energy. By extending this powerful market tool to additional forms of energy development, we can go beyond political rhetoric and start delivering on an all-of-the-above strategy for our energy future.

Farm bill is a victory for Delaware

Our region is home to some of America’s finest poultry, produce, and grain crops. Delaware’s vibrant agricultural industry supports 30,000 jobs and contributes $8 billion each year to our economy. That’s why Congress’ reauthorization of the farm bill has been one of my highest priorities in my time in the Senate.

It’s been a tough, long road, but last week Congress came together to approve a comprehensive, five-year farm bill that provides long-awaited certainty to our farmers. The new law supports Delaware’s farmers and poultry growers by strengthening crop insurance and investing in critical conservation and rural energy programs that help them produce sustainably. The farm bill also reduces our deficit by $23 billion by eliminating unnecessary direct payment subsidies, consolidating programs to end duplication, and cracking down on food assistance abuse.

While it’s far from perfect, this compromise legislation takes important steps to strengthen America’s farm policy and contains a number of important provisions that benefit Delawareans specifically.

To help Delaware’s poultry growers during uncertain economic times, the bill includes a provision I wrote with Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) to commission a pair of studies on the feasibility of poultry insurance programs. These studies will explore the potential for insurance programs to help protect poultry farmers from catastrophic losses like disease outbreaks, and from bankruptcies of poultry integrators.

The bill also includes $500 million for the Rural Energy for America Program, which helps poultry growers, rural businesses, and farmers conduct energy audits and install renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. In 2012, the program funded two successful projects to improve energy efficiency in Kent County and deploy solar power in Sussex County. I hope this funding can be used in the future to help Delaware’s poultry growers cut energy costs and make beneficial efficiency upgrades to their facilities.

To spur renewable energy development, the bill includes $879 million in mandatory funding for USDA renewable energy and biofuels programs over the next 10 years. The bill also expands the Biorefinery Assistance Program to include renewable chemical and bio-based product manufacturing – which could benefit Delaware’s innovative chemical industry as much as it could benefit our farmers – and authorizes $200 million over 10 years for the program.

To help our produce farmers stay competitive, the bill increases funding for research focused on strengthening crop resiliency and increasing crop yields. Funding for Specialty Crop Block Grants will increase to $72.5 million/year in mandatory funding through FY17, and $85 million/year thereafter. Delaware received nearly $230,000 in funding from this program for five projects last year, and will receive approximately $351,000 in FY14.

Finally, the bill invests in the conservation of our natural resources by ensuring that the Chesapeake Bay will remain eligible to compete for conservation funding under the new Regional Conservation Partnership Program. A recent USDA report shows that conservation practices adopted by farmers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed have resulted in significant nutrient pollution reductions since 2006.

A new conservation easement program created by the bill will also help Delaware farmers continue to preserve our working farmlands. Delaware received $4.9 million for agricultural land preservation through the 2008 version of this program that has helped farmers preserve tens of thousands of acres of farmland across the state.

For the farmers that work so hard to feed America, uncertainty is a given. Risk and instability are inherent in an industry dependent on the land. The least Congress can do is fulfill its obligation to provide stable governance, so that farmers know where laws, regulations, and funding are going to be now and into the future. That’s what this long-term farm bill does, while investing in important priorities and cutting wasteful spending.

I’m proud of the job Delaware’s hard-working farmers do each day and I’m hopeful this strong, bipartisan farm bill will help them continue to provide for American families.

Chris Coons is a U.S. Senator from Delaware. He serves on both the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee.

Nelson Mandela and the power of forgiveness

As the world prepares to say its final goodbyes to Nelson Mandela today, the days since his passing have proved his life touched countless souls. His grace, compassion and ability to unite a country torn apart by generations of hatred were truly inspirational, and set a standard from which many in Washington should learn.

Like many thousands of my college contemporaries, exposure to the fundamental injustice and cruelty of apartheid changed my life and shaped my views of justice and politics. I spent a college semester in Nairobi on an exchange program in 1984, when opposition to apartheid in South Africa was one of the pressing political issues of the day. I weathered many debates with African students who sharply criticized the Reagan administration, which opposed sanctions as a means of forcing change in South Africa.

As a senior, I returned to my own college and became active in the anti-apartheid movement then sweeping American campuses. After college, I worked for the Investor Responsibility Research Center in Washington as a researcher on divestment issues, following which I spent three months in South Africa at the height of the 1987 state of emergency, volunteering for the South African Council of Churches led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

The vicious white supremacist worldview that the apartheid regime imposed in that country was truly disturbing. I saw firsthand the deep pain caused by an apartheid system that attempted to determine the destiny of South Africans based on the color of their skin.

Nelson Mandela refused to accept the destiny that was handed to him, and instead of letting his jail cell fill with bitterness and hatred, he led a movement to end apartheid and to remake South Africa into a strong, multiracial democracy. His personal determination in the face of decades of imprisonment and oppression, followed by his unwavering grace and forgiveness toward his former captors is one of the great reconciliation stories in human history.

It was that reconciliation that has made possible South Africa’s promising future.

The history of the late 20th century in the developing world is sadly replete with stories of the first generation of post-colonial leaders who started as democratically elected liberators before overstaying their mandate and evolving over time into strong men and autocrats. Mandela chose a very different path.

President Mandela knew what our own first president, George Washington, knew: that the symbolic power of his presidency demanded a deeper level of service and sacrifice. Shedding the weighty burdens of ego and vanity, Mandela recognized his country would be better served if someone else were responsible for governing, and so he peacefully and voluntarily stepped down after a single term.

It wasn’t that Mandela lacked ambition. It was that his ambition wasn’t to build personal power, but a stronger country. While his presidency was inherently symbolic of his country’s desire for peace and reconciliation, Mandela’s mission was to help move his country forward, once it was free from the shackles of apartheid.

Serving as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs gives me the opportunity to meet with leaders from across the continent, many of whom struggle to bridge complex internal divisions. Too often in recent decades, politics has become a platform for personal profiteering and score settling, and the preservation of power has been placed above what’s best for the people.

At a time of historic division in our own politics, these are themes that certainly resonate in Washington.

In so many ways, Nelson Mandela reminded a new generation of leaders around the world what it means to truly lead. He taught us that forgiveness is not only possible – it is powerful.

It is my hope that Mandela’s example will help us renew our own efforts at reconciliation and principled compromise.

Related Issues