Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have come to the floor this evening to speak about the impending shutdown this week of the Federal Department of Homeland Security. At a time when the folks I hear from in Delaware, and I suspect what all of the Members in this Chamber are hearing, as we return from a week spent in our home States, are concerns about our national security.

Whether it is the heinous acts of ISIS abroad, or the real threats of the weather and recent weather-related events here at home, a central concern all of us should share in the Senate here tonight is about keeping our country and our constituents safe. Yet shutting down the whole Department of Homeland Security later this week would show a reckless disregard for our national security by the Republican leader and some of the hard-line conservatives who are, sadly, setting this agenda.

In my view, we do not need to be here. The Democrats and Republicans working together on the Appropriations Committee negotiated a strong bipartisan Homeland Security funding bill months ago. It is a bill that if it got a vote before the full Senate would absolutely pass. It makes wide, needed, broad investments in strengthening all sorts of different organs of our government at the Federal, State, and local level that strengthen our homeland security.

Instead, the other party has insisted on attaching political provisions to the bill that would overturn the President's Executive action on immigration. I know I do not need to remind the Presiding Officer or any of our colleagues that we have already debated and passed comprehensive immigration reform in this Chamber which, if taken up by the House, would have made the President's action completely unnecessary.

I think we all agree that congressional action is the preferred path toward fixing our broken immigration system. If that is what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are really concerned about, then I am eager to discuss how we can fix our badly broken immigration system in a bipartisan manner by the preferred path of congressional action rather than Executive action.

But I think we should separate that debate over immigration and what is the right path toward a resolution of our broken system from a discussion about responsibly and sustainably funding our Department of Homeland Security. If we fail to fund Homeland

Security, it would have damaging consequences to our economy, to the security of our communities, and to our reputation around the world. At this time of heightened concern about our cohesion, about our unity, and about our security as a country, failing to fund the Federal Department of Homeland Security I think sends the worst possible message to our allies around the world about our capacity as a mature democracy of reaching responsible resolutions on difficult and divisive issues.

If the Department of Homeland Security shuts down this week, tens of thousands of its staff would be furloughed without pay. They include the FEMA disaster and preparedness staff, the very personnel who check the immigration status of new employees through E-Verify, critical security intelligence analysts, and the folks who run the domestic nuclear detection offices, just to name a few.

The list of these tens of thousands of Homeland Security employees and the vital functions they perform would take longer than the evening could take.

My own State of Delaware has the lowest mean elevation in the country. That means we are a really low-lying State. We are incredibly vulnerable to storms and to flooding, and we simply can't afford to have FEMA's staff suspended, furloughed, laid off.

Whether we shut down or just have a short-term funding bill, funding for Homeland Security grants can't go out. Some of the folks who watch this debate in the week ahead will have difficulty discerning between folks on my side who will advocate for a so-called clean bill and others who will advocate for a CR. This is where the difference really is: in the areas of grants for State and local emergency preparedness-- the difference between actually moving forward the bipartisan bill that was worked through the Appropriations Committee in the last Congress and simply continuing by continuing resolution the previous year's authorization. That difference is $1.5 billion for State and local emergency management all over this country.

In my community, which is part of the Greater Philadelphia area, we are about to welcome the Pope. Something like 2 million people are expected in the Greater Philadelphia area as we welcome His Holiness to Philadelphia for the first time in a long time.

I have heard from State and local law enforcement, first responders, emergency managers, and planners that they are counting on some of the grants from FEMA that are currently on hold, while they wait to discover the outcome of this week's debates, to prepare for that important, very large event. In my own home community, there are volunteer fire companies which even now are working on submitting grants. The SAFER Act and the fire grants act have become an important part of making sure that our local volunteer fire companies have the equipment they need, the training they need to keep our communities safe.

In Delaware the overwhelming majority of the crash response, the fire education, and the fire suppression are done by volunteer fire companies, which often have badly outdated equipment and insufficient funding. To sustain their training and their personnel, they need the grants that have been made available through FEMA and through the Department of Homeland Security over the last decade to upgrade and update their equipment, their materials, and their training. They have been vitally important. They have made a big difference in the fire service in my home State. There are grants to police departments that help ensure they have the tools, the training, and the equipment to be part of emergency preparedness and to keep our communities safe.

If we shut down the Department of Homeland Security, 130,000 other DHS workers will be compelled to remain at work but without pay. I think the idea that there are Americans who work to keep us safe at the border, at our airports, on our coasts and that we don't value them enough to ensure they will receive their pay for a hard day's work just goes against the grain of what we stand for as a country.

So are my colleagues really willing to send a message to everyone at Homeland Security that their work isn't important enough to our Nation to ensure that they can provide for their family? That is the message if the Department of Homeland Security shuts down. It hurts families, it hurts morale, it hurts our preparedness, and it hurts our safety.

I wish to say, as someone who is privileged to serve on the Foreign Relations Committee and regularly gets the chance to meet with and talk with leaders from around the world, it sends the message that our democracy isn't up to the task.

I know this isn't what my Republican friends want to do, and I urge us to come together and work in a way that will end this era of politics by crisis once and for all--no more shutdowns, no more manufactured crises, and no more demonstrating that we are better at stopping progress than at enacting progress.

Democrats are ready to work together with Republicans to pass a bipartisan, bicameral bill that we all know we can pass and that will fund the Department of Homeland Security and keep our country safe. I hope that after we--this afternoon--voted down for the fourth time a bill that seeks to repeal the President's actions on immigration, we can put aside that partisan issue and come together to find a bipartisan solution to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

We already know what that solution looks like. We just need to come together and give it a vote. In my view, this is too important to trivialize as part of the ongoing posturing and partisan games that for so long have dominated this Chamber.

I urge my colleagues to work with us. Fund Homeland Security and then let's talk meaningfully in this Congress about how we can fix our broken immigration system together.

I know we are all eager to continue that conversation. First, we need to solve this challenge and make sure that our communities, our States, and our country are safe.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we need to take steps now to prepare for the coming impact of climate change on our Nation's infrastructure.

The Federal Government plays a crucial role in protecting our infrastructure and partnering with State and Federal, tribal, and local governments to prepare.

The Federal Government, including our Pentagon and the highway administration, is already planning and preparing for these impacts. Many States are as well. From my home State of Delaware to Alaska to Florida, all are already planning responsibly for the future impacts of climate change. Preparing now is only responsible, because every dollar invested in planning and preparing is projected to save us up to $4 in future disaster relief.

This amendment is supported by a number of organizations--the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Wildlife Federation, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and others.

This amendment does not speak to the human role in climate change or emissions. It simply acknowledges that climate change is having an impact on our infrastructure and suggests that planning is responsible.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so that I can call up my amendment No. 115.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment recognizes that climate change is not a hoax, that climate change is a reality, and that we need to do some things together to begin to plan for and prepare for the inevitable consequences and impacts on our infrastructure.

As someone who was in local government for a long time before coming to this body--I was a county executive--I have a sense of what it means for our States, our municipalities, and our county governments to have to plan for and deal with the inevitable consequence, the impacts on our local infrastructure of the coming changes through climate change.

I happen to represent the lowest mean elevation State in America, and our Governor Jack Markell and his able folks in the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control have led a grassroots statewide effort to begin planning for the future impacts of climate change. Because of the combination of subsidence and sea level rise, Delaware will see earlier than many States impacts on vital local infrastructure. So whether it is our sewer systems, our roads, our water systems or other infrastructure, we need to begin to plan now to bake resiliency into the future of our community.

Given the unique and important role that the Federal Government plays in financing infrastructure and in responding to disasters such as Superstorm Sandy that destroyed a lot of the infrastructure in the nearby States of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut, we need to be mindful of what these costs could be.

The U.S. Department of Defense is already preparing plans to understand how climate change will impact its infrastructure. My thinking is that the entire Federal Government should make responsible, timely, and thoughtful plans to assess and to prepare for prudent mitigation of the future impacts of climate change on our infrastructure. So I am hopeful that this will be among the many amendments that will be taken up, debated, discussed, and passed in the coming hours and days.

I am grateful that we continue to have an open amendment process and the opportunity to discuss and debate the issues in front of us, and I very much look forward to passage of Coons amendment No. 115.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about President Obama's State of the Union Address last week. It was a speech that I believe laid out a positive and forceful agenda for strengthening our middle class and for accelerating our Nation's economic recovery.

Over the past year, our Nation's economic progress has become unmistakable and undeniable. In our home State of Delaware, more people are working. People spend much less time looking for work, and job growth has been the strongest it has been since the 1990s.

Nationally, we are amidst the longest period of sustained private- sector job growth on record. Of particular interest to me is that our manufacturing sector has come back and come back strongly as manufacturers have created nearly 800,000 jobs in the last 4 years-- jobs that make up the foundation of our 21st century middle class and our economy.

Our unemployment rate has dropped to its lowest level since before the great recession. Our growing private sector is not just creating jobs now. They are also laying the foundation for the jobs of the future. As test scores continue to improve, high school graduation rates reach record highs, and, as our President said, ``More Americans finish college than ever before,'' we are laying a path that ensures that future generations of Americans can thrive as well.

But our work remains unfinished. Although we are right to turn the page on the crisis here at home, crises do remain real in the lives of far too many Americans--families I listen to who are struggling to get into and stay in our middle class. For many in the middle class, wages have remained stubbornly stagnant as incomes for the wealthy have continued to grow. At the same time, too many Americans just stopped looking for work altogether during the recession and haven't begun that job search again. So we have a lot of work to do together to ensure that the middle class experiences the benefits of this recovery.

On that note, I appreciated President Obama's call for an agenda that would do a lot to strengthen our middle class. Although this isn't what we will hear about on the news, many of these ideas should enjoy bipartisan support. I wish to spend a few minutes on some of the areas that I think are ripe for bipartisan cooperation and that would go a long way toward actually helping middle-class families and our Nation as a whole.

First, it is no secret to anyone that our country's infrastructure is badly outdated and in need of repair. From our ports and roads, to our bridges and railways, we have steadily racked up a national debt of investment that we will need to pay for. The only question is when and how we do it. Historically, infrastructure--fixing roads and bridges and ports and railways--has not been a partisan issue. It is something that has been a core value of our Federal Government from its very founding. It is in no small part what the Federal Government was created to help do.

Last Tuesday the President laid out ideas for thinking more creatively about how to make these core investments--from improving efficiency to bringing private capital off the sidelines--and I am encouraged to hear Republican colleagues discussing infrastructure as an initiative they can work on with us. So let's get this done. Let's solve our highway trust fund challenges for good and make the long-term investments that will put people back to work and strengthen our Nation's economic backbone.

Second, the President's proposal to expand access to community colleges is an initiative that I hope will spark a broader discussion about how to make higher education more accessible and more affordable. I understand there is real disagreement here about how best to pay for it or how wide its scope should be, but that is what we can and should work on together.

We all know that higher education is necessary to ensure Americans have the skills they will need in the 21st century. We know community colleges can and should play a central role in achieving that mission. In manufacturing in particular, community colleges such as Delaware Tech in my home State play a central role in partnering with local businesses to create a talent pipeline that sustains a community and its economy. In Delaware the SEED and Inspire scholarships give students who are willing to work hard the chance to go to college and to learn the skills that will help them to contribute to Delaware's economy after they finish school. We can replicate Delaware's example across the country and find ways to work together to make community college and further higher education affordable and accessible. So let's work on this together.

Lastly, the President laid out some commonsense tax and work proposals to help give middle-class families more of a realistic leg up. Expanding the tax credits for families with children and streamlining childcare support makes sense to me. Making it easier for middle-class families to save for their kids' college education and to save for retirement at the same time would go a long way toward helping families to plan for the long term.

Around the country, too many of our work places lack family and medical leave policies that appreciate what it really takes to raise a family and live a healthy life. The President's proposal to work with States to improve their policies would be a great step and would help those communities that choose to, to create policies that suit their own local situations.

Let's work together on these ideas. Let's do something for middle- class families in our country. With a Republican Congress and a Democratic White House, we need to come together if we are going to get anything meaningful done. As President Obama made clear, we have a lot of important and difficult work to do. Our economy has come a long way from the great recession, but there is still work to do to strengthen our middle class. There is still work to do to broaden the opportunity that has always been at the heart of the American dream. We can move forward together, and it is my sincere hope that we will rise to that occasion, that we will seize this opportunity and do the critical work of building and sustaining our vital middle class.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to honor Howard George Hitchens and highlight his service to the Slaughter Beach community and the State of Delaware.

Howard George Hitchens is a charter member of the Memorial Volunteer Fire Company of Slaughter Beach, DE, which he and several others established in 1954. Howard previously served as fire chief, assistant chief engineer, and director of the fire company. He also started its Santa Claus show for children, which still occurs each year during the holiday season. Howard has served the fire company for more than 60 years and is the only living charter member.

On February 14, 2015, the Memorial Volunteer Fire Company will honor Howard for his service. Howard is a true Delawarean and a model community leader. I would like to honor Howard and his more than six decades of service to his family, friends, community, and the State of Delaware.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to speak about our ongoing debate about the Keystone XL Pipeline and the need for this debate to shift to a much larger conversation.

Tonight, as we are continuing in what has been 1\1/2\ weeks of debate in our Senate about this single, foreign-owned pipeline, it is my hope that we will begin a larger, broader conversation about America's energy and climate needs.

We have so far voted on amendments confirming that climate change is real, on the future of natural gas and oil exports, on energy efficiency provisions, on rules to ensure that we buy American, and on funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the oilspill fund.

I, myself, have an amendment, No. 115, that I am hoping we will have a chance to take up, debate, vote on, and pass--one that recognizes that given that the Senate has acknowledged the reality of climate change, we must now move forward to take action to prepare to adapt to those changes--changes that have already begun.

I come from the State of Delaware, the lowest mean-elevation State in America, where our Governor, Jack Markell, has led a community-driven process of preparing for adapting to the coming impact on our infrastructure--our public, private, State, local, and Federal infrastructure in Delaware.

We have to recognize that our Federal Government will have financial liabilities to help State, local, and tribal governments prepare for the impacts of climate change on their infrastructure and to prepare for the impacts of climate change on our Federal infrastructure.

My amendment, I hope, will be taken up, debated, and passed, but the larger point I want to make is this is just the beginning of the much larger debate we need to have about our Nation's energy and climate future.

Energy has long been and will remain central to a strong, diverse, and vibrant economy for our Nation. Throughout our history, Americans have benefited greatly from abundant sources of energy at home. From coal to oil to natural gas, we have been blessed by natural resources that have powered our economy. But new challenges today require new approaches. As human-generated greenhouse gas pollution wreaks havoc on our global climate, we need to come together to create a cleaner and lower-carbon energy future.

There is no single pathway to stop climate change or to deal with it, but there are a number of approaches we need to look at and that I hope we will consider taking.

Tonight I wish to briefly mention four different areas where there were bipartisan bills in the last Congress--areas that I hope, in the spirit of comity and debate in the Senate, we could reconsider and make them part of this broader energy and climate debate.

First, we could start by establishing and implementing a national quadrennial energy review which would ensure that every administration, current and future, takes a hard look at our Nation's energy landscape, the challenges that we face, and to build a blue print for how we will deal with these challenges and overcome them.

Today we already conduct these kinds of quadrennial reviews for the Pentagon, for the State Department, and for the Department of Homeland Security. They allow us to take a big picture and strategic look at our policies, our challenges, and to chart a predictable, longer term path forward.

It is time we did the same for our country's energy challenges. This administration is already at work doing this, but Congress needs to act to ensure that future administrations will continue this practice.

Second, we can invest in clean and renewable energy and in energy efficiency technology so that we can out-innovate the rest of the world and lay the groundwork for job creation, not only for today but for tomorrow. We can do this through sustained, annual program funding and through smart and innovative financing models that lower the cost of clean energy, such as expanded master limited partnerships.

Third, we can improve the way our national labs collaborate with the private sector so that the innovation pipeline that takes ideas from the lab to the market is smooth, efficient, and predictable so that today's discoveries are tomorrow's world-changing products.

And, fourth, we can improve STEM education and skills training throughout America so that every day we are training tomorrow's future energy innovators.

We can do this. We need to do these things.

I will admit that at times it can seem quite daunting. But in this country we should have no doubt that if we focus our greatest minds on these challenges, there is no limit to what we can achieve. The bottom line to all this is that we don't have a choice. Pretending otherwise is an exercise in denial.

We need to curb emissions from transportation. We need to reduce pollution from powerplants. We need to better finance clean energy solutions. We need to strengthen our infrastructure so we are more resilient in the face of coming climate challenges. We need to address the real challenges of energy and water demand. We need to improve our regulations so that we do more to protect and conserve our land. And we need to invest in research, development, and the demonstration of new and innovative technologies. Overall, we can and should institute smart and market-based regional and national policies that will lower carbon pollution and send businesses and households the signal that the future is in cleaner not in dirtier energy technology.

We need to do all this and bring the rest of the world along as well because our national energy and climate challenges are not just ours, they are the world's, and we need to come together around the world to get this done. The administration's clean power plan rules and the recently announced accord with China are all great initial steps in this direction. It is my hope as we continue this debate that we will come together in the Senate to show we are willing to rise to these challenges as a nation as well.

Mr. President, for me, all of this ultimately comes down to our obligations--yes, of course, to our Nation, to our constituents, to our home States, but particularly as parents to our children and to future generations. Every day when I get to return home from the train station after taking what is often a late-evening train from Washington to Delaware, I get to see my family, and it is my children who leave me most concerned about the question of whether I will be leaving them a safer and healthier world than we received.

My daughter Maggie in particular is passionate about the environment and is concerned about whether what we do here is not just helping to create jobs today--although that is an important issue for us to turn to--but whether we are helping to preserve our world for tomorrow. Maggie helps keep me focused not just on this quarter, this month, this election, or this term, but on the next 50 years and on whether what we do here leaves to our children and their children a cleaner and a better and brighter future. That is what our focus should be--on the future, on what we are doing not just for today but for tomorrow and all the days after that.

I hope when the debate about this one pipeline is over we will refocus our energies on the bigger picture and on the great and big challenges we face together. That is what we get elected to do, and that is what our time demands.

Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes about our Nation's economic relationship with Africa and one area of concern I have as we work toward further strengthening our ties.

Since its passage under President Clinton, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, known as AGOA, has been a powerful tool for increasing trade and boosting economies across the African Continent, and no country has taken greater advantage of the opportunities provided through AGOA than South Africa.

Over the past 4 years, as the chairman of the African Affairs Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I have worked closely with African leaders and know the importance of AGOA to their economies and to their growing middle classes. Just last week I met with a group of African trade ministers who emphasized to me how important prompt reauthorization of AGOA is to them, to their nations, and to tens of thousands of men and women who work in reliance upon

Mr. President, today I highlight the service of William ``Bill'' Harrison Bullock to his country, commitment to his family, and contribution to both the city of Wilmington and the State of Delaware.

Bill was born on November 11, 1926, in Wilmington, DE, to William and Amy Bullock. He graduated from P.S. DuPont in 1945 and was immediately drafted to serve as an aircraft mechanic in the Asia-Pacific theater during the Second World War.

Upon his return to the United States, Bill joined and ultimately took over the five generation family business, Bullock Iron Works, which allowed him to meld his passions of building and construction with artistry. Bill invented a process for the precision bending of cold steel for decorative applications, including railings. The family business gave him an opportunity to work with his brother-in-law James Broad--husband to his sister Amy--and his nephew Jim Broad. Bill very much enjoyed and spoke often of the bond created by working and creating beautiful ornamental steel creations with his family members.

Bill had a long-standing bet with his brother-in-law that he would not get married before he turned 30 years old. Bill married Norma McBride on November 10, 1956--1 day before his 30th birthday. They had two children, William and June. Through his management of Bullock Iron Works, Bill developed a very strong set of business principles and ethics, which he was able to pass along to his children, even though neither went into the family business.

His friends often joked with Bill that Delaware is not flat and that if he left he would not fall off a cliff into a chasm. He retorted that he never left the State because he had no need or reason to do so. Bill loved Delaware and found there everything he needed to raise a family, to grow the family business, and to enjoy his hobbies and passions: fresh and salt water fishing, cultivating beautiful phalaenopsis and cattleya orchids, and enjoying the comradery of his fellow veterans at the Delaware Veterans Club, Post #1.

Bill was preceded in death by his wife of 33 years Norma, his sister Amy, and brother-in-law James Broad. He is survived by his daughter Blake McBride, son William H. Bullock II, and daughter-in-law Marci Hanlon, three grandchildren, his sister and brother-in-law, and several nieces and nephews.

Bill was a true Delawarean and one of the best and brightest of the Greatest Generation. He helped to win the Second World War, raised a strong and loving family, grew and bolstered his business, and was a true friend to his neighbors, war buddies, and the wider Wilmington community. He will be missed.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today at the start of this new year and this new Congress to speak about how we can and why we must work together to improve the Affordable Care Act.

Since work on health care reform really began in earnest in 2009, debate in this Chamber and across this country has too often been defined by fantastic claims and fearmongering. In the midst of this division, I believe that too often the experiences of real people have been lost. While politicians on both sides cling to their sacred cows, too many Americans become casualties of our divided politics.

On few issues has this been more true than on health care. Critics of the Affordable Care Act seem locked into the belief that it will bring about America's demise--despite little evidence to support them. Too often they have been unable or unwilling to grapple with the reality of those whose lives the law has forever changed for the better.

Now, on the other side of the aisle, we--mostly Democrats--have often shied away from acknowledging some of the law's weaknesses. I know many of my colleagues have been eager and have offered fixes to the law. But without willing Republican partners, we have not made enough progress.

As I have spent time in my home State of Delaware in recent months listening to families and other folks who have been affected by the law--for better or for worse--it has become clear to me that this stalemate is unsustainable. On many days, I have met Delawareans who love the Affordable Care Act, whose lives have literally been saved by it. But in between those encounters, I have also met many, small business owners in particular, who want to offer health insurance to their workers and are struggling to afford it.

This much has become clear to me: No conversation about the Affordable Care Act and how to improve it can be complete without reconciling the reality of the millions of Americans it has helped and the many others for whom it falls short.

Michelle Reed is the Delawarean whom I have come to know and admire with breast cancer and who contacted me first about this issue last fall. She is an example of why the Affordable Care Act is so important. Michelle was first diagnosed with cancer back in 2008 and went through month after painful month of chemo and radiation therapy as well as surgery.

Over the next few years since her cancer nightmare began she faced problems that were sadly typical of how our health insurance system used to work. At the time she was first diagnosed, she and her husband received health insurance through her husband's employer. Her husband is an auto mechanic and worked for a small auto body shop. But though the insurance he got through his work was helpful for routine minor health care needs, it was a barebones insurance policy, as she explained it to me.

It left her and her husband with extremely high copays, straining their family budget. Naturally her husband began looking for a new job to provide better health insurance. But this ended up being much more difficult than it seemed, because transitioning to a new job often required accepting a large 3-month gap in coverage, a gap Michelle just could not afford, as insurance companies would then deny her care considering her cancer a preexisting condition.

At one point during Michelle's years of treatment, her husband's employer switched health care plans and in the process missed one premium payment. Suddenly, after months of having had steady, positive progress in her care, without any warning or notification, Michelle started getting bills--not just small bills but huge bills, a bill for $23,000 for radiation.

It took her months of going back and forth between employer and insurance company, all the while as she is also trying to overcome her disease, before Michelle and her husband got a straight answer about why they were suddenly facing these huge costs.

Now, let's step back for a second. Just imagine where she was. Michelle has cancer. She is shuttling from chemo to radiation. Her husband is working constantly to try to cover the high premiums, trying to get all of the overtime he can. During this, they are also going back and forth between employer and insurance company, trying to figure out where this new high charge they cannot afford had come from.

Meanwhile, Michelle's husband was out looking for a new job with better insurance, struggling to find one because Michelle would face discrimination and could not get coverage. The emotional strain on a family and a loved one battling cancer is enormous, almost unimaginable. But if you add to that the financial and the emotional stress caused by our relic of a health care insurance system of that time, that is unimaginable.

Yet this is the reality that Michelle and her family faced. Unfortunately, it is the reality that millions of Americans used to face before the Affordable Care Act. These problems all changed last year when the ACA exchanges came on line. As Michelle wrote to me: The ACA open enrollment began and we could not get signed up quick enough, although it did take her a little while because the administration's Web site had some problems. She persevered. As she said to me in her note: We have no problems now. We have what we need, and we need what we have.

People like Michelle are why Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act in the first place. It is because of the law that millions of Americans now have access to quality and affordable health insurance that was once desperately out of reach for them.

But the story is not complete, unless we are clear-eyed about where this law also falls short. As the President and many have recognized, any significant reform such as the Affordable Care Act is going to have weaknesses and unintended consequences that only become apparent after the law is being implemented. This has been true throughout our history with every major event, and health care reform is no different.

In Delaware, among the many whom the law has helped, I have also seen how some of those reforms in the costs they have incurred have hurt small business. To the small business owners with whom I have sat down and listened to, their employees are not labor costs or rows on a balance sheet. They are family. They have worked together for years and owners provide health insurance because they believe it is the right thing to do for the workers who help their business grow.

Many of the folks I have sat down and visited with are not required to provide insurance because they have fewer than 50 full-time workers. They still want to do so because it is the right thing to do. It helps them incentivize and support their best employees. Many, though, are struggling today because of higher costs and the challenges that come with navigating a changed insurance market.

This year the biggest issue they face is how higher quality standards have also caused premiums to increase--often to unaffordable levels. This has been especially true for a small State such as like Delaware, where there is not a lot of competition in the provision of health care or in our insurance market. Unfortunately, some of the increases are also due to insurance companies using the health care law as an excuse to charge more.

Some of this is simply the result of plans that now cover more are costing more. For the most part, that is not a bad thing. But the Affordable Care Act was designed to compensate for increased quality with financial assistance to those who cannot afford it. In Michelle Reed's case, this increased quality was great--almost literally life saving. For people such as her, those insurance plans now need to meet certain standards, and in particular, that they can no longer discriminate against preexisting conditions.

But we have also seen that even though there is assistance to many, some individuals and some small businesses have fallen into gaps where they have to deal with higher costs and they are not getting the help they deserve.

Here is where we are. The Affordable Care Act has helped millions of Americans. It also can be improved to help many more. When we talk about health care, it is simply dishonest to leave one side out when talking about others.

In this new Congress, I know many of my Republican colleagues are eager to continue the efforts of their colleagues in the House. In their majority, I know many will seek an opportunity to vote on repealing or dismantling the Affordable Care Act. But I ask them for an answer to Michelle Reed and to the many Americans such as her who have had their lives changed or even saved by this law.

I know many of my Democratic colleagues are as well eager to work together to improve our health care system, to ensure small businesses do the right thing and can be successful and to ensure that no American gets left behind. We know this is possible. There is no reason to believe that we as a body lack the creativity, the drive, and the ability to work together across the aisle on these important issues.

Surely there is much we can do to reduce the costs through more competition, to develop new and more efficient delivery systems and innovative payment models. The Affordable Care Act took critical steps to move forward in each of these areas. Millions more have health insurance and costs across our health care system have actually increased at the slowest rate in decades. For most, costs have been manageable or even decreasing. But critical work remains. We now have the opportunity, to take the next step to build a health care system that works for every American. It is my sincere hope that we can come together and seize that opportunity.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to offer my heartbroken condolences to the people of Pakistan and to the friends and family, the parents and loved ones, of those murdered yesterday at the Army Public School in Peshawar.

As the Pakistan military continues its assault on the Pakistani Taliban in North Waziristan, the terrorist group responded yesterday with an act of murder and barbarity that simply has no parallel, as nine gunmen murdered more than 140 students and teachers who together were simply gathered to ensure a brighter future for their country.

This is a crime that simply passes comprehension. As the father of three, I can only imagine in my worst nightmares the reality that those parents are now living.

Unfortunately, as a nation, Americans have in our not so distant past also felt the grief that now envelops Pakistan.

Two years ago this past weekend, a gunman stormed the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT and murdered 26 of our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters. Two years later we remain in mourning, for the lives taken from us and for the futures that were so quickly extinguished.

My prayers are with all Pakistanis who mourn today and with the loved ones of the victims of Newtown who remain in mourning. May we pray for the safety of those who are most precious and sacred to us, and may we remain undeterred in the face of such evil.

Mr. President, I rise to speak tonight in support of the omnibus appropriations package that Senator Mikulski, the Chair of our Appropriations Committee, has spoken at great length about, and that Senator Cochran has also dedicated so much of his time and effort and energy to, and that so many Members of this Chamber have contributed to. There are questions on the minds of my constituents from the home State of Delaware and questions on the minds of colleagues of mine who have spoken earlier this evening about this very large package--this $1.014 trillion spending bill--appropriations package.

There have been questions raised about some specific provisions--an issue here about pensions, an issue there about Dodd-Frank and swaps, an issue about an environmental concern. There are a few issues that have Members--particularly of my caucus--who are very concerned. I have messages coming in to me in my office from social media and email saying: Why on Earth would you support this? My Senator, Chris Coons from Delaware, why would you support this?

We are going into the holiday season and I want us to take a few minutes and look at what is actually in this package, to unwrap it a little bit and to better understand why on Earth I would stand on this floor and speak in favor of this package.

You have heard of the hard work of our Appropriations Committee Chair. What you don't know is the tireless and determined and dedicated work of all of the Appropriations Committee members and staff who, across 12 different subcommittees, held more than 60 different hearings to hammer out provision after provision, department after department, and it is difficult sometimes to know what that means. Let me put this in some context.

First, in terms of bad avoided and good invested. In terms of bad avoided, the version of this that came over from the House--11 full appropriations bills out of 12 that had within it all sorts of provisions. We call them riders because they are provisions that ride on top of the underlying appropriations bill.

You have heard about some of these riders that have been defeated and beaten back. It is not one or two or three. They cover all the same areas where concerns have been raised by colleagues in my caucus--the environment, protections for organized labor and labor concerns, protections for the safety of our communities related to firearms, protections for the safety and soundness and transparency of our financial system through preserving the Dodd-Frank act, preserving a woman's right to choose and protecting the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

Dozens and dozens of riders came over in the bill from the House, which our committee Chair and her dedicated staff worked tirelessly to remove from this bill, and you have heard about some of them in the speech just concluded by Chair Mikulski.

There was everything from fish and wildlife rules to fiduciary rulemaking, from issues around union elections to concerns about the strength and ability of the ATF to keep our community safe, strengthening and supporting the CFPB and SEC and their ability to enforce Dodd-Frank or ensuring a woman's right to choose. The actions of our committee Chair ensure that these dozens and dozens of bad--from our perspective--riders were removed from the bill.

Now we stand here on the verge of the end of the authority of the government to continue to function, and we have a package in front of us, and we have two choices. The choices are simple and clear. If we do not pass this omnibus, we will continue government by crisis, government by continuing resolution, government by chip shot down the lane, and we will fund the government for a temporary 3-month extension, and then this entire package will be put back together, not by a Democratic Senate and a Republican House, but by Republicans on both sides of this Capitol. We won't have one or two or three riders from the perspective of my caucus to be concerned about, we will have dozens and dozens. All of this that has been removed and taken out of the package by the hard work of our committee Chair and her staff will be right back in the mix.

If we turn away from enacting this package, we will do two things: We will fail to give the certainty and clarity and predictability to our government agencies and entities that they will have authorization and funding through next September, and we will face a package toxic--far more difficult for us to accept. It will have dozens and dozens of problems riddled throughout it, and frankly, everyone in my caucus, I expect, will vote against it and perhaps the President will even veto it. We cannot let the perfect or the ideal be the enemy of the good.

I will take a few minutes and talk about what there is in this package that is good because you only heard speeches tonight that have highlighted concerns and focused in on the three or four provisions that cause great alarm or concern to all of us who are on my side of the aisle. I don't think there has been quite as much exposition as there should be about what there is in this package that I hope to unwrap for you that is actually good.

Why would I be standing here, as the Senator from Delaware, defending this hard-crafted, hard-wrought, hard-won package if it were not full of things that are important for the working families of Delaware, for our community and our country, and that didn't advance our core values?

Well, I will take a few minutes and touch on a couple of things that I think bear your consideration.

Infrastructure. The bridges, the roads, the rails, the ports that from the very founding of our Nation have been the work of the Federal Government and that are woefully behind to the point where we are not competitive globally and where we could put people to work right away by infusing more responsible investment and upgrading our infrastructure.

As far as rebuilding American infrastructure, this package includes $54 billion for transportation and housing programs that communities and States such as Delaware care deeply about. It is $1.8 billion more than what passed in the House package.

This covers things from the TIGER grants program that encourages and incentivizes and leverages cutting-edge investments in infrastructure to funding for Amtrak. For the east coast of the United States, Amtrak is such a vital means of transportation. It also includes funds for harbor maintenance and dredging, which are so vital to our maritime industries. This is just one of dozens of areas we could talk about this evening.

It will put Americans back to work, it will make our country more competitive, and it will give us more resources in these areas than we would ever get from renegotiating this package from the ground up.

Second, there was an unfortunate story about my hometown of Wilmington in the past week that drew real alarms about the murder rate and violent crime rate. This is a pressing issue in my hometown of Wilmington. There is real concern because we have a record murder rate and a record gun violence rate in my town.

This omnibus package includes financial resources that will help communities large and small all over this country keep themselves safe with these sorts of targeted and wise Federal investments in State and local law enforcement that we have come to rely on and that we need. There is something called the Byrne Justice Assistance grant. When I was a county executive, my county police department relied on that critical program. There is $2.3 billion, which is $55 million more than last year, for the Byrne Justice Assistance grants and will affect States and localities all over the country.

Something that I fought hard for on this floor and I care about--the bulletproof vest program that has saved the lives of law enforcement officers in the small towns of Delaware and in our biggest cities. That grant made it possible to fund for state-of-the-art vests that are correct and appropriate and current and save officers' lives.

There is a regional information system called RISK that provides current intelligence and data so that law enforcement can be more effective regionally.

There is the implementation of Violence Against Women Act programs-- all of these are at least sustained or increased over previous years and make the sort of investments that are vital for our communities and their safety.

There is $1.1 billion in this omnibus package to help the ATF, FBI, and DOJ fight gun violence, and that matters to my hometown. That matters to the families who wonder whether what we are doing here is relevant to them. To turn back from this omnibus and turn away from those investments in keeping our community safe, I think is unwise.

There is more money for criminal enforcement by the ATF to fund straw gun purchases and their investigation and their prosecution, to fund keeping guns away from traffickers and criminals, to improve interstate background checks, to train law enforcement for the responsible carrying out of their public responsibility, to intervene and stop active shooter situations in schools or in public facilities, and, last, the sort of resources we need for the victims of crime.

There is $2.3 billion in this omnibus for helping the victims of violent crime and their families to get access to badly needed services. I could go on, but in the area of law enforcement and criminal justice, there are investments that matter to me and that matter to my hometown as we work together to fight violent crime.

Let me lastly take on two other areas. No. 1, I am on the Foreign Relations Committee. I am concerned that if we turn away from this package, the vital investment in our central ally, Israel, and in the Iron Dome program, which has been shown to keep Israel safe, will not be made; and the multibillion dollar investment in fighting the scourge of Ebola in West Africa, at this moment when the tide is turning and we have a chance to heal three nations and contain this plague, which otherwise may get out, get loose, and become a global pandemic, will not be made. We need to make these investments. To not do so now is to put our children's future at risk. Imagine if we could go back in time to where HIV/AIDS was just beginning to spread around the globe and for a modest investment, with an international effort, we could have contained it to just two or three countries, instead of the hundreds-- the thousands of communities across dozens of countries that have suffered through HIV/AIDS now for nearly 25 years. If we fail to invest in turning the tide in the fight against Ebola now, we put at risk the future public safety of not just a continent, but the world.

We also have to be mindful of what this omnibus makes possible for our health and our safety and our future. Entities most Americans don't think about or haven't heard of that perform basic science research or advanced research, from the National Science Foundation to the National Institutes of Health--institutions that are doing cutting-edge, world- class science and developing the cures and the treatments for everything from Alzheimer's to cancer--we continue to sustain and support investment with billions of dollars in these areas in this bill. Again, to walk away from this package means to wrap back up and put away the potential for enormous progress.

There is $172 million more for basic science research programs in this bill over last year. It raises up to $7.3 billion the level of NSF funding. That may sound abstract and disconnected from our lives at home, but in my State of Delaware, that funds education, training, and research at the University of Delaware, Delaware State University, and in public schools

across our State. At a time when we need science education and when we need the outcomes, the fruits of our labors and research more than ever, I think that is vital funding.

Last, there is an area that I have spoken about on this floor many times in this Congress and that I am passionate about because it is how I came up. I spent years in the manufacturing sector. As a young man working in the private sector for a family manufacturing business, I saw its power to create good, high-wage, high-skill jobs. Manufacturing is an area where most of the research and development in this country that is privately funded is done, and manufacturing is an area that many mistakenly think we have lost our edge in and can never regain. But the truth is quite different. Over the last 3 years, we have grown more than 750,000 new manufacturing jobs in this economy, and those are great jobs--jobs people can raise their families on, jobs that provide a renewed growth back to the middle class. If we fail to invest in the things that will make manufacturing grow in this country, we miss a vital opportunity.

There is an entity called the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. In the scope of all of this, it is a tiny little program. But for the dozens of small and medium manufacturers in Delaware that I have visited and that the Delaware Manufacturing Extension Partnership has helped, it makes an amazing difference. It helps them understand how to compete internationally. It helps them with upgrading the skills of their workforce. It helps them with deciding what capital equipment to buy.

I have stood on manufacturing floors from Bridgeville to Lewes, from Dover to Claymont, and heard stories of companies transformed by this powerful investment of Federal services--a public-private partnership that really, genuinely makes a difference.

Lastly, in this provision of the bill, there isn't just renewed funding for the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, or NIST--a provision that includes the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Program--there is also renewed opportunity for the funding and sustainment of manufacturing hubs, a strategy that our competitor, Germany, has used very well and very wisely to have doubled their GDP in manufacturing--a strategy that this administration has led on and that we hope to emulate, and where I think the investments made in this bill are wise and lay the foundation for middle-class job growth and prosperity.

There are a dozen other areas I could speak to this evening, where throughout this bill the investments made have been cut in some areas that needed to be reduced and increased in others that are wise for our States and our communities.

Some from my home State, watching the speeches on this floor earlier this evening, have contacted me and said, Why on Earth would you vote for a bill with this or this or this provision that concerns me? It is a fair question. I hope in these few minutes I have helped my people hear that our choice is not between a perfect bill from the perspective of Democrats in the Senate or the country and a terrible bill, but a choice between a great bill and no bill at all--a choice between returning to regular order and ending what has been a nearly 4-year pattern of government by crisis, by short-term extension, by chip shot, and by near default, and instead respect and honor the very hard work of the dozen subcommittees of this great Appropriations Committee, and move forward a package that strengthens our country, that honors our veterans, that invests in our future, that lifts manufacturing, that makes us safer and healthier, and that does the job of bringing America into the future.

That is why I will be voting for this package, and that is why I hope all of my colleagues will consider doing the same.

Thank you, Mr. President.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, As Senator Carper noted, the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act should not reduce the Affordable Care Act's health insurance coverage protections based on U.S. workers' immigration status, including those employed with nonimmigrant work visas. We intend that the definition of ``qualified expatriate'' be closely adhered to in the implementation of this legislation by the administration, the health insurance companies that seek to offer expatriate health plans, and the employers who utilize these plans on behalf of their workers who are transferred or assigned both within or outside the United States.

It is my expectation that expatriate health plan enrollment should remain relatively constant, accounting for the normal ebbs and flows of the demand of and supply for expatriate workers. The provisions of this bill apply to the two Federal laws that it seeks to modify--the Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act. It is not Congress's intent to affect other Federal law. As Senator Carper stated, the legislation would not change existing immigration law or regulations--including those that

govern benefit equivalency between nonimmigrant visa holders and their U.S. counterparts. It is also not Congress's intent to impact or diminish in any way an employee's rights under title VII of the Civil Rights Act or any other antidiscrimination protections or to preempt any relevant State law governing employees' rights.

The Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act is a bipartisan, technical clarification of health insurance law, intended to place U.S. expatriate health insurers on equal footing with their foreign counterparts. We look forward to the passage of this bill and are grateful for the bipartisan coalition that has worked so constructively to find a path forward on this issue.

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

Mr. President, as we come to the close of the 113th Congress, I wish to speak for a few minutes about why I think we should be optimistic about the future and what we can and must do to take advantage of the opportunities that lie ahead.

Despite economic slowdowns throughout much of the world among developing and developed Nations alike, America's economy continues to steadily grow. Just last Friday we got great news that our economy created more than 300,000 jobs in the month of November. That marks 57 straight months, or nearly 5 years, of positive job growth numbers. For the first time since Bill Clinton was President of this Nation, we have averaged more than 200,000 new jobs per month for 10 straight months.

Particularly in the economy is an area of growth and opportunity that I have focused on in my time before coming into public service and in my 4 years here. That is American manufacturing, an industry about which I have spoken at length here on the Senate floor and have worked with my colleagues to craft and assemble a group of bipartisan bills that can help move American manufacturing forward.

The news this last month was good, as it has been for months, for years now, about American manufacturing, which continues to grow as well. There were 28,000 new American manufacturing jobs last month, which continued this steady climb. It has now created more than 750,000 new jobs over the last 4 years. Manufacturing jobs are great jobs. They typically are higher wage and higher skill and have higher benefits than jobs in any other sector. They are good, middle-class jobs

you can raise a family on. They deal with one of the biggest ongoing remnants of the great recession, which is the lack of real wage growth in our economy. So I am excited to see that manufacturing jobs continue to grow in our economy and to talk about the things we can and should do to help sustain this growth in manufacturing.

We have reason to be optimistic, but we cannot be complacent. As much as we built momentum over the last year since the recession, and especially this year, there is, of course, no natural law, no economic fundamental principle that says it will not turn back around. We need to sustain our positive direction, particularly in this sector, particularly as we move toward the 114th Congress.

I am proud that Congress last year passed a 2-year budget to create some stability and some certainty for our country and economy. We have gotten out of the way and allowed our businesses and workers to do what they do best, to move our economy forward. In the next few days we will have chances to do the same when we vote on a number of bills, one that, most importantly, will keep our government running, not for a few days or weeks or months, but the overwhelming majority of this government will be authorized and funded through next September.

The funding bills that are included in this omnibus continue investments in innovation and continue to move our country forward. There is a whole rash of bills that I have been interested in and engaged in as a member of the Appropriations Committee that are valuable programs, that will strengthen manufacturing--for example, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which has done amazing work on the ground in Delaware, helping small and medium manufacturers to be competitive, to train their workforce in current skills, to grow into the spaces of the world economy where we have real opportunity. This bill will help sustain the funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership nationally.

There are several other programs related to innovation in the Department of Energy. For example, sustained funding for the ARPA-E, for an innovative model that helps fund cutting-edge, category- redefining research and investment in energy and in clean energy manufacturing and in technology deployment.

There are also opportunities for us to continue to put Americans to work through investments in infrastructure. As someone who lives on Amtrak 16 hours a week, I am thrilled with the outcomes for both the Amtrak budget and for the TIGER grant programs, a tool used by the Department of Transportation to help incentivize innovative transportation projects that break through bottlenecks and help put Americans back to work.

There are so many different ways that the work of this bipartisan committee, the Appropriations Committee, helped move our economy forward that at times are not focused on here on the floor or in the general press coverage. It is such a large and comprehensive bill, the omnibus. But I wanted to take a moment and highlight a few ways in which the omnibus invests in innovation, in competitiveness, and in moving our economy forward. I am also grateful, in some ways most importantly, that it includes emergency funding to respond to Ebola, both at home and abroad, which will be critical to helping stamp out this deadly virus at its origin in West Africa and in protecting Americans here at home and others around the world.

The appropriations bills that were shepherded through the dozen subcommittees give us reason to be optimistic about the future because the Chair, Senator Mikulski, and the Vice Chair, Senator Shelby, have done a laudable job of listening to each other, of working together, and of crafting a bipartisan bill here in the Senate, which I hope the Members of this body will study, consider, and move forward and adopt.

As we move to complete the business of funding the government, we would be remiss if we did not also take stock of the opportunities in front of us we have not yet grasped. There is unfinished work to be done. This week we will also almost certainly pass a 1-year tax extenders bill, which will carry forward certain temporary tax credits and deductions, but for just the 1 year.

Although the extension for many businesses and many sectors is better than nothing, it signifies a missed opportunity on our part. Much of what has made me optimistic over the last year is how much our economy has begun to thrive in a stable fiscal environment, in a more predictable regulatory environment. Yet, this 1-year extension does not do much to give businesses the certainty they need to predict and plan for the future.

I have worked hard with Democrats and Republicans alike to expand and make permanent the research and development tax credit, which is particularly relevant to manufacturing, because manufacturing is the most R&D-intensive sector in the American economy. Manufacturers invest more in R&D than any other part of the American landscape. This 1-year extension misses an opportunity to either make the R&D tax credit permanent, or to make it more accessible.

I was excited to have the opportunity early on here to team up with two Republican Senators, Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Pat Roberts of Kansas, to find ways to make the R&D tax credit more accessible to early-stage and startup companies, companies with high growth potential, but because of the way the R&D tax credit has been structured and used for decades, do not have the opportunity to access it.

The Startup Innovation Credit Act, which I introduced with Senator Enzi, would have further expanded the access to the R&D credit for startups. The bipartisan Innovators Job Creation Act, which I introduced with Senator Roberts, would have expanded the credit to innovative small businesses as well. Both of those bills passed on a bipartisan basis out of the Finance Committee and were part of a package being advanced here in the Senate but will not be part of the ultimate 1-year extenders considered later this week.

I wanted to highlight that as we look forward there are opportunities still in front of us for us to tackle the challenges and to seize the opportunities, to take things that are important to manufacturing and to move them forward. There are lots of other bills in the mix that will be adopted this week, either by unanimous consent or as part of larger packages, and a number of them relate to manufacturing. I am optimistic that we will adopt a national manufacturing strategy bill that I have worked hard on with Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois. I am optimistic that a bipartisan manufacturing hubs bill that Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri have worked hard together to craft and to hone and to get to a place where it is ready to be passed--that they both will make it across the finish line to the President's desk.

But just this past week, I stood on this floor with Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and we spoke about a bill that is not yet ready for adoption, but we will take up next year, the Manufacturing Skills Act, which helps to focus and prioritize the investments in manufacturing skills training at the State and municipal level all over the country in partnership with the Federal Government.

What I wanted to do today was to simply highlight a few perhaps underappreciated, underrecognized areas of legislative action on a bipartisan basis in this Chamber that helped put some lift under the steady forward progress of the manufacturing sector in our country and to express my hope that we can find ways to continue to work together on a bipartisan basis to keep our economic momentum going in the year and the Congress ahead.

Tribute to Departing Senators

As I close, I would also like to thank those of our colleagues who will be leaving the Senate after the New Year.

It is an incredible privilege to work in this Chamber and to represent the people. Every day I am awed by the dedication and talent of many of my colleagues, public servants who come to work to fight for their States and their government.

To those who are ending their service in the Senate, know that I value your friendship and partnership. It has been an honor to work with you, and I thank you for all you have done for our Nation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleague, the Senator from New Hampshire.

Madam President, I come to the floor this morning with my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Kelly Ayotte, to talk about what we can do together to invest in America's 21st-century manufacturing workforce. As the Presiding Officer well knows, manufacturing is one of the great areas of opportunity for meaningful bipartisan cooperation that will move our country, our economy, and our working families forward.

Although so many issues here these days seem to fall on partisan lines, Senator Ayotte and I are here today because we have come together on a bipartisan bill called the Manufacturing Skills Act. The bill has one simple goal, which we share: to spur reforms in manufacturing skills training across our country. That is it. Our bill would create a competitive grant program to help local and State governments design and implement manufacturing job-training reforms that fit their own unique local economic needs. Once proposals come in, a Federal interagency partnership would award the five strongest State proposals and the five strongest local government proposals with funding for 3 years to implement their targeted reforms to improve their manufacturing skills training. The funding doesn't all come from the Federal Government, either. Something Senator Ayotte and I share enthusiasm for is getting leverage for Federal investment. The local and State government must match Federal support one-to-one.

We are focusing on manufacturing specifically because it plays such a vital role in building communities and strengthening our middle class. Last year, in fact, manufacturing contributed more than $2 trillion to our Nation's economy. In many ways manufacturing has long been the foundation of our economy. As we know, manufacturing jobs are high- quality jobs. They pay more in wages and benefits. Manufacturing is highly innovative. It is the area that invests the most in R&D of any private sector component. Over the last 3 years manufacturing has started coming back steadily and rapidly, with more than 700,000 new manufacturing jobs created in our country.

This is all good news, and I am convinced the United States is poised to really compete in the manufacturing economy of this century. But we still face key challenges in the job market for manufacturing. There are manufacturers whom I have visited with up and down my State and whom we have

heard from across the country who are ready to hire but cannot fill open positions. The problem is only expected to get worse. By 2020, by some estimates, there may be more than 875,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs. Yet there remains no focused, targeted Federal workforce development program specifically designed to strengthen manufacturing skills. I think part of the reason is we often have an outdated view of manufacturing. It conjures up outdated images of dirty factories and unsafe working conditions and lower skilled labor. That is not the manufacturing workplace of today at all.

I would be curious to hear the thoughts of my colleague from New Hampshire on how manufacturing has changed and how we can work together to strengthen the skills of manufacturing workers in Delaware, New Hampshire, and across our country.

Madam President, I would like to thank my colleague from New Hampshire. We are both from small States that are not nationally thought of as being leaders in manufacturing, but both New Hampshire and Delaware have deep, rich, broad manufacturing histories. Manufacturing is commonly thought of by America as being associated with Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan or Indiana, but there are dozens of companies I have visited in Delaware that are small or medium-sized, with 50 or 100 or 150 employees. Many companies are family owned, many working in particular niches of processing or manufacturing. They are profitable, growing, and looking to hire. Having visited New Hampshire as well, it also has a proud and strong history of manufacturing. Given the regional experience and the base of knowledge and expertise of Members of this body, it is my hope that we can come together with other bipartisan cosponsors to strengthen and build this bill going forward.

Before I got into public service, I spent 8 years working for a manufacturing company in Delaware, a materials-based science company that manufactures over 1,000 different products, all off the same chemical platform. One of the things I did in my work area was I visited the dozens of manufacturing facilities that either the company for which I worked directly operated or many of our partner companies that were licensees or distributors or part of our supply chain.

The plant of today, the shop floor of today bears very little resemblance to that of previous generations. They are the location of rich innovation, an amazing amount of collaboration and teamwork where world-class, cutting-edge quality control and continuous innovation are expected, needed from our workforce, and thus investment in wages and in skills is also a critical part of our continuing to be globally competitive, as Senator Ayotte has explained.

As the skills needed for workers vary depending on the product and market segment in the region, we also need training programs that are flexible and meet the exact needs of the region. I will give two examples. I have visited SPI Pharma in Lewes, DE, which manufactures the key component of Maalox and many other antacids, and BASF in Newport, which manufactures pigments. I hear similar challenges even though they are in different areas of manufacturing. Their specific needs are for process operators who are skilled at working at a factory where large amounts of complex suspensions--liquids--are being mixed, moved around, and fashioned into finished products. They need workers who understand programmable logic control systems and can ensure that continuous improvement in quality control is in place. They know that in order to continue to grow, to export and be globally competitive, they need to stay at the top of their game, which means investing in workers and their skills. They are struggling to find young people to replace those who are aging out of their workforces.

Our community college, Delaware Technical Community College, a national leader, is helping and is actively engaged. But as the equipment and processes of today's manufacturing plants become more advanced and computerized, they will need help in keeping up with changing technologies so the skills they train for today are the actual skills that companies, such as SPI Pharma and BASF in Delaware, need in this century.

The Manufacturing Skills Act could be a real help in Delaware to many of the manufacturers I visited, and it will allow local and State officials partnering with our schools, our Chamber leadership, and our manufacturers to build a system that fits our real needs at the local level.

I think it is exciting--whether someone is from New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Delaware or Indiana--to know we are willing to come together in a strong and bipartisan way to lay a pathway forward for America's manufacturing workforce. It gives me some reason for optimism as we begin to conclude this session of Congress and as we look forward.

I wish to close by specifically thanking Senator Ayotte for being such a positive, forward-looking partner, not only on this bill but on many other issues we have worked on together in the years we have served so far in this body.

I would love to hear more from my colleague from New Hampshire about the manufacturing challenges New Hampshire faces and how this bill might address them and what our path forward is for this piece of legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 4, 2014, at 10:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 4, 2014, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 4, 2014, at 10:15 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The FANS Act: Are Sports Blackouts and Antitrust Exemptions Harming Fans, Consumers, and the Games Themselves?'' The witness list is not yet available.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the

Senate on December 4, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 4, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.