Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the rallies that have occurred all over this country today, and to add my voice to theirs. Today, Americans in all 50 States are gathering at hundreds of rallies and events to stand together in unity in defense of the collective bargaining rights of public employees--rights I believe are now under attack in Wisconsin, Ohio, and in other States across this country.

That those demonstrations have been held today is no mere coincidence, for on this very day, 43 years ago, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King was killed in Memphis, TN, while standing up for the rights of 1,300 public sanitation workers.

Working men and women gathered early today in Wilmington to declare ``We Are One,'' and within the hour of this speech, thousands more will gather in Madison, WI, to protest what in my view is the scandalous move of Governor Walker to strip Wisconsin's longstanding collective bargaining rights from public-sector employees.

Before coming to this body, I served as the county executive of New Castle County, DE, for 6 years. And before becoming Governor of Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker was also the county executive of Milwaukee County for 8 years. I understand the difficult choices executives face when they must adopt a balanced budget, even in the toughest of economic and fiscal times, for as county executive I too faced extremely difficult budget challenges, as did the Presiding Officer as the Governor of West Virginia.

But I rise today because I know from my experience in cutting spending and in balancing budgets that it can be done without stripping American workers of their fundamental rights to organize and to collectively bargain. I know it because I have done it through collective bargaining and without resorting to blaming and draconian anti-union legislation.

New Castle County, DE, is a mid-sized county government serving just over \1/2\ million people and has a budget of about $230 million. As the county executive, I confronted a real and growing budget problem. Our housing boom

had masked deepening spending deficits that were unsustainable even before the economic collapse in 2008. As our national and local economies tumbled, our government's revenue did as well. I had already spent my first few years as county executive cutting spending each and every year in simple cuts, and we had only fundamental cuts in front of us.

We had reduced library hours, ended popular public events, and made many difficult choices that many local governments and many State governments face today. But that wasn't enough. As with many State and local governments, our budget was three-quarters personnel costs, and we could not allow those costs to continue to grow as health care and pension costs boomed. We needed to cut our people cost to get our budget under control.

Now, in the case of the county I formerly served, more than 80 percent of the county workforce is represented by organized labor, mostly AFSCME, but also the FOP and IBEW as well--and we needed all groups to come together and share the sacrifice that lay ahead.

It was just 2 years ago last week that I rose before our county council and delivered the hardest budget address I had ever given, one in which I laid out that we had two paths forward; one path would involve having all the suffering focused on about 150 to 200 public employees who would have to be laid off to balance our budget, and the other was sharing that sacrifice across our entire mostly unionized workforce.

Ultimately, after many meetings, many negotiations, some very hard talk and debate--and yes, even at one point some layoffs--every bargaining unit in our county government came to the table, worked collaboratively, and helped us reach the goal of cutting 5 percent of our total personnel costs not just 1 year but, as the recession continued and deepened, a second year as well. Many of these great and dedicated public employees saw health care costs shift and benefit packages change as well. But together they were willing to share that sacrifice, to work in the best interests of our county and the public, and to acknowledge that we are one.

In some ways, seeking a legislative solution such as has been done in Wisconsin, trying to simply strip away the right to be organized, to be at the bargaining table, might have seemed easier. Working together, as you know, as labor and management is not an easy path. No one wants to hear they have to do more with less, especially when it comes to their own paychecks. And public employees--in Delaware and all across this country--are, in my view, not just the backbone of our community but the backbone of our middle class. They are the policemen, the paramedics, the 911 call-takers, the emergency sewer repairmen, the librarians, the teachers, the health service workers, and the prison guards--the folks who keep our communities safe, healthy, and prepared for the future day in and day out.

In my view, where public employees come together to organize and seek collective representation on workplace issues, we ought to respect those choices. Collective bargaining serves as a critical check on our system and its long and storied history is an important part of American history and American values. It is that check that led to the end of child labor practices, that led to the 40-hour workweek and the weekend, to workplace safety rules, and ended legal sweatshops. It is a critical check against excesses and overreach by management and by the marketplace.

I stand here today to remind all of us that labor unions and the hundreds of thousands of public employees they represent in this country are not the enemy. We all know this country faces a significant, almost devastating national debt and annual budget deficit, and we are going to have to make shared sacrifices and tough choices to get through these next few years. But that does not require we strip the collective bargaining rights of the hundreds of thousands of public employees who serve us in the Federal Government, and the hundreds of thousands, even millions of public employees who serve our Nation at each and every level of government.

More often than not, these are the employees who do the difficult, the dirty and the dangerous jobs that keep us safe and make our communities strong. They simply, in my view, do not deserve to be demonized but, rather, to be listened to, respected, and partnered with, as together we seek solutions to the challenges facing our country now and in the future. In my view, passing new laws to eliminate their basic collective bargaining rights is wrong, and we can do it better by working together.

So today, I join with all those who are standing up for these fundamental rights of the American worker and join them in declaring ``We Are One.''

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

Yes, Mr. President.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor Irving and Phyllis Levitt and their lives of service to my home State of Delaware and their community in Dover.

For over 40 years, both Irving and Phyllis have been consummate activists, educators, community leaders, and patrons of the arts. Their contribution to Dover and to the First State can be measured in the thousands of lives they have enriched. Since arriving in Delaware in 1966, Irving and Phyllis have tirelessly demonstrated their concern for others and their commitment to the causes they hold dear.

For decades, Irving Levitt worked passionately in public service, filling a number of important roles at the Social Security Administration in Dover and Wilmington. Later, he served on the Dover Utility Commission and was elected a city councilman. For 15 years, Irving served as the Governor's appointee to the State's Accident Referral Board, and he was also a member of the State Board of Nursing.

Phyllis brought the joy of English language and literature to hundreds of students during her 25 years as a teacher at Dover High School. In addition to her teaching and her devotion to the Dover High students, Phyllis served on numerous State education commissions and led the Delaware chapter of the National Organization of Teachers of English. She also spent several years teaching English at Wesley College and an English teacher training course at the University of Delaware. Following her retirement in 1992, Phyllis chaired the State Humanities Council, served on the Governor's Committee on the Arts, and transformed the Dover Art League from a small volunteer group into a major nonprofit that enriches lives throughout Kent County. Moreover, Phyllis chaired the Delaware chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and, during her retirement, continued to advocate for causes of justice on the street corners of our State capital. Irv and Phyllis together regularly participated in marches, protests, and campaigns to improve conditions for the poor, for migrant workers, and for all who suffered injustice. They became fierce advocates for human rights.

As members of Congregation Beth Sholom, both served in leadership roles, with Phyllis presiding over the Sisterhood and Irving leading the Brotherhood and later presiding over the synagogue. Their involvement included roles with Hadassah, Israel Bonds, and the Jewish Community Relations Council in Dover. Jewish life continues to flourish in our State in part because of their devotion to the Delaware Jewish community and their involvement with interfaith and multicultural outreach programs.

Together, Irving and Phyllis Levitt exemplify that ancient commandment found in Deuteronomy: ``Justice, justice you shall pursue.'' I am proud to be their friend, and I join in congratulating them on the occasion of a dinner in their honor on April 3. May they continue to serve as a beacon of justice in our community and an example for young people throughout our State.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak in support of the incredibly important legislation that is on the Senate floor, the Small Business Innovation Research Program reauthorization, a bill, S. 493, which also reauthorizes the Small Business Technology Transfer Program.

I want to commend Senator Landrieu, the chair of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, and her ranking minority member, Senator Snowe of Maine, for their leadership in moving this to the Senate floor. Getting this considered is vital to making progress on this bipartisan bill.

This is the third in a series of bipartisan bills we have taken up. The first two--the FAA reauthorization, and the second, the patent reform bill--have passed, and it is my hope that all of us in this Chamber will seriously consider supporting S. 493.

The 30 million small businesses in America are incubators of creativity and job creation. They drive our innovation sector and make us more competitive globally. In addition to employing over half our private sector workforce, small businesses are the backbone of our American communities and can be a source of economic advancement for millions of Americans in every State.

The Small Business Innovation Research Program, or SBIR, sets aside a small part of the research and development budget from a number of Federal agencies to be used as grants for small businesses, and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program, or STTR, helps scientists and innovators at research institutions take their discoveries and commercialize them through small business startups.

Since their creation in 1982 and 1992, respectively, SBIR and STTR have invested more than $28 billion in helping American small businesses turn into big businesses through innovation and commercialization of cutting-edge products. The classic example, which a number of our colleagues, including Senator Landrieu, have highlighted in the conversation so far is Qualcomm of San Diego, which began as a small business of just 35 employees and has now, in fact, grown to a company of 17,000. It pays more in taxes every year than the whole budget of the SBA.

We can't lose sight that every large company in America at one point began as a small business. The SBIR and STTR Programs were created through bipartisanship and should maintain wide support. In fact, SBIR was signed into law by former President Ronald Reagan. They more than pay for themselves and the jobs and economic growth they create and the taxes paid by these companies as they grow.

For too long, the Senate has kicked the can down the road by passing temporary extensions month after month, year after year, for these two vital programs. This week, at long last, we have a chance to pass real long-term reauthorization.

It is a shame that we had to vote for cloture even to just begin debating this bill which has wide bipartisan support. Ideology should not trump practical solutions that can put more Americans back to work and get our economy

moving again. These two programs are proven vehicles for growth in all our States, including my home State of Delaware.

In Delaware, where we have a strong and growing high-tech sector, small businesses have been benefiting from these two programs. With your forbearance, Mr. President, I will, for a moment, just mention three.

One Delaware company that received a critical SBIR grant was Elcriton. Elcriton started with two employees who patented a process to take bacteria which turned algae into butanol for fuel. Imagine that. Think of the possibility of literally using pond scum to produce fuel for cars and trucks. Butanol is superior to ethanol in many respects because it is more compatible with the whole current petroleum infrastructure. This SBIR grant enabled this company to expand significantly, to grow their production, and to scale up not just the research and development but their early-stage manufacturing.

Another company--Compact Membrane Systems of Newport, DE--is putting a $1 million SBIR grant to work developing a hollow fiber filter that is used to filter hydraulic fluid from water. This extends the life of machinery, such as wind turbines, that use hydraulic fluid or filter oil. They started with three employees and now have 24. Five of those hires were directly made possible through the SBIR grant.

Last, in Newark, DE, ANP Technologies is using an SBIR grant to build biological detection systems for our American Department of Defense. The kit they are developing is rapid, lightweight, and lifesaving for our troops and our first responders. This is another example of a great application of cutting-edge technology by a small business that will have positive impacts for our first responders, our Armed Forces, and my home community of Newark, DE.

Since 1983, over 403 Delaware small businesses have received more than $100 million in SBIR grants. I know every one of my colleagues in the Senate has a similar positive story from his or her State. Each one of these businesses I just spoke about in Delaware could be the next Qualcomm. Any one of the small businesses in our States that receive grants through SBIR and support through STTR could generate a revolution in high tech that spurs the creation of thousands of jobs.

In my view, we cannot afford to let this critical job-creating program expire. According to one report, businesses backed by SBIR grants have been responsible for almost one-quarter of our Nation's most important innovations over the past decade, and they account for almost 40 percent of our Nation's patents. The applications range from the military to medicine, from education to emergency services.

Congress must have a smart approach to budget reform that balances budget cuts with strategic long-term investments that create growth and job creation for our communities--a great example of exactly what it is that the SBIR and STTR Programs do. I hope all our colleagues will join in supporting Senator Landrieu of Louisiana in supporting this vital bill and the great work she and the committee have done to advance it to this stage.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this floor deliberation regarding S. 23, the America Invents Act.

I rise to speak in opposition to the Feinstein amendment, which would strike the first-to-file provision, which I think is one of the critical components of this act that will harmonize the patent system with that of the rest of the world, as I heard Chairman Leahy speak to. This is the first comprehensive patent reform bill in 60 years. It is a key piece of our bipartisan work to make sure the United States remains a competitive country which can once again be in the forefront of world innovation.

As someone who, like you, Mr. President, is concerned about manufacturing, is concerned about employment, is concerned about jobs, one of the ways we can restrengthen, reinvigorate, reenergize manufacturing in this country is by making sure our Patent and Trademark Office is as capable, is as strong as it can possibly be. I take quite seriously that the Patent and Trademark Office under the very able leadership of Director Kappos is opposed to this amendment and has also raised concern, which I share, that this amendment would tear apart the very broad coalition that has worked so hard and has negotiated this particular act, the America Invents Act, over the last 6 years.

On an issue that is as important as this, as critical as this to the protection of American innovation and the resulting creation of jobs, I think it is important that we in the Senate not allow this bipartisan bill to fall apart over this issue.

Transition to first-to-file is an improvement over the current system because it provides increased predictability, certainty, and transparency. Patent priority will depend on the date of public disclosure and the effective filing date rather than on secret inventor notebooks, secret personal files which may or may not be admissible and often lead to long and contentious litigation, as the chairman mentioned in his floor comments as well.

This predictability, the predictability that the first-to-file system will bring, I believe will strengthen the hand of investors, inventors, and the public. All will know as soon as an application is filed whether it is likely to have priority over other patent applications.

In contrast, the current system with which we worked for many years does not provide an easy way to determine priority. That is why interference proceedings can be so contentious, so long, and so expensive. There are some small inventors in particular who I know are concerned that first-to-file will be used by larger companies to steal away their rightful invention. This bill contains critical protections for all inventors so the ultimate new system, once this is passed, will be more fair, more predictable, and transparent for all. For those inventors who publicly disclose an invention before anybody else, they have a 1-year grace period to claim priority for any patent application based on the subject matter they disclose. Smaller inventors as well as large inventors will be protected as soon as they publish or otherwise disclose under this America Invents Act.

In my view, that will increase the free flow of ideas while still protecting the IP rights of any inventor, large or small.

The Patent and Trademark Office commissioned a study of patent and trademark applications filed over the last 7 years. They found only 1 out of 300,000 filings would, under the new system, grant a patent to a large company that might otherwise have gone to a small company or individual inventor. By avoiding cost, the difficulty, the unpredictability of lengthy interference proceedings, transition to first-to-file will neutralize what I think is a big structural advantage to large companies in the current dispute system.

First of all, it also gives the holder of a new patent increased confidence in the strength and reliability of this patent, which I also think will accelerate venture capital investment, new company formation, and movement toward deployment of critical new technology.

I think experience has shown in other countries, in Europe and Canada, that transitioning from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system will not lead directly to an increase in so-called junk applications and will, instead, make patent examination simpler, fairer, and more predictable. In short, my view is that it is crucial to the success of this legislation. It is crucial for the coalition that has come together over many years to support it. It is crucial for the progress this act will make in strengthening and streamlining the patent review and granting process in the United States. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, amendment No. 133.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the America Invents Act. To put it simply, this bill, the America Invents Act, is about creating jobs. It is about protecting and promoting American ingenuity and giving American ideas the opportunity to become American products. The America Invents Act is about restoring American competitiveness and leadership in our global economy.

America has been at the forefront of global innovation throughout our Nation's great history. We invented the lightning rod, the cotton gin, the mechanical reaper and thresher. Thomas Edison, perhaps the most noted American inventer, invented the electric light, electric power transmission, the motion picture camera, the phonograph, and x-ray photography. The transistor, carbon fiber, GPS, Kevlar, recombinant DNA, the personal computer, and the Internet are all American inventions as well. Even more recently, American companies have invented the iPod and the iPhone and the Segway.

Inventors in Delaware and across America are right now working on critical advances in wind turbines, fuel cell technology, and electric cars. These technical innovations and so many others have improved our standard of living and spurred job growth, giving rise to entire industries that would not have been possible without the advancements of applied science.

I believe innovation will be key to reigniting the American manufacturing sector as well.

As low-skilled jobs have moved offshore, the only solution is to create highly skilled jobs here to replace them. These jobs will be founded on American ideas and advancements.

In today's high tech world, however, the cost of innovation can be high. In my home State of Delaware, DuPont invests about $1.3 billion annually in research and development. Nationwide, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, U.S. companies invest over $370 billion in R&D each year. In the pharmaceutical industry, which is also important to my home State, experts estimate that each new drug requires an initial investment of between $800 million and $2 billion.

Innovation is absolutely critical to the continued growth of our Nation.

Our Founding Fathers recognized that investment in innovation will not occur without a system of patent rights to allow inventors to reap the fruits of their labor, and they placed with the Congress the authority to provide for the issuance of patent rights.

Article 1, section 8, clause 8 states that Congress shall have the power:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by

securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the

exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

However complicated applied sciences were in 1836, when Congress established the forerunner to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, they are infinitely more complicated today. Never has PTO been more central to ensuring that the system of nationwide patents contemplated by our Founding Fathers is possible today. PTO must have clear, objective guidelines that enable an applicant to predict whether his or her application will be approved. That application process must move expeditiously. At the end of that process, when PTO issues a patent, the inventor and the industry must have confidence that the patent is of good quality and will provide good defense against future challenges.

In recent years, however, PTO has fallen short of these objectives. Today, a patent applicant must wait over 2 years before an examiner first picks up that application. Two years. At this moment, more than 700,000 applications simply sit at PTO awaiting consideration. Each one of those applications represents an idea that could create a job or 10 jobs or 100 or 1,000. If you file a patent application at PTO today, you can expect to wait just over 3\1/2\ years for an initial disposition. Should PTO make an error in their examination, it would take about 3 more years to appeal it.

In a world in which startup companies depend on patents to secure venture capital and other funding, these times are just too long. While PTO Director Kappos has achieved some success and has begun to right the ship at PTO, he simply cannot accomplish acceptable reform without our action.

The America Invents Act takes a number of steps to improve the efficiency with which this country handles

patents, all of them designed to make the U.S. more competitive in the global economy.

First, the America Invents Act will give PTO the tools it needs to address the unacceptably long backlog of patent applications. In February 2009, despite an increasing need for qualified patent examiners, PTO instituted a hiring freeze. PTO is a user-fee supported organization and so it should be able to pass through the costs of staffing needs to patent applicants. This bill would finally give the PTO the authority to set its own fees rather than having to wait for an act of Congress to do so.

Another source of the backlog is the issue of patent fee diversion. Currently, the fees paid by applicants for the purpose of funding the costs of patent examination can be diverted away from PTO to the Treasury without justification. Patent fee diversion cripples the ability of PTO to do its job and is essentially a tax on innovation. In the past 20 years, more than $800 million have been diverted from PTO and though in recent years almost no money has been diverted thanks to the determined leadership of my colleague, Senator Mikulski, PTO funding should never depend on shifting political fortunes. Even in times of political favor, the mere possibility of fee diversion is harmful because it robs PTO of the ability to plan with confidence that a varying workload will be matched by funding.

This bill does not currently address the issue of patent fee diversion, but that is something that I and others are working to change. Ending fee diversion is perhaps the single most effective thing that we can do to empower PTO to reduce the patent backlog over the long term. That is why I look forward to supporting Dr. Coburn's amendment, which would ensure that PTO has access to the fees that it charges, subject to continuing congressional oversight, of course.

The second thing the America Invents Act does to make the United States more competitive is to improve the predictability and accuracy of the patent examination process. By transitioning to a ``first to file'' system, this bill brings the U.S. into line with the rest of the world. Under ``first to file,'' PTO's task of determining the priority of a patent application will be more straightforward because patent priority will depend on objective, public facts, rather than on secret files. To smaller inventors who are concerned that ``first to file'' will allow large companies to beat them out in a race to the patent office, this bill contains important protections for all inventors. Even under ``first to file,'' an inventor's patent priority is protected for a year if he or she is the first to publicly disclose an invention.

Not only does the America Invents Act make the patent process fairer to inventors, but it will actually improve the quality of patents issued by the PTO by leveraging the knowledge of outside parties. This bill permits third parties to provide submissions regarding prior art before a patent is issued, enhancing the ability of examiners to determine whether an application is for a truly innovative idea worthy of the protection of a patent.

The bill takes another step toward improving patent quality by changing the way the issuance of patents can be challenged. The America Invents Act introduces a 9-month post-grant review process during which third parties can challenge a patent on any grounds. When you combine the new pre-issuance submission process and the new post-grant review process, what you get is a more rigorous and more thorough vetting of patent applications.

We will get stronger, higher quality patents because of the America Invents Act.

Chairman Leahy, along with his Republican cosponsors Senators Hatch, Kyl and Sessions, deserve enormous credit for the bill that was reported unanimously by the Judiciary committee just 4 weeks ago. The America Invents Act reflects years of hard-fought negotiations between the affected stakeholders.

At a time when bipartisanship is too frequently a platitude than actual process, it should be noted that the America Invents Act shares wide bipartisan support. Senators from both parties worked together on the bill we consider today, and both sides of the aisle should be proud of what we accomplished.

I applaud Leaders Reid and McConnell for their commitment to the open amendment process. Despite the broad agreements that have been reached so far, the Senate can and should consider suggestions to change the bill. I know that I will support Dr. Coburn's amendment on fee diversion. I also hope that the Senate will accept an amendment that I have filed which would remove the section of the bill dealing with venue.

While venue-shopping is a serious problem, the current language in the bill risks stunting the development of case law, which has begun to address the problem of plaintiffs' manufacturing venue in districts that have a reputation of being hospitable for patent suits. In fact, companies such as Oracle and HP, while they initially supported legislative reform of venue, now fear that this provision will do more harm than good. I look forward to debating all of these amendments in the future.

Let me conclude my remarks on S. 23 by renewing my call to my fellow Senators to carefully consider and support this legislation. The America Invents Act is complicated and the subject matter may seem daunting, but I believe it is critical to protecting American innovation and defending American competitiveness.

The playing field for economic innovation has never been more crowded. The United States faces rivals growing in strength and number, which is why our government should be encouraging innovation, not stifling it.

The America Invents Act will create jobs in Delaware and throughout the United States by removing some of the administrative roadblocks currently preventing inventors from becoming successful entrepreneurs. This bill will improve the speed, quality and reliability of the Patent and Trademark Office and it will ensure that America retains its place in the world as the leader of invention and innovative thinking.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I remember Officer First Class Jon-Michael Ronda, formerly of the New Castle County Police Department, who passed away on December 2, 2010, after a long and courageous battle with cancer.

Officer Ronda was an outstanding citizen of Delaware, and the selflessness of his service to the people of New Castle County and the Nation will not be forgotten. He was born in Panama and moved with his family to New Jersey, where he graduated from Pemberton Township High School and Trenton State College. Determined to serve his country, Officer Ronda joined the 177th Security Forces Squadron of the New Jersey Air National Guard in 1995 and was deployed to Qatar in 2002. He was an outstanding staff sergeant and combat arms instructor, recognized with the Air Reserve Forces Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Force Training Ribbon, the National Defense Service Medal, the Air Force Longevity Service Award Ribbon, the Good Conduct Ribbon, the New Jersey Merit Award, and the Small Arms Expert Marksman Ribbon. Officer Ronda's strength in the face of adversity was a hallmark of his service, and he received an honorable discharge in 2007.

Officer Ronda joined the New Castle County Police Department in 1998 and was a member of the National Latino Peace Officers Association. He was a well-respected member of the Department who received several complimentary letters for his service.

I extend my deepest sympathies and condolences to his family and friends and join the people of Delaware in my gratitude for his service.

Mr. President, I rise to speak for the first time in this Chamber as a Senator. It is an honor to do so. Already, after my service at the end of the 111st Congress, I am keenly aware of the impressive array of skills brought to this place by my colleagues and of the great traditions of this Chamber, as well as the tremendous challenges facing both our Nation and this institution as we work together to make progress.

On November 2, the citizens of Delaware elected me to come here on their behalf and work with 99 other Senators for a very specific goal: getting America moving again and getting our economy back on track. With our country just now recovering from the loss of so many jobs, with a substantial deficit and the painful and lingering wreckage of a great recession, we must set aside politics and focus on progress.

I am honored to have this opportunity to serve. I am especially honored to serve alongside our State's distinguished senior Senator, Tom Carper, and to serve at a time when the President of the Senate is another distinguished Delawarean, Vice President Joe Biden, whose service in this body for 36 years was marked by a tireless advocacy for America's middle class and the people of our State. Membership in the Senate is a privilege not to be taken lightly, and I am determined to make the greatest contribution I can to solving the challenges facing us all.

Similar to my colleagues, my path to the Senate involved many experiences that have shaped my views and priorities. Growing up in Delaware, my family taught me the values of faith, hard work, and service to others. As a student, traveling and volunteering in Africa and later working with the homeless in this country, I learned difficult truths about poverty and human suffering but also witnessed the awesome power of hope and faith. Later, working for the National ``I Have a Dream'' Foundation and running an AmeriCorps program, I saw the transformative power of education and of national service to change lives.

Following these early years of learning and service, I spent 8 years as in-house counsel to one of Delaware's most innovative, high-tech manufacturing companies, where I saw the strength of American ingenuity and entrepreneurship. Later, as county executive, running a local government that served half a million Delawareans, I learned how to make the tough choices that led to reining in spending, to growing our local economy, balancing a budget, and achieving a surplus. Most important, today, as a husband and father of three young children, I spend more time than ever concerned about their future, wondering whether we will leave them and all our children a nation burdened by debt and struggling to maintain its place in the world or a nation with a renewed strength and focus on the fundamentals that made this the greatest Nation in human history. As a Member of the Senate, I look forward to applying these lessons while working with my new colleagues.

I said a few moments ago our constituents sent us here with the goal of getting our economy back on track, a goal of focusing relentlessly on economic recovery. However, mere recovery--recovery alone--cannot be our goal. The American people deserve and expect from us policies that will lead to an economy and a job market stronger, more vibrant, and more prosperous than before. To achieve this, I believe we need to pursue a new manufacturing agenda, one that will lead to the creation of inventive businesses and that will open new plants and hire skilled workers for modern and sustainable jobs, one that will produce the next generation of American manufacturers. It should focus on sustaining and growing American manufacturing by rewarding innovation and fostering entrepreneurship and by pairing those great American strengths to an equally great American workforce.

As someone long committed to progressive values, I believe the best way to help stabilize neighborhoods and support families, to advance social justice and fight poverty, is through ensuring more and more Americans have access to good, high-quality jobs. I am encouraged President Obama chose to highlight competitiveness and innovation in his State of the Union Address and its potential to create those sustainable middle-class jobs. He is right to call this our generation's ``Sputnik moment.''

We have a choice. We can keep doing the things we have for years, but then we will simply keep getting the same results or we can recommit ourselves, as we did as a nation during the space race, to outinnovate, outcompete, and outproduce every other Nation. That is how we, once again, can spark an era of growth and prosperity. Unlike so many other sectors of our economy, with manufacturing, it is not just about creating jobs, it is about creating and sustaining good jobs, jobs that pay a livable wage, provide quality health insurance, jobs with longevity and security.

According to the National Association of Manufacturers, the average manufacturing worker in our country earned 25 percent more than workers in all other sectors. That is over $72,000 last year, including pay and benefits, while the average nonmanufacturing worker earned less than $59,000. Manufacturing jobs means higher wages and better benefits, and they have for decades been a reliable path for the middle class for millions of hard-working American families. That path is not nearly as wide or as clear as it was just 10 years ago. Since then, our Nation has lost more than 3 million manufacturing jobs not only to the developing world but to our competitors in the industrialized world as well.

For those who have lost jobs, the stakes couldn't be higher, and for we as leaders our mandate couldn't be clearer.

I strongly disagree with those who believe America's leadership in manufacturing is behind us and that our future lies somehow in being a country dedicated to services and consumption financed by debt. Those naysayers point to factories that have sprouted up across the developing world, that it is cheaper labor and looser environmental and worker protections--key reasons why we have, in fact, seen millions of our manufacturing jobs move offshore.

However, while labor-intensive commodity manufacturing may, in fact, have permanently moved offshore, we can remain a global leader in innovative and high-performance manufacturing, as we still are today in industries ranging from aircraft to pharmaceuticals, if we will just focus our efforts on creating an encouraging environment in tax and trade policy, in education and training that matches the strength of American engineering and innovation.

Many Americans may not realize it today, but ours still remains the No. 1 manufacturing economy in the world. We still produce one-fifth of all manufactured goods worldwide, and this sustains more than 18 million private sector jobs. Advanced manufacturing businesses know that to achieve the quality and productivity they need, they must find a top-notch workforce, modern infrastructure, and a fair and predictable system of regulation.

I learned this myself firsthand when I was working in the private sector at a company known as W.L. Gore & Associates. It is better known perhaps for discovering and marketing GORE-TEX fabrics, but it is a materials-based company that manufactures hundreds of products, from medical devices to wire and cable. At one point, I was part of a site location team that had to decide where to build a new state-of-the-art manufacturing plant, costing more than $100 million. It could have been anywhere in the world, but we wanted to locate it right here in America. As we considered many cities and States bidding for the plant, we ultimately made a decision.

What made the difference? What were we looking for? First, a reliable and skilled workforce. Second, State, county, and city governments that were responsive and had already made investments in local infrastructure. While we also considered tax credits and training grants, an educated workforce, responsive local government, and high- quality infrastructure were the main factors that attracted our business.

When we visited the ultimate site, our team was greeted by area educators who told us about a strong public education system and city leaders who informed us of the public infrastructure we would need, such as water, electricity, sewer, and ready access to road, rail, and air, which were already in place. When we asked local officials how long it would take to get building permits, they said: Just send us your plans. Everything we needed was ready to go.

In the end, we were able to stand up a successful and profitable new venture in record time and to achieve significant growth in the local tax base and the economy, offering hundreds of clean, high-tech manufacturing jobs to a responsive community.

That experience on the site selection team taught me two things: the advanced manufacturing sector can really thrive in America, and we in government have a critical role to play.

It will be the private sector and America's entrepreneurs and innovators that will create jobs. It is our job in government though, to ensure our country is the most attractive choice for business investment.

We can do it by reducing bureaucratic hurdles and investing in an educated workforce capable of high productivity and ongoing innovation.

That's the critical role we can play not only in getting Americans back to work but ensuring a bright and prosperous future for America's middle class.

Right now, far too many middle-class families are struggling not because they made poor choices but in spite of having made the right ones. People who worked hard in school, who raised good families, who served in the military, who gave back by volunteering in their communities--Americans who did everything right--in this recession they still lost their jobs.

They need to know that we in Congress have their backs.

The truth is, we are not going to be able to reopen all the plants that have closed and get those workers back on the assembly lines making the same products they used to make. This is why we must make this push for advanced manufacturing.

Thankfully, we are not starting from scratch. Innovative businesses, including many from my home State, have long been leaders in creating new manufacturing jobs based on new inventions.

This, I believe, is the result of Delaware's highly educated workforce and the State and local government commitment to working with business as partners toward growth.

One of the most compelling examples of this partnership between government and business took place in Delaware over the past 2 years. More than one thousand people lost their jobs when General Motors shut down its plant in Newport, DE, in 2009, a plant that had been in production more than 60 years and was long touted as one of the most productive in the country.

Some of those workers packed up their families and sought work elsewhere in the country. Some stayed and found other work. Too many are still looking today.

But they weren't the only ones looking for jobs. Led by our tireless Governor, Jack Markell, those of us in State and local government in Delaware were engaged in a job search as well, and after months of searching and hard work, we were able to bring Fisker Automotive to Newport, DE, to take over and reinvest in the shuttered GM plant. We did it by bringing together state and local officials, UAW union leaders, and Federal tax credits and investments. This partnership could not have been possible without $500 million in Federal stimulus funds.

I was proud to be a small part of the team that brought Fisker to Delaware, but I will be even prouder to watch hundreds of Delawareans stream through the plant's gates again when it reopens to build plug-in electric automobiles.

When I asked the leadership of the new company what made them choose Delaware, it was a familiar answer--a skilled and reliable workforce, a responsive State and county governments, strong local infrastructure, and access to global markets through our roads, rails, and the Port of Wilmington.

Fisker is just one example. In Delaware, we have recently seen long- established leaders such as DuPont as well as relative newcomers such as Ashland Chemical, Agilent, and Perdue invest in new facilities, new research or new production.

My State has also been at the forefront of high-tech job growth with innovative Delaware companies such as ILC Dover, Solar Dock, and Miller Metal, as well as multinational companies such as Sanosil, Motech, and Fraunhofer USA that have brought jobs there.

I am proud that so many new products and technologies that are invented here are also ``Made in America, Manufactured in Delaware.''

In Delaware, businesses have seen that we're ``ready to go.''

In our State, we have the ability to bring together stakeholders often seen as adversaries and deliver productive collaboration. This involves both labor and businesses making sacrifices and sharing responsibility.

We need to replicate this model and these successes all over the country as much as possible.

Indeed, we are already seeing progress nationally, as the latest manufacturing numbers attest. In 2010, our manufacturing sector grew 136,000 new jobs. Some economists have predicted a further gain of more than double that this year.

Despite predictions that American manufacturing was in a permanent decline, we are actually seeing a modest uptick, one on which we must capitalize.

The formula for our economic success has long been the unstoppable combination of an innovative citizenry and investment in cutting-edge research. This is what generates companies that invent new products, often high-tech and research-driven products, and, along with these new products, create skilled jobs right here in the United States.

Investments in an educated workforce, our public infrastructure, and critical funding for research and development will be the keys to both short-term economic recovery and long-term growth. These investments must coincide with efforts to make it easier for Americans to start and expand small businesses and for multinational companies to locate advanced manufacturing here in America.

As we embark on this renewed effort, we must continue, though, to safeguard the important workplace safety, labor, and environmental protections we have put in place over the past decades. Our manufacturing growth must be a function of innovation, not a turning- back of the clock.

That is why I strongly support policies such as extending the research and development tax credit, a manufacturing tax credit tied to research and development done here, in and the extension of the Build America Bonds program for public infrastructure improvements.

We have unfinished work to do to change the focus of our tax and trade policies. We must stop providing incentives to move productive work offshore. Instead, we should reward those companies that reinvest in America--in both inventing a new generation of products and manufacturing them here.

We will also need to focus more of our attention on clean-energy manufacturing. Government investment in clean energy technologies has been a core factor in our competitors' growth. We need to help our businesses compete with theirs.

I was disappointed, frankly, that the Senate was unable to reach an agreement to include the advanced energy manufacturing tax credit in the bipartisan tax relief package we passed last December. That credit is an example of the kinds of policies that will help spur the innovation, manufacturing, and new deployment that will generate clean- energy jobs. I am encouraged, though, that it included funding for the treasury grant program, which leverages private investment in clean- energy projects, for which I pushed along with a number of my colleagues to be included in the package.

Additionally, if we wish to remain on the cutting edge of new clean- energy manufacturing technologies and retain our place as the global leader in scientific innovation, we need to pass more legislation like the America COMPETES Act. In addition to creating ARPA-E, which makes strategic investments through the Federal Department of Energy in game- changing technologies, it also focuses resources on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education.

I am proud to have been a cosponsor of the America COMPETES Act, which was so actively championed by my predecessor, Senator Ted Kaufman, who served Delaware so well. This is just the type of legislation that I came here to support.

We need to find additional ways to expand educational opportunities for more of our students, especially in these fields essential to future competitiveness. There is vital work to be done in ensuring that our business leaders are at the table as we renew America's education policy, helping make certain that our schools are educating our children for the demands of the modern workplace.

This is especially critical in light of recent international standardized test scores that once again showed American students falling behind their competitors from Asia and Europe in reading, science, and mathematics.

A strong educational foundation is the launching pad for new ideas, which will soar to become tomorrow's products and industries.

To achieve this, we must have a strong Federal investment in great teachers and strong schools, set high standards matched with the resources to achieve them, and engage parents, communities, and employers.

We should never settle for just recovery. We must reach for the prosperity and growth I know we can together achieve. We can do it if we make these critical investments and changes in direction today.

That is why I am excited to get to work with my colleagues on a number of important legislative projects. Because I believe we need to redouble our efforts to protect the fruits of that innovation through stronger protections for our intellectual property, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Patent Reform Act and look forward to working with Chairman Leahy on the Judiciary Committee toward its passage.

Likewise, I found out this week that I will be serving on the Foreign Relations Committee, and I will be pushing for us to be tougher on our trading partners to ensure fairness and a level playing field for American exports, as well as new efforts to expand the range of our overseas markets.

I am honored as well to be a new member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and I am eager to work with Chairman Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, and the other members on finding ways to spur clean- energy manufacturing here in America.

My other assignment will be as a member of the Budget Committee, and I look forward to working with my colleagues there to identify ways to address the deficit comprehensively and in line with our necessary priorities of simplifying the Tax Code, investing in our workforce, and incentivizing manufacturing job growth.

Outside of my committee assignments, I am excited to get to work reinvigorating the Senate Manufacturing Caucus with many of my colleagues, including Senators Stabenow of Michigan, Brown of Ohio and Graham of South Carolina. We are going to renew this Chamber's focus on what voters sent us here to do: restoring our economy by getting our neighbors back to work.

The American people have at times grown frustrated with the Senate because it seems as if this body has not realized the scale of our Nation's challenges; that legislators have taken a piecemeal approach to important policies and have failed to address our most difficult problems comprehensively.

Why are we not looking at tax policy, education policy, and job growth strategy collectively? Our problems are interrelated, and the solutions must be as well.

Likewise, our budget deficit should not be treated merely as a talking point or a source of partisan advantage but instead as the serious threat that it is. And real deficit reduction will only come with a careful approach, and a willingness to share in the sacrifice will see us toward real deficit reduction.

Working together, we can change how we get things done here, and we can find a way to do it without jeopardizing the Senate's vital role in our political system.

Even more importantly, at a time when many worry about the tone of our politics, we as Senators must do all we can to return this body to its founding mission as a stabilizing force in our political system.

The Senate must lead by example and for this Nation be a source of civility, a beacon of cooperative spirit, and a place where we come together to address our greatest challenges.

That is how we will move forward together to solve our problems. That is how we will boost our manufacturing sector and get millions back to work. And that is how we will build a strong, prosperous, and sustainable future for America's middle class.

Those who have lost their jobs are doing the very best they can to find new ones. We owe it to them to do our best--to be determined and deliberate, to focus on progress not partisanship, to be true to our principles, but not so unyielding in our positions that we make more news than progress.

These are serious times, and our Nation--our people--face tough challenges. I look forward to working with each and every one of my new colleagues to bear down and work together to find innovative solutions, real solutions, that will build a brighter future for all Americans.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in voicing my strong and unequivocal support for New START. I want to thank Senators Kerry and Lugar for their leadership on this issue, and join them in urging the Senate to support ratification. New START will make America stronger and more secure by building on 30 years of U.S. global leadership on nuclear arms control and reduction. This is why it has been endorsed by national security leaders on both sides of the aisle, including every living Republican Secretary of State, 5 former Secretaries of Defense, 7 former commanders of the U.S. Strategic Command, the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, 3 former Presidents, and all 27 of our NATO allies.

We simply cannot afford to postpone the vote until the 112th Congress and delay ratification any further. Military planners have confirmed that ratification is essential to U.S. security in an increasingly dangerous environment, and 73 percent of Americans support ratification according to one recent poll.

As the newest member of the Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees, I did not have the luxury of receiving the wealth of information and perspective offered in the 18 public hearings and Senate deliberations on this issue. I have, however, received enough information from classified briefings to know this is a pressing national security matter of the highest order. As we approach a vote, I plan on following the strong advice of our military and national security leadership, as well as the will of the American people, in supporting New START.

New START will enhance U.S. intelligence gathering and restore inspections needed to monitor the Russian nuclear force. For more than a year, we have been deprived of such inspections due the expiration of the original treaty. While opponents of New START have highlighted the reduction in the total number of inspections, those which remain comprise the most robust strategic arms inspections regime in history. By increasing transparency between the United States and Russia, New START will enhance our mutual nuclear deterrent. This is just one example of why ratification is in America's best security interest.

In addition to reducing the total number of both American and Russian deployed strategic nuclear weapons to 1550, New START will limit the number of deployed delivery vehicles for nuclear warheads to 700. As we consider investing more than $85 billion over the next decade into modernizing our current nuclear arsenal, we must also consider the practical benefit of maintaining a smaller number of strategic nuclear weapons. These limits have been endorsed by our military planners because they are commensurate with our current and future defense needs. Moreover, reducing the number of deployed strategic warheads and delivery vehicles better positions us to invest the savings in nuclear modernization.

The United States and Russia share common threats and common interests, and, in the words of Vice President Biden, New START is a ``cornerstone of our efforts to reset relations with Russia.'' Over the past 2 years, cooperation between the United States and Russia has grown in areas such as supporting sanctions to thwart Iran's nuclear development and transferring essential supplies into Afghanistan. At this juncture, the Senate's failure to ratify New START could have far- reaching implications on such progress, including jeopardizing future cooperation in these critical areas.

As some of my colleagues propose altering the treaty, I want to voice my strong opposition to all amendments, as they would effectively kill the agreement by requiring renegotiation with Russia. In the future, we can address some of the issues raised during the amendment process-- including Russia's extensive stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons--but these matters exceed the breadth of the treaty before us today. I also believe that we can achieve a missile defense cooperation agreement with Russia, but reaching an understanding on missile defense will be easier once we have established an agreed-upon limit to the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons.

America must maintain its global leadership on nuclear arms control and nonproliferation, and it is our obligation as Senators to act now. It is time to look beyond politics and vote on principle, and I urge all Senators to join me in supporting ratification of New START because it is a domestic and global security imperative.

Mr. President, I rise to voice my strong support for this legislation which I am proud to co-sponsor and which effectively repeals don't ask, don't tell.

Today, we are at a historic crossroads. Our choice is to continue a policy that conflicts with our founding principles of freedom and liberty for all, or to open the doors of the military to all Americans courageous enough to serve.

Don't ask, don't tell is discrimination, plain and simple. Any American prepared to die for their country should be afforded the respect and admiration they deserve. Brave men and women in uniform are willing to fight for our freedom every day, and it is our responsibility as Senators as Americans first to fight for theirs.

President Truman had the vision and leadership to racially integrate the military at a time when he faced even stronger opposition from political and military leaders than we face today. We should act today in that tradition.

I have met with many courageous members of the military some of whom also happened to be gay or lesbian and listened to congressional testimony on this issue. I share the view of our military leaders that the most pressing question is not whether to repeal don't ask, don't tell, but rather, how to implement a repeal. This is why I am pleased the bill before us today leaves this issue in the hands of military leaders, who are granted the time needed to certify adequate preparation for a repeal reflecting the best interests of our troops.

Under the legislation, a repeal of don't ask, don't tell would be enacted 60 days after the President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs certify they have done three things. First, that they have considered the Pentagon working group report on the impact of a repeal. Second, that the Department of Defense has readied the necessary regulations for implementation. Third, that the manner of implementation is consistent with the standards of military readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.

This legislation does not stipulate a timeline for this process, but provides

a congressional mandate that the policy must be changed once measures are in place to mitigate any negative impact of a repeal. This includes training, education, and additional steps to ensure a smooth transition to implementing a repeal.

The issue of implementation was one concern shared by all the service chiefs who testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on December 3, and I am pleased it is adequately addressed in this bill. Another concern shared by all service chiefs was the view that they would prefer that Congress legislate a repeal rather than leave it to the courts. They shared a concern that a court order would compel military leaders to implement a repeal without the time and flexibility required.

As the recent Department of Defense report demonstrated, 70 percent of our troops believe a repeal of don't ask, don't tell will have little impact on military readiness or unit cohesion. Sixty-nine percent believe they have served with someone who is gay or lesbian, and of that group, 92 percent responded that serving with someone who is gay or lesbian had little impact on their unit.

These report findings demonstrate a basic truth that we can deny no longer. Gay Americans have chosen to proudly serve their country, and the current don't ask, don't tell policy forces them to lie about who they are or face discharge. In fact, we have discharged nearly 14,000 brave servicemembers since the law was implemented in 1993, simply because their sexual orientation was disclosed. Those discharged include high-decorated combat veterans, national security experts, and badly needed military linguists when our nation is engaged overseas in two wars. These are losses we can ill afford.

Sexual orientation is not a choice but discrimination is. Homosexuals in the military today face the double burden of risking their lives for their country while being force to lie about who they are or face discharge. Today, I am pleased to join my colleagues in ending this burden once and for all and repealing don't ask, don't tell.

I wish to voice my strong and unequivocal support for this bill which effectively ends the seventeen year policy of treating homosexuals as inherently unqualified for military service. It is time we join the majority of our allies in allowing those already serving in our military to do so free from discrimination, with integrity and honor.

Mr. President, as a result of today's vote on the four Articles of Impeachment against Judge G. Thomas Porteous, the Senate has fulfilled its constitutional duty to remove a threat to the public's trust and confidence in the Federal judiciary.

The conduct set forth in the first Article of Impeachment alone justifies the Senate's conviction of Judge Porteous. By coercing his former law partners to participate in a kickback scheme while a state judge, by failing to properly disclose this corrupt relationship when warranted as a federal judge in a recusal hearing and by obtaining further improper cash payments from them while taking their case under advisement, Judge Porteous misdemeaned himself in a manner that is directly contrary to the essential public trust of his office. Federal judges cannot solicit improper gifts, and they certainly cannot lie to litigants who appear before them.

The conduct described in the remaining three Articles of Impeachment is, likewise, wholly repugnant to the office of a U.S. judge. Counsel for Judge Porteous argued that the Senate's unprecedented conviction on these counts would weaken the judiciary to political attacks. I do not dismiss these arguments lightly. With only 12 impeachment trials having been completed in our Nation's history, however, novelty of the particular offenses charged is no absolute defense. My votes to convict--whether for conduct on the State bench, as a private citizen, or before the Judiciary Committee--were compelled because they revealed corruption and duplicity that, if countenanced, would destroy the integrity of the federal judiciary. While counsel argued that the behavior charged in the final three articles did not concern Judge Porteous' conduct as a Federal judge, each article charged conduct that bore an essential nexus to his Federal service.

Judge Porteous set bail bonds for the purpose of maximizing the profits of the bail bonds company, rather than protecting the public safety and guaranteeing the defendant's presence at trial. He carried out this scheme to cultivate improper benefits from the bail bonds company, trading official judicial action for personal gain. This behavior was not an isolated lapse in judgment. It lasted for more than a year, stopping only when Judge Porteous was confirmed to be a Federal judge.

Judge Porteous also lied during his bankruptcy while serving as a Federal judge. His only defense was that such conduct was not related to his service as a judge and included only acts taken as a private citizen. A judge cannot repeatedly demean a Federal court by lying to it, as here, in an attempt to avoid embarrassment and to continue to amass more gambling debts.

Likewise, Judge Porteous' lies and deceptions during his confirmation process reflect a willingness to subvert the truth, under penalty of perjury, for personal gain. His claim that any mistakes were inadvertent is simply not credible. The evidence demonstrates that Judge Porteous actively concealed the corrupt bail bonds scheme from FBI investigators, and failed to disclose much more corrupt behavior.

Our Federal courts are an enduring symbol of our national commitment to equal justice under the law. Judge Porteous' long history of corruption, deceit, and abuse of power renders him incompatible with that commitment. His removal strengthens our judiciary and confirms the integrity of those who remain a part of it.