[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 143 (Thursday, October 1, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7075-S7084]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the 
Senate the conference report to accompany H.R. 1735.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated by title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     1735), to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for 
     military activities of the Department of Defense, for 
     military construction, and for defense activities of the 
     Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel 
     strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, 
     having met, have agreed that the House recede from its 
     disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the 
     same with an amendment and the Senate agree to the same, 
     signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both 
     Houses.

  Thereupon, the Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of September 29, 2015.)


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the conference 
     report to accompany H.R. 1735, a bill to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities 
     of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 
     for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to 
     prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, 
     and for other purposes.

         John McCain, Bob Corker, John Hoeven, Ron Johnson, Dan 
           Sullivan, Steve Daines, Richard Burr, Joni Ernst, Deb 
           Fischer, Tim Scott, Orrin G. Hatch, Shelley Moore 
           Capito, Mike Crapo, Tom Cotton, Cory Gardner, Kelly 
           Ayotte, Mitch McConnell.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Shooting at Umpqua Community College

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, before I proceed to the consideration of a 
colloquy with my colleague from Wisconsin, I just wanted to take a 
moment. My colleague from Wisconsin brought to my attention that there 
are news reports that have just come out of a tragic mass shooting at a 
community college in Oregon. I believe it is called Umpqua Community 
College.
  I just wanted to ask all who might be watching or are with us in the 
Chamber to keep in your thoughts and prayers the families of the 
victims, which number somewhere around 10, and of the wounded, 
somewhere around 20, and to also keep the first responders and students 
and faculty and our colleagues who represent the State of Oregon and 
all who have been affected by this tragedy in Oregon in your thoughts 
and prayers. It is just now being reported.
  I appreciate the forbearance of my colleague and the Chair and the 
other Members present for my taking a moment just to bring that to 
everyone's attention.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might enter into a 
colloquy with my colleague from Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       National Manufacturing Day

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
marking National Manufacturing Day, which will be celebrated across the 
country tomorrow.
  The simple fact is that manufacturing has been and continues to be a 
vital part of our economy. But coming from the State of Delaware, I 
know firsthand the challenges manufacturing has faced in the 20th 
century and the challenges it continues to face today.
  Almost every day I ride the Amtrak train from Wilmington, DE, to 
Washington, DC, and as I look out the window as we pass through the 
city of Newark, DE, I see the site of the old Chrysler assembly plant. 
Each time I see it, I think about what it was like going to the plant 
gates and visiting with friends and family and the thousands of men and 
women who worked shifts for decades at this tremendous automobile 
manufacturing plant that made the Durango and, for decades before that, 
other models.
  Every time I see that site, which has now been leveled and is now 
being rebuilt, I am reminded that for decades there were men and women 
there who had one thing in common--good-paying, steady, high-quality 
manufacturing jobs. Chrysler, General Motors, and other manufacturers, 
which used to be at the center of my State's economy, each employing 
thousands of Delawareans, are today gone, and many families and many of 
our communities still feel the impact of those losses. But for the 
thousands of Delawareans who grew up with friends and family working 
every day at GM, Chrysler, the steel mill, the Avon plant or other now-
gone manufacturing sites across our State, it is easy to be skeptical 
about the prospects for a revival of American manufacturing.
  I am here today with my colleague from the State of Wisconsin to tell 
our fellow Americans that despite those harsh realities, there are real 
reasons for hope. Manufacturing still supports 25,000 jobs in my State. 
Since 2010, our economy, the growing American manufacturing sector, has 
created 870,000 new jobs. As production costs have gone up in our 
competitors--countries such as China--and as the key input cost of 
energy has steadily come down, businesses have seen over the last 
decade that more reliable financial, legal, and engineering structures 
and resources, and cheaper energy here in the United States have made 
American manufacturing more competitive than it has been in decades.
  Just as important as the number of jobs created in the manufacturing 
sector is the quality and compensation for those jobs. American 
manufacturing is also responsible today for three-quarters of all 
private sector research and development, just illustrating once again 
how innovative this sector has always been. To stay ahead and to thrive 
in the modern-world economy, manufacturing has to be on the cutting 
edge.
  While American manufacturing is resurgent today, there is much more 
we can do together to build on this momentum. That is why Senator 
Baldwin and I are leading a campaign called Manufacturing Jobs for 
America, to focus on four key areas where we together can strengthen 
American manufacturing--first by investing in America's workforce; 
second, by expanding access to capital; third, by opening up markets 
abroad; and fourth, by creating the conditions necessary for growth.

[[Page S7076]]

  In the last Congress, the Manufacturing Jobs for America Initiative 
brought together 27 Senators to introduce 36 different manufacturing 
bills, half of which were bipartisan. Provisions from eight of those 
bills are now law, including our bill to create a national 
manufacturing strategy that will, for the first time, lay out a 
proactive, comprehensive long-term policy for investing and 
strengthening American manufacturing, something that all of our major 
competitors have long had.
  The administration has also come forward with strong ideas and 
initiatives from their investment in nine new manufacturing hubs, 
innovation institutes around the country, to new Department of Labor 
jobs skills programs that would strengthen apprenticeships and job 
training. It is our hope that Manufacturing Jobs for America can 
continue to play an important role in investing and scaling up these 
ideas so they have national impact.
  We are optimistic that we can continue together to build on the 
progress we made and pass more of these bills in this Congress. 
Already, for example, the Career Ready Act has passed the Senate and is 
waiting to be taken up by the House. This bill would help prepare 
students for advanced manufacturing jobs by strengthening school 
counseling programs and educator professional development. Another 
important bill is the Innovators Job Creation Act, which recently 
passed the Senate Finance Committee, and if passed into law, would help 
small manufacturers to invest in and scale up their R&D.
  Still, as we know all too well, passing legislation is never easy, 
and it could take months or even years to get these commonsense 
bipartisan bills passed into law. But there is something Congress can 
do right now to help support our manufacturing sector.
  Just last week I stood on this floor and urged my colleagues to 
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank that was allowed to expire earlier 
this year. The Ex-Im Bank has helped American companies, many of them 
manufacturers, to sell their goods around the world for more than 80 
years, supporting 150,000 American jobs in just this past year. Each 
day we fail to reauthorize this critical tool for American 
manufacturers who are exporters, we put more and more American jobs at 
risk.
  Manufacturers, such as Boeing and GE, are already moving good 
American jobs overseas. GE's announcement that it is moving 350 jobs 
from Wisconsin to Canada is a stark example of this new reality, and 
the reason is simple. GE, and similar companies, can't risk staying in 
a country that doesn't have a reliable export credit agency, a tool all 
of our competitors provide, often with much more robust resources than 
Ex-Im used to enjoy. Without the backing of such an agency, other 
countries won't even consider accepting project bids from GE, Boeing or 
others. I think that is unacceptable, and it should be unacceptable to 
all of our colleagues. It is time for Congress to recognize what is at 
stake for our economy, our manufacturing sector, and American workers 
if we continue to fail to step up and reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank.
  Finally, I wish to briefly address a broader issue we face with 
American manufacturing, and that is its reputation and its public 
relations image.
  While the changing face of manufacturing is a great thing, it is also 
a challenge because too often perceptions about manufacturing are stuck 
in the past. I have personally heard from parents and guidance 
counselors who tell me that they are reluctant to encourage their kids 
and their best students to pursue a career in manufacturing. Why? 
Because to them, folks from an older generation, manufacturing brings 
to mind dirty factory floors, dangerous work environments, and lower 
wages. Understandably, they don't see these as the viable, promising 
career paths that today's advanced manufacturing truly offers.
  Their worries don't match up with today's reality, where 
manufacturing jobs require higher skills than ever before, from hard 
math and engineering skills to the ability to think critically and work 
as part of a team. Most modern manufacturing jobs require a 2-year 
college degree, and many require more.
  In my 5 years as a Senator, I have had the opportunity to visit 
dozens of manufacturers up and down my State of Delaware that are 
creating new high-quality, high-paying jobs, and I am certain my 
colleague from Wisconsin has had the same insight.
  In Delaware, one of those manufacturers is M. Davis, a woman-run, 
family owned manufacturer that has been around for over 140 years. They 
produce sophisticated equipment for industrial companies, such as 
Philips 66, Air Liquide, and DuPont. Jobs at that manufacturing plant 
require high-skilled workers.
  Another advanced manufacturer in my State is Accudyne, which is far 
more than a typical company. They produce products, not for average 
consumers, but they solve highly complex engineering and design 
problems for some of the world's most prominent firms, from Boeing to 
Airbus to Rolls Royce.
  Both of these companies understand that the only way to remain 
successful is to develop a highly skilled workforce by encouraging and 
supporting professional development and recruiting graduates from 
schools such as Delaware Technical Community College and the University 
of Delaware.
  Unfortunately, it is not just public perception that hasn't kept up 
with manufacturing's transformation. Job training programs have also 
lagged behind in preparing people with the skills they need to succeed 
in the advanced manufacturing jobs of today.
  While I have more I would like to say on that topic, at this moment I 
would like to invite my colleague from the State of Wisconsin to add 
her views and comments to this important conversation about 
manufacturing in America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Delaware. As 
did he, I wish to start my remarks by taking a moment to say that my 
thoughts and prayers are with the community of Roseburg, OR, as we 
heard word of yet another senseless act of gun violence. I hope all who 
are listening join us in our thoughts and prayers.
  I rise today to join my good friend from Delaware and to lend my 
voice in calling attention to an important day in America. Tomorrow, 
across the country, the hard-working Americans who get up every day to 
move our economy forward will create a collective chorus in celebration 
of National Manufacturing Day.
  At thousands of events in villages, towns, and cities throughout our 
Nation, manufacturers will open their doors Friday and show, in a 
coordinated effort, what manufacturing is today and what it isn't. I am 
so proud to join this effort because by working together during and 
after National Manufacturing Day, we can shine a spotlight on the need 
for America to address workforce readiness issues, connect with future 
generations, and recognize the important role manufacturing plays in 
creating an economy that works for everyone.
  In Wisconsin, we have a long and proud tradition of making things--
paper, engines, tools, ships, and, yes, cheese, brauts, and beer. We 
possess one of the largest manufacturing sectors in the Nation, 
supporting a very significant share of our workforce and exporting 
products and goods all over America and, in fact, the world. 
Manufacturing has long been the backbone of our ``made in Wisconsin'' 
economy--so much so that we actually celebrate October as Manufacturing 
Month in Wisconsin. In my State and across our country, manufacturing 
is increasingly an engine of economic growth and innovation and a 
source of good-paying jobs with high wages and solid benefits. That is 
why I strongly believe middle-class families and small businesses and 
manufacturers who are working so hard to move our economy forward 
deserve to have both parties in Washington working together to grow our 
manufacturing economy and create jobs.
  I am so proud to join my colleague Senator Coons on the floor today 
to highlight National Manufacturing Day. I thank him for his leadership 
and his partnership on our Manufacturing Jobs for America Initiative. 
Our effort aims to build bipartisan support for legislation that will 
modernize America's manufacturing sector and help American 
manufacturers grow and create jobs and assist American workers in 
getting the skills they need to succeed

[[Page S7077]]

in the next generation of manufacturing jobs.
  Working together, we are trying to do our part to get Washington to 
focus on manufacturing jobs. This shouldn't be a difficult task, but 
unfortunately Congress has shown itself better at manufacturing one 
crisis after another instead of working across party lines to 
strengthen American manufacturing. The fact is, governing by crisis has 
distracted us from the important work of moving our manufacturing 
economy forward.
  Before we all pat ourselves on the back for simply doing our job and 
keeping the government open for business, let's address one crisis that 
has not been addressed.
  Two months ago the Senate did its job and passed a long-term 
transportation bill with bipartisan support. That legislation sought to 
end this constant cycle of short-term measures. It put people to work 
rebuilding our roads and bridges and ports and creates jobs and will 
boost our economy. It is also important to manufacturers because it 
makes an investment in a 21st-century American infrastructure that 
provides businesses with the quality transportation system they need to 
move their goods to market.
  This legislation also includes another measure that is vital to 
manufacturers and businesses in Wisconsin and across America. We 
reauthorized the Export-Import Bank, which is an important tool that 
helps us create that level playing field, bringing fairness to global 
trade and giving American manufacturers the resources they need to 
fight and win against their global competition. However, after we 
included that in our long-term transportation and infrastructure 
package in the Senate, the House adjourned for the August recess 
without passing that legislation to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank 
and has failed to take action on it for 2 full months. Just this week, 
Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee voted in lockstep 
to block an amendment to reauthorize the Bank. These actions and 
inactions have real impacts on workers, and they are being felt by 
Wisconsin workers and families right now.
  GE Power & Water announced this week that it plans to stop 
manufacturing gas engines in Waukesha, WI, and blamed the closure on 
the House of Representatives for not reauthorizing the Export-Import 
Bank. It is a stark reminder that when Congress fails to do its job, 
hard-working people can lose their jobs as a result. It is my hope that 
this reminder will be heard by Congress. It is also my hope that 
National Manufacturing Day will provide an opportunity for my 
colleagues to rally around on the need for us to come together and 
address the challenges we face to grow our manufacturing economy.
  The Wisconsin families for whom I work depend on our manufacturing 
jobs, and I believe that if we work to give our workers a fair shot, we 
can compete against anyone. But one of the challenges we must meet is 
making sure our workers have the skills they need for the manufacturing 
jobs of the future. We are fortunate to have a very strong technical 
college system that is working to provide Wisconsin businesses a 
skilled workforce so they can compete and grow.
  American manufacturing took a huge hit as a result of the 2008 
financial collapse and ensuing recession, but through sheer grit and 
determination, we are coming back. U.S. manufacturing added 876,000 
jobs over the past 66 months. Over the past 12 months, manufacturing 
has added 124,000 jobs. But despite this positive trend, we need to do 
more. The sector needs to add 1.7 million jobs overall just to return 
to pre-recession levels.
  In Wisconsin, our economy isn't growing as strong as we need to 
create true shared prosperity. In fact, it is lagging behind national 
growth. The manufacturing sector that sustained our economy in 
Wisconsin for generations must move forward at a stronger pace if 
middle-class families are going to get ahead.
  One of the most important things we can do is to put a stronger focus 
on investing in STEM programs and career and technical education. I am 
proud to have cofounded the Career and Technical Education Caucus--
otherwise known as the CTE Caucus--and worked with cochairs Senators 
Kaine and Portman to advocate for career and technical education. I 
believe CTE is one of the most effective vehicles for responding to 
labor market changes and the workforce readiness needs of businesses, 
particularly our manufacturers.
  We need to do more to ensure that students are better trained and 
better equipped for the highly skilled jobs of the future, especially 
in advanced manufacturing. Our business communities have been clear on 
the need for a highly trained workforce for in-demand fields, and CTE 
provides the knowledge and skills that can help drive stronger economic 
growth for our ``made in America'' manufacturing economy.
  In closing, I would like to urge my colleagues to join us tomorrow by 
visiting a local manufacturer in their State.
  National Manufacturing Day provides our Nation with an important 
opportunity for us to show our commitment to the idea that 
manufacturing does not represent the jobs of yesterday. Senator Coons 
was talking about the branding issues. Well, today's manufacturing 
economy isn't your father's manufacturing economy, and today's factory 
isn't your grandfather's factory. It is a growing industry that has 
changed from the assembly lines of the past to high-tech innovation 
that will drive our future. Today, American manufacturing represents 
the jobs of tomorrow, providing a range of job opportunities in the 
area of skilled production, information technology, design, 
engineering, and science. Our next generation of manufacturers need 
more skilled workers, and it is our job to work together to make sure 
our economy has them.
  Let's join together and celebrate National Manufacturing Day and show 
that our commitment is a celebration of American manufacturing, and 
let's inspire the next generation of manufacturers.
  Again, I thank my colleague from Delaware and my colleague from 
Minnesota for their dedication to this vital issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin, 
Senator Baldwin, for her hard work on manufacturing and for her deep 
and broad experience in what it takes for manufacturing to continue to 
grow in the State of Wisconsin, in the State of Delaware, and across 
our country.
  Let me pick up on a theme through both of our previous comments, 
which is that skills are a key challenge for us. If we are going to 
take advantage of the enormous opportunities, the hundreds of thousands 
of unfilled jobs in this sector, one of the key issues is a mismatch in 
skills.
  One other theme across both of our comments was how we can't work 
together across the aisle. Bad things happen, such as the Export-Import 
Bank going unauthorized, but when we can team up and work together, we 
can make remarkable progress.
  Let me briefly reference two of the bills we have worked on in the 
past which enjoy strong bipartisan support and which I hope can move 
forward in this Congress.
  One is the Manufacturing Skills Act, and the lead sponsor is Senator 
Ayotte of New Hampshire. It would help cities and States to modernize 
their job-training programs and equip workers with the skills they 
need.
  Another bill, the Manufacturing Universities Act of 2015, of which 
Senator Lindsey Graham is the lead cosponsor, would designate 25 
manufacturing universities across the country and invest up to $5 
million per year, per school to redesign their engineering programs so 
they are focused on the needs of modern manufacturing.
  Many of the other ideas that have been brought to the floor by 
colleagues also focus on skills, and let me briefly reference two.
  Senator Merkley has drafted and introduced the BUILD Career and 
Technical Education Act to focus on some of the issues the Senator from 
Wisconsin was just speaking to--finding innovative ways to improve CTE 
education in our K-12 system to draw more talented students into the 
pipeline for these unfilled but lucrative manufacturing careers.
  Last but certainly not least, Senator Franken of Minnesota has 
tirelessly worked to promote greater cooperation

[[Page S7078]]

between community colleges and their local manufacturing partners. I 
know in a moment he will share with us his vision for how we can 
improve skills training in manufacturing.
  Let me close by simply saying that tomorrow, as we celebrate National 
Manufacturing Day, I will be honored to welcome U.S. Commerce Secretary 
Penny Pritzker to Delaware to look at and visit several of the 
manufacturers I mentioned--Accudyne and M. Davis--and to talk about 
how, working together at the State and the Federal level, private 
sector and public sector, we can create and maintain strong 21st-
century manufacturing jobs.
  We see the revitalization that is going on in American manufacturing, 
and we see the opportunity we have in front of us and we want to seize 
it. By enacting bipartisan bills that tackle the challenges I have 
discussed, we hope to have the opportunity to make the very difference 
our Nation requires.
  With that, I yield the floor to the Senator from Minnesota for his 
remarks on National Manufacturing Day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I thank the good Senator from Delaware 
and the Senator from Wisconsin for organizing today's celebration of 
manufacturing.
  As my colleague from Delaware mentioned and as I think the Presiding 
Officer knows, I have talked a lot about the role of community and 
technical colleges and training for students for highly skilled jobs in 
manufacturing, and I will talk about that role in these remarks.


                  Shooting at Umpqua Community College

  But first, I heard a few minutes ago about a shooting at a college in 
Oregon. I just want to say something about that.
  First, all of our hearts in the Senate go out to the victims of that 
shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon and to their families, 
their friends, and loved ones.
  Students at community colleges are often young people who are getting 
education to prepare them for the future. Very often they are people 
midcareer who are going back for training to get the kind of skills 
Senator Coons talked about in a new career. The resurgence of 
manufacturing in the United States and my State of Minnesota should 
inspire us to invest more in training more Americans for these good 
manufacturing jobs.
  I don't know what the focus of Umpqua is, but again I believe I speak 
for everyone in this body that our hearts go out to all the victims and 
their loved ones. I don't know whether they are like some community and 
technical colleges in Minnesota preparing individuals for jobs in 
manufacturing.


                       National Manufacturing Day

  Manufacturing jobs--we have heard my other colleagues talk about how 
these are not the old manufacturing jobs. I have heard a manufacturer 
refer to it as dark, dirty, and dangerous, and it is what a lot of 
people think of.
  I go to junior highs and high schools with manufacturers to talk 
about the high skills and the high-paying jobs that go with today's 
manufacturing. The most recent data available as of 2010, the average 
annual wage for a manufacturing job in the United States was over 
$56,000--about 22 percent higher than the average wage for all 
industries. In Minnesota, manufacturing supports jobs for more than 
300,000 Minnesotans. That is about 13 percent of the jobs in our State, 
and manufacturing is responsible for 14 percent of the GDP. 
Manufacturing is a huge driver in our economy. We manufacture great 
things. We did the HVAC system for the new World Trade Center Freedom 
Tower.
  This is why I want to talk about one of the greatest problems our 
manufacturing States have today; that is, the skills gap. Manufacturers 
cannot find enough skilled workers to help them compete in a global 
economy. According to Enterprise Minnesota, an organization that 
supports manufacturers in my State, there are over 6,500 open 
manufacturing jobs in Minnesota waiting to be filled. My experience 
talking with manufacturers confirms that they are desperate to hire 
good people with the right skills for jobs that can support a middle-
class life for workers and their families.
  In the words of just one manufacturer, Kimberly Arrigoni of Haberman 
Machine in Oakdale, MN:

       We are still suffering from a skills gap. . . . For my 
     company specifically, it no longer is a capacity issue 
     because of equipment, but one with people. We are limited in 
     what we can produce and ship out the door because we don't 
     have enough master level machinists. . . . Imagine what this 
     very ripple effect is causing my State and our country as a 
     whole.

  So how can we help our manufacturing industry meet this challenge? 
Well, we took a good first step last year when we passed the bipartisan 
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, WIOA. It was the first 
reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act in over a decade--
almost two. It modernized our workforce development system and improved 
coordination between workforce boards, education, training programs, 
and local businesses. I think we need to do more to go further, and 
that is why I will be reintroducing legislation very soon to increase 
Federal investment in workforce training partnerships between employers 
and community and technical colleges.
  I call it the Community College to Career Fund Act. It would create 
grants that help businesses and community colleges train workers for 
high-skill, good-paying jobs. Businesses and community and tech 
colleges across my State support the Community College to Career Fund 
Act because they know firsthand--and I have seen firsthand the 
differences that these programs can make. Under this program, community 
colleges and businesses together would apply for grants based on how 
many jobs their partnership would create, what the value of those jobs 
would be to the community and, very importantly, how much skin in the 
game the State, the community or the businesses have.
  I hope my colleagues will take this up and pass it this year. This is 
a great way to address a number of things such as the cost of college. 
I have talked to so many manufacturers who have hired someone who has 
just a credential from a community technological college, hires them 
and then pays them to go back to school while they are working, and 
pays for their tuition to finish their associate's degree. They bring 
them back and say: Go get your bachelor's degree. Go get your 4-year 
college degree while you are working, and I will pay for it. These 
are--time and time again, I have seen people, workers who have had 
their education paid for, no debt, a couple degrees, and a good job--a 
very good job.
  I would like to close with the words of John Johnston from States 
Manufacturing in Golden Valley, CO. He writes:

       When my son was young he used to say, ``My daddy works with 
     big machines that go boom, boom, boom.'' My son is now 17 
     years old and planning a career in manufacturing. He grew up 
     around those machines that go boom.

  Unfortunately, most students these days think manufacturing is not 
for them. If they could only get in to see how remarkable it is to see 
how things are really made, they would change their perspective.
  He goes on:

       Each night at dinner we talk about his ``high of the school 
     day'' and he is so excited to tell me about the new equipment 
     or his next project in manufacturing class. Now it is time to 
     light that fire inside of other students and show them 
     today's manufacturing companies are a great place to have a 
     career.

  A great place to have a career. This story illustrates perfectly why 
promoting manufacturing careers with young people is so important. We 
have a lot of advantages in this country because of natural gas. We 
have cheap energy relative to the rest of the world. Because of the 
nature of manufacturing, the main cost now is the technology, and low-
skilled wages are a much smaller piece. What this country needs are 
high-skilled wages. We need more people, more young people especially, 
to take advantage of the opportunities available in manufacturing so we 
will continue to compete globally and expand as we compete globally.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The majority whip.


                              Obstruction

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I continue to read in the newspaper and 
the press--particularly that which covers our activities in Congress--
talk about the shutdown that was averted because we were able to pass a 
continuing resolution before the midnight end of the

[[Page S7079]]

fiscal year on Wednesday night. I would like to reflect just a few 
minutes on what the cause of this drama is and where the responsibility 
actually lies for all of this shutdown drama, which would be completely 
unnecessary if the Senate and the Congress were permitted to basically 
do our job.
  For example, just this afternoon our Democratic friends decided to 
filibuster legislation that would help our veterans and our men and 
women in uniform because it would fund the full range of services to 
veterans and the construction of military facilities. If you think 
about that for a moment, it becomes even more outrageous because the 
idea that in order to force this side of the aisle to the table, in 
order to spend more money and raise taxes, that you would hold our 
veterans and our military hostage is really remarkable, certainly 
nothing to be proud of, and something that needs to be called out and 
identified for what it is.
  The only reason we have had to go through this process on a 
continuing resolution--and, by the way, for those who are not familiar 
with the continuing resolution, what that means is we are continuing 
for a period of time now--until December 11--the current spending 
policies of the Federal Government. That means we are side-stepping the 
Appropriations Committee, where outdated or obsolete programs are 
discarded or if there are multiple government programs that could be 
consolidated that could be made more effective or efficient, or if, 
heaven forbid, we could actually save some money and apply it to 
priorities or maybe help reduce our deficit--that is where that should 
be happening, but the obstruction of our friends across the aisle who 
are dead set on forcing us to the negotiating table so they can force 
the Federal Government to spend more money is outrageous.
  We have had two previous votes on the Defense appropriations bill, 
which is even more immediately directed to help support our families 
and the men and women in uniform, many of whom are serving in harm's 
way. It is amazing to me how many people will come to the Senate floor 
or in the other body, the House of Representatives, and talk about 
their devotion and dedication to our military and our veterans--and 
they should. Our military and our veterans deserve our devotion and 
appreciation and every honor we can bestow on them. But the idea that 
you would on one hand talk like that and then come to the floor and 
block legislation that funds their paycheck or pays for their benefits 
if they are a veteran and keeps the commitment we have made to them--it 
really is outrageous and is just another reason why the American 
people--everybody outside of the beltway--hold Congress and Washington 
in such low regard. We are, after all, a self-governing people, and 
when people hold their government in low regard and lose confidence in 
their government, basically they lose confidence in themselves and in 
our country and in our ability to control our destiny or at least try 
to point us in a better direction.
  Earlier on, I believe it was the senior Senator from New York who 
gave an interview to the New York Times. He talked about the fact that 
the Democrats were going to have a ``filibuster summer,'' and now that 
has sort of slopped over into a filibuster fall, apparently. Why? For 
what reason? What is the good reason? Well, it is not for a good 
reason, but it is for this reason: so they can force Republicans, the 
majority, to the negotiating table to spend more money.
  Then there is the White House. There is no leadership out of the 
White House on fiscal matters whatsoever. This morning the White House 
threatened to veto this very bill, assuming it would pass the Congress. 
Again, why? Well, because it complies with the current law and 
budgetary restrictions under the Budget Control Act. You might ask, 
well, why are they offended by that? Why is that a problem? Well, that 
is a good question, actually, because the President himself signed the 
Budget Control Act into law, and the very caps on spending that have 
kept discretionary spending at 2007 levels are caps he signed into law.
  The idea that you would hold our troops and veterans hostage is 
incredible. Why? Because the President and the minority, the Democrats, 
refuse to adhere to budget spending caps the President signed into law.
  You know, we hear a lot of discussion about these caps and 
sequestration. These are the automatic spending caps on discretionary 
spending. They were actually proposed by the President and his team at 
the White House in the first place. So it would require a certain 
degree of cognitive dissonance or maybe willing suspension of disbelief 
to read over the White House's veto threat on this particular bill and 
to take it seriously.
  We are going to continue to press our Democratic colleagues to return 
this body to what we like to call regular order around here--in other 
words, doing our job, what we were elected to do.
  This whole idea of holding our troops and veterans hostage in order 
to force more government spending is beyond outrageous. With everything 
happening in the world, I don't doubt it is hard for this message to 
penetrate, but the reason we continue to operate on continuing 
resolutions and temporary patches, such as the one that was just passed 
that goes to December 11, is because of the obstruction on the other 
side of the aisle, these filibusters.
  We have a lot of work cut out for us by that December 11 deadline. 
Before that deadline, we have to deal with an expiring highway bill. We 
passed a multiyear highway bill here in the Senate and sent it to the 
House. My hope is that they will use this time up until October 29 to 
pass a highway bill and that we can get to a conference and work out 
the differences and settle that one important piece of business. I come 
from a big State. We need those resources in order to maintain and 
build our highway system, for public safety, for the environment, and 
for the economy. So I hope we can get that done.
  We are going to have another big drama here as a result of the 
Democrats filibustering these appropriations bills called an Omnibus 
appropriations bill. In other words, what is set up to happen as a 
result of the obstruction on the other side of the aisle by blocking 
all of these appropriations bills is we are going to have to consider 
all of the funding for the Federal Government for perhaps the next 
year. We are going to have to vote on that one big bill--probably $1 
trillion or more--in December. That is a horrible way to do business. 
First of all, it is not transparent. Our constituents cannot hope to 
read that legislation and understand all of the ramifications of it and 
what it might mean. It also, frankly, is susceptible to being larded 
with things that really aren't necessary, that would not pass under 
other circumstances but are put on a must-pass piece of legislation.
  So you are going to hear more drumbeats--I will close with this--
about shutdowns and cliffs and the irresponsibility of Congress in not 
meeting our basic obligations. There is one reason for that under the 
present circumstances; it is because our Democratic friends have chosen 
to filibuster and to stop the Senate from doing its business the way we 
should be doing our business in an orderly, transparent, responsible, 
and accountable sort of way. The way we do that is by taking up 
individual appropriations bills and passing them. If we did it that 
way, there would be no government shutdown drama if one or two 
appropriations bills did not get passed for some reason, if there was 
some delay. So this is really the source of all of this shutdown 
drama--the obstruction of our Democratic colleagues, preventing us from 
doing our basic business of governing and making sure we are doing what 
we promised to do when each of us stood for election in front of our 
voters.
  I see the junior Senator from Montana is here. I know one of the 
things that motivated many of our new Senators is the desire to come 
here and put our fiscal house in order. We are not even talking about 
doing some of the things we should do, some of the things we need to do 
to reduce the deficit--the difference between what we spend and what 
comes in--much less the debt, which is in the $18 trillion range, which 
is unbelievable.
  So these young men and women who are serving as pages--we are leaving 
behind for them a financial burden which is simply immoral. It is just 
not right. The promises that were made back when Social Security and 
Medicare were passed--that they would be

[[Page S7080]]

there for you in your later years--I have not met a young person today 
who thinks Social Security or Medicare is going to be there for them 
because, frankly, they are going to run out of money on the current 
path they are on.
  So we have a lot to do. Believe me, the country is upset. People are 
angry. They are scared. They are worried about their families and about 
their future. They are worried about their security. When they look at 
the TV set or read the newspaper and see how a willful minority can 
simply shut down our ability to do our job and conduct the Nation's 
business, their anger and their frustration and their fear are 
justified.
  We can do better. I hope and pray we will.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                        Remembering Jean Turnage

  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Jean 
Turnage, the former Montana Supreme Court chief justice and a State 
senate president who passed away earlier this week.
  Chief Justice Turnage was a true public servant who always put 
Montana and this Nation first. He is remembered as a fair and tolerant 
judge and a true gentleman legislator. As both a legislator and judge, 
he had a genius for solving conflicts and bridging differences--a 
quality that is far too rare in public service.
  Chief Justice Turnage was part of a dying breed of the ``greatest 
generation'' and was a true statesman. As a World War II veteran, a 
State legislator, and chief justice of the Montana Supreme Court, 
Justice Turnage truly exemplified our State's strong legacy of service. 
His passing is a great loss for Montana.
  On behalf of all Montanans, I wish to recognize Jean for his decades 
of service to Montana and to this Nation. Our thoughts and prayers are 
with the Turnage family during this time of loss.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  (The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2123 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Religious Liberty

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last week I came to the floor to speak on 
the subject of religious liberty in America. I explained why religious 
liberty matters, why it is important, and why it deserves special 
protection from government interference.
  I also used my remarks to welcome Pope Francis to Washington and to 
recognize the historic nature of his visit. I was struck by the Pope's 
emphasis on religious liberty while he was here and by his concern for 
the state of religious liberty, not just around the world, but in the 
United States as well.
  In his address at the White House, Pope Francis said that many 
American Catholics are ``concerned that efforts to build a just and 
wisely ordered society respect . . . the right to religious liberty,'' 
and he called on all Americans to ``be vigilant . . . to preserve and 
defend [religious] freedom from everything that would threaten or 
compromise it.''
  Before Congress, Pope Francis, spoke of the delicate balance required 
to combat violence and extremism while at the same time safeguarding 
religious liberty. And in Philadelphia, he declared that the right of 
religious exercise extends well beyond the church door. He said:

       Religious freedom certainly means the right to worship God, 
     individually and in community, as consciences dictate. But 
     religious liberty, by its nature, transcends places of 
     worship and the private sphere of individuals and families.

  Like Pope Francis, I too am concerned about threats to religious 
freedom in the United States. Last week, I announced my intention to 
give a series of speeches on the subject of religious liberty, and I 
continue with that purpose today by speaking about the history of 
religious liberty in America.
  As my remarks will show, concern for religious liberty has been a 
critical feature of our Nation from the beginning. The desire to enjoy 
the freedom to live one's faith was a motivating factor for many of our 
earliest settlers. Once here, they set about creating societies in 
which religion could have full room to flourish. At times they fell 
prey to the same sectarian narrowmindedness that bedeviled the nations 
of Europe, but on the whole our forebears enjoyed and permitted a 
broader range of religious freedom than could be found most anywhere in 
the world or the planet at that time.

  As the heirs of their efforts, we have the obligation to continue 
their commitment to religious liberty. Freedom of religion is part of 
the very fabric of our Nation. It is not only enshrined in the text of 
our First Amendment, it also permeates our history, our very identity 
as a nation. Protecting and promoting freedom of religion is at the 
heart of the American project.
  Let's begin at the beginning. The first permanent European settlers 
here in America were Pilgrims seeking to escape religious oppression. 
Leaders such as John Winthrop guided Puritans and other groups of 
Pilgrims from Europe to the New World in search of a place where they 
could practice their religious beliefs according to their own 
conscience.
  The Pilgrims' journey to Massachusetts Bay is considered such an 
important part of the American story that a mural depicting the 
embarkation of the Pilgrims hangs in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol. 
This great painting stands as a symbol and constant reminder of 
America's place as a safe harbor for those seeking religious liberty.
  Following the success of the Puritans, other religious minorities, 
including the Quakers, Congregationalists, Baptists, Jews, Methodists, 
Presbyterians, and a host of German and Dutch sects, came to the 
American Colonies to practice their faith in peace. Unfortunately, many 
of these minorities did not find the religious tolerance they had hoped 
for. The Massachusetts Bay Colony, for example, punished heretics and 
adopted the Old World view that nonadherence to the state religion was 
a crime against the state. True to the American ideal, however, these 
religious minorities did not give in. Instead, they pressed on in 
search of new locales where the promise of religious freedom could be 
found full bloom.
  Roger Williams, the founder of the first Baptist church in America, 
was among the most notable dissenters from religious orthodoxy. 
Williams believed that the church in Massachusetts was not sufficiently 
separated from the church of England and openly questioned the 
legitimacy of the Colony's charter.
  Forced to flee his home in Boston for fear of being arrested, 
Williams found refuge among the Natives. He went on to purchase land 
from the Massasoit tribe and established a new settlement that he gave 
the rather auspicious name ``Providence.'' A few years later, 
Providence and several other communities joined together to form the 
Rhode Island Colony--the first Colony in the New World--to offer 
religious liberty to all sects. Citizens in Rhode Island could attend 
the church of their choice without fear of government reprisal.
  Mr. President, we see in the founding of Rhode Island the seed of the 
idea that all people should be free to practice their faith. If 
Massachusetts represented the flight of persecution, then Rhode Island 
constituted the next step in the path toward religious freedom--the 
extension of free exercise.
  Rhode Island was not the only safe harbor in the New World for 
religious minorities. There was also Pennsylvania, which was named for 
William Penn, a Quaker. English authorities imprisoned Penn in the 
Tower of London for writing pamphlets critical of the Church of 
England. After he was released, Penn established the Pennsylvania 
Colony as a refuge for practitioners of his own Quaker faith.
  Another example is the Dutch Colony of New Netherland, later known as 
New

[[Page S7081]]

Amsterdam and today known as New York. When New Amsterdam was founded 
in 1625, its Articles of Transfer assured New Netherlanders that they 
could ``keep and enjoy the liberty of their consciences in religion.'' 
No city better symbolizes the religious diversity of America than New 
York City, which should be unsurprising given that New York was one of 
America's earliest havens of religious liberty and tolerance.
  It bears mention that although many of the early American Colonies 
aspired to provide religious liberty to all citizens, colonial America 
often fell short of this ideal. In 1689, for example, England's 
Parliament enacted the Act of Toleration, which granted freedom to non-
Anglicans to hold their own religious services provided they properly 
registered their ministers and places of worship. However, the act did 
not extend the right to hold public office to nonconformists and 
explicitly excluded Catholics and Unitarians from all benefits provided 
by the act. Moreover, ministers of minority sects could be imprisoned 
for failing to apply for licenses or for preaching outside of 
authorized locations. In 1774, Virginia authorities imprisoned some 50 
Baptist ministers for failing to heed the Toleration Act's 
requirements.

  That the trajectory of religious liberty in America has not always 
been a straight line, however, does not diminish the centrality of 
religious freedom to the American ideal or to the history and growth of 
our Nation. Looking back centuries later, we rightly criticize colonial 
leaders for failing to give full freedom to religious practitioners. 
But the initial failure of some colonial leaders to live up to the 
ideal was ultimately overwhelmed by the success of later colonists and 
by the significance of religious liberty through the entire American 
project.
  As I said last week, our Nation exists because of religious liberty. 
The freedom to practice one's faith was central to the founding and 
growth of the American Colonies. Furthermore, the guarantees of 
religious liberty found in the colonial charters, coupled with the 
breadth of religious diversity in pre-revolution America, are nothing 
short of remarkable. As Stanford professor Michael McConnell--one of 
the great constitutional experts in our country--has noted, in the 
years leading up to the Revolution, America had ``already experienced 
150 years of a higher degree of religious diversity than had existed 
anywhere else in the world.''
  I come now to the American Revolution and subsequent ratification of 
the Constitution. It was through these crucial events that the ideal of 
religious liberty had so long motivated the colonists to become part of 
our fundamental charter of government.
  George Washington, while leader of the Continental Army, issued a 
command concerning religious liberty to the revolutionary troops: 
``[A]s far as lies in your power, you are to protect and support the 
free exercise of the religion of the Country, and the undisturbed 
enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters, with your 
utmost influence and authority.''
  That was George Washington.
  Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, 
likewise emphasized the centrality of religious freedom for our new 
Nation. In 1786, the Virginia Legislature adopted a statute on 
religious freedom written by none other than Thomas Jefferson. This law 
said that ``all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to 
maintain, their opinions in matter of religion, and that the same shall 
in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.''
  Jefferson's words in the Statute for Religious Freedom had a profound 
influence on James Madison, whom we revere today as the father of the 
Constitution. Madison reflected Jefferson's vision in his own writings, 
declaring that ``[t]he religion of every man must be left to the 
conviction and conscience of every man to exercise it as these may 
dictate.''
  The original Constitution, ratified in 1788, did not contain a bill 
of rights because the Framers believed the structure they had created 
would effectively guard against tyranny. They also worried that 
enumerating rights could lead to mischief, as officials might argue 
that any right not enumerated did not exist. But the Framers eventually 
reversed course, and a few years later Madison drafted and the States 
ratified the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.
  The first of these amendments formalized the guarantee of religious 
liberty already found in many State constitutions and deeply embedded 
in the fabric of American society. The words are familiar to all 
Americans: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' The principle 
that had motivated the initial settlement of America and that had grown 
and matured in concert with the growth and maturation of the Colonies 
themselves had found expression in our fundamental charter.
  Of course, ratification of the First Amendment is not the end of the 
story. From the founding generation down to the present day, the 
importance of religious liberty to the American ideal has continued to 
manifest itself in a variety of ways.
  Consider the experience of the Ursuline nuns of New Orleans. These 
French sisters were the first congregation of Roman Catholic nuns in 
the United States. They came to America in the early 1700s and settled 
in New France, which later became Louisiana.
  Following the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the sisters of the Ursuline 
Convent grew concerned that they would lose their rights to their 
property and mission now that their charter was under the jurisdiction 
of the United States.
  The mother superior of the Ursulines petitioned President Thomas 
Jefferson to ask that the sisters be allowed to keep their property in 
New Orleans. President Jefferson responded powerfully, telling the 
Sisters: ``The principles of the Constitution and government of the 
United States are a sure guarantee to you that [your property] will be 
preserved to you sacred and inviolate and that your institution will be 
permitted to govern itself according to its own rules, without 
interference from the civil authority.''
  President Jefferson spoke the truth. Indeed, the Old Ursuline Convent 
and Mission survives to this day. It is located in New Orleans' famous 
French Quarter and is the oldest building in the Mississippi River 
Valley. The Old Ursuline Convent is an emblem of the vitality and 
centrality of religious liberty in American life. A persecuted 
religious minority, unpopular in its day and even reviled in some 
backward segments of society, received a personal guarantee from the 
President of the United States that their rights and property would 
remain secure under the protection of the U.S. Government. Here we see 
religious liberty not only as ideal but as reality.
  To return to my earlier formulation, Massachusetts represented the 
flight from religious persecution, Rhode Island and other Colonies the 
extension of free exercise. Now in the Constitution we have the 
guarantee of religious liberty to all people in all places within the 
jurisdiction of our great land.
  The Constitution and its guarantee of free exercise is the 
culmination of the process that began when the Pilgrims first set foot 
on the Mayflower way back in 1620. But the Constitution is only as 
effective as we, through our fidelity, make it. Regrettably, the 
guarantee of free exercise has at times been undermined or even 
abridged by narrowminded sectarianism or fear of new creeds. Such 
divergence from the promise of religious liberty is not cause to 
question the continuing value of religion or to claim that the promise 
of religious freedom is a false promise. Rather, it is reason to 
dedicate ourselves to the ideal enshrined in our Constitution that all 
men and women have an inalienable right to choose for themselves what 
they believe and how they will practice their beliefs.

  As many of my colleagues know, I am a descendent of the early Mormon 
pioneers who, much like the Pilgrims of the Mayflower, fled persecution 
and discrimination by abandoning their homes for a new place of refuge. 
In the case of the Mormon pioneers, they migrated, many by foot and in 
harsh conditions, in a mass exodus across the Great Plains over the 
Rocky Mountains, and, finally, into Salt Lake Valley and other 
settlements throughout the Intermountain West. Brigham Young was a 
great colonizer and sent people all over the West to settle the West. 
One of the attributes of the Mormon pioneers that I admire most is

[[Page S7082]]

that after having endured mob violence, the martyr of their prophet, 
the burning of their homes and places of worship, and their forced 
flight into the American wilderness, they never lost their deep love of 
the United States and our Constitution. I am very pleased the people of 
Utah remain a deeply patriotic people, with a profound respect and 
admiration for our Constitution.
  In more recent years, our leaders have continued to reaffirm the 
importance of religious liberty in American life. In 1948, the United 
States was one of the original signers of the Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights, which proclaims that every person has the right to 
freedom of religion, including the right to ``manifest his religion or 
belief in teaching, practice, worship or observance.''
  Four decades later, in 1990, Congress passed the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act, or RFRA, a crucially important piece of legislation 
that prohibits government from substantially burdening a person's 
exercise of religion unless doing so is necessary to further a 
``compelling government interest.'' I was honored to be one of the 
principal authors of RFRA and count its passage of one of the greatest 
moments of our time in this body. The bill passed the Senate 97 to 3 
and passed the House without recorded opposition. An enormous coalition 
of groups from across the ideological spectrum--including the ALCU, the 
American Muslim Council, the Anti-Defamation League, the Christian 
Legal Society, and the National Council of Churches--came together in 
support of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The breadth and depth 
of support for RFRA was a sign of the enduring importance of religious 
liberty in American life. Indeed, RFRA demonstrated that religious 
liberty is the rare issue that unites Americans of all stripes.
  One other recent marker of the continuing significance of religious 
freedom in America is found, interestingly enough, in a bill aimed at 
protecting religious freedom in other countries. In 1998, Congress 
unanimously passed the International Religious Freedom Act, which 
created an ambassador-at-large for International Religious Freedom 
within the State Department and a bipartisan U.S. Commission on 
International Religious Freedom. The very first words of the act 
proclaim that ``[t]he right to freedom of religion undergirds the very 
origin and existence of the United States.''
  This statement, approved by all 535 Members of Congress and signed 
into law by the President, encapsulates the overarching theme of my 
remarks today. Freedom of religion is central to the American ideal and 
to the history and development of our Nation. From the earliest 
settlers to the revolutionary generation, to the 19th century, to the 
modern day, religious freedom has been a driving force in American 
life. Without the quest for religious liberty, there would be no United 
States, and without the continued guarantee of religious freedom, there 
can be no American ideal. This is the fundamental rule in our society, 
a fundamental maxim, a fundamental part of the Constitution, a 
fundamental belief for virtually everyone in America who has any 
religious inclinations at all.
  I am proud to be a citizen of this great Nation. I don't want to see 
religious liberty infringed upon, abused, not tolerated or denigrated. 
We have to stand up for it. We have to make sure everybody knows we are 
not going to change one of the basic precepts of the American 
experience--one of the basic precepts, from the beginning of this 
country until today.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Remembering James H. Gilliam, Sr.

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that today I rise 
to honor a friend and a true force for good in my home State of 
Delaware who recently passed away but whose impact will be felt for 
many years to come. He was, first and foremost, a loving husband, 
father, and grandfather. He was married to his wife Louise for 68 years 
and had always been the rock of his family. He was incredibly proud of 
the many accomplishments of his son Jim, Jr., and his daughter Dr. 
Patrice Gilliam-Johnson, after instilling in them his own passion of 
service to others. This man stood as a great leader in the First State. 
He was a veteran, a trailblazer, a mentor, and to so many of us a 
trusted adviser and friend.
  It was Mr. James H. Gilliam, Sr.--or Mr. G., as he was known to so 
many of us--who left our world early Wednesday morning on September 10, 
but before he left us, he made a profound impact on thousands of 
Delawareans from every walk of life, as a teacher, as a mentor, and a 
leader. His 95 years on this Earth marked a life well lived. Whether he 
was helping communities to heal and to grow together or helping to 
establish local and national organizations committed to social justice 
and equity, advising Governors, Members of Congress or even the Vice 
President, he never wasted an opportunity to make the case for our 
community.
  Jim Gilliam, though, actually didn't grow up in Delaware. He was 
originally raised in Baltimore and earned a bachelor's degree in 
sociology from Morgan State and a master's degree in social work from 
Howard University. From 1944 to 1948, he served his country with honor 
as a member of the Army's 92nd Infantry Division, the famed Buffalo 
Soldiers, where he became a decorated soldier during the Second World 
War and beyond. He was actually recalled to duty again as a captain 
during the Korean war, and for all his service, he received many 
awards, including two Bronze Star Medals and the Combat Infantryman 
Badge. I will never forget the opportunity I had last year when I was 
able to help him retrieve a number of his missing or, in several cases, 
never awarded medals, and to reissue them to him in a public ceremony. 
Hundreds of Delawareans from across our community came together at that 
event--hundreds whose lives he touched, and I don't think there was a 
dry eye in the house.
  Jim Gilliam didn't come to Wilmington for good until 1965, when he 
was hired as director of neighborhood and housing services for the 
Greater Wilmington Development Council. Shortly after, in 1968, he was 
one of the few trusted to walk the Wilmington streets promoting 
reconciliation during the riots in our city and the National Guard 
occupation that lasted too long after the assassination of Rev. Martin 
Luther King, Jr.
  Mr. G. went on to hold positions of leadership with private and 
public sector entities, including vice president of the development 
company Leon N. Weiner & Associates, working to build affordable, low-
income housing; or as the director of New Castle County's Department of 
Community Development and Housing, where he served for many years; or 
in 1970 when Governor Peterson asked him to overhaul a then-failing 
Delaware family court. He touched many lives through many institutions.
  His constant involvement in the community led to many honors and 
accolades, but through it all he never rested on his laurels or slowed 
down in his efforts to serve others. In 1999, at an age when most 
others would have been beginning retirement, he spent 9 months raising 
$1 million and securing hundreds of political, business, and community 
supporters to launch the Metropolitan Wilmington Urban League. The 
Metropolitan Wilmington Urban League quickly rose to prominence and 4 
years later received the National Urban League's highest honor. Since 
that time, as MWUL chairman, Jim led countless efforts in educational 
opportunity, economic development, supplier diversity, fighting racial 
profiling, and promoting equity in the arts. I was honored to be able 
to call him a mentor and an adviser.
  Whether working with him 15 years ago when I was a newly elected 
countywide official or in recent years as a U.S. Senator, I called on 
Mr. G. time and again when making tough decisions. His counsel was not 
always easy to receive. He pulled no punches, but he always gave advice 
keeping the best interests of our community in mind. I consider myself 
hugely blessed for the many opportunities when he shared his knowledge 
and perspective of what we needed to do. But I am far from the only 
person who long relied upon his advice.

[[Page S7083]]

  Mr. G. mentored countless young men and women from throughout the 
State and throughout his life and truly fostered an entire generation 
of civic and community leaders. One of them is Paul Calistro, the 
executive director of the West End Neighborhood House, whose 
organization has supported thousands youth in our city. A sentiment he 
recently related to me was that ``Mr. G. was a man who could command 
the entire room, but could also speak to you as if you were the only 
one in the room.''
  Another person whose career he helped launch was Jea Street. He is 
now a county councilman, and for decades he was executive director of 
Hilltop Lutheran--another important youth-serving organization in a 
tough neighborhood in our city. He was hired at the tender age of 22, 
some 40 years ago, by Mr. G. to help in preparation for school 
desegregation. Jea recently commented: He did not tell me it was a job 
for life, but he helped me to do it and to stay on the battlefield for 
justice these many years.
  Any elected official or civic community leader who sat down with Mr. 
G. also knew that he meant business. He wasn't shy about telling you 
what you needed to do, what you needed to do better, what you needed to 
do to make an impact. Whether it was fighting crime or investing in 
education or a growing opportunity, he was better than anyone I have 
ever known at delivering hard and pointed messages with a smile but 
with an intensity that made you listen and made you want to be a better 
man. The News Journal, our home paper in Wilmington, recently said: 
``Mr. Gilliam's fight for racial justice, his efforts to correct the 
wrongs of our society and his willingness to mentor countless others, 
sent forth thousands of ripples of hope that have benefited us in the 
past and will serve us well in the future.''
  I think that is exactly right. No problem was too small or 
insignificant for him to embrace and to attend to and to set right. He 
was Wilmington's pied piper, leading all kinds of people into a better 
place. He was a natural leader, and everyone who knew him is better off 
for it.
  My good friend Dr. Tony Allen counted Mr. G. as his best friend. Tony 
put it this way:

       He was the conscience of our community. He often said to me 
     that the great challenges of life are in the moments when it 
     is our turn. When there is an opportunity for us to speak up 
     or to be quiet, to rise up or to lie down, to take arms or to 
     take cover, most of us take the path of least resistance and 
     miss the moment to make a difference in our own lives and in 
     the lives of others. He taught everyone to never, ever miss 
     their moment to act, to do the right thing, and to make the 
     world a better place.

  For 95 years, Mr. G. never missed the moments that required him to 
act and to lead. He acted, he led, and his legacy lives on not only in 
his family but among so many other people and institutions throughout 
our State that he touched.
  As for me, I will always remember Jim Gilliam as a man who challenged 
me to be better. He viewed himself as a servant to our community, but 
he knew that his service alone wasn't enough. That is why his lasting 
legacy will be in those whom he has inspired and whom he challenged to 
continue his work, to follow his example, to take our turn and our 
moment to fight for justice.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan wishes to be recognized, I presume.
  Mr. PETERS. I do, indeed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.


             Pipeline Improvement and Preventing Spills Act

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue that 
is of particular importance in my State of Michigan--preventing an 
oilspill in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are a part of our way of 
life in Michigan, supporting our multibillion dollar agricultural, 
shipping, and tourism industries. An oilspill on this precious resource 
would be catastrophic for Michigan and for all surrounding Great Lakes 
States. The Great Lakes are a critical drinking water source for 40 
million people, and they contain 84 percent of North America's surface 
freshwater. Vessels moving through the Great Lakes carry goods and 
passengers across the region, and tourists in Michigan, Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York take in 
their beautiful coastlines each year. Unfortunately, Michiganders know 
all too well the devastating consequences of a pipeline break and what 
it can do to an economy and to its natural resources.
  Five years ago we experienced one of the largest inland oilspills in 
U.S. history with a 6-foot break in the Line 6-B pipeline in Marshall, 
MI. Oil flowed for nearly 17 hours before it was eventually shut off, 
spilling more than 800,000 gallons of heavy crude, contaminating 35 
miles of the Kalamazoo River, and ultimately racking up a cleanup cost 
of $1.2 billion. An independent investigation after the spill concluded 
that the pipeline operator's inadequate procedures, as well as ``weak 
Federal regulations,'' all played a major role in this disastrous 
spill.
  The Kalamazoo disaster, along with several other devastating pipeline 
explosions and spills, prompted a sweeping pipeline safety bill to be 
signed into law in early 2012. Unfortunately, many of those rules and 
regulations have yet to be finalized by the Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA.
  I am very concerned about the potential for future spills in 
Michigan, especially from a pair of 60-year old pipelines carrying oil 
and natural gas liquids through the Straits of Mackinac, the place 
where Lake Michigan and Lake Huron meet. The Straits of Mackinac have 
been called the ``worst possible place'' for an oilspill in the entire 
Great Lakes Basin. The strong currents in the straits tend to reverse 
direction every few days, and they move water at a rate at over 10 
times greater than the flow over Niagara Falls. A professor at the 
University of Michigan used computer modeling to estimate that a worst 
case scenario oil slick moving east through the Straits could reach the 
shores of Mackinac City and Mackinac Island--our number one tourist 
attraction--in just 3 hours.
  Even more troubling is the fact that Coast Guard officials have 
acknowledged that current oilspill response techniques are not adequate 
for open freshwater, let alone freshwater with heavy, thick ice--the 
ice we find every season in the Straits of Mackinac.
  To make matters worse, response plan requirements for pipelines 
overseen by PHMSA at the Federal level are seriously lacking. The 
information related to safety procedures, inspection reports, and worst 
case scenarios are unavailable to the public. Even local emergency 
responders have been left in the dark. That is why I, along with my 
Michigan colleague and good friend Debbie Stabenow, introduced the 
Pipeline Improvement and Preventing Spills Act, which includes several 
commonsense provisions to prevent pipeline accidents and protect the 
Great Lakes from catastrophic crude oil spills. Our bill requires the 
U.S. Coast Guard and other agencies to independently assess oilspill 
response and cleanup activities and techniques for the Great Lakes, 
specifically taking into account the cleanup response of an oilspill 
under solid, thick ice or ice-choke waters.
  My legislation requires the Department of Transportation and the 
National Academies to examine risks associated with pipelines in the 
Great Lakes and other waterways in the region, including an analysis of 
alternatives to the Straits oil pipeline. This bill would also increase 
transparency by ensuring residents are notified about pipelines near 
their property and compels operators and regulators to make information 
publicly available.
  My legislation will also expand safety features to pipelines in high-
consequence areas--creating jobs for pipefitters and other 
professions--while protecting dense population centers, drinking water, 
and environmentally sensitive areas. Finally, this bill will eliminate 
the future risk of a disastrous crude oil spill from tanker vessels on 
the Great Lakes.
  Currently crude oil is not shipped by tankers on the Great Lakes. 
However, it is increasingly being looked at as an option. Given the 
difficulty of cleaning

[[Page S7084]]

up heavy oil in open freshwater, my bill will take that option off the 
table to ensure that we will not jeopardize our $7 billion Great Lakes 
fishing industry. The Pipeline Improvement and Preventing Spills Act is 
endorsed and supported by a number of groups, including the Michigan 
League of Conservation Voters; the Pipefitters, Plumbers and HVAC Techs 
Local 111; Traverse City Tourism; the Great Lakes Fishing Commission; 
Michigan Steelhead and Salmon Fishermen's Association; National 
Wildlife Federation; and the Alliance for the Great Lakes--to name a 
few.
  The Senate committee on commerce, which has jurisdiction over 
pipeline safety, will be considering pipeline legislation in the next 
few weeks. I look forward to building support for provisions in my 
bill. Our country continues to record record highs in domestic energy 
production, but we must remain vigilant when it comes to energy 
transportation. Through strong oversight, leadership from the industry, 
and technological innovation, I firmly believe that we can and we must 
continue to meet our energy needs in the safest way possible while 
preserving treasures such as the Great Lakes for future generations.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________