Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. This final couple of days that we are going to be in session are very important because they are the days preceding the expiration of the wind energy tax break. It expires on December 31. There are energy efficiency tax breaks that expire on December 31. This is unfortunate, because these are industries that are rapidly growing. But let's take note here. If you are the oil industry or other older fossil fuel industries, your tax breaks are not expiring on December 31. For the wind industry, for the renewable energy industry, we have to come back out here every year and try to get those tax breaks renewed. Each year as we reach this December 31 date, we talk about a Congress adjourning without completing it, sending total corporate unpredictability out into the marketplace, knowing that we need to have a robust, competitive marketplace. Honestly, Adam Smith is spinning in his grave as he watches a Senate adjourn without continuing the tax breaks for wind, as the tax breaks for all of its competitive industries continue on year after year. They are permanent tax breaks. Actually, Adam Smith is spinning in his grave so rapidly that he would qualify for a permanent tax break, because he would be generating so much energy, wondering how can you have such inconsistency? How can you have one source of energy have to come in almost like a mendicant each year begging, and then having the year expire, after having added 13,000 megawatts of new electricity to the grid last year, knowing that the entire nuclear industry only added 100,000 in 60 years? Here we are again. Those tax breaks are going to expire. We are going to leave here. We could not get unanimous consent in order to take them up here today to extend those tax breaks. Once again, the energy sources of the future, the innovative new energy sources, pay the price. They are not allowed to be given permanent status or, as we leave here, any status at all as of the end of this year. Young people in our country, the green energy generation, looked and they asked: Well, why can't we have our era's energy technologies given permanent tax breaks or at least year to year before you go home? Why can't you have that kind of a debate out there? Why is there a debate at all, to be honest with you, given the fact that there is $7 billion a year that is going to be given to the oil industry, a permanent tax break? We are not looking for that for wind. We are looking at much smaller amounts of tax benefits. So from my perspective, I look at the warming planet, I look at the Chinese and others who are targeting wind sources. I was in China in 2009. We rode by a wind factory with wind turbines, hundreds of them. They were all, in a lot of ways, pointing right at the American economy, in the same way that those Cuban missiles were pointing at our country in 1962--pointing right at us, a threat to us. But in the 21st century, it is a threat to our economy because we are not investing in these new technologies in the way we continue to invest in the old. The least it could be and should be is a level playing field. Let's see who wins. Let's let capitalism work. Let's have this true Darwinian paranoia-inducing capitalism that allows for winners to be selected based upon the same kind of tax breaks for everyone. If that is the case, I think everyone would be happy. But that is not the way it is going to be this year. That is not the way it is most years. Permanent tax breaks for the older technologies, and the kind of halting, questioning, capitalism-killing, corporate-questioning tax breaks for the nascent but growing and vibrant new technologies that the Chinese and the Germans and the Danes and others see as their job- creating sectors in their economy. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for this opportunity. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I support the Murray-Ryan budget agreement, even though I disagree with a number of provisions included in the bill, because it includes balanced savings to roll back sequestration for the next 2 years and help restore much needed certainty to government agencies and our economy. Sequestration is just a fancy word for cuts--mindless cuts. I strongly believe we must end the mindless, across the board cuts from sequestration which have significantly reduced funding for a number of Federal programs that are critical to Massachusetts families and businesses. Sequestration has also significantly cut Federal spending on the research which has been critical for the development of the Massachusetts economy and will damage our economy in the long-term. Under the Murray-Ryan agreement, sequestration under the Budget Control Act would continue. However, the size of sequestration will be rolled back and the Appropriations Committee will have the authority to make changes to existing spending rather than be required to impose an across the board cut. The agreement would set overall discretionary spending for this year at $1.012 trillion--which is about $46 billion less than the Senate budget level and $45 billion above the level set in the Budget Control Act. Spending would increase only slightly next year. Unfortunately, this legislation does not eliminate sequestration from future years, in fact the agreement extends sequestration for 2 additional years (fiscal years 2022-2023). The agreement includes dozens of specific deficit-reduction provisions, with mandatory savings and non-tax revenue totaling approximately $85 billion. Those provisions include higher security fees for airline passengers, reduced contributions to Federal pensions, higher premiums for Federal insurance for private pensions, and savings from not completely refilling the strategic petroleum reserve. Finally, the agreement would reduce the deficit by between $20 and $23 billion. It also includes a 3 month extension of the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate, SGR. It is unfortunate that this agreement fails to include a critical extension of unemployment insurance, which is a critical component of our ongoing recovery and a lifeline to millions of Americans seeking employment. As a result of objections raised by the minority in the Senate, unemployment insurance will terminate just a few days after the holiday season ends. This action will cut off support desperately needed by more than 1.3 million Americans including more than 30,000 in Massachusetts. The U.S. Department of Labor has found that for every $1 of unemployment benefits spent, $2 of economic activity are generated. Extending unemployment benefits would increase our Gross National Product by 0.2 percent and create more than 200,000 jobs in 2014 alone. These Americans need our help and deserve our best efforts to resolve this issue before we adjourn for the year. Before the Senate adjourns for the year, I hope that the Senate can act on the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act which would reinstate and continue Federal support for unemployment insurance (UI), effective January 1, 2014, for an additional 3 months to temporarily prevent the expiration of benefits for 1.3 million Americans. I am a cosponsor of this legislation because it would allow all States to continue Federal unemployment insurance without a lapse from January 1, 2014. The bill would also allow any State whose agreement was previously terminated in 2013 to enter into a new agreement with the Department of Labor for emergency unemployment compensation. I have heard from a number of veterans from Massachusetts who have expressed their deep concerns about a provision in the budget agreement that would reduce the annual cost of living increase for military retirees under the age of 62. I am concerned that this provision could have a serious financial impact on these patriots and their families who fought to protect our freedom. The retirement compensation of servicemembers and Federal employees should never be reduced to lower our deficit especially while corporate tax loopholes and billions in subsidies for oil companies remain on the books. I am proud to cosponsor the Military Retirement Restoration Act. The bill would replace the cuts to military retiree benefits from the Murray-Ryan Budget Agreement by preventing companies from avoiding U.S. taxes by abusing tax havens. I am hopeful that the Senate will be able to consider this legislation early next year. I also strongly support the review of this provision by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Levin before it takes effect in December 2015. Finally, I await a comprehensive review of the military retirement and compensation systems being conducted by the Military Retirement and Compensation Modernization Commission established by Congress which can provide a better solution than the one included in the budget agreement for military retirees. I would also like to speak about another provision of the Bipartisan Budget Act: section 203, which limits access to the Social Security Administration's Death Master File, DMF. The DMF is a little-known but critically important piece of our Social Security system. It is the authoritative index of all deaths reported to the Social Security Administration from 1936 to the present, an index that contains over 85 million records of death. The DMF is therefore the prime tool available to formally confirm the death of an American citizen, and a variety of enterprises, from life insurers to pension funds, rely on the DMF to administer benefits and premiums. Under section 203 of the Bipartisan Budget Act, access to the DMF will be greatly restricted. From now on, the Department of Commerce will not be allowed to disclose information in the DMF with respect to a newly deceased person for 3 years except to persons certified under a new program managed by the Commerce Department. Under this new program, which has yet to be established, certification will be given only to those persons who have either a legitimate business or fraud prevention interest and have processes in place to safeguard the information. The goal of section 203 is laudable--to prevent persons from using the DMF to engage in identity theft and fraud. Given the sensitive nature of this information, it is good that steps are being taken to prevent the misuse of this data. Yet, while I support the goal of this section, I am concerned about how it will be implemented. Many insurance companies and pension administrators rely on the DMF to determine when benefits should be paid to their beneficiaries. In fact, nine States actually require that insurers access the DMF prior to the payment of benefits. These companies' access to the DMF is critical to their efforts to serve consumers, and their access cannot be interrupted while the Department of Commerce creates its new access certification program. Similarly, State Treasurers and Comptrollers, and their authorized personnel, also use the DMF for important purposes and need continued access while the regulations are being developed by the Secretary of Commerce. I therefore urge the Department of Commerce to take immediate regulatory action to ensure that insurance companies, pension plans, and State Treasurers and Comptrollers' access to the DMF is not inhibited during the initiation of the certification program and that all parties have an opportunity to obtain certification prior to losing access to the DMF. The Department of Commerce should also ensure that stakeholders, both in the industry and in the beneficiary communities, have an opportunity to provide input on any rulemakings regarding either the certification program or the access restrictions themselves. Earlier this year, I released a report that outlined the damage to our economy caused by sequestration and proposed an alternative plan that would produce the $1.2 trillion savings called for in the Budget Control Act without imposing the mindless, across-the-board sequestration cuts. I strongly believe we can work together on a bipartisan effort to replace these misguided cuts of sequestration with a balanced deficit reduction plan that includes a more progressive tax code, targeted cuts to defense spending and nuclear weapons, an end to unnecessary oil subsidies, and the expansion of innovative programs in Medicare that improve the quality of healthcare for beneficiaries. At the same time, we must make smart investments now that will create jobs and continue our country's economic recovery. We can no longer afford to make irresponsible across-the-board cuts that hurt middle class families and hurt our still-fragile economy. Our national strategy for job growth must continue to emphasize the areas in which Massachusetts excels: an emphasis on education; investment in our high-tech, medical, and clean energy industries; and strong support for the teachers, firefighters, and police that form the backbone of our communities. This approach has resulted in the Bay State consistently having an unemployment rate that is significantly lower than the rest of the Nation. I want to work in a bipartisan effort to fix our fiscal problems and I believe working together we can reach a bipartisan agreement to fix sequestration and maintain our fiscal discipline.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Senator for her leadership. She and I have met with people all across the State of Massachusetts who are fearful of the impact that this can have upon their ability to live in their own homes, to sell their homes, to continue to operate their businesses, to sell their businesses. This is a fundamental issue for our State. Senator Warren and I bring this concern to the floor even as we know that it is a concern that is felt all across the country. It is Louisiana. It is New Jersey. It is South Carolina. It is West Virginia. It is the coastlines of our country. Yes, it is. The warmer the climate becomes, the warmer the oceans become; the warmer the oceans, the higher the tides; the more devastating the storms, the more changes that take place in terms of the impact on the homes, the businesses, all along the coastline. But climate change does not only affect the coastal areas. It is affecting our whole country--the whole planet. There is a huge change which is taking place. That is why we are out here. We are out here because of climate change. The storm that hit New Jersey, Hurricane Sandy, was devastating. We saw the courage of the people of New Jersey and New York in responding to that storm. But just with a couple of changes in the direction of that storm, it could have wiped out everywhere from Cape Cod up to Newburyport, Maine, and New Hampshire. But for a small change in that storm, it could have been down in Delaware, Virginia, wiping out that coastline. But for the grace of God go the States that we represent. The same thing is true all across the country. We know that the pollution we pump into the sky heats the water and the air. It gives storms more power. We know this scientifically. With more powerful and more frequent storms, we realize that this tragedy is lapping right at the doors of every citizen. We have to do something to prevent it from becoming worse. But at the same time, we also have to realize that these families are innocent victims. They did not have anything to do with the policies that did not deal with climate change for a generation, that ignored the science. They are now dealing with the consequences of a failure to deal with that issue. We cannot allow the failure to act to be borne by those who are the least able to afford it. That is what is happening. It is going to be innocent Americans who now have to suffer because we did not have the political will to deal with this issue of climate change. I have heard, along with Senator Warren, from people all over my State. I have one business that relocated several years ago thinking that was going to satisfy the need to protect against climate change, against the change in the flood plain. Now, under the new plan, they will have to move the business again. It is unsustainable long term for any businesses, any family to think about living in these kinds of areas unless we begin to think through how we are going to adjust to this law that is on the books which will have an almost immediate impact upon families all over our country. We need to fix the flood insurance provisions that would have devastating economic impacts on our coastal communities. That is why I am proud to support the legislation of the Senator from Louisiana, the Senator from Georgia, Senator Isakson, Senator Menendez, Senator Merkley, and everyone who has worked on this issue. We have to ensure that we address the issue of affordability for these homeowners, affordability for these businesses in terms of the increase of the flood insurance rate caused by the new flood maps and ensure that we put that before any crippling flood insurance rate increases. We have to deal with affordability first. If affordability is not going to be dealt with, then there is going to be a devastation that is felt by millions of homeowners and businesses across this country. Climate change is real. It is here. It is dangerous, but the fear of rising floodwaters should not be compounded by the fear of an unaffordable spike in insurance premiums for homeowners and businesses across this country. I thank my colleagues for all their work on this issue. It is an indispensable part of the business of this Congress this year to pass this legislation. We must find a way to work together before we leave in order to pass this legislation. I call upon all of my colleagues to work together with us. This is as bipartisan as it gets in the Senate. We have to find a way. I congratulate the Senator from Louisiana for all of her great work. I yield back.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I thank Senator Schumer and Senator Nelson for their work on the extension of the Undetectable Firearms Act. Plastic guns printed from 3D printers are one thing: dangerous. They have no place in our society. These 3D-printed guns can be used to dodge security checks the way Tom Brady dodges opposing defenses. Members of the law enforcement community, police men and women, the ATF, TSA, FBI, and Secret Service all support this legislation because it will make our communities safer. I share their concerns and the concerns of so many of my constituents in Massachusetts. I come here today to express my support for this bill because the safety of our children and communities must be our top priority. No parent, student, or traveler should be worried that a plastic 3D gun could be left undetected and find its way into an airplane, a train, or a classroom. I am pleased we are passing this legislation today, but we must all remember that this is the bare minimum. Passing this legislation keeps plastic guns from becoming legal, but it does not crack down on the torrents of assault weapons filling our streets or ensure that all gun sales must include a background check. Neither does it close the loophole that allows a plastic gun with a single piece of removable metal to evade the ban. Even after this bill passes, we must continue to fight for commonsense gun safety regulations. In 1994, I worked with my colleagues and now-Vice President Biden to enact tougher gun control laws that helped remove dangerous Chinese assault weapons from our streets. At the time, it seemed like an insurmountable task, but we got those weapons of war off our streets. Today we face a challenge that seems similarly insurmountable. So I hope that in the coming days and weeks the Senate and Congress acts in a bipartisan manner to curb the epidemic of gun violence in our country. I will work with any Member of this Chamber, on either side of the aisle, to enact comprehensive gun control legislation that will keep our neighborhoods, our communities, our cities, and our public safe. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that we finally put tough gun safety laws on the books and get these dangerous weapons off our streets and out of our neighborhoods. Thank you.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, the Gillibrand amendment would address an issue that is fundamental to who we are as Americans: ensuring justice for the men and women who serve in our military. When brave young men and women enlist in the armed services, they do so to defend our country and our values. Yet those values are being undermined by the problem of sexual assault in the military. Over the past decades, our military has expanded equality. I am proud that all of our services recognize that women have a vital role to play in the military, including in combat. I wholeheartedly endorse, after years of debate, the recognition that being openly gay or lesbian has no bearing on one's ability to serve. These advances in equality in our military are vitally important-- they make our military stronger and all of us safer--but they are an empty promise without access to justice. And when men and women are the victims of sexual assault in the military, they are often deprived of justice. We all know the shameful numbers. An estimated 26,000 cases of unwanted sexual contact and sexual assaults occurred in 2012--a 37 percent increase from 2011. But the statistics that trouble me most are that 50 percent of female victims did not report the crime because they believed that nothing would be done. And 62 percent of victims who did report a sexual assault perceived some form of professional, social, or administrative retaliation as a result. And the tragedy is--they're right. The Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services spoke to this same problem and found: ``Unfortunately, recent events have shown these fears to be justified, and may also have communicated to perpetrators that they need not fear being held accountable for their actions.'' No wonder then, that the advisory committee voted in favor of removing the decision whether to prosecute sexual assaults and other serious crimes from the chain of command. The United States was founded on twin ideals: equality and justice. And much of our history has involved the struggle to expand equal treatment under the law and access to justice. When we expand equality, we also provide access to justice. I think of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which made it unlawful for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin and created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to enforce the law. Congress recognized that there is no equality without justice. I think back to the days when white male juries were the rule in virtually every courthouse in this country. Yet finally, the Supreme Court in Norris v. Alabama and Taylor v. Louisiana said that no one could be assured of a fair trial unless women and African Americans served on their juries. Equality and Justice--they are two sides of the same coin. They walk hand in hand. In the United States, one of the fundamental precepts of our criminal justice system is an independent prosecutor. The authority to charge someone with a crime is an awesome power. Exercised improperly, an innocent person can be forced to endure a trial or a criminal can go unpunished, free to harm their next victim. Under the Code of Military Justice, that critical prosecutorial decision is made by a commanding officer--someone often in both the victim's and the alleged perpetrator's chain of command--and, typically, not someone trained in the law. If----and statistically in sexual assault cases it is rare--if the commanding officer determines to try a charge by court-martial, the same commander also picks the jurors who will decide the case. I have no doubt that most commanders try their best to evaluate charges of sexual assault but they are inherently conflicted and compromised when we force them to make the call. We do these commanders a disservice by requiring them to solve this inexorable conflict. As an impressive group of law professors, many of whom are veterans, and all of whom are experts in military justice wrote: Commanders play a decisive role in military operations and must likewise play a central role in reducing sexual assault and maintaining good order and discipline generally. That role, however, need not extend to the relatively narrow and thoroughly legal arena of criminal prosecution. Contemporary norms of procedural justice require that attorneys, not commanding officers, make decisions to prosecute. As a result, we recommend that the decision to prosecute a member of the armed forces for criminal conduct . . . be made by an independent prosecutor outside the chain of command. And, they added, personnel who serve as court-martial jurors should be chosen by a court-martial administrator rather than a commander, ``to avoid concerns about jury-stacking and unlawful command influence.'' That is precisely what the Gillibrand amendment does. It vests the authority to prosecute serious criminal charges with experienced judge advocate general officers who can evaluate the evidence with a clear, cold eye and determine whether charges should be tried. That independence is the only way we can assure both the victim and the alleged perpetrator of justice--equal justice under the law. That's what this country is all about. That's why so many young men and women volunteer to serve. And we owe them nothing less.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, Senators Franken and Roberts, and all of their staffs for their tremendous leadership on this bill. This bill was also developed in concert with our counterparts in the House of Representatives. I extend my thanks to ranking member Henry Waxman and chairman Fred Upton and their staffs of the Energy and Commerce Committee. What we have now is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that addresses two very serious issues: the safety of compounded drugs and the security of our entire drug supply. Last fall an outbreak of fungal meningitis stunned the Nation and thus far has claimed the lives of 64 people and has sickened 751 in 20 States. This issue hits home for me because it started in Massachusetts. At the center of this tragedy was the New England Compounding Center, also known as NECC. It is located in Framingham, MA. I met some of the victims of this terrible outbreak and heard about their struggles, people like Jerry Cohen, a resident of Pikesville, MD, who went to the doctor for routine steroid injections to treat recurring back pain and received two doses that came from the contaminated lots. Jerry suffered a stroke and had to adjust to a new life, dealing with dizziness, nausea, weakness, and exhaustion. Melanie Norwood's mother Marjorie went into a Tennessee hospital to treat an acute back injury she suffered while mowing the lawn. Instead of walking out of the hospital, Marjorie became severely sick, spent months in the hospital and a nursing home, and now has permanent nerve damage and medical bills that are close to putting her into bankruptcy. For the last decade complaints about sterility, safety, lack of valid prescriptions, and mass production of drugs have been lodged against NECC. Yet the company was allowed to continue operating largely unchecked, falling between the regulatory checks that exist between Federal oversight of drug manufacturers and State oversight of pharmacies. Sadly, NECC was not an isolated instance. Almost a year ago I issued a report detailing more than a decade of violations and problems at compounding pharmacies all across our Nation. Contaminated IV solutions, tainted steroid injections, and fouled eyedrops permanently impacted thousands of patients' lives across this country and killed or injured dozens across 34 States. The New England Compounding Center, like many large compounding facilities, fell into a regulatory black hole. That is because there are two kinds of compounding pharmacies: the neighborhood pharmacist you have known and trusted for years and the large drug manufacturers operating in the shadows that have slipped through the regulatory cracks. Traditional compounding pharmacies make custom medication that fits the needs of an individual patient, such as creating a liquid medication instead of a pill for an elderly patient or a child because it is easier to swallow. We are familiar with that corner-store pharmacist who does that for a patient. These pharmacies are an important tool in our medical arsenal and have historically fallen under the jurisdiction of the States. They are the corner pharmacies that people grew up with. They are the corner pharmacies that people trust. But there has been a recent disturbing trend of larger compounding pharmacies entering the market, making high-risk drugs sold to hospitals and clinics throughout the country. These compounding facilities are operating more as modern-day drug manufacturers rather than the mortar-and-pestle compounders of yesteryear on the corner near your home. They are not on Main Street, and they do most of their business out of site and under the FDA's radar. In 1997 Congress passed a law to define FDA's role in the oversight of compounding pharmacies, but just 2 days before the new law was to take effect seven compounding pharmacies sued to block its enactment. Since then, the law and the FDA's authority to regulate compounding pharmacies have been mired in litigation and uncertainty. The result is that oversight of even large-scale drug manufacturers, such as NECC, has been largely relegated to the States. How are the States doing their job? Well, last April I issued an investigative report that took a deep look at how States actually oversee and govern the activities of compounding pharmacies. What I found was a regulatory state of disarray. My investigation found that nationwide most State regulators did not look at the safety of compounding pharmacies. They do not make all their activities and investigations public. Some of them did not even know how many compounding pharmacies exist in their State, and States typically are not equipped to regulate the safety of large companies shipping massive quantities of drugs outside their own borders into States all across our country. Since the NECC outbreak, some States have made efforts to improve their regulations and guidelines over compounding pharmacies, but the results are not consistent. Within the last month my home State of Massachusetts passed through its house and senate a bill that I am proud to say will put in place the strongest State regulations in the country overseeing the compounding pharmacy industry. However, while Massachusetts has become a national leader in the oversight of compounding pharmacies in the aftermath of what happened at NECC, this does little to protect the residents of other States. It cannot protect residents of Massachusetts from drugs that are shipped in from other States that do not have strong safety standards in place. The Drug Safety and Security Act in front of us today helps to solve that problem by creating for the first time a national and uniform set of rules for compounding pharmacies that wish to register with the FDA and be subject to FDA oversight and enforcement. The bill also provides transparency by requiring the FDA to publish a list of the name and location of registered facilities that are compounding drugs in large quantities without a prescription. The Drug Safety and Security Act also mirrors several concepts from the VALID Compounding Act of 2013, legislation which I introduced in the House of Representatives. The bill distinguishes between compounders engaging in traditional pharmacy work and those making large volumes of compounded drugs without individual prescriptions. It places limits on the types and quality of ingredients that can be used to compound drugs. It ensures that drugs removed for the market for safety and effectiveness reasons are not compounded. The bill requires reporting of adverse events, such as patient sickness or hospitalizations that could be caused by compounding pharmacies that are registered with the FDA. It provides more information on the label of compounded drugs, including identification of the drug as being compounded--the first time ever that this information will be required. Because of this bill, for the first time ever, the FDA will know who these large sterile compounding entities are and what they are making. The FDA will be given the resources it needs to conduct inspections of those facilities. For the first time ever, hospitals and health care facilities will have the option of purchasing compounded drugs that are subject to rigorous FDA quality standards and oversight. Because this bill removes the legal ambiguities of existing law, compounding pharmacies will no longer fly under the radar. This bill will go a long way in ensuring that public health is protected and compounded drugs are safe. I specifically thank Chairman Harkin and his staff for including in this bill a provision that I authored requiring the GAO to examine whether States and Federal authorities are doing their jobs to properly ensure the safety of compounded drugs. Congress needs to continue to keep a close eye on the FDA and this industry, holding them accountable for their new responsibilities. This study will assist us in carrying out effective oversight of this new law. We need to ensure that a tragedy like the NECC meningitis outbreak is never repeated. With the passage of the Drug Safety and Security Act, today we have a clear example of what Congress can accomplish when both sides come together in a bipartisan fashion. We can protect the public, we can hold industry to high but achievable standards, and we can support small businesses that have been doing the right thing for years. This is a very important, historic piece of legislation. It goes right to the heart of what Congress can do to make sure that when drugs are in interstate commerce, we are protecting people so that the health of their families is, in fact, being protected. That is the essence of what Congress should be doing. It is a very good day when Congress is working to protect the people of our country. Today is one of those days. Throughout the course of this week we are going to have a discussion about the role the Federal Government has to play in ensuring that the drugs which families in our country use are, in fact, safe for their consumption, that the representations that are made to those families are accurate. We cannot accept a rollback of the protections, which did happen in this area. That exposed families to the kinds of risks that generations ago were common within our country. It is a big day. It is a historic piece of legislation. I urge its unanimous passage through this body. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Consortia-Led Energy and Advanced Manufacturing Networks Act. For more than a century, America's innovation community has been the foundation of our high-tech economy and generated broad-based growth to support a strong middle class. While our innovators remain the best in the world, we have seen a disturbing trend in recent years. When it comes to moving innovations out of the lab and into the factory, we are getting beat. Breakthroughs achieved in U.S. research universities and laboratories are all too often being commercialized and manufactured overseas. As recent research by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and others has demonstrated, innovation and production are closely related. When manufacturing facilities move overseas, we lose more than just those manufacturing jobs. We can lose our ability to continue to innovate in that industry and lose our hold on those jobs forever. At the same time, we have some industries in the United States dominated by deeply entrenched companies that are resistant to innovation or adaptation of century-old business models. In those sectors, we need to look at ways of partnering with our innovators on proof-of-concept and demonstration projects so that more breakthroughs can bridge the so-called ``Valley of Death'' between the lab bench and commercialization of a new technology. That will ensure that innovative and potentially disruptive technologies can actually reach the market, and provide badly needed competition in industries where incumbents may be failing to innovate. This is what my legislation is intended to address. In order to reach their full market potential, scientific breakthroughs must be translated into commercial applications, demonstrated, connected to appropriate markets, and scaled up. The bill I am introducing today would fertilize America's innovation ecosystems by making available $100 million to 6 or more consortia to support these types of activities and help shepherd innovations through the commercialization process. Consortia could include a mix of research universities, large and small companies, national laboratories, venture capital, and state and nonprofit entities with expertise in technology commercialization. The bill includes rigorous cost-share requirements to ensure that taxpayers are only partnering on the best ideas in which the private sector also has significant capital committed. We have seen the benefits of regional innovation ecosystems in places like Silicon Valley; Boston, Cambridge and the Route 128 Corridor; the Research Triangle in North Carolina; Austin, TX; and elsewhere. The geographic proximity of institutions in these areas improves the flow of information between scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs, and it facilitates the sharing of skilled human resources and facilities. Most critically when it comes to commercializing innovations, these regions have demonstrated a unique ability to pull investor capital off the sidelines and channel it into new production. We need to bolster these existing ecosystems and help nurture new ones. America's universities and research institutions are truly national treasures. Our venture capitalists and entrepreneurs are the sharpest in the world. When we sprinkle the right mix of scientific brain power and capitalist drive, we get something uniquely American and extremely potent. This legislation will help link inventors with investors, professors with producers, and get technologies out of laboratories and into factories. It provides the type of responsible and forward-looking partnership that we need with the private sector right now. This legislation builds on provisions I included in both the Waxman-Markey bill and the America COMPETES reauthorization, bills that passed the U.S. House of Representatives in 2009 and 2010, respectively.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Consortia-Led Energy and Advanced Manufacturing Networks Act. For more than a century, America's innovation community has been the foundation of our high-tech economy and generated broad-based growth to support a strong middle class. While our innovators remain the best in the world, we have seen a disturbing trend in recent years. When it comes to moving innovations out of the lab and into the factory, we are getting beat. Breakthroughs achieved in U.S. research universities and laboratories are all too often being commercialized and manufactured overseas. As recent research by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and others has demonstrated, innovation and production are closely related. When manufacturing facilities move overseas, we lose more than just those manufacturing jobs. We can lose our ability to continue to innovate in that industry and lose our hold on those jobs forever. At the same time, we have some industries in the United States dominated by deeply entrenched companies that are resistant to innovation or adaptation of century-old business models. In those sectors, we need to look at ways of partnering with our innovators on proof-of-concept and demonstration projects so that more breakthroughs can bridge the so-called ``Valley of Death'' between the lab bench and commercialization of a new technology. That will ensure that innovative and potentially disruptive technologies can actually reach the market, and provide badly needed competition in industries where incumbents may be failing to innovate. This is what my legislation is intended to address. In order to reach their full market potential, scientific breakthroughs must be translated into commercial applications, demonstrated, connected to appropriate markets, and scaled up. The bill I am introducing today would fertilize America's innovation ecosystems by making available $100 million to 6 or more consortia to support these types of activities and help shepherd innovations through the commercialization process. Consortia could include a mix of research universities, large and small companies, national laboratories, venture capital, and state and nonprofit entities with expertise in technology commercialization. The bill includes rigorous cost-share requirements to ensure that taxpayers are only partnering on the best ideas in which the private sector also has significant capital committed. We have seen the benefits of regional innovation ecosystems in places like Silicon Valley; Boston, Cambridge and the Route 128 Corridor; the Research Triangle in North Carolina; Austin, TX; and elsewhere. The geographic proximity of institutions in these areas improves the flow of information between scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs, and it facilitates the sharing of skilled human resources and facilities. Most critically when it comes to commercializing innovations, these regions have demonstrated a unique ability to pull investor capital off the sidelines and channel it into new production. We need to bolster these existing ecosystems and help nurture new ones. America's universities and research institutions are truly national treasures. Our venture capitalists and entrepreneurs are the sharpest in the world. When we sprinkle the right mix of scientific brain power and capitalist drive, we get something uniquely American and extremely potent. This legislation will help link inventors with investors, professors with producers, and get technologies out of laboratories and into factories. It provides the type of responsible and forward-looking partnership that we need with the private sector right now. This legislation builds on provisions I included in both the Waxman-Markey bill and the America COMPETES reauthorization, bills that passed the U.S. House of Representatives in 2009 and 2010, respectively.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask to be recognized to speak on behalf of the passage of ENDA.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I rise today in support of equal treatment for all Americans. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, is aimed at protecting all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans from workplace discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. All Americans deserve to be free from discrimination in the workplace, and ENDA is a crucial step to ensuring equal treatment. I have been a cosponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act every time it was introduced in Congress since the bill was first drafted in 1994. Two years later, in 1996, I was one of only 67 Members of the House of Representatives to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act. That seems like ancient history now--so long ago. I am proud to say that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act has its roots in my home State of Massachusetts. Back in 1994, it was originally written by two titans of Massachusetts politics: Congressman Gerry Studds in the House of Representatives and Senator Ted Kennedy here in the U.S. Senate. We are coming up now close to 20 years since those bills were introduced first in the House and in the Senate. While neither of these visionary leaders is with us today, their tireless work for equality lives on. They helped pave the way for this debate by challenging the pervasive view that LGBT people do not need or deserve the same legal rights and protections as everyone else. We began debating this actually in the Massachusetts State legislature in the mid-1970s. In Massachusetts, in the 1970s, a law like this could not pass. But in 1989 Massachusetts became the second State in the Nation to adopt a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, public accommodation, housing, and credit services. In 2004 Massachusetts became the first State in the Nation to extend marriage equality to same-sex couples. Massachusetts is again paving the way with the passage of one of the first transgender equal rights laws in the Nation. The people of Massachusetts know that when some of our citizens are being discriminated against, the liberty of all people is diminished. From schoolrooms to boardrooms, members of the Massachusetts LGBT community have made stunning progress toward full legal equality. Simply put, equality works in Massachusetts, and it works for Massachusetts. By ensuring that LGBT individuals have the same employment protections as everyone else, we have made the light of liberty in our State burn even more brightly. The same basic civil rights protections that have been extended to LGBT residents of Massachusetts should be extended to LGBT people across the entire Nation. For the last two decades, the people of Massachusetts have supported a national employment nondiscrimination law because we cannot allow our Nation to have one standard in States that pass laws that protect people from discrimination and have other States that do not. We cannot have the careers of people, the dreams of people, to be in fear of prosecution as people move from State to State. There should be a national standard which we establish--a standard that ensures that every person knows that wherever they are in the United States of America, they are going to be protected, that they were created by God, and they have a right to these protections in every State in our country. Today the number of States that have adopted their own antidiscrimination laws is basically increasing. I applaud the progress that has been made to advance the cause of equality on the State level. However, 29 States still do not have these critical protections in place. That is 29 States too many that still refuse to provide those protections. In the end, it comes down to this: We should treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves. The LGBT community is made up of our friends, our neighbors, our coworkers, and our families. We all deserve the same rights regardless of who we are, regardless of where we live in our great Nation. That is what is truly exceptional about America. Despite our challenges, we remain the brightest beacon of freedom, opportunity, and equality in the world. I have a great deal of pride in our Nation and our people. I truly believe that despite our differences, we can come together with one voice to say that discrimination is wrong. So let's here, this week, all stand together for a future without discrimination in the workplace. It will make America more productive. It will make us more wealthy but, most importantly, it will ensure that we have removed that stigma of discrimination that puts fear into the hearts of American citizens unnecessarily. This is a huge, historic week that we are about to see unfold in our Nation's capital. I pray we can pass this bill and send it over to the House of Representatives so we can have this full debate in our Nation for equality for every person who lives within our boundaries. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 5, 2013, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Housing Finance Reform: Protecting Small Lender Access to the Secondary Mortgage Market.''

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 4, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities''.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 5, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SD- 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Online Federal Health Insurance Marketplace: Enrollment Challenges and the Path Forward.''

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 5, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 5, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``The U.S. Aviation Industry and Jobs: Keeping American Manufacturing Competitive.''

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Bankruptcy and the Courts, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on November 5, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Changing the Rules: Will limiting the scope of civil discovery diminish accountability and leave Americans without access to justice?''

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Subcommittee on Conservation, Forestry, and Natural Resources, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 5, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room SR-328A of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Shortchanging Our Forest: How Tight Budgets and Management Decisions Can Increase the Risk of Wildlife.''

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 5, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Fugitive Methane Emissions from Oil and Gas Operations.''

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss the first policy-focused legislation I am introducing as a Senator. I believe it will be a win for Massachusetts and a win for the Nation. But before I do so, I would like to comment briefly about another win last night for Massachusetts and for Red Sox Nation everywhere. Behind the mighty bat of Big Papi, the tireless and tough arms of Jon Lester, John Lackey, and Koji Uehara, and the incredible power of the beard, this unlikely Red Sox team took us from last in the division to first in the world. For many of us in Massachusetts, this was not just about baseball. Because on Patriots' Day, when the Sox play in the morning and New England comes together for a celebration, evil visited our city at the Boston Marathon this year. While this team cannot bring back the lives we lost or heal the wounds inflicted, it did what no other team besides the Red Sox can do: It reaffirmed our common bond in Massachusetts, in New England, and with Red Sox Nation fans everywhere. It is often said that baseball is a game of inches. But it is also a game that can span miles, bringing people together across entire communities and cultures, bridging differences and building friendships. That is what Red Sox baseball did for Boston, for Massachusetts, and for New England this year, when we needed it the most. The Red Sox gave us the chance to all raise our hands in triumph once again together as one. The Red Sox came back to win in dozens of games. They never gave up. They fought to the last pitch in every game, showing the resilience that reflected the response of an entire city and region after the marathon tragedy, and in doing so they gave us so much more than entertainment. They gave us hope, something to cheer for, and something else to talk about at a time of deep sadness in our region. As the song says: ``Don't worry about a thing, `cause every little thing gonna be all right.'' Watching the celebrations last night in and around Fenway and especially on Boylston Street, just a brief distance from the marathon finish, reminds me of how proud I am to represent this great city and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the Senate. The Sox team that won the World Series in 2004 allowed us to release 86 years of disappointment. This year's team allowed us to cheer again after months of mourning. For that, we congratulate and thank the 2013 World Series champions, the Boston Red Sox. (The remarks of Mr. Markey pertaining to the introduction of S. 1627 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. MARKEY. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, as for the other win for Massachusetts, today I am introducing my first major piece of legislation as a Senator. My bill, the American Renewable Energy and Efficiency Act, will allow every single American to have access to clean energy and money-saving efficiency. In our slow economic recovery, there has been one very bright spot in Massachusetts and the national economy, the incredible growth of clean energy, energy efficiency, and the jobs that come with these industries. According to the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, our State alone has gained 20,000 jobs in these sectors since 2010, with another 10,000 new jobs expected in the next year alone. Massachusetts has become the Nation's most energy-efficient State. Boston is ranked as the Nation's most energy-efficient city. Our shores will host the first offshore wind farm, with a new construction terminal built in New Bedford, allowing our fishermen to work alongside our wind energy workers. Massachusetts is No. 7 in the Nation in deploying solar energy, even though we are more well known for the ``Perfect Storm'' than perfectly sunny days. These advances, these jobs, these technologies have flourished in Massachusetts because we have set the right policies and encouraged our companies to lead. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick set high goals for clean energy deployment in our State, and we have already surpassed them. Boston Mayor Tom Menino wanted Boston to be known as green for just more than the Green Monster in Fenway Park, and he has delivered. Boston is now the greenest city in the United States. That is why I am introducing my first bill as a Senator to take our Massachusetts leadership and make it national. My bill would require that electricity sold to American consumers increasingly be generated using renewable sources such as wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and biomass. By 2025, the bill would require 25 percent of our electricity to come from the free fuel of the Sun, the wind, and the Earth. Since the cheapest and the cleanest powerplant is the one we never have to build, my bill would also require utilities to put people to work on large-scale energy efficiency programs. My bill would build on the efforts of Massachusetts and the 30 other States that already require utilities to provide customers with minimal amounts of renewable electricity and ensure that America joins the 118 other nations that have already established renewable energy goals. My bill would quadruple renewable energy production in the United States. It would create more than 400,000 new jobs. We can put steelworkers and ironworkers and electricians back to work building the new energy backbone for America, from Massachusetts to Montana. The energy efficiency measures in my bill would save the average household $39 per year on utility bills, and it would reduce carbon dioxide pollution by the equivalent output of 120 coal-fired powerplants, helping our efforts to battle the advancing tide of dangerous climate change. A renewable electricity standard passed the House of Representatives twice while I was a Member of the body--as recently as 2009--and it has passed the Senate three times since 2002. Before it was held hostage over the Affordable Care Act, the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill showed there is real bipartisan support for energy efficiency in the Senate. These are policies that should be embraced and not blocked. If we do not take these steps, we will lose the international race to dominate the multitrillion-dollar clean energy sector. Right now, China has already overtaken the United States as the No. 1 most attractive place to invest in renewable energy. Sixty percent of all new companies going public in the clean energy sector are doing so in China. More than 100,000 clean energy jobs are being created there annually. China now has more wind capacity installed than any other country, and they produce two-thirds of the world's solar panels. It is time for our country to scale up our clean energy deployment and innovation. It is also time to take a look at revolutionary approaches to driving that innovation. All too often we are unable to move clean energy-related discoveries and breakthroughs out of the labs and into the marketplace. That is the problem my clean tech consortia legislation addresses. I have included this bill as part of the Manufacturing Jobs for America Initiative, launched this week by Senator Coons and some of my Democratic colleagues. My bill would fertilize America's innovation ecosystems so that scientific breakthroughs can more effectively navigate the so-called valley of death between the lab and the factory and reach their commercial potential. America's universities and research institutions are truly national treasures, and our venture capitalists and entrepreneurs are the sharpest in the world. When we sprinkle the right mix of scientific brainpower and capitalist drive, we get something uniquely American and extremely potent in terms of its economic impact. My clean tech consortia bill, which I will soon be introducing, will link inventors with investors, professors with producers and get clean energy out of the laboratories and into the factories. That is the type of partnership we need with the private sector right now in our country. The other bill I have included in this package, the Manufacturing Jobs for America Initiative, and which I will also be introducing soon, is called the Build America Bonds Initiative. Here is how it works and here is what it does. When a State or local government wants to build and renovate schools, bridges, roads, and hospitals, they need financing, and they issue a bond. Investors buy those bonds, giving the State capital to hire workers and update infrastructure, and investors get a return in the form of interest. Build America Bonds say to State and local governments: We will help with the interest payments and help put more Americans back to work. From the inception of this program in April 2009 to when it expired at the end of 2010, there were 2,275 separate bonds issued nationwide, which supported more than $181 billion of financing for new public capital infrastructure projects, such as bridges, schools, and hospitals. Build America Bonds were a huge success in Massachusetts. My State issued close to $5 billion in bonds. Build America Bonds helped finance Massachusetts' Accelerated Bridge Program, which repaired and rebuilt hundreds of structurally deficient bridges. Other examples of projects include a new laboratory at UMass Amherst, a new courthouse in Salem, and a new building at the Worcester State Hospital--improving energy efficiency and reducing costs. I plan to work with my good friends Senator Wyden and Congressman Neal--both leaders on this issue--to ensure we continue to invest in both our infrastructure and our future. These are the kinds of programs that will put America back to work. I want American workers to build and export wind turbines and solar panels that say ``Made in America,'' instead of the American economy importing millions of barrels of oil a day that say ``Made by OPEC.'' I want American inventors dreaming up the newest energy technologies that convert patent applications for a prototype into job applications on the factory floor. I want American workers repairing our crumbling bridges, roads, and schools. We are in a terrestrial technology and manufacturing race as important as the celestial race President Kennedy began 50 years ago. These are three of the programs that will put America into a new economic orbit, looking down on our competitors. We should pass all three and put America back to work.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, as for the other win for Massachusetts, today I am introducing my first major piece of legislation as a Senator. My bill, the American Renewable Energy and Efficiency Act, will allow every single American to have access to clean energy and money-saving efficiency. In our slow economic recovery, there has been one very bright spot in Massachusetts and the national economy, the incredible growth of clean energy, energy efficiency, and the jobs that come with these industries. According to the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, our State alone has gained 20,000 jobs in these sectors since 2010, with another 10,000 new jobs expected in the next year alone. Massachusetts has become the Nation's most energy-efficient State. Boston is ranked as the Nation's most energy-efficient city. Our shores will host the first offshore wind farm, with a new construction terminal built in New Bedford, allowing our fishermen to work alongside our wind energy workers. Massachusetts is No. 7 in the Nation in deploying solar energy, even though we are more well known for the ``Perfect Storm'' than perfectly sunny days. These advances, these jobs, these technologies have flourished in Massachusetts because we have set the right policies and encouraged our companies to lead. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick set high goals for clean energy deployment in our State, and we have already surpassed them. Boston Mayor Tom Menino wanted Boston to be known as green for just more than the Green Monster in Fenway Park, and he has delivered. Boston is now the greenest city in the United States. That is why I am introducing my first bill as a Senator to take our Massachusetts leadership and make it national. My bill would require that electricity sold to American consumers increasingly be generated using renewable sources such as wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and biomass. By 2025, the bill would require 25 percent of our electricity to come from the free fuel of the Sun, the wind, and the Earth. Since the cheapest and the cleanest powerplant is the one we never have to build, my bill would also require utilities to put people to work on large-scale energy efficiency programs. My bill would build on the efforts of Massachusetts and the 30 other States that already require utilities to provide customers with minimal amounts of renewable electricity and ensure that America joins the 118 other nations that have already established renewable energy goals. My bill would quadruple renewable energy production in the United States. It would create more than 400,000 new jobs. We can put steelworkers and ironworkers and electricians back to work building the new energy backbone for America, from Massachusetts to Montana. The energy efficiency measures in my bill would save the average household $39 per year on utility bills, and it would reduce carbon dioxide pollution by the equivalent output of 120 coal-fired powerplants, helping our efforts to battle the advancing tide of dangerous climate change. A renewable electricity standard passed the House of Representatives twice while I was a Member of the body--as recently as 2009--and it has passed the Senate three times since 2002. Before it was held hostage over the Affordable Care Act, the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill showed there is real bipartisan support for energy efficiency in the Senate. These are policies that should be embraced and not blocked. If we do not take these steps, we will lose the international race to dominate the multitrillion-dollar clean energy sector. Right now, China has already overtaken the United States as the No. 1 most attractive place to invest in renewable energy. Sixty percent of all new companies going public in the clean energy sector are doing so in China. More than 100,000 clean energy jobs are being created there annually. China now has more wind capacity installed than any other country, and they produce two-thirds of the world's solar panels. It is time for our country to scale up our clean energy deployment and innovation. It is also time to take a look at revolutionary approaches to driving that innovation. All too often we are unable to move clean energy-related discoveries and breakthroughs out of the labs and into the marketplace. That is the problem my clean tech consortia legislation addresses. I have included this bill as part of the Manufacturing Jobs for America Initiative, launched this week by Senator Coons and some of my Democratic colleagues. My bill would fertilize America's innovation ecosystems so that scientific breakthroughs can more effectively navigate the so-called valley of death between the lab and the factory and reach their commercial potential. America's universities and research institutions are truly national treasures, and our venture capitalists and entrepreneurs are the sharpest in the world. When we sprinkle the right mix of scientific brainpower and capitalist drive, we get something uniquely American and extremely potent in terms of its economic impact. My clean tech consortia bill, which I will soon be introducing, will link inventors with investors, professors with producers and get clean energy out of the laboratories and into the factories. That is the type of partnership we need with the private sector right now in our country. The other bill I have included in this package, the Manufacturing Jobs for America Initiative, and which I will also be introducing soon, is called the Build America Bonds Initiative. Here is how it works and here is what it does. When a State or local government wants to build and renovate schools, bridges, roads, and hospitals, they need financing, and they issue a bond. Investors buy those bonds, giving the State capital to hire workers and update infrastructure, and investors get a return in the form of interest. Build America Bonds say to State and local governments: We will help with the interest payments and help put more Americans back to work. From the inception of this program in April 2009 to when it expired at the end of 2010, there were 2,275 separate bonds issued nationwide, which supported more than $181 billion of financing for new public capital infrastructure projects, such as bridges, schools, and hospitals. Build America Bonds were a huge success in Massachusetts. My State issued close to $5 billion in bonds. Build America Bonds helped finance Massachusetts' Accelerated Bridge Program, which repaired and rebuilt hundreds of structurally deficient bridges. Other examples of projects include a new laboratory at UMass Amherst, a new courthouse in Salem, and a new building at the Worcester State Hospital--improving energy efficiency and reducing costs. I plan to work with my good friends Senator Wyden and Congressman Neal--both leaders on this issue--to ensure we continue to invest in both our infrastructure and our future. These are the kinds of programs that will put America back to work. I want American workers to build and export wind turbines and solar panels that say ``Made in America,'' instead of the American economy importing millions of barrels of oil a day that say ``Made by OPEC.'' I want American inventors dreaming up the newest energy technologies that convert patent applications for a prototype into job applications on the factory floor. I want American workers repairing our crumbling bridges, roads, and schools. We are in a terrestrial technology and manufacturing race as important as the celestial race President Kennedy began 50 years ago. These are three of the programs that will put America into a new economic orbit, looking down on our competitors. We should pass all three and put America back to work.