Christopher Coons

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. I come to the floor to speak about a real opportunity that we have this week in this Congress and in this Senate to come together in a bipartisan way to adopt measures that will actually create jobs and help grow our economy. This week we are considering tax extenders, a package of bills that can do a lot of good for the middle class, our economy, and our Nation. Together, various proposals in the tax extenders would spur investment in manufacturing, clean energy, and innovation, make it easier for families to afford a home or to send their children to college, open career pathways for veterans, and bring investments in jobs to communities in need. They recently passed by a voice vote out of the Finance Committee in the Senate, sending an important signal that we can come together, Democrats and Republicans, to move our economy forward. I mentioned innovation and manufacturing in particular as two of the policies this broader package helps promote. I would like to discuss two important bipartisan policies in this package, bills that have been rolled into the extenders package that can do a lot of good for startups and for innovative small manufacturers and for firms that invest heavily in the research and development that is needed to yield groundbreaking discoveries and steadily grow manufacturing employment in the United States. R&D, research and development, is the cornerstone of any competitive company, and I would suggest country. In the 21st century for us to have and sustain an innovative economy, it is certainly the cornerstone of our Nation's future. That is why, for a number of years, bipartisan majorities in Congress have supported the R&D tax credit so innovative companies are incentivized to keep investing in critically needed R&D, in new ideas, and in new products, but there has long been a problem with the structure of the R&D credit. It doesn't reach early stage startup companies, those that are most innovative and those that have the greatest promise to grow. As the GAO has reported, over half of the current R&D credit goes to firms making over $1 billion. Although they are important as well, it has become clear we are missing an opportunity to incentivize the most innovative, smallest startup companies, especially in manufacturing, an industry that I know invests a huge amount in R&D but has had a challenging environment competitively and globally in the past decade because the R&D credit is a credit and not a tax--and is a credit only if you have a tax liability, only if your company is profitable. A preprofitable company can't access it. If you are a small business that pays AMT, while there are many credits you could claim, the R&D isn't one of them, even though it is so important to our commitment. This leaves out firms at the early stage, where they are facing the highest risk of failure but who are also the kind of technology-focused, early stage, high-growth, high- potential businesses that have generated more net jobs than any other area of our economy in this century. These firms, that are sometimes called gazelle firms, are young innovative businesses with the potential to explode in size and create hundreds or thousands of jobs. Think of Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak in a California garage starting what would become Apple or think of Rick Birkmeyer or Ray Yin in Delaware, my home State. Rick Birkmeyer is an entrepreneur who has started a number of successful biotech companies in the Delaware region. He is someone with a reputation as a leader in his field. Even so, raising capital for a new startup venture is always a challenge. Rick today is the founder of CD Diagnostics, a leader in biomarker research and biochemical test development that makes tests to tell if a joint is infected or merely irritated. These tests would help orthopedic surgeons determine if surgery is needed and avoid a great deal of expensive and sometimes unnecessary exploratory procedures. The company is only a few years old and began with one employee. Today they have 82 and believe they will have well over 170 in just 2 more years. Exponential hockey stick-like growth such as this is great, but if he and his company were able to use the R&D credit before they reach profitability, they would be able to hire more people, grow more quickly by investing in equipment, and get products to market faster. Another young Delaware company that would benefit from the tax credit is ANP of Newark, DE. I sat next to its CEO Ray Yin at the Wesley College graduation this weekend, where he gave the keynote address. Ray's company, ANP, began with just one employee--him. Today it is a leader in making nanotherapeutics and in biodefense technology that is affordable, wearable, and easy to use, whether testing against biochemical agents in the war setting or food-borne illnesses or water contamination at home. Both of these two companies make terrific, compelling, technology- based products, have managed their cash well, and are great examples of how to run a startup. But for each of them they went through a very demanding period from their first capital investment to when they had reliable revenue coming in. That is often called the valley of death or the gap between launch and sustainability. They would be farther along, more mature, and more robust if they had been able to access the R&D credit with their early expenditures. Over the past few years I have been working diligently with a group of fellow Senators, Republicans and Democrats, to find ways that we could work together to reshape and target a portion of the R&D credit to make it accessible to these sorts of early stage companies. I want to give particular credit to Republican Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming, who has been tireless and thoughtful. We have not always agreed--we come from quite different political perspectives--but his investment of time and thoughtfulness in crafting the final outcome of the Startup Innovation Credit Act is worthy of thanks and a compliment. Senator Schumer on the Finance Committee has helped move the R&D credit revision forward into the tax extenders package. Manufacturing Jobs for America is a broader initiative that more than 26 Senators have participated in that includes more than 33 bills. This bill, the Startup Innovation Credit Act, is one of them, one of many bipartisan bills that can help manufacturers to grow, can help them to invest, and can help them get through a critical, early stage period. Mr. Pat Roberts, Republican Senator of Kansas, has also worked with me, as well as with Senators Enzi and Schumer, on a revision to the R&D credit that isn't available to firms, mostly small businesses, that pay the AMT, so we changed that as well. Both of these provisions have been adopted into the tax extender package. I also wanted to mention the first one I referenced, the Startup Innovation Credit Act, was also supported and has been moved forward with contributions by Senators Rubio, Blunt, Stabenow, Moran, and Kaine. This is a terrific way for us to find a path forward for companies that are still too early in their development to pay employment taxes but to use a fix that allows them to claim the R&D credit against employment taxes when they aren't yet paying income taxes. This kind of credit has been used before in States such as Iowa, Arizona, New York, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. And they have been game changers--helping new firms to open their doors, to hire more workers, and to keep their doors open. By allowing companies to claim the R&D credit against either the AMT or their payroll tax obligations, we don't pick winners and losers and we don't focus on a specific area of the economy or technology. What we are doing instead is supporting any private sector firm that invests in research and development. It means cash in the pockets of small startup companies, which can make a critical difference, especially when financing and credit are tight. Together, these bipartisan proposals can do a lot to put more Americans to work today unleashing the innovations that will create the jobs of tomorrow. I believe the Federal role in research and innovation is fundamental. It is also bipartisan. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their partnership and collaboration. I specifically thank the chair of the Finance Committee Senator Ron Wyden for his leadership in ensuring that the tax extenders package is available for us to consider now on the floor, that these provisions were included, and for his support for moving forward on these vital job-creating proposals. Now let's work together in this Chamber to move across the finish line and get the job done so America can get more of our best people to work. I thank the Chair. Supporting Law Enforcement Mr. President, I come to the floor today to recognize the men and women of law enforcement across this Nation in the annual police week ceremonies. From last night's candlelight vigil to tomorrow's wreath- laying ceremony, we here in the Capitol offer our gratitude, our thanks, and our support to the men and women of law enforcement and their families. I wish to comment for a few moments today on how difficult it was earlier today to be a Member of this body as two different Senators, who are strong supporters of law enforcement, came to this floor in an attempt to move forward important pieces of legislation only to have that effort blocked. Earlier today Senator Patrick Leahy, the President pro tempore and the chair of the Judiciary Committee, came to the floor to seek unanimous consent to move forward the Federal bulletproof vest partnership reauthorization bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland came to the floor to seek unanimous consent to move forward with the bipartisan Blue Alert bill. I am a cosponsor of both bills. Both have very broad support within the law enforcement community, and both are bipartisan bills. Yet, in each case, one Senator--one Senator--objected to our proceeding to consideration of these bills. I want to share with those of us here in the Chamber that earlier today, at a hearing in the Judiciary Committee considering again the value and the impact of the Federal bulletproof vest partnership, we had a chance to hear from Officer Ann Carrizales from Texas, who gave riveting, moving testimony about how a bulletproof vest, provided to her by her smalltown department in Texas, saved her life when she was shot at point-blank range in a routine traffic stop very early in the morning. Today her husband would be a widower and her daughter an orphan were it not for this vital Federal-State-local partnership that has provided more than 1 million bulletproof vests over the many years it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. With us this morning were two Delaware Capitol police officers, Sergeant Mike Manley and Corporal Steve Rinehart. With them as well was Chief Horsman of the capitol police department. Both of these brave officers were on duty in the lobby of the New Castle County courthouse last year when a gunman entered the chamber and started firing at random. They were both shot, and they both survived because of bulletproof vests provided to them in part through this Federal-State partnership. We cannot let down the men and women of law enforcement. We should not let partisan politics and ideology in this Chamber prevent us from moving forward in a bipartisan way to deliver the officer-safety investments and improvements that have already cleared the Judiciary Committee, that already have bipartisan support from both sides of the aisle, and allow one individual to continue to hold up these important bills. It is my call to my colleagues that we work tirelessly together to make sure we overcome this needless obstruction and move forward this week to honor the service and sacrifice of those 268 law enforcement officers whose names have been added to the memorial this year and the hundreds of thousands of others who even today, even tonight will be on patrol keeping America safe. I thank the Chair. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Surface Transportation Reauthorization: Progress, Challenges, and Next Steps.''

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Policy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2014 at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Drivers of Job Creation.''

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2014, in room SD-562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building at 2:15 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Fight Against Cancer: Challenges, Progress, and Promise.''

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 7, 2014, at 9 a.m. in room SR-328A of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``2014 Farm Bill: Implementation and Next Steps.''

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Sydney Kaufman, a fellow from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 113th Congress.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Madam President, our Nation's police officers work fearlessly and tirelessly every day to protect our families and to keep our communities safe. As we get ready to honor their service during National Police Week, the least we can do is stand by them and ensure, as they are doing their job, they are able to do it as safely as possible. Every day more than 1 million law enforcement officers across this country accept risks to their personal safety. As they leave their families at dawn and head off to their jobs, they know and their families know they accept, as a part of their mission of public safety service, the risk that they may not come home that night. We owe it to them to do what we can to make that service just a little bit safer, to ensure that more of them come home safely, week in and week out, year in and year out. Providing officers with bulletproof vests is one of the most effective ways we can contribute to that desired outcome. I have come to the floor because I share the deep frustration of my good friend Chairman Patrick Leahy over the continued inability of this body to overcome the objection of one Senator and move forward to renew, on a bipartisan basis, the Federal Bulletproof Vest Partnership. Yesterday, Chairman Leahy gave the Senate another opportunity to take up and reauthorize this partnership through a unanimous consent request. He is trying to move forward a bill we have already voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis. Yet it was blocked again by objections raised by a colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma. For 14 years the Federal Bulletproof Vest Partnership has been an important way for our Nation to equip local police departments with one of the most effective ways to keep our officers safe, but this needs to be a lasting commitment. This needs to be an enduring partnership. As new officers join, they need to be fitted for new vests. Because vests wear out and do not last forever, we need to ensure they can be replaced. We know bulletproof vests work. Since 1987 bulletproof vests have saved the lives of more than 3,000 police officers across this country. I am proud to continue in the tradition of my predecessor, now-Vice President Joe Biden, in supporting local law enforcement and in supporting this initiative. In my home State of Delaware, this partnership has provided our officers with thousands of vests over the last 14 years, including more than 3,800 over just the last 5 years. The Delaware community has, unfortunately, seen up close why these vests are so important. It was 13 years ago that Dover Police Sergeant David Spicer was trying to make an arrest--an arrest he successfully completed--when the suspect with whom he was wrestling pulled out a gun from a hidden pocket and shot him at close range four times. As Sergeant Spicer bled out--he lost nearly half the blood in his body before effecting the arrest--because he was wearing a vest provided to him through the Federal Bulletproof Vest Partnership his life was saved. I was honored to welcome Dover Police Sergeant David Spicer here 2 years ago on a previous effort at reauthorizing this long bipartisan bill. More recently--just last February of 2013--at the New Castle County Courthouse, in my hometown of Wilmington, a gunman unleashed a stream of bullets into the courthouse lobby, tragically killing two. On what was a devastating morning in the courthouse lobby, two lives were also saved--those of Sergeant Michael Manley and Corporal Steve Rinehart-- Capitol Police officers who were wearing bulletproof vests funded in part through this Federal Bulletproof Vest Partnership. The very real results of this Federal-State partnership, of this investment in keeping the men and women of law enforcement safe in the line of duty, are hard to ignore. With many police departments at the local level facing shrinking budgets, this bulletproof vest partnership makes vests, which cost more than $500 apiece, more affordable, ensuring officers are outfitted with the most current and effective and appropriate protection possible. In fact, the program specifically prioritizes smaller departments that often struggle to afford vests and do not provide vests or require vests for their officers. It is exactly in these smaller and more rural agencies and departments where line-of-duty deaths due to gunfire had historically been high. This is critical. As a county executive in my previous role in local government in Delaware, I saw firsthand how officers in smaller agencies often struggle to have current, up-to-date, and effective bulletproof vests. In addition, this is a program that is a 50-50 match with Federal and local money. How could anyone oppose this program that saves thousands of police officers' lives, that extends the reach of the Federal-State partnership in keeping our communities safer, and that is such a wise investment in saving lives that matters so much to our communities? A colleague objected yesterday, has objected before, and will object again. I am reminded of so many times when a bipartisan bill comes to this floor and dies due to objection after objection after objection, and at times I struggle to understand the rationale. In his objection yesterday, my colleague raised an argument that somehow this program, which promotes public safety, does not fit within the authority granted to Congress under the Constitution, that it is not part of the enumerated powers of Congress. I disagree. Whether you ascribe to the narrow Madisonian view of the general welfare clause in the Constitution or follow an expansive or Hamiltonian view--as our Supreme Court has done since 1937, when they affirmed the constitutionality of the Social Security Act in Helvering v. Davis--this is not a close call. If providing Federal-State partnership money for bulletproof vests goes beyond the enumerated powers of this Congress, what does that mean for public health, for investments in partnerships with State public health agencies to prevent pandemics and flus? What does this mean for the Interstate Highway System? What does this mean for hundreds of different partnerships where, in a cost-effective way, we work together with communities and States all over this country to extend and improve the general welfare of the people of the United States? To my colleague's argument today on this floor that this is solely a State or local responsibility, the reality is that the Bulletproof Vest Partnership does not replace local action with Federal action. It ensures a Federal partnership, an investment, to help police departments struggling to meet the safety needs, the equipment needs of their officers, to act when they otherwise cannot. In my view, the partnership is even more important because it is about more than just handing out dollars and vests. It ensures all vests are compliant with National Institute of Justice safety standards. Only the Federal Government has the resources to do that level of analytical work. It is no more reasonable for us to expect every State to have their own National Institutes of Health to do cancer research or for every State to have a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Having one coordinated national program to ensure that these bulletproof vests are as effective as possible at saving the lives of the men and women of law enforcement just makes sense. In my view, the denial of the Federal role where it is necessary and efficient would take us back to the Articles of Confederation, a very cramped and narrow view of the appropriate role of our national government, one which our forefathers found unworkable two centuries ago. The truth is plain. Without this program, we leave police officers without lifesaving vests in the line of fire, in the line of duty. For us to fail to stand up for them, when they stand up for us each and every day, I find outrageous. This is the way the world looked before Chairman Leahy and Republican Senator Campbell created this program jointly back in 1999. In that world, before there was a Federal Bulletproof Vest Partnership, there would today be two more Delaware families without a hero at their dinner table tonight. Not on my watch. That will not happen as long as I am here to stand for the men and women of law enforcement and to promote the Federal role, an appropriate Federal role, in standing side by side with State and local governments to provide the equipment the men and women of law enforcement need. This partnership expired back in 2012. Fortunately, we have been able to fund it through short-term appropriations. This is a tiny program in the scope of this Federal Government: $22 million a year. The entire Federal investment in local law enforcement is less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the entire Federal Government. Yet it enables standards and leveraging of the type I described that extends the reach of law enforcement and improves the safety of the men and women who put their lives on the line for us. Without authorization, this program becomes unsustainable short term and does not allow us to improve the program year in and year out. The reauthorization bill that was passed by the Judiciary Committee this Congress extends the program another 5 years, ensures its consistency, but makes important reforms to save money, as well. It prevents localities from using other Federal grants as their matching funds. It takes action to eliminate the Justice Department's backlogs. The bill would require agencies using the program to have mandatory wear policies, and would, for the first time, ensure these lifesaving vests are fitted appropriately for women, at a time when there are more and more women in law enforcement and more often at the very front line of protecting our communities. This bill is fiscally responsible. Enacting this bill is a moral responsibility. Police officers work to keep us safe every day. Congress can and should do the same for them. Congress should be standing with our law enforcement officers, not standing in their way. I applaud the persistent leadership of Chairman Leahy and will stand with him as long as it takes to get this program back on track and ensure its long-term survival. While this program had a long history of bipartisan support and passed out of the Judiciary Committee with a number of Republicans voting for it, a few of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle now do not seem to think this investment in officer safety is an appropriate one for this body and this government to make. Last year our Nation lost 33 police officers in the line of duty killed by gunshots. According to the National Law Enforcement Officer's Memorial Fund, there is some reason to be cheered because this is the smallest number lost in a year since the 1800s. Those 33 deaths--line- of-duty deaths of men and women shot to death while protecting their communities--is 33 too many. We have an opportunity to continue to provide to State and local law enforcement vests that can save these and other lives. We should continue working tirelessly until those numbers come down to zero. In recent months, I have been proud as this body has come together across the partisan divide, has passed a budget bill, an appropriations bill, a farm bill, has begun to deal with some of our Nation's most urgent needs. But I am distressed by this particular action, to block even consideration of so small a program with such important consequences, and it is to me profoundly disheartening. I call on my colleagues to stop blocking this bill and to allow this body to debate and to pass this reauthorization that will save lives in law enforcement this year and every year going forward. We owe them no less. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COONS

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

Mr. COONS. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak about the corrupting power of money in our national politics and the tragic impact of a whole series of decisions by the Supreme Court that has steadily strengthened that power. Over the last 40 years a bipartisan coalition in this body and bipartisan coalitions in Congress have come together behind commonsense measures that actually succeeded in limiting the power of money in politics. Most recently, back in 2002, a bipartisan coalition in this Chamber led by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, Republican and Democrat, took a few steps to effectively limit the use of so-called ``soft money'' and to ban special interests from pouring money into national elections in the month or two before Election Day. As actual elected representatives, their perspective as Members of Congress who enacted that legislation was informed by their real experience as public officials who have run and won elections and who have written, fought for, and passed actual legislation. Since Members of this Chamber, Members of this Congress, have seen and experienced the corrosive effect of money every day, Congress, in my view, should be given great deference when it has been able to transcend partisan division and put in place commonsense protections. Yet over the past few years a bare majority on the current Supreme Court has, in decision after decision, dismantled many of those critical protections and shows no signs of stopping. In doing so, this Court's decisions display a significant and stunning naivete about how our political system actually works and how it is continuing to change and as a result have brought us closer to a world where, as a recent New Republic piece argues, ``millionaires and billionaires speak loudly and the rest of us do the listening.'' Most recently, in a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a limit that has stood since 1971, when Congress passed the Federal Elections Campaign Act, on total campaign donations anyone may make in the same election cycle. Before this recent Supreme Court ruling, individuals couldn't give more than $117,000 between candidates and party committees. After the ruling, that limitation has been swept away, and there is nothing to stop a wealthy donor, an ultrawealthy donor, from contributing to every Federal race each election cycle. Some here have cheered the decision as upholding the First Amendment and free speech, but in my view, when you are able to spread around hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to dozens and dozens of candidates in a coordinated way, you are not speaking, you are coming dangerously close to buying. For ultradonors, the reality is not just about making their voices heard. Under existing Supreme Court precedent under these recent decisions, there is no limit on anybody's ability to spend whatever amounts he or she wishes to conduct actual speech, to buy newspaper ads, buy television spots, or even to make a politically motivated movie. The reality is it is about trying to control more and more of the legislative agenda of this Congress and more and more of the direction of our government. In McCutcheon, this recently decided case, the Supreme Court hasn't just enabled speech, it has made it dramatically easier for the wealthiest and the special interests they represent to hedge their bets by diversifying their political portfolio. It has more in common, sadly, with Wall Street investment strategies than with the free speech rights envisioned by our Founders at the Constitutional Convention. Frankly, I think the Founders would not recognize our political system today and the increasingly harsh influence of big-money donors in our overall national political scene. Together with the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court of 5 years ago, we see the truly dangerous implications of the decisions rendered. One of the boldest decisions I have ever seen--Citizens United, with another 5-4 decision--killed off nearly half of that bipartisan compromise bill of 2002 of McCain-Feingold by allowing corporations and other special interests to anonymously fund campaign ads in the months before an election. In doing so, as Justice Stevens wrote in a dissent, the Supreme Court ``relied largely on individual dissenting opinions. . . . blaz[ing] through our precedents [and] overruling or disavowing a body of case law.'' Justice Stevens noted that to do so the Court decided a question the parties did not present directly to it, saying: Essentially, five justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case brought before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law. I understand this is a dissent, but a dissent that I think should draw our attention to the direction these two vital, difficult Court decisions are taking this Nation. Soon after the Supreme Court extended these rules to State campaign finance laws as well. In combination these two decisions, McCutcheon and Citizens United, have brushed aside important bipartisan legislation that was designed to prevent corruption of the political branches and to provide Americans some level of confidence that their voices, not just those of the ultrawealthy and powerful, mattered to their elected representatives. We have all seen the impact of this decision, of Citizens United in particular, as commercials by groups nobody has ever heard of, funded by donors who can remain in the dark, have flooded the airwaves of our election years ever since. Earlier I mentioned that these two decisions show a stunning naivete about how politics in our modern world really works. Let me be clear I don't say this because the Supreme Court overturned a law that Congress passed. It is the Court's job to be a check on Congress to defend our fundamental freedoms in the face of congressional overreach or improvident action. But in the McCutcheon decision, the Court overturned a core holding of its own previous decision in Buckley v. Valeo, the case it purports to apply. As Justice Breyer wrote in dissent in McCutcheon, the Court's holding: understates the importance of protecting the political integrity of our governmental institutions. It creates a loophole that . . . taken together with Citizens United . . . eviscerates our Nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those very laws were intended to resolve. For instance, in the Court's decisions, it consistently refers to traditional political corruption as quid pro quo corruption, corruption of the sort where a specific contribution is made for a specific vote or action in arguing that campaign donations and political spending or speech have shown no signs of leading to corruption. The majority argues that campaign giving and the ``general gratitude'' that a candidate or elected official may feel is not the same thing as quid pro quo corruption in the sense of directly buying votes or action in the Congress. But as Justice Breyer notes in his opinion in McCutcheon in the dissent, the majority's: narrow view of corruption . . . excludes efforts to obtain ``influence over access to elected officials or political parties.'' Every single Member of this body and every Member of the House of Representatives knows that to be true and knows this influence to be pernicious. Let me give an example. As many of my colleagues would attest, hanging over everything we do is the shadow of anonymous big- money ads getting dropped into the airwaves out of nowhere in the last weeks before an election, and it influences, in pervasive and corruptive ways, decisions made in this body week in and week out. Of course, tough opposition ads are nothing new. Robust debates in campaign season go back to the very first campaigns of this Republic. As politicians, we all welcome the opportunity to those who engage to disagree with them. That is an important and healthy part of our democracy, and every citizen should have the right to voice their opposition to me or to any Member. But what is a huge problem is the fact that nobody knows who is behind these ads, making it easier for any wealthy individual or corporation to pour an unlimited amount of money into a race behind completely false attacks. Because the donor is often in the dark, there is no way for the public to know who the claims are coming from or whether they are credible. That is why in this Chamber folks in my caucus, Democrats, have repeatedly argued for our taking up and passing the DISCLOSE Act, which would require third-party ads to say who funded them so that citizens can reach their own conclusions. This is an increasingly difficult problem for our country. In the 2010 election cycle, super PACs spent more than $62 million nationally. Through the 2012 cycle, outside groups spent an incredible $457 million on House and Senate races. So far in this cycle they have already raised and spent more than $200 million. The result is that every campaign has to do more and more fundraising so they have the resources to rebut the claims made in these negative ads with concealed donors. That means more time on the phone or at fundraisers, traveling around the country, organizing and carrying out fundraising activities rather than engaging with our constituents and diving into details of policy. It is even worse in the House where the daily demands in their 2-year cycle are even more difficult. Let me offer one brief statistic. In the average winning Senate race in 2012, it cost $10 million, which means the winning Senator had to raise $4,600 every single day over a 6-year term. That is time not spent on solving the real issues facing our country. That is an unbelievable amount of time dedicated to fundraising, and it just doesn't end, whether the term is 2 or 6 years. I know I have it relatively easy, little to complain about. Compared to my colleagues I come from a small State. The very modest amount we have to raise in a competitive race in Delaware pales in comparison to much larger States with much more expensive media markets, but it is a problem for this entire body and this entire country. Let me offer one last example of concretely why this matters. As we debate in the Senate, the other party complains about the absence of opportunities to offer amendments and the lack of a robust and open amendment process. One of the reasons we often do not take to the floor and vote on competitive, compelling amendments is the concern that they will then become the subject of last-minute, aggressive, targeted campaign ads funded by undisclosed donors. Rather than being a Chamber of honest, open, and free debate, the shadow of secret money turns policymaking into a beacon of risk aversion. Policymaking gets paralyzed and this serves no one. Although it is not an example of corruption in the quid pro quo sense that the Supreme Court so narrowly focuses on, money does corrode the public trust and steadily corrupts this system in a thousand different ways. The irony of this all is that we badly need an honest discussion about the impact of big spending and fundraising on our political system. At this point I believe we badly need fundamental changes to redirect the decisions and the attention of the Supreme Court. Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 decision by the Court that equated political contributions and money with speech, in my view needs to be revisited. Senator Udall of New Mexico has introduced a constitutional amendment that, in my view, restores the balance of that original law and decision, and it is one that I strongly support. By bending backward to declare anything that corporations or the ultrawealthy wish to do with their money the equivalent of speech, today's Court, in my view, rather than strengthening speech, has weakened it for the millions of Americans who cannot afford to play in this new system. At a time of growing economic inequality, that concerns me more and more because this new political inequality threatens the very foundations of our democracy. Noting the presence of two other colleagues, I would ask if I might have the forbearance of two brief speeches recognizing Delawareans. I appreciate the forbearance of my colleagues and would like to take a few minutes to recognize two great Delawareans. Tribute to Harry Gravell I wish to recognize Harry Gravell. Right now in Wilmington, DE, friends will be coming to celebrate Harry, who is retiring from his long leadership role of the Delaware Building Trades Council after a lifetime dedicated to workers and our Nation. I first got to know him in my service on the county council in New Castle County, where he gave me very helpful, very insightful advice, and was a constant source of encouragement and support. Don't get me wrong. He didn't always agree with me. He didn't always support me. With Harry you got a straight shot. You got exactly what he thought and nothing less. You always knew where he stood even if he disagreed with you. He is transparent, he is honest, and you know why he believes what he believes. He is not only a great friend but a great father. We were both honored in 2012 by the Delaware chapter of the American Diabetes Association as fathers of the year. Harry is the proud father of two: Jayme and Dee, and grandfather of three: Makayla, Avery, and Lily. Harry's life story is one of determination and service. He never gives up, especially when he puts his mind to something. From an early age he knew the value of hard work. For high school he went to the Salesianum School, a great school in our community, and worked his way through school to make sure he could afford a great education. A Vietnam veteran, he served our country in wartime. Since he came home, he has never stopped fighting for working families and veterans, and I was particularly proud to work with him in his role in the Sprinkler Fitters Union, then on the Building Trades Council on Helmets to Hardhats, on offering training and real job opportunities to returning veterans. If you know Harry, you have seen his drive up close. You have seen him fight through thick and thin for his workers, his family, and our community. But perhaps the greatest example of his sheer will was his most recent fight. He suffered a stroke a few months ago. Doctors read him a long list of things he was never going to do. Harry scoffed. Digging in, as he has his entire life, he finished his physical and occupation therapy faster than doctors thought he could. He has just finished building a house in Lewes. Everyone who knows him I believe will agree with me that he deserves the years he will now get to spend on the beautiful beaches of Delaware. Remembering James Wilcox Brown Let me last briefly offer a tribute to a lifelong friend and mentor, James Wilcox Brown of Newark, DE. He set sail on April 24 at the age of 65. The gentle determination and unconditional kindness with which he lived his life inspired all around him, including his family, his friends, and this junior Senator from Delaware. Jim graduated from Salesianum School, the University of Delaware, and the Washington and Lee University School of Law. He worked as legal counsel for W.L. Gore & Associates for 36 years. He served as a member of the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General Corps for 26 years, retiring as colonel. His tireless community service was broad and deeply felt. I was proud to be able to appoint him to the Delaware Service Academy Selection Board. He is survived by his wife Peggy and their four wonderful children: Genevieve, Hilary, William, Mary Ellen, and six grandchildren. I simply wanted to add my voice to so many who will deeply miss this patriot, this great lawyer, this centered, thoughtful, kind man, and this personal friend who helped teach me the importance of humility and of a commitment to excellence. I yield the floor.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``International Development Priorities in the FY 2015 Budget.''

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2014, at 2 p.m.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2014, at 3 p.m., to hold an European Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Transatlantic Security Challenges: Central and Eastern Europe.''

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2014, at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Oversight of Small Agencies.''

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Keeping the Lights On--Are We Doing Enough to Ensure the Reliability and Security of the U.S. Electric Grid?''

Mr. COONS. 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 April 10, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD- 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Expanding Access to Quality Early Learning: the Strong Start for America's Children Act''.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 10, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SR-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2015.''

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I would like to start this afternoon by thanking Chairman Murray for her tireless work on the Budget Committee--on which I serve--to develop and pass a bipartisan budget, a budget that sets us on a path to return to regular order. Senator Murray has also been a tireless advocate for transportation and infrastructure programs, and as chair of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee--on which I also serve--she fought tirelessly to include adequate funding for Amtrak back in the fiscal year 2014 omnibus and moving forward. The topic I would like to take up today is the role of Amtrak in our country and our communities and its appropriate role as a central piece of Federal transportation policy going forward. Senator Murray has been a terrific advocate for investing across a wide range of transportation modalities. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I look forward to working with her and our leading full committee chair Senator Mikulski to make sure we are successful in fighting ardently and steadfastly for Amtrak this year and into the future. I come to talk on the floor today about the importance of our national passenger rail system--Amtrak--because this is not just about getting people from point A to point B. Investing in Amtrak also means creating jobs, making our whole economy more dynamic, and making America more competitive. Amtrak is performing better and better each and every year. As the Presiding Officer knows all too well, ridership over the last decade has steadily increased. In fact, 10 of the last 11 years have seen record numbers, and last year we broke through 31.6 million riders on Amtrak. The trains are more and more crowded, but they are arriving more and more frequently on time and the quality of the train sets and the quality of the service provided by the conductors and the other folks who work for Amtrak has steadily increased. As the value proposition of Amtrak has increased, so has ridership. Record ticket sales and other revenues have made this possible. Today Amtrak covers nearly 89 percent of the cost of operating their trains, which is by far the best of any passenger rail operation in the United States. They are, in fact, on track to cover 90 percent, through revenues, of their total operating costs in 2014. Because of this success, since 2002 Amtrak has decreased its debt by more than half. My home State of Delaware and the Presiding Officer's home State of New Jersey are part of one of the oldest and most critical sections of our national passenger rail system, the so-called Northeast corridor, which goes from Boston to Washington. If it were its own separate economy, the Northeast corridor would produce $3 trillion a year--21 percent of our Nation's total economic output--which would make it the fifth largest economy in the world if it were on its own. But it is not. It is an integrated part of our Nation, and its passenger rail infrastructure is an integrated part of our national commitment to efficient and effective transportation. In this region in particular, Amtrak is not a luxury; it is a fundamental and critical part of our economy and moving our community and our people forward. If Amtrak service were cut off in the region for just a day, it would cost our economy $13 million. One-third of all the jobs in the Northeast corridor--or 7 million jobs--are within 5 miles of a station. Amtrak's impact on my home State of Delaware is particularly large because Amtrak employs over 1,000 men and women in the State of Delaware. Many of them work at two maintenance facilities--Wilmington and Bear--where they repair everything from train seats to the heavy trucks to the cars themselves. I have had a chance to visit them on a number of occasions. It is incredible to see the work ethic and capabilities of the men and women of Amtrak. These shops have been there for a long time. They have worked hard to modernize, to be relevant, and to contribute to the strengthening bottom line of Amtrak overall. I would like to mention ``Irish'' John, who is a good friend of mine and has been a leader for the sheet metal workers for a long time. Sheet metal workers with Amtrak were one of the unions that worked with management to find ways to significantly save costs on overhaul work on Acela train sets, which resulted in Amtrak choosing not to farm out their service work and instead do a $125 million job to overhaul 20 Acela sets in-house. This is union labor, and this helps support good middle-wage jobs. This helps support good middle-class families and middle-class communities in Delaware and our region. This particular work on this Acela overhaul will last more than 3\1/2\ years and sustain dozens of jobs at our Bear repair facility. My friend Bill, who is with the IBEW Amtrak union, is another friend who has helped me understand the critical role of the employment Amtrak provides to our whole region--not just to Delaware, not just to the Philadelphia area, but to the whole Northeast corridor. When we talk about investing in Amtrak, we are not only investing in new options for commuters and businesses, we are talking about investing in our communities and in workers who will build and maintain the next generation of American rail. As I said, these are great, high- skilled jobs. By investing in Amtrak's present and giving them a predictable future, we will preserve and continue these important skills and these important workers and their families in our communities. Amtrak's benefits go beyond just the immediate skilled workers and their families and the communities that benefit from them. In Delaware, the services Amtrak provides help to keep and draw in new businesses through a ripple effect in our whole economy. Last week there was an announcement of a new company that is spinning off out of Sallie Mae that will be locating its headquarters and 120 jobs in Wilmington. They have chosen a site specifically because it is walking distance from our Amtrak station--from the Joseph R. Biden Amtrak Station in Wilmington, DE. In Newark, the University of Delaware is building a new campus called the Science, Technology and Advanced Research--STAR--Campus, which will build partnerships between several important entities, such as the Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia and the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. What makes that partnership possible is the backbone of the Northeast corridor--the connection between these different cities that has made all of us stronger and better because of passenger rail. I hope from these few examples it is clear that passenger rail is also a critical component of economic development. Passenger rail tends to link downtown urban areas and tends to be absolutely central to anchoring their revitalization, as the Presiding Officer knows so well. Passenger rail is also critical not just in the Northeast corridor but in communities across the country that rely on it to connect with other communities and our country's major economic centers. State-supported services have become a major source of ridership growth for Amtrak as well, with that ridership nearly doubling between 1998 and 2013. Long-distance ridership across the great heartland of our country has also grown by roughly 20 percent without the introduction of any new services, frequencies, or equipment. In fiscal year 2013, long-distance ridership reached its highest point in 20 years. However, we are at the proverbial crossroads--or I suppose I should say crossing--now because ridership is soaring, Amtrak is more popular than ever before, and demand will continue to grow, but we are not keeping up with the investment in infrastructure that we need to sustain this growth into the future. For instance, right now there is nearly $6 billion in outdated, delayed investments that need to be made just in the Northeast corridor to bring it to what is called a state of good repair. I will focus on a few of the critical infrastructure needs in the Northeast corridor, but there are also needs across the country. Baltimore is a city I traveled through this morning on my way to this Capitol on the Amtrak train. In Baltimore, Senator Mikulski's home State, the B&P tunnels have stayed open since 1873. Although they have undergone periodic repairs, none of them were built to be permanent. We can't be competitive if we continue to rely on tunnels that have been around since roughly the time of our own Civil War. We need to invest in modernizing this infrastructure. Between the Presiding Officer's home State of New Jersey and the great State of New York, preliminary planning is underway on the Gateway Tunnel, which is a critical tunnel that will ease the bottleneck under the Hudson that causes delays throughout the whole region, limits the options of travelers, and ends up costing the economy more in the short and long run. We need to invest in our infrastructure. In Delaware, we have a bottleneck around our most popular station, the Joseph R. Biden Station in Wilmington. The rail lines north and south of that station slim from three lines to two, restricting service and preventing the addition of new rail service. Thanks in part to a Federal high-speed rail grant, construction will soon be underway to add a third track to alleviate this critical chokepoint, the main one just south of the station. Without new investment, that chokepoint will continue north of the station. And that is not to mention the hundreds of bridges and tunnels and other connection points--including the overhead centenary lines--that require repair and replacement on the Northeast corridor alone. We need to invest in our infrastructure not just in the Northeast corridor but across this whole country. We do spend a lot of time here on this floor, as we should, talking about our Nation's fiscal deficit and debt, but we should also focus on our physical deficit and debt--the delayed repair of critical pieces of infrastructure that we rely on for our economy and for our communities but that we are not focused on. If we invest in our infrastructure today, it will employ people in repairing it and lay the groundwork for improvement of our economy over the long term. I recognize the reality that while the budget picture has improved, it is not yet as good as it should be. We are still facing real fiscal challenges. I ride between Wilmington and Washington nearly every day on Amtrak, and our workers are responsible for repairing and retrofitting a lot of the trains on which I ride. I am impressed with their skill and the caliber of their repair work. As a rider and our State Senator, I see how critical Amtrak is to our economy, our communities, and to our country as a whole. I hope that is clear to the rest of the Members of this Chamber. I hope that anyone watching who has appreciated the value of Amtrak's connecting power that links this country together from east to west and north to south will communicate with their Senator and convey the importance of strong and sustained investment in the Northeast corridor, yes, but across the whole reach of our country. Only by strengthening Amtrak and ensuring the vibrancy of the entire Nation's system of passenger rail can we really ensure that American rail will be there for years and generations to come. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COONS

Mr. COONS. I thank my colleague for joining me in this colloquy on manufacturing, both broadly and more specifically on this bill. I am grateful for the leadership that Senator Stabenow and Senator Graham, as the cochairs of the Senate Manufacturing Caucus, have shown on this particular bill and the passion and the perseverance that Senators Brown and Blunt have shown in bringing this great idea into legislative form and in advancing it. There are so many other bills that we can and should take up that will bring strength and vitality to the American manufacturing sector. But it is my real hope that S. 1468, the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act will be the next in a series of important bipartisan manufacturing bills that we will take up to make sure we are doing our job to help grow high quality American jobs. I yield the floor. Reinstated Amendments

Mr. COONS. If there is a footnote that says ``and Delaware.''

Mr. COONS. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Maine for sharing his personal experience both as Governor and for his work and partnership with the University of Maine and their composites center and his understanding of the importance of a modern, skilled workforce in order to take advantage of the work we are hoping to catalyze through this bill. I wish to summarize across three large areas. This bill, if enacted, would take advantage of linkages, leverage, and labor in a way that would grow lasting middle-class jobs. All of us want to work together to find a way to give American workers and families a fair shot, to give them a fair shot at the kind of middle-class quality of life that dominated over the last 50 years. As my colleague said, it was because of the GI bill and its investment in education, it was because of innovation and competitiveness, and it was because of a skilled workforce that we were able to dominate the world in manufacturing for much of the last 50 years of the last century. If we are to seize this moment and regain our global leadership not just in the productivity sector of our manufacturing but also in the base, in the employment of our manufacturing, we have to do the sorts of things this bill imagines. We have research being done in national labs, in federally funded national labs--fundamental research. That is wonderful. We have applied research on composites being done at the University of Delaware and at the University of Maine and every other State university that does higher research. We have manufacturers trying to take advantage of new technologies and new opportunities. This bill will link them all together to create regional hubs that allow the researchers, the private sector, and the new employees to all come together. It also, as my colleague mentioned, leverages private sector funds. Every one of the four hubs announced to date is a more than a 1-to-1 match; 2 or 4 or, in one case, 8-to-1 match of private sector dollars to public sector dollars. Last, it invests heavily in training and in skills and making sure the workforce is ready as these new technologies get out there. I wish to describe the reach of some of these linkages and partnerships for a moment. Let me take a second and take a walking tour, if I could, of the four hubs that have been finalized so far. For example, the one in Youngstown, OH, deals with 3D manufacturing. This is a relatively new, cutting-edge technology that radically alters the scale of early stage manufacturing and what is possible in terms of prototyping, and then, I think fairly soon, what is possible in terms of customized, unit-by-unit manufacturing. It has enormous promise. But if we are going to stay competitive globally in manufacturing, when there is something new invented in the United States, we have to also make sure it is made in the United States. So this is the sort of hub that makes that possible. There are four hubs, and I will mention them briefly: the one in Ohio, the one in Raleigh, NC, the one in Detroit, and the one in Chicago. But they don't just engage the universities and the workforce and the companies right in that immediate community. They benefit from national networks. For example, General Dynamics and Honeywell are two of the very large national footprint firms partnering with the Youngstown hub. Universities from Arizona State to Florida State are collaborating in the wide bandgap semiconductor work in Raleigh, NC. Researchers from the University of Kentucky, the University of Tennessee, Notre Dame, and Ohio State are partners with the hub that is in Detroit. There are researchers from Boulder, Indiana, Notre Dame, Louisville, Iowa, Nebraska, UT, Austin, and Wisconsin that are partnering with the hub in Chicago. So what are these hubs? Are they just some diffuse academic teams that share names and a little bit of data with each other? No. If there were, for example, to be a hub in Maine on composites, we would find researchers at the University of Delaware who have done great work in composites and companies doing work in composites partnering with the fundamental research being done, let's say, hypothetically, at the University of Maine, and learning about how to deploy that new technology in ways that would benefit the local workforce and the local manufacturers. That is why there is so much leverage coming out of these linkages. That is why these hubs have been so generative and so powerful in Germany's experience. It is a way to harness our Federal investment in research by the national labs and by State universities with the energy of the private sector and the capacity of our manufacturers to relentlessly innovate. We have a very broad menu of bipartisan manufacturing bills that have been taken up and discussed in this Chamber. This one--this manufacturing hubs bill--has some of the broadest support and I think some of the best reasons for it to be considered in committee and taken up on this floor later this spring. It is my real hope our colleagues will join us in doing so. Let me yield back to my colleague from Maine.