Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to speak to the issue on the floor before the Senate, the vote we will take later today on two competing plans for our path forward. As the Presiding Officer and I and all of the Members of this Chamber know, our national debt and our deficit are enormous. They are unsustainable. Last week an array of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle came to the Senate floor one after the other to make exactly that point.

Members of both parties agree excessive debt hurts our competitiveness, that it causes interest rates to rise, and it crowds out critical investments in our country's future. My own experience in the private sector and 6 years of tough budget balancing as a county executive in my home State of Delaware taught me how important it is to have responsible budget processes in place to manage our way through difficult financial times, to create opportunity for our communities while still reducing our deficits and debt.

There is no question that high debt levels lead to lower growth in the long run, and it can restrain or starve or strangle the dreams of our communities, our children, for our future. Our deficit and debt is a ticking time bomb, and everyone--Republicans and Democrats, Independents, economists, experts, working families, small business owners, the American people--knows that we want to and have to deal with it. But the key, in my view, is to deal with this problem responsibly and fairly and in a way that reflects America's best.

Our debt is neither a Republican nor a Democratic problem but a shared and structural problem. It took both parties to get us into this mess, and it will take both parties working together to dig us out. Each Member of this body must take responsibility and look at what is best for the next generation not just for winning the next election.

For my part, I am going to continue to fight for balanced and responsible deficit reduction. If the American people can share in the sacrifice in our cities and counties and States all over this country, as they are already doing in my home State of Delaware, then Republicans and Democrats have to show that we too can come together and find a way to compromise.

It is time we recognize a sobering realty: If we are going to plug the hole in national balance sheets, if we are going to avoid the fate of Europe--and it is a big hole in the bottom of America's balance sheet--while still continuing to invest in our future and in the strength and promise and opportunity of our communities, we have to find a more responsible, more fair balance between spending cuts and revenue increases.

We simply cannot achieve the level of savings we need through spending cuts alone. Drastic cuts, dramatic cuts, across-the-board cuts violate our very values and will drive down the possibility of recovery and growth in the future. Spending cuts must be a central part of the solution to our budget problem. But the fact is revenue must also play a meaningful role. We need balance. That is the only way to provide the economic certainty necessary to sustain a recovery and, in my view, the only way to sustain investments that are critical for our future.

Let's be clear about some rhetoric we have heard both out in the country and in this Chamber. The United States does not begrudge success. We, as Democrats, in this Chamber do not resent those who have achieved, who have succeeded. In fact, that is the engine that for generations has drawn people from around the world to this country and has pulled people forward: the hopes and dreams of those who see reason to the work in this country because of the promise of opportunity, the very real history of entrepreneurship, of risk taking, and the very great rewards this country provides those who succeed beyond their wildest dreams through hard work, through innovation, through creativity.

No, we do not resent or reject wealth and success in this Chamber or in this country. In fact, we admire it and want to create the groundwork for a whole new generation of Americans to achieve the successes of the last generation. If we are going to do right by the next generation of Bill Gateses or Warren Buffetts, that requires us to find solutions that make our tax system fairer and to prevent burdening the next generation of Americans with a crushing national debt.

President Lyndon Johnson once said:

It is not just enough to open the gates of opportunity, all

of our citizens have to have the ability to walk through

those gates.

The ability of future Americans to walk through those gates, I believe, requires sustainable investments in our future, in our schools and teachers so our children can compete in the global economy and we can keep improving public education and infrastructure; so our businesses can move their products and ideas as fast as our competitors can on our roads and rails and broadband, in research and development; so America can continue to be a world leader in innovation and scientific breakthroughs.

We all know health care costs are among the greatest drivers of our mounting national deficits and debt. We have two paths forward: One, where we cut and constrain and reduce spending, and another where we invest in basic science and research, where we innovate and where we cure our way out of these challenges. I think this latter way of investing in our schools, our infrastructure, our innovation, and in finding path-breaking cures is more true to the American spirit.

Cuts to essential services and programs are already deep. Although this is not broadly known throughout the country, sacrifices have already been made here, and pennies are already being pinched from programs that, in my view, serve the people who can least afford them.

In my home State of Delaware, due to choices we have made here, we have already seen cuts to critical programs such as heating assistance to low-income families and programs such as the community development block grants. Home programs were cut roughly 30 percent in last year's budget, programs that for so long have supported affordable housing for the disabled, for seniors, and for low-income families.

We must continue to make cuts across the board to move our way toward a sustainable Federal deficit. But cuts alone cannot responsibly make our path forward, and we have seen proposals in the other Chamber that would decimate vital safety net programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, shifting the burden of deficit reduction to our most vulnerable citizens. We need to bring balance back to how we solve these problems. We need to do it in a way that puts a circle of protection around those who are most vulnerable in our society.

In previous generations that served in this Chamber, when they came together and reached the resolutions that solved our country's fiscal problems, in 1983, for example, they put a circle of protection around the most vulnerable Americans. They chose not to slash or cut or eliminate those programs that were focused on the most vulnerable in our society: the disabled, low-income seniors, and children in the earliest stages of life.

I think it is important that we remember those values as we look at the choices we make today and as we come together in the months leading up to the election--and, hopefully, after the election--to craft a solution to our structural problem.

Today on the floor the Senate is considering the other piece of the equation from cuts, revenue. We have a stark choice between us today. We have two plans: a Reid plan and a Hatch plan. We have a Democratic proposal and a Republican proposal. Let me put this in some context that I think has been missing in some of the speeches I have heard on the floor earlier today.

In both cases these are plans that make choices about which of our existing tax cuts, which of the existing tax expenditures we will allow to expire and which we will extend. There is a lot of talk about the coming taxmageddon, about the greatest one-time tax increase in American history. But let's be clear. What we are talking about is tax cuts that were enacted in

2001 and 2003 and other tax cuts that were enacted in 2009, 2010, and whether they should be extended or whether these temporary tax cuts should be allowed to be that and expire.

We have two starkly different plans. In one, the Republican plan, they extend all of the Bush tax cuts, even for the highest income earners, even on the marginal rates of the highest income earners. The Democratic plan extends and does not allow to expire critical tax cuts: the earned-income tax credit, the tuition tax credit, and the child tax credit that 25 million Americans--the working poor, working families with children--rely on to get through this difficult recession.

The Republican plan allows all three of those to expire, and thus, to use their language, raises taxes on 25 million of the working poor. It should be an obscenity for there to be people who are working full time and get poor in this country. This is a country, as I said before, of opportunity; the place to which millions have come over generations from around the world seeking the opportunity of this country.

Yet, today, and especially in this economy, ``working poor'' has real meaning, as the rate of poverty has risen to alarming levels, where one in six is poor today, which is the highest since the 1960s. The economic inequality and lack of opportunity and justice for those who are the poorest is at an alarming rate.

We also have, as I said before, a structural challenge before us, a deficit and debt that we must deal with. So the Democratic plan that is on the floor today, which we will vote on today--on whether this body wants to proceed to take a deciding vote on it--would allow the marginal tax rate above $200,000 for individuals, $250,000 for couples, to return to the Clinton era.

Let's be clear because I think this is often lost. Under the Democratic tax plan, we would continue tax breaks for all Americans who earn income and for all small businesses that are revenue-earning but just on the first $200,000 of individual income or $250,000 of couple income. So even the millionaires and billionaires would continue to get some of the benefit of the tax breaks first enacted in 2001 and 2003. What would be raised is the tax rate on income above $250,000 per couple. So everybody continues to get some tax advantage, but the excessive--the highest reductions in tax burden on the very wealthiest Americans we would allow to expire.

What would the impact be on our deficit and debt? It would be $850 billion over 10 years, which, with the interest savings, is nearly $1 trillion in deficit and debt reduction. These are significant savings. If we ask the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans to take on that burden, to go back to the interest rates on marginal income that they lived through in the Clinton era, what might that do? It will significantly reduce the deficit and debt and make it possible for us to sustain the earned-income tax credit, the tuition tax credit, and the child tax credit, and, frankly, it will reflect our values.

This recession has brought an alarming rise in the rate of poverty. I believe our faith traditions--and we come from a very broad range of faith traditions--speak to us and challenge us to show our values. As the Vice President, who held the seat in Delaware before me, has so often said, his father once said to him: Show me your budget, and I will show you your values.

Psalm 72 teaches us that to defend the cause of the poor and to give deliverance to the needy is one of our highest callings. It is repeated throughout the books of the Torah and the New Testament--in many faith traditions all across this country. To reject this deliverance to the needy, to reject the circle of protection for the neediest in our society and instead say that we will extend ad infinitum the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans defies American values and our greatest tradition of creating and sustaining opportunity while protecting the most vulnerable among us.

I think our belief in the American dream and our commitment to basic fairness and responsible problem-solving calls us forward to vote for the Reid plan.

This bill is not a substitute for the comprehensive tax reform our Nation truly needs. We need tax reform that simplifies the Tax Code and closes many unsustainable and costly loopholes while lowering rates and broadening the base. In the current political environment, I believe this bill, to which I hope this body will turn, is the best chance we have at retaining these important tax credits and opportunities for the working poor while bringing some sanity to the rates at the highest end and asking those who benefited the most to contribute to solving our problems.

Last week I got a letter from Judith in Talleyville, Delaware, who wrote my office saying this:

Millionaires and billionaires must be asked to pay their

fair share toward economic recovery.

Judith puts her finger on the crux of the issue. If we are going to address our deficit crisis and resolve the hole at the bottom of America's balance sheet in a way that reflects our core values, I believe we must move to and consider and pass the Reid plan in this Senate this day.

I very much thank Senator Blunt. Thank you for helping to contribute to the bipartisan, positive tone of our deliberations. I thank my friend, the Senator from Rhode Island, for his leadership both in today's colloquy and in pulling together the language and partners, and Senator Mikulski, who started off our conversation today by reminding us as Senator Blunt has that it was a terrible storm in this area that knocked out power for a couple of days that gave a bracing reminder to the community around Washington, DC, just how much we rely in this modern economy of ours, on continuous, uninterrupted power.

That storm was an act of God. That storm was a random meteorological event. But as all of us have spoken--Senator Blumenthal also commented on this--we know as Members of the Senate that there are daily efforts at attacks on the United States far more devastating, far more far- reaching than that transitory storm. For us not to act, for us to fail to act in a bipartisan, thoughtful, and responsible way would be the worst sort of dereliction of duty.

All of us have been in secure briefings with folks from four-star and three-letter agencies with the most central roles in our intelligence community, in our national security agencies. But this is not something that only those of us in the Congress know or only those in the higher reaches of executive branch leadership know. This is now broadly, publicly well known. The water is rising, the storms are coming, and we need to incentivize the private sector that is responsible for running most of our essential infrastructure to man the barricades, to fill the sandbags, and to take on the responsibility in a thoughtful, balanced, and responsible way of preparing for the wave of highly effective cyber-attacks that are currently underway and that will crescendo soon.

We have heard public comments that are remarkable. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dempsey, has said an effective cyber-attack could literally stop society in its tracks. As Senator Blunt mentioned, as a county executive I was responsible for emergency response, and all over this country cities, counties, and States are trying to understand how to prepare for the consequences of a cyber-attack.

We are not talking about trying to craft legislation that would deal with

every possible cyber harm, every possible cyber crime. We are talking about those few incidents that would be likely driven by a nation state or by a terribly advanced and sophisticated terrorist group that would strike at the very heart of what makes our modern society vibrant and that would have mass casualty consequences, dramatic impact on our economy, or wipe out whole sectors for days or weeks, such as a failure of the power grid.

This is not exotic. We just had another public hearing on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and were warned yet again of what the Department of Homeland Security documented back in 2007 in their Aurora exercise, that our power grid, nationally interconnected, vital to the modern economy, is fragile, is vulnerable to cyber-attacks. We have seen this unfold overseas. The small Baltic nation of Estonia was the victim of a comprehensive cyber-attack. They saw also in 2007 banks, media outlets, government entities that collapsed, bank cards, mobile phones, government services over a 3-week period completely shut down.

Is there a real threat? Absolutely. Are we doing enough to face it? I don't think so. I don't think we have yet done enough. There is legislation that has been brought forward by a whole group of Senators led by Senators Lieberman and Collins that I hope this body will turn to in the days ahead and find ways to balance. As Senator Blumenthal said previously, we live in a country where we must continue to respect the powerful, passionate commitment to individual privacy and civil liberties. But I think we can, with narrowly targeted, appropriately crafted legislation that incentivizes and encourages the private sector, take on the role, appropriately informed by those from throughout Federal Government, to strengthen their defenses against these coming attacks. I don't think we have to make a choice between privacy and security and I do think we can give the private sector the tools to make our country safe and strong.

But those who view new cyber regulations as onerous, as burdensome, as overly expensive for the private sector, as threatening needlessly our privacy, have an obligation to come forward with a credible alternative before it is too late.

Today we are, frankly, leaving our country wide open to attack. As we recently heard in floor speeches by both Senator Blumenthal and Senator Whitehouse, when private sector companies, even the most technically sophisticated, are contacted by our government and told they have been the victim of a successful intrusion and attack, in nearly 90 percent of the cases they were utterly unaware. We need to strengthen information sharing. We need to develop robust standards of defense. We need to help invest in building up the infrastructure protection of this country, and it is the most vital thing I can think of that this country could turn to.

Let me close with this for my moment, if I could. I had a chance to have lunch last week with Senator Daniel Inouye. That was for me a great honor, a chance to sit with him and visit and ask his advice. He made one comment to me in closing. He is the only Member of this body who was at Pearl Harbor. He shared with me that in his view the next Pearl Harbor, the next unexpected massive attack that could hurt the United States, will come from cyber. It is our obligation to take that lesson seriously and to legislate in a bipartisan, thoughtful but swift and effective way.

So, I say to Senator Whitehouse, I am grateful for his leadership of our efforts in this regard.

Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. I am following the Senator from the State of Colorado. My topic is also about manufacturing jobs in the United States. I thank the Senator from Colorado for coming to the Senate floor every day and reminding us of the importance of the consequences of the choices we make, whether it is the tax policy choice of failing to extend the production tax credit and the consequences for high-quality manufacturing jobs in the wind industry or the consequences for manufacturing all across our country, including the great State of New York, the State of Colorado, or the State of Delaware.

What we are on the Senate floor talking about is the Bring Jobs Home Act, which is just one of the many important ways we can and should be fighting for high-quality manufacturing jobs in our home States and across our country.

It was a very dark day when the Chrysler plant in Newark, DE, where I am from, shut its doors. It was built in the early 1950s first as a tank plant and then converted to an auto plant. This was a manufacturing facility that had sustained whole communities over several generations with high-quality, highly-skilled, and highly paid manufacturing jobs. In December of 2008, they closed their doors for the very last time, and that plant has now been torn down to the ground. It is an empty hole in the heart of the city of Newark.

We thought it couldn't have gotten any worse than the day that those thousands of workers filed out of the plant for the very last time, but it did just a few short months later when the General Motors plant--a few miles away in Boxwood--shuttered its doors.

In just a year Delaware went from having two high-performing, high- quality auto plants to none. We lost nearly 3,000 middle-class manufacturing jobs, and this was followed by a whole constellation of other plant closings from Avon, which lost hundreds of jobs to dozens of smaller manufacturers that had supported these auto plants for decades.

I know 3,000 jobs may not sound like a lot in the wreckage of the recession of 2008 to this whole country, but for Delawareans, for our small State, and for all the families who were supported for so long, it was huge.

I have an idea that I talk about all the time at home in Delaware; that is, we need to get back to ``Made in America'' and ``Manufactured in Delaware.'' That means something to us. Back in 1985 when I was just finishing school, transportation equipment manufacturing--which is the fancy way of saying making cars and all the stuff that goes in them-- employed 10,000 people in Delaware. Today it is well below one-tenth of that.

Made in America and manufactured in Delaware has to mean something for our families, for our communities, and for our future. Delaware was once a great and strong manufacturing State, as America was once the greatest manufacturing Nation on Earth. Some believe those days are behind us, but I do not.

I know my colleague, Senator Debbie Stabenow from Michigan, the lead sponsor of the bill we are debating, the Bringing Jobs Home Act, also does not believe our future as a world-class, world-leading manufacturer is behind us. I know the people of Michigan, the people of New York, and the people of Delaware do not.

I had the great opportunity this morning to visit with two leaders of Delaware-based manufacturers whom I just wanted to lift up for a moment as we talk about the Bring Jobs Home Act. Marty Miller, the CEO of Miller Metal in Bridgeville, DE, has had a little heralded program known as the manufacturing extension partnership that helps small manufacturers streamline their production processes, reduce waste and inefficiency, do their ordering and throughput far more effectively, and compete head-to-head around the world successfully. This manufacturing extension partnership has allowed Marty's company to grow by 25 jobs in just the last year and to compete head to head with Chinese metal fabricating plants in the global market, and win.

ILC Dover has been known to Delawareans for its storied history in our space program. They made all the spacesuits for NASA. But they have also made blimps that have hovered over Iraq and Afghanistan and protected our troops with downward-looking radar and real-time information, and they make the escape hoods and the masks that actually are positioned around the periphery of this Chamber and throughout this building and at the Pentagon. They have made remarkable high quality soft goods for decades and they too have a promising future and the opportunity to grow even in this recovery because they too are focused on things made in America and manufactured in Delaware.

These two companies, these two men, the organizations they lead, are, in my view, just an introduction to what can and should be a renaissance, a recovery, of manufacturing in the United States. We still produce more in dollar value in manufacturing than any country on Earth, but there has been a downward slope in the number of jobs and in the sense of energy and investment and focus in our policy and in our priorities in manufacturing for years.

I think we can become a great manufacturing Nation again and our middle class can be stronger than ever, but we have to make smarter choices. We have to make smarter choices in our Tax Code. We have to look at our Tax Code with an eye toward fairness and investment for the future and not just short-term profitability. We need common sense and we need, in my view, to support companies that are creating jobs here, and we need to cut our support for companies that instead want to create jobs in China, in India, in Vietnam, in Thailand, by exporting jobs from the United States.

As our economy pulls back out of what has been a devastating recession, I can think of no more galling idea than this country incentivizing American companies to ship some of our best jobs overseas. Yet, as the Presiding Officer knows, our current Tax Code allows businesses to deduct the cost of moving expenses, including permits and license fees, lease brokerage fees, equipment installation costs, and certain other expenses. A company can take this deduction if they are moving from Bridgeville, DE, to Birmingham, AL, but it also turns out they can take it if they are moving to Bridgeville from Bangalore or Beijing. Can any of us think of a worse way to spend tax dollars? This is a loophole so big we could drive a car through it, right out of the shuttered manufacturing plants of Delaware.

Fixing the injustice of our Tax Code is the first half of the Bring Jobs Home Act. We say: We are not going to pay anymore for companies that send U.S. jobs overseas. We have better ways to invest our tax dollars in rebuilding the base of manufacturing and the high-quality, high-paying jobs that come from them.

The second thing this bill does is instead of incentivizing the outsourcing of American jobs, we incentivize insourcing. We say: Bring these jobs home. The Bring Jobs Home Act says a company can keep the deduction to help pay moving costs if they are moving from one facility in the United States to another. That is fine. They can still use the moving cost deduction if they are moving from a facility abroad back to the United States. That is better. But this bill takes a further step. We say: If companies bring jobs home to the United States, we will give them an additional 20-percent tax credit on the costs associated with moving that production back to the United States.

The message of this bill is straightforward: If you are an American company and you have manufacturing jobs or service jobs that could be done by Americans, we want you to bring those jobs home, and we are going to help you do it.

For my small State, I want to keep saying every chance I get that what we

want is made in America and manufactured in Delaware. Lord knows we have the workforce. There is an army of talented Delawareans, of Americans, ready to go. Ford knows it; Caterpillar knows it; GE knows it. As we have heard from Senator Stabenow, that is why they have brought jobs home. They are opening new plants in the United States and putting Americans back to work.

There is a company in Newark, DE, called FMC BioPolymer. They make specialty chemicals. They have run a factory in Newark, DE, for 50 years--in fact, exactly 50 years this year. They make a type of cellulose we find in everyday products such as foods, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and cleaning products. They had outsourced some of their manufacturing to China to save costs. But as we can imagine, when a company is working with these sorts of advanced products that go into consumer products, safety is key. So for performance and engineering and intellectual property and safety reasons, they brought some of their most critical jobs home. They employ more than 100 people and contribute more than $20 million to our local economy every year, and it is an important part of our economy. So to FMC BioPolymer, I say thank you for bringing jobs home and strengthening made in America, manufactured in Delaware.

If big companies and small companies are figuring this out, when will the Federal Government, when will this Congress figure it out as well?

The best thing we can do for our economy--for millions of talented Americans looking for work, from our returning veterans to those who have searched so hard for work for the last 2 or 3 years, is to invest in them. We can pass the Bring Jobs Home Act as a smart choice to invest in American workers and their communities, to invest in their education, in their schools and in their teachers, to invest in our infrastructure and our roads and our power grid, to make smarter choices as a country and a Congress. There is no better investment I can think of than to make this phrase real, to return to Made in America and manufactured in the States of every one of the Senators of this great body.

This is common sense. But, alas, in the Senate, common sense these days rarely seems to win the day. I hope those watching and I hope those whom we represent take this seriously and recognize that the most important question before us is what are we going to do to take the fight in the global economy, on behalf of our families, on behalf of our communities, on behalf of our manufacturers, and change things in our Tax Code, in our trade policy, in our intellectual property policy, to make it possible to not just invent things here and make them elsewhere but to invent them here and make them here.

I hope this body will proceed to vote in favor of the Bring Jobs Home Act so that for every one of our home States we can make this phrase true--that we want things made in America and manufactured in our home States.

I thank the Chair.

Order of Procedure

Madam President, before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the majority's time be reserved for use following the Republicans' 30 minutes of controlled time.

Mr. President, I rise today to join the chorus of voices from our caucus who have tonight spoken to the value, to the importance of transparency in elections. Transparency, as we all know, is critical for free and fair elections and for democracy to function, because the people of this country--the voters, the constituents, those whom we serve and those who hire and fire all who serve them at Federal and State and local offices--need to know who they represent, who is funding their campaigns, what goals they will pursue in office, and whether the ends serve their interests. Tonight, as the Presiding Officer knows all too well, colleagues have joined to speak in support of the DISCLOSE Act--a bill that would make important progress toward clearing away the clouds that have been laid on the face of the American body public because of the decision of Citizens United.

The integrity and the fairness of our elections is at the very heart of American democracy. It is in some ways the proudest legacy of our Founding Fathers and, in my view, a beacon to the rest of the world. A difficult, a regular part of modern electioneering, of modern campaigns, is campaign ads. In fact, many of us spend a huge amount of our time raising the money and delivering the content to connect with our constituents through television. I am blessed to represent a small State--roughly 800,000 souls--so we actually get to campaign door to door, to go door-knocking, to meet people in person in my State. But, still, television ads play a very important part. In other larger States, folks will often never even meet in person the candidates for offices in the House and in the Senate or for President, and television ads there dominate the whole campaign election process. No one likes campaign ads, but they are a part of our politics, and an effective and, sadly, a powerful part as well.

For most of our modern political history, voters at least knew who the ads were coming from--the candidates and the parties that supported them--and could make judgments accordingly. If someone thought an add was too nasty, they could vote against the candidate who ran it. That is the whole point, forcing us as candidates to own our ads, to say, ``I am Chris Coons and I approved this ad.'' We all know as candidates who have stood before our electorate how it feels to put our personal name, our face, to an ad that might be hitting a little too hard, and that pulls us back from sometimes overreaching.

But what we are here to talk about tonight is the whole new world that has been unleashed by a Supreme Court decision. In my view, the basic right of every American to free and fair elections has been compromised by a new flood of tens of hundreds of millions of dollars from wealthy individuals, from corporations, from shadowy national special interest groups, since the Supreme Court, through Citizens United, opened these floodgates to unlimited secret campaign activities, threatening to overwhelm the fundamental trust of our constituents and the transparency so essential to our democracy.

As a lawyer, Citizens United was one of the most surprising Supreme Court decisions of my life, because it radically upended settled constitutional understanding as well as bipartisan agreement that had been reached here in the Senate regarding appropriate limitations on corporate speech. When the McCain-Feingold law passed in 2002, 6 years prior, it showed a strong bipartisan intent to rein in corporate spending, to rein in and manage spending by interests of all kinds in politics. That is why I was shocked when, in the opinion in Citizens United, it was joined by the so-called ``originalist'' or ``strict constructionist'' members of the Court. The originalist mode of interpretation of the Constitution attacks every question by asking a common question: Would the Framers have thought the action or law being challenged before the Supreme Court is constitutional?

That is why, if one had asked me in 2008, looking at Citizens United and at the issues presented to the Court, whether an originalist interpreting the first amendment would have found the corporate electioneering regulations this body had adopted in McCain-Feingold to be valid, it seems to me there was only one possible answer, and that was yes.

Our Founding Fathers recognized corporations are creatures not endowed, as the rest of us are, with inalienable rights. They are, rather, fictional, legal creatures--creatures of legislative grace. Were this not the case, the corporation by the name of Citizens United--the corporation that was at issue in this decision--wouldn't have stopped at simply making a movie attacking Hillary Clinton, but would have actually cast a vote against Hillary Clinton. Of course, it couldn't. Corporations don't have bad hair days; corporations don't have tasteless ties; corporations don't have moods and opinions. Corporations are not people. They exist as people only in legal fiction.

I would note the first amendment states: ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.'' If freedom of speech included fictional entities, nonhuman entities such as corporations, there would have been no reason to separately affirm that the press also enjoyed that freedom granted to real, living, breathing individuals. In my view, then, Citizens United was wrongly decided.

As shown through a long line of legislative and judicial interpretation, a view of corporations as having first amendment rights that are limited, and can and should be limited more than can be limited for real, living, breathing individuals, has remained the dominant one throughout our modern history.

In 1907, the Tillman Act prohibited campaign contributions by corporations. In 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act prohibited expenditures and the application of this law further. It was upheld by the Court in 1957 in U.S. v. Automobile Workers. When the Supreme Court first made the leap from the expenditure/contribution distinction in Buckley v. Valeo in 1971, even then it left intact the longstanding distinction between the first amendment rights of living, breathing individuals and corporations--legal fictional entities.

In the 1982 case of FEC v. National Right to Work Committee, Justice Rehnquist wrote for a unanimous Court that it was proper to treat corporations more restrictively than people. Oh, how I wish that were the majority opinion of the Court today.

The further analysis in 1986 in FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, though striking down restrictions on speech by a pro-life organization, actually underscored the original understanding that when the Constitution protects corporate speech, it only does so as a proxy for the underlying free speech rights of real, living, breathing individuals. In that case, a nonprofit organized and funded specifically for the purpose of bringing about a political goal--pro- life policies--was seen as having free speech rights only because of the rights of those individuals who funded it and organized it. When we talk about a corporation's first amendment rights, then, we should be using shorthand for the first amendment rights of those who are its shareholders or who own it or who control it.

The corporate/individual distinction was even again affirmed as recently as 1990 in the Austin case.

The constitutional history of limitations on corporate speech was so clear that the Supreme Court had upheld the McCain-Feingold Act in 2003, just 6 years before they struck it down. What possibly could have changed in those intervening years that would be so convincing to an originalist mindset? I don't know. In my view, this decision did not make sense. But I do know that

campaign finance, which was a bipartisan issue in this Chamber in 2003, where Senator Feingold and Senator McCain, a Democrat and a Republican, led a strong bipartisan coalition to rein in the negative influence of special interest money--that has changed. That has shifted to today, sadly, a starkly partisan issue.

As we have seen today, Senator after Senator of the other party has risen to speak about lots of issues, but none has addressed head-on why disclosure is no longer in the best interests of our citizens, why transparency is no longer essential to democracy. Yet Democrat after Democrat, Senator after Senator from my side of the aisle, has risen to stand firmly with those organized by Senator Whitehouse who has led so ably this discourse on the floor today, who view the DISCLOSE Act not as curing the errors of Citizens United but as striking one important blow, to ripping the cover off the millions of dollars in secret contributions that today I think threaten to swamp our electoral ship.

If the Citizens United case has tilted elections toward those with the money to buy them, the DISCLOSE Act is to me an opportunity to level the playing field a little bit. Instead of with money, it arms voters with information.

The DISCLOSE Act does just what its name suggests: It requires disclosure. It requires any covered organization, including unions, corporations, and super PACs, which spends $10,000 or more on certain campaign activities to promptly file a report with the FEC--to file a report with the Federal Election Commission--within 24 hours. This brings some measure of fairness and transparency back to our elections so voters can make informed decisions instead of simply being pushed and prodded and ultimately duped by a flood of negative ads.

I am confident it does not restrict or limit free speech of any kind. This bill simply allows voters--those who are in the driver's seat or should be in our system, those who hire and fire us--to see who is spending money to influence their decision at the ballot box.

The DISCLOSE Act imposes the minimum possible burden on organizations spending vast amounts of money on elections, while still requiring the kind of prompt and timely disclosure voters deserve and expect in this electronic, in this digital age, where the ads that flood the airwaves, that push for a decision, happen so close to an election that it is important to have disclosure real time.

We voted on the DISCLOSE Act earlier tonight, but my colleagues across the aisle lined up in lockstep against it. Sadly, every Member of the other party voted against it. What is so wrong with voters having information about who is trying to influence their vote? Why is this basic information so important to hide from the American people? Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending should be expedited, should be swift, should be available so voters can judge for themselves what is appropriate.

I could not agree more. I agreed when the esteemed Republican leader said those exact words in 1997, and I agree with them today. ``Disclosure'' he said, ``is the best disinfectant.''

Earlier today I had the honor of presiding, as you do now, Mr. President, and I got to listen to the Republican minority leader speak against disclosure. There are many other issues to which we can and should turn. There are many other important issues before our country, and he raised them all in turn. But the thing I had the hardest time with was his leading the other caucus, one after the other, to speak against, to vote against disclosure--something he himself, the Republican leader, spoke so forcefully in favor of as recently as 1997: ``Disclosure is the best disinfectant.'' Back then, the talking points for the other caucus were: Spend all you want. There should be no limits on campaign contributions as long as there is disclosure. Disclosure will keep things open and fair.

Sadly, today, even that small measure of rationality has been openly abandoned. Voters in my home State do not want secret spending clouding the legitimacy of our elections. They want to exercise this most basic American right out in the sunshine--with knowledge, with information about who backs whom--just as, I believe, our Founders intended.

Let's face it, folks. These super PACs are not raising hundreds of millions of dollars to run campaign ads that are updates on the latest sports scores, that are filled with YouTube videos of sneezing pandas or yawning kittens. These super PACs are gearing up to run the most negative possible campaign ads--the sorts of ads that can change hearts and minds because they have no accountability, because they have no one's name at the bottom line, because they feel free and are free to make the nastiest and most unfounded personal attacks.

Four years ago, at this point in the campaign cycle, just 9 percent-- 9 percent--of the political ads on TV were negative, according to the Wesleyan Media Project, which has scored ads by their negativity or positivity. Just 9 percent.

What do you think that number is this year? At this stage, this still early stage in campaigning, 70 percent. Seventy percent of the ads have been negative, and it is only July. It is not even August.

At the same point in 2008, 3 percent for the ads came from outside groups like super PACs. This year, 60 percent have been paid by outside groups. Campaigns themselves have inevitably, as a result, taken on a more negative tone, a more caustic aspect. There is no doubt in my mind that the primary mission of most super PACs is to fund the sorts of ads that destroy candidates and campaigns, that tear them down, that contribute to the steady pollution and degradation of our political discourse. They are raising money to buy television ads that assault the fame and destroy the candidates they do not like.

This same study from the Wesleyan Media Project bears that out. It found that 86 percent of the ads the super PACs and interest groups have run during this cycle have been negative. Is there any wonder then that our campaigns, our politics, our culture has become more steadily divisive and on this floor more consistently divided?

There are no centrist super PACs. There are no (c)(4)s that are determined to fund a message about bringing America together. These super PACs are designed to divide us, and they are doing a great job.

At the end of the day, one of the questions we have to have for the citizens of America is, what does this mean for you? What does it mean to have tens or hundreds of millions of dollars pouring into negative ads, driving the outcome of elections at the State and Federal level that simply divide us? It means more partisanship. It means more rancor. It means less progress. It means fewer problems solved.

If the intentions of these super PACs, of these special (c)(4)s, were so positive, then why would they need to hide whom they were supporting? Why would they need to conceal the purposes of the ads they support?

Let me, if I might for a few moments, respond to some things I heard earlier today from Republicans while I was presiding and while I was watching in my office.

One of my Republican colleagues earlier today claimed the DISCLOSE Act does not apply to labor unions and suggested that this was a big wet kiss to organized labor from my side of the aisle. This suggestion was made by several in leadership. It is a ludicrous claim. Every provision in the DISCLOSE Act applies equally to covered organizations, corporations, business associations, membership organizations, and unions.

Why have a $10,000 threshold? To reduce the burden on all membership organizations of all kinds; the $10,000 threshold is enough to cover 93 percent of the money raised by these super PACs and thus does not needlessly burden national membership organizations, with thousands of members who contribute $25 or $50 or $100.

It is these handful of folks, who are contributing huge amounts of money, whose contributions we hope to expose to the sunshine, to make positive contributions to allowing voters to know who is contributing to whom and why.

One other thought I want to add to tonight's debate is, as the Africa Subcommittee chair on the Foreign Relations Committee, I often have the opportunity to hear from and meet with legislators and heads of state from Africa who come to meet with us here in

Washington. They come to the United States to listen to us and to hear from us how our democracy functions, because for much of the world we are considered the gold standard of how to run free, fair, and open elections, of how to deliberate as an open and positive body, of how to be accountable to and serve the people of the United States.

We already have some challenges making progress, listening to each other, and getting past the partisan divide. But if we already have challenges, if the folks listening wonder whether the Senate of the United States listens to our citizens enough, just wait until another billion dollars of secretive special interest money pours into our campaigns.

In my view, one of the things we can hold up to the rest of the world is that we have clean, fair elections. This decision by this Supreme Court, in Citizens United, threatens that at its very core. This flood of money suggests that what is our greatest accomplishment in many ways as a nation is at very real risk. We cannot, in my view, lose the moral high ground of being a country that has fought so hard for so long to be a place where every person--every real person--has an equal vote and an equal right to be heard.

The unfortunate reality is we are not going to be able to amend the Constitution to repeal the Citizens United decision this year. I wish we could. But it is not going to happen on that timeline. As we saw earlier today, this Senate is apparently not even willing to require the slightest bit of transparency and accountability by passing the DISCLOSE Act, as we should. Maybe we will get the votes tomorrow. Maybe after listening to this tonight, after hearing from us, our constituents will be moved to contact other Members of this body.

But I am concerned. I am concerned that the Congress is not going to be able to stem the massive influx of cash into our elections this year or this cycle. It may, in fact, be too late for that. There is a reason campaigns and super PACs fund these negative ads. They work. They are designed to go around your head and target your heart. They move you to vote on what you are afraid of, not what you aspire to. And they can be so highly effective.

I do not like negative ads. The Presiding Officer does not like negative ads. Our citizens and our constituents do not like negative ads. We still have a choice, though. We may not yet be able to amend the Constitution. We may not be able to persuade the other side to pass the DISCLOSE Act this time. But we can allow ourselves instead to say, we will not listen to these craven, destructive ads. We can change the channel. We can ignore the ads. We can learn about candidates and their records. We can vote from a place of power instead of fear. Each and every one of us, each and every citizen, can be more powerful than the Supreme Court, can be more powerful than the billionaires and corporations who are trying to sway our votes by deciding to be better with our politics, by deciding to listen past the smear campaigns and the negative attacks.

It is my hope we will be able someday to pass the DISCLOSE Act and to amend the Constitution. But until then, I am left with this: With the encouragement of my colleagues, with confidence in our citizens, and with optimism that somehow through this smear campaign of super PAC ads the truth of the American system will still be shown to the world.

Thank you. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday we recognized the vision and tireless efforts of former Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware to develop a recreational trail along the Chesapeake and Delaware--or C&D--Canal and broke ground for its construction.

The C&D Canal, managed by the Philadelphia District of the Army Corps of Engineers, has been in operation since 1829. Today it is one of the busiest working waterways in the world, with over 25,000 vessels passing through it each year. The canal is a critical commercial waterway serving the ports of Wilmington, Baltimore, and Philadelphia. The C&D Canal is bordered by a 16-mile stretch of flat, uninterrupted land, perfect for a trail, and surrounded by more than 7,500 acres of public land, creating a unique and safe environment for recreationists. In 2004 Congressman Castle saw these assets as an ideal opportunity to enhance the canal's existing resources by adding a recreational trail.

Under Congressman Castle's leadership, a working group was formed in 2004 with representatives from the State of Delaware, New Castle County, the Army Corps, Delaware City, Chesapeake City, the State of Maryland, and recreation groups. In 2005 and 2006 public workshops were held to solicit ideas and comments from local residents regarding potential recreational uses along the C&D Canal. In March 2006 a concept plan was completed by the working group, recommending the creation of a recreational trail along the canal to be used by walkers, joggers, cyclists, and equestrians. In 2007 design work for the trail began and environmental assessments were completed, and in 2009 trail design was completed.

Congressman Castle was instrumental in obtaining resources for the trail. In addition to supporting efforts to acquire state and local funding, he also secured a total of $2.2 million in public lands highways discretionary awards in fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010 from the Federal Highway Administration to go toward planning and construction of the trail.

Congressman Castle's vision and years of work to build a trail along the C&D Canal were not forgotten when he left office. Recognizing the tremendous benefits that could be realized by the trail, the delegation picked up the project where Castle left off. Since then, the delegation has worked with the Federal Highway Administration, the State of Delaware, New Castle County, the recreation community, and others to reinvigorate the working group and secure additional funding to build the first phase of the recreational trail along the banks of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal.

The recreational trail along the C&D Canal will provide a common link to communities across the States of Delaware and Maryland from Chesapeake City to Delaware City. It will create a safe and inviting recreational opportunity along the canal and will bring families and other groups to hike, bicycle, jog, skate, or ride horseback along the trail. Local business, including restaurants and shops, will reap the benefits of this increased tourism to the area. The C&D Canal trail will also support healthy lifestyles through outdoor recreation. The trail will improve safety along the canal and increase the appeal and land value of residential developments in the area. The C&D Canal recreation trail will be an attractive asset for the Middletown, Odessa, and Townsend region that will draw new residents to the area.

Congressman Castle long ago embraced the notion that the C&D Canal is like an emerald necklace draped across the northern portion of our beautiful State, and we are so very pleased that this jewel will be named after our dear friend.

Yesterday, the Delaware Department of Transportation broke ground on phase I of the recreational trail. This first phase will complete approximately 9 miles of the trail from Delaware City to just beyond Summit Marina in Delaware, including the construction of two trail heads, parking areas, and comfort stations.

Honoring Congressman Mike Castle's longtime support of recreational and commuter-oriented greenways and trails in Delaware and across the Nation, as well as his vision, leadership,

and steadfast support of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal trail, the Delaware delegation hereby dedicates the trail to him and officially recognizes the name as the ``Michael N. Castle Trail at the C&D Canal.''

Mr. President, the war crimes of Joseph Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army, LRA, are well documented. For two decades, they have terrorized Uganda and its neighbors in central Africa, tearing apart families and demolishing whole villages. Their war crimes are unspeakable, and Joseph Kony and other leaders of the LRA must be held accountable.

As chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs, I partnered with Senator Jim Inhofe to introduce S. Res. 402, a bipartisan resolution condemning the crimes against humanity committed by Joseph Kony and the LRA, supporting ongoing international efforts to remove Kony from the battlefield, and calling for the United States to continue to enhance its mobility, intelligence, and logistical support of regional forces protecting civilians and pursuing the LRA.

The most important thing about this resolution is not that it has earned the support of 46 Senators of both political parties nearly half the Senate. What is most important is that this resolution has earned the support of 215 citizen cosponsors, individual Americans who felt compelled to speak out against Joseph Kony and stand with the President and the international community in their work to bring Kony and his top lieutenants to justice.

In an unprecedented wave of grassroots engagement, thousands of young Americans were inspired to take action by a powerful video released earlier this year by Invisible Children, a California-based nonprofit organization. This video was viewed more than 100 million times in just under a week, making it the most viral video in history. Yet young people all over this country did more than just watch they took action. They called and wrote their elected officials, they posted on Facebook and Twitter, and their voices were heard.

Although many of us in the Senate have been working on issues related to Joseph Kony and the LRA for years, hearing directly from so many of our constituents has renewed our focus and our commitment. It has been decades since we have seen such intense engagement from young Americans on a humanitarian situation in Africa, making this a critical moment to recognize and sustain.

Mr. President, I ask that the Congressional Record reflect the names of each of the 215 Americans who have signed on to S. Res. 402 as citizen cosponsors and thank each of them for standing with members of Congress, the President, and the international community as we work toward bringing Joseph Kony and his top commanders to justice.

List of names: The List follows:

Eugene Kim, Diane Delaney, Richard Behenna, Joann O'Reilly, Wanda Miller, Michelle Comfort, Rachel Breaux, Kourtney Harper, Daimian Dunn, Mary Claire Smith, Shea Grubbs, Tamara Kaiser, Shannon Wheeler, Sheila Janca, Laura Cordovano, Kenny Allen, Maureen Strazdus, Karen Gillis, Katie Nuber, Alex Gernert, Lucas Chizek, Susan Tuberville, Danielle Neuman, Greg Simpson, Lindsey Williams, Cydnie Daniel, Jan Carr, Sarah Langlois, Christine Turo-Shields, Heidi Nelson, Erin Kenna, Spenser Hooks, Emily Gneiser, John Parkhurst, Paul Claus, Diane Adams, Lindsay Katai, Andrew Towarnicky, Phillip Teel, Debra Niederschulte, Elana Katz, Priscilla Brown, Rachel Whisenant, Austin Martino, Cheree Miller, Briana Arensberg, Tiffany Luu, Mike Boucher, Abigail Rings, Nicholas Blake, Melanie Lopez, Emily Poley, Mary Louise Bannerman, Leah Schult, Sandi Jean, Stephanie Carroll, Gwyn Seltzer, Lillian Grace Walton, Jayme Collings, Angus Dupee, Karl Nielsen, G. Morgan Timmis, Christopher Walton, Andrya Ryan, Laura Vandivort, Mary Ann Mastrolillo, Lena Dupee, Nikkolette Dykstra, Anna Kuralt-Fenton, Paige Weber, Zachary Landrum, Kathy Stracke, Sara Schlussler, Carol Gernert, Emmanuel Ojobaro, Jessica Lapsley, Kara Sewall, Autumn Nyagaya, Daniel Sherier, Amber Gonzalez, Alice Jo Cargo, Jane Ziegler, Jane Coufal, Nicola Archibald, Victor Pulido-Rojas, Bailey Cox, Kevin Weidert, Nicole Tacker, William Mattheis, Jessica Nicholson, Connor Regan, Susan Bjelajac, Nicole Munger, Dave Stracke, Spencer Dove, Lynette Heinz, Adam Webb, Hillary Granier, Patricia Camacho, Janine Kramer, Tracy Frank, Ricky Hankies, Michelle Benzenhoefer, Susan Pullen, Sadie Stone, Dawn Hendrickson, Terie Fightmaster, Vickie Myers, Marcel Adams, Alicia McClain, Claire Whillans, Jordan Garrett, Sierra Stahl, Pedro Manancero, Andrea Timberlake, Jessie Garrett, Brynn Doherty, Brittany Dunn, C. Reid Johnson, Angela Underwood, Kate Haselhoff, Rebecca Dale, Grace Rogers, Allana Alexander, Andrew Stanek, Kevin Febus, Amy Gernert, Melissa Franklin, Erik Nielsen, Tyler McDaniel, Stephen Mulrine, Wendy Atkins, Samantha Foster, Dean Ober, Jade Thiraswas, Danielle Discepoli, Carolyn Hunter, Andrea Forney, Brenna Garman, Emily Dimaio, Christopher Kleinsmith, Andrew Bruner, Michele Widd-Williams,

Mary Thomas, Lisa Dougan, Alejandra Rios-Gutierrez, Elena Adlon Place, Peter Moosman, Kaylee Galvez, Nicole Eneff, Annette Hearing, Nathan Keller, Eva Posner, Latrisha McGhee, Christina Harrington, Joshua Hampton, Noah Eckstein, D.J. Morgan, Maryanne Rieder, Katherine Sasser, Jaclyn Licht, Robin Uribe, Jonathan Main, Ian Koski, Kaitlyn Scott, Brett Stauner, Dawn La Bounty, Deepan Rajaratnam, Sarah Henn, Jaquelyn Musselman, Charles Coats, Vanessa Walters, Chelsie Asher, Daniel Underwood, Chandler Kemp, Matthew Bowen, Margo Cowan, Joseph Denny, Harrison McIntosh, Drew McKinnie, Jesse Jimenez, Nancy Floeter, Kimberleigh Allen, Jamie McKay, Amos Allen, Toni Glaess, Shayleen Kurtz, Matthew Gaby, Lucas Neuman, Danny Couto, Kathleen Barnett, Debra Zens, Micah Aumen, Sarah Lake, Maxim Gantman, Jonathan Rakofsky, Noelle Quanci, Jordan Green, Neil-Brian Samen, Annamarie Reese, Jeffrey Man, Willard Williams, Tammy Brown, Noor Tozy, Daniel Smith, Grace Bennett, James Daley, Akshay Chalana, Leisa Thompson, Carol Maynard, Casey Gordon, Christopher Hays, Earnest Miller, Carol Lee Saffioti-Hughes, Alan Solinger, Carol Solinger, Peter Russell, Michael Reed, Zachary Patten, Dustin Davis.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2426.

Mr. President, I thank the leaders who have worked so hard on this bipartisan farm bill, especially Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts.

On this bipartisan farm bill, Senator Chambliss and I are grateful to have our amendment heard. Poultry is a critical industry in Delaware, Georgia, and in many States. Between the recession and the volatile cost of chickenfeed, there will be a rising number of factors that can have a catastrophic impact on local economies that are well beyond the control of our farmers and integrators. The two studies we propose in this amendment would explore whether insurance programs might make sense as a tool for helping poultry farmers and integrators continue to thrive during uncertain economic times and would specifically study protection from catastrophic loss from disease outbreaks or bankruptcy of poultry integrators.

This amendment is at no additional cost to taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Chambliss and me in supporting it.

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

Mr. President, when it comes to America's energy policy, Republicans and Democrats alike have made it clear they support an all- of-the-above energy strategy.

As the Presiding Officer knows, serving on the Energy Committee along with me, there is broad agreement on the need for a comprehensive approach that will develop secure, homegrown, efficient energy sources for our next generation.

I believe an across-the-board policy that accepts the likely reality of our current dependence on our fossil-based fuels going forward, as well as the vital need to develop and deploy new, promising, clean energy fuels of the future, is essential. Such a policy will provide certainty to our markets, opportunities to our families and companies and communities, and ensure that we are not--as some would say--picking winners and losers in the energy space.

Yet there is today an obstacle standing in the way of a truly comprehensive strategy that at least both parties say they want. It is a provision in our Federal Tax Code that has its metaphoric thumb on the scale, tipping the balance in favor of traditional fossil fuels. That is why I am so glad I have been able to work with my colleague and friend Senator Moran of Kansas to today introduce bipartisan legislation that will level the playing field and bring parity to one piece of Federal tax policy relating to energy.

Investors in oil, natural gas, coal, and pipelines have for nearly 30 years been able to form publicly traded entities called master limited partnerships, or MLPs. These partnerships include a passthrough tax structure that avoids double taxation and leaves more cash available to distribute to investors. They have for investors the liquidity and the return that is commonly associated with equity and the tax advantage that is associated with partnerships, and they have been able to aggregate and deploy a significant amount of private capital in the traditional fossil fuel marketplace, roughly $350 billion today across 100 MLPs. They have access to private capital at a lower cost, something that capital-intensive alternative energy projects in the United States badly need now more than ever.

As a result, MLPs should be a great source for raising private capital for clean energy projects as well as they have been for fossil fuel projects. The only problem is, under current law, only fossil fuel-based energy projects can attract this type of private energy investment. That is right--we are currently in our tax policies working against our broadly stated commitment as a country to an all-of-the- above energy policy with a statute that explicitly excludes clean energy projects from forming these MLPs. This inequity is starving a growing portion of America's domestic energy sector of the very capital it needs to build and grow and compete. So Senator Moran and I, along with other colleagues, decided to fix it. We came together and said it was time to level the playing field.

Sometimes when I have the opportunity, I have gone for a run here in Washington or, even better, in my home State in Delaware. Something any runner can tell you is that going up and down hills is what saps your strength. When a surface is flat, you can go farther, you can go faster, and it is the same with our Federal Tax Code. When it comes to evening things out, we have two choices. We can either lower everything to a common level by eliminating MLPs--by saying this tax advantage shouldn't be given to its traditional beneficiaries in gas and oil and coal, or we can raise the level of opportunity and attract greater investment by broadening the fields that can take advantage of MLPs to include wind and solar, biomass, geothermal, cellulosic, biodiesel.

In my view, the better strategy, the better approach is the bipartisan one that takes our colleagues at their word and says we intend to stop picking winners and losers and, instead, embrace an all- of-the-above energy strategy. Senator Moran and I have chosen this option and believe that rather than eliminating MLPs, bringing everything together and making renewables on the same level playing field with fossil fuels has a better promise for the future of the American energy economy.

This is a relatively straightforward proposal. Our bill, the Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act, will bring new fairness to the Tax Code in this specific area. It recognizes revenue from projects that sell electricity or fuels produced from clean energy sources as qualifying MLPs.

This change will encourage investment in domestic energy resources, and could bring substantial new private capital off the sidelines to finance renewable projects ranging from wind and solar to geothermal and cellulosic ethanol, just at a time when we so badly need it.

Harnessing the power of the private market is essential if alternative energy projects are to grow and create jobs all across America. Two experts in energy finance, Felix Mormann and Dan Reicher from Stanford's Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance, wrote an op-ed this past week in the New York Times endorsing this legislation.

They said:

If renewable energy is going to become fully competitive

and a significant source of energy in the United States, then

further technological innovation must be accompanied by

financial innovation so that clean energy sources gain access

to the same low-cost capital that traditional energy sources

like coal and oil and natural gas enjoy.

In the search for common ground on energy policy, this kind of simple fairness is the sort of thing I hope we can all agree on. That is why the MLP Parity Act carries the strong support of a wide range of business groups, financial experts, and energy organizations.

David Crane is the CEO of Fortune 300 company NRG Energy. NRG has generating assets across a wide range of traditional fuel sources and clean and alternative energy sources. Mr. Crane said:

The MLP Parity Act is a phenomenal idea. It's a fairly

arcane part of the tax law, but it's worked well and has been

extremely beneficial to the private investment in the oil and

gas space. The fact that it doesn't currently apply to

renewables is just a silly inequity in our current law.

We are also grateful for the support of national organizations such as the American Wind Energy Association, the Solar Energy Industries Association, the American Council on Renewable Energy, and many others, and thank them for their hard work in promoting this commonsense energy future for our country.

I also wish to specifically thank Dr. Chris Avery and Franz Wuerfmanns-

dobler who worked in my office so well in preparing this and moving this forward as public policy. And I wish to thank Josh Freed of Third Way for bringing this to our attention and producing one of the first policy papers on how master limited partnerships can be a great financing vehicle for clean energy.

I have no doubt there is significant growing opportunity worldwide in alternative fuels. There is a clean energy future coming. The only question is whether American workers, American communities, and American companies will benefit from this, or will simply be bystanders and watch our competitors pass us by. I think if we are going to lead, we have to work together. The private sector can and will provide the financing and the researchers to develop critical innovations and deploy them, but the Federal Government--the Congress in particular-- must set a realistic and positive policy pathway to sustain these innovations and let the market work to its fullest potential. The Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act moves us toward that goal. By leveling the playing field for fair competition, this market-driven solution could provide vital and needed support for the kind of comprehensive energy strategy we need to power our country for generations to come.

Some of us who will support this bill also support things such as the ITC, the PTC, and other clean energy financing vehicles. Others may not. On the specific question of master limited partnerships, the bill we introduced today simply allows us to come together in a bipartisan way to open it up to all energy sources, and to build a sustainable energy financing future on this planet.

Once again, I want to thank my cosponsor, Senator Moran. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues, on the Energy Committee and throughout the Senate and the House, to move forward this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, when it comes to America's energy policy, Republicans and Democrats alike have made it clear they support an all- of-the-above energy strategy.

As the Presiding Officer knows, serving on the Energy Committee along with me, there is broad agreement on the need for a comprehensive approach that will develop secure, homegrown, efficient energy sources for our next generation.

I believe an across-the-board policy that accepts the likely reality of our current dependence on our fossil-based fuels going forward, as well as the vital need to develop and deploy new, promising, clean energy fuels of the future, is essential. Such a policy will provide certainty to our markets, opportunities to our families and companies and communities, and ensure that we are not--as some would say--picking winners and losers in the energy space.

Yet there is today an obstacle standing in the way of a truly comprehensive strategy that at least both parties say they want. It is a provision in our Federal Tax Code that has its metaphoric thumb on the scale, tipping the balance in favor of traditional fossil fuels. That is why I am so glad I have been able to work with my colleague and friend Senator Moran of Kansas to today introduce bipartisan legislation that will level the playing field and bring parity to one piece of Federal tax policy relating to energy.

Investors in oil, natural gas, coal, and pipelines have for nearly 30 years been able to form publicly traded entities called master limited partnerships, or MLPs. These partnerships include a passthrough tax structure that avoids double taxation and leaves more cash available to distribute to investors. They have for investors the liquidity and the return that is commonly associated with equity and the tax advantage that is associated with partnerships, and they have been able to aggregate and deploy a significant amount of private capital in the traditional fossil fuel marketplace, roughly $350 billion today across 100 MLPs. They have access to private capital at a lower cost, something that capital-intensive alternative energy projects in the United States badly need now more than ever.

As a result, MLPs should be a great source for raising private capital for clean energy projects as well as they have been for fossil fuel projects. The only problem is, under current law, only fossil fuel-based energy projects can attract this type of private energy investment. That is right--we are currently in our tax policies working against our broadly stated commitment as a country to an all-of-the- above energy policy with a statute that explicitly excludes clean energy projects from forming these MLPs. This inequity is starving a growing portion of America's domestic energy sector of the very capital it needs to build and grow and compete. So Senator Moran and I, along with other colleagues, decided to fix it. We came together and said it was time to level the playing field.

Sometimes when I have the opportunity, I have gone for a run here in Washington or, even better, in my home State in Delaware. Something any runner can tell you is that going up and down hills is what saps your strength. When a surface is flat, you can go farther, you can go faster, and it is the same with our Federal Tax Code. When it comes to evening things out, we have two choices. We can either lower everything to a common level by eliminating MLPs--by saying this tax advantage shouldn't be given to its traditional beneficiaries in gas and oil and coal, or we can raise the level of opportunity and attract greater investment by broadening the fields that can take advantage of MLPs to include wind and solar, biomass, geothermal, cellulosic, biodiesel.

In my view, the better strategy, the better approach is the bipartisan one that takes our colleagues at their word and says we intend to stop picking winners and losers and, instead, embrace an all- of-the-above energy strategy. Senator Moran and I have chosen this option and believe that rather than eliminating MLPs, bringing everything together and making renewables on the same level playing field with fossil fuels has a better promise for the future of the American energy economy.

This is a relatively straightforward proposal. Our bill, the Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act, will bring new fairness to the Tax Code in this specific area. It recognizes revenue from projects that sell electricity or fuels produced from clean energy sources as qualifying MLPs.

This change will encourage investment in domestic energy resources, and could bring substantial new private capital off the sidelines to finance renewable projects ranging from wind and solar to geothermal and cellulosic ethanol, just at a time when we so badly need it.

Harnessing the power of the private market is essential if alternative energy projects are to grow and create jobs all across America. Two experts in energy finance, Felix Mormann and Dan Reicher from Stanford's Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance, wrote an op-ed this past week in the New York Times endorsing this legislation.

They said:

If renewable energy is going to become fully competitive

and a significant source of energy in the United States, then

further technological innovation must be accompanied by

financial innovation so that clean energy sources gain access

to the same low-cost capital that traditional energy sources

like coal and oil and natural gas enjoy.

In the search for common ground on energy policy, this kind of simple fairness is the sort of thing I hope we can all agree on. That is why the MLP Parity Act carries the strong support of a wide range of business groups, financial experts, and energy organizations.

David Crane is the CEO of Fortune 300 company NRG Energy. NRG has generating assets across a wide range of traditional fuel sources and clean and alternative energy sources. Mr. Crane said:

The MLP Parity Act is a phenomenal idea. It's a fairly

arcane part of the tax law, but it's worked well and has been

extremely beneficial to the private investment in the oil and

gas space. The fact that it doesn't currently apply to

renewables is just a silly inequity in our current law.

We are also grateful for the support of national organizations such as the American Wind Energy Association, the Solar Energy Industries Association, the American Council on Renewable Energy, and many others, and thank them for their hard work in promoting this commonsense energy future for our country.

I also wish to specifically thank Dr. Chris Avery and Franz Wuerfmanns-

dobler who worked in my office so well in preparing this and moving this forward as public policy. And I wish to thank Josh Freed of Third Way for bringing this to our attention and producing one of the first policy papers on how master limited partnerships can be a great financing vehicle for clean energy.

I have no doubt there is significant growing opportunity worldwide in alternative fuels. There is a clean energy future coming. The only question is whether American workers, American communities, and American companies will benefit from this, or will simply be bystanders and watch our competitors pass us by. I think if we are going to lead, we have to work together. The private sector can and will provide the financing and the researchers to develop critical innovations and deploy them, but the Federal Government--the Congress in particular-- must set a realistic and positive policy pathway to sustain these innovations and let the market work to its fullest potential. The Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act moves us toward that goal. By leveling the playing field for fair competition, this market-driven solution could provide vital and needed support for the kind of comprehensive energy strategy we need to power our country for generations to come.

Some of us who will support this bill also support things such as the ITC, the PTC, and other clean energy financing vehicles. Others may not. On the specific question of master limited partnerships, the bill we introduced today simply allows us to come together in a bipartisan way to open it up to all energy sources, and to build a sustainable energy financing future on this planet.

Once again, I want to thank my cosponsor, Senator Moran. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues, on the Energy Committee and throughout the Senate and the House, to move forward this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am honored to join with the good Senator from Kansas, the Senator from Missouri, and my friend from Virginia in speaking today in a bipartisan colloquy that is also part of a bicameral process that is trying to send a signal to the American people, to our markets, and to our competitors, that we understand that just because we happen to be in an election year does not mean our competitors in China, in India, and Russia, in Europe and other parts of world--in Africa and in other places where there are emerging markets or in places where we have well-developed competitors--we do not take this year off.

The American people expect since we are still drawing a salary, we should still be making progress. We should still be trying to meet the needs of a growing economy that needs to grow faster. So as Senator Moran referenced previously, last November Senator Rubio of Florida and I came together to put a package called the AGREE Act before the Senate.

We were pleased that a number of the provisions in that first AGREE Act actually have subsequently become law: One, to ease the path for IPOs, initial public offerings, for high-potential, high-growth companies; another through Executive order to strengthen intellectual property protection. We are hopeful the Senate will consider another provision that dealt with bonus depreciation, which is another way to help make investments in equipment for small businesses.

On top of that, Senator Rubio and I have now teamed up with Senator Moran and Senator Warner to take some of the remaining provisions of the AGREE Act and add them in with your Startup Act and now make an improved and broader and stronger Startup 2.0.

The pieces that we brought to the party were eliminating the per- country caps for employment-based immigrant visas and making permanent the exemption of certain capital gains so investors can provide financial stability to qualified startups. There are a lot of good ideas in this bill. There are a lot of different ways in which it tackles the issues that my colleagues have already spoken to: immigration; retaining high-promise, entrepreneurial folks who come and learn in the United States; moving the inventions and innovations on American college campuses to the marketplace more predictably, more swiftly; providing tax incentives for startup businesses and putting provisions in the Tax Code that strengthen our welcoming environment for entrepreneurship and regulatory relief.

Senator Moran took the lead in making possible a provision in this bill that provides some regulatory relief for startup businesses. In all I think these provisions make for a terrific package, thus the moniker ``2.0.'' It has already attracted some other folks to join us.

Before I hand the floor over to the Senator from Missouri, I just want to comment on what I think that means.

There are trillions of dollars in capital sitting on the sidelines. American corporations have more money sitting on their balance sheets, not invested and moving our economy forward, than at almost anytime in modern history. That is because they are not sure this body, the Congress of the United States, can tackle the very real financial and competitiveness challenges in front of us.

There is something about the symbolism of what is on the Senate floor today: the Agriculture bill, the farm bill, and a bill we took up and passed just a few weeks ago, the Transportation bill. I think that is at times lost. The average American sees in the news the fighting, the disagreement, the inability to come together, when, in fact, two fairly broad, strong important bills--the farm bill and the Transportation bill--were passed through committee by strong votes.

Senator Boxer of California, Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, Senator Stabenow of Michigan, and Senator Roberts of Kansas--these are folks from both parties with significant differences in their views. But they managed to hammer out these bills, the Transportation and farm bills.

I want to thank Senators Moran and Warner and Rubio for joining with me and the four of us being able to put this together and putting it on the floor of the Senate today.

To the good Senator from Missouri, a freshman in the Senate but a man of

great seasoning and experience in the House and in public service, we are grateful he has joined us as a cosponsor of this bill. I welcome him to speak for a few minutes about how he sees this contributing to positive progress for our recovery.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation to ensure the women of this country earn equal pay for equal work. I am grateful to Senator Mikulski--and many of our cosponsors--for her strong and able leadership on this important bill, S. 3220, which we will take up later this afternoon.

The principle of equal pay for equal work is a simple, powerful principle of basic fairness. In this year of 2012, no one should earn less for doing the same job just because of their gender. This legislation is an important step forward. It would plug holes and make critical changes in the law that would ensure the promise of equal pay that was first enshrined in our law decades ago.

This legislation will deter wage discrimination by closing loopholes in the Equal Pay Act and bar retaliation against workers who disclose their wages to colleagues. Knowledge is power, Mr. President. Women who don't know their male coworkers are earning more for doing the same job can't speak up and demand to be treated fairly.

My wife Annie and I are raising three wonderful children, all of whom are equally bright and driven and capable. As any parent knows, one of the phrases we hear more than any other from our own children is, ``That is not fair.'' When we pick out one for more entertainment or more opportunity, for more travel or more close family time, the first thing we hear from their siblings is, ``But, Dad, that is just not fair.'' As Annie and I raise our wonderful twin boys and our tremendous and talented daughter, we try as best we can to be fair. Yet I know my daughter Maggie, like other women and girls all across our country, will earn less than her brothers even if she chooses the exact same career track. That is just not fair. That is unacceptable. That violates our bedrock belief as a country in equality of opportunity and the American dream that if people work hard, nothing will stand in the way of their success.

I am hopeful by the time my daughter Maggie enters the workforce we will have reduced or ended the gender pay gap in this country. I believe by then our Nation's economy will be back to full strength. But the fact is thousands of families across my home State of Delaware, the Presiding Officer's home State of West Virginia, and my neighboring State of Maryland can't afford to wait for things to get better in the economy and in our legal system. They are struggling right now to pay their bills every month, and unfair pay discrimination adds to their burden.

Women in Delaware, on average, earn 81 cents for every dollar paid to men. Over their lifetime that means they will earn nearly $\1/2\ million--or $464,000--less than their male counterparts. Women make up just a shade under half of Delaware's workforce, and close to 40 percent of married, employed mothers in Delaware are their families' primary wage earners. When women are paid less than men for doing exactly the same job, it hurts whole families. Over 135,000 children in Delaware live in households that depend on their mothers' earnings.

I heard from one of those mothers--Patricia from Dagsboro, DE. She wrote to my office urging me to support this legislation. She wrote:

Without my paycheck, we could not have afforded to pay for

the college tuition for two of our children. If I had been

paid equally for equal work, experience and education, it is

likely neither of them would have had to take out student

loans to make ends meet.

Patricia urged me to support the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Mr. President, paycheck fairness has wide-ranging consequences--from covering the cost of higher education to mortgage payments to everyday bills and consumer spending. Income earned by women is a key driver, a key contributor to our economy.

Some on this floor have attributed the pay gap to differing priorities or to the idea that some women choose to work fewer hours in order to spend

more time with their families or to meet their family care commitment. But the facts simply do not bear out this theory. Women earn less starting the very moment they graduate from school, before they have made any choices about family or worklife balance. That shows us pay discrimination is real. Study after study has shown it is pervasive and, in my view and that of many of my colleagues, it needs to finally be stopped.

The gender pay gap persists across all occupations and educational levels. But it is especially hard on minorities and female-headed households, which are much more likely, as a consequence, to be low income. The consequences of the gender pay gap remain even when a woman stops working because after a lifetime of lower earnings, the average Social Security benefit for American women under 65 is about $12,000 compared to $16,000 for men of the same age.

If I might say, in conclusion, then, Mr. President, there is not a Member of this body who would dispute women are just as educated, just as trained, just as capable in so many ways as their male colleagues across our whole society and there should be no difference in the equality of the pay they receive for that work.

I support the Paycheck Fairness Act because it will help women fight for the equal pay they have earned, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Madam President, we have averted a crisis in the bankruptcy court system. It may have been a quiet crisis--one few Americans talked about--but it was real nonetheless. Although it is all too rare in Washington these days, on this issue, we found a way to work together and deliver a solution. I am proud to say that on May 25, President Obama signed into law legislation I authored to extend 29 expiring temporary bankruptcy judgeships in 19 judicial districts.

With this new law, some of our Nation's busiest bankruptcy courts-- those in Nevada and Delaware and New York and Michigan and Florida and so many other States--will finally be able to replace a sitting bankruptcy judge if he or she resigns or dies in office.

Especially in times of economic recovery and uncertain growth, our bankruptcy courts perform a vital restorative role for our Nation's economy. Bankruptcy courts can give individuals, many of whom are victims of our great recession, a clean slate to start fresh. They give corporations that can't pay their bills an opportunity to restructure their debts and continue in operation, rather than shuttering their offices and factories, multiplying the pain by putting Americans out of work.

Bankruptcy offers relief for creditors as well by providing an orderly distribution of the debtor's estate. Without bankruptcy, the debts of past mistakes, miscalculations, and misfortune will remain on the balance sheets, unpaid and yet unpayable.

Over the past 20 years, Congress has created dozens of temporary bankruptcy judgeships to meet the needs of our growing population and occasional economic downturns. Perhaps these judgeships were created on a temporary, rather than permanent, basis out of some sense of enduring optimism--optimism that we one day will have a significantly smaller need for our bankruptcy courts that we had when they were created. In fact, the caseloads in several of the districts authorized in the past have declined and those judgeships have been allowed to expire. This new law, however, is about districts where the caseloads remain high and which cannot afford to lose even a single authorized judgeship.

According to the judges I hear from, as well as from the nonpartisan Judicial Conference of the United States, which is headed by Chief Justice Roberts, these judgeships simply must be reauthorized--and now that the Temporary Bankruptcy Judgeships Extension Act is law, they have been.

This legislation passed the House and Senate unanimously because it is good policy. It is pro-growth, pro-opportunity, and pro-justice. The CBO has scored it to be paid for and it is so bipartisan that it is nonpartisan.

I am grateful for the willingness of my colleagues to compromise and help find a mutually acceptable solution to head off a looming crisis in our bankruptcy courts. The amendment that permitted passage of this legislation is a one-time accommodation that provides additional fee revenue to the Judiciary so that this bill will not lead to increased demands on appropriators. It also reaffirms that Congress, in legislating on these temporary judgeships in the future, ought to do so only after carefully examining their continued need and our ability to pay for them.

I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle did not get everything that they wanted in this legislation, but my confidence in this institution has been buoyed by the ability of both sides to recognize the greater good at stake and find their way to this deal.

I want to thank Leader Reid, Senator Durbin, Senator Grassley, Senator Coburn, the group of 12 bipartisan cosponsors, and all those who have worked constructively to help enact this very simple and very important law.

In particular, I thank President Obama, for with his signature, we have taken an important step toward delivering to the American people the fair, speedy, and accessible bankruptcy court system they deserve.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the bipartisan legislation to which the Senate will move to reauthorize the Food and Drug Administration user fees and critical programs to ensure Americans have access to safe and effective medications.

Most of us do not think about the FDA on a regular basis. In fact, we rarely think about where our medicines come from, the scientists who invented them, the investments required to develop them, and the innovative, cutting-edge new treatments that are essential to keeping Americans healthy and safe or the regulators who make sure these pharmaceuticals, devices, and treatments work as they are supposed to. But when the moment comes that we face a health crisis and our doctors prescribe us essential medication, we want those pharmaceuticals available right away, and we want them to work as promised.

One example of the many constituents who have contacted me about PDUFA is Virginia from Newark, DE, who recently sent a letter to my office. She volunteers with the National Brain Tumor Society and is concerned that without reauthorization of this legislation, safe and effective brain tumor therapies will be slower to be developed and made available to patients who need them. She wrote:

It has been too long since any new therapies have become

available for brain tumor patients that significantly extend

survival. Anyone can be diagnosed with a brain tumor, and

they are the second leading cause of cancer death in children

under twenty.

I say to the Presiding Officer, I am sure, like me, in your office, as a Senator from Connecticut, you regularly are visited by folks from around the country or around your State who are deeply concerned about continuing medical progress, discovery and development of the lifesaving treatments Americans have developed over the last two decades. It is my hope that the Senate will continue to clear the way. That is why we need this legislation.

This reauthorization helps take care of innovation and safety so consumers and patients do not have to worry. It permanently authorizes programs that have helped make medicines safer for millions of children. It upgrades the FDA's tools to police the global supply chain and helps reduce the risk of drug shortages of the kind we saw recently, which Senator Klobuchar just spoke to earlier this afternoon, when supplies of critical cancer medications ran low.

This is a matter of great urgency. The current FDA authorization will expire in a few short months. If we allow that to happen, we put at risk patient access to new medications as well as America's ongoing global leadership in biomedical innovation.

Worst of all, failing to reauthorize would cost us thousands of jobs, and more pink slips is not what we need as our economic recovery gains strength. If new drug and medical device user fee agreements are not authorized before the current ones expire, the FDA must lay off nearly 2,000 employees. Because that does not happen overnight, layoff notices would start going out as early as July. The good news is we are moving forward with a timely reauthorization to save those jobs, save America's leading role in innovation, and ensure that the FDA continues to make progress.

This is an all-too-rare display of bipartisanship across both Chambers. This legislation was unanimously approved by the House committee and found strong bipartisan support in the HELP Committee here in the Senate, ably led by Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Enzi.

There is a reason Members of the House and Senate of both parties are in such strong support of this reauthorization.

The American economy has always been driven by innovation, and some of our most extraordinary innovations have come in the biomedical sector. In the years ahead, it is my faith, my hope, that we will see more and more narrowly targeted drugs created specifically for certain kinds of patients or very specific diseases. In the lifecycle of innovation, this is different than the last few decades when blockbuster medications were used and then developed on a very wide scale across the country or world. But it is an equally impressive feat of innovation that lies in the years ahead, and one that is only possible because of amazing advances in technology, the mapping of the human genome, the disassociation across many labs and small startup businesses, of the machinery, the mechanics, and the capabilities to innovate in the discovery and development of pharmaceuticals.

We have to continue to support and encourage this kind of innovation in order to stay competitive in the global economy. At the moment, the FDA continues to keep pace with many of our global competitors in terms of their review time for new drug applications, but we are at real risk of falling behind.

One recent example to which I paid close attention, the blood- thinning drug Brilinta, was manufactured by a company--was developed and discovered by a company--in my home State of Delaware, AstraZeneca. It was finally approved by the FDA in July 2011. But prior to that approval, 33 other countries, including the EU and Canada, had already approved the drug months or years before. This delay in review and approval in some certain cases can be bad for patients who rely on these medications and bad for the competitiveness of the United States. So I am glad this reauthorization clears away some of the conflict in the underbrush and will reauthorize and strengthen and streamline the review timeline for new pharmaceuticals.

Not only will this provide the kind of predictability and certainty any business needs to succeed, but it helps make sure the FDA's essential regulatory process keeps pace with scientific innovation. In my home State of Delaware, there are more than 20,000 jobs that directly rely on biomedical research and innovation. But around the country there are more than 4 million indirectly and more than 675,000 jobs that directly benefit from this area.

Frankly, it is also one of our strongest export areas of growth for the long term. So we need this reauthorization now. In my view, moving forward with this legislation also means finding the fine balance between speed and safety, between getting treatments to patients without delay, and being certain these new drugs will be effective and safe.

In a recent editorial, the Washington Post noted:

This time around, the balance appears to be tilting

slightly toward faster approval. That's good.

I agree. Safety is paramount, but with today's technology and the FDA's century of experience, I think we can move more quickly to put innovative treatments in the hands of patients who desperately need them. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act originally passed by Congress in 1992 and reauthorized every 5 years since is what allows the FDA to collect user fees from pharmaceutical manufacturers and provide a stable, consistent funding stream that has steadily decreased drug review times by nearly 60 percent since it was first enacted. It has provided access on a faster and more predictable timeframe to over 1,500 new medicines since it was first enacted and deserves to be reauthorized to help expedite approval for breakthrough medications to treat rare and widely experienced diseases.

In closing, the FDA is the oldest comprehensive consumer protection agency in the Federal Government. Its relevance has not decreased with age; in fact, quite the opposite. As our researchers and scientists have made major breakthroughs in care and technologies for treatment, the FDA has continued to serve as the conduit between innovators, physicians, and patients.

We face tremendous hurdles in treating devastating diseases of all kinds. In addition to ancient puzzles such as cancer that continue to allude us, there are new challenges cropping up every day. One example would be the need for new drugs to treat increasing cases of bacterial infections, greatly resistant to conventional antibiotics, so-called superbugs. That is why I have joined with the Presiding Officer and Senator Corker as a cosponsor of the GAIN Act, to spur development of these specific types of drugs. This is one of many examples of the kinds of innovations that will solve the medical mysteries of the 21st century, ease the suffering of millions of Americans, secure high-wage and high-skilled jobs in the biomedical research field, and ensure our competitiveness globally.

So let's continue working in the bipartisan spirit that has carried this reauthorization thus far and proceed to pass it without delay.

I yield the floor.

I thank very much Senator Alexander. I cannot think of a better person to partner with, to seek advice and guidance and leadership from, on the issue of STEM immigration and education reform than Senator Alexander, a national leader on education policy. Like me, Senator Alexander is the son of a former classroom teacher, but also served as the U.S. Secretary of Education and president of a prominent university, the University of Tennessee. He knows firsthand of the challenges, of the opportunity lost when tens of thousands of foreign nationals, who come here and seek the opportunity to get STEM master's and doctoral degrees in some of our best universities, are then forced to return home to their nation of origin rather than being able to stay here, if they choose, to create jobs, grow businesses, and contribute to our country and our economy.

As someone who, before running for public office, worked with a highly motivated materials-based science company that employed over 1,000 researchers, I too have a sense of what great contributions immigrants have always made to this country, but particularly in these areas of innovation and how they can contribute to our competitiveness.

Senator Alexander's closing comments about the America Competes Act is where we start this conversation. I came to this Senate knowing that my predecessor from Delaware, Senator Kaufman, had been a strong supporter of the America Competes Act, one of the few engineers to serve in the modern Senate. I was happy to take up the cause and press for its reauthorization in the waning days of the 111th Congress.

I met with Senator Alexander last year and we talked about this as one of the most promising unfinished pieces of business in that critical report, ``Rising Above The Gathering Storm,'' and in that vital piece of legislation, the America Competes Act. As Senator Alexander had referenced, the America Competes Act was passed with strong bipartisan support. That was the sort of thing that was focused on moving America forward by identifying strong ideas that had support across the whole country and a lot of different sectors and from both parties. It is my hope this is the beginning of building a strong bipartisan coalition on moving forward on immigration reform.

Let me talk for a minute, if I could, about our history and tradition of immigrants contributing to our country, being a strong part of job creation and growth here, and in particular immigrants who come to this country to be educated in STEM disciplines--science, technology, engineering, and math.

If you think about it, for most of the last century we had some of the strongest universities in the world. For much of the last 50 years, anyone who came here from a foreign land to get a doctorate in a STEM discipline, if they chose to go home, was going home to a country that wasn't a competitive environment. The United States--because of our advances in workforce and infrastructure and our legal system, our entrepreneurial culture, our capital markets--was the world leader in innovation and competitiveness. This is no longer the case. We still have the strongest universities in the world, 35 out of the top 50, but today those 17,000 STEM doctoral and master's graduates that Senator Alexander referred to, when we force them to go home to their country of origin rather than allowing them to compete for those jobs here and contribute to the American economy, are finding open arms in nations such as India and China, which are vigorous competitors. They are providing the capital markets, the infrastructure and the workforce, the resources to take advantage of those opportunities. We need an immigration system that responds to the modern economy and the opportunities of a highly competitive modern world. Rather than hemorrhaging these highly skilled folks and having them return home, we should give them an opportunity to participate in being job creators here.

The numbers bear this out. If you take a look at the Fortune 500 companies today, more than 40 percent of them were founded by immigrants or their children. Folks who had come to this country recently from other parts of the world have established companies that employ more than 10 million people worldwide and have combined revenues of more than $4 trillion, a figure greater than the GDP of every country in the world except the United States, China, and Japan. Immigrant-founded startup companies created 450,000 jobs in the United States in the last decade, and collectively they have generated more than $50 billion in sales in a single year.

Let me give one example that has meant a lot to me. I became friends with the founder of Bloom Energy, KR Sridhar. In his native India he got his undergraduate degree, but he came to the United States to get his doctorate in mechanical engineering and then went on to be a researcher at NASA's Ames Center and made a critical invention in solid oxide fuel cells. He runs Bloom Energy, which has already created 1,000 jobs. Last week the Governor of Delaware and my senior Senator, Tom Carper, joined others at the site of a former shuttered Chrysler plant for the groundbreaking of a facility that Bloom Energy will make possible.

Why would we want a capable, bright contributor to our economy like KR to be forced to go home to his country of India, rather than welcoming him here and giving him a chance to participate, to contribute, and potentially become not just an American business leader but an American citizen? We need to make it easier for the next generation of inventors and innovators to create jobs here.

This bill, as Senator Alexander has laid out, is relatively simple. It creates a new class of visas for foreign students to pursue STEM master's and doctoral

degree programs, and allows us to continue a conversation about how do we recognize the longstanding central contribution to our economy, our culture, and our country of immigrants.

I believe there are other areas of immigration reform that have to be on the table, that we have to move forward on. I am eager to move forward on family-focused reform and on other areas as well, where I am a cosponsor of other immigration bills, but my hope is this legislation will get the attention it deserves, will get the broad support from Members of both sides of the aisle it deserves, and that it will form part of a compromise that will address the needs of all the stakeholders in immigration reform in a responsible and balanced manner.

This legislation is not the end of the road, but it is a critical step forward in making sure we continue a bipartisan, thoughtful, and constructive dialog on how do we deal with an immigration system that is broken and that doesn't make America as competitive as it could be.

If I could, I want to close by thanking Senator Alexander for his leadership, for allowing me to work with him and to produce a bill that is streamlined, that is simple, that is accessible, and that I think can contribute to making America a land that continues to welcome and celebrate the real job creators, inventors, and innovators from all parts of the world.

In closing, I will just say that the economics of this legislation are simple, but, as Senator Alexander and I recognize, any step toward immigration reform is complicated. Making it easier for foreign-born, American-educated innovators to stay in the United States is just one aspect of many of the urgently needed steps to reform our outdated immigration system.

I see that Senator Durbin has come to the floor. I am proud to cosponsor the Dream Act. I also support the Uniting American Families Act. There are other pieces of legislation that are essential to allow us to recognize and to strengthen the role immigrants play in the fabric of our country. I think this opportunity today to move forward on a bipartisan bill that focuses on this one area without caps, with a new class of immigration visa, is an important contribution to moving this discussion forward for all of us.

I thank Senator Alexander.