Debt-ceiling debate is not a game

Some call it a game of chicken. Some liken it to a game of Russian roulette. Whatever you call it, the potential for failing to raise our nation’s debt limit during this fledgling economic recovery should not be treated like the positioning of a political chess piece.

The question of whether to raise the debt ceiling is not a game. 

The United States is at a unique moment in its economic history, and this Congress should treat that moment with the respect it deserves. We have a debt and deficit problem so severe that significant long-term action is needed to ensure that we come out of this recession and avoid permanently jeopardizing our nation’s economic growth. 

One way or another, we are going to have to confront the structural budget challenges that are the root cause of the federal deficit. That means taking a serious look at entitlement programs, Pentagon spending and comprehensive tax reform that generates additional revenue. It is ludicrous to think we can balance the budget solely by trimming non-security discretionary programs.

Real progress in reducing our deficit can’t wait, which is why Democratic votes in favor of raising the debt ceiling from its current $14.29 trillion — as the White House has urged — should not be taken for granted. 

Rather, it is incumbent on the leadership of both parties to take seriously the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission and pursue a legislative framework that would implement many of its recommendations and start to get our rapidly growing debt under control. 

If we do not substantively address our deficit now we will certainly be confronted with having to raise the debt ceiling again in short order. 

Congress must set aside the typical partisan rancor for the sake of making real progress. 

Thankfully, there are very few in the Senate who, I believe, still fail to accept the true depth of this crisis. But just as worrisome are those who were cheering to “shut it down” during the FY 2011 continuing resolution debate and now outright refuse to even consider raising the debt limit. 

This is a time for shared sacrifice, not absolutism.

In the course of the negotiations over the long-term continuing resolution, the widely shared goal of reducing discretionary spending was hijacked by those who saw an opportunity to prosecute ideological battles that had no business being part of a budget negotiation.

Observers were quick to note then that the budget deal was a precursor to the debate over the debt ceiling we’re now having. 

As embarrassing as it was to be brought to the brink of a shutdown, the debate over the debt ceiling is far more serious to the nation and the global economy. This is a situation where even talk has consequences. 

When Standard & Poor’s took the unprecedented step of assigning the United States its first negative outlook in the nation’s rating history last month, it sent a ripple through the global market. 

The next step — a reduction in our nation’s AAA bond rating — would send the dollar into a tailspin and stunt our economic recovery, undoing the real progress made over the last three years and shaking recent growth in critical market sectors. Our interest rates would soar, which would siphon more money out of our annual budget to pay the higher cost of borrowing. It would take years to rebuild the confidence of investors that we’d lose in the process, and might take generations to finally bring this crisis to an end. 

We must act now. We cannot afford for America to become an unsafe investment, whether by defaulting on our debt or by continuing to allow our deficit to spiral unchecked.

Both paths bring the United States to the same perilous place, and while the consequences of not raising our debt ceiling create a useful political urgency that many of us looking for a serious debate on the deficit have long sought, they do not grant members of Congress impunity to ignore their responsibility to grow our economy and get Americans back to work.

The millions of unemployed Americans don’t think our nation’s economy is a game. Neither should Congress.

Shortchanging inventors is slowing our economic recovery

America is full of good ideas.

In fact, Americans have so many good ideas that they created a record backlog of patent applications at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, presenting both an opportunity and a serious problem for our economy.

Experts say that a single patent can create between three and 10 new jobs, but businesses whose growth depends on the granting of patents for their inventions are being forced to wait over two years before a patent examiner might even pick up their applications. They must wait another year for a final determination to be made.

The pace of American innovation far exceeds the pace of American bureaucracy.

Tasked with ending the logjam, PTO Commissioner David Kappos unveiled an innovative idea: the “Track One” expedited patent examination pilot program. 

Businesses with inventions critical to obtaining capital investment and creating jobs would be given the option to skip the line and get an up-or-down determination on their applications within one year. The privilege would cost an additional $4,000 per application – enough to pay examiners’ overtime and hire more staff.

The solution was simple and fair. Inventors with time-sensitive applications could obtain faster consideration without slowing down the processing of applications on the normal track. It would have expedited as many as 10,000 patent applications this year and brought in an additional $40 million in fees.

After working for eight years at a manufacturing company where patents were the lifeblood of our business, I know that Track One would have made a real impact on our economic recovery and the workforce-in-waiting of engineers, tradespeople, laborers, and others ready to get to work. 

The program would have started this week if Congress hadn’t gotten in the way.

Although PTO finances its operations using the fees it collects on patent applications, PTO must ask Congress for a budget equivalent of what it thinks it will collect in fees that year. Most years, Congress allows PTO to expend up to that amount of money so long as that money comes in. But when PTO takes in more money than it planned for in its budget request, that money gets diverted to the Treasury, preventing PTO from increasing its competency and capacity, slowing down the patent-approval process.

That means, for an innovative program like Track One, PTO had to request a Fiscal Year 2011 budget that already included that $40 million in order to implement the program as it had planned to launch this week. Though it did just that, the continuing resolution passed by Congress last month only funded PTO to its Fiscal Year 2010 level, shortchanging the agency by $85 to $100 million and forcing Commissioner Kappos to pull the plug on the Track One program last week.

If you were looking for ways to limit economic recovery, stifling PTO’s ability to grant patents would be pretty high on the list. Fee diversion is effectively a tax on innovation, punishing the very people we ought to be empowering. Congress has indulged in this practice for far too long.

The America Invents Act, which I co-sponsored and which passed the Senate in March by an overwhelming 95-5 vote, would end fee diversion and give PTO the ability to reduce the 700,000-long backlog of patent applications awaiting consideration.

Now America is waiting for the House to pass its own version of the measure, H.R. 1249, which cleared the House Judiciary Committee last month. 

Congress’ delay in ending patent-fee diversion is costing America jobs at a time when we desperately need to be getting more Americans back to work.

We need to move more good ideas from the PTO’s inbox to the marketplace.

I hope Speaker Boehner moves quickly to bring H.R. 1249 up for a vote on the House floor. Every day we fail to act is another day that hundreds of thousands of innovations – and the millions of jobs they can create – remain nothing more than unread good ideas on paper in someone’s inbox.

The loss of Track One is proof of that.

Chris Coons is a United States Senator for Delaware.

Don’t Give Up on Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

It was hard to watch nearly all my Republican colleagues step into the well of the Senate and vote against the Defense Authorization bill yesterday, but not because I suddenly expected to see a break in their pattern of reckless obstructionism. Rather, it was hard because of the horrendous message the Senate was sending to our brave men and women in uniform and to each and every gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered American.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is discrimination, plain and simple. Any American prepared to die for his or her country deserves our respect and admiration. Sexual orientation should not be a factor in determining one’s right to serve.

We were closer to a repeal this week than we’d ever been, but just as they did when they blocked the unemployment insurance extension for millions of out-of-work Americans, Senate Republicans hijacked this issue as part of their war on progress. This, despite the fact that a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell apparently has the support of super-majority of Senators, including at least three Republicans.

Thursday’s vote didn’t fail because a repeal was bad policy. It failed because, for Republicans, it was bad politics.

Refusing the funding our troops need in a time of war is unconscionable and distasteful. By blocking the Defense Authorization bill, Republicans have deprived our military of more than $700 billion in authorized funds for a pay-raise for troops, an extension of Tricare benefits, and needed equipment in Afghanistan and Iraq. While I’m hopeful that the Defense budget will eventually be authorized, the changing composition of the Senate and the House prevents me from saying the same about a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell next year.

This is a critical, unique moment and though this opportunity is fleeting, it’s not over yet.

I believe that a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell deserves a chance at a straight up-or-down vote, safely protected from the crossfire of the debate over a potential extension of the Bush tax cuts.

That’s what S. 4022 — a standalone version of the repeal introduced by Senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins Thursday night — aims to do. They believe, as I do, that separating Don’t Ask Don’t Tell from the larger Defense Authorization bill will give us a better chance of passing a repeal.

I was proud to join Senators Reid, Leahy, Gillibrand, Lincoln, and Mark Udall in co-sponsoring the Lieberman-Collins bill, which approaches the repeal in the reasonable, measured manner recommended by Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen last week while testifying before the Armed Services Committee. They both voiced support for a repeal and underscored the importance of giving the Pentagon the time it needs to implement this policy change in a deliberate, responsible manner.

Passage of S. 4022 would set in motion a series of steps designed to do just that. The repeal would be enacted 60 days after the President, Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify to Congress three things. First, that they have considered the Pentagon working group report on the impact of a DADT repeal. Second, that the Department of Defense has readied the necessary regulations for implementation and third, that the manner of implementation is consistent with the standards of military readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.

Congress wouldn’t dictate a timeline for obtaining that certification, but rather this bill gives our military leaders the time they need to ensure a smooth execution of the repeal.

That preparation time would likely not be so generous — if any was granted at all — if a federal judge orders the repeal because Congress chose not to act before going home for the holidays. Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, and all five service chiefs were unanimous last week in warning against a court decision on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Though these were my first weeks as a Senator, it is clear to me that history will judge our actions in the final days of this lame duck session. I strongly believe that LGBT equality is a pivotal civil rights issue and that repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is an important step in communicating that the government of the United States no longer sanctions active discrimination against a segment of its population.

Our brave men and women in uniform are willing to fight for our freedom every day. It’s our responsibility to keep fighting for theirs.

Manufacturing Jobs Key to Winning the Future

Those of us in the freshman class elected to Congress in November arrived with a specific objective — getting our economy moving again. However, our goal cannot be mere recovery.

The American people deserve and expect policies that will lead to an economy and job market stronger, more vibrant, and more prosperous than before. To achieve this, we need a renewed focus on sustaining and growing manufacturing — one that centers on rewarding innovation and fostering entrepreneurship, and that ties those great American strengths to a great workforce.

I am encouraged that President Obama chose to highlight high-tech manufacturing competitiveness in his State of the Union address and its potential to create sustainable middle-class jobs. Unlike so many other sectors, with manufacturing it’s not just about generating jobs but generating good jobs that pay a livable wage and provide quality health insurance.

For decades manufacturing jobs have been a reliable path to the middle class for millions of hard-working American families.

But that path is not nearly as wide as it was just ten years ago. Since then, our nation has lost more than three million manufacturing jobs, including nearly two million in 2008 and 2009 alone. As plants shut down, communities are flooded with skilled workers forced to take lower paying, unskilled jobs — oftentimes two or three of them — just to make ends meet.

The truth is, we’re not going to be able to reopen all the plants that have closed and get those workers back on the assembly lines making the same products. What we can and must do is pursue a new manufacturing agenda, one that will lead to the creation of inventive businesses that will open new plants and hire educated workers for skilled and sustainable jobs — one that will produce the next generation of American manufacturers.

While labor-driven commodity manufacturing may have moved to the developing world, we can still remain a world leader in innovative and high-performance manufacturing — as we are today in industries ranging from aircraft to pharmaceuticals. To ensure that we do, our efforts must focus on creating a supportive environment in tax and trade policy, in education and training that matches the strength of American engineering and innovation.

Thankfully, we’re not starting from scratch. Innovative businesses, including many from my home state of Delaware, have long been leaders in creating new manufacturing jobs based on new inventions.

Recently, companies such as DuPont, Ashland, Agilent and Perdue have invested in new facilities, new research or new production here. Delaware has also been a model for high-tech job growth with innovative local companies like ILC Dover, Solar Dock, and Miller Metal, as well as multinational companies like Sanosil, Motech, and Fraunhofer USA that have brought jobs here. I am proud that the many new products and technologies they invent are “Made in America, Manufactured in Delaware.”

Another example is the old General Motors plant in Newport, Delaware. More than a thousand people lost their jobs when GM shut down the facility in 2009, one that had been in operation for more than sixty years and was long touted as one of the most productive in the country. Led by Governor Jack Markell, those of us in state and local government in Delaware were able to bring Fisker Automotive to Newport to take over and reinvest in the old General Motors plant. We did it by bringing together state and local officials, union leaders, and federal tax credits and investments.

When I asked Fisker Automotive’s leaders what made them choose Delaware, it was a familiar answer — a skilled and reliable workforce, responsive state and county governments, strong local infrastructure, and access to global markets through our roads, rails, and the Port of Wilmington.

We need to export this model and these successes all over the country. Delawareans are used to being first, and today we again find our state poised to be a leader in America’s high-tech and clean energy manufacturing revolution.

I will ask my fellow Senators to support critical investments in public infrastructure, research and development, and education so we can replicate them across the country. Such investments must coincide with efforts to make it easier for Americans to start and expand small businesses and for multinational companies to locate advanced manufacturing here.

We can boost our manufacturing sector and get millions back to work, and with these investments we will build a strong, prosperous, and sustainable future for American’s middle class.

We should never settle for just recovery. We must reach for the prosperity and growth I know we can achieve. 

The Alternate Ending to My Congressional Correspondents Dinner Speech

There’s a certain formula that goes into a speech like the one I gave Wednesday night in my comedic debut at the Washington Press Club Foundation’s Congressional Dinner.

In that formula, the first 85 or 90 percent of your remarks are supposed to be funny — biting, a little bipartisan, and significantly self-deprecating. The rest of your speech is supposed to be serious and generous in your praise for the audience — in this case, journalists.

The first draft of my “serious close” was longer than the comedic part of the speech, so we pared it down significantly. I have a great deal of respect for journalism, but rarely get such an opportunity to speak about the field, so I thought I’d share that first draft as an alternate ending.

Here’s what it said:

A few weeks ago, I was profiled in a story where I revealed my affinity for playing Madden with my kids — and my addiction to Angry Birds on my iPad.

With the number of Senators who came up to me after the story appeared to tell me about their own love for that ridiculous game, I genuinely thought we could have convened an Angry Birds Caucus.

Least. Productive. Caucus. Ever.

(And that’s a high bar!)

That’s also, by the way, the reason we should never allow iPads on the Senate floor.

I’ve had an iPad since Christmas and it really is terrific. In between frustrating levels of Angry Birds, I turn to some of my favorite news apps — Huffington Post, Politico, the Post, the Times — to catch up. Next to my staff and the paper copy of the Wilmington News Journal that arrives at my front door each morning, my iPad has certainly become my primary source of news.

It is remarkable how news consumption has changed.

Never before have Americans had as much information at their fingertips as they do now. The Internet has not only redefined the way we communicate with others, but has fundamentally changed the way the nation gets its news.

Twitter is a truly extraordinary tool not only for distributing information, but for collecting it. I remember during the campaign I’d occasionally peek over the shoulder of our new media guy and check out his TweetDeck screen. I was in awe of the sheer volume of information being conveyed in those columns.

It was clear, though, that while Twitter has plenty of reporters, it has too few editors.

Despite the volume of information and the degree of transparency that the Internet offers, it comes up short on accountability. That’s why there has never been a time when Americans have needed high-quality journalism more than we do right now.

Competition has always been a part of newsgathering and, for the most part, it’s been a good thing. It’s healthy. Competition promotes innovation and stimulates creativity.

But competition can never be a substitute for judgment. The rush to be the first should never trump the need to be accurate, even in a 24-hour news cycle, and even in this Internet age — where content producers outnumber journalists by a staggering ratio.

It’s been distressing to watch as profit has replaced principle and entertainment has crowded-out the news in so many areas of the media. Especially now, in these consequential times at home and abroad, it is more than distressing — it is dangerous.

Our country doesn’t need more content — it needs better news.

I have great respect for the role journalists play in our democracy, but that role has nothing to do with being first, or being the loudest. It has everything to do with being accurate and fair.

Just as the news media stopped asking the KKK for its opinion to provide “balance” to stories about the civil rights movement, it is time to stop putting people on television to “balance” stories about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell simply because they hate gay people.

Journalism is about shining a light on subjects masked by shadow, obscured by confusion and hidden by deception to reveal a truth undiscoverable to those without the insight or access to find it.

The journalists bravely risking their lives in the streets of Egypt to offer a window on the real situation on the ground are testimony to the heavy burden of that mission.

We’re counting on you to carry it forward.

Measuring America’s progress in Afghanistan

It was dinnertime at Bagram Airfield.

In the nearly 16 hours since my day began in neighboring Pakistan, I had participated in a string of back-to-back meetings and briefings with General Petraeus, Afghan President Karzai, Afghan parliamentarians, and U.S. Ambassador Eikenberry.

But as we sat down for dinner in the mess at Bagram, I realized that this was the highlight of my trip. This was the meeting with the unsung heroes of the war I had been waiting for. 

Late last month I took an eight-day trip with several of my Senate colleagues to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Jordan and Israel. It was important for me to look beyond the congressional hearings to see the situation on the ground in each of those important countries for myself.

It was there at Bagram, while sharing a meal of chicken and rice, and listening to soldiers from Delaware tell me about their commitment, mission and eagerness to come home to their families, that I came to better understand the scope of their sacrifice and the true cost of this war.

The boxes of Dolles’ saltwater taffy we left behind as a reminder of home seemed like the very least I could do to show our appreciation to these brave troops. 

I came away from the trip with several inescapable conclusions, the first and foremost that the men and women serving our country in uniform are extraordinarily professional. Morale was high, even for those on their fourth or fifth deployment in the past 10 years.  Every Marine, soldier, airman, Guardsman, and civilian I met had a positive outlook, a clear sense of purpose and believed in the mission he or she was sent to complete.

I went to Afghanistan to ask our military and civilian leaders tough questions about our mission such as: Is our $2 billion-a-week investment making America more secure? Does the Taliban present a clear danger to U.S. interests? Would our personnel and financial resources be better spent fighting Al Qaeda in Somalia or Yemen, as extremist networks proliferate to alternative safe-havens around the globe?

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I knew it was important to get a firsthand sense of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, as well as in the Middle East, to inform my perspective on America’s commitments there.

The U.S. has been engaged in combat operations in Afghanistan for more than 10 years – longer than any other military action in our nation’s history – yet the sustainability of recent progress in stemming the momentum of the Taliban remains in doubt.

I saw a number of reasons to be optimistic about progress being made, such as the young female Member of Parliament reading the Afghan constitution on her iPad, or the village elders in Helmand Province who expressed their heartfelt gratitude to the U.S. military for driving the Taliban out of their village.  The Afghan National Security Forces are also making progress given the extensive training program led by a multinational force I was able to observe.

In my view, the biggest challenge to our success in Afghanistan is Pakistan – our ally to which we have given more than $18 billion since 9/11, but which continues to harbor and consort with the very extremists killing American troops across the border. Upon returning to Washington, I am committed to determining the best way forward with Pakistan, and whether we can find more cooperation targeting extremists, especially on the Afghan border.  In the absence of a clear strategy for Pakistan, sustaining any progress in Afghanistan remains highly doubtful.

Our costly investment in Pakistan and Afghanistan must be balanced against our security priorities throughout the world. With Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda allies having slipped across the Afghan-Pakistani border, it is important we ensure they don’t escape again to destabilized terrorist harbors like Yemen and Somalia. 

Earlier this month Delaware sent another 240 of its sons and daughters to Afghanistan. I remain committed to ensuring that their immeasurable sacrifice, as well as that of the brave Delawareans with whom I shared a meal at Bagram Airfield last month, is honored with a strong commitment from Congress to closely and continually evaluate our mission in Afghanistan. 

If the mounting cost exceeds the benefit to U.S. security, it may be worth considering a meaningful drawdown of troops, beyond what the President is considering for July of this year.