July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5735 

(2) by striking paragraphs (1) through (3) 

and inserting the following: 

‘‘(1) $110,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; 

‘‘(2) $220,000,000 for fiscal year 2014; and 

‘‘(3) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2015.’’. 

By Mr. COONS (for himself, Mr. 

ENZI, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mr. 

RUBIO): 

S. 3460. A bill to amend the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for 

startup businesses to use a portion of 

the research and development credit to 

offset payroll taxes; to the Committee 

on Finance. 

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, to fuel 

American economic growth and job 

creation, we have to make sure our tax 

policy is as smart as the innovators 

who power our economy. 

American ingenuity has always been 

at the core of our economic success. 

Behind nearly every game-changing innovation, from the light bulb to the 

search engine, has been critical research and development that transforms an idea into a market-ready 

product. The challenges of the global 

economy may be new, but the solution 

is the same—supporting and sustaining 

American innovators. 

That is why I joined with my friend 

and colleague, the Senator from Wyoming, Senator ENZI, to draft legislation 

that gives innovative startup companies the opportunity to take advantage 

of the successful research and development tax credit, which would support 

their efforts to invest in innovation 

and create jobs. 

Senator ENZI and I are proud to be 

joined by Senator SCHUMER of New 

York and Senator RUBIO of Florida in 

introducing the Startup Innovation 

Credit Act of 2012, which allows qualifying companies to claim the R&D tax 

credit against their employment taxes 

instead of their income taxes, thereby 

opening the credit to new companies 

who don’t yet have an income tax liability. We are also grateful to our colleagues in the House, who are working 

to introduce a bipartisan companion 

bill this week. 

Over the past three decades, the research and development tax credit has 

helped tens of thousands of successful 

American companies create jobs by 

incentivizing investment in innovation. But with America’s global manufacturing competitiveness at stake, it 

is time Congress shows the same type 

of support for entrepreneurs and young 

companies. 

Small and startup businesses are 

driving our Nation’s economic recovery 

and creating jobs by taking risks to 

turn their ideas into marketable products. Over the past few decades, firms 

that were younger than 5 years old 

were responsible for the overwhelming 

majority of new jobs in this country. 

The tax code is a powerful tool in the 

government’s toolbox, but tax credits 

can’t help emerging companies that 

don’t yet have tax liabilities. That 

takes the R&D tax credit off the table 

for countless promising startups and 

small businesses. 

Over the last two years, I have talked 

with dozens of business leaders and experts in tax policy to refine an idea to 

create a new small business innovation 

credit that would help those young 

companies. My commitment to this 

concept has only strengthened since I 

introduced a version of it in my very 

first bill as a Senator, the Job Creation 

Through Innovation Act. This work 

continued, along with Senator RUBIO, 

in the subsequent AGREE Act and 

Startup Act 2.0. 

The reason I am so doggedly pursuing 

this idea is because it is critical for 

young, innovative companies in my 

home state of Delaware. Take, for example, DeNovix, a small company 

based in Wilmington. With just six employees, they design, manufacture and 

sell laboratory equipment that helps 

scientists innovate and achieve results. 

As a brand-new company, all of 

DeNovix’ products are in the research 

and development phase. So at this 

point, they can’t take advantage of the 

R&D tax credit. A new, innovative 

company, shut out of support they need 

at the time they need it most. That 

seems counterproductive for our economy. So let us fix it. Under the Startup 

Innovation Credit Act of 2012, DeNovix 

and companies like them across Delaware and across the country could 

grow and create jobs with the help of 

the R&D tax credit. 

We can’t let tough economic times 

slow down the power of American ingenuity, especially when history has 

taught us that now is exactly the time 

we need to be investing in our 

innovators. More than half of our Fortune 500 companies were launched during a recession or bear market, so a 

small business founded this year could 

become the next General Electric or 

DuPont if it gets the support it needs. 

America’s researchers, business leaders, innovators and entrepreneurs are 

already working to help create jobs and 

ensure American competitiveness in 

the global economy. We just have to 

support and sustain their hard work, 

and we cannot take the rest of the year 

off just because there is an election 

coming up. Even in this difficult, partisan atmosphere, we have to find ways 

to work together and get things done. 

Innovation will drive American economic competitiveness for generations 

to come, and our job is to help our 

innovators and entrepreneurs do their 

jobs. I urge my colleagues to join Senators ENZI, SCHUMER, RUBIO and I in 

strong support of the Startup Innovation Credit Act of 2012. 

By Mr. BROWN of Ohio (for himself, Mr. WICKER, Mr. KERRY, 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, and Mr. BEGICH): 

S. 3461. A bill to amend title IV of the 

Public Health Service Act to provide 

for a National Pediatric Research Network, including with respect to pediatric rare diseases or conditions; to the 

Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions. 

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, 

over the last few years, our country 

has grappled with rising health care 

costs. 

While we are making strides, there is 

one area of health care that is lagging 

behind: pediatric research. 

Children comprise 20 percept of the 

U.S. population, but only about 5 percent of the National Institutes of 

Health, NIH, extramural research is 

dedicated to pediatric research. 

If this rate of investment is not expanded, discoveries of new treatments 

and therapies for some of the most devastating childhood diseases and conditions will be hindered, and the next 

generation of researchers will be discouraged from entering into the field 

of pediatrics. 

That is why I have introduced the 

National Pediatric Research Network 

Act. This act seeks to reverse this 

trend by strengthening and expanding 

NIH’s investments into pediatric research. 

This expanded investment will help 

accelerate new discoveries and directly 

affect the health and well-being of children throughout our Nation. 

My home State of Ohio is home to 

world-class researchers at topnotch research hospitals and universities. 

We must give these institutions, including Cincinnati Children’s, Rainbow 

Babies, Children’s Hospital, and Nationwide Children’s Hospitals, the resources to partner with other leading 

researchers across the country. 

This legislation creates such an opportunity. 

The centerpiece of the legislation 

will be the authorization of up to 20 

National Pediatric Research Consortia. 

They are modeled after the exemplary National Cancer Institute, NCI, 

Centers to help finance efficient and effective, inter-institutional pediatric research. 

While NIH is working to advance 

translational research through Clinical 

& Translational Science Awards, those 

centers are far-reaching and focused 

primarily on adult diseases and clinical 

research. In contrast, these pediatric 

centers would be solely dedicated toward pediatric research. 

Unlike existing NIH initiatives in 

which only the largest research institutions receive funds, the legislation 

envisions that each center will operate 

in a ‘‘hub and spoke’’ framework with 

one central academic center coordinating research and/or clinical work at 

numerous auxiliary sites. Encouraging 

collaboration can help ensure efficiency. 

Furthermore, this legislation will encourage research in pediatric rare diseases. 

While each rare disease or disorder 

affects a small patient population, it is 

important to note that 7,000 rare diseases—such as epidermolysis bullosa, 

sickle cell anemia, spinal muscular atrophy, Down syndrome, Duchene’s 

muscular dystrophy, and many childhood cancers—affect a combined 30 

million Americans and their families. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5736 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 31, 2012 

What is even more devastating is the 

fact that children with rare genetic 

diseases account for more than half of 

the rare disease population in the 

United States. 

As anyone with a rare disease or disorder knows, these patient populations 

face unique challenges. 

It is my hope the National Pediatric 

Research Network Act will increase 

our understanding of pediatric diseases, improve treatment and therapies, and create better health care outcomes for our nation’s children. 

I thank Senators WICKER, WHITEHOUSE, KERRY, BLUMENTHAL, and 

BEGICH for joining me as original cosponsors. 

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. 

GRASSLEY, and Mr. KOHL): 

S. 3462. A bill to provide anti-retaliation protections for antitrust whistleblowers; to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am 

pleased to join with Senator GRASSLEY

and today introduce the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act. This legislation will provide important protections to employees who come forward 

and disclose to law enforcement price 

fixing and other criminal antitrust behavior that harm consumers. Senator 

GRASSLEY and I have a long history of 

working together on whistleblower 

issues, and I am glad we can continue 

this partnership today. 

Whistleblowers are instrumental in 

alerting the public, Congress, and law 

enforcement to wrongdoing. In many 

cases, their willingness to step forward 

has resulted in important reforms and 

even saved lives. Congress must encourage employees with reasonable beliefs about criminal activity to report 

such fraud or abuse by offering meaningful protection to those who blow the 

whistle rather than leaving them vulnerable to reprisals. 

The legislation we introduce today 

was inspired by a recent report and recommendation from the Government 

Accountability Office which, based on 

interviews with key stakeholders, 

found widespread support for anti-retaliatory protection in criminal antitrust cases. It is modeled on the successful anti-retaliation provisions of 

the Sarbanes Oxley Act, and is carefully drafted to ensure that whistleblowers have no economic incentive to 

bring forth false claims. 

I have long supported vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws, which 

have been called the ‘‘Magna Carta of 

free enterprise.’’ Today’s legislation is 

a necessary complement to them. It 

has bipartisan support and was recommended by the Government Accountability Office. I urge the Senate 

to quickly take up and pass this important legislation. 

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

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 3462 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Criminal 

Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act’’. 

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO ACPERA. 

The Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 (Public Law 

108–237; 15 U.S.C. 1 note) is amended by adding after section 215 the following: 

‘‘SEC. 216. ANTI-RETALIATION PROTECTION FOR 

WHISTLEBLOWERS. 

‘‘(a) WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS FOR EMPLOYEES, CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, 

AND AGENTS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No person, or any officer, 

employee, contractor, subcontractor or 

agent of such person, may discharge, demote, 

suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other 

manner discriminate against a whistleblower 

in the terms and conditions of employment 

because— 

‘‘(A) the whistleblower provided or caused 

to be provided to the person or the Federal 

Government information relating to— 

‘‘(i) any violation of, or any act or omission the whistleblower reasonably believes to 

be a violation of the antitrust laws; or 

‘‘(ii) any violation of, or any act or omission the whistleblower reasonably believes to 

be a violation of another criminal law committed in conjunction with a potential violation of the antitrust laws or in conjunction 

with an investigation by the Department of 

Justice of a potential violation of the antitrust laws; or 

‘‘(B) the whistleblower filed, caused to be 

filed, testified, participated in, or otherwise 

assisted an investigation or a proceeding 

filed or about to be filed (with any knowledge of the employer) relating to— 

‘‘(i) any violation of, or any act or omission the whistleblower reasonably believes to 

be a violation of the antitrust laws; or 

‘‘(ii) any violation of, or any act or omission the whistleblower reasonably believes to 

be a violation of another criminal law committed in conjunction with a potential violation of the antitrust laws or in conjunction 

with an investigation by the Department of 

Justice of a potential violation of the antitrust laws. 

‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON PROTECTIONS.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any whistleblower if— 

‘‘(A) the whistleblower planned and initiated a violation or attempted violation of 

the antitrust laws; 

‘‘(B) the whistleblower planned and initiated a violation or attempted violation of 

another criminal law in conjunction with a 

violation or attempted violation of the antitrust laws; or 

‘‘(C) the whistleblower planned and initiated an obstruction or attempted obstruction of an investigation by the Department 

of Justice of a violation of the antitrust 

laws. 

‘‘(3) DEFINITIONS.—In the section: 

‘‘(A) PERSON.—The term ‘person’ has the 

same meaning as in subsection (a) of the 

first section of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 

12(a)). 

‘‘(B) ANTITRUST LAWS.—The term ‘antitrust 

laws’ means section 1 or 3 of the Sherman 

Act (15 U.S.C. 1, 3) or similar State law. 

‘‘(C) WHISTLEBLOWER.—The term ‘whistleblower’ means an employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent protected from discrimination under paragraph (1). 

‘‘(b) ENFORCEMENT ACTION.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A whistleblower who alleges discharge or other discrimination by 

any person in violation of subsection (a) may 

seek relief under subsection (c) by— 

‘‘(A) filing a complaint with the Secretary 

of Labor; or 

‘‘(B) if the Secretary has not issued a final 

decision within 180 days of the filing of the 

complaint and there is no showing that such 

delay is due to the bad faith of the claimant, 

bringing an action at law or equity for de 

novo review in the appropriate district court 

of the United States, which shall have jurisdiction over such an action without regard 

to the amount in controversy. 

‘‘(2) PROCEDURE.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A complaint filed with 

the Secretary of Labor under paragraph 

(1)(A) shall be governed under the rules and 

procedures set forth in section 42121(b)of 

title 49, United States Code. 

‘‘(B) EXCEPTION.—Notification made under 

section 42121(b)(1) of title 49, United States 

Code, shall be made to the person named in 

the complaint and to the employer. 

‘‘(C) BURDENS OF PROOF.—A complaint filed 

with the Secretary of Labor under paragraph 

(1) shall be governed by the legal burdens of 

proof set forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, 

United States Code. 

‘‘(D) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.—A complaint under paragraph (1)(A) shall be filed 

with the Secretary of Labor not later than 

180 days after the date on which the violation occurs. 

‘‘(E) CIVIL ACTIONS TO ENFORCE.—If a person 

fails to comply with an order or preliminary 

order issued by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the procedures in section 42121(b), 

the Secretary of Labor or the person on 

whose behalf the order was issued may bring 

a civil action to enforce the order in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the violation occurred. 

‘‘(c) REMEDIES.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A whistleblower prevailing in any action under subsection (b)(1) 

shall be entitled to all relief necessary to 

make the whistleblower whole. 

‘‘(2) COMPENSATORY DAMAGES.—Relief for 

any action under paragraph (1) shall include— 

‘‘(A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the whistleblower would have 

had, but for the discrimination; 

‘‘(B) the amount of back pay, with interest; and 

‘‘(C) compensation for any special damages 

sustained as a result of the discrimination 

including litigation costs, expert witness 

fees, and reasonable attorney’s fees. 

‘‘(d) RIGHTS RETAINED BY WHISTLEBLOWERS.—Nothing in this section shall be 

deemed to diminish the rights, privileges, or 

remedies of any whistleblower under any 

Federal or State law, or under any collective 

bargaining agreement.’’. 

By Mr. FRANKEN (for himself, 

Mr. LUGAR, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, 

Ms. COLLINS, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. 

WYDEN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, and 

Mr. BROWN of Ohio): 

S. 3463. A bill to amend title XVIII of 

the Social Security Act to reduce the 

incidence of diabetes among Medicare 

beneficiaries; to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I 

am pleased to join today with my colleagues, Senator FRANKEN, Senator 

LUGAR, Senator COLLINS, Senator SHAHEEN, Senator WYDEN, Senator 

BLUMENTHAL, and Senator BROWN of 

Ohio, to introduce an important piece 

of bipartisan legislation, the Medicare 

Diabetes Prevention Act of 2012. Our 

legislation makes a wise investment in 

seniors’ health by extending the proven 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE