[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 9 (Monday, January 23, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S27-S31]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              THE INTERNET

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes with Senator 
Moran tonight to reflect on the events of the last few days with 
respect to the Internet legislation. I want to begin by thanking 
Majority Leader Harry Reid for reopening the debate on 
anticounterfeiting and copyright protection legislation. In pulling the 
Protect IP Act from the floor, Leader Reid has given the Senate an 
opportunity to get this policy right. The Senate now has the 
opportunity to consult all of the stakeholders, including the millions 
of Internet users who were heard last week. The Senate has the 
opportunity to ensure that those exercising their first amendment 
rights through the Internet, those offering innovative products and 
services, and those looking for new mediums for sharing and expression, 
have their voices heard.
  I also express my appreciation to Senator Moran. He is an impassioned 
advocate for job creation and innovation on the Net--the first on the 
other side of the aisle to join me in this cause. My colleague, Senator 
Cantwell from Washington State, who is as knowledgeable as anybody in 
public service about technology, and Senator Rand Paul, who is a 
champion of the Internet as a place where those who look at the Net as 
a marketplace of ideas, stand together and approach policy in an 
innovative way.
  Last week, tens of millions of Americans empowered by the Internet 
effected political change here in Washington. The Congress was on a 
trajectory to pass legislation that would change the Internet as we 
know it. It would reshape the Internet in a way, in my view, that would 
have been harmful to our economy, our democracy, and our national 
security interests.
  When Americans learned about all this, they said no. The Internet 
enables people from all walks of life to learn about the legislation 
and then take collective action to urge their representatives in 
Washington to stop it.
  So everybody asked, come Wednesday, what would happen? In fact, the 
American people stopped this legislation. Their voices counted more 
than all the political lobbying, more than all of the advertising, more 
than all of the phone calls that were made by the heads and the 
executives of the movie

[[Page S28]]

studios. Their voices were heard loud and clear.
  Last week, the Congress did what the American people called for 
instead of what the Washington insiders wanted. That is what I call 
real change. It was a grassroots victory for the history books, and, as 
one commentator said, now we are in unexplored territory. Here is why. 
Eight million of 162 million who visited Wikipedia took action to 
influence their Member of Congress; 7 million Americans signed Google's 
petition to block consideration of PIPA; hundreds of thousands of 
Americans called the Congress. In all, in just 1 day, more than 15 
million Americans communicated with Congress and urged it to reject the 
Hollywood proposal to censor and censure the Internet.
  The 15 million Americans who took action, who signed petitions, who 
provided their e-mail addresses and ZIP Codes in a desire to be 
informed are now going to be watching us like never before. The 15 
million who looked up and spoke up are not faceless and they are not 
anonymous. They are people such as Frances Stewart of Maryland, Nancy 
Linton from Oregon, Debbie Kearns from East Hartford, CT, and John 
Jewett of Colorado, who gave their names to Web sites around the 
country. They are joined by millions of other Americans who were 
raising concerns for months before last week's Web blackout and 
supporting the filibuster I announced here in the Senate almost 1\1/2\ 
years ago.
  These 15 million citizen activists were not the only ones saying the 
PROTECT IP Act took the wrong approach. The New York Times and the Los 
Angeles Times--the hometown newspapers for the content industry--both 
wrote editorials saying the legislation overreached. I ask unanimous 
consent to have printed in the Record copies of those articles.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Los Angeles Times, June 7, 2011]

                         Policing the Internet

       A Senate bill aims to cut off support for any site found by 
     the courts to be `dedicated' to copyright or trademark 
     infringement. Its goals are laudable, but its details are 
     problematic.
       Hollywood studios, record labels and other U.S. copyright 
     and trademark owners are pushing Congress to give them more 
     protection against parasitical foreign websites that are 
     profiting from counterfeit or bootlegged goods. The Senate 
     Judiciary Committee has responded with a bill (S 968) that 
     would force online advertising networks, credit card 
     companies and search engines to cut off support for any site 
     found by the courts to be ``dedicated'' to copyright or 
     trademark infringement. Its goals are laudable, but its 
     details are problematic.
       The global nature of the Internet has spawned a profusion 
     of websites in countries that can't or won't enforce 
     intellectual property law. Under S 968, if a website were 
     deemed by a court to be dedicated to infringing activities, 
     federal agents could then tell the U.S. companies that direct 
     traffic, process payments, serve advertisements and locate 
     information online to end their support for the site in 
     question. Copyright and trademark owners would be able to 
     follow up those court orders by seeking injunctions against 
     payment processors and advertising networks that do not 
     comply.
       Cutting off the financial lifeblood of companies dedicated 
     to piracy and counterfeiting makes sense. A similar approach 
     to illegal online gambling has shown that it is technically 
     feasible for payment processors to stop directing dollars 
     from U.S. bettors to gambling sites anywhere in the world. 
     The operators of the largest online advertising networks say 
     they can do the same, although they object to the bill's 
     proposal to let copyright and trademark owners seek 
     injunctions against them.
       The main problem with the bill is in its effort to render 
     sites invisible as well as unprofitable. Once a court 
     determines that a site is dedicated to infringing, the 
     measure would require the companies that operate domain-name 
     servers to steer Internet users away from it. This 
     misdirection, however, wouldn't stop people from going to the 
     site, because it would still be accessible via its underlying 
     numerical address or through overseas domain-name servers.
       A group of leading Internet engineers has warned that the 
     bill's attempt to hide piracy-oriented sites could hurt some 
     legitimate sites because of the way domain names can be 
     shared or have unpredictable mutual dependencies. And by 
     encouraging Web consumers to use foreign or underground 
     servers, the measure could undermine efforts to create a more 
     reliable and fraud-resistant domain-name system. These risks 
     argue for Congress to take a more measured approach to the 
     problem of overseas rogue sites.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Nov. 26, 2011]

                        Going After the Pirates

       Online piracy is the bane of the Internet. Still, bills 
     proposed in the House and the Senate have overreached. The 
     legislation needs to be tightened to protect intellectual 
     property without hindering online speech and innovation.
       Forty billion music files were shared illegally in 2008, 
     according to the International Federation of the Phonographic 
     Industry, amounting to 95 percent of all music downloads 
     worldwide. Three-quarters of the video games released in late 
     2010 and early 2011 were shared illegally.
       Musicians, moviemakers, authors and software designers are 
     not the only victims. Piracy's cost is measured in less 
     innovation and less economic activity, as creators lose hope 
     of making a living from their creations. Still, the 
     definition of wrongdoing in the ``Stop Online Piracy Act'' 
     introduced in the House is too broad.
       Under the bill, copyright owners could direct payment 
     providers like Visa and advertising networks like Google's to 
     cut off business to a Web site simply by filing notice that 
     the site--or ``a portion'' of it--``engages in, enables or 
     facilitates'' intellectual property infringement or is being 
     willfully blind to it.
       Accused Web sites would have only five days to assert their 
     innocence. And the payment providers and ad networks could 
     not be sued by sites that were wrongly cut off, so their 
     easiest course of action might be to just comply with 
     copyright owners' requests. If copyright owners could starve 
     a Web site of money simply by telling a payment processor 
     that the site was infringing on intellectual property, the 
     bill could stymie legitimate speech.
       The purpose of the legislation is to stop business flowing 
     to foreign rogue Web sites like the Pirate Bay in Sweden. But 
     these provisions could affect domestic Web sites that are 
     already covered by the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 
     That act has safe harbors protecting sites, like YouTube, 
     that may unknowingly host pirated content, as long as they 
     take it down when notified.
       Another provision would allow the attorney general to sue 
     foreign sites that ``facilitate'' piracy, and to demand that 
     domestic search engines stop linking to them and that 
     Internet service providers redirect traffic. Experts have 
     said this measure could be easily overcome by users and warn 
     that it could undermine an industrywide effort to reduce 
     hacking. Legislators should also think hard about the message 
     it would send to autocratic regimes like China's, which 
     outinely block political Web sites.
       The House bill is right to focus on payment systems and ad 
     networks to cut off the money to rogue Web sites. But like 
     its Senate companion, the ``Protect IP'' bill, it has serious 
     problems that must be fixed.
       The bill should be made to stipulate clearly that all of 
     its provisions are aimed only at rogue Web sites overseas. 
     Foreign sites must be granted the same safe harbor immunity--
     and the bill must not open the door to punishments for 
     domestic sites that abide by the 1998 digital copyright law. 
     And rather than encouraging credit card companies and 
     advertising networks to pre-emptively cut off business to Web 
     sites accused of wrongdoing, a court order should be required 
     before they take action.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, June 8, 2011]

                   Internet Piracy and How To Stop It

       Online piracy is a huge business. A recent study found that 
     Web sites offering pirated digital content or counterfeit 
     goods, like illicit movie downloads or bootleg software, 
     record 53 billion hits per year. That robs the industries 
     that create and sell intellectual products of hundreds of 
     billions of dollars.
       The problem is particularly hard to crack because the 
     villains are often in faraway countries. Bad apples can be 
     difficult to pin down in the sea of Web sites, and pirates 
     can evade countervailing measures as easily as tweaking the 
     name of a Web site.
       Commendably, the Senate Judiciary Committee is trying to 
     bolster the government's power to enforce intellectual 
     property protections. Last month, the committee approved the 
     Protect IP Act, which creates new tools to disrupt illegal 
     online commerce.
       The bill is not perfect. Its definition of wrongdoing is 
     broad and could be abused by companies seeking to use the law 
     to quickly hinder Web sites. Some proposed remedies could 
     also unintentionally reduce the safety of the Internet. 
     Senator Ron Wyden put a hold on the bill over these issues, 
     which, he argued, could infringe on the right to free speech. 
     The legislation is, therefore, in limbo, but it should be 
     fixed, not discarded.
       The bill defines infringing Web sites as those that have 
     ``no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or 
     facilitating'' the illegal copying or distribution of 
     copyrighted material in ``substantially complete form''--
     entire movies or songs, not just snippets.
       If the offender can't be found to answer the accusation (a 
     likely occurrence given that most Web sites targeted will be 
     overseas), the government or a private party can seek an 
     injunction from a judge to compel advertising networks and 
     payment systems like MasterCard or PayPal to stop doing 
     business with the site.
       The government--but not private parties--can use the 
     injunction to compel Internet service providers to redirect 
     traffic by not translating a Web address into the numerical

[[Page S29]]

     language that computers understand. And they could force 
     search engines to stop linking to them.
       The broadness of the definition is particularly worrisome 
     because private companies are given a right to take action 
     under the bill. In one notorious case, a record label 
     demanded that YouTube take down a home video of a toddler 
     jiggling in the kitchen to a tune by Prince, claiming it 
     violated copyright law. Allowing firms to go after a Web site 
     that ``facilitates'' intellectual property theft might 
     encourage that kind of overreaching--and allow the government 
     to black out a site.
       Some of the remedies are problematic. A group of Internet 
     safety experts cautioned that the procedure to redirect 
     Internet traffic from offending Web sites would mimic what 
     hackers do when they take over a domain. If it occurred on a 
     large enough scale it could impair efforts to enhance the 
     safety of the domain name system.
       This kind of blocking is unlikely to be very effective. 
     Users could reach offending Web sites simply by writing the 
     numerical I.P. address in the navigator box, rather than the 
     URL. The Web sites could distribute free plug-ins to 
     translate addresses into numbers automatically.
       The bill before the Senate is an important step toward 
     making piracy less profitable. But it shouldn't pass as is. 
     If protecting intellectual property is important, so is 
     protecting the Internet from overzealous enforcement.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Jan. 18, 2012]

                 Online Piracy and Political Overreach

       For months, it seemed as if Congress would pass an online 
     antipiracy bill, even though its main weapons--cutting off 
     the financing of pirate Web sites and making them harder to 
     find--risk censoring legitimate speech and undermining the 
     security of the Internet. But the unmovable corporations 
     behind those bills have run into an unstoppable force: an 
     outcry by Internet companies led by Google and Wikipedia that 
     culminated in an extraordinary online protest on Wednesday.
       Lawmakers have begun peeling away from the bills, notably 
     Senators Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican who cosponsored 
     the Senate version, and John Cornyn, the powerful Texas 
     conservative. They dropped out after Wikipedia's English 
     language site went dark and Google put a black bar on its 
     homepage on Wednesday.
       The Protect I.P. Act would have easily passed the Senate 
     last summer if not for a hold placed by Senator Ron Wyden, a 
     Democrat of Oregon. The Stop Online Piracy Act, introduced in 
     the House in October, has also lost some of its initial 
     backers. And on Saturday, the White House released a 
     statement warning that it would ``not support legislation 
     that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity 
     risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global 
     Internet.''
       Though we are encouraged by legislators' newfound caution 
     about the potential consequences of the bills, Congress must 
     keep working on ways to curtail the growing business of 
     foreign rogue Web sites trafficking in counterfeit goods and 
     stolen intellectual property.
       The Internet industry was pitted against some of the best-
     honed lobbying groups, including Hollywood and the recording 
     studios, the United States Chamber of Commerce and the 
     A.F.L.-C.I.O. The industry has made a good case that some of 
     the definitions of wrongdoing--like ``facilitating'' 
     intellectual property infringement--were overly broad. They 
     said allowing property rights owners to direct payment 
     companies like Visa and ad networks like Google's to stop 
     doing business with sites they deemed infringing--with no 
     penalties if they were proved wrong--could stymie legitimate 
     online expression.
       They made the case that the proposal to make infringing Web 
     sites ``disappear'' from the Internet by forbidding search 
     engines from finding them or redirecting their Web addresses 
     to other Internet domains was easy to get around and could 
     potentially undermine efforts to stop hackers from doing 
     exactly the same thing.
       The Internet companies now have the responsibility to come 
     up with a workable alternative that gives owners of 
     intellectual property rights better tools to stop piracy by 
     Web sites located in faraway countries. These sites get some 
     53 billion visits a year, more than Google or Wikipedia. Yet 
     they are outside the grasp of American law.
       The focus on cutting the financing of online pirates, which 
     features in the House and Senate bills, is the right way to 
     go. Sponsors of both bills have moved to delete, at least 
     temporarily, provisions to make rogue Web sites disappear. 
     The legislation could be further amended to narrow the 
     definition of criminality and clarify that it is only aimed 
     at foreign sites. And it could tighten guarantees of due 
     process. Private parties must first get a court order to 
     block business with a Web site they deem infringing on their 
     copyrights.
       We are happy that the drive to pass antipiracy legislation 
     has slowed enough that Congress might actually consider all 
     its implications carefully. Lawmakers can now act wisely to 
     create tools that can help combat the scourge of online 
     piracy without excessive collateral damage.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, while the 15 million are no doubt pleased, 
as I am, that Majority Leader Reid pulled PIPA, they are waiting to see 
if we will now retrench into the old ways of doing things--the old way 
where Senators went behind closed doors and wrote legislation with the 
help of well-healed lobbyists, the old way that has eroded the trust 
America has with the Congress and the confidence that we are here on 
their behalf--or will the Congress instead construct legislation in a 
transparent way that responds to our broad collective interests? The 
American people want just that, and they deserve it. Among the lessons 
we should have learned from the events of the past few weeks is the 
importance of letting the public in on what we are doing.
  There are serious unintended consequences when Members of Congress 
and staff think they have all the answers and rush to construct and 
pass legislation. There are clear virtues in prudence, deliberation, 
and even a little humility. I believe that is what our constitutional 
Framers had in mind for the Senate.
  I know my colleagues are waiting, and I want to close with this. I 
harbor no doubt that this Congress on a bipartisan basis can and should 
construct legislation to combat international commerce in counterfeit 
merchandise and content that infringes on copyrights. There is no 
question that selling fake Nikes or movies you don't own is a problem 
that needs to be addressed, but it can be done in ways that do not 
threaten speech, that allow for the legitimate sharing of information 
and protect the architecture and value of the Internet. I look forward 
to working with my colleagues and a broad cross-section of stakeholders 
to do that.
  I have proposed an alternative with Senator Moran and Senator 
Cantwell here in the Senate. Chairman Issa and Congresswoman Lofgren 
have proposed exactly that kind of alternative in the House. It is 
called the OPEN Act. It is bipartisan. It is bicameral. It would allow 
us to go after the problem of these rogue foreign Web sites while at 
the same time protecting what we value so greatly about the Internet.
  We are going to have more discussions about this legislation and 
other approaches in the future, but we now have an opportunity to get 
this right. To a great extent, that is possible because of my colleague 
from Kansas who has joined me in this effort, the first on the other 
side of the aisle to step up and join our efforts. I am very 
appreciative of what he has done, and I look forward to his comments.
  I also thank the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, for his courtesies 
so that Senator Moran and I, because of our bipartisan work, could make 
these brief remarks.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I appreciate so much the remarks of the 
Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden.
  It was a significant moment in my brief time as a Member of the 
Senate when, 3 months ago, Senator Wyden and I had a conversation here 
on the Senate floor about this legislation, about PIPA and about SOPA 
and about the open Internet, and it was a moment in which Senator Wyden 
found me looking for ways in which I could be engaged in the process of 
trying to create an environment in which entrepreneurship flourished in 
the United States.
  I had been discouraged or disillusioned a bit by the lack of 
Congress's and the President's ability to find ways to reduce spending 
and to balance the budget, and while I don't intend ever to walk away 
from those important issues, it became clear to me that another way we 
can reach a more balanced budget is to have a growing economy. I 
started looking at research that would suggest how we get there. When 
Senator Wyden presented this thought to me about engaging on this 
issue, it was one that made so much sense to me, and I am very grateful 
for the partnership we have developed.
  Senator Wyden and I, as he said, intended to speak this evening about 
our concerns about the PROTECT IP Act prior to the bill being 
considered this week on the Senate floor. But because of the actions of 
millions of Americans in voicing their concerns about this legislation, 
it is no longer necessary for us to throw procedural obstacles in the 
way of the PROTECT IP Act, and I

[[Page S30]]

appreciate the majority leader withdrawing his plan to hold a vote 
tomorrow on this legislation.
  Last week's events in which we all received so much input is a very 
good reminder of what a powerful tool the Internet can be. It was 
encouraging to see so many Americans get involved, particularly young 
Americans who often choose not to be involved in the process. But they 
saw something important to them, and they knew exactly how to 
communicate with elected officials. What became clear last week was 
that Congress, in this issue and its far-reaching implications, was not 
fully yet understood, and so to take a pause, to take a step back and 
to reconsider the direction we were going seems so appropriate to me.
  Congress has the responsibility to remain engaged and up to speed on 
all issues, particularly those that so directly impact our economy. It 
is no easy task given that technology is constantly evolving, but it is 
an important task. Technology holds incredible promise, from 
strengthening education, to delivering health care more efficiently, to 
allowing entrepreneurs to develop products that have yet to be 
invented. By remaining more engaged, Congress will also be better able 
to enact public policies that encourage Americans to innovate, create 
new products, and strengthen the economy.
  Last week's decision to delay consideration of PIPA was an important 
moment for many innovators and entrepreneurs across America, and it was 
an outcome that my colleagues and I--Senator Wyden and others--sought 
to see occur. It is important also not just to entrepreneurs, though, 
but to people who are concerned about freedom and about the opportunity 
to use the Internet to communicate, the opportunity for free speech. 
And certainly we had concerns about national security. My concerns 
about the PROTECT IP Act can be summed up like this: Certain provisions 
in this legislation will threaten free speech, innovation, and our 
national security.
  I am adamantly opposed to legislation that tampers with the Internet 
security, specifically the Domain Name System. Internet engineers have 
worked for 15 years to develop a way to authenticate the sites we visit 
to make sure they are secure and to enhance commerce on the Internet. 
At a time when our Nation faces increasing numbers of cyber attacks 
from abroad, PIPA and SOPA would create significant security risks and 
set America back more than a decade.
  Second, both PIPA and SOPA would create new liabilities because of 
vague definitions in the bills that would drag companies into 
unnecessary and prolonged litigation. We don't need more legal battles. 
Congress should not put in place a system that would force law-abiding 
innovators to utilize their limited resources in the courtroom to 
defend themselves rather than invest in their companies, develop new 
products, and hire new workers.

  America is a country of innovation that was founded on freedom and 
opportunity, and that has been true since the birth of our Nation when 
entrepreneurs have strengthened our country and its economy by creating 
new products and sharing them around the world. Americans today still 
want the opportunity to develop new products and to innovate in the 
marketplace. Because of the power of technology, ideas that were once 
only imaginable have now become a reality.
  About 1 year ago, Google announced that it was accepting applications 
from cities across the United States to deploy a 1-gigabit Internet 
connection, which is roughly 100 times faster than what most users 
could experience today. Last March, much to my delight and the delight 
of many Kansans, Google chose Kansas City as the Nation's first Google 
Gigabyte City. In fact, Kansas City was selected from more than 1,100 
cities that had applied and competed.
  Many people in the Kansas City area were soon asking: What is 
actually possible with a gigabit Internet connection? What happens when 
you connect an entire community with a gigabit Internet connection?
  An organization called Think Big Partners wanted to know the answer 
to those questions, so they put together a competition called Gigabit 
Challenge. The Gigabit Challenge was a project based on an idea and a 
prediction. They predicted that when Americans are given access to 
cutting-edge technology--in this case, one of the fastest bandwidths in 
the world--new innovations, new applications, and new products would be 
created. So they challenged entrepreneurs and innovators to come up 
with products that will leverage this new network capacity and offered 
significant cash prizes for the three best ideas.
  The response was overwhelming. Mr. President, 113 ideas were 
submitted from 5 continents, 7 countries, and 22 States. The list was 
eventually narrowed down to 17 companies that presented last week to a 
distinguished panel of judges. I had the opportunity to join Think Big 
Partners in Kansas City last week for part of that event, and I was 
impressed, so impressed, by what I saw. I congratulate the prize 
winners tonight who competed, and I congratulate all who competed and 
brought new ideas to the table.
  The Gigabit Challenge underscores the fact that Americans want to 
innovate, and Congress should encourage innovation rather than create 
new hurdles for American creators and innovators. One of the most 
important things Congress can do to encourage innovation is to make it 
easier for entrepreneurs to start a business.
  Last month, Senator Warner and I introduced bipartisan legislation 
called the Startup Act to jump-start the economy through creation and 
growth of new businesses. Data from the Kauffman Foundation in Kansas 
City shows that between 1980 and 2005, nearly all of the net jobs that 
were created in the United States were created by companies less than 5 
years old. In fact, new businesses create about 3 million jobs each 
year.
  The Startup Act recognizes the job-creating potential of 
entrepreneurs and is based upon five progrowth principles:
  First, the Startup Act will reduce the regulatory burden on new 
businesses and startups.
  New businesses, which are almost always small, face a tough challenge 
complying with the various rules and regulations that govern business 
behavior. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, 
companies with fewer than 20 employees spend 36 percent more per 
employee than larger firms to comply with Federal regulations.
  The president and CEO of the National Association for the Self-
Employed, who endorsed the Startup Act, said this:

       The majority of small businesses are enterprises of 1-2 
     people. . . . Cutting down on some of the unnecessary red 
     tape that new businesses must face means that the owner can 
     spend more time growing their business, hiring employees, and 
     helping to turn our Nation's economy back around. The Startup 
     Act would help address these regulatory burdens faced by new 
     companies.

  Reducing regulatory burdens means entrepreneurs will have more time 
and money to invest in their business and to hire more workers.
  Secondly, the Startup Act creates tax incentives to help facilitate 
the financing of new businesses so they can get off the ground and grow 
more quickly.
  One of the greatest challenges for startups is accessing the 
necessary capital to grow their business. The Startup Act provides 
capital gains and income tax incentives to facilitate financing the new 
business at its critical juncture of firm growth. Helping entrepreneurs 
attract investment and retain greater share of the company's profits 
will lead to job growth.
  Third, the Startup Act recognizes that innovation drives the American 
economy.
  Some of the best minds in the world work and study at American 
universities. The innovation that occurs on campuses across the Nation 
contribute to the strength and vitality of our economy. To speed up the 
movement of new technologies to the marketplace where they can propel 
economic growth, the Startup Act uses a portion of existing Federal 
research and development funding to support innovative projects at 
American universities in order to accelerate and improve the 
commercialization of cutting-edge technologies developed through 
faculty research. When more good ideas make their way out of the 
laboratory and into the marketplace, more businesses and more jobs are 
created.
  Fourth, the Startup Act encourages pro-growth State and local 
policies through the publication of reports on

[[Page S31]]

new business formation and the entrepreneurial environment in States.
  I am proud that Kansas City leaders recognize the importance of 
policies that support entrepreneurs. Last year, area leaders declared 
that Kansas City should be called ``America's Most Entrepreneurial 
City,'' given their efforts to encourage entrepreneurship.
  Better policies at the State and local level will create more 
opportunities for entrepreneurs to open businesses and put Americans to 
work.
  Finally, the Startup Act will help win the global battle for talent 
by keeping entrepreneurial-minded and highly skilled workers in the 
United States.
  For too long, our Nation's immigration policies have turned away 
American-educated talent and sent highly-skilled individuals back to 
their home country where they competed against America. Rather than 
lose that talent, we need to keep those highly-skilled individuals and 
potential job creators in the United States.
  The Startup Act recognizes the job-creating potential of 
entrepreneurial and highly-skilled immigrants, and provides additional 
opportunities for those who are here legally on a temporary basis to 
stay if they have the high-tech skills our economy needs or are willing 
and able to create jobs for Americans.
  Highly-skilled workers will fuel growth at technology startups and 
entrepreneurial immigrants will employ Americans.
  Business and industry leaders across the country are speaking out 
about the importance of innovation and entrepreneurship. Gary Shapiro, 
the President and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association, said 
this:

       As a country we must do more to support and foster 
     innovation and entrepreneurialism, and the introduction of 
     the Startup Act is an important step forward.

  Dr. Robert Atkinson, the President and Founder of the Information 
Technology & Innovation Foundation echoed those remarks. He said:

       The United States is at risk of losing its economic 
     leadership and vitality and it is essential for policymakers 
     to unite in practical ways to reverse this trend. The Startup 
     Act is a commendable example of what is needed to restore 
     U.S. innovation-based competitiveness.

  The millions of Americans who spoke out last week against a bill that 
would stifle innovation on the Internet understand the importance of 
this too.
  Fostering innovation and promoting entrepreneurship are not 
Republican or Democrat ideas they are American values.
  What occurred last week is a reminder to all of us in this Senate 
about the leadership that is necessary. Again, I congratulate Senator 
Wyden for providing that leadership. With good leaders in Washington, 
DC, and with the American people who understand in many instances 
better than we often do the value of entrepreneurship, of free speech 
and an open Internet, great things can once again happen in the United 
States of America. Our economy can flourish and grow.
  It is so important that what occurred this week, with the legislation 
not proceeding, sets the stage for greater opportunities for Americans 
across our country to have a dream, to pursue it, to succeed, to spend 
their time pursuing that dream, and in achieving their dreams they have 
the opportunity to create success for others.
  I urge my colleagues to work with me. Let us work together. Our 
country cannot wait until after another election to get the economy 
growing again.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

                          ____________________