[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.
____________________