[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S205-S208]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Whitehouse, and 
        Mrs. Gillibrand):
  S. 203. A bill to amend section 923 of title 18, United States Code, 
to require an electronic, searchable database of the importation, 
production, shipment, receipt, sale, or other disposition of firearms; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, today I rise to introduce the Crime 
Gun Tracing Modernization Act.
  This bill would bring ATF into the 21st century by allowing the 
Agency to electronically search for the records of guns used in crimes 
across the country. It is hard to believe that ATF still must store 
paper records and search them by hand in order to identify the guns 
used for criminal activity. These archaic rules prevent the people 
responsible for enforcing our laws from doing their jobs effectively.
  The National Tracing Center at ATF is responsible for quickly placing 
crime gun ownership information into the hands of law enforcement 
officials so they can solve crimes and save lives. In 2021, National 
Tracing Center receive over 540,000 trace requests.
  Unfortunately, the timely completion of these trace requests has been 
made nearly impossible because ATF cannot search these records 
electronically.
  To make matters worse, these millions of records are stored in 
thousands of boxes that are overflowing the hallways of the National 
Tracing Center in Martinsburg, WV. The records that agents must search 
through are so massive, ATF has been told that if it places more boxes 
inside the facility, the floor may collapse.
  Every moment after a crime is committed matters dearly to our law 
enforcement agencies. Prohibiting the efficient search of these records 
puts our communities at risk.
  I thank my former colleague Senator Leahy for championing this bill 
last Congress. I am committed to continuing the fight for this 
important fix.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Cotton, Mrs. Hyde-
        Smith, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. 
        Risch, Mr. Marshall, and Mr. Moran):
  S. 204. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a 
health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of 
care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted 
abortion; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, later today, I will introduce the Born-
Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, along with my colleague 
Senator Lankford. It is a simple bill. It simply states that a baby 
born alive after an attempted abortion is entitled to the same 
protection and medical care that any other newborn baby is entitled to. 
And you would think that it would be a simple ``yes'' vote from every 
Member of this body, but unfortunately, that is not where we are.
  Four years ago and then three years ago, the U.S. Senate took up this 
bill, and almost every single Democrat in this body voted against it. 
Just 3 weeks ago, the House of Representatives took up this bill, and 
almost every single Democrat over there voted against it. Apparently 
banning infanticide is now controversial because--let's be clear--that 
is what we are talking about here.
  Some Democrats have tried to cloak their opposition to this bill in 
meaningless phrases about a private decision between a woman and her 
doctor, but what is the decision we are talking about? We are talking 
about whether or not a living baby, born after an attempted abortion, 
should be provided with medical care or be left to die or, I suppose, 
be killed outright by the abortionist. That is what we are talking 
about. That is the ``decision'' Democrats are referring to. And that is 
apparently the decision they think should be left up to patients and 
their doctors--whether or not to let a living, breathing baby die.
  The Senate voted on a previous version of this bill introduced by my 
former colleague Senator Sasse 4 years ago when the Democratic Governor 
of Virginia came right out and said you could keep a newly born baby 
comfortable while you decided what to do with it--in other words, while 
you decided whether to let the child die or, I guess, kill it or 
whether to let it live. That chilling statement made it abundantly 
clear that we needed to state explicitly that any baby, wherever he or 
she is born, including in an abortion clinic, is entitled to medical 
care. It is staggering that we have gotten to the point where we need 
to debate this in Congress, staggering that this wouldn't be an 
automatic ``yes'' vote from every Member of this body, but that is 
where we are.
  If anyone thinks that abortion isn't a slippery slope, that we can 
somehow devalue unborn babies' lives while maintaining respect for 
everyone else's, then I am here to tell them differently because the 
Democratic Party has gotten to the point where its members not only 
oppose legislation to protect unborn babies; they oppose legislation to 
protect born ones as well. In Democrats' world, there are now 
apparently two classes of born babies: the wanted ones born alive in 
delivery rooms and the unwanted ones born alive in abortion clinics. 
Apparently, only one of those classes of babies is entitled to the 
equal protection of the laws.
  Democrats talk a lot about abortion when they are talking about this 
bill, but this bill, of course, would do absolutely nothing to restrict 
abortion. It is not a bill protecting unborn babies; it is a bill 
protecting born babies.
  I do understand why Democrats are so worked up, though, because while 
this bill may not do anything to restrict abortion, there is always the 
chance that drawing attention to the humanity and dignity of the child 
who has just been born will draw attention to the humanity and dignity 
of the child who is about to be born--the child Democrats are 
determined our laws should not protect. And Democrats are apparently so 
determined to preserve the so-called right to kill unborn babies that 
they are fully comfortable opposing a law that would protect born--
born--babies.
  These are hard things to talk about, but they have to be said because 
that is the reality of where we are right now.

[[Page S206]]

Roughly 50 percent of the U.S. Congress opposes giving the equal 
protection of the law to born human beings if they happen to be born 
alive following an attempted abortion.
  Now, I think we are at a real inflection point as to where we want to 
be as a nation. Do we want to be a country where the circumstances of 
your birth determine whether or not your right to life is protected? Do 
we want to be a country that endorses leaving living, breathing babies 
to die, that discards born babies because they are, for a moment at 
their birth, unwanted? I don't know. I think we are better than that. 
We have to be better than that.
  If we truly want to be a nation that protects human rights, that 
stands for justice, that defends the vulnerable, then we cannot be a 
nation that says it is acceptable to leave living, breathing, born 
human beings to die in abortion clinics, that says there are two 
classes of newborn babies and that only one of them deserves to be 
protected. Every human being deserves to be protected, no matter the 
circumstances of his or her birth.
  I want to thank Senator Lankford for his leadership on this issue. We 
will be working together to advance this legislation, and I pray that 
sooner rather than later, we will get to the day when this bill will be 
an automatic ``yes'' vote from every Member of this body.
  Madam 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. 204

       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 ``Born-Alive Abortion 
     Survivors Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, 
     the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws 
     of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of 
     such laws.
       (2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a 
     hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the 
     protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or 
     for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other 
     facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a 
     patient within its care.

     SEC. 3. BORN-ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION.

       (a) Requirements Pertaining to Born-Alive Abortion 
     Survivors.--Chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after section 1531 the following:

     ``Sec. 1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion 
       survivors

       ``(a) Requirements for Health Care Practitioners.--In the 
     case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a 
     child born alive:
       ``(1) Degree of care required; immediate admission to a 
     hospital.--Any health care practitioner present at the time 
     the child is born alive shall--
       ``(A) exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, 
     and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as 
     a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care 
     practitioner would render to any other child born alive at 
     the same gestational age; and
       ``(B) following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence 
     required under subparagraph (A), ensure that the child born 
     alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.
       ``(2) Mandatory reporting of violations.--A health care 
     practitioner or any employee of a hospital, a physician's 
     office, or an abortion clinic who has knowledge of a failure 
     to comply with the requirements of paragraph (1) shall 
     immediately report the failure to an appropriate State or 
     Federal law enforcement agency, or to both.
       ``(b) Penalties.--
       ``(1) In general.--Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be 
     fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, 
     or both.
       ``(2) Intentional killing of child born alive.--Whoever 
     intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act 
     that kills a child born alive described under subsection (a), 
     shall be punished as under section 1111 of this title for 
     intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
       ``(c) Bar to Prosecution.--The mother of a child born alive 
     described under subsection (a) may not be prosecuted for a 
     violation of this section, an attempt to violate this 
     section, a conspiracy to violate this section, or an offense 
     under section 3 or 4 of this title based on such a violation.
       ``(d) Civil Remedies.--
       ``(1) Civil action by a woman on whom an abortion is 
     performed.--If a child is born alive and there is a violation 
     of subsection (a), the woman upon whom the abortion was 
     performed or attempted may, in a civil action against any 
     person who committed the violation, obtain appropriate 
     relief.
       ``(2) Appropriate relief.--Appropriate relief in a civil 
     action under this subsection includes--
       ``(A) objectively verifiable money damage for all injuries, 
     psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of 
     subsection (a);
       ``(B) statutory damages equal to 3 times the cost of the 
     abortion or attempted abortion; and
       ``(C) punitive damages.
       ``(3) Attorney's fee for plaintiff.--The court shall award 
     a reasonable attorney's fee to a prevailing plaintiff in a 
     civil action under this subsection.
       ``(4) Attorney's fee for defendant.--If a defendant in a 
     civil action under this subsection prevails and the court 
     finds that the plaintiff's suit was frivolous, the court 
     shall award a reasonable attorney's fee in favor of the 
     defendant against the plaintiff.
       ``(e) Definitions.--In this section the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Abortion.--The term `abortion' means the use or 
     prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other 
     substance or device--
       ``(A) to intentionally kill the unborn child of a woman 
     known to be pregnant; or
       ``(B) to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman 
     known to be pregnant, with an intention other than--
       ``(i) after viability, to produce a live birth and preserve 
     the life and health of the child born alive; or
       ``(ii) to remove a dead unborn child.
       ``(2) Attempt.--The term `attempt', with respect to an 
     abortion, means conduct that, under the circumstances as the 
     actor believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in 
     a course of conduct planned to culminate in performing an 
     abortion.
       ``(3) Born alive.--The term `born alive' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 8 of title 1, United States Code 
     (commonly known as the `Born-Alive Infants Protection 
     Act').''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The table of sections for chapter 74 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

``1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion survivors.''.
       (2) The chapter heading for chapter 74 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``PARTIAL-BIRTH 
     ABORTIONS'' and inserting ``ABORTIONS''.
       (3) The table of chapters for part I of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to 
     chapter 74 and inserting the following:

``74. Abortion..............................................1531''.....

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect one day after the date of 
     enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 205. A bill to promote minimum State requirements for the 
prevention and treatment of concussions caused by participation in 
school sports, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam 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. 205

       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 ``Protecting Student Athletes 
     from Concussions Act of 2023''.

     SEC. 2. MINIMUM STATE REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Minimum Requirements.--Each State that receives funds 
     under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) and does not meet the requirements 
     described in this section, as of the date of enactment of 
     this Act, shall, not later than the last day of the fifth 
     full fiscal year after the date of enactment of this Act 
     (referred to in this Act as the ``compliance deadline''), 
     enact legislation or issue regulations establishing the 
     following minimum requirements:
       (1) Local educational agency concussion safety and 
     management plan.--Each local educational agency in the State, 
     in consultation with members of the community in which such 
     agency is located, shall develop and implement a standard 
     plan for concussion safety and management that--
       (A) educates students, parents, and school personnel about 
     concussions, through activities such as--
       (i) training school personnel, including coaches, teachers, 
     athletic trainers, related services personnel, and school 
     nurses, on concussion safety and management, including 
     training on the prevention, recognition, and academic 
     consequences of concussions and response to concussions; and
       (ii) using, maintaining, and disseminating to students and 
     parents--

       (I) release forms and other appropriate forms for reporting 
     and record keeping;
       (II) treatment plans; and
       (III) prevention and post-injury observation and monitoring 
     fact sheets about concussion;

       (B) encourages supports, where feasible, for a student 
     recovering from a concussion (regardless of whether or not 
     the concussion occurred during school-sponsored activities,

[[Page S207]]

     during school hours, on school property, or during an 
     athletic activity), such as--
       (i) guiding the student in resuming participation in 
     athletic activity and academic activities with the help of a 
     multi-disciplinary concussion management team, which may 
     include--

       (I) a health care professional, the parents of such 
     student, a school nurse, relevant related services personnel, 
     and other relevant school personnel; and
       (II) an individual who is assigned by a public school to 
     oversee and manage the recovery of such student; and

       (ii) providing appropriate academic accommodations aimed at 
     progressively reintroducing cognitive demands on the student; 
     and
       (C) encourages the use of best practices designed to 
     ensure, with respect to concussions, the uniformity of safety 
     standards, treatment, and management, such as--
       (i) disseminating information on concussion safety and 
     management to the public; and
       (ii) applying uniform best practice standards for 
     concussion safety and management to all students enrolled in 
     public schools.
       (2) Posting of information on concussions.--Each public 
     elementary school and each public secondary school shall post 
     on school grounds, in a manner that is visible to students 
     and school personnel, and make publicly available on the 
     school website, information on concussions that--
       (A) is based on peer-reviewed scientific evidence (such as 
     information made available by the Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention);
       (B) shall include information on--
       (i) the risks posed by sustaining a concussion;
       (ii) the actions a student should take in response to 
     sustaining a concussion, including the notification of school 
     personnel; and
       (iii) the signs and symptoms of a concussion; and
       (C) may include information on--
       (i) the definition of a concussion;
       (ii) the means available to the student to reduce the 
     incidence or recurrence of a concussion; and
       (iii) the effects of a concussion on academic learning and 
     performance.
       (3) Response to concussion.--If an individual designated 
     from among school personnel for purposes of this Act, one of 
     whom must be in attendance at every school-sponsored 
     activity, suspects that a student has sustained a concussion 
     (regardless of whether or not the concussion occurred during 
     school-sponsored activities, during school hours, on school 
     property, or during an athletic activity)--
       (A) the student shall be--
       (i) immediately removed from participation in a school-
     sponsored athletic activity; and
       (ii) prohibited from returning to participate in a school-
     sponsored athletic activity on the day that student is 
     removed from such participation; and
       (B) the designated individual shall report to the parent or 
     guardian of such student--
       (i) any information that the designated school employee is 
     aware of regarding the date, time, and type of the injury 
     suffered by such student (regardless of where, when, or how a 
     concussion may have occurred); and
       (ii) any actions taken to treat such student.
       (4) Return to athletics.--If a student has sustained a 
     concussion (regardless of whether or not the concussion 
     occurred during school-sponsored activities, during school 
     hours, on school property, or during an athletic activity), 
     before such student resumes participation in school-sponsored 
     athletic activities, the school shall receive a written 
     release from a health care professional, that--
       (A) states that the student is capable of resuming 
     participation in such activities; and
       (B) may require the student to follow a plan designed to 
     aid the student in recovering and resuming participation in 
     such activities in a manner that--
       (i) is coordinated, as appropriate, with periods of 
     cognitive and physical rest while symptoms of a concussion 
     persist; and
       (ii) reintroduces cognitive and physical demands on such 
     student on a progressive basis only as such increases in 
     exertion do not cause the reemergence or worsening of 
     symptoms of a concussion.
       (b) Noncompliance.--
       (1) First year.--If a State described in subsection (a) 
     fails to comply with subsection (a) by the compliance 
     deadline, the Secretary of Education shall reduce by 5 
     percent the amount of funds the State receives under the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6301 et seq.) for the first fiscal year following the 
     compliance deadline.
       (2) Succeeding years.--If the State fails to so comply by 
     the last day of any fiscal year following the compliance 
     deadline, the Secretary of Education shall reduce by 10 
     percent the amount of funds the State receives under that Act 
     for the following fiscal year.
       (3) Notification of noncompliance.--Prior to reducing any 
     funds that a State receives under the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) in 
     accordance with this subsection, the Secretary of Education 
     shall provide a written notification of the intended 
     reduction of funds to the State and to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress.

     SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect civil or 
     criminal liability under Federal or State law.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Concussion.--The term ``concussion'' means a type of 
     mild traumatic brain injury that--
       (A) is caused by a blow, jolt, or motion to the head or 
     body that causes the brain to move rapidly in the skull;
       (B) disrupts normal brain functioning and alters the mental 
     state of the individual, causing the individual to 
     experience--
       (i) any period of observed or self-reported--

       (I) transient confusion, disorientation, or impaired 
     consciousness;
       (II) dysfunction of memory around the time of injury; or
       (III) loss of consciousness lasting less than 30 minutes; 
     or

       (ii) any 1 of 4 types of symptoms, including--

       (I) physical symptoms, such as headache, fatigue, or 
     dizziness;
       (II) cognitive symptoms, such as memory disturbance or 
     slowed thinking;
       (III) emotional symptoms, such as irritability or sadness; 
     or
       (IV) difficulty sleeping; and

       (C) can occur--
       (i) with or without the loss of consciousness; and
       (ii) during participation in any organized sport or 
     recreational activity.
       (2) Health care professional.--The term ``health care 
     professional''--
       (A) means an individual who has been trained in diagnosis 
     and management of concussion in a pediatric population; and
       (B) is registered, licensed, certified, or otherwise 
     statutorily recognized by the State to provide such diagnosis 
     and management.
       (3) Local educational agency; state.--The terms ``local 
     educational agency'' and ``State'' have the meanings given 
     such terms in section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
       (4) Related services personnel.--The term ``related 
     services personnel'' means individuals who provide related 
     services, as defined under section 602 of the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401).
       (5) School-sponsored athletic activity.--The term ``school-
     sponsored athletic activity'' means--
       (A) any physical education class or program of a school;
       (B) any athletic activity authorized during the school day 
     on school grounds that is not an instructional activity;
       (C) any extra-curricular sports team, club, or league 
     organized by a school on or off school grounds; and
       (D) any recess activity.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURPHY (for himself, Mr. Young, Mr. Kaine, and Mr. 
        Cramer):
  S. 220. A bill to prohibit certain noncompete agreements, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, if you were working for the sandwich 
shop Jimmy John's--I don't know if the Presiding Officer has ever had a 
Jimmy John's sandwich. It is a pretty good sandwich. If you were 
working for Jimmy John's sandwich shop in the middle of the last 
decade, around 2014, 2015, 2016, you might have been required to sign a 
contract with Jimmy John's to make sandwiches. Buried in that contract, 
as a fast food worker at Jimmy John's in 2014, 2015, 2016, was 
something called a noncompete clause.
  A lot of Americans have heard of noncompete clauses. They think of 
them as applying to executives, individuals who make a lot of money, 
who possess really intricate, detailed information about a product. But 
Jimmy John's made everybody who came to work in many of their sandwich 
shops sign a noncompete agreement. The noncompete agreement for Jimmy 
John's sandwich makers said that if you ever left Jimmy John's, you 
would not be able to work at any business within 2 to 3 miles of any 
Jimmy John's for any company that made over 10 percent of its revenue 
from selling ``submarine, hero-type, deli-style, pita, and/or wrapped 
or rolled sandwiches'' for 2 years. Low-income, minimum-wage workers at 
Jimmy John's, if they tried to leave that job, were prohibited from 
going to work for Subway or going to work for D'Angelo's or maybe even, 
according to this definition, McDonald's or Burger King.
  Of course, that sounds patently ridiculous. Why would you need to 
protect the intellectual secrets of sandwich making at Jimmy John's by 
applying noncompete agreements for these low-income workers? But this 
wasn't and isn't an anomaly. In fact, one out of six hospitality 
restaurant workers, by some studies, has a noncompete agreement. Today, 
noncompete agreements apply to one in five American workers. That is 30 
million workers.

[[Page S208]]

  Amazon warehouse workers were required for a long time to sign 
noncompete agreements. I read a story the other day of a company called 
Camp Bow Wow that pays people to pet-sit. They required their pet 
sitters to sign noncompete agreements.
  The reason that noncompete agreements are being used at industrial-
level scale today is not to protect the trade secrets of sandwich 
making or pet sitting; it is to keep wages down. It is to prevent low-
income workers from being able to go out and get a better job and thus 
pressure their existing employer to increase wages. This practice has 
become pervasive throughout our economy, and it is just a fundamental 
restraint on free trade.
  Now, many of these noncompete agreements end up being nonenforceable. 
A lot of State laws don't allow you to have a noncompete agreement for 
a low-wage worker. But in practice, it doesn't really matter because 
when that individual tries to leave and they get told they can't 
because of a noncompete agreement, they don't know that it is 
nonenforceable in State law or if they do know, they don't have the 
resources to contest the cause in a court of law. So what do they do? 
They just end up staying.
  The FTC filed a complaint in January of this year against two 
Michigan-based companies that required their security guards to sign 
noncompete agreements prohibiting them from working for a competing 
business within a 100-mile radius. Despite the fact that these security 
guards were making very low wages, the company's noncompete included a 
restriction that required the employee to pay a $100,000 penalty for 
any alleged violation of the clause. The intention here is simply to 
bind the employee to the company, to give them no ability to bargain 
for a higher wage because they might be able to get a better wage 
somewhere else. There is no proprietary information that those security 
guards possess.
  What is equally interesting is that there is increasingly great data 
to show that there is actually no reason to have noncompete agreements 
even for higher income workers. The imposition of noncompete agreements 
on low-wage workers is primarily about just trying to restrain wages, 
but the imposition of noncompete agreements on higher income workers is 
about impeding innovation. It is about a company that doesn't want 
competitors, so they bind their executives to noncompete agreements 
such that their executives can't go work for a competing company or 
can't go out and start a company that may compete.
  What is so maddening is that there are plenty of protections in our 
existing law that protect companies from intellectual property theft or 
patent theft. If what you worry about is your trade secrets being 
appropriated by a competitor, well, the law already protects you from 
that. You don't have to deny your employees or your executives the 
ability to go work for another company.
  California rightly has the reputation as probably the world's center 
of innovation, right? More startups, more world-changing companies have 
come out of California than any other State and probably than any other 
part of the world. California was the first or one of the first in this 
country to ban noncompete agreements. California decided it didn't need 
noncompete agreements to protect intellectual property in a State that 
probably has a greater interest in protecting intellectual property 
than any other State. In fact, California's economic engine is 
dependent on their prohibition of noncompete agreements because by 
prohibiting noncompete agreements, California has a culture in which 
startups are encouraged, in which executives can leave one company and 
start another.
  Eric Yuan was an executive at Cisco Webex. If he wasn't working in 
California, he might have had a noncompete agreement applied to him, 
but he didn't, and so he could leave and start a company that was 
arguably competing with Cisco Webex--a company called Zoom.
  To many economists on the right and the left, this is becoming a no-
brainer. Noncompete agreements are bad for wage growth. Noncompete 
agreements are bad for innovation. Noncompete agreements are bad for 
low-income workers. Noncompete agreements are bad for high-income 
workers.
  So today I am on the floor to talk about what the data tells us about 
noncompete agreements as a means to encourage my colleagues to take a 
look at a piece of legislation that we are introducing today, the 
Workforce Mobility Act, a pretty simple piece of legislation that would 
ban the use of noncompete agreements for both high-income and low-
income workers.
  It is a bipartisan piece of legislation. Senator Todd Young, Senator 
Kevin Cramer, Senator Tim Kaine, and I are introducing this bill today. 
I don't know that there is another policy that the four of us can find 
common ground on, but we find common ground on this issue because maybe 
if you are a progressive, you come to this issue through the rights of 
workers and boosting their wages. If you are a conservative, you come 
to this issue through the restraint on free trade that exists through 
the perpetuation of noncompete agreements. But all across America, this 
is a pretty bipartisan issue, and here in the Senate, it is bipartisan 
as well.
  I am glad that the FTC, just a week or so ago, announced that they 
were going to undertake a rule to ban noncompete agreements. I 
congratulate the Biden administration and the FTC for taking a 
leadership role. It may be that that rule, once it is adopted and in 
place, will do the work of this legislation, but we know that rules are 
only as good as the commitment of one particular administration.
  So my hope and my recommendation is that no matter what the FTC does 
when it comes to restrictions on noncompete agreements, that we pass 
the Workforce Mobility Act so that we provide a guarantee in the law 
that noncompete agreements are not going to stand in the way of wages 
rising or small businesses starting.
  There is a lot of public support out there as 92 percent of voters 
think that it is way too hard today to start or grow a new business and 
as 80 percent of voters--again, across party lines--support policies 
that allow people who want to start a new business more freedom by 
reducing the restrictions that come when you try to venture out on your 
own. Increasingly, one of the primary restrictions that exists for 
people who want to start a new business, who want to become 
entrepreneurs, are these noncompete agreements.
  So I am coming to the floor today to recommend this bipartisan piece 
of legislation to my colleagues, to point to the States that have 
already adopted these restrictions, and to show how not only does the 
sky not fall when you get rid of noncompete agreements but that 
startups flourish and that wages increase.
  Finally, I come to recommend to my colleagues that, in an environment 
where it is going to be a little harder to find agreement between 
Republicans and Democrats, this is a place where we can find that 
common ground. In one piece of policy, we can stick up for low-income 
workers and the free market. This is something that we can do together 
to help raise wages and to help power our economy.

                          ____________________