[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.
____________________