Mark Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, a military career is one of the most honorable professions that our young men and women can pursue, and each of us is indebted to our veterans for their service. In this challenging economic time, it is more important than ever that we do what we can to connect well qualified veterans not just with jobs, but with careers. Our veterans demonstrate the skills, knowledge, leadership and professionalism that allow them to excel in almost any career field if they are given the right opportunities. How we treat this generation of military veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan will influence the next generation of young men and women who might consider a career in our military. Unfortunately, we sometimes fall short when it comes to connecting veterans with jobs, and some veterans struggle to find careers that allow them to achieve their full potential. That is why I have been involved for several months now in a unique partnership of U.S. utility industry leaders to actively recruit and employ returning veterans. Troops to Energy helps our veterans successfully transition from military service into civilian careers in the utility and engineering industries. Some reports show that a staggering 29 percent of veterans between the ages of 18 and 24 who served in Iraq or Afghanistan were unemployed last year. That is more than three times the national unemployment level and unacceptably high. We must do better. That is why I support the Veterans Jobs Corps Act of 2012, which will create additional opportunities for veterans to transition into career fields in which their military skills are readily transferrable. I am not able to vote on this important legislation today because I am attending the funeral services for a dear friend, but I want the record to reflect my strong support for this legislation and for our military men and women, their families, and our veterans.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes on two subjects.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first of all, I rise today to address the important legislation pending before this body, S. 3414, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. I followed this debate, and I want to particularly compliment Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Feinstein, and folks such as Senator Kyl and Senator Whitehouse who have been trying to find some common ground in this area. I hope at some point in the next day or so we will be able to proceed to this bill and have it fully debated. Many Senators bring different levels of expertise to this issue. As someone who spent 20 years in the technology field and in telecom in particular before entering government service, and has had the honor to serve for the last 3\1/2\ years on the Intelligence Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the Banking Committee, three of the committees that all immediately intersect with the challenges around cyber, I can add a bit of my perspective to this debate. Let me start with concerns that have been raised by some of the opponents to this legislation. In the area around cyber, we need to make sure we have appropriate information sharing. How do we set some standards? Who should enforce those standards? I think most all of us, and anyone who has looked into this area, would recognize it is not a question of when we are going to have a major cyber attack or if we are going to have a cyber attack, it is only a question of when. We have already--as has been reported in the press in a number of fashions-- been attacked on a daily basis by foreign agents, criminal elements, hackers who are constantly probing our country's cyber defenses on the public and private side. One of the reasons I think it is so important to move on this legislation soon is I have great fears that when we have a major cyber element or cyber attack, Congress may, as they have done so many times in the past, overreact because we didn't take action on something we knew was imminent. I do think this piece of legislation--and, candidly, I could have supported an even stronger piece of legislation--is a great first step in this area. I am going to come back in a moment to some amendments I hope to offer to this legislation to deal with some of the concerns other Members and folks have raised on this issue. Let's talk about why we need cyber legislation and why we need it now. Inaction is not a solution. Every national security expert--not just from the current administration but previous administrations, and most Members of Congress--agrees that the status quo is not sustainable. Over a 5-month period between October of 2011 and February of 2012, there were 50,000 cyber attacks on private and government networks. We are told between 2009 and 2011 attacks on U.S. infrastructure increased by a factor of 17. As more and more nations and rogue actors get more sophisticated with computer and technological knowledge, these numbers are going to grow exponentially. As the FBI has said, cyber espionage, computer crime, attacks on critical infrastructure will surpass terrorism as the No. 1 threat facing the United States. Think how many things we have done appropriately in the previous administration and this administration in terms of homeland security to protect our Nation against the threat of terrorists. We now have the Director of the FBI saying the cyber threat will soon surpass terrorism in terms of a threat to our Nation. I know as a former businessman that we are already seeing manifestations of this threat in other areas. Intellectual property theft is one of the most insidious threats we face right now. A former FBI agent who specialized in counterintelligence and computer intrusion has said that in most cases companies don't realize they have been burned until years later when a foreign competitor puts out the very same product, only making it 30 percent cheaper. We have lost our manufacturing base in many ways. By not putting appropriate cyber protections in place, are we really prepared to lose our R&D base as well? Some say cyber is different. Cyber is different in certain ways, but in many ways it is similar. Just as we would never have a nuclear facility without guards and a wall and a fence or--I see my good friend, the Senator from Louisiana--we would never have power facilities or levees without appropriate protections, how is it we would not have some level of standards and information sharing of threats that are coming in amongst not only our public sector entities but our private sector entities as well? As a matter of fact, as a former businessman, I have been surprised at some of the resistance from some business organizations that are saying this requirement of both information sharing and some minimum standards would actually be a burden on us. In many ways I actually think somewhat the opposite because there are a number of businesses right now that have taken the responsible step and put in place significant cyber protections while competitors in their industry, because they are not putting those same protections in place, are actually free riders on the system. Yet, not if but when we have a major cyber event, if one of those companies that has not put appropriate protections in place ends up causing dramatic harm to our economy or to that industry sector, all the industries and all the businesses in that sector will in one way or another end up paying the price. Again, this is one of the reasons why we need both this information sharing and some level of standards. I know to try to move forward in terms of actual or mandatory standards, we are not going to have them at this point. We have set up a measure--and again, I commend Senator Kyl and Senator Whitehouse for working through what I think is a pretty darn good compromise where there would be an industry group that would develop, in effect, best practices. It is hard with the government and bureaucracy moving so slowly to keep up with something like technology that would allow an industry group to come up with, in effect, best practices. Those companies that adhere to those best practices would actually receive legal and other protections so we could encourage folks to make sure we have in place the kind of protections that all industries and our country need. To make clear that we don't have mandatory standards, we have put in place--I have been working with Senator Snowe on a couple of amendments. I believe there are other Members who will join us on at least one of these amendments. The first amendment is very important and hopefully will go some distance in terms of clarifying one of the issues that seems to be a major subject of debate in this legislation, and that is to modify--again working with the chairs of the committee, we may even move beyond this modification to elimination--a key section of the bill, section 103. It will make clear that the standards set by this bill, the protection of infrastructure, are indeed voluntary. This amendment makes it clear that this bill does not in any way alter the authority of any Federal agency to regulate the security of critical infrastructure. Again, there were some concerns that there might have been a mistake in the earlier draft. This amendment makes clear that the standards that are developed by industry working groups will be voluntary and that nothing in this legislation will allow any Federal agency to regulate the security of critical infrastructure. I believe this amendment should alleviate the concerns of some that the bill might put in place mandatory standards for infrastructure protection--again, despite the very clear language that already exists in the bill that standards are voluntary. It is my understanding this amendment will be considered as part of a broader set of solutions negotiated by Senator Lieberman, and whether our amendment comes forward or whether it is broadened into a managers' package, I hope it will clarify this portion of the debate about mandatory versus voluntary. Voluntary is a good first step. The fact that this will be developed by industry working groups, the fact that this will not be subject to the lagging time of government bureaucracy or rulemaking, hopefully, will move us in the right direction. A second amendment, again, one I have been working on with Senator Snowe, is a bit more technical, and particularly as to my colleagues on the Commerce Committee, I hope we will be able to gain some support from them. This amendment seeks to ensure that the authority provided to DHS to sole-source highly specialized products will result in the procurement of interoperable, standards-based products and services whenever possible. What does that mean in English? It means when government goes out, and particularly during sole-sourcing of a solution set, too often--and I have seen this in my old industry of telecom years in and years out-- people will develop a particular product or solution that works for that company's only set of standards, and when the government subsequently or other private sector entities go on and buy or replace or expand whatever particular system it is, if it is not interoperable with the rest of the telecommunications system or the rest of the network, then we are really not getting value for our dollar. Again, this is a small issue in the context of cyber security, but both Senator Snowe and I believe it is important for the purpose of competition, and it should lower the overall cost of key technologies and services for the taxpayer. So as I close on my first comments, I hope we will be able to move forward before the break on the question of cyber security. I think great progress has been made in the negotiations. I know there are a lot of issues that remain to be resolved, but I would reinforce what so many other colleagues have already said. It is not a question of if we are hit by a cyber attack, it is only a question of when in terms of a major incident. Let's get ahead of the game. Tribute To Federal Employees Diane Braunstein Let me take two more moments and rise on one other issue. As many of my colleagues and the floor staff know, I come down on a fairly regular basis to honor great Federal employees. With all of the challenges we face with the fiscal cliff--I see my good friend and partner here, the Senator from Oklahoma, and both he and I are always trying to look for ways we can get better value for the taxpayer. One of the things we need to do is find ways to reward and recognize the good work of so many Federal employees who share that goal of getting better value for the taxpayer. I know the Senator from Oklahoma has particularly worked with the GAO on a number of occasions to find and root out duplication and other issues of where we can save dollars. I come down on a regular basis to recognize Federal employees-- because so many times they are under assault--when they do good things. Today I do that one more time, with recognition of another great Federal employee, in this case Diane Braunstein, who is the Associate Commissioner for the Office of International Programs for the Social Security Administration. She has overseen the creation of the Compassionate Allowance Program, which has allowed thousands of seriously ill Americans to gain quick approval for much needed Social Security benefits in a matter of days or weeks rather than months or years; although in this area of Social Security disability we need to make sure only the appropriate beneficiaries are receiving those funds. For years, the Social Security Disability Insurance Program has faced backlogs and delays in processing claims. In 2011 there were on average 700,000 pending cases. We need to do a better job of evaluating and weeding out some of those cases. Couple this with what used to be a lack of caseworker knowledge on rare illnesses, and the result was a number of applications with rare illnesses being incorrectly denied Federal benefits. They then had to face an appeals process which took years to complete. Beginning in 2008, Ms. Braunstein partnered with patient advocacy groups and NIH to come up with a list of 25 cancers and 25 rare diseases that would automatically qualify an applicant to receive benefits. To further improve the speed and efficiency and cost effectiveness of this process, an easy-to-use reference guide and training program was put together to aid caseworkers. According to Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue, when Ms. Braunstein began work on the compassionate allowances, some Americans were waiting 2 to 4 years for a decision. Now those with the most devastating disabilities get approved for benefits in a matter of days. In 2010, the program was able to assist an estimated 45,000 people, and 65,000 people in 2011. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Ms. Braunstein for her innovation and excellent work she has done as well as her commitment to public service. Again, we have some hard choices to make beyond the question of cyber security, but as we approach this fiscal cliff there will be more asked of all Americans and there will be more asked of our Federal employees. We will have to continue to find ways to ratchet out those programs that are duplicative, those areas where we are not getting value for our dollar. Again, I know this is an issue of concern to the Senator from Louisiana and the Senator from Oklahoma. But when we find initiatives that work, and we find Federal employees who are helping us provide value, particularly for those in need at a good price, they deserve this recognition. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. The town of Big Lick was first established in 1852 and eventually became the city of Roanoke in 1884. Since its early days as a railroad hub, Roanoke has been an economic and cultural focal point for the western part of Virginia. Today, the New York Times recognized Ed Walker for his efforts in revitalizing Roanoke. For more than 10 years, Ed has worked to improve Roanoke by investing in historic structures and renovating them for residence, dining, and entertainment. Ed's work led to the creation of cultural programs, founded an innovative music center for young adults, and revitalized a once derelict downtown street. Ed's investment in the community paid off. The hundredfold increase in downtown residents supported the opening of dozens of new businesses and increased demand for cultural attractions. By bringing residents and businesses closer together, Ed's projects have helped spur the Roanoke economy and brought new energy to the city. Thanks to Ed's work, Roanoke serves as a model to similar communities across the Commonwealth. Roanoke was recognized recently as one of ``America's Most Livable Communities'' by the nonprofit Partners for Livable Communities. Ed created the CityWorks (X)po to bring together entrepreneurs, advocates, and developers from across the country to share ideas about renewing and improving cities such as Roanoke. I would like to congratulate Ed Walker on his achievements and thank him for making the city of Roanoke a better place to work and live. I would ask unanimous consent that today's New York Times article be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this year marks the 150 anniversary of the Morrill Act of 1862, which led to the creation of our Nation's land- grant universities. In 1862, there were only six engineering or agricultural colleges in the entire United States. By 1880, there were 85, and by 1917 the total number had grown to 126. Two outstanding universities from Virginia are the beneficiaries of this legislation and carry on important traditions as land-grant universities: Virginia Tech and Virginia State University. Founded in 1872 as an agricultural and mechanical land-grant college, Virginia Tech is the oldest land-grant college in the Commonwealth. Today, the school has the largest full-time student population in Virginia and the largest number of degree offerings of any Virginia university. As a leading research institution, Virginia Tech prepares its students to make an impact in the fields of technology and agriculture, among many others. Virginia Tech graduates have a positive impact everyday on the Commonwealth and on our country. Virginia State University, founded in 1882, is the country's first fully State-supported 4-year historically black college and also a Virginia land-grant institution. Throughout the school's history, it has enriched the lives of its students and faculty as well as its surrounding community and indeed the entire Commonwealth. Virginia State University's leadership in providing an expansive academic program, a variety of student organizations, and a devotion to community service makes the school a model for historically black colleges across the nation. Both of these superb academic institutions demonstrate exceptional leadership in the agricultural and mechanical arts in line with the original intent of the Morrill Act. As we remember the creation of this landmark legislation, Virginia Tech and Virginia State University stand as shining examples of its continued legacy. I am pleased to join my colleagues in celebrating the sesquicentennial of the Morrill Act.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask to call up amendment No. 2457 and ask the clerk to report.

Mr. WARNER. I further ask the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is a broad, bipartisan amendment-- Warner-Crapo-Kirk-Shaheen-Bennet-Webb. It basically does three things in the broadband area. It accelerates access to those areas that are underserved. As a matter of fact, we have a 2009 USDA IG report which showed that less than 3 percent of loans provided by RUS went toward unserved communities. This will move forward in that area. Second, it creates greater access and transparency and accountability standards for RUS and applicants. These are items that were brought forward from the GAO and the IG of the USDA and CRS. It also allows greater levels of accountability in ensuring that those States that collect data by address--that that information is related to RUS, so we don't have counties where certain parts are served and other parts are left unserved, never able to get access. It has the broad support of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Taxpayers Union, the League of Rural Voters. I ask bipartisan support of this amendment. Mr. LEAHY, Mr. President, I have long believed that Congress must work to enact policies that promote the deployment of broadband in rural America. There is no doubt that rural areas lag behind the rest of the country when it comes to access to affordable, quality, high- speed Internet. As the Internet rapidly evolves beyond what the slow speeds offered by dial up service can handle, broadband service is no longer a luxury, it is a necessity. Today, I voted against an amendment that, while well intentioned, may have the unintended consequence of making it harder for the Rural Utilities Service to incentivize broadband expansion and competition in rural areas like Vermont. I support the provisions in the underlying farm bill that seek to provide additional forms of assistance to broadband projects in rural areas, and I had hoped that the Senate would not significantly alter these provisions. It is important to ensure that the Rural Utilities Service has the flexibility it needs to provide assistance to rural areas--both those that have no service at all and those that have inadequate service. Senator Warner's amendment does contain elements that I support, including provisions that will help to improve transparency and accountability within the Rural Utilities Service Program. Unfortunately, it may go too far in refocusing the scope of the program at the expense of rural communities in Vermont. I look forward to continuing my work in the Senate to expand broadband service and competition in rural America.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was unable to vote on the motion to table the Paul amendment No. 2182 this morning due to a family commitment, but should I have been present, I would have voted yea on the motion to table the amendment. SNAP was effective in helping over 786,157 individuals in my own Commonwealth of Virginia--including children and the elderly--have the resources necessary to purchase healthy food this past year. I believe that turning this program into a State block grant, as Senator Paul's amendment would have done, would not allow this program to continue to be as effective. SNAP is the bedrock of our national nutrition safety net, serving as a first line of defense against hunger, and during this last economic downturn has made sure that low-income families across the Commonwealth and the country are helped in putting food on the table each night.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to thank my friend, the Senator from Kansas, for his leadership on this issue. This is something on which he and I spent a lot of time working, as have, I know, the Senators from Delaware, from Florida, and we are joined now by the Senator from Missouri as well. We are all new Senators. We said before when we unveiled this we did not get the memo that we should take Presidential election years off. We still think the needs of our country ought to trump election-year politicking. We think this is one of those spaces where we can find that common ground. I spent 20 years as an entrepreneur and a funder of startup businesses, and everything in my experience validates what Senator Moran has talked about. But, candidly, the facts show 80 percent of all of the new jobs created in America in the last 20 years came from startup businesses. They are not all tech businesses. I think of Under Armour, which is right up the road in Maryland, close to our friend from Delaware. There are certain key things that every startup business needs: They need access to capital, they need access to talent, they need access to new ideas. We need to make sure we have a stable regulatory environment that is not overly burdensome in each way we move the ball in this legislation, both that we passed and that we are working on right now. Senator Moran mentioned the JOBS Act, which looked at access to capital issues, how we can perhaps allow companies access to the public markets in a cleaner way. I want to commend the Presiding Officer as well. He took the lead on a whole new area of fundraising around crowdfunding, crowdsourcing, and using the tools of the Internet, in effect, democratizing the ability to raise capital. In this legislation, Startup 2.0, we take on a series of other issues. One of the issues is the question of talent. Every country in the world competes for talent. We attract some of the best talent in the world to come to our world-class universities. Oftentimes, we then train them in science, technology, engineering, and math with graduate degrees. I wish we could fill all of those slots in American universities with native-born Americans. But we do not have enough. Consequently, we train the best and brightest in the world, then send them home to start their businesses. I can tell you, in Virginia, where we are proud to have a vibrant high-tech community, an entrepreneurial community, literally one-third of all of our high-tech firms in Northern Virginia, the founders are first-generation Americans. If we had the same immigration policies 20 years ago that we have today, we would not have had that kind of explosive growth particularly all across America in the nineties from technology. So I want to turn to my colleague, the Senator from Delaware, a State that punches above its weight, a small State but a State with great universities, a State which has a rich entrepreneurial climate as well, what got the Senator involved--I know he has a background in business as well--on this issue. I know the Senator wants to share as well some of the aspects of Startup 2.0.

Mr. WARNER. No. I hope we can get a number of our colleagues to join us. This doesn't fall under a traditional Democratic versus Republican lexicon. This is more about future versus past. This is the future of global competition for talent, for ideas, and for capital. This is where job creation will come from. I look forward to working with the Senator and our other colleagues to make sure we get the support here and in the House and get this bill passed. I thank my friend, the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. WARNER. I commend the Senator from Kansas for his comments. I am fond of Canada. My mom's family is from Canada. It is remarkable. Canada, over the last 3 years, has aggressively sought out worldwide talent. I ask the Senator from Kansas whether he thinks it is good policy in what we do now--and, once again, I make very clear, this is about growing American jobs because we have more job openings in the advanced fields of science, technology, engineering, and math than there are American citizens applying for those jobs. I ask the Senator from Kansas whether it would make sense--if we thought about this from a national security standpoint, would it make sense for us to take, for example, a Chinese lieutenant and send him to West Point and expose him to everything we have in terms of our national security ideas and then send him home? I guess I ask the Senator whether he thought that would be good national security policy. Does it affect our current national immigration policy on an equally important front, in terms of job creation and economic activity?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to the bipartisan support for the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, S. 3187. In addition to continuing the fee-based funding system for timely FDA reviews, S. 3187 also calls for strengthening early scientific dialogue and transparency, promotion of innovation through enhanced communications, and modernization of regulatory science. These provisions, including enhancing dialog between the FDA and medical device, pharmaceutical, generic and biotechnology companies early in their new product development cycle, will facilitate a clearer understanding of the specific criteria the FDA will require in its review process and provide a succinct roadmap for successful product approval. The ultimate goal is to reduce misunderstandings and expensive superfluous testing, with the hope of reducing the time and costs to bring new medical technologies safely to patients in need. I want to commend the chairman of the HELP committee, my friend Senator Harkin, and the ranking member, Senator Enzi, who worked to find bipartisan consensus on these provisions. By creating a more user friendly and accessible FDA, innovative U.S. companies built on the principle of American ingenuity, will be attracted and encouraged to develop new medical devices, technologies and pharmaceuticals. With this new cooperation, together we will extend the quality of life for our citizens, reduce healthcare complexities and costs, create new U.S.-based jobs, and move this current national crisis to a financially manageable level for individuals, employers and tax payers. For example, in my State of Virginia, medical and bioscience research and development is vibrant in our academic institutions and among our companies, both large and small. The biopharmaceutical companies employ nearly 77,000 workers in Virginia, both directly and indirectly. In the bioscience field alone employment has grown by 23 percent, compared to 6 percent total growth statewide and 3.5 percent across all sectors in the U.S. We have a number of companies rushing to develop and market new products and technologies that are focused on improving healthcare delivery at a lower cost premium--companies like Engineered BioPharmaceuticals in Danville, VA, who is focused on repositioning current and future pharmaceutical therapeutics to be more effective at lower doses, with longer shelf-lives and better consumer compliance. To help these companies, and encourage more innovation, I am glad to see that the FDA has committed to being more open with applicants about using more appropriate data, but also communicating why certain data is not able to be used. I look forward to working with stakeholders and the FDA in monitoring this issue. One of the most exciting innovations in health care is related to mobile and health IT markets. Estimates indicate that the number of smartphone consumers using medical apps will grow to 500 million by 2015. How these innovations are regulated matters a great deal. It is important to balance market creativity, with patient safety issues and the intended use of the medical software. A number of agencies have jurisdiction over pieces of mobile medical applications, including FDA, Office of National Coordinator, ONC, and the Federal Communications Commission, FCC,--to properly regulate health information technology as well as address proper regulations of mobile medical applications. I am pleased that language has been included in this bill which asks for the Secretary to work across the different agencies--the FDA, ONC, and FCC--to come up with guidance that makes sense. It also encourages an outside stakeholder group to be consulted. I would like to thank my colleagues Senator Bennet, Senator Burr, Hatch and Coburn for their leadership on this as well. I would also like to briefly acknowledge language in the FDA bill regarding the use of data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States. As many in industry will tell you, there are a number of countries around the world that have comparable safety standards as the U.S. I have been interested in learning more about the application of appropriate clinical data across borders. I believe that if the FDA can do more to establish comparability between its guidelines for clinical trials and those set by countries in the European Union, for instance, we may be able to reduce the need for duplicative work and we may be able to get safe products to market sooner. The FDA has committed to being more open with applicants about using this type of data. They have agreed to provide applicants with more information about why certain data is not appropriate for use in the U.S. The FDA will also report on regulatory science, which will specifically indicate which specific metrics can be used to determine comparability. I am hopeful that there will soon be measurable improvement on this issue, and I look forward to working with interested stakeholders and the FDA to do more in this area in the future. One final point I would like to make is about something that is not directly included in this bill, a new innovation--biomarkers. Preeclampsia is a disorder that affects hundreds of thousands of pregnant women every year which undiagnosed can put a woman at risk for death and the fetus at risk of still-birth. Doctors currently use a mix of imprecise signs and symptoms to diagnose it but oftentimes such signs and symptoms are wrong. However, researchers have found a biomarker--a particular biological process or sign--that can accurately identify women with preeclampsia that are at risk for pregnancy complications. Unfortunately, tests for novel biomarkers are taking 5 or more years to get approved by the FDA, delaying patients from receiving the benefits of more accurate diagnoses and treatments. I was pleased that a recent commitment letter between FDA and industry specifically mentions the FDA's commitment to work together with industry to create a transitional IVD, or ``T IVD'' process for the development of tests for novel biomarkers. I look forward to seeing how this T IVD process develops in discussions between FDA and industry and am interested in progress towards its implementation which supports advances in the sciences and promotes access to these emerging diagnostics. If reducing healthcare costs is a national priority, we need to act today. I encourage my colleagues to pass S. 3187 and allow the FDA to work more closely with the medical industry to safely bring new technologies to the marketplace. Let's increase the quality of life of our citizens, structurally reduce healthcare costs without increasing risks to patients and stimulate the growth of American ingenuity and U.S.-based jobs.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I know we are on the motion to proceed to legislation dealing with the Ex-Im Bank. I rise today to urge my colleagues to proceed to this bill and to move forward and pass H.R. 2072, which would reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. We have a lot of debate on this floor on how we can grow our economy and grow jobs. One of the areas where there is agreement is that if America is going to be truly competitive in the 21st century, we have got to grow our export market. Many American companies over the 20th century were blessed with the world's largest, most vibrant domestic market. But that market is maturing. On a going-forward basis, literally 95 percent of all the world's customer base lies outside the boundaries of the United States. So while maybe some of my colleagues may disagree with many of the President's goals, I think we would all agree that doubling of exports in a 5-year timeframe the President laid out at the beginning of his administration is an area where there is great agreement. If we are going to do that, we have to use all the tools we have available because, unfortunately, right now American exports as a percentage of GDP rank behind Germany, Canada, China, Italy, France, the UK, India, Brazil. We are way down in the middle of the pack. As the Chair of the Banking Committee's International Trade and Financing Subcommittee, I have spent a lot of time and effort trying to get into the details to see how we can make the Export-Import Bank one of the tools we have to help American businesses grow their exports, grow that percentage of GDP that depends upon trade, grow that ability to reach that 95 percent of the customer base around the world, and to make sure that this tool, which has been a successful tool for close to 45 years, gets reauthorized but also is reauthorized in a way that brings more transparency and more accountability to this institution. The bill we will have before us, hopefully later today, does that, because if we fail to act, the authorization for the Export-Import Bank expires at the end of this month, and this tool that is so important to growing exports, growing jobs, candidly will be lost. The bill we will take up, hopefully later today or shortly, reauthorizes the Export-Import Bank for 3 years. While I would have preferred a longer extension and a higher limit, higher absolute total loan limit, I am glad the bill we will deal with increases the bank's lending limit from $100 billion to $140 billion. Remember, our Export-Import Bank is so much smaller than any of our competitors'. Even taking the lending cap up to $140 billion will still mean we will pale in comparison to our competitors. These other nations are who we are competing with. I think it is important that we compare how our Export-Import Bank--which again in this last year made a profit, returned money to the taxpayers, and has been profitable year in and year out--how our institution compares with those of our competitors: Canada, our largest trading partner, the Canada that has a population size about one-tenth--actually smaller than one-tenth the size of the United States--has their equivalent Export-Import Bank three times the size of our Export-Import Bank. Every day our Export-Import Bank and the American companies it supports face aggressive competition, as I mentioned, from China, Brazil, India, which all have very large export financing banks in their own right. In 2010 alone China did $45 billion in lending, two- thirds of that to a single company, lending that was supported by their exporting financing operations, while our domestic Export-Import Bank did just $13 billion in total. So China, close to over 3 times, supporting their institutions, one of our largest competitors, versus our support for our American industry at one-third the size. That same year, Brazil, a country much smaller than ours, provided $18 billion in export finance; Germany, more than $22 billion; France, more than $17 billion; all much more than what we do. Each of them only has, as I mentioned, in total about one-fifth of our population. So why would we, if we all agree that growing trade, growing exports, trying to access that 95 percent of the customer base that would then support American companies that are going to hire American workers, why would we unilaterally disarm and remove this tool from our toolbox as some in this Chamber have suggested? Ironically, because in our country, we do not provide, I believe, adequate export financing, many American companies have gone to foreign export agencies, the result being if they get that foreign export support, oftentimes the price of that foreign export support means that subcontractors to those American companies then have to come from those respective countries, whether it is Canada, Brazil, India, et cetera, again costing American jobs. I think this is a commonsense tool. It is a tool that has had a solid track record. It is a tool that has never cost the American taxpayers a dime. It is one that needs our immediate attention. Again, I hope we will get a large, overwhelming bipartisan majority of Senators who will reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, will reauthorize it at this $140 billion level, will reauthorize it with the new transparency provisions that I was proud to add to this legislation, will reauthorize it with some of the new requirements in which the Export-Import Bank puts together a more comprehensive business plan, all additions that I worked on with my colleagues and added to this legislation. That is, again, one more example where we can demonstrate to the American people we can come and work together, trying to spur that kind of job growth and export growth we are all looking for. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCASKILL.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to add my voice in support of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, of which I am proud to say I am a cosponsor. In Virginia, this act has doubled the resources available for prevention and intervention of sexual violence in communities and on campus. The funding provides crisis services in nearly every locality in Virginia. Funds have helped develop State databases like the protective order registry in the Virginia Criminal Information Network, VCIN, and the I-CAN system housed with the Virginia Supreme Court. These databases have helped improve responses across the Commonwealth to sexual and domestic violence. Some startling Virginia domestic and sexual violence incidence statistics highlight just how critical this legislation is to anyone in my State and across the country who may find themselves in need of help. Virginia has seen a 12 percent increase over the past 2 years in the number of men, women and children staying in domestic violence emergency shelters on an average night. Nearly 1 million women and more than 600,000 men in Virginia have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner. According to the State's medical examiner, one in three homicides in Virginia is due to family or intimate partner violence. As these statistics show, the services authorized through VAWA continue to be a necessity. It is important that we continue to support access to these vital services that will provide significant benefits to those most in need of assistance. For the Violence Against Women Act to truly work as intended, we must have effective accountability. Particularly in times of tight budgets, it is important to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. It is critically important that we continue to advance effective, comprehensive policies that will provide appropriate preventive and supportive services that many in my State, as well as across the country, will benefit from. The accountability measures included in this bill are patterned after proposals offered by my Republican colleagues for other grant programs, and these accountability measures have been tailored to VAWA to make sure that funds are efficiently spent and effectively monitored. The bill authorizes the Department of Justice's inspector general to audit grantees to prevent waste, fraud and abuse. It gives grantees a reasonable amount of time to correct any problems that were not solved during the audit process, but imposes severe penalties on grantees that refuse to address the problems identified by the inspector general. Rather than Congress mandating a set number of audits, the Office of Inspector General will have the ability to set the appropriate number. This will give the experts in the inspector general's office the ability to more effectively perform important oversight. The Department of Justice has also taken significant steps to improve monitoring of VAWA grant awards by updating grant monitoring policies and incorporating accounting training for all grantees. The bill has taken the important step of holding the Department of Justice accountable when using Federal funds to host or support conferences. These new accountability provisions are an integral piece in this process and a meaningful additional check to ensure the appropriate use of taxpayer dollars for these important programs. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask to call up amendment No. 2071. There is an agreed-upon substitute text at the desk.

Mr. WARNER. I thank Chairman Lieberman and Senator Collins for their help on this amendment. It is a simple amendment. One of the goals of this process is to encourage retirement expected for 100,000 members of the Postal Service. Unfortunately, now OPM has an over 50,000-person backlog of retirement claims. This is unacceptable. We still have a paper processing process. This amendment would require the Postal Service to report on a regular basis, as well as OPM, on the status of these retirement processing claims and hopefully speed up this process and also compare it to the forms of other agencies. This is completely unacceptable to folks who are retiring, waiting sometimes up to a full year to get their retirement benefits. I thank the chairman and the ranking member and ask for acceptance of the amendment.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank the chairman and Senator Collins for their work on this bill. I know it has caused a great deal of interest and consternation, but the numbers are overwhelming that without this kind of legislation, the fate of our Postal Service would be in great jeopardy. I commend both the chairman and ranking member for their very good work. I intend to support the legislation. I know they have had to make some hard choices, but I think they are putting the Postal Service back on the path to sustainability, and I commend their leadership. I also thank them both for an amendment they have been kind enough to include in, I believe, a revised bill, a managers' package, that takes on a related issue that affects not only Postal Service employees but all Federal employees; that is, the absolutely dreadful performance-- which is starting to be corrected, but the absolutely dreadful performance that OPM and agencies of the government, including the Postal Service, have done in terms of making sure our Federal employees receive their retirement benefits in a timely manner. The Presiding Officer and I, both from the Commonwealth of Virginia, have 130,000 Federal employees in Virginia. There are 140,000 Federal employees across the river in Maryland. I am happy Senator Mikulski has cosponsored the amendment I am going to talk about in a few moments. I want to explain the problem we are facing and why I am asking the Senate to adopt this amendment during the consideration of this bill to reform the postal system. Over the past year, I and other Members in both parties have received hundreds of requests for assistance from Federal retirees who have experienced significant delays in obtaining their full retirement benefits--delays that oftentimes exceed 12 months, sometimes as much as 18 months and more. In the meantime, these Federal retirees--and no one questions that they deserve and should receive these benefits, but since there is slow processing and antiquated technology, they are not getting these earned retirement benefits. These retirees face inordinate hardships trying to pay their bills and survive on partial payments made while their retirement paperwork moves through the system. Remarkably, in 2012, our whole retirement system is still a paper- based system. OPM also relies upon every other Federal agency, such as the post office and others where a Federal employee works, to assemble and submit the retiree's paperwork in a timely and efficient manner. But as we have seen with the occasional snapshots that have been taken, some agencies literally have a 30- to 50-percent error rate in submitting the background material for the retiree so OPM can appropriately process the paperwork. Part of the goal of this postal reform, I know, is going to be to encourage some of the voluntary retirements in the postal system--again why this amendment is so timely. Meanwhile, the retirees wait and wait for benefits; benefits they have earned, and, unfortunately, benefits they cannot get access to. We continue to hear from recent Federal retirees who literally spend 8 or 10 hours a day trying to get through on the customer service line to find out where their benefits are. I would like to share a few examples of what we are hearing. We recently heard from a retired colonel from Williamsburg, VA, who wrote, ``I retired in March 2011 and at the time of this writing OPM has still not figured out my full retirement pay . . . my savings are getting low.'' From here in Northern Virginia, in Dumfries, VA, we heard from a retiree who said: I have been subjected to a severe financial hardship because of not getting my full benefits. I was recently told that the bank is repossessing my auto because I cannot afford to make the payments. He cannot make the payments because this retiree was not getting her benefits. She was existing on partial benefits until OPM could deal with the processing. From Warrenton: I am seeking assistance with obtaining my husband's health insurance which was canceled unexpectedly. He worked for DOD. I notified OPM with the appropriate forms and a copy of his death certificate, all of which was apparently lost by OPM. I tried to obtain new forms but was told it would take up to 6 weeks. I am 80 years old and need my health insurance now. My husband and I were married for 60 years. This is unacceptable. This is not the way we ought to be running this important part of our Federal Government. In January of 2012, OPM's retirement backlog exceeded 62,000 cases--62,000 Federal employees, retirees--who were waiting to get their benefits. Again, let me point out, many of these retirees were waiting for more than 1 year. We saw huge backlogs in disability claims, death benefits, and quarterly benefits. By OPM's own account, it takes almost 700 days, nearly 2 years, to process some death benefits. Recently, after my meetings with OPM and other members of the delegation, OPM has made some limited progress in reversing the tide of retirement claims. The retirement backlog is now 52,000 claims. OPM has hired new staff and is starting to modernize its outdated processing, but it is clear more needs to be done. I wish to also compliment Senator Akaka, who was kind enough to let me join an oversight hearing on this matter back in February of this year. What I heard there worried me. So I sent my staff to OPM's retirement processing facility last month to see the problem up close. Unfortunately, my staff's reports confirmed my worst fears. The current process is largely manual, cumbersome, and contributes to significant delays and potential errors. We have been told the newest OPM technology is 12 years old. That is pretty remarkable. It is simply no longer feasible to expect that manual data entry for retirement and benefits claims make sense when we have technology that can dramatically lower processing time and increase accuracy. OPM needs to modernize its technology in the long run. But in 2012, they need to at least start taking some short-term steps. It is unacceptable that they rely upon paper processing in 2012. OPM, as I mentioned, has made some progress. But ultimately they still want to remain committed to a paper processing system. That does not make any sense. The kicker is this problem is not new. As indicated by this press story, Federal agencies routinely point the finger of blame at OPM for causing these delays, while OPM points the finger back at the individual agencies for not getting the information to OPM in a timely manner. One might think this story was written in the last few weeks. There have actually been stories written in the Post in the last few weeks about this subject. But the day I am quoting from on this story is actually May 9, 1988. That is 24 years ago. Ronald Reagan was President when this was written, and we have had four Presidents since then. Yet OPM continues to offer the same excuses and the same kind of back-and- forth finger-pointing between agencies. We have seen this show before. It needs to be taken off the air. What are we going to do with this amendment and how does this affect trying to move the ball forward? My amendment will do three things. First, it requires OPM to report to Congress, GAO, and the public about the timeliness and accuracy of Postal Service claims, requiring OPM to compare the Postal Service with the performance of all other Federal agencies. So we need to figure out, because we do not know at this point--we have a 52,000-claim backlog--whether the backlog is because the agency the employee worked for did not get the information to OPM in a timely manner or whether OPM has not processed this. This amendment will require the Postal Service to assess how it is doing, getting this information to OPM, and compare that with the performance of other Federal agencies. This will allow us to see which Federal agencies have the best and worst track records in submitting paperwork to OPM. The snapshot we saw a little bit earlier this year at the hearing in February showed that a number of agencies had literally a 30- to 50-percent error rate in submitting their retirement paperwork to OPM. With close to 100,000 potential new retirees--actually a much larger number, but the effect of this bill may urge the voluntary retirement of 100,000 postal workers to retirement--OPM is going to get hit by a tsunami. Second, the report will also require OPM to provide a claims aging report. We need to know how long retirement applications have been pending at OPM. By the way, we do not have any of that information right now for the 52,000 cases that are currently pending--no basic aging report. Third, the amendment will require OPM to at least move forward a little bit in modernizing one piece of their technology, so OPM can at least receive some electronic payroll data from the Postal Service system. Now, 551,000 people work for the Postal Service right now. If this legislation passes, which I hope it will, and we see the voluntary retirement of 100,000 postal workers over the coming months and years, that is a new tsunami of retirement benefits claims that are going to need to be processed by OPM. The bottom line is this: OPM, while they are trying to make some progress and I commend Director Berry for some of the actions he has taken, needs to be urged along and we need to get more data about how they do, not only with the Postal Service but with all Federal agencies. My amendment will move forward in that direction. The Warner-Mikulski amendment focuses on these key reporting requirements and mandates more transparency so we can untangle the chokepoints. I believe we need to honor the dedication and commitment of our Federal workforce, including our postal workers, in making sure that when they do retire, they get their Federal retiree benefits in a timely and efficient manner. Again, I wish to thank the chair and the ranking member for their hard work on this postal reform bill. I look forward to supporting it. I also hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this Warner-Mikulski amendment that while tangential to the overall reform of the Postal Service, making sure these retirees get their benefits in a timely manner is something on which we should all agree. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. I want to thank the chair and the ranking member for working with me on this amendment to get it appropriately modified. This an area that I think there is broad bipartisan consensus, that we need to make sure--whether postal workers or other workers in the Federal system--that when they choose to retire, they can expect those retirement benefits in a timely manner. I wish to again commend the chair and the ranking member for the fact that putting in place this very reasonable plan that is going to encourage the voluntary retirements of that approximate 18 percent of the workforce--109,000 I believe it amounts to--is going to be a lot easier to make that sell if those postal workers can then expect to receive their retirement benefits in a timely manner. I think if they are hearing the current scuttlebutt that they may have to wait 12 to 18 months to get their retirement benefits, it becomes a much harder effort for the Postmaster and the management of the Postal System to make--even if they got the right incentives in place--to kind of get over that hump if they have to wait a long time. So I very much thank again the chair and ranking member, Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins, for their support, and I think trying to shine a light, not only on the Postal System but vis-a-vis how other Federal agencies are doing will be important. I look forward to working with them. I know they both focused on this issue in the past. I hope to lend my assistance to make sure we get this fixed.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I want to join my colleagues in today's well-deserved accolades for my friend, Barbara Mikulski. The other day, as often happens to most of us here, I found myself temporarily waylaid by an informal scrum of reporters in one of the Capitol hallways. And, unknown to me, I was blocking Senator Mikulski's path. She made me aware of that fact in her distinctive and typically endearing way: ``Hey, Tall and Lanky--make way for Short and Stocky!'' she said. But it is not just that humor and good nature that makes Barbara Mikulski such a great colleague and friend. As a resident and colleague from an adjoining State, I respect all she has done at the local level, in the U.S. House and now in the Senate, to move the National Capital Region forward in terms of the regional ties that join together this special region where we live and work. You see, Virginia and Maryland share more than just a common border. Our two States are home to hundreds of thousands of hard-working and under-appreciated Federal workers and retirees. Our States share safety and funding concerns related to Metro. We each have a shared responsibility in our stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland and Virginia also share world-class NASA facilities on the Eastern Shore. As a friend, I appreciate her leadership role in helping this first- time legislator--and recovering former Governor--make the sometimes difficult adjustment to this body. As the father of three daughters, I am grateful for the doors Senator Mikulski has opened--and sometimes kicked-open--for young women. Senator Mikulski truly is a force of nature. She is tough, focused and extremely effective. And as these testimonials demonstrate, Senator Mikulski is widely respected and loved by current and former members of this body. I am pleased to join these colleagues in thanking Senator Mikulski for her service, her leadership and her friendship.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on some of the issues that were just addressed by the Republican leader; that is, the legislation we will hopefully turn to next about creating jobs. There are a lot of occasions when legislation comes to the floor of this Senate where I, similar to many Members, have a view on it, and we kind of weigh in on our positions. But this legislation, as it comes forward, is something for which I have more than just an intellectual or political or philosophical viewpoint. This legislation actually involves the business I was in for nearly 20 years. I was proud of the fact that starting in the early 1980s--up until the time I was elected Governor of Virginia--I was involved, originally as an angel investor and then as a venture capitalist, in helping start companies across this country. I am proud to have been involved as a venture capitalist in funding almost 70 companies--those companies that grew to now employ tens of thousands of Americans. As the Acting President pro tempore and some of the folks realize, a lot of those companies I was involved with were involved in telecommunications. I was the cofounder of Nextel, although I cannot seem to turn my cell phone off at the appropriate times. But I think that background gave me some sense of what it means to find a management team to find the capital and get a company started, to allow it to grow, create jobs, create economic prosperity. This issue around capital formation, encouraging startups, encouraging entrepreneurs, is an issue on which we ought to be able to come together. I see my good friend, the Senator from Kansas, who I know is going to speak in a few moments after I am finished. He and I have worked together on legislation called the Startup Act that has been endorsed by tech councils across the country, has been endorsed by and builds upon the work of the Kauffman Foundation, has been endorsed by and builds upon the work of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. This ought to be an area where we can find common ground. Some of the ideas we are going to be discussing in this legislation are not only ideas Senator Moran and I have worked on but I know Senator Coons and Senator Rubio and Senator Toomey and Senator Schumer have worked on, also Senator Tester, Senator Merkley, and Senator Brown. There is a list, actually, in terms of the sponsors or cosponsors on a number of these bills--a number not in the single digits but literally in the dozens, probably in excess of 20 and, for the most part, almost every one of these pieces of legislation is bipartisan. Why do we need to do this? Because if we look where the jobs have been created in America over the last 20 years, for the most part we find, unfortunately, the job growth from companies that are in the Fortune 1000 has been flat, if not slightly negative. So while we applaud and support America's largest businesses because of increased productivity, because of globalization, those are not the companies adding jobs. While every Member of the Senate, when they stand, stands and applauds small business--and I know my colleagues on the floor support small business, the traditional small businesses--the butcher shop, the retailer, the hardware store--there has not been much job growth amongst those companies as well. So where have the jobs come from? The jobs have come from startup businesses, the kinds of businesses where an entrepreneur tries to scrape up a little bit of capital and takes an idea to market. Nearly 80 percent, according to the Kauffman Foundation, of all the new jobs created in America in the last 20 years have come from these firms. We oftentimes think of these firms as technology firms. Many of them are--the Facebooks and Googles. But there are also the companies that span the reach of all kinds of different areas--the Lululemons, in terms of clothing stores, or Under Armour, a company that is in Maryland. These are the kinds of companies we need to do more to support in their growth, particularly right now when our economy is still struggling. So what are we trying to do in this legislation? To my mind, there are three or four areas these bills need to address. First of all, we need to make it easier for these startup companies to raise capital. Over the last decade, a lot of the traditional sources of capital raising have actually diminished, particularly since the financial crisis. The number of venture capital firms that exist, that fund companies, has actually decreased. The ability for a company to go public--for which, perhaps, we got a little too excessive in the late 1990s, when we saw dot.com companies rush to go public and then that dot.com bubble burst and those companies failed--but that access to the public markets has been seriously constrained, partially because of added regulations, partially because of added reporting requirements, and partially because there has been a recognition that going public may not have been the right route for all these companies.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. The result is, many of these startup companies end up having to sell to a larger company, and many of the ideas and many of the job-creation opportunities are then constrained. We need to make it easier for these companies to access capital. Some of the ideas that are going to be proposed in the legislation will do that. Some of the reforms to reg A, reg D--trying to look at raising the number of investors a startup company can have before they have to report--all are sensible, appropriate incentives to help these startup companies get going. I understand the very important requirements put in place by the so- called Sarbanes-Oxley legislation a few years back, but the cost of going public for startup companies now, on average, is $3 million to $4 million. Those costs are not costs that many of these startup companies can absorb. So some of the sensible reforms that have been proposed by Senator Toomey and Senator Schumer that I have been a proud cosponsor on, on a so-called on-ramp for startup companies, I think make sense as well. There are also other tools we can use to help startup companies as they try to access capital. We have seen a dramatic transformation of the Internet over the last 20 years. Every business, every part of our life has been changed. There is now the ability to use the Internet as a way for small investors to get the same kind of deals that up to this point only select investors have gotten that have been customers of some of the best known investment banking firms, where we can now use the power of the Internet, through a term called crowdfunding. There has to be appropriate investor restraints under this and investor protections, but crowdfunding using the Internet is another source of capital. I hope that will be included in the legislation we are looking at, and I wish to commend Senator Bennet and Senator Merkley and Senator Brown for working hard on that. But there are other pieces of this legislation we have to take on if we are going to compete and win in this global competition for talent and ideas and have these jobs created in America. That is why I was so proud to work with Senator Moran in our startup legislation that says attracting capital is one part of making a company successful. Another part of making a company successful is winning the worldwide competition for talent. Unfortunately, time and again what we are doing in this country is losing that competition for the best talent. There are literally tens of thousands of jobs that are going unfilled right now because we do not have enough American-born scientists, engineers, and mathematicians with graduate degrees. Because we have the world's best system of higher education, we train many of the world's best and brightest. But with our current immigration policies, we train those folks at the Virginia Techs, the University of New Mexicos, get them that Ph.D. in engineering, and then we send them home when they have an opportunity to get a job in this country. We cannot talk to a tech company anywhere in America that says we are losing the competition for talent. So what does our legislation do? We actually do what tech firms have called for for years, which is, in effect, to staple that green card to those individuals who get not a bachelor's degree but a master's or Ph.D. in the science, technology, engineering or math field, the so- called STEM fields, if they have a job opportunity in America. We allow that intellectual capital and talent to actually reside and help create jobs. What we do as well is create a new category--in effect, an entrepreneur's visa. We have a very narrow category within our immigration policies right now that allows certain immigrants who want to come, invest in other companies in this country, and hire Americans, to get access to a visa. We would expand that category. So if an individual can demonstrate that they have raised capital and are willing to hire a number of Americans, why do we not allow them to start that job in America rather than going somewhere else to do it? So I believe we put in place small changes to our immigration policies that will, again, allow us to compete. Our startup legislation looks at how we can encourage our universities because we need capital, we need talent, but we also need the intellectual capital, and that comes from ideas. Our universities across this country do a good job of doing basic research. Our universities do not do as good a job as they could and should in moving those ideas from the laboratory into the marketplace. I know my time is about to expire so I will wrap up. What we do in our legislation as well is we do not add additional funding, but we take a small sliver, fifteenth-tenths of 1 percent of our existing research and development dollars, and actually use that as incentive funds to get ideas out of the laboratory into commercialization. So I know we are going to move to this legislation shortly. I do believe there were a number of Members, particularly newer Members, who have been working on this legislation across the aisle. That was an attempt to put together a broad bipartisan bill. I am not sure that is going to come to pass on the Senate floor, unfortunately, because on this issue I do agree with the Republican leader. This should not be Republican or Democratic legislation. This should be a bipartisan piece of legislation that would actually encourage startups to get the capital, to get the talent, to get the ideas, so we can actually make sure we move forward on job creation. The data is clear. The jobs over the last 20 years have come from these kinds of startup companies, the kind I was proud to help fund in my 20 years of identifying funding and working on these startup ventures. We need to do all we can to support them. We need to move this legislation as quickly as possible. My hope is that we can move beyond the rather narrowly drawn capital formation legislation that we are going to look at and look at these other areas around crowdfunding, around appropriate visa policies, around commercialization of intellectual capital to move these forward. I am going to yield the floor for my friend and colleague, someone who has been a leader on this issue as well, someone whom I know has been criss-crossing the country--over the last couple of days, recently, he came back from Austin, TX, where he was celebrated as a startup guru--and that is my friend, the Senator from Kansas. Let me also acknowledge the Senator from South Dakota who has been a leader, particularly on the regulation D reform. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.