RAISE Act

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a subject that I know is dear to the heart of the Presiding Officer, which is the sorry state of our campaign finance system and the need for the DISCLOSE Act of 2012, which we call DISCLOSE 2.0.

The Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate and special-interest money in our elections, bringing about an era in which corporations and other wealthy interests can drown out the voices of individual voters in our political system. Worse still, much of this spending is anonymous, so we don't even know who is spending millions to influence our elections.

Here is how my State's newspaper, the Providence Journal, explained it when the ruling came down:

The ruling will mean that, more than ever, big-spending

economic interests will determine who gets elected. More

money will especially pour into relentless attack campaigns.

Free speech for most individuals will

suffer because their voices will count for even less than

they do now. They will simply be drowned out by the big

money.

The Providence Journal had a lot of foresight with that warning. What has happened since then has proven them right. Senator John McCain recently said this:

I predicted when the United States Supreme Court, with

their absolute ignorance of what happens in politics, struck

down the law--

Referring to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law

--That there would be a flood of money into campaigns, not

transparent, unaccounted for, and this is exactly what is

happening.

Senator McCain, is it ever. In the 2010 midterm election, the first after Citizens United, there was more than a fourfold increase in expenditures from super PACs and other outside groups compared to 2006, with nearly three-quarters of political advertising coming from sources that were prohibited from spending money in 2006. Also in 2010, 501(c)(4) and (c)(6) not-for-profit organizations spent more than $135 million in unlimited and secret contributions. This anonymous secret spending rose from 1 percent of outside spending in 2006 to 44 percent in 2010.

We are already seeing the influence of money on the 2012 elections. Super PACs and other outside groups have spent around $140 million in this election cycle. That is about twice what was spent over the same period in 2008 during the last Presidential election. In the 2 weeks leading up to Super Tuesday, outside PACs that supported the Republican Presidential candidates spent three times as much on advertising as the campaigns did themselves.

There are already signs things are going to get even worse. The Washington Post reported:

Groups that do not reveal their funding sources have spent

$28.5 million on advertising related to the November

presidential matchup, or about ninety percent of the total.

Ninety percent. And these are groups that don't reveal their funding sources.

Our campaign finance system is broken. Action is required to fix it. Americans of all political stripes are disgusted by the influence of unlimited, anonymous corporate cash in our elections, and disgusted by campaigns that succeed or fail depending on how many billionaires the candidates have in their pockets. More and more, people believe their government responds only to wealthy and corporate interests.

As they see their jobs disappear and their wages stagnate and bailouts and special deals for the big guys, they lose ever more faith their elected officials are actually listening to them. Over the deafening roar of secret special interest spending, they get harder and harder to listen to.

This growing consensus across the political spectrum was reflected in the brief Senator John McCain and I filed with the Supreme Court last week in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock. In that brief, we urged the Court to reconsider the flawed central premise of its decision in Citizens United: the proposition that independent expenditures do not lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption.

As the statistics about anonymous spending and public perception make clear, this premise is discredited. I am proud to have worked on the brief with Senator McCain, who has long been a leader in Congress on campaign finance issues. I hope our partnership will mark the beginning of greater cooperation across party lines on this issue of vital importance to the integrity of our great American democracy. I also hope the Supreme Court will take heed of the nearly universal opinion that the system they have unleashed in Citizens United puts our very democracy in jeopardy.

Until the Court acts, or until we enact a constitutional amendment to repair what they have done, we are left with one weapon in the fight against the overwhelming tidal wave of money from special interests-- and that is disclosure. At least make them fess up to who they are.

That is why I stand here today in support of the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 or, as I said, DISCLOSE 2.0, in recognition of Senator Schumer's great work on the DISCLOSE Act. This legislation will shine a bright light on these powerful interests and their spending. With this legislation, which now has 43 cosponsors in the Senate, every citizen will know who is spending these great sums of money to get their candidates elected and to influence those candidates.

I would like to give particular thanks to the previous Presiding Officer, Senator Franken, and the current Presiding Officer, Senator Tom Udall, as well as Senators Chuck Schumer, Michael Bennet, Jeff Merkley, and Jeanne Shaheen for their hard work on developing this legislation. Senator Schumer, as we all know, has been leading the charge for disclosure since Citizens United upended and fouled our campaign finance system.

In 2010, with Senator Schumer's leadership, we came within one vote of passing the original DISCLOSE Act. Since then, the problem of anonymous, unaccountable special interest money has become much worse. We must redouble our efforts and pass DISCLOSE 2.0.

DISCLOSE 2.0 says two very simple things: First, if you are an organization, such as a corporation, a super PAC, or a 501(c)(4), and you are spending money in an election campaign in support of or in opposition to a candidate, you have to tell the public where that money came from and what you are spending it on in a timely manner.

That should not be a controversial idea to anyone, at least to anyone who is not seeking secret special influence. This chart shows how easy it is under our current system for wealthy interests to anonymously spend millions on election ads. This amounts to a form of legalized money laundering or identity laundering. Super PACs are supposed to disclose their donors under current law. But if someone wants to avoid that disclosure, they can set up a shell corporation, which may be nothing more than a P.O. box, and send the money to the super PAC through that.

Worse still, instead of using a shell corporation, they can pass the money through to a 501(c)(4), a so-called ``social welfare'' organization set up just for the purpose of spending money in elections. Think about that. The IRS gives nonprofit status to groups whose primary purpose in many cases is to shield billionaires and corporations spending money in elections from having their identities disclosed. In many cases, these 501(c)(4) groups are so closely affiliated with their super PACs they have all the same staff and all the same office space, and the (c)(4) groups still don't have to disclose the identities of their donors.

On this chart we see the money raised through the end of 2011 by two political groups started after Citizens United by Republican political operatives. These two organizations have the same staff and the same office space, and they run negative ads against many of the same candidates. One, American Crossroads, is a super PAC and is supposed to disclose its donors. The other, Crossroads GPS, is a 501(c)(4) group and doesn't have to disclose donors. Guess which one has raised more money. Of course it is the 501(c)(4) group which doesn't have to disclose its donors. That group has raised $76.8 million as compared to only $46.4 million by its sister super PAC.

This is, by no means, a unique situation. For corporations trying to buy influence through spending in elections, ``nondisclosure is always preferred,'' as an unnamed corporate lobbyist recently told Politico. Why? Well, for one thing there is no accountability--not to the company shareholders, not to their customers, and not to the public. Nondisclosure is ``preferred'' because it makes it impossible for the public and for law enforcement to track the corrupting influence of the money these corporations spend in elections. DISCLOSE 2.0 would put an end to using 501(c)(4) groups and shell corporations to shield the identities of big campaign contributors.

One thing that shouldn't be lost in this discussion of anonymous spending is the fact there is one person to whom this spending is certainly not anonymous, and that is the candidate--the elected official. The donors manage to hide their identities from the public, but they can sure tell the candidate how much money they put into that candidate's super PAC and what positions they want the candidate to take on issues. What this creates is a perfect

formula for corruption: wealthy corporations and individuals spending millions of dollars to influence a candidate without any oversight or public accountability or scrutiny.

Also, as a former Attorney General--and I know the Presiding Officer, the Senator from New Mexico, can appreciate this as well--a well-heeled donor doesn't have to make the contribution necessarily, doesn't have to launch the ad necessarily. They can also secretly threaten a massive expenditure against a candidate if the candidate doesn't vote right on their issue. Political scientist Norm Ornstein recently said:

I have had this tale told to me by a number of lawmakers.

You're sitting in your office and a lobbyist comes in and

says, ``I'm working with Americans for a Better America. And

I can't tell you who's funding them, but I can tell you they

really, really want this amendment in the bill.'' And who

knows what they'll do? They have more money than God.

If the candidate complies and does the right thing by the amendment or the right thing by the bill, the expenditure is never made. There will be no paper trail; no trace of the threat that drove that vote-- that corrupted that vote--was ever made.

The whole rationale for unlimited spending was that it was going to be done independently of the candidate's campaign. That has proven false. The reality is that super PACs are anything but independent. Campaigns and super PACs share fundraising lists, donors, former staff, and consultants. Candidates appear at fundraisers for their super PACs, and super PACs recycle ads originally run by the candidates. They are free to act as the ``evil twins'' of candidate campaigns, as one FEC Commissioner put it, raising unlimited, anonymous money and then spending it on massive amounts of advertising--most of it negative-- which further hides the identity of the interest behind the ad because if all you are doing is trashing a candidate, you don't even have to show what your interest is, let alone your identity.

About 70 percent of ads in this election cycle have, as a result, been negative ads, up from only 9 percent in 2008. This brings us to the second thing DISCLOSE 2.0 does. If someone is a top executive or a major donor of an organization spending millions of dollars on campaign ads, they have to take responsibility for their ads, just the way we do as candidates. These are reasonable provisions that should have wide support from Democrats and Republicans alike. As Trevor Potter, a Republican former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, said in a statement submitted to the Rules Committee of the Senate:

[DISCLOSE 2.0 is] . . . appropriately targeted, narrowly

tailored, clearly constitutional, and desperately needed.

We have made every effort to craft an effective and fair proposal while imposing the least possible burden on covered organizations. Passing this law would remove a dark cloud of unlimited, anonymous money from our elections, and it would prove to the American people that Congress is capable of fairness, equality, and following the fundamental principle of a government ``of the people, by the people, and for the people.''

I urge my colleagues to support the DISCLOSE Act of 2012.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, while we are waiting for the next speaker to arrive, I wanted to take a moment and discuss the brief Senator McCain and I filed in the Supreme Court last week. It can be found at http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/download/?id=e3ba7f1b-d132 4aef-b5bc-c49fd711fc51.

The Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision was in a difficult situation. No member of the Court had ever run in an election for office. It may be the first time in the history of a country that no member of the Supreme Court had ever run for office, so it is a Supreme Court that as a corporate group was uniquely inexperienced in the actual ins and outs of elections and politics.

Moreover, the way the Citizens United case came up to the Court, the question they ended up deciding is one that they asked for additional briefing on. It is a question that, in many respects, the Court raised itself. And so the Court did not have the benefit of the usual process of a case beginning in the trial court and amassing a record of evidence, of testimony, of witnesses, of a review of all of that at the appellate court level, and then final review at the Supreme Court. So they did something very unusual. They actually made a finding of fact.

A finding of fact is not something Supreme Courts are supposed to do in the first instance. That is the job of the trial judge and the jury, if there is a jury trial. Those are the fact-finders in our system of law. And certainly for a Supreme Court that has an appellate tribunal between it and the trial branches, as our Federal system does, it is very unusual for them to be making findings of fact. They made findings of fact in this case. And, unfortunately, because they had no experience in elections, any of them, and because they had no record, they made a finding of fact that was not in fact a fact. They made a finding of a false fact.

The mistake they made was to determine that no amount of corporate spending in an election could create either the risk or the appearance of corruption, and I think the practical facts of that are pretty easy to rebut.

They stood that finding of fact, that premise, on two subordinate premises and we rebut both of them in the brief. If I have further time, I will come back to that, but I see that the Senator from New Hampshire is here and I do not want to cut into her time, so I yield to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, and I appreciate her great work through the long period of discussion and draftsmanship that brought 2.0 to the floor with its now 43 cosponsors.

The great experiment that the Founders of this country embarked upon when they founded this country was to allow for a democratic form of government that was governed by the people--not kings, not lords, not pharaohs, by the people. It has been a consistent thread throughout our history at important times.

As the Civil War came to a close and our beloved President Lincoln stood at Gettysburg to give his great address, he talked about the importance of a government ``of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' That has always been the core, heart, and hallmark of the American form of government.

It has lit a blaze that has illuminated the rest of the world as well. It is not just an American value. People from around the world look at this and say: You know, it can be that way.

I believe it is. We operate in a modern world in which we are bombarded by media. The average person, the average, ordinary member of ``the people,'' does not have much access to that media, cannot get his or her voice much heard in that bombardment. But if someone has enormous amounts of money, either because they are a corporation with a vast treasury or because they are a billionaire, they can take a big chunk of that media and can use it to broadcast their view. That will drown out other voices that do not have that power. So it really does attack the basic premise of ``we the people.''

I think three things went wrong. First of all, this is a Supreme Court that, unlike most if not all other Supreme Courts, has no political experience. None of them have ever run for office, so they do not have a practical sense of how politics engages in an election.

Second, because they sort of invented this question, they did not have a record where people who did know about politics and did know about elections and did know about corruption could assemble a record from which they could then learn. So they were operating in a much greater vacuum than the Supreme Court usually does.

Finally, they made two presumptions that supported it. One was that the super PACs and all these big entities would be independent from the candidates. We have seen that was a false assumption. That was a wrong premise. Now the super PACs are connected to a candidate. They have one purpose: to get the candidate elected. They have funds raised by the candidate, they share staff with the candidate, they share consultants with the candidate. They use the same footage as the candidate. The idea that they are independent has been made preposterous by the facts.

The second was that there would be disclosure so the public could at least evaluate, OK, this is the coal mining industry coming after somebody who is fighting for climate change. We get that. We can make an appropriate judgment about that use of corporate money to attack a candidate. They were wrong about that as well. That is why we are here on this DISCLOSE 2.0, and we have been working so hard to make sure this bill has gotten to the floor in the good shape it has been.

Absolutely dead wrong, as proven by reality. It is not just a theoretical wrongness, it is a factual, actual wrongness.

Not only did they not wrestle with it, it is not clear they even thought about it. When there are people who have come out of the judicial monastery--not quite the right word because they are men and women alike--but out of the separate province of high-end adjudication, they are not familiar with this. They did not think of this. They didn't think of that, and the other thing they didn't think of was that the threat of launching a multimillion-dollar negative attack against a candidate could have a corrupting effect, even if no dollars were ever spent.

If the threat is successful, if the scheme works, there is no trail left to it. Before Citizens United, if someone wanted to make a threat, their threat was limited to a big PAC contribution, having a big fundraiser, things like that. It was not a real threat in the sense it could knock somebody out of their office.

Now the idea that a corporate identity can hide its identity, can launder its identity through 501(c)(4)s and then launch a multimillion- dollar attack in somebody's State is a credible threat, and I think that is a threat, among others, they overlooked completely.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the importance of passing the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, more commonly known as the user fee reauthorization bill. This bipartisan legislation would reauthorize the user fee program for the medical device industry, incredible important in my home State of Minnesota, as well as the pharmaceutical industry.

This bill represents over 1 year of negotiations between the FDA, Congress, and the industry. I believe we have achieved a good balance in terms of the improved performance, incentives through increased accountability, more meaningful goals, important process improvements, better metrics, and additional resources.

Not only does this legislation include the user fee agreements negotiated between the industry and the FDA, it also includes several reforms that will benefit the entire health care system and improve public health. The bill will make medicines safer for children. It will protect the global drug supply chain. It will improve access to safe, innovative medical devices and treatments, and it will tackle the drug shortage crisis that is spreading across the country.

On Monday I talked about the work I did leading the effort on drug shortages. I am so pleased that Senator Harkin and Senator Enzi included this provision in this bill. But I also believe it is important to talk about the guts of the bill; that is, the improvements with the FDA and the work that needs to be done.

I commend the HELP Committee, on which the Presiding Officer serves, and specifically Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Enzi for being dedicated to ensuring that this process was open, transparent, and bipartisan.

At a time when Congress has been deeply divided, this legislation shows we can still overcome our differences and address the needs of the country through strong bipartisan cooperation.

For the State of Minnesota, passing this bill is vital to our continued economic growth and strength. With strong institutions such as the Mayo Clinic and the University of Minnesota and innovative companies such as 3M and Boston Scientific and Medtronic and St. Jude's, Minnesota's job numbers have fared better than the national average, with our unemployment rate now more than 2\1/2\ points below the national average; that is, 5.6 percent compared to 8.1 percent.

That is also attributed to the fact that Minnesota has one of the largest and most dynamic pockets of medical device companies in the country. I mentioned a few of the big ones, but there are also many small thriving companies. Many of our biggest innovations have come from the small companies, adding up to about 400 firms employing over 35,000 people across our State.

We cannot forget that it was Minnesota that brought the world one of the biggest innovations in the country. I am not talking about the Post-It note, although it is true that did come from our State. I am talking about the pacemaker, which we give thanks to a company called Micronic that started out in a garage in Minneapolis.

So our roots run deep in this industry. But medical technology is just not important to Minnesota, it is important to our country, putting billions of dollars in our economy each year. It is important to the world. The devices we make in the United States do not just save lives locally, they save lives globally.

As we look at potential exports and how we are going to reach the President's goal of doubling our exports in 5 years, and how we are going to get out of the economic rut we have been in, a lot has to do with exports, new markets, and a rising middle class in countries such as China and India where people are finally going to the hospital, will use our medical devices, and will bring jobs to the United States.

But that only works if these medical devices get approved and if we are able to make them, have the skilled workers to make them, and can beat our competition, basically, of companies in other countries that may be growing unless we make sure we have a proper approval process here that keeps things safe but also moves smoothly and quickly. The kind of meaningful, innovative work that our country needs more of is this kind of work. It is high-tech manufacturing, and that is what we need more of in this country.

As cochair of the bipartisan Med-Tech Caucus in the Senate, I have had several conversations with FDA about ways to improve this regulatory environment. I have introduced bills, as has the Presiding Officer, and looked at the

importance of putting in things that guarantee safety but also make sure we improve the process so we get more innovation and more jobs in this country.

If we are not careful, as we know, continents such as Europe--if they move faster than us, as they have in some instances, then we have a problem because then the venture capital money goes to Europe. With China requiring country-of-origin approval, we can have a situation where companies decide they can get things done quicker if they move their business to a place such as Europe and then get the approvals in place so they can sell in China. We do not want that to happen.

The FDA will now be responsible for total review time goals. That is an important part of this bill. This measures the time from submission of a new application to the time the technology is available to patients. Putting the FDA on the hook for this measure will streamline the approval process and help get innovative and lifesaving devices and treatments to patients.

In addition to improved review times and performance standards, the one aspect I hear about the most from our medical device companies, both small and large, is they need better communication between the FDA and industry. This agreement takes significant steps to address this issue by opening clear lines of discussion before a submission is made. This helps provide companies with clear direction and requires the FDA to stick to their commitments.

It also requires interaction between the FDA and the applicant during the review process to keep everyone on the same page and avoid miscommunication and costly delays. The agreement also requires the FDA to work with companies to find the best path forward if goals are not met. Most importantly, this legislation will give the FDA the tools necessary to meet these goals.

This agreement provides for $595 million in user fees over the next 5 years. This is meant to provide for additional reviewers, enhanced training, and increased efficiencies to help improve FDA performance and help patients get access to the most innovative and safest products available.

But a positive user fee agreement does not guarantee success. We must also focus on the execution and administration of these new resources and new guidelines. That is why I introduced a bipartisan bill with Richard Burr of North Carolina, a Republican, and Michael Bennet of Colorado, a Democrat, that would significantly improve the regulatory process.

It would tackle three important things related to the approval process: First, it would increase efficiency by strengthening the agency's least burdensome principle, which has been continuously overlooked by FDA's reviewers. The average time to approve an application has increased 43 percent from the 2003-to-2007 time period to 2010. This simply is unacceptable.

Second, it would improve conflict-of-interest provisions making it easier for the FDA to recruit top-line experts to take part in the review process.

This would allow the FDA to protect the integrity of the review from undue conflicts of interest but also take advantage of available expertise.

Third, it would require the FDA to use an independent consulting organization to assess the management processes at the Center on Devices. This would encourage the agency to consider the impact of its decisions on innovation, while also considering the balance between the risk and benefits of the new devices.

I am thankful that, in working with Senators Harkin and Enzi, we were able to include these improvements in this bipartisan legislation.

Equally as important to improving the regulatory process at the FDA, this legislation also includes my provision on drug shortages. I have come to the floor several times in the past year to talk about the crisis as it has impacted individuals all across our country. There is the story of a little 4-year-old boy who was going to get treatment for his leukemia, and his parents were put in a panic. He was a little bald boy with a smile on his face. They found out that the drug he needed, Cytarabine, was missing in action; it was not in the hospital, not in the pharmacy. They were actually looking into booking flights to Canada so that he could get the drug treatment he needed. At the last minute someone located the drug.

Sadly, that doesn't happen in many cases across the country, where we have had people come forward and talk about missing breast cancer treatments and people who have died because drugs were not available. The fact that physicians, nurses, and pharmacists are spending hours and hours of their time, which should be spent with patients, looking for pharmaceuticals is an outrage.

We know there are many reasons for this. We are glad the industry was willing to work with us to come up with at least a short-term patch here, where the FDA will be alerted as a result of the provisions in this bill when the pharmaceutical companies believe there is going to be a shortage. Right now, they are only required to do it for orphan drugs. Now they will be required to do it for all drugs. These can be shortages as a result of raw materials that are not there, as a result of mergers in the pharmaceutical industry, or shortages as a result of a decision not to produce a drug because it may not be as profitable or shortages because of all kinds of things that could happen in the course of commerce.

The key point here is that when the FDA finds out early, they have been able to avert drug crises. They can find another manufacturer in our country or abroad, and they get the drugs in; they have done it over 200 times in 2 years. This will give them more tools to be able to avert what is an escalating crisis in this country where we are seeing more and more shortages of drugs on a weekly basis.

As I said, I am glad this bipartisan provision--and Senator Casey introduced it originally with me, and we have had support from Senator Collins and others, and our working group worked out an agreement to get this provision in the Senate bill, with good prospects in the House under the leadership of Congresswoman DeGette from Colorado.

I thank my colleagues for their work for two reasons. One, this is important for medical devices and pharmaceuticals in terms of getting fast approval, and that is better for patients and for jobs in America as we become a country again that makes products and invests in goods that we export to the world. To do that, you need the regulatory process working.

Second, this bill is good because it contains a drug shortage provision to finally get at something that is long overdue, and that is the escalating crisis of drugs that have gone missing, which should be in the hands of patients across this country. Now we put them in a much better position in terms of being able to find alternative drugs in either our country or others, so we don't have these shortages we are seeing every day. That is why I think it is very important that we get this bill done soon.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, yesterday a group of four Senators introduced legislation that I would like to highlight in this brief opportunity on the Senate floor. We introduced S. 3217. This legislation is called Startup 2.0 and was introduced by Senator Warner, Senator Coons, Senator Rubio, and me to begin the process of trying to create a better entrepreneurial environment in the United States, to create opportunities for entrepreneurials for innovation and to grow the economy and create jobs.

I want to personally thank those three Senators--two Republicans, two Democrats--who decided that this common phrase we hear around Washington, DC--we can't do anything this

year because it is an election year--is nothing that we are willing to tolerate. We didn't get the marching orders and instructions to say we cannot work and accomplish good work for America because there is a November election.

I want to highlight to my colleagues and ask them to join us in this effort to grow the number of Senators who find this kind of legislation valuable and appealing and to commit myself to work with Senator Warner, Senator Rubio, and Senator Coons to see that we are successful in 2012. I have talked about this legislation before. In fact, Senator Warner and I introduced the Startup Act months ago. We then joined with Senator Coons and Senator Rubio, who had introduced legislation called the AGREE Act. We took the best components of our two pieces of legislation and yesterday, as I said, introduced S. 3217, the Startup 2.0 Act.

This legislation has about five components. In broad terms, it is based upon the Kauffman Foundation Center for Entrepreneurship based in Kansas City, which is the most world-renowned organization that studies and promotes entrepreneurship. Their proposals were based upon their research and are included in many aspects of this legislation. Part of it is dealing with the regulatory environment that a startup company faces and to require that the benefits of that regulation exceed the costs. That kind of requirement has been in the law before but only for the departments, not for the independent agencies. So we know the independent agencies create lots of hurdles and handicaps in regard to the ability of particularly a young company, a beginning company, a startup company to succeed.

In fact, in my view, our legislation is based upon something I was told once by an engineer who said that for an airplane to fly, there are two forces at work: one is thrust and the other is drag. The thrust has to be sufficient to overcome the drag or you could reduce the drag so the thrust is not so necessary. What I like about this legislation is that it is so focused on reducing the drag--getting things out of the way. It is not a thrust program, meaning more government programs, more government spending, more government. This legislation provides aspects that are designed to get government out of the way and to reduce the drag so that the airplane can launch and can fly and can succeed.

One of those, of course, is the regulatory environment. Another is the tax environment. Startup companies face significant challenges in accessing enough capital to get off the ground. We were successful in passing the JOBS Act signed by the President a few weeks ago. This legislation picks up where that legislation left off.

Incidentally, I read this morning that crowdfunding is already beginning to develop a piece--a development that occurs as a result of the passage of the JOBS Act. So once Washington, DC--let me say that differently. Once Washington, DC, gets out of the way so that the private sector can pursue opportunities, those opportunities are pursued. We see that already happening with the passage of the JOBS Act in regard to crowd source funding in which we are gathering capital investments from people across the country to help new businesses commence.

This legislation, the Startup Act, makes permanent the 100-percent exemption on capital gains taxes for investments held at least 5 years in qualified small businesses so investors can provide financial stability at this critical point in their growth. The legislation also includes a limited, targeted research and development tax credit for startups less than 5 years old. So we alter R&D, we alter income taxes, and we alter capital gains in a way that is designed to create better opportunities for access to credit.

We attempt in this legislation to accelerate the commercialization of research. Billions of dollars are being spent--taxpayer dollars--at universities and colleges across the Nation. We want to incent that research to be devoted toward what can be commercialized, that brings new products, new businesses to market. So we take existing resources and utilize those dollars to reward those universities that take their research dollars and use them in ways that are more likely to be commercialized--in other words, create products, pursue dreams, and ultimately create jobs.

In addition, we create competition--at least knowledge of information, knowledge that allows somebody who is thinking about starting a business to decide which States are the most progrowth- oriented and make decisions about their location--where they should locate--based upon information. That then would also encourage States to be very entrepreneurial and progrowth, pro-innovation in their State policies.

Perhaps the most significant portion of this legislation creates two new visas. The first is an entrepreneur's visa to help foreign-born entrepreneurs currently legally in the United States to register their business and to employ Americans. In many instances, foreign-born entrepreneurs, here legally, have an idea and want to begin a company that will employ Americans but are told their visa does not allow them to remain in the United States.

The second visa that is created in this legislation is related to STEM--and this is a topic of conversation I think is so important--to retain foreign students who are studying in the United States, who have a Ph.D. or a master's degree in science, technology, engineering or mathematics. It is silly, it is wrongheaded for us to educate these individuals and tell them we no longer want them in the United States once they receive their degree. So the Startup Act 2.0 makes two important modifications to that current system of visas.

In addition, we include a provision from the legislation introduced by Senators Rubio and Coons, a provision that eliminates the per- country numerical limit for employment-based immigrant visas, which is another handicap in our system that prevents those who have the greatest skills and talents and intellect from being eligible for a legal visa to remain in the United States.

I heard a story from an entrepreneur in California who was ready to hire foreign-born immigrants who were U.S.-educated individuals with Ph.D.s in computer education--computer science, for example--and yet the H 1B visa program failed them. There were no slots available. So, yes, the company hired these 68 Ph.D.s--technicians, highly skilled and educated individuals--but they hired them in Canada, not in the United States. So not only is that a loss of 68 jobs, but many of those people who are now working in Canada will be the next set of entrepreneurs, and they will start their businesses, their startup companies, and grow their companies in Canada, not in the United States. So we lose in both employment today and in opportunity for American jobs in the future because we have a visa system that handicaps our ability to get the highly educated, trained, and technically skilled individuals in the United States.

Today in the local paper I read some statistics that I think are important for us to remember and to know. Research by the Partnership for a New American Economy and Partnership for New York City shows a widening gap between the supply and demand of American graduates educated in the so-called STEM fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The number of job openings requiring such degrees is increasing three times the rate of the rest of the job market. However, college students majoring in non-STEM fields still outnumber math and science-minded counterparts five to one, according to the National Science Foundation. So five people are majoring in something other than science or mathematics for every one who majors in math or science in the United States.

If this trend continues, American businesses will be looking for an estimated 800,000 workers with advanced STEM degrees in 2018--just 6 years away--but will only find 550,000 American graduates with that type of training. Not only do we need to fill that gap with those who are available to us today, but we also need to encourage education in the United States and educate American students in the STEM field as well. Without easing these restrictions, we will continue to have 60 percent of foreign graduate students in the United States enrolled in science and engineering today. So 60 percent of foreign students are majoring in science and mathematics--not true of American students--and we need to reverse that course.

A study earlier this year showed that half of the Nation's top venture-backed companies have at least one immigrant founder. Three out of four claim at least one foreign-born executive.

The point is that we want the economy to grow, we want to create jobs, and we want to do the commonsense things that get government out of the way to allow the private sector to be entrepreneurial, to be innovative, and to create great opportunities for Americans today and, equally important, for Americans tomorrow. We want our kids and grandkids to have the opportunity to live and work in a growing, exciting economy. That requires the Congress to take actions today to create that environment for the private sector to succeed in creating entrepreneurship in the United States.

When we look at the last few years, we see that the net jobs filled in the United States have been filled by entrepreneurs, by new startup companies, not by existing companies. In fact, the trend is that big companies are often laying off workers while startup companies are the ones obviously hiring individuals.

I ask my colleagues to take a look at the legislation that my colleagues, Senators Warner, Rubio, Coons, and I introduced. I look forward to working with the leadership of the Senate to see that it receives appropriate consideration. We ought to do all we can do. We ought not ever use the excuse that we can't do everything; therefore, we can do nothing. These are all commonsense ideas that, in my view, will be supported by at least 80 percent of my colleagues here in the Senate. We ought not use the idea that it is an election year so we can't accomplish anything. The country cannot afford to wait. It needs our action now.

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 400, S. 3187.

Madam President, we are now on the motion to proceed to the FDA user fees bill. Republicans control the first half hour, the majority the second half hour. We are working on an agreement to consider amendments to the FDA bill. We are close to being able to finalize that. We hope to get an agreement and avoid filing cloture on the bill.

Measures Placed On The Calendar--S. 3220 and S. 3221

There are two bills at the desk due for a second reading.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

The Chair read for the second time a couple of bills. I object to both of them.

Madam President, when 67-year-old Pamela Gunter started treatment for breast cancer, her doctor knew it would be a grueling fight. He also knew it was a fight she could win. Pamela's doctor put her on Taxol, a common chemotherapy drug. The results were excellent. Her tumor shrank. Her prognosis was good.

Then one day last spring, no more Taxol. The doctor could not get it. It is one of the most popular and effective treatments for breast, lung, and ovarian cancer, and it suddenly disappeared from the markets in Nevada. Doctors couldn't get it; drug suppliers could not say why. So Pamela's doctor was forced to use a much more expensive and much less effective course of treatment. The cancer spread. By the time Taxol was available again, Pamela was dead. She left behind a loving husband, two grown sons, and a grandchild. But with the right treatment she would still be alive today. Her Las Vegas doctor said a shortage of this common generic medicine directly contributed to her death. Had this product been available, she would have been fine. She of course would have suffered; that is what patients on chemo do. But their suffering is worth it because they know it is lifesaving.

Pamela is not the only American affected by a shortage of Taxol and other lifesaving drugs. Every day in hospitals across the country Americans already dealing with devastating illnesses must also face shortages of FDA-approved medications that could keep them alive. Today Taxol is still scarce. And chemotherapy drugs are not the only ones in short supply; supplies of nausea medication. The Capitol physician is, among other things, an oncologist, Dr. Monahan. I have talked to him about cancer a lot in the last year, he and other doctors. My wife would go every week to this place where everybody was hooked up to chemo. Most of them were women, but there were a few men. Just a few years ago that would have been a place where these women were retching by virtue of their vomiting. Sometimes--in fact a lot of the times-- they had to hospitalize these women to stop the vomiting from these medicines.

Now we have nausea medication these patients are given to stop their suffering. At least, although they may be going through a lot of nausea, they are not throwing up most of the time. But supplies of nausea medications and other drugs that reduce the side effects of cancer treatment are limited. On Monday, one Las Vegas oncologist said he ordered 10 drugs from his supplier. He could get eight. He said that is typical; doctors never know which drugs will be accessible and which will not.

Last year FDA reported shortages of 231 drugs, including a number of chemotherapy medicines. In the last 6 years, drug shortages have quadrupled, gone up 400 percent. Congress cannot solve every problem in this country, we know that, but this is one problem we can solve with cooperation from the drug manufacturers. It will come about much more clearly if we pass the bill that is before the Senate now.

The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, the one I have talked about several times already today, will help establish effective lines of communication between drugmakers, the Food and Drug Administration, and doctors. When the FDA gets early warning from manufacturers that shortages are coming, it can act quickly to find alternative sources of medication and ease supply problems by, for example, taking from one place where they have a lot of a medicine and moving it someplace where they do not. Drugmakers averted 200 shortages last year by voluntarily notifying the FDA of trouble on the horizon. But many shortages, perhaps all 231 last year, could have been prevented if drugmakers had shared information with FDA.

Our bill would make that necessary and force it to take place. That is why Congress must act quickly to pass the legislation that is now before the Senate, which will ensure the FDA has the resources to approve new drugs and medical devices quickly and efficiently.

Passing this legislation would not bring Pamela back, it would not give her another day to spend with her husband, another week to say goodbye to her sons, or another year to get to know her grandchild. But this legislation will help prevent drug shortages like what took Pamela away from her family far too soon.

As I indicated, we are very close to an agreement, a path forward on this bill, and that would be very good for this country. I hope we can arrive at that by 11 o'clock today.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that execution of the previous order with respect to S. 3187 be delayed until 12:30 p.m. today; that at 12:30, the majority leader be recognized prior to execution of the order, and that all provisions under the previous order remain in effect at that time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the execution of the previous order with respect to S. 3187 be delayed until 2:15 today; that at 2:15 p.m. the majority leader be recognized prior to the execution of the order, and that all provisions of the previous order remain in effect at that time.

Mr. President, we are close to a way to move forward on the FDA bill. I do say this, however: On this side we have cleared everything. So the disputes now are with the Republicans on the Republican amendment. We are willing to do whatever is necessary on that amendment. So I hope we can get this worked out. It would sure be helpful. We have heard all the speeches about this important bill. It really is important, as I indicated today in talking about some of the shortages we have had in Nevada where people die as a result of not having the medicines.

We are nearing a time where we cannot prolong this any more. This legislation is necessary because the bill--the information we have in this bill, everything we need expires at the end of this month.

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

Mr. President, the first thing we are going to talk about-- I have had conversations in the last few days--in fact, a longer period of time than that--with Senator Vitter, Senator Coburn, Senator Johnson, Senator Shelby, and others on flood insurance.

Like a lot of things that happen, it has become critical that we do something on flood insurance. It affects almost 6 million people. We need to get something done on a more permanent basis.

There has been a general agreement--we do not have it in writing yet, but I want to make sure the record on the floor is clear what my intention is--that we would have a 60-day short-term extension. In that extension there would be language for the duration of 60 days that would include in that the second-home subject that is part of the underlying bill on which Senator Coburn is focused. That would be for 60 days. Then I would be happy to make a statement here on the floor today that during the next work period we will move to that bill, the flood insurance bill, so we would have the opportunity to make it permanent. It is very important we do that. With the economy being such as it is, we cannot, in this area--and probably others but in this one--we cannot have these short-term extensions. It does not allow people to do what they need to do. Mr. President, 40,000 homes a day go through a process where they have to have flood insurance. If there is no flood insurance, that is 40,000 loans every day that will not be approved.

Senators Johnson and Shelby have done good work to narrow down the list of amendments we would have to consider when the Senate takes up this long-term flood insurance bill. It is my understanding there are a dozen or so amendments--six, eight on each side. But I hope we can do that. If we cannot do that, we are going to have to go to the bill anyway.

I wanted to make sure Senator Vitter, who is on the floor today, understands that is my understanding of things he and I have talked about in the last couple weeks.

I appreciate the work that Senators Johnson, Tester, Shelby, Coburn, and Vitter have put into working out an agreement on flood insurance.

As Senators have noted, this program that provides insurance coverage to 5.5 million people is set to expire next week.

If the program were to expire, new housing construction would stall, real estate transactions would come to a halt, and taxpayers would be on the hook for future disasters. So this is something that we have to do.

I understand that Senators Johnson and Shelby have done good work to narrow down the list of amendments that we would consider when the Senate takes up a long-term flood insurance bill. I believe that they have made

good progress. And we could consider eight or even fewer relevant amendments per side on a long-term bill.

And thus I believe that the Senate can consider a long-term bill in the next work period. And I am committed to turning to a long-term bill in June.

Mr. President, it is my understanding he was going to ask me a question, because I do not want to lose the floor.

Mr. President, I am glad the Republican leader is on the floor. We have worked very hard to arrive at this point where I am going to ask for this consent agreement. I appreciate everyone's help, and it takes everyone's help to get to where we are. That is why we call them unanimous consent agreements.

I ask unanimous consent that the only first-degree amendments in order to the bill that is now pending before the Senate be the following: Bingaman No. 2111; McCain No. 2107----

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

Madam President, I come to the floor today because we dare not stand here while a menace threatens children across our country with too many untested chemicals present in everyday consumer products, products intended for children's use, such as baby bottles and nursery furniture. Many of them contain chemicals that have never been tested for human safety. These chemicals should be tested in industry laboratories, not in our children's bodies. It is time to update the law to protect them.

This picture shows some of the moms, many who traveled long distances yesterday to come to the Capitol with signs demanding ``safer chemicals now.'' Many of the moms had little children with them.

They are pleading with us. They are saying: Senators, understand what is taking place. Threats to our children should not be tolerated in America.

These moms are right to be concerned that their families are not being protected from dangerous chemicals. It is our responsibility, the responsibility of those in the Senate and the House, to fix our broken chemical laws. But until these laws are fixed, toxic chemicals--the word ``toxic'' is a replacement word for poisonous--toxic chemicals will continue to gnaw away at our children's bodies, their health, and their well-being.

Studies by CDC scientists found 212 industrial chemicals, including 6 carcinogens, coursing through America's children's bodies.

``Toxic Chemicals Pose Significant Health Risks.''

This chart tells a very bad, a very sad story: Five percent of pediatric

cancers, 10 percent of diabetes, 10 percent of Parkinson's disease, and 30 percent of childhood asthma are significant health threats to children. And instead of protecting us from harmful chemicals, our current law falls short.

A law called TSCA was designed to eliminate these threats to children's health. It passed in the 1970s. It is so severely flawed that the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office testified that it is a ``high-risk area of the law.'' Imagine that: TSCA, because of the fact that it is so severely flawed, is a high-risk area of the law.

In nearly 35 years, TSCA has allowed EPA to require testing of only 200 of more than 80,000 chemicals. Thousands of new chemicals are introduced every year in industrial and research facilities, but only 200 over that time were tested. What does that say? When you think about the number of children we are trying to protect, 80,000 chemicals, and EPA could require testing for only 200 of them, and only 5 were banned. It is hard to believe the chemical industry fought for years to keep the status quo alive at the expense of our lives, our children's lives, our children's health.

Recently the Chicago Tribune exposed how the industry used dirty tricks and junk science to drive their public misinformation campaign. They wanted to mislead the public about what is going on. Their series detailed how the industry repeatedly bullied and lied to State legislators to prevent commonsense reform. They bankrolled phony experts. A doctor in one instance prominently stood up there and defended a chemical material, a fire retardant. They are brought in there to invent stories that spout the company line, protecting not the health of children but protecting their profits. It is a terrible exchange--all at the expense of safety and health.

It is clear that chemical manufacturers purposefully hid the dangers of toxic flame retardants. We have a chart here that shows the average couch, for instance, has over 2 pounds of flame-retardant chemicals in its foam cushions, chemicals that have been linked to developmental problems and other health risks. The Presiding Officer has cautioned us about this, as well, that there are discharges when these are compressed that release the toxic chemicals into the air. Scientists have warned us about these chemicals since the 1970s, and yet they show up in household furniture, including baby crib mattresses and high- chair cushions.

The Chicago Tribune report said that:

A typical American baby is born with the highest recorded

concentrations of flame retardants among infants in the

world.

But we are not here to attack chemicals. We are saying sort out those that are necessary and good for our sustainability, but there are hidden in there products that are dangerous, that are contaminants, that can bring terrible things to children, terrible health threats. Hundreds of useful everyday products contain chemicals, but it is our responsibility to make sure they are all safe, and today we don't know what is in the air, the atmosphere, and is poisonous.

Here is an example. Everybody recognizes what this is, a baby bottle. We have all bought them or seen them used for our kids. But chemicals in some baby bottles have been linked to serious health threats. Imagine, as a child takes nourishment, they are taking in a substance that can be dangerous to their health and make them sick--or worse.

When we use these products, the chemicals in them can end up in our bodies. In essence, the American public has become a living, breathing repository for chemical substances. No one should accept this standoff, and most do not. Those who are aware of what is taking place don't want to hear any excuses. They say: Get rid of these things. Let us know what is in there so we can protect our children and shield them from these threats to their health and their well-being.

Everyone--from some chemical manufacturers to businesses that use chemicals in their products, to environmental, labor, and health groups--has called for reforming our chemical laws, and we will not wait. I ask my colleagues not to wait here. Join us in this quest to save our children's health to make sure they grow up as healthy as we can enable them to do. We will not wait any longer, and we cannot let lobbyists run out the clock.

Lobbyists. Those are people, who for a fee, will represent almost anybody. But in this case, we are looking at not those who bring in good information or a good product, but those who are defending companies that are producing products that are dangerous for all the children who are exposed.

My bill, the Safe Chemicals Act, lays out a vision for strong, effective, and pragmatic regulation of chemicals. The bill simply requires the chemical makers to prove that their products, their chemicals are safe before they end up in children's bodies by being put into a product that children use.

Most of the thousands of chemicals we use every day are safe, but this bill will separate the safe chemicals from the ones that are not-- the ones that threaten our children and our families. It will ensure that chemicals are tested and that EPA can take unsafe uses of chemicals off the market.

This bill is common sense. I am sure those who might be listening and those who might read the story from the Chicago Tribune and the research they did will find it very difficult to understand why it is we can't take the steps in here in the Congress to make their children safe. We do it in all kinds of ways to protect our kids. We want them to be able to grow and develop as children should--healthy, healthy kids.

Some chemical industry lobbyists say the cost of testing all these chemicals would be too high. Talk to a parent whose children carry lots of toxins in their bodies already. Talk to the mothers who carry these toxins in their bodies and can transmit them very easily to their children, particularly in pregnancy. So, too high? Too high has to be judged not by the chemical company making a profit and wanting to make more.

We cannot violate our responsibility to the mothers and fathers and the relatives and the families, where little kids live and enjoy life. What about that cost to the damage of their health? What about the cost to them? How high is that cost?

I would like one of these chemical manufacturer executives to stand up to parents who are worried about the health and the well-being of their children and say they are not making enough money and they are going to have to pump more of these threatening materials into the atmosphere without submitting them for testing. What about the cost to the parents who have to pay for their care?

The bottom line is this: If we don't act to protect Americans from thousands of toxic chemicals in everyday consumer products, who is going to do it? It is our responsibility.

Throughout this process we have invited input from all sides of this issue, including the chemical industry. I have extended an open invitation to my Republican colleagues: Think about it. Look at it through the eyes of your children and of your families. Think about it. Or would you rather go to the bank with a larger deposit because you are doing something that is a threat to children of any age and any stage? So I asked colleagues from the Republican side to work with us. Work with me to fix this broken law.

The one thing we will not do--and I know I speak for many others who are cosponsoring this legislation--we will not accept inaction. It is time to act. We want to mark up legislation to reform TSCA and move this legislation to the Senate floor, where decisions can be made. Opinions of individuals who may say, No, we would rather go ahead and enlarge our bank accounts, our cash reserves--let them say it in front of the public. That is when we will be conducting the kind of a test we should be doing here.

We want to move the legislation to the Senate floor and have a vote on it. Hopefully good judgment and good sense will prevail and this will get through and get to the President's desk so he can sign it and start the process of protecting our kids. It is time to come together to finally fix this law and protect our families from toxic chemicals.

With that, I yield the floor.