how to use that information. to say that we have national coverage in really working with folks at that level is not true. but what we have are a set of programs with the mitigation center, with extension services on creating what we call drought-ready mounts whose major role is to be able to access and get guidance on the use of the information that we put on the web site. >> all right, thanks. ..

i think that the program by would say is in its infancy of feral five or six years but already we have seen great gains in that regard and we talk about how can farmers access this information the weatherman for example in a state and agriculture states like oklahoma or rock stars, those other guys most people pay attention to when they watch the nightly news but now folks are starting to learn and farmers and producers on the ground are starting to learn they can access even more information related to drop through the drought portal which has been set up and through integration of noaa and scientists involved with land grant universities and that sort of thing, helping to get the word out and helping farmers and producers get better access to that information.

there are still a lot of gains to be made in that regard and hopefully an additional six years or more of nidis will help us get that valuable information to our farmers and producers so they can make sound decisions and investments a season in advance if not a year in advance. >> looks like a lot of time but i would like to see this program continue as well. thanks. >> the chair now recognizess the gentlelady from alabama for five minutes. >> to begin with thank you for coming to testify today. the district i represent, first congressional district in oregon is home to diverse agricultural interests and we may not today be facing the same drought conditions being experienced in places like the midwest and other places in the country i

want to assure you that we are interested in the conversation we are having here today. i would like to take my time to talk about the cooperative extension service and nidis. the extension services play of vital role across the country by linking the agricultural research and communities and farmers that rely on a local extension to get information. the thousands of extension offices across the country bring the expertise of the land grant colleges to their communities and surrounding regions in the data that nidis provides is used by extension professionals and help my constituents plan for the weather conditions. in oregon we have a prevalence of specialty crops like blueberries and hazelnuts making extension services even more important. some of the wheat growers might go directly to the wheat

commission to learn about nidis predictions the specialty crop growers go directly to the extension services for information. some even have specific information about specific crops to growers in the district. my constituents have expressed concern about proposed reduction to the extension services in fiscal year 13 appropriation for the department of agriculture. you may not know the details of those proposed reductions but i wonder, dr. pulwarty, you discuss the collaboration with extension services if you were to develop state based drought information coordinator and miss langenfelder brought that up and the importance of extension services and the land grant universities. can you describe how reductions in the budget programs like extension services would impact drought preparedness in response

to agricultural committees? >> relative to oregon one thing nidis supports is the climate center out of oregon state university. a big part of their role is to interact with people who provide services and any capability we have to get to the level at the county level and value of the information to the american people. >> thank you. miss langenfelder 11, you are nodding your head. >> it is import to keep the extension service available and interval to success of agriculture. >> thank you very much. mr strong and dr. famiglietti,

you mentioned the hydrological cycle. human behavior to ignore drought and water resources the pleated and the situation is dire. how can we break that cycle? what can we do about that? >> education and outreach is the key. extension service, land grant universities and that sort of thing, critical in that regard, helping people understand this is not something that will go away and never come back. it happens in oklahoma every year. how do we best prepare for it. that is the key as far as i am concerned. >> i want to say you had me at blueberries and hazelnuts. we think about this a fair amount and one of the things we have come to is people need to understand where their water is coming from.

if they understand where their water is coming from they will understand the long-term hand in southern california water from the sierras decreasing and use groundwater and imports -- snowpack decrease in. that is the awareness that will help people understand the long term. >> we have some fine things in the district. thank you. i yield back. >> chair recognizes mr tonko for five minutes. >> thank you for the hearing. is so timely. the input has been very valuable. mr. strong mentioned oklahoma worked with noaa's assessment groups. are these regional groups entrusting options for hesitation and if so is this a role that should be

strengthened? >> we have a relatively new -- i think that is part of the goal. better integration with our stakeholders in oklahoma. water users, energy producers and that sort of thing to make sure data and information that is relevant to their line of work is getting to them and being collected and making that connection is a benefit of the region and adaptation is certainly a function of those centers as well. it is going to hinge on being able to make better more accurate predictions going forward as to whether or not a lot of that information is valuable but was helpful to wes in our recently completed planning process looking at different potential scenarios whether it is warmer moisture or hotter or dryer or that sort of

thing. >> is there a way to stress the capability through the nidis program? >> i am sure there is because the nidis program does provide that fundamental information that is valuable to that long-term prediction and the biggest benefit is integrating all of the other data collection efforts into one place. >> dr. famiglietti wanted to address that. >> there are even of those centers around the country and mr. strong was describing their major role is to understand how the city's, states and regions they are in our developing planning preparedness and adaptation and to assure the best information provided to them. we have seen many successes around the country on increasing

the capabilities of municipal industry and what we do through the research program is to assure those have the funds to work with a network of information users. >> there was mention made by mr. strong of noaa's river forecast centers and operated by the usgs in partnership with the state's. you are aware of the network is struggling and we have lost some gauges to talk to the satellite this morning but part of the network with real-time measurements this network where we have long-term measurement crucial to understanding of our water budget and getting better predictions for floods. i wonder if you could address

that. any of you on the panel. >> you raise a critical issue. the number of gauges in the united states is in decline and also in decline globally. satellite help us understand some things but one thing they won't be able to do in a great way is tell us what the discharge is at a certain point sort of a prediction but not a direct observation. there is no substitute for a robust round based network. not only stream gauges that monitoring ground water wells and even the usda measuring soil moisture. those are invaluable knee-jerk continued support. the usgs could use your help. >> anyone else? >> because nidis is not a

bureaucracy, heavily dependent on coordination with all the other agencies that collect invaluable information like stream gauging information it is important to make sure, and these stream gauging programs. and no monitoring, and need support as well. >> dr. pulwarty. >> there is nothing new without these capabilities. the seasonal forecasts is a longer projection that is important. satellite data is important that there is no substitute for understanding the local situation. >> mr. chair, i think i just

went over my time. >> pretty good time. today's baseball teams all have what they call closure. it is the eighth or ninth inning and we have one of the best closures in this congress congressman rohrabacher from california. yield 75 minutes. the chair recognizes mr. rohrabacher. >> the chair recognizes when everyone else leaves. i apologize for having to come back and forth between hearings. there was a hearing on foreign affairs committee by the chinese government and look important to understand the economic relationship we have with the world's worst human rights

abusers. what is important is to stand up for our values and important for us to make sure we have the water and energy necessary to look -- live decent lives and enjoy the freedom that is our heritage as americans. we have a lot of problem with water in california. there is pumped problem we derstand is affecting a huge chunk of our most important industry which is agriculture and we are dismayed in california that huge amounts of water are being permitted to go off of the high sierras and dumped into the ocean in the name of saving the delta smelt, a little fish not big enough to

use for bait. that type of nonsense has got to stop too but i agree with many points that have been made today. wet me ask about the last point i am monitoring. we have gotten in big trouble in the last 20 years looking at computer models, weather and climate. big trouble with that. what we do need to make sure is we are basing decisions not on computer models but actual gauging and measuring and the last point made is vitally important that computer models can get screwed up by whoever is putting information into the computer because they get out of the computer whatever they want but if we actually have a hard data from instruments on the ground measuring these water

resources that we have that puts us in a much more effective way of handling droughts and other natural challenges. i take it from the testimony we have had many drops. my family grew up in north dakota in the 1930s and i grew up with all these tales about the gray dust bowl and how they couldn't plant gardens because the dust took over their farm. to the other hearing we are suffering the worst drought since 1957. fifty-seven in the geological realm was not that long but it does show you we are going to face challenges of drought in a cyclical manner and if we are going to minimize the damage and loss of wealth, we have got to have alternatives established.

i want to ask about the alternatives. do we still see clouds? we have determined the drought will last through the cycle of another five years or something. do we see clouds? one about taking water out of ground water? the point has to be made also we have to know how much water is in the ground water before we extract it and what about massive desalinization by utilization of nuclear power? one new nuclear power plant in 30 years and perhaps nuclear power should help us to desalinate water that would get us through these cycles through the potential of ground water and desalinization as a vehicle to offset these cycles we are going through.

maybe i will start with my friend who i might add i am proud residents of the county and from my neighborhood i overlook the university of irvine right there. we are very proud of what they are accomplishing and what you are contributing to the well-being of our country. >> i take that to mean you will be watching me from now on. to respond to your commentss we do need to look at a range of options because we are water stress in many regions. this is an option of we can bring energy costs down. maybe it is nuclear and maybe something else. the membrane technology is something driving up the costs and thinking about what to do and where we lived it is an option. recycling we already do in orange county. if you never visited it is right

up there on my list with disneyland so you made a good point about groundwater. many people when we discuss renewable water resources suggest that we just look at the difference between evaporation and precipitation and just use that. that is a great idea but it doesn't work and that is why we see groundwater depletion with too many water needs but your point is a good one. because we have to know how much water is in the aquifer not just in the united states but around the world so we can manage our extraction. like many in the bank. you don't want to blow it all at one time. >> thank you very much for holding this very significant hearing. >> the chair recognizes the gentle lady from california for five minutes. >> does that make me the cleanup

batter? >> depends on whether you want four in a row. >> this has been wonderful because for one thing you all seem to be going in the same direction. it is based on not politics but science and observation. your bowl is the same as most of our goals. i have to say in defense of that tiny smelt, i represent the six congressional districts just north of the golden gate bridge and we believe that -- we have a lot of farming. my farmers are college graduates, very high tech,

second generation family farmers. we know that the smelt has its place and southern california needs water, we are not quite willing to give up protecting what has been there all these years. it is going to be a major battle. we can come up with the right solutions. my district, new generation, high tech because we have land trusts that keep the development rights. the new second-generation have funds to update their barns if

they are milking cows for their water systems and growing grapes. they know how important what you are doing is. they don't come to me and scream about getting rid of the epa. they come to me and they bake me to get the extension services extended, not cut back. they want the information, what they can do plan for the next five years. one of my questions to you is in order to relieve the uncertainty, their eyes are so clear because they get it. most of it depends on mother nature. we are fooling around with mother nature as human beings.

this drought monitoring, how much of that can then come together to talk about prevention? how can we go the next step? one thing coming, let's start with -- go down the line if you will. >> one of the major things in the 0 regional 2006 was to provide information for being proactive. it wasn't -- research says let me tell you what happened. getting closely engaged with how the localities and federal drought and water management plans were insured to take advantage of the present information from that standpoint

having the capabilities and the training with people in those agencies as well as our own to transfer, communicate information before hand is a big part of nidis. >> thank you. >> i should defer to the scientific experts. >> just want to give you a chance. >> i may do that as well. >> i was writing got my answer. there are two parts. you were asking about the models and increasing uncertainty. no substitute for a better model, better observation, better computers. we have to take our observations of the water in the sense that we are giving you recommendations in a simple way, we are a technologically

advanced society in the united states and we could be doing a much better job but the awareness thing is critical. systems like nidis and its partners are essential in getting the message out. i don't know if you have iphone apps bid is something that can really help raise awareness. we take water for granted quite a bit in this country and like this drought season. >> just as an observer here, don't know what you would do for prevention but awareness as the gentleman said making people aware of water and its

importance to their lives and not just assuming it will always be there but precaution and prevention and how they utilize water and not waste it. making people aware and the drought does that but when it rains they have forgot. that is the issue. scientifically i have no idea. >> what about the former's almanac -- farmer's almanac? >> it is an estimate. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> for the people who don't know this, she has been a very good member of this committee. she always act like she didn't like me but deep down i think she really does. we are going to miss her. that concludes our question but i told you i was going to give you a practical answer some of you can give next time you

testified in the senator or a lesser body than this one. it is a practical matter. i learned the hard way. i was caught with holes in my hand on a friday--the only day you could water was when they. a car with black and white walking toward me holding that pose. turned out a lady moved into the neighborhood saw me with the hose. must have been a democrat. she told the congressman was out there watering on not a watering day. he walked up to him and said i have to give you a ticket. i said i am not going to get a ticket. he said -- not indifferent to anybody else. i am a little different in this situation. he said i am disappointed to hear you say that. my dad is one of your campaign

managers. i got to give you a ticket. i said think this over. i won't catch that hose. i made him touch the hose and start walking. we walked 25 yards where i have a 20,000 gallon tank. i catch the water off of my own roof. a $6,000 -- 6,000 gallon tank from a swimming pool. of practical way to use the water that falls. he said i am glad. i was too. a way to tell people to save that water that god gives us and use what it gives us and give you good practical use to take that one home with you. >> thank you very much. members of this committee have additional questions, they will respond and ask in writing to

give response to that. record will remain for additional comments and with that we thank you once again very much. we are adjourned. >> it is the tradition not to reply to suppress criticism. we get clobbered by the press all the time. i can't tell you how many wonderful daughters i have written to the washington post just for my own satisfaction and been thrown away. and you do not respond to criticism. >> supreme court associate justice antonin scalia reflect on 25 years on the bench and interpreting legal documents in reading law sunday at 8:00 on

c-span's q&a. >> the senate gaveling in expected to resume consideration of the cybersecurity bill aimed at protecting the elector grid, water systems and transportation systems. the leadership is working on agreement on the legislation before proceeding to the measure. live coverage from the senate floor on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. today's guest chaplain, reverend john fuller, senior pastor of prairie falls church in cedar falls, iowa, will lead the senate in prayer. the guest chaplain:let's pray. god of all nations and all peoples we come before you on this day acknowledging you as the sovereign lord of this nation and of the whole world. father, it is a privilege to pray for

these lawmakers, knowing that you hear and respond to the prayers of your people. i pray for these women and men, whom you have put in this position, that they would be filled with your wisdom to make wise choices and decisions as they lead this country. i pray that this body would be courageous. that they wouldn't be led by fear or their own personal desires, but they would have the courage to lead with conviction that comes from you. give these senators strength to lead well through difficult times. that they would be strengthened in their inner being by a power that only comes from you. and father, i pray for a spirit of humility that recognizes that others are more important than we are, and that you have plans that are greater than ours. that father we would lead with humble and gracious hearts. we pray all this in jesus' name.

amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., july 26, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable michael bennet, a senator from the state of colorado, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 470,

which is s. 3414, which is the cybersecurity act. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 470, s. 3414, a bill to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the united states. mr. reid: i would now yield to the senior senator from the state of iowa, senator grassley. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: mr. president, it's my privilege to introduce pastor john fuller to my fellow senators, and i thank pastor fuller for opening the senate with prayer. it's my privilege to highlight my home pastor and church. pastor fuller and his wife kay are visiting the nation's capital this week. since 1998, pastor fuller has been the senior pastor at prairie lakes church in cedar falls, iowa. pastor fuller is a native of iowa. his family moved to sheridan, wyoming, when he was in eighth

grade. he graduated from high school in sheridan. he played both high school and college football. he is to this day obviously a die-hard bronco fan. you won't know that, but i sure know it. he is a 1986 graduate of the university of sioux falls, and a 1990 graduate of denver seminary with a masters in divinity degree. he was an associate and preaching pastor at the first baptist church, forest city, iowa, before coming to cedar falls. he came there in 1998 at prairie lakes church and been senior pastor. i've been worshipping at prairie lakes church for 58 years come this august 29. the church has changed its name and increased its congregation over the years, but the heart has remained the same. and very constant. a small group in 1855 started worshipping in cedar falls, iowa, called the baptist society. in 1862, it became the first

baptist church. the first 45 years that i worshipped at first baptist church, the congregation numbered at various times 200 to 300 people. under pastor fuller's leadership, the number of worshipers has grown to about 2,000 with worship centers in owe sage, waterloo, and soon in grennell, iowa, besides the main campus in cedar falls. in 2005 a new building was constructed and the name of the congregation then became prairie lakes church. the worship service is very informal. that has changed in the 58 years that i've attended there. but the service has always been christ-centered, and that has not changed over the years. prairie lakes church is multigenerational with an extraordinary vision for the future. worship services are heartfelt, creative, practical, bible-based, and here to serve christ and here to serve all. those who have just stepped over the faith line as well as those who have been longtime followers

of jesus christ. prairie lakes church is a s affiliated with the baptist channel conference. prairie lakes church is all about loving god, loving people and influencing the world. everyone is invited to worship with us, including anybody here in washington, d.c. by streaming when we stream online at prairielakeschurch.org. in closing -fpld i, i would remd all that we're all called to be, according to corinthians, am bass tors for kraoeufrt. that is how i see -- ambassadors for christ. that is how i see pastor fuller. after 58 years my looking back, i know god's worth has been preached faithfully at this congregation. pastor fuller has contributed significantly during his tenure and continues to do so. this is what pastor fuller had to say about our church -- quote -- "there are a lot of good churches around the valley. we're lucky to have that. i think people get attracted

here -- meaning prairie lakes church -- because we just stick with the bible. we're authentic. we're invitational, and we try to keep things simple." these attributes have attracted many congregants and i believe they'll continue to attract many more and the church will continue to grow. lastly, i will pray that god will continue to shine his light through pastor fuller, his pastor and the prairie lakes congregation. and it's my privilege once again to introduce pastor full tore this senate. -- pastor fuller to this senate. mr. reid: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i appreciate the senator's remarks about his pastor. the first hour here today will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the majority will control the first half. the republicans the final half. i filed cloture last night on the motion to proceed to the cybersecurity bill. i hope we can reach an agreement to have that cloture vote sometime today. if not, we'll have it tomorrow.

mr. president, when a major storm ripped through the midatlantic region last night it left millions of people without power. i repeat: millions of people. i can remember, i was at my home here in washington, and it's different than my home in searchlight, nevada. in searchlight, i can hear the wind, wind blows there a lot, so i hear the wind. it's kind of pleasant for me. but the wind we heard here in our home in washington was not pleasant. 9:30 or 10:00 at night it was loud and it was abusive and it was, quite frankly, a little scary. but our power was not affected. but that isn't the same for millions of other people. residents of maryland and virginia, west virginia, ohio, the district of columbia soon realized how quickly a major power outage can alter life as we know it. senator manchin of west virginia, i talked to him a week

later, power still out, large amounts of power still out in west virginia. he said it's the worst storm that they have ever known in west virginia. and this power outage altered life as people knew it here in the entire western part of the united states. the blackout was devastated to many families and many businesses. it was also minor compared to the devastation a malicious cyber terrorist could wreak with a single key stroke. i repeat. as damaging and as frightening as this storm was, we could have a malicious cyber attack by terrorists that would be far, far more devastating than this violent storm. cyber attackers could ultimately shut down the electric grid for the entire east coast, the west coast, the middle part of our

country, leaving hundreds of major cities -- any one attack could leave dozens of major cities and tens of millions of americans without power. we know, mr. president, as we were shown down in the room here in the capitol, how an attack would take place and what damage it would do. so we know this is not just make-believe. without a.t.m.'s or debit card readers, commerce would immediately grind to a halt. without refrigeration, my daughter who lives here in the d.c. area, that storm hit, and their power was out. they waited for a number of hours, and then, mr. president, they took all the food out of their freezer, they gave away what they could, they threw the rest away. and that's the way it was all over.

their power was out for about a week. and it was, it made it very difficult. they could go down in the basement. they are fortunate enough to have a basement and the heat wasn't oppressive down there. so without refrigeration, food would rot on the shelves. freezers would have to be emptied. and people could actually go hungry. without gas pumps, transportation arteries would clog with abandoned vehicles. without cell phones or computers, whole regions of the country would be cut off from communication and families would be unable to reach each other. without air conditioning, without lifesaving technologies of service at the hospitals and nursing homes, the elderly and sick would become much sicker and die. most hospitals, major hospitals have backup power, but it's for a limited amount of time. they can only use this backup

power when -- i'm sorry. according to how much fuel they have stored, and that's very limited. the devastation is really unimaginable, but we've heard these ominous scenarios before. what many americans haven't considered is that the same power grid that supplies cities and towns, stores and gas stations, cell towers, heart monitors also powers every military base in our country. about 99% of electricity used to power military installations come from outside the bases. the air force, one of the largest in the world of its type, they have some solar energy there that they've developed. but the vast, vast majority, over 90% of all their power, in spite of that comes from outside the base. more than 85% of that power is provided by the same electric

utilities that power homes, businesses and schools in the civilian world. so, cyber attack that took out this power grid would soon cripple our nation's military. very soon. although bases would be prepared to weather a short power outage, the backup diesel generators, within hours -- not days -- fuel supplies would run out. command and control centers would go dark. radar systems that detect air threats to our country would shut down. communications between commanders and their troops would go silent. and many weapons systems would be left without either the fuel or electric power to operate. mr. president, much of what we do militarily is now done by computers. done very, very remotely. it's no secret that the drones that operate for our country all over the world are not operated

from pakistan, afghanistan, somalia. they're operated from a base 35 miles outside las vegas. that's all done with electricity so in a few short hours or days, the mightest military in the world would be left scrambling to maintain basic functions. that's why our top national security officials including the chairman of the joint chiefs, the director of national security agency, the secretary of defense, the c.i.a. director have said the kind of malicious cyber attacks i've just described is among the most urgent threats to our country. in fact, mr. president, they have said that unless we do something and do it soon, it's not a question of if. it's only a question of when. there have already been cyber attacks on you're our nuclear

truck tours, nasdaq's stock exchange, these are a few of the things that have already been attacked cyberly. senator mcconnell and i received a letter from a former group of national security officials including six former bush and obama administration officials that presented the danger in stark terms. "we carry the burden of knowing that 9/11 might have been a verted with the intelligence that existed at the time. we do not want to be in the same position again when cyber 9/11 hits. it is not a question of whether it will happen. it is only a question of when." the group said a cyber attack will be the most serious conce concern. the bill before this body proposed by a coalition of democrats and republicans is an excellent piece of legislation

endorsed by many members of the national security committee. mr. president, in my view, it is not strong enough, but it's a tremendous step forward. i admire the work they've done. i know some of my colleagues have suggestions you to improve this legislation. i have a few of my own. there's plenty of room for more good ideas. some of them are already on the table. it is my intention that presenters have the opportunity to have a robust debate on these proposals and stick with what this bill is all about. let's have as many amendments as people feel appropriate. national security experts agree, we can't afford to waste more time the question is not whether we should act but whether we'll act in time. mr. president, as i mentioned at the start of this, we're scheduled to have this vote an hour after we come in tomorrow. i'm working with senator mcconnell now to try to arrange a time, perhaps even today. my goal would be to get on the bill. i hope we can get on the bill. it would be a terrible thing for

our country if ware not on the bill -- get often the bill and have lieberman, collins and rockefeller and the other -- feinstein and the other committees who are involved in this come up with a list of amendments, like we've done so well on a number of the bills that we've worked through here, and when we come back next week start doing some legislating. have some robust debate, get some of these amendments disposed of and pass this bill on to the house. they've done their bill. we could go to conference and get something done that would be really important for our country. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, yesterday our democratic friends took a vote that said a lot about the way they view the world. after nearly four years -- four years -- of spending and debt, millions of americans are still struggle being amidst the slo slowest recovery in modern times

and the economy is flat on its back. appeared our friends on the other -- and our friends on the or side think a great way to go forward is to raise taxes, raise taxes under the guise of pretending to care about the deficit. the democrats are pushing an ideological goal of a symbolic tax increase that won't even fund the government for a week. the vote that we had yesterday, with all but two of the democrats on board, allegedly by doing something about the deficit, wouldn't fund the government for one week. now, they are not even pretending to care about the economy. they've sort of given up on the argument that this is about the economy. we know that because two years ago the democrats agreed that higher taxes they're now fighting to increase -- this tax

increase, they're now fighting to increase -- two years ago they agreed it would hurt the economy. so let's look at the economy then rand the economy now. -- and the economy now. at a time when economic growth was 3.5% back in december of 2010, 40 democrats over here voted to keep rates where they were on the grounds that it was the best thing to do for jobs. december 2010, 40 democrats voted to keep tax rates where they were because it was the best thing for jobs. yet now, when the growth rate is 2% -- 3.5% then, 2% now -- and 13 million americans are still out of work, they're voting to slam nearly a million businesses with a tax increase. now, maybe they are expecting

the g.d.p. numbers tomorrow to be 3.5%. we'll see. it's one of two things: either our democratic friends don't even care about the economy and jobs anymore, either they're just embracing thelma and louise economics -- let's just take everybody off the cliff -- and hoping people supporsupport them for some othr reason or their economic world view is so far outside the mainstream of everyone else who has looked at this situation that they think 2% growth and 13 million americans unemployed is good enough. maybe they think that's just as good as we can do. that's where this ideological crusade of theirs is taking us. right in that direction. well, i just hope for the sake of a struggling american economy

that some of them soon see how misguided an approach this is. let me repeat, two years ago in december of 2010, when the economy was growing at a rate of 3.5%, 40 of our democratic colleagues and the president and the vice president and i and the speaker agreed to extend the current tax rates for two years because it would be good for jobs. and just yesterday, with two exceptions, every democrat voted to raise taxes on a million businesses when the growth rate -- the g.d.p. increase rate -- the growth rate now is 2% and 13 million americans are looking for work. now, that's not a prescription for the economy. that's an ideological crusade.

that's not about america's jobs. that's about the election four months from u.nmonths from now. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the following hour will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: mr. president, i rise to speak on the floor of the senate again this morning to urge my colleagues to vote to extend the production tax credit

for wind energy. it's also known as the production tax credit. i know the presiding officer's home state of west virginia has a robust wind energy sector as well. i look forward to coming to the floor and talking about your state in the future. the reason i'm talking about the production tax credit is it's set to expire at the end of this year, and it will cost citizens in my state and the rest of the nation their jobs. we cannot let this happen. tens of thousands of vital jobs are dependent on the wind industry all across our great country. as i've earnings inned, mr. president, i come to the floor on a daily basis and i highlight a state and talk about what the production tax credit has done to encourage growth in that state. today i want to talk about the great state of illinois, the land lincoln, where the wind

industry is thriving. it is an example of how wind resources can be harnessed and put to good use in supporting local communities and creating jobs. overall, illinois halls the fourth-largest installed wind capacity in the united states, with over 600,000 homes powered by the wind. if fully utilized, illinois's wind energy resource could provide over 525% of the state's current electricity needs. that's truly a staggering amount of electricity for the fifth-largest state in the nation. in 2011, illinois was second only to california in number of new wind energy projects completed. and they installed more wind turbines there than in any other state in the country. clearly, illinois recognizes the potential that wind energy holds for the future, just as many states have. just last week in illinois, one

company announced that it has completed construction of a facility in henry county, up in the northwestern part of illinois nearly davenport, iowa. the project covers 22,000 acres of farmland, includes over 100 wind turbines and can power 60,000 homes. this project, the bishop hill project, is clearly a huge investment in illinois and our nation's clean energy future. but the economic power of wind energy has been equally impressive. the wind energy there supports 7,000 jobs, it contributes close to $19 million every year in property taxes to local communities, and illinois led our nation in 2011 with over 400 new wind turbines installed. mr. president, just this month illinois state university release add report that estimates that illinois's 23

largest wind farms will contribute roughly $5.8 billion to the local economies over the lifetime of these projects. the construction of these wind farms generated over 19,000 jo jobs, cut paychecks totaling over $1 billion for workers. these are good-paying, hig high-skilled jobs that we're proud to have in our country and that the americans that hold them are proud to have, and it's just one part of the overall wind industry story. for example, the o'dell grade school has a renovation project under way that will expand both the school and make it more energy-efficient. now, while this project is expensive, it will be paid for in part by payments from local wind farms. wind energy is supporting a better education for o'dell's youth, without increasing taxes to the local residents.

this is not umeek toil i will. it is happening all across our country. i have no doubt that the people of o'dell will agree with nigh extending the -- with me that extending the p.t.c. is a commonsense proposal. without congress extending the production tax credit, our country and the wind energy face intending disaster. many wind energy manufacturers and producers have already been preparing for the end of the p.t.c. by backing off their investments in many of these communities like o'dell and by anoinannouncing future layoffs f workers. it is just flat unacceptable that we in the congress would let this happen. mr. president, i think you get where i'm heading. this is a serious issue that needs attention now, not next month, not in the fall, not in the lame-duck session, but now. the wind industry will not wait for us to extend the p.t.c. at some date in the future.

they've already began to scale back their operations and move overseas. further inaction is unacceptab unacceptable. china is stepping into the breach and literally taking our jobs overseas. other countries are prepared to do the same thing. so for us in the congress to miss this opportunity to not only preserve jobs but put in place policy that would create thousands of good-paying jobs because of election-year gridlock or, again to say this, it is just unacceptable. if we don't act, our people and our states will suffer. so i come to the floor every day to implore my colleagues to extend the wind production tax credit as soon as possible. p.t.c. equals jobs. we ought to pass it as soon as possible. mr. president, i'll be back next week to continue discussing the

wind production tax credit urged us to be bold -- and urge us to be bold, take up this issue, and extend the p.t.c. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. ms. klobuchar: if the senator can be a stain from the quorum call, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you. the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i come to the floor in order to continue the efforts started this week, efforts by the women of the senate and the men who support the violence against women act, to bring a simple, straightforward message to our friends in the house of representatives: stop the games and pass the inclusive, bipartisan senate

vawa bill without delay. the violence against women act is a bill that has successfully helped provide lifesaving assistance to hundreds of thousands of women and families. it's a bill that passed the senate three months ago today by a vote of 68-31. it's a bill that has consistently included bipartisan provisions to address those that are not being protected by each and every time it has been reauthorized. but here we are back on the senate floor urging support for a bill that should not be controversial. and just as we did on tuesday, just as we're doing today, and just as we're going to continue to do in the coming weeks, we will be making sure this message resonates loud and clear, both here in washington, d.c. and back in our home states, because we are not going to back down. not while there are thousands of women across our country who are

excluded from the current law. in fact, for native and immigrant women and lgbt individuals, every moment that our inclusive authorization to reauthorize the violence against women act is delayed is another moment they are left without the resources and protection they deserve in this country. mr. president, the numbers are staggering. one in three native americans women will be raped in their lifetimes. one in three. two in five of them are victims of domestic violence, and they're killed at ten times the rate of the national average. and these shocking statistics are not isolated to one group of women. 25% to 35% of women in the lgbt community experience domestic violence in their relationships, and three in four abused immigrant women never enter the process to obtain legal status

even though they were eligible because their abuser husbands never filed their paperwork. this should make it perfectly clear to our colleagues in the other chamber that their current inaction has a real impact on the lives of women across america affected by violence. women like debra parker. tkraeb is the vice chairwoman -- debra have a vice chairwoman of the telala tribe in washington. debra was repeatedly abused starting at a very young age by a nontribal man who lived on a reservation. not until after the abuse stopped sometime around when she was in the fourth grade did debra realize she was not the only woman suffering at the hands of that assailant. at least a dozen other girls had fallen victim to that man, a man who was never arrested for his

crimes, never brought to justice, and still walks free today. all because he committed these heinous october on the reservation -- heinous acts on the reservation. as someone who is not a member of a tribe, it is an unfortunate reality that is unlikely to ever be held liable for his crimes. mr. president, reauthorizing an inclusive vawa is a matter of fairness. debra's experience and the experience of other victims of that man do not represent an isolated incident. for the narrow set of domestic crimes laid out in vawa, tribal governments should be able to hold accountable defendants that have a strong tie to the tribal community. mr. president, i was very glad to see republican congresswoman judy biggert and republican colleagues echo sent sentiment

last week. they sent a letter to their party leadership to end this gridlock -- and i quote -- "and accept the senate-endorsed provisions that will protect all victims of domestic violence including college students, lgbt individuals, native americans, and immigrants." end quote. so today i am here to urge speaker boehner to listen to the members of his own caucus and join us in making a major step to uphold our government's promise to protect its people. people like mirabel and maria, two more young women who come from my home state of washington. as a transgender woman, mirabel has been subjected to random acts of violence by family, pwoeufrdz and strangers -- boyfriends and strangers. she has been mug and attacked on the streets, been raped and left for dead.

what she said to me was deeply concerning. she said not once have the police ever conducted an investigation, much less shown any concern for me. rather, my experience with law enforcement is one of of harassment and abuse. i've been ostracized by families and friends, and in fact is one of my first memories. unquote. she experiences hate daily from those that think she has no place in our society. and then there's maria. shortly after her wedding, maria's husband became a different man, she said. his abuse ranged from emotional to physical. and on two separate occasions he held a knife to maria's throat, threatening to kill her. he constantly threatened maria with deportation back to jamaica, and eventually he refused to attend the interview with immigration authorities necessary for her to obtain a green card. so her application was denied for lack of attendance. she was angry and scared, but

she found the courage to ask her husband for a divorce. in response, he raped her. maria moved out of the house. and though her husband repeatedly tracked her down and assaulted her, to save her own life, maria fled to seattle with her two young children. mr. president, it does not have to be this way. you know, i was so proud to have been serving in the senate in 1994 when we first passed the violence against women act. since we took that historic step, vawa has been a great success in coordinating victims' advocates and social service providers, law enforcement professionals to meet the immediate challenges of combatting domestic violence. and along with its bipartisan support, it has received praise from law enforcement officers and prosecutors, judges, victim service providers, faith leaders, health care professionals, advocates and

survivors. violence against women act has brought support for one reason: it works. where a person lives, their immigration status, who they love should not determine whether or not perpetrators of domestic violence are brought to justice. these women cannot afford any further delay not on this bill. mr. wyden: would the senator yield for a question? mrs. murray: i would be happy to yield. mr. wyden: i think the senator from washington has made an extraordinary presentation in terms of outlining the facts with respect to the abuse that women face. having done a series of forums around my home state -- and as you know, in our part of the country in washington and oregon, many, many small communities, 10,000, 15,000 people, it's my experience, and i'd be interested in getting our colleague's assessments -- and she's been our leader on this -- is without the violence against women act, it's my opinion understanding that women in

rural areas who face the kind of brutal treatment you've described would literally have nowhere to turn, that the violence against women act for women in rural areas in particular is sort of the last line of defense for them and the abuser. mrs. murray: i would say to the senator from oregon, absolutely correct. if you have been beaten and abused and you feel a victim of violence, you have nowhere to turn, especially in a rural community where everyone knows everyone and you don't know where to turn to, there is no place to go. the violence against women act provides you with the support of law enforcement officers and advocates so that you can get out of a very abusive situation. mr. wyden: i'm going to listen to the rest of my colleague's remarks, and i'll have my own. but i want to thank her for her leadership. i think this is such an important issue. this isn't about dollars and cents. it's not about politics.

it's about doing what's right, what's right in preventing violence. and i commend my colleague for her statement. mrs. murray: i thank the senator from oregon. i know he's going to speak in a few minutes, but i know he spent a great deal of time going around his state and listening to some of these women who had been victims of domestic violence and knows personally from their stories how important it is that we cannot continue to delay this over some call blue slip. it's not about a blue slip. it's about doing the right thing. we have overcome the blue-slip issue time and time again for issues like f.a.a. and transportation bills and many other pieces of legislation, because it's the will of the body to do so. to tell a woman in rural oregon or washington state that this bill can't happen because of a blue slip, ridiculous. they have been told that they can't get help for a lot tougher reasons. let's not let a blue slip be the thing that comes between them and the support they need.

in fact, i would say to the senator from oregon and all our colleagues, on tuesday "the new york times" ran an editorial on just this that really gets to the heart of it. they said -- and i quote -- "house republicans have to decide what is more important: protecting victims of domestic violence or advancing the harsh antigay and anti-immigrant sentiments of some on their party's right at -- at the momet harshness is winning." they echoed our sentiments it doesn't have to be that way. they pointed out -- quote -- "on may 15 senate republicans joined with the democrats." they will do what it takes to move this legislation forward: leadership from congressman boehner. mr. president, today we are here on the senate floor to make this effort and to call for the same thing. leadership. it's time for speaker boehner to

look past ideology and partisan politics. it's time for him to hear the stories of women across america who have not had the protection of this bill and to make a major step forward that will assure that a woman, no matter where she lives or who she is, will have the protections that this great country can offer. so, thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. and i thank the senator from oregon for his passion on the issue and for understanding and for taking the time to hear from men and women who have been impacted. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i want to follow up on the very important remarks made by our colleague, senator murray, because i really, as a result of the debate that we've had in washington, d.c., knew that there was a significant problem. but until we held these forums across our state, and we essentially went into every

corner of oregon, it really didn't come home to me how serious a problem this is. and for a minute or two, i want to highlight this point i got into with senator murray with respect to rural areas. some of the stories, for example, that i was told, for example, about a woman in central oregon who essentially faced with an abuse, a very abusive relationship, spent the evening trying to hide out in ditches in the community. and she would just run from ditch to ditch. and of course you get pretty banged up and bruised when you do something like that. but she hid out in ditches through the night in order to avoid her abuser. but then it comes to morning time, and she wants to get out. she wants to get to the safety net program, a wonderful shelter

in her area. but the fact was the only way to get out was to ask for a ride from the one person who had a vehicle in the community, and that was the person who abused her in the first place. so lit raerl in a rural -- so literally in a rural community, and i heard this account recently, she had nowhere to turn. that's why i characterize the violence against women act program especially for rural women, the last line of defense between them and the abuser. finally, in one community -- i know my colleague will identify with this because i enjoyed going to west virginia and the like, in a rural community, in the eastern part of our state it was described to me that there was no transportation out of the community. no transportation at all.

and the woman involved was going to literally have to stay there and face continual abuse. and finally, the one vehicle in the community was a fishing shuttle. i'm sure the senator from west virginia identifies with that because it's something we have in our rural communities, a vehicles that takes folks fishing. the fishing shuttle said, the owner of it, he said i'm going to be the one to take this woman to safety. i don't need to be reimbursed. i don't need to have a government program or something. i'm going to do it because it's right. and that's how that woman in a rural community escaped her abuser. she got out. she got free. she was able to shake out of the clutches of the abuser because the fellow who owned the fishing shuttle stuck up for her.

mr. president, i think this is senator murray's point. i don't think we can accept that all across the country that we're going to have fishing shuttles available in order to rescue women who are subject to this kind of abuse. i think that's pretty far-fetched and the good hearts of oregonians came through in that particular situation. but we've got to reenact this program. and the fact is, mr. president and colleagues, this has been the law of the land for more than a decade. there has not been a shred of partisanship, you know, in it. it's not about ideology. it's about protecting women, you know, from brutality. and i have thought, frankly, mr. president, that we had gotten over the arguments against this legislation that had been trotted out in the past. for example, it was often said in the past, well, you know, maybe these abuse cases really aren't abuse.

maybe they're just kind of family matters, they're going to get settled when the family kind of calms down and maybe somebody got upset about something and then in day or so everything is going to go back to normal. that's not the case, mr. president. this is about repeated instances of violence, repeated instances of violence you can't just slough off as a family difference of opinion. it's a crime. it's brutal violence. that's why we need this legislation and we need it, you know, reauthorized. i think it is especially important, mr. president, given some of the budget cuts that we have seen that are particularly hitting small communities like a wrecking ball -- for example, in josephine county, a rural part of our state, they're in the position, mr. president, where when a subpoena goes out, they

essentially don't have the resources to follow it up. in other words, the subpoena is used to in effect set in motion the law enforcement process, bring the abuser to justice, and i was told by the key law enforcement officials in josephine county in a community forum that i held in midford, oregon, for folks from the southwestern part of the state, that they really literally didn't have the resources to follow up on how to ensure that that abuser was brought to justice. now, mr. president, i'd make just a couple of additional points. i see colleagues on the floor waiting to speak. but i also want to talk about the costs that are associated with this. you have two kinds of costs. first, you have direct health

care costs stemming from the violence that you see perpetrated against women. and then also you have costs in terms of lost productivity, at a time when we are getting hit very hard by unemployment. and we know we're in a productivity race with india and china and other countries. we can't afford the health care costs of the violence against women that ends up having women land in hospital emergency rooms and the like, nor can we aer how this lost productivity at a time when we are pushing so hard to create more good-paying jobs. and the protection that's offered through the violence against women act saves my home state of oregon now millions of dollars through its key provisions. safety from domestic violence

would save oregon more than $35 million per year in direct health care costs. our state loses approximately $9.3 million per year in lost productivity from paid work as a result of domestic violence, and the fact is, the preventive services offered by the violence against women act saves money, as does the very important work that's done by victim services. a study of 278 victims in my hometown of portland who received domestic violence and housing assistance found that those services resulted in more than $610,000 in savings during the first six months. so there's savings in terms of assistance, whether it is housing or counseling, emergency medical care utilization is reduced as a result of emergency

services, safety net services being available, and whether it's one measure or another, mr. president, from a financial standpoint, reauthorizing the violence against women legislation makes sense. but at the end of the day, while the financial savings are substantial, mr. president, it seems to me the violence against women act is about restoring dignity to women who've been abused in our country. no woman in the united states should be subject to the kind of physical abuse that i've documented in cases coming from oregon, that senator murray has described this afternoon. they strip our people, women in this country, of their dignity and their confidence and their ability after they shake free from their abuser to get on and

have the kind of productive life that they want for themselves and their family. so, mr. president, ultimately, this is about dignity, it's about doing what's right. this legislation has been on the books for more than a decade. there is no reason -- none whatever, mr. president -- that this legislation isn't passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. i'm going to do everything i can, mr. president, here on the floor of the senate talking with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure that this legislation is reauthorized, because what i saw during these community forums in my home state from small towns across oregon shouldn't happen in my state, it shouldn't happen anywhere because it is not right and the senate can take action to stop it. mr. president, with that, i'd yield the floor.

mr. boozman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: mr. president, there's been a lot of talk about the danger of raising taxes during a recession. president obama famously said in 200 9, "you don't raise taxes in a recession." our economy is better than it was then but that did not stop the majority leader for pushing through a tax increase on our small business owners yesterday. we need to get our house in order. washington's primary problem is not a revenue problem. washington's primary problem is a spending problem. the senate majority's actions have exasperated that problem. the senate has failed to pass a

budget for the past three years. meanwhile, our country is facing record deficits and an ever-increasing debt. this is the fifth straight year that washington's excessive spending has led to a $1 trillion deficit. it now sits at a jaw-dropping $15.trillion and the senate majority's only answer is to raise taxes on our job creators during a time when our country has an unemployment rate of over 8%. along with failing to produce a budget, the senate majority leader is now backtracking on a pledge to enact every individual appropriations bill this year. needless to say, i'm disappointed. in fact, i think it's safe to say that our entire caucus is disappointed. it wasn't too long ago that i was down here on the floor praising the majority leader and his efforts and those that would have us go forward and enact our

individual appropriations bills. we believe that we had a good-faith agreement to move these bills, to make the effort to function the way this body was established to work. to do our job and pass all of the appropriations bills so that the government operates on a budget the way that every arkansan does. now the majority is telling us, this isn't going to happen. determining how we spend hard hard-earned taxpayer dollars is a basic responsibility of congress. we know tough choices have to be made in these appropriations bills, but moving forward is the right direction. the trend of continuing resolutions and giant omnibus appropriations bills has got to stop. enacting all appropriations bills in regular order would be an important step to reducing government spending. it would help balance our budget while investing in programs americans have come to rely on.

moving forward on these bills would return the senate to its proper function and provide a framework of spending so the american people can see and understand where their hard-earned money is going. most importantly, it would help us back away from the fiscal cliff we are hanging onto. here is the reality: we borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend. we are running record-breaking deficits every year. the average american family doesn't have the luxury to live by this sort of budgeting. if you tried a run a household or your household, your business, the bank would cut you off. it is time we apply that lesson to washington. we are at a crossroads in our country. if we continue down the path we are going, we risk going the direction of greece, ireland, portugal, and now spain. each facing economic crises that have pushed them to the brink of

default. if congress continues the reckless spending rather than creating an immediate solution to this crisis, our actions will definitely lead to an economic collapse. we can't keep kicking the can down the road, which is exactly what we are doing by passing continuing resolutions and omnibuses after continuing resolutions and omnibuses -- and it goes on and on. each one of us owes it to the american people to work together to help our country today and build a path of success for the future. our founding fathers laid the foundation that allows the national to function effect -- the senate to function effectively and efficiently, but it does require us working together. the american people are tired of the finger-pointing that has stalled much of the work that they've sent us here to do. that starts with trying to enact all the appropriations bills through a regular process each year. i sincerely hope the senate majority leader reconsiders the

decision to cancel consideration of the appropriations bills, again, so that we can get back to the normal budgeting process, get back to a normal method, an efficient method, a very transparent method so that the american people can see where their taxpayer dollars are going. with that, i'd yield back and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:# quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. coburn: i'd ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: i assume we're out of morning business. the presiding officer: the senate is on the motion to proceed to senate bill 3414. mr. coburn: i have a unanimous consent request. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate

consideration of s. 3326, that the coburn amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, that when the senate receives the house companion bill to s. 3326 as determined by the majority and republican leaders the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of s. 3326 as passed by the senate be inserted in lieu thereof, that the bill be read a third time pafpbd, that a statutory pay-go statement prior to the passage of the motions be reconsidered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. baucus: mr. president in. the presiding officer: the senator from montana is recognized. mr. baucus: mr. president, i observe the right to object, and i would like to make a statement. i am basically opposed to the

senator's request. let me explain why. the finance committee considered this bill last week, and we passed it oust committee by a voice vote without a single amendment being offered. nobody on the committee offered an amendment. i think we cannot and should not delay its passage now. passed unanimously, no amendments offered, and now is not the time to delay. this bill is fully offset. how? by extending customs users' fees and corporate timing shift. this is not the first time we've used the corporate timing shift. i have a list, mr. president -- it is a very long whistle times this body has used this very -- it is a very long list when times this body has used this corporate timing shift.

i nonetheless understand that senator coburn now has concerns about the offset. i am willing to work with him to find alter national offsets in future trade bills. we need to move forward on this bill in its entirety as soon as possible. we can't pick and choose to move forward on component parts while leaving others to linger. there are real consequences for delay. this bill extends provisions of the african growth and opportunity act otherwise known as agoa, a trade preference program that would otherwise expire in november. without swift passage of this bill, the united states retailers do not have the certainty they need to place orders with african apparel manufacturers. not only are these u.s. companies struggling to make the best decisions for their companies, but the substantial drop in orders has caused devastating job losses in africa. job losses are already occurring. why? because of the uncertainty as to

whether or not this provision will be extended. and right now the senator from oklahoma suggests that we don't proceed. another provision of this bill closes a loophole in the dominican republic, central american, united states free trade agreement that will save almost 2,000 yarn-spinning jobs in north and south carolina. and the burma sanctions provision expires today. these provisions are all necessary parts of the delicate promise that we negotiated with advance with the house and the senate finance committee, all approved. the ways and means chairman camp in the house and rank member levin in the house have made it equally clear that they will not pass this bill in the house without the agoa provisions included. so, the house will not pass these provisions if the senator is successful. so i therefore urge my colleagues to pass s. 3326 as it passed the finance committee

quickly without amendment and for those reasons i must object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: short memories are just that. in my opening statement in the finance committee on this bill, i made it very clear that i opposed the pay-for in this bill. i had two amendments offered. they were not offered because the chairman had assured me beforehand that he would object and rule them nongermane, even though they were not nongermane. as a matter of fact, if we had offered what the -- we had offered what the obama administration had already offered in terms of trade duplication, a $200 million pay-for, that the administration supports. so let's talk about what's really going on here. we're a country that's $15.8 trillion in debt. we have a process that's not

open to really the consideration of addressing real pay-fors for a real bill that we -- i agree needs to pass. i have no objections with the underlying policies in any of the three components in this bill. but there is a principle that we continue to practice which has our country bankrupt, and that process is the following: we're going to spend $200 million over the next three years and then we're going to take ten years to pay for it. and we have $350 billion in waste, fraud, and duplication in the federal government that we've done nothing about as a senate. not one thing have we done to address the issues that are wasting money from the hard-earned taxpayers of this country. and so when we have a small bill that -- we have an

administration concurrence on something that should be eliminated and we'd rather not do that and kick the can down the road, we are failing the american people. and so i've offered -- and i don't know that the senator who is chairman of our committee, who i have a great deal of respect for, but my conversations with the speaker and mr. cantor and mr. camp are much different than yours. as a matter of fact, if we were to divide this, they would divide theirs and pass them both back over here and we could do it. the anand what i have offered is separate these two out on the agoa package. and what i've offered to do if you split it is to give me 30 minutes on the floor to explain why i want to pay for the agoa and then have a vote and let it go. but we wouldn't even do that. so not only do we not want to

address the real problem, we don't even want to have debate and opportunity to stand up and say whether we're for cutting wasteful spending that even the administration agrees with. that's what was offered. so now we stand here with burma sanctions going to expire. i'm going to tell you, i'm not moving. i will object to any unanimous consent that doesn't put a real pay-for for the $200 million for this bill out of real spending in the next year or two or three, which is exactly what we offered to put forward in committee, and what we have offered to negotiate. i'm not going to a part of kicking the can down the road again. i am not going to be a part of playing gimmicks where we ask corporations to overpay their taxes so we can get around the 1974 budget act and paygo and essentially dishonest to the american people about what we're doing. so i am not the chairman of the

finance committee, but i am a member, and i am a member of this body, and i had no right in committee to offer an offset because there were rules they were going to be ruled nongermane, which they weren't; and now consequently we want to ram this thing through, and i'm not going to agree to that happening. so either we're going to start acting like grown-ups in terms of our debt and not kick the can down the road ten years -- and that's what we're doing; we're going to spend ten years to pay for something we're going to spend over three -- just like we violated paygo, just like we violated the budget agreement that we just agreed to last august -- we're going to continue do the same thing. i have the greatest respect for my chairman. he's been here a long time he knows a lot about these issues. he agree they need happen. -- i agree they need to hatch but they don't need to happen on the backs ten years from now. we need to pay for what we're doing now. that's the whole point of this

exercise. and i want us to be able to have certainty. i want us to have the burma sanctions continued. i want us to dot right thing but i want us to do it in the right way and we're not. so that's where i stand. i would defer to the chairman for his comments. mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, i very much understand the frustration of the senator from colorado -- from oklahoma. it's -- and i understand his reasons for objecting. in a perfect world, i might be sympathetic with his reasons. but this is not the perfect world. this is the world where we try to do our best to do our work and get legislation passed. i personal delay have a problem

with the senator' senator's sug- i personally don't have a problem with the senator's suggestion, if we could set aside 30 minute minutes. this bill is fully paid for already. just the senator would like it paid for in a different way. but the problem i have in trying to arrange all this and put it together is i can't control other senators. other senators may object to the senator's provision. they may have their own bills, their own -- in fact, i can think of two or three right now who would very much take advantage of a process where the senator from oklahoma strips out the bill and offers his own pay-for, because they'd say, oh, gosh, now it is an opportunity for me to offer mine.

then we're kind of really stuck. because the burma provisions expire, as the senator knows, today. we can't dally. we can't wait. the agoa provision expires the end of september. one could wait, wait until the end of september. unfortunately, a lost american t of american companies are laying people off, lots of job losses already occurring as a consequence of the uncertainty. and so my job is to put together several bills here, including pntr for russia. the committee -- talk to others and try to find accommodation to get it passed. i totally agree with the senator on his main point; namely, how much fraud and waste there is and that should be addressed, how important it is toest gget e debt down. as the senator knows, we

yesterday in committee talked about ways to address the so-called fiscal cliff, the very beginnings of the finance committee solution to the debt and some kind of grand bargain as well as tax reform. and you're right, senator, you did file amendments with alter national offsets and did i state the amendment would be ruled nongermane. that's true, because in my judgment it is not germane. and you've suggested -- you did suggest at that time you wanted to offer it on the floor. as i said, i'm not personally opposed to having a vote on your amendment, the so-called -- so long as there's a limited time of debate. but i do think -- believe others will object because they're going to want to have their provisions passed. i juris believe at this point -- i just believe at this point it makes sense to proceed with agoa, the cafta bill, the burma bill and deal with how we do

offsets at a future date but not right now, because it just gums too much else up. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: what the chairman said is this bill is paid for. what the chairman said is this bill is paid for. i would put forward to the american public that if you went to wendy's this afternoon and said, "give me a double cheeseburg irand, oh, by the way, over the next ten years i'm going to pay for it," most americans would not say it's paid for. what we're edoing is we're taking custom user fees in the years 2021 to understand 20 and 2019 and all the wait down pay for this bill. that's the problem. and we'll never solve our other problems until we get out of the mind-set of saying, because of the rules we can stretch out the

payment and call it paid for. this bill isn't paid for. it's going to be paid for by the people who import things ten years from now. not now. that's the whole point. that's why we have a $1.3 trillion deficit this year. that's why we have at least 2 million to 3 million people unemployed in this country, because of our debt. so the point is, is there a point in time where we're going to stop paying for things in the future and pay for them now? that's my objection. i'm fully open to passing this bill, if somebody will just pay for it this year. but if we're not going to pay for it this queer this year, tht going to pass the bill by unanimous consent. and i would tell you, nobody else operates this way. nobody rationalizes that you can pay for -- and the other thing, this is just $200 billion. everybody outside of washington, that is a lot of money.

here it is peanuts. to say we can't pay for something of $200 million in a bill to do this, right now to start the self-discipline of paying for it, it just says we're not worthy of being here if we conte won't do that. so i would love to work a solution for this but there is a time and place where you change the direction of how you opera operate. and for me, this is the bill that now says to me, we're going to start paying for things. and if we can't pay for a $00 million pay-for in the same year or at least the same three years that we're actually going to spend it, then we're just not going to pass bills with my help. and it's now me. i'm not just speaking for tom coburn. the vast majority of americans want us to pay for things by cutting wasteful spending.

and the fact that we're going to take custom user fees over ten years to pay for this is just ludicrous. and nobody in the rest of the economy can go out and say, "oh, by the way, i want to consume it now but i'll pay you ten years from now interest free." it doesn't work that way. and we ought not to be doing it. so with that, the chairman has my utmost respect. he has a tough job. i know that. of trying to do that. and i will continue to try to work on a solution for this problem. but i'm not moving from a position that we're going to pay for the things in the year in which we encounter them. and i yield the floor. mr. coburn: i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut is recognized. mr. lieberman: thank you, mr. president. and i ask unanimous consent that further provisions urn the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i, therefore, ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that they be printed in the record. the presiding officer: no objection, so ordered. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, may i ask what the pending business is now. the presiding officer: the motion to proceed on s. 3414. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair and i rise to speak on that motion to proceed to s. 3414, which is the cyber security act of 2012. mr. president, this -- a cloture petition has been filed. it will ripen sometime tomorrow but i think it's the hope of

members on both sides of the aisle that we can proceed to vote on the motion to proceed today. and i'm hopeful that colleagues on both sides of the aisle will -- will vote to proceed because though there continue to be some disagreements about the content of this bill, the different approaches taken, i don't think there's any member of the senate who doesn't appreciate the fact that our country is currently under cyber attack every day. our businesses are victims of -- of cyber theft every day with the loss, consequential loss of billions of dollars worth of investments and i'd say tens of thousands of jobs going elsewhere. so -- so the -- this is -- this bill is not a solution in search of a problem. it's an attempt to solve a

problem. and although there may be differences still on different components of the bill, i hope everybody will join together in at least saying let's proceed to the debate and see if we can reach a conclusion by -- before we leave for the august break next week. i will report in this regard that this morning there was a second meeting held. those who have been most active in supporting different legislation that deals with the cyber threat to america, senator collins and i, senator feinstein, senator rockefeller, senator carper, who introduced the pending matter, the cyber security act of 2012, senator hutchison and chambliss were there today, senator coats, who

introduced the so-called secure i.t. act. and then the group of peacemakers, bridge believers, senator kyl and whitehouse, senator graham, senator coons, senator blumenthal and senator coats again, who is -- he sits on two of the three groups which makes him a super bridge builder. it was a very good, substantive discussion, i think in which we're all fleshing out the details of the various proposals. we're seeing some areas i think where we feel that we've got a real opportunity to agree and some areas where it may be more difficult but we haven't given up. but overall, i would say that this process to me has been very encouraging. basically all the leading parties in the senate, all the senators are around the same table talking, which is a very, very constructive thing to have

happen and i appreciate that. and to me, it's just more reason to vote to proceed. mr. president, i -- i want to begin my statement by thanking the aforementioned senators collins, rockefeller, feinstein and carper who joined me in sponsoring s. 3414, which i want to talk about a bit now in this opening statement. i also want to thank the majority leader, senator reid, for seeing the cyber threat to america in all its urgency and reality. last year urging senator collins and me to go forward and repor report -- work on legislation, try to work across party lines to get a bill out, and then now to thank senator reid for keeping his commitment to bring this bill to the floor, even though, as always, there are clearly other important issues vying for this body's attention. but to me, there's none more important to america's security

or -- and prosperity than this topic, which is cyber security and the cyber security bill that is pending now. i'd like to make three points in my remarks today to my colleagues. first is that the danger of cyber attacks against the united states is clear, present and growing. with enemies ranging from rival nations to cyber terrorists, organized crime gangs to rogue hackers sitting at computers almost anywhere around the wor world, the pending matter, s. 3414, cyber security act of 2012, responds directly and i think effectively to this danger. second, this bill has been a long time in coming and in this regard, i want to note that there was a -- a ler sen lettert

by the united states chamber of commerce overnight that i must say i found very disappointing overall because i don't think -- if i may just state it affirmatively -- it doesn't embrace the same spirit that i see members of the senate embracing, that though we have different positions here, we can't afford to be inflexible. we can't be open to -- we can't be closed to compromise because of the urgency of the threat to our country and because of the general principle that's not been as evident here in the senate and congress generally as it should be in recent years, that you never get anything done unless there's some compromise here. and i'm not talking about compromise of principle. but, you know, if you go into every negotiation saying, i'll only accept 100% of what i want,

ultimately you're not going to get anything. if you can get 80%, 75%, 60%, particularly when you're dealing with a threat to the security of the united states and our prosperity as real as the cyber threat. so i -- i hope our friends at the chamber will reconsider their -- the tone of their opposition and come to the table to talk with us about their concerns and see if we can't reach common ground, because there's a larger national interest at stake here than represented by any particular group or any individual senator or their point of view. but in that letter, the chamber says that "s. 3414, the cyber security act of 2012, has been rushed" -- i'm quoting from the letter of july 25, 2012, signed by bruce josten, executive v.p. for government affairs of the

u.s. chamber of commerce. the letter says that this bill has been -- and i quote now -- "rushed to the floor without a legislative hearing or markup. the bill was introduced just last week and remains a moving target. new or modified provisions of the bill are expected to be released in the coming days." if they are, it's going to be a result of the give-and-take compromise that leads to legislation that's going on now. but i want to respond to the idea that this sort of came out of nowhere. this bill has been a long time in coming. as a matter of fact, i -- i went back and looked at the records. i attended my first hearing on cyber security as a member of the former senate governmental affairs committee -- that is the pred s. to hepredecessor to thet homeland security and government affairs committee -- under the leadership of chairman fred thompson. that was back in 1998. that's a long time ago, 14 years ago. i've been concerned ever since

about the growing threat of cyber attack, along with my dear friend and colleague on the committee, senator collins. our committee has held multiple hearings on cyber security. that is the new homeland security and governmental affairs committee. and we weren't alone. there have been numerous hearings over the past several years and markups by multiple committees in both the senate -- many held by our colleague, senator rockefeller and senator feinstein in the commerce and senate intel committees -- as well as in the house. and those deliberations and discussions were informed by numerous government and private-sector studies on the dangers that lurk in cyberspace. so this bill didn't just come out of nowhere. we reported a bill out of our committee, a lot of hearings, open markup. we began at the majority

leader's direction to negotiate with the other committees, particularly commerce and intel. we reached agreement and that's essentially what this bill is. and, incidentally, we then altered this bill, senator collins, feinstein, rockefeller and i, in response to the bipartisan kyl-whitehouse -- that is sheldon whitehouse group -- recommendations to make it nonmandatory. but i think still significant. so this -- this bill has been aired and worked on and it's for action. but more -- more to the point, the senate needs to act. that's why it's so important that we adopt the motion to proceed, because this threat is real, dangerous and growing every day. third, this bill, 3414, is the result of bipartisan compromise. it's both bipartisan and it's the result of compromise.

we cosponsors, as i mentioned, gave up some things that we thought were important that we had in our original bill, but given the cyber threat, we actually thought it was more important to move forward with a bill that will significantly strengthen our cyber security even though it doesn't do everything we wanted to do and thought should be done. we didn't want to lose the chance to pass cyber legislation this year that could prevent a cyber-9/11 attack against the united states before it happens. instead of rushing in the midst of mayhem back to the senate and house to adopt cyber security legislation after we suffer a major attack. we have, as i've said, incorporated ideas from senators whitehouse, kyl, and the other members that they were working with quite diligently to help us find common ground. and i want to explicitly and real enthusiastically thank them

for their efforts. we've heard and responded to senators durbin, franken, wyden and others and advocacy groups across the political spectrum, from left to right, who have pressed for greater protections for privacy, personal privacy, in this bill. and we've made substantial changes designed to address concerns from stakeholders and colleagues. i'm confident that we can work through more issues as we debate the bill on the floor, but the main point here is, if i may use quite a familiar expression around here, with a slightly unique follow-on phrase, i hope, if in our quest for cybersecurity legislation we allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, we're going to end up allowing our enemies to destroy a lot that's good in the united states of america. so we have got to act together

for the good of the nation, get the debate started, and bring amendments to the floor for an up-or-down vote. let me stress at this point that senator reid, the majority leader, has been quite clear that his desire, his intention is to have the process be an open amendment process, so long as the amendments are germane and relevant to the topic of the bill, cybersecurity, not just open to any amendment about any subject. now, i want to go back over these three points and just talk about them in a bit more detail. let me start with the reality of the threat. i want to read from a letter sent to us recently by some of our nation's most experienced security leaders from both republican and democratic administrations. here's a letter to the majority and minority leaders, signed by former bush administration secretary of homeland security

michael chertoff, former bush administration director of national intelligence admiral mike mcconnell, former bush deputy defense secretary paul wolfowitz, former n.s.a. and c.i.a. director general michael hayden, former vice chair of the joint chiefs of staff marine general jim cartwright and former deputy defense secretary william lynn. and i quote from the letter -- "we write -- quite an impressive group, clearly bipartisan, nonpartisan. we write to encourage you to bring cybersecurity legislation to the floor as soon as possible. given the time left in this legislative session, any upcoming election this -- and the upcoming election this fall, we are concerned that the window of opportunity to pass legislation that is in our view critically necessary to protect

our national and economic security is quickly disappearing. these security leaders went on to say infrastructure that controls our electricity, water, sewer, nuclear plants, communications backbone, energy pipelines and financial networks must be acquired to meet appropriate cybersecurity standards. we carry the burden of knowing -- it's really chilling -- we carry the burden of knowing that 9/11 might have been averted with the intelligence that existed at the time. we do not want to be in the same position again when cyber 9/11 hits. it is not a question of whether this will happen. it is a question of when. end of quote. it's not a statement of a member of the senate or an advocate on one side or the other. these are proven national security leaders who have worked

in administrations of both political parties. it's not a question of whether a cyber attack will happen, they say, but when. and many others have issued similar warnings. secretary of defense patent has said that the next -- defense panetta has said that the next pearl harbor-like attack against america will be launched from cyberspace. chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general martin democrat pi has warned, and i quote -- "a cyber attack would stop our society in its tracks." end of quote. just this month, national security agency cyber command chief general keith alexander has blamed cyber attacks for, i quote, the greatest transfer of wealth in history, end of quote. general alexander estimated that american companies lose about

$250 billion a year through intellectual property theft through cyberspace. $114 billion to theft through cyber crime. and another $224 billion in down time the thefts caused. we talk a lot here in the senate these days, as we must, about how we protect american jobs. turns out that creating more cybersecurity in our country, we're also going to protect, i think, tens of thousands of jobs, which otherwise are going to end up elsewhere in the world because they will have stolen the industrial secrets that lead to the new industries that create those jobs. general alexander concluded this part of a statement he made by saying -- quote -- "this is our future disappearing before us."

end of quote. cyber attack. these fears are not speculative -- well, let me go to a recent op-ed in "the wall street journal" that president obama wrote, and i quote -- "in a future conflict, an adversary unable to match our military supremacy on the battlefield might seek to exploit our computer vulnerabilities here at home, taking down vital banking systems can trigger a financial crisis. the lack of clean water or functioning hospitals could spark a public health emergency. and as we have seen in past blackouts, the loss of -- which were caused by natural disasters, for instance -- the loss of electricity can bring businesses, cities, and entire regions to a standstill." end of quote from president obama. these fears are not speculative. they are not theoretical. they are based on existing facts and existing vulnerabilities.

consider, if you will, this recent story in "the washington post" that detailed how a young man living an ocean away used his computer to hack into the control panel of a small town water utility in texas. it took him just ten minutes and required no special tools or training, and the utility had no idea of what had happened until the hacker posted screen shots of his exploit online as a warning of how vulnerable all of us are. imagine if terrorists decided to target a string of small utilities across the united states and either cut off freshwater or dump raw sewage into our lakes, rivers and streams. we will have an environmental economic disaster on our hands, but this is a real possibility. this brings me to my second

point, mr. president. we really need to act and act now. the challenge of cybersecurity has been studied for a long time, and there is no need for more studies or hearings or delay, as the chamber later requests. i went back to the congressional research service. according to a report that they issued, in the 112th congress alone, there have been 38 hearings and four markups in the house and 38 hearings in the senate on cybersecurity. in the 112th congress, the judiciary committee also held a markup on the personal data and privacy security act. and in previous congresses, the senate has held markups on cybersecurity legislation in five separate committees under regular order, all of which was included in the bill that's pending before us today. since 2005, the senate homeland security committee alone has held ten hearings with 48

witnesses and took questions over a total of 18 hours. along with the bill's cosponsors , 3414, senator collins and i along with senators feinstein and rockefeller, have held numerous hearings forums and cybersecurity demonstrations for members and staff. all these hearings and briefings were further informed by, according to the c.r.s., a total of 60 governmental reports totaling 2,624 pangs, produced -- pages, produced by the g.a.o., the department of defense, the o.m.b. and other federal agencies. and this doesn't count the many, many more reports from the private sector, computer security firms like semantec and think tanks and academic institutions like m.i.t. and the center for strategic and international studies. this matter is ready for action. i go back to a 1936 book that

winston churchill wrote, "when england slipped." not why england slipped. when england slipped. he asked his colleagues in permanent, to counter the rise in nazi military power, despite its clear threat to europe. and churchill said what will you know in a few weeks about this matter that you do not know now and have not been told any time in the last six months? end of quote from churchill. and i think the same can be said now. that's why it's so important to adopt the motion to proceed and get something done before we leave washington for august break. finally, mr. president, in the interest of moving forward, my cosponsors and i, as i indicated earlier, have made a major compromise in the bill we're

bringing to the floor in terms of how we deal with critical cyber infrastructure. and here again, we're talking not about small businesses around america. we're talking about power plants, energy pipelines, water systems, financial systems that we all depend on for our banking, water -- sewer systems, for instance, that if sabotaged or come andered in a cyber attack could lead to catastrophic deaths and economic and environmental losses. our original bill, senators collins, feinstein, rockefeller and i, called for mandatory cyber safety standards for all critical infrastructure after those standards were developed in consultation with the private sector. we didn't think this was a unique or onerous requirement, but really our responsibility in carrying out our constitutional oath to provide for the common

defense, since antiquity in fact long before the american constitution, societies have chosen to adopt safety standards to protect their citizens, particularly safety standards for physical structures, starting with the homes we live in, but also our offices, factories and critical infrastructure like power plants and dams. today, we call these building codes. can you imagine if there were no building codes, the danger that people would take when they walked into office buildings or factories or apartment houses or residences? i cannot resist saying that these building codes in some sense are as old as the bible, mr. president. here i go to duty ron m.i.a. -- deuteronomy 22:00.

8, which says when you build a new house, you shall make a para pet for your roof so you should not bring the guilt of blood on your house should anyone fall from it, end of quote. there is direct relevant in a very different context from the biblical context of what we're trying to do here, which is to build a kind of parapet around our cyber systems so we don't bring the guilt of blood on us because somebody is attacked through those cyber systems. the reason we have done this over antiquity in the physical world is obvious. if one of our homes catches fire because of wiring not up to code or the same happens in an apartment building or an office building, the people in it are in danger, obviously, but also the lives and homes of our neighbors, the community are in danger as well. numerous bipartisan national security experts have been in

total agreement that mandatory requirements are needed to protect our national and economic security from the ever-rising risk of cyber attacks. but it was this provision, seen in the context of regulation of business, while we were seeing it as homeland security, protecting homeland security, that was the most controversial in our compromise bill and drew the most criticism, and to be more specific about it, threatened to prevent passage of any cybersecurity legislation this year which for the sponsors of our bill was simply an unacceptable result. so following the rule that no matter how deeply one believes in the rightness of a provision in a bill, we agreed to change it because there is so much else that's critically important in our bill that will protect

america's cybersecurity. and so we withdrew the mandatory provision and made -- created all the standards for performance of how the most critical infrastructure, cyber structure would protect itself, but then left it voluntary. we did create some incentives, though. let me make clear that for the decision to be what we all want it to be, which is as a result of a collaborative, cooperative effort, that businesses that operate the most critical cyber structure, electric systems, water systems, transportation, finance, communications, will want to comply. under our revised bill, private industry, which incidentally owns as much as 85% of the nation's critical infrastructure -- that's the american way, that's great, but when that 80% to 85% of our

critical infrastructure can well, probably will be the target of not just theft but attack by enemies of the united states, we have got to work together to prevent that. so in our bill we give the private sector the opportunity to develop a set of cybersecurity practices which will then be reviewed by a new national cybersecurity council that our bill creates. chaired by the secretary of homeland security, made up of representatives of the departments of defense, commerce, justice, and the intelligence community, presumably the director of national intelligence. this national cybersecurity council will review the standards agreed upon by the private sector, and decide whether they are adequate to

provide the necessary level of cybersecurity for the american people. owners of critical infrastructure will then have a decision to make. do they want to essentially opt into the system, or do they want to not do so. that's up to them under the bill as we've put it to them because it's voluntary. if they opt in, however, and this is what we hope will be an incentive, they will be entitled to receive some benefits, most significant of which will be immunity from certain forms of liability in case of a cyber attack. but we also offer expedited security clearances and technical assistance from our government on cyber questions for those companies, those covered critical cyber infrastructure companies that opt into the system. our colleague from rhode island, senator whitehouse i think is a very good metaphor

for what we're trying to do. we're trying to build fort -- as he says, fort cybersecurity. where you essentially become part of a system that provides greatly enhanced protection from cyber attack and cyber theft. but we're not compelling anybody to come into fort cybersecurity. we're encouraging them to do so and we're giving them some incentives to do so, and, of course, we hope that sound and wise administrators of those companies and really the forces of the marketplace will encourage them to make a decision to come into fort cybersecurity. finally, i'll say that our bill contains information sharing provisions which i think most people have looked at the threat of cyber attack and cyber theft think are very important.

these provisions will allow the private sector and government to share threat information between each other and among themselves. in other words, one private company can share information about an attack with another private company to see if the attack is part of a broader pattern, for instance, to see where it may be coming from, to raise their cyber defenses against it, and to -- to do so without fear of -- well, certainly, for instance, any trust action by the state or fofts. also --, governments. right now, very often people who -- companies who believe they've been a victim of cyber attack will go to the federal government, department of homeland security, national security administration for help. a lot of them don't, and part of it is they fear that -- among other things, that they

may compromise the privacy of their records. others frankly don't want to admit that they've been attacked. and this is a real problem. i'll come back to that in just a moment. so we give also protection from a liability for companies that share their information with the government. yet, there were many individual senators and many people in outside groups that are focused on privacy that were concerned that in doing this we were opening up a method by which parts of our federal government could basically violate privacy restrictions, take personal information off of the information shared by a private company with the government and be the victim of some kind of private -- some kind of public intrusion or even law

enforcement. so i think we negotiated a good series of agreements on this which one, ensure companies who share cybersecurity information with the government give it directly to civilian agencies and not to military agencies. that was a concern that people had. second, ensure that information shared under the program be reasonably necessary to describe a cybersecurity threat. in other words, not -- in other words, not just wantonly shairpd. third, restrict the government's use of information it receives under the cyber information sharing authority so it can be used only for actual cybersecurity purposes and to prosecute cyber crimes with two exceptions, broadly agreed on. one, the information can be used to protect people from imminent threat of death or physical harm, and two, to protect children from serious threats of one sort or another.

next, we would require annual reports from the justice department, homeland security, defense, and intelligence community, inspectors general that describe what information has been received in the previous year, who got it and what was done with it. and then finally, we allow individuals to sue our government if the government intentionally or willfully violates the law. that is to say, the law relating to these privacy protections. now, i'm very pleased by these changes we made and i want add this loud and clear: this bill is about cybersecurity, but in trying to elevate our cybersecurity we didn't want to compromise people's privacy. or their freedom. so what i've just read was intended to assure that this bill, the best we could, would not compromise privacy or freedom rights. but then i took this set of compromises to the most important people in our

government who are focused on cybersecurity, the department of homeland security, the national security agency, the f.b.i., and they all said, i'm pleased to say, these privacy protections will not inhibit their ability to protect america's cybersecurity. that they can live with these without the slightest diminishing of their focus, understandably, which is not privacy but it's cybersecurity, but they said that these amendments to our original bill really don't inhibit what they're doing. so, mr. president, i conclude by again urging my colleagues to vote presumably today, yes on the motion to proceed so we can get the debate started so we can continue to work to achieve common ground and a meeting of

the minds and enact this piece of crucial national and economic security legislation in this session of congress. i thank the chair and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senior senator from texas is recognized. mrs. hutchison: i have listened to the senator from connecticut and the presentation on the bill that i assume will be voted on today and i appreciate very much that we have had the meetings because there are really two bills that have been introduced, the lieberman-collins and that group's bills, and then i have legislation called the secure i.t. act along with senators mccain, chamb, grassley, coats, johnson, and burr. these are eight ranking members

of the subcommittees and committees that have jurisdiction over cybersecurity, and we differ in a major way from the bill that is before us that is cosponsored by the ranking member of the homeland security committee, but all of the other committees of jurisdiction ranking members are in disagreement. now, the good news is we have been meeting to try to begin to work out the differences and see sph if we can move forward. our bill, the secure i.t. bill, will be introduced as an amendment in the nature of a substitute if in fact we take up the bill today. and i would agree with what senator lieberman said right off the bat in that i believe as long as we have an open amendment process that we will

vote to move to the bill. i don't think anyone in our group or anyone with whom i've talked wants to hold up dealing with cybersecurity. we know that america's systems could be under threat and some have been hacked into already. there are terrorists that seek to sabotage networks. there are just people who want access to proprietary information and intellectual property, and we need to protect our systems and our country against those attacks, which is why as long as we have an amendment process and we're not shut out from discussing this, we will vote to move forward to the bill. this bill was not marked up in committee. it did have a lot of hearings in the committee, but it wasn't marked up so amendments were not able to be introduced and

discussed and voted on. which makes it harder, as we all know, when you come to the floor with a bill where there are major disagreements and not have had the capability for the committee to take up the amendments and vote on them. so that's why i think we need to have the open amendment process and why we do want to move forward on the good faith that it will be open. now, our bill, the secure i.t. act, is centered on consensus items. it sets aside the controversial provisions that are of questionable need and it also is one that we believe we could work with the house to pass and send to the president. the bill that we have would greatly improve information sharing to and from and with government, with other private-sector industries in the same field, and we think that

is the most important step that we could all take on a fairly quick basis and start the process of getting more security throughout our systems. but we must ensure also that the entities and government -- in government and industry share back and forth. it has to be a two-way street. obviously, if an industry is going to share information about potential threats, it must get information from the governments that are doing the intelligence gathering on a quick basis if they see risks or they see problems in a system. our bill also dramatically improves cybersecurity for federal agencies themselves. it does update the rules that govern cybersecurity, and it requires any government contractor to inform their agency clients if their clients'

systems are under any kind of risk or attack. we think that is reasonable as a part of a government contracting requirement. today, antitrust laws and liability concerns inhibit private companies from exchanging the information that is necessary to defend against and respond to cyber threats. if a company knows that it is going to be required or asked or encouraged to share with a competitor information about cyber threats, they've got to know that they're not going to be then hit with an antitrust lawsuit. i think that's pretty -- pretty clear. so our bill does address that. we make it very clear that there are antitrust immunities as well as most certainly immunity from a lawsuit if you meet the

volunteer standards on a voluntary basis and you are audited to show that you have done what the standards have put forward as the best practices, then you would have a liability against a lawsuit on a cybersecurity attack. so those are the things that we do that i think will open up the information sharing, which is the way that we believe it is important to move the next step. it -- it is also i think very important that we have the safeguards for privacy. i do believe the bill, the underlying bill, certainly protects privacy. so does our substitute. we have safeguards that protect the privacy and civil liberties of all americans while we preserve the right to assure that we try to protect america

in general from attack from the outside. we also in our bill improve the security of federal information systems and facilities to prosecute cyber crime. we want to beef up the criminals who are hacking in and potential terrorists that might to be able to prosecute against cyber crime as a disincentive to break the law. our legislation finally, mr. president, has broad industry support. the businesses in the private sector who know their systems best and who fight every day to protect their systems and networks believe that secure i.t. is the best way to go. we believe that without the cooperation of the business community, without a big regulatory morass, that is the way that we are going to get the most cooperation from the people who are running the networks and

systems. i have letters of endorsement from the u.s. chamber of commerce, the national association of manufacturers, the american fuel and petrochemical manufacturers, the american petroleum institute, the u.s. telecom national retail fed ration, the internet security alliance, and ask for consent to enter these letters into the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. hutchison: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman -- or mr. president. our bill also allows for the true collaborative effort. effort now, the reason we're not supporting the bill that is on the floor today is because we believe that it does not do the priorities

that we can pass and it does increase the mandates and the regulatory overkill in our opinion that will keep our companies from being able to move forward on an expedited basis to start protecting our systems. a priority of mine has been throughout this process that we help the private sector combat cyber attacks by breaking down the barriers to sharing information. if we could take that one step, we would be a long way toward assuring that we are increasing the security of all americans. but the bill before us will actually undermine current information sharing between the government and the private sector. that bill's information sharing step -- title is a step backwards because it slows the transfer of critical information to our intelligence agencies and there's not sufficient

protection from antitrust. in addition, there is no consensus in the united states senate to grant the department of homeland security with broad new authority to impose burdensome regulations on the private sector. while i am pleased that our colleagues who are cosponsoring the bill that is before us have made an effort to move away from direct regulation of our nation's systems, it has a long way to go. while their bill allows the private sector to propose standards that are described as voluntary, the bill actually empowers federal agencies to make these voluntary standards mandatory. if an agency does not make the standards mandatory, it would have to report to congress why it had failed to do so. well, that's a pretty big incentive for mandates to start being put on with regulations

that will be required. i believe that there is a way forward. if the senate takes the well-reasoned and broadly supported provisions of the secure i.t. bill and puts them with a voluntary and industry-driven critical infrastructure protection title, we could pass a senate bill with overwhelming support. the key to reaching consensus has five parts. the cybersecurity standards must be developed by the private sector and must be truly voluntary. the relationship between government and the private sector in this area must be cooperative, not adversarial and not regulatory. the national institute for standards and technology should be the convening authority for the private private-sector stand setting process. the government can have a role in ensuring the standards are

sufficient and it should, but it can't establish a regulatory regime that will lengthen and hamper the efforts to open information sharing. companies -- and here's the incentive for the companies to do exactly what we're asking them to do -- companies that adopt the voluntary standards must receive robust and straightforward protections from liability as well as necessary antitrust and freedom of information act exemptions. if a company is going to turn over proprietary information to the government, they must be protected from freedom of information act requests from the government that would then take their private proprietary information public. as in the secure i.t. act, the information sharing title must be strong and encourage the private sector to share information and it must encourage the government to share with the private sector. it cannot cut those out with the

most expertise in the area, meaning the national security agencies should not have to be subservient to the department of homeland security. in addition, a five-year sunset would allow congress to revisit the act and make needed changes. fisa has certainly shown that with a sunset, it allows the flexibility to adapt to new issues that arise and stay current in its processes to deal with cybersecurity. we believe a five-year sunset would be the right time to get this going, set things in place, see what works and see what needs to be adjusted. i'm hopeful that my colleagues and i can come to a compromise on this critical issue. we want a strong cybersecurity bill. we want one that can pass both houses. the five points that i have laid

out could get us to a bill that will significantly take the steps to improve our nation's cybersecurity. mr. president, i would just like to read a couple of excerpts from a heritage -- the heritage foundation's views of the bill that is before us today. cybersecurity legislation will likely be taken up by the senate tomorrow" -- this was written yesterday. "regrettably, the idea that we just need to do something about cybersecurity seems to be trumping the view that we need to do it right. the cybersecurity act of 2012, authored by senators lieberman and collins, seeks to solve our cybersecurity ills but only threatens to make the situation worse. the voluntary nature the act

before us, the standards within the act before us, is also questionable. any voluntary standard is one step away from mandatory in the bill. senator lieberman has already indicated that if the standards aren't voluntarily used, he would make -- he would push to make them mandatory. even more concerning, section 103-g of the act before us gives current regulators the power to make these voluntary standards mandatory. it specifically authorizes that action. if a regulator doesn't mandate the standards, the regulatory agency will have to report to congress why it didn't do so. again, strong encouragement to just make the standards mandatory and avoid a congressional inquisition." finally, the heritage foundation goes to say, "the sharing and analysis of cybersecurity threat information was weakened by confining cybersecurity information exchanges to

civilian organizations. though in an ideal world the department of homeland security would have the capability to lead our cybersecurity efforts, it currently lacks those capabilities and needs to lean on more capable organizations, such as the national security agency. the recent changes, however, give d.h.s. more responsibility than it is likely able to hand handle -- to handle." so, mr. president, we will certainly move forward with the understanding that we will have the ability to offer amendments and try to make this a workable bill. it is certain that because the committee was not able to mark up the bill, that you have to have the amendments to try to perfect it. i would very much like to take the first step forward in cybersecurity, which is why,

assuming we have the right to amend, i will support going to the legislation so that we can start the amendment process next week. i think that the people who are cosponsors of my legislation, along with senator mccain, senator chambliss, senator burr, senator murkowski, senator coa coats, senator johnson, we want to make sure that we do this right. as the heritage foundation has so aptly said, we don't want a big, new regulatory scheme that is not going to be successful in our efforts to improve the cybersecurity safeguards in our system. we are the ranking members of all but one of the relevant committees. we know this area. we deal with the agencies that deal with cybersecurity and all the national security in our

country and we know what can work and we know what we have a chance to pass and we know how to take the first step forward without another big regulatory overreach that we have seen happen in the last 3 1/2 years in this administration. we hope to work with the majority, with the lieberman-collins bill and come up with something that everyone will feel is the right step forward. we'd like to have a bill that would get a large number of votes rather than a very lopsided vote against it. so, mr. president, i appreciate very much that we are now beginning to discuss this. i'm appreciative that we have had several meetings with all the sides that had been put

forward with having concerns with the bill that's on the floor as well as its sponsors. and i hope we can keep working towards a solution that will protect america and do it in the right way. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from arizona is recognized. mr. mccain: i thank -- i'd like to ask unanimous consent to take just four minutes on -- or five minutes on morning business and then speak on the -- on the pending legislation. the presiding officer: is there objection? so ordered. mr. mccain: mr. president, i noted my friend, senator lieberman, on the floor a second ago and i know he joins me in this statement. i'd like to just take a few minutes and pay tribute to ambassador ryan crocker, who ended his tour this week as the u.s. chief of mission in kabul, afghanistan. as some of my colleagues may know, ambassador crocker's health has unfortunately been poor so he's returning to

receive some much-needed care. but what my colleagues may not know is that ambassador crocker's health has been poor for some time and the people who care about him most -- his family, his friends and colleagues in the foreign service and our secretary of state herself -- told ambassador crocker long ago that he needed to leave his post and that he needed to get away from the long days and long nights of too much stress and not enough sleep. they told him to come home for his own sake. eventually ambassador crocker relented, but still he was only going to leave on his own terms. he said that america asks the best of our country, our men and women in uniform and their many civilian partners who work and sacrifice shoulder to shoulder with our troops in the field. to serve in afghanistan for one year, ambassador crocker said he would expect no less of himself and do no less