don't roll, nothing changes. i yield the floor. i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i return to the floor today to give voice once again to the issue that i feel will most significantly define this generation of leadership in the united states and around the globe. i rise to discuss the notable, evident changes taking place in our earth's climate, the relationship between our own activities and the change and the rate of change being observed, and our so-far forsaken responsibility to address climate change head-on and with purpose.

last month representatives from world governments, the private sector, n.g. o.'s and other major stakeholders gathered in brazil for a conference on sustainable development. marking the 20th anniversary of the earth summit in rio, this conference was nicknamed "rio plus 20." so-called sustainable development principles consistent of a set of principles and strategies that when acted upon by the global community will balance strong economic growth, expansion of just, civic, and government structures and environmental protection. another way to view sustainable development is in the balance of the needs of the present with those of future generations through the fair use of

resources. as secretary of state hillary rodham clinton said, "in the 21st century, the only viable development is sustainable development. the only way to deliver lastin g progress for everyone is by preserving our resources and protecting our common environment." one positive development of this rio plus 20 conference wassit discussion of promoting sustainability. the document adopted entitled "the future we want" highlights the role of private companies, the private sector, and their close collaboration with governments in driving sustainable development. it reads in part, "we acknowledge that the implementation of sustainable development will depend on active engagement of both the public and private sectors. we recognize that the active

participation of the private sector can contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including through the important tool of publi public-private partnerships." a number of rio's corporate participants have stepped forward to accept this challenge. many of these global businesses are recognizing that greening their operatio operations is not good for the environment; it's good for their business as well. dell, for example, has committed to reducing its worldwide facilities, greenhouse gas emissions 40% by 2015. dell is a computer technology corporation based in texas that ranks 44th on the fortune 500 and employs over 106,000 people. i doubt they made that decision rashly. banc of america is number 13 on

the 2012 fortune 500 list and was the first bank to offer coast-to-coast operations in the united states. they have committed $50 billion over ten years to finance energy efficiency, renewable energy and energy access and other activities that advance the low-carbon economy. marriott has displayed both internal and external efforts by committing to build ten fairfield by marriott hotels constructed to sustainable building materials as well as pledging money for the rain fosts in the state of amazonus, brazil. marriott ranks first on the fortune 500 list in the category of hotels, casinos, resorts. microsoft has committed to going completely carbon-neutral and will be factoring the costs of carbon output into the company's

business operations in over 100 countries. these companies are just a few examples from the effort that is being undertaken in the private sector to meet our responsibilities to address climate change. as leaders in government, we must recognize that the private sector will not, however, be able to halt climate change on its own. but these commitments do signify that action on climate change does not need to come at the expense of economic growth. governments can and must provide incentives for sustainable production and consumption. indeed, the rio plus 20 output document goes ton say, "we support national regulatory frame with that allow business and industry to advance initiatives taking into account corporate social responsibility. as leaders in the public sector,

we have the capacity to establish those effective incentives that can leverage billions in private-sector investment into sustainable products and services that support environmental and social improvements." the constructive role that government can play is being recognized not just in capitals around the world but in boardrooms around the world. yet, unfortunately, here in washington the special interests that deny the carbon pollution causes global temperatures to rise, that deny that melting ice caps destablize our climate so that for instance regions face extreme drought, as the senator from colorado discussed earlier, or outsized precipitation events, as we've seen in my home state of rhode island, those special interests in washington, they still have a strong hold, and they pretend that the jury

is still out on climate change caused by carbon pollution. this is, to be blunt about it an outright falsehood. the fact that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere absorbs heat from the sun was discovered at the time of the civil war. 1863 -- 1,863 was when the irish scientist john tyndall determined that carbon dioxide and also water vapor trapped more water in the atmosphere as their concentrations increased. the 1955 textbook "our astonishing atmosphere" from the year i was born notes that "nearly a century ago" -- in 195, nearly a century ago, the scientist john tyndall suggested

that a fall in the atmosphere's carbon dioxide could allow the earth to cool whereas a rise in carbon dioxide could make it warmer." so this is not something new. this is not something unusual or extraordinary. this is solidly established science. in the early 1900's it became clear that changes in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can account for significant increases and decreases in the earth's annual average temperatures and that carbon dioxide released primarily by the burning of coal would contribute to these changes. again, this is not new stuff. these are well-established scientific principles. let's look at the changes that we observe in our changing planet. over the last 800,000 years, until very recently, the atmosphere has stayed within a band wing of 170 to 300 parts

per million of carbon dioxide. that's been the range for 8,000 centuries. and, by the way, that's a measurement, not a theory. scientists measure historic carbon dioxide concentrations by locating trapped air bubbles in the ice of ancient glaciers. so i would know by measurement over time what the range has been of our carbon dioxide concentration. what else do we know? well, we know since the industrial revolution we've burned carbon-rich fuels in measurable and ever-increasing amounts and that we are now up to 7-8 gigatons a year, a gigaton, with a "b," metri is a

billion tons a year. it has increased the carbon concentration in our atmosphere. that should not be a difficult proposition that when you're dunk 7-8 metric tons of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it raises the concentration in the atmosphere. and we now measure those carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. we measure them climbing. again, this is a measurement, not a theory. the present concentration exceeds 390 parts per million. 8,000 centuries between 170 and 300 parts per million, and now we're out of that range as far as 390 parts per million. in the arctic, we have actually clipped over into 400 parts per million. here's what "the christian

science monitor" said about this. "the arctic is the leading indicator in global warming, both in carbon dioxide in the air and effects," said peter tans, a senior noaa scientist. it is the leading indicator both in terms of the carbon dioxide and effects of that carbon dioxide concentration. "this is the first time the entire arctic is that high," he said. close quote. tans called reaching the 400 number depressing and his colleague jim buckler, who is the global monitoring director at the noaa's earth system research lab in boulder, colorado, said it was -- quote -- "a troubling milestone." it is an important threshold, said carnegie institute scientist who helps lead the

nobel-prize winning intergovernmental panel on climate change. it is an indication that we are in a different world. it is an indication that we are in a different world. and in this article they make the same point that i made a moment ago. i'll quote the article. "it's been at least 800,000 years, probably more, since earth saw carbon dioxide levels in the 400's," butler and other climate scientists said. so another thing that we do pretty regularly around here in business, in the military, in science is plotting trajectori trajectories. it's something that, frankly, scientists, business earmarks and military folks do every day. there's nothing new here. when i plot the trajectory for our carbon concentration, the

trajectory for our carbon pollution predicts 688 parts per million in the year 2095 and 1,097 parts per million in the year 2195. 688 parts per million in the year 2095, when for 8,000 centuries it's been between 170 and 300. 8,000 centuries, 170 to 3000. and by the end of this century, 688. to put that 800,000-year figure in perspective, mankind has engaged in agriculture for maybe 10,000 years, maybe a little more. 800,000 years ago it's not clear we'd yet figured out how to make a fire. millions of years ago goes back into geologic time, and those

carbon concentrations, 688 parts per million, 1,097 parts per million -- those are carbon concentrations that we have not seen in millions of years on the surface of the earth, and we're headed for them in just a century and a half -- two cities centuries. -- two centuries. as tyndall termed at the time of the civil war, increasing carbon concentrations will absorb more of the sun's heat and raise global temperatures and experience around the world is proving that that is take place in front of our faces in undeniable ways. we think often of climate change as happening to our atmosphere and we think about its effects on our lands, because we're land-based creatures. but let me talk just for a minute about our oceans. in april of this year, a group of scientific experts came

together to discuss the current state of our oceans. their workshop report stated this, and i'll quote -- "human actions have resulted in warming and acidification of the oceans and are now causing increased hypoxia." hypoxia is when there is not enough oxygen trapped in the ocean to sustain life of creatures that live in the ocean. "studies of the earth's past indicate that these are the three symptoms -- warming, acidification and increased hypoxia are the three symptoms associated with each of the previous five mass extinctions on earth. we experienced two mass ocean extinctions 55 million years ago and 251 million years ago. last year, a paleobiologist at

brann university whose name is jessica whiteside, published a study stating that it took eight million years after that for plant and animal diversity to return to preextinction levels. so that was a pretty heavy-duty wipeout if it took eight million years to recover. here's the tough part. in the leadup to these past mass ocean extinctions, scientists have estimated that the earth was emitting carbon into the atmosphere at a rate of 2.2 gigatons per year for the earlier extinction and somewhere between one and two gigatons per year for the second extension over several thousand years. now, remember how much are we releasing now? seven to eight gigatons a year.

2.2 and somewhere between one and two were the levels that led to the mass extinctions in geologic time and we're now at seven or eight gigatons a year. as the group of oxford scientists noted, both of these estimates, the ones for how much was being released in those geologic times are dwarfed in comparison to today's emissions. our oceans are indeed changing before our very eyes, and anyone who spends time on the oceans or who studies the oceans knows this. the oceans are rising. the oceans are swept by more violent storms. the oceans are getting more acid, affecting already the creatures at the bottom of the food chain upon which ocean life depends. it is very hard for a creature

to succeed in an environment in which it is becoming soluble, and that is what is happening as our oceans acid phi and the -- acidify and the small basic creatures at the very bottom of the food chain that live by making their shells can no longer make shells successfully because the water is too acidic. in the arctic, we see unprecedented ice melt. the caps are shrinking. every day, it seems, we hear about a new record being broken, a new loss of ice cover in the arctic. in the tropics, we see coral dying. in some places, 80% of the coral is gone. i have been to places that i can remember live and lively coral

reefs, and now you go back and the coral is still there but it's dead. it's like an abandoned building. fish can swim around in it but it's not the fountain of life that a coral reef is supposed to be. there is a garbage geyer in the pacific that is estimated to be larger than the size of the state of texas in which enormous amounts of the plastics that we discard are being swept and floating. we have whales that are poison to the point where -- poisoned to the point where if they come ashore in rhode island on a summer day, if they're hurt or they get washed ashore because they're injured, we often end up with whale cadavers in the summers on our coast. when that happens, it's reasonably likely that that whale is toxic waste.

that if you towed the body back out to the ocean to let it sink and let nature take its course, you would be violating our clean water laws by disposing of toxic waste. if you crank that whale's body up to the back of a truck and took it to the town dump and chucked it, you would be violating the hazardous waste disposal laws of the state of rhode island. because we have put so much poison in the ocean that creatures like whales that live at the top of the food chain have now become so infiltrateed with these poisons that they are now swimming toxic waste. around here, we like to think pretty highly of ourselves. but the laws of physics, the laws of chemistry, the laws of science, these are laws of

nature. these are laws of god's earth. we can repeal some laws around here. we can't repeal those. senators are used to our opinions mattering around here. these laws are not affected by our opinions. for these laws of nature, because we can neither repeal them nor influence them, we bear a duty of stewardship, of responsibility to future generations, to see and respond to the facts that are before our faces. and to see and respond to those facts according to nature's laws.

there is no lobbyist so powerful, there is no secret special interest so wealthy that it can change the operation of those laws. what they have done is to change the operation of our laws, inhibited our ability to meet our duty to respond to the laws of our god-given earth. we do indeed bear a duty to make the right decisions for our children and grandchildren and our god-given earth, and right now we are failing, shamefully failing in that duty. we are deluded if we think that somehow we will be spared the plain and foreseeable consequences of our failure to act. some may hope that they will find a wizard's hat and wand with which to wish all of this away.

well, that is not rational thinking. if we have a simple obligation to our children and to future generations, it's to be rational human beings and to make rational decisions based on the evidence and the laws of nature. these laws of nature are known. earth he's message to us is clear -- earth's message to us is clear. our failure is blameworthy. its consequences are profound, and the costs will be very, very high. i see the distinguished senator from alaska who actually brought a wonderful scientist from the university of alaska who gave one of the better presentations on ocean acidification that i have ever seen as part of our oceans caucus, so i yield the floor to senator murkowski.

ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. i have had an opportunity to listen for a few moments to the comments of my colleague from rhode island. i clearly share his passion, his concern for the oceans. we have been working together as the cochairmen of the oceans caucus here in the senate and have had the opportunity to learn from one another on both ends of the country about the significance and the responsibilities that we have. also the great challenges that we have, whether it's ocean acidification, whether it is the opportunities that we have to ensure that we are good stewards of our water, our land, our air. it is a challenge that i think we face on a daily basis, but i think as we -- as we rise to

meet these challenges, we recognize that oftentimes within the laws that we have put in place to provide for that level of protection, for that level of oversight and that stewardship, that we may encounter conflict. conflict with the obligation that we also have to ensure that the people that we represent have an opportunity for good jobs, for a livelihood in a region that they call home, that there is a level of balance that we find between our obligation to care for the land, the air, the water as well as caring for one another, and it is in that vein, mr. president, that i'd like to address my comments here this afternoon. i'd like to speak today about

certain aspects of what we see within the environmental protection agency and speak specifically to an issue that's unfolding in my state of alaska. clearly, the e.p.a. has important responsibilities to set and also to enforce environmental standards. i think we would all agree with that. in the 40 years since e.p.a. was established, our nation has made dramatic progress in restoring and preserving our environmental resources. i'm grateful, i am proud to live in a nation with high environmental standards for the benefit of the land and for the people. but the process for setting federal environmental standards, i would suggest, mr. president, is broken. we are seeing things present themselves, not only in my state but around the country we see in alaska day in and day out that

things just aren't working, perhaps, as they were designed. so many alaskans feel that the e.p.a. doesn't get alaska, but the challenges i think that we see up north are just -- just examples of the many problems that we see repeated all over the nation. i would suggest that what we need to see here is balance, balance restored at the e.p.a. there has always been a recognition that the e.p.a. must go about its work in a balanced way. back in 1970, it was a memo called the ash memo, and it lists the origin of the e.p.a. they stated it this way. sound environmental administration must reconcile divergent interest and serve the total public constituency. it must appreciate and take

fully into account competing social and economic claims. mr. president, in recent years, e.p.a. has not adequately let alone fully taken into account these so-called competeing claims such as the genuine welfare of our peopl and their economic needs. now, e.p.a. says -- and i have had many a conversation with administrator jackson in person and before committee where the statements are made that there is a concern about environmental justice for communities that are historically underrepresented in e.p.a. decisionmaking. the fact is that many of those communities are -- are very frequently the ones that bear the brunt of regressive increases in -- for instance, in my state, in energy and in living costs that are caused by some of these rules that we are facing. when i go home, when i meet with

people from around the country, i hear more complaints, more concerns expressed about the e.p.a. than any other federal agency, bar none. again and again, i'm told that the benefits of many of the e.p.a. requirements are uncertain at best but that the costs of the regulations are very real and they are detrimental to the human welfare. today's e.p.a. often seems too eager to impose requirements that are dubious in their health or their environmental benefits but whose main effect may be to penalize or perhaps to even stop commerce or development, so restoring an appropriate ee quickly lib rum -- equilibrium is vital if we want to have a healthy economy. today i'd like to speak to one example from my state, and this is it is a relates to eca.

eca is the reference to the emissions control area. the e.p.a. was a major proponent of including the ocean off of southern and southeastern alaska in an international emissions control area. this was an effort to reduce emissions from main vessels through lowering sulfur standards within the fuel. the purposes of the emission control area is to require ships which to be very fair certainly have significant emissions. require these ships to do their part to curb solution. absolutely reasonable. absolutely reasonable. the problem that we're seeing up north is that e.p.a. never gathered any air modeling data to support the claim that we've got a problem from ships that travel up to alaska.

so there has been no air modeling data whatsoever. we've requested, there has been none. moreover, some of the proposals to work with the e.p.a. -- we need to be working with our agencies. we need our agencies to be working with us. but one of the proposals that was advanced was an offer for an equivalent method to comply with the e.c.a. requirements in north america. in juneau, alaska, which is our state's capital, we are a -- the only state in the country that is not accessible by road. folks come and visit us by air and they come in by ship in the summertime. tourism is big business in alaska. in juneau the ships that are tied up at the docks there are

utilizing shoreside services so that there are no emissions when they are in the community. so one of the proposals that was out there, this equivalency method, it would essentially ask for a -- a trade-off. if we have cruise ships that are emitting nothing when they are in dock or at shore, offset that against those emissions that would be emitted from those vessels that are out at sea, essentially an averaging. that was rejected by the e.p.a. but what has made this particularly disconcerting for many alaskans is the e.p.a.'s justification, in their justification they cite a u.s. forest service study that purportedly found evidence that emissions from cruise ships in southeast alaska could impact the lic hench en in the

mountains above juneau. you see the mountains. there is lichen at the top, a short, mossy green. but the report then went on to worry that if we have impacted the lichen growth in juneau, it could somehow or other harm the caribou. well, mr. president, never mind the link thatliken and -- that lichen and cruise ships may be tenuous, there's a bigger problem with e.p.a.'s reasoning and anybody from alaska would know the problem is there's no caribou in juneau, alaska. there's no caribou anywhere in southeastern alaska. you've all seen my pictures before. alaska is a pretty big state, and if you're sitting here in

juneau, alaska, to request where the caribou herd are that this report was apparently concerned about, you're looking at over a thousand miles between juneau and where the southern alaska peninsula caribou herd cited in the e.p.a. study lived. a thousand miles. it would be as if you would make the claim or the assertion that a cruise ship that's sitting down in miami might somehow or other affect the food for the bears that are up in the pocono mountains in north of philadelphia, in pennsylvania. i think you need to look at this and recognize, we've got a pretty flawed study to here to begin with if the suggestion is we need to ensure that there's no emissions coming from a cruise ship in juneau because it's going to impact the lichen that's going to impact the

caribou that don't happen to live anywhere near juneau, no closer than a thousand miles away. so applying these new fuel standards to save the lichen to feed the caribou a thousand miles from here will mean the vessels playing the waters of southeast and south central alaska, whether it's the freight ships, the freight vessels that move just about all of our goods or whether it's the cruise ships that really are the lifeblood of the tourist economy, the requirement that they now burn low sulfur diesel at levels that it is suggested perhaps not attainable. so the question i think it's fair to ask, you say what's the problem with requiring that -- that we make the cruise ships

meet mete these standards, that we make the vessels that are bringing the goods north to alaska, what's the problem with this requirement? well, the problem is, well, these ecorequirements may not have a measurable positive effect on human health or caribou food, for that matter, it will have a material impact on our cost of living. now, if you look at the state of alaska, the way that we get our materials in, the way that we get our foodstuffs, our hardware, our lumber, it comes to us over the water. some, yes, that comes in by airplane but you can be guaranteed that's going to cost much more. that's some that can come up from the lower 48 across through canada and into alaska that way, but if you want to talk about increased emissions, that's sure one way to do it is put it on truck and haul it all the way up here.

so so much of our goods come to the state by water. about 85% of the goods that come to the state of alaska come into the port of anchorage which is sitting right there. now, what we see with these ecoregulations is ships that may be coming out of ports such as los angeles or long beach where my colleague from california, who is here on the floor, where she hales from. you've got hundreds of ships coming in and out every day but they -- they are not subject to the same emissions control area. they only need to burn this expensive low-sulfur fuel for a very short time until they're out of the e.c.a. but the problem is when you're traveling along alaska's coast to bring those goods up to our state, you're in an area where

our air is pretty clean, our air is very pristine but their entire voyage is within this e.c.a. region region, within this emissions control area. so throughout that entire journaly they're required to burn the lower sulfur, more expensive fuel. now, if this were just going to result in an increase in -- in the price of a ticket to -- or excuse me, increase in cost to the cruise lines or to the freight haulers that come up to the state, it might be one thing. but i think we recognize that the economic reality is every dime that's added to the cost of doing business in alaska is ultimately going to be a dime that's passed on and shared by the consumers. the state of alaska recently cited an estimate that these new requirements will increase the shipping costs to the state of alaska by 8%.

you say 8%, that's not that bad. you can live with that. the problem that we're facing is that in 2015, just around the corner, we're going to see an even higher standard that these vessels will be held to, and at that point in time the suggestion is that costs could be increased by as much as 25%. now, maybe that's on the high margin but somewhere between 8% and 25%. almost every commodity, again, that is consumed in our state is transported either by ship or by ship and plane with the cost of freight adding a significant increase to every item that is out there. we are already, we're already one of the most expensive places to live in america, and rural alaska is even more expensive.

i -- i check on a weekly basis to find out what alaskans are paying for their fuel, whether it's in the city of anchorage or up in fairbanks or in the villages and i monitor that regularly to see how our communities are faring. in one place this week they're paying about $7.15 for a gallon of gas this week. i asked that we put a link on our web site to get some pricing on what we're seeing in our communities as it relates to foodstuffs, things that you and i would use in our home here. a package most of us recognize, ten-pound bag of sugar is going for $17.25. there's no other store there

other than the native store there so it's not as though you can go down to a safeway and comparison shop. it's not as if you can get in your car and drive to the city and see if you can get to costco. it doesn't happen. there's no roatdz in and out of queetluck. a gallon of milk costs $30. if you can find it. as a mom who has boys who go through laundry, i'm always looking to see what people are paying for laundry detergent. in venatai, a 100-ounce bottle of tide goes for $43.50. i had my interns do price comparison on tide. powdered tide, 56-ounces in ank reggie, $9.98, a little bit

higher than what you pay in washington. washington is about nine bucks. but in ragoon that same box of tide is $18.33. in barrow, it's $22. in mcgrath it's $21. in bethel it's $21. so when we talk, mr. president, about increasing the prices in alaska, 8%, 10%, 12%, possibly 25%, when you're a mom buying a box of tide and you're already paying $43, 8% starts to add up real quick. when you are trying to buy a bag of sugar so that you can make the food put up the jam for the winter, and you're paying $17.25 in queethluk, i think

it's fair to say we're saying we're paying attention to cost increases. e.p.a. mannedded low-sulfur fuel is estimated to add $100 million in additional cost to the summer cruise traffic in alaska. you say if you can afford the price of a cruise, not that big of a deal. you increase the price of the ticket and people will live. but what happens is this really puts alaska in a competitive disadvantage when we're talking about where -- where these businesses are going to operate. 14% of all employment in the state is directly tied to the tourism industry. so if the cruise lines can't pass on fully pass on these increased costs, what they're going to do, they'll move their ships, take them to other parts of the world where air quality standards are different. so what will then happen, we have the loss of seasonal visitors, the money they bring to southeastern alaska is a huge part of the local economies. and also to the-year round

institutions. in juneau, our regional hospital is actually able to provide for a higher standard of care in part because of the high influx of patients that it serves during the summertime. so, mr. president, i would suggest that the e.p.a.'s one-size-fits-all approach to environmental regulation perhaps you can't fight shoe horn that in in all situations. and we need to be aware of that. i think, again, when we talk about the concept of environmental justice, we need to make sure that in an effort to provide for a level of regulation and -- and rules that are imposed, that we are not hurting the most vulnerable. and i would suggest to you the people in queethlu -- kwethluk and what it means to them in their village and they're asking me how do we survive, how do we

live, and the answer isn't to move to -- to washington, d.c., that's not the answer here. it takes us back to balance. so what's happening in the state right now? the state of alaska sued the e.p.a. administration in federal court to stop the new requirements from taking into effect and given the immediacy of the threat that these requirements pose to my state, i think that the states move to advance to litigation was the right one, but we shouldn't have to sue our own government in order to get balanced regulation. the administrator, lisa jackson, acknowledged applying e.c.a. to alaska posed a problem. she recognized that. unfortunately, we haven't seen more beyond those words because we're still no closer to a solution. these new requirements are set to take effect next week.

the initial threshold. i've been raising this issue with e.p.a. for several years, but, again, we're still working and we have not yet resolved it. so i have called on the president for himself to marshal the state department to see if e.c.a. can be amended or some other relief can be found to eliminate at least this one burden. this, again, mr. president, this is something that is touching alaskans in a very immediate and a very, very direct way. we want to ensure that our air is clean, that our water is clean. we want to be the good custodians and stewards of our land. and we are. but we need to be able to work with our federal regulators. and so, i'd ask the administrator, i asked the president, work with us on this. and, mr. president, i know that

my colleague from california is here to speak. but i would like the indulgence of the body for just two more minutes to speak on, i think a little bit of a happy occasion. tomorrow, the day after tomorrow -- excuse me -- on saturday alaskans are going to be celebrating ted stevens tkaeurbgs and i would -- ted steven day and i would like to make a few comments for the record. as i travel the state, whether i'm on the kenai river or ketchikan, everywhere i go, i am reminded of my good friend and the friend of so many in this body ted stevens. it was nearly two years ago now that we lost uncle ted to the tragic plane crash in southwest alaska. but as tragic as that was, i always stop to remember that that tragedy struck while ted

was doing what he loved to do most, which was enjoying alaska's great outdoors, going fishing, just being outdoors. his passion for alaska's unique wilderness, his love for fishing, his immense affection for the outdoors really embodies the spirit that we're now advancing in ted stevens day. and the motto of this day is "get out and play." so on the fourth saturday of july, we join together to celebrate the life and the legacy of a man who's dedicated to public service, whether it was as his days as a pilot in world war ii to the four decades that he served with us here in the united states senate. he began working in alaska long before statehood. when he came here to washington, d.c., to represent us in the united states senate, he began a battle for our state that lasted

for 40 years. he fought for roads, for buildings, for infrastructure that new, young states need as well as many of the programs that are in place today that continue on. he worked to transform not only alaska but really the rest of the country as well. it's somewhat cowince dental -- coincidental that this day coincides with the olympics in london. as alaskans play in the sum there will be olympians who will begin a journey that senator stevens helped pioneer. it is because of the day he championed that the olympian

movement exists as it does today. back in 1978 he fought for the passage of the olympic and amateur sports act. this was later renamed the ted stevens owe lick peupl and amateur sports act. it was declared the u.s. central committee, the centralized body of all activities in the country and led to the creation of national governing bodies responsible for the oversight of each individual olympic sport, a structure still in place now. he really was so much an inspiration to the progress and to the development of the olympic movement here in the united states. earlier this month the u.s. olympic committee honored senator stevens as a special contributor to the class of 2012 u.s. olympic hall of fame. we all know that senator stevens was also a huge proponent of title 9. i think he would be very proud that for the first time in american history, team u.s.a. is

compromised of more women than men. i think that would give him a smile. but this feat was made possible by the landmark legislation passed 40 years ago which opened those gymnasium doors and leveled the playing field for women and girls across the country. in alaska, we very often say that ted stevens was larger than life. and today discussing this, bringing this up, recognizing that on saturday we're going to continue a tradition of remembering a man who loved alaska with a passion, and as we go out and bike and hike and fishing, i think many will share good memories of an amazing alaskan, an amazing man and truly an amazing american. so i thank you for the

opportunity to speak for a few minutes about a subject that should hopefully bring a smile to many of us. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i wish to speak on the cybersecurity act of 2012, so i assume that bill is in order and on the floor. the presiding officer: the motion to proceed is pending. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much, mr. president. i come to the floor as the chairman of the intelligence committee to, in my own way, indicate the seriousness of the job that we are about to begin. i know there's controversy. i know there are differences of opinion. but what people have to understand is that we have breach after breach now, and they are becoming far more numerous, much more sophisticated and much more insidious in recent years. i want to give a number of examples of what is happening

out there in the real world. and let me begin by going back to 2008 when the pentagon's classified military computer networks suffered a quo -- a -- quote -- "significant compromise." that is according to to bill lynn in 2010. these breaches are usually classified at the time they happen. therefore, people don't know about them. so all i'm going to do are run through unclassified breaches. and even that is beyond, i think, comprehension. former secretary lin also detailed that foreign hackers sold 24,000 united states military files in a single attack on a defense contractor in march of 2011. in the five months from october 11 through february 12, over 50

,000 cyber attacks were reported on private and governmental networks, with 86 of those attacks taking place on critical infrastructure networks. now, that's according to the bipartisan policy centers' cybersecurity task force. 50,000 incidents were the ones that were reported to the department of homeland security. so they represent only a small fraction of the cyber attacks carried out against the united states. in december of 2011, press reports revealed that the networks of the united states chamber of commerce were completely penetrated for more than a year by hackers. the hackers apparently had access to everything in chamber computers, including member company communications and industry positions on united states trade policy.

in march of 2011, nasa's inspector general reported that cyber attacks successfully compromised nasa computers. in one attack, intruders stole 150 user credentials that could be used to gain unauthorized access into the nasa systems. another attack at the joint propulsion center, j.p.l., involved china-based internet protocol, i.p. addresses, let the intruders gain full access to key j.p.l. systems and sensitive user accounts. 48 companies in the chemical, defense and other industries were penetrated during 2011 for at least six months by a hacker looking for intellectual property. the cybersecurity company

symantec attribute some of these attacks to computers in china. it became worldwide news when google alleged in april of 2011 that china had compromised hundreds of g-mail passwords for e-mail accounts of prominent people, including senior united states officials. on march 17, 2011, r.s.a. publicly disclosed that it had detected a very sophisticated cyber attack on its systems in an attempt to obtain data that would compromise r.s.i.'s authenticated log-in technology. that data acquired was then used in an attempt to penetrate lockheed martin's networks. between march of 2010 and april of 2011, the f.b.i. identified

20 incidents in which the online banking credentials of small to medium sized united states businesses were compromised and used to initiate wire transfers to chinese economic and trade companies. as of april of 2011, the total attempted fraud amounts to approximately 20 million. the actual victim losses are $11 million. in october 2010, hackers penetrated the systems of nasdaq which sparked concerns about the severity of cyber threat facing the financial industry. in january 2011, a hacker extracted $6.7 million from south africa's post bank over the new year's holiday. in january 2011, hackers penetrated the european union's

carbon trading market, which allows organizations to buy and sell their carbon emissions quotas and steal more than $7 million in credits, forcing the market to shut down temporarily. an international commuter crime ring broke up in october of 2010, siphoned about $70 million in a hacking operation targeting bank accounts of small businesses, municipalities and churches, according to the f.b.i. in november 2008, hackers breached networks at the royal bank of scotland's world pay, allowing them to clone 100 a.t.m. cards and withdraw over $9 million from machines in 49 cities. in december 2008, retail giant

t.j.x. was hacked. the one hacker captured and convicted named moxim yastremeski is said to have made $11 million from the hack. in 2008, intruders were coordinated with russian military actions against georgia. in may 2007, estonian government networks were harassed by a denial of service attack by unknown foreign intruders, most likely again at the behest of the russian government because they were part of a dispute between the two countries after the collapse of the soviet union. so as you can see, from some of the examples above, for years now the united states and other countries have been at the receiving end of multiple

concerted efforts by nation-states and nonstate actors to hack into our networks. these bad actors are infiltrating our communications, they're accessing our secrets, they're sapping our economic health by stealing intellectual property. they may also be building a capability, if necessary in the future, to wage cyber war. we may not even know until the attack has been launched. these attacks are sophisticated, and they involve hacking techniques that we, unfortunately, now see quite often. cyber attacks can come in forms of viruses and worms, malicious back doors, logic bombs and denial of service attacks. just to name a few. a groundbreaking, unclassified

report from november of last year published by the intelligence community said cyber intrusions against united states companies cost billions of dollars annually, and the report named china and russia as aggressive cyber thieves. on china, the report said -- and i quote -- "chinese actors are the most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage." end quote. we know that sophisticated attacks from china against financial and technology companies, such as google, resulted in property theft on a massive scale. billions of dollars of trade secrets, technology, and intellectual property are being siphoned each year from the united states to benefit the economies of china and other countries. on russia, the report said, and

i quote, "russia's intelligence services are conducting a range of activities to collect economic information and technology from united states targets." i can assure you, mr. president, that the classified assessments are far more descriptive and far more devastating. the examples are bad enough, but cyber threats are evolving, and i'm very concerned that the next wave will come in the form of crippling intrusions against the computers that control power plants, dams, transportation hubs, and financial networks in these united states. we've already seen the use of cyber attacks in warfare when hackers inside russia reportedly took down the command-and-control systems in estonia in 2007, and that was five years ago, roughly a

lifetime ago, in the realm of cyber attack capability. senior national security experts from across the political spectrum have sounded the alarm about this threat. leon panetta at his confirmation hearing to be secretary of defense -- "the next pearl harbor we confront could very well be a cyber attack. it cripless our power systems, our grid, our security systems, our financial systems, our governmental systems." bob mueller testified, "the cyber threat which cuts across all programs will be the number-one threat to our country." we are dealing with the number-one threat to our count country. i am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the cybersecurity act of 2012 with senators lieberman, collins, rockefeller, and carper, and i'd really like

it thank them for their tireless work on this legislation over the past several years. this act has seven titles, each of them addressing a key gap in our nation's cyber laws. i'd like to just -- i'd like to just take a moment to describe the critical infrastructure provisions in title one, but i'd like to focus most of my remarks on the information-sharing part of the bill. which make up title seven. title 1 covers critical infrastructure protection, which means protecting the public and private infrastructure that underpin our economy and our way of life, a big, big deal. a cyber attack against these networks could open a dam, crash our financial system or disabled the grid, could stop all planes, it could interrupt the f.a.a., on and on and on.

although some critical infrastructure companies have taken action to protect their networks, i must tell you many of them have not. it appears that market forces are insufficient for many critical infrastructure companies to adopt adequate cybersecurity practices. thus, title 1 of this bill would create strong incentives for companies to work with the federal government to establish standards for critical infrastructure protection. now, let me be candid. even though the bill makes cybersecurity standards voluntary, i know senators still resist this idea. i do not. i would have preferred that this bill include its original critical infrastructure provisions, which would have mandated baseline standards for

cybersecurity. but i recognize that we've got to compromise. i recognize that this legislation is a necessary first step to provide some security and compromise to the voluntary measures in the bill was necessary. so we've done it, and i hope that if and when we see a major cyber attack against the power grid or wall street or a major dam, we won't see this compromise as a mistake. other senators have spoken at length about critical infrastructure and other parts of the bill, so let me move to title 7 regarding information-sharing. this is the part that the intelligence committee has had something do with it. this title, at least 40 pages of the bill, covers authorities and protections for sharing information about threats to cybersecurity. the information-sharing title

addresses one of the main problems i've heard from both the private sector and the government about existing laws and business practices when it comes to cyber, and that is that private-sector companies and the government know a lot about the cyber attacks against their networks, but this information is so stovepiped that no one is as well-protected as they could be if the information were shared. that, i believe, is fact. as the bipartisan cybersecurity task force recently found -- and i quote -- "despite general agreement that we need to do it, cyber information-sharing is not meeting the needs of today." so title 7 addresses this problem. it reduces the legal barriers which hamper a private entity's ability to work with others, and

the federal government, to share threat information. now, how do we do this? what does that title do specifically? first, it explicitly authorizes companies to monitor and defend their own networks. many companies monitor and defend their own networks today in order to protect themselves and their customers, but we have heard from numerous companies that the law in the area is unclear and that sometimes it's less risky from a financial perspective for them to allow attacks to happen than to take additional steps to defend that. can you imagine that? to defend themselves. so we make the law clear by giving companies explicit authority to monitor and defend their own networks and make the law clear.

secondly, the bill authorizes the sharing of cyber threat information among private companies. there have been concerns that antitrust laws prevent companies from cooperating on cybercitizens. this bill in section 702 clearly says -- and you quote -- "notwithstanding any other provision of law, any private entity may disclose lawfully obtained cybersecurity threat indicators to any other private entity in accordance with this section." third, the bill authorizes the government, which will largely mean in practice, the intelligence community, i hope the d.n.i. to share classified information about cyber threats with appropriately cleared organizations outside of the government. now, traditionally, only

government employees and contractors have been eligible to receive security clearances, and therefore gain access to national secrets. to put it another way, those with a valid need to know most security secrets are within the government. that isn't true, though, for cybersecurity. in this case, we can't restrict classified information tightly within government. the companies that underpin our nation's economy and way of life have a need to know about the nature of cyber attacks so they can better secure their systems. it's not sufficient for the government to be able to defend itself against an attack; it's also necessary for companies like google or an institution like nasdaq to be able to protect themselves and to use all possible defenses that we

can help them provide. so, under this bill, companies are able to qualify to receive classified information. they will be certified and then able to obtain classified information about what cyber threats to look out for. fourth, the bill establishes a system through which any private-sector authority -- entity, whether a power utility, a defense contractor, a telecom company, or others, can share cyber threat information with the government. when it comes to cyber, information-sharing must be a two-way street. oftentimes, the private sector has important information about cyber intrusions that the government doesn't possess. after all, the private sector is the one on the front lines of

incoming cyber assault, so companies are often best able to understand the attack. the private sector should be able to share that information with the government so that the government can protect itself and fulfill its responsibility to warn others about the threat. so let me describe how this bill allows for and encourages that information-sharing and most importantly let me describe the liability protections that companies receive for doing so. the secretary of homeland security, in consultation with the attorney general, the secretary of defense, the director of national intelligence, would designate one or more federal cybersecurity exchanges. we envision that these exchanges would be an existing entity,

such as one of the existing federal cybersecurity centers. private companies would share cyber threat information with these exchanges directly. these exchanges must be civilian entities, important to a number of senators. and they will have procedures in place to share that information as quickly as possible with other parts of the government. the information is protected from disclosure under the freedom of information act. it cannot be used in a regulatory enforcement action. this exchange would serve as a focal point for information-sharing with the government. having a single focal point would establish a single point of contact for the private sector. otherwise you'd have chaos. some people want multiple points. it's difficult to do, and

maintain the security that's necessary. we think this approach solves the problem. having a single focal point is also more efficient for the government t would help eliminate stovepipes because right now there are dozens of different parts of the government receiving information from the private sector about cyber threats they're encountering. it is all over the map. it would also make privacy and civil liberties oversight easier, which i know interests you, mr. president, and i will describe that in aempt mo. -- in a moment. finally, it should save taxpayers money, because it's more efficient to manage, and that's got to be a concern. and to oversee the operation of one entity versus many entities. let me now describe the all-important liability

protections that are such a critical part of this. section 706 of the bill provides liability protection for the voluntary sharing of cyber threat information with the federal exchange. the bill reads, and i quote -- "no civil or criminal cause of action shall lie or be maintained in any federal or state court against any entity -- that means a company -- acting as authorized by this title, and any such action shall be dismissed promptly for the voluntary disclosure of a lawfully obtained cybersecurity threat indicator to a cybersecurity exchange. that's section 706-a. it is clear as a bell. in other words, a company is immune from a lawsuit over

sharing cyber threat information with the federal exchange. the same immunity applies to the following -- companies who monitor their own networks, cybersecurity companies who share threat information with their customers, companies that share information with a critical infrastructure owner or operator, companies who share threat information with other companies so long as they also share that information with the federal exchange within a reasonable time. this reasonable good-faith defense is also available for the use of defensive countermeasures. if a company shared information in a way other than the five ways i've just mentioned, it still receives a legal defense under this bill from suit if the company can make a reasonable good-faith showing that the information sharing provisions

permitted that sharing. further, no civil or criminal cause of action can be brought against a company, an officer, an employee or agency of a company for the reasonable failure to act on information received through information-sharing mechanisms set up by this bill. basically, -- and this is important. please listen. the only way that anyone participating in the information-sharing system can be held liable is if they were found to have knowingly violated a provision of the bill or acted in gross negligence. so there are very strong liability protections for anyone that shares information about cyber threats, which is completely voluntary under this

bill. now, what information will be shared with the exchange? information that should be shared includes but is not limited to malware threat signatures, known malicious protocol i.p. addresses, immediate cyber attack incident details. the exchanges would be able to share this information in as close to real time as possible over networks, and that's the only way for the private sector and the government to stay a step ahead of our cyber adversaries. now, what kind of information can they share? we define this information in our bill as cybersecurity threat indicators. we define this term to include only information that is reasonably necessary to describe the technical attributes of

cyber attacks. this is not a license for the government to take in and distribute private citizens' information. rather, it's a narrowly tailored element to cover information that relates specifically to a cyber attack. in addition to narrowly defining what information can be shared with an exchange, our bill also requires the federal government to adopt very robust privacy and civil liberties oversight in a regime for information shared under this title. there are multiple layers of oversight from different parts of the executive branch, including the department of justice, the independent privacy and civil liberties oversight board, as well as the congress. i would like to direct members to the privacy and civil

liberties protections on pages pages 185 and 192 of this bill for the litany of procedures, reviews and reports that are required. we have worked closely with several senators, including yourself, mr. president, senators durbin, coons, akaka, blumenthal and saunders on these protections, and i really thank you all for your efforts in that regard. i think you have really helped the bill become a better bill. i would also be remiss if i didn't know my great appreciation of the work and leadership of the majority leader for his unrelenting focus on getting this bill to the floor and making time to have this debate. it is infinitely better having this debate now than after a major cyber attack, and my greatest worry is that we won't pass something.

the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. this legislation is unprecedented. it will take some steps. we will find other steps that we will need to take. we will need to come back to it and back to it because technology is moving so quickly. this is -- i think this is as important a bill as i've seen in my 20 years in the senate. i know what's out there. i know what some other countries are doing. i know what some bad actors are doing, and the time has come to protect ourselves and take some action. i hope we will have the support and i urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i am here today to express my sincere appreciation and thanks and admiration to a number of our distinguished foreign service officers who were similarly lauded by senator mccain earlier today. i heard his remarks and i wish to be associated with them. in expressing my thanks to three very brave and able men who have served this country under the most demanding and difficult conditions requiring huge personal courage as well as

insight and strong action. they are ryan crocker who has served as ambassador to afghanistan, his deputy who will replace him shortly, james cunningham, and our ambassador to pakistan, cameron munter. what they share and what they have given us in these two critical posts are the best of our nation's public service and foreign service. i had occasion to meet both ambassador crocker and ambassador cunningham on a number of visits to afghanistan and to be briefed by both of them, and so i know personally how extraordinarily honest and forthright they are in the insight and intelligence that they give to congressional

visitors and many of us have been among those visitors and many of us have met with them, and so i know that others have had that experience as well. i know them both to be extremely capable and intelligent, thoughtful and insightful. they understand the complexities of this region and they have succeeded in maintaining strong relationships with our partners in afghanistan and pakistan to the extent that they were able to do so amid the most complex and challenging circumstances, and somehow in between all of the challenges they faced on the ground day to day, they also welcomed congressional visitors with extraordinary grace and graciousness and generosity, and i was proud to be one of them in

visiting both pakistan and afghanistan. i'd like to recognize particularly the efforts of ambassador munter in addressing the supply chain of i.e.d., improvised explosive device ingredients, the fertilizer and other chemicals that compose the roadside bombs that have literally caused more than half of our nation's casualties in afghanistan. those ingredients are smuggled and sometimes in broad daylight visibly across the border from pakistan. he has worked hard and made a valuable contribution in challenging the government of pakistan to do better and to confront the threat and to ensure interagency coordination between the department of state and the department of defense in confronting and attacking the i.e.d. network. he has written to me personally

and i thank him for his commitment to a cause that others have made also a priority such as dr. ashley carter, presently deputy secretary of defense, and together we've worked on this issue and made progress but so much more must be done to stop the flow of i.e.d. bomb-making material across the border which does such horrific destructive damage to our troops, and one need only visit the bethesda naval center to see it firsthand. our hearts go out to the young men, principally men and women and their families who are victims of these bombs. thank you to ambassador munter for making it a priority. thank you to ambassador crocker likewise for working on this

problem. as he led the embassy in babl through profoundly and deeply challenging times, when we here in washington revise our policy toward afghanistan and as we go through those provisions now, he has adapted, he's carried out policy and he has served well our national interests, even in the midst of change and challenge. i welcome deputy ambassador cunningham to his new post. i have worked and been briefed by him, in fact stayed with him in the embassy and seen his keen insight, his quiet, understated manner, but his strength and will, and indeed all of these men are men of intellect, but

they are also men of action, committed to deliver results to the nation, men of loyalty and courage. and i would just finish on this note. nobody should underestimate the courage that is required to serve in these positions. anyone who has visited these countries know that the threat of physical danger is everpresent, not only to the brave men and women who serve in uniform, in our armed forces, but to our diplomats who every day put their lives on the line to serve us. and so i thank not only them but the thousands of men and women who have served with them in afghanistan, in pakistan and other countries, in postings, in places whose names most americans can barely pronounce. they have demonstrated the kind of bravery that ambassadors crocker, munter and cunningham

have every day, and they deserve our thanks and our good wishes as they leave their present post, as ambassador crocker retires, and our good wishes for continued success for the sake of their lives and for the sake of our nation. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i like everyone else in america follow the terrible tragedy in aurora, colorado, just awful. i was particularly moved when i read in one of our local papers, the bios of the 12 who had died. so many of them were young, in the prime of life, in their late teens and early 20's. so many of them were brave, protecting others, a child, a girlfriend, a friend. and you feel the -- just i was so upset on reading this, seeing these people's lives snuffed out just as they had great futures ahead of them. for nothing. had the same kind of feeling i had after the world trade

center, of course magnified by much more because so many more people died and i actually knew some of the people who died. but the same senseless killing of innocent people occurred. and, of course, in the days after the tragedy and as the dust settled, it will never settle for the families whom my heart goes out to, we began our usual discussion about guns in america. and there were many voices on all different sides, and somebody who has been very, very involved in these issues, i gave it some thought and just wanted to share with my colleagues and with my constituents and my country some thoughts about this. and the question that comes up is, can we do anything about guns in society? of course, many would ask should we do anything about guns in society. even the very thoughtful and

erudite member of my own party, the governor of colorado said that a ban on weapons would not have stopped this tragedy from occurring in all likelihood. so i'd like to just share some of my thoughts briefly. the bottom line is, maybe we can come together once and for all on the issue of guns if each side gave some. and i've thought about this for a while. as, you know, mr. president, i was the house author, the leader, of course, was my colleague from california, of the assault weapons ban. i'm even prouder of the brady law where i was probably the leader. and that has saved so many lives. and so the question is why when we were able to pass those kinds of groundbreaking laws, why are we so paralyzed now? now, part of the reason -- and this hasn't been mentioned --

is that crime has actually decreased dramatically in america for a whole lot of reasons. and i probably don't share the views of some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle as to why it happened. i'm pretty tough on crime guy. but when crime went down, the broad middle that wanted to do whatever it took to stop crime -- i remember how ravaged ravaged -- it ravaged my city -- stopped caring as much because they were safer. that's logical. so they sort of exited the field, law enforcement, which had been some of our best allies in supporting the assault weapons ban and the brady law, sort of left the debate. and the debate was simply left to those who cared the most and a very small number on the side of more active laws against gun

control and a much larger number on the side of those who were opposed. and i know you read in the newspapers the power of money in the n.r.a. i have to say this as somebody who has opposed the n.r.a. and been written up regularly in their magazines in not the most flattering way. the n.r.a.'s main strength is because they have two, three, four million people who care passionately about this issue, who may not care about other issues, and who are mobilized at the drop of a hat. and so when there's a bill on the floor of the senate, which a majority of americans may support, a majority of americans support the ban on assault weapons. even people in my state like new york hear about -- hear much more from the people who are opposed to the assault weapons ban than the people who are for it. 20 years ago that wouldn't have happened, again, i think

because more than any other reason because crime -- crime was so ravaging our communities that people didn't -- people who, average folks would call and complain and worry about too many guns in society, which i think there still are now. so in any case, how can that balance now, given that situation which exists, that the activists, the people who care about this issue the most, not the majority of people, are on the side of no limitations or few limitations on guns, how can we address that balance? and i think there can be a balance. and those on my side who believe strongly in some controls on guns have to acknowledge that there's a right to bear arms. it perplexed many in the pro-gun movement how liberals would read

the first third, fourth, fifth, sixth amendments as broadly as 0 possible but when it came to the second amendment they saw it through a pinhole. it only related to militias. which frankly is a narrow, narrow, narrow reading of the second amendment. and there were many back then in the 1980's and 1990's in the pro-gun control movement month who basically felt there was no right to bear arms. and i think in part because of that, those on the other side of the issue became kind of extreme themselves. their worry was that the real goal of the left was not simply to have rational, if you will, laws that might limit the use of guns, what guns could be had, how many clips, hocked have

them --, being being who could have them, the mentally infirm, that was a smoke screen to get rid of them and there was enough evidence in the 1980's and 1990's that people wanted to do that. you look at the ads from the n.r.a. and the groups even further over, the gun owners of america, their basic complaint is that the chuck schumers of the world want to take away your gun, even if it's the hunting rifle your uncle willie gave you when you were 14. and i think it would be very important for us who are for gun control, some rational laws on guns, to make it clear once and for all that is not our goal. to make it clear that the belief is that the second amendment does matter, that there is a right to bear arms just like there's a right to free speech and others, and if you're an average, normal american citizen, you have the right to

bear arms. if i think if the people who are pro-gun and from the more rural areas and different than brooklyn, the city i'm from, were convinced that there was a broad consensus even in the pro-gun control movement that there was a right to bear arms, they might get off their haunches a little bit. and i think that's important for this part of the compromise. so that the heller decision which basically said that and now is the law of the land but wasn't until a few years ago should not be something that is opposed by those who are for rational laws on guns. and i saw that even the brady organization, who i've worked very closely with, jim and sarah brady helped us pass the

assault weapons ban and the brady law, and i've worked with them closely and have known them for decades, but even the brady organization which in the past had not had that position is now beginning to embrace it. and i think that's good and people should know that. and once we establish that it's in the constitution, it's part of the american way of life even though some don't like that, but once we establish that basic paradigm that no one wants to abolish guns for everybody, or only allow a limited few to have them under the most limited circumstances, this is on a national level, then maybe we can begin the other side of the dialogue. and the other side of the dialogue is once you know no one is going to take away your gun if you're not a felon and --

your shotgun you like to go hunting with or a sidearm if you're a store owner in a crime-ridden area, we can then say to those on the other side okay, we understand that it's unfair to read the second amendment so narrowly and read all the other amendments so broadly and you've seen us as doing that. but in response, we would say and i would say, that no amendment is absolute. and whether it's in reaction to what happened in the 1980's or 1990's or because of fanaticism or maybe fundraising reasons, it seems that too many on the pro-gun side believe the second amendment is as absolute or more absolute than all the other amendments. they're taking the converse

position to what i mentioned before. the left seeing the second amendment as minimum you'll sexual -- minuscule, but the right seeing the second amendment as broader than every other amendment. certainly the right believes in antipornography laws. that's a limitation on the first amendment. certainly most people in america believe what i think it was oliver wendell homes or louis brandeis said, you can't falsely scream fire in a crowded theater. that, too, is a limitation on the first amendment. every amendment is balancing test. that's what the constitution has said. no amendment is absolute or our society would be tied in a complete knot. and so we say to our colleagues colleagues -- and this is not a partisan issue completely, there are some republicans who are for gun control and some democrats who oppose it completely. it seems to be more of a regional issue and almost an --

than almost an ideological issue. but we say to our colleagues from the pro-gun side of things, now look, there's a right to bear arms and we're not trying to take guns away from people who don't have any reason to take them away from. we don't have any reason to take them away from. but you have to then admit that you can't be so rigid, so doctrinaire there should be no limitation on the second amendment. the brady law is a reasonable limitation on the second amendment, saying that felons or the mentally infirm or spousal abusers shouldn't have a gun. the hellard decision acknowledged that those kind of reasonable limitations did not violate the second amendment just as the court has recognized that there are limitations that don't filed the first amendment. all because it's a balancing test.

soap by argue -- we can find the balance in different ways -- that not only is the brady law a reasonable limitation on the second amendment, it's not interfering with the average person's right to bear arms, but neither is the assault weapons ban. there was an argument between my colleague from california, who i agree with and my colleague from colorado -- from wisconsin whom i don't agree with that it is used for hunting but i have heard people say you should be able to buy a bazooka or a tank. my view is, the assault weapons ban that was passed which was a rather modest bill, less important in saving lives than the brady law by many, many degrees, but i would argue it's a reasonable thing to do. a limitation that says you shouldn't be able to buy a thousand clips.

it's a reasonable -- magazines that have a thousand rounds in them, i mean. that's a reasonable thing to do. rules that say we should be able to trace where a gun originated so that we can find those who are violating some of these limitations, like the brady laws, gun shops that don't check your background even though they're required to by law is a reasonable thing to do. now, again, we can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness but we might, might, might -- and i don't want to be too optimistic here, having years and years of gone through this -- but we might be able to come to an agreement in the middle where we say, yes, there's a right to bear arms and, yes, there can be reasonable limitations on the second amendment, just as there can be on others. and that is the place i'd suggest we try to go.

maybe, maybe we can break through the hard ideological lines that have been drawn on this issue. maybe, maybe, maybe we can tell those who are at the extremes on the far right and the far left that we disagree with you. and maybe, maybe, maybe we could pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary tragedies that have occurred or, at the very least, when you have someone who was mentally infirmed, like the shooter in aurora, limit the damage that they are able to do. maybe. but i would suggest that the place to start here is for us to admit there's a right to bear arms, admit that the heller

decision has a place in the constitution, just like decisions that supported the other amendments, and at the same time say that doesn't mean that that right is absolute. so that's just a suggestion. i've been thinking about this since i read those horrible articles about those young men and women being killed. and i would welcome comments particularly from my colleagues on the other side of this issue, whether they be democrat or republican, on that -- those thoughts. just as we have fought over and over and over again on so many issues -- and we've gotten into our corners -- there may be none we've gotten into our corners than on gun control. and maybe it's time, like on these other issues, to come out of the corners, and try, people of goodwill who will disagree and come from different parts of the country with different needs, maybe there's a way we can come together and try and try.

try and try to break through the logjam and make the country a better place. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed

with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar 518, that there be 60 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form, that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination, that the nomination be subject to a 60-vote threshold, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nomination, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: calendar numbers 839, 840, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 853, 854, 855, 856, 857. and all the nominations placed on the secretary's desk in the army, air force, and navy. that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations, that any related statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's actions and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer schumer: i ask the y before the senate a message from the house on s. 1959. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: resolved that the bill from the senate, s. 1959, entitled "an act to require a report on the designation of the hakani network as a foreign terrorist organization and for other purposes, do pass with an amendment." mr. schumer: i make a motion to concur in the house amendment and i know of no further debate on this measure. the presiding officer: all those in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the ayes have it. mr. schumer: i ask -- the presiding officer: the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i now ask unanimous consent that the motion to be -- to reconsider be laid upon the table and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on banking, housing and urban affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 1299 and that the senate proceed to

its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1299, a bill to require the secretary of the treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the centennial of the establishment of lion's clubs international. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the measure appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration en bloc of the following resolutions which were submitted earlier today: senate res. 592, senate res. 530, and senate res. 531. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will proceed to the measures. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be

agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolutions be printed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate res. 532, submitted earlier today by senator nelson of florida. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 5 532, expressing support for the 19th international aids conference and the sense of the senate that continued commitment by the united states to hiv-aids research -- mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i further ask the senate now proceed to a voice vote on the adoption of the resolution. the presiding officer: all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it.

the ayes do have it. the resolution is adopted. mr. schumer: i further ask that the preamble be agreed to, the motions to be reconsidered laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and that any statements relating to this measure be printed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the rules committee be discharged from further consideration of h. con. res. 90 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 90, authorizing the printing of the 25th edition of the pocket version of the united states constitution. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the measure be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of h. con. res. 133, which was received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 133, authorizing the use of the proceed ton da of the -- of the rotunda of the united states capitol for an event to present the congressional gold medal to archld palmer and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate proceeds to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements related to the measure be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of h. con. res. 134, which was received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 134, condemning in the strongest possible terms the heinous atrocities that occurred in aurora, colorado.

the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the current resolution -- concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements relating to the measure be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i understand there is a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 6082, an acted to officially -- act to officially replace within the 60-day congressional review period under the outer continental shelf lands act president obama's proposed final outer continental shelf oil and gas leasing program and so forth and for other purposes. mr. schumer: i now ask for its second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar urn the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be read for a

second time on the next legislative day. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on monday, july 30. that following the prayer and the pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that the majority leader be recognized and that at 4:30 p. p.m., the senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of robert bacharach of oklahoma to be united states circuit judge for the 10th circuit with one hour of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form prior to a cloture vote on the bacharach nomination. furthermore, that is cloture is not invoked on the nomination, the senate then resume legislative session and adopt the motion to proceed to s. 3414, the cybersecurity act. and finally, that if cloture is invoked on the bacharach nomination, upon disposition of the nomination, the senate resume legislative session and

adopt the motion to proceed to s. 3414, the cybersecurity act. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: the next roll call will be a cloture vote at 5:30 p.m. on the monday -- on monday on the bacharach nomination monday evening. we expect to begin consideration of the cybersecurity bill. we will work on an agreement on amendments to the bill f. there is no further business to -- amendments to the bill. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

here is more from a cap hilary porter. >> what is ahead in the senate now that they've started to advance the cybersecurity bill? >> there's not a lot of amendments. not all of them have been played out yet, but will have amendments on privacy provisions with u.s. divisions and omit any kind of voluntary security standards for industry. we're going to have a whole lot probably throughout the week. cnet was all fiscal issues facing the senate and come and, why did du jour d. wieder breed takeout time to look at this bill? >> i wrote a magazine piece about this.

he by all accounts has just legitimately quite worried about the national security threat. it detected a national security expert these days, and the intelligence community outside of it, they all tell you this is a top worry you have to do what in congress really has with significant legislation. he's been working at this behind the scenes for a year and a half or so in a deep way, bringing together a committee chairs and getting jurisdictional issues worked out and get some kind of bill that could pass. they are kind of at the end of the opportunity to do something this year in the senate, so this is when they're doing it. >> in your cq article come you read about several factions working on the bill. who are they? what are their interests? >> well, the maker of the sponsors ago and is on the floor, they are senator joe lieberman, senator rockefeller from west virginia, senator collins from maine and senator

feinstein from california are all either committee chairs are in the case of senator collins, the top republican on the homeland security and government affairs committee. they are the ones who've kind of got the white house endorsement. they are senator reid, the ones that have an interest in seeing some kind of standard put into place an industry to bond the most important networks that might ever be attacked. confected banking system, things attached to this computer networks. the second group is a number of top senate gop members. john mccain is the leader of that clear. they are trying to make it so there are no kind of standards. those groups substantially agree on how to improve the government's security and its own networks. the third group is for senator pio, senator whitehouse and a

number of other lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who have been trained to come up with a system of voluntary standards that are more incentive-based to get businesses to shore up their defenses in the computer networks. >> standards would affect a lot of businesses. what is the view of the business community? >> it is unclear how many businesses that would affect right now. certainly an array of businesses. the lieberman collins, rockefeller bill allstate would only affect a small percentage of the people who own the most crucial of all of these networks. the business groups, however, some are quite worried that it will be less than that. there's nothing in the bill saying this doesn't insist on this. they are worried that the voting process. most business groups don't like that, although some businesses do like it. the one don't like it or worry that this will become inserted

de facto regulatory scheme, even though the bill is extensively regulatory. the ones that do like i say it's too important to me to have defenses in place because some businesses attacked the way the internet and world wide web are all put together the fact other people flow good there's a major twice. >> lastly, with the august recess right around the corner, what's the timetable? >> this week ahead, the next seven days or so. we will see how far they get. there is now -- at this point there's no final agreement on a version of a bill that could maybe be a vote. that doesn't seem to exist right now appear to know they have to figure out what the house that deals with one piece, which is the chain and that could be an even more difficult thing because the house gop is concerned about the regulatory schemes if anything and it's

already kind of projected something similar. >> tim starks with congressional quarterly. you can read his article at cqpolitics.com. >> thank you. >> on this morning's "washington journal," we talk with randy forbes about how sequestration is set to take effect at the end of the year would affect the defense budget. >> now joining us on the set of "washington journal" is randy "forbes," republican from virginia and number of the armed services committee. congressman, i know you're in our green room a few minutes before you came out. i don't know if you're listening to the show or not, boyack star viewers come the spending cuts or should not happen because they're meant to fill in the blanks. what is your reaction? >> we have to make spending cuts because we are spending too much money for the country and if that is strangling our job

creation. it's going to impact interest rates and everything across the country. the key is how we make the sunnis to do with more analysis than we do. our big concern is the skies they make on an arbitrary basis to a natural sense of the country. they have a staggering impact. strategically for us, but also economically. right now if you look across the board, we party made $800 billion of cuts. these are cuts at a party taken place. but the sequestration, automatic cuts in january, talk about another half trillion dollars of cuts that will come in. strategically what that's going to do, the air force has had they will no longer guarantee our security or air dominance. in april have fewer ships that we've had in a hundred years. will be up in pacific 78 to 32 and submarines in just eight years. army navy says they can be cutting a pink slip in 158 to two and 50,000 men in uniform.

that's the marine corps in wentzville suite. economically, that's for is going to be absolutely devastating. we have had studies that show because there's as many as 2.1 million jobs that these automatic cuts come into place. the defense has 1.5 million. either way you look at that, that is not a direction that we want to go. as you know, the house has passed a budget that would stop us from coming into place for national defense. so for the senate says they will not do anything in the president says he'll veto anything. >> representative "forbes," per the use of this word, change it if you want, but do you regret the sequestration process that was put into place? >> guest: ido regret it because i voted against it. i said this was where would be against it. this is not a smart thing to do and that's why he voted against it and suggested we not put ourselves in that corner.

>> host: what is the alternative? >> guest: at the alternative is there's a number of different alternatives, but one has been passed by the house of representatives. they passed a series of bills that will curtail the increase in spending in some areas, but full text arbitrary cut to national incentives. he gives us time to do analysis and see where we can cut and actually do it on intelligence bases instead of taking a knife and national defense. if the senate has a better approach, but if they have a better approach the adjective something on the table and does something else we can do what we always do and that is how they compromise, where you come to a conference in subtle differences. also, the president and commander-in-chief can't walk away from this one. they are saying this could be catastrophic and if the president has put nothing on the table so far. >> there was recently a defense

budget passed an increase from last year. d.c. areas where defense can be cut? >> guest: there is no question, peter. we have had a sea change. he used to be the way we do defenses look at our national strategy. that is what are the threats to the united states of america, both now and the not-too-distant future. and then we say, what resources to combatant commanders need to do commissions necessary and then how do we get those resources to them in the most efficient means possible? .us clubs now and what we do is take arbitrary numbers out of the air and everybody agrees and say you've got to back fill this vacancy. you can't do national defense like that. let me give you an example in the 90s amid massive cuts to national defense, we were 50 major defense contract greece

who are making systems down to six. we cut down on some of our platforms and ships and other things, from six or eight manufacturers to three. is the worst thing is our workforce. what happens when you do in this kind arbitrary basis, peter come you don't get a plan workforce to make sure you're getting the talent in court capabilities you need it areas you need. you end up with an unbalanced workforce that doesn't meet the needs we have as a nation. >> numbers on the screen if you'd like to be in our conversation with representative randy "forbes," republican of virginia and armed services committee. look at the calls right after i ask you about this. this is for national journal this morning for a budget matters. conservatives wait six months continuing resolution do with democrats. they accept a deal with a $1.047 trillion six-month stopgap spending bill keep the

federal government running after the october 1 start of the fiscal year possibly enter a new congress. were you aware of this? interview on next? >> a lot of discussions. the feeling is if you parked on the road for at least six months, what happens is you enable a new administration if you have a new president to come in. some of the folks on the other side of the i/o simply want the issue to move down the road for six months. but here's the problem, peter. if you do that come you still don't stop huge impacts from the defense cuts. under the warn act, the actor says the defense contractors have to get notices of the 60 days in some states 90 days before they make termination for cuts into their police. those notices will be going out across the country, probably first part of october this year and they'll have a huge, huge

impact on economies across the country. we have heard from governors, car dealers, restaurants, those kind of people that will have this impact on our economy right now is very unstable anyway, so we need to give certainty to people as the direction of where this economy is going to go and what we'll do with national defense. the only way is to have a plan that actually stays on sequestration and not just down the road six months. >> is produced on the road, by october 1st you will pass a six month cr, what does i do to the lame-duck section, the tax issue and other issues congress faces? and why did that automatically start the sequestration process? it wouldn't start up for six months quite >> sequestration is the law and sequestration is coming in january. so you have to have a lot of these systems, whether you're

talking about ships being built or manpower. those decisions have to be made on an earlier basis. already we find major agencies ordering money and not issuing contracts they're supposed to be because they don't know its post have been a sequestration. we thank companies doing that, investment people across the country because this is huge and stability right now in that entire industries is having an impact right now. some of the subcontractors, very difficult to hold on for an extra six months or 12 months it's not the big guys impacted as much as the second tier contractors. many could go out of business. once they do their specialty areas is hard for us to replace host host could you think the six month cr will happen? >> guest: i think right now that's one of the more probable arguments. it is current as support for people to want to do that. >> what would i do to the

lame-duck session click >> i think instead of making that -- a lot of people with able do that in january, february march. >> host: randy "forbes" is our guest. cleveland, hio karen on the democrats line. you are on. please go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: why do you say we need to talk more and spend more time and spend more time and spend more time -- postcode karen, were not sure where you're going to state your question. we're listening. >> caller: this is why we're in this position because you guys couldn't agree. you talked about this. nobody can compromise. no one can agree on anything, so that is why we are here.

one more thing i would like to save real quick. the abuse in all of these, and all of our programs, if we could just start there and do it across the board and everything, and in military, if you just start with region abuse and fraud and see how much we get. everyone keeps saying it will solve the problem. bush's start there. let's see how much we can really find and then make up the rest. but never tried that because we would say it won't work. i think there's millions and millions and maybe billions of dollars. >> thank you for a match from cleveland ohio. just go i think you've got some points. one of the things we have suggested is we absolutely do need to look at fraud and waste across government spending is rampant in there and there's no question we need to cut that

out. when you look at the department of defense, there's no question we have fraud in ways they are. that is why we push strongly to make sure we are auditing the department of defense. there's a statute on the boat it requires department of defense books be audited every year. they refuse to do that for years now and were trying to hold their feet to the fire. we think they should come down and we should audit them and let taxpayers know what money is being spent, where he spent and make sure it's not fraud and abuse. even after you've done that, it's important to national defense issues that we do the analysis to make sure we're asking two questions. one is how much we can afford to spend. that's a valid question we should have that as today. that's the only debate we've been having a washington. but we haven't been asked in a second question, which is what is the risk to the united states of america for adults to play resources to combatant commanders. that's the analysis we should have before we prematurely make the cuts.

>> if sequestration happened tuesday defense budget. for $50 billion in cuts over the next decade. that's in addition to $487 billion in reductions from the 2011th that limit law. >> arthur and republican line come on the congressman randy forbes, republican of virginia. >> caller: thank you and good morning, congressman. as a prelude to my question, i've spent many years in the military and i am more than just vaguely familiar with various grades of gasoline, various grades of dcl. no question number one, why is our navy pain 20s x dollars a gallon for biofuels? number two, why is my federal tax dollar subsidizing ee five?

and number three, i have heard on television that fuels for our jet aircraft is going to increase drastically also. and if you have time, which you please define the two words subsidy and tax credit. thank you and thank you for being a congressman and i wish you well. just go thank you so much better than to see if i can tackle all days. the biofuels harbor should be paying $26 a gallon pitcher absolute right. the department of the navy is paid to fetches $454 a gallon for biofuels and they did it without again any analysis at all. the problem we have is the navy spent millions of dollars trying to create an artificial market for biofuels we believe in alternative energy, but the air force had the right approach. the air force has done testing

on engines to see if these biofuels on projects would work and if they create the market, though fun day. bethany beach try to create the artificial market themselves by spending money is. they all suggest that it will still be four times as much as fossil feels to spend on these fields. here is the real kicker. despite the fact they spend millions of dollars, once our ships are deployed, once they leave our dogs, 90% of all the fuel they purchases from overseas purchases anyway. so that means if you have a home run with all these biofuels, since they can only have 50% of the next, the maximum you could use the behalf of the 10% you put in before they leave the dock. so we think they haven't done a very good analysis. that they haven't done any analysis. jet aircraft is going up because of spikes in fuel.

the air force has a good proposal, which is to do with the commercial guys are doing and try 12 longer-term contracts for feel purchases so they'll be good up-and-down over the years. subsidies versus tax credit. subsidy is just given to an entity to be a little utilize the tax credit as money that went to have expended their own money, they get to write that off. they both have essentially the same end product, just to differ with how you get dollars to that particular entity. and then on your tax dollars for the 85, we have to be very careful how we subsidize and create some of these artificial markets for products and we have to let the private sector create their own markets. >> host: randy forbes is in a sixth term in congress in per% to chesapeake area of virginia, which is essentially -- >> host: we go from the north carolina and virginia, southeast

virginia beach, all the way up to the richmond area. it's a very diverse and large area. a lot of great suburban areas, and that of manufacturing and a lot of farm. >> guest: westerly road island, good morning to you. >> caller: how do you do. i'm delighted to participate in this question and answer. one of your initial remarks was that we need to spend lives. i fully agree with you. one of the members of congress for whom i have immense admiration and have had so for many years is ron paul. he has recommended that many of

the federal agencies and bureaus and departments, et cetera be eliminated. that includes the department of education, even mentioned the federal reserve. you know, if you look at the constitution of the united states, there is no call for a lot of these elements of our government. in fact, i would say 90% of our federal government is completely unconstitutional. and i think these agencies and bureaus or whatever should be just systematically eliminated. >> guest: ct, i think first of all you are right and that there are people who advocate two different extremes. there is some people who

suggest, as you've mentioned, that their arguments that you should eliminate as much as 90% of what is an federal government. other people want to create a new agency every time you turn around. i think maybe there is a great middle ground in there and it starts with this. one of the things the new republican majority put into effect when they came into the majority is that at least the legislation when it passed now has to save the cost of judicial authority as to why you can do within that particular piece of legislation. i think that's the first site and something we should do for decades. the second thing is important as having national national discussion about priority. i really can't tell you whether or not the federal government should be involved in all this bill a stimulus programs across the country. i'm one of 17 members of congress who voted against all bailouts and stimulus packages because i didn't take there were. but they're poorly drafted and would put us into the debt

situation we're in today. what i believe we ought to do a set of priorities. one of the top priority should be the national defense of the country. we should have a careful analysis and make sure the agencies are doing what they're supposed to be doing. the final thing we have to do is make sure we're auditing the books and make sure we know what those dollars are going and how they are being expended. if we do that and shed light on it, taxpayers who is pretty good job whether they're effective or not. >> congressman forbes, that the super committee is looking pretty good right now. two republicans now wish they had put revenue on the table? >> well, i don't know about that, either. one of the concerns you have right now is this. if you look across the country coming to number one concern for most americans today is the economy. if you look at the number one concern about the economy, it's the creation of jobs.

if you look at job creation come here's the facts on the table regardless of how we got there, over the last three and half years, we've had 21 straight knots of unemployment in excess of 8%. we've had net losses of 473,000 marketing ready to niche three huge job killers on this economy. one of those is these revenues and tax increases if these rates go up. according to ernst & young, independent study, we could than 700,000 jobs. that's what we're concerned about doing that we raise taxes for the health care bill according to the national budget office. these are numbers the congressional budget office for release 800,000 jobs. if we see this massive defense cut, because there's according to secretary of defense, 1.5 million jobs. to be concerned about us is not revenues or taxes. it's about jobs we do want to see 700,000 jobs lost.

>> host: now commit dana milbank in his washington sketch column writes about mitt romney, his speech in reno at the veterans of foreign war. we want to play a portion of it and get your reaction to it. >> today we are months away from an arbitrary across the board reduction of façade of the military with the trillion dollars and has two shrinker pore structure and deter threats. don't bother trying to find a serious military rationale behind not unless that's wishful thinking. strategy is not driving the president's massive defense cuts. in fact cut his own secretary of defense warned these reductions would be devastating. and he's right. >> host: if the defense cuts are obama, there'll so john

bonners, eric andrews, mitch mcconnell is an jon kyl. the bill passed with the majority of house and senate republicans and the encouragement of come away for it, and that romney. >> guest: first of all, i don't think i passed to the encouragement of governor romney. i think this, peter. as i mentioned earlier, i voted against sequestration and again these because i thought they were wrong. even if you do, the president started back with sequestration. he had $300 billion as the put in 2009 and he then had $170 billion cut already before sequestration. we've taken a most $800 billion in cuts that we took. it's been a total of $800 billion of cuts. another half trillion coming about. regardless of who agree to what i'm keeping the government open. at this particular point in time, we know the secretary of defense has said it would be

catastrophic. he certainly has voted to veto and when he didn't feel something was appropriate. at this particular point in time ex-commander-in-chief coming as the obligation to do just that the houses that. the houses put a proposal to stop it in the senate has refused to put anything on the table. we've got to stop. you're not just commander-in-chief when you make decisions about dropping bombs when he went to military action. your commander-in-chief when you create and make sure we've got infrastructure and the things we need to defend and protect the united states of america. hosts are randy forbes is our guest. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. for the last three years we've been hearing the mantra of austerity through prosperity, yet the congressman came on this morning articulating quite well

how these cuts in the defense department are going to job losses. the second point since the congressman mentioned this earlier but citing the constitution of the legislation since you are arguing for posterity through prosperity, seems like you're going the opposite when it comes to defense department. so i just don't understand the roderick, the massive orwellian offers a peep. making the right to cast these things in simple language that they think people can digest. when it comes down to it, you're basically using pretty much an orwellian attempt. poster let's get a response. just go i've said we need to make cuts we need to make a

proper analysis before doing it. it's vitally important that we do necessary priorities before you make these cuts. the number one priority for the united states of america federal government is what does it take to defend and protect the united states of america. the reality is when you look at setting priorities when we asked the president stimulus package, $825 billion the menu at $347 billion of interest on that, i had to chart the exact overlay of the defense cut 10 years down the road. the argument were making is that the defense is job creation. that is not the department of defense at all. the role of the department of defense is to defend and protect the united states of america. we made the argument before they pass the stimulus bill, when they passed. i've made it ever since then. because we spent the $825 billion that was spent in

interest in one year which was very, very unaffected by every thing you can sign on it, we're now forced to take defense cuts over a ten-year period of time, which according to administration's own administration's own secretary of defense is going to cost us 1.59 jobs. that just doesn't make any economic sense and it certainly does it make a strategic sense. so what we are saying as well as the nation we can't continue this maddening spending we are doing and continue to borrow money and get deeper and deeper in debt, the way you stop that is by sending back, making priorities and then careful decisions based on the health and polling numbers arbitrarily out of the air. >> host: davis republican of virginia beach, virginia on with randy forbes. >> caller: hello, mr. forbes. thank you for taking my call. you mentioned some thing about oddity just a few minutes ago. i'm a cpa auditor.

i have clients in your district to my audit. and my question to you is a few years back i was reading a report from mr. david walker who is chief accountant. he made the case that the defense department is so out of internal controls such that they can even produce financial statements come which means the federal government can produce financial statements. so my question to you is that that be the case talking about, think i've heard 50 billion in annual cuts for the sequestration i've heard you say something but closer to 100 again. so my question to you is given the state of the internal control of the defense department, 50 to $100 billion, how out of the $709 budget and my republicans supporting you

guys, but a part of me thinks that if there's that much waste, fraud and abuse in the defense department, what's wrong with cutting 50 to 100 billion? >> guest: david, we have two different components to your question. first of all, you're absolutely right in terms of the department of defense has not audited their books the way that they need to do that. there is a statute on the books that requires them to audit those books to give proper financial statements and the audit will accompany the budget request every year when they submit over. i have been on them. secretary gates i asked him over and over again about auditing his books. they had guidelines as to when they'll have it done. they just missed the guideline. i can tell you think secretary pineda has been in there he is but a huge priority on moving the department of defense closer and closer to where they're in a position to either books and give the true accounting of

where this award goes. in addition to auditing we think is important to have done, we are looking at exactly what kind of means we have and we start making ties, to see carrier floating around, 55 billion for one year, but every ten-year period of time come here looking at about a half trillion dollars of cuts will take place on top of already $487 billion of ads we've made. that is going to be absolutely devastating to the fore structure that we have in the united states. you're talking about cutting off 150 to 250,000 men and women in uniform on an arbitrary basis. doesn't make sense to do that. talk about reducing ships down. that makes sense to do that. talking about having fewer submarines than chinese 78 to 932 in just eight years or it doesn't make sense to do that then you talk about being there for some the ragged edge.

that's why we think we chinese cuts back. >> host: when it comes to defense cuts, no budget cuts dod unless they pull spending cuts on fallbacks of individual soldiers and get them killed. finally, joseph ramirez street sent to you, can you be for both simpson and keeper norquist no tax pledge? >> guest: is very difficult for some people to do that. you find more and more members to delineate what that pledges are some believe that was for simply one term. some think it was for the entire time they were in congress. but i think every member of congress will have to answer that and say whether or not they feel that pledge binds them forever. most members of congress feel it does not. >> host: do you feel that way? >> guest: no, i don't think that. we'll look at tax increases and i certainly haven't supported tax in creases, but the reason i haven't supported is what i

mentioned to you earlier at this time when we were with the economy shaking can even the president acknowledged how difficult it was to raise taxes during this particular period of time. bill clinton said the same thing. when you look at the study of ernst & young can we start raising taxes about the tax take is that we could do 700,000 jobs. right now the main concern for americans is the economy creation of jobs. >> host: talking with randy forbes, republicans of virginia, member of the armed services committee. >> on friday's "washington journal," will talk about the economy with congressional attorney. look at the census bureau's report on american with disabilities. we'll talk with census statistician matthew brault and executive director of the national disability rights network, curt becker. "washington journal" began five at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

under the president south carolina comes states are setting up health insurance exchanges for employers and individuals to buy health care coverage. tomorrow morning on c-span two cover a discussion of those exchanges with representatives from the insurance industry and state government. that is five tomorrow morning at 9:30 eastern. >> you know, it's the tradition of common law judges do not reply to press criticism. we get clobbered all the time. because so many wonderful letters in the "washington post," just for my own satisfaction. that's the tradition of the common law judge. you do not respond to criticism.

>> the obama administration today announced details of plan to work with private health insurance companies and state investigators to combat medicare fraud. health and human services secretary, kathleen sebelius and eric holder spoke to reporters today. they say the plan will save billions of dollars. >> we are here today -- [inaudible] for the very first time to prevent health care fraud on the national scale. this is just the latest milestone in our coordinating can't pain to stamp out fraud from the health care system. when president obama took office, he added attorney general holder to make government fraud prevention a

priority. wiki that effort a boost in 2010 for the affordable care act, one of the strongest health care antifraud laws in american history. so the law provided us with the resources and new tools to help find forsman catch up with criminals and establish tougher sentences for those who get caught. we've also developed new tools to analyze claims in real-time so we can spot that back or symphony claims before they do major damage. in the past, too often we get the government followed the pay and chase motto, paying claims first unmanned only later trying to track down the ones we discovered to be fraudulent when the money was ardea door. now, we are taking away and using technology similar to the ones that credit card account the needs and many of you have used to identify suspicious site

dignity once it's happening. since we put the system in place to sign up and identify millions of dollars in payments that should have never been made. because the system is designed to give murder of her time, as it analyzes market data, were going to be more effective in the future. that is why the partnership relaunched today so exciting. over the last three years, we said to have both enforcement and prevention. stopping any bad claims early and saving millions of dollars for tax payers. but we know that fraud is taking place across the health care system. what many private insurance companies face in the same that we do. in fact, lots of fraudsters have used frank and help or assistance to their advantage. for example, done that jeremy bill one day and then simultaneously the insurance

companies each for eight hours on that same day. they've seen separately those legitimate nihilistic claims. sharing information across payers, we can bring this potentially fraudulent act to the totally to the totally to the totally. republican progress players alike all of his stake in making sure cheaters to undermine our health care system. so with each made great strides to protect our programs from fraudsters. as we grow more and more sophisticated, we recognize our efforts must evolve as well. so by sharing strategies and design team a united front, we cannot go much further towards stamping out health care fraud than any of us can do on our own. so again, i want to thank you off for your partnership on this historic day. we see this is just the

beginning of a new front, an opportunity for us to develop creative ways to share information and data about fraudulent schemes as well as nationwide trends and patterns found in fraud and abuse. the collaboration allows us all to get the proper payment to the right providers more effectively for making sure no money falls into the hands of crooks that will ultimately mean more resources for better care, which is something we all want. now, i would like to turn things over to my great partner and friend, attorney general, eric holr who cochairs this anti-front of her with me. >> good afternoon. it's a privilege to join the secretary sebelius, the president of america's health insurance plans and leaders, really from across the administration and health care industry as they know a critical step forward in our nation's fight against health care fraud. i especially want to thank

president obama for his commitment to this site and leadership he is provided in establishing a fraud prevention partnership. after this historic new partnership, readers and privacy are experts come together as never before to share information while protecting patient confidentiality to leverage critical resources mdc cowed and lament solutions we need. for the work to develop and disseminate us practice is to educate health care professionals and consumers to identify and stop fraud and to establish an open ongoing dialogue about emerging trends and above it to throughout the national marketplace. secretary sebelius mentioned the benefits of sharing claims and health care data across the public and druze are extremely clear and have been widely recognized since the passage of the health insurance portability act back in 1896. under this administration,

federal leaders have worked tirelessly to enhanced data sharing between federal partners invalid private counterparts. we have succeeded in strengthening cooperation between public officials and private organizations and other areas. through this collaborative efforts were taking prevention and enforcement effort to a new level. the reality is we have more to do. this new partnership will allow those on the front lines of industry antifraud efforts to share in its more easily with investigators, prosecutors, policymakers and other stakeholders. it will help law enforcement officials utilize cutting-edge technology to more effectively identify and prevent suspicious site tbd and safeguard precious taxpayer resources and enable federal officials to use a full range of tools and authorities provided by the affordable care act and other essential statues to combat illegal actions and bring offenders to justice.

moore's critically fraud prevention partnership will extend the unprecedented record of achievement this administration has established in combating health care fraud. shortly after taking office, president obama signaled his strong commitment to his work in secretary sebelius and i pledge to make it a cabinet level priority. is part of this problem more than three years ago the department of justice pulp and human services joint initiative known as help her put fraud prevention team for heat to strengthen federal, state and local partnerships. since becoming the first national health care fraud summit in january 2010, dirt gardeners come including some of the later sources here in this room has been an indispensable part of these efforts. over the past two and half years, secretary sebelius and i have trouble to fraud hotspots across the country meeting with

local leaders, raising awareness and learning about common fraud schemes and bring in additional stakeholders into this were. space to the medicare strike forces and hard work of u.s. attorneys in teams of federal agents, investigators and prosecutors nationwide, during fiscal year 2011 alone, health care fraud and force action by the justice department and by hhs recovery nearly $4.1 billion in cases involving fraud on federal health care programs. this is a new back. and i'm especially proud over the last three years for every dollar we spend fighting against health care fraud, with river turned on average $7 to the u.s. treasury for medicare trust fund and others. to declare our approaches work in investment antifraud efforts are yielding extraordinary returns. but as today's announcement proves, it's really only the

beginning. the fraud prevention partnership underscores the administration's determination to build on our most successful efforts by expanding engagement with industry leaders and experts and by working with them to hold criminals accountable and seek justice for health care fraud victims. i am confident this new initiative will strengthen our ability to protect the american people from many of the health care fraud schemes that can devastate lives, that can undermine the integrity of our health care system and drives at the cost for all consumers. this work has never been more important or more urgent. and the national scope of this probably means we need all hands on deck to address it. fortunately our determination to tackle the problem of health care has never been stronger and that is true for every member of this at and for industry partners inc. and beyond this room. on behalf of secretary sebelius and colleagues sunday at half the president about my

abominably to thank them for their outstanding and ongoing contributions. i look forward to where our joint efforts can and will surely take aspirin here. i'd like to turn things over to another key leader in this work. >> are to begin by thanking secretary sebelius venue for a terrific leadership on this important initiative and also acknowledge members of your team, respective teams here that are played an important role in this initiative. it's an honor to be here at this historic lunch and give voice to the views of my distinguished colleagues around the table and those at home working on this issue, david trailblazers in the effort to detect and shut down fraud. in our view this is an unprecedented national collaboration come a crucial step forward and will open up new approaches that have not been previously available. as secretary sebelius cummings said fraudulent act tears don't

participate in either public or private programs. they participate in both. working together and are viewable last to do more things. share information, identify fraud, we got more quickly, protect patients from being that rich for inappropriate come as substandard or lawncare. our plans to develop techniques for fraud before it takes place has shown impressive results are in the country. we set up interdisciplinary units which include former law enforcement personnel and physicians and other clinicians and data specialists to work together to use sophisticated data mining to determine where to look for to start, as secretary sebelius, as you said that's interviewed the name of the game here, to intervene early. the approaches and powerful to prevent early occurrence rather than chase after it after it occurred.

in our view, we are doing this and all of us now working together to do this because the cost of fraud is far more substantial than a matter of claims that should not have come through. it can cause harm to patients who have been intentionally exposed to radiation, invasive surgeries and medications they don't need for the lasting consequences of receiving fraudulent diagnoses that either they never find out about or follow them for the rest of their lives and their medical records. so when our view, this partnership will be better than the sum of its parts. in an effort coordinated and organized across the public and dirt is a double threat to perpetrators because the partnership opens up a fraud fighting and sends a message scott a great deal harder to prey on the public here this is a national partnership that creates a bridge to a new area of collaboration and cooperation the best practices and tools of both the public and private

sector. we know that where one person has partnered locally with houseplants have been terrific results were confident that it will produce results in more detection, effective prosecution and send a strong message to perpetrators. our community representative on the table with such distinction today is honor to rule up its sleeves, get to work partnering with hhs and the justice department and show results. you both made it possible for the best and brightest in bosak or stewart together. we congratulate you on developments on this breaking master. >> seats are setting up olefins agents from individuals buy health coverage. tomorrow morning on c-span two come a discussion of those exchanges with representatives from the insurance industry and state governments. that is like tomorrow morning at 9:30 eastern.

>> so let me just begin to open up the discussion by asking this. what exactly is the major clash between macarthur and truman? is this a clash over policy? is this a problem of personalities? >> from lectures in history, truman and macarthur, eliot cohen on the relationship to let a president to leave a general at the height of the korean war. saturday night at 8:00 eastern. >> q. know, it's the tradition

of common law judge not to reply to press criticism. we get clobbered all the time. i can't tell you how many letters i played to the "washington post," just for my own satisfaction and then ripped them up and thrown them away. >> you don't send them? they make you do not send them. >> supreme court antonin scully reflects on 25 years on the bench and interpreting legal documents in his latest, reading law, sunday at 8:00 on c-span's q&a.

>> tim starks, what is ahead in the senate now said they voted to advanced cybersecurity bill? >> there's not a lot of amendments. none of them are out yet, but will have amendments on privacy provisions as it pretends to u.s. citizens. amendments to try and remove any kind of voluntary security standards for industry. we are going to have a whole lot of amendments, probably throughout the week. >> with all the major fiscal issues facing the sun in the coming months, why did majority leader reid set aside time, valuable senate debate time to look at the cybersecurity bill quick >> i've earned a magazine piece. he by all accounts has legitimately quite worried about the national security threat. if you talked to in a national security expert these days in the intelligence community outside of it, they'll tell you this is a top worry that have

come all to the one thing congress has passed any significant legislation on. so he's been working at this behind-the-scenes for a year and a half or so in a deep way, bringing together committee chairs to get jurisdictional issues were touting gets some kind of bill that can pass. they are kind of at the end of the opportunity to do something this year in the senate, so this is when they are doing it. >> in your cq article you read about rival factions working on the bill. who are they at what are their interests quick >> sure, the main group that is on the floor are senator joe lieberman, senator rockefeller from west virginia, senator collins from maine and senator feinstein from california all our reader committee chairs or in the case of senator collins, the top republican on the homeland security and government affairs committee.

they're the ones who got the white house endorsement, backing of senator reid. they are the ones who have an interest in seeing some kind of standards put into place on industry that on the most important facts that might ever be attacked. the banking system, things that are attached to this computer networks. the second group is the number of top senate gop members. john mccain is the leader of that group. they are trying to make it so there are no kinds of standards. those groups agree on a lot of other things. how to improve the government on security of its own networks. the third group is for senator kyl, senator whitehouse and a number of other lawmakers on both sides of the aisle has trained to come up with a system of voluntary standards that are more incentive-based to get his missus to shore up their

defenses of computer networks. >> what is the view of the business community? >> it is unclear exactly how many businesses that would effect right now. it would affect a broader way of businesses. the lieberman collins, feinstein bill also would only affect a small percentage of the people who own the most crucial of all of these networks. the business groups, however, some of them are quite worried that it will be a long period. there's nothing in the bill saying this business, this business. they are worried about what that will mean for them. most business groups do not like it, although there's some businesses that do like it. the ones that don't like you say they are worried this will become a sort of de facto regulatory scheme, even though the bill is extensively voluntary. the ones that do like it, say it is too important and we need to have some defense in place because some businesses attacked

the way the internet and world wide web are all put together. it would affect a lot of other people as well >> lastly, the august recess around the corner, what is the timetable for getting it done in the senate click >> they look at this week ahead. you know, the next seven days or so. we will see how far they get. at this point there's no final agreement on a version of the bill that could maybe get 60 votes. that doesn't seem to exist right now. from there they have to pass a bill that only goes with one piece of this, information sharing and that sharing and that could be an even more difficult thing because the house gop is concerned about regulatory schemes have anything end of 30 kind of project something similar. >> tim starks with congressional quarterly. you can read his review at cqpolitics.com. thanks for the update. >> you're welcome.