believe it's very difficult for someone in a particular agency to investigate it own people and, therefore, it's easier to have someone outside? you make a pretty good point, to be honest, but is there not -- and i talked to some agents, and they -- and i just think for the record the members should know, they make the same point that you made. i just -- >> sir, that -- >> is there, is there a blend, is there -- because it'd be very difficult for somebody in a certain group to then investigate the people in the group because we all know each other. so to have an objective person come outside. could you elaborate a little bit more? >> sir, that -- again, and you hit the point very well. that is the one area where we're still kind of wrestling with it. it was assigned, and if you go back to the san diego lead, they

consulted with their dod people on the jttf for guidance on records checks, on how to get the records back in a timely fashion and then subsequently assigned to dod personnel in the washington field office. the webster commission felt that there is a potential for bias from those investigating within their own organization. our argument is those people are by nature people who investigate in their own organization. they are investigators. so if you look at the jttf and the composition whether it's defense criminal investigative service or ncis or army osi or army cid, that's what they do, and they're good at it, and they are value added to the task force. so we think there needs to be a blend with maybe some more oversight from an fbi supervisor on those investigations. but we still believe they are the best people to navigate through the nuances of dod,

for instance. .. want a career. that can be tough you want to nail down because that is the top person in the organization says that, so i think sometimes

the judge. i've talked to others and they have all said pretty much what you said that there has to be some mechanism to catch it in case we have that problem. >> yes, sir. >> the f 130 budget increase didn't include the national security program. within the national security portfolio what is the priority you would give to increasing the number of intelligence analysts seeking such an increase in future budgets? >> sir, i'd have to go back and there's been many mecca nations of the budget, and i don't know where this last bill sits. our intelligence analysts are absolutely critical to what we do and i would say there's not an nec in the field that say increase and intelligence analysts indebted in their operational shops would not help them as they move forward. >> the commission recommends to

seek funding immediately for acquisition in the harbor from the data warehouse system, data to the cup. this hardware would enhance surgeon offices data management. what is the cost associated with this programming authority to acquire such hardware during this fiscal year? >> sir, i'd have to give back to you where we are. we've made a lot of changes in our software and hardware since judge webster started his report in the system and now longline. so i would have to go back and see when this recommendation was and kind of a snapshot of where we are with our i.t. requests and i will get back to you on that. >> if you could talk to us -- clearly i think the committee would approve the programming, particularly the high importance

of the judge. if you could as soon as possible have them contact the committee, i would appreciate it. the report highlights the fact the stuff in the san diego and washington field were unaware of key data systems or were not trained on how to use them. have steps been taken to correct those? >> yes, sir, taken immediately afterward to the estimate and mandatory as the commission recommends. >> that's correct. >> all tests were complete, the training with and how many days? >> right now it's within 90 days. >> was the recommendation 90 days or 60 days? >> i think it was 60 days, but with the number of people putting through quantico we are at about 90. >> i want to ask this last question here before i go back to the other members. and i think mr. fattah made a good point. the purpose of the hearing is to find out what happens so that it

never happens again. and i would like to have the opportunity to talk to the person in the office. but the commission did not find any misconduct to the warrant disciplinary action but to express views with their administrative action should be taken for performance based reasons. has the fbi taken administrative actions with regard to any fbi employees performance and duties and relationships in this case? >> circling all the findings were pushed to the inspection division as is normal course of action for us, and that group, the team is reviewing to it for the action and to determine whether any administrative action or any performance related action is going to be taken. >> what is the timetable for the completion of the process? >> i think it said between 60 and 90 days. >> out side of the wfo task force, was anybody else at wfo

or fbi headquarters aware of the length of time it was taking to act on this? >> sir, there was an informational lead sent to headquarters the day didn't track the lead. again, that has changed and will change under the new system. estimates of the management monitor this -- >> sir, it is monitored so there are 90 days refuse that would have caught that it had lagged. again though, the commission report stated and we concurred that time period is still too long. >> okay. i'm going to go to mr. carter at the end. >> let me try to cover some of the details, but also get into some of the broad issues. so, it's how many months after 9/11 does al-awlaki land at jfk? >> that time he comes back and came back in 2002 a number of

times but always october, 2002i believe the chairman is talking about. >> so it's almost a year after 9/11. he comes back, and he's arrested, but then the warrant is withdrawn, dwight? >> he is held -- >> so i think that the chairman's interest in this has a lot of merit just to find out because you think that there would be heightened attention. the bush administration is focused on the fact that we have just had this attack within a year. we've got a kind of full-court press going on, but for some reason this a rest is in to pursued. but all i hear -- this is how i want to get to the broad point -- i heard you say a number of times that al-awlaki at some

point, and al-aulaqi at another point did this house a process that he was going through so if you look at timothy mcveigh and him blowing up the oklahoma federal building, there's a radicalization going on, but it hasn't taken hold. now obviously at the time that president obama -- and the president has been commended and criticized in his administration through drone attack killed al-awlaki coming and people said well, she's an american citizen and this and that. so, if you could walk me through where you think he was based on the information that you had, was he at this time of year after 9/11, was he someone who was -- who moved from having a

set of beliefs which are protected under our constitution to being active enemy of our country? >> that's a fair question, sir and i will try to answer it as specifically as i can. al-awlaki changed a lot over the years. when he went to prison in yemen and 06 and 07 and as he came out and came back up on line in the early 08, al-awlaki still had a somewhat of a moderate tone but began to be more of a propagandist, began to show more radical tendencies. but we could not see him as operational or in an operational role at that time. >> this is four years after the jfk incident. so he's been in prison. he seems to becoming more

radical, but he's not necessarily at least at the moment operational. >> that's right. the intelligence community did not assess him to be operational at that point. it really comes down to where we see him, where it obviously changes and it changed over the years but with flight 253 his ties into aqap and 253 coming into dietrich and the printer cartridge attempted bombings clearly he was in an operational role of that time and much stronger. if you go back to the 2000, 2001 time frame and he's still right up to that time was an imam and was very well respected. >> a year ago in november the president and his administration caused his demise. members of the house and the floor criticize the president

for taking this action. ki at that point was operational. >> no question. >> there's no doubt about it we estimate he was trying to kill american citizens. >> it was proper to protect ourselves and defend ourselves up that point, right? in my judgment. i don't want to put words in your mouth. >> so, i think it is important to put this in some context. this young man but walked in the movie theater and shot these people five years before that in high school was a different young man. this is where we have to kind of get into the context if you take something out of context it's a pretext it's not the truth at that time. so the true that this time a

year after 9/11 when the bush administration was dealing with these questions and he was released in 2002 he was an operational what that point, he became much more radicalized using that term in yemen and 06 and 07 and again when president obama ordered his demise in november of 11 he was an operational figure and was an active enemy of the united states of america. didn't you come into the deal which is what the fort hood issue is about because al-awlaki isn't at fort hood. the connection is this e-mail or a number of e-mails from hassan to al-awlaki and they should have caused a more intense

effort. so he's getting thousands of e-mails from people who are asking him any number of things. in fact hassan is asking him at one point about, you know, matters of fairly mundane issues but there was reason why this could have taken a different tone if one's instincts might have taken even that direction, and that's what this is about. it's about the judgment call what god made. but he's just one of thousands of people, so the first thing that fixes it is when you have a circumstance where frozen as of people are interacting that you also kind of connect up where the strings tight together and that is being fixed by the recommendation.

the recommendation of the commission and the bureau has no reason with that recommendation and the software and everything to make that work together has been put in place. >> this is important, so there is a tendency here to confuse national security with politics. this is not about politics. and i think that what we have to do as a committee to focus on the efforts taking place over a number of administrations, one in which he was let go and the other he was set on to his afterlife the difference is that in both cases people were acting based on the information they had at the time and acting in the best interest as they perceived it as the citizens of

our country. so again, i want to thank the chairman and agree and we want to know a little bit more about why it was withdrawn. but there is no reason to look at this under any of their basis other than that there is a difference between this character in colorado who knew that he was stopped for a traffic violation or something year ago but at that point he wasn't someone who was gathering 6,000 rounds of ammunition and automatic guns or semiautomatic so there are points in the process. they could be different judgments made, and i think that you agree. i know that you agree there should have been a face-to-face interview with hassan. how long had he been in the

military at the time of the fort hood incident? >> i would have to go back and check on that. >> he had been there for many years. >> and so, you know, the situation as we see it today we are looking at it in the fullness of their rearview mirror in all this information and it's a little bit different than going at it on a current knowledge basis. i thank if the chairman and i would be willing to sign on to his request to get more information about the warrant be withdrawn. >> mr. fattah we generally agree this one may be right, it may not. my own feeling, and it's an opinion is that al-awlaki was a bad guy from the very beginning

and i talked to some of the commissioners. i spoke to one staff person the of the day but in the commission report, it says significant san diego contact for hosni was anwar al-awlaki and at the mosque born in new mexico there for a u.s. citizen he went to school under your tax payer dollars. did you know that? did you know he had a scholarship from the federal government? >> i know he did have a scholarship and went to colorado. >> he grew up in yemen and studied in the united states under a scholarship and had an american scholarship, too. we do not know how or why hosni first met al-awlaki. they may have met or not least talked to him the same day they moved from san diego, to san

diego. they were reportedly respecting al-awlaki as a figure and developed a close relationship with him. al-awlaki left san diego in may 2000 and the early 2001 had relocated to virginia, as we will discuss later. hosni eventually showed up at al-awlaki's mosque in virginia in an appearance that may not have been coincidental. these are people of 9/11. they were not able to learn enough about al-awlaki's relationship with hosni to reach a conclusion. and then there's more. but, so, you know, in closing if we get of the briefing with regards to the npr report on the number in the military that you agreed with, second, if you have budget people come up and tell the committee if you meet the reprogramming so you can follow the system and a third, if there is anything next year that is feeling that we can the cr will

be put together a for the august break. fourth, i would like to have the cbe die, man or woman, come up and talk to the person that washington field office that made the decision and i guess the question i would have is given that washington -- and which there was really silent i think it's important for people given the fact that webster was silent on the political correctness aspect did it play a role, did not come have you gone back internally or done an internal evaluation of the people involved privately to ask them because what is in somebody's mind might be different than what the reality was. maybe somebody said i was slated but because the person was looking the other way. i think it's important to ask the agency involved both in san diego and in washington.

did anything that was going on make them likely to act. last, what have you done as an agency to make sure that fbi agents do not have this inhibition to move as many of the members have referenced and something we can prevent in the next fort hood or the next 9/11. t want to cover that before we end? >> internally to answer your question come all the individuals were -- >> but that's a specific question because the webster report doesn't put that to question to ask. >> again, i think we just disagree on that point. >> show me then, mr. giuliano, let us reset for a moment. go to the point and show me where it says that. >> i did what they did -- >> this is a report they were

operating on. >> i think that the fact -- >> did judge webster call you and tell you there was no political correctness? >> if you get the decision was made in the criteria that the lead forward as to why that decision was made, i think it plays out why the task force officer made that decision. at least in the opinion of those that did the investigation by the commission. so, i believe if they would have found it there is no reason for them not to put it in the report. >> but it is not in the report. they did not say clearly there was not -- in fact there's an inference it may well have been. >> and have you done in internal to ask other people outside is there any -- does the fbi agent that i talked to receive, he or she feels there's great

reluctance my career could be over or is there some sensitivity now that the bureau wants them to do what they should be giving -- >> de sections they're like the, the stats that the director holds within the executive staff of both criminal and national security and with each sac in the field of their executives held accountable for what they do every dy you would see that in his fbi political correctness is not tolerated. he expects us to follow the law in the constitution and to turn over every rock and every lead. so why don't believe that this the issue. if the commission would have seen that they would have gone down that path. >> maybe and maybe not have the

system associate sac and the washington field office a transcript and while at the function in the matter of this blackberry for care the directors said the fbi should. now mr. hooper i don't know what he does all day but i know blackberrys must be ten e-mails a day and if they are not aware what is going on at care i will be at a loss and i get these e-mails constantly. it was a conspiracy in the holy land foundation, so a person working in the office with that environment could have some feeling and we want to make sure that your men and women do not feel reluctant to do what they ought to do and prevent another 9/11 or fort hood. and with that, please contact back the men and women of the year of we greatly respect and we want to make sure that they

can do it in a way that they do not feel they are restrained so if there is a budgetary thing nor will they be encumbered to be politically correct. we will have some questions followed up by a letter and the last thing to make sure the washington field office can talk to me. >> if i can be recognized for just a second. islamic if i felt like i was attacking you and my frustration, i apologize. i just want to ask one question. we mentioned all of these investigatory branches of the dod, which i also have high respect for as you do, but one of the things i really believe is endemic in the military is the perception that soldiers have done certain things if they bring them up for their career, and i will stand up for this for

just a second and said the perfect example the psychiatric treatment and you come back for more. just we've spent literally millions and millions of dollars convincing our soldiers if you've got something wrong, please, tell us. it won't hurt your career. but they believed in their heart of hearts, and i believe this political correctness has issued at least place among the average soldier even up to the officer corps as a possible career killer. you mentioned you talked to the dod and others. have you worked out procedures if the fbi has a suspicion that an officer in man for that matter in the military had questions raised like in this case somebody's mind they can contact dod and say we have a question here coming to you think it was the dod's job to look it up?

because i think if the fdic - query came rather than the soldiers and query it might break the deadlock that's created by this perception the soldiers have of asking questions that are politically incorrect will get you fired. you see where i am getting at? >> is you're point that they would be better if that interview hadn't been conducted been conducted by the fbi? >> either that or at least contact the dod and say we have a situation here that involves one of your officers that he's been promoting regularly and it looks like he is an officer in good standing. but an issue has come up in one of our agents - that we will give the ball to you to look at it or whatever because if -- what you hear from people in the dod is as we look back now hassan have all kind of indicators that to medical school that he took these

positions and yet nobody said anything. and even you will hear from people over at walter reed that they said we were for getting him out of here and get him someplace else because he was asking all these questions. interviewing soldiers back at the front did you ever consider this your attacking religious people and all this stuff. but they wouldn't raise the issue for fear of their career. if the fbi had came in, maybe the investigation would have started the dod level. that's all. i'm just trying to get past that taboo we seem to see in the military. it sure would help if you all have a communication. >> i think under this procedure, sir, it is a to plead for tips that may come in from the general public or from anybody else. that is shared with our jttfs

personnel and dod, so anything we have related -- >> that's good. that was my question. that's good. thank you very much. >> also, and i think that you would agree on an interview would have been good but an interview in the future would be very good because the interview may find a person that is terribly innocent. but just if the person was going off to the wrong path to the wrong thing, the very interview of the fbi coming at an interview in the individual may very well put pause in their mind and divert that. would that not be accurate? okay, good. i seek the more interviews, the better. with that, the hearing is adjourned. u.s. senate about to gavel when to start the day.

more debate is expected on the cybersecurity bill vote to move the legislation forward is scheduled for 11 a.m. eastern. the senate will also consider a bill that extends certain trade pacts and also extend sanctions against myanmar the country also known as burma. malae senate coverage kuran c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. lord, you have given us a world full of rich resources. make us responsible stewards of

your generous gifts. help us to remember that to whom much is given, much is expected. may our accountability to you guide the choices our lawmakers make, as they seek to serve you and country today. fill their minds with wisdom and their hearts with hope so that they will believe that all things are possible with you. open their minds to the inflow of your spirit to prepare them for the decisions they must make this day. we pray in your great name.

amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, august 2, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties f the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar 476, which

is s. 3547. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3457, a bill to require the secretary of veterans affairs to establish a veterans job corps an for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: the next half-hour will be for debate on the coburn amendment to the agoa-burma sanctions bill. following that, the time will be equally divided between the two leaders or her two designees. at 11:00 a.m., there will be two votes, the first vote will be a cloture vote on the cybersecurity bill. the second will be on the agoa bill. additional votes are possible today. we will notify senators when and if they are scheduled. mr. president, we are going to vote at is 1:00 11:00, so those

people debating th debate debate full hour. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i would like to start this morning with a word about cybersecurity. no one doubts the need to strengthen our nation's

cybersecurity defenses. open-source reporting clearly shows that our industrial base, financial sector and government networks are all under attack by nation states as well as independent hackers. the u.s. cyber command, the n.s.a. and the f.b.i. are working hard to counter these threats. so we all recognize the problem. that's really not the issue here. the issue is the manner in which the democratic leadership has tried to steam roll a bill that would address it. members on both sides of the aisle have recommendations for improving our cyber defenses, and some of them thought this bill would provide an opportunity to propose those ideas through amendments. especially since democrats didn't allow for an opportunity do so in committee. yet despite preventing members from amending the bill in committee, the anticipated open amendment process once this new bill got to the senate floor

never happened. it just never happened. despite being on the bill now for the third day, no senator from either party has been allowed a vote on any amendment. look, this is a big, complicated, far-reaching bill that involves several committees of jurisdiction. democratic leaders haven't allowed any of those members t s to approve the bill or even vote on it. an issue of this importance deserves serious consideration and open debate. instead, the majority leader waited until the last week before august to even take it up. rather than give this issue the time and attention it deserves, democratic leaders brought it up with only three days left before recess and then tried to jam

something through without any chance for amendment. the few days the bill was on the floors the majority limited its consideration to debate only and then filled the tree and filed cloture. but of course that's par for the course around here. this is the 56th time the majority leader has filled the amendment tree and filed cloture. the 65th time. just to give you a point of comparisons the last six party leaders did it 40 times combined. the last six party leaders did it 40 times combined. so the majority leader has set an historic pace of blocking amendments. no amendments in committee, no amendments on the floor. take it or leave it. that's the story of the senate under the current leadership. and the notion that we should just roll over and waive through these bills -- and wave through these bills without having a chance to improve them and that

democratic senators who would be willing to be rolled in such a way is ridiculous, especially on a bill of this significance. i would remind my democratic friends, none of you were able to offer or have a vote on your amendments. by filling -- by filing cloture and filling the tree, your amendments were blocked as well. the senior senator from missouri offered three amendments and cosponsored three others. none of those will get votes if cloture is invoked. the senior senator from arkansas has two amendments and cosponsored another. none of those will get votes if cloture is inroqued. the -- is invoked. the senior senator from louisiana has offered two amendments and cosponsored one more. none of those will get votes if cloture is invoked. as of this morning, 29 democratic senators have filed 74 amendments, not counting the ones used to fill the tree. that's a lot of amendments.

they won't get any votes. now, i may not support all of these amendments -- in fact i'm sure many aim probably opposed to -- but that doesn't mean the senators who proposed them should not be entitled to have a chance to make their case. instead of just rubber stamps for the majority leader, i would encourage these senators to stand up for themselves and their constituents and demand to be heard. after all, the majority leader himself said earlier this year that given the complex nature of this subject, it was essential to have a thorough and open amendment process and even committed to ensuring it. let me just read what you the majority leader committed to on this bill in february. february of this year. quote -- "given the complexity and significance of the legislation," the majority leader said, "it is essential that we have a thorough and open debate on the senate floor, including consideration of

amendments to perfect the legislation, incertadditional provisions where the majority of the senate supports them, and remove provisions if such support does not exist." "for that reason, i have committed to my colleagues that we have have an amendment process that will be fair and reasonable. this legislation will have been subject to as fair, thorough, and open a process as is conceivable." that was the majority leader in february of this year. but, mr. president, there's widespread agreement that a cybersecurity bill should eventually pass. we need to improve information-sharing between the private and public sectors. and there's a clear indication that we'll need to responsibly debate this matter in the very near future. if cloture isn't invoked today, i'd suggest we work in a bipartisan fashion to complete the bill. and i would suggest that the next time we take it up, we allow the senate to be the

senate. let senators have their proposals considered on the floor, especially if the democratic leadership is not going to allow them to be considered in committee. mr. president, on another matter -- i yield to the senator from arizona for a question. mr. mccain: just -- my question is -- and i see the majority leader wants to speak, but isn't it true that there has been a series of meetings, including the sponsors of the bill, those of us who felt significant modifications need to be made, large numbers of senators have at least tentatively come to some agreement that we think could move this legislation forward in a fashion that recognizes the importance of the issue and yet

dramatically, in our view, improves the legislation? so i would hope that the republican leader and the majority leader would not interpret this vote, which clearly cloture will not be invoked, as an impediment to the process that i think was moving on a path where we could have reached some agreement and addressed this issue and this legislation conclusively. mr. mcconnell: yes, i would just say to my friend from arizona, he's entirely correct. a vote not to finish the bill today is a vote to actually have amendments and an oortunity to modify the bill, as we all know is necessary, including my friend be, the majority leader, who indicated as much back in february. now, i know the majority leader is on his feet ands to discuss the matter further -- and wants to discuss the matter further, and i know he may have time commitments, and i do as well, but i have two other issues here

i want to address, and then i will be happy to yield the floor. two years ago tomorrow treasury secretary tim geithner declared in an op-ed entitled "welcome to the recovery," that because of actions taken by the obama administration during its first year and a half, the u.s. economy washings as he put it, "on the road to recovery." well, i think it's pretty obvious that the treasure secretary jumped the gun on that one. far from putting us on a path to recovery, it is now obvious that president obama's policies have made a bad situation worse. secretary geithner was right to say that the president's policies were having an effect on the economy. he was clearly wrong to conclude that they were anything approaching a lasting, positive effect on the economy. on the contrary, we can see that the policies of the president's first two years in office put us decidedly on the wrong path.

two years after secretary geithner's op-ed, 23 million americans are either unemployed, underemployed, or have given up looking for work altogether. half of colleges graduates can't find a decent job and with little or no income, many have decided to move back home with mom and dad. two years after secretary geithner all but declared victory, g.d.p. growth is still at an anemic 1.5%. foreclosures are still quite common. more americans than ever are on food stamps. and two years after secretary geithner welcomed americans to the recovery, more americans are signing up for disability than finding jobs. more americans are signing up for disability than are finding jobs. all of this after the president and a democrat-led congress passed his major policy initiatives.

now, in the face of all these things, you would think the administration would change course, go in a different direction. after all, if it claimed credit then for what it thought was a recovery, it would have to claim credit for what it -- what we actually see now. not exactly apparent. as it turns out, the administration is happy to claim credit when it thinks things are going well, but even happier to cast blame when it thinks things aren't going well. two years after touting the impact the president's policies were having on our economy, the administration now acts as though they have been irrelevant. they act like an additional $5 trillion in debt isn't affecting people's anxiety about the nation's future. they act like a $1 trillion health care bill that hammers the private sector isn't affecting business active.

they act like the president's perpetual threats to raise taxes aren't impacting investment. they act like somehow the president's attack on free enterprise aren't putting a chill on risk taking. they act like a barrage of new regulations isn't keeping businesses from hiring and expanding. it's bush's fault. it's bush's fault, they say. it's headwinds from europe. it's the tsunami. it's the republicans. well, the president can't have it both ways. he can't be responsible for the economy when he thinks it's going well, then disavow responsibility when it clearly isn't. he's either responsible for it or he isn't. the treasury secretary had it right two years ago. the president's policies have had aig impact on the economy. what he got wrong was the fact that the impact was actually negative. if we were to ask ourselves

whether americans are better off now than they were two years ago, the answer would be obvious. the president's policies have clearly made it harder for americans to find jobs and to keep those jobs. if the president wants to cast blame for the economic mess we're in, he should look no farther than his own policies. if he's more concerned about the future of the country than his own election, he'd work with us to go in a different direction. for three and a half years, republicans stood ready to work with him on the kinds of policies that will empower -- empower -- the private sector to lift us out of this recovery once and for all. comprehensive tax reform, an all-of-the-above eliminating policy and limiting regulations, these are the kinds of things we can do together. we're ready whenever he is. finally, mr. president, on one

other subject -- i apologize to my friend, the majority leader, for delaying him further. finally, mr. president, i want to congratulate my old friend carl kaylin of litchfield, kentucky. he was recently appointed national inspector general of the veterans of foreign wars of the united states at the national convention in nevada. carl is the first ken kwra*pb to become v.f.w.'s national general, one of the highest positionness that organization. carl has a long history of serving that country, the commonwealth of kentucky, his communities and veterans across the state and indeed the nation. he served in the u.s. army as a crew chief on an ov-1 mohawk

aircraft in vietnam in 1968 and 1969. upon his return in 1969, he joined v.f.w. post 1170 in kentucky becoming a v.f.w. life member. carl has served the v.f.w. in a number of positions over the years including as post and district manager, and at the age of 33 as kentucky's youngest state commander. in those capacities and on the v.f.w. national council of administration, carl worked tirelessly on behalf of america's heroes, our nation's veterans. in addition to his selfless work with the v.f.w., carl has also been active with kentucky's joint executive council of veterans organizations and served as mayor and city councilman of the city of linview, kentucky. over the years i've had the great fortune of working with

carl on a number of issues to ensure our nation's veterans receive the care and the benefits that they deserve. so, mr. president, i want to congratulate carlkaylynn -- carl kaylin. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i wasn't planning on making a statement today. i thought we should have left the time for people debating these votes that will occur at 11:00. there will be a half-hour to debate agoa-burma sanctions. whatever time will be left over it will be whatever time is left over for the debate on the motion to proceed to -- i'm sorry. the cloture vote. is that right? the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. reid: well, mr. president,

my friend's statement -- we'll talk about cybersecurity in a minute, but let's just talk about his continual harangue against the president of the united states. underscore all this, mr. president, with what my friend, the republican leader has said at the beginning of this congress that the number-one issue for him inow ts have acted. to talk about republican tax plan would have to bring a smile to one's face. yesterday an organization called the tax policy senate -- now, remember, mr. president, last year mitt romney called the tax policy center -- quote -- "an objective third party and cited one of their studies to bash rick perry at the republican primary. so this objective third party yesterday said this about

romney's tax plan that my friend, the republican leader, wants the american people to grab. well, the only people to be grabbing that are really rich people. the vast majority of mitt romney's tax plan would go to people just like him, people making millions of dollars every year. under romney's plan, folks making more than $3 million a year would get a tax break, a quarter of a million dollars per year. how would you pay for this massive handout to the top 1%? he'll hand you, 95% of the american people, the bill. under his plan, my friend the republican leader wants, i hope everyone listens to this within the sound of my voice, because the republican plan would require the average middle-class family with children to pay

$2,000 more in taxes to take care of the millionaires. 95% of families in this country would be asked to pay more so that people like mitt romney can get a tax break. now that's a great program, a wonderful program. last year, i repeat, mitt romney called this tax policy center an objective third party when he was once again changing his position during the republican debates leading up to his nomination. now that the group has exposed his plan to hike taxes for 95% of american families while handing out more giveaways to millionaires, the tax policy is too liberal, his spokes people say, to be trusted. i would sawing when we talk about trust, we look -- i would suggest when we talk about trust, we look no farther than my friend the republican leader

wants to be president of the united states. he refused to release his tax returns, as we know. if a person coming before this body wanted to be a cabinet officer, he couldn't be if he did the same refusal mitt romney does about tax returns. so the word's out that he hasn't paid any taxes for ten years. let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn't. we already know from one partial tax return that he gave us, he has money hidden in bermuda, the cayman islands and a swiss banking account. mitt romney makes more money in a single day than the average middle-class family makes in two years or more. so let's not talk about this great plan the republicans have to create jobs. the number-one goal in this body by the republicans has been to damage the president of the

united states. they have refused to work with us in creating jobs. let's talk a little bit about cybersecurity. mr. president, we have people coming over here saying we almost have a deal. i've been hearing that for three years. we've been working on cybersecurity for three years. they're over here today talking about why don't we have some more meetings? this is a bill that has meetings, meetings, meetings. chairman lieberman, chairman rockefeller, chairman feinstein, we've had meetings, meetings, meetings. meetings with republicans, meetings with independents, meetings with business groups. so don't come and lecture us over here about how my senator should vote.

we know how important this legislation is. we know. we believe this legislation is more important than getting a pat on the back from the chamber of commerce. the chamber of commerce does not support this legislation. and that's why the republicans are running like scared cats, because the republicans won't endorse doing something that's good for our country. that is protecting us against attacks, cyber attacks. mr. president, my -- the statements made by the republican leader speaks volumes, volumes. this is another filibuster that could have been prevented by their working to get a list of relevant amendments to show how serious the republican leader is about cybersecurity, let's just take a few days of this week.

we've been stalled and stalled and stalled in months past trying to get a bill. we could never get the republican leader to eorse a bill. we worked with the white house; they came aboard. we begged, pleaded, let's do a bill together. no, no, because the chamber of commerce doesn't want a bill. the first thing we hear about cybersecurity, to show how serious they are, is they've decided as one of their amendments, they want to repeal obamacare. they did that on the last day of the month of july, when on the first day of august all these great benefits for women kick in. here, where we're standing, a few minutes ago the republican said i want to vote on obama

care, and he walks out here. a few hours later, at the faye mouse ohio clock, and says -- at the famous ohio clock and says cybersecurity, we should do it. it will take a lot longer to do it than what we can do, the time we have. if cloture is not invoked today, it's for the reasons i just enumerated, but principally because of the chamber of commerce. they're opposed to the initial bill because it was mandatory that these companies do something to protect america against these attacks from bad people. lieberman and collins, two phaerpbgs of -- managers of the bill from the homeland security committee said we don't think it's the right thing to do but we won't make the provisions mandatory anymore. that is still not good enough for the chamber of commerce.

the bill is, i have spoken, numerous other people have come to this floor and told how important this bill. the bill that's before this body now, that we're going to vote cloture on, would be a wonderful step forward. no it doesn't do everything everyone wants, but it's a good bill. it's to protect our country. the leaders of our security of this nation, general petraeus, general demsey, people -l working at n.s.a., what they say, this is more important than iran. it's more important than afghanistan, pakistan, north korea, this bill. but the chamber of commerce has injected themselves on the security of this nation. they think they know more than demsey, petraeus and the leaders of this country, and they're

telling the republicans vote against this. we'll get something better later on. maybe they will, but right now here's what we have, and i think it sends a very, very bad message to the country that the republicans are not willing to support this legislation. to show how serious the republicans are to get this bill done, they filed a bill on the right-to-work law, they filed an amendment -- i said "a bill." i meant "an amendmen amendment." my friend from arizona says we're working on a list. so, mr. president, i am disappointed, perplexed, and somewhat confused about how the

republicans want to proceed. it's obvious -- it's obvious until they get a sign-off from the chamber of commerce, that nothing will happen on one of the most important security interests this country has faced in generations. so, i would suggest that the republican leader, rather than out here trying to denigrate this legislation that has been done with the best interests in heart, including his -- one of his most valued senators, senator collins, do a conference call with the chamber of commerce. have them come down here and tell them what they want. and maybe what the chamber of commerce wants, maybe we can work something out, because they're ruling the place here now as far as this legislation goes. the chamber of commerce has now become the protector of our nation's security interests. that says it all, mr. president.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of s. 3326, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 459, s. 3326, a bill to amend the african growth and opportunity act and so forth and for other purposes. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. coburn: i first of all want to say i appreciate the leadership for working to ensure a vote on this package. this package was slowed down, not because anybody is truly opposed to what we're trying to do. but the package was slowed down

because of the way we're paying for it. and we're going to see that coming over from the house as well. it is not a republican or democrat problem. it is a problem of all of us. there is going to an emergency farm bill, disaster bill come over that's going to spend almost $400 million, and it's paid for over five years. that's got to stop. it's got to stop. right now in this country, every man, woman, and child is on the hook for $53,000 of debt. so if you're the typical american family, you're on the hook for $212,000, right now what we've done. so my objection was not with the agoa package. it is not with miramar, it is not with cafta. my socks objection is, we are ad

to not fulfilling our responsibilities and delaying. so this is a very simple, straightforward amendment that does two things. one is it recognizes a recommendation of the obama administration in terms of the duplication of things and the need for consolidation. that's how we're eventually going to get out of the hole. we've got $130 trillion in unfunded liabilities and $16 trillion in debt. we've ignored it. nothing has happened on what they've recommended. there's been no hearings on what the obama administration recommended in terms of combining some departments at o.m.b. so this is just a step towards trying to meet in the middle what the obama administration has recommended and us actually paying the $200 million in costs over two years with $200 million worth of savings in two years.

the bill, as it presently is set up, takes ten years to pay for $200 million. now, you know, we have a $3.7 trillion budget -- or c.r. and we can't find -- you know, it's less than .001%. so this delays the payment for this bill over a period of years, all the way out to 2023. no family gets to operate that way that's broke -- and we are. nobody that's maxed out their credit cards gets to do that, and we'v maxed them out. so what we're saying there is a ton of money that's available that we can use. everybody that's going to be in opposition to this has voted to

eliminate duplication. the vast majority of my colleagues on the other side have voted for t the vast majority of my colleagues on my side have voted for t and so we're going to use that same skill where we know there's waste, inefficiency, we have tons of g.a.o. reports, tons of i.g., and tons of oversight at the homeland security committee in the senate that shows where the duplication is. and all we're asking is, let's pay for it. let's pay for it. this place is so manipulated, i couldn't get a score until yesterday because somebody was telling, don't give him a score. and then when we change the amendment, all of a sudden when we want to know, c.b.o. say, wait a minute. that might not work. the fact is that c.b.o. didn't read our amendment right. they know it. o.m.b. wa was consulted. they said this amendment fits

with the consolidation of the program. so what it really does, let's make this a start today. let's actually start paying for things. in the years in which we're going to spend the money. and let's go not kick the can dn the road. here's the history when we take ten years to pay for something, we come back next year and we change it. we'll change it. and so what was paid for this year all of a sudden is not paid for anymore, and, you know, what it is is smoke and mirrors to the american people. so this is very straightforward. it is a clean pay-for, uses two mechanisms to get theret there,t has been scored and a ccomplish it. i fully support agoa. i am sorry it got delayed. that was never my intent. but we can right that today. and what i agreed to is if i lose the amendment, fine.

but to not try to pay for things, to not create a discipline to get back where we should be, we're going to do this. we may not do this today, but i promise you the international financial community in a very short period of time is going to be making us do this. so let's not doing it on our own under our own terms rather than what some foreign bondholder or chinese want to do. the other thing that -- the objections that might be there is, well, if you do this it will have to go back to the how many times that's right. if it passed on suspension, very little opposition to it, it'll go back modified. they'll pass t i've talked to the speaker. they haven't passed the other one because they're waiting on us to act. they'll modify theirs. they'll do exactly as we do. it is a great goal to want to help these areas. it is a great goal to put the

sanctions back on miramar, those are great goals. but there is a greater goal because none of those are going to matter if our financial system, our way of life crashes around us because we're not responsible here. i'd reserve the balance of my time. the presiding officer: does the senator wish to calm his amendment? the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. coburn proposes an amendment numbered 2771 -- mr. coburn: i ask that the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection. who he would i do notes time? who yields time? mr. coons: mr. president, i rise today to speak both in favor of passage of the bill and to speak against the coburn amendment. i first want to thank leaders reid and mcconnell, senator

mcconnelmcconnell, as well as ss for find weighing to work together and this bill. i say with some regret that i stand to speak against the coburn amendment because i respect and recognize senator coburn's determination to hold this body accountable, to find pathways forward to deal with our record deficit and debt. and in that broader objective, i look forward to working with him on finding responsible pay-fors in future bills and in finding ways that we can steadily partner to reduce the deficit and to find and root out waste and abuse in federal spending. but i have to say that in this particular case on this amendment on this day, if we change the pay-for, we kill the bill. we have heard clearly from republican chairman of the house ways and means committee camp and from his rank minority,

congressman levin, that they will not take up this bill if amended in this form, if broken and reassembled, if sent over in any other ways and means the pressure of today and the pressure of the importance the value of this bill is what i choose to speak to. i may at some point reserve time to speak to other issues embedded in the amendment, but i first wanted to speak to the underlying bill. i am the chairman of the african affairs subcommittee and it is in some ways my special honor and challenge to help this body grasp why the african growth and opportunity act is important for us to reauthorize today. specifically, what i'm speaking to is the third-party fabric provision which expires in september. this chamber is about to go out of session later today and every day that we delay in the reauthorization of this critical provision costs jobs, costs opportunity, and costs future. let speak to that for a few

minutes. creating american jobs and fueling our economic recovery is my top priority and i know it is for many members of this body. that's why i'm here to talk about one of the things we can do to strengthen our economic security. the truth is, one of the best ways to look for that future opportunity is one that was considered among the least likely just a few years ago in sub-saharan africa. access to america's markets is critical to america's growth. africa is one of the most promising continents for partners willing to invest in a long-term partnership with the united states. in agoa and its third-country fabric provision, the u.s. has seized this opportunity to pursue broad and mutually beneficial economic relationships that give american consumers and businesses economic security by allowing eligible countries to export apparel from africa that's more aforwardable to the american consumer and create jobs in

africa that otherwise would be elsewhere in the world. mr. president, this key provision expires in september and our delay in moving forward with reauthorization that has earned strong bipartisan support is already disrupting production for american apparel companies along with the supply chain their customers depend on. in my view, we cannot wait to take action. america can't afford to turn its back on african markets and congress can't afford to turn its back on extending this provision. three years since 2000 you copping hag fumely passed the passage of this provision without controversy. it is in my view time to do so again. we must change business as usual in this change but the timing of thisempt a and the timing of this concern is not wise. today secretary clinton is in the middle of a tour of african countries. she is engaging with countries for strong emerging middle

classes, offer us great opportunity, future economic partnership, and very real political partnership, from tanzania to ethiopia, some of the fastest-greg economies in the world are in sub-saharan africa. the seven countries that are the fastest-growing economies in sub-saharan africa are home to 350 million potential consumers of our products. and in my view that's why i'm urging my colleagues to vote against the coburn amendment and to allow us to pass this critically important bill today. failing to do so, in my view, is bad both for africa and for america. we authorizing this provision supports the poorest african workers, the vast majority of them women, and senatorrize isakson, who is my capable and talented rank on the african affairs subcommittee, joined with congressman smith and congresswoman bass who are our counterparts in the house in hosting a meeting three months and six months ago with

ambassadors who pleaded with us to reauthorize this provision. the economic benefits after strong middle class in africa are obvious. a pool of new consumers hungry for american products, potential partners for us, and countries with flourishing middle classes are more likely to have strong democratic institutions, good governanceances low corruption. they're more like i object to stable and bulwarks of emerging stability in africa u in short then, mr. president, reauthorizing this provision and continuing our strong bipartisan support of tradition for agoa is where the united states can continue to differentiate itself from competitors like china p. which recently surpassed the u.s. as africa's number-one trading partner. the u.s. has exports to sub-saharan africa that grow as a pace that exceed exports to the rest of the world. africans want to partner with us, work with us and they seek opportunity. the sort of bipartisanship in

the past that has allowed agoo to be reauthorized without controversy should be addressed again today. let's end the delays and reauthorize this provision. mr. president, i yield three minutes of my time if i might, to the senator from georgia who would like to speak to the issue of the value of the african growth and opportunity. mr. isakson: could i inquire of the chair hoefp of the proponent -- how much of the proponent's time would that three minutes leave? the presiding officer: five minutes. mr. isakson: thank you. i rise to do two things -- the presiding officer: the senator from georgia is recognized. mr. isakson: thank you, mr. president. first of all, i spent 33 years selling houses. i've dealt with honest brokers and i've dealt with brokers that were hard to deal with and i would never categorize as honest. senator coburn from oklahoma is the most honest broker i've dealt with in politics and selling houses. i want to acknowledge for just a second exactly what he said about the process, his support

for the agoa provisions but his concern about the pay-for, but the fact that he never tried to scuttle this piece of legislation, only tried to get his day in court, and i respect that, and i want him to know that. we f we all acted more like that, we would have a lot more debate on the floor and a lot less problems in terms of running our country. as far as agoa, i want to say this, the chairman and ranking member, senator coons and i are of the subcommittee, we travel to that continent quite a bit. one of my trips was to the sudan, to the darfur and south sudan when the comprehensive peace treaty was being negotiated. the south sudan became the newest country on the face of this earth, and south sudan will become, if agoa passes today, one of the parties to this agreement which is critical to the developing economy of the south sudan as an independent nation. further, the other nations that are included are nation that is depend on this legislation to

raise a middle class in africa that will become the customers of the united states of america and our businesses. i say often in my speeches about africa that it is true that europe was the continent of the 20th century in the first 50 years and true asia was the most important continent in the last 50 years of the 20th century. africa is the continent of the 21st century. this is an agreement that is important to our relationship with africa. it is important to our economy. it is important to american textiles and it's important to jobs in africa. i commend senator coons and his hard work and i intend to support the agoa bill and ask my fellow colleagues to do the same. and i yield back. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. coburn: it's intriguing to me. we heard the senator from delaware absolutely assure us that if we defied this that the house isn't going to do the

right thing. my conversation with chairman camp was different than that. i don't know what the timing was between our conversations. but it's never the right time in washington to fix our problems. and we do a lot of great things. you want to talk about job creation? job creation has decreased by a million jobs a year in this country simply because we continue to add to our debt. and this bill adds to our debt. it's not paid for. it has another trick in there that actually charges more in corporate taxes just to get around pay-go. so the point is -- and i won't have anything more to say on this bill so we can get to the other. the point is if we did the right thing by actually paying for something at the time, the house would change it just for the

very reasons that the senator from delaware said. it is important. and if we had a strong vote that said, yes, it's important, but by dingy, we're not going to keep doing the same thing that bankrupted this country, but now we use an excuse to say here's our reason why we can't do what's right. america should spit us out of their mouth. we never find the right time to actually have the fiscal discipline that will solve our country's problem and create a viable future for our children, let alone african children. that's a real choice today. i don't expect to win this because this place isn't going to change until the people who are here decide that the future of our country is more important than anything else, and we start acting like it. and we can do good things internationally, but we can do them the right way that will not put at risk our children. our debt level is such that our

g.d.p. is decreased by 1% right now. it's proven. just because the amount of debt. and so we're going to pass a bill with great intention, which i agree with. we'll have a great result. i agree with that. we can do both. we can actually do better. that is because there's not the spine in the senate to stand up and make the hard choice, this country is full of people outside of washington that are used to making hard choices, and they're doing it in this tough economic time all the time. they're making hard choices. we lack the intestinal fortitude to do that. we should have them here and us home because they know how to get it done. and so what we're going to do is we're going to do the same thing that we've always done. we're not going to make the hard choice. we're not going to do the best thing we can do. we're going to settle for second best because we've got an excuse

not to make the hard thing. and the excuse right now is the house won't move. well, i'll guarantee you if it's as important as senator coons and senator isakson say it is, and representative smith, and we sat here and say our position is pay for within two years, i bet you by tomorrow it's paid for within two years. but we won't ever do that because we lack the courage to do the hard thing, the right thing. and what has that gotten us? it's gotten us deeper in debt, a depressed economy, an anxious american citizenry that has no confidence about the future which is self-fulfilling in terms of driving the economy down even further. it's time for us to lead. this is a small issue. but if we can't even pay for $200 million over two years, we

don't deserve to be here. we do not deserve it. because what we're really doing, we're helping people in africa. we're helping the freedom in burma. but what we're really doing is taking just a little bit of freedom away from our kids. that's the real vote here. it's really not about money. it's about destroying the future prospects of this country because we refuse to make a hard choice. there can be a lot of flowery speeches about it. we can say we're going to do something good. i would tell you that our well-intentioned desires by the members this have body is what has us $16 trillion in debt. i won't spend any more time. i have the greatest respect for the senator from delaware. i know he believes in this. he's bigger than this.

he can make this tough vote. he knows how big the problems are. and if we're not going to do it now, when are we going to do it? if we're not going to do it on something small, when are we going to do it? we're not going to do it. that's what the american people get. that's why there is an uprising in this country to get back to the basics of the constitution. that's why there's people that are interested, because we have mismanaged it because we won't do the hard thing. mr. chairman -- mr. president, i yield back my time. i will ask for the yeas and nays at the appropriate time. mr. coons: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware is recognized. mr. coons: mr. president, i want to thank my colleague from oklahoma for his remarks. if i might just conclude my comments on this amendment by speaking in a little detail to the amendment and its substance. the senator from oklahoma essentially directs the administration to find $192 million in reductions in spending in the following

agencies: the department of commerce, the small business administration, the export import bank and the trade and development agency. in my role as the chair of the african affairs subcommittee, we recently held a hearing on expanding u.s. trade opportunities in africa for exactly the reasons that i elucidated previously, that there is enormous growth, there are great opportunities across the continent. our competitors from all over the world, not just china but brazil and russia and our european countries are expanding their investment and their seizure of these opportunities in a way that we are not. the structure of this amendment would simply declare that there's $200 million of waste and duplication at several important trade agencies and direct the administration to slash their budgets for that amount and then hope for the best. that is what senator coburn's proposed offset would do. these are agencies that promote and finance u.s. exports and help small and large u.s. businesses export and compete in a global market.

and in my view, exports particularly to this market mean jobs. so i am not convinced that now is the time to blindly slash our ability to export. i think we should instead be encouraging exports. and in the context of the federal budget, $192 million is a very, very small amount of money. i look forward to working with senator coburn to find other places where we can find reductions of this size. but this amendment at this time on this day would kill the broader and more important objective of reauthorizing the african growth and opportunity act third party fabric provision, the moving forward with relevant burma sanctions and of moving forward with an important technical fix to cafta. this is a carefully crafted compromise bill that the house will enact once we enact it. i urge my colleagues to vote against the coburn amendment and to move forward with passage of this vital bill. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mrs. boxer: -- mr. coons: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware is recognized. mr. coons: i yield back the remainder of my time. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 11:00 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the senator from maine is recognized. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, later this morning we will vote on whether or not to invoke cloture on a major cybersecurity bill. in the past three days we have received letters from general keith alexander, who is the head

of cyber command, as well as the chief of the national security agency; from the secretary of homeland security; and from the joint -- chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, urging us to act immediately on this important legislation. let me just read briefly from all three of these letters. general alexander said the following: "i'm writing to express my strong support for passage of a comprehensive bipartisan cybersecurity bill by the senate this week. the cyber threat facing the nation is real and demands immediate action. the time to act is now. we simply cannot afford further

delay." that's what general alexander has told us. secretary napolitano wrote to us: "i'm writing to express my strong support for s. 3414, the cybersecurity act of 2012. i can think of no more pressing legislative need in our current threat environment." the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general demsey, wrote the following: "i am writing to add my voice to general alexander's and urge immediate passage of comprehensive cybersecurity legislation. we must act now." mr. president, how many more implorings do we need from our

nation's top homeland and military officials to act on what many believe to be the greatest threat that is facing our nation? a cyber attack with catastrophic consequences is a threat to our national security, our economic prosperity, and indeed to our very way of life. our adversaries have the means to launch a cyber attack that would be devastating to our country. all the experts tell us it is not a matter of if a cyber attack is going to be launched; it's when it is going to occur. so i find it incredible and,

indeed, irresponsible that this body is unable to reach an agreement to allow us to move forward on this important legislation. it is astonishing to me that irrelevant, nongermane amendments have been filed to this important bill, on both sides of the aisle. it is unacceptable that we have worked hard and have come up with a list of relevant and germane amendments, and yet we cannot seem to reach an agreement to proceed. american officials -- our government officials have already documented that our businesses are losing billions of dollars annually and millions

of jobs due to cyber attacks, attacks that are happening on our government and business computers and individual computers each and every day. and yet our defenses are not there. general alexander, who knows more about the cyber threat than any individual in this country, was asked to rank our preparedness for a large-scale cyber attack. on a scale of one to ten, do you know what he said, mr. president? he deemed us to be at a three. is a three adequate to protect this country from a threat that we know is coming, that it's only a matter of time?

now, there have been all sorts of suggestions for improving this bill, and we have adopted many of those suggestions. indeed, we have made major changes to make this bill more acceptable to those on my side of the aisle. and what has been our reward? to be criticized for making changes in the bill, for having members on our side of the aisle -- my side of the aisle -- say, well, now it's a different bill. well, it's a different bill because we took their suggestions, and we took the suggestions of a bipartisan group, acting in good faith, headed by senator kyl and senator whitehouse. mr. president, there's much more that i want to say on this issue, but i see that the chairman has arrived on the

floor, and i know that opponents to the bill, such as senator hutchison, wishes to speak and should certainly be given the right to do so. but let me just say that rarely have i been so disappointed in the senate's failure to come to grips with a threat to our country that, as all these officials have warned us over and over again, is urgent and must be addressed now; not maybe in september, not possibly by the end of the year, not in the next congress, but now. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i just wanted to get the time

for our side and time for the bill sponsors' side and clarify that the people on our side would have 15 minutes; is that correct? the presiding officer: the time time is divided between the two leaders or their designees. the republican side has approximately nine minutes, and the majority side has 16 minutes. mrs. hutchison: and i just wanted to clarify that there would be time for the opposition side. i didn't know if senator collins is speaking for the majority side then or for the minority side? i'm just trying to clarify to assure that the opposition gets some equal amount of time or close to equal.

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, the way i understand this -- it is a bit confusing -- i think there's 15 minutes for the opponents of the pending measure and 15 minutes fo for the the proponents. ms. collins: mr. president, it is my understanding that i am managing the time on the republican side. i, of course, want to make sure that the senator from texas is treated fairly and is given an opportunity to present her views, but it was my understanding that the 15 minutes is allocated to me to dole out on our -- or to ah allocate ton our side. mrs. hutchison: mr. president,

then how much time would the proponents have with senator collins and senator lieberman on the proponents' side, in that case? the presiding officer: the time is divided between the two sides. not between the proponents and the opponents. mrs. hutchison: so, mr. president, how much time then would be left on the -- senator collins' side? the presiding officer: seven minutes is left on the republican side. the majority side has 15 1/2 minutes. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i would just ask consent that the opponents have at least ten minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. collins: mr. president, i have no objection to that. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i would like to be notified when i have five minutes left, because senator mccain is

expected on the floor, and if senator chambliss or others come i would like to have the time. the presiding officer: the chair will do so. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i rise to express my disappointment that we are taking a vote that is very premature, not that we haven't been discussing this bill for over a year. and i have certainly been one of the first to say that we should vote on a cybersecurity bill. but, mr. president, this is a complicated bill. it is a bill that didn't get marked up in committee, and in our discussions we are talking about amendments, but -- and i want to say that the proponents of the bill before us have certainly been willing to talk and adjust and try to make changes in the bill. but i it is not there yet, and even though we have been meeting pretty much constantly, there

are three different groups that have a very strong interest. all of us interested in getting a cybersecurity bill but none of us liking what is before us -- well, obviously the proponents of the bill like what's before us. but two other groups are very concerned about further needs in the bill. let me just say that we have an alternative called "secure i.t." it is cosponsored by eight of the ranking members of committees and subcommittees that have jurisdiction over cybersecurity. senators mccain, myself, chambliss, grassley, murkowski, coats, burr, and o johnson are w sponsoring a bill that could -- are cosponsoring a bill that would pass the house and go to the senate.

my concern with the bill on which we're voting on cloture is on the process, because we have not had are chance to amend this bill and the majority leader is attempting to vote cloture, fill the tree, so that we are not able to put any amendments on this bill at all. and it is a bill that will not get 41 votes, for sure, and there are many others who are very concerned about the substance of the bill. you can't have a bill with no amendments that is this important and this technical. let me just state some of my concerns on the bill before us. first, it will actually undermine the current information-sharing between the government and the private sector. the biggest priority we have is to get the private sector to the table and to make sure that they have the ability to not only give information to the government but get information

from the government and, furthermore, be able to share among the other industries if they see a cyber threat on an expedited basis. number two, the department of homeland security would be granted authority over standard-setting for private-sector systems. that's unacceptable in the private sector and most certainly is not going to produce what is a consensus for getting the information that we need. it assumes that government must take the adversarial role against private network owners in order to get cooperation when informing both the government and private sector share the same goal of increased cybersecurity. let me read from a couple of letters we have received with concerns about this bill. the american banks association, the engines services round table, the consumer bankers association and six other

organizations say, this legislation threatens to undermine important cybersecurity protections already in place for our customers and institutions. it misses an opportunity to substantially improve cyber threat information-sharing between the federal government and the private sector. the national association of manufacturers say, "the creation of a new government-administered program in an agency yet to be named forces unnecessary regulatory uncertainty on the private sector." the defense industry groups are very concerned about not having direct access to the national security agency with whom they deal now, and this bill would take that away from their capabilities. the presiding officer: the senators'senators's five minutee expired. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, let me ask my colleagues -- i have reserved the five minutes that i have for opponents, and is that going to change, senator

lieberman, or are we -- if not, i will give two and a half minutes each to senator mccain and senator chambliss of my five minutes. mr. lieberman: mr. president, through you, i think that's the situation we're in, because the vote is set to go off in a little more than 15 minutes and i haven't spoken yet. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, then i would just ask my colleagues, senator mccain, i can give two and a half minutes and senator chambliss. while they're going to their microphones, just say that they have been instrumental in trying to get a consensus bill and, like myself, are very disappointed that we are prematurely voting on a cloture when we have had no ability to amend this bill. i give two and a half palestinians to senatominutes t. mr. mccain: i want to thank senator lieberman and senator collins for their willingness to

negotiate seriously. i want to thank also senator chambliss as well as senator hutchison and many others -- and senator kyl and others. we've had large meet, small meetings, medium-sized meetings, discusses with various groups. that i believe we sort of had the outlines of a framework that we could have had a certain number of amendments that we all agreed to that would be voted on and at the same time prevail upon some of our colleagues not to have nongermane amendments. unfortunately, the first amendment proposed by the majority leader has to do with tax cuts. look, i think -- i say to my colleagues, i think we have developed a framework where we can move forward with a certain number of germane amendments. all of us appreciate how important this issue is. and so i don't see the need for this vote.

cloture will not be invoked. all it will do is embed people in their previously held positions. what we should be dog is continuing the productive negotiations and discussions that we had all during yesterday , put off this cloture vote and try todom -- to some agreement in recognizing that cybersecurity is vital security. we all recognize that. i think there have been some agreements made which i view as significant progress. so i regret, i say to senator lieberman and senator collins and the rest of my colleagues, that we are taking this vote when we should be spending our time at least certainly the rest of the day setting a framework that we could address cybersecurity during the first week that we are back in

september. but it is what it is, and i want to thank again senator lieberman and senator collins for their willingness to sit down and negotiate. we still have significant differences. but i think that those could have been resolved. i hope that this vote does not have a chilling effect on what i think was progress was being made. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. mccain: transparency and information sharing and others, there are still some differences but those differences have been narrowed. i thank my colleagues, and i thank my colleagues for their hard work. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia is recognized. mr. chambliss: let me today what senator mccain said. we have been working hard with the sponsors of the base bill, senator lieberman and senator collins who have been very receptive and very open to our dialogue over the last several days and weeks. it's an indication, number one, that everybody in this body

recognizes the seriousness of this issue. but it's also a recognition of the complexity of this issue. there are about four or five committees of jurisdiction that have a piece of the jewish of cybersecurity. unfortunately we did not -- a piece of the issue of security. we did not go through the regular order of giving the committees the opportunity to go through the regular markup process. that may or may not have solved some of the issues we are dealing with. but we're down to the very final minutes before a cloture vote, and unfortunately i'm going to vote against cloture, and i would recommend that my colleagues do likewise and that we continue over this break to negotiate on the remaining issues that we have, which certainly have been narrowed in number as well as in scope. both sides are negotiating in good faith because we all understand that this is such an

issue of such critical importance. the basic philosophical difference we have is that we all seek to protect the private sector from cyber attacks that may have a huge impact on life or on our economy. and the issue is primarily does the government know better how to do that or does the private sector know better how to protect itself as we think? and while we understand the government has a role to play, we have capabilities and capacities within the federal government that the private sector does not have. we recognize that. and that's why we've been negotiating in good faith to try to find that common ground -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. chambliss: -- to ensure the protection of the basic infrastructure of this country. mrs. hutchison: mr. president?

appropriate -- the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: i ask unanimous consent to submit articles from the "wall street journal" on this issue. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: thank you, mr. president. i thank the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut is recognized. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. i rise to speak on the vote we'll have in two minutes. i'm going to be real personal in my statement today. this is one of those days when i fear for our country, and i'm not proud of the united states senate. we've got a crisis, and it's one that we all acknowledge. it's not just that there's a theoretical or speculative threat of cyber attack against our country. it's real. it's happening now. most people don't know it because a lot of people attacked don't want to announce it because they're embarrassed. a lot of companies are attacked who control critical cyber infrastructure, have been attacked, in fact have what i

called yesterday secret cyber attack cells planted in their computer systems that control the kind of systems that we depend on for the quality of our life, in some ways for our lives. and they don't know it. general keith he -- keith alexander, director of cyber command at the pentagon, said the other day when it comes to cyber war, we are today where we were in 1993 in our war with islamist terrorism after they blew up the truck bomb in the parking garage at the world trade center. we were attacked. it shook us up for awhile, but people forgot about it. at least in that case we knew we had been attacked. now we're attacked every day, and most people don't know it. there's a story in the paper, one day they read it, or on tv, and then they forget about it. so the question is: are we going to act before we get to the

cyber 9/11, as we obviously did in the attacks that, in the war we were in without acknowledging it with islamist terrorism? we pretty much all agree on that here, and yet we've descended once again to gridlock, to partisan attack and counterattack. and the end result of that is a lot of sound and fury that will accomplish nothing, and we will leave our country vulnerable. mr. president, the fact is, as the majority leader announced earlier in the week, that we've been on this for a long time. senator collins and i have tried to be flexible. we've been open to compromise, not of principle but how much we thought we could get passed through the senate, because the threat is so urgent, we can't afford to insist on everything we thought was in the best interest of our country.

so we made a mandatory system voluntary. but still that's not been enough. senator reid said if there is an agreement on a finite list of amendments, and they're germane and relevant to the bill, not taking your favorite political shot through this bill message opportunity, political message opportunity, then he would take it up in september as soon as we came back we'd have a limited time on it, we'd go to final passage, and the senate would work its will. unfortunately we haven't been able to agree on such a list. there's still nongermane, irrelevant amendments that are on the list. our friends in the republican caucus have whittled their list down to 58 amendments. frankly i don't worry about the number as much as the fact that senator reid was right. the majority leader was right. this bill and the threat of cyber attack, cyber theft are too important to use as yet another vehicle for partisan

ideological shots at one another. save those for another day. so here we are, we're heading to a cloture vote. and right now it looks like it's going to lose. i hope not. hope springs eternal at least for about 25 minutes more. i'd say to my friends if you believe that we're in a cyber war and that we're inadequately defended, particularly the part of our cyber infrastructure that's controlled by the private sector, then vote for cloture. it's the only way we're going to get to this bill. vote for cloture. and remember something, we're just one of two chambers of the congress of the united states. whatever passes the senate still has to go to a conference with the house. the house approach on this is very different, and we're going to have to do even more negotiating and give-and-take. so i appeal to my colleagues. make a principled vote here.

and vote in a way that says to the country and your constituents two things. one is you recognize the threat. you recognize that we're in a cyber war now and we're inadequately defended. and secondly, by voting for cloture, which means we'll take the bill up, you're saying we're willing to work together across party lines to try to get something done. in my opinion, it's the only way we're going to get to this bill. if cloture is not granted, as disappointed, angry as i'm going to be, i'm not going to be petulant. i'm going to be open today, tomorrow, as long as we have an opportunity in this session of congress to work with colleagues to try to reach an agreement that will help us improve our cyber defenses. sometimes in moments of disappointment, i go back to the great winston churchill. so i want to read a few comments

from him. these were all in the 1930's when he was in the house of commons and concerned that england and the world faced a threat which they were not acknowledging, which was the rise of nazi germany. first he said -- and i hate to say it, it relates to where we are now today -- he said about those who refuse to act decisively to counter the clear and growing threat of a resurgent and rearmed nazi germany -- quote -- "they go on in strange paradox decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity." i'm afraid that's the message we're going to send to the country and to our enemies if we don't get together and pass the cybersecurity bill in this session of congress. again, churchill said that he was staggered after long, after his long parliamentary experience with the debates that he was going through on this

question during the 1930's by two things. first, there's been the dangers that have been so swiftly -- that have so swiftly come upon us in a few years and have been transforming our position and the whole outlook of the world. that's actually where we are with regard to cyber war, although most people don't understand that. we do. second, he said, which you are hill -- churchill i quote "i've been staggered by the failure of the house to react effectively against those dangers. that i am bound to say i never expected. i say that unless we find our resolve, we will have committed an act of abdication of duty." and i end with those words. i think it's that serious. if we don't find a way either by voting for cloture today to get on the bill so we can negotiate, or continuing to negotiate if cloture fails, it will be quite simply a colossal abdication of

duty to the people of the united states and to their security. i thank the chair. a senator: would my friend yield me some time? mr. lieberman: i will. i yield to my friend from indiana. mr. coats: i thank the senator. i want to -- the presiding officer: the senator from indiana is recognized. mr. coats: i want to first of all commend automatic republicans and democrats that have -- commend all republicans and democrats that have worked so hard together, nearly a fifth of us, hour after hour, meeting after meeting, the flexibility provided by both sides, by senator lieberman and senator collins on their bill, by senator saxby, senator mccain, senator hutchison and others in terms of trying to reach a consensus on this. those who have listened to the senator from maryland yesterday know we're given the unclassified version of the nature of this threat, and that's scary enough. add to that the classified, and it's truly a threat that needs

to be addressed. it is despicable, i think, that the majority leader of t united states senate, when we were so close to putting together something to bring joint support for what everybody knows we need to do and wants to do, so close with agreements from democrats and republicans, ranking members and chairmen, chair woman of the relevant committees and presenting a package which would grant limited time and limited germane amendments, to deny us that opportunity. and yet here we are faced with a dilemma of an imminent threat facing the people of the united states of america, and a vote whether to continue the process, to continue to work on something that potentially could kill this for the rest of the session or maybe next year, or something that grants to the white house an abuse of executive power, to mandate things through executive order that we've seen on a

number of other provisions. maybe that's the the motive. maybe it isn't. i don't know. nevertheless, we're face with a very critical choice here in terms of a very imminent threat to the people of -- to the security of the united states and to the american people. and i hope all my colleagues will take that into consideration when we decide what to do here. but i do thank people from both sides for the tremendous efforts that have been made and we shouldn't be pointing fingers of blame here at aoefpl other. there is -- at each other. there is a real effort here to address this very, very real threat to the united states. i thank my friend from connecticut and yield back to him.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on s. 3414, a bill to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the united states, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is is it the sense of the senate that debate on s. 3414, a bill to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the united states, shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to cast their votes? the senate will be in order. any senators wishing to cast their votes? on this the yeas are 52, the nays are 46. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. the majority leader is recognized. the senate will be in order. mr. reid: i enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked. the presiding officer: the motion is entered. under the previous order, the question occurs on amendment number 2771 offered by the senator from oklahoma,

mr. suburban. the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: we expect one more vote today. i haven't had a chance to talk in detail with senator mcconnell yet but i hope to have a vote on a judge, hope to have it at 2:00 today so people can make their schedules accordingly. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment number 2771 offered by the senator from oklahoma. a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays and yield back whatever time i have. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to cast their votes? on this vote, the yeas are 40, the nays are 58. the amendment is not agreed to. the majority leader. without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent for committees to meet during today's session. the presiding officer: the clerk

will read the bill for the third time. mr. reid: pardon me, mr. president. the clerk: calendar 459, a bill to amend the african growth and opportunity act and so forth. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the bill is passed. the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i have requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of senator mcconnell and me. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the majority leader. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent that at 12:50 today, the senate -- 12:50 p.m. today, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 651, there be an hour of debate equally divided. upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on that judge. it's judge drain of michigan, a

judge drain in michigan. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from connecticut is recognized. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: