about the hot showers they take, the lights they turn on, and that first hot cup of coffee in the morning, and remember that it came from electricity powered by coal. i couldn't agree more with what anita says. it is apparently too easy for e.p.a. bureaucrats and the obama administration to make decisions that have a huge impact on the people of eastern kentucky. they don't think about the consequences, and i might add bothering to meet face to face with the people they hurt. the e.p.a.'s scheduled listening sessions only -- only, madam president -- in cities far, far away from coal country, both geographically and philosophically. cities including new york, boston, seattle, and san francisco. they held 11 listening sessions

in all but the closest one to eastern kentucky was in atlanta. requiring kentuckians to make a 14-hour round trip drive simply to attend. so it's pretty clear from the location of all these listening sessions the e.p.a. did not want any real input. that's why i convened a listening session in pikeville that resulted in the powerful testimony i've shared with my colleagues today. since the obama e.p.a. would not come to kentucky, i brought the voices of kentuckians to e.p.a. we held three panels composed of those in the coal industry, miners and their families. and local elected officials to illuminate the disruption in these communities caused in large part by the war on coal. many of my constituents filled out comment cards and my office delivered them yesterday to the e.p.a. along with the hearing

testimony. i want to leave my colleagues with the comments of one kentuckian, justin bradford, who is a retired teacher in pikeville. here's what justine bradford, excuse me. here's what she wrote. "dear e.p.a. will you please tell santa claus all we want for christmas this year is to be able to work. this is justine bradford. tell e.p.a. to tell santa all we want for christmas this year is to be able to work. here in eastern kentucky, we, too, are real people. please help us find a job. come and work in our shoes. so, madam president, the people of eastern kentucky believe in coal and with good reason. the abundance of coal in america and in kentucky in particular is a god-given resource.

for decades it has powered our factories, transported our goods, and warmed our homes. yes, the blessings of coal come with the responsibility to use it in an environmentally friendly way. but they also come with the responsibility to see that hardworking kentuckians who rely on coal for an honest day's work and steady pay are given every chance to earn that. and they come with the right of all americans to take full advantage of this god-given domestic resource to produce clean, cheap, and safe energy. these things have been true for many decades. there's no reason they shouldn't still hold true now. eastern kentucky must look for some economic opportunities beyond coal, and i support that and i know the people of the region can accomplish great things. it's vital that we consider eastern kentucky's future, but

let me make this point: it is equally vital that we not give up on eastern kentucky's present. as we consider eastern kentucky's future, it is important that we not give up on eastern kentucky's present. and coal is the key to the present in eastern kentucky. so the obama e.p.a. has the testimony i heard in pikeville, whether they wanted it or not, they've got it. eastern kentucky is going to continue to push back in this war on coal. the war isn't over yet, not by a longshot. this president will be gone in three years, and the coal will still be in the ground. the people of the region are resilient and they will keep fighting. so i'm very hopeful for a positive outcome in eastern kentucky and the appalachian region, and i'm going to defend

them in every way that i can. madam president, on another issue, the national defense authorization act is one of the essential pieces of legislation the senate considers every year. this is legislation, obviously, that authorizes funding for our troops and the equipment and the support they need to carry out their mission. this is legislation that along with the funding that follows in the appropriations bills puts muscle behind america's most important strategic objectives across the globe. and yet under the democratic majority this bill has basically languished since last summer. about six months. six months have lapsed since the armed services committee first

reported the bill out of committee. now with just days ago before christmas after wasting valuable time ramming through political appointee after political appointee, the majority wants to rush this crucial legislation through without the debate that it deserves. they want to push it through the senate without even giving the minority the ability to offer more than a single amendment, just one. just to give you some perspective, 381 amendments were proposed to this bill last year. we agreed on 142 of them. the year before that, hundreds were again proposed and many were agreed to. that's the way the senate used to operate. and keep in mind that all of this follows on the heels of the democratic nuclear power grab a few weeks back. so this is what's become of the

senate under the current democratic majority. rules and traditions of the senate that have served us well for years are broken or ignored in the interest of the short-term power grab. and some of the most important legislation that we consider as a body is rushed through at the last minute without any real opportunity for debate or amendments. as some have suggested the senate has become a lot like the house under the current democratic leadership from the standpoint of the minority, it's actually a lot worse. committee chairmen have been cut out of the process, senators who thought they'd have an opportunity to legislate have been told they're basically irrelevant, and evidently so are the rules. senate rules are now just optional to washington democrats, as the obamacare mandates they decide they don't like, the senate rules are just as optional as the obamacare

mandates they decide they don't like. all of which obviously makes a mockery of our institutions and our laws. and all of which suggests that this is a majority that has zero confidence, zero confidence in its own ideas. this is a majority that can't allow the minority to have a meaningful say when it comes to nominees. this is a majority that won't allow members to offer amendments when it counts. why? well, because of a fear that the minority might actually win the argument and carry the day and that's exactly what we're seeing with the ndaa. now, the majority leader won't allow a low bust amendment process because he can't stomach a vote on iran sanctions. he knows the administration would lose that vote decisively and he knows that many members of his own caucus would vote alongside republicans to

strengthen those sanctions. so rather than allow a democratic vote that might embarrass the administration, the majority leader simply won't permit that vote to happen. here's another consequence by denying the senate the ability to legislate and amend the national defense authorization act, the defense appropriations act and additional iran sanctions and by refusing the senate the ability to vote on the authorization of force against syria, the majority leader has abdicated this chamber's constitutional role in overseeing national security policy. without considering these matters, the senate has been unable to address the programs, policies and d and weapons systems necessary to make the president's strategic pivot to the asian pacific theater real. are the programs in place adequate to address china's aggressively -- aggressive enroachment on the territorial rights of nations in the region?

through defense legislation we have considered the necessary trade-offs to fund adequate force structure. have we done that? can we execute this pivot and maintain adequate force structure in the persian gulf and the mediterranean? we won't have any of that debate , madam president. no debate at all. we've been denied the opportunity to consider additional iran sanctions despite the assertions of the administration that it has worked with congress to craft the current sanctions regime, each time sanctions have been enacted during the obama administration, these bills have been basically been forced upon the president. he didn't want any of them. despite the fact that the administration concedes that sanctions have brought the iranians to the negotiating table, it is actively working to forestall additional sanctions tied to the verification of the interim agreement. the senate should not be denied a vote concerning iran.

the president retains the power to veto anything we pass. what are our policies for preventing the ungoverned portions of syria from becoming a terrorist safe haven? unfortunately, we will not be having that debate this session of congress. what is our policy for capturing, interrogating and detaining terrorists and if we had a coherent policy would it survive after we draw down our forces in afghanistan? we'll not have a chance to have that debate either. this is not simply a matter of denying the minority a voice in shaping foreign policy. it's an erosion of the senate's responsibility. we've given president obama a free rein in shaping these matters and our allies in asia and the arab world are questioning our commitment to remaining forward deployed and combat ready. more importantly, the

courageous men and women who defend us every day shouldn't have to suffer from these tactics. still, despite the egregious abuses we're seeing here of the legislative process, the underlying bill is an important bill. it contains the authorization needed for key military construction projects on our military bases for multiyear procurement that's more efficient, but actually saves taxpayers money and for the combat pay and special pay our troops deserve. it also fortunately extends the provisions on bringing guantanamo bay guantanamo bay prisoners -- guantanamo bay prisoners into the united states, a provision i and many other senators strongly support. and it also authorizes funding

for the next generation of aircraft carriers, something central to the success of the president's pivot to the asian theater i mentioned earlier. in short, there are a lot of good things in the bill even if the process that got us here is completely unacceptable. but let me be clear. the bill before us would be markedly improved if senators were allowed to offer amendments and more than just a day or two to debate it. the democrats who run the senate really need to think hard about what they're doing. this is just about the only regular order legislation we ever consider anymore. it's one of the only chances senators can count on to offer important amendments. and now the senate democrat majority is trying to shut that down, too. we don't do defense authorization anymore open to amendments. so in closing, i'd remind my

colleagues on the other side that one day they'll find themselves in the minority again. you never know how soon that might occur. and they should think long and hard about what they're doing to this institution, because the senate is bigger than any one party or president yam administration. -- presidential administration. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. mr. whitehouse: mr. whitehouse: i rise today with my colleagues, senator blunt, senator blumenthal, and soon to be joining us, senator graham, to speak about our cybersecurity public awareness act of 2013. it is now broadly accepted in this body that the cyber threat posed by criminals, foreign

intelligence and military services and even terrorists is enormous and unrelenting. but useful information about cyber attacks and cyber risks still is not consistently available to consumers, to businesses, or to policymakers. the legislation that the four of us introduced, the cybersecurity public awareness act is an important first step toward fixing this problem. senator blunt has earned a reputation for working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly on issues of national security. i was very glad to have the opportunity to work with him last year as part of a bipartisan group of senators seeking a sensible middle ground on cyber security legislation. he has brought his keen understanding of national

security issues to bear on this important problem as well as his expertise on public and private collaboration. so i thank the good senator from missouri for the opportunity to work together with him. likewise, senator graham, as my colleagues know, has a long track record of bipartisan legislative accomplishments and a passion for issues of national security. on hour judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism where together we are the chair and ranking member, senator graham has been a worthy partner in our work to improve america's cyber readiness, including our readiness against economic espionage and trade secret theft. i thank senator graham for his continuing leadership and partnership as we introduce this bill to improve public awareness of the cyber threats facing our country. and i'm pleased also to be joined by my colleague, senator

blumenthal. we were attorneys general together. we serve on the judiciary committee together. we are northeasterners together. and i know that he brings to this chamber a deep understanding of the tools at the disposal of law enforcement as well as the challenges of adapting to a swiftly evolving threat. americans privacy is routinely violated by criminals who steal credit card information and social security numbers or even spy on us through the webcams of our personal commuters. bank accounts of businesses, local governments and individuals have been emptied overnight. sensitive government networks have been compromised. the networks that run our critical infrastructure, the basics that we depend on for heat, for communications, for commerce have been compromised. raising the prospect of a cyber

attack that could bring down a portion of the electric grid or disrupt our financial system. even our nation's long-term economic competitiveness is at risk. general keith alexander, the head of the national security agency and cyber command, has said, for example, that the theft of trade secrets through cyber hacks has put us on the losing end of the largest illicit transfer of wealth in history. yet, most americans are still unaware of the full extent of this threat. why? cyber threat information is often classified when it is gathered by the government or is held as proprietary when collected by a company that has been attacked. as a result, americans are left in the dark about the frequency, extent and intensity of these attacks. raising awareness of cyber threats is an important element of congress's work to improve

our nation's cybersecurity. the cybersecurity public awareness act of 2013 takes up that challenge. building on legislation i praoefpl introduced with -- previously introduced with senator kyl it will increase awareness of the cyber threats against our nation and do so in a manner that protects classified, business-sensitive and proprietary information. the bill addresses several different elements of the cybersecurity awareness gap. it enhances public awareness of attacks on federal networks by requiring that the department of homeland security and the department of defense report to congress on cyber incidents in the dot-gov and dot mil dough mains. as we work -- domains. as we work to protect people from cyber attacks we must first understand the nature of attacks on our own systems and what we can do to ensure that those attacks are not successful. the bill also tasks the

departments of justice and the f.b.i. to report to congress on their investigations and prosecutions of cyber intrusions, computer or network compromise or other forms of illegal hacking. those reports also must detail the resources that they devote to fighting cyber crime and any legal impediments they find that frustrate prosecutions of cyber criminals. it's not enough just to try to stop hackers when they're coming after us. we must identify and prosecute the people who commit cyber crimes whoever they may be. the bill requires the securities and exchange commission to report to congress on the corporate reporting of cyber risk and cyber incidents in the financial statements of publicly traded companies. the purpose of this requirement is to make sure american businesses are adequately informing their shareholders of any material information shareholders should know relating to cybersecurity.

last, the bill requires the department of homeland security to report to congress on the vulnerabilities to cyber threat in each critical infrastructure sector. the electric grid, the gas and oil markets, the banking sector, and others. when it comes to protecting our critical infrastructure from cyber attacks, there is no margin of error. failure in this area could mean a blackout in a major american city or a serious disruption of the banking system upon which our economy depends. that is why we must fully understand the threats to these sectors and what we can do to stop them. these are ways in which the cyber security public awareness act will help to better inform the american people about the nature of the cyber threats we face and help us in congress make the informed decisions about how to better protect against these threats. we have more work to do to

improve our nation's cyber security, but a key first step is to ensure that members of the public, businesses, shareholders, policy-makers and other cyber security stakeholders have an appropriate awareness of cyber vulnerabilities, threats and opportunities. i look forward to working with senator blunt, with senator graham and with senator blumenthal to get this bill passed into law, and i thank them each for their helpful cooperation and their insight. and i yield the floor. mr. blunt: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: i want to follow up on what senator whitehouse has been talking about. certainly last year he and i tried to find the middle ground on this issue where members of the senate and the house would be willing to move forward together to try to deal with it. i think largely the potential damage and the potential danger of what the cyber threat means are both unknown.

and if you do know about it, you don't quite understand what we could do about it or should do about it. and so we're coming together here, again with senator blumenthal and senator graham, to try to do what we can to have more information available as we move forward. there's no question that cyber breaches are serious. there is no question that they are a growing threat to our country's security. in my view, there's no question that it is our greatest vulnerability and a threat that we might not see coming if we don't do the right things, particularly as it might relate to the critical infrastructure outside of what the government monitors. cyber attacks by criminals, by foreign intelligence, by military service, by terrorists have increased in frequency, have increased in what we see as

the sophistication of those attacks. and these are very dangerous things for our country. they are certainly potentially dangerous in terms of the financial infrastructure, the critical infrastructure, the ability to defend the country. and they've already resulted in billions of dollars of lost intellectual property, millions of americans have had their identities stolen, increased vulnerability to our critical infrastructure that's now so dependent on the cyber network for it to function. and of course what happens if that infrastructure, whether it's the transportation infrastructure or the energy infrastructure, the utility infrastructure are compromised and we don't know where that attack is coming from or how to meet it or how to prevent it, and that's what we're trying to talk about in this legislation

and trying to deal with as early as 2007, cyber intrusions into united states government agencies and departments resulted in the loss of data that would be equal to everything across the street in the library of congress. walk through the library of congress, look at everything there. we've lost that much government data since 2007. at the same time really reliable information about cyber attacks, about cyber risk remain largely unavailable, unavailable to consumers, unavailable to businesses, unavailable to policy-makers. threat information affecting, as my friend from rhode island said, dot-good friend off -- dot-gov and dot-mil, the military side of what we do in the government, the nonmilitary

side what have we do in the government is classified. we don't have information about what they're doing every day, what they're fighting back every day, what the increased threat may be. there are other entities that people are more familiar with, dot-com, dot-net, dot-org, domains that frankly withhold information from the public because they don't want to needlessly concern their customers about using what's available or in some cases impact stockholders. if stockholders knew how vulnerable a particular network might be. i'm glad that we're working together to try to make this legislation, this cyber security public awareness act of 2013 just that. the two key words here are public awareness. we've looked at this long and hard to figure out where is the path that we can move forward, not just introduce a piece of

legislation, but a piece of legislation that our colleagues will respond to. a piece of legislation that our colleagues will look at and say of course we need to know more than we know now about this. and through us, the people we work for need to know more. this gives us a greater understanding of the number of threats and the tools available to repeal those threats without needlessly compromising any of those tools that would be available to repel threats. this bill works to provide public awareness of the danger of cyber attacks in our government and private-sector networks. it does that by instituting new reporting requirements for federal agencies charged with monitoring and responding to cyber threats. specifically, the bill would require national security and law enforcement agencies, including the department of

homeland security, the department of defense, the department of justice, to submit reports to the congress on what were the attacks on the federal network. what is the level of investigations of cyber crime? what other obstacles are out there to appropriate public awareness of what they put on the internet, how they put it on the internet, how vulnerable we may be to things that happen now that manage so many of the daily aspects of our life in the cyber world, and what are we doing about it. what are the cyber security threats to create an understanding that there is a way to respond, there is a way to share information, there's a way to make this work better. this bill will also include, it does include provisions to enhance awareness of threats against our critical

infrastructure. as i've said before, the tpreut cal infrastructure, whether it's financial; the utility infrastructure, the transportation infrastructure, all are things that now are so woven into the cyber networks that the ability to suddenly manipulate, the ability to infiltrate is all there, and we want to be sure we're looking at those threats in the right way. it's clearly complex. there's somebody out there right now thinking about things that we wouldn't want them to think about as to how they can manipulate and use these networks in dangerous ways. it's complex. it's critical to our national security challenges. our response can't and shouldn't be to break down on partisan lines.

it shouldn't be a response that we decide we can't do anything because we can't figure out how to work together. and so again, i'm pleased to be working with my colleagues on this. both senator blumenthal and senator whitehouse have the background of being the attorneys of -- attorneys general of their state, understanding the importance of honoring the law and enforcing the law and protecting us in this new area of vulnerability. will make a difference. understanding how big this problem is will make a

difference. working together to try to solve it is absolutely essential. i believe it is our greatest vulnerability as a society. and it's a vulnerability that will increase over time or decrease over time, and that largely is up to how we deal with it. and so, again, i'm glad to join my colleagues and look forward to hearing what senator blumenthal has to say about this, appreciate the important background that he brings to this debate. and i would yield. mr. blumenthal: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, madam president. i'm really pleased and honored to join my colleagues this morning, senators blunt and whitehouse, and shortly senator graham, because they have really been leaders on issues involving national security and defense, and particularly in the intelligence and cyber area. senator blunt has

a long record of bipartisan leadership in this body and in the house of representatives and in government generally and in addressing issues without regard to partisan predilictions or biases and he has not only led but produced results and senator whitehouse has tirelessly pursued this area of cybersecurity to his great credit, he has been with the movement toward making our nation more secure but also making the public more aware about the need for action in this area. and in truth, there is a saying that ignorance is bliss. but in truth, in areas of national security that is rarely the case. and in this instance, ignorance can do great harm. it is a source of peril and our

nation is largely ignorant about the threats posed by national security and more important about the potential responses that must be mobilized to secure our infrastructure, our critical, innovative information and many other areas where we are at risk from a diverse source of threats. it's not only foreign governments like china, it is teenaged hackers in eastern european countries, it is terrorists around the world who mean to do us harm and put their own movements at an advantage, and also competitors in the private world that seek competitive advantage against our own private enterprise companies that have intellectual information and assets. as a result of these cyber

attacks, intellectual property is lost, identities are stolen, and america is made less safe. every day the united states is under attack, literally every minute of every day by individuals wishing to steal sensitive information from our government, from our department of defense and from corporate information systems as well as home networks of individual internet users. the cyber threat has become almost conventional wisdom in some quarters because we know, our military and intelligence community are certain, that this threat must be met. in fact, that the next pearl harbor will come not from the sky but from a computer network

that links to essential sources of intellectual assets and information in this country and degrades them or in fact destroys them. senator whitehouse and i along with senators graham and blunt have introduced legislation that would institute new reporting requirements. these requirements apply to federal agencies charged with reviewing and responding to cyber attacks. in effect, the federal government would lead by example and leadership is important not only for state and local governments but also for the private sector. the legislation would help us better protect our country from hackers wishing to do harm and it's based on the simple premise that we need to know about the threats that we face. now, the president has taken action and i credit him with the executive order that he has

instituted, but that executive order leaves great gaps in what we will know, what will be reported to us by our federal agencies. and this bill would require that information be submitted from a variety of agencies, the department of homeland security, the justice department, the f.b.i., and in my view, most critically of all, the securities and exchange commission. now, most americans have very little idea about what the securities and exchange commission collects by way of information. but, in fact, it is a treasure trove, a panorama, a window into the workings of corporate america. very importantly in this area, it can tell us what

corporations, big and small around the country, are doing to protect themselves. it can tell shareholders what they should know and the shareholders after all are the owners of these companies and they ultimately will bear the financial burden of failures by corporate america to fulfill their duties to protect their critical infrastructure. not only their shareholders but neighbors living near power plants, as well as customers, banking customers, for example, whose critical information is entrusted to financial institutions. a vast variety of clients, customers, owners, and others affected by these corporations have a right to know from the securities and exchange commission what is being done to protect against cyber attack. senator whitehouse and senator

blunt have described in very powerful terms what the advantages of this legislation are but let me say that equally important is what it does not do, and we need to be mindful that 90% of our nation's critical infrastructure -- that's right, 90% of it -- is owned by private companies and those private entities have a responsibility to our nation to ensure their security standards meet the task of fending off cyber attacks. so this legislation should not be the only action that congress takes. in fact, senator rockefeller has championed legislation that is essential, i'm proud to be a supporter of it, i supported it in the commerce committee, and very gratefully to him partnered in helping to move it to the floor of the united states

senate. but this legislation is a very strong complement and supplement to that measure. in fact, that measure would require industry-driven, voluntary cybersecurity standards for critical infrastructure. it would strengthen cyber research and development. it would improve the cyber work force through development and education. and it would increase pairns of cyber -- public awareness of cyber risks. the measure approved by the commerce committee i think is vital and this measure very, very appropriately complements it. america can't fully address a threat that it doesn't fully understand. and this legislation that senator whitehouse, senator

blunt, senator graham and i have introduced would increase public understanding of an issue critical not only to the federal government but to all american people and it would ensure americans know how they are safer or less safe as a result of the extraordinarily dangerous menace posed by potential cyber attack. so let me yield the floor with a question to senator whitehouse regarding the executive order issued by the president and asked him whether in light of that executive order he still feels this legislation will perform a service to protect our nation. mr. whitehouse: i thank senator blumenthal for that question, and i thank him for his work in this area for some time now. he and senator graham and

senator blunt and i were part of a group that tried to pull together a bipartisan compromise, a meaningful piece of cybersecurity legislation which, unfortunately, failed at the last minute and as a result of that failure, the president began a process by executive order for bringing together the various industries, the private-sector industries in this country whose operations qualify as critical infrastructure, that provide the basics of our lives, the basic heat, electricity, financial services, commune caitionz that -- communications that modern life, civilized life depends on and that process from all the reports that i've heard and i've looked at it very closely is actually going very smoothly, with the result that the administration is comfortable deferring legislative activity in that area, in the area of trying to regulate and improve the

cybersecurity of our critical infrastructure. and so we're holding off for the time being on that but the area of public awareness is still wide open. and legislative authorities are required not just executive order authorities in many of these areas particularly for organizations like the securities and exchange commission which are largely independent of direct presidential control because they're independent agencies under our constitutional system. so this bill would not interfere with what is going on under the authority of the executive order. it is something that we can do in a bipartisan way in the meantime while that executive order process goes forward, and it will be, i believe, very productive because as senator blumenthal and senator blunt have both noted, we are a better country and we are more effective legislators here in the senate when the public knows what's going on and has had a chance to engage on an issue.

and for that to happen the public needs the information and for the public to get that information, they need to have it collected by these different agencies and presented to them. you can't expect an average american citizen to try to do this research on their own if it hasn't been gathered anywhere. so i appreciate the question, i think what we're doing is both going to be very productive but also very consistent with what the president has done under his executive order. i applaud him for picking up the baton after we failed in congress, certainly that failure had nothing to do with the energy and determination to get something done on the part of senator graham who has appeared on the floor. let me yield to him so he can offer his thoughts. mr. graham: thank you very much. my first thought is america is not nearly aware as it should be

as a cyber attack that can come from a terrorist organization, a criminal enterprise. we're a week before christmas, we'll debate how to deal with the n. samplet program, reforms that make it more acceptable to the american people but i just want to lend my voice to three of the people who have already spoken, three senators, are quite, frankly, far more knowledgeable about the technological aspects of this but when i look out over the next decade and i try to figure where the threats are coming from to -- against the american people, well, first it's our debt problem but we're not going to get into that today. when you look outside for foreign threats, obviously radical islam presents a threat to us all, just remember 9/11. but this emerging cyber threat scares the hell out of me, the

military, the c.i.a., the f.b.i. are telling us daily how the threat is growing. and congress could not get there so the president had to take over by executive order. we had a good -- a couple of good bipartisan proposals, legislative changes. senator whitehouse's idea of incentivizing the private sector, where there will be -- a limited liability if you harden your infrastructure and the energy sector and financial sector, rewarding people for upgrading their systems to harden them against terrorist attack or criminal activity i think is the smart way to go. it's it's a complicated area of the economy and a complicated potential enemy to deal with, but this legislation i think is a good starting point. so i want to compliment senator whitehouse who has been really helpful. senator blunt on the republican side has been our leading voice

along with senator chambliss in order to bring awareness to the body. senator blumenthal, a former attorney general, understands very much the threats we face but has been very good on national security. a week before christmas in 2013, we're trying to raise awareness because i'm afraid that if we don't get our house in order against cyber attacks sooner rather than later, we'll all regret it. so thank you for allowing me to be part of this effort. i yield. mr. blunt: i would like to conclude my comments here by saying we all believe that greater awareness of the size of this problem and the effort that's being made every day to deal with it will create an important set of information as we move forward. this is a piece of legislation that is really focused on

providing information not in enough detail to weaken our efforts but in enough -- but enough information so that people know that this is not a casual conversation, that the cyber threat is real, that we're responding to it all the time. and, frankly, members of congress need to have even more information than we have on how much intensity, how much time, how much response is being made. senator whitehouse, thanks for -- mr. whitehouse: madam president, let me conclude for our side with the observation that in this season of peace and reconciliation, perhaps this is an issue where a little peace and reconciliation or zone of peace and reconciliation can emerge through all of our partisan rancor so we can go forward to do something that will indeed protect this country that we love. i yield the floor. mr. blumenthal: madam president? madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i would offer

my own concluding remarks by saying that senator whitehouse earlier referred to our failure. he characterized it as a failure to accomplish legislation during the last session of congress. and senators blunt and graham were very instrumental in that effort, and i was proud to work with them. but that failure had consequences in alerting the executive branch and galvanizing their will to act. so i would not say that it was completely without consequence or benefit. and i hope that we will actually be successful during this session in passing legislation that is so important to moving the federal government even further in a direction where it should be going. mr. blunt: if the senator would yield for a question, i --

mr. whitehouse: if the senator would yield for a question, if you look at what's being done by the administration under the executive order it bears significant resemblance to the proposal we worked on. mr. blumenthal: i thank senator whitehouse for that question, and i would observe in fact that the executive branch very importantly followed a number of the leading ideas that senator whitehouse and our group fashioned. and of course we take no pride of authorship or ownership in those ideas, and many of them came from some of the best minds in the administration who are in fact thinking seriously about this problem. and so i think it really has to be a partnership, not only a bipartisan partnership in the senate and the congress, but also a partnership between the executive and legislative branches. and i would just conclude with this thought. in many of the briefings that we

had as senators, off the record or classified, i was struck by how horrified and at least alarmed most americans would be if they heard some of the stories of how close america has come to the next pearl harbor, how close we have come to cyber catastrophe, and how vulnerable the nation still is despite the growing awareness in both the corporate and military sectors of our country about this threat. so when we talk about creating awareness, we're talking literally about spreading information that is vital for americans to know. so i would close with the thought that i hope that the

leaders of this country who have control over classifying information would seek ways to inform the american public about the risks and the dangers posed from cyber attack. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, i ask the chairperson of the budget committee if she and i could engage in a brief dialogue, colloquy. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. mccain: madam president, i ask all proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. mccain: i would say to my friend, the chairperson of the budget committee that has done extremely hard work on the budget agreement, are you aware, could i ask that under the simpson-bowles plan which was embraced by many, many members of this body, including on this side, including on the other side, including those who are now announced their opposition to the agreement, the ryan-murray budget, that the simpson-bowles plan recommends scrapping colas, cost-of-living adjustment, entirely. not just cuts them, but the simpson-bowles plan, i wonder if the chairperson knows, eliminates colas entirely for working-age military retirees?

the simpson-bowles plan which was so embraced and everybody thought was the greatest thing since sliced bread said -- quote -- "defer cost-of-living adjustment cola for retirees in the current system until age 62, including for civilian and military retirees who retire well before a conventional retirement age in place of annual increases, provide a onetime catch-up adjustment at age 62, increase the benefit to the amount that would have been payable had full colas been in effect." so basically what simpson-bowles recommended was scrapping the cost-of-living adjustment for working-age military retirees. and please correct me if i'm wrong, but the provision in your bill is a 1% reduction, far, far

less than a scrapping it entirely, as simpson-bowles. and i would ask again, where was the outrage, to quote my old friend bob dole -- where was the outrage when this provision in simpson-bowles was included, which would have scrapped it completely? and it wasn't through this armed services committee. it was the simpson-bowles plan which was a commission. i would ask the distinguished chairperson. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: the senator from arizona is correct. the simpson-bowles commission did pass in their report, they asked for elimination of the entire cola, as he outlined in his opening remarks today, the budget bill before us took a different approach. and he appreciate him reminding all of us that that's out there. mr. mccain: could i ask the chairperson isn't it true that

you have proposed one percentage point for military retirees, reducing annual cost of living adjustment by one percentage point for military retirees, which means, according to the house budget committee staff, a person who enlisted at age 18 and retired 38 as a sergeant first class of the army would see approximately 6% overall reduction in lifetime pay because of the cola reduction. that is that person would receive about $1.626 million in lifetime retirement pay instead of $1.734 million. and so as compared to what simpson-bowles envisions, complete elimination, as opposed to this 1% reduction. and i would also ask again to the budget chairman, chairman of

the budget committee, isn't it true that this cost-of-living adjustment reduction, the 1%, doesn't kick in until 2015, the end of 2015? and isn't it true that senator levin and i and all others have committed to reviewing this provision with the outlook, at least in my view, to repealing it if necessary, but also there's a commission supported by members on both sides of the aisle which looks at this entire issue of cost-of-living adjustments, of retirement of tricare, of all of these issues because of the increasing costs of these benefits, in the words of secretary gates, former secretary of defense, all of us admired so much, it's -- quote -- "eating us alive." again, the simpson-bowles plan

which was embraced by almost unanimously on both sides of the aisle, eliminates the cost-of-living adjustments for anyone during their working-age retirees. this plan, which is met with such outrage, is only a 1% reduction. and as i said, for the -- which, by the way, i want revised as well, that this would receive $1.6 million instead of $1.734 million. and finally, i would ask the distinguished chairperson, do you know of another plan, another idea, another legislative proposal that will prevent us from shutting down the government again, something that i refuse to inflict on the citizens of my state. i refuse to disturb their lifestyles, to destroy their

income, to shut down essential government services, the nightmare we just went through. so i guess my question is to the chairperson, do you know of another avenue between now, i believe it is january 15, when the government would be shut down again, that we could pursue that would prevent another government shutdown? mrs. murray: madam president, the senator from arizona is entirely correct. there is no other legislation that can be brought before us at this time to prevent a government shutdown. as we know, the house of representatives has gone home for the year. we know that without a bipartisan agreement before us, that the impacts across the country would be untenable. we've kind of been there. and on top of that, if we do not have this budget agreement, the military itself will take another $20 billion hit, so those very military personnel

that all of us passionately care about would be facing layoffs, would be facing uncertainty, would be facing furloughs, would be facing tremendous hardship to themselves and to their families. so, yes, the senator from arizona is absolutely correct. mr. mccain: i would further ask the chairperson if she has, as i have, heard from every single service, uniformed service leader of the four armed services, including the chairman of the joint chief of staffs, that further affects of sequestration will do unsustainable damage to our national security. that the pay impacted, because of the way sequestration acts in 2014, the really significant effects that we will destroy, or

certainly dramatically impact our ability to defend this nation. and isn't that the unanimous opinion of our uniformed service commanders who we give the responsibility to defend this nation? i would ask the chairperson if she has heard from our military leadership in uniform as well on this entire proposal, particularly its effect on sequestration? mrs. murray: madam president, the senator from arizona is correct. i have heard from every single branch of our military service that the impacts in 2015, a few weeks from now, would be devastating if the current sequester continues to take place. and i would add to the senator from arizona, coming from a state where we have a number of military bases, i've heard from the families of those soldiers and airmen and sailors that they are deeply worried about their loved ones and their lives if we don't replace the sequester.

and i want to personally thank him for his hard work and his support behind the scenes to help us get to where we are today, because without his voice in this, it would have been extremely difficult. and i carry his voice and many voices into that conference room to take some very tough choices afford so that those families, all the way up to those top generals, don't have to theact the further cut -- don't have to enact the further cuts of sequestration. mr. mccain: if i may ask the chairperson in summary, one, floss legislative proposal between nowed an now and januart anyone sees that could pass both houses of congress and be signed by the president of the united states that would prevent another government shutdown on january 15? i would ask the chairperson if that's true. second, isn't it true that if we go through this sequestration again, particularly because of

the nature of the sequester legislation, that there is a sharp drop in 2014 and then a -- sort of a restoration in following years? in other words, the worst year of the entire sequestration process would be next year, unless we soften the blow. and isn't it true that nobody cares more about those who serve in the military than their uniformed leaders, and unilaterallunanimously, those ud leaders have sthaid they support this legislation -- have said that they support this legislation? and isn't it true that the chairman of the senate armed services committee will -- and the arme armed services committe will have an entire year because this legislation will not take effect, this cost-of-living adjustment will not take effect until january 15 -- until 2015, so we have an entire year of

authorization committee, consideration of this particular provision? and isn't it also true that it is recognized by all members of the armed services committee and the appropriations committee and the chairman of the budget committee that we cannot have continued increases in costs and benefits forever because of our inability to fund our national security? in other words, the dramatic increase in personnel and benefit costs are such that we really aren't going to have money left over for the mission, the equipment, and the capabilities? so -- and isn't it also true, i would report -- ask again what the obvious is, the simpson-bowlbowles plan, which s embraced by us, including in senator, by the way, said that

-- and "the deferred cos cost-of-living ajugsment" -- understand that he's cost-of-living adjustments for retirees in the current system until age 62." isn't it far more draconian what is envisioned in simpson-bowles than what is before the body today? so it hard to understand why someone would embrace simpson-bowles and yet find this provision as objectionable as it is? i find the provision objectionable, but i have confidence -- and i hope that the budget committee chairperson would agree -- that it deserves the review and legislating, if it needs to be fixed, because the fact is that we have to look at the entire retirement and benefits that are now present in the military; for example, tricare, where there has not been an increase in premiums, i believe, since 1985, while the

costs of health care has skyrocketed? so, i would ask the chairman of the budget committee if that's true, and if it's true, then doesn't it deserve some consideration for those who care, as i do -- and i know the chairperson does -- about the men and women who are serving in the military? and shouldn't we listen to our military leadership who literally are saying they cannot defend this nation if this sequestration continues, particularly in the fashion, in the meat-ax fashion with which sequestration is now impacting our nation's defense? mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i would agree with the senator from arizona and of course the often-touted and quoted simpson-bowles commission report even in this debate over the

last day is much more egregious in what they are speaking about. but, secondly, i agree with everything he said except for one thing. the senator from arizona mentioned that we have a year to look at the commission report. it is actually two years before this goes into effect. congress will have time to act. the senate armed services committee will be looking at the commission reports, and we will have an opportunity to look at this in entirety before it is implemented. and i truly want to thank him for speaking up for our military, because i know more than anyone of us on this floor that when he speaks for the military, he understands the consequences of not enacting legislation today. canmr. mccain: i thank the chairperson for her hard work, and i believe that most americans are a bit surprised that there is any agreement. and i believe that the chairperson would agree that this is a small step.

but i think the chairperson should also deserve and be accorded great credit for tough negotiating, for a good agreement that i think will achieve many things but, most of all, prevention of the shutdown of the government again, which we should not and cannot inflict on the american people. and i would have -- and i'm sure the chairperson would have had different provisions in it if she had written it herself, just as congressman ryan would have said the same thing. but this is the essence of what we're supposed to be doing. and the option -- the option of shutting down the government is something that i don't really understand why anybody, after what we just went through, would want to have as a viable option of of our failure to act. so i, again, thank the chairperson and i yield the floor.

mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i again want to thank the senator from arizona for his astute remarks and appreciate his help and support. and, madam president, i do have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders, and i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. murray: i yield to the senator from arkansas. i apologize -- the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. johanns: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: thank you. if there isn't an objection, i ask for six to eight minutes to speak as in morning business. ail try to make this breevment i -- i'll try to make this brief. i did sign up. something came up, i suppose. if that's okay, i'll proceed.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johanns: thank you. i thank the gentleman from arkansas and i thank the chair of the budget committee. madam president, i'm hearing on the floor -- i'm here on the floor today to voice strong objection to a federal agency that is disregarding the clear language of the law in pursuit of what has appeared time and time again to be what i describe as an anti-agriculture agenda with this streasmghts let me explain. -- with this administration. let me explain. the occupational safety and health administration which is known as osha is now claiming jurisdiction, of all things, of family farms, but they're doing that in defiance of congress. for the past 35 years, literally 35 years, madam president, congress has included very specific language in appropriation bills. it prohibits osha from

enforcement on small farms. literally, since 1976, the law has said, very clearly, no funds appropriated for osha can be used for rules or regulations that apply to farming operations with 10 or fewer employees. clearly, what congress is trying to do is provide protection for the family farms that exist in our states across this country. yet, lo and behold, osha has decided it can label certain sections of the farm something else, by fiat, and send in their inspectors. let me explain what has happened in nebraska. osha targeted a family farm in rural nebraska that grows corn and soybeans and raises cattle. this farm has one nonfarm -- or

nonfamily employee on that farm. in other words, it's a very typical nebraska farm, just the kind of farm congress envisioned in creating the exemption dating back to 1976. osha ignored what congress directed. they ignored the law exempting farms and slapped this family farm with fines totaling more than $130,000. osha accused the farmer of willful violations. let me give you a couple of examples. failure to conduct atmospheric tests in a grain bin. failure to wear osha-approved gear when entering a grain bin, just to name a few. madam president, you can't make this stuff up. i kid you not. the violations i listed were

$28,000 each, with a long list of lesser violations piled on top. they threw the book at this farmer. let me be clear that osha made no claim that anyone had been hurt. they claimed only that the farm failed to comply with the osha manual. i'm sure the farmer was stunned to find osha inspectors on his farm out in the middle of nebraska, and to be told he suddenly must be comply with osha regulations. knowing the law says his farm is exempt from osha regulations, i suspect he was rightly confused, angry, and frustrated. osha claimed that it was not regulating the farming operation at all. rather, it was only regulating that nonfarming operations.

congress had not exempted the nonfarming parts of farms, right? so what was this nonfarming activity that osha believes it can regulate? grain storage. grain storage. i grew up on a farm, madam president. every farm has grain storage. it has hay storage. it has silage storage. it may regulate the farming operations relative to those items? yep, that's right. eshah, in hiosha, in his wisdoms storing grain after a harvest allows them to go in and regulate this farm. i'm not sure how many osha employees have spent time one a farm. i suspect not too many. but there aren't too many farms that don't store some part of their grain. an iconic part of the farm

landscape is grain bins. if farmers had to sell everything at harvest, they wouldn't make much money because that's when prices typically are the lowest. so it is only responsible for a farmer in a part of the farming operation to have grain bins on the farm, and it's been that way forever. osha's claim that the storage of grain is not part of farming is absolutely incredible, and it's absurd. it's also a blatant overreach in violation of the law, the law that we have been passing in congress dating back to 1976. whenever i meet with farmers and ranchers in nebraska, they often raise concern about regulatory overreach. in fact, i they feel like they'e targeted by thi this administra. osha's distorted definition of

farming serves as evidence that farmers' concerns are legitimate concerns. osha should never be allowed to end-run the law in this manner. i'm asking labor secretary perez to rein in osha and send a clear signal to american farmers that they don't have a target on their backs. osha must rescind its absurd guidance suggesting that grain bins, of o all things, are not a part of the farming operation, and it must stop sending inspectors onto family farms in violation of the law. i've drafted and i'm sending a letter to secretary perez, a letter requesting that he make these changes in compliance with the law, and i'm inviting all of my colleagues to join me in signing that letter. madam president, let me conclude by just saying let's stand with our nation's family farmers, which we have done since 1976.

let's rein in this regulatory overreach and send a message that federal agencies must abide by the clear direction of congress. madam president, i thank you. again, i thank the senators on the floor for the courtesy, and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: madam president, today i rise to discuss the pending budget agreement. first i'd like to praise senator murray and congressman ryan for their hard work. i think everyone around here and everyone around the nation recognizes what they've done. their efforts have allowed us to reach a bipartisan and bicameral agreement and they deserve our recognition and we appreciate them for all of their hard work. and i'm sure at times it seemed likenedless hours of hard work but it -- like endless hours of hard work but it definitely paid

off with the votes you've seen in the house and i think in the senate. and i think as anyone in this chamber can tell you that bipartisanship is all too rare here in the congress these days. i can only speak for myself, but i'm tired of the gridlock and the american people that i talk to, especially those from arkansas, are tired of it as well. we must work together to get things done, to keep our economy growing. this agreement, in my view, is a positive step forward. it gives our business community and our economy the certainty that it's been looking for. it also prevents the "my way or the highway" politics that have been so destructive, that have been practiced by an irresponsible view that have seemed committed to hurt our economy, and it restores resources to our national security interests, which i think is extremely important. and i appreciate what senator mccain of arizona said a few moments ago on the floor.

it does all this while reducing the deficit. that being said, this agreement is not perfect, especially when it comes to the harmful budget cuts made at the expense of our men and women in uniform. and i'll be the first to tell you that we need to cut our spending but we need to do it in a responsible way. we need to cut waste, fraud and abuse. we need to eliminate things like the unnecessary government purchasing and -- and maintenance of real estate and buildings. we can end, you know, out-of-date and ineffective government programs. but we cannot balance the budget on the basics our hardworking military members and their families. as the senator from arizona said a few moments ago, he's hopeful, and i think many of us believe and agree, that we'll have a chance to fix this someday soon and that's why i'm here today, to encourage my colleagues from

both sides of the aisle to support commonsense solutions, commonsense provisions that restore full retirement pay for our future military retirees and repeal section 403 of this agreement. our brave men and women in uniform have made many, many sacrifices for this country, and when i think about their heroism and things that they've done, i think of a passage in the book of isaiah where isaiah is preparing to leave everything behind, go out and preach the word to the people who need to hear it. and the quote from isaiah 6:8 says, "and i heard the voice of the lord saying whom shall i send and who shall go for us. then i said, here i am; send me." "here i am; send me." that's exactly what our men and women in uniform say. they leave their families hyped. they leave behind their homes,

in many cases their jobs, in many cases a wonderful life to go out and protect the freedoms that we all enjoy. so singling them out is not just unfair but it's also wrong. these heroes lay their lives on the line for us and they deserve us to work to fix this provision so that they can receive the full benefits that they've earned. but and the good news is, as we heard the senator from arizona and the senator from washington say a few moments ago, that we can fix this, we can move forward. and that's the good news today. we have this bipartisan, bicameral budget agreement and it does move us forward. and if we can get the votes necessary today to pass this, then we can swiftly move with another bill at some point in the near future to protect and -- and fix the thing that i'm so concerned about. but back to the bipartisan agreement and bicameral

agreement that the chairwoman of the senate budget committee reached with the chairman of the house budget committee, this is a job well done. this is an effort -- none of this is easy. there's always going to be things going to be hard and difficult. that's why balancing the budget is so hard, because there are popular provisions, you have to make tough choices. but these are tough times and we they'd to make these tough choices. so i join my colleagues. i happy to we get a large bipartisan vote for the legislation, for the agreement that senator murray and congressman ryan reached. and i also hope that we very quickly will act to fix the one provision that is causing so much heartburn. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: and i ask for consent to engage in a colloquy with the senators from georgia who join me on the floor today.

the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: madam president, i come here today to address an unintended inclusion in the compromise deal that was worked out by the bipartisan budget conference and it was overwhelmingly passed in the house of representatives earlier last week. as a long-time champion myself of our nation's veterans and military families, i want to make absolutely sure today that they know that a provision included in this deal that mistakenly included disabled retirees and survivors for changes in the pension growth will be addressed in short order following passage of this bill. in fact, i'm going to be joining with the senators from georgia and others after passage of this bill to make that technical correction in a stand-alone bill. madam president, i think all of us know that our disabled veterans have made tremendous sacrifices for our nation and deserve the peace of mind that their benefits will not be adjusted under this compromise legislation. they deserve to know also that

government shutdowns and the constant crises that have unfortunately impacted wait times for our veterans' benefits or further growth in the disability backlog and have even jeopardized their monthly checks should be a thing of the past, and that is what is at the heart of this bill. we're working to ensure that the uncertainty and fear that these veterans and military families faced last october is taken off the table for at least two years. we are working to ensure that the government they fought for functions in order to deliver on the promise we owe all of them. in furtherance of that effort, this technical error certainly can, should and will be addressed, and i join with the senators from georgia in assuring our disabled veterans that it absolutely will be. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: madam president, i want to thank the senator from washington for all of her hard work as chairman of the budget committee on this bipartisan compromise on the budget act, and i want to thank my

colleague, senator chambliss, from georgia for joining me today in this important effort. i support the bipartisan budget act because i believe that the reforms included in the agreement, while modest, i believe that most move america in the right direction. one of the most essential components of senator murray and congressman ryan's deal is the avoidance of another devastating round of sequestration aimed squarely at the national defense capabilities of our country. this agreement will help us to avoid cuts that would have caused long lasting damage to the readiness of our military and will help us provide the best support and tools possible for our men and women in uniform. while avoiding defense sequestration was a key to gaining my support for this deal, i was very concerned to learn at the last minute that disabled retirees and providers were mistakenly included in the provisions, cloak the growth rate in terms of colas in coming years. i believe this mistake must be corrected and my continued support for the budget agreement is predicated on the chairman's commitment to correct this mistake, and i want to publicly change the chairman this -- thank the chairman this morning

for making that commitment in this colloquy. i know through my travels to the many military installations in georgia with senator chambliss and my work on the veterans affairs committee with senator murray that both senators chair my concern and i look forward to working with the two of them to address this most important issue. mr. chambliss: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: madam president, i am pleased to join chairman murray and senator isakson regarding our concern about the military retirement pay provision in this budget proposal. as i mentioned yesterday on this floor, any pursuit of debt reduction should not come at the expense of our service men, women and veterans. as we have discovered, these cuts will not only apply to working military men and women but also to military widows and soldiers that have been medically retired from wounds received in the line of duty. i recognize that in order to truly tackle our debt and deficit, it will take all americans making sacrifices, including our military. what we cannot do is ask those

that have been injured defending our nation to bear a disproportionate burden. chairman murray, i want to thank you again for the leadership you have shown with chairman ryan on these complex and divisive budget issues, and i stand with senator isakson and chairman murray in making the necessary changes to this legislation to ensure our disabled retirees and survivors are taken care of. i thank the chair. mrs. murray: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: i would ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. chambliss: madam president, i rise today to introduce a sense of the senate to address

the issue of military retirement pay in this budget proposal. it is the responsibility of congress to get our fiscal house in order and that all government spending should be examined to achieve that goal. however, this budget proposal disproportionately targets the retirees of the united states armed forces in the name of fiscal responsibility. we as a body acknowledge that military retirees, both those who served full careers and those who medically retired and their survivors, have provided great service and sacrificed much for our country. making decisions regarding future spending cuts will be difficult and painful, but the solution should require contributions from all americans, not just our service members who have sacrificed so much. therefore, i along with senator isakson and i'm pleased to say that senator murkowski and senator mccain have joined with us in offering a sense of

the senate that military retirees should not unfairly bear the burden of our excessive government spending. our military retirees earned the benefits they were promised upon entering the military, and it is our duty to protect them. and, madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to introduce this sense of the senate resolution. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i am pleased to join senator chambliss and the others in this sense of the senate resolution. it is absolutely important that we not disproportionately burden those who have served us and who have saved us, and our veterans have done both. it's important that we deal with the difficult decisions in the years ahead on getting our debt and our deficit in order, that we all share part of the burden, that we all put our shoulder to the yoke and we don't disproportionately put it on our veterans or on any segment of our society. we're all in this thing

together, but most importantly of all we're all here today because of the sacrifice of our men and women in harm's way, and we cannot single them out for disproportionate savings in terms of the budget and the deficit, and i commend senator chambliss on his leadership and i'm happy to join him in this resolution. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. barrasso: madam president in. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. the. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that a quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, i come to the floor, as i have frequently since the health care law has been passed, as a doctor who's practiced medicine for a quarter of a century in wyoming, taking care of people, providing low-cost blood screenings through the wyoming health fair, for which i was the medical

director, and i was back in wyoming last week talking to folks about their health care and their concerns. with the end of the year rapidly approaching, americans are gathering with family, with friends to celebrate the holidays, to count their blessings, but from what i heard last weekend in wyoming and on a telephone townhall meeting monday night, very few people are thankful for the president's health care law. i met yesterday with a wyoming insurance commissioner. fewer than 1,000 people have been able to sign up, but thousands and thousands have had their insurance canceled under the law. so many more people are suffering because of the law than are people that are potentially able to benefit. to me, this law, forced down the throats of the american people, supported unanimously by the democrats in this body, it's continuing to disrupt people's leeskpeople'slives and to causey

real harm. after a year of false starts and failures, what we've seen -- we've seen the president's health care law is nothing more than a collection of deception, delays, and disappointments. if you just look at the headlines, the biggest disappointment was the launch of the healthcare.gov web site in october. a total disaster, but i will tell you, it is just -- it real lay is just the tip of the iceberg. the web site failures are what people have seen across the country, and that's the most visible, and it has obviously been the cause of concerns and jokes on -- by the late-night comediennes. but the real -- by the late-night committeeians. but the real damage will start january 1. below this tip of the iceberg are what people are actually noticing at home. they're paying higher premiums,

canceled coverage -- thousands in wyoming, but millions, over 5 million i understand by last count across the country, and we don't even know how many have been canceled in the states of illinois and texas and ohio. so we know that more than 5 million people have lost their consequently. people are finding out they can't keep their doctor. we're seeing that with seniors on medicare. we're seeing that with children who are going for cancer care. we're finding people having a harder time finding a doctor, even having to make choices as they go to the web site to say, well, do i want to coop my doctor or do i want to keep the hospital thatgy to or do i want to keep the drug coverage i have -- and many people are finding they can't find any plan that will let them keep everything that they have now, in spite of the president's promise. we're hearing more and more stories about fraud and identity they have the across the country related to the health care web site, including a senate staff

member who was signing up and that asked for his bank number and pin number, and he called the help line. he had to wait a long time, as the experience has been for many americans. they said, no, no, that's not the regular web site. that must be a scam trying to take your information. and of course their higher co-pays and deductibles. people are seeing the average deductible is now over $5,000 for people in bronze plans. that's what's continuing to happen with this health care law. so october was just about the web site. january is going to be about real people, their lives and their ability to get affordable, quality care from the doctors that they know and doctors they trust. the obama administration made a lot of promises about this law. the administration has known for months -- i believe, even for years -- the administration has known that many of the promises just were not true. they knew that people would lose their doctors, and they knew

that millions of people would lose their health insurance plans. but instead of leveling with the american people, the white house chose to mislead them. it continues to mislead them today on one important issue after another. it's led them to such -- and the people have seen through it. "washington post" tuesday, december 17, "obama's approval ratings plummet: poll results worrisome for democrats looking to the next elections." "politifact" has come out with sorting out the truth in politics. they're come up with their "lie of the year." ants their "lie of the year" for 2013 they attribute to president obama who said, "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it." the lie of the year to the american people, which is no surprise then that the president's approval ratings

continue to plummet. now i look at what -- a decision made by this administration very recently, a decision to delay next year's open enrollment season until after the midterm elections. to me, madam president, this is a blatant political move, a blatant political move, and they snuck out the announcement just days before thanksgiving. so what kind of aan announcement is the stressing going to try to -- is the administration going to try to sneak out now just before christmas? the enrollment period for 2015 was set to begin october 14, 2015, now it won't begin until november 15. why in the world would they need to delay it for a month? enrollment in a government health insurance exchange has been a disaster, but the administration says it's fixed all the problems. so why do they want to delay it

for a month? what's the difference between october 15 and november 15? wcialtion i believwell, i beliee treation is in administration ic mode and will do anything he can to hide this from the american people. they've moved the enrollment from a couple of weeks before the election to a couple of weeks after the election 2014. the american people don't need more lies. they need for the president to come clean about the terrible effects of the law. the fact is many americans can't keep their coverage, can't keep their doctor, and they can't afford this law. the associated press has put out a poll the other day. "health law seen as eroding coverage." the health care law is eroding corchl. -- coverage. 69% of people say their premiums will be going up.

59% say their deductibles and co-payments will be increasing. people can't afford these kind of price increases. this redistribution of assets and wealth of the american people. people were told that they are health care costs were going to go down tbhi president. instead they're seeing it's going up. the obama administration doesn't want people learning about their next increases right before the 2014 election, so they're trying to hide the truth. that's why today senator alexander, senator enzi, and i plan to introduce a bill to i have go the american people the transparency that they deserve when they're making important health care decisions for their families. we're calling this bill, "the premium disclosure act," and it will do a couple of important things. first, our bill sets the exchangeexchange's opening statn statute so that democrats can't change it to meet their political goals around an election. second, the bill says that the

obama administration has to make premiums and cost-sharing requirements public 30 days before the open enrollment begins, so people will have this important information in mid-september making it easier for families to budget and to plan. the department of holt and humae department of health and human services has previously said it doesn't have this authority and that's why they said we need to weighwait until october 1 to set premiums would be this year. this bill will give the administration no more excuses for hiding cost increases from the american people. americans wanted a very few simple things from health care reform. they wanted better access to care. washington democrats gave them less access. they wanted lower costs but washington democrats gave them higher costs. they wanted help. washington democrats have caused them harm. this bill will help add some transparency and shed light on things that