S5694 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 31, 2012 

CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2012 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the pending 

business. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

A bill (S. 3414) to enhance the security and 

resiliency of the cyber and communications 

infrastructure of the United States. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland. 

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, every 

Senator has to decide what they are 

going to do every day when they wake 

up in the morning. For some in this 

Chamber, they wake up every day 

thinking about how they are going to 

stop President Obama, how they are 

going to stop his agenda, and how they 

are going to do everything they can to 

stop him from having a second term. 

Some spend their time waking up every 

day thinking about how they want to 

stop America from moving forward. 

That is not how I spend my day. I try 

to look at two things every day: the 

needs of my people—their day-to-day 

needs for a job, for an opportunity, for 

health care—and how that translates 

into national policy; then I try to look 

at the long range needs of our country. 

That is why I am excited about being 

on the Intelligence Committee, where I 

am working on protecting America 

from the cyber attacks that are happening every day to our country, including the stealing of identity and the 

stealing of trade secrets. I want to 

move America forward. I have worked 

very hard to do that. 

One of the areas I am most proud of 

that I have worked on with the men 

and women in this Chamber from both 

sides of the aisle is the whole area of 

women’s health care. Many want to 

talk about repealing Obama health 

care. Well, I don’t want to repeal it. 

They talk about replacing it. They 

never have an idea. So let me tell my 

colleagues one of the areas we fought 

for. 

One of the things we knew as we embarked upon the health care debate was 

that we wanted to save lives and we 

wanted to save money. One of the areas 

where we wanted to do both was to 

look at how to utilize the new scientific breakthroughs in prevention, 

particularly early detection and 

screening. We could identify those diseases with early intervention and save 

lives as well as money and counteract 

escalating disease that ultimately 

costs more and can even cost a life. 

Nowhere was it more glaring than 

with the issue of women’s health care. 

My hearings revealed that women were 

charged more for their health care and 

got less than men of equal age and 

health care status. We found that we 

had barriers to health care because everything about being a woman was 

treated as a preexisting condition. If a 

woman had a C-section for the delivery 

of her baby, that was counted. In eight 

States, they even counted domestic violence as a preexisting condition. Then 

what we saw during this debate was the 

fact that they even wanted to take our 

mammograms away from us. Well, that 

just went too far. 

So during the health care debate, 

while everybody was being a bean 

counter, I wanted American women to 

know they could count on the Senate 

and the women and men of the Senate 

to stand up for them. So we came to 

the floor. We suited up, and we fought 

for a preventive health care amendment that not only passed but goes 

into effect tomorrow, on August 1. It 

will be a new day for women of all ages, 

who will be able to get health care coverage for preventive health care at no 

additional cost, no copays, no 

deductibles, and no discrimination 

where they are charged more and get 

less. That is what ObamaCare is. If 

somebody wants to repeal that, then 

bring it on. We are ready to fight. We 

want to fight for that annual health 

care checkup that will involve mammograms, Pap testing, and pelvic 

exams. We want to be able to do the 

screening for that dread ‘‘C’’ word, for 

colorectal cancer and lung cancer. We 

want to make sure that if a person 

thinks they are possibly a victim—a 

doctor suspects domestic violence—we 

can screen and counsel. We want 

women to be able to have that access, 

to be able to know early on what are 

those illnesses they are facing. 

August 1 means our long-fought battle will actually go into effect. Where 

does it go into effect? Well, it is already in effect on the Federal law 

books. Now it will go into effect in doctors’ offices. Women will have access to 

the health care their doctor says they 

need, not what an insurance company 

says they need or what some rightwinger wants to take away from them. 

We are pretty mad about this. We 

were mad 2 years ago when they wanted to take our mammograms away 

from us, and we are going to be pretty 

mad if they try to take our health care 

away from us. But what we are happy 

about—what we are happy about—is 

that for over more than 50 million 

American women tomorrow it will be a 

new day. They will be able to walk into 

their doctor’s office. In the doctor’s office they will say: Good morning. Can I 

help you? And when they say: When 

was the last time you had a mammogram, and the patient says: Well, I 

never had one because I could not afford it, they will say: Oh, we can sign 

you right up for that. Tell me about 

your family history. Is it true that 

your father had colon cancer? Well, listen, we worry about that for you. You 

could be at high risk. We are going to 

take a look at that and make sure you 

are OK. 

For young women, we are going to 

make sure you have other kinds of 

counseling and services you need in 

order to have a productive family life. 

This is what this health care bill is all 

about. It is about people. It is about access. It is about preventing dread diseases. 

People will come to this floor and 

they will pound their chest and complain about the President. We want to 

pound the table and make sure women 

have gotten the health care they need. 

Tomorrow, we are going to be very 

excited when we keep the doors of doctors’ offices open to the women of 

America. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York. 

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I 

wish to give two thank-yous: first, to 

my colleague from California for letting me go ahead of her—I have a Finance Committee meeting—and second, to both my colleague from Maryland and my colleague from California, 

whose voices are so clear and clarion. I 

love to listen to the Senator from 

Maryland. She speaks right to the people. She has it. She gets it. And do you 

know what. If we could get every 

American in a giant football stadium 

and they could listen to Senators MIKULSKI and BOXER on health care, 80 

percent would be for it. So I want to 

salute them and salute particularly 

Senator MIKULSKI for putting both the 

event earlier today and these speeches 

together. 

I heard the minority leader speak, 

and it meant two things. First, it 

meant the Republican party does not 

want to do cyber security. It means the 

greatest threat to our Nation—probably even greater than terrorism, if 

you speak to some of our intelligence 

and military experts—will not be dealt 

with because we know what he is 

doing. He is asking for an unreasonable 

demand, unrelated to cyber security, to 

go on the floor, knowing that will stop 

us from moving forward. 

It is a sad day. We have some of our 

colleagues from the other side of the 

aisle talking about that we must not 

abandon defense. Well, one of the 

strongest things the defense of our Nation needs is a strong cyber security 

bill. Because special interests—the 

Chamber of Commerce and others—do 

not want it, even though every military and intelligence leader has said 

how vital it is, it seems the other party’s tea leaves show that the other 

party is going to block us from going 

forward. It is unfortunate and it is sad. 

Then, second, the way he chose to 

block cyber security could not be worse 

in terms of substance and in terms of 

timing. Today, July 31, the minority 

leader wants to put on the floor the repeal of so many things that are going 

to happen tomorrow to women and to 

men across America that benefit them. 

So his timing could not be worse. The 

very day before we are going to see 

huge benefits for the American people, 

he wants us to debate repeal. Why 

don’t we let the American people see 

the good parts of health care before we 

repeal it. And we are not going to repeal it. 

I want to talk about this day—or tomorrow, actually—where so many portions of the Affordable Care Act go into 

effect. 

Three million women in my home 

State of New York will benefit. From 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5695 

Buffalo to Montauk, in Albany and in 

Manhattan, 3 million women will receive free basic preventive care for 

themselves and their children. So 

many women and men do not get preventive services because it is expensive 

to them. These services are free. But 

not only will they make those people 

healthier—the No. 1 goal—but they will 

reduce the costs of health care because 

every expert—Democrat, Independent, 

Republican; moderate, liberal, conservative—says if you do more prevention, 

you are going to save money. 

Tomorrow, so many of those preventive services go into effect. More 

women will go in for annual preventive 

care visits to screen for cervical, ovarian, and breast cancers. More women 

will receive preconception and prenatal 

services, so their children can grow up 

healthy, active, and strong. More 

women will have access to contraception and its additional health benefits, 

such as reduced risk of breast cancer 

and protection against osteoporosis. 

New mothers will have access to support and supplies for breastfeeding, and 

more women will be screened for domestic and sexual violence, sexually 

transmitted infections, and HIV. 

To my colleagues on the other side of 

the aisle: When we say there is a war 

against women and they get their 

backs up—they want to repeal this and 

put nothing in its place, no preventive 

services, no access to contraception, 

none of the things I have mentioned— 

yes, it is a war on women. Because if 

they cared about women and they did 

not like ObamaCare, they would still 

have a proposal on the floor to keep 

these fine pieces of the legislation 

going forward so they are not cut off 

tomorrow, which is what they intend 

to do, but, of course, thank God, will 

not happen. 

The change we are making helps 

every woman—who said: I would but I 

cannot afford it; it is just too expensive—finally get health care. 

Removing the copays is a great 

thing. Cutting the costs of preventive 

care is something we long wished to do 

in America and can happen tomorrow. 

What about all the other benefits 

that affect men and women alike: 2.5 

million young adults who can stay on 

their parents’ insurance; 5.2 million 

seniors—men and women—in the 

doughnut hole who save $3.7 billion on 

prescription drugs? 

What about the idea that when your 

insurance company charges you too 

much, the money goes to profits and 

salaries and trips and advertising and 

not enough goes to health care? Starting tomorrow, you can get a rebate. We 

know our colleagues on the other side 

of the aisle—to them that is anathema, 

to make insurance companies give people a rebate. 

So bottom line: We want to move forward on a cyber security bill, and we 

regret that the leader is putting logs in 

its way. And even more importantly, 

we want benefits to millions of women 

and millions of men to go forward, as 

was intended, as was voted for, as is 

the law of the land, and we will not let 

them deter us from bringing people 

those benefits. 

I yield the floor. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California. 

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank 

the Senator from New York for putting 

this into context for America. 

What has happened here this morning 

is, instead of celebrating with us because tomorrow, August 1, an entire 

list of preventive services for women 

goes into effect because of 

ObamaCare—yes, our health care law— 

the Republican leader says he wants to 

repeal all those benefits. 

Not only does the Republican leader, 

on behalf of the Republican minority, 

want to repeal the benefits that go into 

effect tomorrow for women, he wants 

to repeal the entire health care bill. He 

wants to have an amendment to the 

cyber security bill—which is so critical 

to our national security—he wants to 

put an amendment on there to repeal a 

law that the U.S. Supreme Court found 

was constitutional and whose benefits 

are beginning to take hold in this 

country, benefits that mean right now 

people are receiving refund checks in 

the mail because their insurance company overcharged them, and under 

ObamaCare you cannot do that, and 

hundreds of millions of dollars are 

going out to our people. The Republicans want to, I assume, force those 

people to send back their refunds because they want to repeal ObamaCare. 

Look at the list of preventive health 

benefits I have on this chart that are 

already in effect because of the legislation. Already because of health reform—and I see Senator HARKIN in the 

Chamber, who shepherded this through, 

as our dear friend Ted Kennedy became 

sicker and sicker with brain cancer. I 

will never forget how Senator HARKIN

stepped up to the plate, Senator Dodd 

stepped up to the plate, Senator MIKULSKI stepped up to the plate, and 

they were the lieutenants who got it 

done. And the Republicans want to 

take it away. I can only imagine how 

Senator HARKIN feels, having been in 

that fight. But I am here to say I am 

your supporter. I know what you did. 

I know my people in California—the 

largest State in the Union—are getting 

breast cancer screenings now, with no 

copays. They are getting cervical cancer screenings, hepatitis A and B vaccines, measles and mumps vaccines, 

colorectal cancer screenings, diabetes 

screenings, cholesterol screenings, 

blood pressure screenings, obesity 

screenings, tobacco cessation, autism 

screenings. How important is that? In 

my State, they say there is an epidemic of autism. They are getting 

hearing screenings for newborns, sickle 

cell screenings for newborns, fluoride 

supplements, tuberculosis testing for 

children, depression screenings. How 

important is that? They are getting 

osteoporosis screenings. I watched as 

my mother was in agony from 

osteoporosis. There are things you can 

do now to avoid it. But you need the 

screening. You need to know whether 

those bones are losing their density. 

They are getting flu vaccines for children and the elderly. 

This list goes into effect tomorrow. 

So let’s take a look at the list that 

goes into effect tomorrow that my Republican friends want to repeal today. 

Tomorrow, women will get access to 

all of these things without copays or 

coinsurance: contraception, wellwoman visits, STD screenings and 

counseling, breastfeeding support and 

supplies, domestic violence screenings, 

gestational diabetes screenings, HIV 

screenings, and HPV testing. 

I am stunned that on the eve of the 

broadest increase in benefits in my 

lifetime, the Republicans want to repeal these benefits for women. This is a 

continuation on their part of the war 

on women. They can get up and stand 

on their head and deny it and everything else. How else can you explain 

why, on the eve of the day that women 

are going to get all these benefits, they 

want to now cancel ObamaCare and 

stop all this from happening? 

If you think it does not matter—let 

me say to you, Mr. President, I know 

you know it matters whether women 

get free contraception to cut back on 

unintended pregnancies and abortion 

and well-woman visits and 

breastfeeding support. How about domestic violence screenings—so critical. 

Some women are in these terrible relationships, and they go to the doctor, 

and they say: Well, I do not want to 

talk about it. Doctors will be taught 

how to spot domestic violence, and 

there can be an intervention that will 

save lives. 

So here we stand. We have this list of 

benefits, women’s preventive health 

benefits, that are going to go into effect tomorrow. 

We are here to celebrate that. And 

instead of our Republican colleagues 

coming on the floor and joining us and 

saying how wonderful this is, and by 

the way, at the end of the day this 

saves money—we all know that. We all 

know it saves money when you have 

screening and counseling for STDs and 

you head off an illness. We all know it 

saves money. The health care bill saves 

money, and it reduces the deficit because of this investment in prevention. 

I cannot think of a more ridiculous situation than after a bill has become law 

for how many years now, Senator HARKIN? Is it a couple of years since we 

passed it? Years. It went to the Supreme Court. It was upheld. And now, 

just as we are about to see these great 

benefits for women go into place, the 

Republican leader says: Let’s repeal 

ObamaCare today. Let’s have an 

amendment on the cyber security bill, 

he said, to repeal the entire health care 

law. 

The House voted 33 times, at least, to 

repeal it. So I am wondering, what is 

with this idea of repealing? Do you 

want to take away these benefits from 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5696 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 31, 2012 

women? From children? From men? 

From families? Yes, I guess you do. I 

guess you stand for going back to the 

old days when people could hear from 

their insurance company that they 

were cut off, when insurance companies 

could spend 70 percent on themselves, 

on their own perks, and CEOs getting 

hundreds of millions of dollars and you, 

the patient, getting hardly anything. 

They want to go back. They want to 

take away the refunds. They want to 

take away the funding our seniors are 

getting as they deal with the high cost 

of prescription drugs. And we fixed 

that in this bill. 

So I have to say, we make an investment in prevention, in keeping people 

healthy. We make sure being a woman 

is not a preexisting condition. And the 

Republicans today have relaunched 

their war against women. They are 

holding up the Violence Against 

Women Act that we passed over here in 

a bipartisan way. They will not take up 

the Senate bill and pass it. Why? They 

want to take away coverage in that bill 

from 30 million Americans. 

They do not care about the immigrant population, obviously, the most 

vulnerable women there. They do not 

care about the college students, apparently. Because we get extra protections 

for them on college campuses. We protect the LGBT community. Clearly 

they are not interested in that. And 

they are not interested in protecting 

the Native American women. 

So while the Speaker says: Oh, I will 

send conferees to a nonexistent conference on the Violence Against 

Women Act, he could simply pass the 

bill and make sure everyone is protected. Instead of celebrating today because women are getting all these wonderful benefits without a copay, they 

want to repeal all these benefits. They 

want to repeal this law. 

Truly, I do not know what motivates 

them. I do not speak for them. But if 

they say it is to save money, that is 

simply not true. Because this bill saves 

money. This law saves money. Because 

we are investing in prevention. So the 

only thing I can think of is they want 

to hurt this President. 

The Republican leader said his highest priority was making sure that 

President Obama is a one-term President. So I guess if it means attacking 

the health care law to hurt this President, he is willing to do it and hurt all 

my constituents who are getting these 

benefits and all of our constituents 

who are getting these benefits, hurting 

the American people. 

Well, I say put politics aside. Let’s 

see the Republicans come down here 

and celebrate the fact that finally our 

people are getting the health care they 

deserve and that they pay for. 

I yield the floor. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire. 

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am 

proud to join my colleagues on the 

floor today—I thank Senator BOXER

and Senator HARKIN for their leadership—just as I was proud back in December of 2009 to join Senator MIKULSKI in sponsoring the women’s health 

amendment to the Affordable Care Act. 

We are here today celebrating the 

fact that tomorrow, August 1, women 

will have access to important health 

services at no cost. Senator BOXER

showed very clearly what a number of 

those preventive services are. Thanks 

to the provisions of the Affordable Care 

Act that go into effect this week, 

women will have access to a broad 

range of preventive services from well 

woman and prenatal visits to gestational diabetes screening, and they will 

have access to those services without 

copayments or deductibles. So finances 

will no longer stand in the way of 

women getting the preventive health 

care they need. 

This also has the potential to save 

our health system money in the long 

run. The Centers for Disease Control 

estimates that 75 percent of our health 

care spending is on people with chronic 

diseases. So by taking these preventive 

measures, we can slow this growth and 

the associated cost of disease. 

One of those preventive measures I 

want to talk about this morning is 

screening for gestational diabetes. As 

cochair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, 

I understand the importance of gestational diabetes screening and the impact it can have on both the mother 

and the baby. Gestational diabetes affects almost 18 percent of all pregnancies in the United States. Unfortunately, the number of those cases is increasing. The consequences of gestational diabetes are real. Not only are 

there significant health effects for the 

mother and baby during pregnancy, but 

researchers have found that both the 

mother and baby may be at risk for developing type 2 diabetes later in life. 

By getting screened, both the mother 

and child can be alerted to potential 

long-term health risks. 

I want to tell the story of one of my 

constituents, Megan from Panacook, 

NH, because she is a great example of 

why this screening is so important. 

During her 28th week of pregnancy, 

Megan was diagnosed with gestational 

diabetes. The screening she had alerted 

her to the potential related health 

issues and they allowed her to get the 

necessary treatment. I am happy to report that Megan gave birth to a 

healthy baby girl, Grace. She is now 8 

weeks old. Under the Affordable Care 

Act, all pregnant women will now be 

able to receive the gestational diabetes 

screening for free. 

Tomorrow also marks an important 

milestone in women’s health for another preventive service. Women, beginning tomorrow, will have access to 

contraception at no cost. Birth control 

is something that most women use, and 

it is something the medical community 

believes is essential to the health of a 

woman and her family. For some 1.5 

million women, birth control pills are 

not used for contraception but for medical purposes. They can reduce the risk 

of some cancers. With costs as high as 

$600 a year, birth control can be a serious economic concern for many 

women. Being able to now receive birth 

control for no cost will bring financial 

relief to so many of those women. 

Again, I have a story of a young 

woman from New Hampshire who I 

think illustrates so clearly why these 

are such important provisions. Keri 

Wolfe from Swanzey, NH, is a full-time 

graduate student at Dartmouth. She is 

going to benefit from this provision because Keri takes birth control as a 

medical necessity for treating a health 

issue that affects her adrenal gland. 

While Keri is lucky to have insurance, 

she has to pay her plan’s full deductible and then a monthly copay for her 

birth control. As a student who is trying to balance academic and living expenses, her prescriptions come at a significant cost annually. When her new 

insurance plan goes into effect, Keri is 

going to be able to get the full price of 

her birth control covered. That is great 

news in making sure she gets the 

health care she needs. 

As Governor of New Hampshire, I was 

proud to sign legislation that required 

insurance companies to provide contraceptive coverage to women with no religious exemption. At that time it was 

understood by people on both sides of 

the aisle of all religious faiths that requiring contraceptive coverage was 

about women’s health, and it was a 

basic health care decision. Yet over the 

last several months, opponents have 

continued to roll back contraceptive 

coverage at both the State and Federal 

level. Every woman should be able to 

make her own health care decisions. 

She should not have to have her boss 

stand in the way. The provisions that 

go into effect tomorrow ensure that 

women can make these decisions. 

I thank Senator MIKULSKI and Senator HARKIN for their leadership on 

women’s health. I join them in celebrating these important provisions 

that are going to make a huge difference for women’s health, that are 

going to be good for women, for families, and for everyone in this country. 

I yield the floor. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa. 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first of 

all, let me commend the Senator from 

New Hampshire for her great leadership as a Governor and as a Senator in 

this whole area of health care for 

women especially. She is providing 

great leadership in this area, continues 

to provide that leadership. I want to 

join with the Senator from New Hampshire in saying we are not going to let 

these provisions that now are expanding coverage for so many women—47 

million women in America—we are not 

going to let these roll back. We are 

not. 

Again, if the people of this country 

elect Mr. Romney to be President and 

they turn over the Senate to the Republicans, there it goes. It is gone. It is 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5697 

gone. I did not hear this this morning, 

but I understand the Republican leader 

said this morning—I stand to be corrected. As I understand, he said they 

wanted the first amendment that 

would be offered on the cyber security 

bill that I think is now before the Senate—he wanted the first amendment to 

be a repeal of the Affordable Care Act. 

What timing. What timing, I say to 

the Republican leader. On the eve of 

when we are expanding preventive 

health care services for 47 million 

women in America, the Republican 

leader gets up and says: We want to 

vote to repeal this tomorrow. Tomorrow. Repeal it tomorrow. 

Does that not kind of give you some 

idea of how they feel about the women 

of America and the health care of our 

mothers, our sisters, our daughters? 

That is what they want. 

We have already voted 33 times to repeal portions of the health care act. I 

think we voted twice in the Senate to 

repeal the whole thing. They want to 

have another vote. I think it is more 

than curious that the Republican leader wants to vote to repeal it on the 

very day when we are expanding health 

care coverage for the women of America. Interesting. 

Tomorrow is an important day for 

American women, thanks again to key 

provisions of the Affordable Care Act. I 

do want to commend Senator MIKULSKI

for her great leadership in this area, 

Senator Dodd, Senator BINGAMAN. Senator Kennedy, when he became ill, 

asked us to take the leadership on different provisions of the Affordable Care 

Act on the HELP Committee and to get 

it through. 

We had wonderful support from our 

colleagues here on the floor of the Senate and our committee. These provisions that we put in to move us from a 

sick care system to a health care system—I have often said that in America 

we do not have a health care system, 

we have a sick care system. If you get 

sick, you will get care one way or the 

other, usually in the emergency room 

if you are poor, or maybe not at all if 

you do not make it to the emergency 

room. But there is very little in our 

country to keep you healthy in the 

first place. Yet we know, we have good 

data that shows preventive services upfront save you a lot of money and a lot 

of lives, a lot of pain and suffering 

later on. So in the Affordable Care Act 

we put in a big provision on preventive 

services. We said basically that what 

the Preventive Services Task Force of 

the Center for Disease Control and Prevention—what they listed as their A 

and B, those that had the, if I can use 

their term, ‘‘best return on investment’’ or the ‘‘biggest impact,’’ that 

those would be free, there would be no 

copays or deductibles. 

Senator MIKULSKI reminded us of 

what is obvious but not too often taken 

into consideration in legislation; that 

is, women are different from men. So 

we asked the Institute of Medicine to 

come up with provisions that applied 

to the preventive health care of 

women. That is what goes into effect 

tomorrow. 

Senator BOXER very eloquently 

talked about that and had the chart 

showing all of the different things that 

will start tomorrow—an all-new plan 

that would cover women in this country—again, to keep women healthy in 

the first place, preventive services to 

keep women healthy without copays 

and deductibles. 

Right on the eve of this wonderful expansion of health care coverage, of 

making sure women are not secondclass citizens when it comes to prevention and wellness—on the very eve of 

saying to women that no longer can insurance companies sort of say, because 

you are a woman you have a preexisting condition—the Senate Republican leader gets up and says he wants 

to have the next vote on repealing the 

health care bill. 

Talk about a slap in the face to the 

women of this country. Well, I think 

women know what they are facing 

coming up this fall. I point out that tomorrow about 520,000 women in Iowa 

will have expanded health care coverage, preventive services. We fought 

very hard to put these into law, and we 

are not going to let them repeal it. We 

have the votes—let’s face it—in the 

Senate to stop that. The Republican 

leader can bring it up again, and it can 

be voted on, but I think it is indicative 

of where they want to take this country. 

We can stop it now, but if Mr. Romney is elected President, he said on day 

one he wants to repeal it. When he is 

first sworn in he will send up legislation to repeal it, and if the Senate and 

the House are in Republican hands, we 

can kiss it goodbye. It is gone. We will 

not be able to stop it then. 

It is hard to believe, but prior to the 

Affordable Care Act essential services 

that were unique to women, such as 

maternity care, were not often included in health plans. Tomorrow, we 

include preventive care checkups, 

screening for gestational diabetes, and 

breast-feeding support and supplies. 

How many low-income women in this 

country would know that the best 

thing for their babies is breast milk? 

Breast feeding, we know, is the preferred method of starting off babies, 

but sometimes these supplies can be 

expensive, especially if women are 

working at a low-wage job and they 

may need these supplies, but they can’t 

afford it, so, therefore, they turn to another method, to formula for the babies. I am not saying formula is bad, 

but as we know, and doctors will tell 

us—every pediatrician will tell us that 

breast feeding is the best. But women 

would be forced to choose the less best 

option if they didn’t have these breastfeeding supports and supplies. 

Let me take head on, if I can, this 

idea of contraception. As the Senator 

from New Hampshire pointed out, this 

can be pretty expensive—up to $600 a 

year or more. For one of us who is 

making $172,000 a year and have great 

health care coverage, that is not a big 

deal. But to a low-income woman with 

a couple of kids, working at a minimum wage job, trying to scrape 

enough just to get by, $600 a year is a 

lot of money. 

Let me point out another facet of 

this issue. Somehow people think, for 

example, birth control pills are only to 

prevent a pregnancy. There are many 

young women of childbearing age in 

this country who take birth control 

pills on the advice of their doctor not 

to avoid a pregnancy but because their 

monthly cycles are so painful that they 

can’t even work. So what are we saying? A young woman who gets a prescription from the doctor and says it is 

not for birth control but is for other 

physical problems, she has to take that 

in and show it to her employer now or 

her insurance carrier? That makes 

women second-class citizens again. 

Nonsense. 

I respect religious freedom as much 

as anyone, but despite the Republican 

propaganda, this law doesn’t mandate 

that any woman has to use contraception, and it doesn’t force employers to 

provide it. It gives women affordable 

access to birth control for a variety of 

reasons should they and their doctor 

decide it is right for them or their families. As for religious organizations 

that object to contraception, the President has issued a very sensible compromise to accommodate their beliefs, 

while ensuring that women still have 

access to this critical service. 

I respect the views of all people on 

these often divisive issues, and I would 

oppose any measure that threatens the 

fundamental religious liberties of people or institutions. But the Republicans are not motivated by a genuine 

desire to protect religious liberty; 

rather, they are determined to undo 

these and other benefits for women in 

the Affordable Care Act. They have repeatedly introduced legislation, approved by the House Appropriations 

Committee, that allows anyone to opt 

out of providing services to which they 

have any religious or moral objection. 

Well, one might say that sounds reasonable on the face of it, but think 

about this. Any employer with any religious or moral objection could opt 

out of any coverage. They could say, 

well, they object not only to contraception but to mammograms, prenatal 

screening. They just have a moral objection to that based upon their religious beliefs. 

I respect Christian scientists—I always have—and their beliefs. Can they 

say, well, they are not going to cover 

insurance for an employee who goes to 

see a doctor for allopathic medical 

care, that is not their religious belief? 

We have to have reasonable compromise, and I believe the President 

has come up with that. So what the Republicans would do, according to their 

leader, is rob 47 million women of these 

new preventive services. They would 

rob 1 million young women of the insurance they have already gained 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5698 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 31, 2012 

through the Affordable Care Act, of an 

extension of dependent coverage. 

America’s women will not be dragged 

backward. They are not going to allow 

health insurance companies to return 

to the policies and abuses that hurt 

them and their families prior to the 

passage of the Affordable Care Act. 

Tomorrow marks another step forward in transforming our current sick 

care system into a true health care 

system, and many women will now experience this firsthand. We are going 

forward. The Republicans can bring it 

up time and time again. They have 

sent a very clear signal to the women 

of America that whatever they gain 

out of the Affordable Care Act—all 

these benefits—they are going to take 

them away from women if they put 

them in office. 

I think the women of America need 

to have some deep soul searching about 

who they want deciding their fate in 

the future, after this next election. 

I yield the floor. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois. 

Mr. DURBIN. First, I thank my colleague from Iowa, Senator HARKIN, for 

the clarity of his statement, for his 

sincerity and, most importantly, for 

his leadership. We have the Affordable 

Care Act because of TOM HARKIN, Chris 

Dodd, BARBARA MIKULSKI, and others 

who worked hard to make sure it was 

here to help families all across America, particularly those in low-income 

situations. 

Like Senator HARKIN, I was stunned 

this morning when the Republican 

leader came to the floor and said: The 

first thing we want to do is to repeal 

all of this health care preventive care 

that will be available across America, 

including the provisions that go into 

effect tomorrow protecting 47 million 

of our women and family members all 

across the United States—2 million in 

Illinois, I might add, will be helped by 

this. They insist on bringing up on the 

pending bill on the Senate floor this 

amendment to basically remove the 

protection for these women that is 

built into the Affordable Care Act. 

I have to say to Senator HARKIN, we 

can’t be too surprised at this. Does the 

Senator remember the very first 

amendment the Republicans offered on 

the Transportation bill—a bill that we 

wanted to pass to build highways and 

airports? Remember what Senator 

BLUNT, the Republican from Missouri, 

offered as the first Republican amendment to the Transportation bill? It was 

on family planning. Family planning 

on transportation? I guess some late 

night comedian can make a connection, but I don’t get it. 

Now we have the pending cyber security bill to protect America from a 

cyber attack that could cost American 

lives—something we are told is the No. 

1 threat to America—and Senator 

MCCONNELL comes to the floor on behalf of the Republicans and says: This 

bill won’t go forward unless we can 

offer an amendment to repeal the Affordable Care Act—repeal the protections that are there for families and 

women across America. 

It is stunning that no matter what 

issue we go to the Republican Senators 

return to this issue of denying health 

care coverage and denying protection 

and preventive care to our families. In 

a way—the Senator touched on it—it is 

pretty easy for a Senator to come to 

the floor and talk about somebody 

else’s health care because, as you and I 

know, and Senator MCCONNELL knows, 

the health care we have as Members of 

the Senate—American families would 

die for the health care we have. We 

have the best health care insurance in 

the world, and we have it in a government-administered plan that protects 

every Senator and their family. We are 

lucky. We are in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. I believe people across America should have the 

same opportunity for the same type of 

health care. 

I am still waiting for the first Republican Senator who gets up on the floor 

and denounces government-administered health care to walk to the well 

and say: As a proof of my sincerity, I 

am going to abandon my own health 

insurance as a Senator. Not one has 

done that, not a single one. 

So for the Senators who come to the 

floor, their wives will still be protected 

by our health insurance, and their 

daughters will still be protected. The 

question we have to ask is, Should the 

protection we have as Senators for our 

families be available to others all 

across America? That is what this is 

about. 

Tomorrow is the launch of an amazing development in health care protection for our families. I applaud it. My 

wife and I are still celebrating because 

our daughter gave birth to twins in November. We have twin grandchildren— 

now 8 months old. They got through 

the pregnancy well; she was cared for 

and did just great. We are so proud of 

our daughter, our son-in-law, and their 

family. I think about the provision 

that will go into effect tomorrow. The 

Senator from Iowa knows that pregnant women in danger of gestational 

diabetes that could threaten their lives 

and the lives of the babies they are carrying will have preventive screening to 

protect them. 

Don’t come to the floor and tell me 

you are pro-life and pro-family and you 

oppose that. If you want a healthy 

mom and baby, this screening that 

starts tomorrow for millions of American women is going to be a step forward, a positive step toward uneventful 

births and healthy babies. Think about 

the care and screening for cancer and 

for all of the problems that women 

face. 

I see Senator MURRAY on the Senate 

floor. She has been an extraordinary 

leader on this issue. I will yield to her 

in a moment. 

All those who are on this campaign 

to repeal ObamaCare—that was their 

slur on that, and we accept it. It was 

accomplished under President Obama, 

and I was proud to vote for it. It is one 

of the most important votes I ever cast 

as a Member of the Senate. Those who 

want to repeal this so-called 

ObamaCare—as Senator MCCONNELL

called for again today on behalf of the 

Republicans—would repeal a few basic 

things we should not forget. Every 

family in America has a child with a 

preexisting condition. Think of asthma, diabetes, or a history of cancer. 

Under our law, they cannot be denied 

health insurance coverage. We protect 

those kids, and we protect their families. The Senate Republicans want to 

repeal it. Seniors across America who 

are paying for prescription drugs and 

going into their savings to fill the 

doughnut hole each year are getting a 

helping hand from the affordable 

health care act. The Senate Republicans want to repeal it. Families 

across America with kids fresh out of 

college looking for jobs and can’t find 

them or have a job without good health 

care can still be covered under their 

parents’ policy until the young person 

reaches the age of 26. That is what the 

affordable health care act does. The 

Senate Republicans want to repeal it. 

And tomorrow 47 million women in 

America will have preventive screening 

so they can be healthy on an affordable 

basis and be mothers giving birth to 

healthy babies. That is in this new law, 

and the Senate Republicans want to repeal it. 

This isn’t just a war against the pill. 

This isn’t just a war against family 

planning. It is literally a war against 

women. And the statements of the Senate Republican leader on the floor 

today are proof positive that they have 

one focus, and that is to take away 

these protections we built into the law. 

I am happy to yield the floor for our 

leader on this issue, my colleague from 

Washington State. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

MANCHIN). The Senator from Washington. 

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come 

to the floor today very excited about 

the great progress America is going to 

make tomorrow, August 1, for women 

across this country and to share the 

outrage I just heard from the Senator 

from Illinois and others that before 

those even go into effect tomorrow, on 

the eve of this great opportunity for so 

many women, the Republican leader 

has come to the floor and said: We 

want to repeal it—first amendment, on 

an issue not related at all to cyber security but to take those away before 

they even begin. 

It is an exciting moment for women 

in this country. Two years ago health 

insurance companies could deny 

women care due to so-called preexisting conditions such as pregnancy 

or being a victim of domestic violence—denied. Two years ago women 

were legally discriminated against 

when it came to insurance premiums 

and were often paying more for coverage than their male counterparts. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5699 

Two years ago women did not have access to the full range of recommended 

preventive care, such as mammograms 

or prenatal screenings, that the Senator from Illinois talked about. Two 

years ago insurance companies had all 

the leverage. Two years ago, too often, 

women paid the price. That is why I am 

so proud today to come to the floor 

with so many of our colleagues to highlight just how far we have come for 

women in the past 2 years and the new 

ways women will benefit from health 

care reform starting tomorrow, August 

1. 

Since the Affordable Care Act became the law of the land, women have 

now been treated more fairly when it 

comes to health care costs and options. 

Deductibles and other expenses have 

been capped, so a health care crisis 

won’t cause a family to lose their home 

or their life savings. Women can use 

the health care exchanges to pick quality plans that work for themselves and 

their families. And if they change jobs 

or have to move, which so many people 

have to do today, they can keep their 

coverage. 

Starting tomorrow, August 1, additional types of maternity care are 

going to be covered. Women will be 

armed with the proper tools and resources in order to take the right steps 

to have a healthy pregnancy. Starting 

tomorrow, women will have access to 

domestic partner violence screening 

and counseling, as well as screening for 

sexually transmitted infections. Starting tomorrow, women will finally have 

access to affordable birth control so we 

can lower rates in maternal and infant 

mortality and reduce the risk of ovarian cancer and improve overall health 

outcomes and encourage far fewer unintended pregnancies and abortions, 

which is a goal we all share. 

I also wish to note that the affordable contraceptive policy we put in 

place preserves the rights of all Americans while also protecting the rights of 

millions of Americans who do use contraceptives, who believe that family 

planning is the right choice for them, 

and who don’t deserve to have politics 

or ideology prevent them from getting 

the coverage they deserve and want. 

Starting tomorrow, women will be 

fully in charge of their health care, not 

an insurance company. That is why I 

feel so strongly that we cannot go back 

to the way things were. While we can 

never stop working to make improvements, which we all know are important, we owe it to the women of America to make progress and not allow the 

clock to be rolled back on their health 

care needs. 

Despite the recent Supreme Court decision upholding this law, I know some 

of our Republican colleagues are furiously working to undo all the gains we 

have made in health care reform for 

women and families. We heard the minority leader this morning come to the 

floor, and he wants to offer an amendment on the next bill that is now coming up on cybersecurity to repeal all of 

these important protections for 

women, that women are taking advantage of today, and certainly something 

we all should want for our families and 

our daughters and for the women in 

this country. I know they apparently 

think repealing the entire health care 

law would be a political winner for 

them, but the truth is that this law is 

a winner for women and for men and 

for children and for our health care 

system overall. 

So I am proud to be out here with my 

colleagues today who are committed to 

making sure the benefits of this law do 

not get taken away from the women of 

America because politics and ideology 

should not matter when it comes to 

making sure women across America 

get the care they need at a cost they 

can afford. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut. 

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, as 

the Senate now turns its attention to 

the pending legislation that aims to 

enhance our Nation’s cyber defenses, I 

would like to take a few moments to 

review where we are because I think 

the bill we now have on the floor brings 

us closer than ever to an agreement on 

a way to better defend our country, our 

prosperity, and our security against 

what is emerging as the most significant threat we face today, bigger than 

a conventional attack by a foreign 

enemy, bigger even than Islamist terrorism, a threat that is very different 

from anything we have faced before 

and so probably hard for most Americans to conceptualize but, trust me, it 

is here. That is why it is so important. 

We have come closer than ever to an 

agreement, but we are not there yet. 

I have come to the floor to say to my 

colleagues that those of us who sponsor 

the pending legislation—Senators 

FEINSTEIN, ROCKEFELLER, COLLINS, and 

I—are eager to continue to work with 

our colleagues toward a broad bipartisan solution to this urgent national 

security threat—crisis. Obviously, to 

do that we have to begin processing 

amendments, and they have to be what 

the majority leader has said: germane 

or relevant. The majority leader has 

said we will have an open amendment 

process, and I thank him for that. No 

filling of the tree here. But the amendments have to be germane or relevant. 

We are dealing with a national security 

crisis unlike any we have faced before. 

A broad bipartisan group of us met 

with the leaders of our cyber defense 

agencies yesterday—not political people, not partisan people—and they urgently appealed to us to pass this legislation in this session of Congress. It 

gives them authority to protect us that 

they don’t have now. Frankly, they 

worry that without that authority to 

share information with the private sector, for the private sector to share 

cyber threat information with each 

other without fear of liability, for the 

government to have the ability to create some standards for the private 

owners of cyber space and then give 

them the voluntary option to abide by 

those standards—that all of those addons, all of those realities that will be 

created by passage of this bill are desperately needed now. The fact is they 

were needed yesterday. They were 

needed last year. 

That is why I am so disheartened to 

hear this morning that our friends in 

the Republican caucus are talking 

about introducing an amendment to 

this bill that will repeal ObamaCare, as 

they call it. There is a day for that, but 

it is not this week on this bill. Frankly, I feel the same way about some of 

the gun control amendments that have 

been submitted by members of the 

Democratic caucus. Those amendments 

deserve debate at some point but not 

this week on this bill. 

We can get this bill done and protect 

our security. Nobody believes that we 

are going to repeal ObamaCare this 

week or that we are going to adopt gun 

control legislation. Those are making a 

statement. They are sending a political 

message. And they will get in the way 

of us protecting our national security. 

So I appeal to my colleagues on both 

sides, pull back these irrelevant 

amendments. Let’s have a full and open 

debate on cyber security, and let’s get 

it done this week. There are already 

more than 70 amendments filed that 

are germane or relevant. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time 

for the majority has expired. 

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask my friend 

from Kansas if I could have 2 more 

minutes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from Kansas. 

There are already 70 amendments 

filed, so we don’t have time to sit here 

staring at each other while we could be 

working through them. The truth is 

that we have a number of amendments 

on which we are ready to take votes, 

but of course we need cooperation from 

both sides in order to nail down that 

agreement with the consent that is required. 

Before I yield the floor, I wish to underscore that while there are important issues we still need to work 

through this week, the reality is that 

because Senators on all sides have been 

willing to compromise, we have a golden opportunity to prove we can work 

together when it counts the most, 

which is in defense of our security and 

prosperity. Leading sponsors of the 

pending bill, leading sponsors of the 

leading opposition bill, SECURE IT, 

and leaders of the peacemakers in between led by Senators KYL and WHITEHOUSE have been meeting for the last 

week and making progress. And I 

would say that what was once a wide 

chasm separating us is now a narrow 

ridge, which we can bridge—and I firmly believe we will—with good faith on 

all sides, in a willingness to compromise. You can rarely get 100 percent 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5700 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 31, 2012 

of what you want in a democratic— 

small ‘‘d’’—legislature such as ours, 

but if each side can get 75 or 80 percent 

and we can begin to fix a problem and 

close the vulnerabilities that exist in 

our cyber infrastructure this week, we 

will have done exactly what the American people want us to do. That is my 

appeal to my colleagues. 

Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I wish 

to thank my distinguished friend and 

colleague, Senator LIEBERMAN, for his 

leadership and for urging Members of 

Congress to bring amendments down 

that are germane on very serious national security issues. So I again thank 

him for his comments and his leadership. 

HONOR FLIGHT NETWORK

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise 

today to recognize a distinguished 

group of World War II veterans from 

Kansas who are now visiting their Nation’s Capital this week as part of the 

Honor Flight Network. 

The Honor Flight Network is an organization with the main mission to 

give veterans the opportunity to visit 

their memorials on the National Mall, 

free of cost to the veteran. The veterans who participate are many times 

unsung heroes of World War II, and in 

many cases their remembrances and 

their stories are shared for the first 

time and become public for the first 

time for families and hometowns. In 

many cases, young people traveling 

with these veterans hear the stories 

and can put the stories of these famous 

battles that protected our country in 

their local newspapers and in their 

school newspapers. It is history—it is 

history shared, lessons learned, and 

certainly renewed thanks to the 

‘‘greatest generation.’’ 

Many of these veterans are in their 

eighties and nineties. There are fewer 

than 20,000 World War II veterans in 

Kansas. As time marches on, that number only decreases. Nationwide, the VA 

estimates that approximately 740 members of the ‘‘greatest generation’’ pass 

each day. So I am especially pleased 

that this Tuesday a group of 28 veterans will fly in to our Nation’s Capital 

from Kansas to see their World War II 

memorial, and other memorials, and 

allow us the privilege to pay homage to 

their heroism. With five regional hubs 

in Kansas, there is a steady stream of 

veteran groups making their way to 

our Nation’s Capital. The leaders of 

these groups include Brian Spencer and 

Bill Patterson leading the Honor 

Flight Kansas Student Edition from 

Lyndon, KS; Adrianne McDaniel and 

Peggy Hill, who lead the Jackson 

Heights Honor Flight; Beverly 

Mortimer and Denise Cyr head up the 

North Central Kansas Honor Flight out 

of Concordia, KS; Mike Kastle and Jeff 

True guide the Southern Coffey County 

High School Honor Flight out of Leroy, 

KS; and finally, the leaders of this 

group coming in on Tuesday are Mike 

VanCampen and Lowell Downey. 

These hub leaders and the many volunteers deserve our recognition for the 

hours of work, organization, and fundraising that go into planning these 

trips. Thank you for what you do and 

for setting such a fine example in remembering and honoring the sacrifices 

made by those who stood in defense of 

our country in World War II. 

Kansans and all Americans should 

know that this program—as a matter 

of fact, the World War II Memorial 

itself would not even exist without our 

former Senate majority leader, the 

senior Senator from Kansas and a 

World War II veteran himself, Bob 

Dole. Bob was instrumental in bringing 

the World War II Memorial to the National Mall. And even now Bob meets 

personally with Honor Flight groups 

who make their way out to see their 

memorial. When veterans learn that 

Bob Dole is at the World War II memorial, there is a crush of veterans like a 

flock of chickens going to the mother 

hen. I am not sure Bob Dole will appreciate that allegory, but at least I think 

that indicates everybody comes to hear 

him and thank him for his efforts. 

Finally, I wish to recognize each 

member of this Honor Flight trip from 

Kansas visiting their memorial, and I 

ask unanimous consent that their 

names be printed in the CONGRESSIONAL

RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

KANSAS HONOR FLIGHT NETWORK TRIP—JULY

31–AUG. 2, 2012—WORLD WAR II AND KOREAN

WAR VETERANS

WORLD WAR II VETERANS

Dwight E. Aldrich; William Henry Bernard; 

Eugene H. Brown; Thomas Dale Coffman; 

Glenn J. Compton; Richard D. Ellison; Perry 

L. Garten; Bob F. Holdaway; Edwin D. 

Jacques; Paul H. Koehn; Jay Edwin Kramer; 

Howard Russell Krohn; Howard Logan; Ralph 

Lundell; John L. Meyer; Richard Morrow 

Mosier; Charles G. Niemberger; Harvey L. 

Peck; Donald L. Revert (Don); John Russel 

Roberts; Rix D. Shanline; Lowell L. Smart; 

Norbert E. Stigge (Doc); John D. Topham; 

Delmar L. Yarrow; George A. Yohn; Keith R. 

Zinn. 

KOREAN WAR VETERAN

Richard D. Wood. 

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I 

know under the order this hour is reserved for Members of the Republican 

caucus, and although I am an Independent, I don’t qualify exactly under 

the terms of the agreement to speak 

now. But seeing no Member of the Republican caucus on the floor, I thought 

I would take the opportunity to continue to speak about the pending item, 

S. 3414, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, 

and if any of my colleagues arrive, I 

will yield to them immediately. 

Before I yielded to Senator ROBERTS

a short while ago, I made a statement 

that the two sides, if I can put it that 

way; that is, the sponsors of the pending legislation, Senators COLLINS, 

FEINSTEIN, ROCKEFELLER, and myself, 

and the sponsors of essentially the alternate approach, SECURE IT, sponsored by Senators MCCAIN, CHAMBLISS, 

HUTCHISON, and others—have been 

meeting. We have particularly been assisted by the bridge builders here— 

blessed are the peacemakers—Senators 

KYL, WHITEHOUSE, and others, and we 

have been making progress. I said what 

was once a chasm separating us is now 

a narrow ridge that we are close to 

bridging. Let me explain what I mean 

by that. 

The sponsors of S. 3414, the pending 

legislation, strongly believe that owners of critical cyber infrastructure— 

and this is a unique aspect of our free 

society, thank God; 80 to 85 percent of 

the critical infrastructure in our country is privately owned, including cyber 

infrastructure. That is the way it 

ought to be. But it means when critical 

cyber infrastructure in a new world becomes a target of cyber attack and 

cyber theft, that we—the rest of us 

Americans—represented by the government, have to enter into a partnership 

with the private sector owners of critical cyber infrastructure so they will 

take steps to protect the cyber space 

that they own and operate because, if 

they don’t, the whole country is in 

jeopardy. If an electric grid is knocked 

out, the kind of awful experiences we 

have all had at different times when 

the power grid has been out in our area 

of the country will be felt perhaps for 

weeks and weeks. 

Think about it. What if the financial 

cyber system, Wall Street, the hub of 

the systems that handle millions—trillions, really—of transactions over and 

over again, were knocked out? It would 

have a devastating effect on our economy, let alone the most nightmarish, 

which is that some enemy breaks into 

the cyber-control system of a dam 

holding back water and opens the dam 

and floods surrounding communities 

with a terrible loss of life. We could go 

on and on with the nightmare scenarios, but they are out there, and we 

are vulnerable to them. 

So the sponsors of S. 3414 have felt 

that private sector owners of critical 

infrastructure should be mandated— 

that is only the owners of the most 

critical infrastructure—to adopt the 

standards that would be set under our 

legislation to protect their systems 

and our country. Sponsors of the SECURE IT Act started this debate firmly 

convinced that the only thing we need 

to do is to enhance our cyber security 

information-sharing between private 

sector operators and between the government and the private sector. We 

have a section in our bill that does exactly that, but we feel that is not 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5701 

enough. We feel there also needs to be 

these standards set for the private operators of the electric grid, of the 

transportation system, of the financial 

system, et cetera. If both sides had just 

stuck to their guns, no legislation 

would be possible. But when it comes 

to cyber security, no legislation, which 

is to say the status quo, is not only unacceptable, it is dangerous. Some of 

our real—really most of our national 

security leaders in this country from 

the last two administrations, the 

George W. Bush administration and the 

Barack Obama administration—have 

warned, as if in a single voice, that we 

are already facing the equivalent of a 

digital Pearl Harbor or a 9/11 if we 

don’t shore up and defend our exposed 

cyber flanks. The same is true of the 

impact of our vulnerability in cyber 

space to cyber theft. 

GEN Keith Alexander, the head of 

the Defense Department Cyber Command and the National Security Agency, made a speech a week or two ago in 

which he estimated that more than $1 

trillion has been stolen over cyber 

space from America. He called it the 

largest transfer of wealth in history. 

That results from moving money out of 

bank accounts that a lot of us never 

hear about because the banks believe it 

would be embarrassing if we knew, the 

theft of industrial secrets to other 

countries that then builds from those 

industrial secrets and creates the jobs 

in their countries that our companies 

wanted to create here. So there is a 

unified position among national security leaders, apart from which administration they served under, that we need 

this legislation, and we need it urgently. 

Several of us met with the leaders of 

the cyber security agencies of this administration yesterday. These are not 

political people; these are professionals 

from the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the 

FBI, and others. They warned us again 

that the cyber systems that are privately owned and that are critical to 

our Nation’s security remain terribly 

vulnerable to attack. They said to us, 

and I am paraphrasing, that we need 

this legislation to respond urgently 

and effectively to an attack on infrastructure as critical as the electric grid 

or Wall Street itself. 

One of the leaders in our government, 

uniformed leaders, said to him today is 

a little bit like 1993 when it comes to 

cyber security; when, as we will remember, al-Qaida launched a precursor 

attack on the Twin Towers in New 

York with a truck bomb that blew up 

in the parking garage. We all know 

there was a loss of life then, but the 

damage was relatively small. But alQaida persisted and, of course, on 9/11 

succeeded in bringing down the two 

towers of the World Trade Center. This 

leader of cyber security efforts in our 

government said our adversaries in 

cyber space are just about where alQaida was in 1993 when they blew up 

that truck bomb in the parking garage 

of the World Trade Center. 

What I was impressed with yesterday, I will say parenthetically, is 

though there is some controversy out 

here about who is capable of what in 

our Federal Government—and let me 

speak frankly. Some people don’t have 

much respect for the Department of 

Homeland Security. I don’t understand 

why because they do a great job, in my 

opinion, in so many different areas, including the one that is relevant here, 

cyber security. But it was clear that 

the Department of Homeland Security, 

the Department of Defense, and the 

FBI are working as a team—really, like 

a seamless team—24/7, 365 days a year 

to leverage each other’s capabilities to 

provide for the common defense. They 

all agreed yesterday we need to pass 

this legislation to give them the tools 

they urgently need, that they don’t 

have without this legislation, to work 

with one another and the private sector. 

I wish to again give thanks to Senators KYL and WHITEHOUSE, joined by 

Senators MIKULSKI, BLUNT, COONS, 

GRAHAM, COATS, and BLUMENTHAL, who 

have come together with a compromise 

proposal after a series of good-faith negotiations and, as a result, Senators 

COLLINS, ROCKEFELLER, FEINSTEIN, and 

I have made major and difficult compromises in our original bill in order to 

move the legislation forward, to get 

something started, to protect our cyber 

security. 

I think we now have a broad agreement on a bill containing those same 

cyber security standards that were in 

our original bill that resulted from a 

collaborative public-private sector 

process and negotiation. But now, instead of mandating them, we are going 

to create incentives for the private sector to opt into them. We are going to 

use carrots instead of sticks. We have 

added some compromises also from the 

original legislation to guarantee Members of the Senate and millions of people out in the country that when we 

act to share information from the private sector to the government, we are 

going to have due regard for the privacy of people’s data in cyber space— 

personal information—without compromising our national security at all. 

There are advocates on both sides of 

both the information-sharing provision 

and the critical cyber-standards provision that think we have gone too far, 

and some think we haven’t gone far 

enough. But while advocates on the 

outside of the Senate can hold fast to 

their particular positions, legislators 

on the inside of the Senate need to 

take all of these deeply held views into 

account. Ultimately, our responsibility 

is to get something done to protect our 

security—it is our responsibility to 

pass a law—and we have done that 

here. 

I wish to first review some of the 

broad areas of agreement and then outline the differences that remain because I want my colleagues to understand how much progress has already 

been made. Sometimes the news 

stresses the differences between us. 

Let me start with title I of the bill, 

which is the one on critical infrastructure. I think there is a growing, broad 

agreement now that the private sector 

owners of critical infrastructure should 

work with the government to develop 

what somebody yesterday called the 

best cyber hygiene or standards of defense that are needed to safeguard 

their facilities and the rest of us. 

In the original bill we had the Department of Homeland Security playing the singular role for the government. We broaden that now in response 

to, particularly, recommendations 

from the Kyl-Whitehouse group, and we 

have created a new interagency council 

we call the national cyber security 

council, which will consist of the Department of Homeland Security, the 

Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, the FBI, and the 

Director of National Intelligence, as 

well as relevant primary regulators 

when that sector of cyber structure is 

put forth in the council. 

What do I mean by that? If they are 

dealing with the cyber security of the 

financial sector of our government, 

then on those standards we would expect the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Treasury Department, 

for instance, among others, to be seated at the table to come up with an 

agreement on those standards. 

We have also agreed that adoption of 

these practices will be voluntary and 

that there will be no duplication of existing regulations or any new regulatory authorities that will be added to 

law. 

We have also agreed that incentives 

need to be created—the carrots I spoke 

about, such as liability protection—to 

entice private sector owners to adopt 

these practices once they have been developed—totally voluntary. But I think 

if we build this right, they will come. 

Although it is not mandatory, we will 

set a standard, and private sector operators of critical infrastructure will 

want to meet that standard because 

they will want to act in the national 

interests to protect their customers, 

but also because when they do they 

will receive very valuable immunity 

from liability in the event of an attack 

or a theft. 

Look, I decided that we needed to 

make the system voluntary in order to 

get something passed this year. I think 

it has a good chance of working as a 

voluntary system. But if it doesn’t, and 

the cyber threat grows as much as I 

think it will, then some future Congress is going to come along and make 

it mandatory. 

So there will be an incentive on both 

the public and private sector—particularly the private sector—to make this 

voluntary system work. God forbid between now and then there is a major 

cyber attack against our country; Congress will come flying back and adopt 

mandatory regulations. That is not 

what we want to happen. This is the 

time for rational, thoughtful discussion and legislation that will begin a 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5702 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 31, 2012 

process that will go on for years because the cyber threat is not going 

away. 

So that is title I. That is the compromise we offered on title I, which 

deals with cyber infrastructure. I go 

now to title VII. In between there are 

some very good titles, titles II through 

VI, but the good news is—maybe I 

should stress this—there seems to be 

broad bipartisan agreement on those 

titles. 

Title VII is the one on information 

sharing, and there is some disagreement on that. But we have come to 

agree that private sector companies 

must be able to share cyber-threat information with the government and 

each other, with protections against liability that will incentivize—really 

allow—that sharing; that this sharing 

must be instantaneous. 

In other words, to protect—to respond to concerns about private data 

being shared when a private sector operator of cyber security shares information with the government, we are 

requiring in this bill, the pending legislation, that the first point of contact 

for cyber sharing and reporting cyber 

attack is with a civilian agency—not a 

military or law enforcement agency or 

an intelligence agency but a civilian 

agency, such as the Department of 

Homeland Security or some other approved civilian exchange. 

Some people have worried that if we 

did that, it would delay the referral of 

that information to the law enforcement and intelligence and military 

parts of our government, almost as if 

when the information of a cyber attack 

is sent to the Department of Homeland 

Security, somebody is going to have to 

go find the Secretary of Homeland Security to make sure she sees it before 

it goes to the Department of Defense, 

FBI. The world we are in is very different from that. It has been explained 

to me and others who met with, particularly, General Alexander, the head 

of Cyber Command at the Department 

of Defense that everything travels instantaneously, at cyber speed. That 

means that according to preset programs, cyber attack, if this bill is 

passed, will automatically—notification of it—go to the Department of 

Homeland Security or a civilian exchange, and at the same instant it will 

go to the Department of Defense, the 

FBI, and the intelligence community. 

But when it first goes to the civilian 

exchange, there will be software in 

there to screen out—to prevent the 

possibility that any personal data—emails, private financial information— 

will not be sent to the law enforcement 

and defense branches of our government. That is another reason sharing 

will have to be instantaneous—that existing information-sharing relationships will continue undisturbed; that 

is, for instance, between the defense 

contractor and the Defense Department, and that there should be no 

stovepipes among government agencies. Agencies that need information 

should have access the instant it is 

provided to the government. 

I know some colleagues want more 

assurance that while a lead civilian 

agency will serve as the hub for immediate distribution of cyber-threat information, it will do so without slowing 

down DOD’s and NSA’s abilities to access and act on that information. I 

have just told my colleagues that 

would be the case. Others want to add 

further privacy protections. I do want 

to say in this regard that we have already significantly strengthened the 

privacy protections, thanks to a lot of 

good negotiation with a group of Senators—Senators FRANKEN, DURBIN, 

COONS, WYDEN, and others—and a broad 

range of privacy and civil liberties 

groups ranging, really quite remarkably, from the left to right and in between, who seem generally pleased 

with what we have done to protect privacy under our legislation. 

Here is the good news: The people in 

charge of cyber security in our government say the privacy protections we 

have added in the underlying bill to the 

information-sharing section of this bill 

will not stop them for a millisecond 

from receiving the information they 

need and protecting our national security. So, to me, this is the Senate at its 

best. 

We are not there. My dream—because 

this is—we are legislating here. We are 

not in the midst of some traditional 

sort of government regulation controversy. We are legislating actually in 

the midst of a war because we are already being attacked every day over 

cyber space. We have been lucky that 

it hasn’t been a major attack that has 

actually knocked out part of our cyber 

infrastructure, but that vulnerability 

is there. 

A few months ago there was a story 

in the Washington Post about a young 

man in a country far away that 

launched an attack against a small 

utility—I believe it was a water company—in Texas. He got into their system and actually had the ability to totally disrupt the water supply in that 

area of Texas. What the hacker did instead—and he just had a computer and 

was smart—what he did instead was 

post proof that he had broken into the 

industrial control system in that small 

utility in Texas just to show the vulnerability. In a sense, he might have 

been bragging he could do it, but it 

also was a warning to us. What if the 

next time that happens it is a larger 

utility or a group of smaller utilities 

around the country—maybe water, 

maybe electricity, maybe gas—and this 

time they are not just warning us or 

showing us our vulnerability, but they 

are actually going to disrupt the flow 

of electricity or water to people who 

depend on that? That is the kind of crisis we face and why it is so urgent that 

we deal with this. 

So let me come back to my dream. 

My goal here is that as we go on this 

week, we are able to submit a managers’ amendment, but it is not just 

from the managers—Senators COLLINS, 

ROCKEFELLER, FEINSTEIN, and me—that 

we are joined by a much broader group 

and we form a broad bipartisan consensus to protect our country from a 

terrible danger that is real, urgent, and 

growing. 

I always like to think back at these 

moments—and I was thinking about it 

again in this case, and since I do not 

see anybody else on the floor, I will indulge myself and go back—to a hot 

July day in Philadelphia, over 225 

years ago, when the U.S. Senate was 

created as part of the—I am glad to 

say, proud to say—Connecticut Compromise offered to the Constitutional 

Convention by two of Connecticut’s 

delegates to that convention, Roger 

Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth. It 

passed by just a single vote, but it 

helped keep the convention together 

and to enable our new government, including our Congress, to take shape because the Connecticut Compromise 

guaranteed the small States that their 

interests would be protected—smallpopulation States—in the Senate because every State, no matter how big 

or small its population, would have two 

Senators, and it guaranteed the larger 

States that they would have a greater 

say in the House of Representatives, 

whose membership would be reflected, 

as it still is today, by population. Not 

everyone got everything they wanted 

that day, but they found a common 

ground that allowed them to go forward and finish writing our Constitution. That is the kind of position we 

are in today. 

Shortly after the Connecticut Compromise was adopted at the Constitutional Convention, James Madison, as 

you know, Mr. President, often referred 

to as the father of the Constitution, 

wrote—and I am paraphrasing a little 

bit here—‘‘the nature of the senatorial 

trust’’ would allow it to proceed with 

‘‘coolness’’ and ‘‘wisdom.’’ I think 

these negotiations on the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 show thus far that we 

have the ability to put ideological rigidity, partisanship, and politics aside 

when our security is at risk and move 

beyond gridlock and fulfill our Founders’ vision of what this body can do 

when it comes to debating the great 

challenges of our time, with ‘‘coolness’’ 

and ‘‘wisdom,’’ as Madison said. 

So over the next couple of days, let’s 

debate all the relevant and germane 

amendments. Let’s start voting as soon 

as we can on them. But then, for the 

good of the country, let’s each compromise some, acknowledging that 

none of us can get everything we want 

and we cannot afford to insist on everything we want because if we do, 

nothing will happen and our country 

will remain vulnerable to cyber attack 

until the next opportunity Congress 

has—which I would guess will be sometime as next year goes on—to deal with 

this challenge. We cannot wait. We 

simply cannot wait. I know we can do 

this. I urge my colleagues, therefore, to 

come to the floor. I urge the leaders of 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5703 

both parties to agree that the amendments submitted should be germane 

and relevant and that we can and will 

finish our work on this legislation this 

week. 

I thank the Presiding Officer. 

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 

roll. 

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

COTTON TRUST FUND/AGOA

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with the majority leader, Senator REID, and the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator BAUCUS. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, let 

me begin by clearly stating I understand the majority leader later today 

will issue a unanimous consent request 

to move forward on the AGOA, the African Growth and Opportunity Act 

trade bill, and the Burma sanctions 

package as well as CAFTA–DR. Those 

are all efforts I supported as a member 

of the Finance Committee and voted 

for and ultimately want to see passed. 

I believe trade is an effective development tool and that by investing in 

people we can make a long-term and 

sustainable change in developing countries. But at the same time, I am very 

concerned about our failure to reauthorize the cotton and wool trust funds 

which are crucial to sustaining jobs in 

the United States and jobs in my State 

of New Jersey. 

For some time now I have been working tirelessly to reach an agreeable resolution on the issue, one that enables 

us to pass AGOA and CAFTA–DR and 

Burma sanctions while simultaneously 

protecting dwindling apparel sector 

jobs in the United States, hundreds in 

my home State, thousands across the 

country, and ensuring that our trade is 

not just free but is also fair. 

That is not the case right now. So I 

come to the floor to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished majority 

leader and the chairman of the Finance 

Committee to ask for their help and 

commitment to addressing this domestic jobs issue, the cotton and wool 

trust funds this year, so we can seek to 

move this legislation and do right by 

American workers as we are trying to 

also help African workers. 

I yield to the distinguished majority 

leader. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate 

very much the Senator from New Jersey coming to the floor to discuss this 

issue. As my friend from New Jersey 

knows, as the chairman of the Finance 

Committee knows, I support the wool 

and cotton trust funds. That is very 

clear in the record of this body for 

what I believe was wrong with the 

Olympic uniforms. It is such a shame 

our athletes over there are wearing 

clothes made in China. I think that is 

too bad. I support the wool and cotton 

trust fund. I support the citrus trust 

fund. There are only three of them. I 

support all of them. I agree with my 

friend from New Jersey that we need to 

find a way to move these forward and 

ensure that American manufacturers 

are placed on equal footing with foreign manufacturers so there is an easier place for people to go if they want 

products made in the United States. 

I am happy to work with Senator 

MENENDEZ and Chairman BAUCUS to 

find a vehicle to ensure that these 

trust funds and these American jobs 

are a priority that is addressed this 

year. So my friend has a commitment 

that I will do everything within my 

abilities to make sure we have an 

agreement on extending these very important trust funds this year. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana. 

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I 

strongly endorse the suggestions made 

by the majority leader as well as by 

the Senator from New Jersey and also 

thank the Senator from New Jersey for 

pushing these measures so aggressively, the cotton trust fund and wool, 

and also, to some degree, the citrus 

which is part of this. 

I support these provisions. I support 

the cotton trust fund, support it 

strongly. I am working diligently to 

try to find the right vehicles so we can 

get this passed—the cotton trust fund 

passed this year. I deeply appreciate 

the strong passion on this by Senator 

MENENDEZ. He has come to me many 

times in looking for an opportunity to 

pass this. 

I deeply appreciate that. This place 

works on basic comity. Sometimes the 

pathways to get to a result are not well 

known and difficult to see, initially. 

But I am quite confident we are going 

to find a way to get this cotton trust 

fund passed this year. The Senator has 

my support to make that happen. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, before I 

yield to my friend from New Jersey, I 

wish to also state on the record that no 

one is a better advocate for an issue 

they believe in than Senator MENENDEZ

from New Jersey. This is an issue he 

has spoken loudly and clearly about. 

So I reiterate what I said: I feel very 

compelled to do something to satisfy 

my friend from New Jersey on such a 

worthy cause. 

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I 

wish to thank and appreciate the majority leader’s and the chairman’s ongoing commitment to this issue. I look 

forward to continuing to work with 

them on the issue to protect American 

workers and American manufacturers 

from the negative effect of certain 

trade policies and tariffs that threaten 

their livelihood. 

I appreciate them both coming to the 

floor and for their commitment. I just 

wish to take a minute or two for those 

who have asked me—I have had a whole 

host of our colleagues who have come 

and said to me: What are you trying to 

achieve? So we can move quickly to try 

to achieve the passage of AGOA and 

CAFTA–DR, Burma sanctions, all 

which I support. 

I know colleagues, such as Congressman RANGEL, who was the original author of AGOA, has called, among many 

others. You know, very simply, pursuant to the passage of NAFTA and 

CAFTA and AGOA and other trade 

preference programs, Congress has 

eliminated duties on, for example, imported shirts from other countries. In 

some cases such as AGOA, it has also 

allowed the use of third-country fabrics 

to make those imported shirts. 

Our tariff policy, however, has not 

changed. While foreign-made dress 

shirts are entering the United States 

duty free, we are charging American 

manufacturers a duty as high as 131⁄2

percent on cotton shirting fabric. So 

not surprisingly, this made-in-America 

tax resulted in American manufacturers moving production offshore where 

shirting fabric is not subject to those 

high duties and where the finished 

product can come back to the United 

States duty free. 

Six years ago, Congress recognized 

that, in fact, is simply unfair. Why 

should an American manufacturer have 

to pay a duty when those abroad using 

the same fabric can send it to the 

United States without any duty? They 

created the cotton trust fund to provide a combination of duty reductions 

and duty refunds to shirt manufacturers that continue manufacturing in the 

United States. 

That program expired in 2009. Since 

then, these businesses have suffered 

and dwindled. I am just simply trying, 

as we promote jobs in Africa and in the 

Caribbean, to promote jobs in the 

United States. I want the women in the 

factories I have visited—this is the essence of how they sustain their families—to be able to continue to have 

those jobs. 

That is why I appreciate the effort by 

the chairman and by the majority leader to try to get us to that point, so we 

can have free trade, but it also has to 

be fair to Americans who are here and 

can compete. They cannot compete 

when they have to pay a 131⁄2-percent 

tax and people sending it from all over 

the world have to pay nothing. That is 

the essence of what I am trying to accomplish. 

I will not object later today when the 

majority leader proposes his unanimous consent request and will support 

the effort to move those trade bills. 

Mr. CARDIN. Would the Senator 

yield. 

Let me thank Senator MENENDEZ for 

his leadership on this issue. He has 

been very articulate about preserving 

jobs and creating jobs in New Jersey 

and in America. 

I thank him for once again standing 

for American workers. I thank Senator 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5704 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 31, 2012 

REID, the majority leader, for his commitment to bring up the trust fund and 

the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator BAUCUS, I thank him 

for his leadership. 

Senator MENENDEZ has laid out the 

issue very clearly. This is an averted 

tariff. It works against American 

workers. Cotton, mainly on shirts but 

other commodities, such as wool and 

suits—as the Senator pointed out, if 

someone manufactures the suit or the 

shirt out of America and imports it 

into America, costing us jobs, they pay 

less tariff than if they are an American 

manufacturer that imports the product 

to manufacture the product in America. They pay a heavier tariff, which 

costs us jobs, which makes no sense 

whatsoever. 

I thank Senator MENENDEZ for his 

leadership. I thank Senator REID and 

Senator BAUCUS for understanding this 

and giving us an opportunity before 

this expires on the wool trust fund. It 

is making sure it works effectively. I 

took the floor last week to talk about 

English-American Tailoring, located in 

Westminster, MD. There are 380 union 

jobs in Westminster, MD. I showed a 

photograph of seamstresses making 

suits in America. I think most people 

thought that photo was taken decades 

ago, but it was taken this month. This 

is about how we can preserve jobs in 

America. They are making the best 

suits in the world. They are exporting 

their suits to other countries, but they 

can’t do it unless we have a level playing field. 

The leadership of the Senator from 

New Jersey on bringing to the attention of the American people the need to 

extend and make effective the cotton 

and wool trust fund is critically important to preserving jobs in Maryland, 

New Jersey, and in our Nation. 

Again, I thank Senator MENENDEZ, on 

behalf of American workers, for his 

leadership on this issue. 

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank my colleague. 

Mr. REID. Will my friend yield to me 

for 1 minute? 

Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate 

on S. 3414, the cyber security bill, be 

extended until 5 p.m. and at that time 

I be recognized. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I 

thank my distinguished colleague from 

Maryland, a fellow member of the Finance Committee. Senator CARDIN has 

been a passionate voice on this as well. 

I am thrilled to have him as an ally in 

this endeavor. 

All we want is for Americans to stay 

employed. They can compete with anybody in the world but not when they 

have to pay a tariff or tax that nobody 

else has to pay who sends the same 

product back into the United States. 

That is our goal. I appreciate his work, 

his passion, and his commitment. I 

look forward to working with the majority leader and the chairman of the 

Finance Committee. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut. 

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, if I 

may have a few moments, the Senate is 

not in a quorum call, is it? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 

no quorum call. 

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Very briefly, Mr. 

President, I have just received a copy 

of a letter that has been sent this 

morning to the majority leader, Senator REID, and the Republican leader, 

Senator MCCONNELL, from GEN Keith 

Alexander of the United States Army, 

Director of the National Security 

Agency and Chief of Cyber Command at 

the Department of Defense. He is a distinguished and honored leader of our 

military, one of the people who has the 

greatest single responsibility for protecting our security, both in terms of 

the extraordinary capabilities the National Security Agency has but now increasingly for the defense of our cyber 

system. 

This is a career military officer, not 

a politician. He is somebody who has a 

mission, and it is from that sense of responsibility that General Alexander 

has written to Senator REID and Senator MCCONNELL. He writes—and I will 

ask to have it printed in the RECORD— 

to express his ‘‘strong support for passage of a comprehensive bipartisan 

cyber security bill by the Senate this 

week.’’ Why? I continue to quote: 

The cyber threat facing the Nation is real 

and demands immediate action. The time to 

act is now; we simply cannot afford further 

delay. 

He adds: 

Moreover, to be most effective in protecting against this threat to our national 

security, cyber security legislation should 

address both information sharing and core 

critical infrastructure hardening. 

Then he explains both of those in 

very compelling language. He also 

says: 

Finally, any legislation needs to recognize 

that cyber security is a team sport. No single public or private entity has all of the required authorities, resources, and capabilities. Within the federal government, the Department of Defense and the Intelligence 

Community are now closely partnered with 

the Department of Homeland Security and 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The 

benefits of this partnership are perhaps best 

evidenced by the Managed Security Service 

(MSS) program, which affords protection to 

certain government components and defense 

companies. The legislation will help enable 

us to make these same protections available 

widely to the private sector. 

I cannot thank General Alexander 

enough. He ends by saying this: 

The President and the Congress have rightly made cyber security a national priority. 

We need to move forward on comprehensive 

legislation now. 

He urged Senators REID and MCCONNELL ‘‘to work together to get it 

passed.’’ 

I ask unanimous consent that this 

very compelling letter from GEN Keith 

Alexander be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, 

CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE, 

Fort George G. Meade, MD. 

Hon. HARRY REID, 

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, The Capitol, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR REID: I am writing to express my strong support for passage of a 

comprehensive bipartisan cyber security 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. Moreover, to 

be most effective in protecting against this 

threat to our national security, cyber security legislation should address both information sharing and core critical infrastructure 

hardening. 

Both the government and the private sector have unique insights into the cyber 

threat facing our Nation today. Sharing 

these insights will enhance our mutual understanding of the threat and enable the 

operational collaboration that is needed to 

identify cyber threat indicators and mitigate 

them. It is important that any legislation establish a clear framework for such sharing, 

with robust safeguards for the privacy and 

civil liberties of our citizens. The American 

people must have confidence that threat information is being shared appropriately and 

in the most transparent way possible. This is 

why I support information to be shared 

through a civilian entity, with real-time, 

rule-based sharing of cyber security threat 

indicators with all relevant federal partners. 

Information sharing alone, however, is insufficient to address the vulnerabilities to 

the Nation’s core critical infrastructure. 

Comprehensive cyber security legislation 

also needs to ensure that this infrastructure 

is sufficiently hardened and resilient, as it is 

the storehouse of much of our economic 

prosperity. And, our national security depends on it. We face sophisticated, wellresourced adversaries who understand this. 

Key to addressing this peril is the adoption 

of minimum security requirements to harden 

these networks, dissuading adversaries and 

making it more difficult for them to conduct 

a successful cyber penetration. It is important that these requirements be collaboratively developed with industry and not be 

too burdensome. While I believe this can be 

done, I also believe that industry will require 

some form of incentives to make this happen. 

Finally, any legislation needs to recognize 

that cyber security is a team sport. No single public or private entity has all of the required authorities, resources, and capabilities. Within the federal government, the Department of Defense and the Intelligence 

Community are now closely partnered with 

the Department of Homeland Security and 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The 

benefits of this partnership are perhaps best 

evidenced by the Managed Security Service 

(MSS) program, which affords protections to 

certain government components and defense 

companies. The legislation will help enable 

us to make these same protections available 

widely to the private sector. 

The President and the Congress have rightly made cyber security a national priority. 

We need to move forward on comprehensive 

legislation now. I urge you to work together 

to get it passed. 

KEITH B. ALEXANDER, 

General, U.S. Army, 

Director, NSA. 

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I 

yield the floor. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5705 

RECESS 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the Senate stands 

in recess until 2:15 p.m. today. 

Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:37 p.m., 

recessed until 2:15 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. W

f 

EBB). 

CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2012— 

Continued 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland. 

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am 

so glad the Presiding Officer is in the 

chair while I am making these remarks. I wish to salute the Presiding 

Officer for his service in the Senate and 

his service to the Nation. One knows he 

is a member of the U.S. Marine Corps 

although he no longer wears the uniform. I believe once a marine, always a 

marine. And his service in Vietnam and 

to the Nation as Secretary of the Navy 

is well known and well appreciated. 

The Presiding Officer has served as a 

marine in the Marine Corps and as Secretary of the Navy and now in the Senate as a Member of the Democratic 

Party. The Presiding Officer really 

serves the Nation. 

I come to the floor today to talk 

about cyber security and the need to 

pass cyber security legislation this 

week, in this body. And I come to the 

floor not as a Democrat, I come to the 

floor as a patriot. 

I say to my colleagues in the Senate 

that this week, on this floor, the Senate has a rendezvous with destiny. We 

have pending before us cyber security 

legislation, a framework to protect 

critical infrastructure of the dot-com 

world against cyber attacks from those 

who have predatory, hostile intent to 

the United States of America. We are 

bogged down. We are not moving. We 

are once again following what has become a usual pattern in the Senate: 

when all is said and done, more is going 

to get said than gets done. 

But I say to anyone listening and 

anyone watching, we cannot let that 

happen. The United States of America 

is in danger. And this danger is not 

something in the future. It is not something written in science fiction books. 

This is not the wave that is going to 

come. It is happening right now in 

cyber attacks on our banking services, 

our personal identity, our trade secrets, and things I will talk about 

more. 

The naysayers here say: We can’t 

pass this bill because it will be overregulation and it will lead to strangulation, and, oh my gosh, we can’t ask 

the private sector to spend one dime on 

protecting itself. 

Well, I respect healthy criticism, but 

let me say to my friends, because I 

want them to know that if anything 

happens to the United States of America—if the grid goes down, if NASDAQ 

goes down, if our banking system goes 

down, if we will not be able to function 

because the streetlights won’t be on 

and we won’t be able to turn the electricity on—I will tell you what will 

happen. Once again, politicians will 

overreact, we will overregulate, and we 

will overspend. 

In a very judicious, well-thought-out, 

well-discussed process, we could come 

up with a legislative framework that 

would defend the United States of 

America and at the same time balance 

that sensible center that another great 

patriot, Colin Powell, calls us to do: 

Always look for the middle ground 

while we look at where we want to go. 

There is a cyber war, and I want everybody to know about it. Cyber attacks are happening right now. Cyber 

terrorists are thinking every single day 

about attacking our critical infrastructure. There are nation states that want 

to humiliate and intimidate the United 

States of America and cause catastrophic economic destruction. How do 

they want to do it? They want to take 

over our power grids. They want to disrupt our air traffic control. They want 

to disrupt the financial functioning of 

the United States of America. Cyber 

spies are working at breakneck speed 

to steal many of our state secrets. 

Cyber criminals are hacking our networks. So what are we talking about in 

this bill? We are talking about critical 

infrastructure. 

Now, I am a Senator from Maryland, 

and the Presiding Officer is a Senator 

from Virginia. Does he remember that 

freaky storm a couple weeks ago? Remember Pepco? Oh, boy. I still have my 

ears ringing from my constituents calling about Pepco. I can tell you what it 

was like in Baltimore when that freaky 

storm hit. You couldn’t get around 

when the stoplights were down. It was 

like the Wild West getting around. You 

could go into stores—if they were 

open—and nothing functioned. The 

lights weren’t on. The refrigeration 

was off. Businesses were losing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of 

dollars. There were families, like a 

mother with an infant child and another child, with no electricity for 5 

days who went to hotel rooms. 

Now, they want to talk about this 

bill costing too much money? Just look 

at what it cost the national capital region of the United States of America 

because of a freaky storm. 

It took us 5 days to get the utilities 

back on because of the utility company, but what happens if our destiny 

is outside of our control, if cyber terrorists have turned off the lights in 

America and we can’t get them turned 

back on? It is going to cost too much? 

Wait until this kind of thing happens. 

I don’t want it to happen, and we can 

prevent it from happening, and we can 

do it in a way that understands the 

needs of business. 

I want to understand the needs of 

small business, but I sure understand 

the needs of families. 

For those who say it is going to cost 

too much and they have the concerns 

of the chamber of commerce, fine. I 

don’t want to trash-talk them. My father owned a little neighborhood grocery store. I know what it is like when 

the electricity goes down. My father 

lost thousands of dollars because the 

frozen food melted, lost thousands of 

dollars when we had a freaky storm because of the refrigeration and his 

meats and produce went bad. My father 

lost thousands of dollars years ago in a 

freaky storm. 

This bill means that if we come up 

with the kind of legislation that we 

want, we can deal with it. Just remember what critical infrastructure means. 

It means the financial services. It 

means the grid. So when there is no 

power, schools are shut down, businesses are shut down, public transit is 

crippled, no traffic lights are working. 

By the way, in Virginia didn’t 9–1-1 

stop working, and they are still investigating? Don’t we love to investigate? 

Well, right now I don’t want to investigate and I don’t want to castigate, 

but I sure want the Senate to be able 

to get going. 

Then there is the issue of financial 

services. The FBI is currently investigating 400 reported cases of corporate 

account attacks where cyber criminals 

have made unauthorized transfers from 

bank accounts of U.S. businesses. The 

FBI tells me they are looking at the 

attempt to steal $255 million and an actual loss of $85 million. Hackers are already going into the New York Stock 

Exchange, they are already going into 

NASDAQ in an attempt to shut down 

or steal information. Gosh, if we allow 

this to continue, they could attack and 

cost us billions of dollars. 

Does the Presiding Officer remember 

that in 2010 we had a flash crash? New 

vocabulary, new things out there. The 

Dow plunged 1,000 points in a matter of 

minutes because automatic computer 

traders shut down. This was the result 

of turbulent trading. But just imagine 

if terrorists or nation states that really don’t like us—and I am really not 

going to name them, but we really 

know who they are—really create flash 

crashes? 

I know there are patriots in this Senate who have been the defenders of the 

Nation in other wars. They have said 

themselves that they worry about the 

Asia Pacific, they worry about China. I 

worry about China too. So while we are 

looking at the Defense authorization 

and appropriations—and people want 

more aircraft carriers to defend us in 

the blue waters against China. But 

what happens if there is a cyber attack? Now, we do know how to protect 

dot-mil, but don’t we also want to protect dot-com in the same way? I think 

so. 

I salute Senators LIEBERMAN and 

COLLINS. They have come forth with a 

bill that does two things from a national security perspective. First of all, 

it tells business: You can come in voluntarily. There is no mandate to participate. But if you do come in, you 

will get liability protection. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE