July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5357 

In Minnesota, 2 million families and 

small businesses will see their Federal 

income taxes increase by an average of 

$1,600 unless the middle-class tax cuts 

are extended. Instead of waiting until 

the eleventh hour, this legislation 

would have provided certainty for families and small businesses that their already squeezed budgets won’t have to 

be trimmed further in the coming year. 

I would like to make clear that extending the middle-class tax cuts is 

just the first step. There is a growing 

majority here that favors comprehensive tax reform that would simplify the 

Tax Code, broaden the base, and lower 

tax rates. Passing the middle-class tax 

cuts today would give us time to reach 

consensus on the details of reform that 

would streamline our Tax Code, pay 

down our debt, and ensure the United 

States remains competitive. 

We also must take action on the estate tax. If Congress does nothing, the 

exemption would drop to $1 million and 

the rate would rise to 55 percent. This 

is not an acceptable outcome and 

would hurt farmers and small businesses in Minnesota who have worked 

hard to build a legacy they can pass on 

to their children and grandchildren. In 

the past we have come together to pass 

compromise levels that don’t harm 

farmers and small business owners, 

while still being mindful of our deficit. 

I will work to ensure it happens again. 

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise to 

talk briefly about the estate tax and 

Colorado’s agricultural community and 

small businesses. While I voted in favor 

of the Middle Class Tax Cut Act, I do 

not believe that this legislation represents an end to the tax reform debate 

in Washington. In particular, it is important that we find a bipartisan and 

responsible path forward on the estate 

tax that provides the necessary certainty for businesses and families 

across Colorado. This is vital for Colorado’s economy. I am committed to 

working with my colleagues in Congress to establish an estate tax policy 

that works for small businesses, family 

farms and ranches, and all Coloradans. 

f 

CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2012— 

MOTION TO PROCEED 

Mr. REID. I now move to proceed to 

Calendar No. 470, S. 3414. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk 

will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 470, S. 

3414, a bill to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States. 

CLOTURE MOTION

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a 

cloture motion which has been filed at 

the desk and I ask that it be reported. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The cloture 

motion having been presented under 

rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk 

to read the motion. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

CLOTURE MOTION

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move 

to bring to a close debate on the motion to 

proceed to calendar No. 470, S. 3414, a bill to 

enhance the security and resiliency of the 

cyber and communications infrastructure of 

the United States. 

Harry Reid, Joseph I. Lieberman, John 

D. Rockefeller IV, Dianne Feinstein, 

Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara A. Mikulski, Barbara Boxer, Jeff Bingaman, 

Patty Murray, Max Baucus, Charles E. 

Schumer, Bill Nelson, Christopher A. 

Coons, Tom Udall, Carl Levin, Mark R. 

Warner, Ben Nelson. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask 

unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be 

waived. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

HONORING SENATOR LEAHY AND SENATOR

LUGAR

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise with 

great pleasure to honor my colleagues, 

Senator PATRICK LEAHY of Vermont 

and DICK LUGAR of Indiana, as they 

reach a milestone in their careers. 

They each cast a momentous vote just 

a short time ago. For Senator LEAHY, 

the vote just cast is his 14,000th rollcall 

vote. For Senator LUGAR—it is interesting that it is the same day and 1,000 

votes apart—it is his 13,000th. These 

two fine men and dedicated Senators 

share the milestone purely by coincidence. 

I applaud PAT LEAHY, my dear friend, 

who has always possessed a great drive 

to serve. Maybe it was growing up 

across from the State House in Montpelier that put the idea in his head 

from such a young age. 

After graduating from Georgetown 

University Law School, PAT served 8 

years as State’s attorney for Vermont 

before coming to the Senate. He continues to exercise his fine legal mind as 

chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator LEAHY has also led the 

fight against landmines, as well as numerous landmark pieces of legislation 

on which he has been the leader. 

PAT is loved by the people of 

Vermont. His intellect and his oratorical skills, his boldness, and his persuasiveness are all overshadowed by one 

thing—by his teammate Marcelle. 

Marcelle is clearly his greatest asset. 

I also commend my colleague Senator LUGAR on reaching his milestone 

of his 13,000th vote. Senator LUGAR is a 

fifth-generation Hoosier, a proud Navy 

veteran, and the longest serving Member of Congress in Indiana history. He 

is also a bit of an overachiever, graduating first in both his high school and 

college classes, and going on to become 

a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. 

As ranking member of the Foreign 

Relations Committee and past chairman of the committee, having served 

with the Presiding Officer for decades, 

he has dedicated his time in the Senate 

to reducing the threat of nuclear, 

chemical, and biological weapons. 

It has been my distinct pleasure to 

watch both of these fine Senators work 

tirelessly on behalf of the United 

States. I congratulate both of them on 

their service and on reaching this impressive milestone. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Republican leader. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, as 

the majority leader has indicated, two 

legislative milestones have been 

reached in the Senate today by two 

dedicated and long-serving Senators 

who happen to be from different sides 

of the aisle. I pay tribute to the senior 

Senator from Vermont, Mr. LEAHY, for 

casting his 14,000th vote, and to the 

senior Senator from Indiana, Mr. 

LUGAR, for casting his 13,000th vote. 

To put these milestones in perspective: 

Senator LEAHY, a Member of the Senate since 1975, ranks sixth on the alltime rollcall vote list, most recently 

passing former Senator Pete Domenici. 

Senator LUGAR, who was first elected 

to the Senate 2 years later, in 1976, 

ranks tenth on the all-time list and 

most recently passed our former colleague and current occupant of the 

chair, Vice President JOE BIDEN. This 

is not only a remarkable accomplishment of longevity for both men, it is 

also an opportunity for their colleagues to honor them for their decades 

of service to the people of Indiana and 

of Vermont. 

Senator LEAHY isn’t just the second 

most senior Senator in this body, he is 

also the chairman of the Judiciary 

Committee and a senior member of the 

Agriculture and Appropriations Committees. PAT and I got to know each 

other pretty well, alternating as chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of Appropriations for over a decade. Somehow he finds time to also be an amateur photographer and to have a blossoming movie career. I have no doubt 

he gives most of the credit, of course, 

to Marcelle, his wife, with whom he 

will be celebrating a far more important milestone in the next month, 

their 50th wedding anniversary. So congratulations to PAT on both counts. 

As for our friend Senator DICK

LUGAR, I have known him going back 

to my first Senate campaign. He is the 

longest serving Member of Congress in 

Indiana history and one of America’s 

most widely respected voices on foreign policy. In a career filled with 

many achievements and milestones, 

Senator LUGAR’s leadership on the 

Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is, in my opinion, his 

greatest and most lasting achievement 

with the American people—not only for 

the American people and for the security of this country, but for the promotion of peace throughout the world. 

Because of Senator LUGAR’s work, 

thousands of nuclear warheads have 

been dismantled and the world is, indeed, a safer place. 

Like Senator LEAHY, I know Senator 

LUGAR would say none of this would 

have been possible without the love 

and support of his wife of 55 years, 

Charlene. So I congratulate them both 

on this milestone and I join my colleagues in once again paying tribute to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5358 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 25, 2012 

our two colleagues and this signature 

achievement. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BENNET). The Senator from Vermont. 

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise 

to congratulate my longtime friend 

and colleague from Vermont, Senator 

PATRICK LEAHY, on the occasion of his 

14,000th vote. That is a lot of votes. In 

the long history of our Republic, only 

six Senators have achieved that milestone before him. 

Born in Montpelier, VT, our State’s 

capital, educated at St. Michael’s High 

School in Montpelier, St. Michael’s 

College in Colchester, VT, and Georgetown University Law School, Senator 

LEAHY was first elected to the Senate 

in 1974—the first and, to this date, only 

Democrat elected to the Senate from 

Vermont. I remember that campaign 

very well because I was in it, and PAT

LEAHY got a lot more votes than I did. 

Before assuming the office of U.S. 

Senator, PAT LEAHY gained a national 

reputation for law enforcement during 

his 8 years as State’s attorney in 

Chittenden County—the State’s largest 

county. 

Over his 31⁄2 decades here in the Senate, PATRICK LEAHY has many remarkable achievements. Let me just mention a few. 

Cognizant of the suffering and tragedy that landmines cause for civilian 

populations, PATRICK LEAHY has led, in 

this body and, in fact, the entire U.S. 

Government, the campaign to end the 

production and use of antipersonnel 

landmines. Many lives and limbs have 

been saved as a result of Senator 

LEAHY’s efforts. 

With similar commitment and passion, as chair of the Senate Judiciary 

Committee, PATRICK LEAHY has led the 

effort to insist on fairness at the Department of Justice, to support free 

speech and a free press, and to require 

and maintain openness and transparency in government. At a time of 

major infringements on privacy rights 

in this country from both the private 

sector and the government, PAT LEAHY

has been a strong champion of civil liberties and the Constitution of the 

United States. 

Senator LEAHY, reflecting Vermont’s 

very strong consciousness regarding 

the need to preserve our environment, 

has for many years been a champion of 

environmental protection and has been 

named over and over one of the top environmental legislators by the Nation’s 

foremost conservation organizations. 

He has been, as Vermonters well know, 

a special champion in preserving the 

high quality of water in Lake Champlain, our beautiful lake, perhaps the 

most valuable natural resource we 

have in our State. 

Today, I congratulate, on behalf of 

the people of the State of Vermont, 

Senator PATRICK LEAHY on the occasion of his 14,000th vote and look forward to working with him as closely in 

the future as we have worked in the 

past. 

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want 

to add my voice to the well-deserved 

chorus of congratulations for our colleague and friend from Vermont. 

Senator PATRICK LEAHY is the last 

remaining member of a historic class 

in the U.S. Senate, the class of 1974, 

better known as the ‘‘Watergate babies.’’ And he has been making history 

ever since. 

Casting 14,000 votes in the Senate is 

kind of like joining the 3,000 Hit Club 

in baseball. It is an achievement many 

dream of but few actually reach. 

More important than the number of 

votes Senator LEAHY has cast, however, is the wisdom and courage of his 

voting record. 

It has been my privilege to serve on 

the Senate Judiciary Committee for 

more than 15 years. During that time 

Senator LEAHY has been either our 

committee chairman or its ranking 

member. 

I have the greatest respect for PATRICK LEAHY’s fidelity to the rule of law 

and his determined efforts to safeguard 

the independence and integrity of 

America’s Federal courts. He is a 

champion of human rights at home and 

abroad. 

I congratulate him on this milestone. 

As an old friend of his might say, just 

keep truckin’ on. 

Mr. President, I also want to congratulate another friend and colleague, 

Senator RICHARD LUGAR from Indiana. 

Senator LUGAR knows that wisdom is 

not the exclusive property of any one 

political party. 

He bases his political decisions not 

on polls or the passions of the day but 

on what his conscience and his own 

careful study tells him is right. 

Two years ago, DICK LUGAR joined me 

in asking the President not to deport 

young people who were brought to this 

country at a young age by their parents. 

When the DREAM Act was on the 

Senate floor a year and a half ago, Senator LUGAR was one of three Republicans who voted in support. 

He coauthored the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Act—one of 

the most visionary and courageous bipartisan achievements in recent time. 

His work on the Global Fund has 

helped the United States meet its commitment to the single most powerful 

tool in the fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. 

Senator LUGAR has served six terms 

in the Senate, and he will be missed. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to 

thank, of course, the majority leader 

and the Republican leader, friends with 

whom I have served for years—and we 

have always been friends—for their 

kind words. 

I want to thank my colleague from 

Vermont, another dear friend. Our careers have paralleled in many areas— 

from the time he was the mayor of our 

largest city, to being our lone Representative in the House of Representatives, to now being my partner here in 

the Senate. 

Of course, as to my dear friend DICK

LUGAR, we have worked together so 

many times. We alternated between 

being the chair and ranking member of 

the Senate Agriculture Committee. He 

did a great deal on the environment, 

passed an organic farm bill, did so 

many things, all the time when he was 

doing his invaluable work to protect 

our Nation against nuclear weapons. 

Mr. President, I value the Senate. I 

love the Senate. It has been a major 

part of my life. But I was glad to hear 

both leaders mention the true love of 

my life, my wife of nearly 50 years. 

There is nothing I have accomplished 

throughout my whole public career 

that I could have done without 

Marcelle’s help. Not only has she raised 

three wonderful children and is helping 

to raise five wonderful grandchildren, 

every single day I have been a better 

person because of her. When we first 

started the race for the Senate in 1974, 

few people said I could win. Marcelle 

and I campaigned together. She always 

said I could. And we did. 

None of us know how long we might 

be in the Senate, but I have valued 

every single moment here, and I will 

value every single moment as long as I 

am here. 

I am glad Marcelle is here. She is 

joined by my dear and valuable friend 

PETER WELCH, our Congressman from 

Vermont, and his wife Margaret, but 

also so many members of my staff. I 

feel that I have been blessed with the 

finest staff any Senator has ever had. 

Again, they are the ones every day 

who, if I look good and do something 

well on this floor, I give the credit. I 

joke that I am a constitutional impediment to them totally running everything. But thank goodness they are 

there. I will speak more about this at 

another time. 

But it is a special feeling to be here 

with my friend DICK LUGAR, to hear the 

kinds words of my friend and colleague 

BERNIE SANDERS, to know that the 

other Member of our delegation—we 

are a huge delegation; all three Members—PETER WELCH is here. But especially I acknowledge Marcelle and 

Kevin, Alicia, and Mark, and their families. How wonderful it is to be here. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana. 

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, what a 

pleasure it is to be with my colleague 

PAT LEAHY on this very special day. It 

was a great coincidence that the 

13,000th vote and the 14,000th vote 

should occur this afternoon, but what a 

joyous moment to be with my friend on 

this experience. 

I once again thank the leader MITCH

MCCONNELL of our party and HARRY

REID the majority leader of the Senate 

for their very generous remarks about 

both PAT and me. 

I join PAT in extolling the virtues of 

those who have made such a difference 

in our lives. My wife Charlene, our 4 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5359 

sons, our 13 grandchildren, our greatgrandchildren—these are very precious 

people who have made such a difference 

in my life and made it possible for me 

to have good health and spirits 

throughout all this time and to enjoy 

thoroughly this experience. 

I would just add to the remarks of 

my colleague that tomorrow we hope 

to have a little celebration in the Agriculture Committee room. 

Long ago, at the beginning of our careers, PAT and I were situated at the 

end of the long table that stretched the 

length of the Agriculture Committee 

room. Our chairman, Herman Talmadge of Georgia, was at one end with 

Senator Jim Eastland of Mississippi. I 

am not certain what the rules of the 

Senate were at that time, but I recall 

that frequently both were enveloped in 

smoke at the end of the room, and it 

seemed to me that they were, in fact, 

developing whatever the policy was 

going to be and making decisions. As a 

matter of fact, sometimes they simply 

arose, and PAT and I were left to ponder really what had occurred. 

So it was appropriate that our two 

portraits should be put at the end of 

the table, at the entry to the Agriculture Committee room, where we 

once sat as the most junior members 

and eventually ascended to the chairmanship, having great experiences together in farm policy and the ability to 

help feed the world. 

I am grateful, likewise, for Vice 

President BIDEN’s presence today because he was a wonderful partner in 

the Foreign Relations Committee for 

so many years. I was not aware that 

the Vice President would be in the 

chair. I told him I was somewhat embarrassed because my 13,000th vote finally eclipsed his votes, and he ranks 

now 11th. JOE was aware of that. He 

had in the chair today the rankings 1 

through 11. So we are sort of all situated and still love each other in the 

process. 

I thank all Senators for the honor 

that has been accorded for this opportunity to address the body. This has 

been a great experience of my life, and 

this has been a very special moment. 

I thank the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas. 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, first of 

all, I congratulate my colleagues, Senator LEAHY and Senator LUGAR, for 

this achievement and thank them for 

their service to the country. 

I also appreciate the willingness of 

Senator COLLINS and Senator LIEBERMAN to allow me to speak for a few 

minutes before we return to the business at hand—legislation regarding cybersecurity. 

USDA EMPLOYEE NEWSLETTER

I want to point out to my colleagues—and perhaps to the Department of Agriculture—something I saw 

today that caught my attention. In 

fact, it is amazing to me, this development. 

This is the Department of Agriculture’s—the USDA—employee newsletter I hold in my hand. In that newsletter, it says the following—it has a 

section in the newsletter that says 

‘‘Food Services Update.’’ Well, the Department of Agriculture, which, in my 

view, has a serious and significant responsibility to promote agriculture, 

says this in their own newsletter: 

One simple way to reduce your environmental impact while dining at our cafeterias 

is to participate in the ‘‘Meatless Monday’’. 

. . . 

‘‘Meatless Monday.’’ 

This effort . . . encourages people not to 

eat meat on Mondays. . . . 

How will going meatless one day of the 

week help the environment? The production 

of meat, especially beef (and dairy as well) 

has a large environmental impact. According 

to the U.N.— 

‘‘According to the U.N.’’— 

animal agriculture is a major source of 

greenhouse gases and climate change. It also 

wastes resources. It takes 7,000 kg of grain to 

make 1,000 kg of beef. In addition, beef production requires a lot of water, fertilizer, 

fossil fuels, and pesticides. In addition there 

are many health concerns related to the excessive consumption of meat. While a vegetarian diet could have a beneficial impact on 

a person’s health and the environment, many 

people are not ready to make that commitment. Because Meatless Monday involves 

only one day a week, it is a small change 

that could produce big results. 

Our own Department of Agriculture, 

again, at least from my perspective— 

and we ought to look at what the mission of the Department Agriculture is, 

and I think it will reflect what I am 

saying—is to promote agriculture, to 

help those who every day go to work to 

produce food, fiber, and fuel for this 

country and the world. Yet our own Department of Agriculture is encouraging 

people not to eat meat and indicates— 

from these statements, again, from 

their newsletter—that ‘‘the USDA 

Headquarters Food Operations are a 

high profile opportunity to demonstrate USDA’s commitment to 

USDA mission and initiatives.’’ 

So it would not surprise me if what 

you see is that the Department of Agriculture somehow loses this newsletter. 

But it is posted on their Web site, and 

I would encourage Secretary Vilsack 

and the officials at the Department of 

Agriculture to rethink their role in discouraging something that is so vital to 

the U.S. economy and something so important to the Kansas economy. 

We are a beef-producing State, and it 

generates significant revenue for Kansas farmers and ranchers and is one of 

the items that improve our balance of 

trade, as we export meat and beef 

around the world. Yet our own Department of Agriculture encourages people 

not to consume meat. 

I think I will have more to say about 

this topic, but for the moment, in light 

of the kindness that was extended to 

me by the Senators, I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut. 

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I 

thank my friend from Kansas. Normally, when you yield the floor to a 

colleague in the Senate, you are not 

sure how long they are going to speak. 

So he not only kept his word to speak 

for less than 3 minutes, he proved that 

he continues to have some lingering 

holdover reflexes from his service in 

the House of Representatives, where 

they always speak shorter than we do. 

Mr. President, what is the pending 

business? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed to S. 3414. 

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. 

Mr. President, I rise to support that 

motion to proceed to S. 3414, which is 

the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, and I do 

so with the hope and request that all of 

our colleagues will vote yes on this motion to proceed so we can begin what I 

think is a crucial debate about how 

best to protect our national and economic security in this wired world 

where threats increasingly—and 

thefts—come not from land, sea, or 

sky, but from invisible strings of ones 

and zeros traveling through cyberspace. 

This bill has been a long time in coming to the floor. A lot of work has been 

done on it. But I must say, I have a 

sense of confidence, certainly, about 

the inclination of the overwhelming 

majority of Members of the Senate to 

vote to proceed to this matter because 

I think everyone in the Chamber understands what we are dealing with is 

not a problem that is speculative or 

theoretical. 

Anybody who has spent any time not 

even studying the classified materials 

on this but just reading the newspaper, 

following the media, knows that America is daily under constant cyber attack and cyber theft. The commander 

of Cyber Command, GEN Keith Alexander, said recently in a speech that 

cyber theft represented the largest 

transfer of wealth in human history. 

That is stealing of industrial secrets 

and moving money from bank accounts. I believe he said it was as if we 

were having our future stolen from us. 

It is all happening over cyberspace. Obviously, enemies—both nation states, 

nonstate actors such as terrorist 

groups, organized criminal gangs, and 

just plain hackers—are finding ways to 

penetrate the cyber systems on which 

our society depends, the cyber systems 

that control critical infrastructure: 

electric grid, transportation system, 

the whole financial system, the dams 

that hold back water, et cetera, et 

cetera, et cetera. 

This bill is not a solution in search of 

a problem. It is a problem that is real 

and cries out for the solution this bill 

would provide. There are some controversial parts of the bill. There has 

been some spirited debate both in committee and in the public media about 

it. There is a competing bill introduced 

by some of our colleagues called SECURE IT. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5360 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 25, 2012 

But I want to report to the Chamber 

and to the public that there was a significant breakthrough today where the 

lead cosponsors of our bill, Senators 

COLLINS, ROCKEFELLER, FEINSTEIN, 

CARPER, and I met with the lead cosponsors of the other bill, Senators 

CHAMBLISS, MCCAIN, and HUTCHISON, 

along with a group of Senators led by 

Senator KYL and Senator SHELDON

WHITEHOUSE, who, along with Senator 

COONS, Senator MIKULSKI, Senator 

COATS, and others who have been working very hard to create common ground 

because they recognize the urgency of 

this challenge. 

Well, this is good news. We got a motion to proceed, which, in the current 

schedule, will come up on Friday. I 

think it would send a message of real 

encouragement to the public that we 

can still get together across party lines 

on matters of urgent national security 

if we adopted that motion to proceed 

overwhelmingly, particularly now that 

we are engaged in dialogue with the 

leaders of these main bills and people 

trying to bridge gaps that began to 

meet today. We will meet again tomorrow morning. So I think we have a 

process going that can lead us to a very 

significant national security accomplishment. 

I am going to yield at this time to 

Senator ROCKEFELLER, the chair of the 

Commerce Committee, whose committee produced a bill of its own. He 

worked very closely with Senator COLLINS and me to blend our bills. We did. 

Senator FEINSTEIN came along with her 

chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee of the Senate, did some tremendous work on the information-sharing 

provision, title VII of the bill before us. 

I know Senator ROCKEFELLER has another engagement which he has to go 

to. So I am going to yield to him for 

his opening statement. Then Senator 

COLLINS, who, as always, for all these 

years, has been just the most steadfast, 

constructive, sturdy, reliable, creative 

partner in working on this bill. It gives 

me confidence that together we will 

see it to success next week. So I will 

now yield to the distinguished senior 

Senator from West Virginia, who is a 

real expert on this subject and has contributed enormously to the bill that is 

pending before the Senate now. 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. My dear colleague, I would feel better if the Senator from Maine spoke before I did. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

WHITEHOUSE.) The Senator from Maine. 

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, that is 

very kind of the Senator from West 

Virginia. My statement is quite 

lengthy. So if the Senator from West 

Virginia, in light of his commitment, 

would like to precede me, I would be 

more than happy to have him do so. I 

would encourage him to go ahead. Then 

the Senator from Connecticut has graciously said he would allow me to go 

next. We are all so nice around here. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia. 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I 

wish all negotiations proceeded with 

such comity. For those of us who have 

lived long enough, we have seen, obviously, enormous transition. We are in a 

totally new age. 

Today, as we begin our debate, over 

200 billion e-mails will be sent around 

the world to every continent. Google, a 

company that really is just 10 years 

old, will process over 1 billion searches 

and stream more than 2 billion videos 

today. And in the next minute, about 

36,000 tweets will be posted on Twitter. 

So we are now connected as we never 

have been before. 

Here in the United States we have 

been the leader in both its development 

and adoption of the initial structure. 

Actually, it is interesting because it 

was created by our own government. 

The open nature of the Internet can be 

traced back to our initial decision in 

the government to relinquish control 

of what we had invented, so to speak. 

So to this day our Nation remains a 

leader in using the Internet’s innovation and growth. 

In just over a decade, we have 

digitized and networked our entire 

economy and our entire way of life. 

Every one of our most critical systems 

now relies upon these interconnected 

networks: power grids, transportation 

systems, gas pipelines, telecommunications. They all rely on networks to 

function. They all rely on the Internet. 

Yet the ramifications of this new era 

remain poorly understood by many; 

frankly, by most. 

History teaches us that disruptive 

technological advancements can bring 

about both opportunities and also dangers. We cannot let our exuberance 

blind us from this simple truth. We 

cannot ignore the part of the equation 

in this happy adventure of ours that is 

unpleasant. This is it. These technological advances can compromise our 

national security and indeed are already doing so. 

The connectivity brought about by 

the Internet and the new ability to access anything, combined with our decision as a country to put everything we 

hold dear on the Internet, means we 

are now vulnerable in ways that were 

unfathomable just a few years ago. 

Yes, we rushed to digitize and connect 

every aspect of the American economy 

and way of life. We have spent little 

time focusing on what this actually 

means with respect to our security. We 

have left ourselves extraordinarily vulnerable. 

The consequences, as pointed out by 

the Senator from Connecticut, are devastating. Our intellectual property is 

our greatest asset as a nation. It is our 

greatest advantage in the world. It is 

currently being pilfered and stolen because it is connected to the Internet 

and therefore is unsecure. 

Well, we did not think about that, 

did we? Experts have called this, as the 

Senator from Connecticut said, the 

greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. That is a dramatic 

statement, but it is just an absolute 

terrifying fact—terrifying fact. 

Our most important personal information, including our credit card numbers, our financial data is now accessible via the Internet and is stolen 

through data breaches that occur all 

the time. 

Most importantly, our critical infrastructure: water facilities and gas pipelines to our electric power grid and 

communications networks are now vulnerable to cyber attacks, and they are 

happening. Many of those systems were 

designed before the Internet. In fact, 

virtually all of these systems were designed before the Internet came about, 

and were never intended to be connected to a network. Yet they are. 

Therefore, they are unsecure. 

If these systems are exploited via 

cyber vulnerabilities, lives could be 

lost. Yes, there is lots of other things 

that could happen before that, but this 

has the potential to be far greater than 

even the tragedy of 9/11. 

In recent months we have learned 

that hackers penetrated the networks 

of companies that control our Nation’s 

pipelines—gas pipelines. There have 

been attempts to penetrate the networks of companies that run nuclear 

power plants. Last year, a foreign computer hacker showed that he could access the control systems of a water facility in Texas with ease. He accomplished this task in minutes at a computer thousands of miles away. 

Our critical infrastructure is being 

targeted, and it is vulnerable. The 

major general of our National Guard, 

James Hoyer, recently shared a frightening story with me. He was talking 

about his work on cybersecurity. He 

said in West Virginia, he learned that a 

critical infrastructure facility in the 

State—critical infrastructure facility; 

that means a really important one—its 

engineers were being allowed to operate control systems on their home 

computers. How naive. But who would 

know? Who would have guessed? 

The Internet and what it has done for 

our country is unparalleled, but everything we have accomplished in this 

Internet age is now vulnerable and, in 

starker terms, undoable. We have built 

a castle in the sand and the tide is approaching. Our systems are too fragile, 

too critical, and too vulnerable. It is a 

recipe for disaster. It is time to do 

something about it before it is too late. 

We have all known about the seriousness of our cyber situation for years. 

Our national security experts know it. 

Our law enforcement experts know it. 

And there is a bipartisan agreement 

that something needs to be done. But 

that does not tell us a lot, to make 

that statement in the Senate. In my 

capacity both as the chairman of the 

Commerce Committee and former 

chairman of the Senate Intelligence 

Committee, and still on that committee, I have become very familiar 

with the threat posed by cybersecurity. 

I have been working with my colleagues to address it. 

For the past 3 years, a number of us 

have been working with both Republican and Democratic Senators to find 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5361 

common ground on these issues so we 

can have a bill to get control of this. 

We have held hearings, we have held 

markups, we have held countless meetings with the private sector and interest groups. It is an endless, endless 

process, and the staff does four times 

as much. 

We have been very patient in working to find a compromise. Now is the 

time to make that compromise happen. 

It will not happen today; it could happen in the next several days. We know 

what we need to do, I do believe. So 

here is what we know right now: The 

Federal Government needs to do a better job of protecting its own networks. 

Companies control most of our Nation’s critical infrastructure, and they 

need to do a better job of eliminating 

cyber vulnerabilities in their systems. 

There are no clear lines in the authorities and responsibilities in the Federal 

Government for cybersecurity, which 

will cause confusion in the event of a 

cyber catastrophe. 

The private sector and the Federal 

Government need to be able to share 

information about cyber threats. Over 

the last year, the committees of jurisdiction in the Senate have worked together. The committees have worked 

together to finalize legislation that addresses each of those concerns. 

Senators LIEBERMAN, FEINSTEIN, COLLINS, and I have made it a priority, as 

well as others, to finish this work together and with a broader group. We 

believe every Member of this body will 

be able to support some kind of legislation. We have put legislation before the 

Senate, but it is subject to change. In 

fact, it may be in the process of changing in a good sense because we held a 

long meeting this morning. We are 

going to have another one tomorrow, 

perhaps on a daily basis. 

The basic thing we have done is that 

we took a more regulated approach. In 

other words, we have to do this. This is 

what we should do. At one level we 

should do it. 

We have taken that away, and we 

have made it much more voluntary. We 

made it a voluntary approach. Some 

say that is worse than no bill at all, to 

which I reply, no, if we incent people 

properly with a voluntary approach, 

the pressure to do something is greater, particularly if they have to submit 

to audits as to the standards of work 

they are doing to protect themselves. 

There are a variety of ways to do 

this. We could have a council—a DHS 

council that would decide what the 

standards should be. There was talk 

this morning about having a convening 

session called by NIST, National Institute of Science and Technology—which 

is very good at this stuff—convene the 

private sector and have those two work 

out a system. NIST has no regulatory 

authority, so they could let them come 

up with their suggestions. Then there 

was an idea that maybe DHS could 

look at that and certify it, stamp it 

with approval, on basic critical infrastructure. Of course, we would have to 

pick out which was the critical infrastructure because there is lots of it. 

Which one would be subject to special 

regard is something we would still have 

to work out. 

This bill, however it works so far, 

and I think in the future, is bipartisan. 

There is some sort of tribulation about 

let’s let bygones be bygones, we have 

all given up and compromised, to which 

my point of view is some of us have 

been working on this for a very long 

time, and we have been joined by others with good ideas. But don’t close off 

the past or the future. 

The bill will be bipartisan. It will incorporate the good ideas and suggestions that have been made by many 

colleagues. We have settled on a plan 

that creates no new bureaucracy. However that plan forms, it will have no 

new bureaucracies or heavy-handed 

regulation. That is already understood. 

It is premised on companies taking responsibility for securing their own networks, with government assistance 

where necessary. This bill represents a 

compromise, and it is time to move 

forward with it. 

I think, in closing, back to the year 

2000 and 2001. I was on the Intelligence 

Committee at the time of 9/11. The fact 

is, we get reports on all this which 

never surfaced, but we know the facts. 

There were signs of people moving 

around the country, and they weren’t 

just sort of haphazardly moving 

around. In San Diego, a certain safe 

house there would appear and people 

were coming and going from there. 

Then there was the FBI office in Minneapolis and the Moussaoui case, and 

the FBI office in Minneapolis reported 

to the FBI Osama bin Laden office— 

and perhaps that didn’t happen. 

We all knew something was new and 

that the world was getting different. 

We knew the danger could come upon 

us. Our intelligence and national security leadership took these matters very 

seriously. However, they did not take 

it seriously enough, nor did we. So 

then it was too late and 9/11 happened, 

and the world changed forever. 

Today, we have a new set of warnings 

flashing before us with a wide range of 

challenges to our security and safety 

and we once again face a choice: Act 

now and put in place safeguards to protect this country and our people or act 

later when it is too late. Obviously, the 

conclusion is we must act now. 

I thank the Chair and yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized. 

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, 

let me thank the Senator from West 

Virginia for his comments. He has 

worked so hard on this issue for many 

years but, in particular, the past 3 

years, as he and the chair of the Senate 

Intelligence Committee, Senator FEINSTEIN, have worked with Senator LIEBERMAN and me. 

I rise this evening to urge our colleagues to vote to begin the debate on 

the Cyber Security Act of 2012. Senator 

LIEBERMAN and I have introduced this 

bill along with our colleagues Senator 

ROCKEFELLER, Senator FEINSTEIN, and 

Senator CARPER. It has been a great 

pleasure to work with all of them—and 

work we have—in numerous sessions 

over literally a period of years, as we 

have attempted to merge the bills that 

were reported by the Commerce Committee and the Homeland Security 

Committee. 

Of course, it is always a great pleasure to once again work with my dear 

friend the chairman of the Homeland 

Security Committee, Senator LIEBERMAN, as we bring forth yet another bipartisan bill to the Chamber for its 

consideration. 

FBI Director Robert Mueller has 

warned that the cyber threat will soon 

equal or surpass the threat from terrorism. He has argued that we should 

be addressing the cyber threat with the 

same kind of intensity we have applied 

to the terrorist threat. This vital legislation would provide the Federal Government and the private sector with 

the tools needed to help protect our 

country from the growing cyber threat. 

It would promote information sharing, 

improve the security of the Federal 

Government’s own networks, enhance 

research and development programs 

and, most important of all, it would 

help to better secure our Nation’s most 

critical infrastructure from cyber attack. These are the powerplants, the 

pipelines, the water treatment facilities, the electrical grid, the transportation systems, and the financial networks upon which Americans rely each 

and every day. 

The fact is the computerized industrial controls that open and close the 

valves and switches in our infrastructure are particularly vulnerable to 

cyber attack. Indeed, the Internet is 

under constant siege on all fronts by 

nations such as China, Russia, and 

Iran, by transnational criminals, by 

terrorist groups, by activists, and by 

persistent hackers. That is why our Nation’s top national security and homeland security leaders from the current 

and former administrations have urged 

us to take legislative action to address 

this unacceptable risk to both our national security and our economic prosperity. 

Earlier this year, Defense Secretary 

Leon Panetta described our bill as ‘‘essential to addressing our Nation’s critical infrastructure and network cyber 

security vulnerabilities, both of which 

pose serious national and economic security risks to our Nation.’’ 

Just last month, the Secretary reiterated his call for Congress to pass our 

bill and stress the potential for a cyber 

attack to cripple our critical infrastructure in a way that would virtually 

paralyze this country. 

The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, has also sounded the alarm. He has described the 

cyber threat as a ‘‘profound threat to 

this country, to its future, its economy 

and its very being.’’ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5362 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 25, 2012 

The warnings have not been confined 

to officials in the Obama administration. Former national security officials, including Michael Chertoff, Michael McConnell, Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Hayden have written that the 

cyber threat ‘‘is imminent and . . . represents one of the most serious challenges to our national security since 

the onset of the nuclear age sixty years 

ago.’’ They have urged us to protect 

the ‘‘infrastructure that controls our 

electricity, water and sewer, nuclear 

plants, communications backbone, energy pipelines, and financial networks’’ 

with appropriate cyber security standards. 

Similarly, in a letter to our colleague, Senator JOHN MCCAIN, GEN 

Keith Alexander, the commander of 

U.S. Cyber Command and the Director 

of the National Security Agency, 

wrote: 

Given DOD reliance on certain core critical infrastructure to execute its mission, as 

well as the importance of the Nation’s critical infrastructure to our national and economic security overall, legislation is also 

needed to ensure that infrastructure is sufficiently hardened and resilient. 

The threats to our infrastructure are 

not hypothetical; they are already occurring. For example, while many of 

the details are classified, we know multiple natural gas pipeline companies 

have been the target of a sophisticated 

cyber intrusion campaign that has 

been ongoing since December of last 

year. 

The cyber threat to our critical infrastructure is also escalating in its 

frequency and severity. According to 

DHS’s Industrial Control Systems 

Cyber Emergency Response Team, last 

year, almost 200 cyber intrusions were 

reported by critical infrastructure 

owners and operators. That is nearly a 

400-percent increase from the previous 

year, and these are only the intrusions 

that have been reported to the Department of Homeland Security. Many go 

unreported and, even worse, many owners are not even aware their systems 

have been compromised. 

What would a successful cyber attack 

on our critical infrastructure look 

like? We have just seen recently what a 

serious storm that leaves more than 1 

million people without power can 

cause: the loss of life, the blow to economic activity, the hardship for the elderly, the nonworking traffic lights 

that resulted in accidents. Multiply 

that impact many times over if there 

were a sustained cyber attack that deliberately knocked out our electric 

grid. 

The threat is not just to our national 

security but also to our economic edge, 

to our competitiveness. The rampant 

cyber theft targeting the United States 

by countries such as China has led to 

the ‘‘greatest transfer of wealth in history,’’ according to General Alexander. 

You have heard many of us use his 

quote. Let me give some specifics of his 

estimates. He believes American companies have lost about $250 billion a 

year through intellectual property 

theft, $114 billion to theft through 

cyber crime, and another $274 billion in 

downtime the thefts have caused. 

In their op-ed earlier this year, 

former DNI McConnell, former Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff, and 

former Deputy Secretary of Defense 

Bill Lynn warned that the cost of cyber 

espionage and theft ‘‘easily means billions of dollars and millions of jobs.’’ 

The threat of a cyber attack doesn’t 

just go to our national security, critical though that is. It also directly is a 

threat to America’s ability to compete, 

to our economic edge. 

In recent years, a growing number of 

U.S. firms, including sophisticated 

firms such as Google, Adobe, Lockheed 

Martin, RSA, Sony, NASDAQ, and 

many others have been hacked by malicious actors. Earlier this month, the 

security firm McAfee released a report 

on a highly sophisticated cyber intrusion dubbed ‘‘Operation High Roller,’’ 

which has attempted to steal more 

than $78 million in fraudulent financial 

transfers at at least 60 different financial institutions. 

Trade associations have been attacked too. The Chamber of Commerce 

was the victim of a cyber attack for 

many months, blissfully unaware until 

informed by the FBI that its membership data was being stolen. The evidence of our cybersecurity vulnerability is overwhelming. It compels us to 

act. 

Yesterday 18 experts in national security strongly endorsed the revised 

legislation we have introduced. The 

Aspen Homeland Security Group, made 

up of officials from both Republican 

and Democratic administrations and 

chaired by former Secretary Chertoff 

and former Congresswoman Jane Harman, urged the Senate to adopt a program of voluntary cybersecurity standards and strong positive incentives for 

critical infrastructure to implement 

those standards. This group called for 

action on our bill, saying: 

The country is already being hurt by foreign cyber intrusions, and the possibility of 

a devastating cyber attack is real. Congress 

must act now. 

Mr. President, you have heard some 

Members of this body say that somehow this process has been rushed or the 

bill inadequately considered. Nothing 

could be further from the truth. Since 

2005—7 years ago—our Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee alone has held 10 hearings on 

cybersecurity. Other Senate committees have also held hearings, for a total 

of 25 hearings since 2009, not to mention numerous briefings the Presiding 

Officer and Senator MIKULSKI of Maryland have helped to convene—classified 

briefings—for any Member to attend. 

In 2010, Chairman LIEBERMAN, Senator CARPER, and I introduced our cybersecurity bill, which was reported by 

our committee later that same year. 

As I indicated, we have been working 

with Chairman ROCKEFELLER to merge 

our bill with legislation he has championed, which was reported by the 

Commerce Committee. We have also 

worked very closely with Senator FEINSTEIN, an expert on information sharing. 

The bill we are urging our colleagues 

to proceed to today is the product of 

these efforts. It also incorporates substantial changes based on the feedback 

from the private sector, our colleagues, 

and the administration. 

This new bill is a good-faith effort to 

address the concerns raised by Members on both sides of the aisle by establishing a framework that relies upon 

the expertise of government and the innovation of the private sector. It improves privacy protections that Americans expect from their government. 

It also reflects many concepts proposed by Senators KYL, WHITEHOUSE— 

the Presiding Officer—BLUNT, COATS, 

GRAHAM, MIKULSKI, BLUMENTHAL, and 

COONS. We have revised our bill in a 

very substantial way. We have abandoned the approach—which I still believe to be a good idea—of mandatory 

standards and, instead, have adopted a 

voluntary approach to standards. This 

is a significant change from our initial 

bill, and it was one that was promoted 

by Senator KYL’s and Senator WHITEHOUSE’s group. 

The new version encourages owners 

of critical infrastructure to voluntarily 

adopt the cybersecurity practices in 

exchange for various incentives for entities complying with these best practices. This was also one of the primary 

recommendations of the House Republican Cybersecurity Task Force. 

These incentives include liability 

protection against punitive damages. I, 

for one, am open to making that a 

more robust liability protection. They 

include the opportunity to receive expedited security clearances, eligibility 

for prioritized technical assistance 

from the government, and access to 

timely cyber threat information held 

by the government. 

These major changes from the approach we initially proposed demonstrate our willingness to adopt alternatives recommended in good faith by 

our colleagues, and we are still open to 

changes to the bill. 

Our bill also includes strong information-sharing provisions that promote 

voluntary information sharing within 

the private sector and the government, 

while ensuring that privacy and civil 

liberties are protected. And again, we 

incorporated some suggestions from 

the Democratic side of the aisle to 

strengthen these provisions. 

To be sure, more information sharing 

is essential to improving our understanding of the risks and threats. But 

let us be clear: More information sharing, while absolutely essential, is not 

sufficient to ensure our Nation’s vital, 

critical infrastructure is protected. If 

you survey the vast majority of experts 

in this field, they will tell you that to 

pass a bill that only provides for more 

information sharing does not begin to 

accomplish the job that must be done 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5363 

to better secure our Nation from this 

threat. 

With 85 percent of our Nation’s critical infrastructure owned by the private sector, government obviously 

must work with the private sector. Our 

bill—both our original bill and our revised bill—has always envisioned a 

partnership between government and 

the private sector. We have a very 

stringent definition of what constitutes covered critical infrastructure. 

It is infrastructure whose disruption 

could result in truly catastrophic consequences. 

What do I mean by that? I am talking about mass casualties or mass 

evacuations or severe degradation of 

our national security or a serious blow 

to our economy. That is the kind of 

disruption we are talking about. Obviously those who have claimed that 

every company or every part of our infrastructure is going to be considered 

as critical infrastructure have not read 

the definition in our bill. 

But here is more evidence of why we 

must act. A study done in 2011 by the 

computer security firm McAfee and 

CSIS revealed that approximately 40 

percent of the companies surveyed—the 

critical infrastructure companies— 

were not regularly patching and updating their software, despite the fact 

these safeguards are among the most 

basic and widely known cybersecurity 

risk mitigation practices. We have 

even found reports where companies 

haven’t bothered to change the default 

password that came with the industrial 

control software. In many cases, the 

control devices used to operate our Nation’s most critical infrastructure are 

inherently insecure. 

A Washington Post special report 

last month noted that security researchers found six out of seven control 

system devices are ‘‘riddled with hardware and software flaws,’’ and that 

‘‘some included back doors that enabled hackers to download passwords 

or sidestep security completely.’’ 

Another front-page story in the Post 

earlier this month highlighted the fact 

that as technological advances have allowed everyone from plant managers to 

hospital nurses to control their systems remotely via the Internet, these 

vital systems have become even more 

vulnerable to cyber attacks. To prove 

the point, the story described how a security researcher was able to easily 

steal passwords from a provider that 

connects millions of these systems to 

the Internet. 

These examples illustrate that far 

too many critical infrastructure owners are not taking even the most basic 

measures to protect their systems, and 

this is simply dangerous and unacceptable to the security of our country. 

These basic practices need not be expensive. In most cases, they are not expensive. And I will tell you, they are a 

lot less costly than the consequences of 

a breach, not to mention a major cyber 

attack. 

A recent report by Verizon, the Secret Service, and other international 

law enforcement agencies analyzed 855 

data breaches and found that 96 were 

not difficult to pull off and 97 percent 

of them could have been prevented 

through fairly simple and inexpensive 

means. 

The point is, we must act, and we 

must act now. We cannot afford to wait 

for a cyber 9/11 before taking action on 

this legislation. 

In all the years I have been working 

to identify vulnerabilities facing our 

country in the area of homeland security, I cannot identify another area 

where I believe the threat is greater 

and that we have done less. 

I urge my colleagues to listen to the 

wisdom of former Homeland Security 

Secretary Michael Chertoff and former 

NSA Chief General Hayden. They wrote 

the following: 

We carry the burden of knowing that 9/11 

might have been averted with the intelligence that existed at the time. We do not 

want to be in the same position again when 

‘‘cyber 9/11’’ hits—it is not a question of 

‘‘whether’’ this will happen; it is a question 

of ‘‘when.’’ 

And this time all the dots have been 

connected. This time we know that attacks are occurring against our Internet systems and cyber systems each 

and every day. This time the warnings 

from all across the board are loud and 

clear. I urge our colleagues to heed 

these warnings and to support the motion to proceed to the cybersecurity 

bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut. 

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I 

thank my dear friend, the ranking 

member on the Homeland Security 

Committee, for her excellent and 

thoughtful statement. I thank Senator 

ROCKEFELLER, the chair of the Commerce Committee, for his compelling 

statement on behalf of proceeding and, 

of course, on behalf of the underlying 

bill. I think these two statements set 

the table for the debate that will follow 

in the next several days. 

Within the next day or two, certainly 

no later than Friday, we will vote on 

the motion to proceed to the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. I appeal to our colleagues to come together across party 

lines and vote to proceed, as a way of 

saying that we recognize exactly what 

Senator ROCKEFELLER and Senator 

COLLINS have said: We have a problem 

here. We are vulnerable to cyber attack. It is not just speculative. We are 

being attacked. We are being robbed 

every day through cyberspace. And we 

are not adequately defended. It is as 

simple as that. 

Part of the problem, as my colleagues have said, in the challenge is 

that 80 to 85 percent of our critical infrastructure in this country is privately owned. That is the American 

way. That is the way it ought to be. 

But that privately owned infrastructure is vulnerable now to attack by our 

enemies, and we have to work together—public and private owners, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and 

conservatives, Americans all—to figure 

out a way to say to the private owners 

of critical cyber infrastructure, You 

have got to do more to protect our security, to protect our prosperity. And 

that is what this bill is all about. 

My colleagues have described the 

challenge, the inadequacy of the current defenses, the work that has been 

done on our bill, the compromises that 

have been made all along the way. I 

thank the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator 

WHITEHOUSE, and Senator KYL from Arizona and the others who worked on a 

bipartisan basis to help us find common ground. 

This question of cybersecurity is, 

again, a test of whether this great deliberative body still has the capability 

to come together and solve our Nation’s most serious problems. 

We had a couple of votes today. I suppose some people could say they were 

show votes. I took them seriously. But 

they all involved the terrible fiscal 

shape our country is in, $16 trillion in 

national debt. Earlier in my life I 

couldn’t believe we could come to this 

point. And why have we? Because we 

haven’t been willing to make tough decisions. We haven’t been willing to 

work across party lines to do some 

things that might be politically controversial to fix a problem we have. So 

the problem gets tougher and tougher 

to fix. This is another one. 

Usually, even in the most partisan 

and ideologically rigid times, when it 

comes to our national security we put 

our party labels aside and our party 

loyalties aside, and we have acted 

based on our loyalty to our country—to 

the oath of office we took to protect 

and defend not our ideology or our 

party but to protect and defend the 

Constitution of the United States, our 

freedom. That is as much in jeopardy 

from cyber attack as any other source 

of threat to our country. 

I appreciate the opening statements 

that have been made. I am actually 

very optimistic about the vote on the 

motion to proceed that will occur in 

the next day or two, and I am increasingly hopeful we are going to pass, before we break for August, a strong cybersecurity bill. It is not going to be 

the bill Senator COLLINS, Senator 

ROCKEFELLER, Senator FEINSTEIN, and I 

started out with. We have compromised 

along the way. 

I have in my office in a very prominent place a picture of two of Connecticut’s representatives to the Constitutional Convention, Sherman and Ellsworth. I have it there because these 

two were the creators, the source of 

the so-called Connecticut Compromise. 

Some people erroneously refer to it as 

the Great Compromise. The correct 

title is the Connecticut Compromise. 

This was the conflict between the 

States that had a lot of population and 

the smaller States, how were they 

going to be represented in this new 

Congress. Sherman and Ellsworth came 

up with a great compromise: We will 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5364 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 25, 2012 

have one body—the Senate—where 

every State has two representatives, 

and another body—the House—where 

you are represented by population. 

I always like to say to people, the 

very institution we are privileged to be 

Members of was created as a result of a 

compromise. Generally speaking, in 

this Congress—which represents 310 

million people, extraordinarily diverse 

in every way—you can’t succeed here, 

we can’t get things done if people say, 

I must get 100 percent of what I want 

on this bill or I am going to vote 

against it. 

That is the way we have felt and that 

is why we have compromised, particularly because of the urgency of the 

cyber threat, which is real, present, 

and growing. 

Senator COLLINS and I have felt very 

strongly, we want to get something 

started. It can’t just be anything, it 

has to be real. S. 3414 is real. It will be 

effective. The standards are no longer 

mandatory, but there are enough incentives in here. And the very fact that 

there will be standards, private sector 

generated but approved by a governmental body, I think will create tremendous inducements—yes, maybe 

even pressure—on CEOs and private operators of critical cyber infrastructure 

to adopt those standards and implement them in their business or else, 

God forbid, in case of attack, they will 

be subject to enormous, probably a corporation-ending, liability. 

I am very encouraged, thanks again 

to a lot of good work done by a lot of 

people, that we have started today, the 

lead sponsors of the other bill, SECURE IT, the lead sponsors of this bill, 

the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, and the 

group that has been working so hard, a 

bipartisan group, to bring us together. 

We did come together today. We are 

going to meet again tomorrow morning, and I think we are involved in a 

collaborative process that will not only 

lead to the passage of cybersecurity 

legislation this year that will be effective to protect our national security 

and prosperity but will in its way prove 

to the American people that we are 

still capable here in the Senate of coming together across party lines to fix a 

problem—in this case, to protect our 

great country. 

With that, and knowing we will be 

back tomorrow, I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. 

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I plan 

to speak on cybersecurity tomorrow. I 

thank Chairman LIEBERMAN, Chairman 

ROCKEFELLER, Chairman FEINSTEIN, 

and Senator COLLINS for their work on 

this very important issue, and also all 

the other Senators who have worked so 

hard on this, including the Presiding 

Officer. 

I ask unanimous consent to speak 

this evening as in morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

REMEMBERING THE VICTIMS OF AURORA, CO

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise 

today to talk about loss. I know I 

speak for all Minnesotans when I say 

how shocked and saddened we have 

been by the loss of life in Colorado. Our 

hearts go out to the families and 

friends of those who died, and to those 

who were wounded in that massacre. 

Anyone who has watched reports can 

only feel outrage or profound sadness. 

So many of those who died were so 

young. A number died so heroically, 

shielding a loved one from the 

madman’s bullets. So much grief, so 

much suffering is unspeakable. The one 

hopeful lesson we can draw from this 

tragedy comes from the stories of courage and selflessness we have heard 

about those who were in the theater, 

the first responders, and the outpouring from the community of Aurora 

and the rest of the Nation. 

Minnesota unfortunately has also 

seen its share of senseless violence. It 

is something no State is immune to. 

Hopefully, out of this tragedy we can 

draw lessons that will make these 

kinds of tragedies far less common. 

REMEMBERING TOM DAVIS

Today I come to the floor to talk 

about a personal loss to me and to so 

many of his friends and family and 

fans—a Minnesotan who brought so 

much laughter and so much joy to his 

fellow Minnesotans and to millions and 

millions of Americans. My friend Tom 

Davis died last Thursday after he was 

diagnosed 3 years ago with cancer. 

I had the privilege to be Tom’s comedy partner and best friend for over 20 

years. We started working together in 

high school in Minnesota and did 

standup together for years, and were 

among two of the original writers for 

‘‘Saturday Night Live.’’ 

I spoke with Tom’s mom Jean last 

Thursday, not long after Tom died. She 

told me how fondly she remembered 

the laughter that came from the basement when Tom and I started writing 

together in high school over 40 years 

ago. That is what I remember about 

Tom, his laughter. 

I last saw Tom about 2 weeks ago at 

his home in Hudson, NY. Dan Aykroyd, 

who collaborated so often with Tom, 

was there too with his wife Donna and 

Tom’s wife Mimi. We laughed and 

laughed. 

Tom’s humor was always sardonic, 

and as you might expect, it was a little 

more sardonic that day than usual. But 

his humor also had a sweetness about 

it. We laughed. But Tom told us that 

he was ready to go. He faced death with 

great humor and courage. 

Tom created laughter. The obituary 

cited Tom’s body of work—some of it. 

He and Dan Aykroyd created the 

Coneheads. Tom was the key collaborator with Bill Murray on Nick the 

Lounge Singer, and on and on and on. 

This started an outpouring of blogging 

on the Internet—people writing about 

Tom and the laughs he brought them. I 

was happy to see him get his due. People called him an original. He was. 

They called him a brilliant comedian. 

He was. 

Since last Thursday, I have been 

hearing from our friends and colleagues, how Tom’s voice was unique, 

how so often his stuff came seemingly 

from out of nowhere, how Tom had 

come up with the biggest laugh of the 

season in the rewrite of this sketch or 

that one or how Tom had been the first 

to nail Ed McMahon’s attitude when he 

and I did Khomeini the Magnificent, 

and how Tom was such a loyal and generous friend. 

People would always ask me and Tom 

what our favorite moment was from 

‘‘Saturday Night Live.’’ We worked on 

so many sketches that it was impossible to single anything out. Both of us 

would always say our favorite memory 

was rolling on the floor—the 17th floor 

at 30 Rock—rolling on the floor, laughing at 2:00 in the morning or 3:00 in the 

morning at something that someone 

wrote or at a character someone had 

just invented. This was that moment of 

creation. There was the laugh at whatever it was that one of us had come up 

with, combined with the joy that you 

knew you had something. 

This is your job. Woody Allen once 

said that writing comedy is either easy 

or impossible. When it is impossible, it 

can be agony. When it is easy, when 

you are laughing and rolling on the 

floor—literally, when Danny, Billy, 

Belushi, Gilda, Dana Carvey, Jim Downey, Conan O’Brien, or Steve Martin or 

any of the many hilarious people whom 

we had the privilege to work with 

would come up with something that 

made us explode with laughter and roll 

there on the 17th floor, that was just 

pure joy. 

Tom was an improvisational genius. 

The first public stage we performed at 

was Dudley Riggs’ Brave New Workshop in Minneapolis. Dudley’s was essentially the Minneapolis version of 

Second City, based on the same 

improvisational techniques. When Tom 

and I were in high school, we did 

standup there. But while I went off to 

college, Tom joined the company at 

Dudley’s, and when I came back, I saw 

that he had mastered improv and mastered it hilariously. 

Now, as a writing team, Tom and I 

brought different strengths to our 

craft. Sometimes we would get stuck, 

and Tom would find an object. The 

third year of SNL, Tom and I were 

watching TV, and we saw Julia Child 

cut herself while doing a cooking segment on, I believe, the ‘‘Today Show.’’ 

So we wrote a sketch that Danny performed brilliantly that is now known 

as ‘‘Julia Child Bleeding to Death.’’ 

The sketch worked so well that when 

they installed the Julia Child exhibit 

at the National Museum of American 

History, in addition to her TV kitchen 

set—I believe this was at her insistence 

because she loved it so much—they included a monitor with the sketch of 

her bleeding to death on ‘‘Saturday 

Night Live.’’ 

When Tom and I were writing the 

sketch, we could not find an ending, 

and Tom found an object—the phone. 

The phone hanging on the wall of Julia 

Child’s cooking set. I don’t actually 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5365 

think there was one; Tom just found it. 

That is something improv artists do 

when they are on the stage, they find 

objects to work with. So Danny, as 

Julia Child in the sketch, is spurting 

blood, and Julia is trying everything to 

explain how to make a tourniquet out 

of a chicken bone and a dish towel or 

how to use chicken liver as a natural 

coagulant, and nothing is working. She 

is losing blood. So, in desperation, she 

sees the phone on the wall, and turning 

to it, she says, ‘‘Always have the emergency number written down on the 

phone. Oh, it isn’t. Well, I know it. It’s 

911.’’ She dials 9–1–1 and realizes it is a 

prop phone and throws it down sort of 

in disgust and starts to get woozy and 

rambles on about eating chopped 

chicken liver on Ritz crackers as a 

child. Finally she collapses, and as she 

is about to die, she says, ‘‘Save the 

liver.’’ 

It was a tour de force by Danny. 

When I was with Danny and Tom a couple of weeks ago, we started talking 

about this somehow, and Danny says 

he remembers me there under the 

counter pumping the blood. Only I 

wasn’t the one pumping the blood; it 

was Tom. I remember that was something of a union issue because that is a 

special effect, pumping blood, pumping 

the blood to get exactly the right pressure so that Danny could release the 

spurts at precisely the right time. 

Now, every once in a while, the special effects guy or the sound effects 

guy would let a writer do the effects 

because it was all about the comedic 

timing. Also, they liked Tom. Everybody liked Tom. The special effects 

guy knew that Tom knew exactly what 

to do, and it was all about teamwork 

with Danny, who was also controlling 

the spurting when Tom was controlling 

the pressure. Man, it was hilarious. 

Now, this is live TV. We did hundreds 

and hundreds of sketches together, a 

lot of stuff that was just so stupid that 

it was funny. We just had so much fun. 

Tom and I toured together all over the 

country. I told Senator MIKE JOHANNS, 

my colleague and friend from Nebraska, that Tom and I played Chadron 

State twice. And last week we had a 

witness in Judiciary whom Senator 

SESSIONS introduced from Anniston, 

AL, where Tom and I played. We did a 

gig to six students in Huron, SD, because they booked us by mistake during spring break and there were just 

six students there. There were five 

members of the basketball team who 

couldn’t afford to go back east for the 

break. The sixth guy had been grounded because he had gotten caught smoking pot freshman year and they 

wouldn’t let him leave campus except 

during summer vacation. I think this 

was his junior year. I think Tom and I 

played 45 States. 

When we flew, we always booked ourselves in aisle seats across from each 

other, C and D seats, so we could talk 

to each other. Tom would always get 

on first and find our row, and if there 

was a pretty girl in the middle seat of 

one side, he would sit next to her, and 

I would sit next to the fat, sweaty guy 

in the mesh shirt, which, by the way, I 

think should not be allowed on planes. 

I plan to introduce legislation on that. 

This went on for years. Tom would 

board first, get to a row, and take the 

aisle seat next to an attractive woman 

or quiet-looking, slender man, and I 

would sit next to the large loud guy 

who looked like he wanted to talk 

through the entire flight. I thought, 

what a coincidence, Tom’s aisle seat is 

always next to the more desirable 

seatmate. Finally I checked my ticket 

stub, and I saw that Tom had taken my 

seat. That is when I realized he had 

been doing this for years. He said: 

Yeah, I was just waiting for you to figure it out. Now, I really had to blame 

myself. Tom had played me, and it was 

my fault for being a kind of trusting 

idiot. 

Tom saved my butt on occasion. We 

used to go camping and fishing up in 

the Boundary Waters of the wilderness 

area between northern Minnesota and 

Canada. Tom was expert with a canoe, 

and I wasn’t. I really wasn’t. Once, we 

went up there in October. It was kind 

of cold, but we were catching a lot of 

walleye and having a great time. There 

were three of us—me, Tom, and our 

friend Jeff Frederick. We had put in for 

just one canoe. 

On the third evening I decided to fish 

from this point near our campsite on 

this island. I cast out and got my line 

caught in something, so I decided to go 

out alone in the canoe and untangle 

the line. So I am paddling out, and I 

get caught in this current and start 

getting carried away from the island 

we were camped on, and I start calling 

for help. Now, we are in the Quetico 

wilderness in Canada in October. We 

had not seen another human being in 

the 3 days we had been there. So Tom 

and Jeff come running and yelling and 

cursing at me because if I didn’t make 

it back with the canoe, they were pretty much stuck on this island for the 

winter, and I am probably dead because 

I have no gear, nothing, just the paddle, which isn’t doing me any good at 

this point. This is where Tom’s 

improvisational skills came in really 

handy because he talked me back. He 

was screaming and cursing, but he 

talked me out of the current that was 

carrying me away to my certain death, 

and I was able to circle back and get to 

the point—exhausted but so relieved. 

Maybe that is why I cut him some 

slack when he played me on the aisle 

seats years later. 

Now, speaking of cold, Tom and I 

were huge Vikings fans. We would go to 

the old Metropolitan Stadium during 

the Bud Grant years when Grant would 

not allow heaters on the side lines even 

when it was below zero. I once asked 

Bud Grant why he did that, and he 

said: There are certain things people 

can do when they are cold. 

Tom and I were there on a very cold 

winter afternoon at the Vikings-Cowboys playoff game, the one where 

Roger Staubach threw the Hail Mary 

that Drew Pearson pushed off on and 

caught for a touchdown—and he did 

push off. Senator HUTCHISON and Senator CORNYN need to go back to the 

videotape. Drew Pearson pushed off. It 

was offensive pass interference, and the 

Vikings should have won that game 

and gone to the Super Bowl. That is 

how I saw it, that is how Tom saw it, 

and that is how the fan who threw the 

whiskey bottle from the bleachers and 

knocked the ref out saw it. Tom and I 

both saw the bottle glinting in the cold 

winter Sun as it arced from the bleachers. We were stunned when it hit the 

ref right in the forehead. That was not 

Minnesota nice. 

Tom and I suffered through four 

Super Bowl losses and through last season. As sick as he was, Tom watched 

our Vikings and complained bitterly to 

me on the phone later on Sunday. 

Tom and I went to a lot of Grateful 

Dead shows together—more than even 

Senator LEAHY. Tom and I went to a 

lot of New Year’s Eve Dead shows. This 

year I went up to New York to celebrate New Year’s with Tom and Mimi 

at their home. We knew this would 

probably be his last, and at midnight 

we turned on the Dead and we danced. 

Now, unlike me, Tom became an accomplished guitarist, and he could sit 

in with rock or blues bands. Tom was a 

terrible student in high school, but the 

fact is he was a renaissance man. He 

loved to read history, philosophy, and 

fiction. He devoted a lot of his last 

years to his art, sculpting solely from 

found objects from the creek that ran 

by his house in upstate New York. 

Tom was an original. Some time ago, 

Tom and I talked about writing something for this occasion, but about a 

year or so ago he wrote a piece for a 

literary magazine that, to me, said 

what needed to be said. It was Tom and 

his take on what he was facing. It is 

called ‘‘The Dark Side of Death.’’ I decided to read from it, with a few edits 

for the Senate floor, and I ask that the 

piece in its entirety, with some other 

edits, be printed in the RECORD at the 

conclusion of my remarks. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection it is so ordered. 

(See exhibit 1.) 

Mr. FRANKEN. ‘‘The Dark Side of 

Death’’ by Tom Davis. 

The good news: my chemotherapy is working and I’m still buying green bananas. I’ve 

lost about 50 pounds. (I need to lose 49.) . . . 

False hope is my enemy, also self pity, which 

went out the window when I saw children 

with cancer. I try to embrace the inevitable 

with whatever grace I can muster, and find 

the joy in each day. I’ve always been good at 

that, but now I’m getting really good at 

that. 

I wake up in the morning, delighted to be 

waking up, read, write, feed the birds, watch 

sports on TV, accepting the fact that in the 

foreseeable future I will be a dead person. I 

want to remind you that dead people are people too. There are good dead people and bad 

dead people. Some of my best friends are 

dead people. Dead people have fought in 

every war. We are all going to try it sometime. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5366 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 25, 2012 

Fortunately for me, I have always enjoyed 

mystery and solitude. 

Many people in my situation say, ‘‘It’s 

been my worst and best year.’’ If that sounds 

like a cliche, you don’t have cancer. On the 

plus side, I am grateful to have gained real, 

not just intellectual empathy. I was prepared 

to go through life without having suffered, 

and I was doing a good job of it. Now I know 

what it’s like to starve. And to accept ‘‘that 

over which I have no control,’’ I had to turn 

inward. People from all over my life are reconnecting with me, and I’ve tried to take 

responsibility for my deeds, good and bad. 

I think I’ve finally grown up. 

It is odd to have so much time to orchestrate the process of my own death. I’m improvising. I’ve never done this before, so far 

as I know. Ironically, I will probably outlive 

one or two people to whom I’ve already said 

goodbye. My life has been rife with irony; 

why stop now? 

As an old-school Malthusian liberal, I’ve 

always believed that the source of all mankind’s problems is overpopulation. I’m finally going to do something about it. 

Tom faced death with humor and 

courage. 

Rest in peace. 

EXHIBIT 1 

THE DARK SIDE OF DEATH

(By Tom Davis). 

The good news: my chemotherapy is working and I’m still buying green bananas. 

The bad news: two years ago, before we 

knew it as MDD (Michael Douglas Disease), I 

was diagnosed with tonsorial squamous cell 

carcinoma, a/k/a head and neck cancer. After 

surgery, I elected to go with radiation therapy sans complementary chemo, which was 

probably a big mistake. The malignancy unexpectedly spread to the bones of my pelvis 

and lower spine, where it has been munching 

away without thought of its host’s wellbeing. It’s now described as ‘‘exotic and aggressive,’’ but it’s getting its cancerous ass 

kicked by taxotere, a drug that imitates the 

chemistry of the European Yew tree. Made in 

China, of course. I’ll be using it, or a related 

drug ‘‘for the rest of my life,’’ which could be 

as long as two more high-quality-of-life 

years. I’d be thrilled with that. 

There are side effects, the two weirdest 

being a ‘‘recall effect,’’ in which radiation 

sores reappear, and neuropathy in my fingernails, which are in the unpleasant process of 

falling off. Ow. I’ve lost hair from all over 

my body. With only a little bit of white fluff 

on my head, I visited my mother, who suffers 

from Alzheimer’s disease in Minneapolis. 

‘‘Now I want you to take all your medicine 

and your hair will grow back,’’ she said 

cheerfully. ‘‘I think you look a little like 

that bird Woodstock in Peanuts.’’ I’ll take 

that; better than Uncle Fester. 

My old comedy partner (Senator) Al 

Franken, volunteered to draw my hair back 

on with a magic marker, which would be 

funny for about two days. We’re planning to 

write something for him to read once I deanimate, the final Franken and Davis piece. 

We’ll see. Typically, we would wait until the 

last minute. 

I’ve lost about 50 pounds. (I needed to lose 

49.) It’s great to wear jeans from the 70s, although I remember making a few people 

laugh when I said I would save them in case 

I got cancer. Once, in the early eighties, 

Franken and Davis appeared on the David 

Letterman Show as ‘‘The Comedy Team that 

Weighs the Same,’’ a piece so stupid it was 

really funny. We dressed in bathrobes and 

Speedos for the final weigh-in on a huge 

scale. David asked if any other comedy team 

had weighed the same, and I said ‘‘Laurel 

and Hardy, but only near the end of Ollie’s 

life,’’ which got a good groan laugh. Maybe I 

tempted fate a little too often. 

My grocer at the Claverack Market, Ted 

the Elder, recently asked if I had heard that 

there are two stages in life: ‘‘youth,’’ and 

‘‘you look great.’’ Wish I’d thought of that. 

Several close friends have asked if I was 

aware of alternative medicines, therapies, 

protocols, doctors, clinics, and books. One offered personal testimony. His colon cancer 

was supposed to have killed him several 

years ago. He attributes his survival to an 

exclusive diet of blueberry smoothies. 

My fear is not death; my fear is spending 

my last years slurping blueberry, whey and 

soy powder shakes in a rock star hospital in 

Houston, surrounded by strangers. No. 

False hope is my enemy, also self pity, 

which went out the window when I saw children with cancer. I try to embrace the inevitable with whatever grace I can muster, and 

find the joy in each day. I’ve always been 

good at that, but now I’m getting really good 

at it. 

I wake up in the morning, delighted to be 

waking up, read, write, feed the birds, watch 

sports on TV, accepting the fact that in the 

foreseeable future I will be a dead person. I 

want to remind you that dead people are people too. There are good dead people and bad 

dead people. Some of my best friends are 

dead people. Dead people have fought in 

every war. We’re all going to try it sometime. 

Fortunately for me, I have always enjoyed 

mystery and solitude. 

Many people in my situation say, ‘‘It’s 

been my worst and best year.’’ If that sounds 

like a cliche ́, you don’t have cancer. On the 

plus side, I am grateful to have gained real, 

not just intellectual empathy. I was prepared 

to go through life without having suffered, 

and I was doing a good job of it. Now I know 

what it’s like to starve. And to accept ‘‘that 

over which I have no control,’’ I had to turn 

inward. People from all over my life are reconnecting with me, and I’ve tried to take 

responsibility for my deeds, good and bad. As 

my friend Timothy Leary said in his book, 

Death by Design, ‘‘Even if you’ve been a 

complete slob your whole life, if you can end 

the last act with panache, that’s what they’ll 

remember.’’ 

I think I’ve finally grown up. 

It is odd to have so much time to orchestrate the process of my own death. I’m improvising. I’ve never done this before, so far 

as I know. Ironically, I probably will outlive 

one or two people to whom I’ve already said 

goodbye. My life has been rife with irony; 

why stop now? 

As an old-school Malthusian liberal, I’ve 

always believed that the source of all mankind’s problems is overpopulation. I’m finally going to do something about it. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa. 

THE FARM BILL

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the 

Senate passed a farm bill a few weeks 

ago—a pretty good farm bill. The 

House Agriculture Committee has reported out of its committee a farm bill, 

and now the discussion of whether we 

have a farm bill is a decision to be 

made by the leadership of the House, of 

whether a farm bill should come up. So 

I wish to speak about the necessity of 

a farm and nutrition bill being passed. 

It is called a farm and nutrition bill 

because about 80 percent of a farm 

bill’s expenditures are related to the 

food stamp program. If we can get this 

bill completed and to the President’s 

desk, it will be the eighth farm bill I 

have had a chance to participate in. 

Every 5 years or so, Congress debates, changes, argues over, and ultimately passes a farm and nutrition 

bill—not always of that title but pretty 

much of that content. This time should 

be no different. We need to get the job 

done. I understand there are folks who 

want to see more cuts here or there, 

and there are folks who want to spend 

more here or there. Those are very important discussions to have. We should 

have a healthy debate on how to 

tweak, reform, and reshape the policies 

in the bill, whether it is in regard to 

programs affecting farmers or the portion of the bill that receives the overwhelming share of the dollars, as I 

said, the nutrition title. 

We had those debates in the Senate 

Agriculture Committee. We had those 

debates on the Senate floor. The House 

Agriculture Committee has had those 

debates. Now I hope their product can 

be brought up on the Senate floor. In 

fact, I am more than happy to debate 

these various issues with some of my 

friends on the House Agriculture Committee—why setting high target prices, 

as they did, is the wrong direction for 

Congress to take and how the House 

should adopt the payment limit reforms the Senate has embraced, provisions of the farm bill in the Senate 

that I got included. I am sure many on 

the House Agriculture Committee 

would be more than happy to debate 

with me the merits of having a more 

balanced approach to where we find 

savings in the bill by taking an equal 

portion from the nutrition title and 

the farm-related titles. We should find 

more savings for sure than what is contained in the Senate-passed farm bill, 

including saving more out of the nutrition title, as the House Agriculture 

Committee has been able to do. 

But the fact is we have to keep moving the ball forward, regardless of how 

we feel about all these separate parts 

of a farm bill. We need to get to finality. We have a drought gripping this 

Nation and that is going to be tough on 

Americans. It is going to affect every 

American, not just the 2 percent of the 

people who are farmers, because it is 

going to cause food prices to go up. But 

the drought has drawn into focus just 

how important our farmers are to our 

food supply. 

Americans enjoy a safe and abundant 

food supply. That is because of the 

hard work and dedication of so many 

farming families throughout our country. Sometimes weather conditions or 

other events outside farmers’ control 

can make it difficult to keep farming. 

Farmers aren’t looking for a handout, 

but when faced with conditions such as 

a near-historic drought, many farmers 

may need assistance to get through. 

Men and women go into farming for all 

sorts of reasons, but at the heart of 

farming is the desire to be successful at 

producing an abundant crop to feed the 

Nation and the world. 

Farmers have many tools to manage 

their risks so they can keep producing 

food. They have adopted advanced 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 25, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5367 

technology such as drought-resistant 

crops. Farmers buy crop insurance. In 

my State of Iowa, about 92 percent of 

the farmers have crop insurance. Livestock farmers help animals manage 

heat by building climate-controlled 

buildings. But when faced with weather 

conditions such as we are currently 

dealing with, even the best laid plans 

may not keep the farming operation 

afloat. That is where the Federal Government comes in. We help provide a 

safety net. 

Let me say just how that drought affects crops. I just read in the newspaper something put out by some government agency that said about 55 percent of the landmass of the United 

States is in a drought condition right 

now. In my State of Iowa and many 

other Midwestern States, on an average of about 22 years, we face drought 

situations that are catastrophic for 

crops. Actually, the last one was in 

1988, so now we are having one in my 

State of Iowa and that is 24 years. But, 

on average, it happens about that long. 

So we see the need for something that 

is beyond farmers’ control. We can’t do 

anything if it doesn’t rain when it is 

supposed to rain, and right now is one 

of those most important times when 

crops need rain. So why do we provide 

the safety net? Because the American 

people understand how important the 

production of food is to our food supply 

and farmers doing that production. 

It is a matter of national security. It 

has been said we are only nine meals 

away from a revolution. If people were 

without food, this argument goes, they 

would do whatever it takes to get food 

for themselves and their families. It 

has only been 3 years, I believe, in 

some places in the world where they 

had riots that were national problems—not just local problems but national problems—because of a shortage 

of rice. That is a staple in many countries; I suppose particularly of Asia. So 

we have to have a stable food supply if 

we are not going to have social upheaval. 

The need for food can also be illustrated by looking at military history. 

In other words, a food supply is very 

important for our national security. It 

may be a joke, but Napoleon supposedly said ‘‘an army marches on its 

stomachs.’’ But we also know from 

modern history, if we consider World 

War II on this very day, 60 or 70 years 

after World War II, why the Japanese 

and the Germans protect their farmers 

so much with safety nets of various 

sorts. Because they know what it was 

like during wartime not to have adequate food as a part of national security. A well-fed military is one ready to 

fight and to defend. 

There is nothing more basic than 

making sure the Nation’s food supply 

is secure, whether it is to prevent social upheaval or for our national security or maybe for a lot of other reasons. In order to have stability in our 

food system, we need to have the safety 

net available to assist farmers through 

the tough times so they can keep producing food. 

I have not always agreed with the 

policies set in each and every farm bill 

Congress has passed—of the eight I 

have been involved in. In fact, there 

have been times in which I voted 

against individual farm bills because I 

didn’t agree with the policy being set. 

However, I support, to a large extent, 

what we accomplished in the Senatepassed farm bill last month. Obviously, 

I didn’t agree with everything, particularly with the lack of savings we captured from the nutrition title. But, for 

the most part, we passed a bill that 

embraced real reform in the farm program that still provides an effective 

safety net. 

Whether it is the Senate bill that cut 

back $23 billion from the present farm 

program or whether it is the House bill 

that seems to cut back $35 billion, I 

will bet this is the only piece of legislation that can possibly get to the President’s desk this year that is going to 

save money rather than if it had just 

been simply extended. I would think 

people who want to set a record of fiscal conservatism for the upcoming 

election would be very anxious to take 

up a bill the Congressional Budget Office says saves either $23 billion or $35 

billion. 

So I say mostly to the other body, 

because right now that is where the action is and where we hope it will take 

place, we should not delay any longer. 

The farm bill is too important to all 

Americans to leave it in limbo. We 

need to get a farm bill to the President. The farm bill is approximately 80 

percent nutrition programs. Most of 

the people who benefit are not farmers. 

Then, the other 20 percent is a safety 

net for farmers but also for all the programs the Department of Agriculture 

administers. 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

BEGICH). Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, 

before I go into the closing business, 

let me say I had the pleasure of presiding in this body during the remarks 

that were just made by the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator LIEBERMAN

of Connecticut, the distinguished ranking member of that committee, Senator COLLINS of Maine, and the distinguished chairman of the Commerce 

Committee and, until recently, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, 

Senator ROCKEFELLER of West Virginia. 

I simply want, briefly, to add my 

voice to theirs and echo the three 

points they emphasized: One, we absolutely must take action on cybersecurity; two, it is a genuine and undeniable matter of our American national 

security; and, three, we cannot claim 

to have done the job, we cannot claim 

to even have attempted the job seriously if we do not address the question 

of the critical infrastructure on which 

American life and our economy depend 

that is in private hands and, therefore, 

cannot be protected under the existing 

regime in place protecting our government and military networks. We have 

to solve that problem. Anything that 

does not solve that problem is a clear 

failure of our duty, as national security experts from Republican and 

Democratic administrations alike have 

very clearly explained. 

f 

MORNING BUSINESS 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning 

business, with Senators permitted to 

speak therein for up to 10 minutes 

each. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

REMEMBERING SALLY RIDE 

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I know 

that you and all of our colleagues will 

want to join me today in paying tribute to Dr. Sally Ride, the first American woman to fly in space, who died 

peacefully on Monday at her home in 

San Diego, CA. Sally Ride was 61 years 

old. 

Dr. Ride was a physicist, an astronaut, a science writer, and the president and CEO of Sally Ride Science, a 

nonprofit company dedicated to realizing her lifelong passion for motivating young people to stick with their 

interests in science and to consider 

pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering, and math. 

Sally Ride was born and grew up in 

Encino, CA. As a young girl, she was 

encouraged by her parents to pursue 

her two passionate interests: science 

and sports. At Stanford University, she 

studied physics, astrophysics, and 

English literature while becoming the 

school’s number one women’s tennis 

player. When asked what had made her 

choose science over tennis, she joked, 

‘‘A bad forehand.’’ 

In 1977, as she was about to complete 

her Ph.D. in physics, Sally read that 

NASA was looking for astronauts and, 

for the first time, was allowing women 

to apply. From a group of 8,000 applicants, NASA selected 29 men and 6 

women—including Sally Ride—as astronaut candidates in January 1978. 

The following year, she qualified for 

assignment on a space shuttle flight 

crew. 

On June 18, 1983, Sally Ride made history as the first American woman in 

space, part of a 147-hour mission 

aboard the shuttle Challenger. She later 

said, ‘‘The thing that I’ll remember 

most about the flight is that it was 

fun. In fact, I’m sure it was the most 

fun I’ll ever have in my life.’’ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE