July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5705 

RECESS 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the Senate stands 

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

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

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

f 

EBB). 

CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2012— 

Continued 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland. 

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am 

so glad the Presiding Officer is in the 

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

Officer for his service in the Senate and 

his service to the Nation. One knows he 

is a member of the U.S. Marine Corps 

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

marine. And his service in Vietnam and 

to the Nation as Secretary of the Navy 

is well known and well appreciated. 

The Presiding Officer has served as a 

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

Party. The Presiding Officer really 

serves the Nation. 

I come to the floor today to talk 

about cyber security and the need to 

pass cyber security legislation this 

week, in this body. And I come to the 

floor not as a Democrat, I come to the 

floor as a patriot. 

I say to my colleagues in the Senate 

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

have pending before us cyber security 

legislation, a framework to protect 

critical infrastructure of the dot-com 

world against cyber attacks from those 

who have predatory, hostile intent to 

the United States of America. We are 

bogged down. We are not moving. We 

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

when all is said and done, more is going 

to get said than gets done. 

But I say to anyone listening and 

anyone watching, we cannot let that 

happen. The United States of America 

is in danger. And this danger is not 

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

This is not the wave that is going to 

come. It is happening right now in 

cyber attacks on our banking services, 

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

more. 

The naysayers here say: We can’t 

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

the private sector to spend one dime on 

protecting itself. 

Well, I respect healthy criticism, but 

let me say to my friends, because I 

want them to know that if anything 

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

goes down, if our banking system goes 

down, if we will not be able to function 

because the streetlights won’t be on 

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

happen. Once again, politicians will 

overreact, we will overregulate, and we 

will overspend. 

In a very judicious, well-thought-out, 

well-discussed process, we could come 

up with a legislative framework that 

would defend the United States of 

America and at the same time balance 

that sensible center that another great 

patriot, Colin Powell, calls us to do: 

Always look for the middle ground 

while we look at where we want to go. 

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

terrorists are thinking every single day 

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

to humiliate and intimidate the United 

States of America and cause catastrophic economic destruction. How do 

they want to do it? They want to take 

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

to disrupt the financial functioning of 

the United States of America. Cyber 

spies are working at breakneck speed 

to steal many of our state secrets. 

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

this bill? We are talking about critical 

infrastructure. 

Now, I am a Senator from Maryland, 

and the Presiding Officer is a Senator 

from Virginia. Does he remember that 

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

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

was like in Baltimore when that freaky 

storm hit. You couldn’t get around 

when the stoplights were down. It was 

like the Wild West getting around. You 

could go into stores—if they were 

open—and nothing functioned. The 

lights weren’t on. The refrigeration 

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

dollars. There were families, like a 

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

days who went to hotel rooms. 

Now, they want to talk about this 

bill costing too much money? Just look 

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

because of a freaky storm. 

It took us 5 days to get the utilities 

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

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

America and we can’t get them turned 

back on? It is going to cost too much? 

Wait until this kind of thing happens. 

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

prevent it from happening, and we can 

do it in a way that understands the 

needs of business. 

I want to understand the needs of 

small business, but I sure understand 

the needs of families. 

For those who say it is going to cost 

too much and they have the concerns 

of the chamber of commerce, fine. I 

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

the electricity goes down. My father 

lost thousands of dollars because the 

frozen food melted, lost thousands of 

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

meats and produce went bad. My father 

lost thousands of dollars years ago in a 

freaky storm. 

This bill means that if we come up 

with the kind of legislation that we 

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

It means the financial services. It 

means the grid. So when there is no 

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

crippled, no traffic lights are working. 

By the way, in Virginia didn’t 9–1-1 

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

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

but I sure want the Senate to be able 

to get going. 

Then there is the issue of financial 

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

account attacks where cyber criminals 

have made unauthorized transfers from 

bank accounts of U.S. businesses. The 

FBI tells me they are looking at the 

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

Exchange, they are already going into 

NASDAQ in an attempt to shut down 

or steal information. Gosh, if we allow 

this to continue, they could attack and 

cost us billions of dollars. 

Does the Presiding Officer remember 

that in 2010 we had a flash crash? New 

vocabulary, new things out there. The 

Dow plunged 1,000 points in a matter of 

minutes because automatic computer 

traders shut down. This was the result 

of turbulent trading. But just imagine 

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

going to name them, but we really 

know who they are—really create flash 

crashes? 

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

Nation in other wars. They have said 

themselves that they worry about the 

Asia Pacific, they worry about China. I 

worry about China too. So while we are 

looking at the Defense authorization 

and appropriations—and people want 

more aircraft carriers to defend us in 

the blue waters against China. But 

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

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

so. 

I salute Senators LIEBERMAN and 

COLLINS. They have come forth with a 

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

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

will get liability protection. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5706 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 31, 2012 

Wow. In other words, we are actually 

going to offer incentives. We are actually going to offer good-guy bonuses. 

We are not going to do it through tax 

breaks or more things that add to the 

deficit or debt. We are going to say: 

Come on in. Participate in both the 

setting of standards—we want you at 

the table—and then living by the 

standards, and for that, you will get liability protection. 

There are also those who say: We just 

don’t like Department of Homeland Security being in charge. We worry about 

a cyber Katrina. 

I worried about that too, but I must 

say that in all of our meetings, we can 

see that the Department of Homeland 

Security has made tremendous advances. I have been one of their sharpest critics in this area, and I have been 

skeptical from the beginning. But now, 

as we have moved along and listening 

to Secretary Napolitano and General 

Alexander, the head of the National Security Agency, on how they can work 

together honoring the Constitution and 

civil liberties, I think we have a good 

bill. 

Why do we need this bill? General 

Alexander, who heads up the National 

Security Agency and the Cyber Command, says that we are facing attacks 

and the potential of attacks that are 

mind-boggling. He talks about the 

stealing of trade secrets that amounts 

to the greatest transfer of wealth the 

country has ever seen. He worries 

about the security of the grid. He worries about financial services, while he 

also worries very much about the dotcom. 

But we live in the United States of 

America. We have a constitutional government. Our military, no matter how 

powerful and how strong, has a responsibility to certain areas, but we need a 

civilian agency in charge of how to protect dot-com, a civilian agency benefiting from the incredible turbo intellectual and technical power of the National Security Agency. 

So we have a bill that offers the 

framework. I would say, let’s have the 

bill, let’s vote for cloture, and let’s 

have regular order with actual germane amendments. We have patriots 

here, but who are we for? Are we for 

protecting America or are we for coming up with the same old platitudes 

that resist any activity of government 

at all to protect the American people? 

I am no Janie-come-lately to this 

bill. I represent one of the greatest 

States in America. We are home to the 

National Security Agency. I have the 

high honor of being on the Intelligence 

Committee. I have been working on 

this topic for almost a decade, and I 

have watched the threat grow as I 

watched the technology against us 

grow in power and the number of people who could attack us in this area. 

I sit on the Appropriation Committee, where, as a member of the DOD 

appropriations, I have been proud to 

work with both the authorizers and 

Senator INOUYE to stand up for Cyber 

Command, the Tenth Fleet, which is 

the cyber fleet, and others relating to 

it. But also what I have been proud of 

is being able to take a look at what we 

do need to do here in terms of everything from workforce to protecting 

others. 

My subcommittee funds the FBI. 

Working with Director Mueller, I have 

been able to see up close and personal 

the growing threats right here in the 

United States of America, whether 

cyber criminals can literally invade 

large banking. I could give example 

after example. Working also with other 

departments, we can see that there are 

cyber-attacks. We need to be able to do 

this. 

I could give other examples and I will 

do so in the debate, but let me summarize. The attacks are now. The question 

is, are we going to build a cyber bomb 

shelter? This is not like the bunkers of 

old. This is where we work with the 

private sector. Remember, our grid and 

our telecommunications are owned and 

operated by the private sector. We cannot do this without the private sector. 

We, your government, come together 

with a legislative framework that is 

constitutionally sound and legally reliable. The fact is that we will make the 

best and highest use of our military 

under that rubric. But at the end of the 

day we will be able to have a voluntary 

framework bringing the private sector 

together with incentives around liability that invite them to participate in 

the formulation of the regulation, the 

implementation of the regulation, and 

living by it. This is not regulation that 

leads to strangulation, this is regulation that helps them be able to protect 

the United States of America. 

Let me conclude. Everybody says: 

Gee, what could I do? Could I have protected against an attack on the United 

States of America? What is the name of 

that little-known group you didn’t 

know how to spell years ago? Al-Qaida? 

Would we have done everything in the 

world to protect against the al-Qaida 

attack? I certainly would. I say today, 

if you want to protect against the next 

big attacks on the United States of 

America, vote for cloture. Let’s have 

an informed debate. Let’s find at the 

end of the day the sensible center that 

will give us a constitutional but effective way of defending America. 

I yield the floor. 

I suggest the absence of quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant bill clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The Senator from Wyoming. 

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent to speak as in 

morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

SECOND OPINION

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I 

come to the floor today, as I do week 

after week—as a doctor who has practiced medicine in Wyoming and taken 

care of families in Wyoming across our 

State for a quarter of a century—to 

give a doctor’s second opinion about 

the health care law. 

One of the central claims of President Obama and Democrats in Washington who voted in this Senate Chamber was that the health care law would 

extend insurance coverage for millions 

of Americans. That was their goal. 

They claim that is actually what has 

happened. The President claimed repeatedly that 30 million more Americans would receive health coverage because of the health care law. 

Well, after practicing medicine for 25 

years, I understand there is a huge difference between health coverage and 

health care. When people have a health 

insurance card, then they have coverage. When people have access to a 

doctor, nurse, nurse practitioner, or 

physician’s assistant, then they can receive health care. 

The New York Times actually pointed that out this Sunday morning. It 

was the front page, above the fold. 

They proclaimed in the first paragraph 

of an article that the President’s 

health care law delivers coverage but 

not care. As a matter of fact, when I 

take a look at this article dated Sunday, July 29, 2012, of the New York 

Times, page 1, above the fold, ‘‘Doctor 

Shortage Likely to Worsen with Health 

Law,’’ underneath it says that primary 

care is scarce, in bold letters, and beyond that it says: Expanded coverage 

but a greater strain on a burdened system. 

The story highlights a study from the 

Association of American Medical Colleges, which found that in 2015, just 3 

years from now, the country will face a 

shortage of over 60,000 doctors. By 2025, 

the shortage is expected to expand to 

approximately 130,000. 

So while the Nation was already facing this shortage, the article points out 

it has been made worse by the President’s health care law. The shortage of 

providers is very important because, as 

the article states, ‘‘Coverage will not 

necessarily translate into care.’’ This 

is especially true for those individuals 

who are supposed to receive their 

health care through Medicaid. Let’s remember, a huge expansion of Medicaid 

was part of the President’s health care 

law. It was part of the discussion in the 

Supreme Court, the decision they came 

out with. Of course, Medicaid is the 

program that provides health care for 

low-income Americans. 

The President’s health care law contained one of the largest expansions of 

Medicaid in the program’s history. The 

President chose to expand the program 

despite the fact that fewer than half of 

the primary care clinicians would accept new Medicaid patients as of 2008. 

Fewer than half of the primary care 

clinicians were accepting new Medicaid 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5707 

patients. Yet that is from where the 

President chose to build his health care 

reform. 

Some might ask: Why is it that so 

many primary care physicians are not 

seeing Medicaid patients? It is because 

the reimbursements provided to doctors are so low that many can’t afford 

to see Medicaid patients and continue 

to keep their doors open. Unfortunately, the outlook for Medicaid in this 

country has not improved. 

USA Today reported in July that 13 

States are moving to cut Medicaid 

even further by doing a couple of 

things. They want to reduce benefits, 

they want to pay health providers less, 

or tighten eligibility for the program. 

So the program the President highlights as one of the cores of his health 

care law is already in significant trouble, is not functioning, and is getting 

worse. 

The State of Illinois has imposed a 

new limit on the number of prescription drugs that a patient who is on 

Medicaid can receive. This cap was imposed as part of a plan to cut $1.6 billion from the States’ Medicaid Program. 

Mark Heyrman, a professor at the 

University of Chicago Law School, told 

the Chicago Tribune that the prescription drug limits amount to a denial of 

service. So that is what we are looking 

at now. Yet this is the basis upon 

which the President has built his 

health care law. 

According to the most recent estimate by the Congressional Budget Office, over one-third of the people expected to gain insurance coverage 

under the President’s health care law 

are supposed to do it through this Medicaid Program. Clearly, with States 

being forced to cut back their existing 

Medicaid Program, there are many 

people who are not going to get the 

care they were promised through the 

President’s health care law. For those 

who can find a physician, many of 

these patients will have to commute 

longer distances and will also have to 

endure longer waiting times just to get 

the treatment they are seeking. 

Some experts have described this as 

an invisible problem, and they say that 

is because people may still get care, 

but the process of receiving that care 

will be more difficult. 

The chief executive of the California 

Medical Association says, ‘‘It results in 

delayed care and higher levels of acuity’’—the seriousness of the injury or 

illness to that patient when they finally get the care they need. When care 

is delayed, medical problems can become much more serious, and that 

forces patients to seek treatment 

through other settings. One of the 

prime examples of that is heading to 

the emergency room. 

Well, the whole goal, I remember, of 

the debate on the Senate floor in listening to my colleagues on the other 

side of the aisle was that patients 

under the President’s health care law, 

the Democrats claimed, would be able 

to get to see a primary care doctor and 

would not have to go to the emergency 

room. However, that is not what we are 

finding under the President’s health 

care law. We are finding just the opposite of what the President promised. 

That is why the Medical College of 

Emergency Physicians told the Wall 

Street Journal: 

While there are provisions in the law to 

benefit emergency care patients, it is clear 

that emergency visits will increase, as we 

have already seen nationwide. 

So the President says one thing and 

the American College of Emergency 

Physicians is telling us what they are 

seeing on a daily basis in emergency 

rooms across the country. 

To put it another way, since the 

President’s health care law exacerbated the shortage of providers, more 

patients are seeking treatment in 

emergency rooms. This is not what the 

American people were looking for in 

health reform. Instead of making 

empty promises, supporters of the 

health care law should have dealt with 

the issues that are already causing 

many doctors to rethink their medical 

career. 

For example, supporters of the law 

absolutely refused to deal with the 

crushing burden of the medical lawsuit 

abuse. It is an abusive situation that is 

forcing doctors to practice a significant amount of defensive medicine, 

which is very expensive. It is expensive 

for individual patients as well as expensive for the system. 

The Harvard School of Public Health 

found that these costs amount to 2.4 

percent of annual health spending in 

the United States or $55 billion in 2008. 

That is the Harvard School of Public 

Health. There are other estimates out 

there which go with much higher numbers. Apparently supporters of the law 

thought it was more important to help 

trial lawyers instead of patients. 

As a matter of fact, Howard Dean, 

chairman of the Democratic National 

Committee, has said they left lawsuit 

abuse out of the health care law because of the significant impact that 

trial lawyers have as contributors to 

the Democratic Party. So here we are. 

Additionally, the health care law 

does nothing to stop the crushing burden of government regulations and paperwork that is consuming the health 

care profession. 

Finally, many people choose to become doctors because they enjoy being 

able to innovate and create the next 

generation of devices and treatments. 

Unfortunately, that is changing as a 

result of the significant taxes that are 

part of the health care law. 

In an article published on Friday, we 

have learned that Cook Medical, which 

is a medical device company in Indiana, announced that it was scrapping 

plans to expand because of the President’s health care law. There are similar companies in States all across the 

country, many with large medical institutions who have a history of the 

best innovation in the land—and actually in the world—that are faced with 

these medical device taxes, not on profit but on the gross amount of money 

sales. The company said the 2.3-percent 

medical device tax contained in the 

law would stop the company from 

opening five new plants in the United 

States and add approximately 300 new 

good-paying jobs. 

The Senate should also know that 

this Cook Medical Company produces 

medical devices that address women’s 

health issues. Specifically, the company produces products related to 

gynecologic surgery, obstetrics, and assisted reproduction, to name a few. 

Therefore, the President’s health care 

law is actually hurting the ability of 

Cook Medical and other companies to 

provide American women with access 

to cutting-edge medical technology. 

Why? Because of the device tax, which 

I believe—I believe we should repeal 

the entire law, but clearly we have introduced legislation to repeal the medical device tax. It is a bipartisan piece 

of legislation supported from both parties and should be passed immediately. 

It seems Democrats are reluctant to 

look at parts of the health care law and 

repeal the law. 

All this means medicine is becoming 

less of an attractive career choice for 

many young people across the country. 

As CNN stated in a headline from July 

29, just 2 days ago, ‘‘Your health care is 

covered, but who’s going to treat you?’’ 

The President and Washington Democrats did not seem interested in addressing this question when the health 

care law was passed. More effort was 

put into hiring IRS agents to look into 

whether a person had insurance than to 

actually see if there were doctors, 

nurses, nurse practitioners, physician 

assistants, and others to care for patients. Instead of focusing on policies 

that would give incentives for more 

people to become health care providers, 

they filled their law with empty promises the American people know today 

have not been kept. 

It is time for Congress to repeal the 

President’s health care law and replace 

it with real reforms that will improve 

the ability of patients to get the care 

they need from the doctor they choose 

at a lower cost. 

That is why I come to the floor with 

a doctor’s second opinion about a 

health care law which as the front page 

of the Sunday New York Times said: 

‘‘Doctor Shortage Likely to Worsen 

with Health Law.’’ Primary care is 

scarce. Expanded coverage but a greater strain on a burdened system. 

As I have been saying for a number of 

years on the Senate floor, coverage will 

not necessarily translate into care. 

Thank you. I yield the floor, and I 

note the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

FRANKEN). The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant bill clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5708 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 31, 2012 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the bill 

pending before us is the Cybersecurity 

Act of 2012, as it is known, and for most 

people it is a term which they may 

have heard but may not fully understand. 

It was about 2 months ago that Members of the Senate, including the Presiding Officer, were invited to a classified briefing. It was a briefing that 

Senator MIKULSKI of Maryland asked 

for to explain what this was all about 

because we had been hearing over and 

over again from the defense establishment in America that the No. 1 threat 

to America’s safety and security was 

no longer just terrorism; it was cyber 

security threats and terrorism. For 

most people, they are not quite sure 

they have seen any examples of it that 

could make a difference. 

So here is what we saw. They took us 

down to this classified room, closed the 

door, took away our BlackBerries and 

iPhones, and put them in a separate 

place—and I will explain why they did 

that in a moment—they took us in the 

room and briefed us on an example, 

just a theory. What if? What if a subcontracting company that supplied a 

major public utility in a city such as 

New York had a problem and someone 

stole a laptop from one of the employees, and that theft went unnoticed or 

unreported for a number of days, and 

then the laptop either reappeared or 

did not, what could happen? 

Well, what could happen was, if that 

laptop computer had certain information in it that not only told you how to 

get into the computer system of the 

subcontracting company but also the 

public utility, bad things could occur. 

So getting inside that computer laptop, 

getting inside the technology of the 

subcontractor, and then finding that 

information bridge into the public utility could create an opportunity to turn 

out the lights in the city of New York. 

That was the exercise we went 

through. God forbid it would ever 

occur, but they said: When you turn 

out the lights in a major American city 

such as New York, terrible things happen. Not only do traffic signals stop, 

and lights do not go on at night, and 

the New York Stock Exchange is not 

operating, hospitals are on emergency 

generators and problems start popping 

up in every single direction—water purification; the pumps that keep the 

subway system under the city of New 

York going so that the subway tunnels 

are not flooded—all of these things on 

top of one another. While this tragedy 

is occurring, the people in our government are trying to figure out: What 

happened? And how do we put things 

back into place and get them moving 

again? 

That was one example. 

There was another example. It was 

an example at one of our defense research laboratories. Top secret. Nobody 

can get in. Right? They told us of an 

example—and I will not even tell you 

the State where it was located—they 

told us of an example where the employees at our top defense research laboratory—who were trying to figure out 

countermeasures to stop attacks 

against the United States, and to develop our own weaponry—had what appeared to be a harmless e-mail sent to 

the employees saying: Explanation of 

Your New Health Care Benefits. Just 

Click Below. It turned out that click 

brought the hackers into the system. 

So what we are talking about here 

has consequences that go far beyond 

the harassment of some teenage hacker 

who is trying to get into some company computer or even the school’s 

computer. 

I was on a plane yesterday with a 

gentleman who is working for the National Institutes of Health. I asked him 

about cyber security. 

He said: We think about it every 

day—every day—because hackers are 

trying to get into the National Institutes of Health technology and computer system. 

I said: What for? 

He said: Well, some of them are in 

there for insidious reasons. But some of 

them are childish hackers. 

I said: What do they do? 

He said: Well, they will come in, for 

example, and change our published list 

of antidotes to certain poisons, so we 

always have to keep an eye on it to 

make sure they have not changed what 

people, doctors, should use across 

America. 

Think about it. Think about all of 

the possibilities. What we are trying to 

do today is to come up with a line of 

defense for America. We are trying to 

establish a working relationship between all levels of our government and 

the private sector of the United States 

to keep us safe. Because what they told 

us was, every single day, China, Russia, 

Iran are on the attack—cyber security 

attacks into the United States—not 

just the ones I have mentioned but far 

beyond. Defense contractors building 

the planes and the armaments and all 

the artillery and the like have to worry 

about whether their secret plans, their 

patented information is being stolen 

right from under them, stolen by someone who wants to compete with them 

or perhaps wants to go to war with 

them. That is what is at stake. 

So for a long time we have been 

warned and forewarned to do something about it. The bipartisan consensus among defense and intelligence 

experts in the public and private sector 

is that our Nation is dangerously vulnerable to cyber-attack at this moment. 

FBI Director Bob Mueller—an extraordinarily great public servant— 

says the threat our Nation faces from a 

cyber-attack will soon equal or surpass 

the threat from al-Qaida and more traditional forms of terrorism. 

Navy ADM Mike Mullen, Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs, said: ‘‘The cyber 

threat has no boundaries or rules, and 

the reality is that cyber attacks can 

bring us to our knees.’’ According to 

our Director of National Intelligence, 

James Clapper, countries such as Russia and China are already exploiting 

our vulnerability. His unclassified assessment—what he told the public—is 

that entities within these countries are 

already ‘‘responsible for extensive illicit intrusions into U.S. computer networks and theft of intellectual property.’’ 

We have to respond to this. We have 

to do it quickly. I wish to thank Senators LIEBERMAN, COLLINS, FEINSTEIN, 

and ROCKEFELLER for putting together 

this bill, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. 

They have introduced an approach that 

is balanced, bipartisan, and responsive 

to legitimate concerns raised by the intelligence community, private industry, and privacy advocates. The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 will help make us 

safer. 

Our Nation’s critical infrastructure— 

powerplants, pipelines, electrical grids, 

water treatment facilities, transportation systems, even financial networks—are increasingly vulnerable to 

attack. Bad actors in other countries 

have already demonstrated their ability to use the Internet to take control 

of computer systems. 

Last year, there was a 400-percent increase in cyber attacks on the owners 

of critical infrastructure. This act has 

provisions that will reduce our vulnerability and shore up our defenses. In response to concerns raised by some in 

the private sector and some on the 

other side of the aisle, Senators LIEBERMAN and COLLINS revised a section 

of the bill. The bill now creates a voluntary, incentive-based system of performance standards. Private companies 

and government agencies will work together to determine the best practices 

in each sector to prevent a cyber attack. Companies that voluntarily implement those standards will be rewarded with immunity from punitive 

damages in a lawsuit, receipt of realtime cyber threat information, and expedited security clearances, among 

other things. 

This voluntary arrangement replaces 

the mandatory system in an early 

version of the bill. Many of us supported that approach. But in the spirit 

of compromise and responding to concerns expressed by the business community, the managers have included 

this voluntary approach. The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 also authorizes voluntary information sharing. The sharing provision will allow government 

agencies and willing private companies 

to enhance the mutual understanding 

of the real threat and our vulnerabilities. 

Sharing this information on effective 

responses and recent cyber threats will 

enable both the government and the 

private sector to understand the threat 

and to respond. A handful of industries 

have already adopted this approach, 

and it significantly enhances their 

ability to identify and respond to cyber 

threats. We should empower the government to share its knowledge with 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5709 

these and other industries. We should 

make it clear the private companies 

can share cyber threat indicators with 

the government. That is exactly what 

this Act does. 

I wish to thank the Presiding Officer, 

Senator FRANKEN of Minnesota, as well 

as Senators COONS, BLUMENTHAL, SANDERS, and AKAKA for working with me 

and the managers to ensure that we 

protect privacy and civil liberties. The 

Presiding Officer is chair of the Privacy Subcommittee of the Judiciary 

Committee. He has been a real leader 

on these issues. I was happy to work 

with him. As a result of his efforts and 

our efforts, the willingness of Senators 

LIEBERMAN, COLLINS, ROCKEFELLER, 

and FEINSTEIN, we were able to significantly enhance the privacy and civil 

liberties protections in the revised bill. 

I believe—I have always believed and I 

will continue to believe—we can keep 

America safe and free. We can establish 

in our democratic society the appropriate defense to any threat without 

sacrificing our fundamental constitutional rights. 

The revised bill, after we negotiated 

with them, now requires that the government cyber security exchanges be 

operated by civilian agencies within 

the Federal Government. Our thinking 

was that these agencies are more prone 

to oversight, and any excesses by them 

will be caught earlier than if this is 

done on the military side, to be very 

blunt. 

Military and spy agencies should not 

be the first recipients of personal communications such as e-mails. But from 

time to time, they will need to be informed and we need to rely on their expertise. That is why the bill requires 

that relevant cyber threat information 

be shared with these agencies as appropriate in real time. 

The revised bill eliminates immunities for companies that violate the privacy rights of Americans in a knowing, 

intentional or grossly negligent manner. To ensure that cyber security exchanges are not used to circumvent the 

fourth amendment, the bill requires 

law enforcement to only use information from the cyber exchanges to stop 

cyber crimes, prevent imminent death 

or bodily harm to adults or prevent exploitation of minors. 

The revised bill creates a vigorous 

structure for strong, recurring, and 

independent oversight to guarantee 

transparency and accountability. It 

gives individuals authority to sue the 

government for privacy violations, to 

ensure compliance with the rules for 

protecting private information. These 

commonsense reforms improve the information-sharing section of the bill, 

and they protect privacy. That is why 

they have been widely embraced across 

the political spectrum from left to 

right. I think we have found the sweet 

spot. I think we have found the right 

balance. That kind of endorsement 

across the political spectrum suggests 

that is the case. 

We are very vulnerable in the United 

States at this very moment. Our critical infrastructure is at risk, and billions of dollars’ worth of intellectual 

property is being stolen. Our national 

security is compromised. To put the 

cyber threat in perspective, GEN Keith 

Alexander, Director of the National Security Agency, was asked: How prepared is the United States for a cyber 

attack on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 

meaning we are the most prepared. 

What was his answer? Three—three out 

of ten. That is an alarming assessment. 

It is a failing grade by any standard. 

If we do not act now, we will continue to be at risk for not only the loss 

of information and economic loss but 

even worse, mass casualties, a crippled 

economy, the compromise of sensitive 

data. I know this bill has some controversy associated with it. I know 

there are some in the business sector 

who think we have gone too far. I 

would plead with them, work with us. 

Let us do this and do it now. To let this 

wait is to jeopardize the security of 

this country. We did not think twice to 

respond quickly after the 9/11 attacks 

to make America safe. We see it everywhere we turn. If one can even imagine 

what life was like in the United States 

before 9/11, before we took our shoes off 

when we went to the airport, before 

searches were commonplace in American life, before armed guards stood 

outside the U.S. Capitol—those are the 

realities of what we face today because 

of that attack. 

Let’s be thoughtful. Let’s be careful. 

Let’s come together, the private and 

public sector. Let’s do this the right 

way to keep America safe. The people 

who sent us to represent them expect 

no less. 

FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES

Mr. President, the Senate HELP 

Committee released a report after completing a 2-year investigation of forprofit colleges. The 1,096-page report is 

the most comprehensive analysis yet. 

It provides a broad picture of the forprofit college industry. What Senator 

TOM HARKIN and the committee discovered and carefully documented is an industry driven by profit, which too 

often has limited concern for the students or the actual learning process. 

The report profiles 30 of the biggest 

for-profit colleges, virtually from every 

State in the Union, including Illinois. 

There are good schools there, make no 

mistake, and my colleague Senator 

HARKIN has been careful to point them 

out. But there are also some that are 

not making an effort. Some are trying 

to improve student outcomes. But unfortunately there are many of these 

for-profit schools that are just taking 

in, soaking in Federal subsidies in the 

form of student aid so they can pay 

their shareholders extra money. 

DeVry is the third largest for-profit 

college in the country. It is based in 

my State of Illinois. DeVry operates 96 

campuses and offers classes online. In 

2010, DeVry had over 100,000 students, 

an increase of 250 percent of enrollment 

in 10 years since the year 2000. It derives almost 80 percent of its revenue 

from the Federal Government. 

Similar to the other companies 

profiled in the report, DeVry’s tuition 

is significantly higher than that of 

public colleges. The cost of tuition for 

a bachelor of science in business administration at DeVry’s Chicago campus is $84,320—for a bachelor’s degree— 

considerably more than the same program at the University of Illinois, 

where the 4-year tuition is $75,000. 

DeVry looks good compared to many 

of its peers in the for-profit sector. Unlike some other schools, DeVry’s internal documents reveal the school has 

chosen not to use aggressive price increases in the future. I salute them for 

that. I have spoken to their leadership 

and told them that if they want to distance themselves from the pack of bad 

for-profit schools, they have do it by 

making decisions and implementing 

them to demonstrate they are a different kind of for-profit school. 

There are still areas where DeVry 

can make improvements. DeVry’s institutional loan program, a private 

loan program, charges a 12-percent interest rate—12 percent. The Federal 

Government student loan, 3.4 percent 

in contrast. So this rate is roughly 

three times the Federal loan. 

The HELP Committee estimates that 

in 2009, when all sources of Federal 

funds, including military and veteran’s 

benefits are included, the 15 largest 

publicly traded for-profit education 

companies received 86 percent of their 

revenue from taxpayers—86 percent. 

They are 14 percent away from being 

totally Federal agencies. 

Perhaps this would be acceptable if 

students were learning and gaining 

skills to succeed, but what the committee found is troubling. One of the 

main reasons student outcomes are so 

poor at these schools is that the 

schools do not provide students with 

basic support services that they need 

to find a job and succeed. Student support services are essential to helping 

students adapt and do well while they 

are in school and find a job. What happens instead? They drop out or, if they 

graduate, they cannot find a job. 

In 2010, the 30 for-profit colleges examined employed 35,000-plus recruiters—35,000 recruiters. The same schools 

collectively employed 3,500 career service staff and 12,452 support staff. So by 

a margin of 21⁄2 to 1, the schools had 

more recruiters than support service 

employees. 

So we cannot be shocked when we 

learn that one-half million students 

who enrolled in 2008–2009 left without a 

degree or certificate by mid-2010. 

Among 2-year associate degree holders, 

almost two-thirds of the students in 

these for-profit schools departed without a degree, just a debt. 

The report also highlighted a growing problem among for-profit colleges, 

the use of lead generators. For-profit 

colleges gathered contact information 

on perspective students or leads, as 

they call them, by paying third-party 

companies known as lead generators. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5710 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 31, 2012 

These generators specialize in gathering and selling information—in this 

case, very personal information. 

Here is how it works. A student 

browsing the Internet searches for 

terms such as ‘‘GI bill,’’ ‘‘student 

loan,’’ ‘‘Federal student aid’’ or any 

variation. They are directed to various 

Web sites that are owned by these lead 

generator companies. The Web site 

then claims to pass the prospective 

student contact into an appropriate 

school for the student online. Typically, there is no disclosure to the student that their personal information is 

being sold to for-profit colleges. 

When a perspective student does give 

their contact information, watch out. 

They will be bombarded with calls and 

e-mails from aggressive recruiters at 

these for-profit schools. Remember 

that 35,202 people are employed as recruiters. This is what they do. One of 

the Web sites, gibill.com, was owned by 

a company called QuinStreet until last 

month, when 23 attorneys general 

across the United States did what Congress should have done first. As part of 

an agreement, QuinStreet gave up its 

right to the Web site to the Veterans’ 

Administration where it belongs. So 

gibill.com is no longer a deceptive Web 

site, at least in these 23 States where 

there has been an agreement. Other 

Web sites used the name of Federal student aid programs and misled students 

into believing this was a real government program. 

One of the HELP Committee’s recommendations is to further regulate 

the private student line market. Senator HARKIN and I introduced the Know 

Before You Owe Private Student Loan 

Act this year. Our bill requires private 

student loan lenders to verify the prospective borrower’s cost of attendance 

with the school before disbursing the 

loan. 

It also requires the schools to counsel students as to whether they are 

still eligible for Federal student loans 

at a much lower interest rate. Federal 

student loans have flexible payment 

plans, consumer protections, and as I 

said, less cost. But many times students who have not exhausted their 

Federal student loan aid are steered 

into private loans with interest rates 

three and four times higher. There is 

money to be made off those young and 

sometimes uninformed students. 

I urge the private lenders and the forprofit schools that keep telling me ‘‘we 

are doing the right thing,’’ do not wait 

for this law. Do it now. Make this a 

policy at their school and prove it. 

One of the students I wanted to mention is Mirella Tovar from Blue Island, 

IL. She graduated from Columbia College in 2010 with a B.A. in graphic design and with $90,000 in debt and with a 

10.25-percent interest rate. Her balance 

started to grow. She did not take out 

any Federal loans. She thought all the 

loans were the same. She did not know 

the difference. 

No one told her about the consumer 

protections in the Federal loans. After 

she used her 6-month forbearance permitted by her lender, Mirella was expected to pay $1,500 a month. Unable to 

get a full-time job in her field, she 

thought about filing for bankruptcy. 

It would not have done any good; student loans are not dischargeable in 

bankruptcy even if they come from forprofit colleges. Her dad wanted to help, 

so he cosigned her private student 

loans. Guess what. He is now on the 

hook for the payments too. 

Mirella says that if the school counselor would have told her more about 

what her monthly payment would be 

like, she would not have taken out so 

much, and she may have never been 

steered to a private student loan. 

I thank Senator HARKIN for his leadership and his amazing work on this 

issue. I plead with my colleagues, on 

behalf of these students and their families and on behalf of the taxpayers who 

are subsidizing these schools, join us in 

setting standards so there is an opportunity for young people to get the education they need without inheriting 

the debts that can drag them down for 

a lifetime. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia. 

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

REMEMBERING R. TIMOTHY STACK

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, this 

morning I got some very sad news. The 

State of Georgia and the people of my 

State lost a giant in the health care industry. 

Tim Stack was my friend. He was the 

president of the hospital that 2 years 

ago treated me well, which is why I am 

here today. He was a giant in health 

care not just in Georgia but in America. On behalf of myself and all the 

citizens of my State and the countless 

thousands of patients whose lives have 

been made better or even saved by Tim 

Stack, I send my condolences to his 

wife Mary and his three sons: Ryan, 

Tim, and Matthew. 

Tim Stack grew up in Pittsburgh, 

PA, working in the steel mills. When 

the mills closed, he looked to find a 

job, and he worked in central supply at 

the Eye & Ear Hospital of Pittsburgh, 

PA. He was working and studying to be 

a teacher and a football coach. By 

working in the hospital, he became fascinated with the complexity of hospital 

administration and was challenged by 

the love of caring for people who were 

ill. Tim Stack changed his major to 

hospital administration and became a 

leader in the United States in the administration of hospitals. 

Let me read from a press release on 

his record in Atlanta, GA, alone: 

Under his leadership, Piedmont grew from 

two hospitals and eight physician practices 

to a $1.6 billion organization that includes 

five hospitals, more than 50 primary care and 

specialty physician practices and a 900-member clinically integrated network. 

He also helped develop the Piedmont 

Heart Institute, which treated me 2 

years ago and is the reason I am standing here today, which is the leading 

heart institute not just in Atlanta and 

in Georgia but throughout the United 

States. 

Tim was one of a kind. His loss will 

be felt by countless thousands of Georgians. To his family, his friends, and 

all who knew him, I express my sympathy. 

I want to read a quote from him that 

was written in 2006 when he was interviewed by Atlanta Hospital News for a 

profile. Tim wrote the following: 

The attributes of a good leader are universal. You need to love what you do, be 

open and inquisitive and persistent, not 

afraid to make waves if you have to. You 

should also be personally productive and 

work well with others. Be innovative and 

allow others to innovate. Finally, be a certifiable member of the human race. Cultivate a light touch, be passionate about 

your career, but be sure to balance it with 

the rest of your life. 

That expresses better than I can 

what Tim was all about. I shall miss 

him greatly, as will all of my State. 

Again, I send my sympathy to his wife 

Mary and his three sons: Tim, Ryan, 

and Matthew. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized. 

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to 

speak to the issue of cyber security, 

one where there have been a dozen 

speeches given earlier today, and one 

where I am concerned that there is not 

enough determination, not enough will 

on the part of this body to work together, to listen to each other, to cross 

the small differences that remain between camps and competing theories of 

a bill that we should take up, and I am 

here to urge our colleagues in this body 

to address what we have been told is 

one of the greatest security threats 

facing our country, to bear down, to 

file amendments, to clear amendments, 

to listen to other Members and be willing to do the job for which we were 

hired, which is to pass tough, broad, bipartisan legislation to protect this 

country we love. 

In my short 20 months in the Senate, 

I have increasingly become more and 

more persuaded that we face a constant, steadily rising, increasingly dangerous threat that foreign nations, foreign actors, whether they be terrorists 

or enemies of the United States, are 

not just studying the possibility of 

some day attacking the critical infrastructure of the United States, they 

are not just writing position papers or 

theorizing about it or training in some 

camp in an obscure country, they are 

today actively engaged in thousands of 

efforts to compromise the critical infrastructure of this country. 

How Members of this body can ignore 

the importance of this threat when the 

majority leader and the Republican 

leader have twice, in my short time 

here, closed the Senate and urged every 

one of us to go to a secure, classified 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5711 

briefing, where we have heard from a 

dozen four-star generals and leaders of 

three-letter agencies who have told us 

in great detail about how grave this 

threat is. Why in the face of repeated 

and publicly cited assertions by Secretaries of Defense, heads of the NSA, 

leaders of our homeland security agency, and leaders responsible for our first 

responder community from the Federal, State, and local levels, from the 

private sector to this government, who 

have said over and over that this is a 

very real, very present threat—how we 

can ignore that threat today is beyond 

me. 

The bill that is before us is S. 3414. 

This is a compromise bill. In a series of 

meetings with other Members of this 

body, I have been struck to hear others 

say that we need more time, we need to 

study this further, we need to pass the 

narrow portions on information sharing that are easy and everybody can 

now agree on, and we need not pass a 

broader or stronger bipartisan bill that 

deals with infrastructure. 

As you know well, Mr. President, for 

years critical committees in this body 

have been working on this issue. Senators LIEBERMAN and COLLINS, the 

chair and the ranking member on 

Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs, have been engaged in working 

their way through difficult issues for 

years. The relevant committees, from 

Energy to Commerce to Intelligence, 

have been engaged in hearings and 

studies and in legislating for years before I became a Senator. 

In the last few months there has been 

some important and strong work to 

build a bipartisan consensus around 

the bill that is before us today. I, like 

you, I believe, Mr. President, had some 

real concerns about the informationsharing portions of the bill, title VII, 

which have to do with permitting private companies to share information 

with each other about the threats of 

attacks. 

One of our big problems right now, 

we are told, is that companies of all 

different sectors of our economy hesitate to share publicly or to share with 

our national security infrastructure information that is critical to knowing 

when we are being attacked, how we 

are being attacked, and how it might 

spread. Title VII of the bill gives them 

liability protection to encourage the 

broad and regular sharing of that information. 

But those of us who are concerned 

about the balance between privacy and 

security, about protecting civil liberties and whether we have gone too 

far in seeking security at the expense 

of liberty, offered a whole series of revisions and changes to this bill— 

changes that have been accepted. So 

too in a different section of the bill— 

title I, which deals with critical infrastructure—folks from the private sector raised alarms and concerns months 

ago that this bill was too prescriptive, 

too heavyhanded, was involved too 

much in regulation and in demanding 

certain actions by the private sector. 

Those concerns, too, have been addressed in a broad way. 

I have been impressed with how 

many changes Senators LIEBERMAN and 

COLLINS have been willing to accept 

out of a broad working group of more 

than a dozen Senators of both parties 

who over the last few months have 

come forward with suggestions that 

have made that portion of the bill 

truly voluntary for the private sector, 

in a way that balances the role of civilian agencies with parts of our national 

security apparatus, in a way that provides enough liability protection but 

not too much, and in a way that allows 

the private sector to have a leading 

role in setting standards. 

My point, then, is to say to my colleagues that when they say we need 

more time to study it, I say we need to 

come to this bill, we need to come to 

the floor, and we need our colleagues to 

be clear—what are your remaining concerns? In a meeting last Friday with 

several Senators and representatives of 

industry, I had read every word of title 

VII and urged them to be concrete with 

us about what their concerns were. I 

left unsatisfied. I left concerned that 

some were simply scaring the private 

sector and scaring our citizens into 

thinking this bill is not ready. 

So for those who still have concerns—and there may very well be 

broad and legitimate concerns about 

the bill and about its direction—let’s 

take these 2 days. I understand that 

more than 90 amendments have been 

filed. I think it is the challenge before 

us to make the amendments germane, 

narrowly focused, and relevant to improve the bill rather than distracting 

us into issues that are more partisan or 

tied to the campaign and to focus on 

the work that is left before us. 

If I could, I am gravely concerned 

about those who would urge us to split 

off the portion of the bill on information sharing and ignore the portion of 

the bill that has to do with protecting 

our critical infrastructure. As speaker 

after speaker has come to the floor 

today and made clear, our electricity 

grid is at risk, our dams and our powerplants are at risk, our highways and financial system are at risk. There are 

all sorts of areas in the United States 

where there have been real cyber attacks, online attacks, in other countries that have demonstrated the devastating potential power of our opponents and enemies around the world. 

In the face of the cautionary notes 

we have heard from leaders of this body 

and around the country and in the face 

of that very strong reality, why we 

wouldn’t pass a broad and tough bill 

that facilitates information sharing 

and protects our critical infrastructure 

and strikes a fair balance in the middle 

is beyond me. It is not that this body 

has been too busy. It is not that we are 

exhausted by having passed too many 

broad and strong, bipartisan bills. We 

have gotten good work done this session. There are things, from the farm 

bill to the Transportation bill, where 

this body has shown an ability to listen 

to each other across the differences of 

party and region and craft strong, balanced, bipartisan bills. It is on this 

topic of cyber security that we have 

heard over and over that there is no 

more pressing challenge. 

Why, if our adversaries are not going 

to be taking the month of August off, if 

our adversaries are not going to cease 

from now until November to attack us, 

would we not bear down and focus on 

getting done the work that is before us 

as the U.S. Senate? We are called at 

times the world’s greatest deliberative 

body. I will say to you as a member of 

the Foreign Relations Committee, in 

other parts of the world there are folks 

who are striving toward democracy 

who question whether this is the model 

they should follow. 

In the remaining days before we all 

go to some recess, why not bear down, 

do our homework, do our reading, be 

forthcoming with clear and concise 

concerns, and hammer out our differences? 

I extend an invitation to any colleague, any industry group, or any 

group of concerned citizens: I am happy 

to meet with anybody to hear their 

concerns and try to do my level best to 

convey them to the bill managers and 

the leaders, who have done a remarkable job of hearing and accepting compromise provisions of this bill on privacy, on the role of the private sector, 

on making voluntary what was mandatory and striking a fair balance. 

I urge our colleagues to take this moment seriously, to not allow the days 

to slip, the month to pass, and the moment to pass us by. How will we answer 

our constituents, our communities, and 

our families following an attack that 

has been so frequently predicted? Do 

we not believe we will end up regulating in a more heavyhanded, more reactionary, and more ill-informed way 

after a successful massive attack than 

now when we have the time to listen to 

each other and craft a balanced and responsible and bipartisan bill? 

Mr. President, I will close. I am convinced that this is the gravest threat 

facing our country today, graver than 

that of terrorism from overseas. In 

fact, GEN Keith Alexander of the NSA 

has clarified just in the last few days 

to a group of us how grave a threat this 

is. 

I renew my offer to any Member of 

this Chamber: Come and meet with me. 

Come and meet with Senators LIEBERMAN and COLLINS. Come and meet with 

the leaders of the relevant committees, 

take up your cause, and give an amendment that is narrow and focused and 

relevant, and let us hammer out a better defense for this Nation. 

There are those who question the 

purpose and purposefulness of this 

body. It has no greater purpose than 

finding a bipartisan way to craft a 

strong and vibrant solution to a clear 

and growing national threat. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5712 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 31, 2012 

Just a few weeks ago, I had the honor 

of sitting for lunch with Senator DANIEL INOUYE. He is the one Member of 

this body to have earned the Congressional Medal of Honor in combat. I 

asked his advice, as the most senior 

member of my party: What issues, Senator INOUYE, do you think I should be 

focused on? What is the thing you 

might urge me—a freshman—to invest 

my time and effort into? His answer 

was simple, his answer was profound, 

and his answer, I hope, will be heard by 

this body. 

He said to me: I am the only Senator 

who was at Pearl Harbor. Our next 

Pearl Harbor will come from a cyber 

attack for which we are today unprepared. Let’s do our duty. Let’s listen to 

each other, come together, hammer out 

a strong and bipartisan bill, and honor 

the service and sacrifice of that ‘‘greatest generation’’—both in this Chamber 

and our country—and do our duty. 

Madam President, I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. 

SHAHEEN). The Senator from Colorado. 

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam 

President, I want to acknowledge the 

powerful and eloquent words of my colleague from Delaware. I know our colleague Senator COLLINS is also on the 

Senate floor, and I have to tell the 

viewers and all of my colleagues I 

couldn’t agree more. The time is now 

to act on cyber security. 

I just came to the floor from an Intelligence Committee briefing. General 

Alexander was there. As the Senator 

from Delaware knows, he is forthright, 

he is well-versed, he is passionate, and 

he is as nonpartisan as they come. General Alexander is urging us to act now. 

So I thank my colleague from Delaware for his compelling and important 

words. 

PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT

The matter that brought me to the 

floor has a link to cyber security, and 

that is energy security. I want to talk 

about one of the new and exciting technologies that is resulting in the production of many homegrown electrons, 

and that is wind power. 

I have come to the floor on a daily 

basis to urge my colleagues to work 

with me to extend the production tax 

credit for wind. 

The PTC has created literally tens of 

thousands of jobs across our country 

and has the potential to create even 

more. But if Congress—that is us, the 

Senate and the House—doesn’t act to 

extend it, tens of thousands of jobs, literally, will be lost. The Presiding Officer has a robust wind energy sector in 

her State, and she knows the extent to 

which it is important for business in 

the great State of New Hampshire. It is 

important to the businesses in every 

State in our country. 

The production tax credit is an investment in a clean energy future. It is 

a critical investment in American jobs. 

Frankly, we are about to lose that investment. I fear, in fact, that through 

our inaction we continue to create real 

harm to our wind industry in America. 

But it is not too late to act. 

Today I am going to focus my remarks on Idaho, a State that is known 

for its wide open spaces, its mountains, 

its potatoes, and for great, friendly 

people. One doesn’t have to look any 

further than Senator CRAPO and Senator RISCH to know that the people of 

Idaho are very good people. 

Idaho is a State with a vast untapped 

potential for wind energy. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 

which we host in Colorado, has calculated that Idaho’s wind resources 

could potentially provide more than 218 

percent of Idaho’s electricity needs. It 

ranks 23rd in our Nation’s wind resource potential. Most of this potential 

is in the high plains of the southern 

half of the State. 

Idaho is already working to take advantage of what is a bountiful resource. There are more than 20 separate wind projects either online or 

under construction across the State. In 

southeastern Idaho near Twin Falls, 

Invenergy’s Wolverine Creek wind farm 

covers about 5,000 acres and pays royalties to almost 30 different landowners. 

In 2011, Idaho’s installed wind capacity grew by nearly 75 percent. That 

growth created hundreds of temporary 

construction jobs as well as permanent 

jobs in the operation and maintenance 

of these facilities. Right now, Idaho’s 

wind resources provide power for nearly 160,000 homes without releasing the 

nearly 1.1 million metric tons of carbon 

dioxide that traditional power sources 

would. 

Wind supports close to 500 jobs in the 

State of Idaho—jobs that wouldn’t 

exist if the wind industry had not been 

enticed to invest in Idaho because of 

the production tax credit, the PTC. 

Wind energy projects are an investment in local and State economies. 

Wind energy producers provide nearly 

$2.5 million to the State in property 

tax payments every year and over $2 

million annually in land lease payments to local Idahoans who go on to 

invest that money back into their local 

communities. Those are real dollars 

these communities count on. 

The point I am trying to make is 

that we in Congress should be working 

to help create more projects like Wolverine Creek for the jobs and the clean 

energy they create. Instead, Congress 

is standing idly by. 

I can’t help but mention there have 

been some on the campaign trail who 

have suggested that we should let the 

wind production tax credit lapse at the 

end of this year, and that wind power 

should not be given the same help 

other industries have received. I could 

not disagree more. 

Great States such as Idaho, Colorado, 

and New Hampshire make things. 

Great countries such as the United 

States generate their own energy. Letting the wind production tax credit 

lapse would be irresponsible. The PTC 

equals jobs. We should pass it as soon 

as possible. We should not waiver, and 

we should not wait. Every day that we 

let this unanswered question hang over 

our country may be another project 

and another job that gets shipped overseas. 

I urge my colleagues to work with 

me to support manufacturing in rural 

communities in America. Let’s extend 

the production tax credit as soon as 

possible. It is common sense. It has bipartisan support. Let’s extend the production tax credit. 

I will be back tomorrow to continue 

this discussion and talk about another 

one of our great States. I am at 13 

States. I am going to keep coming back 

until we get this right. 

Madam President, I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. 

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I 

ask unanimous consent to speak as if 

in morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

MEDICAL LOSS RATIO

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, 

over the last few weeks hundreds of 

thousands of Minnesotans have received letters or postcards in the mail 

from their health care insurers. These 

notices are letting people know whether their insurer met a new rule in the 

health care law—a rule that I championed—called the medical loss ratio, 

sometimes called the 80–20 rule. It 

could also be called the 85–15 rule, but 

it is known as the 80–20 rule, and I will 

explain. 

This provision, which I based on a 

Minnesota State law, requires large 

group insurers to spend 85 percent of 

the premiums they receive from their 

beneficiaries on actual health care 

services, not on marketing or administrative costs or CEO salaries. Eightyfive percent of their premium dollars 

have to be spent on actual health care. 

For insurers in a small group and individual markets, this threshold is 80 

percent; hence, the 80–20 rule. 

This summer, across the country 

Americans are getting notices from 

their insurers that the insurer met or 

did not meet this 80 or 85 percent 

threshold. When those notices say the 

insurer failed to meet the medical loss 

ratio, Americans are also getting something else in the mail—a check or 

lower premiums for next year because 

under my medical loss ratio provision, 

insurers who do not spend at least the 

80 or 85 percent of premiums on actual 

health care services for their beneficiaries have to rebate that money to 

their consumers. 

August 1 was the deadline for insurers who didn’t meet the MLR threshold 

to rebate the difference to their consumers, and because of the medical loss 

ratio more than 123,000 Minnesotans 

got rebates from their insurer. Those 

rebates added up to an average of $160 

per household. It was more in other 

States. 

This isn’t unique to Minnesota. 

Across the country 12.8 million Americans got rebates from their insurers 

who overcharged them, and other insurers lowered their premiums for last 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5713 

year to comply with the medical loss 

ratio. Aetna in Connecticut lowered 

premiums by 10 percent last year because of the MLR. 

Minnesota has a culture of high-quality low-cost care. In fact, the Agency 

for Health Care Research and Quality 

recently announced that in 2011, Minnesota’s health care quality was the 

highest in the Nation. We were again 

No. 1. We are always No. 1, No. 2, or No. 

3. The medical loss ratio, which was 

first passed as a Minnesota State law, 

is yet another example of Minnesota’s 

leadership in bringing down health care 

costs while preserving quality. 

Minnesota’s unique health care culture includes the Mayo Clinic, cooperative models such as HealthPartners, 

and visionary public health leadership 

from State legislators. Health care in 

our State is also distinguished by the 

fact that 90 percent of Minnesotans are 

served by a nonprofit health plan. 

These plans outperform their national 

peers and are able to put 91 percent of 

every premium dollar toward actual 

health services. In other words, they 

have a 91 MLR. 

By taking profits out of the health 

insurance industry, Minnesota health 

plans do a better job helping our residents live longer, healthier lives and 

deliver the No. 1 quality care in the 

Nation. The medical loss ratio within 

the health reform law is holding all 

health plans to the same standards we 

have set in Minnesota by requiring 

that 80 to 85 percent of premium dollars actually pay for health services. 

Before this year, in other plans 

throughout the Nation, less than 60 

percent of the premiums were put toward health care. The rest was being 

used for administrative costs, for marketing, for bonuses, and for profits. In 

fact, one study of insurers in Texas a 

few years ago showed MLRs, medical 

loss ratios, as low as 22 percent—meaning that of all the premiums families 

were paying in to their insurers, the insurers were spending only 22 percent on 

actual health care services for them. 

That is why my medical loss ratio 

provision is so important. It squeezes 

the fat out of the health insurance 

market and makes your premium dollars go farther. For many families it is 

actually lowering costs, delivering $1.1 

billion a year in rebates. Those checks, 

$1.1 billion, are in addition to lowering 

the premiums. For example, the 10-percent reduction by Aetna in Connecticut. This was an incredibly important step because we know premiums 

were going up way too fast, a lot faster 

than those families’ income. This is 

just one way the health care law is already changing the culture of care in 

our country. 

One of the other things the law did 

was move toward rewarding quality of 

care, not quantity of care. It specifically directed Medicare to start paying 

doctors based on the value of the care 

they provide, not the volume. This is a 

provision that I and Senator KLOBUCHAR and several other of our colleagues championed, called the value 

index. That is because when Minnesota 

doctors get paid less for providing 

higher quality care, everyone else 

loses. Minnesota loses because Minnesota reimburses 50 percent less per 

Medicare patient on average in Minnesota than for each patient, on average, in Texas. So Minnesota actually 

gets punished for being No. 1. It gets 

punished for higher quality care with 

lower reimbursements. Patients in 

Texas lose because they are not getting 

the highest value care for their health 

care dollar. And all taxpayers lose 

when Medicare pays for unnecessary or 

overpriced service in Texas or other 

low-value States. 

This is not about pitting Minnesota 

against Texas or other low-value 

States. It is about incentivizing the 

Texases to be more like Minnesota— 

which, again, has the highest health 

care quality in the Nation. That will 

begin to happen when the value index 

kicks in under this law. 

It would be an understatement to say 

the law has received some attention 

this year, and I know there is a lot of 

uncertainty among our constituents 

about how the law will affect them. 

That is because sometimes there is a 

little misinformation put out there. I 

just had a colleague say there is nothing in the bill to address paperwork. 

That is certainly not true. In fact, I authored a provision on simplifying billing. 

There is some misinformation on 

why IRS agents are there to look into 

your insurance—and anything done in 

the law to address workforce shortages. 

That is not true. There is an entire 

title on workforce. Sometimes people 

have to sort out what is being said on 

this floor. So there is some uncertainty. 

Let me take a moment to talk about 

a few of the other things the law is already doing for the people of Minnesota. This is all in the law and happening. I am just telling what is going 

on right now. 

First of all, starting tomorrow, August 1, 900,000 women in Minnesota and 

47 million women around the country 

will have free access to preventive 

health services, including gestational 

diabetes screenings, preventive health 

visits with their doctors, and FDA-approved contraceptives. Because of the 

health care law, women, not their insurance companies, can now make decisions about their health care and can 

access the services that will keep them 

healthy. 

The health care law is also helping 

families in Minnesota and across the 

country by prohibiting insurers from 

denying health coverage for children 

who have preexisting conditions. I have 

met children who are alive today because of this provision. As a parent, I 

know how grateful their parents are. 

Parents around the country can now 

sleep a little easier, knowing that if 

their child gets sick they will still be 

able to get the health care coverage 

they need. We should be celebrating 

that. This is not about putting the government between you and your doctor, 

as I hear sometimes. This is about getting an insurance company out of the 

way and making sure that children can 

get coverage. 

And adults. We have seen the limitation of lifetime limits on care. Your insurance company can no longer put an 

arbitrary cap on your care. I have seen 

a gentleman whose life was saved because of this. Before this law came into 

being they could drop you—and they 

did. That is over. That is done. People 

do not have to worry about hitting an 

arbitrary limit and then being thrown 

off their insurance—because they have. 

We should be celebrating that. That is 

something that should be bringing a 

lot of relief to people. That is why we 

are going to be having far fewer bankruptcies. 

Parents will also be relieved to know 

that young adults can now stay—they 

had been able to stay on their parents’ 

health insurance plan until they are 26. 

Because of this provision, 35,000 young 

adults in Minnesota are now insured on 

their parents’ policies. 

I was at a senior center in Woodbury 

the other day. Seniors are very happy 

with the changes that the health care 

law has made. When I visit senior centers in Minnesota, I hear relief from 

seniors who now can pay for their 

medications thanks to the provision in 

the health care law which is closing 

the doughnut hole. The provision has 

already allowed 57,000 seniors in Minnesota to receive a 50-percent discount 

on their covered brandname prescription drugs when they hit the so-called 

doughnut hole, an average of $590 savings per person. 

I can see the Presiding Officer nodding. I know she goes to senior centers 

in New Hampshire and knows when 

seniors hear that people want to repeal 

this they are miffed. I have actually 

been at a senior center when they said, 

What can we do? And they wanted to 

get up and go out and start being activists for the health care law when they 

heard that some of my friends want to 

repeal this. 

Some of them are making it just on 

Social Security. Now the doughnut 

hole is closing and they like that. It 

means they can take their medication 

and it means they do not have to take 

it every other day or they don’t have to 

cut it in half. My friends on the other 

side want to repeal it. 

Seniors are also getting free preventive health services under the health 

care law, such as mammograms, 

colonoscopies, as well as free annual 

wellness visits to their doctor—and, 

boy, do they like that. 

I could go on and on, but I will not. 

The point is, because of the law more 

people are getting care, the quality of 

care is better, and we are lowering 

costs. I am proud of that. As we here in 

the Senate head home to spend August 

in our States, I urge my colleagues to 

listen, as I do, when constituents tell 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5714 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 31, 2012 

us about the rebates they received. I 

was on a plane two weekends ago. A 

woman showed me her check. The 

woman I was sitting next to showed me 

her rebate check. 

I urge my colleagues to listen to constituents talk about the rebates they 

receive, the kids who are able to stay 

on their parents’ insurance, the health 

screenings that save the lives of grandparents. I hope they will listen to the 

stories of kids with preexisting illnesses who were finally able to get coverage and seniors who were able to afford both their prescriptions and their 

dinner. I urge my colleagues to acknowledge these benefits and to support the continued implementation of 

the Affordable Care Act. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware. 

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, 

there are several people who wish to be 

recognized. If Senator COLLINS is ready 

to go, I will yield to her and then ask 

unanimous consent to speak immediately after her, then to be followed 

by Senator ALEXANDER, if that is the 

will of the body. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The Senator from Maine. 

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, 

first let me thank the Senator from 

Delaware for his graciousness. In light 

of the fact that there are so many people who are waiting to speak, I will be 

brief. But I want to talk about the legislation that is before us, the cyber security bill. This bill represents the 

Senate’s best chance this year to pass 

urgently needed cyber security legislation. 

Why do I say it is urgent? Virtually 

every national and homeland security 

expert, from President Bush’s administration including President Obama’s 

administration, has warned us repeatedly that a cyber attack is coming and 

it is an attack that is going to be 

aimed at our critical infrastructure. 

For us to let disagreements over exactly how to counter this threat prevent the passage of this bill would be a 

tragedy and could lead to a tragedy. 

This is serious. 

Yesterday we had a meeting with the 

FBI, with the Department of Homeland 

Security, with GEN Keith Alexander, 

who is the head of cyber command, and 

the head of the National Security 

Agency. They were unanimous in warning us that Congress must act and 

must act now. Every single day nation 

states, terrorist groups, hacktivists, 

persistent hackers, transnational 

criminal gangs, are probing our cyber 

defenses. Intrusions are rampant. As 

one expert told me, there are really 

only two kinds of large companies in 

this country: those that know they 

have been hacked and those that do not 

know they have been hacked. It is so 

important that we act. I must say we 

are working very hard to try to accommodate the concerns that have been 

raised by some of our colleagues and by 

some in the business community. We, 

therefore, have altered our bill in a significant way. 

Another charge I have heard thrown 

loosely around here is that somehow 

there has not been enough study; somehow there is not enough process; somehow we need more hearings. Our homeland security committee alone has had 

10 hearings on cyber security—10 hearings. The Senate, as a whole, has had 25 

hearings and numerous classified briefings. How many more briefings, hearings, and reports do we need? The head 

of the FBI, Robert Mueller, has told us 

that in his judgment the threat of a 

cyber attack will soon exceed the 

threat of a terrorist attack. Of course, 

they may be combined. It may be a terrorist group using cyber tools to 

launch an attack on this country. 

There is a Web site video that shows an 

arm of al-Qaida which encourages 

cyber attacks and talks about how 

easy it would be to conduct it. 

Senator LIEBERMAN and I, along with 

our three principal cosponsors: Senator 

FEINSTEIN, Senator ROCKEFELLER, and 

Senator CARPER, have made significant 

changes in our bill to respond to concerns that have been raised. Most notably we have gone from having a mandatory framework to a voluntary approach to enhance the security of our 

most critical infrastructure. The underlying concept of this approach, 

which was suggested in a very constructive way by our colleagues Senator KYL and Senator WHITEHOUSE, is 

to encourage owners of our most critical infrastructure to enhance their 

cyber security by providing them with 

various incentives, the most important 

of which is liability protections. We 

have also made changes to improve the 

privacy protections and the information-sharing title of our bill. 

The bill establishes a multiagency 

council, the National Cyber Security 

Council, to respond to concerns that 

too much power was being given to the 

Department of Homeland Security. So 

now we have an interagency body that 

includes the Department of Defense, 

the Department of Justice, represented 

by the FBI, the Department of Commerce, the intelligence community— 

undoubtedly it would be the Director of 

the National Intelligence Office—and 

appropriate sector-specific Federal 

agencies, such as FERC, if we are talking about how best to protect our electric grid. 

The council would work in partnership with the private sector and would 

conduct risk assessments to identify 

our Nation’s most critical cyber infrastructure. What do we mean by that? 

We hear that term. What exactly is 

critical cyber infrastructure? It is that 

which, if damaged, could result in mass 

casualties, mass evacuations, catastrophic economic damage to our country or severe harm to our national security. Don’t we want to safeguard 

critical national assets that if damaged 

would cause numerous deaths, people 

to flee their homes, their communities, 

a disaster for our economy, or a severe 

blow to our national security? I can’t 

believe there is even any discussion 

about the need for us to have robust 

systems to protect us against mass casualties, a devastating blow to our economy, and catastrophic consequences. 

That is a high bar in our bill for defining what is critical cyber infrastructure. It isn’t every business in this 

country. Those who are implying that 

it is and that this is sweeping are not 

accurately reading the bill. We would 

be irresponsible if we did not act when 

the warnings are so loud and are coming from so many respected sources. 

We have had the Aspen Institute 

Group on Cyber Security Issues endorse our bill and urge us to go toward 

its consideration. That is chaired by 

President Bush’s Homeland Security 

Secretary Michael Chertoff and by a 

renowned expert on the other side of 

the aisle, former Congresswoman Jane 

Harman. It also includes people such as 

Paul Wolfowitz, not exactly a liberal 

activist the last time I checked, but 

certainly one who commands great respect for his knowledge in this area. 

I am amazed we are letting the clock 

tick down when we know it is not a 

matter of if there is going to be a cyber 

attack on this country, it is a matter 

of when. 

Let me very briefly address another 

issue. Is there some opposition among 

the business community to this bill? 

Yes, there is. But there is also a great 

deal of support from the business community. We have, for example, a letter 

from the NDIA, which represents 1,750 

defense firms. We have letters of endorsement from Sysco, Oracle, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, the 

Business Software Alliance, from 

Semantec, EMC Corporation, the Center for a New American Security, endorsements from individuals in the previous administration such as General 

Hayden, Mike McConnell, and Asa 

Hutchinson. There are many supporters for this bill. It is not surprising 

because they know how important it is 

that we act. 

Ms. COLLINS. In closing, I wish to 

read a little from General Alexander’s 

letter, which is dated today. In it he 

says: 

I am writing to express my strong support 

for passage of a comprehensive bipartisan 

cyber security bill by the Senate this week. 

The cyber threat facing the Nation is real 

and demands immediate action— 

Not action next year, not action next 

Congress, not action even after the recess we are about to take. As General 

Alexander says: 

The time to act is now; we simply cannot 

afford further delay. Moreover, to be most effective in protecting against this threat to 

our national security, cyber security legislation should address both information sharing 

and core critical infrastructure hardening. 

That is exactly what the bill we have 

brought before the Senate would do. I 

urge our colleagues to join us. If they 

have other ideas, offer amendments, 

but let’s get on with the task before us 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5715 

before we are looking back and saying: 

Why didn’t we act? Why didn’t we pay 

attention to all of those warnings? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware. 

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, 

while the Senator is still on the floor, 

I wish to engage in a brief colloquy, adlibbing this or, as I recall in football, 

an audible. We have the two people who 

are most key to this, Senator LIEBERMAN, chairman of our committee, and 

Senator COLLINS, our ranking member, 

who worked very hard with their staff 

and our staffs to fashion this legislation. 

In recent years when we heard opposition to doing something on cyber security, the concern we had was there 

was going to be a top-down. There was 

going to be Homeland Security, which 

in its early days did not have a very 

good reputation. The idea was that 

somehow Homeland Security was going 

to be running this top down without a 

whole lot of input from industry. Basically we have taken even the second 

most recent version of our bill, and we 

changed that. What we said is it is not 

going to be top-down, it is not going to 

be Homeland Security saying these are 

the best practices, these are the standards to protect cyber security. Instead 

we said: Industry, what do you want to 

tell us? ‘‘Us’’ being Homeland Security, 

‘‘us’’ being the Department of Defense, 

‘‘us’’ being the National Security 

Agency, ‘‘us’’ being the FBI. What do 

you think those best practice standards should be? Give us a chance to 

work on those together. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t 

think the deal here is for Homeland Security to say: You have to throw those 

away; those make no sense, we will do 

it our way. That is not what is going to 

happen here. 

In our meeting yesterday with the 

folks from the FBI and the National 

Security Agency, that is not the way it 

is going to work. It is not the way it 

works today and it is not the way it is 

going to work in the future. What does 

the Senator think? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine. 

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, if I 

could respond through the Chair to my 

colleague from Delaware, he is absolutely correct, this is a collaborative 

partnership with the private sector, 

and indeed, it has to be. Eighty-five 

percent of the critical infrastructure is 

owned by the private sector, so it 

makes sense to have their involvement. 

We restructured the bill to require 

that, and there is another safeguard. 

Since this is a voluntary system we 

have now devised, adopting the KylWhitehouse approach, if the private 

sector decided not to participate, it essentially invalidates the standards 

that are developed. So why would this 

interagency council, which has developed the standards based on the recommendations of the private sector, 

not adopt reasonable standards? They 

want industry to participate. That is 

the ultimate safeguard, I say to my 

colleague from Delaware and my colleague, the chairman from Connecticut, who also may want to add to 

this. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware. 

Mr. CARPER. I am going to direct 

this question to our chairman through 

the Chair. One of the other criticisms 

of the early version of the bill was not 

only was it top-down oriented and directed by Homeland Security, but also 

there were just sticks involved. We 

were not going to incentivize anybody 

to comply with the standards that 

might be developed, but we would just 

hammer somebody. That is not the way 

it turned out. I commend the chairman 

for doing that. 

Will the chairman lay out for us in a 

minute or two how it would work? I 

think it is a much smarter approach. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut. 

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend 

from Delaware for the question. This is 

now a voluntary system and there is a 

lot to be said about that. 

I want to go back to that meeting 

yesterday. We had a broad bipartisan 

group of Senators who have been most 

active, but from different perspectives, 

on this question of cyber security legislation who met yesterday with the key 

cyber security officials in our government from the Department of Defense, 

Department of Homeland Security, 

FBI, and the National Security Agency. I am going to explain why we went 

to the carrots and took out the sticks 

by saying, in general terms, these experts—not political people, these are 

pros who deal with cyber defense—were 

asked by one of the Senators: What 

will happen if we don’t adopt this legislation or something like it this session? 

The cyber security professionals said 

to us: Our Nation will be more vulnerable to cyber attack. 

In other words, this legislation contains authority to share information 

between the government and the private sector, between two private sector 

companies, that can’t be done now. 

That is critically necessary to improve 

our defenses. The requirement of standards being promulgated as a result of 

a—or resulting from a public-private 

collaborative operation and then offering the carrot of immunity from liability is something that doesn’t exist 

now. All the experts say, though some 

of the private sector operators of critical cyber security infrastructure—we 

are talking, again, about the companies that run the electric grid or the 

telecommunications system or the entire financial system or dams that hold 

back water; we are not talking about 

ma-and-pa businesses back home— 

some of them are doing a pretty good 

job at defending that cyber infrastructure, but most of them are not doing 

enough. That is where the government 

has to come in and push them in that 

direction. 

Why did we change it from mandatory to voluntary, from sticks to carrots? Because we didn’t have the votes 

to adopt the mandatory, which I think 

is necessary. Because of the urgency of 

the threat, as I just reflected that we 

heard yesterday from the professionals 

in this area, we said—Senator COLLINS

and I, Senator ROCKEFELLER, Senator 

FEINSTEIN, Senator CARPER—OK, we 

are not going to get 100 percent of what 

we want around here, and we understand that, so let’s settle for 80 percent. Perhaps the other side will feel 

they got 80 percent. But what is most 

important is that we will get something done to protect our security. 

I must tell my colleagues we are at a 

point now in this debate, with the kind 

of never-ending questions about every 

detail, not withstanding all the compromises Senator COLLINS, Senator 

CARPER and I have made and the filing 

of an amendment by Senator MCCONNELL to repeal ObamaCare—we can 

have a position on ObamaCare, but to 

put it on this cyber security bill is not 

fair, not relevant, not constructive. 

I think we are coming to a moment 

where we are going to have to face a 

tough decision. I have talked to the 

majority leader about filing for cloture 

soon so we can draw this to a choice: 

Do our colleagues want to act to protect our cyber systems in this session 

or do they not? That is a tough choice, 

particularly if a Senator votes no, to 

have to explain, in light of all the evidence of the constant cyber attacks 

going on now and the cyber thefts of 

hundreds of billions of dollars from our 

industries and tens of thousands of jobs 

lost as a result to foreign countries, if 

the Senate is going to say, no, we don’t 

want to take that up now. I hope and 

pray that is not the case. 

The way this is moving right now, 

this last week of the session before we 

break, I am afraid we are headed in the 

wrong direction, and we don’t see the 

kind of willingness to compromise that 

ought to be there. We are tested again 

in this Chamber: Are we going to fix 

national problems? It is hard to do on 

some of the fiscal issues we have 

turned away from, but on this one, traditionally, when it came to our national security, we have put the special 

interests aside and together dealt with 

the national security interests. I fear 

at this moment, in response to my 

friend from Delaware, that is not the 

direction in which we are going. I hope 

I am wrong. I am, by nature, an optimist, but right now I am a pessimist. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware. 

Mr. CARPER. My colleagues have 

heard me say this before. We have been 

joined by Senator ROCKEFELLER, who 

has done great work, Senator FEINSTEIN, and others, Democratic and Republican, who have done fine work on 

this legislation. 

But I love asking people who have 

been married a long time: What is the 

secret to being married a long time? 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5716 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 31, 2012 

This is especially important for me to 

say this with Senator COLLINS sitting 

on the floor. She and certainly her husband to be anticipate their coming 

marriage. But I love asking people who 

have been married a long time: What is 

the secret to be being married a long 

time? I get great answers, funny answers but also some very profound 

ones, and the best thing I ever got was 

the two Cs. What are the two Cs? Communicate and compromise. That is not 

just the secret for a long marriage, a 

union between husband and wife, but it 

is also the secret for a vibrant democracy. 

I think the two Cs characterize what 

is going on with this legislation because I have been here a while—11 

years—and I don’t know that I have 

ever seen better communication on an 

issue of this importance than I have in 

this instance. It was very dramatic, 

very satisfying, and frankly, compromise, the kind of compromise we 

have talked about over the last 15 minutes or so, needed, given, done willingly, to lead us to this point today. 

It has been said before, and I will say 

it again. The reason we are on this bill 

today, why we have taken it up today, 

this week, is because our economy and 

our national security are under attack. 

This is not the kind of war that some 

of us served in during our youth. This 

is not the kind of war we have read 

about in history books. It is not the 

kind of war we have seen and watched 

on TV. This war is occurring in cyber 

space, and it is occurring in real time. 

Literally, as I speak, it is being carried out by sophisticated criminals, by 

terrorists, and even by other countries. 

While some hackers just want to cause 

mischief or make a political point, others want to hurt people, our people. 

Still others want to steal our ideas, our 

intellectual property, as well as other 

sensitive information. From clean energy technologies and defense systems 

to medical research and corporate 

mergers, cyber spies are looking to 

steal some of the very innovations that 

fuel our economy and help make us a 

great nation. 

GEN Keith Alexander, the commander of U.S. Cyber Command, has 

called these efforts the greatest transfer of wealth in history. Those of us 

who have tried to put a dollar figure on 

how much intellectual property we are 

losing to cyber theft have put the 

pricetag at about $1⁄4 trillion per year. 

It is not just valuable information we 

are losing. To put it bluntly, it is 

American jobs, and it is our competitive edge. 

Of course, the same vulnerabilities 

being exploited to steal our intellectual property can be used by those who 

want to attack us to do physical harm. 

With a few clicks of a mouse, cyber terrorists or a sovereign nation could shut 

down our electric grid, they could shut 

down manufacturing, they can release 

dangerous chemicals into our air, they 

can release dangerous chemicals into 

our water supply. They could disrupt 

our financial systems. At the very 

least, any one of these attacks could 

further slow the economic recovery of 

our country or disrupt it altogether. 

In a worst-case scenario, a particularly lethal cyber attack could throw 

parts of our country into chaos or even 

lead to widespread loss of life. If my 

colleagues don’t believe that, look at 

the impact the recent summer storms 

and the resulting power outages had on 

this region. If we don’t become more 

vigilant and soon, a sophisticated 

hacker can succeed in replicating that 

kind of power outage, putting many 

lives in danger and severely undercutting the productivity of our workforce. 

The revised bill we take up today 

takes a number of bold steps to better 

secure our critical infrastructure and 

share cyber threat information. It will 

go a long way toward bringing our 

cyber capabilities into the 21st century. It represents a good-faith effort 

to address legitimate concerns of business and privacy groups of our intelligence community and of Senators on 

both sides of the aisle. 

None of this bill’s five original cosponsors is suggesting our bill is perfect. As my colleagues hear me say 

from time to time, if it isn’t perfect, 

make it better. With that thought in 

mind, we look forward to working together with all our colleagues to find 

common ground to make this legislation even better. 

For example, many of my colleagues 

and I are concerned that we don’t have 

the proper safeguards in place when 

private information, ranging from Social Security numbers to financial 

records, are compromised. The American public expects that government 

agencies and private businesses holding 

our tax information, our medical 

records, and other sensitive data will 

take every precaution necessary to ensure that sensitive information is secure and well protected. Too often 

those expectations are not met. 

That is why I have introduced a bipartisan amendment with my colleague 

Senator BLUNT to address concerns regarding data breaches which occur all 

too often. Our amendment would ensure that Americans can be confident 

that their private and sensitive information is made more secure. As our 

Nation becomes increasingly reliant on 

technological advances to do just about 

everything, it is imperative that we 

not let technology outpace our ability 

to prevent fraud and identity theft. 

However, with the recent breach 

within the Federal employees retirement program—the Thrift Savings 

Plan—over 100,000 Federal participants 

know all too well that their sensitive 

private information is not always safeguarded as it should be. 

The amendment Senator BLUNT and I 

are offering seeks to ensure that all entities holding personal sensitive information have to adhere to a national 

standard that is designed to keep that 

information safe while ensuring that 

both consumers and law enforcement 

are promptly notified in the event of a 

breach. This requirement would replace 

the current patchwork of 46 separate 

State laws while ensuring that consumers have a uniform set of protections they can understand. By adopting 

this data-breach amendment and passing the broader cyber security bill, we 

will enable the United States to lead 

by example both in preventing cyber 

attacks from occurring in the first 

place and in responding swiftly and effectively to protect consumers in the 

unfortunate event of an attack or a 

breach. 

As we consider our amendment, the 

Blunt-Carper amendment, let’s remember that this bill is not the finish line. 

If I can paraphrase Winston Churchill, 

this is not the end. This is not the beginning of the end. This bill really represents the end of the beginning. And 

as beginnings go, it ain’t bad. 

Although we are still working out a 

compromise, I want to close by talking 

very briefly about some of the features 

of the underlying bill we are considering. 

First—I will reiterate what has been 

said before; it bears repeating—we have 

elected not to direct the Department of 

Homeland Security to mandate new 

cyber security regulations for private 

owners of critical infrastructure. We 

said we are not going to do that. Instead, we have endorsed an approach 

that relies on a public-private partnership and a voluntary cyber security 

program to strengthen the electronic 

backbone of our most sensitive systems. Instead of government penalties, 

our bill calls for using incentives such 

as liability protection to encourage 

critical infrastructure owners to adopt 

voluntary cyber practices developed by 

industry. 

Second, our revised bill provides a 

framework for the sharing of cyber 

threat information between the Federal Government and the private sector 

while offering liability protection and 

better privacy protections for all 

Americans. 

Third, to ensure that Federal agencies are better equipped to stop cyber 

attacks on them, the bill includes a 

number of security measures that I 

have worked on for years with Senator 

COLLINS and others to better protect 

our Federal information systems. In 

particular, this bill will help replace 

our outdated, paper-based security 

practices with a real-time security system that can actively monitor, detect, 

and respond to threats. For example, 

agencies will be required to continuously monitor their systems the way a 

security guard would watch a building 

through a video camera rather than 

just taking a snapshop, developing the 

film, and reporting on the results once 

a year. 

Finally, our bill makes a number of 

important investments in developing 

the next generation of cyber security 

professionals. This is workforce development. For example, the bill provides 

stronger cyber security training and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5717 

establishes better cyber security programs in our schools and in our universities. This legislation also makes research and development for cyber security a priority so we can develop cutting-edge technologies here at home 

and bring jobs to our country. Doing so 

will not only make us safer as a nation, 

it will help ensure that America’s 

workforce is better prepared for tomorrow’s job market, and tomorrow is just 

around the corner. 

I wish to conclude my remarks here 

today with something that one of our 

colleagues, MIKE ENZI of Wyoming, introduced to me several years ago. MIKE

calls it the 80–20 rule. He used it at the 

time to explain to me how he, one of 

the most conservative Republicans in 

the Senate, and the late Ted Kennedy, 

one of the most liberal Democrats in 

the Senate, were able to accomplish so 

much prior to Ted’s death when they 

were the two senior leaders on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. 

I said to Senator ENZI: How come the 

two of you, very different people—one a 

Democrat and one a Republican—were 

able to get so much done? 

Senator ENZI said to me: Ted and I 

agreed on about 80 percent of what 

needed to be done on most issues, and 

we disagreed on the other 20 percent. 

Somewhere along the way, we just decided to focus on the 80 percent we 

agreed on and set the other 20 percent 

aside for another day. 

The cyber security legislation we are 

debating here today this week is an 80– 

20 bill. I think it is worth asking, is it 

worthwhile to pass a bill that achieves 

maybe only 80 percent of what we want 

to do or even only 70 percent of what 

we want to do? I would just say, well, 

compared to what? Compared to doing 

nothing? Compared to zero? Given all 

that is at stake in today’s dangerous 

world, you bet it is worthwhile. That 

much we ought to be able to agree on, 

so let’s get it done. 

Like many of my colleagues who 

have worked on the legislation for 

years, I welcome the opportunity this 

week to legislate—to legislate—on an 

issue of great importance to our Nation, to offer our amendments, to debate them, to defend them, to vote on 

them, make this bill better by doing 

so, and in the end adopt this bill as 

amended by a bipartisan margin. A lot 

of people in this country of ours question today whether we are still able to 

set aside our partisan and other differences when the stakes are high and 

summon the political will to do what is 

best for America. Let’s show them by 

our actions this week that, yes, we can. 

Let’s seize the day. Carpe diem. 

With that, I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut. 

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, 

I ask unanimous consent that the period for debate only on S. 3414, the Cybersecurity Act, be extended until 6:30 

p.m.; further, that the majority leader 

be recognized at 6:30 p.m. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

WHITEHOUSE). The Senator from New 

York. 

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I 

wish to salute my colleague from Delaware. We have a number of people in 

this body who will take on the very 

tough issues—issues, frankly, that can 

only succeed when there is bipartisan 

agreement but that are deep and complicated and take day after day, week 

after week, even month after month of 

effort—and there are not many who 

can craft that type of legislation. The 

Senator from Delaware is one of them. 

He did it on the postal bill. He is doing 

it here on cyber security. I believe on 

both of them he will have ultimate success, and we thank the Senator. We 

thank him for his good work. 

Now I would like to discuss the cyber 

security bill. I am very hopeful that we 

will pass a bill that will find a good and 

workable balance—one certainly that 

ensures that our critical infrastructure 

has the most effective countermeasures to prevent cyber attacks but 

one that will also encourage our dynamic technology industry to continue 

to innovate, and protect freedom of expression and privacy on the Internet. 

Let me remind my colleagues that 

the Internet was originally developed 

as a way for universities, governments, 

and companies to collaborate on research and other projects. The whole 

purpose of the Internet was meant to 

stimulate the open exchange of ideas, 

and as a result it has changed the 

world. We have seen it in Egypt, in 

Russia, in China. We have seen the 

Internet—people’s ability to communicate, unfettered by government or 

other strong forces—create huge 

amounts of power—good power, positive power. 

Just ask the entrepreneurs who developed whole new ways of selling products and developing services about how 

the Internet was made to stimulate the 

open exchange of ideas. It has given the 

opportunity to someone with an idea to 

actually take that idea and turn it into 

a business because it so reduces the 

transaction costs of doing so. Just ask 

the inventors and creators who have 

fostered new means of expression, allowing us to communicate in real time, 

efficiently and inexpensively, with our 

colleagues all over the world. 

I am an efficiency bug. I like to use 

‘‘I am a busy fella.’’ I love the work I 

do, and I like to use it as efficiently as 

possible—the fact that I can have a 

laptop or an iPad in the car while the 

car is driving forward. I am not driving; I am sitting there working. In the 

old days, you could not do that. It is 

amazing how it has improved our efficiency. It is sort of, in a certain sense, 

Adam Smith’s dream because it reduces transaction costs and allows us 

to focus effectively on producing what 

people want and need. 

In short, our cyber world is one we 

could have never imagined 30 years 

ago. It is both simple—it can be 

accessed through a few keystrokes or 

screen touches—and yet it is enormously complex in its infrastructure. 

We have to do everything we can to 

protect that free and open access—that 

is the theme of my speech today—although we also, of course, have to protect the critical infrastructure behind 

it. 

We are all aware of the national security risks if we do not do a cyber bill. 

Many of us have sat up in the Visitor 

Center, in the secure room, and heard 

leaders of our military and intelligence 

agencies tell us that the greatest 

threat to America is a cyber attack on 

our critical infrastructure—in many of 

their estimation, even more dangerous 

than terrorism. 

Hackers broke into the Pentagon’s 

F–35 Joint Strike Fighter project, 

stealing the aircraft’s design and electronic-related schematics. It is not 

hard to imagine a scenario where hackers break into a gas refinery or a nuclear powerplant to wreak havoc with 

the control computer systems, nor is it 

hard to see a scenario where Iran attempts to learn some of our nuclear secrets. So it is very important to deal 

with the critical infrastructure piece. 

Mr. President, let me commend you 

for your hard work in this area, along 

with the Senator from Arizona. We are 

still hoping and praying you guys can 

come to an agreement, along with the 

help of many. I know Senator MIKULSKI

has been very active and many other of 

my colleagues, but the Presiding Officer’s leadership has been exemplary as 

well, and I would apply the same words 

to you that I applied to the Senator 

from Delaware before in terms of working on complex, difficult projects and 

moving forward with them. 

Anyway, it is so very important that 

we protect our infrastructure, but at 

the same time—and this is what makes 

the legislation even more difficult—we 

have to be aware of the risk to a critical part of our economy if we do not 

do it right, if we do not do it carefully, 

if we do not do it thoughtfully, and if 

we do not balance the need to protect 

infrastructure with legitimate rights of 

the freedom of the Internet and of privacy. 

To be perfectly frank, I have a big 

dog in this fight. You see, the Silicon 

Valley may have given us the semiconductor, but New York City, in my opinion, will be the birthplace of the next 

great generation of Internet giants. 

New York entrepreneurs started Foursquare, Tumblr, and Kickstarter. 

CodeAcademy, TechStars, and General 

Assembly are training the next generation of Internet entrepreneurs. Venture 

capital is flocking to New York to help 

these startups. For the first time, we 

are getting engineers and scientists 

who want to be in New York. We are 

still not at the level of the Silicon Valley, but we are probably No. 2 in the 

country in this regard, and, like all 

New Yorkers, we want to be No. 1 at 

some point. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5718 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 31, 2012 

What is more, the existing Internet 

giants—Facebook and Google and 

Twitter—have all opened major offices 

in New York City. Google has over 3,000 

people. I was proud to be at the opening of Facebook, and they are so happy 

with their office, they are expanding 

its role already. These companies know 

the talent and energy that are unique 

to New York, and they do not want to 

miss out on the next great idea. That, 

as I said, is likely to come from New 

York. 

These ideas are not just important 

for New York but for America. Internet 

and tech companies around the country 

have ushered in a new era of change. 

They have made our world a drastically and dramatically different place 

than it was even 10 years ago—a better 

world, a more open world, a more productive world. 

But one thing remains the same: We 

do not have a coherent and comprehensive national strategy to protect the 

critical networks that power our everyday lives—our homes, our businesses, 

and our computers. It is akin to protecting the Taj Mahal with a chain 

link fence and a bike lock. These networks protect our water systems and 

our financial information, the electric 

grid and our e-mail accounts. 

This bill goes a long way in establishing a set of principles and programs 

that will make these vulnerable networks safer, but there are some parts 

of the bill I fear go a step too far in the 

name of security over privacy, and 

there has to be a balance. The same 

minds who have given us the great 

Internet innovations of the 21st century have told me, convinced me, educated me that we cannot cede too much 

power to one side of this equation. 

We all know that in this very complex cyber world, we do give up some of 

our privacy, but unabated authority to 

stifle innovation in the name of cyber 

security is a bridge too far. That is 

why I am happy to cosponsor the 

amendment of my colleague from Minnesota AL FRANKEN. He has become an 

expert on trying to figure out how we 

can preserve the dynamism, the effectiveness, the efficiency of the Internet 

but at the same time preserve our privacy. 

As more and more of our economic 

lifeblood has shifted into the cyber 

world, we have an obligation to ensure 

that the infrastructure that validates 

credit card purchases, directs planes, 

and controls electricity is well protected against cyber attack. It is not a 

secret that people want to disrupt our 

way of life, and it is easy to imagine a 

world where terrorists attempt to take 

control of railroad switches and traffic 

lights to cause incredible disruption to 

our everyday lives. However, we must 

make sure that in protecting what we 

have, we do not stifle innovation, we do 

not trample on people’s privacy rights. 

We have to leave room for the creation 

from the next Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, 

or whomever, while protecting the security the average middle-class family, 

the Baileys, feel when they go online to 

buy birthday presents for their grandchildren. 

So in the final bill, we must find the 

right balance to preserve the economic 

viability of the Internet; otherwise, 

there will be no critical infrastructure 

to protect. But we must protect privacy rights, and I think the Franken 

amendment—and I commend it to my 

colleagues; a lot of work has gone into 

it—puts the balance in the right place. 

I hope that as we move forward on 

this bill—either now or in September 

when we return—we will get broad bipartisan support for that amendment 

because it enables us to, in a certain 

sense, have our cake and eat it too: 

protect our infrastructure but at the 

same time protect, nurture our creativity and the openness of the Internet and protect our privacy. 

With that, Mr. President, I yield the 

floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. 

THE FARM BILL

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, the worst drought in 50 years has 

hit Nebraska and the entire Midwest 

hard. Every single one of Nebraska’s 93 

counties is in a state of severe drought. 

If you look at the chart I have in the 

Chamber, you can see that the drought 

is throughout the Midwest, into the 

Middle East, down into the Southeast, 

down into Texas and the West, even 

drought conditions in Hawaii, and it is 

abnormally dry up in the northern part 

of Alaska. The USDA has already declared more than 40 Nebraska counties 

as natural disaster areas. If you take a 

look at this picture, you can see the 

cornfields that are just completely dirt 

fields now; pasture that is nothing 

more than dried grass, where there is 

still grass and dirt; the soybean fields 

are decimated; and corn is in many 

areas not only dwarfed in its growth 

but is not producing ears of corn. The 

bone-dry conditions continue to damage corn, soybeans, pastures, and 

rangeland, even as we speak. 

Just last week a small blaze quickly 

spread over the parched land in north 

central Nebraska. It rapidly grew into 

a fire that consumed tens of thousands 

of acres, 14 houses, and forced many 

others from their homes. 

Nebraska is fortunate to have had 

hard-working firefighters in our State 

and others to put out those flames. 

Hopefully, we will not need to utilize 

their talents in the near future. Now 

what Nebraska needs is disaster relief. 

And we are not alone. If you look at 

this chart, you will see that a good 

part of the rest of the country needs 

disaster relief as well. Unfortunately, 

the disaster programs in the 2008 farm 

bill have already expired. 

While the Senate passed the 5-year 

farm bill in June, the House is not even 

expected to take action on it. The Senate’s 5-year farm bill strengthens and 

improves the 2008 farm bill, particularly the natural disaster relief provisions. It beefs up and rehabilitates livestock disaster programs, it provides 

tools to help reduce fire risk and improve forest health, it improves and increases access to crop insurance to protect against future natural disasters, it 

authorizes direct and guaranteed loans 

for recovery from wildfires and 

drought, and the list goes on—all important programs necessary to deal 

with this disaster we are facing in our 

country today. 

The Senate’s 5-year farm bill makes 

necessary upgrades to the policies in 

the 2008 farm bill to help Americans recover from natural disasters, and it 

does it without digging the country 

deeper into debt. The Senate passed 

this bipartisan farm bill in June, but 

the House will not take action on it. 

Plus, the House is expected to move a 

separate bill, essentially a 1-year extension of the old 2008 farm bill. A 1- 

year extension of outdated and inefficient policies is not adequate, it is irresponsible. We need the substantial reforms in the Senate’s 5-year farm bill 

now. A 1-year extension of current policy does nothing to help those who 

need the farm bill and its disaster relief the most. When you can do better, 

you should do better. 

Congress passed a 5-year farm bill in 

2008, 2002, 1996, 1990, 1985—you get the 

picture—just about every 5 years between 1965 and today. Surely the House 

can pass a proper 5-year farm bill. And 

the need to is all the more apparent in 

the face of the nationwide drought, 

with the disaster relief provisions in 

the 2008 farm bill having expired on 

September 30 last year, 2011. 

Now, instead of passing a 5-year extension of the farm bill, they have held 

a lot of political messaging votes and 

they put off doing what should have 

been done at the very beginning. And 

now, while America is getting hit by 

drought and fire, while American farmers and ranchers do not have the disaster relief because there is no farm 

bill, the House is merely going to pass 

a 1-year extension of current policies. 

They want to buy some time, kick the 

can down the road. 

Well, now it is time for the House to 

do its job. Do what is right for the 

country. Do not take the easy way out. 

Show the American people that you remember why you are here and what 

you need to do and can actually do it. 

Americans do not want a flimsy 1-year 

extension of inadequate coverage and 

outdated policies. Americans want a 

dependable, modern, and economical 5- 

year farm bill that cuts Federal spending. That is what the Senate gave the 

House. That is what the House Agriculture Committee gave the House to 

work with—its own 5-year plan. Sure, 

there are real differences between the 

Senate bill and the House Agriculture 

bill, but there should be room for consensus. So the House must pass the bill 

or pass our bill, but do not pass a 1- 

year extension of outdated policies 

that will not work for modern American agriculture. Do not try to just 

coast along without a 5-year farm bill. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5719 

The lack of a 2012 farm bill will fail 

to provide certainty to farmers and 

ranchers and lead to higher prices for 

all consumers at the grocery store. And 

this is on top of the already predicted 

3 to 4 percent rise in food prices caused 

by the drought. We do not want that 

and America deserves better. Nebraska’s farmers and our American farmers 

and ranchers and all those affected by 

the drought are depending on Congress 

to do our job right and fairly debate 

this issue. So do not kick the can down 

the road. 

I urge the House to bring a 5-year 

farm bill to the House floor as soon as 

possible. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I 

suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I 

rise to continue the discussion on the 

cyber security legislation, and particularly S. 3414, the pending business before the Senate, which is the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, the bipartisan piece 

of legislation to deal with an urgent 

national crisis. 

I want first, again, to speak to our 

colleagues about the seriousness of the 

threat. I think sometimes that because 

most people haven’t experienced the 

consequences of a cyber attack—and 

most are not aware of the constant 

cyber theft going on with moving 

money from bank accounts and stealing industrial secrets—frankly, a lot of 

the businesses that are victims of the 

theft don’t want to acknowledge them 

or announce them for fear of exposing 

their own lack of adequate cyber defenses, but also a kind of general embarrassment. Yet we now know as a 

public matter—whether it has sunk 

into the consciousness among most of 

the American people—that some great 

companies that are very tech savvy, 

cyber savvy, have been the victims of 

cyber attacks. 

Sony, RSA, Google, and others have 

come momentarily to public attention, 

but I think what this has meant has 

been unclear to people. It may, in fact, 

be unclear to many of the leaders of 

the private corporations that control 

so much of our critical cyber infrastructure. 

In America, 80 to 85 percent of the 

critical infrastructure is privately 

owned. That is the American way. That 

is the way it ought to be. But it means 

when the private sector owns critical 

infrastructure which can, and will be, a 

target of hostile action, enemy attack 

in this new world of ours, then we have 

to create a partnership with the private owners of this critical infrastructure to raise our defenses because it is 

not just their businesses they are defending, it is the security of the United 

States. 

A chief information officer at one of 

the businesses that owns part of our 

critical infrastructure said to me at 

one point that it is hard to get the attention of the CEO on this problem. 

The CEO is balancing a lot of considerations, looking at annual budgets and 

quarterly profits. For the average CEO, 

the threat of cyber attack is distant. 

For the average chief information officer, it is not so distant. 

As the majority leader pointed out 

earlier, I think it may help to look at 

something very difficult to look at, 

which is what is happening in India 

today where the power system has collapsed for hundreds of millions of people. That is a breakdown, as far as we 

know—and I believe that is what is the 

fact—that is a breakdown in parts of 

the electric grid. 

Let me give another example. Last 

year, in Connecticut, we had a very serious early winter storm where there 

were still a lot of leaves on the trees; 

the branches were heavy. A lot of trees 

fell and took out a lot of power lines in 

our State. A lot of people were without 

power for days and days and days. Public buildings were used as shelters for 

the homeless. Elderly people, particularly, were affected with food spoiling 

in the refrigerators, the lack of lights 

in their dwelling, et cetera. 

Just imagine for a moment if that 

was not the result of a weather event 

but of a cyber attack. Cyber systems 

are controlling the electric power grid, 

and I believe they are vulnerable. I 

think the same of a lot of the other 

cyber systems that control critical infrastructure in our financial system. 

The computer systems we depend on 

for the movement of money from one 

account to the other, the direct deposits we do, the money in our accounts, 

the billions of dollars that move between financial institutions every 

day—what would happen to our country if those systems were knocked out 

or what would happen if Wall Street 

and the stock exchanges were knocked 

out? 

Again, as I said earlier today, think 

about the real nightmare situation, 

which is that a dam controlled by a 

cyber system is penetrated by an 

enemy who opens the dam and 

unleashes water, and torrents of water 

knock out communities in the path of 

that water and kill a lot of people. 

That is all, unfortunately, the age that 

we live in and the vulnerability we 

have. 

There was a story in the Washington 

Post—I believe I talked about it before 

in this debate, but I will repeat it— 

about a young man on the other side of 

the world sitting at his computer at 

home. He was nothing special, but he 

was smart and computer savvy. He 

broke into the computer-controlled 

system—the cyber system controlling a 

small water utility in Texas. He had 

the ability to disrupt the functioning 

of that entire utility. He didn’t do it, 

thank God. He posted online what he 

had done—a warning at least, perhaps a 

bit of bragging that he was able to do 

it. But think about an enemy who had 

hostile intent against the United 

States who would launch similar attacks against several small utilities 

around the country—or large utilities, 

for that matter. 

Mr. President, last week, the people 

who are the real experts on cyber space 

gathered in Las Vegas at the annual— 

and this is an interesting title—Black 

Hat Computer Security Conference. 

They issued yet more warnings. 

The conference opened with a very 

strong warning from Shawn Henry 

who, until recently, was the Assistant 

Director of the FBI in charge of the 

FBI’s considerable cyber program. 

Some people call Shawn Henry the Nation’s top cyber cop. He said this at the 

Black Hat Conference: 

The adversary knows that if you want to 

harm civilized society—take their water 

away, do away with their electricity. There 

are terrorist groups that are online now calling for the use of cyber as a weapon. 

He went on: 

People will not truly get this until they 

see the real implications of a cyber attack. 

For example, people knew about Osama bin 

Laden prior to 9/11, but that awareness had 

risen by several orders of magnitude after 

the attacks. 

Mr. Henry, former director of cyber 

programs at the FBI, concluded: 

I believe something like that will have to 

happen in the cyber world before people 

truly get it. 

Obviously, we all hope and pray not, 

but at this moment in this debate, in 

the Senate’s consideration of the Cybersecurity Act, there are a lot of inflexible positions that are being taken. 

People are not willing to come together across ideological and political 

divides to deal with a problem and a 

threat that faces us all. I fear that Mr. 

Henry may well have been right. 

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues, 

don’t run the risk that it will take a 

cyber 9/11 to bring us rushing back here 

to adopt cyber security legislation. It 

doesn’t take much to imagine what 

will happen if we are the victims of a 

major cyber attack. Minor cyber attacks are happening every day. Major 

cyber thefts occur regularly in America every day. Let’s heed the warning 

and come together over special interests to meet a national security interest and challenge. 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 

order for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, there is such an important subject that is looming over the country 

right now that Congress can do something about; that is, the possibility of 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5720 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 31, 2012 

cyber attack. We have had this discussed by a number of people in very 

high and responsible positions and the 

threat is real. 

What the threat means to all of us in 

our everyday lives is that electrical 

systems could be shut down, water systems could be shut down, the banking 

system could be shut down, sewer systems could go awry, and we can go on 

and on. For months we have been stymied from passing anything because of 

a disagreement in the business community, which is going to be one of the 

main recipients of a potential cyber attack. 

I will choose my words very carefully 

as a member of the Senate Intelligence 

Committee and say this potential attack is real. It is real not only from 

rogue players but also some state actors, and we need to get this legislation 

up and going. I am most encouraged to 

think we are at a position to get agreement; that the chairman and vice 

chairman of our Intelligence Committee are going to come together in 

an agreement. We need to pass this— 

this week—because this is deadly serious. 

I refer to a letter that has been made 

public from the commander of Cyber 

Command, a four-star general, GEN 

Keith Alexander. He is also the head of 

the National Security Agency. He has 

done a remarkable job. He sent a letter, dated today, to the majority leader 

imploring the Senate to move. 

Whatever disagreements there have 

been over the concern of the Department of Homeland Security being the 

interfacing agency can be worked out. 

The National Security Agency—which 

almost all of us have enormous confidence in—is going to be directly involved. 

It is my hope and I am expressing optimism that we are going to get this 

legislation out of here and to the 

House. If they can’t pass it before this 

August recess, at least we can have 

some items over the August recess 

start to be informally conferenced to 

iron out any differences between the 

House and the Senate. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BENNET). The Senator from Rhode Island. 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I 

am here this afternoon to speak about 

the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, the 

measure that is on the Senate floor 

right now. This important bill addresses a serious and immediate threat to 

our Nation’s security. I served 4 years 

on the Intelligence Committee during 

which I worked hard to understand the 

cyber security threat. I helped Senator 

MIKULSKI and Senator SNOWE write the 

Senate Intelligence Committee Cyber 

Security Report. I am the chairman of 

the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime 

and Terrorism that has jurisdiction 

over cyber security. As I have explained before on the floor of the Senate, the cyber threat against our Nation—against our intellectual property, 

against our privacy, and against our 

safety—is vast and it is upon us. It is a 

national security threat. It is a national economic threat. We cannot afford to wait to pass legislation to respond to this threat. The leading national security experts in each party 

agree: Now is the time to pass comprehensive cyber security legislation. 

The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 is a 

strong, comprehensive bill that will 

make our Nation safer. It will provide 

for the sharing of threat information 

between the government and private 

sector, and it will provide for the hardening, for the protection of the networks of the private companies that 

operate America’s critical infrastructure—that run our electric grid, that 

run our financial networks, that run 

our communications systems and the 

other infrastructure that is essential 

to conducting the day-to-day way of 

life Americans enjoy, that is essential 

to our national security and to our economic well-being. 

The Senate voted to proceed to this 

bill in a very broad, bipartisan manner—84 votes, as I recall. It has been 

disappointing in the wake of that that 

some elements within the business 

community are failing to cooperate, 

are failing to, for instance, provide 

constructive suggestions in areas 

where they have disagreement with 

this important legislation. Indeed, 

some appear intent on just preventing 

the Senate from passing legislation 

that would make us all safer. 

In some cases these interests are not 

negotiating to get a bill that protects 

their interests. They are blockading to 

stop a bill that will protect all of our 

interests. To put this blockade into 

context, consider the views of GEN 

Keith Alexander, the Director of the 

National Security Agency and of 

United States Cyber Command. General Alexander is the most senior and 

respected cyber security expert in our 

Nation’s military. He runs our two 

most technically sophisticated and 

skilled cyber operations. Today he 

wrote: 

The cyber threat facing the Nation is real 

and demands immediate action. The time to 

act is now; we simply cannot afford further 

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

security, cyber security legislation should 

address both information sharing and core 

critical infrastructure hardening. 

The Cybersecurity Act addresses 

both of those issues, information sharing and core critical infrastructure 

hardening. It does what our military’s 

leading cyber security expert says is 

necessary to be done to protect the Nation. 

That, then, is the view of the leader 

of our military cyber warriors and 

cyber defenders based on both deep experience and access to the most deeply 

classified information held by the U.S. 

Government. 

In contrast, industry arguments 

against cyber security legislation appear to have been developed with little 

or no awareness of the threat facing 

our Nation. Kevin Mandia of the leading security firm Mandiant has explained, for example, that ‘‘in over 90 

percent of the cases we have responded 

to, government notification was required to alert the company that a security breach was underway. In our 

last 50 incidents, ‘‘ he said, ‘‘48 of the 

victim companies learned they were 

breached from the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, the Department of Defense, or some other third party.’’ 

The FBI’s experience was similar. 

When the FBI-led National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force informs 

the corporation it has been hacked, 9 

times out of 10, the FBI reports, the 

corporation had no idea. 

In Operation Aurora, the cyber attack which targeted numerous companies, only 3 out of the approximately 

300 companies attacked were aware 

that they had been attacked before 

they were contacted by the government. 

These are not unique incidents. Globally, I have said, General Alexander 

has said, and others have said that 

America is right now on the losing end 

of the largest illicit transfer of wealth 

in human history through cyber attack 

and through the theft through cyber 

attack of our intellectual property. So 

this is an industrywide problem. 

Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

has been the completely unwitting victim of a long-term and extensive cyber 

intrusion. Just last year the Wall 

Street Journal reported that a group of 

hackers in China breached the computer defenses of the U.S. Chamber, 

gained access to everything stored on 

its systems, including information 

about its 3 million members, and remained on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s network for at least 6 months 

and possibly more than a year. The 

chamber only learned of the break-in 

when the FBI told the group that servers in China were stealing its information. 

Even after the chamber was notified 

and increased its cyber security, the 

article stated that the chamber continued to experience suspicious activity, 

including a ‘‘thermostat at a townhouse the Chamber owns on Capitol 

Hill . . . communicating with an Internet address in China . . . and . . . a 

printer used by Chamber executives 

spontaneously . . . printing pages with 

Chinese characters.’’ These are the people we are supposed to listen to about 

cyber security. 

A recent Bloomberg News article 

makes it clear that this was not an isolated incident. It describes how hackers linked to China’s army have been 

seen on the networks of a vast array of 

American businesses. The article describes how what started as assaults on 

military and defense contractors have 

widened into a rash of attacks from 

which no corporate entity is safe. 

Among other cyber attacks, Bloomberg 

News reported, the networks of major 

oil companies have been harvested for 

seismic maps charting oil reserves—it 

saves work if you can steal that information rather than find it yourself— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5721 

patent law firms have been hacked for 

their clients’ trade secrets—again, free 

access to valuable information—and investment banks have been hacked into 

for market analysis that might impact 

the global ventures of certain stateowned—nation-state-owned, foreigncountry-owned operations. 

After having been victimized repeatedly by cyber attacks and having 

learned about them only when the government arrived to help them fix the 

problem, one would think critical infrastructure operators or their representatives would be keenly aware of 

the urgent need for cyber security legislation. One would think they might 

come to this issue with some sense of 

humility based on the patent inadequacy of their defenses. One would 

think that elected officials sworn to 

the protection of this country might 

view with some caution and some skepticism claims by folks who are hacked 

and penetrated virtually at will, usually without even knowing about it, 

that they can handle this just fine on 

their own. Yet industry opposition remains, even after the bill has been revised to include a very business-friendly, voluntary, incentive-based approach 

to hardening up critical infrastructure 

that we all depend on. Unfortunately, 

some colleagues can only hear the 

siren song of the industry lobbyists, 

even with plain and ominous national 

security threats staring them in the 

face. 

Some in industry claim that a bill 

with only information sharing between 

the government and business would be 

sufficient and that protection of critical infrastructure is not necessary. 

This premise is wrong. Statements to 

the contrary are simply false. Such assertions have been repudiated by the 

people who lead the charge with our 

Nation’s defense, and who have been 

confirmed in these roles by the Senate 

who have repeatedly, and as recently 

as today, emphasized the need to protect critical infrastructure. These officials include Secretary of Defense Panetta, Director of National Intelligence 

Clapper, Attorney General Holder, Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano, and others. 

Indeed, it is not just this administration that holds this view. A wide range 

of national security experts from previous Republican administrations have 

emphasized the vulnerability of our 

critical infrastructure, including 

former Director of National Intelligence and NSA Director ADM Mike 

McConnell, former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and 

former assistant attorney general OLC, 

and now Harvard Law School professor 

Jack Goldsmith. These people know 

what they are talking about, they are 

not kidding around, and they deserve 

to be listened to. 

Secretary Chertoff has explained that 

the existing status quo is not generating adequate cyber security for our 

critical infrastructure. The marketplace, former Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff has explained, is likely 

to fail in allocating the correct amount 

of investment to manage risk across 

the breadth of the networks on which 

our society relies. One example of this 

type of market failure is the decision 

of gas, electric power, and water utility 

industries to forgo implementation of a 

powerful new encryption system to 

shield substations, pipeline compressors, and other key infrastructure from 

cyber attack because of cost concerns. 

It should be noted the costs in this case 

would be approximately $500 per vulnerable device, and they still would not 

do it. 

The unwillingness of industry to 

adopt necessary security standards is 

particularly troubling when we consider the scope and scale of the risks 

associated with a failure of critical infrastructure. The current electricity 

grid knocked down in India—leaving 

600 million people without power— 

shows how bad things can get when 

critical infrastructure fails. The cause 

of this massive failure is not clear, and 

there is not yet any evidence that it 

was caused by a cyber attack, but it 

vividly illustrates the vulnerability of 

humankind when the critical infrastructure we depend on is knocked 

down and of the terrible possible consequences of the failure of that critical 

infrastructure. 

The scale of the threat we face, the 

plain inadequacy of current safeguards 

in the corporate sector, and the consequences of failure in this area of critical infrastructure all join together to 

demand passage of comprehensive 

cyber security legislation. This is a 

matter of national security. It is our 

responsibility here in this building to 

do what we can to make the Nation 

safer regardless of any parochial interests. Now is the time for us all to come 

together to get this important job 

done. 

I will conclude by saying we are tantalizingly close to having an agreement. If people will take one last step 

forward to get that agreement, I think 

we can do it. If people back away because of the urging of parochial interests, we will fail at this opportunity. 

I want to conclude by expressing my 

congratulations to the chairman of the 

committee on Homeland Security and 

his ranking member who have worked 

hard and who have given an enormous 

amount. We began with a traditional 

government-run regulatory procedure, 

which is one that everybody is familiar 

with and has lots of checks and balances in it, but it is also a fairly mandatory and top-controlled procedure. 

As a result of considerable bipartisan 

discussions, a new model emerged that 

allows the industry immense independence and control in this area. 

The regime it has been moved to is a 

huge step by the chairman and the 

ranking member and begins with the 

rule that originates in the private sector, has it vetted by experts from the 

private sector, has a national institute 

for science and technology review as 

well, ends up with an array of government agencies approving or disapproving that, and whatever standard 

is ultimately approved by the government council of agencies, the industry 

companies are free to opt in or opt out. 

If they think the regulation is unreasonable, they are at liberty to opt out 

entirely. A comprehensive liability 

protection structure has been created 

as an inducement for companies to participate, but it is a strong and powerful 

check on the standard-setting apparatus that ultimately the industry can 

choose to opt out if it is unreasonable. 

An enormous step has been taken by 

the authors of the current bill toward a 

compromise. We need a step coming 

back the other way in order to get this 

done. 

I see my distinguished colleague 

from Tennessee is here. Let me take 

one moment as I yield to express my 

appreciation to Nick Patterson of the 

Department of Justice who has been on 

my staff on assignment from the national security division for months and 

months working on this issue. Today is 

his last day. I want to thank him for 

his work on this effort. I want to thank 

the Department of Justice for loaning 

him to me and having them lose this 

valuable member of their national security division to help us develop this 

legislation. He has been a valuable part 

of an immensely capable team in my 

office, led by Stephen Lilley, that has 

gotten us to at least where I am today 

on this legislation. 

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I 

thank the Senator from Tennessee for 

his courtesy. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the 

majority leader is coming to the floor 

at 6:30, and I will yield to him at that 

time. 

I would like to thank Neena Imam, 

who is sitting with me, for serving on 

my staff for the past two years as a fellow with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. She has done a terrific job 

working for me on energy and environmental policy. 

Mr. President, today is the 100th anniversary of Milton Friedman’s birthday, the Nobel Prize Laureate. One of 

his most important statements, in my 

opinion, was this, ‘‘Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government 

program.’’ It was reported by several 

media outlets that Governor Mitt 

Romney has taken the position that 

the wind production tax credit should 

be allowed to expire at the end of the 

year. He must have known Milton 

Friedman’s birthday was coming 

today. I wouldn’t presume to speak for 

Milton Friedman, but I think he would 

applaud Governor Romney’s position. 

It shows his seriousness about our fiscal problems in the United States. It’s 

time to end a temporary tax credit 

that was put into law in 1992, when 

President George H.W. Bush was in office and when Milton Friedman was 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5722 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 31, 2012 

only 80 years old. The wind production 

tax credit was a temporary tax break, 

in 1992 to encourage wind power. We 

give wind developers 2.2 cents for every 

kilowatt-hour of wind electricity produced. And now it’s about to expire at 

the end of the year. It needs to be extended again the developers say. Nothing is so permanent as a temporary 

government program. They tell us just 

one more time. But it is an argument 

like this that has got us into the fiscal 

mess we have as a Nation. 

The United States of America, according to the Joint Tax Committee 

and the U.S. Treasury, is spending $14 

billion on subsidizing giant wind turbines over a five-year period, $6 billion 

of it is this production tax credit. 

That’s why I am so pleased to see Governor Romney support the idea of more 

responsibility in our spending. We 

spend too much money in Washington 

that we do not have, and it has to stop. 

There are many reasons we don’t need 

this particular provision of the tax 

code. 

First, we can’t afford it. From 2009 

through 2013, the tax credit will cost 

taxpayers $6 billion over five years, and 

the grants will cost another $8 billion 

over that same five years. At a time 

when the federal government is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it 

spends, we cannot justify such a subsidy, especially for what the U.S. Energy Secretary calls a ‘‘mature technology.’’ 

Second, despite all the money, it produces a relatively small amount of 

electricity, producing only 2.3 percent 

of our electricity in the United States. 

We’re a big country. We use 25 percent 

of all the electricity in the world. 

We’re not going to operate our country 

through windmills. 

Third, these massive turbines too 

often destroy the environment in the 

name of saving the environment. Some 

are 50 stories high—taller than the 

Statue of Liberty—with blades as long 

as a football field, weighing seven tons 

and spinning at 150 miles an hour, with 

blinking lights visible for 20 miles. 

These aren’t your grandma’s windmills. These gigantic turbines are three 

times as tall as the sky boxes at University of Tennessee’s Neyland Stadium in Knoxville. There is a new 

movie called ‘‘Windfall’’ about residents in upstate New York who are 

upset and have left their homes because of these big wind turbines. 

Mr. President, the majority leader 

has come to the floor, and I will forgo 

my remarks at this time so he has a 

chance to say what he wishes to say. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the senior Senator 

from Tennessee wishes to speak for another 10 minutes, is that right? 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, 5 

minutes would do it. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for debate only on S. 3414, the Cybersecurity 

Act of 2012, be extended until 6:40, and 

that at 6:40 I be recognized. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The Senator from Tennessee. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the majority leader for his courtesy, and I will 

continue. 

The fourth reason that we don’t need 

to allow these production tax credits 

for wind to be renewed is that they 

have not created as many American 

jobs as expected. An American University study reported in 2009 that the 

first $1 billion of stimulus grants to 

wind went to foreign manufacturing 

companies. 

And what did we get in return for 

these billions of dollars of subsidies? A 

puny amount of unreliable electricity 

generated mostly at night when we 

don’t use it. 

I mentioned a little earlier that our 

country is a big country. It uses lots of 

electricity. The Senator from Rhode Island was talking about the problems in 

India that are being caused by failure 

of the grid. We need large amounts of 

reliable baseload electricity to power 

this country. We’re very fortunate that 

we have, through unconventional natural gas discoveries, found that we’re 

going to have a lot of cheap natural gas 

in the United States, and we can make 

electricity from natural gas power 

plants at a low cost and with very little air pollution. 

Nuclear power produces 70 percent of 

our carbon-free electricity, and 20 percent of the total electricity generated 

in the U.S. It needs to be a part of our 

future energy mix. Coal should also be 

part of our energy future, as long as 

coal plants have pollution control 

equipment on them to reduce the sulfur, nitrogen and mercury. I was one of 

those senators who voted to require 

coal plants that operate in the future 

to have pollution control equipment on 

them. This means in a few years every 

operating coal plant in the United 

States will be clean except for carbon, 

and I am convinced that such programs 

as ARPA-E at the Department of Energy will find what I think is the holy 

grail of energy technologies. 

One of the companies that ARPA-E 

invests federal research dollars in is 

experimenting with growing micro-organisms on electrodes. These bacteria 

can turn carbon dioxide into fuel. In 

other words, they create a commercial 

energy use for the carbon that comes 

from our coal plants. And when that 

happens, the United States will have 

massive amounts of cheap, clean, reliable electricity. And we won’t be 

powering our country with windmills. 

We should congratulate Dr. Friedman 

for his great career, for his wisdom in 

pointing out to us that nothing is so 

permanent as a temporary government 

program, and applaud Governor Romney for recognizing that and calling for 

the end of this tax credit. 

We’re coming upon something we call 

the fiscal cliff. I know the senator from 

Colorado is very interested in this, 

spending a lot of time working in a bipartisan way to try to find a way to 

deal with it. My friend, the Foreign 

Minister of Australia, is a great fan of 

the United States, and he said to the 

United States that we’re one budget 

agreement away from restoring our 

global preeminence—One budget agreement away from restoring our global 

preeminence. 

Now, to get that agreement what do 

we have to do? We have to deal with 

appropriations bills at the end of the 

year, a problem we may have solved 

today with a solution the leaders recommended. We have to deal with the 

Bush tax cuts, and multiple items that 

expire at the end of the year such as 

the tax extenders that need to be renewed or not, and the alternative minimum tax which started out as a tax on 

rich people and now threatens to impact millions of Americans. There’s appropriate payment to doctors who provide medical care, we call this the doc 

fix. There is the sequester that none of 

us likes. There’s the problem of the 

debt limit, the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits. All of this is 

happening at the end of the year. 

This is a good time to get serious 

about with dealing with the fiscal cliff, 

and let a 20 year, temporary tax break 

to encourage wind energy—which costs 

the American people $6 billion over five 

years—to expire and let wind stand on 

its own. I would suggest that for the $6 

billion in savings we put $2 of every $3 

we save into reducing the debt and $1 

into energy research to see if we can 

find even more amounts of cheap, clean 

energy. 

So it is a good occasion to celebrate 

Milton Friedman’s 100th birthday, and 

it is a good occasion to applaud Governor Romney for following Milton 

Friedman’s advice: ‘‘Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government 

program.’’ 

I thank the Presiding Officer. I thank 

the majority leader for his courtesy. 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I 

rise to discuss three amendments to 

the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 that I am 

introducing today with Senator MIKULSKI. This important piece of legislation, which was introduced by Senators 

LIEBERMAN, COLLINS, FEINSTEIN, 

ROCKEFELLER, and CARPER, responds to 

the serious and growing cyber security 

threat facing our Nation. It will 

strengthen our national security, our 

economic well-being, the safety of our 

families, and our privacy. The three 

amendments Senator MIKULSKI and I 

are introducing today would ensure 

that the bill also harnesses law enforcement agencies’ cyber authorities 

and capabilities as effectively as possible. 

I am very honored that Senator MIKULSKI is introducing these amendments with me today. She has a long 

record of continued leadership on law 

enforcement and national security 

issues. It has been a privilege to work 

with her on the challenge of protecting 

Americans against cyber security 

threats, first on the Intelligence Committee and more recently in a series of 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5723 

discussion and working groups. As the 

chairman for the Commerce, Justice, 

Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, her assessment of the right approach to law enforcement issues in 

cyberspace draws from a wealth of experience and expertise. I am very 

grateful to her for her leadership on 

these issues. 

The first amendment we have introduced addresses the scale and structure 

of law enforcement’s cyber resources. 

Law enforcement agencies have vital 

roles to play against cyber crime, 

cyber espionage, and other emerging 

and growing cyber threats. Congress 

must ensure that law enforcement 

agencies are organized and resourced in 

a manner that allows them to fulfill 

these important responsibilities. To 

date, investigatory responsibilities for 

cyber crime have been assigned within 

existing agencies, with some held by 

the FBI and others by the Secret Service or other agencies. Prosecutorial responsibilities have been distributed 

among the National Security Division, 

the Computer Crime and Intellectual 

Property Section, and U.S. attorneys’ 

offices across the country. Law enforcement has had some important successes with this model, such as the 

FBI’s takedown of the Coreflood 

botnet, but these successes need to be 

achieved with much greater frequency. 

FBI Director Mueller stated that a 

‘‘substantial reorientation of the Bureau’’ will be necessary to achieve that 

goal. It is Congress’s responsibility to 

ensure that any reorientation of law 

enforcement maximizes law enforcement’s effectiveness against the cyber 

threat and uses Federal resources as efficiently as possible. This will require 

Congress to consider important issues 

such as whether cyber crime should 

have a dedicated investigatory agency 

akin to the DEA or ATF, whether existing task force or strike force models 

are well suited for addressing the cyber 

threat, and how cyber resources should 

be scaled given the future threat. 

To address these questions, our 

amendment would require an expert 

study of our current cyber law enforcement resources. This study will evaluate the scale and structure of these resources, identifying strengths and 

weaknesses in the current approach 

and providing recommendations for the 

future. This amendment thus will provide Congress a necessary expert assessment to guide our work in the 

years ahead. 

The second amendment we have introduced would ensure that existing 

and effective cyber law enforcements 

efforts are not unintentionally disrupted by changes made in title II of 

the bill, which covers ‘‘Federal Information Security Management and Consolidating Resources.’’ This title 

makes a number of valuable changes 

and reforms to current law, including 

the creation of a center within the Department of Homeland Security that 

will lead efforts to protect Federal 

Government networks. The creation of 

this center is an important step forward in protecting Federal networks, 

but we must ensure that its operations 

do not disrupt law enforcement relationships and activities that currently 

are making our country safer. For example, the FBI-led National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force, NCIJTF, 

must be allowed to continue its much 

needed and effective work on cyber law 

enforcement and intelligence. 

Our amendment would clarify that 

the new center is focused on the protection of Federal networks and that 

its responsibilities do not extend to law 

enforcement. Specifically, the amendment would add a savings clause indicating that the title does not pertain 

to law enforcement or intelligence activities. It also would add definitions 

that help provide a clearer picture of 

the new center’s role in protecting Federal Government networks and responding to cyber threats, vulnerabilities, or incidents. 

The final amendment we are introducing today is to title VI, which covers international cooperation. This 

title, which incorporates legislation 

first introduced by Senator GILLIBRAND

and Senator HATCH, will help clarify 

and strengthen the ability of the Federal Government and particularly the 

Department of State to develop international cyber security policy. Language in the title, however, could be 

read to disrupt existing and effective 

working relationships between American and foreign law enforcement agencies, interfere with the exercise of 

prosecutorial discretion, and to limit 

the Department of Justice’s accountability to Congress for the law enforcement decisions it makes. Our amendment would ensure that the Department of Justice works collaboratively 

with the Department of State as it exercises its prosecutorial discretion and 

that it is accountable to Congress for 

cyber crime issues for which it is responsible and regarding which it has 

particular expertise. 

I look forward to working with the 

managers of S. 3414 and any interested 

colleagues on these important issues. I 

thank Senator MIKULSKI for her cosponsorship. 

I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk proceeded to call the 

roll. 

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

quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, to say I am 

disappointed is a tremendous understatement. This body is debating a 

measure that would prevent what national security experts on a bipartisan 

basis have called a serious threat to 

our Nation since the dawn of the nuclear age. Senator MCCAIN called this 

danger an existential threat to our Nation. 

Democrats were prepared to work on 

a bipartisan basis to pass this legislation. I, personally, have convened 

many meetings, going back 2 years 

ago, to have a piece of legislation that 

we could pass through this body. In 

that 2 years’ time, things have gotten 

worse, not better, as far as threats to 

our country. We have been prepared to 

address concerns raised by the private 

sector, and I think it is only fair to say 

that for the leaders of the committees 

involved in this issue, there has been 

real cooperation, from both Democrats 

and Republicans. 

I have said on the Senate floor many 

times that the work of Senator LIEBERMAN and Senator COLLINS has been exemplary. The major part of this bill is 

within their jurisdiction dealing with 

homeland security. I have always envisioned they have been prepared to engage in a robust debate and to consider 

amendments designed to perfect the 

bill. I know that is how I feel. Above 

all, I thought we had all been prepared 

to put national security above partisan 

politics to address this urgent matter. 

I was surprised this morning to hear 

Senator MCCONNELL say he would like 

a vote on repealing ObamaCare on this 

bill. That is really not appropriate. 

Some Republican Senators have said 

this matter is going to be filibustered 

unless they have the right to vote on 

an amendment to repeal health care reform. Obviously, that is it. The Republican leader said that, but then I 

thought that might fade away. 

Every Tuesday after our caucuses— 

the Republicans have one and the 

Democrats have one—Senator MCCONNELL and I meet at the Ohio clock, as 

it is called, and both of us make a 

statement and answer questions the 

press gives us. It is not a jump ball, as 

in whoever gets there first gets to 

make the first presentation. We wait, 

and if one of us is not ready, the other 

goes first. 

Sometimes he goes first; sometimes I 

go first. But the important point in the 

one today is that—and I am paraphrasing but the point is certainly 

valid—the Republican leader said out 

here, with the entire press corps and 

his leadership team with him, that 

cyber security—remember, I am paraphrasing—is something we should do, 

but it will take several weeks to do it. 

Not this week. 

Compare that to the words of GEN 

Keith Alexander, commander of the 

U.S. Cyber Command, who wrote Senator MCCONNELL and I today. And here 

is what he said. This is a quote: 

The cyber threat facing this Nation is real 

and demands immediate action. The time to 

act is now. We simply cannot afford further 

delay. 

I have tried to figure out a way of describing how I feel about this. I said 

‘‘disappointed,’’ and that is certainly 

true; ‘‘flummoxed,’’ that is certainly 

true. I cannot understand why we are 

in this position. I am so disappointed 

that Leader MCCONNELL and his colleagues—some of his colleagues—would 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5724 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 31, 2012 

prevent us from acting on this urgent 

threat. I am particularly astounded 

they would rather launch yet another 

attack, for example, on women’s health 

than work to ensure the security of our 

Nation. 

I have no choice but to file cloture on 

this matter. I would hope we could get 

cloture, but I am a realist, as I have 

learned after having tried to work 

through 85 different filibusters in this 

congressional session. I remain hopeful 

that they will come to their senses and 

realize the urgent need for action on 

this matter. 

There was a really inspirational presentation made in our caucus today by 

Senator BARBARA MIKULSKI of Maryland. Again, I am paraphrasing, but I 

am pretty direct in remembering what 

she said. I was not present when Senator MCCONNELL made his statement. 

Senator MIKULSKI said: I have served 

on the Intelligence Committee for 10 

years. And she said: This legislation 

creates a rendezvous with destiny for 

our country. We have to do something, 

and we have to do it soon. 

I have stated to Senator LIEBERMAN, 

to Senator COLLINS—anyone who will 

listen—this is not a partisan piece of 

legislation. It should not be. I am 

happy to work on an agreement to consider relevant amendments, but this 

matter has been pending since last 

Thursday. Today is Tuesday, and basically the slow walk that I am so used 

to around here has taken place. 

I hope we can find a final path forward. Senators from both sides of the 

aisle have come to me personally and 

said they have invested time—lots of 

time—in this matter, and they are trying to forge a consensus. I take them 

at their word, but they all seem powerless to buck the filibuster trend we 

have. 

So I hope when the dust settles we 

can set aside crass politics and work 

together for the good of our Nation and 

can achieve a strong, effective, bipartisan cyber security bill. 

Mr. President, Tom Donohue, head of 

the Chamber of Commerce, is my 

friend. He really is. But I am terribly 

disappointed in the Chamber of Commerce. We started out with having a 

requirement that businesses in the private sector would be required to do certain things. Senators LIEBERMAN and 

COLLINS backed off from that, and now 

it is kind of a voluntary deal. It is 

much weaker than I think it should be. 

Why in the world would they oppose 

that—‘‘they’’ meaning the Chamber of 

Commerce, which has sucked in most 

all of the Republicans on this. That is 

really unfortunate. 

AMENDMENT NO. 2731

So, Mr. President, on behalf of Senators LIEBERMAN, COLLINS, and others, 

I call up amendment No. 2731, which is 

at the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID], for 

Mr. LIEBERMAN, for himself, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. 

ROCKEFELLER, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mr. CARPER, proposes an amendment numbered 2731. 

(The amendment is printed in today’s 

RECORD under ‘‘Text of Amendments.’’) 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for 

the yeas and nays on that amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There appears to be a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 2732 TO AMENDMENT NO. 2731

Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of 

Senator FRANKEN, I call up amendment 

No. 2732, which is also at the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID], for 

Mr. FRANKEN, proposes an amendment numbered 2732 to amendment No. 2731. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the end, add the following new section: 

SEC. ll. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of 

this Act, section 701 and section 706(a)(1) 

shall have no effect. 

AMENDMENT NO. 2733

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an 

amendment to the language proposed 

to be stricken. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID] proposes an amendment numbered 2733 to the 

language proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2731. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 20, line 5, strike ‘‘180 days’’ and insert ‘‘170 days’’. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for 

the yeas and nays on that amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There appears to be a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 2734 TO AMENDMENT NO. 2733

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a 

second-degree amendment at the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID] proposes an amendment numbered 2734 to 

amendment No. 2733. 

The amendment is as follows: 

In the amendment strike ‘‘170’’ and insert 

‘‘160’’. 

CLOTURE MOTION

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a 

cloture motion at the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 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, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas R. Carper, 

Richard J. Durbin, Christopher A. 

Coons, Mark Udall, Ben Nelson, Jeanne 

Shaheen, Tom Udall, Daniel K. Inouye, 

Carl Levin, John D. Rockefeller IV, 

Charles E. Schumer, Sheldon Whitehouse, John F. Kerry, Michael F. Bennet. 

MOTION TO COMMIT WITH AMENDMENT NO. 2735

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a 

motion to commit the bill with instructions, which is at the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report the motion. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID] moves 

to commit the bill, S. 3414, to the Committee 

on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment numbered 2735. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the end, add the following new section: 

SEC. lll. 

This Act shall become effective 3 days 

after enactment. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for 

the yeas and nays on that motion. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There appears to be a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 2736

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an 

amendment to the instructions at the 

desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID] proposes an amendment numbered 2736 to the 

instructions (amendment No. 2735) of the motion to commit S. 3414. 

The amendment is as follows: 

In the amendment, strike ‘‘3 days’’ and insert ‘‘2 days’’. 

Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays 

on that amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There appears to be a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 2737 TO AMENDMENT NO. 2736

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a 

second-degree amendment at the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID] proposes an amendment No. 2737 to amendment 

No. 2736. 

The amendment is as follows: 

In the amendment, strike ‘‘2 days’’ and insert ‘‘1 day’’. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 

quorum required under rule XXII be 

waived with respect to the cloture motion that has just been filed. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

VETERANS JOBS CORPS ACT OF 

2012—MOTION TO PROCEED 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move 

to proceed to Calendar No. 473, S. 3429 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE