`[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5450-S5467]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that at 3:30 p.m. today, the Senate 
proceed to vote on the motion to proceed--or what we can do, we will 
start the vote at 3:25; and if somebody is going to be a bit late, we 
will protect them on that.
  So I ask unanimous consent we start voting at 3:25 p.m. today on the 
motion to proceed to S. 3414, the cybersecurity bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I meant that request to be 3:22 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. All for my friend from Louisiana.


                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to calendar No. 470, S. 3414, a bill to enhance the 
     security and resiliency of the cyber and communications 
     infrastructure of the United States.
         Harry Reid, Joseph I. Lieberman, John D. Rockefeller IV, 
           Dianne Feinstein, Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara A. 
           Mikulski, Barbara Boxer, Jeff Bingaman, Patty Murray, 
           Max Baucus, Charles E. Schumer, Bill Nelson, 
           Christopher A. Coons, Tom Udall, Carl Levin, Mark R. 
           Warner, Ben Nelson.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 3414, a bill to enhance the security and 
resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure in the United 
States, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Conrad) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Inhofe), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and the Senator from 
Utah (Mr. Lee).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 84, nays 11, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 185 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--11

     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Enzi
     Heller
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Moran
     Paul
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Tester

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Conrad
     DeMint
     Inhofe
     Kirk
     Lee
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 84, the nays are 
11. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will yield to the leader. I thank him, too, for that 
resounding vote, which seems to me not that the debate is over but the 
debate is going to begin, and an overwhelming majority of the Members 
of the Senate want to adopt cybersecurity legislation.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express 
my concerns about S.3414, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. Like many of 
my colleagues, I voted today to allow the Senate to fully debate and 
consider amendments to this bill, but I want to make it clear that I 
have some significant concerns about this legislation and unless 
improvements are made, I cannot support the legislation in its current 
form.
  At the outset, let me just say, I do firmly believe that the Congress 
should take action to address our Nation's vulnerability to cyber 
threats. A cyber attack on our critical infrastructure, whether it be 
our energy grid, a regional water supply, or our financial markets, 
could significantly harm our economy, our national security, and our 
way of life. However, the legislation before us today still needs 
significant improvement before it can become the law of the land.
  I have heard from many in Missouri, including many companies 
operating or associated with the types of critical infrastructure that 
will be subject to the provisions of this legislation. They have raised 
concerns that, as currently structured, S. 3414 would create redundant 
oversight structures and add additional standards. Moreover, the bill 
may have the effect of creating a new Federal system that these 
entities will have to comply with even though many already work within 
well-established systems related to developing security standards and 
responding to cyber threats. I cannot support legislation that creates 
new and duplicative systems that will impact Missouri businesses in a 
negative way. While addressing the critical national security aspects 
of improving our Nation's defenses against and ability to respond to 
cyber attacks, cybersecurity legislation must improve the regulatory 
scheme and streamline processes for businesses, not the opposite.
  Additionally, the carrot-and-stick approach that is created by the 
current bill would limit the sharing of cyber threat information, in a 
protected fashion, to those private entities which are participating in 
the voluntary cybersecurity program the bill would create. Those in the 
program would have to adopt specific standards and in return would 
receive relevant real-time cyber threat information. Those not 
accepting those standards and entering the program would not receive 
the protections of the program and would be limited in the cyber threat 
information they receive. Given that sharing such information could 
potentially thwart a cyber attack, it seems absurd that such 
information would go unshared because a particular entity was not a 
participant in the voluntary system. Such a provision inhibits the very 
type of information sharing we are trying to promote in order to 
enhance cyber security. In this respect, the carrot-and-stick approach 
simply does not make sense.
  I also remain concerned with the scope of responsibility this 
legislation provides to the Department of Homeland Security. As we have 
found throughout the history of DHS, it has

[[Page S5451]]

relied heavily upon a contract workforce in order to satisfy its 
mission. At this time, the Department does not have the necessary 
expertise it will need to guide a multi-agency, multi-sector council in 
evaluating whether or not proposed cybersecurity standards are 
sufficient to address the evolving nature of cyber threats. The 
decision to place DHS in such a critical role leadership role in 
regards to many aspects of the cybersecurity scheme proposed by this 
legislation needs to be revisited.
  I have other concerns with this legislation, but these are my chief 
concerns. I am pleased that both of the Senate's leaders have indicated 
that this legislation will be subject to a robust amendment process. I 
look forward to evaluating the amendments brought forward to this 
legislation, and I am hopeful that the amendments will improve the bill 
enough so that I can support it. If not, I will oppose the legislation 
and send it back to the committee process, where more work can be 
undertaken to generate an acceptable piece of cybersecurity 
legislation. Whether now or in the future, the Senate does need to pass 
legislation. But it must be legislation that is well crafted, balanced, 
and workable for the businesses that will operate under its scheme.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 9

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, shortly I am going to be asking 
unanimous consent to pass the annual Burma sanctions bill that we have 
renewed about this time every year for the last decade. The bill was 
reported out of the Finance Committee on a voice vote last week along 
with a package of other unrelated measures as part of S. 3326.
  Some of my colleagues have some concerns about those other sections. 
This is unrelated to the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. As I 
indicated, on behalf of my colleagues I have offered--in fact, what I 
have done in discussions off the floor is offer to find a time to set 
up a vote on S. 3326 on behalf of my colleagues.
  I believe a vote is the best way to resolve the impasse surrounding 
this bill. However, our friends on the other side have as yet not 
agreed to that. So in the absence of a vote on the larger bill, I think 
the best way to proceed is for the Senate to go ahead and pass this 
important and noncontroversial foreign policy measure today.
  This is a very timely issue. These sanctions actually expire today. 
If we do not act now to extend them, I do not know when the Senate will 
have a chance to address this important issue. Consideration of this 
year's Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act comes amidst historic changes 
that are occurring on the ground in Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi, long a 
political prisoner of the country, is now actually a member of the 
Parliament.
  The National League for Democracy, once a completely banned 
organization, now actively participates in political life in Burma. For 
these reasons and others, the administration, which I support, has 
taken a number of actions to acknowledge the impressive reforms that 
President Thein Sein and his government have instituted thus far. The 
United States has responded by sending an ambassador to Burma. That is 
the first time we have had an ambassador there in two decades.
  The administration also largely waived the investment ban and 
financial restrictions permitting U.S. businesses to begin investing in 
that country. However, significant challenges in Burma still lie ahead. 
Ongoing violence in the Kachin State and the sectarian tensions in the 
Arakan State reflect a long-term challenge confronting the country 
related to national reconciliation.
  Hundreds of political prisoners remain behind bars. The constitution 
still has a number of totally undemocratic elements. And the regime's 
relationship with North Korea, especially when it comes to arms sales 
with Pyongyang, remains an issue of grave concern to us.
  Sanctions with respect to Burma should be renewed in order to provide 
the administration with the flexibility it needs to encourage continued 
reforms in that country, to encourage the government to tackle these 
remaining tough issues. Failure to renew the sanctions could undermine 
the administration's diplomatic efforts in Burma, which I support, and 
could send the wrong signal to the Burmese Government that they have 
done all they need to do. But where are we?
  Therefore, the only way I see getting this resolved in time to keep 
the sanctions from expiring today is for the Senate to go ahead and 
pass this, and ask the House to pick it up and pass it as soon as they 
return next week. Hopefully, we can resolve this extremely important 
issue that other Members have with other sections of S. 3326, 
completely unrelated to the effort to renew Burma sanctions, and pass 
those other important trade priorities next week.
  In the meantime, this is a terrible message for us to be sending. 
This is an extremely big issue. It may sound like a small issue; it is 
a big issue in Burma. Secretary Clinton has been there, I have been 
there, Senator McCain has been there, and Senator Collins. Senator 
Feinstein has been active on this issue. This is no small matter in a 
country that we have been hoping would move in the direction of reform, 
and finally is.
  I know there is always a debate about whether sanctions have made a 
difference. When I was in Burma in January, in addition to meeting with 
Suu Kyi I was also meeting with government officials. Every single one 
of the government officials brought up the sanctions. It convinced me 
that they must have made a difference. Now, because of the changes that 
have occurred, the administration and I, who have been involved in this 
issue for two decades, are in total agreement about the way to handle 
it, which is to renew the sanctions after which the administration will 
waive a substantial number of them as a further indication that the 
sanctions remain there, although not currently operative, because of 
the changes that have occurred in the country. So I think it is a big 
mistake to have this important foreign policy matter attached to and 
stymied by, apparently, differences over other unrelated parts of the 
measure.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be 
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 9; provided further that 
the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; all after the 
enacting clause be stricken and the text of section 3 of H.R. 3326 be 
inserted in lieu thereof.
  For the information of Senators, as I indicated, the Burma sanctions 
language expires today. This would avoid that.

  So I finally ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third 
time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I very much 
appreciate and admire the efforts of the Senator from Kentucky to keep 
proposing sanctions on Burma. In fact, the Senator will remember that 3 
or 4 months ago I went out of my way to praise the Senator when he 
stood up for Burma. In fact, he may remember his press office called my 
office to say thank you. Gosh, Senator Baucus thanked the leader, and I 
meant it. I very much admire the effort and the way the Senator has 
undertaken to maintain these sanctions.
  We are all very proud of Aung San Suu Kyi for winning the Nobel 
Prize, in London, when she visited Europe not long ago. I remember 
watching her on television. She has done so much for her country and 
stood so much for the people of Burma. It is astounding. I have not had 
the privilege of meeting her personally, but I have watched her from 
afar and with great admiration and not only would thank her but again 
thank the Senator for his efforts.
  One can say the other matters are unrelated, but one could also say 
the Burma issue is riding along with the AGOA bill. There are thousands 
of African women who have lost their jobs because we have not acted on 
the AGOA bill, and they tend to be single moms--thousands--because they 
can't get orders to sell in the United States. Consequently, jobs in 
the United States now are in jeopardy because the AGOA bill has not 
been extended.
  It is true the AGOA bill does not expire until the end of September. 
That

[[Page S5452]]

is true. However, as a practical matter, these women have lost their 
jobs already because American companies are not taking orders from 
African countries that are providing the apparel that are otherwise 
provided for under the AGOA bill. It is a huge issue for those African 
women who have lost their jobs as well as a lot of American companies 
that are in jeopardy because they can't receive the apparel from the 
African companies if this is not extended.
  I might say, too, the DR-CAFTA bill is similar. That puts in jeopardy 
a lot of jobs in South Carolina and North Carolina. So in a certain 
sense it is a jobs bill. Both these bills are important. They are very 
important. This package was put together and agreed to by Senators on 
the committee, Republicans and Democrats both. It was agreed to by 
leadership offices, both sides. We worked hard, as the leader often 
does, to get consensus around here. So this was the thought, to put the 
bills together, and all Republicans agreed.
  There was one Senator who said he had a problem with one of the pay-
fors, and, frankly, it is a pay-for this body has adopted many times. 
That Senator himself has voted for this pay-for many times. It just 
seems to me, if we break up the package, then the package is broken and 
it puts in jeopardy those other provisions because Senators will want 
to offer amendments. The Senator from Kentucky well knows, once we 
start going down that road, things get hung up around here; the main 
point being these are both very important bills, and the other main 
point being it was agreed to. This package was agreed to all the way 
around, and I think at this point it does not make sense to break it 
up.
  So I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I may, I believe the Burma sanctions 
bill has been renewed without additional matters attached to it for 
some 10 years now on an annual basis. I am perplexed as to why this 
year it was turned into a package.
  I agree with the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee that 
it was agreed to. But there is a dispute between the chairman of the 
Finance Committee and another member of the Finance Committee who is on 
the floor, and Senator Coburn can speak for himself. I might say, I 
don't have a dog in that fight. As far as I am concerned, that is 
another matter. No matter how important that may be, I doubt a failure 
to pass the other measure, which doesn't expire until September, 
creates a major potential foreign policy problem which could well be 
created by the Burma sanctions bill expiring later today.
  I will not argue the rest of the bill is important or unimportant. I 
frankly don't know much about the rest of the bill. I do know something 
about the Burma sanctions bill, having offered the original bill 10 
years ago and having been on the floor as we renewed it annually during 
that period, and I am pretty confident this will be perceived in Burma 
as a problem. It seems to me it is a completely avoidable problem.
  As to the rest of it, the Senator from Oklahoma is here and he can 
speak for himself, so I defer to him and to the chairman of the Finance 
Committee to discuss the balance of the bill. But it would have been my 
hope, had the chairman of the Finance Committee not objected, since it 
was cleared on my side--and it was cleared on my side, regardless of 
previous understandings about putting the package together, by the 
ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Hatch, and by Senator 
Coburn--to split the Burma sanctions bill off and pass it freestanding 
today on a voice vote.
  So with respect to the consent agreement I offered, which was 
objected to, I want to make sure everybody understands there were no 
objections to it on the Republican side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the request of the 
Republican leader.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I do not want to belabor the point. The 
Obama administration is opposed to splitting the package apart. They 
are in favor of keeping the package as it is, and I think for good 
reason because the administration favors both Burma as well as AGOA and 
DR-CAFTA. That is the reason. They are both very important. It is for 
that reason I think it makes sense.
  The Senator is correct. It is very easy to resolve this thing by 
proceeding with Burma and AGOA. But if the leader wants to keep 
talking, I am more than willing, over the next week, to see if there is 
another resolution to work this out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would just ask a question of the 
Senator. What I hear is that the Democratic administration and 
Democratic Senators are opposed to passing the Burma sanctions bill 
today freestanding? Is that what I hear the chairman of the Finance 
Committee saying?

  Mr. BAUCUS. That is not what the Senator heard me say.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Then why did the Senator object to the request?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Because the administration and I want them both.
  Mr. McCONNELL. But the Senator can't get them both unless he can work 
this out with my good friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, who is on the 
floor and who may want to address this matter.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I am more than willing to sit down and try to work this 
out, but at this point I think any attempt to split them out is to 
jeopardize the AGOA bill, and as I mentioned earlier, there are already 
thousands of women who have lost their jobs in Africa because of our 
delay in passing AGOA.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me make sure I understand where we are. The 
consent agreement to pass the Burma sanctions bill today, before it 
expires, is clear on this side of the aisle--clear. The chairman of the 
Finance Committee has announced, to my surprise, that the 
administration does not favor allowing Burma sanctions to pass today 
because it is attached to something related to other matters.
  So make no mistake about it, we have, for the first time in the 
history of this issue, turned it into a partisan matter. We have spoken 
with one voice in America relating to Burma, under administrations of 
both parties and Senates of both parties. Yet today, for the first 
time, we have a partisan split over an issue about which America ought 
to be speaking with one voice.
  I basically have said all I have to say. I do want to hear from 
Senator Coburn. I know he has strong feelings about the other part of 
the measure about which I am basically not familiar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, first of all, I would like to say I 
support all three of these measures, in terms of their passing. What I 
don't support is continuing the habit that has put this country $16 
trillion in debt.
  To clarify, as a member of the Finance Committee, if one reads my 
opening statement at that hearing, in that markup, I objected to this 
bill on the basis of pay-fors. I offered two separate amendments that, 
on the floor, everybody would agree are germane because the money to 
pay for the $200 million comes out of trade areas. Yet they were 
rejected as nongermane by the chairman. So they weren't offered because 
he said he would reject them. So to create the impression there was no 
objection to the pay-for in this bill and that everybody agreed is 
inaccurate, to say the least.
  I called Senator Coons of Delaware, who is interested in this, and I 
called Senator Baucus when this came up, and I told him I have a plan 
so we can get this all done this week. I was willing to lose a vote on 
the amendment to have an opportunity to offer the amendment and give my 
side of the story by splitting these two so the House could pass it. 
The House has now gone home. Burma sanctions are no longer available to 
be passed, except if we were to do something extraordinary with the 
House, which I understand from the Speaker can happen. So Burma 
sanctions could happen this week.
  But I wish to go back to the more important point. Regardless of 
whether I voted for something in the past, using the type of pay-for 
that is in this bill is what I call the Wimpy mechanism: Wimpy drives 
up to Wendy's and orders

[[Page S5453]]

a hamburger, and when he gets around to the window he says: Don't worry 
about it, I will be back in 10 days to pay for it. What we have done is 
use custom user fees over 10 years to collect enough money to pay for 
$200 million.
  With the waste that is in this government, for us to use a 10-year 
pay-for on something that will be expended over 3 years means we are 
not capable of addressing the much bigger issues in front of our 
country. If we can't find $200 million in a $3.6 trillion budget, we 
are unqualified to be here.
  What I would say to my friends and my colleague on the Senate Finance 
Committee is that somebody has to start saying no. I would remind 
everyone of a lecture I got from Senator Pete Domenici on a land bill 
about 2 years ago. He said: We have always done it that way. I said: 
You know what, you are right, and that is why we are in trouble. So the 
financing mechanism on this bill denies the situation we are in and 
charges out over 10 years custom user fees to pay for it.
  No other American business, no other company, no other family gets 
that kind of luxury, especially when they are in debt at 105 percent of 
their GDP. If we look at where we are, the average American, what we 
can say is that we are taking in $53,000, we are spending $73,000, and 
what we actually owe is $380,000. We can't keep doing that. That is how 
it would relate to the individual family in this country.
  The objection was not on the bills. There was no lack of effort on my 
part to reach out and solve this problem before now and now the 
minority leader has offered a way to solve the problem on the sanctions 
for Burma and it is objected to. So not only do we not get to offer 
amendments in committee, we do not get to offer amendments on the 
floor. The one thing we need to accomplish today we are not going to 
accomplish because we don't want to allow amendments.
  Because we want to keep doing it the way we have always done it. And 
the way we have always done it has bankrupted our country and stolen 
from our children and grandchildren. It is not acceptable anymore.
  That is the truth. Everything else is the game that Washington plays. 
And I will tell my colleagues, I am still willing to work on this. I 
have a commitment to the Senator from Delaware that next week, if this 
comes up, I will be the first to offer that amendment and get it out of 
the way, taking a very short period of time with the Senate. But I want 
a recorded vote of the Senators in this body that they want to steal 
the customs user fees for 10 years for just a $200 million pay-for. If 
that is what you really want to do, then vote that way. But go out and 
defend it instead of taking something this administration has 
recommended we cut--which is what I am using to pay for it, something 
this administration has recommended to pay for it--and vote against 
what your own President says--here is something we need to eliminate.
  I don't get it. The American people don't get it. No wonder we have a 
9-percent approval rating.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to briefly 
contribute what I can to this debate.
  One of the great honors, as the Presiding Officer knows, in being a 
freshman is the opportunity to preside. I had the opportunity to 
preside when the Republican leader came to the floor and spoke to Burma 
sanctions. So I just wanted to say to the Republican leader that 
because of that speech, I have familiarized myself with the issue of 
Burma sanctions that he spoke to earlier. I do think it is important 
that we move to it. I do think it is important to move forward on it.
  But the Republican leader made the comment earlier that he doesn't 
much understand the other part of the bill, which is AGOA, the African 
Growth and Opportunity Act. I choose to stand briefly to speak to that 
because I am the chair of the African Affairs Subcommittee of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
  Senator Isakson and I joined with Congresswoman Bass and Congressman 
Smith in twice receiving dozens of Ambassadors from across the 
continent 3 months ago and 9 months ago as they expressed their grave 
concern about the thousands of mostly women all across the continent 
who are losing their jobs as we delay.
  The AGOA reauthorization expires in September, and I am grateful for 
Chairman Baucus and for his vigorous pursuit of renewal in a timely 
fashion. AGOA needs to be renewed promptly, not in September. In part, 
I believe this is why the administration has insisted on holding 
together Burma sanctions and this AGOA reauthorization--it is because 
of the urgency of getting AGOA reauthorized.
  It dates back to the Clinton administration. It was first signed into 
law a dozen years ago. I think it has real importance for our view in 
Africa, for how the United States is viewed in Africa, for our 
bilateral relations with more than a dozen countries. I would be happy 
to answer questions about it.
  But we have three different issues here: the concerns the Senator 
from Oklahoma has raised about the pay-for, and I respect his concerns 
about budget and budgetary discipline and dealing with our deficit; the 
concerns the Republican leader has raised about Burma and about 
sanctions and about our ongoing role as a global leader in pressing for 
the liberation of people and process in Burma; and the concerns many 
other Senators and I have shared about timely reauthorization of the 
African Growth and Opportunity Act. Unfortunately, the three of them 
intersect in a way that today is preventing us from moving forward.
  It is my hope that the Republican leader, the chairman of the Finance 
Committee, the Senator from Oklahoma, and I can sit down and craft some 
responsible compromise that allows this to move forward because, if my 
understanding is correct, it is the concerns of the Senator from 
Oklahoma that are preventing us from moving forward at this point, and 
it is the administration's concerns that are preventing breaking apart 
the Burma sanctions and AGOA sanctions. And there is a third provision 
relating to CAFTA, if I am not mistaken. So if we could work together 
in a way that finds a responsible path forward, it is still possible.
  There is bipartisan support in the House for the passage of this 
package. In fact, I believe they were prepared to pass it by unanimous 
consent earlier this week and only hesitated to proceed because they 
heard there was a hold here in the Senate.
  I would like to work together in a way that can demonstrate to the 
people of Burma, to the people of Africa, and to the people around the 
world that this greatest deliberative body on Earth can still work out 
issues of this scale in a timely fashion. So I offer my willingness to 
work together to find a path forward either tonight or in the week 
ahead.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I don't mean to belabor the issue. I see 
the Republican leader has left the floor. I have just a couple of 
points.
  One, I don't want the impression to be left here that this is a 
partisan matter. I don't want the impression to be left here that one 
party favors Burma sanctions and the other doesn't, and the same with 
respect to AGOA provisions. The fact is, these are both totally 
bipartisan. Both political parties favor these measures. It is just a 
matter of working out a way to pass them.
  The Senator from Delaware has made a very good point, so let's see if 
we can work things out within the next couple or 3 days.
  The Senator from Oklahoma makes a very valid point, too; that is, 
sometimes we pay for measures around here with measures that take 
several years to actually pay for. It is a common practice around here. 
And to say we have done it once does not necessarily mean it is right.
  But I say to my good friend from Oklahoma, who has voted for this 
kind of measure 11 times, by my count, and once even on the Burma bill, 
that when we work over the next several weeks and next several months 
on resolving the fiscal cliff and tax reform, it will be a good 
opportunity to find ways to reduce our budget deficits, both spending 
and revenue, and an opportunity to address it in a way that does not do 
violence to them and that respects the concept the Senator from 
Oklahoma was mentioning. He has mentioned a

[[Page S5454]]

concept that applies not just with respect to customs user fees but for 
a lot of tax provisions around here, and I think it is something we 
should talk about and figure out how we want to handle it. But in the 
meantime, I just suggest that--let's keep talking. There are a few days 
left here before we leave for the August recess.
  I thank my colleagues for working together to try to find a solution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                   Guor Marial and the 2012 Olympics

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, tomorrow the attention of the world will 
turn to London as we witness the opening of the 2012 Summer Olympics. 
Over 10,000 athletes representing 204 nations from around the world 
will be competing in hundreds of sporting events at the games of the 
30th Olympiad. Here in the United States, we will be cheering on the 
529 U.S. athletes as they look to bring home the gold for the United 
States of America. The Olympics no doubt will have countless stories of 
triumph and disappointment, competition and camaraderie.
  I rise today to share the remarkable story of one particular athlete 
who will be competing this year. His story is one of inspiring triumph 
of character and spirit. But until just days ago, this Olympian had no 
flag to compete under. This story is about a talented young runner 
named Guor Marial whose mere survival in southern Sudan defied the 
odds. Having escaped the bloodshed and violence in war-torn Sudan, Guor 
found his way to my home State of New Hampshire as a teenage refugee. 
Who could have imagined that in just over a decade, Guor would be 
applying for U.S. citizenship and traveling to London to compete in the 
Olympic marathon?
  Guor was born in a town in what is now part of the fledgling country 
of South Sudan. Many of his family and friends, including his brother, 
were killed at the hands of Sudanese security forces. Many more died of 
starvation or disease brought on by the violence and unspeakable crimes 
committed by these Sudanese forces.
  Before escaping Sudan, Guor was a victim of violence on numerous 
occasions. As a child, he was kidnapped from his hometown and enslaved 
as a laborer before eventually finding a way to escape and return to 
his family. Guor was severely beaten by the Sudanese police and had to 
spend days in a hospital to recover. Finally, he was able to flee to 
neighboring Egypt and eventually to the peace and safety of New 
Hampshire as a refugee seeking asylum.
  Guor arrived in my home State of New Hampshire in 2001, almost 
exactly 11 years ago. He remembers that day well and still considers 
New Hampshire his home. He lived in Concord, the State capital, moving 
in with the families of his friends, teammates, and his cross-country 
coach for 2 years in order to graduate from high school. The contrast 
between Guor's former life and his new life is stark. In Sudan, he was 
running in fear for his life. In New Hampshire, he was running for the 
joy of athletic competition and to be part of a team.
  Amazingly, in only his second official marathon, Guor ran fast enough 
to qualify for the 2012 London Olympics. Given his unique situation, 
however, it looked as if the bureaucracy would triumph over his bravery 
and that Guor might not be able to compete because according to the 
rules of the International Olympic Committee, permanent residents of a 
country are not permitted to compete on that country's team. As a 
result, Guor can't compete under the American flag because he is not 
yet a full citizen. In addition, Guor can't run for the newly 
recognized country of South Sudan because it is such a new country, it 
doesn't yet have an official Olympic committee.
  The International Olympic Committee suggested that Guor compete as a 
member of the Sudanese team, and the Sudanese Government extended him 
an invitation. But Guor rightfully refused, explaining that running for 
Sudan ``would be a disappointment and an embarrassment to me and the 
people of South Sudan who died for freedom, including my brother.'' 
Guor was not comfortable running on behalf of the country that tortured 
and murdered so many of his family members. That solution would have 
been cruel and unacceptable.
  Fortunately, after some pressure by Refugees International and other 
friends of Guor who wrote to the International Olympic Committee on his 
behalf, we received the great news this week that the IOC executive 
board has decided to make an exception for Guor. He will run in the 
marathon as an independent Olympic athlete under the great Olympic 
flag. I want to thank the International Olympic Committee for this very 
appropriate ruling. In addition, I want to thank the U.S. Olympic 
Committee, the U.S. Department of State, and the other friends of Guor 
who worked so hard to make his participation possible.
  As he runs under that five-ringed flag, long a symbol of hope for 
peace in our world, Guor will run with the support of his family, his 
New Hampshire supporters, Americans everywhere, and his new country, 
South Sudan. I have a feeling that such support might help him run even 
faster.
  We are so proud of Guor in New Hampshire and proud that in the United 
States someone who has lived through such tragedy and adversity can 
start a new life and rise to such incredible heights.
  Scott Hamilton, an American Olympic gold medalist, once said, ``Most 
other competitions are individual competitions. But the Olympic games 
is something that belongs to everybody.'' No matter the outcome in 
London, the story of Guor Marial and the adversity he has overcome 
belongs to everyone. Win or lose, he will stand as a lasting 
inspiration for people around the globe and as a tribute to the 
greatness that is the United States of America. I look forward to 
welcoming Guor home from the Olympics as a winner, regardless of the 
outcome of the marathon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                            Colorado Drought

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I am here tonight on a different topic 
than the Senator from New Hampshire, but I wish to congratulate her on 
her fine work here. I know she doesn't need or wouldn't want me to say 
that, but the people of New Hampshire are so lucky to be represented by 
her. And this is exactly why--a reminder that our Olympic athletes are 
about to start, I hope, winning gold medals. I suspect they will win 
the most in this summer's Olympics. We are looking forward to that.
  The Senator mentioned marathons, which brought to mind what I want to 
talk about tonight, which is the farm bill--an elegant segue from one 
marathon to another. I want to talk about it in the context of the 
severe drought that is facing Colorado and all of rural America, and I 
want to acknowledge the administration's ongoing efforts to provide 
Coloradans with disaster relief during this difficult summer of fires 
and drought.
  We need to pass a 5-year farm bill as quickly as possible to address 
the challenges we are seeing in farm country. We have done the work to 
get an agreement on the Senate bill. In fact, we passed the 5-year farm 
bill in this Senate. It was a strong, bipartisan bill. I would like to 
thank the Senator from Michigan, Debbie Stabenow, and the ranking 
member of the committee for their incredible leadership in working 
together, both side of the aisle, never in a partisan way, to produce 
among other things the only bipartisan deficit reduction that any 
committee, House or Senate, has produced in this Congress--$24 billion 
of deficit reduction that has been agreed to by Republicans and 
Democrats. It ends direct payments to producers, which is one of the 
most substantial reforms we have seen in agriculture policy in a long 
time, and it strengthens the conservation title of the farm bill, which 
is very important to my State and to the West.
  Colorado has a $40 billion agriculture sector that extends to all 
corners of our State. Farming and ranching are two things we do 
extremely well. The Senator from Iowa is here tonight, and his farmers 
do it extremely well in Iowa as well.
  Producers in Colorado and nationwide are experiencing the worst 
drought in 50 years. While Colorado is certainly no stranger to water 
challenges, this year's growing season has been particularly tough--to 
put it mildly.

[[Page S5455]]

  According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, nearly our entire State is 
designated as an extreme drought area. This designation means we are 
experiencing major damage to crops and pastureland, as well as 
widespread water shortages. While this designation tells us a lot, we 
only need to ask the farmers and ranchers about how the dry conditions 
are threatening their operations.
  I met recently with a group of corn growers from eastern Colorado. 
Take a look at what these farmers are up against. This is Steve Scott's 
cornfield 18 miles southeast of Burlington, CO, a town of 4,200 people 
near the Kansas border. This crop--and many others in the region--has 
withered under long stretches of high temperatures with little or no 
precipitation to help.
  The Department of Agriculture reports that 50 percent of Colorado's 
corn production is in either poor or very poor condition. The drought 
has also taken a significant toll on our cattle producers. Colorado is 
one of America's top beef producers. Right now 75 percent of 
pastureland in Colorado, approximately 900,000 acres--and I am not sure 
how that measures up to the Presiding Officer's State, but it is pretty 
close to that size--is rated as either poor or very poor in condition. 
Dry pasture and feed shortages have led ranchers to liquidate their 
herds early, well before they have realized their full size and value.
  The Greeley, CO, auction producers' barn is seeing double the sales 
activity right now as compared to the same time last year because 
ranchers are selling their cattle below full weight and maturity. They 
are losing anywhere from $200 to $400 a head.
  Next week Carl Hansen of Livermore, CO, is selling 160 of his steers 
and 90 heifers. On average, each animal will be sold 150 pounds 
underweight due to the drought conditions. If beef is selling at $1.50 
a pound, that is $56,000--actually a little more than that--of lost 
revenue for Carl Hansen and his family.
  The consequences of this drought extend well beyond farm country. The 
damage to our farms and ranches affect other sectors of the economy--
from transportation to energy, from banking to retail. We all know 
there is nothing Congress can do to stop the drought or prevent the 
next one from coming, but what we can do is give our farmers and 
ranchers the tools they need to manage this drought and plan for the 
future by passing a 5-year farm bill.
  We hear a lot about uncertainty in these two Chambers. I can't 
imagine a set of circumstances creating more uncertainty in a difficult 
situation than that.
  Now we hear that the House leadership is planning a 1-year punt on 
this whole conversation, one more expression that Washington, DC, has 
become the land of flickering lights, providing very little opportunity 
for people to be able to plan and have predictability.
  What is wrong with the Senate-passed bipartisan farm bill that had 
the support of 64 Senators? Sixty-four Senators, Democrats and 
Republicans. Some people voted against it because they didn't think it 
was adequate to their region, but this was not a partisan vote. Neither 
the majority nor the minority vote was a partisan vote. This was the 
Senate operating as the Senate is meant to operate.
  A 5-year bill provides our agriculture community with much needed 
certainty and predictability, but now it is being held up in the House 
by politics. Let's be clear: No one is pretending that the farm bill 
can correct bad weather. Our producers are not waiting on the farm bill 
to do what they do best. Colorado will continue innovating and 
increasing productivity, but the last thing on Earth they need is to 
have Washington's unfinished business hanging around their necks.
  A 5-year farm bill will provide producers with a set of tools for 
managing through this drought and planning for the future. The 1-year 
bill being discussed over in the House by the leadership doesn't 
recognize--or is unwilling to recognize--the agriculture community's 
need to do long-term planning.
  Among many other important provisions, the Senate farm bill contains 
revamped risk management programs like crop insurance, which is what I 
heard was needed by our farmers, and improvements farmers requested to 
help manage a severe drought exactly like the one we are going through 
right now. This is the point of that provision. A 1-year bill doesn't 
have any of those provisions.
  Corn farmers on Colorado's eastern plains could lose 40 percent or 
more of their revenue this season. We need these reforms and the 
predictability of the Senate bill. Our bill also contains permanent 
disaster programs that provide responsible assistance to producers in 
need. Some of these programs, such as the livestock disaster program, 
expired in September 2011, almost a year ago. If Congress takes the 
easy way out and does a 1-year extension, our livestock producers will 
get no relief--none. This means no disaster assistance for ranchers 
whose pasture is too dry to feed their cattle.
  Who is going to explain to the people selling at the Greeley auction 
barn why this is not a priority for our Congress in the middle of the 
worst drought in decades?
  The House Agriculture Committee passed a 5-year farm bill with a 
strong bipartisan 35-to-11 vote. Again, this is not the partisan 
dysfunctionality we talked about for so many months on this floor. We 
have two bipartisan bills: One was passed out of committee on the House 
side with broad bipartisan support, and one was passed on the Senate 
floor with broad bipartisan support. It is not surprising that I am not 
the only person who is calling for a long-term extension--a 5-year 
extension. There are 79 House Members, including 41 Republicans, who 
wrote to the Speaker last week asking him to bring the long-term farm 
bill to the floor.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter signed by 79 
House Members be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 2012.
       Dear Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Democratic 
     Leader Pelosi, and Democratic Whip Hoyer: Many current farm 
     bill policies expire on September 30, 2012. The House 
     Agriculture Committee passed H.R. 6083, the Federal 
     Agriculture Reform and Risk Management (FARRM) Act, or the 
     2012 Farm Bill, on July 12th with a strong bipartisan vote of 
     35-11. While by no means perfect, this farm bill is needed 
     for producers and those who rely on sound agriculture policy 
     and nutrition programs during difficult economic times.
       The House Agriculture Committee has done its work and we 
     now ask that you make time on the floor of the House to 
     consider this legislation, so that it can be debated, 
     conferenced, and ultimately passed into law, before the 
     current bill expires. We need to continue to tell the 
     American success story of agriculture and work to ensure we 
     have strong policies in place so that producers can continue 
     to provide an abundant, affordable and safe food supply.
       We all share the goal of giving small businesses certainty 
     in these challenging economic times. Agriculture supports 
     nearly 16 million jobs nationwide and over 45 million people 
     are helped each year by the nutrition programs in the farm 
     bill. We have a tremendous opportunity to set the course of 
     farm and nutrition policy for another five years while 
     continuing to maintain and support these jobs nationwide.
       The message from our constituents and rural America is 
     clear: we need a farm bill now. We ask that you bring a farm 
     bill up before the August District Work Period so that the 
     House will have the opportunity to work its will. We ask that 
     you make this legislation a priority of the House as it is 
     critically important to rural and urban Americans alike.
       We appreciate your consideration of this request and look 
     forward to working with you to advance the FARRM Act.

  Mr. BENNET. They wrote:

       The message from our constituents and rural America is 
     clear; we need a farm bill now. We ask that you bring a farm 
     bill up before the August District Work Period.

  They went on to say:

       We ask that you make this legislation a priority of the 
     House as it is critically important to rural and urban 
     Americans alike.

  Representative Rick Berg, a Republican from North Dakota, took to the 
floor last week and said:

       Now is the time for the House to act, the time for the farm 
     bill now.

  Jo Ann Emerson, a Republican Congresswoman from Missouri, told 
reporters that ``there are problems with my farmers who need to make 
planning decisions.''
  We are seeing that exact same uncertainty plaguing our farmers and 
ranchers in Colorado. Yet here we are again. We have seen this before 
in Washington. We are pretty good at starting conversations, but we are 
not very good at finishing them. We are kicking the can down the road 
once again, but

[[Page S5456]]

this is the farm bill, which is a bipartisan effort that rarely, if 
ever, has been used as a political football around this place.
  Three days ago David Rogers wrote an article, which I think 
accurately describes our dilemma. It was in Politico.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article also be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From Politico, July 23, 2012]

              Congress Delays Farm Bill as Drought Spreads

                           (By David Rogers)

       To understand how far this Congress will go to kick the 
     proverbial can down the road, consider the farm bill--yes, 
     the farm bill.
       In the midst of a severe drought, the House Republican 
     leaders are proposing to walk away from farm states and 
     decades of precedent by not calling up the new five-year plan 
     before the current law expires Sept. 30.
       Whatever its flaws, the bill promises $35 billion in 10-
     year savings from exactly the type of mandatory spending that 
     Congress promised to tackle in last summer's debt accord. But 
     rather than disrupt its political messaging, the GOP would 
     put it all at risk by delaying action until after the 
     November elections.
       There's little institutional memory left in the Capitol--or 
     perspective on the accumulation of cans rolling down the road 
     these days. But the farm bill delay is new ground for any 
     Congress.
       Never before in modern times has a farm bill reported from 
     the House Agriculture Committee been so blocked. POLITICO 
     looked back at 50 years of farm bills and found nothing like 
     this. There have been long debates, often torturous 
     negotiations with the Senate and a famous meltdown in 1995 
     when the House Agriculture Committee couldn't produce a bill. 
     But no House farm bill, once out of committee, has been kept 
     off the floor while its deadline passes.
       If pushed into November's lame-duck session, farmers will 
     join Medicare physicians whose pay will be running out, idled 
     workers worried about jobless benefits, and very likely, 
     millions of families faced with expiring tax breaks.
       For all the backslapping over the recent transportation 
     bill, that measure expires in just 15 months. The Democratic 
     Senate no longer even tries to do 12-month appropriations 
     bills. Already in mid-July--when the floor used to be 
     humming--the ``smart money'' is plotting a stop-gap 
     continuing resolution to get to November or beyond.
       Such a CR was once treated as a backstop by the 
     Appropriations committees. Now the practice is so prevalent 
     in all areas of government that the letters might stand for 
     ``Congress Retreats.''
       ``It's to the point where you almost think you should vote 
     against extensions because they are extensions,'' Rep. George 
     Miller (D-Calif.) told POLITICO. ``If you were looking at the 
     United States from outside, you look and you say, `What are 
     these people? Fools?' ''
       Elections do matter, and there's some logic to letting the 
     voters reshuffle the deck before tackling tough issues. But 
     that's not what's happening here.
       The presidential campaigns are already being criticized for 
     lacking all substance. But whoever wins, neither President 
     Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney has shown any appetite for this 
     debate--or even knowledge of farm issues.
       The Senate has already approved its farm bill; even if 
     Republicans were to win control in November, the GOP's 
     majority will be so narrow that Democrats will be able to 
     block wholesale changes. In the House, the only certainty 
     about a lame duck is there will be even more unhappy people 
     hanging around.
       No, the real reason for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to 
     delay the farm bill is not because there will be better 
     answers after the election. It's because he doesn't like the 
     answers he sees before.
       The farm bill came out of the House Agriculture Committee 
     on a strong bipartisan 35-11 vote July 12. Nearly a year 
     after the August debt accords--and eight months after the 
     November collapse of the deficit supercommittee--it is the 
     closest this Congress has come to enacting real deficit 
     reduction from mandatory spending.
       But it's not perfect, and Boehner's Republicans are split 
     regionally and ideologically, with the right demanding still 
     greater savings and a more free-market approach to 
     agriculture policy.
       Given Democratic concerns over the depth of the food stamp 
     cuts already made, Boehner says there are not 218 votes for 
     passage. Rather than wrestle with this problem, it's easier 
     to run out the clock with symbolic anti-red tape, anti-tax 
     votes on which the GOP is more united.
       Senate Democrats have kicked their share of cans as well. 
     First no spring budget resolution. Then no summer 
     appropriations debate. All under the watch of a majority 
     leader--Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.)--who served for years on the 
     Senate Appropriations Committee.
       Yet there's something bigger about the farm bill.
       Perhaps because it is a five-year event and so fundamental 
     to one bright spot in the economy. Or maybe it's the pounding 
     drought across the country that gives pause. Farmers live by 
     nature's calendar, not continuing resolutions. And by failing 
     to act, Congress can seem even more detached from the real 
     lives of everyday people.
       Changes in the Washington press foster this detachment. 
     Major newspapers are more prone to editorials than real 
     reporting on the debate. Regional papers, once the backbone 
     of farm coverage, have closed their bureaus. In the new 
     Capitol trend, some of the most experienced agriculture 
     reporters report to clients--not the public.
       The biggest irony may be Boehner himself. The speaker, 
     after all, spent his early years on the Agriculture Committee 
     and prides himself on being a ``regular order'' and pro-
     chairman leader. He chastises Obama regularly for doing 
     precisely this: kicking the can down the road.
       As if to remind him, Rep. Rick Berg (R-N.D.), a Boehner 
     favorite now running for the Senate, took to the floor 
     Thursday just minutes after the speaker had again ducked farm 
     bill questions at his weekly news conference.
       ``Now is the time for the House to act,'' Berg told his 
     colleagues. ``The time for the farm bill is now.''
       The biggest Republican divisions are also where the 
     greatest savings lie: the commodity and nutrition titles.
       Both the House and Senate put an end to direct cash 
     payments to farmers, a long-demanded reform saving about $5 
     billion a year. The dispute is over how much of that money is 
     reinvested in new subsidies--and where.
       The Senate bet heavily on a new shallow-loss revenue-
     protection program geared to Midwest corn and soybean 
     producers. The House whittles this down to make room for more 
     of a traditional countercyclical program that protects 
     against deep losses but is keyed to government-set target 
     prices--a taboo for free-market types.
       Southern rice, peanut and wheat producers stand to do far 
     better under the House approach, but the two bills appear to 
     lunge in opposite regional directions. Corn and soybean 
     growers can almost lock in profits in the early years of the 
     Senate plan. At the same time, the House cotton package costs 
     nearly 20 percent more than what was already viewed as a rich 
     Senate deal. And a $14 per hundredweight target price for 
     rice is higher than what many other crops got, when measured 
     against government data for production costs.
       The 13 Southern states are the backbone of the House GOP's 
     majority, contributing 102 votes or more than 40 percent of 
     the conference. This is also where the lines are clearest, 
     not just for crops but also food-stamp savings.
       House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) 
     and the committee's ranking Democrat, Minnesota Rep. Collin 
     Peterson, had hoped to thread this needle by offering a new 
     national eligibility standard for the nutrition program 
     somewhat to the right of Texas's food stamp rules. But for 
     the majority of Southern states, it meant a modest increase 
     from 130 percent to 140 percent of poverty as the high-end 
     income cap--and so it ran aground in the committee.
       Peterson, refusing to be discouraged, has plunged back into 
     the fray, trying to find some compromise on food stamps and 
     still hoping that Boehner will relent on moving the farm bill 
     this summer.
       ``Collin is a CPA by training. He's a numbers guy. He's 
     very focused as a Blue Dog about the budgetary consequences 
     of our actions,'' Lucas told POLITICO. ``I think he's 
     basically on the right track as he's described it to me. The 
     question really comes down to: will we wind up with floor 
     time?''
       And himself?
       The morning after his late night markup, Lucas sought out 
     Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) face to face. 
     ``They thanked me, smiled at me and left it at that,'' Lucas 
     said.
       He himself is worried--like Republicans in the Senate--that 
     simply passing a short-term extension of the current farm law 
     will not be an easy matter in September. Having spent the 
     better part of a year saying direct payments must end, will 
     Congress want to extend them?
       ``I'm trying to maintain a good solid working relationship 
     with my leadership,'' Lucas smiles. ``I'm trying to be a 
     positive advocate for why I believe our bipartisan bill 
     deserves floor time.''
       ``I've alerted staff to be ready to go on a moment's 
     notice, and I will also tell you there are external events 
     that could impact the situation. If this drought continues in 
     the West and Midwest, it could drive members to want to see 
     some action.''

  Mr. BENNET. To quote Mr. Rogers:

       Never before in modern times has a farm bill reported from 
     the House Agriculture Committee been so blocked.

  Never before in modern times. I suspect it is true in ancient times 
as well, but it has certainly been true in modern times. Rogers tells 
us that he ``looked back at 50 years of farm bills and found nothing 
like this.'' He continues:

       Farmers live by nature's calendar, not continuing 
     resolutions.

  I could never have said it so eloquently myself. He also said:

       And by failing to act, Congress can seem even more detached 
     from the real lives of everyday people.


[[Page S5457]]


  I would not have thought it was possible that this place could seem 
more detached from the everyday lives of the American people than it 
already appears to be. We found a way of doing that, and that is by 
failing to pass this bipartisan farm bill through the Congress in a 
timely way that is essential for people who are suffering through this 
kind of drought.
  I think Mr. Rogers' observation is exactly right, and I have been on 
this floor many times before saying the people at home in Colorado--
Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--don't identify with the 
cartoon of a conversation that we are having in Washington, DC, right 
now. I can't think of a clearer example than the failure to act on this 
bipartisan piece of legislation. This is legislation that would 
immediately help people all across our country, all across America, who 
are struggling today.
  Mr. President, think for just a moment about our farmers in Colorado 
and rural communities just like our communities all across this 
wonderful country. Our farmers and ranchers are experiencing the worst 
drought in over half a century. Who is going to look in the eyes of our 
farmers in Middle America and tell them our dysfunctional politics will 
prevent this bill from moving forward?
  Who is going to tell Steve Scott and Carl Hansen that this bill isn't 
going to be a priority in the Congress, that we are just going to take 
our recess and go home for a month not having passed this bipartisan 
piece of legislation, the only manifestation and example of bipartisan 
deficit reduction in either the House or the Senate in this entire 
Congress?
  I implore the House to figure out how to come to its senses and pass 
a 5-year bill along the lines of the bill that was passed out of their 
committee, and then together we can have a conference and decide how we 
are going to move this bill forward on behalf of farmers and ranchers 
all across my State and the United States of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I didn't come to the floor to speak about the farm bill 
because I did that yesterday. I want to assure the Senator from 
Colorado that I listened to everything he said, and I agree with him. 
That was my plea in maybe a little broader context yesterday in asking 
that the House of Representatives take up the bill. Also, the House 
brags, legitimately so, about being fiscally conservative, so I agree 
with what the Senator from Colorado said. This may be the only 
opportunity--presumably the only opportunity--to pass a farm bill or 
any bill that saves money from previous programs of previous years. I 
compliment the Senator from Colorado.


                           Freedom of Speech

  Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss what I consider a 
disturbing trend that is occurring in this country. A vicious attack is 
underway on the right to freedom of speech that is protected by the 
first amendment. It needs to be highlighted, and hopefully it will 
stop. Free speech is one of the most important rights that Americans 
enjoy.
  Speech on public issues is the way democracy discusses and debates 
the important questions of the day. Many great political movements in 
this country's history depended upon this first amendment right, 
freedom of speech. Even when Martin Luther King was jailed and his 
supporters subjected to violence, free speech enabled him to change the 
views and practices of an entire nation. Today too many government 
officials seek to shut up people who disagree with them rather than 
debate those people and debate those issues.
  There have been a series of recent incidents to which I want to 
refer. Consider recently that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in 
the past month has held two hearings that prove my point. A hearing was 
held on a bill that would criminalize supposedly deceptive statements 
in advance of elections. It would allow the government to criminalize 
political speech based on its content. It would risk government 
selectively choosing to prosecute its political opponents. t would 
allow political candidates to make accusations against their political 
opponents. So it would chill candidates from speaking.

  A few days after our hearing, the Supreme Court's ruling in the 
Alvarez case confirmed all the free speech problems with that bill. But 
even after that decision, the Justice Department, to my disappointment, 
issued a letter in support of the bill. That letter made no mention of 
any first amendment considerations. I have heard no indication that the 
committee will not mark up this bill which represents a grave threat to 
freedom of speech.
  This week, the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution 
held a hearing on the legislative responses to the Citizens United 
case. In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the first 
amendment's free speech guarantee protects the rights of corporations 
and unions to make independent expenditures in support of candidates or 
on any particular policy issue that they want to speak out on. The 
ruling has no effect on campaign contributions. There are proposals in 
this body to amend the Bill of Rights, the first amendment, for the 
very first time, to allow the government to limit how much candidates 
can spend on speech and, therefore, the amount of speech that the 
government will permit. And there are proposed constitutional 
amendments to prevent corporations and labor unions from spending in 
elections. To me, this is very serious business that we ought to be 
raising a red flag about.
  It is worth remembering what rule the Obama administration asked the 
Supreme Court to adopt in Citizens United. The Justice Department 
argued that the government should be able to ban books that contained 
even one sentence that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a 
candidate if those books were published or distributed by a corporation 
or a union. This administration argued in favor of banning books. In 
light of the practice of totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, this 
administration's position on free speech is very astonishing. The 
Supreme Court quite rightly rejected the argument of the administration 
on that particular point.
  It reminded the news media, which is organized in corporate form for 
the most part, that the exemption from campaign finance laws is by 
statute, and one which Congress could remove at any time, threatening 
freedom of the press. If that were to happen and the Constitution were 
to allow restrictions on corporate independent expenditures, the 
guarantee of freedom of the press would be as threatened as freedom of 
speech.
  Then there is another situation, and this deals with the restaurant 
chain of Chick-fil-A. The owner of that chain is a Christian who has 
spoken in favor of the value of traditional marriage. The chain has not 
discriminated against anyone so far as has been reported. The 
restaurant seeks to expand in Boston and Chicago where presumably it 
would create new jobs, and in order to get there, it has to meet the 
permit requirements. However, Mayor Menino of Boston wrote a letter to 
the company president. He said that because of the owner's ``prejudice 
statements,'' there would be no place in Boston for the discrimination 
the company represented. The mayor notified the property owners where 
the restaurant was to open of his views.
  In Chicago, an alderman seeks to deny Chick-fil-A from opening in his 
ward for the same reason. It is reported that President Obama's former 
Chief of Staff, now Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, is sympathetic to the 
alderman's point of view.
  Once again, this is a gross violation of first amendment free speech. 
Government cannot deny a benefit to someone because it disagrees with 
the applicant's views. This is the fundamental principle of our 
constitutional democracy.
  Voicing support for traditional marriage is not discrimination. That 
speech is not hate speech. Even if it were, the first amendment 
protects speech that is unpopular with the government. There is no 
constitutional speech code that allows banning a hate speech any more 
than government can ban speech in books.
  Finally, the Alvarez decision a few weeks ago affects another first 
amendment issue pending before this body right now. In the Alvarez 
case, the Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act which 
criminalizes lies concerning winning military medals. It did

[[Page S5458]]

so on free speech grounds. I know many of my colleagues desire to pass 
a new law that will accomplish that goal, and if that law is 
constitutional, I will probably join them in that effort.
  Two bills on this subject are now pending in the Senate. Senator 
Brown of Massachusetts introduced the first bill and then Senator Webb 
did so after the Alvarez decision. There have been efforts to pass both 
bills by voice vote.
  When the Republicans were asked to move the Webb bill, we were told 
that all Democrats supported the bill. This is a problem. The Webb bill 
is clearly unconstitutional based upon the Alvarez decision. It 
criminalizes some lies about medals that the Supreme Court says 
Congress cannot criminalize.
  For instance, it would prohibit lies in campaigns and in employment, 
even when those lies would not produce the tangible, material benefit 
that is necessary to punish them. Yet no Democrat objected to passing 
the bill without debate. Of course, Republicans could not agree to such 
a request.
  Since he did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court decision when 
Senator Brown wrote the bill, right now, because of the decision, and 
he didn't know about it, Senator Brown's bill is also unconstitutional. 
The difference between his bill and Senator Webb's bill, however, is 
that Senator Brown now has a substitute amendment that seems to address 
the problem in a fully constitutional way. But although Democrats want 
to pass without debate a clearly unconstitutional bill, somehow they 
object to a clearly constitutional Brown bill.
  These games should stop. I am sure all the Members of this body 
should be willing to support a single constitutional bill that would 
reenact the prohibition on lying about whether one is entitled to 
certain military medals.
  In short, this country is facing a disturbing increase in government 
actions that violate the freedom of speech. That is a vital right of 
our democracy.
  Anyone can stand up for speech with which they agree. The test for 
government officials and the test for free speech is whether they will 
allow speech with which they might disagree. They may criticize speech, 
debate the speech, and seek to change minds. But shutting people up, 
denying them benefits, passing bills that would put people in jail for 
exercising free speech rights--these are never allowable under our 
Constitution. It is time for elected officials to pay greater heed to 
the oath to support the Constitution.


   Report by Former FBI Director William Webster on Fort Hood Attack

  Recently, former FBI Director William Webster was asked to 
investigate how the FBI performed regarding the attack at Fort Hood by 
MAJ Nidal Hasan.
  Major Hasan's attack killed 12 U.S. soldiers, a Defense Department 
employee, and wounded 42 others. Following the attack, the FBI 
conducted an internal review and determined that it had information on 
Major Hasan prior to that attack. As a result, the FBI Director asked 
Judge Webster to conduct an independent review and investigation of the 
FBI's handling of the matter. In short, Judge Webster's commission 
found that the FBI made mistakes that resulted from a number of 
problems--some operational, some technological.
  Some of these mistakes are extremely concerning given that they are 
basic management failures. For example, the unclassified report states:

       Many agents and most [task force officers] did not receive 
     training on [FBI computer systems] and other FBI databases 
     until after the FBI's internal investigation of the Fort Hood 
     shootings.

  This is clearly unacceptable.
  Other problems highlighted include failing to issue Intelligence 
Information Reports on Major Hasan to the Defense Department; confusion 
about which FBI office was investigating the lead; failure to interview 
Major Hasan; along with information technology limitations.
  All in all, the Webster report paints a disturbing picture of the 
FBI. It shows lack of training, failure to follow leads, and continued 
computer problems. These are the types of problems that, quite frankly, 
we thought were corrected following the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
  Ultimately, Judge Webster issued 18 recommendations for the FBI to 
implement to prevent future problems such as these. The FBI agreed with 
these recommendations and has stated they will take action to implement 
those recommendations.
  That is good news, of course. The FBI must implement these 
recommendations and do it immediately. However, we have a duty to make 
sure the FBI implements these recommendations and holds people 
accountable--in fact, hold the FBI accountable--if they don't. The 
FBI's failure in this case is inexcusable and shakes public confidence 
in the FBI's ability to combat homegrown terrorism. Basic management 
problems and investigative failures can't happen, particularly if 
national security is at stake. If failures of this magnitude occur on 
high profile national security cases, it makes one wonder what the FBI 
is doing on other investigations.
  Those responsible for these failures should be held accountable. I 
intend to follow up with Director Mueller to determine what action was 
taken against those people who didn't do the job in the right and 
correct way.


              Justice Department Inspector General Report

  One more report that can't go ignored is a report released this 
morning by the Justice Department Office of Inspector General. This 
report examined improper hiring practices within the Justice 
Department's Justice Management Division. Shockingly, the inspector 
general found the Justice Department employees openly and flagrantly 
violated Federal law.
  Let me repeat that these employees violated Federal law and the 
Department of Justice regulations prohibiting employment of relatives, 
granting illegal preferences in employment, conflict of interest, and 
misuse of position. Further, employees who were interviewed by the 
Office of Inspector General were also found to have made false 
statements to investigators.
  This is an example of the Justice Department run wild. It is 
troubling to me how employees within the Department colluded and 
schemed to hire one another's relatives in order to avoid rules against 
nepotism. It is inexcusable, and I can assure my colleagues that we 
will be looking into this matter.
  This wasn't a one-time event, by the way. In fact, the Office of 
Inspector General pointed out that similar problems existed in 2008. 
Despite what the Department called ``aggressive action'' to stop this 
type of behavior back in 2008, it appears nothing has changed.
  At the very least, the Attorney General needs to hold these employees 
accountable with more than just disciplinary action. Laws were broken 
and false statements were made. The Department can't simply sweep this 
under the rug. Employees need to be punished because in this town, if 
heads don't roll, nothing changes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I return to the floor today to give 
voice once again to the issue I feel will most significantly define 
this generation of leadership in the United States and around the 
globe. I rise to discuss the notable, evident changes taking place in 
our Earth's climate, the relationship between our own activities and 
the change and the rate of change being observed, and our, so far, 
forsaken responsibility to address climate change head on and with 
purpose.
  Last month, representatives from world governments, the private 
sector, NGOs, and other major stakeholders gathered in Rio de Janeiro, 
Brazil, for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. 
Marking the 20th anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, this 
year's conference was nicknamed ``Rio+20.''
  So-called sustainable development principles consist of a set of 
principles and strategies that, when acted upon by the global 
community, will balance strong economic growth, expansion of just civic 
and government structures, and environmental protection. Another way to 
view sustainable development is in the balance of the needs of the 
present with those of future generations through the fair use of 
resources.
  As Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said:

       In the 21st century, the only viable development is 
     sustainable development. The only way to deliver lasting 
     progress for everyone is by preserving our resources and 
     protecting our common environment.


[[Page S5459]]


  One positive aspect of this Rio+20 conference was discussion of the 
power of economic forces in promoting sustainability. The official 
Outcome Document adopted by the conference participants entitled ``The 
Future We Want'' highlights the role of private companies, the private 
sector--and their close collaboration with governments--in driving 
sustainable development. It reads in part:

       We acknowledge that the implementation of sustainable 
     development will depend on active engagement of both the 
     public and private sectors. We recognize that the active 
     participation of the private sector can contribute to the 
     achievement of sustainable development, including through the 
     important tool of public-private partnerships.

  A number of Rio+20's corporate participants have stepped forward to 
accept this challenge. Many of those global businesses are recognizing 
that greening their operations is not just good for the environment, it 
is good for their business as well.
  Dell, for example, has committed to reducing its worldwide 
facilities' greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent by 2015. Dell is a 
computer technology corporation based in Texas that ranks 44th on the 
Fortune 500 and employs over 106,000 people. I doubt they made that 
decision rashly.
  Bank of America, based in Charlotte, NC, is number 13 on the 2012 
Fortune 500 list and was the first bank to offer coast-to-coast 
operations in the United States. They have committed $50 billion over 
10 years to finance Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy and Energy 
Access, and other activities that advance the low-carbon economy.
  Marriott has displayed both internal and external efforts by 
committing to build 10 Fairfield by Marriott hotels constructed to 
sustainable building standards; as well, pledging $500,000 to help 
preserve 1.4 million acres of rainforest in the Juma Reserve in the 
state of Amazonas, Brazil. Marriott ranks first on the Fortune 500 list 
in the category of the hotel-casinos-resorts industry.
  Microsoft has committed to going completely carbon neutral, and will 
be factoring the costs of carbon output into the company's business 
operations in over 100 countries.
  These companies are just a few examples from the effort that is being 
undertaken in the private sector to meet our responsibilities to 
address climate change. As leaders in government, we must recognize 
that the private sector will not, however, be able to halt climate 
change on its own. But these commitments do signify that action on 
climate change does not need to come at the expense of economic growth.
  Governments can--and must--provide incentives for sustainable 
production and consumption. Indeed, the Rio+20 Outcome Document goes on 
to say: ``We support national regulatory and policy frameworks that 
enable business and industry to advance sustainable development 
initiatives taking into account the importance of corporate social 
responsibility.''
  As leaders in the public sector, we have the capacity to establish 
those effective incentives that can leverage billions in private sector 
investment into sustainable products and services that support 
environmental and social improvements. The constructive role that 
government can play is being recognized not just in capitals around the 
world but in boardrooms around the world.
  Yet, unfortunately, here in Washington, the special interests that 
deny carbon pollution causes global temperatures to rise, that deny 
melting icecaps destabilize our climate so that, for instance, regions 
face extreme drought--as the Senator from Colorado discussed earlier--
or outsized precipitation events--that we have seen in my home State of 
Rhode Island--those special interests in Washington still have a strong 
hold, and they pretend the jury is still out on climate changes caused 
by carbon pollution. This is, to be perfectly blunt about it, an 
outright falsehood.
  The fact that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere absorbs heat from the 
Sun was discovered at the time of the Civil War--1863. Mr. President, 
1863 was when the Irish scientist John Tyndall determined that carbon 
dioxide and also water vapor trapped more heat in the atmosphere as 
their concentrations increased.
  The 1955 textbook, ``Our Astonishing Atmosphere''--from the year I 
was born--notes that ``Nearly a century ago''--in 1955--``the scientist 
John Tyndall suggested that a fall in the atmospheric carbon dioxide 
could allow the earth to cool, whereas a rise in carbon dioxide would 
make it warmer.''
  So this is not something new. This is not something unusual or 
extraordinary. This is solidly established science.
  In the early 1900s, it became clear that changes in the amount of 
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can account for significant increases 
and decreases in the Earth's annual average temperatures, and that 
carbon dioxide, released primarily by the burning of coal, would 
contribute to these changes. Again, this is not new stuff. These 
are well-established scientific principles.

  Let's look at the changes we observe in our changing planet. Over the 
last 800,000 years, until very recently, the atmosphere has stayed 
within a bandwidth of 170 to 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide--
170 to 300 parts per million. That has been the range for 8,000 
centuries. By the way, that is a measurement, not a theory. Scientists 
measure historic carbon dioxide concentrations by locating trapped air 
bubbles in the ice of ancient glaciers. So we know by measurement over 
time what the range has been of our carbon dioxide concentration.
  What else do we know? Well, we know since the Industrial Revolution, 
we have burned carbon-rich fuels in measurable and ever-increasing 
amounts, and that we are now up to 7 to 8 gigatons each year going into 
our atmosphere. A gigaton, by the way, is a billion--with a ``B''--
metric tons. Releasing all this carbon into the atmosphere has, 
predictably, increased the carbon concentration in our atmosphere. That 
should not be a difficult proposition, that when you are dumping 7 to 8 
billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, it raises 
the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere.
  We now measure those carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. We 
measure them climbing. Again, this is a measurement, not a theory. The 
present concentration exceeds 390 parts per million. Mr. President, 
8,000 centuries between 170 to 300 parts per million, and now we are 
out over that range, as far as 390 parts per million. In the Arctic, we 
have actually clipped over into 400 parts per million.
  Here is what the Christian Science Monitor said about this:

       The Arctic is the leading indicator in global warming, both 
     in carbon dioxide in the air and effects, said Pieter Tans, a 
     senior NOAA scientist.

  The Arctic is our leading indicator in global warming, both in terms 
of the carbon dioxide concentration in the air and the effects of that 
carbon dioxide concentration.

       ``This is the first time the entire Arctic is that high,'' 
     he said.
       Tans called reaching the 400 number ``depressing,'' and 
     [his colleague Jim] Butler--

  Who is the global monitoring director at the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Lab in Boulder, CO--

       said it was ``a troubling milestone.''
       ``It's an important threshold,'' said Carnegie Institution 
     ecologist Chris Field, a scientist who helps lead the Nobel 
     Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ``It 
     is an indication that we're in a different world.''

  ``It is an indication that we're in a different world.''
  In this article, they make the same point I made a moment ago. I 
quote the article:

       It's been at least 800,000 years--probably more--since 
     Earth saw carbon dioxide levels in the 400s, Butler and other 
     climate scientists said.

  So another thing we do pretty regularly around here in business, in 
the military, in science, is plotting trajectories. It is something 
that, frankly, scientists, businesspeople, and military folks do every 
day. There is nothing new here.
  When you plot the trajectory for our carbon concentration, the 
trajectory for our carbon pollution predicts 688 parts per million in 
the year 2095 and 1,097 parts per million in the year 2195. Mr. 
President, 688 parts per million in the year 2095, when for 8,000 
centuries it has been between 170 and 300 parts per million. So 8,000 
centuries at 170 to 300 parts per million, and by the end of this 
century: 688 parts per million.

[[Page S5460]]

  To put that 800,000-year figure in perspective, mankind has engaged 
in agriculture for maybe 10,000 years, maybe a little more. Mr. 
President, 800,000 years ago, it is not clear we had yet figured out 
how to make a fire. Millions of years ago goes back into geologic time. 
Those carbon concentrations--688 parts per million, 1,097 parts per 
million--those are carbon concentrations that we have not seen in 
millions of years on the surface of the Earth. And we are headed for 
them in just a century and a half--two centuries.
  As Tyndall determined at the time of the Civil War, increasing carbon 
concentrations will absorb more of the Sun's heat and raise global 
temperatures, and experience around the world is proving that is taking 
place in front of our faces in undeniable ways.
  We think often of climate change as happening to our atmosphere, and 
we think of its effects on our lands because we are land-based 
creatures. But let me talk for a moment about our oceans.
  In April of this year, a group of scientific experts came together to 
discuss the current state of our oceans. Their workshop report stated 
this:

       Human actions have resulted in warming and acidification of 
     the oceans and are now causing increased hypoxia.

  Hypoxia is when there is not enough oxygen trapped in the ocean to 
sustain life of the creatures that live in the ocean.

       Studies of the Earth's past indicate that these are the 
     three symptoms--

  Warming, acidification and increased hypoxia--

     associated with each of previous five mass extinctions on 
     Earth.

  We experienced two mass ocean extinctions 55 million years ago and 
251 million years ago. Last year, a paleobiologist at Brown University, 
whose name is Jessica Whiteside, published a study demonstrating that 
it took 8 million years after that earlier extinction--the one 251 
million years ago--it took 8 million years after that for plant and 
animal diversity to return to preextinction levels. So that was a 
pretty heavy-duty wipeout if it took 8 millions years to recover.
  Here is the tough part. In the lead-up to these past mass ocean 
extinctions, scientists have estimated that the Earth was emitting 
carbon into the atmosphere at a rate of 2.2 gigatons per year for the 
earlier extinction, and somewhere between 1 and 2 gigatons per year for 
the second extinction over several thousand years.
  Remember how much are we releasing now--7 to 8 gigatons a year. So 
2.2 and somewhere between 1 and 2 were the levels that led to those 
mass extinctions in geologic time, and we are now at 7 to 8 gigatons a 
year.
  As the group of Oxford scientists noted, both of these estimates, the 
ones for how much was being released in those geologic times, are 
dwarfed in comparison to today's emission. Our oceans are indeed 
changing before our very eyes, and anyone who spends time on the oceans 
or who studies the oceans knows this. The oceans are rising. The oceans 
are swept by more violent storms. The oceans are getting more acid, 
affecting already the creatures at the bottom of the food chain, upon 
which ocean life depends.
  It is very hard for a creature to succeed in an environment in which 
it is becoming soluble. That is what is happening as our oceans 
acidify, and the small basic creatures at the very bottom of the food 
chain that live by making their shells can no longer make shells 
successfully because the water is too acidic.
  In the Arctic, we see unprecedented icemelt. The caps are shrinking. 
Every day it seems we hear about a new record being broken, a new loss 
of ice cover in the Arctic. In the tropics, we see coral dying. In some 
places, 80 percent of the coral is gone. I have been to places I can 
remember live and lively coral reefs, and now we go back and the coral 
is still there, but it is dead. It is like an abandoned building. Fish 
can swim around in it, but it is not the fountain of life that a coral 
reef is supposed to be.
  There is a garbage gyre in the Pacific that is estimated to be larger 
than the size of the State of Texas in which enormous amounts of the 
plastics we discard are being swept and floating.
  We have whales that are poisoned to the point where if they come 
ashore in Rhode Island on a summer day, if they are hurt or get washed 
ashore because they are injured, we often end up with whale cadavers in 
the summers on our coast. When that happens, it is reasonably likely 
that whale is toxic waste; that if we towed the body back out to the 
ocean to let it sink and let nature take its course, we would be 
violating our clean water laws by disposing of toxic waste. If we 
cranked that whale's body up into the back of a truck and took it to 
the town dump and chucked it, we would be violating the hazardous waste 
disposal laws of the State of Rhode Island because we have put so much 
poison into the ocean that creatures such as whales that live at the 
top of the food chain have now become so infiltrated with these poisons 
that they are now swimming toxic waste.
  Around here we like to think pretty highly of ourselves. But the laws 
of physics, the laws of chemistry, the laws of science, these are laws 
of nature. These are laws of God's Earth. We can repeal some laws 
around here; we cannot repeal those. Senators are used to our opinions 
mattering around here. These laws are not affected by our opinions. For 
these laws of nature, because we can neither repeal them nor influence 
them, we bear a duty of stewardship, of responsibility to future 
generations to see and respond to the facts that are before our faces 
and to see and respond to those facts according to nature's laws.
  There is no lobbyist so powerful, there is no secret special interest 
so wealthy that it can change the operation of those laws. What they 
have done is to change the operation of our laws, inhibited our ability 
to meet our duty to respond to the laws of our God-given Earth. We do 
indeed bear a duty to make the right decisions for our children and 
grandchildren and our God-given Earth. right now we are failing, 
shamefully failing, in that duty. We are deluded if we think that 
somehow we will be spared the plain and foreseeable consequences of our 
failure to act. Some may hope they will find a wizard's hat and wand 
with which to wish all this away. That is not rational thinking. If we 
have a simple obligation to our children and to future generations, it 
is to be rational human beings and to make rational decisions based on 
the evidence and the laws of nature. These laws of nature are known. 
Earth's message to us is clear. Our failure is blameworthy. Its 
consequences are profound, and the costs will be very high.
  I see the distinguished Senator from Alaska who actually brought a 
wonderful scientist from the University of Alaska who gave one of the 
better presentations on ocean acidification that I have ever seen as 
part of our Oceans Caucus.
  I yield the floor to Senator Murkowski.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Alaska.


                                  EPA

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have had an opportunity to listen to 
a few moments of the comments from my colleague from Rhode Island. I 
clearly share his passion and concern for the oceans. We have been 
working together as the cochairmen of the Oceans Caucus in the Senate 
and have had the opportunity to learn from one another on both ends of 
the country about the significant responsibilities we have, also the 
great challenges we have, whether it is ocean acidification, whether it 
is the opportunities we have to ensure that we are good stewards of our 
water, our land, our air.
  It is a challenge I think we face on a daily basis. But I think as we 
rise to meet these challenges, we recognize that oftentimes within the 
laws that we have put in place to provide for that level of protection, 
for that level of oversight and that stewardship, that we may encounter 
conflict, conflict with the obligation we also have to ensure that the 
people we represent have an opportunity for good jobs, for a livelihood 
in a region they call home, that there is a level of balance that we 
find between our obligation to care for the land, the air, the water, 
as well as caring for one another.
  It is in that vein that I would like to address my comments this 
afternoon. I would like to speak about certain aspects of what we see 
within the Environmental Protection Agency and speak specifically to an 
issue that is

[[Page S5461]]

unfolding in my State of Alaska. Clearly, the EPA has important 
responsibilities to set and also enforce environmental standards. I 
think we would all agree with that. In the 40 years since EPA was 
established, our Nation has made dramatic progress in restoring and 
preserving our environmental resources. I am grateful. I am proud to 
live in a nation with high environmental standards for the benefit of 
the land and for the people.
  But the process for setting Federal environmental standards, I would 
suggest, is broken. We are seeing things present themselves not only in 
my State but around the country. We see in Alaska, day in and day out, 
that things are not working perhaps as they were designed. So many 
Alaskans feel the EPA does not ``get'' Alaska.
  But the challenges I think we see up North are just examples of many 
of the problems we see repeated all over the Nation. I would suggest 
that what we need to see is balance, balance restored at the EPA. There 
has always been a recognition that the EPA must go about its work in a 
balanced way.
  Back in 1970, there was a memo called the Ash memo, and it listed the 
origin of the EPA. They stated it this way:

       Sound environmental administration must reconcile divergent 
     interests and serve the total public constituency. It must 
     appreciate and take fully into account competing social and 
     economic claims.

  In recent years, EPA has not adequately, let alone fully, taken into 
account these so-called competing claims such as the genuine welfare of 
our people and their economic needs. EPA says--and I have had many a 
conversation with Administrator Jackson in person and before committee, 
where the statements are made that there is a concern about 
environmental justice for communities that are historically 
underrepresented in EPA decisionmaking. The fact is, many of these 
communities are very frequently the ones that bear the brunt of 
regressive increases in, for instance in my State, energy and in living 
costs that are caused by some of these rules we are facing.
  When I go home, when I meet with people from around the country, I 
hear more complaints, more concerns expressed about the EPA than any 
other Federal agency, bar none. Again and again, I am told the benefits 
of many of the EPA requirements are uncertain at best but that the cost 
of the regulations are very real, and they are detrimental to the human 
welfare.
  Today, EPA often seems too eager to impose requirements that are 
dubious in their health or their environmental benefits but whose main 
effect may be to penalize or to perhaps even stop commerce or 
development. So restoring an appropriate equilibrium is vital if we 
want to have a healthy people, if we want to have a healthy economy.
  Today, I would like to speak to one example from my State. There is 
as it relates to ECA. ECA is a reference to the Emissions Control 
Area. The EPA was a major proponent of including the ocean off southern 
and southeastern Alaska in an international emissions control area. 
This was an effort to reduce emissions from marine vessels through 
lowering sulfur standards within the fuel.

  The purpose of the emissions control areas is to require ships--
which, to be very fair, certainly have significant emissions--to do 
their part to curb pollution. This is absolutely reasonable. The 
problem we are seeing up north is that EPA never gathered any air 
modeling data to support the claim that we have a problem from ships 
that travel up to Alaska. There has been no air modeling data 
whatsoever. We have requested. There has been none. Moreover, one of 
the proposals advanced to work with the EPA--and we need to be working 
with our agencies, as we need our agencies to be working with us--was 
an offer for an equivalent method to comply with the ECA requirements 
in North America. We are the only State in the country that is not 
accessible by road. Folks come and visit us by air and they come in by 
ship in the summertime. Tourism is big business in Alaska. In Juneau, 
the ships that are tied up at the docks are utilizing shoreside 
services so there are no emissions when they are in the community. So 
one of the proposals that was out there--this equivalency method--would 
essentially ask for a tradeoff. If we have cruise ships emitting 
nothing when they are in dock or at shore, offset that against those 
that would be emitted from vessels out at sea, essentially an 
averaging. That was rejected by the EPA.
  What has made this particularly disconcerting for many Alaskans is 
that in the EPA's justification they cite a U.S. Forest Service study 
that purportedly found some evidence that emissions from cruise ships 
in southeast Alaska could impact the lichen in the mountains above 
Juneau. We can see the mountains up here in this chart. They are pretty 
high. There is lichen up on the top. It is kind of a short, mossy, 
green plant. The report went on to worry that if we have impacted 
lichen growth in Juneau, it could somehow or other harm the caribou.
  Never mind the link that lichen and cruise ship emissions may be very 
tenuous, there is a bigger problem with EPA's reasoning, and anybody 
from Alaska would know the problem, which is there are no caribou in 
Juneau, AK. There are no caribou anywhere in southeastern Alaska. 
Everyone has seen my pictures before. Alaska is a pretty big State. If 
we are sitting in Juneau, AK, the caribou herd this report was 
apparently concerned about is over 1,000 miles away. There are about 
1,000 miles between Juneau and where the southern Alaska Peninsula 
caribou herd cited in the EPA study live--1,000 miles. It would be as 
if we would make the assertion a cruise ship sitting in Miami might 
somehow affect the food supply for bears up in the Pocono Mountains 
north of Philadelphia, PA.
  I think we need to look at this and recognize we have a pretty flawed 
study to begin with, if the suggestion is we need to ensure there are 
no emissions coming from a cruise ship in Juneau because that is going 
to impact the lichen which will impact the caribou that don't happen to 
live anywhere near Juneau--no closer than 1,000 miles away. So applying 
these new fuel standards to save the lichen in Juneau to feed caribou 
1,000 miles from here will mean vessels plying the waters of southeast 
and south central Alaska--whether they are freight vessels that move 
just about all our goods or cruise ships that are the lifeblood of our 
tourist economy--will have to meet the requirement they now burn low-
sulfur diesel at levels suggested that are, perhaps, not attainable.
  The question I think is fair to ask is: What is the problem with 
requiring these cruise ships and these vessels bringing goods north to 
Alaska to meet these standards? What is the problem with this 
requirement?
  The problem is while these ECA requirements may not have a measurable 
positive effect on human health--or caribou food, for that matter--they 
will have a material impact on our cost of living. Look at the State of 
Alaska and the way we get our materials in, the way we get our 
foodstuffs, our hardware, our lumber. It comes to us over the water. 
There is some, yes, that comes in by airplane, but guaranteed that is 
going to cost much more. There are some that can come up from the lower 
48 across through Canada and into Alaska that way. But if we want to 
talk about increased emissions, that is surely one way to do it, to put 
it on a truck and haul it all the way up here.
  So much of our goods come to the State by water. About 85 percent of 
the goods that come to the State of Alaska come into the Port of 
Anchorage, which is sitting right there.
  What we see with these ECA regs is that ships coming out of a port 
such as Los Angeles or Long Beach--where my colleague from California 
hails from, and she is here on the floor now--have hundreds of ships 
coming in and out every day, but they are not subject to this same 
emissions control area. They only need to burn this expensive low-
sulfur fuel for a very short time until they are out of the ECA. The 
problem is, when traveling along Alaska's coast to bring those goods up 
to our State, you are in an area where our air is pretty clean--our air 
is very pristine--but the entire voyage is within this ECA region. It 
is all within this emissions control area. So throughout that entire 
journey they are required to burn the lower sulfur, more expensive 
fuel.
  If this were just going to result in an increase in cost to the 
cruise lines or to the freight haulers that come up to the State, that 
might be one thing, but

[[Page S5462]]

I think we recognize the economic reality that every dime that is added 
to the cost of doing business in Alaska is ultimately going to be a 
dime passed on and shared by consumers.
  The State of Alaska recently cited an estimate that these new 
requirements will increase the shipping costs to the State of Alaska by 
8 percent. One might say: Eight percent, that is not that bad. We can 
live with that. But the problem we face is that in 2015, just around 
the corner, we will see an even higher standard these vessels will be 
held to. At that point in time, the suggestion is that costs could be 
increased by as much as 25 percent. That may be on the high margin, but 
let's say somewhere between 8 and 25 percent. Again, almost every 
commodity consumed in our State is transported either by ship or by 
ship and plane, with the cost of freight adding a significant increase 
to every item out there.
  We are already one of the most expensive places to live in America, 
and rural Alaska is even more expensive. I check on a weekly basis to 
find out what Alaskans are paying for their fuel, whether it is in the 
city of Anchorage or up in Fairbanks or out in Kwethluk or in the 
villages. I monitor that regularly to see how our villages are faring. 
In Kotzebue, for instance, this week they are paying about $7.15 for a 
gallon of gas. I asked that we put a link on our Web site to get some 
pricing on what we are seeing in our communities as it relates to 
foodstuffs, things you and I would use in our home here. Here is a 
package most of us recognize. A 10-pound bag of sugar in Kwethluk is 
going for $17.25. There is no other store in Kwethluk, other than the 
Native store, so it is not as if they can go to the Safeway and 
comparison shop. It is not as if they can get in their car and drive to 
the city or go to Costco. It just doesn't happen. There are no roads in 
and out of Kwethluk. You might be able to take an airplane.

  A gallon of whole milk costs $30 in Ambler, that is if you can find 
whole milk or any kind of fresh milk. As a mom who has boys who go 
through laundry, I am always looking to see what people are paying for 
laundry detergent. In Venetie, a 100-ounce bottle of Tide goes for 
$43.50. I had my interns do a little price comparison on Tide. Powdered 
Tide, 56 ounces, in Anchorage we are paying $9.98. That is a little 
higher than here in Washington. Washington is about nine bucks. But in 
Angoon that same box of Tide is $18.33. In Barrow it is $22. In McGrath 
it is $21. In Bethel it is $21.
  So when we talk about increasing the prices in Alaska by 8 percent, 
10 percent, 12 percent, possibly 25 percent and you are a mom buying a 
box of Tide and you are already paying $43, believe me, 8 percent 
starts to add up real quick. When you are trying to buy a bag of sugar 
so you can make the food, put up the jam for the winter, and you are 
paying $17.25 in Kwethluk, I think it is fair to say we are paying 
attention to what happens when there are cost increases.
  EPA mandated low-sulfur fuel is estimated to add $100 million in 
additional cost to the summer cruise traffic in Alaska. So one might 
say, if you can afford the price of a cruise, that is not that big of a 
deal. You increase the price of the ticket and people will live. But 
what happens is that puts Alaska at a competitive disadvantage when we 
are talking about where these businesses are going to operate. Fourteen 
percent of all employment in the State is directly tied to the tourism 
industry. So if the cruise lines can't fully pass on these increased 
costs, what they are going to do is move their ships. They will take 
them to other parts of the world where air quality standards are 
different, and we will have the loss of seasonal visitors. The money 
they bring to southeastern Alaska is a huge part of the local economy 
and also to year-round institutions. In Juneau, our regional hospital 
is actually able to provide for a higher standard of care, in part, 
because of the high influx of patients it serves during the summertime.
  I would suggest the EPA's one-size-fits-all approach to environmental 
regulation doesn't always work. We can't quite shoehorn that into in 
all situations, and we need to be aware of that. Again, when we talk 
about the concept of environmental justice, we need to make sure when 
regulations and rules are imposed, we are not hurting the most 
vulnerable. I would suggest the people in Kwethluk, who are looking at 
the impact of these regulations and what it is going to mean to them 
and their village, they are asking: How do we survive? How do we live? 
The answer isn't for them to move to Washington, DC. That is not the 
answer. We need to get back to balance.
  What is happening now is the State of Alaska has sued the EPA 
Administrator in Federal Court to stop the new requirements from taking 
effect. Given the immediacy of the threat these requirements pose to my 
State, I think the State's move to advance the litigation was the right 
one. But we shouldn't have to sue our own government in order to get 
balanced regulation.
  Administrator Lisa Jackson has recently acknowledged that applying 
ECA to Alaska has posed a problem. She recognized that. Unfortunately, 
we haven't seen anything more beyond those words, and we are still no 
closer to a solution. These new requirements are set to take effect 
next week, the initial threshold. I have been raising this issue with 
EPA for several years, but again we are still working and we have not 
yet resolved it. I have called on the President himself to marshal the 
State Department to see if ECA can be amended or some other relief can 
be found to eliminate at least this one burden.
  This is something that is touching Alaskans in a very immediate and a 
very direct way. Again, we want to ensure our air is clean, that our 
water is clean. We want to be the good custodians and stewards of our 
land, and we are. But we need to be able to work with our Federal 
regulators. I have asked the Administrator and I have asked the 
President to work with us on this.


                            Ted Stevens Day

  Mr. President, I know my colleague from California is here to speak, 
but I would like the indulgence of the body for just 2 more minutes to 
speak on a little bit of a happy occasion.


                            Ted Stevens Day

  Mr. President, the day after tomorrow, on Saturday, Alaskans are 
going to be celebrating Ted Stevens Day. As I travel around the State, 
whether I am in Fairbanks or down on the Kenai River or up in Bethel, 
down in Ketchikan, everywhere I go, I am reminded of my good friend and 
a friend to so many in this body, Senator Ted Stevens.
  It was nearly 2 years ago now that we lost Uncle Ted to the tragic 
plane crash in southwest Alaska. But as tragic as that was, I always 
stop to remember that that tragedy struck while Ted was doing what he 
loved to do most, which was enjoying Alaska's great outdoors and going 
fishing, just being outdoors. His passion for Alaska's unique 
wilderness, his love for fishing, and his immense affection for the 
outdoors really embodies the spirit we are now advancing in Ted Stevens 
Day, and the motto of this day is ``Get Out and Play.''
  On the fourth Saturday of July, we join together to celebrate the 
life and the legacy of a man who was really dedicated to public 
service, whether it was his days as a pilot in World War II, to the 
four decades he served with us here in the Senate.
  He began working in Alaska long before statehood. When he came here 
to Washington, DC, to represent us in the Senate, he began a battle for 
our State that lasted for 40 years. He fought for roads, for buildings, 
and for infrastructure that new, young States need, as well as many of 
the programs that are in place today that continue on. He worked to 
transform not only Alaska but really the rest of the country as well.
  It is somewhat coincidental that this Ted Stevens Day coincides with 
the beginning of the 2012 summer Olympic games in London. So as 
Alaskans get together to get out and play this weekend under the 
midnight sun, there are going to be 530 American athletes who will 
begin to embark on a 17-day Olympic journey Senator Stevens helped to 
pioneer. It is because of legislation he championed that the Olympic 
movement in the United States exists as it does today.
  Back in 1978, he fought for the passage of the Olympic and Amateur 
Sports Act. This was later renamed the ``Ted Stevens Olympic and 
Amateur Sports Act'' in his honor and declared

[[Page S5463]]

the U.S. Olympic Committee the centralized body of all Olympic 
activities in the country and ultimately led to the creation of 
national governing bodies responsible for the oversight of each 
individual Olympic sport--a structure that is still in place now. He 
really was so much an inspiration to the progress and to the 
development of the Olympic movement here in the United States. Earlier 
this month, the U.S. Olympic Committee honored Senator Stevens as a 
special contributor in the Class of 2012 U.S. Olympic Hall of Fame.
  We all know Senator Stevens was also a huge proponent of title IX. I 
think he would be very proud that for the first time in American 
history, Team USA is comprised of more women than men. I think that 
would give him a smile. But this feat was made possible by the landmark 
legislation passed 40 years ago that opened gymnasium doors and leveled 
the playing field for women and girls across the country.
  In Alaska, we very often say that Ted Stevens was larger than life. 
Today, in discussing this and bringing this up, we recognize that on 
Saturday we are going to continue a tradition of remembering a man who 
loved Alaska with a passion. As we go out and bike and hike and fish, I 
think many will share good memories of an amazing Alaskan, an amazing 
man, and truly an amazing American.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to speak a few 
minutes about a subject which should, hopefully, bring a smile to many 
of us.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the Cybersecurity 
Act of 2012. I assume that bill is in order and on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed is pending.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor as the chairman of 
the Intelligence Committee to, in my own way, indicate the seriousness 
of the job we are about to begin. I know there is controversy. I know 
there are differences of opinion. But what people have to understand is 
that we have breach after breach now, and they have become far more 
numerous, much more sophisticated, and much more insidious in recent 
years.
  I want to give a number of examples of what is happening out there in 
the real world, and let me begin by going back to 2008, when the 
Pentagon's classified military computer networks suffered a 
``significant compromise.'' That is according to former Deputy 
Secretary Bill Lynn in 2010. These breaches are usually classified at 
the time they happen; therefore, people don't know about them. So all I 
am going to do is run through unclassified breaches, and even that is 
beyond comprehension. Former Secretary Lynn also detailed that foreign 
hackers stole 24,000 U.S. military files in a single attack on a 
defense contractor in March 2011.
  In the 5 months from October 2011 through February 2012, over 50,000 
cyber attacks were reported on private and governmental networks, with 
86 of those attacks taking place on critical infrastructure networks. 
Now, that is according to the bipartisan Policy Center's Cybersecurity 
Task Force. Fifty thousand incidents were the ones that were reported 
to the Department of Homeland Security, so they represent only a small 
fraction of the cyber attacks carried out against the United States.
  In December 2011, press reports revealed that the networks of the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce were completely penetrated for more than a 
year by hackers. The hackers apparently had access to everything in 
Chamber computers, including member company communications and industry 
positions on U.S. trade policies.
  In March 2011, NASA's Inspector General reported that cyber attacks 
successfully compromised NASA computers. In one attack, intruders stole 
150 user credentials that could be used to gain unauthorized access to 
NASA systems.
  Another attack at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory that involved China-
based Internet Protocol addresses let the intruders gain full access to 
key JPL systems and sensitive user accounts.
  Forty-eight companies in the chemical, defense, and other industries 
were penetrated during 2011 for at least 6 months by a hacker looking 
for intellectual property. The cybersecurity company Symantec 
attributes some of these attacks to computers in Hebei, China.
  It became worldwide news when Google alleged in April of 2011 that 
China had compromised hundreds of Gmail passwords for e-mail accounts 
of prominent people, including senior U.S. officials.
  On March 17, 2011, RSA publicly disclosed that it had detected a very 
sophisticated cyber attack on its systems in an attempt to obtain data 
that would compromise RSA's authenticated log-in technology. The data 
acquired was then used in an attempt to penetrate Lockheed Martin's 
networks.
  Between March 2010 and April 2011, the FBI identified 20 incidents in 
which the online banking credentials of small to medium-sized U.S. 
businesses were compromised and used to initiate wire transfers to 
Chinese economic and trade companies. As of April 2011, the total 
attempted fraud amounts to approximately $20 million, and the 
actual victim losses are $11 million.

  In October 2010, hackers penetrated the systems of NASDAQ, which 
sparked concerns about the severity of the cyber threat facing the 
financial industry.
  In January 2011, a hacker extracted $6.7 million from South Africa's 
Postbank over the New Year's holiday.
  In January 2011, hackers penetrated the European Union's carbon 
trading market, which allows organizations to buy and sell their carbon 
emissions quotas, and stole more than $7 million in credits, forcing 
the market to shut down temporarily.
  An international computer-crime ring, broken up in October 2010, 
siphoned about $70 million in a hacking operation targeting bank 
accounts of small businesses, municipalities, and churches, according 
to the FBI.
  In November 2008, hackers breached networks at Royal Bank of 
Scotland's WorldPay, allowing them to clone 100 ATM cards and withdraw 
over $9 million from machines in 49 cities.
  In December 2008, retail giant TJX was hacked. The one hacker 
captured and convicted, named Maksym Yastremskiy, is said to have made 
$11 million from the hack.
  In August 2008, computer networks in Georgia were hacked by unknown 
foreign intruders, most likely at the behest of the Russian Government 
because they were coordinated with Russian military actions against 
Georgia.
  In May 2007, Estonian Government networks were harassed by a denial-
of-service attack by unknown foreign intruders, most likely again at 
the behest of the Russian Government because they were part of the 
worst dispute between the two countries since the collapse of the 
Soviet Union.
  So, as you can see from some of the examples above, for years now, 
the United States and other countries have been at the receiving end of 
multiple, concerted efforts by nation-states and non-state actors to 
hack into our networks. These bad actors are infiltrating our 
communications, accessing our secrets, and sapping our economic health 
by stealing intellectual property. They may also be building a 
capability, if necessary in the future, to wage cyber war. We may not 
even know until the attack has been launched.

  These attacks are sophisticated, and involve hacking techniques that 
we unfortunately now see quite often. Cyber attacks can come in the 
form of viruses and worms, malicious backdoors, logic bombs, and 
denial-of-service attacks, just to name a few.
  A groundbreaking unclassified report from November of last year 
published by the Intelligence Community said cyber intrusions against 
U.S. companies cost billions of dollars annually. The report named 
China and Russia as aggressive cyber thieves.
  On China, the report said: ``Chinese actors are the world's most 
active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage.'' We know 
that sophisticated attacks from China against financial and technology 
companies, such as Google, resulted in property theft on a massive 
scale. Billions of dollars of trade secrets, technology, and 
intellectual property are being siphoned each year from the United 
States to benefit the economies of China and other countries.
  On Russia, the report said: ``Russia's intelligence services are 
conducting a

[[Page S5464]]

range of activities to collect economic information and technology from 
U.S. targets.'' I can assure everyone that the classified assessments 
are far more descriptive and far more devastating.
  The examples above are bad enough, but cyber threats are evolving, 
and I am very concerned that the next wave will come in the form of 
crippling intrusions against the computers that control powerplants, 
dams, transportation hubs, and financial networks in these United 
States.
  We have already seen the use of cyber attacks in warfare, when 
hackers inside Russia reportedly took down the command and control 
systems in Estonia in 2007. That was 5 years ago, roughly a lifetime in 
the realm of cyber attack capability.
  Senior national security experts from across the political spectrum 
have sounded the alarm about this threat. For Example, Leon Panetta, at 
his confirmation hearing to be Secretary of Defense, said:

       The next Pearl Harbor we confront could very well be a 
     cyber attack that cripples our power system, our grid, our 
     security systems, our financial systems, our governmental 
     systems.

  Bob Mueller, Director of the FBI, testified before the Senate 
Intelligence Committee that ``the cyber threat, which cuts across all 
programs, will be the number one threat to our country.'' We are 
dealing with the No. 1 threat to the country.
  I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Cybersecurity Act of 
2012 with Senators Lieberman, Collins, Rockefeller, and Carper. I wish 
to thank them for their tireless work on this legislation over the past 
several years.
  This act has seven titles. Each of them addresses a key gap in our 
Nation's cyber laws. I wish to take a moment to describe the critical 
infrastructure provisions in Title I, but I wish to focus most of my 
remarks on the information-sharing part of the bill, which makes up 
Title VII.
  Title I covers Critical Infrastructure Protection, which means 
protecting the public and private infrastructure that underpin our 
economy and our way of life--a big deal. A cyber attack against these 
networks could open a dam, crash our financial system, or disable the 
electric grid. It could stop all planes and interrupt the FAA--on and 
on and on.
  Although some critical infrastructure companies have taken action to 
protect their networks, too many of them have not. It appears that 
market forces are insufficient for many critical infrastructure 
companies to adopt adequate cybersecurity practices. Thus, Title I of 
this bill would create strong incentives for companies to work with the 
Federal Government to establish standards for critical infrastructure 
protection.
  Let me be candid. Even though the bill makes cybersecurity standards 
voluntary, I know many Senators still resist this idea. I do not. I 
would have preferred that this bill include its original critical 
infrastructure provisions, which would have mandated baseline standards 
for cybersecurity. But I recognize we have to compromise. I recognize 
this legislation is a necessary first step to provide some security, 
and that compromise to the voluntary measures in this bill was 
necessary. So we have done it. I hope if and when we see a major cyber 
attack against the power grid, or Wall Street, or a major dam, we won't 
see this compromise as a mistake.
  Other Senators have spoken at length about critical infrastructure 
and other parts of the bill, so let me move to Title VII, regarding 
information sharing. This is the part the Intelligence Committee has 
had something to do with. This title--at least 40 pages of the bill--
covers authorities and protections for sharing information about 
threats to cybersecurity. The information-sharing title addresses one 
of the main problems I heard from both the private sector and the 
government about existing laws and business practices when it comes to 
cyber: that private sector companies and the government know a lot 
about the cyber attacks against their networks, but this information is 
so stovepiped that no one is as well protected as they could be if the 
information were shared. That, I believe, is fact.
  As the Bipartisan Policy Center's Cyber Security Task Force recently 
found:

       Despite general agreement that we need to do it, cyber 
     information sharing is not meeting our needs today.

  Title VII addresses this problem. It reduces the legal barriers that 
hamper a private entity's ability to work with others and the Federal 
Government to share cybersecurity threat information.
  How do we do this? What does that title do specifically? First, it 
explicitly authorizes companies to monitor and defend their own 
networks.
  Many companies monitor and defend their own networks today in order 
to protect themselves and their customers. But we have heard from 
numerous companies that the law in this area is unclear, and that 
sometimes it is less risky, from a liability perspective, for them to 
allow attacks to happen than to take additional steps to defend 
themselves. Can you imagine that? So we make the law clear by giving 
companies explicit authority to monitor and defend their own networks.
  Secondly, the bill authorizes the sharing of cyber threat information 
among private companies. There have been concerns that anti-trust laws 
prevent companies from cooperating on cyber defense. This bill, in 
section 702, clearly says:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any private 
     entity may disclose lawfully obtained cybersecurity threat 
     indicators to any other private entity in accordance with 
     this section.

  Third, the bill authorizes the government, which will largely mean 
(in practice) the Intelligence Community--I hope the DNI--to share 
classified information about cyber threats with appropriately cleared 
organizations outside of the government.
  Traditionally, only government employees and contractors have been 
eligible to receive security clearances, and therefore to gain access 
to national secrets. To put it another way, those with a valid ``need 
to know'' most security secrets are within the government.

  That isn't true, though, for cybersecurity. In this case, we cannot 
restrict classified information tightly within government--the 
companies that underpin our Nation's economy and way of life have a 
``need to know'' about the nature of cyber attacks so they can better 
secure their systems.
  It is not sufficient for the government to be able to defend itself 
against an attack. It is also necessary for companies such as Google, 
or an institution such as NASDAQ, to be able to protect themselves and 
to use all possible defenses that we can help provide to them.
  Under this bill, companies are able to qualify to receive classified 
information. They will be certified and then able to obtain classified 
information about what cyber threats to look out for.
  Fourth, the bill establishes a system through which any private 
sector entity--whether a power utility, a defense contractor, a telecom 
company, or others--can share cyber threat information with the 
government.
  When it comes to cyber, information sharing must be a two-way street. 
Oftentimes, the private sector has important information about cyber 
intrusions that the government doesn't possess. After all, the private 
sector is the one on the frontlines of incoming cyber assault, so 
companies are often best able to understand the attack.
  The private sector should be able to share that information with the 
government so that the government can protect itself and fulfill its 
responsibility to warn others about the threat. So let me describe how 
this bill allows for and encourages that information sharing, and most 
importantly, let me describe the liability protections that companies 
receive for doing so.
  The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney 
General, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of National 
Intelligence, would designate one or more Federal cybersecurity 
exchanges. We envision that these exchanges would be an existing 
entity, such as one of the existing Federal cybersecurity centers.
  Private companies would share cyber threat information with these 
exchanges directly. These exchanges must be civilian entities, which is 
important to a number of Senators. They will have procedures in place 
to share that information as quickly as possible

[[Page S5465]]

with other parts of the government. The information is protected from 
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. It cannot be used in a 
regulatory enforcement action.
  This exchange would serve as a focal point for information sharing 
with the government. Having a single focal point would establish a 
single point of contact for the private sector. Otherwise we would have 
chaos. Some people want multiple points. It is difficult to do and 
still maintain the security that is necessary.
  We think this approach solves the problem. Having a single focal 
point is also more efficient for the government. It would help 
eliminate stovepipes, because right now there are dozens of different 
parts of the government receiving information from the private sector 
about cyber threats they are encountering. It is all over the map. It 
would also make privacy and civil liberties oversight easier, which I 
know interests you, Mr. President. I will describe that in a moment.
  Finally, it should save taxpayers money, because it is more efficient 
to manage--and that has to be a concern--and oversee the operation of 
one entity versus many entities.
  Let me now describe the all-important liability protections that are 
such a critical part of this.
  Section 706 of the bill provides liability protection for the 
voluntary sharing of cyber threat information with the Federal 
exchange.
  The bill reads:

       No civil or criminal cause of action shall lie or be 
     maintained in any Federal or State court against any entity 
     [that means a company] acting as authorized by this title, 
     and any such action shall be dismissed promptly for . . . the 
     voluntary disclosure of a lawfully obtained cybersecurity 
     threat indicator to a cybersecurity exchange.

  That is section 706(a). It is clear as a bell. In other words, a 
company is immune from lawsuit over sharing cyber threat information 
with a Federal exchange. The same immunity applies to the following: 
companies that monitor their own networks; cybersecurity companies that 
share threat information with their customers; companies that share 
information with a critical infrastructure owner or operator; and 
companies that share threat information with other companies, as long 
as they also share that information with the Federal exchange within a 
reasonable time. This ``reasonable, good faith'' defense is also 
available for the use of defensive countermeasures.
  If a company shared information in a way other than the five ways I 
have just mentioned, it still receives a legal defense under this bill 
from suit if the company can make a reasonable, good-faith showing that 
the information-sharing provisions permitted that sharing.
  Further, no civil or criminal cause of action can be brought against 
a company, an officer, an employee, or an agency of a company for the 
reasonable failure to act on information received through information-
sharing mechanisms set up by this bill.
  Basically--and this is important; please listen--the only way anyone 
participating in the information-sharing system can be held liable is 
if they were found to have knowingly violated a provision of the bill 
or acted in gross negligence.
  So there are very strong liability protections for anyone who shares 
information about cyber threats--which is completely voluntary--under 
this bill.
  Now, what information will be shared with the exchange? Information 
that should be shared includes--but is not limited to--malware threat 
signatures, known malicious Internet Protocol, or IP, addresses, and 
immediate cyber attack incident details.
  The exchanges would be able to share this information in as close to 
real time as possible over networks. That is the only way for the 
private sector and the government to stay a step ahead of our cyber 
adversaries.
  What kind of information can they share? We define this information 
in our bill as ``cybersecurity threat indicators.'' We define this term 
to include only information that is ``reasonably necessary'' to 
describe the technical attributes of cyber attacks. This is not a 
license for the government to take in and distribute private citizens' 
information. Rather, it is narrowly tailored to cover information that 
relates specifically to a cyber attack.
  In addition to narrowly defining what information can be shared with 
an exchange, our bill also requires the Federal Government to adopt a 
very robust privacy and civil liberties oversight regime for 
information shared under this title. There are multiple layers of 
oversight from different parts of the Executive Branch, including the 
Department of Justice, the independent Privacy and Civil Liberties 
Oversight Board, as well as the Congress. I wish to direct Members to 
the privacy and civil liberties protections on pages 185 through 192 of 
this bill for the litany of procedures, reviews, and reports that are 
required.
  We have worked closely with several Senators, including the Presiding 
Officer, Senator Franken, and Senators Durbin, Coons, Akaka, 
Blumenthal, and Sanders on these protections, and I really thank them 
all for their efforts in that regard. I think my colleagues have really 
helped the bill become a better bill.
  I would also be remiss if I didn't show my great appreciation of the 
work and leadership of the majority leader for his unrelenting focus on 
getting this bill to the floor and making time to have this debate. It 
is infinitely better having this debate now rather than after a major 
cyber attack. My greatest worry is that we wouldn't pass something.
  The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. This legislation is 
unprecedented. It will take some steps. We will find other steps we 
will need to take. We will need to come back to it and come back to it 
because technology is moving so quickly.
  I think this is as important a bill as I have seen in my 20 years in 
the Senate. I know what is out there. I know what some other countries 
are doing. I know what some bad actors are doing. The time has come to 
protect ourselves and take some action.
  I hope we will have the support, and I urge my colleagues to vote for 
this bill.
  Mr. President, 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Honoring Ambassadors to Pakistan and Afghanistan

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here today to express my sincere 
appreciation and thanks and admiration to a number of our distinguished 
Foreign Service officers who were similarly lauded by Senator McCain 
earlier today. I heard his remarks, and I wish to be associated with 
them.
  I wish to express my thanks to three very brave and able men who have 
served this country under the most demanding and difficult conditions, 
requiring huge personal courage as well as insight and strong action. 
They are Ryan Crocker, who has served as Ambassador to Afghanistan; his 
deputy who will replace him shortly, James Cunningham; and our 
Ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter. What they share and what they 
have given us in these two critical posts is the best of our Nation's 
public service and foreign service.
  I had occasion to meet both Ambassador Crocker and Ambassador 
Cunningham on a number of visits to Afghanistan and to be briefed by 
both of them, so I know personally how extraordinarily honest and 
forthright they are in the insight and intelligence they give to 
congressional visitors. And many of us have been among those visitors 
and many of us have met with them, so I know others have had that 
experience as well. I know them both to be extremely capable and 
intelligent, thoughtful, and insightful. They understand the 
complexities of this region, and they have succeeded in maintaining 
strong relationships with our partners in Afghanistan and Pakistan to 
the extent they were able to do so amid the most complex and 
challenging circumstances.

  Somehow, in between all of the challenges they faced on the ground 
day to day, they also welcomed congressional visitors with 
extraordinary grace and

[[Page S5466]]

graciousness and generosity. I was proud to be one of them in visiting 
both Pakistan and Afghanistan.
  I wish to recognize particularly the efforts of Ambassador Munter in 
addressing the supply chain of IED--improvised explosive device--
ingredients, the fertilizer and other chemicals that compose the 
roadside bombs that have literally caused more than half of our 
Nation's casualties in Afghanistan. Those ingredients are smuggled, 
sometimes in broad daylight, across the border from Pakistan. He has 
worked hard and made a valuable contribution in challenging the 
Government of Pakistan to do better, and to confront the threat and to 
ensure interagency coordination between the Department of State and the 
Department of Defense in confronting and attacking the IED network. He 
has written to me personally, and I thank him for his commitment to a 
cause that others have also made a priority, including Dr. Ashton 
Carter, presently Deputy Secretary of Defense. Together, we worked on 
this issue and made progress, but so much more must be done to stop the 
flow of IED bomb-making material across the border which does such 
horrific, destructive damage to our troops. One need only visit the 
Bethesda Naval Center to see it firsthand. Our hearts go out to the 
young men--principally men--and women and their families who are 
victims of these bombs. Thank you to Ambassador Munter for making it a 
priority.
  I thank Ambassador Crocker likewise for working on this problem as he 
led the Embassy in Kabul through profoundly and deeply challenging 
times. When we here in Washington revise our policy toward Afghanistan 
and as we go through those revisions now, he has adopted and he has 
carried out policies, and he has served well our national interests, 
even in the midst of change and challenge.
  I welcome Deputy Ambassador Cunningham to his new post. I have worked 
and been briefed by him. I, in fact, stayed with him in the Embassy. I 
have seen his keen insight, his quiet, understated manner, and his 
strength and will.
  Indeed, all of these men are men of intellect, but they are also men 
of action, committed to delivering results to the Nation. They are men 
of loyalty and courage.
  I will just finish on this note. Nobody should underestimate the 
courage that is required to serve in these positions. Anyone who has 
visited these countries knows the threat of physical danger is ever-
present not only to the brave men and women who serve in uniform in our 
Armed Forces but to our diplomats who every day put their lives on the 
line to serve us. So I thank not only them but the thousands of men and 
women who have served with them in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and in 
other countries, at postings in places whose names most Americans can 
barely pronounce. They have demonstrated the kind of bravery that 
Ambassadors Crocker, Munter, and Cunningham have every day. They 
deserve our thanks and our good wishes as they leave their present 
posts--as Ambassador Crocker retires--and our good wishes for continued 
success for the sake of their lives and for the sake of our Nation.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Guns In America

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I, like everyone else in America, have 
followed the terrible tragedy in Aurora, CO. Just awful. I was 
particularly moved when I read in one of our local papers the bios of 
the 12 who had died. So many of them were young, in the prime of life, 
in their late teens and early twenties. So many of them were brave, 
protecting others--a child, a girlfriend, a friend. I was so upset on 
reading this, seeing these people's lives snuffed out, just as they had 
great futures ahead of them--for nothing.
  It was the same kind of feeling I had after the World Trade Center--
of course, magnified by much more because so many more people died, and 
I actually knew some of the people who died. But the same senseless 
killing of innocent people occurred.
  Of course, in the days after the tragedy, and as the dust settled--it 
will never settle for the families whom my heart goes out to--we began 
our usual discussion about guns in America, and there were many voices 
on all different sides.
  As somebody who has been very involved in these issues, I gave it 
some thought and wanted to share with my colleagues and with my 
constituents and my country some thoughts about this.
  The question that comes up is: Can we do anything about guns in 
society? Of course, many would ask: Should we do anything about guns in 
society? Even the very thoughtful and erudite member of my own party, 
the Governor of Colorado, said a ban on weapons would not have stopped 
this tragedy from occurring, in all likelihood.
  So I wish to share some of my thoughts briefly.
  The bottom line is, maybe we can come together once and for all on 
the issue of guns if each side gave some. I have thought about this for 
a while.
  As you know, Mr. President, I was the House author--the leader, of 
course, was my colleague from California--of the assault weapons ban. I 
am even prouder of the Brady law, where I was probably the leader, and 
that has saved so many lives.
  So the question is: When we were able to pass those kinds of 
groundbreaking laws, why are we so paralyzed now?
  Part of the reason--and this has not been mentioned--is that crime 
has actually decreased dramatically in America for a whole lot of 
reasons. I probably do not share the views of some of my colleagues on 
this side of the aisle as to why it happened. I am a pretty-tough-on-
crime guy. But when crime went down, the broad middle that wanted to do 
whatever it took to stop crime--I remember how it ravaged my city--
stopped caring as much because they were safer. That is logical. So 
they sort of exited the field. Law enforcement, which had been some of 
our best allies in supporting the assault weapons ban and the Brady 
law, sort of left the debate. The debate was simply left to those who 
cared the most, a very small number on the side of more active laws 
against gun control and a much larger number on the side of those who 
were opposed.
  I know you read in the newspapers: the power of money and the NRA. I 
have to say this, as somebody who has opposed the NRA and has been 
written up regularly in their magazines in not the most flattering way, 
the NRA's main strength is because they have 2, 3, 4 million people who 
care passionately about this issue, who may not care about other 
issues, and who are mobilized at the drop of a hat. So when there is a 
bill on the floor of the Senate which a majority of Americans may 
support--a majority of Americans support the ban on assault weapons--
even people in my State like New York hear much more from the people 
who are opposed to the assault weapons ban than the people who are for 
it. Now, 20 years ago, that would not have happened, again, because I 
think, more than any other reason, crime was so ravaging our 
communities that average folks would call and complain and worry about 
too many guns in society, which I think there still are now.
  In any case, given that situation, which exists, that the activists, 
the people who care about this issue the most--not the majority of 
people--are on the side of no limitations or few limitations on guns, 
how can we address that balance?
  I think there can be a balance. Those on my side who believe strongly 
in some controls on guns have to acknowledge that there is a right to 
bear arms. It perplexed many in the pro-gun movement how liberals would 
read the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth amendments as broadly as 
possible, but when it came to the second amendment, they saw it through 
a pinhole--it only related to militias, which, frankly, is a narrow, 
narrow, narrow reading of the second amendment.
  There were many back then in the 1980s and 1990s in the pro-gun 
control movement who basically felt there was no right to bear arms. I 
think in part, because of that, those on the other side of the issue 
became kind of extreme themselves. Their worry was that the

[[Page S5467]]

real goal of the left was not simply to have rational, if you will, 
laws that might limit the use of guns--what guns could be had, how many 
clips, who could have them; criminals, the mentally infirm--but, 
rather, that was just a smokescreen to get rid of guns. And there was 
enough evidence back in the 1980s and 1990s that people actually wanted 
to do that.
  So if you look at the ads from the NRA and the groups even farther 
over, the gun owners of America, their basic complaint is that the 
Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your gun, even if it is 
the hunting rifle your Uncle Willie gave you when you were 14.
  I think it would be very important for those of us who are for gun 
control--some rational laws on guns--to make it clear once and for all 
that is not our goal, to make it clear that the belief is that the 
second amendment does matter, that there is a right to bear arms, just 
like there is a right to free speech and others, and if you are an 
average, normal American citizen, you have the right to bear arms.
  I think if the people who are pro-gun and from the more rural areas, 
and different than Brooklyn, the city I am from, were convinced that 
there was a broad consensus even in the pro-gun control movement that 
there was a right to bear arms, they might get off their haunches a 
little bit. I think that is important for this part of the compromise. 
So the Heller decision, which basically said that--and now is the law 
of the land, but was not until a few years ago--should not be something 
that is opposed by those who are for rational laws on guns.

  I saw that even the Brady organization, that I have worked very 
closely with--Jim and Sarah Brady helped us pass the assault weapons 
ban and the Brady law; I have worked with them closely and have known 
them for decades--but even the Brady organization, which in the past 
had not had that position, is now beginning to embrace it. I think that 
is for the good, and I think people should know that.
  Once we establish that it is in the Constitution, it is part of the 
American way of life--even though some do not like that--but once we 
establish that basic paradigm: that no one wants to abolish guns for 
everybody or only allow a limited few to have them under the most 
limited circumstances--this is on a national level--then maybe we can 
begin the other side of the dialog.
  The other side of the dialog is, once you know no one is going to 
take away your gun, if you are not a felon--your shotgun that you like 
to go hunting with or a sidearm if you are a store owner in a crime-
ridden area--we can then say to those on the other side: OK. We 
understand that it is unfair to read the second amendment so narrowly 
and read all the other amendments so broadly, and you have seen us as 
doing that. But, in response, we would say, and I would say, that no 
amendment is absolute, and whether it is in reaction to what happened 
in the 1980s and the 1990s or because of fanaticism, or for maybe 
fundraising reasons, it seems that too many on the pro-gun side believe 
the second amendment is as absolute, or more absolute, than all the 
other amendments. They are taking the converse position to what I 
mentioned before--the left seeing the second amendment as minuscule, 
but the right seeing the second amendment as broader than every other 
amendment.
  Certainly, the right believes in antipornography laws. That is a 
limitation on the first amendment. Certainly, most people in America 
believe what--I think it was Oliver Wendell Holmes or Louis D. Brandeis 
who said: You cannot falsely scream ``fire'' in a crowded theater. 
That, too, was a limitation on the first amendment.
  Every amendment is a balancing test. That is what the Constitution 
has said.
  No amendment is absolute or our society would be tied in a complete 
knot. And so we say to our colleagues, this is not a partisan issue 
completely. There are some Republicans who are for gun control and some 
Democrats who oppose it completely. It seems to be more of a regional 
issue than almost an ideological issue. But we would say to our 
colleagues from the pro-gun side of things, look, there is a right to 
bear arms. We are not trying to take guns away from people we do not 
have any reason to take them away from. But you have to then admit that 
you cannot be so rigid, so doctrinaire that there should be no 
limitation on the second amendment.
  The Brady law is a reasonable limitation on the second amendment, 
saying that felons or the mentally infirm or spousal abusers should not 
have a gun. The Heller decision acknowledged that those kinds of 
reasonable limitations did not violate the second amendment, just as 
the Court has recognized they are limitations that do not violate the 
first amendment, all because it is a balancing test.
  So I would argue--and we can all find the balance in different ways--
not only is the Brady law a reasonable limitation on the second 
amendment, it is not interfering with the average person's right to 
bear arms, but neither are the assault weapons. I know there was an 
argument between my colleague from California, with whom I agree, and 
my colleague from Wisconsin, with whom I do not agree: An AR-15 is used 
for hunting. But I have heard people say you should be able to buy a 
bazooka or a tank. My view is, the assault weapons ban that was passed, 
which was a rather modest bill, was less important in saving lives than 
the Brady law by many degrees. But I would argue it is a reasonable 
thing to do. A limitation that says you should not be able buy a 
magazine that holds 1,000 rounds, that is a reasonable thing to do. 
Rules that say we should be able to trace where a gun originated so we 
can find those who are violating some of these limitations such as the 
Brady law--gun shops that do not check your background even though they 
are required to by law--is a reasonable thing to do. Again, we can 
debate where to draw the line of reasonableness.
  But we might, might, might--and I do not want to be too optimistic 
here, having years and years of having gone through this--but we might 
be able to come to an agreement in the middle where we say, yes, there 
is a right to bear arms, and, yes, there can be reasonable limitations 
on the second amendment just as there can be on others.
  That is the place I suggest we try to go. Maybe, maybe, we can break 
through the hard ideological lines that have been drawn on this issue. 
Maybe, maybe, maybe we can tell those who are at the extremes on the 
far right and the far left that we disagree with you. And maybe, maybe, 
maybe we could pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the 
unnecessary tragedies that have occurred, or, at the very least, when 
you have someone who is mentally infirm, such as the shooter in Aurora, 
limit the damage they are able to do. Maybe.
  But I would suggest the place to start here is for us to admit there 
is a right to bear arms, admit the Heller decision has a place in the 
Constitution, just like decisions that supported the other amendments, 
and at the same time say that does not mean that right is absolute. 
That is just a suggestion. I have been thinking about this since I read 
those horrible articles about those young men and women being killed. I 
would welcome comments, particularly from my colleagues on the other 
side of this issue, whether they be Democrat or Republican, on those 
thoughts.
  Just as we have fought over and over and over again on so many 
issues, and we have gotten into our corners--there may be none that we 
have gotten into our corners on more than on gun control. Maybe it is 
time, as on those other issues, to come out of the corners and try, 
people of good will, who will disagree and come from different parts of 
the country with different needs, maybe there is a way we can come 
together and try and try to break through the logjam and make the 
country a better place.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________`