[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 114 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5651-S5654]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2012
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
proceed to S. 3414 is agreed to and the clerk will report the measure.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3414) to enhance the security and resiliency of
the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United
States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be
a period of debate only on S. 3414, and that this will go forward until
2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, July 31; further, that at 2:15 p.m. on that date,
Tuesday, I be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Just a question through the Chair to the majority leader.
I had planned to make a statement on Judge Bacharach, and the Senator
is saying we will have debate only. Will that preclude a unanimous
consent for speaking as in morning business?
Mr. REID. The Senator can do that. It is totally appropriate.
Mr. COBURN. I thank the Senator.
I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, if the majority leader is finished, I
ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
[[Page S5652]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, if I could ask my friend to withhold for a
brief moment.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. That is fine.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding that Senator Coburn has been waiting
around for a while to talk.
The Senator is OK waiting?
Mr. COBURN. Yes.
Mr. REID. OK.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Thank you, Madam President.
I come to the floor this evening to talk about an amendment I have
filed to the Cybersecurity Act, S. 3414. This is the fourth time I have
filed this amendment, and it is not on the Cybersecurity Act per se,
although it does address energy use, which is one of the critical
challenges we face as we are trying to address cybersecurity in this
country.
This is an amendment that is the substance of S. 1000, the Energy
Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, of which the other sponsor
is Senator Rob Portman, and he is a cosponsor on this amendment.
What the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act and the
amendment I filed does is create a national energy efficiency strategy
for the United States. So this amendment is the same language Senator
Portman and I filed to the Bring Jobs Home Act and the Middle Class Tax
Cut Act, and it is one we are going to continue to file because we
think it is important for this amendment and this legislation to have
an opportunity for a vote from this entire Senate because we think this
is bipartisan legislation that has broad support among our colleagues.
This legislation is based on two important premises I have already
spoken to in the Chamber: first, that the American public desperately
wants Congress to work together in a bipartisan way to address this
Nation's energy needs; and, second, that energy efficiency is the
fastest, cheapest way to meet our energy challenges. Not only does it
help us develop a strategy around energy, but it is a strategy that can
be supported whether you live in New England, as I do, whether you live
in the West, whether you live in the South. It is a strategy that is
important whether you support fossil fuels--oil and gas--whether you
support nuclear, or whether you support wind and solar. We all benefit
from energy efficiency. It is also a strategy that creates thousands of
good jobs.
There is evidence that the American public wants to see the Senate
act on energy efficiency legislation. I think that evidence is
overwhelming because last week I started an online campaign asking
people to sign a petition calling on Senate leadership to bring this
bill to the floor. The text of the petition is what we see here--small
print so it is hard to read, but it asks people to support the Shaheen-
Portman energy efficiency bill.
I just wish to read a section of it. It says:
The Shaheen-Portman Act would help make the United States a
global leader in the fastest and cheapest method we have for
addressing our energy needs, energy efficiency. Energy
efficiency is within our grasp. It uses proven technology
that we can manufacture here at home to lower energy costs
across all sectors of our economy.
In just a matter of days, we have already collected over 4,600
signatures from supporters across the country, and that number
continues to grow. Anyone interested in signing the petition and in
learning more about the many benefits of energy efficiency can easily
do so by visiting my Web site at shaheen.senate.gov.
While drafting the bill, Senator Portman and I met with a number of
stakeholders so we could better understand the obstacles the private
sector faces when they are trying to deploy energy-efficient
technology. So we had discussions with people from energy-intensive
companies, from trade groups, from those representing the real estate
community, from environmental advocates and from financing
organizations.
The feedback we received about ways to remove these barriers and
drive the adoption of energy-efficient technologies became the basis
for this legislation. As a result, we have a bill that provides a
variety of low-cost tools that will speed this Nation's transition to a
more energy-efficient economy.
The bill addresses three major areas of U.S. energy use: residential
and commercial buildings, which consume 40 percent of all energy used
in the country; the industrial sector, which consumes more energy than
any other sector of the U.S. economy; and the Federal Government, which
is the country's single biggest user of energy.
Highlights of the bill include: establishing advanced building codes
for voluntary residential and commercial buildings to cut energy use. I
would emphasize that those codes are voluntary. We worked with the real
estate and the building industries on those codes.
Second, the legislation helps manufacturers finance and implement
energy-efficient production technologies and practices because that is
one of the biggest obstacles to retrofitting buildings for energy
efficiency.
Third, the legislation would require the Federal Government to adopt
better building standards and smart metering technology.
Our legislation is bipartisan. In addition to the thousands of
signatures on this petition, it has support from well over 200
businesses, environmental groups, think tanks, and trade association.
Those groups include: The National Association of Manufacturers, the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Environmental Defense Fund, businesses
such as Johnson Controls, Honeywell, United Technologies Corporation.
This broad coalition of supporters recognizes that the legislation is
an easy first step that will make our economy more competitive and our
Nation more secure by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and still
meeting the demand for energy saving technologies for individuals and
businesses alike.
I think it is important to point out that there are real economic
benefits. A recent study by policy experts at the American Council for
an Energy-Efficient Economy found that the legislation will achieve
savings for consumers and businesses. Specifically, their study found
that by 2020, the bill could save consumers $4 billion a year once it
is enacted. It would add 80,000 jobs to the economy.
In a time when we are worried about growing the economy, when we are
worried about the fragile recovery, this is the kind of legislation
that will allow us to create good jobs with off-the-shelf technologies.
With the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill, the Senate has an
opportunity to provide the American people with exactly what they want,
an effective bipartisan approach to addressing this Nation's energy
needs that also creates jobs and grows the economy. I hope we will be
able to persuade leadership and my colleagues that this is legislation
that merits full debate and a vote on the floor and that we will be
able to bring S. 1000 or this amendment to the floor for a vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for such time as I may consume, and that when I
finish, the Senator from Ohio be recognized for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Apology
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I wished to come to the floor to talk
about two or three subjects. The first is to issue an apology to the
majority leader. I do not apologize for my frustration with this place,
but occasionally my words are harsh and inaccurate. This past week, I
used words that were inappropriate in describing his actions in the
Senate, and for that I offer a public apology.
I do not apologize for how I think the Senate is being run and the
damage that I think is being done to the country, but as an individual,
he has a very difficult time and I understand that and to him I ask his
forgiveness.
Fiscal Cliff
Madam President, if I was coming to the floor with intelligence about
an imminent threat to our national security, Americans would demand
that our government and this body take immediate action. If an Army was
on our border,
[[Page S5653]]
if missiles were about to be launched at our territory or if there were
a terrorist plot in motion, doing anything less than us uniting in the
face of that threat and taking decisive action would be seen as
cowardice and foolishness.
Yet that is precisely where we are today, which brings me to my
frustration with the majority leader. The threat, though, does not come
from traditional armies or terrorists, the threat comes from our
unsustainable spending and this body's refusal to unite and take
action. It is not just the conservatives who are sounding the alarm,
the warnings are coming from our military leaders, diplomats, and
statesmen on both sides of the aisle, as well as the international
financial community.
ADM Mike Mullen, the retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
while he was still Chairman, said the greatest threat to this Nation is
its debt. We have done not one thing since January to address that
problem. We are having spats over judges. We are having spats over all
the small things. But the greatest imminent danger to our country, we
are doing nothing about. I believe we have less than 2 to 5 years to
act to make a significant change in our path.
No one knows when this Nation will cross the point of no return. We
may have already. But there is a point where we will lose control of
our own destiny. It is coming. The fact that the Senate, this year, has
had fewer votes than at any time since 1947, according to the
Congressional Research Service--why is that? Because we have a
political year. We don't want to take votes. We don't want to have to
explain to our constituencies why we voted yea or nay on something. So
the whole goal is to not vote.
Ultimately, the whole goal is to not address the very pressing issues
facing this country. What do you think is going to happen to the
Defense Department with no Defense authorization bill? They are in la-
la land. Where do they go? We are not going to give them the direction
with which to spend the largest discretionary amount of money in our
government--$600 billion. They are going to be coasting, flying by the
seat of their pants. They are not going to have radar or anything.
There is not going to be any stealth. Yet we refuse to do that.
We have spent a larger amount of time in quorum calls--37 percent of
the time this year--nothing but quorum calls. Less than one-third an
amount of the time available to the Senate has actually been on the
business associated with the country, and most of the business we have
addressed isn't this critical risk in front of our country.
Last week, Vanguard, the largest private owner of U.S. bonds--$186
billion they own of U.S. bonds--said we have until 2016 to act. If we
don't act, we will go into a debt spiral. Bond investors will revolt,
they will drive up prices--drive up interest rates and drop prices. We
already know from CBO that the entitlement programs are on the brink of
insolvency. Social Security disability--we have added 3.2 million
people to those rolls since January 1, 2009. That system will be
bankrupt in less than 18 months; 8\1/2\ million people depend on that.
And there has not been a comment from the leadership in addressing a
trust fund that will be out of money in less than 18 months.
Our Founders believed that republics that lived beyond their means
don't survive. They talked about it. History is full of examples.
Europe is reminding us of that today. The euro in Europe, as we know
it, is on its deathbed. Every month, every week there is a new set of
resuscitative efforts that are not working. What is the real problem?
The real problem is they spent money they didn't have on things they
didn't need.
If you want to see what America will look like in 2 or 3 years, just
look at Europe. Look at the demonstrations, look at the crying out of
the masses to say: How did we get here? The pain of fixing it is too
great. That is why we should be addressing our problems now.
The reason America looks good is that we are the least wilted rose in
the bud vase. The only reason we look good is because they look so bad.
We are at 103 percent debt to GDP. It is costing us at least 1.2
million jobs in new job creation every year. We are at historical
interest rates. Our interest costs per year would be over $1 trillion.
The interest rates are falsely low because of what the Federal Reserve
has done.
The price to pay for that is coming in the future. What is the
contrast? I ask seniors all the time: Do you think we ought to save
Medicare?
They say: Yes.
I say: Do you think we ought to save Medicare just like it is.
They say: Yes.
I say: If we save Medicare just like it is, do you know that your
grandchildren will have a standard of living that will be one-third
lower than yours was?
Then they say: No.
America is used to doing hard things. It is just that the Senate
right now will not do the hard things, will not come together, will not
make the sacrifices. We value our positions more than we value the
country we live in. The consequences are showing.
We have an 8.2-percent unemployment rate. If we use the same
statistics we used in 1980, our unemployment rate is above 9.6
percent--just measuring it the same way we did it 32 years ago. Now
that we are measuring it differently, we don't see the real impact.
Today we are dangerously close to a global great depression. Let's
remember the last time the world saw a great depression. That
depression was a leading cause of the global war that killed 60 million
people--2.5 percent of the world's population. Do we dare go down that
path by putting politics ahead of principle and policy?
Fortunately, many of our leaders see this threat and are calling on
us to take action. Consider this exchange between former Secretary of
State James Baker and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last
month on ``The Charlie Rose Show'':
Secretary Baker:
I know one thing. We are broke. We can't afford wars
anymore. We can't afford a lot of things, and the biggest
threat facing the country today is not some threat from the
outside--Iran, nuclear weapons, or anything else--it's our
economy. We better darn well get our economic house in order
because the strength of our Nation has always depended upon
our economy. You can't be strong politically, militarily, or
diplomatically if you are not strong economically.
He is giving us a foreshadow of what is coming.
Secretary Clinton said this in response:
Well, amen to that, because I have had to go around the
world the last 3\1/2\ years reassuring many leaders both in
the governments and the business sectors of a lot of
countries that the United States was moving forward
economically, that we were not ceding our leadership
position, and that we are as powerful as ever. But we
recognized that we had to put our economic house in order.
If former Secretary Baker and Secretary Clinton can agree, why can't
we? They both see the same thing. The only problem is we haven't put
our economic house in order.
I know it is the Senate majority leader's position to try to protect
both his incumbent President and his Members. I know that conventional
wisdom says we cannot get anything done in an election year. But I want
to tell you that isn't good enough anymore--not good enough for the
country. The country deserves better.
By doing nothing, we are pushing our children and grandchildren off a
fiscal cliff. By doing nothing, we are guaranteeing the very tax
increases and cuts in entitlements that both sides say they want to
avoid.
If you are an unemployed American right now or someone struggling to
make ends meet, when is the right time for us to act? Is it a perfect
political moment that is always a mirage beyond the horizon of the next
election or is it today or this week? The American people have lost
their confidence in us because we refuse to act even as we call on
others to do things that we will not do ourselves.
Today we are asking our soldiers to risk their lives for our country.
Why can't we do the same? Why are we allowed to play it safe when we
ask others to make the ultimate sacrifice--especially when we as
elected leaders have so much less at stake.
I believe the American people want us to do hard things and will
actually reward us for demonstrating leadership and courage. The
problems before us today can all be solved, but delay means the pain
that comes with the solution is much greater. Yet to delay--
[[Page S5654]]
that is the path we have chosen in the Senate; that is the path the
President has chosen--to not face the real issues, the coming and
impending bankruptcy of Medicare, and the fact that the average
Medicare couple will take three times more out of Medicare than what
they put in, and the fact that the baby boom generation will overwhelm
the trust fund that pays the hospital bills the worst-case scenario is
that in 4 years the Medicare trust fund will be bankrupt. I know that
sounds like a lot of things. Let me show the American people some
examples.
We hear mindless, partisan rhetoric about which side is to blame,
just like the debate we heard before the vote on Judge Bacharach. The
truth is both sides are to blame, both Republicans and Democrats, when
Republicans had the chance to restore limited government, and we helped
double the size of government.
Meanwhile, the leaders today--their chief complaint is we didn't
overspend enough. I know the Senate majority leader has a tough job and
the burden of leadership, but he is refusing to accept the
responsibility that is truly ours today. This Congress will be measured
by our actions.
At the end of this week, for 5 weeks, the Senate is going to take
off, and we are going to be just like Rome. Actually, what should
happen to every Senator as we leave this place at the end of the week,
we should each be handed a fiddle so we can all fiddle while the
government and the financial situation and the economic chaos that is
ours today grows unabated.
Real leadership isn't about being right, it is about doing the right
thing. We are not doing the right thing in the Senate today. We are not
reforming the Tax Code that is 90,000 pages and takes 110,000 IRS
employees to administer. We are not addressing the impending bankruptcy
of Medicare. We are not assuring the solvency of Social Security and
increasing payments for those on the very low end of the totem pole. We
are not addressing the key issues facing our country.
Why are we here if we are not going to address those issues? We are
addressing every issue but those. Again, it is evident my frustration
is high. I want the Senate to return to the body it was when I first
came here. I think we can do that. I think Senator Reid can lead us to
do that. Every day we waste, every day we are not fixing the real
problems, the disease that faces our country means we are responsible
for a significant increase in the pain and disruption that is coming.
Let it not be so.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Olympic Omission
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I rise today because there was an
obvious omission in the Olympic opening ceremony on Friday.
Forty years after 11 Israeli Olympians and a German police officer
were murdered in the 1972 Munich games, the London games opened with no
acknowledgement of this tragedy. There was neither mention nor a moment
of silence for those victims of the Munich massacre.
Forty years ago, on September 4, five Palestinians stormed the
apartments of the Israeli national team in the Olympic Village,
murdering 11 Israeli team members. Yet, again and again, the IOC has
rejected requests to hold a moment of silence for the Munich 11 at the
opening ceremonies.
I thank Senator Gillibrand for her resolution calling on the IOC to
hold a moment of silence at the opening ceremonies to remember the 1972
Munich massacre.
I remind the International Olympic Committee that it is not too late.
We can still pay tribute to these Olympians. These athletes were not
random victims. They were targeted because of the country they
represented and the beliefs they held.
Jacques Rogge, the IOC President, has said:
We feel that the opening ceremony is an atmosphere that is
not fit to remember such a tragic incident.
That is the best he can do.
On the 40th anniversary, I cannot think of a more appropriate moment
to remember and honor these 11 Olympians.
The Munich massacre is part of the Olympic story. We can't erase it,
and we should not overlook it. After all, we know what happens when we
avoid the past. Of course, we cannot afford to repeat it.
I ask we all do everything we can to convince the IOC to step up and
do the right thing.
Let me explain why this especially matters for people in my home
State of Ohio--in greater Cleveland, the part of Ohio which I call
home. In Beachwood, OH, a suburb east of Cleveland, there is a national
memorial to David Berger, an American citizen and one of the 11 Israeli
team members killed in Munich.
As a Nation, we honor his memory and the memory of his Israeli
teammates, but we also have a moral responsibility to hold accountable
those responsible for his death. Holding them responsible includes
those who supported and financed the terrorists who perpetrated these
actions.
We had the chance to hold Libya accountable. Yet during negotiations
that led to the 2008 U.S.-Libya claims settlement agreement, Mr. Berger
was not included, despite widely accepted evidence that Libya played an
important role in the massacre.
We know the Qadhafi regime financially supported terrorist groups
such as the Black September organization. It supported them and it
welcomed the bodies of the dead terrorists from the Munich massacre
back to a hero's tribute.
Seeking justice and compensation for victims of global terrorism
sends a powerful message to those who may be seeking to do further
harm. The window of opportunity to engage the new Libyan Government has
never been greater. Libyan Ambassador Ali Suleiman Aujali said earlier
this month in an op-ed in the Washington Post that he hopes ``that
Washington considers an enterprise fund for Libya'' and that ``we would
work closely with the U.S. Government on its creation.''
Those are the words of the Libyan Ambassador. Such a fund should
include all those who deserve restitution for the losses they suffered.
This includes the Berger family.
This is about letting violent extremists know they and their
supporters will be pursued until justice is served--sending a clear
signal to those contemplating terrorism as a political tool.
As we all cheer on the American athletes in the next couple of weeks,
I ask that we all take a moment to think about the Munich massacre,
about David Berger, and about what more we can do to preserve their
legacy and resolve to thwart those who by their use of terror and
violence would undermine all that the Olympic games are supposed to
represent.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________