[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12112-12123]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 470, S. 3414.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 470, S. 3414, a bill to 
     enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and 
     communications infrastructure of the United States.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion which has been filed 
at the desk and I ask that it be reported.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

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

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Honoring Senator Leahy and Senator Lugar

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise with great pleasure to honor my 
colleagues, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Dick Lugar of Indiana, 
as they reach a milestone in their careers. They each cast a momentous 
vote just a short time ago. For Senator Leahy, the vote just cast is 
his 14,000th rollcall vote. For Senator Lugar--it is interesting that 
it is the same day and 1,000 votes apart--it is his 13,000th. These two 
fine men and dedicated Senators share the milestone purely by 
coincidence.
  I applaud Pat Leahy, my dear friend, who has always possessed a great 
drive to serve. Maybe it was growing up across from the State House in 
Montpelier that put the idea in his head from such a young age.
  After graduating from Georgetown University Law School, Pat served 8 
years as State's attorney for Vermont before coming to the Senate. He 
continues to exercise his fine legal mind as chairman of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. Senator Leahy has also led the fight against 
landmines, as well as numerous landmark pieces of legislation on which 
he has been the leader.
  Pat is loved by the people of Vermont. His intellect and his 
oratorical skills, his boldness, and his persuasiveness are all 
overshadowed by one thing--by his teammate Marcelle. Marcelle is 
clearly his greatest asset.
  I also commend my colleague Senator Lugar on reaching his milestone 
of his 13,000th vote. Senator Lugar is a fifth-generation Hoosier, a 
proud Navy veteran, and the longest serving Member of Congress in 
Indiana history. He is also a bit of an overachiever, graduating first 
in both his high school and college classes, and going on to become a 
Rhodes Scholar at Oxford.
  As ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee and past 
chairman of the committee, having served with the Presiding Officer for 
decades, he has dedicated his time in the Senate to reducing the threat 
of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
  It has been my distinct pleasure to watch both of these fine Senators 
work tirelessly on behalf of the United States. I congratulate both of 
them on their service and on reaching this impressive milestone.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as the majority leader has indicated, 
two legislative milestones have been reached in the Senate today by two 
dedicated and long-serving Senators who happen to be from different 
sides of the aisle. I pay tribute to the senior Senator from Vermont, 
Mr. Leahy, for casting his 14,000th vote, and to the senior Senator 
from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, for casting his 13,000th vote.
  To put these milestones in perspective:
  Senator Leahy, a Member of the Senate since 1975, ranks sixth on the 
all-time rollcall vote list, most recently passing former Senator Pete 
Domenici. Senator Lugar, who was first elected to the Senate 2 years 
later, in 1976,

[[Page 12113]]

ranks tenth on the all-time list and most recently passed our former 
colleague and current occupant of the chair, Vice President Joe Biden. 
This is not only a remarkable accomplishment of longevity for both men, 
it is also an opportunity for their colleagues to honor them for their 
decades of service to the people of Indiana and of Vermont.
  Senator Leahy isn't just the second most senior Senator in this body, 
he is also the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a senior member 
of the Agriculture and Appropriations Committees. Pat and I got to know 
each other pretty well, alternating as chairman and ranking member of 
the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of Appropriations for over a 
decade. Somehow he finds time to also be an amateur photographer and to 
have a blossoming movie career. I have no doubt he gives most of the 
credit, of course, to Marcelle, his wife, with whom he will be 
celebrating a far more important milestone in the next month, their 
50th wedding anniversary. So congratulations to Pat on both counts.
  As for our friend Senator Dick Lugar, I have known him going back to 
my first Senate campaign. He is the longest serving Member of Congress 
in Indiana history and one of America's most widely respected voices on 
foreign policy. In a career filled with many achievements and 
milestones, Senator Lugar's leadership on the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative 
Threat Reduction Program is, in my opinion, his greatest and most 
lasting achievement with the American people--not only for the American 
people and for the security of this country, but for the promotion of 
peace throughout the world. Because of Senator Lugar's work, thousands 
of nuclear warheads have been dismantled and the world is, indeed, a 
safer place.
  Like Senator Leahy, I know Senator Lugar would say none of this would 
have been possible without the love and support of his wife of 55 
years, Charlene. So I congratulate them both on this milestone and I 
join my colleagues in once again paying tribute to our two colleagues 
and this signature achievement.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate my longtime friend 
and colleague from Vermont, Senator Patrick Leahy, on the occasion of 
his 14,000th vote. That is a lot of votes. In the long history of our 
Republic, only six Senators have achieved that milestone before him.
  Born in Montpelier, VT, our State's capital, educated at St. 
Michael's High School in Montpelier, St. Michael's College in 
Colchester, VT, and Georgetown University Law School, Senator Leahy was 
first elected to the Senate in 1974--the first and, to this date, only 
Democrat elected to the Senate from Vermont. I remember that campaign 
very well because I was in it, and Pat Leahy got a lot more votes than 
I did.
  Before assuming the office of U.S. Senator, Pat Leahy gained a 
national reputation for law enforcement during his 8 years as State's 
attorney in Chittenden County--the State's largest county.
  Over his 3\1/2\ decades here in the Senate, Patrick Leahy has many 
remarkable achievements. Let me just mention a few.
  Cognizant of the suffering and tragedy that landmines cause for 
civilian populations, Patrick Leahy has led, in this body and, in fact, 
the entire U.S. Government, the campaign to end the production and use 
of antipersonnel landmines. Many lives and limbs have been saved as a 
result of Senator Leahy's efforts.
  With similar commitment and passion, as chair of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, Patrick Leahy has led the effort to insist on fairness at 
the Department of Justice, to support free speech and a free press, and 
to require and maintain openness and transparency in government. At a 
time of major infringements on privacy rights in this country from both 
the private sector and the government, Pat Leahy has been a strong 
champion of civil liberties and the Constitution of the United States.
  Senator Leahy, reflecting Vermont's very strong consciousness 
regarding the need to preserve our environment, has for many years been 
a champion of environmental protection and has been named over and over 
one of the top environmental legislators by the Nation's foremost 
conservation organizations. He has been, as Vermonters well know, a 
special champion in preserving the high quality of water in Lake 
Champlain, our beautiful lake, perhaps the most valuable natural 
resource we have in our State.
  Today, I congratulate, on behalf of the people of the State of 
Vermont, Senator Patrick Leahy on the occasion of his 14,000th vote and 
look forward to working with him as closely in the future as we have 
worked in the past.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to add my voice to the well-
deserved chorus of congratulations for our colleague and friend from 
Vermont.
  Senator Patrick Leahy is the last remaining member of a historic 
class in the U.S. Senate, the class of 1974, better known as the 
``Watergate babies.'' And he has been making history ever since.
  Casting 14,000 votes in the Senate is kind of like joining the 3,000 
Hit Club in baseball. It is an achievement many dream of but few 
actually reach.
  More important than the number of votes Senator Leahy has cast, 
however, is the wisdom and courage of his voting record.
  It has been my privilege to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee 
for more than 15 years. During that time Senator Leahy has been either 
our committee chairman or its ranking member.
  I have the greatest respect for Patrick Leahy's fidelity to the rule 
of law and his determined efforts to safeguard the independence and 
integrity of America's Federal courts. He is a champion of human rights 
at home and abroad.
  I congratulate him on this milestone. As an old friend of his might 
say, just keep truckin' on.
  Mr. President, I also want to congratulate another friend and 
colleague, Senator Richard Lugar from Indiana.
  Senator Lugar knows that wisdom is not the exclusive property of any 
one political party.
  He bases his political decisions not on polls or the passions of the 
day but on what his conscience and his own careful study tells him is 
right.
  Two years ago, Dick Lugar joined me in asking the President not to 
deport young people who were brought to this country at a young age by 
their parents.
  When the DREAM Act was on the Senate floor a year and a half ago, 
Senator Lugar was one of three Republicans who voted in support.
  He coauthored the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Act--one of 
the most visionary and courageous bipartisan achievements in recent 
time.
  His work on the Global Fund has helped the United States meet its 
commitment to the single most powerful tool in the fight against AIDS, 
tuberculosis and malaria.
  Senator Lugar has served six terms in the Senate, and he will be 
missed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to thank, of course, the majority 
leader and the Republican leader, friends with whom I have served for 
years--and we have always been friends--for their kind words.
  I want to thank my colleague from Vermont, another dear friend. Our 
careers have paralleled in many areas--from the time he was the mayor 
of our largest city, to being our lone Representative in the House of 
Representatives, to now being my partner here in the Senate.
  Of course, as to my dear friend Dick Lugar, we have worked together 
so many times. We alternated between being the chair and ranking member 
of the Senate Agriculture Committee. He did a great deal on the 
environment, passed an organic farm bill, did so many things, all the 
time when he was doing his invaluable work to protect our Nation 
against nuclear weapons.
  Mr. President, I value the Senate. I love the Senate. It has been a 
major

[[Page 12114]]

part of my life. But I was glad to hear both leaders mention the true 
love of my life, my wife of nearly 50 years. There is nothing I have 
accomplished throughout my whole public career that I could have done 
without Marcelle's help. Not only has she raised three wonderful 
children and is helping to raise five wonderful grandchildren, every 
single day I have been a better person because of her. When we first 
started the race for the Senate in 1974, few people said I could win. 
Marcelle and I campaigned together. She always said I could. And we 
did.
  None of us know how long we might be in the Senate, but I have valued 
every single moment here, and I will value every single moment as long 
as I am here.
  I am glad Marcelle is here. She is joined by my dear and valuable 
friend Peter Welch, our Congressman from Vermont, and his wife 
Margaret, but also so many members of my staff. I feel that I have been 
blessed with the finest staff any Senator has ever had. Again, they are 
the ones every day who, if I look good and do something well on this 
floor, I give the credit. I joke that I am a constitutional impediment 
to them totally running everything. But thank goodness they are there. 
I will speak more about this at another time.
  But it is a special feeling to be here with my friend Dick Lugar, to 
hear the kind words of my friend and colleague Bernie Sanders, to know 
that the other Member of our delegation--we are a huge delegation; all 
three Members--Peter Welch is here. But especially I acknowledge 
Marcelle and Kevin, Alicia, and Mark, and their families. How wonderful 
it is to be here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, what a pleasure it is to be with my 
colleague Pat Leahy on this very special day. It was a great 
coincidence that the 13,000th vote and the 14,000th vote should occur 
this afternoon, but what a joyous moment to be with my friend on this 
experience.
  I once again thank the leader Mitch McConnell of our party and Harry 
Reid the majority leader of the Senate for their very generous remarks 
about both Pat and me.
  I join Pat in extolling the virtues of those who have made such a 
difference in our lives. My wife Charlene, our 4 sons, our 13 
grandchildren, our great-grandchildren--these are very precious people 
who have made such a difference in my life and made it possible for me 
to have good health and spirits throughout all this time and to enjoy 
thoroughly this experience.
  I would just add to the remarks of my colleague that tomorrow we hope 
to have a little celebration in the Agriculture Committee room.
  Long ago, at the beginning of our careers, Pat and I were situated at 
the end of the long table that stretched the length of the Agriculture 
Committee room. Our chairman, Herman Talmadge of Georgia, was at one 
end with Senator Jim Eastland of Mississippi. I am not certain what the 
rules of the Senate were at that time, but I recall that frequently 
both were enveloped in smoke at the end of the room, and it seemed to 
me that they were, in fact, developing whatever the policy was going to 
be and making decisions. As a matter of fact, sometimes they simply 
arose, and Pat and I were left to ponder really what had occurred.
  So it was appropriate that our two portraits should be put at the end 
of the table, at the entry to the Agriculture Committee room, where we 
once sat as the most junior members and eventually ascended to the 
chairmanship, having great experiences together in farm policy and the 
ability to help feed the world.
  I am grateful, likewise, for Vice President Biden's presence today 
because he was a wonderful partner in the Foreign Relations Committee 
for so many years. I was not aware that the Vice President would be in 
the chair. I told him I was somewhat embarrassed because my 13,000th 
vote finally eclipsed his votes, and he ranks now 11th. Joe was aware 
of that. He had in the chair today the rankings 1 through 11. So we are 
sort of all situated and still love each other in the process.
  I thank all Senators for the honor that has been accorded for this 
opportunity to address the body. This has been a great experience of my 
life, and this has been a very special moment.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, first of all, I congratulate my colleagues, 
Senator Leahy and Senator Lugar, for this achievement and thank them 
for their service to the country.
  I also appreciate the willingness of Senator Collins and Senator 
Lieberman to allow me to speak for a few minutes before we return to 
the business at hand--legislation regarding cybersecurity.


                        USDA Employee Newsletter

  I want to point out to my colleagues--and perhaps to the Department 
of Agriculture--something I saw today that caught my attention. In 
fact, it is amazing to me, this development.
  This is the Department of Agriculture's--the USDA--employee 
newsletter I hold in my hand. In that newsletter, it says the 
following--it has a section in the newsletter that says ``Food Services 
Update.'' Well, the Department of Agriculture, which, in my view, has a 
serious and significant responsibility to promote agriculture, says 
this in their own newsletter:

       One simple way to reduce your environmental impact while 
     dining at our cafeterias is to participate in the ``Meatless 
     Monday''. . . .

  ``Meatless Monday.''

       This effort . . . encourages people not to eat meat on 
     Mondays. . . .
       How will going meatless one day of the week help the 
     environment? The production of meat, especially beef (and 
     dairy as well) has a large environmental impact. According to 
     the U.N.--

  ``According to the U.N.''--

     animal agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gases and 
     climate change. It also wastes resources. It takes 7,000 kg 
     of grain to make 1,000 kg of beef. In addition, beef 
     production requires a lot of water, fertilizer, fossil fuels, 
     and pesticides. In addition there are many health concerns 
     related to the excessive consumption of meat. While a 
     vegetarian diet could have a beneficial impact on a person's 
     health and the environment, many people are not ready to make 
     that commitment. Because Meatless Monday involves only one 
     day a week, it is a small change that could produce big 
     results.

  Our own Department of Agriculture, again, at least from my 
perspective--and we ought to look at what the mission of the Department 
Agriculture is, and I think it will reflect what I am saying--is to 
promote agriculture, to help those who every day go to work to produce 
food, fiber, and fuel for this country and the world. Yet our own 
Department of Agriculture is encouraging people not to eat meat and 
indicates--from these statements, again, from their newsletter--that 
``the USDA Headquarters Food Operations are a high profile opportunity 
to demonstrate USDA's commitment to USDA mission and initiatives.''
  So it would not surprise me if what you see is that the Department of 
Agriculture somehow loses this newsletter. But it is posted on their 
Web site, and I would encourage Secretary Vilsack and the officials at 
the Department of Agriculture to rethink their role in discouraging 
something that is so vital to the U.S. economy and something so 
important to the Kansas economy.
  We are a beef-producing State, and it generates significant revenue 
for Kansas farmers and ranchers and is one of the items that improve 
our balance of trade, as we export meat and beef around the world. Yet 
our own Department of Agriculture encourages people not to consume 
meat.
  I think I will have more to say about this topic, but for the moment, 
in light of the kindness that was extended to me by the Senators, I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Kansas. 
Normally, when you yield the floor to a

[[Page 12115]]

colleague in the Senate, you are not sure how long they are going to 
speak. So he not only kept his word to speak for less than 3 minutes, 
he proved that he continues to have some lingering holdover reflexes 
from his service in the House of Representatives, where they always 
speak shorter than we do.
  Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed to S. 3414.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise to support that motion to proceed to S. 3414, 
which is the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, and I do so with the hope and 
request that all of our colleagues will vote yes on this motion to 
proceed so we can begin what I think is a crucial debate about how best 
to protect our national and economic security in this wired world where 
threats increasingly--and thefts--come not from land, sea, or sky, but 
from invisible strings of ones and zeros traveling through cyberspace.
  This bill has been a long time in coming to the floor. A lot of work 
has been done on it. But I must say, I have a sense of confidence, 
certainly, about the inclination of the overwhelming majority of 
Members of the Senate to vote to proceed to this matter because I think 
everyone in the Chamber understands what we are dealing with is not a 
problem that is speculative or theoretical.
  Anybody who has spent any time not even studying the classified 
materials on this but just reading the newspaper, following the media, 
knows that America is daily under constant cyber attack and cyber 
theft. The commander of Cyber Command, GEN Keith Alexander, said 
recently in a speech that cyber theft represented the largest transfer 
of wealth in human history.
  That is stealing of industrial secrets and moving money from bank 
accounts. I believe he said it was as if we were having our future 
stolen from us. It is all happening over cyberspace. Obviously, 
enemies--both nation states, nonstate actors such as terrorist groups, 
organized criminal gangs, and just plain hackers--are finding ways to 
penetrate the cyber systems on which our society depends, the cyber 
systems that control critical infrastructure: electric grid, 
transportation system, the whole financial system, the dams that hold 
back water, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
  This bill is not a solution in search of a problem. It is a problem 
that is real and cries out for the solution this bill would provide. 
There are some controversial parts of the bill. There has been some 
spirited debate both in committee and in the public media about it. 
There is a competing bill introduced by some of our colleagues called 
SECURE IT.
  But I want to report to the Chamber and to the public that there was 
a significant breakthrough today where the lead cosponsors of our bill, 
Senators Collins, Rockefeller, Feinstein, Carper, and I met with the 
lead cosponsors of the other bill, Senators Chambliss, McCain, and 
Hutchison, along with a group of Senators led by Senator Kyl and 
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who, along with Senator Coons, Senator 
Mikulski, Senator Coats, and others who have been working very hard to 
create common ground because they recognize the urgency of this 
challenge.
  Well, this is good news. We got a motion to proceed, which, in the 
current schedule, will come up on Friday. I think it would send a 
message of real encouragement to the public that we can still get 
together across party lines on matters of urgent national security if 
we adopted that motion to proceed overwhelmingly, particularly now that 
we are engaged in dialogue with the leaders of these main bills and 
people trying to bridge gaps that began to meet today. We will meet 
again tomorrow morning. So I think we have a process going that can 
lead us to a very significant national security accomplishment.
  I am going to yield at this time to Senator Rockefeller, the chair of 
the Commerce Committee, whose committee produced a bill of its own. He 
worked very closely with Senator Collins and me to blend our bills. We 
did. Senator Feinstein came along with her chairmanship of the 
Intelligence Committee of the Senate, did some tremendous work on the 
information-sharing provision, title VII of the bill before us.
  I know Senator Rockefeller has another engagement which he has to go 
to. So I am going to yield to him for his opening statement. Then 
Senator Collins, who, as always, for all these years, has been just the 
most steadfast, constructive, sturdy, reliable, creative partner in 
working on this bill. It gives me confidence that together we will see 
it to success next week. So I will now yield to the distinguished 
senior Senator from West Virginia, who is a real expert on this subject 
and has contributed enormously to the bill that is pending before the 
Senate now.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. My dear colleague, I would feel better if the 
Senator from Maine spoke before I did.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse.) The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, that is very kind of the Senator from 
West Virginia. My statement is quite lengthy. So if the Senator from 
West Virginia, in light of his commitment, would like to precede me, I 
would be more than happy to have him do so. I would encourage him to go 
ahead. Then the Senator from Connecticut has graciously said he would 
allow me to go next. We are all so nice around here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I wish all negotiations proceeded 
with such comity. For those of us who have lived long enough, we have 
seen, obviously, enormous transition. We are in a totally new age.
  Today, as we begin our debate, over 200 billion e-mails will be sent 
around the world to every continent. Google, a company that really is 
just 10 years old, will process over 1 billion searches and stream more 
than 2 billion videos today. And in the next minute, about 36,000 
tweets will be posted on Twitter. So we are now connected as we never 
have been before.
  Here in the United States we have been the leader in both its 
development and adoption of the initial structure. Actually, it is 
interesting because it was created by our own government. The open 
nature of the Internet can be traced back to our initial decision in 
the government to relinquish control of what we had invented, so to 
speak. So to this day our Nation remains a leader in using the 
Internet's innovation and growth.
  In just over a decade, we have digitized and networked our entire 
economy and our entire way of life. Every one of our most critical 
systems now relies upon these interconnected networks: power grids, 
transportation systems, gas pipelines, telecommunications. They all 
rely on networks to function. They all rely on the Internet. Yet the 
ramifications of this new era remain poorly understood by many; 
frankly, by most.
  History teaches us that disruptive technological advancements can 
bring about both opportunities and also dangers. We cannot let our 
exuberance blind us from this simple truth. We cannot ignore the part 
of the equation in this happy adventure of ours that is unpleasant. 
This is it. These technological advances can compromise our national 
security and indeed are already doing so.
  The connectivity brought about by the Internet and the new ability to 
access anything, combined with our decision as a country to put 
everything we hold dear on the Internet, means we are now vulnerable in 
ways that were unfathomable just a few years ago. Yes, we rushed to 
digitize and connect every aspect of the American economy and way of 
life. We have spent little time focusing on what this actually means 
with respect to our security. We have left ourselves extraordinarily 
vulnerable.
  The consequences, as pointed out by the Senator from Connecticut, are 
devastating. Our intellectual property is our greatest asset as a 
nation. It is our greatest advantage in the world. It is currently 
being pilfered and stolen because it is connected to the Internet and 
therefore is unsecure.
  Well, we did not think about that, did we? Experts have called this, 
as the

[[Page 12116]]

Senator from Connecticut said, the greatest transfer of wealth in the 
history of the world. That is a dramatic statement, but it is just an 
absolute terrifying fact--terrifying fact.
  Our most important personal information, including our credit card 
numbers, our financial data is now accessible via the Internet and is 
stolen through data breaches that occur all the time.
  Most importantly, our critical infrastructure: water facilities and 
gas pipelines to our electric power grid and communications networks 
are now vulnerable to cyber attacks, and they are happening. Many of 
those systems were designed before the Internet. In fact, virtually all 
of these systems were designed before the Internet came about, and were 
never intended to be connected to a network. Yet they are. Therefore, 
they are unsecure.
  If these systems are exploited via cyber vulnerabilities, lives could 
be lost. Yes, there is lots of other things that could happen before 
that, but this has the potential to be far greater than even the 
tragedy of 9/11.
  In recent months we have learned that hackers penetrated the networks 
of companies that control our Nation's pipelines--gas pipelines. There 
have been attempts to penetrate the networks of companies that run 
nuclear power plants. Last year, a foreign computer hacker showed that 
he could access the control systems of a water facility in Texas with 
ease. He accomplished this task in minutes at a computer thousands of 
miles away.
  Our critical infrastructure is being targeted, and it is vulnerable. 
The major general of our National Guard, James Hoyer, recently shared a 
frightening story with me. He was talking about his work on 
cybersecurity. He said in West Virginia, he learned that a critical 
infrastructure facility in the State--critical infrastructure facility; 
that means a really important one--its engineers were being allowed to 
operate control systems on their home computers. How naive. But who 
would know? Who would have guessed?
  The Internet and what it has done for our country is unparalleled, 
but everything we have accomplished in this Internet age is now 
vulnerable and, in starker terms, undoable. We have built a castle in 
the sand and the tide is approaching. Our systems are too fragile, too 
critical, and too vulnerable. It is a recipe for disaster. It is time 
to do something about it before it is too late.
  We have all known about the seriousness of our cyber situation for 
years. Our national security experts know it. Our law enforcement 
experts know it. And there is a bipartisan agreement that something 
needs to be done. But that does not tell us a lot, to make that 
statement in the Senate. In my capacity both as the chairman of the 
Commerce Committee and former chairman of the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, and still on that committee, I have become very familiar 
with the threat posed by cybersecurity. I have been working with my 
colleagues to address it.
  For the past 3 years, a number of us have been working with both 
Republican and Democratic Senators to find common ground on these 
issues so we can have a bill to get control of this. We have held 
hearings, we have held markups, we have held countless meetings with 
the private sector and interest groups. It is an endless, endless 
process, and the staff does four times as much.
  We have been very patient in working to find a compromise. Now is the 
time to make that compromise happen. It will not happen today; it could 
happen in the next several days. We know what we need to do, I do 
believe. So here is what we know right now: The Federal Government 
needs to do a better job of protecting its own networks.
  Companies control most of our Nation's critical infrastructure, and 
they need to do a better job of eliminating cyber vulnerabilities in 
their systems. There are no clear lines in the authorities and 
responsibilities in the Federal Government for cybersecurity, which 
will cause confusion in the event of a cyber catastrophe.
  The private sector and the Federal Government need to be able to 
share information about cyber threats. Over the last year, the 
committees of jurisdiction in the Senate have worked together. The 
committees have worked together to finalize legislation that addresses 
each of those concerns.
  Senators Lieberman, Feinstein, Collins, and I have made it a 
priority, as well as others, to finish this work together and with a 
broader group. We believe every Member of this body will be able to 
support some kind of legislation. We have put legislation before the 
Senate, but it is subject to change. In fact, it may be in the process 
of changing in a good sense because we held a long meeting this 
morning. We are going to have another one tomorrow, perhaps on a daily 
basis.
  The basic thing we have done is that we took a more regulated 
approach. In other words, we have to do this. This is what we should 
do. At one level we should do it.
  We have taken that away, and we have made it much more voluntary. We 
made it a voluntary approach. Some say that is worse than no bill at 
all, to which I reply, no, if we incent people properly with a 
voluntary approach, the pressure to do something is greater, 
particularly if they have to submit to audits as to the standards of 
work they are doing to protect themselves.
  There are a variety of ways to do this. We could have a council--a 
DHS council that would decide what the standards should be. There was 
talk this morning about having a convening session called by NIST, 
National Institute of Science and Technology--which is very good at 
this stuff--convene the private sector and have those two work out a 
system. NIST has no regulatory authority, so they could let them come 
up with their suggestions. Then there was an idea that maybe DHS could 
look at that and certify it, stamp it with approval, on basic critical 
infrastructure. Of course, we would have to pick out which was the 
critical infrastructure because there is lots of it. Which one would be 
subject to special regard is something we would still have to work out.
  This bill, however it works so far, and I think in the future, is 
bipartisan. There is some sort of tribulation about let's let bygones 
be bygones, we have all given up and compromised, to which my point of 
view is some of us have been working on this for a very long time, and 
we have been joined by others with good ideas. But don't close off the 
past or the future.
  The bill will be bipartisan. It will incorporate the good ideas and 
suggestions that have been made by many colleagues. We have settled on 
a plan that creates no new bureaucracy. However that plan forms, it 
will have no new bureaucracies or heavy-handed regulation. That is 
already understood. It is premised on companies taking responsibility 
for securing their own networks, with government assistance where 
necessary. This bill represents a compromise, and it is time to move 
forward with it.
  I think, in closing, back to the year 2000 and 2001. I was on the 
Intelligence Committee at the time of 9/11. The fact is, we get reports 
on all this which never surfaced, but we know the facts. There were 
signs of people moving around the country, and they weren't just sort 
of haphazardly moving around. In San Diego, a certain safe house there 
would appear and people were coming and going from there. Then there 
was the FBI office in Minneapolis and the Moussaoui case, and the FBI 
office in Minneapolis reported to the FBI Osama bin Laden office--and 
perhaps that didn't happen.
  We all knew something was new and that the world was getting 
different. We knew the danger could come upon us. Our intelligence and 
national security leadership took these matters very seriously. 
However, they did not take it seriously enough, nor did we. So then it 
was too late and 9/11 happened, and the world changed forever.
  Today, we have a new set of warnings flashing before us with a wide 
range of challenges to our security and safety and we once again face a 
choice: Act now and put in place safeguards to protect this country and 
our people or act later when it is too late. Obviously, the conclusion 
is we must act now.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

[[Page 12117]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, let me thank the Senator from West 
Virginia for his comments. He has worked so hard on this issue for many 
years but, in particular, the past 3 years, as he and the chair of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Feinstein, have worked with 
Senator Lieberman and me.
  I rise this evening to urge our colleagues to vote to begin the 
debate on the Cyber Security Act of 2012. Senator Lieberman and I have 
introduced this bill along with our colleagues Senator Rockefeller, 
Senator Feinstein, and Senator Carper. It has been a great pleasure to 
work with all of them--and work we have--in numerous sessions over 
literally a period of years, as we have attempted to merge the bills 
that were reported by the Commerce Committee and the Homeland Security 
Committee.
  Of course, it is always a great pleasure to once again work with my 
dear friend the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator 
Lieberman, as we bring forth yet another bipartisan bill to the Chamber 
for its consideration.
  FBI Director Robert Mueller has warned that the cyber threat will 
soon equal or surpass the threat from terrorism. He has argued that we 
should be addressing the cyber threat with the same kind of intensity 
we have applied to the terrorist threat. This vital legislation would 
provide the Federal Government and the private sector with the tools 
needed to help protect our country from the growing cyber threat. It 
would promote information sharing, improve the security of the Federal 
Government's own networks, enhance research and development programs 
and, most important of all, it would help to better secure our Nation's 
most critical infrastructure from cyber attack. These are the 
powerplants, the pipelines, the water treatment facilities, the 
electrical grid, the transportation systems, and the financial networks 
upon which Americans rely each and every day.
  The fact is the computerized industrial controls that open and close 
the valves and switches in our infrastructure are particularly 
vulnerable to cyber attack. Indeed, the Internet is under constant 
siege on all fronts by nations such as China, Russia, and Iran, by 
transnational criminals, by terrorist groups, by activists, and by 
persistent hackers. That is why our Nation's top national security and 
homeland security leaders from the current and former administrations 
have urged us to take legislative action to address this unacceptable 
risk to both our national security and our economic prosperity.
  Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta described our bill 
as ``essential to addressing our Nation's critical infrastructure and 
network cyber security vulnerabilities, both of which pose serious 
national and economic security risks to our Nation.''
  Just last month, the Secretary reiterated his call for Congress to 
pass our bill and stress the potential for a cyber attack to cripple 
our critical infrastructure in a way that would virtually paralyze this 
country.
  The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, has also 
sounded the alarm. He has described the cyber threat as a ``profound 
threat to this country, to its future, its economy and its very 
being.''
  The warnings have not been confined to officials in the Obama 
administration. Former national security officials, including Michael 
Chertoff, Michael McConnell, Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Hayden have 
written that the cyber threat ``is imminent and . . . represents one of 
the most serious challenges to our national security since the onset of 
the nuclear age sixty years ago.'' They have urged us to protect the 
``infrastructure that controls our electricity, water and sewer, 
nuclear plants, communications backbone, energy pipelines, and 
financial networks'' with appropriate cyber security standards.
  Similarly, in a letter to our colleague, Senator John McCain, GEN 
Keith Alexander, the commander of U.S. Cyber Command and the Director 
of the National Security Agency, wrote:

       Given DOD reliance on certain core critical infrastructure 
     to execute its mission, as well as the importance of the 
     Nation's critical infrastructure to our national and economic 
     security overall, legislation is also needed to ensure that 
     infrastructure is sufficiently hardened and resilient.

  The threats to our infrastructure are not hypothetical; they are 
already occurring. For example, while many of the details are 
classified, we know multiple natural gas pipeline companies have been 
the target of a sophisticated cyber intrusion campaign that has been 
ongoing since December of last year.
  The cyber threat to our critical infrastructure is also escalating in 
its frequency and severity. According to DHS's Industrial Control 
Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team, last year, almost 200 cyber 
intrusions were reported by critical infrastructure owners and 
operators. That is nearly a 400-percent increase from the previous 
year, and these are only the intrusions that have been reported to the 
Department of Homeland Security. Many go unreported and, even worse, 
many owners are not even aware their systems have been compromised.
  What would a successful cyber attack on our critical infrastructure 
look like? We have just seen recently what a serious storm that leaves 
more than 1 million people without power can cause: the loss of life, 
the blow to economic activity, the hardship for the elderly, the 
nonworking traffic lights that resulted in accidents. Multiply that 
impact many times over if there were a sustained cyber attack that 
deliberately knocked out our electric grid.
  The threat is not just to our national security but also to our 
economic edge, to our competitiveness. The rampant cyber theft 
targeting the United States by countries such as China has led to the 
``greatest transfer of wealth in history,'' according to General 
Alexander. You have heard many of us use his quote. Let me give some 
specifics of his estimates. He believes American companies have lost 
about $250 billion a year through intellectual property theft, $114 
billion to theft through cyber crime, and another $274 billion in 
downtime the thefts have caused.
  In their op-ed earlier this year, former DNI McConnell, former 
Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff, and former Deputy Secretary of 
Defense Bill Lynn warned that the cost of cyber espionage and theft 
``easily means billions of dollars and millions of jobs.'' The threat 
of a cyber attack doesn't just go to our national security, critical 
though that is. It also directly is a threat to America's ability to 
compete, to our economic edge.
  In recent years, a growing number of U.S. firms, including 
sophisticated firms such as Google, Adobe, Lockheed Martin, RSA, Sony, 
NASDAQ, and many others have been hacked by malicious actors. Earlier 
this month, the security firm McAfee released a report on a highly 
sophisticated cyber intrusion dubbed ``Operation High Roller,'' which 
has attempted to steal more than $78 million in fraudulent financial 
transfers at at least 60 different financial institutions.
  Trade associations have been attacked too. The Chamber of Commerce 
was the victim of a cyber attack for many months, blissfully unaware 
until informed by the FBI that its membership data was being stolen. 
The evidence of our cybersecurity vulnerability is overwhelming. It 
compels us to act.
  Yesterday 18 experts in national security strongly endorsed the 
revised legislation we have introduced. The Aspen Homeland Security 
Group, made up of officials from both Republican and Democratic 
administrations and chaired by former Secretary Chertoff and former 
Congresswoman Jane Harman, urged the Senate to adopt a program of 
voluntary cybersecurity standards and strong positive incentives for 
critical infrastructure to implement those standards. This group called 
for action on our bill, saying:

       The country is already being hurt by foreign cyber 
     intrusions, and the possibility of a devastating cyber attack 
     is real. Congress must act now.


[[Page 12118]]


  Mr. President, you have heard some Members of this body say that 
somehow this process has been rushed or the bill inadequately 
considered. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since 2005--7 
years ago--our Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee 
alone has held 10 hearings on cybersecurity. Other Senate committees 
have also held hearings, for a total of 25 hearings since 2009, not to 
mention numerous briefings the Presiding Officer and Senator Mikulski 
of Maryland have helped to convene--classified briefings--for any 
Member to attend.
  In 2010, Chairman Lieberman, Senator Carper, and I introduced our 
cybersecurity bill, which was reported by our committee later that same 
year. As I indicated, we have been working with Chairman Rockefeller to 
merge our bill with legislation he has championed, which was reported 
by the Commerce Committee. We have also worked very closely with 
Senator Feinstein, an expert on information sharing.
  The bill we are urging our colleagues to proceed to today is the 
product of these efforts. It also incorporates substantial changes 
based on the feedback from the private sector, our colleagues, and the 
administration.
  This new bill is a good-faith effort to address the concerns raised 
by Members on both sides of the aisle by establishing a framework that 
relies upon the expertise of government and the innovation of the 
private sector. It improves privacy protections that Americans expect 
from their government.
  It also reflects many concepts proposed by Senators Kyl, Whitehouse--
the Presiding Officer--Blunt, Coats, Graham, Mikulski, Blumenthal, and 
Coons. We have revised our bill in a very substantial way. We have 
abandoned the approach--which I still believe to be a good idea--of 
mandatory standards and, instead, have adopted a voluntary approach to 
standards. This is a significant change from our initial bill, and it 
was one that was promoted by Senator Kyl's and Senator Whitehouse's 
group.
  The new version encourages owners of critical infrastructure to 
voluntarily adopt the cybersecurity practices in exchange for various 
incentives for entities complying with these best practices. This was 
also one of the primary recommendations of the House Republican 
Cybersecurity Task Force.
  These incentives include liability protection against punitive 
damages. I, for one, am open to making that a more robust liability 
protection. They include the opportunity to receive expedited security 
clearances, eligibility for prioritized technical assistance from the 
government, and access to timely cyber threat information held by the 
government.
  These major changes from the approach we initially proposed 
demonstrate our willingness to adopt alternatives recommended in good 
faith by our colleagues, and we are still open to changes to the bill.
  Our bill also includes strong information-sharing provisions that 
promote voluntary information sharing within the private sector and the 
government, while ensuring that privacy and civil liberties are 
protected. And again, we incorporated some suggestions from the 
Democratic side of the aisle to strengthen these provisions.
  To be sure, more information sharing is essential to improving our 
understanding of the risks and threats. But let us be clear: More 
information sharing, while absolutely essential, is not sufficient to 
ensure our Nation's vital, critical infrastructure is protected. If you 
survey the vast majority of experts in this field, they will tell you 
that to pass a bill that only provides for more information sharing 
does not begin to accomplish the job that must be done to better secure 
our Nation from this threat.
  With 85 percent of our Nation's critical infrastructure owned by the 
private sector, government obviously must work with the private sector. 
Our bill--both our original bill and our revised bill--has always 
envisioned a partnership between government and the private sector. We 
have a very stringent definition of what constitutes covered critical 
infrastructure. It is infrastructure whose disruption could result in 
truly catastrophic consequences.
  What do I mean by that? I am talking about mass casualties or mass 
evacuations or severe degradation of our national security or a serious 
blow to our economy. That is the kind of disruption we are talking 
about. Obviously those who have claimed that every company or every 
part of our infrastructure is going to be considered as critical 
infrastructure have not read the definition in our bill.
  But here is more evidence of why we must act. A study done in 2011 by 
the computer security firm McAfee and CSIS revealed that approximately 
40 percent of the companies surveyed--the critical infrastructure 
companies--were not regularly patching and updating their software, 
despite the fact these safeguards are among the most basic and widely 
known cybersecurity risk mitigation practices. We have even found 
reports where companies haven't bothered to change the default password 
that came with the industrial control software. In many cases, the 
control devices used to operate our Nation's most critical 
infrastructure are inherently insecure.
  A Washington Post special report last month noted that security 
researchers found six out of seven control system devices are ``riddled 
with hardware and software flaws,'' and that ``some included back doors 
that enabled hackers to download passwords or sidestep security 
completely.''
  Another front-page story in the Post earlier this month highlighted 
the fact that as technological advances have allowed everyone from 
plant managers to hospital nurses to control their systems remotely via 
the Internet, these vital systems have become even more vulnerable to 
cyber attacks. To prove the point, the story described how a security 
researcher was able to easily steal passwords from a provider that 
connects millions of these systems to the Internet.
  These examples illustrate that far too many critical infrastructure 
owners are not taking even the most basic measures to protect their 
systems, and this is simply dangerous and unacceptable to the security 
of our country. These basic practices need not be expensive. In most 
cases, they are not expensive. And I will tell you, they are a lot less 
costly than the consequences of a breach, not to mention a major cyber 
attack.
  A recent report by Verizon, the Secret Service, and other 
international law enforcement agencies analyzed 855 data breaches and 
found that 96 were not difficult to pull off and 97 percent of them 
could have been prevented through fairly simple and inexpensive means.
  The point is, we must act, and we must act now. We cannot afford to 
wait for a cyber 9/11 before taking action on this legislation.
  In all the years I have been working to identify vulnerabilities 
facing our country in the area of homeland security, I cannot identify 
another area where I believe the threat is greater and that we have 
done less.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to the wisdom of former Homeland 
Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and former NSA Chief General 
Hayden. They wrote the following:

       We carry the burden of knowing that 9/11 might have been 
     averted with the intelligence that existed at the time. We do 
     not want to be in the same position again when ``cyber 9/11'' 
     hits--it is not a question of ``whether'' this will happen; 
     it is a question of ``when.''

  And this time all the dots have been connected. This time we know 
that attacks are occurring against our Internet systems and cyber 
systems each and every day. This time the warnings from all across the 
board are loud and clear. I urge our colleagues to heed these warnings 
and to support the motion to proceed to the cybersecurity bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my dear friend, the ranking 
member on the Homeland Security Committee, for her excellent and 
thoughtful statement. I thank Senator Rockefeller, the chair of the 
Commerce Committee, for his compelling

[[Page 12119]]

statement on behalf of proceeding and, of course, on behalf of the 
underlying bill. I think these two statements set the table for the 
debate that will follow in the next several days.
  Within the next day or two, certainly no later than Friday, we will 
vote on the motion to proceed to the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. I 
appeal to our colleagues to come together across party lines and vote 
to proceed, as a way of saying that we recognize exactly what Senator 
Rockefeller and Senator Collins have said: We have a problem here. We 
are vulnerable to cyber attack. It is not just speculative. We are 
being attacked. We are being robbed every day through cyberspace. And 
we are not adequately defended. It is as simple as that.
  Part of the problem, as my colleagues have said, in the challenge is 
that 80 to 85 percent of our critical infrastructure in this country is 
privately owned. That is the American way. That is the way it ought to 
be. But that privately owned infrastructure is vulnerable now to attack 
by our enemies, and we have to work together--public and private 
owners, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, 
Americans all--to figure out a way to say to the private owners of 
critical cyber infrastructure, You have got to do more to protect our 
security, to protect our prosperity. And that is what this bill is all 
about.
  My colleagues have described the challenge, the inadequacy of the 
current defenses, the work that has been done on our bill, the 
compromises that have been made all along the way. I thank the 
Presiding Officer, the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, 
and Senator Kyl from Arizona and the others who worked on a bipartisan 
basis to help us find common ground.
  This question of cybersecurity is, again, a test of whether this 
great deliberative body still has the capability to come together and 
solve our Nation's most serious problems.
  We had a couple of votes today. I suppose some people could say they 
were show votes. I took them seriously. But they all involved the 
terrible fiscal shape our country is in, $16 trillion in national debt. 
Earlier in my life I couldn't believe we could come to this point. And 
why have we? Because we haven't been willing to make tough decisions. 
We haven't been willing to work across party lines to do some things 
that might be politically controversial to fix a problem we have. So 
the problem gets tougher and tougher to fix. This is another one.
  Usually, even in the most partisan and ideologically rigid times, 
when it comes to our national security we put our party labels aside 
and our party loyalties aside, and we have acted based on our loyalty 
to our country--to the oath of office we took to protect and defend not 
our ideology or our party but to protect and defend the Constitution of 
the United States, our freedom. That is as much in jeopardy from cyber 
attack as any other source of threat to our country.
  I appreciate the opening statements that have been made. I am 
actually very optimistic about the vote on the motion to proceed that 
will occur in the next day or two, and I am increasingly hopeful we are 
going to pass, before we break for August, a strong cybersecurity bill. 
It is not going to be the bill Senator Collins, Senator Rockefeller, 
Senator Feinstein, and I started out with. We have compromised along 
the way.
  I have in my office in a very prominent place a picture of two of 
Connecticut's representatives to the Constitutional Convention, Sherman 
and Ellsworth. I have it there because these two were the creators, the 
source of the so-called Connecticut Compromise. Some people erroneously 
refer to it as the Great Compromise. The correct title is the 
Connecticut Compromise. This was the conflict between the States that 
had a lot of population and the smaller States, how were they going to 
be represented in this new Congress. Sherman and Ellsworth came up with 
a great compromise: We will have one body--the Senate--where every 
State has two representatives, and another body--the House--where you 
are represented by population.
  I always like to say to people, the very institution we are 
privileged to be Members of was created as a result of a compromise. 
Generally speaking, in this Congress--which represents 310 million 
people, extraordinarily diverse in every way--you can't succeed here, 
we can't get things done if people say, I must get 100 percent of what 
I want on this bill or I am going to vote against it.
  That is the way we have felt and that is why we have compromised, 
particularly because of the urgency of the cyber threat, which is real, 
present, and growing.
  Senator Collins and I have felt very strongly, we want to get 
something started. It can't just be anything, it has to be real. S. 
3414 is real. It will be effective. The standards are no longer 
mandatory, but there are enough incentives in here. And the very fact 
that there will be standards, private sector generated but approved by 
a governmental body, I think will create tremendous inducements--yes, 
maybe even pressure--on CEOs and private operators of critical cyber 
infrastructure to adopt those standards and implement them in their 
business or else, God forbid, in case of attack, they will be subject 
to enormous, probably a corporation-ending, liability.
  I am very encouraged, thanks again to a lot of good work done by a 
lot of people, that we have started today, the lead sponsors of the 
other bill, SECURE IT, the lead sponsors of this bill, the 
Cybersecurity Act of 2012, and the group that has been working so hard, 
a bipartisan group, to bring us together. We did come together today. 
We are going to meet again tomorrow morning, and I think we are 
involved in a collaborative process that will not only lead to the 
passage of cybersecurity legislation this year that will be effective 
to protect our national security and prosperity but will in its way 
prove to the American people that we are still capable here in the 
Senate of coming together across party lines to fix a problem--in this 
case, to protect our great country.
  With that, and knowing we will be back tomorrow, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I plan to speak on cybersecurity 
tomorrow. I thank Chairman Lieberman, Chairman Rockefeller, Chairman 
Feinstein, and Senator Collins for their work on this very important 
issue, and also all the other Senators who have worked so hard on this, 
including the Presiding Officer.
  I ask unanimous consent to speak this evening as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Remembering the Victims of Aurora, CO

  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about loss. I know I 
speak for all Minnesotans when I say how shocked and saddened we have 
been by the loss of life in Colorado. Our hearts go out to the families 
and friends of those who died, and to those who were wounded in that 
massacre. Anyone who has watched reports can only feel outrage or 
profound sadness.
  So many of those who died were so young. A number died so heroically, 
shielding a loved one from the madman's bullets. So much grief, so much 
suffering is unspeakable. The one hopeful lesson we can draw from this 
tragedy comes from the stories of courage and selflessness we have 
heard about those who were in the theater, the first responders, and 
the outpouring from the community of Aurora and the rest of the Nation.
  Minnesota unfortunately has also seen its share of senseless 
violence. It is something no State is immune to. Hopefully, out of this 
tragedy we can draw lessons that will make these kinds of tragedies far 
less common.


                         Remembering Tom Davis

  Today I come to the floor to talk about a personal loss to me and to 
so many of his friends and family and fans--a Minnesotan who brought so 
much laughter and so much joy to his fellow Minnesotans and to millions 
and millions of Americans. My friend Tom Davis died last Thursday after 
he was diagnosed 3 years ago with cancer.
  I had the privilege to be Tom's comedy partner and best friend for 
over 20

[[Page 12120]]

years. We started working together in high school in Minnesota and did 
standup together for years, and were among two of the original writers 
for ``Saturday Night Live.''
  I spoke with Tom's mom Jean last Thursday, not long after Tom died. 
She told me how fondly she remembered the laughter that came from the 
basement when Tom and I started writing together in high school over 40 
years ago. That is what I remember about Tom, his laughter.
  I last saw Tom about 2 weeks ago at his home in Hudson, NY. Dan 
Aykroyd, who collaborated so often with Tom, was there too with his 
wife Donna and Tom's wife Mimi. We laughed and laughed.
  Tom's humor was always sardonic, and as you might expect, it was a 
little more sardonic that day than usual. But his humor also had a 
sweetness about it. We laughed. But Tom told us that he was ready to 
go. He faced death with great humor and courage.
  Tom created laughter. The obituary cited Tom's body of work--some of 
it. He and Dan Aykroyd created the Coneheads. Tom was the key 
collaborator with Bill Murray on Nick the Lounge Singer, and on and on 
and on. This started an outpouring of blogging on the Internet--people 
writing about Tom and the laughs he brought them. I was happy to see 
him get his due. People called him an original. He was. They called him 
a brilliant comedian. He was.
  Since last Thursday, I have been hearing from our friends and 
colleagues, how Tom's voice was unique, how so often his stuff came 
seemingly from out of nowhere, how Tom had come up with the biggest 
laugh of the season in the rewrite of this sketch or that one or how 
Tom had been the first to nail Ed McMahon's attitude when he and I did 
Khomeini the Magnificent, and how Tom was such a loyal and generous 
friend.
  People would always ask me and Tom what our favorite moment was from 
``Saturday Night Live.'' We worked on so many sketches that it was 
impossible to single anything out. Both of us would always say our 
favorite memory was rolling on the floor--the 17th floor at 30 Rock--
rolling on the floor, laughing at 2:00 in the morning or 3:00 in the 
morning at something that someone wrote or at a character someone had 
just invented. This was that moment of creation. There was the laugh at 
whatever it was that one of us had come up with, combined with the joy 
that you knew you had something.
  This is your job. Woody Allen once said that writing comedy is either 
easy or impossible. When it is impossible, it can be agony. When it is 
easy, when you are laughing and rolling on the floor--literally, when 
Danny, Billy, Belushi, Gilda, Dana Carvey, Jim Downey, Conan O'Brien, 
or Steve Martin or any of the many hilarious people whom we had the 
privilege to work with would come up with something that made us 
explode with laughter and roll there on the 17th floor, that was just 
pure joy.
  Tom was an improvisational genius. The first public stage we 
performed at was Dudley Riggs' Brave New Workshop in Minneapolis. 
Dudley's was essentially the Minneapolis version of Second City, based 
on the same improvisational techniques. When Tom and I were in high 
school, we did standup there. But while I went off to college, Tom 
joined the company at Dudley's, and when I came back, I saw that he had 
mastered improv and mastered it hilariously.
  Now, as a writing team, Tom and I brought different strengths to our 
craft. Sometimes we would get stuck, and Tom would find an object. The 
third year of SNL, Tom and I were watching TV, and we saw Julia Child 
cut herself while doing a cooking segment on, I believe, the ``Today 
Show.'' So we wrote a sketch that Danny performed brilliantly that is 
now known as ``Julia Child Bleeding to Death.'' The sketch worked so 
well that when they installed the Julia Child exhibit at the National 
Museum of American History, in addition to her TV kitchen set--I 
believe this was at her insistence because she loved it so much--they 
included a monitor with the sketch of her bleeding to death on 
``Saturday Night Live.''
  When Tom and I were writing the sketch, we could not find an ending, 
and Tom found an object--the phone. The phone hanging on the wall of 
Julia Child's cooking set. I don't actually think there was one; Tom 
just found it. That is something improv artists do when they are on the 
stage, they find objects to work with. So Danny, as Julia Child in the 
sketch, is spurting blood, and Julia is trying everything to explain 
how to make a tourniquet out of a chicken bone and a dish towel or how 
to use chicken liver as a natural coagulant, and nothing is working. 
She is losing blood. So, in desperation, she sees the phone on the 
wall, and turning to it, she says, ``Always have the emergency number 
written down on the phone. Oh, it isn't. Well, I know it. It's 911.'' 
She dials 9-1-1 and realizes it is a prop phone and throws it down sort 
of in disgust and starts to get woozy and rambles on about eating 
chopped chicken liver on Ritz crackers as a child. Finally she 
collapses, and as she is about to die, she says, ``Save the liver.''
  It was a tour de force by Danny. When I was with Danny and Tom a 
couple of weeks ago, we started talking about this somehow, and Danny 
says he remembers me there under the counter pumping the blood. Only I 
wasn't the one pumping the blood; it was Tom. I remember that was 
something of a union issue because that is a special effect, pumping 
blood, pumping the blood to get exactly the right pressure so that 
Danny could release the spurts at precisely the right time.
  Now, every once in a while, the special effects guy or the sound 
effects guy would let a writer do the effects because it was all about 
the comedic timing. Also, they liked Tom. Everybody liked Tom. The 
special effects guy knew that Tom knew exactly what to do, and it was 
all about teamwork with Danny, who was also controlling the spurting 
when Tom was controlling the pressure. Man, it was hilarious.
  Now, this is live TV. We did hundreds and hundreds of sketches 
together, a lot of stuff that was just so stupid that it was funny. We 
just had so much fun. Tom and I toured together all over the country. I 
told Senator Mike Johanns, my colleague and friend from Nebraska, that 
Tom and I played Chadron State twice. And last week we had a witness in 
Judiciary whom Senator Sessions introduced from Anniston, AL, where Tom 
and I played. We did a gig to six students in Huron, SD, because they 
booked us by mistake during spring break and there were just six 
students there. There were five members of the basketball team who 
couldn't afford to go back east for the break. The sixth guy had been 
grounded because he had gotten caught smoking pot freshman year and 
they wouldn't let him leave campus except during summer vacation. I 
think this was his junior year. I think Tom and I played 45 States.
  When we flew, we always booked ourselves in aisle seats across from 
each other, C and D seats, so we could talk to each other. Tom would 
always get on first and find our row, and if there was a pretty girl in 
the middle seat of one side, he would sit next to her, and I would sit 
next to the fat, sweaty guy in the mesh shirt, which, by the way, I 
think should not be allowed on planes. I plan to introduce legislation 
on that.
  This went on for years. Tom would board first, get to a row, and take 
the aisle seat next to an attractive woman or quiet-looking, slender 
man, and I would sit next to the large loud guy who looked like he 
wanted to talk through the entire flight. I thought, what a 
coincidence, Tom's aisle seat is always next to the more desirable 
seatmate. Finally I checked my ticket stub, and I saw that Tom had 
taken my seat. That is when I realized he had been doing this for 
years. He said: Yeah, I was just waiting for you to figure it out. Now, 
I really had to blame myself. Tom had played me, and it was my fault 
for being a kind of trusting idiot.
  Tom saved my butt on occasion. We used to go camping and fishing up 
in the Boundary Waters of the wilderness area between northern 
Minnesota and Canada. Tom was expert with a canoe,

[[Page 12121]]

and I wasn't. I really wasn't. Once, we went up there in October. It 
was kind of cold, but we were catching a lot of walleye and having a 
great time. There were three of us--me, Tom, and our friend Jeff 
Frederick. We had put in for just one canoe.
  On the third evening I decided to fish from this point near our 
campsite on this island. I cast out and got my line caught in 
something, so I decided to go out alone in the canoe and untangle the 
line. So I am paddling out, and I get caught in this current and start 
getting carried away from the island we were camped on, and I start 
calling for help. Now, we are in the Quetico wilderness in Canada in 
October. We had not seen another human being in the 3 days we had been 
there. So Tom and Jeff come running and yelling and cursing at me 
because if I didn't make it back with the canoe, they were pretty much 
stuck on this island for the winter, and I am probably dead because I 
have no gear, nothing, just the paddle, which isn't doing me any good 
at this point. This is where Tom's improvisational skills came in 
really handy because he talked me back. He was screaming and cursing, 
but he talked me out of the current that was carrying me away to my 
certain death, and I was able to circle back and get to the point--
exhausted but so relieved. Maybe that is why I cut him some slack when 
he played me on the aisle seats years later.
  Now, speaking of cold, Tom and I were huge Vikings fans. We would go 
to the old Metropolitan Stadium during the Bud Grant years when Grant 
would not allow heaters on the side lines even when it was below zero. 
I once asked Bud Grant why he did that, and he said: There are certain 
things people can do when they are cold.
  Tom and I were there on a very cold winter afternoon at the Vikings-
Cowboys playoff game, the one where Roger Staubach threw the Hail Mary 
that Drew Pearson pushed off on and caught for a touchdown--and he did 
push off. Senator Hutchison and Senator Cornyn need to go back to the 
videotape. Drew Pearson pushed off. It was offensive pass interference, 
and the Vikings should have won that game and gone to the Super Bowl. 
That is how I saw it, that is how Tom saw it, and that is how the fan 
who threw the whiskey bottle from the bleachers and knocked the ref out 
saw it. Tom and I both saw the bottle glinting in the cold winter Sun 
as it arced from the bleachers. We were stunned when it hit the ref 
right in the forehead. That was not Minnesota nice.
  Tom and I suffered through four Super Bowl losses and through last 
season. As sick as he was, Tom watched our Vikings and complained 
bitterly to me on the phone later on Sunday.
  Tom and I went to a lot of Grateful Dead shows together--more than 
even Senator Leahy. Tom and I went to a lot of New Year's Eve Dead 
shows. This year I went up to New York to celebrate New Year's with Tom 
and Mimi at their home. We knew this would probably be his last, and at 
midnight we turned on the Dead and we danced.
  Now, unlike me, Tom became an accomplished guitarist, and he could 
sit in with rock or blues bands. Tom was a terrible student in high 
school, but the fact is he was a renaissance man. He loved to read 
history, philosophy, and fiction. He devoted a lot of his last years to 
his art, sculpting solely from found objects from the creek that ran by 
his house in upstate New York.
  Tom was an original. Some time ago, Tom and I talked about writing 
something for this occasion, but about a year or so ago he wrote a 
piece for a literary magazine that, to me, said what needed to be said. 
It was Tom and his take on what he was facing. It is called ``The Dark 
Side of Death.'' I decided to read from it, with a few edits for the 
Senate floor, and I ask that the piece in its entirety, with some other 
edits, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. FRANKEN. ``The Dark Side of Death'' by Tom Davis.

       The good news: my chemotherapy is working and I'm still 
     buying green bananas. I've lost about 50 pounds. (I need to 
     lose 49.) . . . False hope is my enemy, also self pity, which 
     went out the window when I saw children with cancer. I try to 
     embrace the inevitable with whatever grace I can muster, and 
     find the joy in each day. I've always been good at that, but 
     now I'm getting really good at that.
       I wake up in the morning, delighted to be waking up, read, 
     write, feed the birds, watch sports on TV, accepting the fact 
     that in the foreseeable future I will be a dead person. I 
     want to remind you that dead people are people too. There are 
     good dead people and bad dead people. Some of my best friends 
     are dead people. Dead people have fought in every war. We are 
     all going to try it sometime.
       Fortunately for me, I have always enjoyed mystery and 
     solitude.
       Many people in my situation say, ``It's been my worst and 
     best year.'' If that sounds like a cliche, you don't have 
     cancer. On the plus side, I am grateful to have gained real, 
     not just intellectual empathy. I was prepared to go through 
     life without having suffered, and I was doing a good job of 
     it. Now I know what it's like to starve. And to accept ``that 
     over which I have no control,'' I had to turn inward. People 
     from all over my life are reconnecting with me, and I've 
     tried to take responsibility for my deeds, good and bad.
       I think I've finally grown up.
       It is odd to have so much time to orchestrate the process 
     of my own death. I'm improvising. I've never done this 
     before, so far as I know. Ironically, I will probably outlive 
     one or two people to whom I've already said goodbye. My life 
     has been rife with irony; why stop now?
       As an old-school Malthusian liberal, I've always believed 
     that the source of all mankind's problems is overpopulation. 
     I'm finally going to do something about it.

  Tom faced death with humor and courage.
  Rest in peace.

                               Exhibit 1

                         The Dark Side of Death

                            (By Tom Davis).

       The good news: my chemotherapy is working and I'm still 
     buying green bananas.
       The bad news: two years ago, before we knew it as MDD 
     (Michael Douglas Disease), I was diagnosed with tonsorial 
     squamous cell carcinoma, a/k/a head and neck cancer. After 
     surgery, I elected to go with radiation therapy sans 
     complementary chemo, which was probably a big mistake. The 
     malignancy unexpectedly spread to the bones of my pelvis and 
     lower spine, where it has been munching away without thought 
     of its host's well-being. It's now described as ``exotic and 
     aggressive,'' but it's getting its cancerous ass kicked by 
     taxotere, a drug that imitates the chemistry of the European 
     Yew tree. Made in China, of course. I'll be using it, or a 
     related drug ``for the rest of my life,'' which could be as 
     long as two more high-quality-of-life years. I'd be thrilled 
     with that.
       There are side effects, the two weirdest being a ``recall 
     effect,'' in which radiation sores reappear, and neuropathy 
     in my fingernails, which are in the unpleasant process of 
     falling off. Ow. I've lost hair from all over my body. With 
     only a little bit of white fluff on my head, I visited my 
     mother, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease in Minneapolis.
       ``Now I want you to take all your medicine and your hair 
     will grow back,'' she said cheerfully. ``I think you look a 
     little like that bird Woodstock in Peanuts.'' I'll take that; 
     better than Uncle Fester.
       My old comedy partner (Senator) Al Franken, volunteered to 
     draw my hair back on with a magic marker, which would be 
     funny for about two days. We're planning to write something 
     for him to read once I de-animate, the final Franken and 
     Davis piece. We'll see. Typically, we would wait until the 
     last minute.
       I've lost about 50 pounds. (I needed to lose 49.) It's 
     great to wear jeans from the 70s, although I remember making 
     a few people laugh when I said I would save them in case I 
     got cancer. Once, in the early eighties, Franken and Davis 
     appeared on the David Letterman Show as ``The Comedy Team 
     that Weighs the Same,'' a piece so stupid it was really 
     funny. We dressed in bathrobes and Speedos for the final 
     weigh-in on a huge scale. David asked if any other comedy 
     team had weighed the same, and I said ``Laurel and Hardy, but 
     only near the end of Ollie's life,'' which got a good groan 
     laugh. Maybe I tempted fate a little too often.
       My grocer at the Claverack Market, Ted the Elder, recently 
     asked if I had heard that there are two stages in life: 
     ``youth,'' and ``you look great.'' Wish I'd thought of that.
       Several close friends have asked if I was aware of 
     alternative medicines, therapies, protocols, doctors, 
     clinics, and books. One offered personal testimony. His colon 
     cancer was supposed to have killed him several years ago. He 
     attributes his survival to an exclusive diet of blueberry 
     smoothies.
       My fear is not death; my fear is spending my last years 
     slurping blueberry, whey and soy powder shakes in a rock star 
     hospital in Houston, surrounded by strangers. No.
       False hope is my enemy, also self pity, which went out the 
     window when I saw children with cancer. I try to embrace the 
     inevitable with whatever grace I can muster, and find the joy 
     in each day. I've always been good at that, but now I'm 
     getting really good at it.

[[Page 12122]]

       I wake up in the morning, delighted to be waking up, read, 
     write, feed the birds, watch sports on TV, accepting the fact 
     that in the foreseeable future I will be a dead person. I 
     want to remind you that dead people are people too. There are 
     good dead people and bad dead people. Some of my best friends 
     are dead people. Dead people have fought in every war. We're 
     all going to try it sometime.
       Fortunately for me, I have always enjoyed mystery and 
     solitude.
       Many people in my situation say, ``It's been my worst and 
     best year.'' If that sounds like a cliche, you don't have 
     cancer. On the plus side, I am grateful to have gained real, 
     not just intellectual empathy. I was prepared to go through 
     life without having suffered, and I was doing a good job of 
     it. Now I know what it's like to starve. And to accept ``that 
     over which I have no control,'' I had to turn inward. People 
     from all over my life are reconnecting with me, and I've 
     tried to take responsibility for my deeds, good and bad. As 
     my friend Timothy Leary said in his book, Death by Design, 
     ``Even if you've been a complete slob your whole life, if you 
     can end the last act with panache, that's what they'll 
     remember.''
       I think I've finally grown up.
       It is odd to have so much time to orchestrate the process 
     of my own death. I'm improvising. I've never done this 
     before, so far as I know. Ironically, I probably will outlive 
     one or two people to whom I've already said goodbye. My life 
     has been rife with irony; why stop now?
       As an old-school Malthusian liberal, I've always believed 
     that the source of all mankind's problems is overpopulation. 
     I'm finally going to do something about it.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                             The Farm Bill

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senate passed a farm bill a few 
weeks ago--a pretty good farm bill. The House Agriculture Committee has 
reported out of its committee a farm bill, and now the discussion of 
whether we have a farm bill is a decision to be made by the leadership 
of the House, of whether a farm bill should come up. So I wish to speak 
about the necessity of a farm and nutrition bill being passed.
  It is called a farm and nutrition bill because about 80 percent of a 
farm bill's expenditures are related to the food stamp program. If we 
can get this bill completed and to the President's desk, it will be the 
eighth farm bill I have had a chance to participate in.
  Every 5 years or so, Congress debates, changes, argues over, and 
ultimately passes a farm and nutrition bill--not always of that title 
but pretty much of that content. This time should be no different. We 
need to get the job done. I understand there are folks who want to see 
more cuts here or there, and there are folks who want to spend more 
here or there. Those are very important discussions to have. We should 
have a healthy debate on how to tweak, reform, and reshape the policies 
in the bill, whether it is in regard to programs affecting farmers or 
the portion of the bill that receives the overwhelming share of the 
dollars, as I said, the nutrition title.
  We had those debates in the Senate Agriculture Committee. We had 
those debates on the Senate floor. The House Agriculture Committee has 
had those debates. Now I hope their product can be brought up on the 
Senate floor. In fact, I am more than happy to debate these various 
issues with some of my friends on the House Agriculture Committee--why 
setting high target prices, as they did, is the wrong direction for 
Congress to take and how the House should adopt the payment limit 
reforms the Senate has embraced, provisions of the farm bill in the 
Senate that I got included. I am sure many on the House Agriculture 
Committee would be more than happy to debate with me the merits of 
having a more balanced approach to where we find savings in the bill by 
taking an equal portion from the nutrition title and the farm-related 
titles. We should find more savings for sure than what is contained in 
the Senate-passed farm bill, including saving more out of the nutrition 
title, as the House Agriculture Committee has been able to do.
  But the fact is we have to keep moving the ball forward, regardless 
of how we feel about all these separate parts of a farm bill. We need 
to get to finality. We have a drought gripping this Nation and that is 
going to be tough on Americans. It is going to affect every American, 
not just the 2 percent of the people who are farmers, because it is 
going to cause food prices to go up. But the drought has drawn into 
focus just how important our farmers are to our food supply.
  Americans enjoy a safe and abundant food supply. That is because of 
the hard work and dedication of so many farming families throughout our 
country. Sometimes weather conditions or other events outside farmers' 
control can make it difficult to keep farming. Farmers aren't looking 
for a handout, but when faced with conditions such as a near-historic 
drought, many farmers may need assistance to get through. Men and women 
go into farming for all sorts of reasons, but at the heart of farming 
is the desire to be successful at producing an abundant crop to feed 
the Nation and the world.
  Farmers have many tools to manage their risks so they can keep 
producing food. They have adopted advanced technology such as drought-
resistant crops. Farmers buy crop insurance. In my State of Iowa, about 
92 percent of the farmers have crop insurance. Livestock farmers help 
animals manage heat by building climate-controlled buildings. But when 
faced with weather conditions such as we are currently dealing with, 
even the best laid plans may not keep the farming operation afloat. 
That is where the Federal Government comes in. We help provide a safety 
net.
  Let me say just how that drought affects crops. I just read in the 
newspaper something put out by some government agency that said about 
55 percent of the landmass of the United States is in a drought 
condition right now. In my State of Iowa and many other Midwestern 
States, on an average of about 22 years, we face drought situations 
that are catastrophic for crops. Actually, the last one was in 1988, so 
now we are having one in my State of Iowa and that is 24 years. But, on 
average, it happens about that long. So we see the need for something 
that is beyond farmers' control. We can't do anything if it doesn't 
rain when it is supposed to rain, and right now is one of those most 
important times when crops need rain. So why do we provide the safety 
net? Because the American people understand how important the 
production of food is to our food supply and farmers doing that 
production.
  It is a matter of national security. It has been said we are only 
nine meals away from a revolution. If people were without food, this 
argument goes, they would do whatever it takes to get food for 
themselves and their families. It has only been 3 years, I believe, in 
some places in the world where they had riots that were national 
problems--not just local problems but national problems--because of a 
shortage of rice. That is a staple in many countries; I suppose 
particularly of Asia. So we have to have a stable food supply if we are 
not going to have social upheaval.
  The need for food can also be illustrated by looking at military 
history. In other words, a food supply is very important for our 
national security. It may be a joke, but Napoleon supposedly said ``an 
army marches on its stomachs.'' But we also know from modern history, 
if we consider World War II on this very day, 60 or 70 years after 
World War II, why the Japanese and the Germans protect their farmers so 
much with safety nets of various sorts. Because they know what it was 
like during wartime not to have adequate food as a part of national 
security. A well-fed military is one ready to fight and to defend.
  There is nothing more basic than making sure the Nation's food supply 
is secure, whether it is to prevent social upheaval or for our national 
security or maybe for a lot of other reasons. In order to have 
stability in our food system, we need to have the safety net available 
to assist farmers through the tough times so they can keep producing 
food.
  I have not always agreed with the policies set in each and every farm 
bill Congress has passed--of the eight I have been involved in. In 
fact, there have been times in which I voted against individual farm 
bills because I didn't agree with the policy being set. However, I 
support, to a large extent, what we accomplished in the Senate-passed 
farm bill last month. Obviously,

[[Page 12123]]

I didn't agree with everything, particularly with the lack of savings 
we captured from the nutrition title. But, for the most part, we passed 
a bill that embraced real reform in the farm program that still 
provides an effective safety net.
  Whether it is the Senate bill that cut back $23 billion from the 
present farm program or whether it is the House bill that seems to cut 
back $35 billion, I will bet this is the only piece of legislation that 
can possibly get to the President's desk this year that is going to 
save money rather than if it had just been simply extended. I would 
think people who want to set a record of fiscal conservatism for the 
upcoming election would be very anxious to take up a bill the 
Congressional Budget Office says saves either $23 billion or $35 
billion.
  So I say mostly to the other body, because right now that is where 
the action is and where we hope it will take place, we should not delay 
any longer. The farm bill is too important to all Americans to leave it 
in limbo. We need to get a farm bill to the President. The farm bill is 
approximately 80 percent nutrition programs. Most of the people who 
benefit are not farmers. Then, the other 20 percent is a safety net for 
farmers but also for all the programs the Department of Agriculture 
administers.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, before I go into the closing business, 
let me say I had the pleasure of presiding in this body during the 
remarks that were just made by the distinguished chairman of the 
Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, the 
distinguished ranking member of that committee, Senator Collins of 
Maine, and the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee and, 
until recently, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator 
Rockefeller of West Virginia.
  I simply want, briefly, to add my voice to theirs and echo the three 
points they emphasized: One, we absolutely must take action on 
cybersecurity; two, it is a genuine and undeniable matter of our 
American national security; and, three, we cannot claim to have done 
the job, we cannot claim to even have attempted the job seriously if we 
do not address the question of the critical infrastructure on which 
American life and our economy depend that is in private hands and, 
therefore, cannot be protected under the existing regime in place 
protecting our government and military networks. We have to solve that 
problem. Anything that does not solve that problem is a clear failure 
of our duty, as national security experts from Republican and 
Democratic administrations alike have very clearly explained.

                          ____________________