[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12975-13010]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


     VETERANS JOBS CORPS ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored and grateful to follow 
that very enlightening and energetic exchange between two of the most 
able and respected Members of this body on a range of issues.
  One of them I want to address now, and I want to particularly thank 
the Presiding Officer for his contribution, my distinguished friend 
from Minnesota, who has really addressed so instructively some of the 
privacy concerns in various proposals in an amendment I have joined. I 
think his work on that issue is really reflective of the approach that 
has been brought to this issue of cyber security--an issue that this 
entire body, in my view, has a historic opportunity and also a historic 
obligation to address this week, deal with it now authoritatively and 
effectively and in a way that the Nation expects us to do it.
  I thank not only the Presiding Officer but a bipartisan group of 
colleagues, beginning with Senators Lieberman, Collins, Rockefeller, 
Feinstein, and Carper, who deserve our appreciation for drafting this 
bill and bringing it to the floor, and a number of other colleagues, 
including, along with the Presiding Officer, Senators Whitehouse, 
Mikulski, Coons, Coats, Blunt, Akaka, and Kyl. I mention this number 
because I think it is an important fact about the process that has 
brought us to this point. It really reflects the kind of collegial 
approach that is so important to this legislation.
  This legislation has undergone very significant and substantial 
revisions to reflect suggestions made by myself and our colleagues, and 
this bill will give the government and private sector an opportunity to 
collaborate and share information so that they can confront the 
ongoing, present, urgent cyber threat directly and immediately.
  This bill is not a top-down approach; it is voluntary in its 
direction to the private sector. What it says to critical industries--
industries that are critical to our infrastructure--is that you 
determine what the best practices are, you tell us what the standards 
should be, and then those standards will be shared throughout the 
industry and overseen by a council that the Departments of Commerce and 
Justice and Defense and Homeland Security will be involved in 
implementing. And if companies comply with those standards--voluntary 
standards--they receive benefits that will enlist them in the program, 
benefits that will form incentives in the form of limited immunity in 
the event of an attack. If companies decline to comply, if they are not 
provided with sufficient incentives, in their judgment, there is no 
compulsion, no legal mandate that they need to do so. To use an often 
overused imagery, what we are talking about here is a carrot, not a 
stick, in solving one of the most pressing and threatening challenges 
our country faces today. It is the challenge of this moment, the 
challenge of our time.
  I have been in briefings, as has been the Presiding Officer and other 
Members of this body, with members of the intelligence community and 
others who have, in stark and staggering

[[Page 12976]]

terms, presented to us the potential consequences of failing to act.
  Just last week, GEN Keith Alexander, the chief of the U.S. Cyber 
Command and the Director of the National Security Agency, said that 
intrusions on our essential infrastructure have increased 17-fold 
between 2009 and 2011 and that it is only a matter of time before 
physical damage will result. He has said that the loss of industrial 
information and intellectual property--putting aside the physical 
threat and taking only the economic damage--is ``the greatest transfer 
of wealth in history.''
  We are permitting with impunity the greatest transfer of wealth in 
history from the United States of America to adversaries abroad, 
companies based overseas, at a time when every Member of this body says 
our priority should be jobs and protecting the economy of this country. 
It is an economic issue, not just a national security issue. In fact, 
cyber security is national security.
  The United States is literally under attack every day. General 
Alexander described 200 attacks on critical infrastructure within the 
past year. He alluded to them without describing them in detail. And on 
a scale of 1 to 10, he said our preparedness for a large-scale cyber 
attack--shutting down the stock exchange or a blackout on the scale 
comparable to the one in India within the past few days--is around a 3 
on a scale of 1 to 10. That situation is unacceptable.
  We are, in a certain way, in a period of time now that is comparable 
to 1993, after the first World Trade Center bombing. Remember, in 1993 
the World Trade Center--1,336 pounds of explosives were placed in a 
critical area of the World Trade Center, killing 6 people, injuring 
1,000, fortunately, at that point, failing to bring down the building, 
which was the objective. That first bombing was a warning as well as a 
tragedy. America, even more tragically, disregarded that warning in 
failing to act. We are in that period now, comparable to 1993 and 
before 9/11, when the country could have acted and neglected to do so. 
We cannot repeat that failure now. We cannot disregard the day-to-day 
attacks, the serious intrusions that are stealing our wealth and 
endangering our security, our critical grid, transportation, water 
treatment, electricity, and financial system. The scale of damage that 
could be done is horrific, comparable to what 9/11 did. We have an 
obligation to act before that kind of damage is faced in reality by the 
country.
  We have been adequately and eloquently warned on the floor of this 
body, in private briefings available to Members of this body, and in 
the public press, to some extent. One of the frustrations I think many 
of us feel is that we cannot share some of the classified briefings we 
have received which would depict in even more graphic and dramatic 
terms what this Nation faces. Some of these attacks are launched by 
foreign countries that seek to do us harm. Some are launched by 
domestic criminals who simply want to steal money. Some are 
sophisticated and some are very crude.
  Former Deputy Secretary William Lynch has detailed just one attack in 
which a foreign computer hacker--or group of them--stole 24,000 U.S. 
military files in March of 2011. As others have noted on the floor as 
recently as a few minutes ago, in late 2011 the computers of the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce were completely compromised for more than a year by 
hackers. Yet today the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has essentially opposed 
the voluntary standards-based plan to help secure our Nation against 
attack. In fact, how extraordinary it is that certain parts of this 
bill have actually combined a consensus among the business community, 
the privacy advocates, as well as public officials, the National 
Security Agency. That consensus on privacy, again, reflects a profound 
and extraordinary feature of this bill, which is that we are coming 
together as a nation to face a common problem in a way that is demanded 
by the times and threats we face.
  Shawn Henry, the Executive Assistant Director of the FBI, has said 
that ``the cyber threat is an existential one, meaning that a major 
cyber attack could potentially wipe out whole companies.'' That is the 
reason the business community has been involved and should support 
these proposals.
  These attacks are not only ongoing, they have been occurring for 
years. These criminals are infiltrating our communications, accessing 
our secrets, and sapping our economic health through thefts of 
intellectual property.
  Finally, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, as has been frequently 
quoted, said:

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

  The panoply of harm is staggering, and we cannot wait for that harm 
to be a reality to this country. The consequences comparable to 9/11 
are tragic to contemplate. FBI Director Mueller has said the cyber 
threat, which cuts across all programs, will be the No. 1 threat to our 
country.
  FBI Director Mueller speaks the truth. We must make sure our 
government has the tools and authority they have asked for. The NSA, 
the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, our 
business community and privacy advocates are all united in feeling this 
threat must be confronted. We have the opportunity but we also have a 
historic obligation to make sure we move this bill and that it moves 
forward so we do not squander this opportunity.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                       Thanking Katharine Beamer

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, if I might, let me first thank Katharine 
Beamer for her service to the Senate and to the American people. She 
has been an incredibly valuable part of my staff, detailed from the 
Department of State to my Senate office. She has helped me deal with 
preparations for my responsibility, as the Presiding Officer knows, 
while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as we deal with 
the confirmation of ambassadors. It is important to be adequately 
prepared to deal with the many foreign visitors who come to our office 
and to deal with foreign policy issues.
  I particularly want to thank her for her help in the so-called 
Magnitsky bill, a bill that passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee and has been also supported in the Senate Finance Committee. 
She has been a critical part of our team in developing the necessary 
support so that bill could move forward.
  I want to thank her for her help on the Cardin-Lugar provisions that 
provide transparency among mineral companies so we can trace the 
resources of developing countries, allowing those resources to benefit 
the strength of a country's economy rather than become a curse.
  And I want to thank Katharine Beamer for her help on a lot of human 
rights issues she has been involved with, including the issue of Alan 
Gross.
  Senator Durbin has spoken on the floor and has brought to our 
attention the human rights violations of a Marylander who is today in a 
prison in Cuba. Alan Gross was providing help to a small Jewish 
community in Cuba. He wasn't doing it in any secret manner. He was 
trying to provide them a better opportunity to communicate with the 
Internet. He was very open about what he was doing in Cuba and was 
doing it in order to advance the ability of a community to keep in 
touch around the world.
  As a result of that activity, Alan Gross, a Marylander, was arrested 
and imprisoned, tried and convicted, and sentenced to 15 years in 
prison. His appeal to the Cuban Supreme Court was denied in August of 
2011. For the past 2\1/2\ years, since December 3, 2009, Alan Gross has 
been imprisoned in Cuba--over 2\1/2\ years.
  Throughout my legislative career, I have worked hard to improve the 
relationship between Cuba and the United States, particularly among the 
people of Cuba and the people of the United States. I have worked on 
ways to ease certain restrictions so we can improve

[[Page 12977]]

the climate between our two countries. But what the Cuban Government is 
doing today in continuing to imprison Alan Gross is absolutely 
outrageous. It violates international human rights standards and it is 
against any sense of humanity.
  I am going to continue to speak out about it and urge the Cuban 
authorities to do what is right. This has gained international 
attention and there have been efforts made by other dignitaries from 
other countries to try to get Alan Gross's case heard in a proper 
manner. I particularly want to acknowledge Senator Durbin's 
extraordinary leadership on this issue. Senator Durbin took the time, 
when he was in Cuba, to meet with Alan Gross. I have been with Senator 
Durbin when we have met with Alan Gross's family. I have been with 
Senator Durbin when we have tried to engage other international 
diplomats to implore the Cuban authorities on a humanitarian basis to 
release Alan Gross.
  There was no reason for his arrest. There was no reason for his 
conviction. There is no reason for his being in prison today. But one 
doesn't have to get too much involved in that issue to suggest that the 
Cuban authorities should release Alan Gross on a humanitarian basis. I 
say that because his health is in question. Alan's health has steadily 
deteriorated during his imprisonment. He has lost over 100 pounds, 
suffers from a multitude of medical conditions, including gout, ulcers, 
and arthritis, that have worsened without adequate treatment.
  Of equal concern as his own health are the conditions of his beloved 
mother and daughter, both of whom are suffering from cancer. The Gross 
family should not have to suffer through another day of this desperate 
situation without Alan at home for support.
  So for all those reasons, we speak out today to once again urge the 
Cuban authorities to do the right thing as far as human rights and 
their legal system and release Alan Gross. They should do the right 
thing from a humanitarian point of view and let Alan Gross come home to 
his beloved family so he can be supportive of them during this 
difficult time in their lives. We urge them to do the right thing so we 
can have a better relationship between the people of Cuba and the 
people of the United States. They should release Alan Gross because it 
is the right thing to do.
  We are going to continue to speak out about this. I know many of us 
have looked for different ways in which to help the Gross family and we 
will continue to do that. But the simple, right thing for the Cuban 
authorities is to release Alan Gross today, and we urge them to do 
that.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from 
West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Financial Strength

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to announce a rare 
opportunity for the people of my State, who care so much about the 
future of our country.
  When I travel all around my beautiful State of West Virginia, one of 
the biggest concerns I hear from the people is simply that our Nation's 
finances are in such bad shape we could be the first generation that 
leaves this country and leaves our next generation in worse shape than 
we received it.
  I am determined to make sure that doesn't happen, and I am sure the 
Presiding Officer is as well. I am determined to bring people together 
to fix our finances and put this country back on the right path. I am 
also determined that all our children and grandchildren will be able to 
live a more fulfilling and prosperous life than we do.
  But we are running out of easy options to put our country's financial 
house in order. And every day we delay a big fix, the price will be 
higher, the changes will be more painful, and the choices will be more 
stark. With our country's finances so far out of control, all of the 
priorities we all care about--whether it is creating jobs, maintaining 
the best military in the world, keeping the core of vital programs such 
as Social Security, or educating the next generation--are in jeopardy.
  If we care about rebuilding America--investing in our highways and 
our roads, our airports, our water and sewer systems--we cannot do it 
if we don't pay for it. If we care about creating jobs and giving our 
businesses certainty, we can't do that either if we can't pay for it. 
And if we care about educating the next generation and preparing this 
generation with the skill sets they need for the jobs of today and 
tomorrow, we can't do it if we can't pay for it.
  If we care about having an energy policy that uses all of our 
domestic resources in the cleanest possible manner; if we care about 
developing technology for clean coal; if we care about finally ending 
our dependence on foreign oil from hostile countries, we can't do it if 
we can't pay for it.
  If we care about having the best military in the world, one that can 
defend the liberty of this great Nation at home and, where needed, 
abroad, we simply can't do it if we can't pay for it.
  If we care about helping the vulnerable, the sick, the weak, and 
keeping our vital core promises--such as Social Security, Medicare, 
Medicaid, and Head Start--we simply can't do it if we can't pay for it.
  Any nation that wants to be a strong nation, that wants to invest in 
its priorities and wants to leave the country in better shape for the 
next generation cannot be shackled by crippling debt. If the Federal 
Government can't get its financial houses in order, the hard truth is 
all these priorities I spoke about will be slashed--sooner than any of 
us would like to admit.
  Whether we consider ourselves a Democrat, a Republican, an 
Independent, or we have no affiliation at all; whether we consider 
ourselves a liberal, a conservative, or a centrist--wherever we fall in 
the spectrum--none of the priorities we care about on all those sides 
can happen unless we can pay for it. The old saying is as true today as 
it ever has been: You can't help others if you're not strong enough to 
help yourself.
  It is time to make America strong again.
  Let me give some troubling figures that illustrate how bad it has 
gotten: The debt hole we have dug for ourselves now equals the entire 
amount of goods this country produces; in other words, our gross 
domestic product. That hasn't happened since 1947.
  Think of the next group of lawmakers who will be sitting where we sit 
in 2033, which is just around the corner. They are going to have to 
look Americans in the eye and tell them the Social Security check they 
are receiving will only be 75 percent of what is owed to them. They 
will have to say it is because the group who came before us didn't do 
their job.
  Think of 10 years from now, truly around the corner, when every man, 
woman, and child in this country will owe more than $79,000 to pay off 
our national debt. Today it is about $50,700, which is way too high, 
but it is only going to get worse if we don't do our job and fix it.
  There are 3 million jobs going unfulfilled in this country because 
they say the workforce doesn't have the right skills in order to 
perform those jobs, and our unemployment rate has been the highest for 
the longest period of time. That is not acceptable.
  Who exactly is supposed to pay for all this debt? If we do the math, 
the picture isn't pretty. We are not balancing our budget, we are not 
training people for the jobs of the future, and we are leaving our 
children and grandchildren a massive debt that, as of today, equals the 
entire economic production of this great Nation.
  To me, however we do the math--even if we use funny Washington 
accounting tricks--this situation adds up to a train wreck at best. I 
am determined to prevent this oncoming train wreck, and I will do all I 
can, working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I have said 
people back home didn't send me to Washington to put the next 
generation into more debt. They sent me to, hopefully, help get them 
out of debt.
  Putting this country back on the right path will hurt, but we have to 
be

[[Page 12978]]

willing to come together across party lines. We have to determine our 
highest priorities and make tough choices. That is what the people of 
West Virginia sent me to do, not to cater to any one special interest 
group.
  There are plenty of politicians who will talk about fixing the 
problem, who will pay lip service to coming up with a plan, who will 
talk a good game--what we call talk the talk--but can't walk the walk. 
But in the end, the problem will continue to fester if we don't do 
something.
  I am not one of those politicians who can turn a blind eye to our 
debt and walk away from it. The people of West Virginia expect more. 
They expect me to make hard choices and work with both Democrats and 
Republicans to do the right thing for our State. No matter how hard it 
will be to fix our problems--and it is clear everyone will need to have 
a little skin in the game and share these sacrifices--I am determined 
to do it.
  But no Senator--no matter how committed they may be--can do it alone. 
That is why I am so pleased to announce that two of the Nation's 
greatest financial leaders will be coming to West Virginia to hold an 
open forum with the people of our State about the future of our 
finances, and we call that ``Our Finances and Our Future.'' Former 
Senator Alan Simpson, a Republican from Wyoming, and Mr. Erskine 
Bowles, a Democrat who is the former White House Chief of Staff under 
President Bill Clinton, are two of the toughest and smartest people in 
this country when it comes to our finances.
  Since I have been here, the most bipartisan effort to fix our 
finances has been led by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. They were 
asked to head the President's National Commission on Fiscal 
Responsibility and Reform. It was bipartisan when it began, it has 
stayed bipartisan all this time, and it has grown with the number of 
Senators from both sides of the aisle who understand we need a big fix 
that comes from both sides of the aisle in a bipartisan way.
  Bowles and Simpson paint a grim picture about the problems we are 
facing. In December of 2010, they laid out a serious blueprint for a 
solution--one that isn't perfect but that has earned more support from 
members of both parties than anything else that has been proposed in 
Washington.
  Since then, too many of our leaders have put their heads in the sand 
about this proposal and the choices we face. But West Virginia is 
different from most of the States. We welcome the hard truth because we 
know we have to face the truth. Believe me, we can handle the truth in 
West Virginia.
  On September 10, West Virginians will have an opportunity to hear 
some truth telling. I am so proud that Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles 
will hold a forum, ``Our Finances and Our Future: A Bipartisan 
Conversation about the Facts,'' at our magnificent cultural center. 
They will present the facts--and there is no doubt the facts are dire--
and lay out the magnitude of the problem we face, and then we will talk 
about solutions. It is a rare opportunity to have a frank bipartisan 
conversation about the grave conditions of our Nation's finances.
  I am inviting all West Virginians--be it business, labor, senior 
groups, the young people who are expected to pay off our debt, and 
anyone else with an interest in our future--to come and participate in 
this session. We will talk about what this framework will do, which is 
to find the balance between revenue and spending, fundamentally 
changing our Tax Code and cutting spending. In short, it will make our 
system more fair.
  Let's look first at the Tax Code. There are some Americans who, 
because of their connections and ability to hire lobbyists, have 
manipulated our Tax Code so they get special tax breaks. That is not 
right. Too many corporations that depend on the strength of this great 
Nation--as has been noted, such as G.E.--are paying nothing or 
virtually nothing in taxes. That is wrong. It is not right.
  We need to make our tax system more fair and straightforward. The 
bipartisan Bowles-Simpson plan would end many of those loopholes and 
lower tax rates for everyone. When it comes to our spending, right now 
in this country we spend so much more than we can afford. I know so 
many Americans who tell me they would be more than happy to pay more--
if we were using it in the right direction--to pay down our debt and to 
invest in infrastructure.
  But we are not spending well. I have always said public servants can 
do one or two things with public tax money: We can either spend it or 
invest it. Frankly, we have been doing too much spending and not enough 
investing.
  Our annual deficit--the amount we spend versus the amount we take 
in--is about $1.2 trillion this year alone. Looking into the future, if 
nothing changes, we will have deficits every year for the next decade. 
No one can tell me we can sustain that pace and still afford Social 
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defending this Nation, and educating our 
children. The math doesn't add up. The bipartisan Bowles-Simpson 
framework addresses this by cutting more than $2 trillion for our 
spending over the next decade.
  After we address our spending and our Tax Code, guess what happens. 
Our interest payments--the amount we are spending every year just for 
the privilege of borrowing money from countries such as China to 
finance our day-to-day operations--will go down nearly $700 billion 
over the next 10 years.
  That is the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson framework. Yes, it will have 
some painful cuts, and, yes, everyone will have to share in the 
sacrifice. But because the pain is spread out, no one takes too deep a 
hit. That is why I believe this proposed blueprint is the only plan 
that has garnered any real show of bipartisan interest from the 
beginning of its inception to today.
  When I became Governor of the great State of West Virginia, our State 
finances were in a tough place. We had to make very hard choices about 
our priorities, and not everyone was happy with those decisions. Seven 
or eight years ago, people believed West Virginia was hopeless; that we 
would always be challenged; that our finances would always be on the 
brink; that we wouldn't be able to invest in our priorities; that our 
economy would always be stagnant; that our credit ratings would always 
be miserably low; that we wouldn't be able to turn any of that around.
  But I will tell you what. At the end of my term, we had lowered tax 
rates, reduced our food tax, ended our fiscal years with a budget 
surplus each and every year, and increased our credit rating three 
times in 3 years during the greatest recession because we put our 
priorities based on our values of what was important to West Virginia. 
Together, we weathered the recession better than 45 States. We are 
finally getting the last piece of our puzzle in place with a fix to the 
retirement system.
  I can tell you this: I am not talking about fixing our Nation's 
finances from some ivory tower, from some rigid ideological position. I 
am talking about this country's finances because I know how much it 
costs all of us to live in debt. I know the burden of high interest 
payments and the way it robs us of the opportunity to pay for more 
important priorities. I know how much stronger this country will be 
when we manage our debt. I know because we came together in West 
Virginia and improved the quality of life in our State, and I know we 
can do it together in this country.
  The truth is, Democrats don't have a lock on good ideas and neither 
do Republicans. But with less than 100 days to go before the election, 
we are not going to hear many Democrats giving Republicans any credit 
and we won't hear many Republicans acknowledging that Democrats have 
anything to bring to the table.
  That is a true shame. We will not fix our problems with a go-it-alone 
attitude because the only way America has ever solved our problems is 
to put partisanship aside and come together for the good of this great 
Nation.
  Put America first. The West Virginia fiscal summit is just one honest 
way we can take an important step toward, coming together to solve our 
problems

[[Page 12979]]

and one more way for the people of West Virginia to show this great 
Nation that we can--and will--do the heavy lifting it will take to put 
this country back on the right track.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.


                        Renewable Fuels Standard

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the president and CEO of Smithfield 
Foods, Larry Pope, took to the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal 
again to blame all that ails him on the renewable fuels standard for 
ethanol.
  Some may recall he did the same thing back in April 2010 when 
commodity prices were rising. At that time, he perpetuated a smear 
campaign and blamed ethanol in an attempt to deflect blame for rising 
food prices while boosting Smithfield's profits. With this newspaper 
article, he is back at it again.
  I start by referring to Mr. Pope as Henny Penny from the children's 
folktale ``Chicken Little.'' Every time Smithfield has to pay a little 
more to America's corn farmers to feed his hogs, Mr. Pope starts with 
the same argument that the sky is falling, and it is all ethanol's 
fault.
  Mr. Pope's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal might lead some 
to believe he is very knowledgeable about the ethanol industry. But 
there are many areas of ethanol he doesn't know much about.
  He continues to perpetuate the myth that ethanol production consumes 
40 percent of the U.S. corn crop. Mr. Pope states: ``Ethanol now 
consumes more corn than animal agriculture does.''
  Everyone with a basic understanding of a livestock farm--even a 
kernel of corn--or of an ethanol plant knows that is not a true 
statement. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 37 percent 
of the corn crop is used in producing ethanol. But--and a very 
important but--the value of corn does not simply vanish when ethanol is 
produced.
  One-third of the corn--that is, 18 pounds out of every 56-pound 
bushel--reenters the market as a high-value animal feed called dried 
distillers grain. I would imagine millions of hogs raised by our farms 
every year are fed a diet containing this ethanol coproduct. For sure 
it is a very big feed product for cattle. Of course, Mr. Pope appears 
to be unaware of its existence.
  When the distillers grains are factored in; that is, 18 pounds out of 
the 56 pounds that is left over after you make ethanol, 43 percent of 
the corn supply is available for animal feed. Only 28 percent is used 
for ethanol--unlike the 40 percent Mr. Pope says. This is the 
inconvenient truth of ethanol detractors. They prefer to live in a 
bubble where they believe ethanol is diverting corn from livestock use. 
That is just not the case.
  Mr. Pope also proclaims that ``ironically, if the ethanol mandate did 
not exist, even this year's drought-depleted corn crop would have been 
more than enough to meet the requirements for livestock feed and food 
production at decent prices.''
  I would like to ask Mr. Pope why he thinks that is the case. Why did 
farmers plant 96 million acres of corn this year when normally they 
would plant between 86 and 88 million acres of corn? Why have seed 
producers spent millions to develop better yielding and drought-
resistant traits so we can produce more corn on less acres? The answer 
is simple: Because this gigantic industry of ethanol is there to 
consume more corn and more production on each acre.
  If not for ethanol, it is very clear farmers wouldn't have planted 96 
million acres of corn this year because those are more acres of corn 
than farmers have planted in this country since 1938. Without ethanol, 
I doubt we would have seen investment in higher yielding and more 
drought-tolerant corn plants by our seed corn companies.
  I happen to think Mr. Pope is an intelligent man, but he is woefully 
uninformed on the issue of what the ethanol industry and the demand for 
corn has done for the size and genetic improvement of the corn crop. It 
is easy to understand Smithfield's motives. They benefit from an 
abundant supply of corn, just not the competing demand for it.
  What is Smithfield's primary problem? Again, the answer is simple: 
cost and profit. They still want to pay $2 for a bushel for corn. This 
is an important point that I hope people understand. For nearly 30 
years, until about 2005, companies such as Smithfield had the luxury of 
buying corn below the cost of production. Corn prices remained for 
about 30 years between $1.50 a bushel and $3 a bushel. Farmers 
routinely lost money. The Federal Government then provided economic 
support for the farmers. Producers such as Smithfield had the best of 
both worlds. They were able to buy corn below the cost of production, 
and they were able to let the Federal Government subsidize their 
business by guaranteeing a cheap supply of corn.
  In the view of corporate livestock producers, subsidies are fine--if 
they allow them to buy corn below the cost of production. Anybody could 
look like a genius with that sort of a business model.
  Mr. Pope also continues to overstate the impact of corn prices on the 
consumer. Agriculture Secretary Vilsack recently stated that farmers 
receive about 14 cents of every dollar spent on food at the grocery 
store. Farmers get 14 percent and everybody else gets 86 percent, yet 
the farmers of America are the problem? It happens that that 14 cents 
works out to be about 3 cents of that 14 cents is because of corn.
  A research economist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently 
stated that a 50-percent increase in the price of corn will raise the 
total grocery shopping bill by about 1 percent. To put it in 
perspective, the value of corn in a $4 box of corn flakes is about 10 
cents.
  Mr. Pope also exaggerated the impact of ethanol on food prices in 
2010, and he is doing it again. He is using the devastating drought 
that we now have--over 62 percent of the country and worse in the 
Midwest, of Iowa where I live--to once again undermine our Nation's 
food, feed, and fuel producers, and he is doing it--why? To make more 
money.
  Repealing the renewable fuel standard will not bolster Smithfield's 
profits. Because of the flexibility built into the renewable fuels 
mandate, a waiver will not significantly reduce corn prices. A recent 
study by Professor Bruce Babcock, Iowa State University, found that a 
complete waiver of the renewable fuel standard--that is what the 
mandate is called--might reduce the corn prices by only 4.6 percent. 
That report goes on to state:

       The desire by livestock groups to see the additional 
     flexibility in ethanol mandates may not result in as large a 
     drop in feed costs as hoped.

  They continue:

     . . . the flexibility built into the Renewable Fuels Standard 
     allowing obligated parties to carry over blending credits 
     from previous years, significantly lowers the economic impact 
     of a short crop, because it introduces flexibility into that 
     mandate.

  The drought is enormous in both scale and severity. But we will not 
know the true impact until September when harvest begins. The latest 
estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture indicate an average 
yield of 146 bushels per acre. That would result in a harvest of 13 
billion bushels. This would still be one of the largest corn harvests.
  I suggest those claiming that the sky is falling withhold their call 
for waiving or repealing the renewable fuel standard. It is a premature 
action that will not produce desired results and it would increase our 
dependence upon foreign oil and it would drive up prices at the pump 
for consumers.
  On another point with regard to taxes and the proposals around the 
Hill to increase taxes, I want to say that over the past few years my 
colleagues on the other side have come to the floor repeatedly to 
present a revisionist story regarding the fiscal history of the last 
two decades. On several occasions I have come to the floor to refute 
this history. Yet, again and again, the other side continues to present 
the same distorted facts, including lots of speeches last week.
  The general misguided argument is that all of the economic and fiscal 
success of the 1990s is thanks to big tax increases by the Clinton 
administration

[[Page 12980]]

and the 2001 and 2003 bipartisan tax relief is responsible for all of 
our economic ills and fiscal problems.
  Neither of these claims is supported by facts or a basic 
understanding of economics. I will begin with the Clinton tax increase 
to which people are giving so much credit. Many on the other side of 
the aisle argue that the Clinton tax increases are proof that tax 
increases will not harm our economy today--when they have even heard 
their own President say otherwise several times, until recently, that 
you should not increase taxes when you have a depression. These people 
frequently ask, ``If our economy grew in the 1990s with higher marginal 
tax rates, how can it be bad to raise marginal taxes to these former 
levels?'' Engrained in this argument is the assertion that tax hikes 
can actually be good for our economy.
  This assertion fails to take into account numerous economic factors 
that occurred alongside the Clinton tax increases. The fact is that the 
economy grew not because of the 1993 tax increases but despite them.
  The economy of the mid-1990s is a result of economic conditions that 
we may never see again. It was a time of great economic expansion due 
in large part to the advent of the Internet economy. The Internet 
spawned new technologies and created efficiencies in our economy that 
have never been matched. In turn, these new technologies and 
efficiencies spurred startup businesses and new industries. Many seem 
to forget the huge Y2K fear that gripped the Nation, causing billions 
and billions in spending that helped prop up what became the infamous 
Internet bubble that blew up on all of us. Nevertheless, before the 
bubble burst these factors led to historically low unemployment and 
high workforce participation. Claiming that this was due to Clinton tax 
increases is equal to Vice President Gore claiming that he invented the 
Internet.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be hard-pressed to 
find many economic studies indicating tax increases are stimulative. 
The focus of economic research in this area is not about whether tax 
increases are harmful or beneficial to the economy. Rather, the focus 
seems to be on the degree to which tax increases are very harmful to 
the economy. Admittedly, there are wide variations in views of 
economists on the responsiveness of individuals and businesses to 
taxes. However, even studies by economists who can hardly be labeled as 
conservative have concluded that tax increases have a significant 
negative effect on the economy.
  For instance, a 2007 study by Christina Romer, President Obama's 
former chief economist, found ``tax increases are highly 
contractionary,'' and ``have very large effects on output.''
  In fact, this study found that a tax increase of 1 percent of gross 
domestic product could lower real GDP by at least 3 percent.
  Another likely contributor to the growth of the 1990s was a peace 
dividend we reaped from the end of the Cold War. We have Ronald 
Reagan's staredown of the Soviet Union to thank for that phenomenon. 
The end of the Cold War allowed for a reduction of government spending 
as a percent of GDP. Coupled with priorities pushed by the Republican-
led Congress to reach a balanced budget and to reform welfare, spending 
as a percentage of GDP dropped to its lowest point in 30 years. With 
the Government spending less of the people's money, more was left in 
the hands of the private sector. This allowed the private sector to 
innovate, to invest, and eventually create jobs. The peace dividend is 
also the largest contributor to reining in deficits in the 1990s.
  The biggest source of deficit reduction, 35 percent, came from the 
reduction of defense spending. The next biggest source of deficit 
reduction, 32 percent, came from other revenue because of a growing 
economy. Another 15 percent came from interest savings.
  Let's get to the Clinton tax increase in reducing deficits. The 
Clinton tax increase, on the other hand, only accounted for 13 percent 
of the deficit reduction--only 13 percent.
  There are further factors that contributed to the economic growth of 
the 1990s, including the expansion of free trade in the 1997 reduction 
in the capital gains tax rate. However, in the interest of time I am 
going to go on to other issues. One thing is clear, though, from this 
period of the 1990s. The economic growth of that time was not thanks to 
the Clinton tax increase nor was it a major player in bringing our 
deficit into balance.
  Today we cannot rely on the unique economic conditions we experienced 
during that decade of the 1990s, some of which were artificial, to 
buttress the negative effects of the tax increase. In fact, we are in 
the middle of one of the worst economic eras since the Great 
Depression. Unemployment has remained above 8 percent now for over 41 
straight months, almost 3\1/2\ years, in other words. Economic growth 
has been anemic.
  Each passing day economic indicators are pointing more and more to 
the chance of a double-dip worldwide recession. Last Wednesday it was 
reported that Great Britain's economy contracted at the rate of .7 
percent. Then on Friday it was reported that our own economy is 
stalling. Real GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.5 percent, 
continuing its downward trend for three straight quarters. In a recent 
blog post, Nobel Laureate economist Gary Becker addressed the question 
of whether raising taxes on high-income earners is a very good idea. In 
his post, Professor Becker entertained arguments--these were arguments 
by the supporters of the tax increases--by hypothesizing that there is 
a 50-50 chance that higher taxes on the so-called rich would damage the 
economy.
  Of course I believe, as does Professor Becker, that in reality this 
chance is much higher than 50-50. However, even granting the other side 
this generous assumption he concluded the benefit of raising taxes was 
outweighed by the potential damage they would cause. According to 
Professor Becker, even if richer individuals only slightly reduce their 
work hours and reduce their effort at work, the gain in tax revenue 
from these individuals would not be great. In contrast, ``the costs to 
the economy in the chance that higher taxes greatly discourage their 
efforts is likely to be substantial in terms of fewer hours worked and 
less work effort by high-income individuals, reduced incentives to 
start businesses, less investment in their human capital, investing 
abroad rather than in [this country] . . . and even migration abroad.''
  Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are pushing billions 
of dollars in tax increases. Last week they voted to increase taxes on 
nearly 1 million flowthrough businesses. Their vote to increase taxes 
on job creators came on the heels of an Ernst and Young study detailing 
its ramifications. This study concluded that these proposed tax hikes--
on top of the 3.8-percent tax increase on dividends, interest, and 
capital gains that was added to pay for the health care reform bill--
would reduce our economic output by 1.3 percent. The Ernst and Young 
study also found that real aftertax wages would fall by 1.8 percent as 
a result of President Obama's policies.
  Even in the face of this information, my colleagues on the other side 
seem all too willing to gamble with the chance that our stalling 
economy can withstand such a hit. By doing this, they are playing 
Russian roulette with our economy.
  To my colleagues I ask: How certain are you that tax increases on job 
creators will not be damaging the economy? If you have any doubt, I 
suggest don't pull the trigger.
  I wish to shift gears a little bit to address the record of the 2001 
and 2003 tax relief. Just as a perfect storm of good economic 
conditions blew at the back of the Clinton administration, a perfect 
storm of bad economic conditions and unpredictable events blew in the 
face of the Bush administration.
  It is undisputed that at the end of the Clinton administration, the 
Congressional Budget Office was projecting a 10-year budget surplus of 
$5.6 billion. Keep in mind, though, that CBO's projection was based on 
assumptions that did not pan out.
  The CBO failed to predict the bursting of the tech bubble that was so 
beneficial in the previous years. CBO also

[[Page 12981]]

did not predict the September 11, 2001 tragedy that wreaked havoc on 
our economy.
  In reaction to the economic recession from these events, Congress 
enacted the bipartisan 2001 tax relief that cut tax rates across the 
board, providing tax relief to virtually all taxpayers. Then in 2003, 
Congress expedited this relief so the benefit of lower rates would take 
effect more quickly. This resulted in one of the shortest and 
shallowest economic recessions yet on record. The economy grew for 25 
straight quarters, making it the fourth longest period of economic 
expansion since 1930. Additionally, we had 47 straight months of 
private sector job gain.
  Moreover, the expanding economy led to higher than expected revenues. 
That is a fact. Revenue actually rose in the years following the tax 
relief bill, peaking at 18.5 percent of GDP in 2007, well above the 
historical average of around 18 percent.
  In fact, the Congressional Budget Office projects that if we extended 
all the 2001 and 2003 tax relief today, revenues would once again 
exceed the historical average. Under this scenario, the CBO projects 
that by 2022 revenues will reach 18.5 percent of GDP.
  From 2004 to 2007, the deficit also shrank from a high of $412 
billion to a low of $160 billion. That means the budget deficit was cut 
by more than half in 3 years. Given the trillion dollar deficits we are 
experiencing under President Obama, a deficit below $200 billion would 
be very welcome news. Yet CBO projects that even if all the tax 
increases in President Obama's budget were enacted, deficits would 
never drop below $500 billion in the 10-year period from 2013 to 2022.
  I will give President Obama credit when he says he took office in 
very tough economic times. The bursting of the housing bubble and the 
resulting financial crisis gave him a very high hill to climb, but any 
assertion the 2001 and 2003 tax relief is related to these events is 
without merit. There is plenty of blame to go around for the housing 
bubble. It was the culmination of housing policies spanning 
administrations of both parties. It was further fueled by the Federal 
Reserve providing historically low interest rates and cheap credit.
  However, the President's policies have failed at getting us out of 
this mess. The President's party passed the President's nearly $1 
trillion stimulus bill. He claimed this would keep the unemployment 
rate below 8 percent. However, the unemployment climbed to a high of 
10.1 percent and has never dropped below 8 percent during his almost 4 
years in office.
  The President's party also passed the health care bill, which the 
President sold as a job creator, and the financial reform bill that was 
supposed to fix our financial system. However, both of these bills, 
which the President signed, have actually turned out to be costly to 
our economy and a hindrance to job creation.
  Now President Obama appears ready to gamble with the economy. He 
appears to go all in on raising taxes on our Nation's job creators. In 
doing so, he is betting that raising taxes on the so-called wealthy 
will result in a political payoff exceeding the chance his actions will 
throw us back into recession. It is not so long ago that I remember the 
President saying what I have already referred to in this speech: ``You 
don't raise taxes in a recession.'' The President's statement is as 
true now it was then.
  Let's end the political theater of holding votes for the purpose of 
campaign ads. Let's instead actually do what the people sent us here to 
do. Let us not drive the American economy head long off the fiscal 
cliff.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
15 minutes on two subjects.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first of all, I rise today to address the 
important legislation pending before this body, S. 3414, the 
Cybersecurity Act of 2012. I followed this debate, and I want to 
particularly compliment Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, Senator 
Rockefeller, Senator Feinstein, and folks such as Senator Kyl and 
Senator Whitehouse who have been trying to find some common ground in 
this area. I hope at some point in the next day or so we will be able 
to proceed to this bill and have it fully debated.
  Many Senators bring different levels of expertise to this issue. As 
someone who spent 20 years in the technology field and in telecom in 
particular before entering government service, and has had the honor to 
serve for the last 3\1/2\ years on the Intelligence Committee, the 
Commerce Committee, and the Banking Committee, three of the committees 
that all immediately intersect with the challenges around cyber, I can 
add a bit of my perspective to this debate.
  Let me start with concerns that have been raised by some of the 
opponents to this legislation. In the area around cyber, we need to 
make sure we have appropriate information sharing. How do we set some 
standards? Who should enforce those standards? I think most all of us, 
and anyone who has looked into this area, would recognize it is not a 
question of when we are going to have a major cyber attack or if we are 
going to have a cyber attack, it is only a question of when. We have 
already--as has been reported in the press in a number of fashions--
been attacked on a daily basis by foreign agents, criminal elements, 
hackers who are constantly probing our country's cyber defenses on the 
public and private side. One of the reasons I think it is so important 
to move on this legislation soon is I have great fears that when we 
have a major cyber element or cyber attack, Congress may, as they have 
done so many times in the past, overreact because we didn't take action 
on something we knew was imminent.
  I do think this piece of legislation--and, candidly, I could have 
supported an even stronger piece of legislation--is a great first step 
in this area. I am going to come back in a moment to some amendments I 
hope to offer to this legislation to deal with some of the concerns 
other Members and folks have raised on this issue.
  Let's talk about why we need cyber legislation and why we need it 
now. Inaction is not a solution. Every national security expert--not 
just from the current administration but previous administrations, and 
most Members of Congress--agrees that the status quo is not 
sustainable. Over a 5-month period between October of 2011 and February 
of 2012, there were 50,000 cyber attacks on private and government 
networks. We are told between 2009 and 2011 attacks on U.S. 
infrastructure increased by a factor of 17.
  As more and more nations and rogue actors get more sophisticated with 
computer and technological knowledge, these numbers are going to grow 
exponentially. As the FBI has said, cyber espionage, computer crime, 
attacks on critical infrastructure will surpass terrorism as the No. 1 
threat facing the United States. Think how many things we have done 
appropriately in the previous administration and this administration in 
terms of homeland security to protect our Nation against the threat of 
terrorists. We now have the Director of the FBI saying the cyber threat 
will soon surpass terrorism in terms of a threat to our Nation.
  I know as a former businessman that we are already seeing 
manifestations of this threat in other areas. Intellectual property 
theft is one of the most insidious threats we face right now. A former 
FBI agent who specialized in counterintelligence and computer intrusion 
has said that in most cases companies don't realize they have been 
burned until years later when a foreign competitor puts out the very 
same product, only making it 30 percent cheaper. We have lost our 
manufacturing base in many ways. By not putting appropriate cyber 
protections in place, are we really prepared to lose our R&D base as 
well?
  Some say cyber is different. Cyber is different in certain ways, but 
in many ways it is similar. Just as we would never have a nuclear 
facility without guards and a wall and a fence or--I see

[[Page 12982]]

my good friend, the Senator from Louisiana--we would never have power 
facilities or levees without appropriate protections, how is it we 
would not have some level of standards and information sharing of 
threats that are coming in amongst not only our public sector entities 
but our private sector entities as well?
  As a matter of fact, as a former businessman, I have been surprised 
at some of the resistance from some business organizations that are 
saying this requirement of both information sharing and some minimum 
standards would actually be a burden on us. In many ways I actually 
think somewhat the opposite because there are a number of businesses 
right now that have taken the responsible step and put in place 
significant cyber protections while competitors in their industry, 
because they are not putting those same protections in place, are 
actually free riders on the system. Yet, not if but when we have a 
major cyber event, if one of those companies that has not put 
appropriate protections in place ends up causing dramatic harm to our 
economy or to that industry sector, all the industries and all the 
businesses in that sector will in one way or another end up paying the 
price. Again, this is one of the reasons why we need both this 
information sharing and some level of standards.
  I know to try to move forward in terms of actual or mandatory 
standards, we are not going to have them at this point. We have set up 
a measure--and again, I commend Senator Kyl and Senator Whitehouse for 
working through what I think is a pretty darn good compromise where 
there would be an industry group that would develop, in effect, best 
practices. It is hard with the government and bureaucracy moving so 
slowly to keep up with something like technology that would allow an 
industry group to come up with, in effect, best practices. Those 
companies that adhere to those best practices would actually receive 
legal and other protections so we could encourage folks to make sure we 
have in place the kind of protections that all industries and our 
country need.
  To make clear that we don't have mandatory standards, we have put in 
place--I have been working with Senator Snowe on a couple of 
amendments. I believe there are other Members who will join us on at 
least one of these amendments. The first amendment is very important 
and hopefully will go some distance in terms of clarifying one of the 
issues that seems to be a major subject of debate in this legislation, 
and that is to modify--again working with the chairs of the committee, 
we may even move beyond this modification to elimination--a key section 
of the bill, section 103. It will make clear that the standards set by 
this bill, the protection of infrastructure, are indeed voluntary. This 
amendment makes it clear that this bill does not in any way alter the 
authority of any Federal agency to regulate the security of critical 
infrastructure. Again, there were some concerns that there might have 
been a mistake in the earlier draft. This amendment makes clear that 
the standards that are developed by industry working groups will be 
voluntary and that nothing in this legislation will allow any Federal 
agency to regulate the security of critical infrastructure.
  I believe this amendment should alleviate the concerns of some that 
the bill might put in place mandatory standards for infrastructure 
protection--again, despite the very clear language that already exists 
in the bill that standards are voluntary. It is my understanding this 
amendment will be considered as part of a broader set of solutions 
negotiated by Senator Lieberman, and whether our amendment comes 
forward or whether it is broadened into a managers' package, I hope it 
will clarify this portion of the debate about mandatory versus 
voluntary.
  Voluntary is a good first step. The fact that this will be developed 
by industry working groups, the fact that this will not be subject to 
the lagging time of government bureaucracy or rulemaking, hopefully, 
will move us in the right direction.
  A second amendment, again, one I have been working on with Senator 
Snowe, is a bit more technical, and particularly as to my colleagues on 
the Commerce Committee, I hope we will be able to gain some support 
from them. This amendment seeks to ensure that the authority provided 
to DHS to sole-source highly specialized products will result in the 
procurement of interoperable, standards-based products and services 
whenever possible.
  What does that mean in English? It means when government goes out, 
and particularly during sole-sourcing of a solution set, too often--and 
I have seen this in my old industry of telecom years in and years out--
people will develop a particular product or solution that works for 
that company's only set of standards, and when the government 
subsequently or other private sector entities go on and buy or replace 
or expand whatever particular system it is, if it is not interoperable 
with the rest of the telecommunications system or the rest of the 
network, then we are really not getting value for our dollar.
  Again, this is a small issue in the context of cyber security, but 
both Senator Snowe and I believe it is important for the purpose of 
competition, and it should lower the overall cost of key technologies 
and services for the taxpayer.
  So as I close on my first comments, I hope we will be able to move 
forward before the break on the question of cyber security. I think 
great progress has been made in the negotiations. I know there are a 
lot of issues that remain to be resolved, but I would reinforce what so 
many other colleagues have already said. It is not a question of if we 
are hit by a cyber attack, it is only a question of when in terms of a 
major incident. Let's get ahead of the game.


                      Tribute To Federal Employees

                            Diane Braunstein

  Let me take two more moments and rise on one other issue. As many of 
my colleagues and the floor staff know, I come down on a fairly regular 
basis to honor great Federal employees. With all of the challenges we 
face with the fiscal cliff--I see my good friend and partner here, the 
Senator from Oklahoma, and both he and I are always trying to look for 
ways we can get better value for the taxpayer. One of the things we 
need to do is find ways to reward and recognize the good work of so 
many Federal employees who share that goal of getting better value for 
the taxpayer. I know the Senator from Oklahoma has particularly worked 
with the GAO on a number of occasions to find and root out duplication 
and other issues of where we can save dollars.
  I come down on a regular basis to recognize Federal employees--
because so many times they are under assault--when they do good things. 
Today I do that one more time, with recognition of another great 
Federal employee, in this case Diane Braunstein, who is the Associate 
Commissioner for the Office of International Programs for the Social 
Security Administration. She has overseen the creation of the 
Compassionate Allowance Program, which has allowed thousands of 
seriously ill Americans to gain quick approval for much needed Social 
Security benefits in a matter of days or weeks rather than months or 
years; although in this area of Social Security disability we need to 
make sure only the appropriate beneficiaries are receiving those funds.
  For years, the Social Security Disability Insurance Program has faced 
backlogs and delays in processing claims. In 2011 there were on average 
700,000 pending cases. We need to do a better job of evaluating and 
weeding out some of those cases. Couple this with what used to be a 
lack of caseworker knowledge on rare illnesses, and the result was a 
number of applications with rare illnesses being incorrectly denied 
Federal benefits. They then had to face an appeals process which took 
years to complete.
  Beginning in 2008, Ms. Braunstein partnered with patient advocacy 
groups and NIH to come up with a list of 25 cancers and 25 rare 
diseases that would automatically qualify an applicant to receive 
benefits. To further improve the speed and efficiency and cost 
effectiveness of this process, an easy-

[[Page 12983]]

to-use reference guide and training program was put together to aid 
caseworkers.
  According to Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue, when Ms. 
Braunstein began work on the compassionate allowances, some Americans 
were waiting 2 to 4 years for a decision. Now those with the most 
devastating disabilities get approved for benefits in a matter of days. 
In 2010, the program was able to assist an estimated 45,000 people, and 
65,000 people in 2011.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Ms. Braunstein for her 
innovation and excellent work she has done as well as her commitment to 
public service.
  Again, we have some hard choices to make beyond the question of cyber 
security, but as we approach this fiscal cliff there will be more asked 
of all Americans and there will be more asked of our Federal employees. 
We will have to continue to find ways to ratchet out those programs 
that are duplicative, those areas where we are not getting value for 
our dollar.
  Again, I know this is an issue of concern to the Senator from 
Louisiana and the Senator from Oklahoma. But when we find initiatives 
that work, and we find Federal employees who are helping us provide 
value, particularly for those in need at a good price, they deserve 
this recognition.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, first, before I begin the topic I wish 
to speak about, I thank Mr. Warner, the Senator from Virginia, for his 
leadership. He has many Federal employees, many defense contractors in 
Virginia. He, as a Senator from Virginia, recognizes the great threat 
to our Nation today in cyber security. The Senator knows very well that 
there are literally thousands of attacks taking place as we speak. That 
is why as we get ready to go back to our States for the August recess 
and visit with constituents, we are pressing very hard for a positive 
vote to move forward on the debate to fashion a cyber security bill for 
our Nation. So I thank the Senator for his leadership and, of course, 
the tremendous Federal employees who do get beat up all the time but, 
in fact, do remarkable work for our Nation and for the world.
  So I thank the Senator from Virginia.
  (The remarks of Senator Landrieu pertaining to the introduction of S. 
3472 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank Senator Coburn for letting me speak in advance 
of his time on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.


                             Army Weaponry

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, it is pretty unusual for me to come to the 
floor to say I want to spend money. But I have had a longstanding 
problem as I sign the letters of condolences to hundreds of families in 
Oklahoma who have lost their loved one by serving this country.
  I come to the floor to offer a critique on one of the most important 
things to the people who truly put their lives on the line for this 
country. It is a national security issue, but it is truly about our men 
and women in uniform and the most important deployed weapon system over 
the last 10 years of war; that is, the Army service rifle and their 
other small arms.
  There is nothing more important to a soldier than his rifle or her 
rifle. There is simply no excuse for not providing our soldiers with 
the best weapon, not just a weapon that is ``good enough.''
  As I go through this, I am going to give a history of what the 
military has done--or, rather, basically what they have not done--in 
terms of having available for our soldiers a weapon that is capable of 
giving them the best possible chance when they serve our country.
  Over the last few years, we have spent $8,000 per soldier on new 
radios, but we still are using a weapon that is 25 years old when it 
comes to their M4.
  I first got involved in this when I got e-mails. I gave many in the 
Oklahoma National Guard--who served multiple tours, with lots of life 
lost in Iraq and Afghanistan--I gave those soldiers my personal e-mail, 
and I said: If you are having a problem over there, e-mail me.
  I started hearing about the malfunction, the lack of effectiveness of 
the M4 for the Oklahomans who were over there. It is the same weapon 
the career Army has. It is the same weapon everybody who is issued a 
standard rifle is given, except for our special forces and others in 
the world who have a better rifle than the U.S. soldier on the ground 
fighting on our behalf.
  I have noted before in the Congressional Record that I have lifted my 
objection to the nomination of Ms. Heidi Shyu to be the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Acquisitions. It is an important position. 
She is in charge of $28 billion worth of expenditures. My objection was 
due to the Army's continued lack of urgency in modernizing and fielding 
new rifles, carbines, pistols, light machine guns, and ammunition for 
our troops in combat. Ms. Shyu has been very responsive to me and has 
provided some information regarding the Army's future plans for small 
arms and ammunition.
  So when I started getting the questions from our troops in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, I started looking into what was happening. Most of our 
soldiers know exactly what to do and how to care for their rifle. They 
know how to take care of it. So we looked into the issue. What we found 
was that there were several studies that raised questions about the 
reliability of the M4 rifle and whether there was a better weapon out 
there for our troops.
  For example, a special operations forces report in February 2001 said 
the M4's short barrel and gas tube increased the risk that a round 
might not eject from the rifle properly after it is fired. In other 
words, they fire it and the round does not come out. That is called a 
jam--when you are having bullets coming at you and your rifle is 
jamming.
  What we did was we set up a test, and the Army would not do it. So I 
put a hold on the Secretary of the Army Pete Geren's nomination. We 
talked, and he assured me we would have a new competition for a new 
rifle for our troops. That was in 2007.
  Here we are, 5 years later, and the Army is now telling us we are 
going to complete a new competition in 2014. But in the meantime, we 
had a test done against our soldiers' rifle and others available in the 
world, in terms of a dust test, and we came in last.
  So we are sending our troops to defend us and fight for a cause that 
we have put blood, sweat, tears, and $1 trillion into, and we are 
sending them with one that does not work the best.
  My question to the Army is, Why? I can tell you why. Because the guys 
who are responsible for making the decision on purchasing the rifles 
are not the guys who are out there on the line. Because if they were, 
we would have already had this competition and our service men and 
women would be getting new rifles.
  It is not that we cannot do it because what we learned--as we went 
back in and reupped in Afghanistan--we determined that the MRAP was not 
suitable for the rocky terrain as compared to what we used it for in 
Iraq.
  In less than 16 months and after rapid testing and fielding, new MRAP 
All-Terrain Vehicles--that was designed specifically for Afghanistan; a 
complicated piece of vital equipment, costing $\1/2\ million each--
started arriving in Afghanistan.
  So it is not that we cannot supply our soldiers with a new rifle. It 
is not that it cannot be done. It is that we refuse to do it.
  For $1,500, we can give every person on the line something equivalent 
to what our special forces have today.
  Let me show some history.
  The average age of our troops rifle is 26 years. The average age of 
the German military rifle, small arms, is 12 years. For the U.S. 
special operations

[[Page 12984]]

forces, theirs is 8 years. Guess what. They have new technology. Our 
regular frontline guys, they do not get it. They cannot have it. It 
costs the same, but they cannot have it because it is not a priority 
for the leadership in the Army to give the most deployed piece of 
equipment our troops need--that defends them, protects them, and gives 
them the ability to come home alive--we will not give it to them. It is 
shameful. It is shameful.
  Let me give a history of what happened just once in Afghanistan.
  It was called the battle of Wanat. On July 13, 2008, in the battle of 
Wanat, in Afghanistan, 200 Taliban troops attacked U.S. troops at a 
remote outpost in eastern Afghanistan. The Taliban were able to break 
through our lines and entered the main base before eventually being 
repelled by artillery and aircraft.
  What is notable about the battle was the perceived performance of the 
soldiers' small arms weapons in the initial part of the battle.
  Here are some quotes:

       My M4 quit firing and would no longer charge when I tried 
     to correct the malfunction.
       I couldn't charge my weapon and put another round in 
     because it was too hot, so I got mad I threw my weapon down.

  It would be bad enough if this was the first time it happened. But it 
is not the first time it has happened. It has happened multiple times 
to our troops in our present conflicts.
  All we have to do is go back to what happened with the M16 when they 
were first used in Vietnam. There were instant reports of jamming and 
malfunctions. One tragic but indicative marine action report read:

       We left with 72 men in our platoon and came back with 19. 
     Believe it or not, you know what killed most of us? Our own 
     rifle. Practically every one of our dead was found with his 
     M16 torn down next to him where he had been trying to fix it.

  That is occurring now, except it is not getting any press. Again, I 
would ask my colleagues in the Senate: Why would we not give our 
soldiers the capability that almost every other soldier has except 
ours?
  There is another aspect of this that I think needs to be shared; that 
is, the fact that it is all about acquisitions and culture rather than 
about doing the right thing. I do not like giving this talk critical of 
the leadership of the Army. But when it is going to take 7 years to 
field a new rifle and in 18 months we can build and design a completely 
new $500,000 piece of equipment, an MRAP, for Afghanistan or when we 
can spend $8,000 per troop to give them a new radio--which are all 
going to be replaced in the next 2 years with another $8,000--and we 
cannot give them a $1,500 H&K or something equivalent, there is 
something wrong with our system. Our priorities are out of whack.
  If the Department of Defense had spent just 15 percent less on 
radios, they could give every soldier in the military a new, capable, 
modern weapon, and it does not just apply to their rifle.
  One of the biggest complaints, after the M4, is the fact that the 
regular Army gets a 9-millimeter pistol that weighs over 2 pounds, but 
our special operations forces get a .45-caliber pistol that weighs less 
than 1\1/2\ pounds. That is a big difference when you are out there all 
day. But the most important thing is, a .45-caliber round is twice the 
size of a 9-millimeter round, so when you are shooting it and you hit 
somebody, it is going to take them down. A 9-millimeter does not. So we 
are giving them an inferior pistol throughout the military.
  Then, finally, here is what an M4 carbine looks like compared to an 
HK416, as shown on this chart. One other point I would make. This piece 
of equipment fires on automatic. This other piece of equipment--because 
the military wants to save some bullets--will not fire on automatic. So 
our soldiers are facing people who have automatic fire and they can 
fire in bursts of three and at half the rate of what they are facing.
  Why would we do that? The real question is, we are asking people to 
defend this country. For essentially the same amount of money, we can 
buy an old-style, 26-year-old M4 or we can buy a brand new one that 
gives them everything they need and gives them the best weapon. Do they 
not deserve that?
  A lot of people do a lot of things for our country. But nobody does 
for our country what the soldier on the frontline does--nobody. This is 
a moral question, Mr. Secretary of the Army. This is a moral question. 
Get the rifle competition going.
  Members of Congress, members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
do not allow this to continue to happen. Do not allow this to continue 
to happen. There is no excuse for it. We should be embarrassed. We 
should be ashamed. Because what we are doing is sending our troops into 
harm's way with less than the best that we can provide for them.
  As I have noted, I have lifted my objection to the nomination of Ms. 
Heidi Shyu to be the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisitions. 
This is an extremely important position for an organization as large as 
the U.S. Army which spends $28 billion per year on acquisition of goods 
and services. My objection was due to the Army's continued lack of 
urgency in modernizing and fielding new rifles, carbines, pistols, 
light machine guns, and ammunition to our troops in combat. Ms. Shyu 
has been responsive to me and provided some information regarding the 
Army's future plans for small arms and ammunition.
  I first got involved in the Army small arms issue 6 years ago when 
Oklahoma National Guard soldiers told me that their issued weapon, the 
M4 carbine, was jamming in Iraq. These soldiers were told by their 
superiors that jamming resulted from poor weapons maintenance on their 
part and not from any fault of the rifle. While cleaning and proper 
maintenance of a weapon are extremely important, sand and dust in Iraq 
are a daily occurrence and any small arms weapon our troops use there 
should be able to fire reliably in spite of some sand and dust.
  Also, the National Guard soldiers from my State--as is the case for 
Guard soldiers from many if not all of our States--are somewhat more 
likely to hunt or serve as police officers or security guards in their 
civilian lives. In other words, National Guard soldiers in the infantry 
generally know better than most how to care for rifles. So my staff 
looked into this issue and found that there were studies that raise 
questions on the reliability of the M4 and whether there was a better 
weapon out there for our troops. For example, a special operations 
forces report in February 2001 said that the M4's short barrel and gas 
tube increased risk that round might not eject from the rifle properly 
after firing.
  I also learned that in the early 1990s Colt received funding from the 
Army to produce the M4 carbine, which would be a shorter variant on the 
M16 rifle. This was not done through a competition and was considered 
merely an extension of Colt's original M16 contract.
  This lack of competition would later greatly benefit Colt. In 1999 
Colt charged the military less than $600 per M4 carbine. This would 
rise to more than $900 in 2002 and more than $1,200 for a fully 
equipped carbine in 2010 when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted 
in more M4s being bought.
  So in 2007 I raised these questions and even put a hold on the 
nomination of Secretary of the Army Pete Geren. To his credit, he 
ordered a full and open competition for a new carbine rifle no later 
than the end of 2009.
  It is now 2012 and the Army still has not completed a competition for 
a new carbine rifle, now scheduled for 2014. The window for the regular 
Army soldiers to battlefield test an improved rifle in a war we have 
been in for 12 years is rapidly closing. This extended and lengthy 
process is for a weapon system that--while vital--costs less than 
$2,000 each.
  This 7-year effort differs greatly from their effort to field new 
armored combat vehicles in Afghanistan. According to the Government 
Accountability Office, in 2008 Army leaders determined that the Mine 
Resistant Ambush Protected, MRAP, vehicle was not suitable for the 
rocky terrain of Afghanistan. In less than 16 months and after rapid 
testing and fielding, new MRAP all-terrain vehicles, M-ATV, a 
complicated piece of vital equipment costing $500,000 each--started 
arriving in Afghanistan.

[[Page 12985]]

  In contrast, according to the Government Accountability Office, the 
Department of Defense spent more than $11 billion buying newer models 
of existing legacy radios from 2003 to 2011 and is currently planning 
on spending billions more on even newer radios to replace the ones just 
purchased for Iraq and Afghanistan. There are only 1.4 million troops 
on active duty so the Department of Defense has spent nearly $8,000 per 
troop on new radios. A brand new rifle--that soldiers don't have--costs 
around $1,000 to $1,500.
  If the Department of Defense had just spent 15 percent less on the 
billions and billions they spent on newer models of legacy radios in 
the last 10 years, every soldier in the Army could have had a brand new 
carbine rifle going to war.
  In addition to the rifle, there remains a great need for improvement 
of the Army's service pistol. This pistol, usually given to officers 
but also as an additional weapon to some infantry soldiers, is the M9 
Beretta. This pistol entered the Army in 1985, 27 years ago, and fires 
a 9mm round. The M9 pistol had the lowest satisfaction rate of any 
weapon surveyed by the military in 2006 on troops returning from Iraq 
and Afghanistan with half feeling that the 9mm ammunition is 
insufficient.
  Is the Army's failure to modernize its rifles, pistols and machine 
guns a recent occurrence? Sadly no, the Army's reluctance to field new 
weapons runs throughout its history. In far too many instances U.S. 
Army troops have entered battle with an inferior weapon to their 
adversaries and either during or after the war ended the Army was 
reluctant to change and adapt to the superior weapons.
  In 1776 colonial forces faced the British at the Battle of Brandywine 
where the British used a new breech loading weapon that loaded at the 
rear of the weapon rather than the muzzle or front of the weapon. As a 
result trained British soldiers could fire more than twice as fast as 
trained colonial American soldiers. The breech loading weapon was not 
used much in the Revolutionary War but where it was used, such as at 
the Battle of Brandywine, it was described as acting magnificently: 93 
British killed and 400 wounded compared to over 300 Americans that 
died, 600 wounded, and 400 prisoners captured.
  However when Americans again fought the British in the War of 1812--
36 years later--the Americans were still using the same muzzle loading 
weapon they fought with during the Battle of Brandywine.
  U.S. Army troops at war against Mexico in 1845 did not have breech 
loading rifles, but rather continued to carry muzzle-loading rifles 
when fighting against Mexico--nearly 80 years after the breech-loading 
rifle was invented.
  During the Civil War one Union officer in particular was unsatisfied 
with the Army's standard muzzle-loaded rifle and decided to do 
something about it. Colonel Wilder, commander of the Union's 
``Lightning Brigade'' decided to go around the Army bureaucracy. His 
men spent $35 out of their paychecks to buy Spencer Repeating Rifles 
direct from the factory for his mounted cavalry. In one of the first 
battles using this new rifle Wilder's ``Lightning Brigade'' of 1,000 
soldiers defended the Union flank against over 8,000 Confederate troops 
that could not pass. At one point one company of Colonel Wilder's men 
held off ten times as many Confederate troops using their repeating 
rifles for 5 hours.
  However, the Army did not widely adopt the repeating rifle after the 
Civil War. More than 30 years later in the Spanish-American War, 5,000 
American soldiers armed with single shot rifles attacked fewer than 
1,000 Spanish soldiers armed with a German `Mauser' repeating rifle. 
While Americans won the battle by attrition (there were 10,000 U.S. 
troops in reserve), the U.S. Army suffered over 1,400 casualties, with 
205 killed, while the Spanish lost fewer than 250, with 58 killed, 
before surrendering.
  A telling American newspaper column title from 1898 aptly summarizes 
the problems: ``The [U.S. Army] Gun: It is Inferior in Many Respects to 
the Mauser [rifle] used by the Spaniards.'' The article states 
unequivocally that the ``enemy's [Spain's] weapon is easier to load 
[and] can be fired more rapidly''.
  The 20th Century would see a great deal of further modernization, 
improvement, and innovation in the area of small arms to include 
lighter fully automatic assault rifles capable of firing at a rate of 
more than 10 rounds per second rather than per minute.
  The United States entered World War I with a Springfield 1903 rifle, 
named for the Armory and the year it was produced, which was possibly 
the third best rifle in the world at that time. The British Enfield-Lee 
rifle held ten rounds instead of 5 and could fire upwards of 20 rounds 
per minute. The American rifle held only 5 rounds and fired 10 rounds 
per minute which was similar, but still inferior to the German rifle 
that was capable of firing more rounds per minute.
  The U.S. Army did enter World War II with one of the last great 
battle rifles, the M1 Garand, but its success during that conflict may 
have blinded the Army to a revolutionary development in small arms: the 
invention of the modern lightweight fully-automatic assault rifle. From 
1942 to 1944 Germany invented the world's first assault rifles--rifles 
that could fire 550 to 600 rounds per minute and held detachable 30 
round magazines. However, it would be over two decades later before 
U.S. Army soldiers were permitted to have lightweight assault rifles.
  Shortly after World War II ended the Soviet Union invented the AK-47 
fully automatic assault rifle. This rifle's success is easily stated: 
over 90 million AK-47s or derivatives have been built. It is very 
likely a weapon that has inflicted more casualties than any other 
weapon on earth. Soviet troops had this rifle nearly 20 years before 
the United States Army would issue assault rifles to its soldiers.
  In 1958, an American inventor named Eugene Stoner developed the AR-15 
rifle in less than 9 months, which would eventually become the M16. 
This revolutionary rifle weighed six pounds and fired at a rate between 
700 and 900 shots per minute with little recoil and the lightweight but 
still deadly 5.56mm ammunition meant soldiers could carry more 
firepower than before.
  However, it took the then-Chief of Staff of the Air Force General 
Curtis LeMay to purchase 85,000 of them for use by Air Force base 
defense airmen before they got into the military at all. The U.S. Army 
was strongly opposed to the M16. Some of these weapons were used by 
Special Forces troops serving as advisers in Vietnam, increasing the 
pressure for the Army to adopt it. The Army initially refused the AR-
15s stating the ``lack of any military requirement.''
  At this point, it should be clarified that the Army has used the 
phrase ``lack of a requirement'' for more than 50 years to justify 
slowing down and not innovating in the area of small arms. I first 
encountered the phrase ``lack of a requirement'' in 2006 when asking 
why the Army couldn't field a better carbine rifle that didn't jam in 
the desert. I am hearing the same phrase today when I ask why soldiers 
can't have a better light machine gun or pistol. Soldiers have 
complained about these weapons but they can't have a new one because 
there is no ``military requirement.'' Congress is often frustrated by 
the term ``military requirement'' because it can be used to deflect 
responsibility from the person using it. It says the Army is fearful of 
offering its judgment on whether or not someone made a weapon that is 
better than what the Army has, so it instead says that the weapon is 
not needed.
  It took intervention by President Kennedy and Secretary of Defense 
McNamara to order the Army to adopt the M16 rifle--the military version 
of the AR-15. Then what happened in Vietnam was a tragic occurrence 
that took the direct involvement and investigation of Congress and 
deaths of thousands of soldiers to remedy.
  When the M16s were first used in Vietnam there were nearly instant 
reports of jamming and malfunctions. One tragic but indicative Marine 
after-action report read:

       We left with 72 men in our platoon and came back with 19. 
     Believe it or not, you

[[Page 12986]]

     know what killed most of us? Our own rifle. Practically every 
     one of our dead was found with his M16 torn down next to him 
     where he had been trying to fix it.

  Before the necessary fixes could be made to the weapon which included 
switching back to the original type of ammunition propellant and 
issuing cleaning supplies in early 1967, nearly ten thousand American 
soldiers had been killed. Before the Army made the changes these 
soldiers were told--much as soldiers are told today--that problems with 
their weapons are their fault: a lack of care and cleaning or operator 
error. There is no formal process where soldiers are required to 
provide feedback to Army leadership on a jammed weapon in order to 
accurately note issues with reliability.
  There were six warnings from various arsenals and offices within the 
Department of Defense as to the problems with the M16. However, the 
Army Materiel Command and Army senior leaders would not listen. It took 
public pressure and a massive congressional investigation by the House 
Armed Services Committee to get to the bottom of the problems with the 
Army's small arms in Vietnam. It was discovered that the Army was using 
a different ammunition propellant--procured from a sole-source 
contract--that caused the M16 to jam. After Congressional intervention, 
the original propellant was used and the problems with the M16 nearly 
disappeared. After Vietnam, the Army formally adopted the M16 as its 
service rifle and by 1968 nearly all troops surveyed said they 
preferred the M16 to any other rifle.
  The post-Vietnam era saw changes for the M16 weapon, few of them 
positive. In 1980 the Army adopted a different, heavier 5.56mm round 
that required different rifling for the caliber which marginally 
improved penetration of armor and helmets but at the cost of greatly 
reducing.
  U.S. troops would find out in Iraq and Afghanistan that the enemy did 
not wear helmets or armor. As a result the rounds would penetrate 
through the enemy and exit the other side without causing enough damage 
to incapacitate him and he kept fighting. Soldiers have regularly 
reported having to fire multiple rounds into enemy combatants in Iraq 
and Afghanistan as a result.
  In 1982 the Army also altered the M16 to prohibit soldiers from 
firing on full automatic. The current M16A2 rifle has a choice between 
semiautomatic and three-round burst. The M16A2 is now the only major 
assault rifle in the world fielded for military use that does have a 
full automatic capability.
  As I said the problems we see with small arms procurement may not be 
sinister, but they are serious and they are current.
  On July 13, 2008 in the Battle of Wanat in Afghanistan around 200 
Taliban attacked U.S. troops at a remote outpost in eastern 
Afghanistan. The Taliban were able to break through U.S. lines and 
enter the main base before eventually being repelled by artillery and 
aircraft. What is notable about the battle was the perceived poor 
performance of the soldiers' small arms weapons in the initial part of 
the battle. Some selected quotes from the report:

       My M4 quit firing and would no longer charge when I tried 
     to correct the malfunction,
       I couldn't charge my weapon and put another round in 
     because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon 
     down.

  Nine soldiers died and twenty-seven were wounded at the Battle of 
Wanat in Afghanistan.
  For too much of its history from the Revolutionary War to today the 
Army has shown a slowness and reluctance to adopt improved small arms 
weapons and ammunition developed by others. It has also been slow to 
recognize and fix problems with its small arms. The Army has repeatedly 
engaged in poor negotiating and contracting on behalf of the American 
people. Senior Army leaders continue to go work for incumbent small 
arms manufacturers after they retire.
  However, a major problem is also Congress. There have been far too 
few hearings and oversight on the topic of small arms. The House Armed 
Services Committee report in 1967 stands out as an exception that 
proves this point. Senior military leaders in uniform and civilians are 
regularly challenged and questioned--and in some cases chewed out--on 
all manner of programs and weapon systems here by Members of Congress 
including medical benefits, stealth fighter jets, missile defense, the 
size of the Army and Navy, and armored vehicles.
  However, for some reason Congress, for the most part, has seen fit to 
give the Army a pass on small arms. For some reason the oversight 
committees responsible do not aggressively and regularly question 
whether the Army's rifle--the most deployed weapon system for the last 
ten years--is the best that American industry can offer our troops. 
There are many small arms experts that are independent of the industry 
that can inform Congress on this issue. I call on my colleagues to hold 
long overdue hearings on this topic with independent witnesses as soon 
as possible and will continue my efforts on this issue to raise 
awareness and push the Army to procure the best weapons and ammunition 
for our troops.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              The Drought

  Mr. MORAN. Back home in Kansas, we are spending our time down on our 
knees and then looking up to the sky. We are praying and hoping for 
rain. Our State, along with much of the country, is in a very serious 
drought. Crops are dying. Cattle are hungry and are being sold off and 
water is in scarce supply.
  Every county in Kansas, all 105, have now been declared disaster 
communities. Half of the continental United States is in the worst 
drought since 1956, and the situation is expected only to get worse. In 
this photograph, my friend Ken Grecian from Palco, KS--it is a little 
town in northwest Kansas--is pictured here with dry grass and hungry 
cattle. Over the past few weeks, Ken has had to reduce his herd at 
lower prices than before because there is not enough feed to feed the 
cattle. Ken is similar to many producers who have been diligently 
building their herds of cattle over many years and are now seeing those 
cattle sold due to the drought, undermining their efforts, year after 
year, to develop a herd.
  Paul and Tommie Westfahl from Haven, KS, just a little bit north and 
west of Wichita, and their two daughters Jenna and Raegan are pictured 
standing next to their failed crops. South central Kansas has been hard 
hit this year by the drought. The corn on the right never got above 
chest high and dried up months before it was time to harvest.
  Paul swathed and will soon bale his failed beans on the left of the 
photo and try to save some of that for feed for cattle this winter. 
Hard times are there and they are not over.
  The United States has a long history of drought and recovery. From 
the Dust Bowl to today, we have faced periods of drought. The thirties 
were often called the worst of hard times. Don Hartwell, a farmer on 
the Kansas and Nebraska border, captured how hard it was when he wrote 
this in his diary on May 21, 1936:

       15 years ago, the Republican River bottom was a vast 
     expanse of alfa and corn fields. Now, it is practically a 
     desert of wasted, shifting sand, washed-out ditches, cockle 
     burs, and devastation. I doubt very much if it ever can be 
     reclaimed.

  A few weeks later he wrote in his diary, ``I wonder where we will be 
a year from now?'' In the 1930s, folks were faced with severe drought 
which resulted in the Dust Bowl. People were forced to abandon their 
farms and ranches and give up the only way of life they knew. Crops, 
livestock, and livelihoods vanished with the dust.

[[Page 12987]]

They were unimaginable times. Thankfully, those unimaginable times 
passed and the rains came and the Republican River bottom was 
reclaimed.
  This happened with the help of the good Lord and by individual 
efforts by those who refused to give in to those bad times, to give in 
to nature. If we look at the drought now and compare it to that of the 
1930s, we will notice a huge difference. There is no Dust Bowl. The 
programs and conservation management tools that were used have worked. 
The forward-thinking American farmers and ranchers, the landowners who 
adopted new land and livestock management practices have made 
conservation the most effective drought mitigation effort available 
today.
  But conservation programs are in danger. While many conservation 
practices can be planned and executed by individual farmers and 
ranchers, certain programs administered by the Department of 
Agriculture deserve our attention so these important initiatives do not 
expire on September 30. In just about 60 days, farm programs will 
expire, and that means more uncertainty, compounding an already 
disastrous drought situation.
  Right now, farmers and ranchers are wondering the same thing Don 
Hartwell wondered in 1936: Where am I going to be 1 year from now? As 
Congress debates the future of domestic agricultural policy, it is 
critical risk mitigation tools are included for farmers and ranchers. 
Most important among these tools is crop insurance. With the absence of 
direct payments in both the House and Senate versions of a new farm 
bill, crop insurance is and will remain the last protective tool 
available to those producers.
  Viable crop insurance ensures that a farm operation can survive 
difficult times, when there is drought or hail or flood, in hopes that 
they can experience a successful yield the following year. Farmers 
always have hope: Tough times now? Come back next year. But crop 
insurance, as valuable as it is, does not cover all the problems 
agriculture producers face, and particularly livestock producers are 
not usually generally eligible for crop insurance coverage.
  These producers require risk mitigation and a safety net just like 
producers covered by crop insurance. Disaster programs for livestock, 
along with crop insurance for cultivation agriculture, give producers 
the security they need to plan and invest for the future.
  Currently, ranchers and cattlemen are left with few disaster 
programs. The 2008 farm bill disaster farm programs expired this year, 
leaving producers across our drought-stricken country with less 
protection from Mother Nature. These programs are an important safety 
net for farmers and ranchers. Farmers and ranchers such as Ken and Paul 
deserve to know what the future of these programs will be.
  We should not expect producers to plant crops or to buy and sell 
livestock if they do not know what the rules are. Putting these 
programs back in place and ensuring a sound safety net is vital for 
drought recovery, continued conservation work, and for the affordable 
food supply for the people of our country. Kansas farmers and ranchers 
should not have to keep guessing. It is too important to their 
families, their industry, and their Nation for more delay.
  We must give agricultural producers the long-term certainty and 
support they deserve. While we wait for Washington, we will continue to 
hope and pray.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the motion to proceed.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, a number of us have spoken with increasing 
concern--I think probably most Senators have come to the floor in the 
course of the last months to express their alarm about the politics 
that surround big issues in our country that demand action and not 
partisanship, not acrimony, but which we continue to simply find a way 
to avoid. We have been artists in the politics of avoidance here in 
Washington over the course of too long a period now.
  The debt and the fiscal cliff are obviously perfect examples of 
where, despite all of the warnings and all of the expert advice we get, 
Congress is fundamentally stuck in political cement of our own mixing. 
No one will credibly deny here the existence of the fiscal cliff, the 
crisis of our budget, the tax system, and so forth. So that, at least 
as an issue that is avoided, gets a credible amount of words being 
thrown at it.
  But there is another issue that, in many ways, is just as serious 
because of its implications for all that we do on this planet, but 
which doesn't any longer elicit that kind of concern or expressions of 
alarm on both sides of the aisle, or from that many Senators. The two 
words that have described this particular issue over a long period of 
time now have actually become somewhat words of almost skepticism in 
many quarters in America, or a kind of shrug, where people say: I don't 
know what I can do about it. It is not something I ought to worry 
about. Somebody else will take care of it, or maybe it is not real. 
Those words are ``climate change.''
  Climate change, over the last few years, has regrettably lost 
credibility in the eyes and ears of the American people because of a 
concerted campaign of disinformation, a concerted campaign to brand the 
concept as somehow slightly outside of the mainstream of American 
political thinking. I have to say it has been a remarkably effective 
campaign. You can't sit here and say it hasn't worked. Every 
opportunity to cast a pall on facts with some kind of cockamamie theory 
has been taken advantage of, and a lot of money has been spent in this 
process of disinformation and discrediting.
  People used to joke years and years ago about those who argued that 
the Earth was flat. For a long period of time, people argued that the 
Earth was flat, even though the evidence of astronomers and explorers 
evidenced that it was in fact quite the opposite. So we have, in 
effect, with respect to climate change in America today what is 
fundamentally a ``flat Earth caucus''--a bunch of people, some in the 
U.S. Congress itself, who still argue against all of the science, all 
of the evidence, that somehow we don't know enough about climate change 
or that the evidence isn't sufficient or that it is a hoax. We have 
Members of the Senate who argue it is a hoax. But that is all they do. 
They make the argument it is a hoax, but they don't present--and they 
can't--any real, hard, scientific, peer-reviewed evidence to the effect 
that it is in fact a hoax. The reason they can't is there are 6,000-
plus peer-reviewed studies, which is the way science has always been 
done in America. If you are a scientist and you are a researcher, you 
do your science and research, and then your analysis is put to the test 
by your peers in those particular disciplines. They pass on the 
methodology, the pedagogy by which you arrived at your conclusions.
  We have more than 6,000 of those kinds of properly peer-reviewed 
analyses of the science of climate change, and the other side of the 
ledger has not one--not one, zero--peer-reviewed analysis that says 
human beings aren't doing this to the atmosphere and that humans are 
not contributing or the main cause of what is happening in terms of the 
warming of the surface of the Earth.
  What has happened is that in America we all know it. We are seeing it 
in campaigns because of Citizens United. You have these unfathomable 
amounts of money being thrown into the political system--millionaires 
and billionaires who plunk down millions of dollars--a $10 million or 
$20 million check at a whack--and then what is happening is people buy 
their facts. They create their facts out of whole cloth.
  As we all have been reminded so many times in the last year, 
certainly, because of this new debate we are having in America--as our 
colleague, with whom I was privileged to serve here, Pat Moynihan, 
reminded us again and again, everyone is entitled to their own

[[Page 12988]]

opinion in America, but you are not entitled to your own facts. But in 
fact, in American politics today, that is not true. Apparently, you 
are, because you can go out and buy them. You can buy some scientist to 
whom you give some appropriate amount of funds, and he does a study 
with a particular conclusion that has to be found, and they produce a 
whole bunch of hurly-burly to surround it and suggest that those are, 
in fact, facts.
  The result of this is that over the last year and a half or 2 years, 
we have had this concerted assault on reason, an assault on science. 
This isn't the first time in the history of humankind we have been 
through these things. Galileo was put on trial for his findings and, as 
we all know, there have been countless periods of time--that is why we 
went through an Age of Enlightenment, Age of Reason, as people 
challenged these old precepts that weren't based on fact but were sort 
of raw belief and/or political interests in some cases, or religious 
interests in some cases. A handful of Senators here, including Senator 
Boxer, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Sanders, Senator Lautenberg, the 
occupant of the chair, and Senator Franken have recently spoken out 
about this very process by which an incredibly important, legitimate 
issue of concern to all Americans--to everybody in the world--is being 
completely sidelined because of the status quo interests of powerful 
corporations and other interests in America that don't want to change, 
or some of whom find political advantage in somehow buying into the 
theory discrediting it.
  This has not been an issue on which there is a profile of courage by 
some in the U.S. Congress who are prepared to stand up and say what 
they know is true, but what has become far more convenient to avoid. I 
believe the situation we face is as dangerous as any of the sort of 
real crises that we talk about.
  Today we had a hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee on the 
subject of Syria. We all know what is happening with respect to Iran 
and nuclear weapons, and even the possibility of a war. This issue 
actually is of as significant a level of importance because it affects 
life itself on the planet, because it affects ecosystems on which the 
oceans and land depend for the relationship of the warmth of our Earth 
and the amount of moisture there is and all of the interactions that 
occur as a consequence of our climate. It involves our health because 
of policies that we do or don't choose to pursue with respect to 
pollution in the air.
  Pollution didn't used to be a question mark in American politics. We 
fought that fight in the 1960s and 1970s. Rachel Carson started this 
enormous movement for reasonableness when she warned Americans they 
were living next to toxic wells and water that had been polluted by 
companies that put mercury or other poisons into the Earth, which went 
down into the water supply, and people got cancer and died. America 
decided in the early 1970s--with the first Earth Day in 1970 itself, 
and the actions that Congress took after that in response to the 
American people--everybody decided we didn't want that pollution in the 
air. We actually passed legislation in 1972, 1973, and 1974 that 
created the EPA.
  America didn't even have an Environmental Protection Agency until 
Americans said we want to be protected, and the people in Congress 
responded to that. We passed the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe 
Drinking Water Act, Marine Mammal Protection, Coastal Zone Management, 
and all of these came about because of an awareness among the American 
people because they wanted to make a different set of choices or have 
their politicians do so on their behalf. Now, suddenly, there is an 
assault on the EPA, the Clean Air Act and, all of a sudden, pollution 
doesn't matter. That is what we are talking about.
  Greenhouse gases are, in fact, a pollutant. The particulates that 
come with that have the same effect on human beings in terms of their 
breathing, their lungs, the input in some of their food and water, 
which ultimately impacts cancer, emphysema, and other diseases that 
come as a consequence of the quality of air we breathe. Yet we have 
this whole notion now that somehow we have gone too far, that we have 
done enough, or that the job has been done and we can go home, when, in 
fact, it is exactly the opposite. With respect to pollution, there are 
choices, and with respect to health, the single greatest cause of young 
Americans going to the hospital in the summertime and costing billions 
of dollars to the American people is environmentally induced asthma. 
That environmentally induced asthma comes about as a consequence of the 
ingredients that go into the air. All of this is related.
  In addition, there is not one person in the Senate who doesn't know 
that we are still more dependent than we want to be on foreign oil. We 
are better than we were, and we have made improvements, but we are 
still more dependent than we want to be on foreign oil. We could be 
doing better with respect to that if we pursued an intelligent energy 
policy. We still don't have an energy policy after the years we have 
been talking about doing it in the Senate and elsewhere.
  Why is that important to climate change? Because energy policy is the 
solution to the problem of climate change. If you have an effective 
energy policy, then you are dealing not only with your independence 
issues, but with the sources of carbon and other greenhouse gases that 
are causing the problem today. Twenty years ago this year, I was 
privileged to go with the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, 
Senator John Chafee, Senator Al Gore, Senator Wirth, and others, down 
to Rio, where we took part in the first Earth Summit, which President 
George Herbert Walker Bush took seriously. To the great credit of 
George H. W. Bush, he not only sent a delegation, he personally went 
down there and spoke about the issue. He helped to embrace a forward-
leaning idea. I think 160-some nations signed onto an agreement to try 
to restrain greenhouse gases. That was back in 1992. It was incredible.
  Here we are, 20 years later, and we could not even get the time for 
the Senate to send a delegation down there, let alone enough people who 
thought it was important and of interest. The Earth summit, 20 years 
later, came and went without any major step forward or progress, and 
the procrastination continues.
  Mr. President, today I remember the debate when we came back from 
Kyoto, in 1998 or so, and we had a debate in the Senate about whether 
the United States should take part in the Kyoto Treaty. We all know 
now, as a matter of long history, that we didn't because it was viewed 
as being too unilateral. In fact, everybody had the question of, what 
about China? We can't possibly sign up for this because China will not 
do it, and they will go racing ahead of us and continue to grow their 
economy at the expense of the United States.
  Well, Mr. President, guess what. Today China is the leading clean 
energy producer in the world. China. The United States of America 
invented the technologies 50 years ago--of solar and wind, renewable 
energy technologies such as turbines, the transmission, and so forth, 
and photovoltaics. About 4 years ago, China had about 9 percent of the 
market. That was 4 years ago. Two years ago, China had 40 percent of 
the market. Today China has over 70 percent of the global solar market, 
and the United States, which invented the technology, doesn't have one 
company in the top 10 solar panel producers, solar energy producers in 
the world.
  You know what is happening. Ninety-five percent of what China 
produces it exports to other countries, including the United States. So 
here we are, we give up our lead, and we don't get the jobs. Everybody 
is screaming about jobs. The energy market is a $6 trillion market with 
about 6 billion users. Just to put that in perspective, the market that 
created the great wealth of the 1990s in the United States was in fact 
a $1 trillion market with about 1 billion users. That was the 
technology market. We saw it with personal computers and with the rest 
of the telephone communications technology of the 1990s. We didn't even 
have an Internet in the

[[Page 12989]]

United States until about 1995 or 1996 when that began to be 
commercialized. Yet in that short span of time we created more wealth 
in America than we had ever created at any time in America's history. 
We created 23 million new jobs because we led in that new industry.
  Here we are today staring at the potential of this extraordinary 
industry--the energy market--and we are just sitting on our hands while 
other countries take it and run with it and grow their economies. We 
are sitting around saying: Where are the jobs?
  It is an insult. It is an insult to our intelligence. It is an insult 
to every American's aspirations about where they would like to see our 
country go. And the fact is it is not just China, but India, Mexico, 
Brazil, South Korea, and countless other countries have taken greater 
advantage of this than the United States.
  One of the principal reasons we have trouble getting that market 
moving is we refuse to put a real price on the price of carbon. Carbon 
has a price. Everything we are doing to our country and to our 
communities today as a result of pollution is a price we are going to 
pay. But that price is not subsumed into the price of products, the 
price of doing business or anything else because we just avoid it 
altogether.
  A lot of people here continue, unfortunately, to avoid the science 
and just not deal with the reality of what is happening. But 2 days 
ago, Mr. President, in the New York Times, there was a very important 
op-ed that appeared, written by a well-known climate skeptic Dr. 
Richard Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California 
at Berkeley. He has written many times about how he did not believe the 
science was adequate or had produced it. Let me read his words. This is 
Dr. Muller:

       Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified 
     problems in the previous climate studies that, in my mind, 
     threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last 
     year, following an intensive research effort involving a 
     dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real 
     and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were 
     correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost 
     entirely the cause.

  That is what this former climate skeptic has said. Bottom line: We 
need to be armed with the facts, not with empty rhetoric. That is 
exactly what Dr. Muller set out to do. Let me quote him again:

       We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from 
     urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data 
     alone), from data collection selection (prior groups selected 
     fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; 
     we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we 
     separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from 
     human intervention and data adjustment (our work is 
     completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we 
     demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome 
     effects unduly biased our conclusions.

  Now, obviously, we all know the future has a hard way of humbling 
people who try to predict it too precisely, but I have to say, when the 
science is screaming pretty consistently over a period of 20 years--and 
not just screaming at us to say it is coming back correctly but that it 
is coming back with faster results in greater amounts than the 
scientists predicted--as a matter of human precaution that ought to be 
an alarm bell and people ought to take note.
  Here again is what Dr. Muller says:

       What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions 
     increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect 
     the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one 
     and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if 
     the oceans are included.

  And then he says ominously:

       But if China continues its rapid economic growth--

  And I say, as a matter of parentheses, who doesn't believe China 
isn't going to do everything in its power to continue its growth path 
and do what it is doing? So he says:

       But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has 
     averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its 
     vast use of coal (it typically adds 1 new gigawatt per 
     month), then that same warming could take place in less than 
     20 years.

  Less than 20 years, folks. In North Carolina recently State Senators 
actually voted not to do any planning for the potential of sea level 
rise, even though scientists today tell us the sea level is rising. Ask 
insurance companies about what they are thinking in terms of their 
potential exposure and liability as we look down the road with respect 
to the disasters that could come as a consequence of these changes.
  So the plain fact is we have all of the evidence--and I am not going 
to go through all of it right now, but it is there for colleagues to 
analyze--countless studies of what is happening in terms of the 
movement of forests--literally, movement--as it migrates, and species 
that have left Yellowstone National Park and migrated north. Talk to 
the park rangers. Talk to the folks in Canada and in Colorado and 
Montana and other places about the millions of acres of pine trees that 
have been destroyed by the pine bark beetle that now doesn't die off 
because it doesn't get as cold as it used to. Talk to people in Canada 
and in the Northern United States who used to skate on ponds that used 
to freeze over but that don't freeze over anymore.
  There are hundreds of examples. Talk to the Audubon Society. Ask them 
about the reports from their members about certain plants and shrubs 
and trees that don't grow in the same places they used to. There is a 
100-mile swath in the United States now where there has been a 
migration of things that grow and don't grow. This is going to have a 
profound impact on agriculture in our country as we go forward if it 
continues. And I would just share with my colleagues why that is true 
beyond any scientific doubt.
  The first scientist who actually wrote something about global climate 
change was a Swedish scientist by the name of Arrhenius, and he wrote 
around the turn of the 19th century--1890 or something, I don't 
remember the year. But he is the guy who first said there was this 
relationship to the gases trapped in the atmosphere and this thing 
called the greenhouse effect. In fact, science has now determined to a 
certainty the reason we can breathe on Earth today, the reason it is 
warm enough for us to live, the reason life itself exists on Earth is 
because there is a greenhouse effect. And it is called a greenhouse 
effect because it behaves just like a greenhouse.
  The light comes down from the Sun at a very direct angle on many 
things on Earth and is reflected back from things such as the ice and 
snow and off roofs and parking lots and other things. But in the ocean 
and in certain other dark spots it is subsumed into that mass, and it 
goes back much more opaque than it comes down in its directness. The 
reason, therefore, for the greenhouse gas is that it doesn't escape. It 
doesn't break out of the thin veneer of the atmosphere that contains 
the gases that create the greenhouse effect, which actually creates an 
average temperature globally of about 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
  That is why life can exist; we have a greenhouse effect. And it 
stands to absolute high school, if not elementary-middle school logic, 
if a certain amount of gases are contained, and there has always been 
balance to some degree, and you add to that massively and thicken the 
amount that is there, less heat is going to escape and we wind up 
augmenting that effect of the greenhouse.
  Scientists tell us now--and I am not a scientist, but I learned how 
to listen to them and at least read the science and try to think about 
it--that in order to keep the temperature of the Earth somewhere near 
where it is today or within the permissible range of change, we have to 
keep our greenhouse gases at--originally, they said--450 parts per 
million. As they then noticed the damage and did more calculation, they 
came and said: No, 350 parts per million.
  Why is this important? Because today, as we are here assembled in the 
Senate, we are now at 397 parts per million. We are above where they 
say you have to hold it. And worse, without doing anything--and we are 
not doing anything--we are only adding amounts; we are moving at a rate 
that will take it up to 500 or 600 parts per million. If

[[Page 12990]]

that happens, we will be at a tipping point with respect to the amount 
of temperature change--5 to 7 degrees--and nobody can predict with 
certainty what happens, except that we know the ice already melting in 
Greenland and in the Arctic will melt faster and disappear. As more 
water is exposed, that dark water subsumes more of the heat, and the 
heat creates greater, more rapid melting. And that is exactly what 
scientists are seeing in the Arctic and Antarctic today, where whole 
blocks of ice the size of the State of Rhode Island have broken off and 
dropped into the sea and floated south to melt.
  There are dozens of other examples of what is happening. I said I 
wouldn't go into all of them today. I would just say to my colleagues, 
please read and challenge the science and talk to the people who are 
the peer reviewers of these analyses because we have a responsibility 
here, to future generations and to all of us, to try to get this right. 
And in the balance of right and wrong, I don't understand the judgment 
some people are making.
  We know this is a $6 trillion market. We know that if we were to 
price carbon, the marketplace would move rapidly toward the kinds of 
technologies and new job creation that would respond to that pricing 
and the United States could become a seller of these technologies and a 
builder of these new energy capacities in various parts of the world.
  Astonishingly, the United States of America doesn't even have an 
energy grid. The east coast has an energy grid, the west coast has an 
energy grid, Texas has its own energy grid, and from Chicago out to the 
Dakotas, there is sort of an energy grid. But the entire center of the 
United States is just a great big gaping hole where we don't have any 
connected energy transmission capacity, and the result is that we can't 
produce renewable energy down in the four corners of the Southwest--in 
Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and so forth--and sell it to Minnesota 
in the wintertime or to New England, where we pay a very high price for 
energy. We can't send energy from one part to the other in the United 
States of America. It is an insult.
  We need to build a national energy grid, and in the building of that 
grid, there are countless jobs to be created for Americans and 
countless technologies to be developed. For every $1 billion we spend 
on infrastructure, we put 27,000 to 35,000 people to work. If we passed 
our infrastructure bank effort here in the Senate, for $10 billion of 
American taxpayer leverage, we could have $650 billion to $700 billion 
of infrastructure investment paid for by Chinese investment, by Arab 
Emirates investment. It wouldn't cost the American taxpayers a dime to 
be building America and putting people to work. We are not doing it, 
and we are not even building the energy grid of our Nation.
  I must say to my colleagues, the avoidance here of responsibility for 
a whole host of choices we ought to be making--and obviously, yes, it 
begins with the deficit and the debt, and we can deal with those 
issues. There isn't a person in the Senate who doesn't understand what 
the magic formula is going to be to do that. But everybody wants to 
wait until the end of the election. I got it. But this issue has been 
waiting and waiting for 20 years now while other countries are stealing 
our opportunities to be able to be in the marketplace and winning.
  Nothing screams at us more than the need to have an energy policy for 
our country that begins to address the realities of climate change, and 
nothing screams at us more than to tell the truth to the American 
people about climate change, to stop having it be an unusable word in 
American politics and not to allow it to become a source of attack and 
ridicule with nonfacts and a bunch of cockamamie theories that have no 
foundation in science or in the kind of analysis that does this 
institution justice.
  I hope over the course of the next months we can have this fight 
because nothing less than our economic future--which is, in the end, 
our greatest strength for our military, for our security, for all of 
our objectives--that is what is at stake in this effort. I hope we will 
finally wind up doing what is right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, before the senior Senator from 
Massachusetts leaves the floor, I wish to commend him for his constant 
leadership on matters of a better environment, more effective ways to 
get our energy without spoiling the environment and putting what 
amounts to toxins in the air. I congratulate him for his constant 
leadership in this area.


                           Safe Chemicals Act

  Mr. President, one thing Democrats and Republicans share is a desire 
to keep our children and grandchildren safe and healthy. Many of us 
remember the days when we simply counted to make sure our newborns had 
all of their fingers and toes and breathed a sigh of relief, but 
parents today face many more threats. As industrial chemicals have more 
common in consumer products, we have seen an increase in certain birth 
defects, childhood cancers, and behavioral disorders. That is why I 
have written legislation to reform our chemical management system and 
give parents peace of mind about chemicals in household products. My 
Safe Chemicals Act passed out of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee last week, and I hope we are going to see it on the floor of 
the Senate this fall.
  We think of the home as a place where our families are safe. We don't 
expect the carpet in our bedrooms, the shampoo in our showers, or the 
detergent in our laundry to pose a threat to our family's health. Many 
everyday products contain chemicals. Most Americans just assume those 
chemicals have been tested and proven safe. But for the vast majority 
of chemicals in products in our homes, safety testing is not required, 
and we look at the articles that suggest what kinds of things we are 
talking about.
  Every morning, millions of American kids wake up in beds that have 
been treated with chemicals, their breakfasts are cooked on pans coated 
with chemicals, and their plates are cleaned with chemicals. Today, EPA 
lists more than 80,000 chemicals in its inventory, many of which are in 
regular household products--products that our children are exposed to 
every day.
  We see here a child getting a bottle. It is made of plastic, and we 
don't really know what is in it. I think we can all agree that a 
chemical that comes into contact with a child should be tested to see 
if it is safe.
  Many, if not most, chemicals in products are safe, but we know some 
are not. There have been too many cases of toxic chemicals showing up 
in our everyday lives that have horrible health effects, and we have 
found that out only after our families have been exposed.
  Recently, the Chicago Tribune exposed the latest example of untested 
chemicals wreaking havoc in our bodies. The Tribune reported that flame 
retardants are widespread in furniture, electronics, and other items 
throughout our homes. In fact, the average couch contains 2 pounds of 
chemical flame retardants.
  As we see here, a sofa like this looks as if it is all good and no 
harm could come, but there could be chemical materials in there that 
are releasing toxic fumes. Chemicals in products don't always stay in 
products. Many of them find their way into our bodies. It is not clear 
that we are safe with any of these products because we don't know just 
exactly what is in there.
  In fact, the Tribune tragically found that a typical American baby is 
born with the highest concentrations of flame retardants in the world. 
And many flame retardants are highly toxic. Children born with high 
concentrations of flame retardants can suffer devastating consequences 
for the rest of their lives. Flame-retardant chemicals have been linked 
to cancer, developmental problems, and other health risks. High levels 
of these chemicals put newborns at greater risk of low birthrates and 
birth defects, and then in childhood they face lower IQs

[[Page 12991]]

and problems with fine motor skills. Even in adulthood, women who were 
born with flame retardants in their blood can have trouble becoming 
pregnant. Imagine, we are setting our children back from day one, 
before they have taken their first breath.
  Flame retardants are just one example of the problems with our 
chemical safety system. According to the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention, Americans typically have 212 industrial chemicals--
including 6 that cause cancer--coursing through their bodies. We know 
these chemicals can have serious health effects. We can see what kinds 
of health effects. Chemical exposure accounts for as much as 5 percent 
of childhood cancers, 10 percent of diabetes, 10 percent of Parkinson's 
disease, and 30 percent of childhood asthma. That is not a very 
comforting idea.
  These chemicals are still around and untested because the 35-year-old 
law that is supposed to assess and protect against chemical health 
risks is broken. That law, called TSCA, is so severely flawed that the 
nonpartisan Government Accountability Office testified that it is ``a 
high-risk area of the law.'' I want to repeat that. The law called TSCA 
is so severely flawed that the Government Accountability Office 
testified that it is ``a high-risk area of the law.'' That is a 
credible government department saying this is a high-risk area of the 
law.
  Of the more than 80,000 chemicals on EPA's inventory, TSCA has 
allowed testing of only around 200 chemicals and restrictions on only 
5. That is more than 80,000 chemicals that are being used routinely, in 
EPA's inventory, that might affect children or adults in a household.
  Until this law is fixed, toxic chemicals will continue to poison our 
bodies and threaten our health. This status quo is dangerous, and it is 
unacceptable. We have heard from parents across the country that we 
should not wait any longer for reform. We had a demonstration here in 
Washington just a few weeks ago with people asking for safer chemicals 
now. They are worried about it. They are parents. They don't want their 
children exposed to chemicals that might injure their health.
  It is easy to do. These chemicals should be tested before they are 
made into products, and then we don't have to worry about whether we 
are doing something that puts our kids at risk. We have already waited 
too long. Entire generations have grown up in homes filled with 
untested chemicals. Every year, more chemicals are introduced, more 
children get sick, and more lives are put at risk.
  I was proud when the Environment and Public Works Committee took an 
important step last week by passing the Safe Chemicals Act. We began 
working on TSCA reform in 2005. In the 7 years since, we have explored 
the topic from many angles. We talked to scientists, workers, business 
leaders, State officials, firefighters, researchers, legal experts, and 
parents who are concerned about their children's health. We also heard 
from Senators on both sides of the aisle. Throughout this process, we 
have listened and we have learned.
  The result is a commonsense bill that lays out a vision for strong 
but pragmatic regulation of chemicals. The bill requires the chemical 
manufacturers to demonstrate the safety of their products before they 
end up in our bodies. We already require this for pharmaceuticals and 
pesticides, so there is not any reason we should not require the same 
of industrial chemicals that are found in products in our bodies. The 
European Union, Canada, other countries require safety testing, but 
Americans remain unprotected. That is not acceptable.
  I have received letters in support of the Safe Chemicals Act signed 
by more than 300 public health organizations--businesses, environmental 
organizations, health care providers, labor unions and, again, 
concerned parents. Twenty-four Senators have cosponsored my Safe 
Chemicals Act and I believe the full Senate should now be given a 
chance to vote for or against the testing of these industrial 
chemicals. We want to debate it on the floor of the Senate. We want 
families to know what we are thinking about as we go through this 
process. They deserve to know that Congress cares more about their 
kids' health than the concerns of the chemical industry lobbyists.
  I come to this conclusion: There is risk out there that we take 
unnecessarily. It is time to take action to clear this up. It would be 
a positive act for the chemical manufacturers so they would not have to 
worry about responding to challenges from laws in 50 States but rather 
be under one guideline that takes care of them all.
  It is time to take action. The health of our children is at stake. I 
hope my colleagues across the Chamber will stand and say yes, you are 
right, it is time we challenge what we know is an exposure that should 
not exist. Simply done, it would move the process very quickly, letting 
us know that everything we have that has a chemical component to it is 
safe for our use.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from North Dakota.


                          Progrowth Tax Reform

  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the need for progrowth 
tax reform. It is a subject I have been here on the Senate floor 
speaking about repeatedly over the course of the year and certainly 
over the course of the recent weeks.
  Last week the Senate voted on several tax measures. One of the 
measures was a measure we offered which would continue the current tax 
rates for a year, giving us an opportunity to engage in progrowth tax 
reform. That bill was defeated in the Senate.
  The other bill, a bill which I voted against, was a bill that would 
raise taxes on approximately 1 million small businesses in this 
country. In fact, that bill was passed. But the fact is that under the 
Constitution any tax measure has to start in the House of 
Representatives. In fact, that is what is going on today. They are 
voting on a measure that would extend the current tax rates for a year, 
giving us the opportunity to engage in progrowth tax reform which I 
believe would truly help galvanize our economy and raise revenue for 
our country, not through higher taxes but in fact through growth and 
through more revenue from economic growth.
  I believe that is exactly what we have to support in the Senate as 
well. The measure the administration favored, and that was earlier 
passed, as I say, will be blue-slipped so it will not take effect, but 
the problem with that measure is it would raise taxes on individuals 
and small businesses. Almost a million small businesses across this 
country would pay higher taxes and they are the generators of jobs for 
our economy. It also raises taxes on capital gains and it raises estate 
tax as well.
  Let me talk about the estate tax or the death tax provision for a 
minute. Right now the estate tax provides an exemption on the first $5 
million and then amounts in an estate over that $5 million threshold 
are taxed at 35 percent. However, reverting to the pre-2001-2003 tax 
rates, which happens at the end of the year unless action is taken--
unless action is taken by both the House and the Senate to extend the 
current rates--then we revert to the tax rates before the 2001-2003 tax 
reductions. That means instead of a $5 million exemption and a 35-
percent tax rate on estate tax or the death tax, we go to a $1 million 
exemption with a 55-percent tax rate after that.
  Think about what that means to our farms and our small businesses 
across the country: 24 times more farms will then be in an estate tax 
situation and something like 14 times more businesses will be in an 
estate tax situation. What does that mean? What it means is when a 
family member dies and it is time to pass on that farm or pass on that 
business, they are going to have to borrow money to try to pay the

[[Page 12992]]

estate tax. That farm or that business is going to have to generate 
enough revenue to pay that estate tax. If you cannot pay that estate 
tax at 55 percent of the value of what you are passing--if that 
business or that farm cannot service that level of debt, then you have 
to sell that farm or sell that small business, which may have been in 
the family for many generations. Remember that those farms, those 
ranches, those small businesses are the backbone of the American 
economy and here we are, at a time when we have 8.2 percent 
unemployment and we are trying to get this economy going and we are 
putting our small businesses across this country in that situation.
  That is why it is so important that we act. That is exactly what we 
have proposed. We have said rather than putting our economy in that 
situation right now, let's set up a 1-year extension of current tax 
rates, let's engage in progrowth tax reform where we actually lower 
rates but close loopholes, which will generate economic growth, and we 
will get revenue from economic growth rather than from higher taxes. 
That is vitally important.
  In fact, on a bipartisan basis 2 years ago that is what we did, we 
extended the current tax rates. I think we had 44 Democratic votes to 
do that here in the Senate. Republicans voted for it. I think across 
the board we had 44 votes on the Democratic side. Also, it was a 
bipartisan measure. I argue that is exactly what we have to do again. 
Even the President--who came out that he supported doing exactly what I 
laid out because, he said, we can't raise taxes in a recession. He said 
raising taxes would hurt the economy and would hurt job creation.
  If you look at the statistics today, we are actually in a more 
difficult economic situation now than we were then. Unemployment is at 
8.2 percent and has been over 8 percent for more than 41 straight 
months. There are 13 million people who are out of work, 10 million 
people are underemployed, which makes 23 million people either looking 
for work or looking for a better job. Middle-class income has declined 
from approximately $55,000 to about $50,000 since this administration 
took office. Food stamp usage has increased from 32 million recipients 
to 46 million recipients, and as we have seen, economic growth is about 
1.5 percent.
  As far as job creation, there were 80,000 jobs gained during the 
month, but we need 150,000 jobs gained during the month just to keep up 
with population growth and not have our unemployment rate increase. So 
these are the facts, and the facts speak for themselves. We need to 
extend the current tax rates, we need progrowth tax reform on a 
bipartisan basis, and we need to get control of our spending.
  If we look at the latest numbers from CBO, CBO says without taking 
those steps we are looking at economic growth next year of maybe one-
half percent for the entire year. If we take the steps to address the 
fiscal cliff, as I have described, and take those steps to undertake 
progrowth tax reform, CBO talks in terms of a 4.4-percent growth rate 
next year. Think what that means to 13 million unemployed people. It 
means the difference between getting a job and not getting a job.
  The uncertainty that our economy faces right now because of the 
expiration of the current tax rates at the end of the year, and 
businesses not knowing what is going to happen, is freezing investment 
capital on the sidelines and freezing business expansion. There is more 
private capital and investment capital sidelined now more than in the 
history of our country. We unleash it, and we get it going not by 
raising taxes but by providing the legal tax and regulatory certainty--
the kind of progrowth tax reform with closing loopholes, as I have 
described--to get this economy going.
  The administration says: Well, everyone needs to pay their fair 
share. I think that is certainly true. We are saying exactly that. That 
is exactly what we do by engaging in progrowth tax reform and closing 
loopholes. Everyone is treated fairly, and everyone pays their fair 
share.
  In fact, just to give a sense of that whole concept, let's look at 
who pays the income taxes right now according to the National Taxpayers 
Union. Today the top 5 percent of taxpayers pay almost 60 percent of 
the income tax in this country. The top 10 percent pay almost 70 
percent of the income tax in this country. The top 25 percent pay 
almost 90 percent of the income tax in this country. The top 50 percent 
of taxpayers pay 98 percent of the income tax that is paid in the 
country.
  So the point is, let's engage in progrowth tax reform that will get 
our economy growing rather than stagnant as it is today. It is that 
economic growth that puts our people back to work and truly generates 
the revenue, not higher tax rates which will hurt our growth. We can 
lower rates, close loopholes, come up with a fairer system that is 
simpler and will generate revenue through economic growth. That is the 
only way that economic growth, along with controlling and managing our 
spending, will get us on top of our debt and deficit and get Americans 
back to work. We need to do it in a bipartisan way. We can do it. We 
have done it before, and we absolutely need to get started, and get 
started now, for the good of the American people and the good of our 
country.
  If I may, I want to close on one short message; that is, as the House 
works on a tax measure--as I described today--to extend the current tax 
rates and put us in a situation where we can truly engage in progrowth 
tax reform, I also urge my colleagues in the House to make sure that at 
the same time they are acting on farm bill legislation and not just the 
drought legislation.
  We passed a farm bill in this Senate several weeks ago on a 
bipartisan basis. I hope they are able to do the same thing and pass a 
farm bill in the House on a bipartisan basis as well that we can go to 
conference with. I believe the bill we produced in the Senate and the 
bill they have produced in the Agriculture Committee can be brought 
together in a conference committee. We can pass a farm bill that will 
be cost effective, will save money, and help reduce the deficit.
  The bill we passed would generate $23 billion in savings to help 
address the deficit. It would provide the right kind of safety net for 
our farmers and ranchers and ultimately this: Good farm policy benefits 
every single American because our farmers and ranchers produce the 
highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world. That benefits 
every single one of us, not to mention creating a lot of great jobs 
throughout the country.
  So I call on the House to act on that farm bill as well as engage in 
the kind of progrowth tax reform that I know will truly benefit our 
country.
  With that, Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Senator Inhofe pertaining to the introduction of S. 
3473 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have a little bit of a problem in that 
I do not want to take time from the Senator who is in line to speak 
after me. But I would like to serve notice that there have been several 
things that were said on the floor today concerning this whole idea of 
global warming. We had a hearing this morning. It was kind of revealing 
because they have done everything they can to pass cap and trade, and 
it has not happened.
  I wish to correct some statements that were made by Members. When the 
time comes that I have about 20 minutes to do this, I will do that. It 
will probably have to be later today because of the clock that is 
running now.
  I yield the floor for my friend to take his turn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.

[[Page 12993]]


  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I rise this afternoon in 
support of the bipartisan Cybersecurity Act of 2012, and I wish to 
share my concerns about the very real cyber threat facing our country. 
Most importantly, I rise to urge all my colleagues to move forward to 
the passage of this pending cyber security bill for the good of our 
national security. Top experts and respected members of both political 
parties have told us that time is wasting; we must debate and pass this 
critically important piece of legislation.
  Cyber security policy is an issue with which I am deeply involved, 
given my seats on the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Senate 
Armed Services Committee. Moreover, Colorado's military and defense 
communities play a prominent role in defending our country, the United 
States, against cyber attacks.
  The Air Force Space Command, located at Peterson Air Force Base in 
Colorado Springs, is responsible for protecting American space-based 
assets from network intrusions. The U.S. Northern Command, also located 
at Peterson Air Force Base, recently established a Joint Cyber Center 
to help provide on-demand cyber consequence response to civil 
authorities.
  Multiple defense and technology industry companies based in Colorado 
also contribute hardware, software, and expertise to the effort to keep 
our networks and infrastructure secure.
  Our Federal labs also conduct critical research into cyber security, 
most notably the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
otherwise known as NIST, which is located in Boulder. They play a key 
role in helping establish cyber security standards.
  The threats posed by cyber attacks have long been recognized, but we 
in the Congress have yet to act upon these threats in a comprehensive 
way. It is as if we see the danger in front of us, but yet we cannot 
find the courage to face it. But Congress cannot afford to wait for a 
9/11-sized attack in order to act. Waiting for a catastrophic act--
something military and intelligence leaders and a bipartisan collection 
of national security experts are warning us against--is the exact 
opposite of leadership and the exact opposite of what our constituents 
expect us to do.
  This debate, to me, has seemingly, unfortunately, unraveled into an 
antiquated argument about the public sector versus the private sector. 
We cannot let old ways of thinking bog us down. This is a threat that 
can only be addressed by both the public and private sectors working 
together.
  The private sector owns 85 percent of our Nation's critical 
infrastructure, which is itself heavily dependent on computer networks. 
A successful attack on our critical infrastructure could result in 
disabled power grids, refineries, and nuclear plants, disrupted rail 
systems and air traffic control and telecommunications networks. A 
successful attack could bring commerce to a halt, our financial markets 
to their knees. It could also escalate into a war in cyber space or 
even a shooting war.
  To defend against these serious threats, particularly those that 
involve national security, there needs to be an exchange of information 
between the public and the private sectors. Of course, allowing the 
government and industry to share information must be done with 
sufficient safeguards, so any legislation authorizing such sharing 
needs to strike a balance between privacy and civil liberties 
protections. I believe the bill's authors have achieved such a balance.
  I recognize it is often difficult to find consensus on how to defend 
our Nation from security threats. Sometimes that is because we cannot 
agree on the nature of our vulnerabilities and in what priority to 
address them. Unfortunately, sometimes Congress is too polarized to act 
until after a crisis occurs.
  But in the case of cyber security, we already know our Nation's 
computer networks are increasingly vulnerable. There is widespread 
agreement about the severity of the threat. Just last month, Defense 
Secretary Panetta testified before Congress that cyber attacks could 
``virtually paralyze this country.'' The threat is not impending, it is 
here. We already know many of the steps we need to take to mitigate or 
prevent these attacks. The only issue getting in the way is politics. 
Frankly, Coloradans are tired of this. They want us to reason together 
and solve our most vexing national challenges.
  The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 is not overly intrusive. It has been 
scaled back to a voluntary system of industry-driven security standards 
for critical infrastructure. The bill's authors have offered a further 
amendment to address some of the remaining concerns of the bill's 
opponents. As much as the bill's authors have compromised and worked 
with groups and businesses from across the policy spectrum, one would 
think they would get more in return from the Republicans than a demand 
to vote on the repeal of health care reform. But that is where the 
debate stands, and it is not a proud moment for our Chamber.
  The cyber security bill before us may not be perfect. In fact, I have 
offered three amendments that I believe make this an even stronger 
bill.
  The first would require the administration to provide a detailed plan 
on how it would develop a highly trained, robust Federal cyber security 
workforce. A stronger Federal workforce will not only better protect 
government assets, but these individuals will go on to fill critical 
roles protecting cyber assets in the private sector.
  My second amendment would establish permanent faculty positions to 
train the next generation of military cyber leaders at the U.S. Air 
Force Academy.
  My third amendment would require the assessment of the costs and 
benefits of building a strategic stockpile of extra high voltage 
transformers. We do not produce these highly specialized pieces of 
equipment domestically, and it would take months to replace 
transformers damaged by a physical or cyber attack.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in passing these commonsense 
amendments aimed at improving our national security.
  This cyber security bill is over 3 years in the making. I find it 
ironic some argue the process has been rushed and we need more time. 
But I believe this bill is long overdue and we simply cannot afford not 
to act.
  As the head of U.S. Cyber Command and the Director of the National 
Security Agency, General Alexander, wrote in a letter to Congress this 
week, ``The cyber threat facing the Nation is real and demands 
immediate action.''
  This is coming from the national security official who knows more 
than anyone about the cyber threats facing our country. As a member of 
the Intelligence Committee, I take his cautions and advice very 
seriously. The rest of us should as well.
  As I close, I urge all of us, let's put aside partisan ploys and 
partisan differences. Let's work together to amend and pass this 
vitally important cyber security bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I understand the floor time is pretty 
much used up between now and 6:30. I have made inquiries. I understand 
I will have time at 6:30 for 25 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I 
be recognized at 6:30 for 25 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I understand the next speakers are in the cloakroom at 
this time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, more than eight months ago, Senator Crapo 
and I, two Senators from very different parts of the country with very 
different political perspectives, joined together to introduce the 
Leahy-Crapo Violence

[[Page 12994]]

Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011. We put aside our political 
differences, listened to the law enforcement and victim services 
professionals, and drafted a bill that put victims first.
  It has been more than 3 months since an overwhelming majority of the 
Senate joined us in our bipartisan effort to pass the Violence Against 
Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 with 68 votes, more than two-thirds 
of this body, including every woman Senator, Republican and Democratic. 
In doing so, the Senate sent a very clear message. We said stopping 
domestic and sexual violence is a national priority, and we are going 
to stand together, Republicans and Democrats alike, to protect all 
victims from these devastating crimes--all victims. It was very clear. 
If you are a victim of domestic and sexual violence, we are passing 
laws to help protect you, no matter who you are or where you live in 
this country.
  Having sent such a strong bipartisan message from this body, I was--I 
don't know whether to say bewildered or shocked to see the House 
Republican leadership abandon the bipartisan approach that was so 
successful in the Senate. Instead of allowing a vote on the Senate-
passed bipartisan bill that has the support of more than 1,000 
national, state, and local victim service organizations, they insisted 
on crafting a new, partisan measure that intentionally stripped out 
protections for some of the most vulnerable victims and weakened 
existing protections for others. They refused to allow votes on 
amendments as we had done here in the Senate, choosing to stifle a full 
and honest debate about how to best meet the needs of victims.
  This overtly political approach was too much even for some in their 
own party. Nearly two dozen House Republicans, including the chair of 
the crime victims' caucus, stood up and voted against the inadequate 
and harmful House bill. That opposition was not surprising since a 
similar provision offered during the Senate debate was rejected by 61 
Senators, including nine Republicans.
  The House Speaker's recent announcement naming as conferees only 
Republicans who supported that misguided and deeply partisan effort is 
hardly a step forward. Instead, I wish the Republican House leadership 
would do what it should have done four months ago--take up, debate, and 
vote on the bipartisan Senate-passed bill. I have no doubt we could 
reauthorize this life-saving bill in short order if they would just 
allow their members a straightforward vote on the merits.
  Instead, Speaker Boehner continues to hide behind a procedural 
technicality, called a ``blue slip,'' as an excuse to avoid debating 
the bipartisan Senate bill. He acts as if he has no choice, but this is 
nonsense. The Speaker can waive the technicality and allow the House to 
vote on the Senate bill at any time. He is choosing to hold up this 
bill, and those efforts must stop.
  Since the Senate bill passed, I have been consistently calling for 
House action on the legislation. Earlier this summer, Senator Murkowski 
and I wrote a bipartisan letter to Speaker Boehner, urging him to allow 
an up-or-down vote. Two weeks ago, five House Republicans followed 
suit, calling on Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor to take up 
the Senate-passed bill to resolve the ``blue slip'' problem. And 
yesterday Republican Representatives Biggert and Dold again urged the 
House to work with the Senate to get this vital legislation signed into 
law.
  But if the Speaker and the Republican leadership in the House insist 
on ignoring victims and the voices of the professionals in the field, 
and those in their own party, and continue to delay this crucial 
legislation on a technicality, a technicality which has been waived 
over and over and over again since I have been in the Senate, I think 
the Senate should once again lead by example.
  We can solve this problem tonight--tonight, within the next few 
hours. If the Senate Republican leadership wants to get VAWA, the 
Violence Against Women Act, done, it can be done. We could take up a 
House revenue bill, substitute the bipartisan Senate VAWA bill, and 
send it to the House immediately.
  To those who are watching and listening, this may sound like, what 
are these legislative moves? What they are is a simple thing I have 
seen done hundreds of times since I have been here. It would be our way 
of saying we want to stop violence against women. We have passed a bill 
that had Republicans and Democrats come together across the political 
spectrum. Now we are sending it to the other body, saying follow our 
example.
  Majority Leader Reid proposed this path forward nearly 2 months ago, 
but he was blocked by the Republican side. There is no good reason for 
their objection. Just this year, Republican Senators unanimously agreed 
to a similar procedure in order to overcome blue slip issues with both 
the transportation bill and the FAA reauthorization bill. Let's be 
clear about this--with just a little cooperation from Senate 
Republicans, we can move VAWA now. What I am saying is that just as 68 
of us, Republicans and Democrats, came together before to pass this 
bill, I would urge the Republican leadership to join us and stop 
blocking it from moving forward.
  We have only a precious few days left in this Congress to get this 
bill passed. The procedural excuses must stop. Partisan politicking 
must end, just as Senator Crapo and I, two Senators of different 
political philosophies, came together when we started this process so 
many months ago, we came together to focus on the victims but also to 
make good on our promise to stop domestic and sexual violence in all 
its forms against all victims.
  I have said so many times on this floor, this matter is deeply 
personal. I went to a lot of these crime scenes as a young prosecutor, 
a young prosecutor with a young family. I would see a victim of 
violence, sometimes a bloodied and barely conscious victim being taken 
in an ambulance to the hospital--but sometimes seeing a bloody corpse 
on the floor and then we would find out, as we unraveled the case, that 
we could have intervened and stopped this death if we had only had the 
tools. Well, now those early detection and intervention tools exist and 
we can stop this violence. Those tools, critical resources to reduce 
domestic violence homicide, are in the Senate-passed VAWA bill but they 
will not become law unless we act to pass this legislation now.
  What I also learned is that the police officers who came to help 
investigate and help get the perpetrator, they never asked: Was this 
victim a Republican or Democrat, rich or poor, white or black, gay or 
straight, Native American or immigrant. They just said, as I have said 
so many times on the floor and the distinguished Presiding Officer, who 
herself was a prosecutor, has said: A victim is a victim is a victim.
  I do not want to just be able to arrest people after the victim is 
dead. I want programs to stop the person from being abused in the first 
place. I want to protect victims before they become victims. If there 
is anything in this country that should unite all of us, it should be 
this, just as it united us before. Let's send it on to the other body. 
Let's get it passed. Let's get it on the President's desk, and let's 
hope we save the lives of people.
  Helping these victims--no matter who they are--must be our goal. 
Their lives depend on it, and they are waiting on us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I am honored to follow the Senator 
from Vermont, who has been such an extraordinary leader in this area, 
and look forward to yielding shortly to the Senator from Washington, 
who has championed this bill and helped us all see the urgency of 
approving it.
  In the minutes that I will be talking, and they will be brief 
minutes, every minute, two to three women will become victims of 
domestic abuse. Every minute that I am standing here, every minute that 
we occupy with debate and delay on this measure, two to three people in 
the United States, the greatest country in the history of the world,

[[Page 12995]]

will become victims of domestic violence.
  We cannot afford to wait. That is why I urge that my colleagues 
advance this critical piece of legislation and urge the House of 
Representatives to agree to the Senate version of this bill so we can 
make this bill more inclusive to include Native Americans and 
immigrants and others who would not be covered by the House version.
  We find ourselves at a crossroads. We can either strengthen VAWA or 
we can retreat and go back. I say let's go forward with the philosophy 
that the Senator from Vermont has articulated so well as a prosecutor, 
not to mention knowing how our police work. We do not ask whether 
someone is an immigrant, what their sexual preference is, whether they 
are Native American. We protect them if they are victims of domestic 
abuse and violence. That should be our philosophy in the greatest 
country in the history of the world.
  There are two protections for battered immigrant women in VAWA that 
are particularly important. The first allows immigrant women married to 
an abusive U.S. citizen to apply for legal status independent of that 
spouse. The second, which is the U visa, provides temporary status to 
victims who cooperate with law enforcement to prosecute their abuser.
  The reauthorization of VAWA is currently stalled principally because 
of the U Visa provisions in the Senate bill, S. 1925.
  Let me illustrate the importance of this provision with one story. A 
woman who came to Connecticut from Guatemala fled her native country to 
escape her abuser and arrived in Connecticut in 2005. Her abuser 
followed her to Connecticut, where he continued to abuse her. He was 
eventually deported to Guatemala on criminal charges, but she found 
herself in another abusive relationship. Eventually, she was able to 
find shelter at a local domestic violence agency. She could not 
convince family to sponsor her so she could apply for legal status. She 
would have had nowhere to turn but for a transitional living program 
for domestic violence victims that connected her to a Connecticut legal 
aid attorney, who then enabled her to file for a new visa.
  I am happy to report that this constituent survivor received her new 
visa in May of 2012. Because of VAWA, she is now safe, and so is her 
son.
  This story is repeated countless times across Connecticut and the 
country by women who suffer in silence. Their undocumented status makes 
them particularly vulnerable and powerless to escape their abusive 
situations. My constituents tell me--and I want to listen to them--that 
we cannot afford to compromise those basic protections that are 
fundamental to human rights and dignity, and that is why I urge this 
body, and the Congress as a whole, to move forward, not backward.
  Again, every minute, two to three women become the victims of 
domestic violence. The consequences of this horrific problem are too 
high and the costs too dire to stay the course and simply repeat the 
inaction we have seen so far.
  Thousands of victims of domestic violence are entrusting us with 
their safety today. We have an obligation to them to avoid the 
gamesmanship, end the gridlock, and move forward with S. 1925.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank Senator Leahy and Senator 
Blumenthal and so many others who have come to the floor to speak on 
this critical issue.
  Today the women of the Senate and the men who support the Violence 
Against Women Act are on the Senate floor to give Speaker Boehner and 
the Republicans another chance to do what is right. It is another 
chance to stop the delay. It is another chance to provide peace of mind 
to 30 million women whose protections are at risk, and it is another 
chance to pass the inclusive, bipartisan Senate, Violence Against Women 
Act bill.
  The bipartisan Senate bill passed almost 100 days ago by a vote of 68 
to 31. Fifteen of our Republican colleagues on the floor--I will repeat 
that--15 Republicans joined us that day, and they did so because they 
know the history of this bill. They know every time the Violence 
Against Women Act has been reauthorized, it has consistently included 
bipartisan provisions to address the women who have not been protected. 
They know domestic violence protections for all women should not be a 
Democratic or Republican issue.
  But here we are back on the Senate floor urging support today for a 
bill that should not be controversial. Just as we did last week, just 
as we are doing today, and just as we will do in the coming weeks, we 
will be making sure this message resonates loudly and clearly both in 
Washington, DC, and back home in our States because we are not going to 
back down--not while there are thousands of women in the country who 
are excluded from the current law.
  The numbers are staggering. One in three Native Americans will be 
raped in their lifetime. Two in five of them are victims of domestic 
violence, and they are killed at 10 times the rate of the national 
average.
  Those shocking statistics are not just isolated to one group of 
women; 25 to 35 percent in the LGBT community experience domestic 
violence in their relationships. Three in four abused immigrant women 
never entered the process to obtain legal status, even though they are 
eligible. Why? Because their abuser husbands never filed their 
paperwork.
  This should make it perfectly clear to our colleagues in the other 
Chamber that their current inaction has a real impact on the lives of 
women across America affected by violence. Where a person lives, their 
immigration status, or who they love should not determine whether 
perpetrators of domestic violence are brought to justice.
  Last week, the New York Times ran an editorial on this bill that gets 
to the heart of where we are. It began by saying:

       House Republicans have to decide which is more important: 
     protecting victims of domestic violence or advancing the 
     harsh antigay and anti-immigrant sentiments of some of their 
     party's far right. At the moment, harshness is winning.

  The editorial also made the point that it doesn't have to be this 
way. It pointed out:

       In May, fifteen Senate Republicans joined with the 
     chamber's Democratic majority to approve a strong 
     reauthorization bill.

  It ended with what we all know it will take to move this bill 
forward: leadership from Congressman Boehner. The effort that was 
started in the Senate last week--an effort that will continue for as 
long as it takes--is a call for the very same--leadership.
  It is time for Speaker Boehner to look beyond ideology and partisan 
politics. It is time for him to look at the history of a bill that 
again and again has been supported and expanded by Republicans and 
Democrats and end the delay because, frankly, it is taking a toll.
  Every moment the House continues to delay is another moment that 30 
million vulnerable women are without the protections they deserve in 
this country.
  The women this bill protects have seen their lives destroyed by the 
cowardice of those who claimed to care for them. We have a chance now 
to stand for them where others have not. But the only way we can help 
protect these women is to prove that we as a nation have the courage to 
do so--the courage to show them that discrimination has no place in our 
domestic violence laws. To do that, we need to pass the Senate's 
inclusive, bipartisan Violence Against Women Act.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have a question, and I want to make sure everyone 
listening to this debate gets what is about to happen.
  Is it not true that the Senate passed the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo 
Violence Against Women Act with well more than 60 votes?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes, the Senator from California is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. Is it not correct that the House passed its version and 
left out 30 million Americans?

[[Page 12996]]


  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is correct. In fact, those 
30 million Americans would be covered under the Senate bill. We made 
sure that Native American women are covered, and we put in important 
provisions to make sure campus violence is covered, and those 
provisions have been left out of the House bill.
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes. And the immigrant women, as the Senator has 
discussed, which Senator Blumenthal pointed out, are the most 
vulnerable because they are so afraid of their status, they are very 
scared to report that someone is raping them, beating them, or harming 
them every single day; is that correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is absolutely correct. We 
cannot even imagine what it is like to have somebody hold that kind of 
power over you and use it to beat you day in and day out. We cover 
those women in this bill so that they have the protections they ought 
to have as human beings.
  Mrs. BOXER. Isn't it fair to say that the 30 million people we 
cover--which the House leaves out--include college students, enhanced 
protections for them on campus; the LGBT community; Native American 
communities; and undocumented immigrants; is that correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. As my friend pointed out, is it not true that when you 
look at rates of violence against these particular people in our 
communities, they are higher than the population at large?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. Isn't it fair to say that the House bill--their version 
of the Violence Against Women Act left out the most vulnerable people 
who are the most susceptible to violence?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is correct. That is why we 
have work to do, in a bipartisan fashion in the Senate, to make sure in 
this country, America, we do not discriminate against women when it 
comes to violence.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have two more points, and then I will yield to my 
friend so she can make the unanimous consent request.
  Isn't it also true that the excuse Speaker Boehner is giving as to 
why he will not take up and pass the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill, isn't 
it true that the excuse is that there is a technical problem, which he 
calls a blue slip, in the Senate bill? And isn't it true that my friend 
today is going to ask unanimous consent to correct that problem so that 
we can send this inclusive bill over to Speaker Boehner?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is correct. It seems to me 
such a simple procedure to do, which we have done many times in the 
Senate, to just by unanimous consent send the Speaker back the bill so 
he can't put a piece of blue paper in front of us and say that stands 
between women and the protections we are trying to pass for them today.
  Mrs. BOXER. Finally, I hope, when my friend makes the unanimous 
consent request, to take the very same text of the Violence Against 
Women Act, which passed this body with well over 60 votes, and put it 
into a bill that would overcome the technical problem and enable us to 
send it back to the House. It is my strong hope that the Republican 
leadership will not object. If they do, let the whole country 
understand what they are objecting to: a way to fix this technical 
problem so that Speaker Boehner and the Republicans can pass the Senate 
bipartisan Violence Against Women Act and include the 30 million people 
who have been left out.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from California and say that she is 
absolutely correct. What I am about to do is to ask consent to do what 
we have done on many pieces of legislation, including the jobs and 
Transportation bills the Senator from California was able to pass, and 
the Senate overcame that technicality through a motion on the floor.
  We have done it time and time again on bills like that. It seems to 
me that on a bill like this, which is affecting so many women and their 
right to protect themselves and the ability to get help in their 
communities, there should not be a technicality between them and our 
passing protections for them in this country.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 9

  Having said that, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee 
be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 9 and the Senate 
proceed to its consideration; that all after the enacting clause be 
stricken, and the language of S. 1925, the Violence Against Women Act 
reauthorization, as passed in the Senate on April 26 by a vote of 68 to 
31, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill, as amended, be read the 
third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements 
related to the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, rather than doing the usual thing and 
reserving the right to object, I will object, and then I would 
appreciate the courtesy, before I offer a parallel UC, to make my 
remarks.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, has the Senator from Iowa objected to 
my request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection has been heard. The Senator from 
Iowa----
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the Senator from Iowa has objected. I 
just have to say that it is stunning to me that the Senator has 
objected to a simple procedure that we have done many times on 
Transportation bills and FAA bills and, sadly, now there is an 
inability to provide protections for the women we have been talking 
about.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am going to make a unanimous consent 
request dealing with the same subject.
  Before I do that, I am astounded that it took 100 days for the 
majority to decide that the bill they wanted to send to the House would 
be blue-slipped because they kept saying it really wasn't subject to a 
blue slip. Obviously, the Constitution gives the House of 
Representatives the power to make that decision, and they made the 
decision that the fee in this bill would keep it from being accepted by 
the House of Representatives.
  They have obviously overcome that problem. But they have not overcome 
some other problems with the legislation. My reason for objecting for 
people on my side who voted against this bill is because of some 
unconstitutional provisions that it contains, and issues that don't 
have to be brought up to guarantee there is adequate legislation for 
fighting violence against women.
  By the way, I believe this act, which has been on the books for more 
than a decade and a half, is going to be carried on. So there is not 
going to be a situation where, whether or not we go through this 
process, there is not going to be legislation protecting women on the 
books. It is just a question whether it will be expanded in a way that 
was intended to make the bill controversial so, presumably, it could be 
made a political issue in an election year.
  What bothers me about this whole process--besides the fact it has 
taken 100 days to get to the point of offering it for conference--is it 
fits into a pattern of doing things at the last minute. We are 2 days 
away from a recess, and this is brought up at this particular time. I 
have to ask why. Why not sometime during the last 100 days?
  I also see a pattern of this maneuver fitting into the maneuvers that 
have been going on ever since, I believe, the spring break we had in 
the Senate. Ever since then--as reported in an article published in the 
newspaper we know as Politico a couple of months ago about a strategy 
between the White House reelection effort and things that go on in the 
Senate--we seem to have a crisis every week.
  We came back from the spring break, and we had the Buffett tax rule. 
That was carried on for a week. Everybody knew that wasn't going to 
pass, but we wasted a whole week on the Buffett tax rule.

[[Page 12997]]

  Then this issue was brought up before and passed about that time as 
part of a strategy of having a war on women come up as an issue. That 
ended in this legislation being passed through the Senate but in a way 
where everybody knew it wasn't going to get through the House of 
Representatives. But it was a very convenient political issue.
  Later on, we had the equal wages for women legislation that came up 
for about a week. Once again, everybody knew that wasn't going to go 
anyplace, but it was debated in this assembly, taking up time from a 
lot of important issues that ought to be dealt with--the economy and 
creating jobs. We spent a week on that.
  Then we spent a week on taxing the rich, and everybody knew that 
wasn't going to go anywhere.
  I think we spent a month on interest rates on student loans. 
Everybody knew there was a bipartisan solution to that, but nobody 
wanted to go there until the President had a whole month of going to 
university campuses to blame Republicans for not passing a bill that 
would keep interest rates low on student loans.
  Then we spent last week on the DISCLOSE Act. Everybody knew that 
wasn't going to go anyplace.
  So we have had a whole spring and summer in this body of 
accomplishing nothing because there is a strategy between the White 
House and the leadership of the Senate to help this President get 
reelected. And to keep away from issues the people of this country are 
concerned about, which are the economy and creating jobs and the fact 
that this White House and this Senate aren't going to do anything to 
work through those issues.
  Here in the Senate it is an issue of politics and not an issue of 
process. I think the American people know the games being played, and 
they are sick and tired of it.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 406, H.R. 4970, the House-passed Violence 
Against Women Reauthorization Act; provided further that all after the 
enacting clause be stricken, the text of the Senate-passed violence 
against women bill, S. 1925, with a modification that strikes sections 
805 and 810 related to the immigration provisions; that the bill be 
read three times and passed, the Senate insist on its amendment, 
request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to 
appoint conferees on the part of the Senate with a ratio agreed to by 
both leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Is there objection?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the passion of 
the Senator from Iowa on behalf of the Republican majority and Speaker 
Boehner, and, frankly, I have to say it is offensive to say that the 
issue of violence against women is about politics. This is about women 
who are abused, women who are powerless to fight back, and women being 
able to get the protection they need in this country that has provided 
protection for a very long time, to make sure women who are immigrants, 
women who live in a tribe, women who are gay and lesbian, women who are 
on college campuses get the protection this legislation supports. This 
is not about politics, this is about violence and this country standing 
up and saying we are going to protect them.
  Make no mistake about it, what the Republicans are saying is that 
they want to move this bill to conference so they can strip out those 
provisions. Well, they have crossed a line--a line that in the history 
of this nonpolitical, bipartisan bill has been so deeply important to 
so many of us. They made this bill about politics just now. I find that 
offensive.
  What they want is to take the Senate's bipartisan-passed bill, 
supported by both Republicans and Democrats here, send it to 
conference, and then pick it apart. They want to take it to conference 
so they can have a discussion about which women in this country deserve 
protection and which do not. They want to pit one group of women 
against another. This is not a game. It is not politics. And it 
certainly is not a game I am going to play. The new protections in this 
bill have been supported by Republicans and Democrats, groups across 
this country, and millions of Americans. They are not bartering chips, 
and it is not about politics.
  The objection of the Senator on behalf of the Republicans raises 
issues that really are nothing more than a smokescreen. They do not 
want to be out in front saying they are willing to discriminate against 
certain women. They would rather hide behind these procedural 
objections. But I would remind all our colleagues that these procedural 
objections they are out here talking about--the politics--have been 
routinely overcome here in the Senate. Just as I said a few minutes 
ago, the transportation and jobs bill we passed a month ago, the blue 
slip issue was overcome. The FAA reauthorization last year funding our 
Nation's airports--overcome. The Food Safety Act--overcome. The Travel 
Promotion Act. All those had blue slip issues, and all of them were 
overcome, and there was a reason why--leadership and the will to do the 
right thing.
  So let me make it abundantly clear. This is not about politics. It is 
about protecting women in this country. It is about making sure we do 
what is right for so many women who are looking to Congress to put in 
place the protections they deserve.
  So the ball is in the Speaker's court now. He is going to have to 
talk to women across the country about why their protections are at 
risk because of politics. But I want everyone to be clear: We are not 
going to compromise on the issues that are so important to so many 
women and throw them under the bus. That is not what we have fought for 
year after year on bipartisan legislation when we passed the Violence 
Against Women Act before. It is inclusive, it is bipartisan, and it is 
above ideology and partisan games. It is a bill that makes sure that no 
matter who you are or where you live or whom you love, you are 
protected in this great country in which we live.
  Politics has no place in this. I would agree with the Senator from 
Iowa. Who is playing politics? We will leave it up for those who are 
watching. What I have asked is that the Senate do what we have done 
many times on many bills--move this bill to the House in a bipartisan 
way and pass it, and then politics won't matter, women will be covered.
  I hope our Senate colleagues who have objected and the Speaker will 
reconsider. They can easily pass this bill today or next month, put it 
in place, and women in this country can say the leaders of this country 
are fighting for them.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I just want to do one thing in terms of 
responding to Senator Grassley, who is a friend. We enjoy a very good 
relationship on the Judiciary Committee, and we are just friends. But 
the idea that these new provisions in the VAWA bill are political just 
couldn't be further from the truth.
  Let me talk about just one provision. It is about women on Indian 
reservations who get abused by a partner or a boyfriend or husband who 
isn't Native. And this happens all the time. This provision gave 
jurisdiction to the tribes to prosecute these individuals.
  I am on the Indian Affairs Committee. I talk to tribal leaders all 
the time. I go to reservations all the time. My colleagues have no idea 
how grateful tribal leaders were and how important this was. One out of 
every three Indian women in this country is raped at some time in her 
life, and by far the largest majority of that is not by male Indians, 
it is by non-Indians. I can't think of anything that is less political. 
I just can't. And I ask my colleagues to think, to give a second of 
thought before they say stuff like that.
  It really is, as Senator Murray said, offensive to her. I actually 
found it more sad. I find it sad.

[[Page 12998]]




              The Medicare Diabetes Prevention Act of 2012

  Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk about diabetes. And the 
Presiding Officer has been such a champion in talking about the money 
that can be saved in our health care system by the prevention of 
chronic disease.
  The burden of chronic disease in our country is staggering. Chronic 
disease affects half of all American adults, and 7 out of 10 deaths 
each year are due to chronic disease. If current trends continue, by 
the year 2020, 52 percent of American adults will either have type 2 
diabetes or elevated glucose levels, known as prediabetes, and diabetes 
can often lead to other chronic diseases, such as heart disease.
  But as grim as these statistics are for our country, we also have 
some of the best health care researchers in the world. A few years ago, 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the CDC, conducted a 
pilot program called the Diabetes Prevention Program in two cities: St. 
Paul, MN, and Indianapolis, IN. This program, which was administered by 
the YMCA, is a program focusing on 16 weeks of nutritional training, 
eating healthy, and physical activity. It costs about $300 per 
participant. The results of this pilot were extraordinary. Among adults 
with prediabetes--who are at the highest risk for developing type 2 
diabetes--the program reduced chances that a participant would be 
diagnosed with diabetes by 58 percent. For adults over the age of 60, 
it reduced the likelihood of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes by 71 
percent.
  That is why Senator Lugar and I introduced legislation in 2009 to 
authorize the National Diabetes Prevention Program as a grant program 
through the CDC. This bill was passed as part of the health care law 
and is helping community-based organizations such as the YMCA 
administer the program across the country. No one can participate in 
this program if it is not available, which is why we needed the CDC to 
help expand the program and scale it up. Thanks to their work and to 
our provisions in the Affordable Care Act, the YMCA is now offering the 
Diabetes Prevention Program at more than 300 sites in 30 States.
  But we also need health insurers to pay for the program to make sure 
everyone who needs it can get it. We know that when eligible adults 
participate in the program, it saves everyone money. In fact, the CEO 
of United Healthcare told me that they will cover this. Why? Because 
they save $4 for every $1 they invest in the program because their 
beneficiaries are healthier. And the Urban Institute estimated that 
implementing community programs such as the Diabetes Prevention Program 
could save $191 billion nationally, with 75 percent of the savings--
more than $142 billion--going to Medicare and Medicaid Programs.
  That is why the Federal Government should also invest in this cost-
saving program for seniors. Nearly one-third of Medicare beneficiaries 
had diabetes in 2010. The Diabetes Prevention Program costs about $300 
per participant, as compared to more than $6,000 a year in added health 
care costs for someone with type 2 diabetes. There is no question that 
by preventing diabetes, we can all save money while keeping our seniors 
healthier.
  That is why I introduced legislation yesterday with my friends, 
Senators Lugar, Rockefeller, Collins, and Shaheen, to allow Medicare to 
cover the National Diabetes Prevention Program. We are doing this to 
help our seniors enjoy their golden years while staying as healthy as 
possible. We are also doing it because it is the fiscally responsible 
thing to do. That is why the American Diabetes Association, the 
American Heart Association, the American Public Health Association, and 
the American Council on Aging have all endorsed this legislation. The 
National Association of Chronic Disease Directors, the National 
Association of State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Programs, and the YMCA of 
the USA have also endorsed the bill, as have 79 State and local 
organizations.
  We know a really good way to prevent type 2 diabetes, and we know how 
to do it while saving the Federal Government billions of dollars. In 
fact, we know doing it will save the Federal Government billions of 
dollars.
  Let's all here work together to prevent chronic disease in our 
country. I urge the Presiding Officer and my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to join me in guaranteeing that every senior has access to 
the Diabetes Prevention Program when they need it.


                         I-35W Bridge Collapse

  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to 
recognize that today is the fifth anniversary of a tragedy in my home 
State--the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis. The collapse 
killed 13 people and injured 145 others. That collapse was a shock to 
Minnesotans and to the country. How could a bridge on our Interstate 
Highway System collapse? It underscores the importance, of course, of 
investing in our infrastructure. We did move quickly to replace the 
bridge--and it is a beautiful bridge--thanks to the leadership of 
Senator Klobuchar and others.
  I wish to say a few words about the response by the people and the 
first responders in Minneapolis and the metropolitan area. It was 
amazing. All the first responders had interoperable radio signals. 
People in Minneapolis ran to the bridge to help. People did heroic 
things. I am very proud of Minnesota. I am proud of Mayor Rybak and the 
response of other first responders in the metropolitan area. I am so 
proud to represent Minnesota.
  My heart goes out to the families of those who perished that day and 
also to their loved ones and their friends and also to the survivors 
who are still recovering in so many different ways.
  I urge my colleagues not to forget that day. We need to invest in our 
infrastructure to make sure this doesn't happen again.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for 
his great remarks. He really does care about Minnesota. It is a nice 
State.


                             Iran Sanctions

  Mr. President, in a few hours the Iran sanctions bill is likely to 
pass both the House and the Senate. That is very good news because when 
it comes to Iran, time's a wastin'. We need to ratchet up the pressure. 
And this is a powerful package that will paralyze the Iranian economy. 
It tightens the screws tighter, tighter, tighter, so that the Iranians 
will have no choice but to see their economy basically in desperate 
shape if they continue to pursue obtaining a nuclear weapon.
  I thank my colleague, Chairman Johnson of the Banking Committee, who 
has put so much time and effort into the Iran sanctions bill and done 
such a great job.
  I thank Ranking Member Shelby. We go to the gym in the Senate at 
about the same time early in the morning, and we have talked about this 
bill repeatedly. I know how much he cares about it.
  I thank my colleague from New Jersey, whom I have worked with on this 
issue long and hard and who has taken a great leadership role. Senator 
Menendez has been relentless in pushing this bill, and the many of us 
who wish not to see a nuclear Iran owe Senator Menendez a great deal of 
thanks.
  I thank my friend Senator Kirk, who, even though he is not physically 
present in the Chamber, has made this his highest priority. We have 
worked together on this issue a long time, and we continue to wish him 
a speedy recovery.
  I believe that when it comes to Iran, of course, we should never take 
the military option off the table, but I believe--as almost everyone in 
this Chamber believes, our President believes, Prime Minister Netanyahu 
believes, and most Israelis believe--that economic sanctions are the 
preferred way to choke Iran's nuclear ambitions. If we can achieve 
sanctions and Iran truly backs off, not with a feint but in reality, by 
meeting the three standards that both President Obama and Prime 
Minister Netanyahu have set--turning over any 20-percent enriched 
uranium, stop producing any 20-percent enriched uranium, and destroying 
the new facility at Qom--then we will have achieved great victory. So 
we have to move forward.

[[Page 12999]]

  Earlier this year a group of bipartisan Senators--I was proud to be 
amongst them--led by Senator Lieberman called on the European Union to 
exert more pressure on Iran by imposing an oil embargo on this rogue 
regime. Our European partners have done just that, and their oil 
boycott is working. That, too, is furthering to ratchet the pressure on 
Iran's nuclear program.
  Last November the report on Iran's nuclear program by the IAEA was 
its most alarming yet. It proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iran 
is developing a nuclear weapon. And according to published reports, 
they could have at least one workable weapon in less than a year and 
another in 6 months after that. So we don't have much time, and 
ratcheting up the economic pressure is imperative. We cannot dawdle. We 
cannot sit around and say: Let's wait 6 months and see if the existing 
sanctions are working. We have to ratchet up that pressure so that Iran 
sees that it is not in its interests economically, politically, 
militarily even, to pursue the path they have thus far chosen. The IAEA 
report details a highly organized program dedicated to acquiring the 
skills necessary to produce and test a nuclear bomb. And earlier this 
year DNI Director Clapper told the Senate Intelligence Committee that 
Iran's leaders even seem prepared to attack U.S. interests overseas. So 
we know Iran is on the path to continued evil.
  Just last week a suspected suicide bomber killed 6 people and wounded 
30 aboard an Israeli tourist bus in a coastal town in Bulgaria. Israel 
believes--and I tend to agree with them--that Hezbollah and Iran are to 
blame. Many questions remain about the bomb, but many Western 
counterterrorist officials share the suspicions that Israel and I, 
frankly, both have.
  By giving our government the capability to impose even more crippling 
sanctions on Iran should they continue with their nuclear weapons 
program, the House and the Senate are putting forth a tough, smart plan 
to ratchet it up and prevent, hopefully, God willing, the very real 
threat Iran poses to the United States and our allies, particularly 
Israel.
  I am not going to go over what the bill does. That has been talked 
about. But I want to mention one other part of the bill before I sit 
down. I am really happy and grateful to Chairman Johnson that the 
measure before us will also include language adopted from the Syrian 
Human Rights Accountability Act. That is legislation I cointroduced 
this year with my friend and colleague from New York, Senator 
Gillibrand. The legislation would require the administration to 
identify violators of human rights in Syria, it would call for reform 
and protection of the prodemocracy demonstrators, and it would also 
block any financial aid and property transactions in the United States 
involving Syrian leaders involved in the crackdown on protesters.
  If the Syrian Government, which in many respects operates as a client 
state for the rogue Iranian regime, will not willingly change its 
brutal approach and continues to violate the human rights of those 
seeking to exercise their voices, then we have to do everything we can 
to send the strongest message possible to that nation's leadership that 
this behavior is beyond the pale and not without consequences.
  In conclusion, I believe my colleagues Chairman Johnson, ranking 
member Shelby, Senator Menendez, and Senator Kirk, have done an 
excellent job crafting a comprehensive plan to arm the administration 
with the tools it needs to put a stop to Iran's nuclear program. I urge 
my colleagues to unanimously support the Iran Threat Reduction and 
Syria Human Rights Act of 2012.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as 
in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Servicemembers' Protection Act

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I rise today because servicemembers 
who risk their lives protecting our Nation should not have to ever 
worry about predatory banking practices. They should not have to worry 
about whether they can vote absentee while serving abroad. While they 
are fighting our Nation's foes, they should not have to worry about 
fighting a foreclosure. When they are serving our country, they should 
not have to worry if their civilian job, if they are Guard or Reserve, 
will be available when they return.
  Unfortunately, too many do worry about that. Last week I joined the 
Attorney General of the United States at Wright-Patterson Air Force 
base near Dayton, OH, and spoke with men and women who serve our 
country, airmen and airwomen. Also around that time I spoke to some 
Guard and Reserve, members of the Guard and Reserve who serve our 
country, about some of these fraudulent practices. When they are 
overseas, some of them do not know when they return if they are going 
to still have their job. They don't know what happens to them when they 
go back to school if they are enrolled in a university, private or 
public, 2-year or 4-year. They don't know what happens sometimes with 
their families in foreclosure or facing financial fraud.
  We know that employment is critical for servicemembers and military 
families. So is housing. So is protecting their ability to cast a 
ballot. That is why I am sponsoring legislation, the Servicemembers' 
Protection Act, which is so vital to those men and women in uniform. It 
would make critical changes to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act that 
could improve the quality of life for members of the Armed Forces.
  My bill first would strengthen housing and lending rights for 
servicemembers. Right now, a bank cannot foreclose upon servicemembers 
while they are serving overseas until it gets a court order. Yet the 
bank has no real obligation to actually investigate whether a homeowner 
is on active duty overseas. My bill would require lenders who want to 
foreclose on a home to conduct a meaningful investigation into a 
borrower's military status. It would increase civil penalties for 
violating a servicemember's rights as a homeowner.
  The bill also would strengthen enforcement for the Uniformed and 
Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, to make sure servicemembers' 
votes are counted. It would create a nationwide standard for getting 
absentee ballots to overseas servicemembers in a timely fashion.
  Finally, it would make sure servicemembers can return to their jobs 
after they have completed their military service with the seniority and 
pay rate they would have earned if they remained continuously employed 
by the civilian employer.
  We know the Guard and Reserve who are called up leave their civilian 
jobs and too often come home to the uncertainty of, What happens when I 
arrive home? Members of the Guard should not have to worry about 
whether they will return home to the same job and the correct pay rate.
  As citizens of a grateful Nation, we have a responsibility to do 
something--more than something to protect servicemembers' rights as 
they sacrifice to keep our country safe. That is why I urge my 
colleagues to stand up for our servicemembers. It is time we serve 
those who served us.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
proceedings under the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Alaska Interns

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am delighted to have a fine group of 
young Alaskans with me--not only here on the floor, but in my office 
for four weeks, and I thank them for their help in Washington and 
really for all of Alaska. They have been back here for a

[[Page 13000]]

month and have done a great job. It is always a true delight to have 
good, high energy young people from back home to help me in the work we 
do here. I am so pleased they are with me.


                             Tsunami Debris

  Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that people back home 
are talking about a lot. We are discussing the Federal Government's 
need to plan for the increasing level of marine debris that is hitting 
the Pacific coastline, whether it is out in Hawaii or all the way up 
north in Alaska. This debris is coming from the earthquake and tsunami 
that struck Japan last March. This is a subject of great discussion and 
debate for folks who are out fishing or walking our beaches.
  We all know that tragic event claimed nearly 16,000 lives and 
destroyed community infrastructure, homes, and livelihoods. Our prayers 
continue for the ones we have lost and those who have lost their loved 
ones.
  As horrifying as these natural disasters were, the Earth only shook 
anywhere from 3 to 5 minutes, and the tsunami rushed to the shore and 
then receded. But the devastation to property and coastlines continues 
as debris has moved from the shores of Japan over a year and a half 
later and we begin to see the debris pile up on our shores over here.
  The Japanese Government has estimated that about 5 million tons of 
debris were carried into the ocean. We have assumed that the majority 
of that either sank or will sink. There is no concrete idea of how much 
is still floating or when the bulk of it will reach our beaches, but in 
Alaska we know it has been arriving.
  We saw the first evidence of it last winter, and it arrived ahead of 
the projected timelines. It is understandable that we were not able to 
anticipate exactly when the tsunami debris would start arriving, but 
now that we are starting to see it along the shoreline there is no 
doubt we need to respond.
  Last January, in trying to get ahead of the curve, if you will, I 
held a roundtable in Anchorage to find out what our State and Federal 
agencies were doing to prepare for the debris we knew would be coming 
to our shores, how the interagency work was being coordinated, and how 
individuals could report sightings and navigational issues.
  I think I have mentioned on this floor that I have two sons out on a 
fishing vessel in the Gulf of Alaska. As they cross the gulf, I wonder 
if they will encounter debris from the tsunami?
  We saw at one point in time a Japanese vessel that was literally a 
ghost ship, a relic from that tsunami. The Coast Guard took that vessel 
out of the navigation channels. Alaskans and people who live on the 
coast are very aware when there is stuff out in the water unchartered 
and unknown, and we want to understand and know a little bit more.
  This past June, I joined the U.S. Coast Guard to see for myself what 
was washing up on some of Alaska's remote shorelines and our beaches. 
We flew out of Cordova, AK. We went to Kayak Island. Kayak sticks out 
from the coastline at an angle that allows it to collect an incredible 
amount of marine debris on just an average year. So the reason to go to 
Kayak was to see what might be there other than the typical marine 
debris, unusual things like nets, ropes, and buoys. We saw real 
evidence of what is coming our way from the tsunami. We saw colored 
buoys. We saw large Styrofoam blocks. There was a large container that 
had washed up very recently.
  We have a picture from NOAA that shows some of what we saw washed up 
there on Kayak Island. These are all the plastic buoys. The black ones, 
we were told, are what we see more of coming out of Japan.
  Now, you may wonder, have we been clearly able to identify whether 
these items came from Japan or if this was the usual marine debris? 
NOAA is working to sort all of that out, but there are signs that give 
us somewhat of an idea of whether what we saw out there on Kayak Island 
was typical marine debris or not.
  Many saw pictures of this huge dock that recently arrived on the 
coastline in Oregon. Just look at the size here and think: this 
concrete dock had flotations on either end and traveled all the way 
across the Pacific literally in one huge slab up onto the Oregon beach. 
I think when folks looked at that picture, their word was, Wow.
  Again, for those who are navigators and fishermen, if they run across 
something like this in the water it is real evidence of why we need to 
be concerned.
  This next photo is from somewhere in the Pacific. This shows the 
objects that are creating, again, a hazard to navigation. These same 
materials are going to end up somewhere on a shoreline, whether it is 
on our beaches or in our ports. Think about the impact this may have on 
sensitive habitats, making them unusable, possibly deadly for certain 
marine animals, such as shore birds and other species that may rely on 
them.
  I think what is important to recognize from these three pictures I 
have just shown is that we are seeing now the debris that is floating 
on top or at least partly on top of the water. We are seeing it coming 
to U.S. shorelines earlier than anticipated because in addition to 
being carried by the currents from the ocean, this debris is being 
moved along by the wind.
  What we are seeing in Alaska primarily are those buoys that sit up 
clear out of the water. You can also see fishing boats, building 
materials, and roofs in this photograph. Again, this is what we can see 
because it is above the water.
  So one of the real questions we need to ask is, What is below the 
water? What is just below the surface that we can't see?
  A couple of weeks ago, I met with some representatives from the 
Yakutat Tlingit Tribe from Yakutat, AK. Yakutat is in the northern part 
of the Alaska panhandle, on the eastern side of the Gulf of Alaska. It 
is a very remote community. It is only accessible by air or by boat. 
The closest community is hundreds of miles away and, Yakutat is 
surrounded by National Park Service and Forest Service lands.
  So this community--the tribe, city, borough--is meeting weekly to 
assess the debris that is coming up on their beaches, and they are 
trying to put together a response. They have done some cleanup along 15 
miles of area beaches.
  One beautiful beach is called Cannon Beach. It has black sand. It is 
absolutely gorgeous. I visited it in March, and now we are seeing the 
Styrofoam, housing foam, and buoys coming up on it and the other 
beaches near Yakutat. The community estimates that they have about 600 
pounds of marine debris per mile. The borough has 1,074 miles of 
coastline, so this small village community is looking at the 
possibility of 3,000 tons of debris.
  This next picture is actually from Yakutat. This details another 
problem that our coastal communities are facing. What do we do with 
this marine debris? Our landfills, particularly in southeastern Alaska, 
are maxed out or close to being maxed out. This landfill space that is 
already filling up could very quickly be overwhelmed by tsunami debris. 
And not only are my residents working to clean up beaches with limited 
landfills, often they are in very rugged and very remote locations, 
many with no road to access. Sometimes they can't land a vessel or a 
boat on the shoreline because it is just too dangerous. So how do we 
access this debris? That is a challenge.
  It is also costly, and we are faced with the question of what do we 
do with the debris we have collected?
  Yakutat is exploring some pretty creative solutions and alternative 
disposal solutions. Yakutat is one of those communities that has 
extremely high energy costs. If my memory serves me, I believe they pay 
in excess of 50 cents a kilowatt hour for their energy. So when they 
are dealing with challenges and problems, they try to find solutions 
that help with their high cost of energy.
  What Yakutat is looking at now is whether there is the potential for 
any waste-to-energy technologies that could deal with two problems: 
clean up debris and support long-term efforts to deal with the high 
cost of energy. It is

[[Page 13001]]

kind of a two-for-one. They are trying to figure out how they can turn 
this problem into an energy source, and in this way they can support 
long-term community marine debris cleanup efforts. This would be a 
creative solution for this small remote community, largely on their own 
and facing truckloads of debris.
  Now the State of Alaska has engaged in tsunami debris coordination, 
and I am told the Alaskan region representatives of various Federal 
agencies are as well, but headquarters of agencies across the Federal 
Government really need to be part of the plan and engage creatively to 
address this accumulating debris.
  I don't have my typical Alaska map here that I usually use when I 
speak, but my State has an incredible coastline--more coastline than 
the rest of the country put together--and we depend on our marine 
sources for livelihood and recreation. We value a healthy coastline to 
support a resilient marine environment. Our fisheries, our tourism, and 
our coastal communities are so dependent on a strong and sustainable 
region.
  So, think about this from the tourism perspective. When somebody is 
paying thousands of dollars to come up to Alaska to visit remote, wild 
areas, they are certainly going to be disappointed if they are greeted 
by a beach full of Styrofoam or pass by the many debris fields that are 
accumulating.
  Communities up and down the coastline need assurance that the 
headquarters of various agencies are going to be part of the cleanup 
plan. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, FEMA compiled a document 
denoting the debris removal authorities of Federal agencies. That 
document outlined that the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, 
Defense, Homeland Security, and Transportation all had a role to play 
in debris removal.
  So for this reason--and using this federal memorandum as an example--
I have asked the White House to establish and lead an interagency task 
force to plan for tsunami debris. We also need to engage the relevant 
States, tribes, local governments, and international partners by 
inviting them to participate in this task force. We all need to work 
together. We cannot leave a little community like Yakutat and say: 
Clean up your section of the coastline.
  I know private and government Japanese representatives have expressed 
interest in helping with the debris problem. The ability for Japan to 
offer experience and technology with waste-to-energy devices could 
provide a great opportunity for the U.S., Japan and public partnerships 
to come together and address the debris.
  There are many reasons we need to act now. It is a difficult time of 
year for many of us here in Washington, DC, to think about winter 
storms. We are enjoying some pretty warm weather here. But we need to 
recognize and think about what winter weather in Alaska will mean for 
accumulating debris. We have a lot of areas being impacted by tsunami 
debris that have already had huge tide swings. If we add that to a 
winter storm in areas with beaches, some of the debris we see will be 
buried deep by the sand, and will only be uncovered when snow melts. 
However even during the spring, accessing the coastline can be 
challenging due to breakup conditions. We have extreme tides and, of 
course, the weather will also move the debris up into the tree line, 
making access and removal even more difficult.
  This last picture will give my colleagues some indication of what I 
am talking about when we think about the Alaska coastline. This is in a 
part of the State called Montague Island. With good high tides and the 
weather we get, downed trees are part of the ocean accumulation on the 
shore. You can see tucked among the trees, kind of sprinkled like 
confetti, some of the Styrofoam that has washed up. Again, this is 
marine debris we are seeing. Think about how difficult it will be to 
access some of this after winter storms.
  Where debris lands on rough and rocky shorelines, wave action is 
expected to break it up. We know that happens, and I am concerned about 
our marine life, birds and animals consuming smaller plastic particles 
that have been broken down by this wave action. A piece of Styrofoam 
that is easy to pick up today because it is reasonably good-sized is 
going to be much more difficult to clean up when it has been broken 
down by wave action. So, again, all of this argues for prompt action.
  Maybe the best we can do for now is pick up the debris and store it 
somewhere. But as we saw looking at the Yakutat picture, storing it in 
a landfill in most of these communities is probably not going to be 
feasible. Bailing technology could be available to Alaska communities 
for about $10,000, and these machines would at least support the 
voluntary cleanup efforts and provide a means to store the debris 
rather than force strained landfills to absorb the incoming debris. I 
throw this out because I think it is important that we get creative 
about this. We need to be exploring all available technologies to 
support the most efficient means to handle this tsunami debris and 
other marine debris for the long run.
  Every year I attend an annual alternative energy fair. It is held in 
the interior part of the State at Chena Hot Springs. We always learn 
something good and new at this energy fair. Last year, when I was 
there, I saw a device that is actually in production. It is on-the-
shelf technology. It may help turn much of the debris that is hitting 
our coastline into fuel. The device--I called it a gizmo but I know 
there is a much more technical term for it--processes plastics into 
fuel with the capacity to produce as much as 2,400 gallons per day. 
With fuel at over $6 a gallon in Yakutat, people are looking at this 
and saying, We can actually take some of the waste, the garbage, the 
debris, the plastic, and turn that into fuel so we don't have to pay 6 
bucks a gallon to fill up a four-wheeler, truck, or boat.
  Given the tight budgets across the country, again, I think we need to 
be creative. We need to identify and deploy all available resources and 
share information. We need to leverage local knowledge and our coastal 
residents' proximity to the debris, as well as their vested interest in 
the cleanup efforts.
  Our Federal agencies have regional staff and they have facility 
resources. Many run programs that are consistent with the objectives of 
tsunami debris response and mitigation. For those who would suggest, 
Well, if it has come up on your shore, it is your responsibility; there 
is no Federal role here; it is up to the States to figure this out, I 
would remind them that in my State, much of our land is owned by the 
Federal Government. This picture here is of Montague Island. Montague 
Island is entirely within the Chugach National Forest. And, in fact, 
over 60 percent of my State is owned by the Federal Government, so 
clearly the Federal Government has a role to play in cleaning up the 
debris.
  We also can't forget about the private interests in cleanup. Many 
industries and private citizens are dependent on our navigable 
waterways and healthy ecosystems. We need good communication, 
leadership, and a plan to guide an interagency and public-private 
approach to solve this challenge during what we all acknowledge are 
difficult fiscal times. I commend the NOAA marine debris program for 
their coordination and response to this work, but the fact is they are 
a small and an overtasked program. They need the help of their Federal 
partners to address this as a national priority.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in recognizing that marine 
debris is a national problem as well as a priority, and a comprehensive 
response to tsunami debris that we are seeing on our shoreline in 
Alaska and other Pacific States, in addition to Hawaii, is past due.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                             Cyber Security

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, over the last few days we have been 
lectured numerous times that we must protect

[[Page 13002]]

cyber critical infrastructure; otherwise, our country is in jeopardy. 
Everybody agrees with that statement. Enhancing cyber security is 
important to our national security. I support efforts to strengthen our 
Nation against critical cyber attacks.
  However, I take issue with those who have come to the floor and 
argued that those who don't support this bill are against strengthening 
our Nation's cyber security. Disagreements over how to address policy 
matters shouldn't evolve into accusations about a Member's willingness 
to tackle tough issues. The debate over cyber security legislation has 
turned from a substantive analysis of the merits into a political blame 
game as to which side supports defending our Nation more. If we want to 
tackle big issues such as cyber security, we need to rise above 
disagreements and work in a constructive manner. Disagreements over 
policy should be openly and freely debated.
  Unfortunately, this isn't how the debate on cyber security proceeded. 
Instead, before a real debate began, the majority leader cut that 
debate off. As the discussion of cyber security began on the floor this 
week, Senators stated that a failure to grant broad new powers to the 
Federal Government will lead to a cyber 9/11. I agree that if we fail 
to take action on cyber security, there could be a national security 
consequence. However, I don't believe giving the Federal Government 
more regulatory authority over business and industry, as supporters of 
this bill propose, is the answer to strengthening cyber security.
  Chief among my concerns with the pending bill is the role played by 
the Department of Homeland Security. These concerns stem from oversight 
that I have conducted on the implementation of a law called the 
Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Standards Program. That acronym would 
be CFATS. CFATS was the Department's first major foray into regulation 
of the chemical sector.
  The Department of Homeland Security spent nearly $\1/2\ billion on 
that program. Now, 5 years later, they have just begun to approve site 
security plans for the more than 4,000 facilities designated under the 
rule.
  I have continued to conduct oversight on this matter. Despite 
assurances from the Department of Homeland Security that they fixed all 
the problems with CFATS, I keep discovering more problems. So now I am 
baffled why we would take an agency that has proven problems with 
overseeing a critical infrastructure and give them chief responsibility 
for our country's cyber security.
  Additionally, I am concerned with provisions that restrict the way 
information is shared. The restrictions imposed under title VII of the 
bill are a step backward from other information-sharing proposals. This 
includes the bill I have cosponsored, the SECURE IT bill. The bill 
before us places the Department of Homeland Security in the role of 
gatekeeper of cyber threat information. The bill calls for the 
Department of Homeland Security to share the information in ``as close 
to real time as possible'' with other agencies. However, this surely 
will create a bottleneck for information coming into the government.
  Further, title VII includes restrictions on what types of information 
can be shared, limiting the use of it for criminal prosecution, except 
those that cause imminent harm.
  This is exactly the type of restriction on information sharing that 
the 9/11 Commission warned us about. In fact, the 9/11 Commission said, 
``the [wall] resulted in far less information sharing and 
coordination.'' The 9/11 Commission further added, ``the removal of the 
wall that existed before 9/11 between intelligence and law enforcement 
has opened up new opportunities for cooperative action.''
  Why would we even consider legislation that could rebuild these walls 
that threaten our national security? How much of a real debate have we 
had on those issues I have raised? The lack of a real process in the 
Senate on this very bill amplifies my substantive concerns.
  In fact, this is eerily reminiscent of the debate surrounding the 
health care reform bill. During that time, then-Speaker of the House 
Pelosi declared, ``We have to pass the bill so that you can find out 
what is in it.'' Well, we all know how well that worked out. Years of 
litigation later, the public is still learning what surprises the 
majority and President Obama had in store for the Nation's health care 
system.
  Now here we are, once again, in the last week before our August 
summer break, tackling a serious problem that hasn't been given full 
process.
  I do not want cyber security legislation to become another health 
care reform bill. If we are serious about our Nation's security, then 
shouldn't we treat it as serious as it really is? We all agree how 
serious it is.
  We are told that the Senate has been working on cyber security for 3 
to 5 years. However, we have not been working on this bill before us 
for that long. The bill before us was introduced 13 days ago, and it 
was only pending on the floor for 4 days before the motion for cloture 
was filed. It did not go through the normal committee process. It was 
not debated or amended. Instead, it was brought straight to the floor, 
and we are being forced to consider it under a very rushed schedule.
  Talking about the danger of cyber attacks for years is not the same 
as discussing the impact of the actual text of the bill which could 
become law. The words on the 212 pages of the bill are what must be 
analyzed, and analyzed in detail.
  In fact, no one, except a handful of Senators, actually knows what 
the bill says or might say. And, of course, that is a process that 
debate in the U.S. Senate accomplishes or at least tries to accomplish.
  We need full process and, unfortunately, that has not happened, and 
it does not look as if it will happen. Why won't it happen? Because the 
majority leader has limited debate. This week we were told that a group 
of Senators and their staff were working on a compromise.
  Again, that is something all of us as a body do not know much about. 
We need an open debate in order to process this, as opposed to huddled, 
backroom meetings.
  I do not think this is the way we are supposed to legislate. The 
people who elected us expect more. They expect transparency because 
they know when you get transparency, you have accountability.
  How many Senators are prepared to vote on something this important 
without knowing its impact because we have not followed regular order? 
Are we to once again pass a bill so that the American public can then, 
at that time, find out what is in it a la Speaker Pelosi's statement on 
health care reform?
  These are questions that all Senators should consider. And our 
citizens should know in advance what we are actually considering.
  Yesterday, we heard claims that the amendments offered by Republicans 
were part of some obstructionist tactic. Why isn't the same statement 
made about the 77 or so amendments filed by Democrats? Somehow, are 
they acceptable and not obstructionist?
  I had three amendments that addressed specific provisions in the 
bill, and I wanted to have a debate on them.
  For example, I have an amendment to strike the provision in the bill 
that creates a cause of action against the Federal Government. What 
does that cause of action do? That provision waives sovereign immunity, 
provides for automatic damages, and provides for an award of attorney's 
fees.
  This provision is, obviously, a gift to the trial lawyers lobby, 
which American taxpayers should not have to pay for. And I do not think 
class action lawsuits against the government will help with cyber 
security.
  Another amendment of mine would have removed industry-specific carve-
outs from the bill. This is another example of how backroom deal making 
takes place so as to get support and build support for a bill. We saw 
this happen with the health care reform bill. You know the famous 
``Cornhusker Kickback'' that was agreed to in order to pass ObamaCare, 
and this process reminds me of that.

[[Page 13003]]

  Here, to get support from companies in the information technology 
industry, the bill clearly states those companies cannot be identified 
as critical cyber infrastructure. So to build support for this bill--
but without people knowing what is in the bill--the authors carved out 
these companies from having to comply with the bill.
  For example, under this carve-out, say an information technology 
company builds a router that has a flaw that is exploited by hackers. 
That router is purchased by every sector of the critical 
infrastructure, including power, water, and probably a lot of others 
that I ought to be able to name.
  If that router flaw is exploited, and if that is attacked, the 
companies that bought the router are held responsible. However, the 
company that made the faulty router is not.
  It is obvious how absurd this is. It is obvious how much of a major 
giveaway to a key industry it is, just to give the appearance of 
private sector support. This is not how we should handle cyber 
security, and I have an amendment to strike this provision. We should 
openly debate this issue and discuss whether this is the right course 
of action to give a carve-out to a specific segment of industry.
  Again, the carve-out was a deal cut with one purpose: to limit 
opposition to the bill. Well, that was not good policy in 2009 on the 
``Cornhusker Kickback'' in the health care reform debate, and we should 
learn from that lesson that it is, obviously, not good policy in 2012.
  I also know that Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin had an amendment 
that the Congressional Budget Office issued a score on the cost of the 
bill before it could take effect.
  Why were the supporters of the bill opposed to doing that? Do they 
believe they have a right to spend millions or billions of taxpayers' 
dollars at will without making the amount public? Are the supporters of 
the bill really prepared to vote for this bill without revealing how 
much it will cost?
  But I will not get a chance to debate my amendments or Senator 
Johnson's amendment before the cloture vote because that is how the 
majority leader runs the U.S. Senate.
  There are serious questions about this bill. It needs to be amended. 
We need to discuss changes. Unfortunately, it does not look as though 
that is going to happen.
  I know some will, again, say that this has been a long process. The 
only thing true about that statement is that the issue and problem has 
been discussed for a long time--but not discussed for a long time on 
this bill.
  If we are serious about addressing this problem, then let's deal with 
it appropriately. Rushing something through that will impact the 
country in such a massive way is not the way the most deliberative body 
in the world, the U.S. Senate, should do its business. It is not good 
for the country, and it is, obviously, not good for the reputation of 
the U.S. Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I understand my distinguished colleague 
from Oklahoma has asked consent to speak at 6:30 p.m. I will take about 
10 or 15 minutes, which would put us about 5 minutes past that time. So 
I ask unanimous consent to speak for about 15 minutes, if that is 
acceptable to the Senator.
  Mr. INHOFE. That is perfectly all right. And I ask unanimous consent 
that at the conclusion of the remarks of my friend from New Jersey I be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank my colleague 
for his courtesy.


                         Death of Oswaldo Paya

  Mr. President, while we are focused on issues here at home--and 
certainly we should be--there are incidents taking place around the 
world, and those of us who care about freedom and democracy and human 
rights, those of us like myself who sit on the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, also have our focus on what is happening in other places in 
the world.
  I come to the floor to talk about the violence and repression that 
continues in the country of Cuba--this time in a dramatic and brazen 
attempt to exercise power through fear and intimidation over those who 
want nothing more than to see the day when the people of Cuba are 
free--and against members of the international community.
  Once again, I am forced to come to the floor to put a spotlight on 
what is happening inside of Cuba and all those who put their lives on 
the line for freedom and human rights around the world.
  The information we are receiving from both public reports and other 
information from Cuba concerning the circumstances surrounding the 
death of Oswaldo Paya--the island's most prominent and respected human 
rights advocate--is disturbing. It underscores the continued brutality 
and repression of the Castro regime, and it demands a response from the 
international community, as well as from ourselves as part of that 
community.
  The facts as we know them are that 50 prodemocracy activists were 
arrested and detained at the funeral--at the funeral--of Oswaldo Paya. 
At a funeral--they were not demonstrating, they were not marching or 
carrying signs, they were not engaged in acts of civil disobedience of 
any kind. They were not violating any laws. They were attending a 
funeral.
  Hundreds gathered peacefully. Family, friends, and those who want 
nothing more than a free and democratic Cuba were at a funeral mourning 
the death of their hero, Oswaldo Paya.
  But the arrest and detention of 50 dissidents who were mourning the 
loss of a friend and loved one is not the whole story of how far this 
regime will go.
  The circumstances surrounding Oswaldo Paya's death leave any 
reasonable person to wonder what may have really happened on that road 
in Cuba that ended in the tragic automobile accident that took the life 
of Oswaldo Paya.
  Paya's daughter Rosa Maria Paya immediately challenged the regime's 
version of events, stating that the family had received information 
from the survivors that their car was repeatedly rammed--rammed--by 
another vehicle.
  She said:

       So we think it's not an accident. They wanted to do harm 
     and then ended up killing my father.

  The family also said that Oswaldo Paya was targeted in a similar 
incident 2 weeks earlier in Havana. The same thing: an effort as they 
were driving to ram them off the road. In retrospect, the family now 
sees that incident as a warning from the regime.
  What we know is the car, driven by a politician from Spain, Angel 
Carromero, a citizen of Spain, and Aron Modig, an activist in Sweden, 
was involved in the fatal automobile accident that killed Paya and his 
Cuban colleague Harold Cepero.
  Of course, we have no proof of that. But we do know Carromero and 
Modig survived the accident, and they obviously know exactly what 
happened that day. These are two individuals--one is a Spanish citizen, 
the other one is a Swedish citizen--who were involved in helping Paya 
promote, from an international perspective, the views of his civil 
society movement toward peaceful change in democracy and human rights.
  But instead of getting the two survivors' real story, in a 
demonstration of the twisted nature of the Castro regime, the Cuban 
Ministry of Interior detained, without consular access, the two 
foreigners who survived the crash and then paraded Modig, the Swede, 
before a Ministry of Interior press conference, where he was clearly 
forced to apologize for working with Paya and ``illegally aiding the 
Cuban opposition.''
  The driver of the car, Carromero, the Spanish citizen, was less lucky 
than his Swedish colleague. It appears he will not be allowed to speak 
freely for years to come, courtesy of the Castro regime. They have 
formally charged him with vehicular manslaughter in the crash.

[[Page 13004]]

  Carromero, like Modig, was forced to offer a mea culpa, which was 
made available in a video presentation hosted by Castro's nefarious 
Ministry of the Interior.
  The regime's logic has to boggle the mind of any reasonable person 
who cares about the rule of law.
  It is also my understanding, according to reports from Cuba, that--in 
a move typical of the Castro regime--Spanish diplomats were prohibited 
from seeing or meeting with Carromero until yesterday.
  Meanwhile, the grieving widow of Oswaldo Paya has expressed outrage 
and has rejected Castro's official report regarding the death of her 
husband and the circumstances surrounding the accident which has now 
blamed the accident on the actions of Angel Carromero, who was driving 
the car.
  Paya's widow has said: ``Until I'm able to speak with Angel or with 
Aron, the last two people who saw my husband alive, have access to the 
expert reports, and have the advice of people independent of the Cuban 
government, I can have no idea what really happened that day.''
  I cannot be certain that the regime killed Oswaldo Paya, but the 
circumstances of his death are highly suspicious. There is no question 
that the regime had no motive to kill Oswaldo Paya. Oswaldo Paya was 
most--one of the most prominent opponents of the Castro dictatorship, a 
Catholic activist who funded the Christian Liberation Movement in 1988.
  He is best known for the Varela Project, a petition drive he launched 
in 2002 that called for free elections and other rights. That drive led 
the Cuban Government to adopt a constitutional amendment making the 
Communist system in Cuba irrevocable. It followed that with the 2003 
Black Spring, which arrested 75 of the most prominent Cuban activists 
in that year.
  Paya had become the most known, most visible face of Cuba's peaceful 
opposition movement. The European Parliament awarded him the Sakharov 
Prize for Freedom of Thought in 2002. That year, he was also nominated 
for a Nobel Peace Prize by hundreds of parliamentarians in a campaign 
led by his friend Vaclav Havel, the Czech Republic President.
  Paya was determined that Cuba and Cubans should enjoy the benefits of 
freedom and democracy and he committed his life to that cause and he 
may very well have lost his life to that cause. We cannot continue to 
turn our backs on those inside Cuba struggling in peaceful ways to 
promote democracy and human rights. We cannot allow the violence and 
the repression, the brutal detentions to continue without consequence. 
We cannot allow innocent members of the international community to be 
brutalized and victimized by the Castro brothers so they can hide the 
truth without the international community standing together and holding 
them accountable for their repressive and illegal actions.
  Will the Castro regime stop at nothing, nothing to repress the rights 
of its people? Can we turn our back on the rule of law on the Cuban 
people, on the facts of this case, on Mr. Carromero or can we once 
again have that wink and nod and say: Oh, well, you know, it has been 
over 50 years; things are changing for the better in Cuba, and we 
should let bygones be bygones, as people languish in jail, as people 
die at the hands of the regime, as we see the hunger strikers who give 
up their lives because of the brutality they are facing, to try to 
rivet the world's attention in this regard.
  Some say we should permit Castro's hooligans to parade across our 
Nation, which we seem to give visas to, spewing lies while American 
Alan Gross sits in a prison simply because he brought some 
communications equipment for the Jewish community in Havana to be able 
to collaborate and to inform each other. That was his crime. He has now 
been in prison, a U.S. citizen, for 2 years, languishing in Castro's 
jails, not to mention thousands of Cuban political prisoners who suffer 
in Cuban prisons.
  As I have said on this floor over and over, to me, the silence is so 
deafening from so many of our colleagues. They may have a different 
view than I do about how we promote democracy, but I do not hear them 
speak out about these human rights abuses, about the deaths in Castro's 
prisons, about those who can get knocked off the side of a road and 
killed. The silence in that respect is deafening.
  So there are some of us who are committed to making sure that silence 
is broken. Today, I am asking my colleagues to join me in sending a 
letter to Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary General of the United Nations, 
demanding that the United Nations and the Human Rights Council 
immediately undertake a full and thorough investigation of the 
circumstances surrounding Oswaldo Paya's tragic death and the detention 
of Angel Carromero. We must demand the truth about these tragic events 
that took the life of Cuba's most devoted human rights advocate.
  I hope our colleagues will join us in that respect. We have supported 
democracy movements around the world. They have often made a big 
difference, from Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, Soviet Jewry, Alexander 
Solzhenitsyn, and so many others. When we side on behalf of those 
struggling against repressive regimes for democracy and human rights, 
it makes a difference. It can make a difference in this regard as well.
  I am hoping our colleagues will join us in helping break the silence, 
on behalf of the memory of Oswaldo Paya and on behalf of all those who 
lose their lives every day or their liberty simply because they 
peacefully choose to try to change the nature of the country in which 
they live. It is something America should be a beacon of light for, 
something I hope we can shine very brightly, and in doing so, create a 
protective element to those who are peacefully trying to create change 
inside Cuba. We should do no less.


                               ALAN GROSS

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, 32 months almost 3 full years. That is 
how long Maryland native Alan Gross has been held by Cuba as a 
political prisoner.
  Alan Gross went to Cuba in 2009 on an USAID contract to help install 
wireless Internet. The Cuban government responded by putting him in 
jail. They declared him a spy, ran a sham trial and sentenced him to 15 
years in prison.
  Alan Gross is from Potomac, MD, and like me, studied social work at 
the University of Maryland. I have met his wife on numerous occasions. 
Her focus and strength are truly inspiring. While her husband has been 
held in a Cuban prison, she has held down the fort and held the 
pressure on the Cuban government for its poor treatment of her husband.
  And Alan Gross has held strong in the face of his unfair 
imprisonment. To maintain his physical and mental strength, he would 
pace his room and do pull ups. Unfortunately, however his health has 
declined. He has lost more than 100 pounds, is having difficulty 
walking, and--most worryingly--has had a mass develop behind his 
shoulder. Rather than act humanely, the Cuban government has been 
reluctant to share information on Mr. Gross's medical condition.
  At home, Mr. Gross's mother is facing inoperable lung cancer and the 
family is concerned he will not have a chance to say goodbye. That is 
why the Gross family petitioned the Cuban government to allow him to 
come home for 2 weeks to see his mother for her 90th birthday.
  This request was made following a U.S. Federal judge's humane 
decision to allow a Cuban intelligence agent on probation in the United 
States to return home to see his ailing brother. Their plea was met 
with silence.
  Cuba has held Alan Gross as a political hostage, trying to leverage 
their possession of an American citizen for concessions from the United 
States. While Cuba might oppose U.S. policy, it has a responsibility to 
behave humanely to its people.
  I want to thank Senator Dodd for his continued focus on the detention 
of Alan Gross. The Senator has been one trying to improve relations 
between the United States and Cuba, but has put those efforts on hold 
because of

[[Page 13005]]

their unwillingness to release Mr. Gross. I appreciate his decision and 
his unrelenting work to see Mr. Gross freed.
  And most importantly, I want to send my thoughts and prayers to Mr. 
Gross, his wife Judy and their family. I think about you every day and 
am hopeful your family will be reunited soon. The pain you face is 
unfair, but the strength you show is inspiring. I promise we will 
continue to work to bring Alan back to Maryland.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Oklahoma.


                             Global Warming

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, when we came back to session this week, I 
was pleased to see a very good friend of mine on the floor, of a 
completely different philosophy from mine and a different background 
and a different State, talking about--being somewhat critical of my 
position on global warming, which everybody knows I have been involved 
in for some 12 years since the Koyoto treaty, which was never before 
us.
  Nonetheless, I appreciated the fact that we had a chance to resurrect 
that issue because, to my knowledge, nobody has uttered the term 
``global warming'' since 2009. It has been completely refuted in most 
areas. But I was pleased to hear my good friend from Vermont talking 
about it because he and I have a very honest relationship with each 
other but a total disagreement. We are able to go over those things.
  Then again today two things happened. First of all, we had the senior 
Senator from Massachusetts come down to the floor and was somewhat 
quite critical of me and anyone who is a skeptic. I think it is 
important to realize that to understand--so you understand, when we are 
talking, what we are referring to.
  Those people who believe the world is coming to an end because of 
global warming and that is all due to manmade anthropogenic gases, we 
call those people alarmists. Those people such as myself who have 
looked at it very carefully and have come to the conclusion that is not 
happening and the fact or the assertion that global warming is 
occurring today and it is occurring because of the release of 
CO2 and anthropogenic gases, methane, and such as that, it 
is a hoax, which I said way back in 2003. This became quite a charge to 
a lot of people, a hoax that--the fact that all of this is happening is 
due to manmade gases. I believe it is the greatest hoax ever 
perpetrated on the American people.
  As a result of that, a lot of people are trying to do things to this 
country that are detrimental. By the way, we also had this morning--it 
was enjoyable. This is the first time since 2009 that the Environment 
and Public Works Committee has had a hearing on global warming, on the 
science or lack of science behind global warming.
  I was delighted to see all these things resurrected. I know it is not 
proper to talk about your own books on the floor, and I do not do it, 
except I have to do it because it was mentioned by some of my 
adversaries, my book which was called ``The Greatest Hoax.'' Things 
were taken out of this book so I had to defend them. Let me just 
mention, if I can in this fairly short period of time that I have, I 
think it is only 30 minutes, some of the things that were stated, first 
of all, on the floor by the senior Senator from Massachusetts and then 
make some comments about the hearing this morning.
  In fact, I am glad it is coming to the surface again. First of all, I 
was referred to as a ``skeptic.'' I mentioned just now that skeptics 
are those who do not believe what I referred to as the hoax. He 
referred to us as ``flat earthers.'' I learned a long time ago that if 
they do not have logic on their side, they do not have the science on 
their side, they respond with name calling. I have been called a lot of 
names. Let me just name a few. This comes right out of the book and 
some of the things that were said this morning. The ``noisiest climate 
skeptic,'' ``the Senate's resident denier bunny,'' ``traitor,'' 
``dumb,'' ``crazy man,'' ``science abuser,'' ``Holocaust denier,'' 
``villain of the month,'' ``hate filled,'' ``war mongering,'' 
``Neanderthal,'' ``Genghis Khan''. It goes on and on. I will submit 
this for the Record.
  But quite often we hear these things, it is only because there is not 
logic or science on their side. So they do name calling, which is fine. 
To me, that gets attention, and it needs to have the attention. The 
second thing, one of the other things that came out this morning, the 
statement was made by the senior Senator from Massachusetts, and I am 
quoting now, I believe: There are 6,000 peer-reviewed studies that say 
that no one peer-reviewed study that proves it is not happening.
  There is not one, not one peer-reviewed study. A peer-reviewed study 
is a study that is published and then the peers review it. I think that 
is a process that is necessary. Consequently, that statement was made. 
That statement just flat is not right. In fact, let me go ahead and 
talk about some of these studies. If we look at the Harvard-Smithsonian 
study, that was a study which examined the results of more than 240 
peer-reviewed papers published by thousands of researchers over the 
past four decades.
  The study covers a multitude of geophysical and biological climate 
indicators. They came to the conclusion--this is a Harvard-Smithsonian 
peer-reviewed study. They came to the conclusion that climate change is 
not real, that the science is not accurate.
  Dr. Fred Seitz. Dr. Fred Seitz is a former president of the National 
Academy of Science. He said: ``There is no convincing scientific 
evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other 
greenhouse gasses is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause 
catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the 
earth's climate.''
  I would like to pause at this moment, because I see the majority 
leader on the floor of the Senate, and inquire if they care to have 
some leadership time. I would be very glad to yield to them that time. 
Apparently, that is not the case.
  Thirdly, this is something that happened very recently. One of the 
universities, George Mason University, surveyed 430 weathercasters and 
found that only 19 percent of the weathercasters felt catastrophic 
global warming is taking place and is a result of human activity.
  That is quite a change from what it used to be. That means 81 percent 
of those weathercasters that we all see every night are saying that is 
not true.
  Dr. Robert Laughlin, a Nobel Prize-winning Stanford University 
physicist, said:

       Please remain calm. The earth will heal itself. Climate is 
     beyond our power to control. The earth doesn't care about 
     government and legislation. Climate change is a matter of 
     geologic time, something the earth does on its own without 
     asking anyone's permission or explaining itself.

  I think the statement is certainly not an accurate statement that was 
made this morning. By the way, in terms of the climate change, I would 
like to suggest there is a Web site called Climate Depot by Marc 
Morano. In this, we can find multitudes of peer-reviewed studies. There 
is not time to go over them all, but we certainly can find them on that 
particular Web site.
  Another statement made by the senior Senator from Massachusetts this 
morning was when they were talking about a former climate skeptic, 
Richard Muller, M-u-l-l-e-r. He changed his mind through extensive 
research, implying he at one time was a skeptic and he is now an 
alarmist. Let me tell you about Richard Muller. In 2008 Richard Muller 
said that the bottom line is that there is a consensus. The 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--we will talk about that 
later. The President needs to know what the IPCC says. Second, they say 
that most of the warming of the last 50 years is probably due to 
humans. You need to know that this is from carbon dioxide and that you 
need to know the understanding of the technology.
  Mr. President, I was talking about and responding to the speech made 
on the floor this morning by the senior Senator from Massachusetts.
  I think the main thing I got across at that time was the assertion 
that was

[[Page 13006]]

made that there are 6,000 peer-reviewed studies that say not one peer-
reviewed study proves that global warming is not happening and that 
anthropogenic gases would be the cause of it. I know it wasn't the 
intention of the senior Senator from Massachusetts to say something 
that was factually wrong, but I did read several peer-reviewed studies 
and referred to the Web site climatedepot.com, if anyone is interested 
in that.
  Second is the fact that the Senator from Massachusetts--and then 
again in the hearing this morning, Richard Muller was referred to 
several times as being a former skeptic who converted over to an 
alarmist. I suggested--and I read something to show that, in my 
opinion, he never was a skeptic. I would like to make some comments 
about Richard Muller.
  If you go to my Web site, you will find about 1,000 scientists who 
have come around and said: No, this assertion that we are having 
catastrophic global warming due to anthropogenic, manmade gases is not 
correct. Muller is not on that list. However, when they say that he is 
the one and made such a big issue, I will quote a couple people about 
their expressing themselves on the credibility of Richard Muller.
  Professor Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of 
Technology, stated ``way over-simplistic and not at all convincing, in 
my opinion.'' She was talking about the comments by Muller. She also 
said, ``I don't see that their paper adds anything to our understanding 
of the causes of the recent warming.'' That is on the paper submitted 
by Richard Muller.
  Roger Peilke, Jr., said that the ``bigger issue is how the New York 
Times let itself be conned into running [Muller's] op-ed.''
  Michael Mann is the guy who started this whole thing at the U.N., 
putting it together. He had the hockey stick thing that has been 
totally discredited. He said:

       It seems, in the end--quite sadly--that this is all really 
     about Richard Muller's self-aggrandizement.

  So much for the statements that were made to give credibility to 
their side by Richard Muller.
  I think another thing that was stated this morning was we have 
evidence of climate change all around--wildfires, drought and 
vegetation, and all that type. Then they talked about glaciers. Well, 
let me just share the facts about that, which I think are very 
significant, as far as the droughts and all that are concerned. Again, 
this is a statement made by the senior Senator from Massachusetts this 
morning, talking about all these things that are happening as a result 
of global warming.
  Well, hurricanes, according to NOAA, have been on the decline in the 
United States since the beginning of records in the 19th century. The 
worst decade for major--category 3, 4, and 5--hurricanes was in the 
1940s.
  To quote the Geophysical Research Letters:

       Since 2006, global tropical cyclone energy has decreased 
     dramatically . . . to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. 
     Global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historic 
     low.

  So just the opposite.
  On tornadoes, NOAA scientists reject a global warming link to 
tornadoes. To quote them:

       No scientific consensus or connection between global 
     warming or tornado activity.

  Droughts. The Senator talked about droughts this morning. Reading 
from this article, the headline is ``Scientist disagrees with Obama on 
cause of Texas drought:'' and to quote Dr. Robert Hoerling, a NOAA 
research meteorologist, ``This is not a climate change drought.''
  They further said severe drought in 1934 covered 80 percent of the 
country compared to only 25 percent in 2011.
  The statements that were made about the Arctic and about Greenland 
this morning, if you look at a November 2007 peer-reviewed--and I 
stress peer-reviewed--study, conducted by a team of NASA and university 
experts, it found cyclical changes in ocean currents impacting the 
Arctic. The excerpt from this peer-reviewed study by NASA says:

       Our study confirms that many changes seen in upper Arctic 
     Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, 
     rather than trends caused by global warming.

  And 2011 sees 9,000 Manhattans of Arctic ice recovery since the low 
point in 2007.
  Let me explain what that means. When we talk about the Manhattan 
Arctic recovery, they use Manhattan because that is something people 
can identify with, and then they relate that to the recovery of ice. In 
this case--this is, again, from NASA. In 2011, there were 9,000 
Manhattans of Arctic ice recovery since the low point in 2007. Now, 
this study was 2011. So that means the low point was actually below 
that, and it has been decreasing since that time.
  Now, that was the Arctic. In the Antarctic there is a 2008 peer-
reviewed paper in the American Geophysical Union, and it found a 
doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 
1850. In a paper published in the October Journal of Climate Examples, 
the trend of sea ice extends along the east Antarctic coast from 2000 
to 2008 and finds a significant increase of 1.43 percent per year.
  Let's talk about Greenland. And I will always remember when I had 
occasion--well, one of the things I have been interested in is 
aviation. I have been an active pilot for, I guess, 60 years now. The 
occupier of the chair is fully aware of this because he and I together 
were able to pass the pilots' bill of rights, so for the first time an 
accused pilot has access to the judicial system. But as the occupier of 
the chair is fully aware, I had occasion to fly an airplane around the 
world one time, emulating the flight of Wiley Post when he went around 
the world. It is an exciting thing, but it is one of those things where 
you feel you are glad you did it, but you never want to do it again. It 
was kind of miserable at times.
  Anyway, I remember coming across Greenland, following Wiley Post, and 
starting in the United States, going up to Canada, then Greenland, to 
Iceland, back to western Europe, and then across Siberia. But in 
Greenland they are still talking up there about what it used to be like 
in Greenland. They had gone through this melting period where everyone 
up there was growing things. They were ecstatic up there, talking about 
the great old times. Then, of course, the cold spell came along, and it 
got much colder and it was much worse.
  Now, the IPCC, in 2001, covered this. They said that to melt the 
Greenland ice sheet would require temperatures to rise by 5\1/2\ 
degrees Celsius and remain for 1,000 years. The ice sheet is growing 2 
inches a year. So that is Greenland, and they were just talking about 
Greenland this morning. In fact, they talked about it during this 
hearing too.
  Let me mention this IPCC and remind everyone of something that people 
tend to forget. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change. It was put together by the United Nations a long time ago. It 
all started in 1992 down in Rio de Janeiro. They had their big 
gathering down there to try to encourage everyone to pass the Kyoto 
Treaty. The treaty was never even submitted by the Clinton-Gore 
administration, although Gore went to this big meeting in Rio de 
Janeiro. They had a wonderful time down there. At that time they were 
all saying the world is coming to an end so we have to pass the Kyoto 
Treaty to stop all that. Well, that is the IPCC that I have been very 
critical of because that is the science on which all of these things 
are based that we are dealing with today.
  So much for these things that were stated in terms of the disasters 
and the droughts and all of these problems. The next thing he talked 
about--and I have already talked about Greenland--is he talked about it 
is going to be necessary to have carbon caps. I think we talked about 
that this morning. Right now, there are those people who are advocating 
cap and trade--a very complex, difficult thing to explain--which is 
essentially requiring a cap on carbon emissions and then trading these 
emissions back and forth. That is something they do not talk about 
anymore

[[Page 13007]]

because that has been completely discredited. Now they are talking 
about a carbon tax, and I think that was mentioned this morning.
  Quoting the Senator from Massachusetts this morning once again:

       The avoidance of responsibility has to stop. We have been 
     waiting for 20 years now while other countries, including 
     China, are stealing our opportunities.

  Let's put up that chart. Let's talk a little about China. You know 
China is the great beneficiary of anything we do here to put caps on 
carbon because they are the ones that are doing it. So they say China 
is making great strides in reducing their carbon emissions. Well, look 
at this. The green line there is China. This is in emissions--billions 
of tons of emissions. It starts down at 2, a little over 2, which was 
in 1990, and it was fairly low until 2002.
  Look at what has happened. It has doubled in tons of emissions. China 
has actually doubled in that period of time, from 2002 to 2012--a 10-
year period.
  At the same time, we have actually reduced our emissions--both the 
United States and the European Union. To suggest that China is sitting 
back there waiting for us to provide the leadership for them to destroy 
their economy is pretty outrageous.
  By the way, the other statement that has been made in the past, not 
just by the Senator to whom I have referred but several others, is that 
we are not going to be able to solve the problem and to do something 
about our reliance upon the Middle East just by developing our own 
resources. That is wrong.
  There is a guy named Harold Hamm, who is now the authority, and he 
has actually had more successful production in tight formations. He 
happens to be from my State of Oklahoma. I called him up before a 
speech or a debate I was involved in probably 6 months ago, and I said 
to Harold Hamm: You know, if we were to open up the United States--now, 
granted, there has been a surge in the production in this country, in 
the recovery, but that is all in private lands; none in public lands 
because we have had a reduction in public lands.
  The Obama administration has said over and over and over--and I guess 
if you say something wrong enough times people will believe it--that 
even if we open these public lands it would take 10 years before that 
would arrive at the pumps.
  So I asked Harold Hamm, and I said: You are going to have to give me 
something you can document, but if we were to set up in New Mexico, for 
example, where you are precluded on public lands from drilling, and you 
put up your operation, how long would it take you to bring up the oil 
and actually go through the whole refinery process and get it to the 
pump to get the supply there so we can bring down the price of oil, of 
gas, at the pumps? He said: Seventy days. He didn't hesitate.
  I said: Seventy days? They said it would take 10 years.
  He said: No. He said: It would take 30 days to go down and lift it 
up--60 days before you hit the surface, and in preparation of sending 
it to a refinery, then in 10 days you get it to the refinery and to the 
pumps.
  Well, I am just saying there is this whole idea we have to rely on 
some kind of green energy that has not even been developed yet in terms 
of technology and ration what we have in this country. I mean, this 
Obama administration has had a war on fossil fuels since before he was 
elected President of the United States. He wants to kill fossil fuels. 
We all know that. And I am not going to quote all the people in his 
administration who say we are going to have to raise the price at the 
pumps to be comparable to Central Europe before people will be weaned 
off of fossil fuel because I think people know that now.
  This morning was kind of interesting. We had a hearing this morning, 
and one of the witnesses was a Dr. Christopher Field. He was a witness 
for the other side, and he made a lot of statements. It was kind of 
interesting because there is an article that was sent out, written by 
Roger Pielke, Jr., who is from the University of Colorado at Boulder, 
and he was actually on the IPCC at one time. But he is one of the 
authorities who disagrees with me, and he talked about how wrong Dr. 
Field was.
  Now, this is what Field said, first of all:

       As the U.S. copes with the aftermath of last year's record-
     breaking series of $14 billion climate-related disasters and 
     this year's massive wildfires and storms, it is critical to 
     understand that the link between climate change and the kinds 
     of extremes that lead to disasters is clear.

  Well, what did Roger Pielke say this morning? He said:

       Field's assertion that the link between climate change and 
     disaster ``is clear,'' which he supported with reference to 
     U.S. ``billion dollar'' economic losses, is in reality 
     scientifically unsupported by the IPCC. Period.

  That was the response to the assertion made this morning.
  Another assertion made this morning by Field was:

       The report identified some areas where droughts have become 
     longer and more intense (including southern Europe and west 
     Africa), but others where droughts have become less frequent, 
     less intent or shorter.

  This is what was said in response to that. Again, this is Dr. Roger 
Pielke, Jr., just today. This is in today's paper he published.

       Field conveniently neglected in his testimony to mention 
     that one place where droughts have gotten less frequent, less 
     intense or shorter is . . . the United States. Why did he 
     fail to mention this region, surely of interest to U.S. 
     Senators. . . .

  Myself included--that were on the panel?
  The third thing he mentioned on NOAA's billion-dollar disasters; 
Field said:

       The U.S. experienced 14 billion-dollar disasters in 2011, a 
     record that far surpasses the previous maximum of 9.

  Field says nothing about the serious issues with NOAA's tabulation. 
The billion-dollar disaster memo is a PR train wreck, not peer-
reviewed, and is counter to the actual science summarized in the IPCC. 
Again, this is Dr. Pielke, Jr., who disagrees with me on this, but he 
said he is tired of people saying things that are not true.
  I ask unanimous consent to include his entire statement in the Record 
because he goes over point after point and discredits everything that 
was said by this witness--whose name is Christopher Field--this 
morning.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Roger Pielke Jr IPCC Lead Author Misleads US Congress

       The politicization of climate science is so complete that 
     the lead author of the IPCC's Working Group II on climate 
     impacts feels comfortable presenting testimony to the US 
     Congress that fundamentally misrepresents what the IPCC has 
     concluded. I am referring to testimony given today by 
     Christopher Field, a professor at Stanford, to the US Senate.
       This is not a particularly nuanced or complex issue. What 
     Field says the IPCC says is blatantly wrong, often 180 
     degrees wrong. It is one thing to disagree about scientific 
     questions, but it is altogether different to fundamentally 
     misrepresent an IPCC report to the US Congress. Below are 
     five instances in which Field's testimony today completely 
     and unambiguously misrepresented IPCC findings to the Senate.
       1. On the economic costs of disasters:
       Field: ``As the US copes with the aftermath of last year's 
     record-breaking series of 14 billion-dollar climate-related 
     disasters and this year's massive wildfires and storms, it is 
     critical to understand that the link between climate change 
     and the kinds of extremes that lead to disasters is clear.''
       Field's assertion that the link between climate change and 
     disasters ``is clear,'' which he supported with reference to 
     US ``billion dollar'' economic losses, is in reality 
     scientifically unsupported by the IPCC. Period. There is good 
     reason for this--it is what the science says. Why fail to 
     report to Congress the IPCC's most fundamental finding and 
     indicate something quite the opposite?
       2. On US droughts:
       Field: ``The report identified some areas where droughts 
     have become longer and more intense (including southern 
     Europe and West Africa), but others where droughts have 
     become less frequent, less intense, or shorter.''
       What the IPCC actually said: ``. . . in some regions 
     droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, 
     for example, central North America. . .''
       Field conveniently neglected in his testimony to mention 
     that one place where droughts have gotten less frequent, less 
     intense or shorter is . . . the United States. Why did he 
     fail to mention this region, surely of interest to US 
     Senators, but did include Europe and West Africa?

[[Page 13008]]


       3. On NOAA's billion dollar disasters:
       Field: ``The US experienced 14 billion-dollar disasters in 
     2011, a record that far surpasses the previous maximum of 
     9.''
       What NOAA actually says about its series of ``billion 
     dollar'' disasters: ``Caution should be used in interpreting 
     any trends based on this [data] for a variety of reasons''
       Field says nothing about the serious issues with NOAA's 
     tabulation. The billion dollar disaster meme is a PR train 
     wreck, not peer reviewed and is counter to the actual science 
     summarized in the IPCC. So why mention it?
       4. On attributing billion dollar disasters to climate 
     change, case of hurricanes and tornadoes:
       Field: ``For several of these categories of disasters, the 
     strength of any linkage to climate change, if there is one, 
     is not known. Specifically, the IPCC (IPCC 2012) did not 
     identify a trend or express confidence in projections 
     concerning tornadoes and other small-area events. The 
     evidence on hurricanes is mixed.''
       What the IPCC actually said: ``The statement about the 
     absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or 
     anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and 
     extratropical storms and tornados''
       Hurricanes are, of course, tropical cyclones. Far from 
     evidence being ``mixed'' the IPCC was unable to attribute any 
     trend in tropical cyclone disasters to climate change 
     (anywhere in the world and globally overall). In fact, there 
     has been no trend in US hurricane frequency or intensity over 
     a century or more, and the US is currently experiencing the 
     longest period with no intense hurricane landfalls ever seen. 
     Field fails to report any of this and invents something 
     different. Why present testimony so easily refuted? (He did 
     get tornadoes right!)
       5. On attributing billion dollar disasters to climate 
     change, case of floods and droughts:
       Field: ``For other categories of climate and weather 
     extremes, the pattern is increasingly clear. Climate change 
     is shifting the risk of hitting an extreme. The IPCC (IPCC 
     2012) concludes that climate change increases the risk of 
     heat waves (90% or greater probability), heavy precipitation 
     (66% or greater probability), and droughts (medium 
     confidence) for most land areas.''
       What the IPCC actually says: ``The absence of an 
     attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for 
     flood losses'' and (from above): ``in some regions droughts 
     have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for 
     example, central North America''
       Field fails to explain that no linkage between flood 
     disasters and climate change has been established. Increasing 
     precipitation is not the same thing as increasing streamflow, 
     floods or disasters. In fact, floods may be decreasing 
     worldwide and are not increasing in the US. The fact that 
     drought has declined in the US means that there is no trend 
     of rising impacts that can be attributed to climate change. 
     Yet he implies exactly the opposite. Again, why include such 
     obvious misrepresentations when they are so easily refuted?
       Field is certainly entitled to his (wrong) opinion on the 
     science of climate change and disasters. However, it is 
     utterly irresponsible to fundamentally misrepresent the 
     conclusions of the IPCC before the US Congress. He might have 
     explained why he thought the IPCC was wrong in its 
     conclusions, but it is foolish to pretend that the body said 
     something other than what it actually reported. Just like the 
     inconvenient fact that people are influencing the climate and 
     carbon dioxide is a main culprit, the science says what the 
     science says.
       Field can present such nonsense before Congress because the 
     politics of climate change are so poisonous that he will be 
     applauded for his misrepresentations by many, including some 
     scientists. Undoubtedly, I will be attacked for pointing out 
     his obvious misrepresentations. Neither response changes the 
     basic facts here. Such is the sorry state of climate science 
     today.

  Mr. INHOFE. It is important to talk about the IPCC because if we stop 
and think about it, everything that has been happening comes from the 
science that was investigated and formulated by the IPCC--
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--that is, the United Nations. 
In my book I talk a little bit about that, but I don't believe it would 
be appropriate to mention it at this time. But at today's hearing, we 
talked about the IPCC.
  When they were unable, through about five or six different bills, to 
get cap and trade through--keep in mind, cap and trade through 
legislation would cost the American people between $300 billion and 
$400 billion a year. But when that failed, we had something happen in 
December 2009.
  The United Nations has this big party every year, and they invite 
countries from around the world to testify that global warming is 
happening and they are going to do something about it. One time in 
Milan, Italy, I saw one of my friends from West Africa. I said, What in 
the world are you doing here? You know better than this--in terms of 
global warming. He said, This is the biggest party of the year. Besides 
that, if we agree to go along with this, we in West Africa are going to 
get billions of dollars from the United Nations, from those countries 
in the developed nations.
  Another big party was coming up in Copenhagen in 2009. I think 
Senator Kerry had gone over; Hillary Clinton had gone over. I don't 
believe Barack Obama was there. Nancy Pelosi was there and several 
others were there. They were telling all these countries: Don't you 
worry about it because we in the United States of America are going to 
pass cap-and-trade legislation this year. So I said I was going to go 
over as a one-man truth squad to let them know the truth, and I did. I 
went over and told the 191 other countries there: We are not going to 
pass cap and trade. It is dead. It is gone. They can't get one-third of 
the Senate to support it.
  Before I left, one of my favorite liberals, Lisa Jackson--I really 
like her. She is Obama's appointee and is now the Director of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. Right before I went to Copenhagen, we 
had a hearing and she was a witness.
  I said: Madam Administrator, I have a feeling that once I leave and 
go to Copenhagen, you are going to come out with an endangerment 
finding that will give you justification to start doing what they 
couldn't do by legislation through regulations. And I could see a smile 
on her face.
  I said: When you do this, it has to be based on science. What science 
are you going to base this on?
  She said: Well, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would 
be the major thing. And, sure enough, that is exactly what happened.
  I could not have planned it, but she made this declaration that we 
now are going to be able to do through regulation what we couldn't do 
through legislation because the people of America had spoken through 
their elected representatives in the House and the Senate and had 
denied the opportunity to do cap and trade, so they decided to do it on 
an endangerment finding.
  What happened after that is what I call poetic justice. Climategate 
occurred. I had nothing to do with it when it happened, but all the 
speeches I had made in the previous 10 years on the floor of this 
Senate were speeches saying exactly the same thing: that they were 
cooking the science and what they were saying was not real.
  I read several of the editorials that came out after climategate. The 
New York Times has always been on the other side of this issue. They 
said:

       Given the stakes, the IPCC cannot allow more missteps and, 
     at the very least, must tighten procedures and make its 
     deliberation more transparent. The panel's chairman . . . is 
     under fire for taking consulting fees from business 
     interests. . . .

  The Washington Post, which has also been on the other side of this 
issue, said:

       Recent revelations about flaws in that seminal IPCC report, 
     ranging from typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing, are 
     undermining confidence not only in the panel's work but also 
     in projections about climate change.

  Newsweek:

       Some of the IPCC's most-quoted data and recommendations 
     were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, 
     newspaper articles. . . .

  Christopher Booker of the UK Telegraph said of climategate, ``. . . 
the worst scientific scandal of our generation.''
  Clive Crook of the Financial Times said: ``The stink of intellectual 
corruption is overpowering.''
  A prominent physicist from the IPCC said: ``Climategate was a fraud 
on the scale I have never seen.''
  Another UN Scientist, bails:

       UN IPCC Coordinating author Dr. Philip Lloyd calls out IPCC 
     `fraud'--the result is not scientific.

  Newsweek:

       Once celebrated climate researchers feeling like used car 
     salesmen. Some of IPCC's most-quoted data and recommendations 
     were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures.

  Clive Cook of the Atlantic Magazine, speaking of the IPCC, responds:

       I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various 
     Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a 
     first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific 
     consensus.


[[Page 13009]]


  So everyone is in agreement that this is what climategate was all 
about. And why I am spending so much time on this is because this is 
the science of all of these things that started since Kyoto.
  By the way, the Senator, this morning on the floor, commented about 
the Kyoto Treaty. Let's keep in mind, the Kyoto Treaty was back during 
the Clinton-Gore administration. They were strongly in support of it. 
Vice President Gore went down to the summit they were having in Rio de 
Janeiro and signed the treaty, but they never submitted it to the 
Senate.
  To become a part of a treaty, it has to be ratified by the United 
States. It never was, and people need to understand that there is a 
reason it never was submitted.
  I would suggest a couple of other things in the remainder of the time 
that I have that I think are significant and worthy of bringing up. One 
would be the one-weather event. The thing that we are hearing more 
about than anything else is that it has been a very hot summer. On 
Monday, my wife called me up and said: In Tulsa it is 109 degrees 
today.
  I was joking around with my good friend from Vermont--we disagree 
with each other, but he is a good friend. Sure, it is hot. But it is so 
important that people understand, weather is not climate.
  Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor of environmental studies at University 
of Colorado, said:

       Over the long term, there is no evidence that disasters are 
     getting worse because of climate change.

  Judith Curry, chair of the Georgia Institute of Technology's School 
of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, has said:

       I have been completely unconvinced by any of the arguments 
     . . . that attribute a single extreme weather event, a 
     cluster of extreme weather events, or statistics of extreme 
     weather events to anthropogenic forcing.

  Myles Allen at the University of Oxford's Atmospheric, Oceanic, and 
Planetary Physics Department:

       When Al Gore said . . . that scientists now have clear 
     proof that climate change is directly responsible for the 
     extreme and devastating floods, storms and droughts . . . my 
     heart sank.

  I consider Rachel Maddow of MSNBC to be one of the outstanding 
liberals, and she is one of my four favorite liberals. I have been on 
her program, and I have enjoyed it. Bill Nye, the Science Guy, agrees 
that some of these weather events have nothing to do with global 
warming.
  The other thing I made a note of that came up this morning was that 
they said there is no evidence on cooling. I think it is important to 
talk about that a little bit because a prominent Russian scientist 
said:

       We should fear a deep temperature drop--not catastrophic 
     global. . . . Warming had a natural origin . . . 
     CO2 is not guilty.

  U.N. Fears (More) Global Cooling Cometh! An IPCC scientist warns the 
U.N.:

       We may be about to enter one or even two decades during 
     which temps cool.

  I ask unanimous consent all of these be placed in the Record showing 
that a single weather event has nothing to do with climate.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       Global Cooling Predictions

       3. Paleoclimate scientist Dr. Bob Carter, James Cook 
     University in Austraila, who has testified before the U.S. 
     Senate Committee on EPW, noted on June 18, 2007, ``The 
     accepted global average temperature statistics used by the 
     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) show that no 
     ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this 8-
     year-long temperature stability as occurred despite an 
     increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4%) 
     in atmospheric CO2.


                            (andrew revkin)

       4. Just months before Copenhagen, on September 23, 2009, 
     the New York Times acknowledged, ``The world leaders who met 
     at the United Nations to discuss climate change . . . are 
     faced with an intricate challenge: building momentum for an 
     international climate treaty at a time when global 
     temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may 
     even drop in the next few years.''

  Mr. INHOFE. I do think it is important to bring this up because this 
is happening right now, after 3 years, and not one mention of global 
warming, and all of a sudden it is global warming.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend my time by 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. This morning I showed a picture of an igloo. I have 20 
kids and grandkids. My daughter Molly and her husband have four 
children. One of those is adopted from Africa, a little girl. She was 
brought over here when she was a little baby. She is now 12 years old, 
reading at a college level. She is an outstanding little girl. I 
sponsor the African dinner every February, and she, for the last 3 
years, has been kind of a keynote speaker, and everybody loves her.
  They were up here 2 years ago, and they couldn't leave because all 
the airports were closed because of the ice storm. What do you do with 
a family of six when they are stuck someplace? They built an igloo. 
That was fun--a real igloo that will sleep four people. This became 
quite an issue, and we had articles from France and Great Britain and 
all criticizing my family. In fact, my cute little family was declared 
by Keith Olbermann of MSNBC to be the worst family in America because 
of this.
  The point they were trying to make is, no one ever asserted that 
because it was the coldest winter in several decades up here that 
somehow that refuted global warming. I said: No, that isn't true. Now 
those same people are saying that it is.
  So you can fool the American people part of the time and you can talk 
about all the hysteria and all the things that are taking place, but 
the people of America have caught on.
  In March 2010, in a Gallup poll, Americans ranked global warming dead 
last, No. 8 out of eight environmental issues. They had a vote, and 
this was dead last.
  A March Rasmussen poll: 72 percent of American voters don't believe 
global warming is a serious problem.
  An alarmist, Robert Socolow, laments:

       We are losing the argument with the general public big time 
     . . . I think the climate change activists--myself included--
     have lost the American middle.

  So as much money as they have spent and the efforts they have made, 
and moveon.org and George Soros and Michael Moore and the United 
Nations and the Gore people and the elitists out in California in 
Hollywood, they have lost this battle. Now they are trying to resurrect 
it. They would love nothing more than to pass this $300 billion tax 
increase. It is not going to happen.
  But I am glad that we are talking about it again, and I applaud my 
friend. Senator Sanders from Vermont is a real sincere activist on the 
other side. We agree on hardly anything--except infrastructure, I would 
have to say--and yet we respect each other. That is what this body is 
all about. We should have people who are on both sides of all these 
controversial issues talking about it. There has been a silence for 3 
years. Now we are talking about it again.
  So welcome back to the discussion of global warming. I look forward 
to future discussions about this.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                  Unanimous Consent Agreement S. 3326

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are about to do something really 
important in the Senate. It would increase U.S. textile exports to 
Central American countries, it would promote development and economic 
stability by creating jobs in, of course, African countries, and it 
would extend U.S. import sanctions with Burma, which the Republican 
leader will speak more about. This bill would help maintain about 2,000 
jobs in North Carolina and South Carolina alone. It is a very good 
bill. It is fully paid for. It is an important piece of legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be 
determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the 
Republican leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar 
No. 459, S. 3326; that the only amendment in order be a Coburn

[[Page 13010]]

amendment, the text of which is at the desk; that there be 30 minutes 
for debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that upon 
the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to vote in 
relation to the amendment; that if the amendment is not agreed to, the 
bill be read the third time and passed without further action or 
debate; that when the Senate receives H.R. 5986 and if its text is 
identical to S. 3326, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration 
of H.R. 5986, the bill be read the third time and passed without 
further debate, with no amendments in order prior to passage; further, 
that if the Coburn amendment is agreed to, the Finance Committee be 
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 9 and the Senate proceed 
to its immediate consideration; that all after the enacting clause be 
stricken and the text of S. 3326, as amended, be inserted in lieu 
thereof, the bill be read the third time and passed without further 
debate; that when the Senate receives H.R. 5986, the Senate proceed to 
it forthwith and all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text 
of sections 2 and 3 of S. 3326, as reported, by inserted in lieu 
thereof, the bill be read the third time and passed, without further 
debate, as amended, and S. 3326 be returned to the Calendar of 
Business; finally, that no motions be in order other than motions to 
waive or motions to table and that motions to reconsider be made and 
laid on the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I 
will not be objecting, let me echo the remarks of the majority leader. 
This is an important piece of legislation.
  The part I have the most interest in renews Burma's sanctions--
something we have done on an annual basis for 10 years. We are renewing 
the sanctions in spite of the fact that much progress has been made in 
Burma in the last year and a half. Secretary Clinton will, of course, 
recommend to the President that these sanctions be waived in 
recognition of the significant progress that has been made in the last 
year and a half in that country, which is trying to move from a rather 
thuggish military dictatorship to a genuine democracy. There is still a 
long way to go.
  This is an important step in the right direction. America speaks with 
one voice regarding Burma. My views are the same as the views of the 
Obama administration as expressed by Secretary Clinton.
  I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee also for helping us 
work through the process, and particularly Senator Coburn, who had some 
reservations about the non-Burma parts of this bill. I think we have 
worked those out and are moving forward. It is an important step in the 
right direction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________