A bill to amend title 39, United States Code, to extend the authority of the United States Postal Service to issue a semipostal to raise funds for breast cancer research.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, can you tell us how many Democrats have cosponsored H.R. 3630?

I raised the issue, Mr. Speaker, because the gentleman said this was a bipartisan bill and I don't know of any Democrats that are cosponsors of the bill.

First of all, let me thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, my good friend, Mr. Dreier, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and to the underlying bill. This bill and this process is so lousy, I barely know where to begin today.

Let's start with the process. The bill, the way this bill was conceived, drafted and brought up may be the worst yet under this Republican-controlled Congress. Simply, this process is shameful. It's an embarrassment. This 369-page monstrosity was presented on Friday afternoon.

The gentleman says that this was reported by the Ways and Means Committee. It was presented by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. It was not reported out of that committee. I use the word presented because it was introduced on a day when no committees met and we had no votes in the House.

It was referred to 12 committees, 12 different committees. That's more than half the committees in the House of Representatives. But not a single committee held a hearing or a markup on this bill. It never saw the light of day in any of these committees.

There are 348 Members who sit on the committees that have jurisdiction over this bill. That's 348 Members of the House who should have had an opportunity to offer amendments and question witnesses about this bill in committee hearings or markups. Not one of these Members had an opportunity.

And last night in the Rules Committee, Members came up, 12 amendments were offered. Every single one of them was rejected.

Mr. Levin, the ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee, asked for a Democratic substitute to be made in order. That was rejected too.

The gentleman from California says that it's traditional, when Ways and Means bills are presented, that they be done so under a closed rule. That's when it's a tax bill. This is a tax bill plus 1,000 other things that have nothing to do with tax issues.

And this lousy process, I will say to my colleagues, leads to bad legislating. Just look at this bill. It's long, and it's sloppy. The Republicans who rushed to put this bill together have already found an error which we're trying to correct in the rule. Who knows how many other errors there are?

Last year Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor, Whip McCarthy and other members of the Republican leadership rolled out their Pledge to America, their campaign pledge to run this House in a more open way. Yet all year long they have been chipping away at their pledge, and now we have this bill that flat out breaks their pledge.

In their pledge, the House Republicans promised to, and I quote, ``end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with 'must-pass' legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.'' That's what they said.

Yet we have three provisions--extension of the payroll tax cut, extension of unemployment insurance, and SGR, or doc fix--that are must pass by the end of this year. And do we have a clean bill that is free from unrelated provisions? Of course not. That would be logical and make too much sense.

No, Mr. Speaker, the bill we have before us is loaded up with goodies to mollify the extreme right wing that is in charge of this House. Along with the extension of the payroll tax cut and doc fix, this bill includes the following: Requires the approval of the controversial Keystone pipeline; requires millions of seniors to pay more for health care; increases taxes on working families by forcing large, end-of-the- year health care payments; slashes prevention funding that actually reduces Medicare and Medicaid costs; undermines air quality, endangering the health of children and families by blocking mercury pollution reduction; cuts retirement programs for Federal workers; and extends the pay freeze for Federal workers.

Each of these provisions are different. They have nothing to do with one another. Why are they all bunched together in this one bill?

And these policies are bad for America. They are bad for the American people. Yet the Republican leadership continues to push these extreme and harmful policies.

And even though the unemployment insurance program needs to be extended, this bill actually erodes the support program by cutting unemployment insurance benefits for 1 million Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. And it imposes new limits on unemployment compensation by restricting benefits employees have paid for.

Why is it so difficult for this Republican-controlled House to help the middle class and those struggling to get into the middle class? Why do they throw roadblock after roadblock in front of middle class Americans who are trying to make their lives better? Why do they continue to make it virtually impossible for us to help average people, while at the same time they do everything in their power to protect subsidies for big oil companies and tax cuts for the Donald Trumps of the world?

Extension of the payroll tax cut, extension of the unemployment insurance program, and the doc fix should not be controversial. And these extensions should have been done a long, long time ago.

My friends on the other side of the aisle are playing a very risky game. We know this failure to extend the payroll tax cut will mean a $1,500 tax increase on middle class Americans. We know that 160 million Americans will see their taxes go up if we don't act before the end of the year. So why are Republicans bringing a bill to the floor that we know will not pass the Senate?

We know, by the way, the President will not sign it. I have a Statement of Administration Policy, which I would like to place in the Record, which basically makes it very clear that the President would veto this bill.

Executive Office of the President Office of Management,

and Budget,

Washington, DC, December 13, 2011.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 3630--Middle Class Tax Cut Act of 2011

(Rep. Camp, R-Michigan, and 5 others)

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3630. With only

days left before taxes go up for 160 million hardworking

Americans, H.R. 3630 plays politics at the expense of middle-

class families. H.R. 3630 breaks the bipartisan agreement on

spending cuts that was reached just a few months ago and

would inevitably lead to pressure to cut investments in areas

like education and clean energy. Furthermore, H.R. 3630 seeks

to put the burden of paying for the bill on working families,

while giving a free pass to the wealthiest and to big

corporations by protecting their loopholes and subsidies.

Instead of working together to find a balanced approach

that will actually pass both Houses of the Congress, H.R.

3630 instead represents a choice to refight old political

battles over health care and introduce ideological issues

into what should be a simple debate about cutting taxes for

the middle class.

This debate should not be about scoring political points.

This debate should be about cutting taxes for the middle

class.

If the President were presented with H.R. 3630, he would

veto the bill.

So why are we wasting precious time?

The Republican leadership insists on playing chicken with the American people just to score cheap political points. This is not a time for political theater. This is the time for responsible leadership. It's time to do the right thing for the American people and drop these controversial provisions from this bill.

This is not the time to increase taxes on middle class Americans. It's time to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance and the doc fix.

Mr. Speaker, this House needs to get back to doing the people's business, and the people's business is jobs. It would be nice if my Republican friends would allow the President's jobs bill to come to the floor for a vote rather than bills that reaffirm our national motto or make it easier for unsafe people to carry concealed weapons from one State to another.

I say to my Republican friends, the American people are outraged. They're outraged at Republican indifference to the middle class. They're outraged by Republicans' callous attitude to the most vulnerable in this country. They're outraged that Republicans are playing politics with their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to do the right thing, to pass a clean extension of the payroll tax cut, properly extend unemployment insurance and the doc fix. Do the right thing, and do it the right way. That's all the American people are asking for.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very proud to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, the Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee who was denied his right to have a substitute when he was at the Rules Committee, Mr. Levin.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record a letter from William Samuel, the director of the government affairs department at the AFL-CIO, in strong opposition to H.R. 3630.

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial

Organizations,

Washington, DC, December 13, 2011.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I am writing

to urge you to oppose the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job

Creation Act of 2011 (H.R. 3630), which would replace a

modest surtax on income over $1 million with drastic benefit

reductions for jobless workers, pay cuts for public

employees, reduced premium assistance for low- and middle-

income individuals buying health insurance, cutbacks in

preventive health services, and higher premiums for many

Medicare beneficiaries.

H.R. 3630 would cut the federal unemployment insurance (UI)

program by more than half in 2012, reducing benefit

eligibility by 14 weeks in every state and by 40 weeks in

states with the highest unemployment rates. These benefit

cuts would reduce economic activity by $22 billion and cost

140,000 jobs.

Even more troubling, H.R. 3630 would fundamentally change

the nature of unemployment insurance and erode the

unemployment safety net for the future. Unemployment

insurance (UI) is a social insurance program, to which

workers make contributions in the form of reduced wages. H.R.

3630 would change the nature of UI by allowing states to

require jobless workers to ``work off'' their benefits, in

effect allowing UI to be transformed into a workfare program.

H.R. 3630 would further undermine social insurance by

introducing means testing, which would surely be used to

restrict UI eligibility to fewer and fewer workers over time.

The authors of this legislation do not seem to understand

that America faces a continuing jobs crisis, and they seem to

think that jobless workers--rather than Wall Street--are to

blame for high unemployment and the lack of jobs. In addition

to cutting unemployment benefits, H.R. 3630 would allow drug

testing of all workers before they can receive benefits;

require workers without a high school degree to be enrolled

in classes before they can receive benefits; and make jobless

workers pay out of their own pockets for reemployment

services offered by the government.

In order to spare millionaires from having to pay one more

penny in taxes, H.R. 3630 would also require federal

employees to sacrifice even more than they have already. Not

only would H.R. 3630 extend the current pay freeze for

federal employees, but it would also raise $37 billion in

revenues by increasing federal employee pension contributions

and reducing their retirement income.

H.R. 3630 would also have a substantial negative impact on

the health care of working families. It would impose daunting

subsidy repayment requirements on families whose economic

circumstances improve, which would deter 170,000 people from

accepting premium assistance under the Affordable Care Act,

according to the Joint Tax Committee. As a result, thousands

of middle- and lower-income families would be unable to

afford health insurance. In addition, H.R. 3630 would

increase Medicare premiums for at least 25 percent of all

beneficiaries, requiring many in the middle class to pay

substantially more, and would reduce federal support for new

preventive services.

H.R. 3630 would protect the most privileged one percent of

all Americans from having to pay one more penny in taxes, and

it would do so by demanding still more sacrifice and pain

from jobless workers, federal employees, and low- and middle-

income families. The authors of H.R. 3630 obviously have more

sympathy for millionaires than for the victims of the

economic crisis caused by Wall Street. We urge you to vote

against this cruel and selfish piece of legislation.

Sincerely,

William Samuel,

Director, Government Affairs Department.

At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, again, the AFL-CIO still opposes this bill.

At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I have at least two more speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

I advise the gentleman from California that I am the last speaker.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to place in the Record an article from Politico entitled, ``GOP takes packaging path,'' talking about how my Republican friends have broken their Pledge to America.

[From Politico, Dec. 11, 2011]

GOP Takes Packaging Path

(By Jake Sherman)

The year-end rush to extend the payroll tax holiday has

House Republicans struggling to keep up with a key promise

from last year's election as they bundle together a

hodgepodge of issues before skipping town for Christmas.

In the Pledge to America, released by GOP leadership under

much fanfare in September 2010, Republicans said they would

``end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with `must-

pass' legislation to circumvent the will of the American

people. Instead, we will

advance major legislation one issue at a time,'' they said.

They'll be doing the exact opposite this week.

The year-end legislative package centered on extending the

payroll tax has turned into a holiday tree filled with

legislative ornaments ranging from the Keystone XL oil

pipeline, the sale of broadband spectrum, an extension of

jobless benefits, changes to Medicare and easing of certain

environmental standards. On top of that, the House will also

try to clear a nearly $1 trillion catch-all year-end spending

bill--the type of appropriations package that Speaker John

Boehner (R-Ohio) himself has decried as inadequate.

Republicans bristle at the comparison, insisting they're in

full compliance with their election-season promises, but the

manner with which they're passing the legislation underscores

larger issues Congress has to contend with as a winter chill

settles on Washington: Republicans want to score political

points from Democrats; the Senate is split; President Barack

Obama is in reelection mode; and tax provisions are slated to

expire as the Christmas recess looms.

A GOP leadership aide said the comparison is ``a half-assed

attempt at a `gotcha' story--and it's weak even for POLITICO

on a quiet Friday afternoon.''

Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, said the extension

bill ``does not fit the definition of `must-pass'

legislation--which generally refers to funding bills, or an

increase in the debt limit--nor does it contain any

`unpopular' provisions. Therefore, it is entirely consistent

with the Pledge to America.''

Any number of Republicans, though, have said that the tax

holiday must be extended, saying its expiration would amount

a tax increase when it's least needed.

Whether it's a ``must pass'' or not, the package of bills

is seen as critical for both parties: If Congress doesn't

act, taxes will go up on more than 100 million families,

jobless benefits will expire and doctors who treat Medicare

patients will have their fees slashed.

Over the past week, the narrative has shifted

significantly. Both Republicans and Democrats now say they

want to extend the provisions, recognizing both the political

and economic peril that would come from allowing the measures

to run out.

The argument is now over how the government will pay for it

and what will ride alongside it for Republicans to say they

tried to create jobs.

It's all pretty familiar to Capitol Hill onlookers and

could help explain Congress's 9 percent approval rating. The

year-end dash--Boehner says he wants the House to be done by

Friday--mirrors Congress's work during the previous 10

months. There's political posturing on both sides and

panicked legislating, all set against the backdrop of a

looming holiday deadline.

Here's where things stand: Top GOP aides say the

Republicans' Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act

represents their last offer. The legislation extends the

payroll tax holiday, jobless benefits and the ``doc fix,'' in

addition to other sweeteners. To blunt conservative angst

about the bill and to offset its cost, GOP leaders tacked on

language to force President Barack Obama to restart the

Keystone XL pipeline project, in addition to easing

environmental standards on boilers and slashing money from

the Democrats' health care law.

It will hit the House floor this week. Senate Republican

leaders say it has enough steam to sail through the upper

chamber. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said

on ``Fox News Sunday'' that Democrats such as Sens. Barbara

Milkulski of Maryland and Ron Wyden of Oregon support rolling

back the boiler regulation. Some Democrats, including

lawmakers from labor-friendly districts, support the pipeline

construction.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said flatly

that the House bill with the pipeline won't pass--and

Democrats are weighing what bill to put on the floor this

week.

``It's the highest priority of the president and the

Democrats in Congress,'' Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of

Illinois said of the payroll tax extension on NBC's ``Meet

the Press.''

But there's still blowback on the pipeline issue.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), also appearing on NBC, said

flatly that the ``pipeline is probably not gonna sell.''

``At the end of the day, the payroll tax will get extended

as it is now,'' Graham said. ``It won't get expanded; it'll

get extended. And we'll find a way to pay for it in a

bipartisan fashion.''

Senate Democrats say that's what they're trying to do.

Democratic sources suggest the party might abandon its plan

to institute a surtax on millionaires, eyeing instead a

package with more palatable spending cuts to attract

Republican support.

There are a few question marks on the House side. When the

package was rolled out, the conference rallied behind

Boehner. But should it fray, so might its support. Boehner

told members in a closed meeting he wants all 242 House

Republicans to support the bill.

If the Republican support does not stay intact, House

Democrats will again be necessary for passage. It's an open

question what they would support to offset the cost of the

bill.

On Friday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)

was cool on changes to Medicare--including means testing for

millionaires--and cutting unemployment benefits from 99 to 59

weeks.

``Some things [that] might be acceptable in terms of a big,

bold and balanced plan are unacceptable if we're not only not

going to the place where President Obama wants to go on the

payroll tax cut, have a more modest proposal and on top of

that, have consumers of Medicare pay the price,'' Pelosi

said.

She minced no words when talking about the Keystone

pipeline.

``This is not about the Keystone pipeline,'' she said.

``The Keystone pipeline is a completely separate issue.

People on both sides of the issue agree that this shouldn't

be on this package. It's just not polite; it's a poison pill

designed to sink the payroll tax cut.''

Mr. Speaker, the House Republicans have designed a bill to fail, and it contains poison pills which will result in tax hikes for 160 million workers and the loss of hundreds of thousands of existing jobs. They say they're for extending the payroll tax cut for middle class Americans, they say they want to help the unemployed, but yet they demand a ransom in order for us to get this passed. And the ransom that they are demanding is quite high.

You've heard from Members on our side of all the poison pills that are in this bill. I have introduced into the Record the statement from the administration saying that they would veto this bill, because it is so awful, if it comes to the desk of the President. We know that the United States Senate will not move on this bill.

So why are we wasting our time with precious few days left in the session? Why aren't we doing what most Americans want us to do, and that is to extend the payroll tax cut for middle class Americans and extend unemployment insurance for the millions of people who are out of work, through no fault of their own, because it's the right thing to do?

My friends on the other side of the aisle have no problem with bailing out big banks on Wall Street, but when it comes to helping middle class families and working people, they squawk.

You've heard over and over that this is the Christmas season; we're supposed to be generous in our hearts. I don't feel the generosity on the other side. I don't feel the compassion. I'm not sure if my colleagues understand how Americans are struggling, what it feels like to be out of work. People who are in their 50s and 60s who have lost their job and can't find another job, and my colleagues are trying to make it more difficult for them to be able to get benefits so they can keep their homes and put food on the table.

My friend from California talks about, well, Mr. Levin, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, didn't submit a substitute, he only asked for one. Well, this bill, I will again remind everybody, was presented to us on Friday when Members were home. And we had an emergency Rules Committee--which bypasses the normal procedures and the normal time given for Members to be able to offer amendments. So, I mean, everything was stacked against anybody offering an amendment in advance.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order Mr. Levin's amendment in the nature of a substitute, which extends middle class tax relief, unemployment benefits, and the doc fix the right way.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I will just close again by urging my colleagues to stand with working people in this country, to stand with those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. I mean, it's so easy for the other side to stand with big oil companies and protect tax breaks for the wealthiest in this country. Let's have a little justice in our tax system, a little fairness.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can amend this bill and make it actually address these urgent issues in a thoughtful and reasonable way, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 491 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I am going to be claiming time in opposition to the point of order that my friend has raised, and I'm not going to consume the entire amount of time. So, when I do that, I would like to yield 1 minute to my friend in the spirit of the season and in the spirit of bipartisanship.

I would just like to state that for the record.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, I will just remind her that when I claim my time, I will be yielding an additional minute to my friend. So she certainly can feel free to yield any of that time once I do that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the point of order and in support of proceeding with the resolution.

With that, as I said, in the spirit of bipartisanship, which is the basis of the underlying legislation and the spirit of the Christmas season, I am happy to yield not just a minute, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to yield a minute and a half to my good friend from Milwaukee, with whom I share an affection for our great, fine music.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, as I have said, to speak in opposition to the point of order and in support of our moving ahead with the resolution.

My friend is a very, very thoughtful poet herself, and I've been the beneficiary of much of her fine work. She and I share an affection for R&B music. She quoted Cameo and ``Talkin' Out The Side Of Your Neck.'' I don't really know that song, I have to admit, Mr. Speaker; but I'll have to check it out.

But what I would like to do is, since we've heard of the eloquence of Cameo and the eloquence of Gwen Moore, the great poet, I would like to quote William Shakespeare. William Shakespeare said, ``In such business, action is eloquence.''

Now we have before us a measure that is designed to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to focus on getting our economy growing and generating job opportunities for the American people. The American people are hurting. We know that. There are people across this country hurting. And as my friends have just outlined, there are individuals who have suffered greatly. It is absolutely imperative that we do everything that we can to ensure that they have job opportunities and that those who are unable to find job opportunities have the assistance that they and their families need to proceed, especially during this time of year. Any action that my colleagues are proposing on the other side will simply delay our effort that will ensure that we extend the payroll tax holiday for an additional year, and it will prevent us from providing those benefits to people who are unable to find work today.

So I will be discussing the underlying legislation when we proceed with consideration of this rule, but I urge my colleagues to oppose this point of order and allow us to proceed with consideration of the resolution so that we can put into place a legislative package that will get the American people back to work and ensure opportunity for all.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend from Worcester, Mr. McGovern, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time will be yielded for debate purposes only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

House Resolution 491 is a closed rule, which, as we all know, is customary under both Democrats and Republicans for a measure that has emerged from the Ways and Means Committee. But we have chosen in this rule to expand the debate time so that both Democrats and Republicans will have an opportunity to be heard. So we have expanded the debate from 60 to 90 minutes, a 50 percent increase in the amount of time, because of the gravity of this measure, because there are Members who want to be heard. We will have this hour debate on the rule itself, which clearly will get at the substance of the legislation, and then we will have an additional hour and a half, so a total of 2\1/2\ hours.

Mr. Speaker, we all know what our job is here. Right now our job is jobs. Our job is jobs. We have a responsibility to put into place policies which will encourage job creation and economic growth, and that's exactly what this legislation is designed to do.

Our fellow Americans across this country are hurting. Part of the area that I represent in southern California has a 14 percent unemployment rate, substantially larger than the national average. We have people in my State of California and across this Nation who have lost their jobs, who have lost their homes, who have lost their businesses.

We, today, are dealing, very sadly, with a chronic unemployment rate. It has been sustained for a longer period of time than has been the case since the Great Depression. And it seems to me that, as we look at where we're going on this, we have to recognize what it is that gave us this positive number of a reduced unemployment rate from 9 percent to 8.6 percent. It was because, very sadly, hundreds of thousands of Americans decided to give up looking for work, and that's what allowed the unemployment rate to drop. But we know that it is not acceptable; and especially as we go into this holiday season, Mr. Speaker, to have so many Americans who are suffering is not acceptable.

And that's why we are here today, to take steps to ensure that we, first and foremost, put into place job opportunities and, second, address the needs of middle-income working Americans and those who are struggling to make ends meet and don't have jobs. And that's why we have chosen to not only extend unemployment benefits--and we're doing so, I'm happy to say, with very important reforms, very important reforms that deal with things ranging

from drug testing to encouraging people to qualify for their GEDs. It doesn't mandate it. It gives States an opportunity to in fact waive it if they choose, but it encourages people to move in the direction of seeking opportunities. Our goal, as we extend unemployment benefits, is to encourage reemployment of our fellow Americans who are having a difficult time trying to make ends meet.

This measure also, as we know, Mr. Speaker, puts into place a policy that will allow for the extension of the so-called holiday for the payroll tax. Now, I will admit that I am a supply-side, growth-oriented guy. I came here over three decades ago with Ronald Reagan, believing very strongly that we need to put into place pro-growth economic policies. The extension of the payroll tax holiday, based on analyses from economists from both the left and the right, is that it's not necessarily a pro-growth measure. But, Mr. Speaker, as we look at where we're headed today, during difficult times, it's important for us to realize that anyone who opposes what we are doing here today is standing in the way and preventing us from moving ahead with providing that payroll tax holiday for our fellow Americans.

I know that there are a lot of people who will say--and as I look at my friend from Worcester, I recall last night in the Rules Committee when he said we've been doing everything under the sun here except for focusing on job creation and economic growth.

Well, Mr. Speaker, as I think everyone knows, Democrats and Republicans alike, our fellow Americans know, there are 27 pieces of legislation that have passed the House of Representatives, which happens to be for the Republican majority. And at this moment, all 27 of those measures sit in the United States Senate, and they have not passed. And the Senate, of course, has a Democratic majority.

Bipartisanship is what we want. That's what the American people want, and I'm happy to say that this measure is a bipartisan bill. One of the things that makes it a bipartisan measure, beyond extending unemployment benefits, beyond extending the payroll tax holiday, is this thrust towards creating jobs by proceeding with the Keystone XL pipeline.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that there has been some controversy around this earlier, but while we look at the imperative of expanding the payroll tax holiday and ensuring that the American people, who are struggling, have the benefits that they desperately need, we need to get at the root cause of the problem. And the root cause of the problem is that we have not put into place policies, we've not been able to pass out of both houses of Congress and get to the President's desk policies that can immediately jump-start and get our economy growing.

I'm looking at my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) over here. He and I have talked on numerous occasions over the past several years about our shared goal of putting into place tax reform, reducing the top rate on job creators from 35 to 25 percent, while closing loopholes.

I know my friend from Worcester regularly talks about subsidies and loopholes that exist for the oil industry and a wide range of other areas. We want to do this in the context of overall tax reform, and I hope very much that we can get to the point where, in a bipartisan way, we can do that. That's a policy that both President Obama and former President Clinton have talked about, this dealing, as Mr. Andrews and I have discussed in the past, with this tax issue. These are the kinds of policies that can enjoy bipartisan support, Democrats and Republicans working together to ensure that we can get this economy growing.

And I will say that this Keystone XL pipeline is one of those items, as we all know, that enjoys bipartisan support. It would immediately create jobs based on the projection of that construction. And while we look at our quest, I don't think we're going to gain total energy self- sufficiency in this global economy, but we would have greater energy self-sufficiency working very closely with one of our closest allies, our ally to the north, Canada, in ensuring that we can proceed with this. We know that the question mark over whether or not we're going to proceed with the pipeline has raised an understandable quest of the Canadians to deal with the Chinese.

And so, Mr. Speaker, as we look at these challenges, this is a bipartisan measure. Let anyone stand up and start pointing the finger of blame at Republicans. But I will tell you that we have--90 percent of the items in this measure have enjoyed bipartisan support. Many of these are proposals that President Obama has made within his jobs package. So that's why we've got an opportunity to do this. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we can do it.

Unfortunately, we can't simply legislate full employment in the United States. Legislating full employment is not an option. I know that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle might like to figure that we could legislate full employment. If we could do that, we wouldn't be faced with the difficulty that we have today.

What we can do is we can encourage America's innovators and entrepreneurs with pro-growth policies, and that's what we have repeatedly sent to the Senate. I hope that our colleagues in the other body will report those out.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to encourage my colleagues to support this very, very important, bipartisan legislation, get it to the other body so that our Senate colleagues can consider this, and get it to the President's desk so that the American people, who want to have a degree of confidence that they're not going to see a tax increase take place, and that they're going to, in fact, if they're struggling and don't have a job opportunity, have their benefits continue, and to ensure that we get at the root cause of the problem by putting into place opportunities for private sector jobs to be created. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my colleague that he has performed just as I had expected, pointing the finger of blame when we're trying to work in a bipartisan way to make sure that we get this done. We want the doc fix. We want to ensure that people who can't make ends meet and are looking for work have access to those benefits. We want to extend the payroll tax holiday.

We also feel it imperative that we get at the root cause of exactly what my friend just said, Mr. Speaker, and that is creating jobs. And everyone knows, Democrat and Republican alike, many leaders in organized labor focus on the fact that the Keystone XL pipeline is a job creator and can go a long way towards doing exactly what my friend and I share in common as a goal.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to a hardworking new member of your class, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Lawrence, South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

I just wanted to ask a question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I'd be happy to yield to my dear California colleague, Ms. Pelosi, if she would want to respond to anything I'm about to say here as I was looking forward to getting to debate.

First of all, my colleague from California began by saying that there was no opportunity for Democrats to have a proposal that is considered. Members of the minority, the Democrats, are entitled to a motion to recommit. That is provided in this measure, although we often were denied that when we were in the minority.

Second, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) did, in fact, propose that we have a substitute made in order; but, Mr. Speaker, since last Friday, when this bill was made available, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the committee, never came forward with a substitute for us in the Rules Committee. We only received one just a few minutes ago.

Then to the important point about the so-called ``poison pills'' that my California colleague mentioned, the distinguished minority leader: The idea of saying that we want to encourage those who are unemployed to move towards GED qualification does not seem to me to be a poison pill.

Mr. Speaker, the idea of saying that we should have drug testing--and that's, again, optional drug testing--so that people who are receiving these unemployment benefits are not using those resources to purchase drugs is obviously not a poison pill. Then the idea of having millionaires benefit from the program, which we eliminate in this proposal, should not be a poison pill.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I am very happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to another hardworking member of the freshman class, the gentleman from Bryan, Texas (Mr. Flores).

Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Fullerton, California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, and I would be happy to engage my friend if he'd like to. Let me make a couple of comments.

First, I think that as we look at the issue of the Keystone XL pipeline, the notion of saying that somehow we're trying to appeal to our base when we

know the most outspoken and enthusiastic supporters of the Keystone XL pipeline happen to be the labor unions, organized labor in this country. We know because they want to create jobs, and they are supportive of this so that we can create jobs.

People throw around terms like ``poison pill,'' why are we using this issue. Because as we extend unemployment benefits to people who are unable to find jobs, and as we extend the payroll tax holiday, we feel that it's absolutely essential that we get at the root cause of the problem. We have protracted unemployment in this country. Very, very sadly. We know it has gone on for an extended period of time--the end of the last administration into this administration. We all know that we were promised that if we passed the stimulus bill that the unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent. Now it's at 8.6 percent. I'm gratified that it went from 9 percent to 8.6 percent. But why did it do that?

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker.

Because hundreds of thousands of Americans have chosen to give up even looking for work. And so we're saying, yes, we will agree to extend unemployment benefits; yes, we will agree to extending for another year the payroll tax holiday. But let's get at the root cause of the problem. So that's why we see these as being very closely intertwined.

It's true the President did say that he would reject this; but I believe if we can pass it through this House with bipartisan support, pass it through the United States Senate and get it to the President's desk, that extending unemployment benefits at this time of year especially, and that payroll tax holiday, with a measure that the President has indicated support for, dealing with the XL pipeline, that the President will, in fact, sign it.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Omaha, Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my friend how many speakers he has on his side?

In light of that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I will close after the gentleman does.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

There is a way to ensure that President Obama will sign this legislation. There is a way to ensure that he will sign this legislation, and that way is if we have Democrats join with Republicans in an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

Now, the message that we've gotten is that they're poison pills-- ``hostage'' is the term that both the President and my colleague have just used in trying to move forward the important provisions of expanding the payroll tax so that working Americans can keep more of their own money, and the doc fix to ensure that doctors are reimbursed and that Medicare beneficiaries are able to have access to the health care that they need. And of course for those at this time of year who are struggling and need their unemployment benefits expanded, there is a way to get that done. Our goal is to get at the root cause of the problem.

As I said in the opening, Mr. Speaker, right now our job is jobs. Our job is jobs. And that's exactly what we're trying to do. Tragically, tragically we are dealing with a protracted unemployment problem in this country. You know it's been going on for an extended period of time. The only reason that we saw the unemployment rate drop from 9 percent to 8.6 percent is that hundreds of thousands of Americans have given up looking for work.

Now, as we listen to people say that at this time of year we need to make sure that we create jobs, we have to make sure that there are opportunities out there. My friend from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) was talking about the fact that there are four people looking for one job. Let's put into place the kinds of policies that will allow us to see the private sector create jobs. We cannot legislate full employment. We cannot legislate full employment, but what we can do is we can pass legislation that will lay the groundwork for America's entrepreneurs, for America's innovators to have success by creating job opportunities.

There are 27 pieces of legislation that we have passed from this House that is in the Republican majority that are now sitting in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Those measures--increasing access to capital for small business men and women to create opportunities, making sure that we decrease the regulatory burden, which we all know has undermined job creation and economic growth in this country--these are the kinds of measures that are out there that we hope very much will be considered in the Senate.

Now, as we look at the issue of so-called ``poison pills,'' which my California colleague, Ms. Pelosi, the distinguished minority leader, talked about--and I tried to engage in a discussion with her on the House floor. I yielded to her and she chose to walk off the floor rather than engaging in a discussion. I guess the reason is that it's sort of hard to claim that encouraging an individual to move towards GED qualification is a poison pill. Isn't it kind of hard to claim that saying that we should allow States to engage in drug testing for people who are on unemployment is a poison pill? Making sure we reimburse for overpayments to recapture those hard-earned tax dollars, how can that be a poison pill? These are commonsense proposals to deal with the fact that we have a $15 trillion national debt.

And the American people know that Big Government is a problem. Just this morning I read the Gallup poll which shows that we are at near- record levels with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents being suspicious of Big Government. What we need to do is we need to unleash this potential that is out there, and this measure will do that.

Now, we keep hearing that politics is being played with this. Well, Mr. Speaker, we've gotten the word today that the majority leader of the United States Senate, Mr. Reid, has chosen to prevent Members from signing the conference report for the absolutely essential spending bill that is out there, the minibus spending bill, because of this issue that's before us right now. If that isn't playing politics, I don't know what is.

Right now we're faced with the threat of a government shutdown on Friday. If the Democrats don't sign that appropriations conference report--which has been negotiated in good faith again between both Democrats and Republicans with the House and the Senate--we're going to be faced with a government shutdown that Leader Reid will in fact have created by preventing Members from signing that conference report.

We need to come together and do that, sign that conference report, get that work done. This measure, this measure, once again, Mr. Speaker, will get at the core problem that we face, and that is the lack of jobs that exist.

The Keystone XL pipeline will create, as has been said, 20,000 to 25,000 jobs, if not more, immediately--immediately--and it will allow us to decrease our dependence on overseas oil. And it will allow us to work closely, as my friend Mr. Royce said, with our close ally to the north, Canada, rather than see them--understandably--engage in a stronger relationship with China.

There are so many benefits to this, so many benefits all the way across the board that I believe that, since roughly 80 to 90 percent of the provisions in here have been proposed by President Obama--many of which were discussed in his jobs bill that 98 days ago he proposed here in his address to the Joint Session of Congress. We are bringing these items up. We keep being told, bring up the jobs bill, bring up the jobs bill. This measure does just that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my Democratic colleagues to join with Republican colleagues so that we can do what the American people want us to do, especially at this time of year. As we go into the holiday season dealing with these issues, it would be a very important message to send around the United States of America and throughout the world.

I began, as we were debating the point of order, by raising the famous quote of William Shakespeare, and I'll close with that, Mr. Speaker: ``In such business, action is eloquence.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Lieberman and Senator Carper in introducing the Cyber Security and Internet Freedom Act of 2011. This vital legislation would

fortify the government's efforts to safeguard America's cyber networks from attack and ensure that access to the Internet is protected and its availability preserved for every American.

The Internet is vital to almost every facet of Americans' daily lives--from the water we drink to the power we use to the ways we communicate. It is essential to the free flow of ideas and information. The Internet is a manifestation of the ideals that underlie the First Amendment of our Constitution and the core freedoms that all Americans hold dear. It is essential that the Internet and our access to it be protected to ensure both reliability of the critical services that rely upon it and the availability of the information that travels over it. While the United States must ensure the security of our nation and its critical infrastructure, it must do so in a manner that does not deprive Americans of the ability to lawfully read or express their views. Neither the President nor any other Federal official should have the authority to ``shut down'' the Internet.

In June 2010, Senator Lieberman, Senator Carper, and I introduced legislation to strengthen the government's efforts to safeguard America's cyber networks from attack; build a public/private partnership to promote national cyber security priorities; and bolster the government's ability to set, monitor compliance with, and enforce standards and policies for securing Federal civilian systems and the sensitive information they contain. In late June, that bill was unanimously approved by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Today we are introducing for the 112th Congress the bill unanimously approved by our committee, but with explicit provisions preventing the President from shutting down the Internet and providing an opportunity for judicial review of designations of our most sensitive systems and assets as ``covered critical infrastructure.''

President Mubarak's actions in January to shut down Internet communications in Egypt were, and are, totally inappropriate. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that must be protected, and his ban was clearly designed to limit criticisms of his government. Our cyber security legislation is intended to protect the United States from external cyber attacks. Yet, some have suggested that the legislation the Committee reported during the last Congress would empower the President to deny U.S. citizens access to the Internet. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I would never sign on to legislation that authorized the President, or anyone else, to shut down the Internet. Emergency or no, the exercise of such broad authority would be an affront to our Constitution.

But our outmoded current laws do give us reason to be concerned. Most important, under current law, in the event of a cyber attack, the President's authorities are broad and ambiguous--a recipe for encroachments on privacy and civil liberties.

For example, in the event of a war or threat of war, the Communications Act of 1934 authorizes the President to take over or shut down wire and radio communications providers. This law is a crude sledgehammer built for another time and technology. Our bill contains a number of protections to make sure that broad authority cannot be used to shut down the Internet.

First, section 2 of the bill states explicitly:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an

amendment made by this Act, or section 706 of the

Communications Act of 1934, neither the President, the

Director of the National Center for Cybersecurity and

Communications, or any officer or employee of the United

States Government shall have the authority to shut down the

Internet.

Second, the emergency measures in our bill apply in a precise and targeted way only to our most critical infrastructure--vital components of the electric power grid, telecommunications networks, financial systems or other critical infrastructure systems that could cause a national or regional catastrophe if disrupted. This definition would not cover the entire Internet, the Internet backbone, or even entire companies.

In defining covered critical infrastructure, our bill directs the Secretary to consider the consequences of a disruption of a particular system or asset. To constitute a ``national or regional catastrophe,'' the disruption would need to cause a mass casualty event which includes an extraordinary number of fatalities; severe economic consequences; mass evacuations with a prolonged absence; or severe degradation of national security capabilities, including intelligence and defense functions.

When the Committee reported this bill last year, the report clarified what these four factors mean, specifically referencing the current DHS interpretation of ``national or severe economic consequences; mass evacuations with a prolonged absence; or regional catastrophe.'' Under DHS's interpretation, a ``national or regional catastrophe'' includes a combination of the following factors: more than 2,500 prompt fatalities; greater than $25 billion in first-year economic consequences; mass evacuations with a prolonged absence of greater than one month; or severe degradation of the nation's security capabilities.

As our Committee's report noted, we expect the Department to apply this standard in determining which particular systems or assets constitute covered critical infrastructure.

Third, our legislation restricts the President's ability to declare a national cyber emergency to those circumstances in which an ``actual or imminent'' cyber attack would disrupt covered critical infrastructure that would cause these catastrophic consequences.

Fourth, any measures ordered by the President must be ``the least disruptive means feasible.''

Fifth, the authority our bill would grant is time limited. The President could only declare a cyber emergency for 30-day period and only for up to 120 days. After that, Congress would be required to specifically authorize further measures. Any declaration would be subject to congressional oversight, as our bill requires the President to notify Congress regarding the specific threat to our nation's infrastructure, why existing protections are not sufficient, and what specific emergency measures are required to respond to the specific threat.

Sixth, the legislation expressly forbids the designation of any system or asset as covered critical infrastructure ``based solely on activities protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution.''

Seventh, the bill provides for a robust administrative process for an owner or operator to challenge the designation of a system or asset as covered critical infrastructure and expressly permits challenges of a final agency determination in federal court.

Our bill contains protections to prevent the President from denying Americans access to the Internet--even as it provides clear and unambiguous direction to ensure that those most critical systems and assets that rely on the Internet are protected. And, even though experts question whether anyone can technically ``shut down'' the Internet in the United States, we included explicit language prohibiting the President from doing what President Mubarak did.

I would like to stress that the need for Congress to pass a comprehensive cyber security bill is more urgent than ever.

Cyber-based threats to U.S. information infrastructure are increasing, constantly evolving, and growing more dangerous.

In March 2010 the Senate's Sergeant at Arms reported that the computer systems of Congress and the Executive Branch agencies are now under cyber attack an average of 1.8 billion times per month. The annual cost of cyber crime worldwide has climbed to more than $1 trillion.

Coordinated cyber attacks have crippled Estonia, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan and compromised critical infrastructure in countries around the world.

Devastating cyber attacks could disrupt, damage, or even destroy some of our nation's critical infrastructure, such as the electric power grid, oil and gas pipelines, dams, or communications networks. These cyber threats could cause catastrophic damage in the physical world.

Based on media reports, China and Russia already have penetrated the computer systems of America's electric power grid, leaving behind malicious

hidden software that could be activated later to disrupt the grid during a war or other national crisis.

In June 2010, cyber security experts discovered Stuxnet, one of the most sophisticated viruses ever found. Stuxnet was programmed specifically to infiltrate certain industrial control systems, allowing the virus to potentially overwrite commands and to sabotage infected systems. It had the potential to change instructions, commands, or alarm thresholds, which, in turn, could damage, disable, or disrupt equipment supporting the most critical infrastructure.

The private sector is also under attack. In January 2010, Google announced that attacks originating in China had targeted its systems as well as the networks of more than 30 other companies. The attacks on Google sought to access the email accounts of Chinese human rights activists. For other companies, lucrative information such as critical corporate data and software source codes were targeted.

According to a report released last week, coordinated and covert attacks hit more than five major oil, energy, and petrochemical companies. The focus of the intrusions was oil and gas field production systems, as well as financial documents related to field exploration and bidding for new oil and gas leases. The companies also lost information related to their industrial control systems.

In the cyber domain, the advantage lies with our adversaries, for whom success could be achieved by exploiting a single vulnerability that could produce disruptive effects at network speed. Effectively preventing or containing major cyber attacks requires that response plans be in place and roles and authorities of Federal government agencies and entities be clearly delineated in advance.

For too long, our approach to cyber security has been disjointed and uncoordinated. This cannot continue. The United States requires a comprehensive cyber security strategy backed by effective implementation of innovative security measures. There must be strong coordination among law enforcement, intelligence agencies, the military, and the private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure.

This bill would establish the essential point of coordination across the Executive branch. The Office of Cyberspace Policy in the Executive Office of the President would be run by a Senate-confirmed Director who would advise the President on all cyber security matters. The Director would lead and harmonize Federal efforts to secure cyberspace and would develop a strategy that incorporates all elements of cyber security policy. The Director would oversee all Federal activities related to the strategy to ensure efficiency and coordination. The Director would report regularly to Congress to ensure transparency and oversight.

To be clear, the White House official would not be another unaccountable czar. The Cyber Director would be a Senate-confirmed position and thus would testify before Congress. The important responsibilities given to the Director of the Office of Cyberspace Policy related to cyber security are similar to the responsibilities of the current Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The Cyber Director would advise the President and coordinate efforts across the Executive branch to protect and improve our cyber security posture and communications networks. And, by working with a strong operational and tactical partner at the Department of Homeland Security, the Director would help improve the security of Federal and private sector networks.

This strong DHS partner would be the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, or Cyber Center. It would be located within the Department of Homeland Security to elevate and strengthen the Department's cyber security capabilities and authorities. This Center also would be led by a Senate-confirmed Director.

The Cyber Center, anchored at DHS, will close the coordination gaps that currently exist in our disjointed federal cyber security efforts. For day-to-day operations, the Center would use the resources of DHS, and the Center Director would report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security. On interagency matters related to the security of Federal networks, the Director would regularly advise the President--a relationship similar to the Director of the NCTC on counterterrorism matters or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on military issues. These dual relationships would give the Center Director sufficient rank and stature to interact effectively with the heads of other departments and agencies, and with the private sector.

Congress has dealt with complex challenges involving the need for interagency coordination in the past with a similar construct. We have established strong leaders with supporting organizational structures to coordinate and implement action across agencies, while recognizing and respecting disparate agency missions.

The establishment of the National Counterterrorism Center within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is a prime example of a successful reorganization that fused the missions of multiple agencies. The Director of NCTC is responsible for the strategic planning of joint counterterrorism operations, and in this role reports to the President. When implementing the information analysis, integration, and sharing mission of the Center, the Director reports to the Director of National Intelligence. These dual roles provide access to the President on strategic, interagency matters, yet provide NCTC with the structural support and resources of the office of the DNI to complete the day-to- day work of the NCTC. The DHS Cyber Center would replicate this successful model for cyber security.

This bill would establish a public/private partnership to improve cyber security. Working collaboratively with the private sector, the Center would produce and share useful warning, analysis, and threat information with the private sector, other Federal agencies, international partners, and state and local governments. By developing and promoting best practices and providing voluntary technical assistance to the private sector, the Center would improve cyber security across the nation. Best practices developed by the Center would be based on collaboration and information sharing with the private sector. Information shared with the Center by the private sector would be protected.

With respect to the owners and operators of our most critical systems and assets, the bill would mandate compliance with certain risk-based performance metrics to close security gaps. These metrics would apply to vital components of the electric grid, telecommunications networks, financial systems, or other critical infrastructure systems that could cause a national or regional catastrophe if disrupted.

This approach would be similar to the current model that DHS employs with the chemical industry. Rather than setting specific standards, DHS would employ a risk-based approach to evaluating cyber risk, and the owners and operators of covered critical infrastructure would develop a plan for protecting against those risks and mitigating the consequences of an attack.

These owners and operators would be able to choose which security measures to implement to meet applicable risk-based performance metrics. The bill does not authorize any new surveillance authorities or permit the government to ``take over'' private networks. This model would allow for continued innovation and dynamism that are fundamental to the success of the IT sector.

The bill would protect the owners and operators of covered critical infrastructure from punitive damages when they comply with the new risk-based performance measures. Covered critical infrastructure also would be required to report certain significant breaches affecting vital system functions to the Center. Collaboration with the private sector would help develop mitigations for these cyber risks.

The Center also would share information, including threat analysis, with owners and operators of critical infrastructure regarding risks affecting the security of their sectors. The Center would work with sector-specific agencies and other Federal agencies with existing regulatory authority to avoid duplication of requirements, to use existing expertise, and to ensure government resources are employed in the most efficient and effective manner.

With regard to Federal networks, the Federal Information Security Management Act--known as FISMA--gives the Office of Management and Budget broad authority to oversee agency information security measures. In practice, however, FISMA is frequently criticized as a ``paperwork exercise'' that offers little real security and leads to a disjointed cyber security regime in which each Federal agency haphazardly implements its own security measures.

The bill we introduce today would transform FISMA from paper based to real-time responses. It would codify and strengthen DHS authorities to establish complete situational awareness for Federal networks and develop tools to improve resilience of Federal Government systems and networks.

The legislation also would ensure that Federal civilian agencies consider cyber risks in IT procurements instead of relying on the ad hoc approach that dominates civilian government cyber efforts. The bill would charge the Secretary of Homeland Security, working with the private sector and the heads of other affected departments and agencies, with developing a supply chain risk management strategy applicable to Federal procurements. This strategy would emphasize the security of information systems from development to acquisition and throughout their operational life cycle. The strategy would be based, to the maximum extent practicable, on standards developed by the private sector and would direct agencies to use commercial-off-the- shelf solutions to the maximum extent consistent with agency needs.

While the Cyber Center should not be responsible for micromanaging individual procurements or directing investments, we have seen far too often that security is not a primary concern when agencies procure their IT systems. Recommending security investments to OMB and providing strategic guidance on security enhancements early in the development and acquisition process will help ``bake in'' security. Cyber security can no longer be an afterthought in our government agencies.

These improvements in Federal acquisition policy should have beneficial ripple effects in the larger commercial market. As a large customer, the Federal Government can contract with companies to innovate and improve the security of their IT services and products. These innovations can establish new security baselines for services and products offered to the private sector and the general public without mandating specific market outcomes.

Finally, the legislation would direct the Office of Personnel Management to reform the way cyber security personnel are recruited, hired, and trained to ensure that the Federal Government and the private sector have the talent necessary to lead this national effort and protect its own networks. The bill would also provide DHS with temporary hiring and pay flexibilities to assist in the establishment of the Center.

We cannot afford to wait for a ``cyber 9/11'' before our government finally realizes the importance of protecting our digital resources, limiting our vulnerabilities, and mitigating the consequences of penetrations to our networks.

We must be ready. It is vitally important that we build a strong public-private partnership to protect cyberspace. It is a vital engine of our economy, our government, our country and our future.

I urge Congress to support this vitally important legislation.

Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Casey, Tester, Manchin, Warner, and Wyden.

I want to explain it. I hope we will see action on this bill in the near future because we are on very delicate ground right now as we try to resolve the budget issues before us.

We have two sides to the legislative branch--the House and the Senate. I think we have very different approaches to this deficit problem which is quite real. Both sides should be respectful of each other. But the messages I am getting via the media in terms of the language being used on the other side is: We don't really much care what the Senate thinks. It is kind of ``our way or the highway'' type of rhetoric.

The problem with this is that the type of cuts that are coming from the House side, from our Republican friends over there, a columnist tells us will cost 800,000 jobs to this Nation. Mr. President, 800,000 jobs will be lost if we do not make some changes to what they have done.

As someone from a State that has a very tough economic climate and trying to climb out of this recession, that is just extreme. It is just extreme.

Are we willing to make cuts? Yes. It is my belief both sides have to sit down and work this out. We believe there are cuts to be made. They have come out with cuts. We need to work together. But here is what troubles me, and this is why I introduce this legislation. What troubles me is there seems to be more and more threats of a government shutdown. In the early days of the new House leadership we did not hear that. Now we are hearing it.

In Politico, one of the headlines recently said: ``McConnell won't take shutdown off the table.'' That refers to our Republican leader.

In Reuters, Republican majority leader Eric Cantor ``refused . . . to rule out the possibility of a government shutdown.''

Republican Senator Mike Lee said: ``The 1995 government shutdown was just an inconvenience.''

I have to tell you, it is a lot more than an inconvenience when senior citizens cannot get help getting their Social Security or veterans on disability cannot get their help. Hospitals close down. Projects shut down. These are real people out there. A lot of contractors in the private sector rely on the government operating, such as road projects, bridges being repaired, and the rest. It is radical to say that a government shutdown is an inconvenience. It is a failure. A government shutdown is a failure of those of us who are here to act like adults and resolve our differences.

CNN said:

Top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee said he's not

ruling out the possibility of a government shutdown.

The way Speaker Boehner spoke today had, to me, kind of a ``take it or leave it'' tone to it.

I have to tell you, that budget over there not only threatens 800,000 jobs, but they legislated on appropriations. They legislated on an appropriations bill. They decided that women should not have access to a full range of reproductive health care. They are bringing in the issue of abortion on a budget bill. I think the issue of a woman's right to choose and her reproductive health care and getting Pap screenings and cancer screenings is important, and we should debate that. If people want to repeal Roe v. Wade, let's debate that here.

What they have done with the Clean Air Act--and I know my friend sitting in the chair cares so much about this issue. The Clean Air Act was brought to us by Richard Nixon. It had bipartisan support.

What they do is prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing the Clean Air Act as it relates to carbon pollution-- pollution that is dangerous for our families, that endangers the lives and health of our families. That is what the Bush administration said when they were in charge, let alone the Obama administration.

Rather than bringing to the floor a bill to repeal the Clean Air Act--I

would welcome that debate, and I know my friend would as well--they do this through the back door and tell the Environmental Protection Agency they cannot protect us from pollution.

That is not what the American people expect to be in a simple budget document. We have to cut some programs. Let's cut some programs. Let's not change abortion law on it. Let's not bring up how to repeal the Clean Air Act on it. Let's not eviscerate law settlements. They have done a range of things which require debate. I would love to put these questions to the American people. I can tell you that people in my home State think government has no business in the issue of a woman's health. Stay away. That is what they say. We will make up our own minds. Some of us are pro-choice, some of us are not, but don't tell us what to believe. That is the thought of the majority of the people in my State. They do not want Big Brother and the government telling people what to do. Yet they put it on a budget bill. That doesn't make any sense.

Let me tell you, the people in my State want clean air. In all the years I have been in office--and the President and I have been around a while and holding different offices--not one of my constituents has ever came up to me and said: Barbara, we need dirty air. The air is too clean. The water is too pure. The lakes are too pristine. The beaches are gorgeous. No. They want us to make sure we protect them from pollution so their kids can breathe the air and not get asthma. So our friends on the other side have these gargantuan cuts, and in addition to these cuts--which will cost us, according to Senator Inouye, 800,000 jobs--800,000 jobs--they have legislated issues that are contentious and don't belong on a budget bill.

Here is the deal. I am worried they might say to us: It is our way or the highway. I am worried about that. That is what I am starting to hear. They may lead us into a government shutdown if we fail to act like adults and resolve this and keep the contentious issues off the budget and cut reasonably and sensibly so we don't cause more unemployment. If we can figure that out and meet each other halfway and everything else you do when you compromise, we will be fine. But if that isn't the case, I wish to be sure Members of Congress suffer just as much as any Federal employee. So I have written this bill, with my colleagues, to say that in the event of a government shutdown or a failure to lift the debt ceiling and we start defaulting on our commitments, Members of Congress will not get paid because Members of Congress don't deserve to be paid if we can't act like adults and negotiate this.

I am so tired of the hypocrisy I have seen. I know it is a strong word, and I am not leveling it at any particular individual, but I have to tell you, there are Members of the House who said ObamaCare is terrible, but then they took it for themselves. So what price are they paying? They vote no on health care for everybody else, but they keep government health care. It is wrong. A lot of them are sleeping in their offices. Tell me one other person who is allowed to sleep in the office of their corporation they work for. As far as I know, there is nobody. They do not pay any rent. They sleep in their offices.

So they do all these things: They do not help the housing crisis. They sleep in their offices. They would not vote for health care, but they take government health care. Now they might shut down the government. Yet while Federal employees will not get paid, they will get paid--no way, wrong, not fair. They have to pay a price for all their extremism.

So I hope we will pass this bill and send it over to the House and the House can decide if they think this is right. This is what I would like to take to the American people. Because if they shut down the government or they fail to raise the debt ceiling and we start to default and they pay no price, it is not fair. We cannot stamp our feet and say: It is the way I want it or I am taking my marbles and I am going home--or my teddy bear or my blanket or whatever. You can't do that.

This is the greatest country in the world. As my friend, Senator Sanders, who is in the chair, so beautifully said last night on a news show--and it was so well done--the middle class is hurting. Real income is going down. As we look at these budget cuts, we have to think about that. I am thinking a lot about it, and I am seeing hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost by the middle class, not by the wealthy few. They are not going to be touched by this.

So this is a very simple bill. I will read what it says:

Members of Congress and the President shall not receive

basic pay for any period in which there is more than a 24-

hour lapse in appropriations for any Federal agency or

department as a result of a failure to enact a regular

appropriations bill or a continuing resolution, or if the

Federal Government is unable to make payments or meet

obligations because the debt limit has been reached.

So simple. So I am calling on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to take the option of a government shutdown off the table. I hope this legislation will nudge them in that direction. Let them think about what it is like not to get paid. Because if they shut down the Federal Government, a whole lot of folks would not get paid. A lot of people in the private sector would not get paid and a lot of people on pensions would not get paid. The only people who would be exempted, pretty much, are Members of Congress, and we have to put an end to that dichotomy.

I thank the Chair for all his leadership on behalf of the middle class and the working poor and I think the hypocrisy has to end. I feel we have to come to this floor and start telling the American people the truth. The truth is: The cuts over there on the other side are going to hurt the middle class. They are extreme. They have added language that doesn't belong on a budget bill. Even though they said they were about jobs, jobs, jobs, and maybe they were--how to lose another 800,000 jobs, maybe that is what they meant--nobody thought the first thing they would do is come in and attach abortion language and family planning language and eviscerate the EPA's ability to clean up carbon pollution on a budget bill. So we have to start letting the American people know because they are busy and they do not get to read all the ins and outs of what happens here. We have to put it in straightforward language.

Today is a very good day in the Senate. We have been brought together, and a lot of that credit goes to Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison. I am proud to serve on their committee. We are doing a good job and working together. We have worked out our problems. We had problems with new flights out of National, and no one thought we could resolve it. But we were happy to work together--Republicans, Democrats, people from the East and the West and the Midwest--and we showed we can do something here today. As a result, we are about to pass a very good bill.

My own bill of rights is in this bill, and I am thrilled about that. It was a Boxer-Snowe bill. It has been incorporated in here. It says if you get stuck on an airline, you should be able to expect that you will have water and nourishment and that the toilets will not be overflowing and that if the plane is stuck for 3 hours, you should be able to have the option to get off that flight.

So listen, there are good things we can do. We have proven it here today. But I am getting increasingly nervous about the threats of a government shutdown. I think if Members know it isn't just pain that is going to be inflicted on someone else but they will have pain inflicted on themselves and their families as well, maybe they will take that option off the table.

Mr. President, today I again introduce legislation to correct an inequity in the U.S. Department of Justice's Public Safety Officers Benefits, PSOB, Program, by extending benefits to nonprofit Emergency Medical Services, EMS, providers who die or are permanently disabled in the line of duty. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Sanders and Senator Schumer.

The legislation is named after Dale Long, a long-time paramedic and shift supervisor with the Bennington Rescue Squad in Vermont. Dale Long died two years ago in a tragic, on-duty accident while treating and transporting a patient. He had a superb 25-year career as a Vermont paramedic. He helped many, many people in ways they will never forget, and Dale Long will not be forgotten.

I had the pleasure and honor of meeting Dale in 2009--less than two months before his death--when he was in Washington to receive the prestigious Star of Life Award from the American Ambulance Association. Dale earlier had received Vermont's EMS Advanced Rescuer of the Year Award, in 2008. In 2010, Dale was honored as part of the National EMS Memorial Service.

Dale's tragic passing highlighted a major shortcoming in the current PSOB program, which Congress established more than 30 years ago to lend a hand to police officers, firefighters and medics who lose their lives or are permanently disabled in the line of duty. The current benefit only applies to public safety officers employed by a Federal, State, or local government entity. With many communities around the United States choosing to have their emergency medical services provided by nonprofit agencies, medics working for these nonprofit services unfortunately are not eligible for this help under the PSOB program.

Nonprofit public safety officers provide identical services to governmental officers and do so daily in the same dangerous environments. With a renewed appreciation for the vital and timely community service of first responders since the national tragedy of September 11, 2001, more people are answering the call to serve their communities. At the same time, more rescue workers are falling through the cracks of the PSOB program.

The Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Provider Protection Act will correct this inequality by extending the PSOB program to cover nonprofit EMS officers who provide emergency medical and ground or air ambulance service. These emergency professionals protect and promote the public good of the communities they serve, and we should not unfairly penalize them and their families simply because they work or volunteer for a nonprofit organization.

The modest cost of this remedy also is fully offset and will not add to the federal deficit.

This is a carefully crafted, commonsense remedy to a clear discrepancy in the law. I am pleased with the widespread support this bill has earned. Momentum continues to build for this solution, and I will keep at this effort until the Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Provider Protection Act becomes the law of the land.

I thank several first responder organizations--including the American Ambulance Association, the National Association of EMTs, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the Fraternal Order of Police--for their support of this effort.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn once again to introduce the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act of 2011, a bill that will strengthen and clarify key aspects of Federal criminal law and provide new tools to help investigators and prosecutors attack public corruption nationwide.

As we have seen in recent years, public corruption can erode the trust the American people have in those who are given the privilege of public service, and, too often, loopholes in existing laws have meant that corrupt conduct can go unchecked. Make no mistake: The stain of corruption has spread to all levels of government. This is a problem that victimizes every American by chipping away at the foundations of our democracy. Rooting out the kinds of public corruption that have resulted in convictions of members of Congress, judges, governors, and many others, requires us to give prosecutors the tools they need to investigate and prosecute criminal public corruption offenses.

The bill Senator Cornyn and I introduce today will increase sentences for serious corruption offenses and will provide investigators and prosecutors more time to pursue public corruption cases. The bill raises the statutory maximum penalties for several laws dealing with official misconduct, including bribery and theft of government property, to ensure that those who violate the public trust are held accountable. These increases reflect the serious and corrosive nature of these crimes, and would harmonize the punishment for these crimes with other similar statutes.

The bill extends the statute of limitations from 5 to 6 years for the most serious public corruption offenses. Bank fraud, arson, and passport fraud, among other offenses, all have 10-year statutes of limitations. We recently increased the statute of limitations for securities fraud to 6 years. Public corruption offenses cut to the heart of our democracy and are among the most difficult and time- consuming cases to investigate. This modest increase to the statute of limitations is a reasonable step to help our corruption investigators and prosecutors do their jobs.

This bill also amends several key statutes to broaden their application in corruption contexts and to prevent corrupt public officials and their accomplices from evading or defeating prosecution based on existing legal ambiguities. It includes a fix to the gratuities statute that makes clear that public officials may not accept anything of value, other than what is permitted by existing rules and regulations, given to them because of their official position. This important provision contains appropriate safeguards to ensure that only corrupt conduct is prosecuted, but it will help to ensure that the work of public officials cannot be bought, and it will put teeth behind key ethics reforms enacted by Congress in 2007.

The bill also appropriately clarifies the definition of what it means for a

public official to perform an ``official act'' for the purposes of the bribery statute and closes several other gaps in current law. It adds two corruption-related crimes as predicates for the Federal wiretap and racketeering statutes, lowers the transactional amount required for Federal prosecution of bribery involving federally-funded state programs, and expands the venue for perjury and obstruction of justice prosecutions.

Senator Cornyn and I have added two new modest fixes into this year's bill. The first allows information sharing that will make it easier for law enforcement to investigate possible criminal activity by Federal judges. The second further clarifies and strengthens the federal program bribery statute.

I remain committed to ensuring sufficient funding for public corruption enforcement. Since September 11, 2001, Federal Bureau of Investigation resources have been shifted away from the pursuit of white collar crime to counterterrorism. Director Mueller has consistently affirmed that public corruption is among the FBI's top investigative priorities, but reports in the past decade indicated that this shift in resources sometimes meant a reduction in the number of public corruption investigations and at times made pursuing key corruption cases more difficult. The Justice Department and the FBI have been working to reverse this trend, but we must make sure that law enforcement has all the tools and the resources it needs to strongly confront these serious and corrosive crimes.

In recognition of the difficult budget situation in which we find ourselves and in an effort to maintain maximum bipartisan support for this important legislation, I have agreed to remove from this year's bill a modest authorization for anti-corruption investigators and prosecutors that we included in past versions. Nonetheless, given the vital importance of this work, I hope that Senator Cornyn and others will join me in calling on appropriators and the Justice Department and FBI to ensure that significant resources are allocated to investigating and prosecuting public corruption.

Since we last introduced this bill, our country has unfortunately taken a step backward in its efforts to fight fraud and corruption. Last year, in the case of Skilling v. United States, the Supreme Court sided with a former executive from Enron, whose collapse had such devastating effects on the economy early in the last decade, and greatly narrowed the honest services fraud statute, a law that plays an important role in combating public corruption, corporate fraud, and self-dealing.

The Court's decision leaves corrupt and fraudulent conduct which prosecutors in the past addressed under the honest services fraud statute to go unchecked. Most notably, the Court's decision excluded undisclosed ``self-dealing'' by state and federal public officials, and corporate officers and directors, which is when those officials or executives secretly act in their own financial self-interest, rather than in the interest of the public or, in private sector cases, their shareholders and employees.

I introduced legislation in the last Congress, the Honest Services Restoration Act, to close this crucial gap and restore the government's ability to prosecute key categories of corruption cases. I have heard from Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and the House who are eager to fix this problem. I hope to continue working with Senator Cornyn and others to find a bipartisan solution to fixing honest services fraud and perhaps to incorporate a fix into this comprehensive anti-corruption bill at some point in the future.

If we are serious about addressing the kinds of egregious misconduct that we have witnessed in recent years in high-profile public corruption cases, Congress should enact meaningful legislation to give investigators and prosecutors the tools they need to enforce our laws. It is time to strengthen the criminal law to bring those who undermine the public trust to justice. I hope that all Senators will support this bipartisan bill and take firm action to stamp out intolerable corruption.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.