Dale Long Emergency Medical Service Providers Protection Act

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.

Mr. President, while our economy is beginning to show signs of recovery, there is still a long way to go. This is especially true in our rural communities. That is why I am reintroducing a bipartisan bill that would help provide new economic opportunities in mountain communities across this country--the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act.

The outdoors and recreation industries have been a bright spot in the economic downturn. More Americans are spending time outside, enjoying the natural world and getting exercise. I have long felt it is in the national interest to encourage Americans to engage in outdoor activities that can contribute to their health and well being. Our public lands already play a key role by providing opportunities for hiking, skiing, mountain biking and a range of other activities.

In Colorado and across the country, for example, many ski areas are located on National Forest lands. However, under existing law, the National Forest Service bases ski area permits primarily on ``Nordic and alpine skiing'', a classification that does not reflect the full spectrum of snowsports, nor the use of ski permit areas for non-winter activities. This has resulted in uncertainty for both the Forest Service and ski areas as to whether and how other activities, such as summer-time activities, can occur on permitted areas.

In effect, this means that ski areas on National Forest lands are primarily restricted to use for winter recreation, as opposed to year- round recreation.

The legislation I am introducing with Senator Barrasso of Wyoming would clarify this ambiguity. It would ensure that ski area permits could be used for additional snowsports, such as snowboarding, as well as specifically authorizing the Forest Service to allow additional recreational opportunities--like summer-time activities--in permit areas.

I should note that this authority is limited. The primary activity in the permit area must remain skiing or other snowsports. And there are specific types of development, such as water parks and amusement parks, that are specifically prohibited.

This is a narrowly targeted bill that will lead to additional opportunities for seasonal and year-round recreational activities at ski areas on public lands--and most importantly help create more sustainable, year round jobs.

I would like to thank Senator Barrasso for his continued support of this legislation and his efforts to work with me in the last Congress to pass this bill. I know we were both disappointed that the objections of just two Senators prevented this common-sense legislation from becoming law. Hopefully we will have more success this year--because our mountain communities should be given every opportunity to thrive, as this legislation would help do.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue that affects both our economic and national security--critical minerals and materials. These materials are used in everything from wind turbines to cell phones to weapons guidance systems. However, these materials are primarily imported--many from China--and not always readily available. For example, several clean energy technologies-- including wind turbines, batteries and solar panels--require materials that are at risk of supply disruptions. According to the Department of Energy, clean energy technologies currently constitute 20 percent of global consumption of critical materials. As clean energy technologies are deployed more widely in the decades ahead, demand for critical materials will likely grow.

Furthermore, these materials are needed for a number of products essential to protecting our Nation's security, including precision- guided munitions systems, lasers, communication systems, radar systems, avionics, night vision equipment, and satellites. Many of these materials are produced primarily in other countries, and some are not produced in the United States at all.

One group of critical minerals with very high importance today is rare earth elements. The United States was once the primary producer of rare earth materials according to the U.S. Geological Survey, but over the past 15 years we have become 100 percent reliant on imports, with 97 percent coming from China.

When the rare earth industry left the United States, our rare earth materials workforce dwindled as well, leaving very few experts with experience in processing these materials. Currently, there are no curricula in U.S. universities that are geared toward training a new expert workforce; rather, most of the expertise resides in China and Japan. In addition, the U.S.-developed intellectual property for making many of these materials is owned by Japan.

Rare earth materials are not the only critical materials in demand today. Similar supply problems are imminent for other types of minerals and materials that will be essential for the increased deployment of technologies like batteries, solar panels and electric vehicles. Both the Department of Energy and the National Academy of Sciences have identified minerals and materials--such as lithium, manganese and rhodium--that are now or could become critical in the near future.

Today, I am introducing the Critical Minerals and Materials Act of 2011, a bill intended to help build up the supply chain of minerals and materials that are vital for the development of a clean energy economy and for our national defense.

The National Academy of Sciences recommended improved data-gathering by the Federal Government along with research and development to encourage domestic innovation in the area of critical minerals and materials. My bill specifically would direct the Department of Energy to begin research and development on critical minerals and materials in order to strengthen our domestic supply chain. It would also direct the Department of the Interior to lead in gathering information on the current supply chain and to forecast what materials we might need in the future as our clean energy economy develops.

Finally, my bill would build up the workforce necessary for the United States to regain its leadership in the critical minerals and materials industry. Fellow Coloradans in this industry have told me that it is difficult to find qualified workers to hire in the minerals and materials sector. There are good-paying jobs out there waiting to be filled, and more will become available as these industries grow. But we need to make sure our workforce is properly trained to be able to take advantage of these opportunities and retain U.S. expertise in this industry. My bill will provide for such training in the Nation's colleges and universities, as well as in our technical and community colleges.

While there are a great many minerals and materials that are important for our economic and national security, my bill will focus on only the small portion of minerals and materials that have become critical due to their highly vulnerable supply chain. These critical minerals and materials are in danger of becoming simply unavailable or extremely expensive and I believe these deserve extra attention.

We must also recognize that the raw minerals for these critical materials are often on Federal land and are a valuable resource owned by U.S. citizens. Mining for them must be done in a safe and environmentally responsible way--and that is why I continue to support mining law reform. However, we simply cannot be so dependent upon China or any other nation to provide these critical materials. My bill would ensure that the U.S. is armed with a robust domestic supply chain and a skilled workforce needed to produce these materials. I urge my colleagues of both parties to join me in supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act, NOPEC. This legislation will authorize our government, for the first time, to take action against the illegal conduct of the OPEC oil cartel. It is time for the U.S. government to fight back against efforts to fix the price of oil and hold OPEC accountable when it acts illegally. Our legislation will hold OPEC member nations to account under U.S. antitrust law when they agree to limit supply or fix price in violation of the most basic principles of free competition.

NOPEC will authorize the Attorney General to file suit against nations or other entities that participate in a conspiracy to limit the supply, or fix the price, of oil. In addition, it will specify that the doctrines of sovereign immunity and act of state do not exempt nations that participate in oil cartels from basic antitrust law. I have introduced this legislation in each Congress since 2000. This legislation passed the full Senate in the 110th Congress by a vote of 70-23 in June 2007 as an amendment to the 2007 Energy Bill before

being stripped from that bill in the conference committee. The identical House version of NOPEC also passed the other body as stand alone legislation in the 110th Congress in 2007 by an overwhelming 345- 72 vote. It is now time for us to at last pass this legislation into law and give our nation a long needed tool to counteract this pernicious and anti-consumer conspiracy.

Since January 2009 the cost of crude oil has more than doubled, reaching today's level of $96 per barrel. Likewise, throughout 2009 and 2010, gasoline prices have marched steadily upward, soaring to over $3 a gallon in January 2011, a price that has nearly doubled in little over two years. And recently, OPEC ministers indicated that they may decide against an increase an output in 2011, saying in the final days of 2010 that the world economy can tolerate a $100 per barrel price. So it is clear that the global oil cartel remains a major force conspiring to raise oil prices to the detriment of American consumers.

The actions of the OPEC cartel in recent years demonstrate the dangers it presents. A good example occurred at the end of 2008. On October 24, 2008, OPEC agreed to cut production by 1.5 million barrels a day, and less than two months later, on December 17, 2008, OPEC agreed to a further 2.2 million barrels a day production cut. OPEC made no secret of its motivation for these production cuts. OPEC President Chakib Khelil put it very simply in an interview published December 23, 2008, ``Without these cuts, I don't think we'd be seeing $43 [per barrel] today, we'd have seen in the $20's. . . . [H]opefully by the third quarter [of 2009] we will see prices rising.'' In another interview in December, Khelil was quoted as saying ``The stronger the decision [to cut production], the faster prices will pick up.'' Sure enough, oil prices resumed their march upwards in 2009, and now is more than $90 per barrel.

Since cutting its output in this manner at the end of 2008, OPEC has not officially changed its output policy for more than two years. Oil prices have surged nearly $30 since last summer, and OPEC's Secretary General Abdalla Salem El-Badri confirmed there would not be an increase in output, claiming in January 2011 that, ``At the moment there is more than enough oil on the market.''

When the price of crude oil rises as a result of these actions by OPEC, there is no doubt that millions of American consumers feel the pinch every time they visit the gas pump. The Federal Trade Commission has estimated that 85 percent of the variability in the cost of gasoline is the result of changes in the cost of crude oil.

Such blatantly anti-competitive conduct by the oil cartel violates the most basic principles of fair competition and free markets and should not be tolerated. If private companies engaged such an international price fixing conspiracy, there would no question that it would be illegal. The actions of OPEC should be treated no differently because it is a conspiracy of nations.

For years, this price fixing conspiracy of OPEC nations has unfairly driven up the cost of imported crude oil to satisfy the greed of the oil exporters. We have long decried OPEC, but, sadly, no one in government has yet tried to take any action. This NOPEC legislation will, for the first time, establish clearly and plainly that when a group of competing oil producers like the OPEC nations act together to restrict supply or set prices, they are violating U.S. law.

It is also important to point out that this legislation will not authorize private lawsuits. It only authorizes the Attorney General to file suit under the antitrust laws for redress. It will always be in the discretion of the Justice Department and the President as to whether to take action to enforce NOPEC. Our legislation will not require the government to bring a legal action against OPEC member nations, and no private party will have the ability to bring such an action. This decision will entirely remain in the discretion of the executive branch. Our NOPEC legislation will give our law enforcement agencies a tool to employ against the oil cartel but the decision on whether to use this tool will entirely be up to the Justice Department and, ultimately, the President. They can use this tool as they see fit--to file a legal action, to jawbone OPEC in diplomatic discussions, or defer from any action should they judge foreign policy or other considerations warrant it.

NOPEC will also make plain that the nations of OPEC cannot hide behind the doctrines of ``sovereign immunity'' or ``act of state'' to escape the reach of American justice. In so doing, our amendment will overrule one 28 year old lower court decision which incorrectly failed to recognize that the actions of OPEC member nations was commercial activity exempt from the protections of sovereign immunity.

The most fundamental principle of a free market is that competitors cannot be permitted to conspire to limit supply or fix price. There can be no free market without this foundation. And we should not permit any nation to flout this fundamental principle.

Our NOPEC legislation will, for the first time, enable our Justice Department to take legal action to combat the illegitimate price-fixing conspiracy of the oil cartel. It will, at a minimum, have a real deterrent effect on nations that seek to join forces to fix oil prices to the detriment of consumers. This legislation will be the first real weapon the U.S. Government has ever had to deter OPEC from its seemingly endless cycle of supply cutbacks designed to raise price. It will mean that OPEC member nations will face the possibility of real and substantial antitrust sanctions should they persist in their illegal conduct. It will also deter additional nations who may today be considering joining OPEC.

I urge my colleagues to support our NOPEC legislation so that our nation will finally have an effective means to combat this price-fixing conspiracy of oil-rich nations.

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