Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for as much time as I consume and that at the conclusion of my remarks, the Senator from Ohio be recognized for such time as he consumes.

Madam President, we are going to have a number of votes on amendments this afternoon. I think it is important that we look at this in historic perspective. I am referring to the amendments and the meaning of the Toomey amendment, which I think is very significant.

As most people think about earmarks, yes, we want to do away with this. I am the first to admit that there has been a lot of abuse in the earmark process. I don't want to take sides between authorizers and appropriators, but I can remember several times here on the floor when appropriations bills are coming through, when people are legislating on appropriations bills, when they are swapping out deals. That is the kind of thing we want to stop. I think we have an opportunity to do that today.

I have an amendment. It is my understanding, the way the amendments are stacked up, there is going to be a vote on the Toomey amendment and then a vote on my amendment. Let me talk a little bit about how long we have been working on this issue.

Way back in 2007, I gave a talk to the Grover Norquist group. It was on July 25, 2007. I gave the Senate history of the 200-year fight between appropriators and authorizers.

In 1816 responsibilities between authorizing versus appropriating had been debated. In that year the Senate created the first 11 permanent standing committees.

I think most people understand that we in the Senate, each one of us is on at least two standing committees. Many of these are authorizing committees or appropriating committees. Mine happened to be authorizing committees. My two major committees I have been on since serving in the Senate are the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee. Both are authorizing committees.

What is significant about this is that there has always been a fight. This is not a new fight. People think this is just going on today. This has been going on literally since 1816.

In 1867 the Senate created the Appropriations Committee. The purpose of that was to have the tax writing put in the Finance Committee and then have the appropriating committee as a separate committee--keeping those functions divided. Here it is now a couple of hundred years later and we are still trying to do the same thing. Today may be the day we can do it, and my amendment actually would do that.

In 1921--I am reading notes from the speech I made in 2007 at the Grover Norquist event--in 1921 the Senate passed the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. The Senate tried to ensure that authorizing had to take place in a separate committee.

There we go. That is what we are talking about today. My amendment actually resolves the problem because it defines an earmark as an appropriation that hasn't been authorized. In a minute, I am going to talk about that because there is a lot of support for that currently that should be considered.

Let me use my committees as an example. If we were to do away with all earmarks as they are described in the House bill, the earmarks would actually be defined as any appropriation or

authorization. That gets into the huge question we will talk about in a minute--what our Constitution says. It says we, the House and the Senate, should do the spending or the appropriating. This has been this way for a long time.

I am hoping Members will go back and read Joseph Story and some of the great people in the past who have talked about why it is necessary for all the authorizing and the spending to take place in this body, in the Senate and in the House. If that does not happen, we are going to be in a position where we are giving our function to the President. We are ceding our constitutional obligation to the President--in this case, President Obama.

Back in the time I was making this speech initially, I talked about such things. I mentioned this on the floor yesterday. A lot of people do not understand. The budget that comes to us is a budget from the President. It is not from Congress, not from the House, not from the Senate, not from the Democrats, not from the Republicans, it is from the President. The President is the guy who sends the budget down. I am so critical of this President because every one of these budgets now-- we have just gotten the fourth budget--has a deficit of over $1 trillion. Unheard of. I can remember back in the days--1996 was the first $1.5 trillion budget. That was during the Clinton administration. I remember coming down to the floor and saying: We cannot sustain this level of spending. That was $1.5 trillion to run the entire United States of America. What President Obama has sent down is $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion in each of his budgets, just deficit alone. We can't continue to do that.

I am on the Armed Services Committee. It is an authorizing committee. It is a committee staffed with experts in every area--missile defense, strike fighters--all of that having to do with defending America. Of course, when the budget comes down, historically--I am talking about historically from 100 years ago--we have taken that budget and analyzed that budget. The Chair is fully aware of this because she sits on that committee. We determine what is the best way to spend the given number of dollars that come down in the budget to best defend America.

The example I used yesterday was in one of the first budgets that came down. I think it was the first budget from President Obama. It had one item that was a $330 million item that was for a launching system that was referred to as a box of rockets--a good system, I might add, but with the scarce dollars we made a determination in the Armed Services Committee that we could take that same $300 million and instead of spending it on a launching system, spend it on six new F-18 strike fighter aircraft. And we did that. That is what we should be able to do. But if you have an earmark ban, then you would not be able to do that. It depends on how it is going to be interpreted, but the way I interpret it, it would mean we cannot change what the President sends down because that would be called a congressional earmark. Some might argue and say: No, it is that only if it happens to be in your district or something like that. That is not what it says, though. The way it is defined is anything that would be an authorization or an appropriation.

So we had the example there in the Armed Services Committee, and one of the unintended consequences would be--I will just use this as an example. I can remember back in the days, I am old enough to remember back when Reagan was President and nobody believed we would ever have a problem with people sending over a missile with some type of a weapon on it that would be very destructive to America, nor did they believe it would be possible, if a missile were coming in, that we could knock down that missile. Well, we have now settled that. Everyone knows you can hit a bullet with a bullet. We have done it before. We are doing a good job.

We also know after having gone through 9/11 that we should have at the very top of our concern as representatives of this country to defend America and to have an enhanced system. So we had a policy that we wanted to have a redundancy in all three phases of missile defense. In missile defense, you have three phases--a boost phase, a midcourse phase, and a terminal phase--and we want to have that. So when we are addressing that, if the President comes in with something that doesn't follow that redundancy, we could be in a position where we would not be able to do what is in the best interests of the country.

I am not the only one who believes that when we say we want an outright ban on all spending--and that is what we are saying, an outright ban on all spending--there is an article that I took out of the Hill Magazine--that would have been about 3 or 4 years ago--saying ``Lobbyists Hitting Up Agencies As Earmark Rate Drops.'' In other words, as we quit spending here, it does not save a cent. That money goes back into the bureaucracy, and they are spending it at that point. So that puts us in the position of, admittedly, what they are talking about--they are actually lobbying the bureaucrats as opposed to Members because that is where all the power is. In other words, we have ceded that power.

I can see a lot of the Democrats wanting to pass an all-out ban on congressional earmarks because they are supporting Obama. Obama wants to do the spending. They want him to do that. I understand that, and I heard from some of the Democrats who do not agree with that, and I appreciate their making that statement on the floor.

But I think as we address this and go back to things that we did on the floor a year and a half ago--this was November 2010--we talked about the Constitution and how it restricts spending only to the legislative branch and specifically denies that honor to the President.

We take an oath of office--

I am reading now from a statement I made on the floor a year and a half ago.

We take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the

United States. That means that we take an oath of office to

uphold article I section 9 of the Constitution.

What does that say? That says that the spending in our government should be confined to the legislative branch. That is us. If you go and look in the Federalist Papers, it talks about this. Over and over, judges without exception have reinforced this as the constitutional obligation we have.

Sometimes I miss Senator Bob Byrd more than other times, and this is one of the times I do. I can hear him standing on the floor saying: Why is it we are giving up our constitutional right? Remember he used to carry around the Constitution? He would hold it up. I wish he were here today so he could talk about article I, section 9 of the Constitution and how we are ceding that authority to the President.

I mentioned yesterday that one of the problems I have with a permanent moratorium without a definition of what an earmark is--one of the problems we have in giving the President, ceding our authority to him--and there is no better example--a lot of us got quite upset in this body when the President had his $800 billion-or-so stimulus plan. Remember the stimulus plan that didn't stimulate and he spent all this money? And when he signed it, he was talking about how this was going to stimulate. As it turned out, only 3 percent went into roads, highways, and so forth, and only 3 percent into defending America. When he signed it, President Obama said: What I am signing then is a balanced law with a mix of tax cuts and investments. It has been put together without earmarks or the usual porkbarrel spending. So, anyway, we had such examples of earmarks.

In fact, I remember on Sean Hannity's program, he had the 102 most egregious earmarks. In those earmarks was $219,000 to study the hookup and behavior of female college co-eds in New York; $1 million to do fossil research; $1.2 million to build an underpass for deer crossing in Wyoming. There were 102 egregious earmarks and not one of them was a congressional earmark. They are all bureaucratic earmarks. We ceded that so the President, through our action, was able to do all those things he could not otherwise do.

I have a longer list that I ask to be made a part of the Record at this point in my presentation, which includes about 10 or 15 other egregious earmarks.

As it turned out, the President was the one who did the earmarks of the $800 billion stimulus program.

Again, getting back to article I, section 9:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in

Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.

The law, that is us. We are the legislative branch of government. That is what we are supposed to do. I think everyone understands that. It is unintended, and I know a lot of people out there would say, well, we want to kill all earmarks, without stopping to think that that is all spending and that is our constitutional duty.

I would say if we continue on making permanent and current moratoriums on congressional earmarks, then we are limiting our ability to govern with the President. If all we are doing is handing the President pots of money and requiring that he have competitive grants to disburse the funds, then we are washing our hands of the outcome. There is no light or transparency inherent to the Federal grant-making process. So what we are doing is giving up our constitutional responsibility in ceding that to the President.

It could be that things are going to be refined, with further definitions, and I have no objection to that. But I am saying we have one very simple solution to it. When the votes come up today, I will announce right now, if we don't have a definition of earmark, then I would vote against a permanent moratorium on earmarks because that is our constitutional responsibility.

My amendment is a little bit different, because what I do is define what an earmark is, and an earmark is defined as an appropriation that has not been authorized. I was very proud--2 days ago Senator Toomey said that some earmarks ought to be funded, but they ought to be funded in a transparent and honest way subject to evaluation by an authorizing committee. That is exactly what my amendment does. I talked to Senator Toomey, and I appreciate the fact that he is very open about this. I will repeat that: Some things ought to be funded, but they should be funded in a transparent and honest way subject to evaluation by an authorization committee. That is my amendment. A definition of an earmark is spending or appropriating without authorizing.

Last year Senator Coburn said: ``It is not wrong to go through an authorization process where your colleagues can actually see it. It is wrong to hide something in a bill . . . .'' Amen. I agree with that. I said earlier, and I said yesterday, I can remember Democrats and Republicans on consideration of appropriations bills sitting on the floor, swapping out deals, making deals back and forth. That is what we want to do something about, and this is not a partisan thing. This is something that has been going on, and we have a way now of doing it.

Senator McCain was kind enough to endorse a freestanding bill I had that does the very thing of defining an earmark as an appropriation that has not been authorized. Senator McCain said: Some earmarks are worthy. If they are worthy, then they should be authorized. Authorized, there is the key, and Senator McCain is exactly right. If you authorize it, then that is the process we want. When an earmark is considered by an authorization committee before it is appropriated, real transparency is brought to the process.

In fact, I remember it was Senator Coburn who said on the floor--and this is about a year and a half ago--he agreed with me and said one good thing about requiring an authorization before an appropriation is that then if it is a bad one, we have two chances to kill it. Senator Coburn is right. We can kill it in the authorization phase or we can kill it in the appropriations phase.

The example I use is a good example in terms of what we and the Armed Services Committee should be doing and are not doing. But I would say to you that this afternoon when we have these votes--it is my understanding we are going to have around 20 votes. A lot of these will be voice voted, I am sure. But the two votes I am concerned about are, No. 1, the vote on the Toomey bill, which I support, but I support it if you can define it and make real transparency set in by having the authorization process in place.

I would only say that we go back to the Constitution. As I mentioned, let's go back to the statements that were made by Senator Toomey, Senator McCain, and Senator Coburn, that we want transparency and we don't want to cede the power of our constitutional duty as Members of the Senate to the executive branch. I know some in here would probably want to do that. Some are stronger supporters of Obama than I am. I am very critical of what Obama has done in terms of the deficits, which we have already talked about, in terms of what he is doing to the military. Some trillion dollars over a period of 10 years would be taken out of our military. When you add his budget to the sequestration, that is something that should not happen.

With energy, right now the President is going around talking about how he is for developing energy in this country, and yet he is the obstacle to the development. He is the one who has in his budget the various things that make it very difficult, if not impossible, to get our resources that we have out there in oil and gas.

In fact, it is kind of humorous and very clever of the President. Last week during his State of the Union message the President was talking about wanting to exploit all of our natural gas when he slipped in a little phrase that hardly anyone heard. I know Senator Boxer heard it because she was next to me, and we disagree on this whole issue. He said: We want to go after this type of formation, all the shale that is out there, but we don't want to poison the ground at the same time. Well, what he is talking about there is hydraulic fracturing. If you take away hydraulic fracturing, as he is trying to do, and put that in the hands of the Federal Government, then you might as well say goodbye to all these types of formations, oil and gas. We would not be able to do it. So I am critical of him in that respect.

In the fourth area, in addition to what he is doing to the military, the deficit spending, and energy in this country is regulations. I am the ranking member of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, with all of these MACT programs--that is MACT, maximum achievable control technology. He is trying to do away with emission requirements where there is no technology to get into that type of requirement. So it is very expensive.

The other thing he is trying to do--and I know this is the most controversial issue among liberals and conservatives--and that is we were able to successfully stop this whole global warming cap-and-trade legislation that has been out there ever since we refused to ratify Kyoto. It was made very clear that there is one thing nobody argues with--we know it is true--if you were to have legislation for cap and trade, the cost would be between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. We know that is true. That has come from the MIT, it has come from the CRA, and it has come from the Wharton School. That is the range they talk about. However, now this President is trying to do by regulation what we have voted down in legislation.

Right now in this body of 100 Senators, there are at the very most 25

Members of the Senate who would vote for cap and trade, and yet he is trying to do that through regulation. I have to say that would be the largest amount of money in terms--that would probably exceed the obligations we have to pay back even the deficits he has had. We will talk more about that later, but the issue right now is the two votes that are coming up.

I would encourage us to vote for my amendment, which would define an earmark as an appropriation that has not been authorized. I have read to you quotes from virtually everyone in here who would agree with that, except for those individuals who want to cede this power to the President of the United States.

I yield the floor, and I understand under unanimous consent that the Senator from Ohio would be the next speaker.

Madam President, I wanted to inquire, is there any time remaining?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 1 minute.

Madam President, first of all, I appreciate the opportunity to be heard.

I agree with what the author, Senator Toomey, is trying to do in terms of what most people think of as an earmark. The problem is this: You can vote for this if you are voting for and are against all earmarks as it is defined. It depends on how you do it. In the House, it is defined, under their rules, and it has been defined here as any type of appropriation or authorization. I would suggest to you, if you get the Constitution and look up article I, section 9, it says that is what we are supposed to be doing here.

So if I knew that my next amendment would pass, which defines an earmark as an appropriation that has not been authorized, which I know Senator Toomey and several others agree would be a good idea, then I would be wholeheartedly in support of this. So obviously we should have had that vote first. So I would vote against this even though I agree with what they are trying to do. But my next amendment is going to be the one that is necessary.

Madam President, I have the utmost respect for Senator Toomey and what he is trying to do. To me, this amendment is compatible with what he is trying to do. It merely defines an earmark as an appropriation that has not been authorized.

My junior Senator said on the Senate floor a year ago that, in a way that is good, because if a bad earmark comes up, we have two shots at it--one on authorization and one on appropriation. Senator Toomey, Senator McCain, and others have been supportive of the idea that we should go back to authorizing.

We have been fighting this battle since 1816, and it is time we end it. This is a way of doing it, merely defining it as an earmark that hasn't been authorized. I retain the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I further say that after the stimulus bill, all of the 102 most egregious votes last year--or earmarks, not one was a congressional earmark. They were all bureaucratic earmarks. If we don't do our constitutional job under article I, section 9 of the Constitution, the President will be doing our job.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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 thank the majority leader. I thank Senator Collins, Senator Brown of Massachusetts, Senator Gillibrand, and a lot of others, who have worked to get us to this point where we can do two things. Most important to those of us who have worked on the STOCK Act is that we are now in a position this afternoon of adopting a clear statement that Members of Congress and our staffs are covered by anti-insider trading rules and that we can also provide for fuller disclosure by Members, making it accessible to the public online.

Instead of coming to a point where the system broke down again and Senator Reid being forced to file a cloture motion, we worked out an agreement here, people were reasonable, and there will be votes on a number of germane amendments--and some that are not, but we have agreed to a 60-vote threshold.

This is the way I think the Senate is supposed to work. Some of these votes will be controversial, some difficult. But that is why we are here. I thank everybody who was part of getting to this point.

I note the presence of the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Brown, and I yield to him.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, in 6 or 7 minutes the Senate will begin a series of votes on the matter before us, the STOCK Act. I want to take a few moments to restate the underlying

main purpose of the legislation, which is to respond to the public concern, informed by testimony before our committee from experts on securities law, that it is not totally clear that Members of Congress and our staffs are covered by anti-insider trading laws enforced by the SEC. The No. 1 accomplishment of this proposal will be to make that crystal clear.

We are not exempt from that law; we should not be exempt. I presume most Members of Congress have assumed we have never been exempt. But this will make it clear if anybody crosses the line, they cannot defend themselves by saying that Members of Congress are not covered by the law.

We have also added in committee a couple of provisions which embrace the old but still important notion that sunshine is the best disinfectant in government by requiring that the annual financial disclosure reports we file will now be filed electronically and will therefore be available on the Internet. Right now, these are public documents. When they are filed in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate, people have to go there and make copies of them to see them. As Senator Begich, our colleague from Alaska, said: That is not easy if you are an Alaskan. This will bring that system up to date.

The third part--which I know is controversial for some, but I think it is sensible--is to require that within 30 days of any stock trades, disclosure forms must be filed with the Senate and also online. I can tell you that the Securities and Exchange Commission has made clear in testimony before the House committee and in discussions with our staff that that kind of periodic requirement for disclosure of trades in stock and securities will help them do the job we want them to do to make sure that insider trading laws are not being violated and, of course, will keep the public, our constituents, informed of what we are about.

A number of amendments are up. As Senator Reid said, I hope we don't have rollcall votes on all of them. I think a number of them will receive unanimous support on both sides. I hope we can adopt them by voice.

There is one amendment, Senator Shelby's amendment No. 1491, to which, as part of the agreement, I filed a side-by-side, as it were. I support the goal that Senator Shelby has of holding the executive branch accountable in ways similar to the way we are; that is, the amendment, generally speaking, would extend the 30-day reporting requirement, disclosure requirement, to a very large number of executive branch employees. That, to me, is the problem. It is too broad. It would create a cost and an unnecessary reporting system for many executive branch employees.

I want to point out here that when it comes to avoiding and preventing conflicts of interest, the executive branch is probably well ahead of the legislative branch. The ethics rules requirement and guidance put forward over the years by the Office of Government Ethics at the agencies are extensive and address a wide range of potential conflicts of interest and/or improprieties. They have teeth, criminal sanctions.

For instance, high-level executive branch employees already file financial disclosure forms that face a very extensive system of agency review. These agency officials and career civil servants are often forced to divest themselves of their stock holdings if they seem to be in conflict with their responsibilities or to recuse themselves, not to be involved in matters in order to minimize potential conflicts of interest. That is a much different standard than we impose on ourselves, which is the standard of disclosure.

I have introduced a version of Senator Shelby's amendment, which I think achieves his goal in a significant way but not so broadly. Rather than the tens of thousands of people encompassed in the Shelby amendment, mine is targeted at policymakers most equivalent to those of us in Congress and those who work with us; that is, positions in our government that are Senate-confirmed and also certain high-level White House and agency staff who might not be Senate-confirmed but are policymakers. These individuals are public officials with visible high- profile roles, and the extra scrutiny that comes with increased reporting requirements seems to be more appropriate for this group-- including the President, Vice President, appointees in the White House, the so-called policy czars, special assistants to the President, as well as members of the Federal Reserve Board.

I hope we can take this significant step to achieve what Senator Shelby had in mind, but not, if I can put it this way, overdo it in a way that will actually, according to comments we have had from people in the executive branch, get in the way of the existing very tough ethics rules they live under now.

I yield the floor at this point.

Madam President, this is a highly technical amendment. It simply says the GAO report, required by the underlying bill on the question of political intelligence, be sent not only to the Committee on Government Oversight in the House but also to the Judiciary Committee.

If there is no objection, I urge the adoption of the amendment. I don't believe there is any opposition and, therefore, no need for a rollcall vote.

Mr. President, I respectfully oppose the amendment. It would, as the Senator from Kentucky, with his characteristic directness said, strike the entire bill. The affirmation by Members they have not violated insider trading laws is, in my opinion, not enough. In the opinion of the SEC, it is not enough because it doesn't establish the duty of trust this underlying bill does that is required to guarantee charges against a Member of Congress or staff on insider trading

will not be successfully defended against on the argument that Members are not covered.

I yield the rest of my time to my friend from Maine.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

This is one of a series of amendments in which our colleagues are applying ethics rules to the executive branch although the bill, of course, is focused on Members of Congress. In this case, this applies probably the harshest penalty that has ever been applied to members of the executive branch. The fact is, executive branch employees are already subject to an effective, in some ways broader ethics regime than we face now. It is backed up by criminal sanctions. As an example, executive branch employees file financial disclosure forms. Agency ethics officials who examine them can compel divestiture of holdings. They can require the individual to recuse himself from certain matters and, if recusal is not sufficient, the agency can reassign the individual.

In this case, Senator Paul would say that an executive branch employee is forbidden from holding a position in which they or their family have any financial interest of $5,000 or more, so I oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, this is a side-by-side with an amendment offered by my friend from Alabama. The question is, How many employees of the executive branch of government should be required to electronically file their disclosure statements? I believe, respectfully, Senator Shelby's amendment requires maybe more than 300,000 Federal employees, including many who filed confidential disclosure statements.

This amendment would include people in the Federal executive branch who hold positions equivalent to those of us in Congress who are policymakers, and that includes the President, the Vice President, appointees in the White House, members of the Federal Reserve Board, and Senior Executive Service. It is the difference between applying this requirement to 2,000 executive employees or more than 300,000 Federal employees.

I yield the remainder of my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I respectfully ask for a ``no'' vote.

As I indicated in support of the side-by-side I offered, executive branch employees are now under very tough ethics regulations requiring, in many cases, divestiture or recusal, and this adds a good requirement which is for some of them to file electronically the disclosure statements they have to make. But the amendment we just passed--mine-- would add that requirement to 2,000 of the top-level policymakers in our Federal Government. Senator Shelby's amendment would extend that to more than 300,000 Federal employees, including some, by our count in the Office of Government Ethics, drivers and secretaries.

In addition to the burden it would place on them unduly, we are asking agencies to stretch personnel and resources to fulfill a totally new requirement when, in fact, we want them to save money and not figure out ways to spend more money.

I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote no.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I would urge others with amendments

listed here to think of following that example. But certainly as I look at the next four amendments, I think they are all noncontroversial. I would urge their sponsors to have the 2 minutes of debate, and, hopefully, let's have a voice vote so we can proceed.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote requirement on this amendment.

Madam President, I have no objection.

Madam President, this is a good amendment. I support it.

Madam President, I move to lay that motion upon the table.

The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1472

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1500

Through the Chair, I was going to ask my friend from Arizona if he is feeling all right.

He does.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I wish to briefly thank the Senators from Vermont and Texas for this amendment. It strengthens the bill, as does the preceding amendment offered by Senator McCain, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. President, I respectfully oppose the amendment put in by my two friends. This would amend the Senate rules to make it out of order for the Senate to proceed to any bill or joint resolution unless the committee of jurisdiction has posted on its Web site a CRS analysis of whether the bill would create a new program, office, or initiative that duplicates or overlaps an existing one. So it sounds pretty good on the surface, but there are two problems. One is that CRS tells us it would be hard-pressed to carry out this responsibility, certainly in a timely manner. The second results from the first, which is that this would be another way to slow legislation because it did not yet have the CRS analysis.

A final point is this: The committees of jurisdiction ought to be making their own judgment and probably know better than CRS whether they are creating a new program that duplicates or overlaps an existing one.

So, respectfully, I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1488

Mr. President, there may be a problem.

But this amendment doesn't fix it. In the bill before the committee, there was a provision to bring so-called political intelligence under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. Political intelligence is defined as information which is intended for use in analyzing securities or commodity markets or information investment decisions, but what does that mean? Does it apply to a retailer who wants to open new stores and calls the Armed

Services Committee to see whether there is a base that is going to be built in a particular neighborhood? Some would say yes; some would say no. Violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act carries civil and criminal penalties. We just felt we wanted to get the anti-insider trading provision out quickly and study this more. The bill calls for a GAO study.

Senator Collins and I announced we are going to hold a hearing on this question. We need a little more time to do it thoughtfully. We are ultimately dealing with first-amendment rights, and we ought not to legislate until we are prepared to do so in a reasonable way.

I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment. This amendment would take Congress from where we have always been and are going to be after this law passes. In pursuit of disclosure and transparency, sunshine is the best guarantee of integrity. This would be the first time I am aware of that in the legislative branch we would require divestment of personal holdings. For that reason, I oppose the amendment.

Remember, in the underlying bill we have increased the public's access to information about our holdings and our transactions. Ultimately, that knowledge ought to be enough to guarantee the public or to energize the public to make sure we are following the highest ethical norms. Divestment, in my opinion, is a step too far.

Mr. President, this has been a good, open process. We had a good bill that came in. We made it better. I yield back the remainder of my time.

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.