Harbor Maintenance Act of 2011

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, it has now been more than 890 days since the last long-term surface transportation bill, SAFETEA LU, expired. And what has Congress accomplished since September 30, 2009, when it comes to crafting a new Federal policy regime for our roads, bridges, mass transit, and safety programs? Sadly, Congress has managed once again to successfully abandon its responsibility to the American people by adopting a series of eight short-term extensions since 2009. In effect, Congress has placed our national transportation policy on ``Auto-Pilot'' for more than 2 years.

So my question is this: Why has the time for procrastination long since passed and the time for urgent action finally arrived? First, we face the March 31 expiration of the current, eighth short-term highway bill extension. So, it is imperative that the Senate approve a new highway bill promptly in order for us to extricate ourselves from this vicious cycle of robotically approving short-term extension after short-term extension. That is not legislating and it is not fair to the American people. Not at all.

Secondly and more broadly, the Senate faces a larger and more serious deadline: ensuring the solvency of the highway trust fund, which has been the primary funding source for all Federal roads, bridges, mass transit, and safety programs for decades. The trust fund is running out of money, and rapidly.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, reports that the highway trust fund will be bankrupt by October, barring action on a comprehensive highway reauthorization bill. If this looming specter does not signal a clarion call to move a bill, I don't know what does.

The legislation before us, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, or MAP 21, is a 2-year highway authorization that takes a modest step in the right direction toward meeting the March expiration deadline as well as the urgency of shoring up the trust fund. Now, is this the bill I wish we were debating? Frankly, I would have preferred a much stronger, 6-year highway bill--the kind of legislation which, I would like to add, is the norm and not the exception. Indeed, Congress has traditionally approved highway and mass transit bills not by limited extensions or quick-fix panaceas but for the long-term. That was true for the 2005 highway bill, it was true for the 1998 highway bill, and it was true for the 1991 highway bill. All of these measures were 6-year authorizations. All of them enjoyed bipartisan consensus. And what was the result?

The longer time frames engendered greater certainty, especially for those States whose expiration dates for construction seasons are much shorter. Now, if only the past were actually prologue in this case. If only today we were actually debating a multiyear authorization and not putting more dents in the can that we are kicking further and further down the road--a road that needs to be repaired, I might add. If only we were deliberating policy that fostered more than a modicum of predictability. But we are not, and that is a problem.

It is a problem for David Bernhardt, Maine's transportation commissioner, who has observed that ``given the choice between a short- term and a long-term extension, the long-term extension is preferable as it provides more certainty and predictability for our construction season.''

It is a problem for the Maine Better Transportation Association, which has stated that ``Maine's rural transportation system--our roads, rail, ports--are woven into the future viability of every Maine business; the uncertainty created with no long-term reauthorization creates uncertainty, impeding job creation and investment.''

What we have as a consolation prize is a ``accept a half a loaf or get nothing'' proposition. So if this venerable Chamber can't muster the will to produce a new long-term highway reauthorization bill--and there is no reason, unfortunately, to think otherwise--then at the very least, can there be any doubt whatsoever that we must break the current cycle of short-term extensions and that a 2-year authorization will have to suffice for now?

As far as the State of Maine is concerned, MAP 21 is a slight improvement over present law. MAP 21's $109 billion in funding for 2012 2013 will provide Maine with $195 million this year and $198 million next year, up from the $192 million Maine received last year. While I would have preferred if Maine were receiving larger increases in funding, because its transportation funding needs are serious, I am nonetheless pleased to see Maine receive an increase in Federal transportation funding.

A strong Federal highway reauthorization bill will help Maine maintain our bridges and roads, while we wait to invest in the future for the demands of the 21st century. We are considering this measure as a stop-gap at a time when my State of Maine contains twice as many miles of poor roads, 548 miles, as we have of very good roads, only 265 miles, and at a time when 369 bridges are currently classified as structurally deficient, which means that 15.4 percent of our bridges require significant repair, well above the 11.4 percent national average.

Indisputably, the 2-year time frame of this bill is woefully short, and in total, this bill fails to make the requisite investments necessary to bolster our transportation infrastructure. That said, working within the strictures of a 2-year authorization bill, there are some elements of MAP 21 that I would like to briefly highlight-- provisions I was particularly pleased to see incorporated.

This bill reduces burdensome redtape and bureaucracy that represent major speed bumps in streamlining. For example, it takes the more than 150 highway infrastructure programs and consolidates them into five core programs that address highway and bridge construction and maintenance, freight improvements, safety, and nonmotorized transportation. These changes will eliminate the bottlenecking emanating from Washington and will allow States to focus on their individual areas of concern rather than Federal mandates. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and one who is fighting tooth and nail to curb meddlesome bureaucratic rigamarole, this undertaking is welcomed indeed.

Furthermore, MAP 21 rightly places a premium on enhancing vehicle safety by making significant, vital changes to vehicle standards. In the 21st century, cars are no longer just mechanical machines, they are high-tech, complex systems with the capacity to diagnose and communicate critical problems and convey that information to drivers. This bill takes this new reality into tremendous account and will codify industry standards for electronic data, providing cars with electronic data recorders that will serve as the black boxes of new cars and help investigators determine the cause of crashes and prevent future accidents.

I am also particularly proud of the leadership of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation evident in its portions of MAP 21, and for that I want to express gratitude to my longtime friend and colleague, our chairman, Senator Rockefeller, who serves with me on both the Senate Commerce Committee and the Finance Committee.

Specifically, I want to recognize Chairman Rockefeller for his collaboration with me and for supporting my antifraud amendment, which is included in the underlying bill. My amendment will ensure that brokers of transportation services have the skills and knowledge required to aid in transportation of shipments within the rules of the law, marking a major reform of the brokering process which will ensure that commercial truck drivers are paid for their work.

I want to publicly thank Barry Pottle, president of Pottle Transportation in Maine, who brought to light that some fraudulent brokers were successfully contracting commercial truck drivers to deliver freight, but then these brokers would not pay the truck drivers for the work they had performed. In effect, these fraudulent brokers were repeatedly taking advantage of truck drivers. When Barry alerted me to this deplorable outrage, I started drafting an amendment to end this scam immediately. I am very pleased this common-sense solution has been included in the MAP 21.

I would also like to thank the bill's managers, Chairman Boxer, and Ranking Member Inhofe for accepting my three amendments to the bill.

The 2005 highway bill provided Maine's Department of Transportation with the flexibility to draw upon Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program funds to cover the operating expenses of The Downeaster, Amtrak's passenger rail service in Maine.

I am pleased that my amendment to continue this policy, which enhances flexibility for States to focus funding on local priorities, was accepted by the bill managers. At issue is an undertaking that curtails congestion and improves air quality in a State that prizes the outdoors for recreation and tourism. We certainly did not want to turn away passengers coming to and from my State who patronized The Downeaster to the tune of half a million trips in 2011--or equivalent to nearly 40 percent of my State's population riding the train once in a single year?

In addition, I was pleased to work with Senators Cardin, Klobuchar, Rubio, Wicker, Rockefeller, and Tester to develop an amendment that has been accepted by the bill managers that will streamline the process for veterans with equivalent military driving experience to acquire commercial driver's licenses, also known as CDLs. I should also thank the many veterans service organizations, including the Air Force Association, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Fleet Reserve Association, and American Legion, which lent their expertise and support to this effort. Furthermore, I would like to thank Representative Randy Hultgren, whose leadership resulted in a similar provision being included in the House version of this bill, which provided the inspiration for the language before us today.

As my colleagues would undoubtedly agree, it is unconscionable that our Nation's veterans, including those who have most recently returned from service in Iraq and Afghanistan, find themselves facing unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles as they seek to transition into a civilian profession for which they have already received world-class training provided by our Federal Government.

Instead, at a time when job creation is our No. 1 priority, our government should be working to eliminate redtape, delays, costs, and unnecessary testing--where it is prudent to do so--to allow veterans to quickly pursue and secure employment in the private and public sectors.

Indisputably, Congress has made milestone strides over the past year, including the passage of provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act and the VOW to Hire Heroes Act that require the Federal Government to identify equivalencies in military and civilian job skills and to carry out a pilot program to reduce or curb barriers to providing credentials, certifications, and licenses to qualified veterans. These yeoman efforts are vital and timely, and they dovetail with our amendment, which directly addresses one specific opportunity to remove roadblocks to veteran licensing.

Over the past decade, many of our veterans safely drove large trucks on some of the most dangerous roads in the world. They have also safely operated these same vehicles on local, State, and national highways during their service, demonstrating their capabilities and qualifications to operate similar vehicles as civilian commercial drivers. As such, our amendment requires the Secretary of Transportation to immediately convene a joint study with the Secretary of Defense, the States, and other stakeholders to assess the barriers to obtaining a CDL faced by our current servicemembers and veterans who possess the proper training and experience to operate commercial vehicles. As part of this study, the Secretary of Transportation must make recommendations for legislative, regulatory, and administrative actions necessary to overcome these challenges, and, most important, upon completion of the study, the Secretary must implement those recommendations for which he has the legal authority.

Although specific CDL requirements are a responsibility of the States, our amendment will ensure that the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Defense take a leadership role in helping States to understand the extraordinary skills and experience driving large vehicles that many of our

veterans bring to the table when they apply for a CDL. As a result, I am very hopeful that our efforts here will soon eliminate unnecessary barriers to CDL licensing for qualified veterans. And, perhaps of equal importance, by adopting our amendment, we will have established a template for legislation that this and future Congresses may follow for streamlining licensing and certification processes for our Nation's veterans.

Quite simply, our best and bravest deserve nothing less than our Nation's unwavering support and gratitude upon their return home, in order to rightly honor their enormous sacrifices. Frankly, who better for any job than those trained to be the greatest fighting force on the planet?

Mr. President, overall, I will agree that in the case of this highway bill we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good--that a 2- year authorization is preferable to yet another round of extensions. But make no mistake, Congress has failed to do its due diligence in addressing this highway bill over the last 2 years. It is because of that negligence that we have placed ourselves in the unenviable position of having to play beat the clock, as both the House and the Senate must confront a fast-approaching March 31 deadline when the current extension expires.

This bill represents the best we can offer the American people right now, but it is not and I know my colleagues will agree--indicative of the best this institution can offer. The American people deserve better.

Mr. President, we are long overdue to reauthorize our Nation's transportation programs. The last reauthorization, SAFETEA LU, expired in September 2009. Since then there have been seven short-term extensions, and the most current extension expires on March 31. I am pleased the Senate is finally voting on a bill, S. 1831, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, or MAP 21. A path forward for action on the House bill is still unclear so we may indeed need another short-term extension.

MAP 21 enjoys the strong support of a broad cross-section of organizations ranging from the AFL CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the American Public Transportation Association.

This bill will improve the mobility of people and commerce while reducing traffic congestion and improving air quality. Investing in the construction and maintenance of our roads, bridges, public transit systems, trails, and rail infrastructure means people and goods move more efficiently and that improves our international competitiveness. And investing in infrastructure will create badly needed jobs. It is one of the most obvious things we can do to help boost the economy as it struggles to emerge from the great recession.

So I will vote yes on final passage of S. 1813. MAP 21 is a bipartisan, 2-year bill that provides level funding with increases to account for inflation. The bill would provide $109 billion over 2 years for surface transportation programs. Given the difficult budget climate this has to be viewed as a victory.

Our State transportation agencies need to be able to do long-term planning and a 2-year bill helps that cause, and is surely better than the short-term extensions we have been living under. Given the negative budget climate and the difficulty we had finding the revenue to offset the highway trust fund shortfall, a 2-year bill is what is possible, though I would have preferred a longer term bill.

Under MAP 21's highway title, Michigan will get more than $1.1 billion per year for 2 years, slightly more than under the current bill. Under the transit formulas, Michigan is projected to get a little over $131.3 million per year for 2 years, a little more than we got last time in formula funds. When it comes to public transit, Michigan is an all-bus State except for the People Mover in Detroit. Whereas the highway title takes great pains to ensure that the distribution of highway revenue among States is largely unchanged, the transit title changes the distribution of transit revenue among States to favor those States with rail transit infrastructure over States like Michigan that do not yet have rail transit. In an effort to keep Michigan whole in terms of transit funding, I cosponsored an amendment to restore funding to both urban and rural bus programs. I am pleased provisions of that amendment have been adopted in the managers' package.

My primary area of concern with this bill is in the formula for distributing funds to States and a lack of true donor equity based on contributions to the highway trust fund. Historically, about 20 States, including Michigan, have been ``donor'' States, sending more gas tax dollars to the trust fund in Washington than are returned in transportation infrastructure spending. Each time the highway bill has been reauthorized, I have joined Members from other donor States to try to correct this inequity in highway funding and we have made progress. In 1978, Michigan was getting around 75 cents back on our Federal gas tax dollar. That went up to about 80 cents in 1991, 90.5 cents in 1998, and 92 cents in 2005. Unfortunately, there simply isn't enough money this time around to improve the rate of return for donor States without taking funding from donee States, which we don't have the votes to do.

Further undermining donor State efforts is the trend starting in 2008 of nonuser-fee money going into the trust fund. Before that, the trust fund was purely user-fee funded, primarily with gas taxes contributed from each State. When gas tax revenues started declining with increases in fuel economy and people driving less because of the recession, billions of dollars were transferred from the general fund to keep the trust fund solvent. Thus the blurring of the line between what was paid into the trust fund by States versus what is given back to States in Federal highway dollars which is now both gas taxes and general revenue monies. This means when calculated in dollar terms, donor States, including Michigan, are getting back more money than they put into the trust fund, or well more than 100 cents on the dollar. When you look at the percent, or share, contributed to the trust fund versus the percent, or share, paid out compared to other States, an inequity among donor and donee States remains.

Overall, Michigan Department of Transportation, MDOT, officials view the bill favorably, particularly the program consolidation, increased flexibility, realistic performance management, and provisions to expedite project delivery. MDOT's director wrote to me that he is eager to see a long-term transportation authorization bill enacted because it is vital to providing the stability needed to improve transportation planning and project development.

There are no earmarks in this bill and nearly all discretionary grant programs allocated by the Federal Highway Administration would be eliminated. The result is that most funding is allocated to the States by formula.

MAP 21 proposes a new core program intended to direct funds to infrastructure segments that are particularly critical to freight movement. It allows the Wayne County Aerotropolis project to apply for grants under the freight program by specifically identifying as eligible an ``Aerotropolis'' transportation system defined as a planned and coordinated multimodal freight and passenger transportation network providing efficient, sustainable, and intermodal connectivity to a defined region of economic significance centered around a major airport.

MAP 21 makes substantial changes to transportation planning requirements at all levels, including using performance management through the planning process. It requires that State and metropolitan planning organizations, MPOs, include performance measures and targets. Along with these increased technical responsibilities, the bill raises the designation threshold for MPOs from those serving a population of 50,000 to those serving a population of 200,000, unless the Governor certifies certain technical criteria are met.

This could have been a problem for a number of Michigan mid-sized MPOs, including those in Battle Creek, Jackson, Holland, Bay City, and Saginaw. The MPOs in these cities have expressed concern to my office that they could lose their MPO designation. They argue that their organizations are comprised of local elected officials who are in the best position to determine local transportation needs, and this proposal could exclude local officials and their

constituents from participating in the transportation decisionmaking process if the Governor does not certify them.

I agree that this local expertise in the planning process is valuable and that it should be retained. The MDOT officials who work with and rely on these organizations assured my office the State would want the existing mid-sized MPOs in Michigan to retain their MPO designation. I cosponsored an amendment to grandfather in existing MPOs so that they are not at risk of losing their MPO designation and with it the planning funds needed to operate, and I am pleased a modified version of this amendment was accepted.

I am also pleased the bill includes an amendment I authored with Senator Conrad which was adopted by voice vote. It would give Treasury a discretionary power to fight against tax evasions. Under the PATRIOT Act, Congress gave the Treasury the power to take a range of measures against foreign financial institutions or jurisdictions that it finds to be of ``primary money laundering concern.'' The Levin-Conrad amendment would authorize Treasury to impose the same types of measures on the same types of entities if Treasury finds them to be ``significantly impeding U.S. tax enforcement.'' Treasury could, for example, prohibit U.S. banks from accepting wire transfers or honoring credit cards from those foreign banks. This amendment, which is similar to a provision that I introduced as part of a broad offshore tax bill for several Congresses, has been scored as raising over $1 billion over 10 years.

I am pleased the bill managers worked with me to include language regarding the need to fully use the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for operating and maintaining our Federal navigation channels, including the 69 Federal harbors and channels in Michigan. These ports and harbors support jobs, advance economic activity, and bolster exports. Maintaining these waterways is not only important for our economy and international competitiveness, but properly maintaining these harbors and ports keeps freight off of our highways and rails, relieving congestion and improving the environment.

Somehow, keeping our ports and harbors in good repair has not been a priority in budgeting and funding decisions. This sense of the Senate on harbor maintenance acknowledges the shortfall, and states that ``the amounts in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund should be fully expended to operate and maintain the navigation channels of the United States.'' This affirmative statement puts the Senate on record in supporting full funding for our Federal ports and harbors, and is a good step forward in addressing this unfair situation. Every year, hundreds of millions of dollars collected from shippers are deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund but never spent, despite the fact that our Nation has a significant navigational maintenance backlog. Collecting fees from shippers and not using these revenues for their intended purpose is not only unfair, it threatens jobs and economic growth.

Including this important language in the Senate bill is an important first step to correcting our harbor maintenance problem, yet much work remains. I hope the House will take action on a transportation reauthorization bill so that we can work out any differences in conference committee. Along with my colleagues, I will be urging the conferees to retain and strengthen the harbor maintenance language to reflect S. 412, a bill I sponsored and which currently has 35 cosponsors, which would provide an enforcement mechanism to ensure that all of the funds deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund are used for their intended purposes: for the operation and maintenance of our Nation's harbors.

This bill takes some important steps to support green automotive technology. I am pleased that the bill supports the expansion of electric vehicle infrastructure by allowing highway funds to be used for new charging stations at existing or new parking facilities funded through the law. It also includes a provision authored by Senator Carper to include vehicle charging and refueling infrastructure improvement projects among the projects eligible to be carried out under the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program.

I am proud of the fact that Michigan has two fixed guideway projects under development that will go through the Federal Transit Administration's, FTA, New Starts Program which will provide Federal funding to build them. These projects, one in Grand Rapids and a two- part interconnected project in Detroit, will finally bring light rail and bus rapid transit to Michigan to supplement our current all-bus system. I have worked closely with the Banking Committee to secure changes to the New Starts Program that will benefit Michigan's initiatives. I am pleased to report that this bill modifies the New Starts Program in a way that is favorable to these Michigan projects, including the Detroit project which has a more complex set of circumstances.

Michigan is developing two connected projects in Detroit: a streetcar circulator that will distribute riders within the downtown core along Woodward Avenue, built mostly with private funds, and a regional bus rapid transit network on multiple corridors leading into downtown Detroit, which will need Federal New Starts funds. Because it is largely privately funded, the streetcar project will be able to advance before everything is in place at both the State and Federal levels to submit the New Starts application for the entire program. FTA officials have told me they interpret the bill's ``Program of Interrelated Projects'' language as providing ample opportunity for the streetcar circulator project in Detroit's Woodward Avenue corridor and the connected bus rapid transit project in the same corridor to meet the New Starts requirements to apply as a single program and that one project can be built before the other project within a reasonable timeframe and still be eligible. This is reassuring as we work to advance this important project through the New Starts Program.

In conclusion, MAP 21 is a consensus, bipartisan bill that represents our best hope to get a longer term transportation bill enacted. I urge my colleagues to support it and I hope the House of Representatives will also adopt it.

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.