Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to honor an outstanding non-profit in Columbia, MD, Enterprise Community Partners, on the occasion of its 30th Anniversary.

In 1982, Jim Rouse and his wife Patty founded Enterprise Community Partners as a neighborhood-based partnership to revitalize communities. They founded Enterprise with the ambitious goal of making sure every American lives in a decent, affordable home. Over the years, this organization has grown to be a leading provider of capital and expertise for affordable housing in thriving communities. Today, Terri Ludwig leads the organization as it continues on the important work of its founders.

Enterprise Community Partners has invested more than $11.5 billion to build and preserve nearly 300,000 affordable rental and for-sale homes and create more than 410,000 jobs nationwide. This includes almost $1.2 billion invested directly in Maryland--building and preserving thousands of homes in the State. Because of Enterprise, over 14,000 individuals and families have a place to call home in Maryland.

As a member of the Transportation-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, I put money in the federal checkbook to build and protect our communities. Providing safe, affordable and adequate housing has always been one of my top priorities. Safe, sustainable, and affordable housing is essential for community growth and stability. Kids in quality housing do better in schools, neighborhoods have much less crime, and communities are stronger.

In 1992, I worked with Senator Kit Bond to create the HOPE VI program which revolutionized public housing by leveraging public and private resources to replace dangerous and run-down public housing projects with mixed-income communities that integrated schools, businesses and community services alongside public, affordable and market rate housing.

HOPE VI has been successful in transforming communities and transforming the lives of people living in public housing. Enterprise has been an important partner in stabilizing Baltimore's stressed communities and encouraging investment by residents and businesses so that neighborhoods in Baltimore remain places to live, work, shop and worship.

Enterprise stories include families who, due to a reduction in hours at work and layoffs, are at risk of foreclosure; young adults who age out of foster care and face homelessness; and homeless individuals with disabilities. Enterprise develops and preserves affordable housing in communities linking people to opportunities for success.

The Enterprise Green Communities Initiative is the first national framework for green affordable housing. The 5-year, $555 million initiative plans to build more than 8,500 environmentally healthy homes for low-income families. It provides grants, financing, tax credit equity and technical assistance to developers who meet Green Communities Criteria for affordable housing that promotes health, conserves energy and natural resources, and provides easy access to jobs, schools, and services.

Four years ago, Enterprise announced the formation of the Save America's Neighborhoods Campaign, a coalition of national and local organizations concerned about the foreclosure crisis' impacts on communities. The coalition's efforts were important contributors to establishing the Neighborhood Stabilization Program at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which offers grants to help families and communities at risk of foreclosure.

Enterprise should be recognized for its work to sustain and restore thriving communities nationwide. Enterprise tackles some of the toughest problems in our communities and continues to transform both communities and families throughout the country. They invest in neighborhoods that are working together to solve their own problems for the collective good of the community.

I thank the volunteers, staff, board members and foundations supporting Enterprise Community Partners for all of their work, for their commitment to each other, for their commitment to community, and for their commitment to Maryland. And I congratulate you on this milestone.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about cyber security, the pending Lieberman-Collins bill, and the need to act--and the need to act before we adjourn for the August break.

I come today to the floor as I did when I spoke yesterday. I don't come as a Democrat, I come as an American. If ever there was an issue where we have to forget if we are red States or blue States, it is this issue.

I am going to stop my remarks. I note the Senator from Arizona is on the Senate floor, and I know he was scheduled to speak at 12:45. I was scheduled to speak at 11:30. I have about 10 minutes. I just want to acknowledge where we are.

So resuming my comments, Madam President, what I wanted to say is this: This is when we have to forget we are red States or blue States, we have to forget what we have on our bumper stickers, and we have to come together and not be the red State party or the blue State party but to be the red, white, and blue party for the United States of America. We must put aside partisan differences and ideological viewpoints. We need to act, and we need to act in the defense of the United States of America.

The Senate has a great opportunity today and tomorrow to pass legislation to protect, defend, and deter a cyber attack on the critical infrastructure of the United States of America.

What do I mean by critical infrastructure? It is our electrical power grid, our financial services, our water supplies. It is those things that are the bread and butter of keeping America, its businesses, and its families going. Through voluntary participation, we can work with the private sector that owns and operates the critical infrastructure to keep our critical infrastructure hardened and resilient against attack.

I worry about the possibility of an attack. We know there are already attacks going on, particularly in our financial services. We know our personal identities are being hacked, and we know small business is being attacked. I will give examples later on. Not only do I worry about an attack, I equally worry about our inertia, where we do nothing.

I bring to the attention of the Senate and all those watching that Leon Panetta, the Secretary of Defense, called our cyber vulnerability our potential digital Pearl Harbor. The Presiding Officer is from New York. We don't want a cyber 9/11. We can act now. We can act when it is in our power to protect, defend, and deter these attacks. That is what I want. I want us to have a sense of urgency. I want us to go to the edge of our chair. I want us to put our best thinking on to be able to do the kind of job we need to do to find a sensible center on how we can do that.

Right now our adversaries are watching us. We are debating on how we will protect America from cyber attacks, and it looks like we are doing nothing. When all is said and done, more gets said than gets done. Our adversaries don't have to spy on us. They can look at the Senate floor and say: What the heck are they doing? What are they going to do? They are going to look at us and say: There they go again.

We know our own inability to pass legislation, our own partisan gridlock and deadlock works for our predatory enemies in a positive way. They are saying, well, our first line of attack is for them to do nothing. They are thinking how they can make sure the critical infrastructure is vulnerable. How can they weaken the critical infrastructure? One way is by not passing legislation and putting in those hardened, resilient ways to protect, defend, and deter. Our adversaries are laughing right this minute. They just have to watch us. Well, this is no laughing matter.

What is the intent of a cyber attack? What is the intent? Is it the same intent as a nuclear attack? Is it the same attempt as flying into the World Trade Center? It is all the same. It is to create chaos, it is to create civil instability, and it is to create economic catastrophe that makes 9/11 look minuscule.

Just think about a cyber attack in which our grid goes down. Think of a blackout in New York. Think of a blackout in Baltimore. Remember when we did the cyber exercise here where it showed what would happen? The stop lights go down, the lights go out in the hospitals, the respirators go off, business shuts down, commerce shuts down, 9-1-1 shuts down, America is shut down, and we will be powerless and impotent to put it back on in any quick and expeditious manner.

Right now we are in the situation where we have an early missile detection. We know the cyber attack will come. We need to do something. With this cyber attack, think of the chaos of no electricity. Just think of it. We have all lived through blackouts, and we had a terrible freak storm here a few weeks ago. No matter how late Pepco, BG&E, and Dominion was in responding, they can get the electricity back on. What happens if they can't get the electricity back on? What happens if they can't get it back on for

weeks or longer? There we are powerless, impotent, and the President of the United States is wondering what to do.

Remember, the attack is to humiliate, intimidate, and cripple: humiliate by making us look powerless, intimidate by showing there is this power over us, and to cripple our functioning as a society. I find it chilling.

We saw an attack on a little country called Estonia. That is how I got into this. I was sitting on the Intelligence Committee--I can say it now because it has been more than 5 years ago--and it was brought to my attention that Estonia--a brave little country that resisted communism, challenged the Soviet Union, and is now a part of NATO--was being attacked. The electricity was going off around Estonia. We thought, from the Intelligence Committee, it would be the first cyber attack on a NATO nation, and we were going to trigger the NATO Charter article V that an attack on one is an attack on all.

Thanks to the United States of America and our British allies, we had the technical know-how to go in and help them. Who is going to have the technical know-how to help us? We have the technical know-how right now to make our critical infrastructure hardened and resilient. We shouldn't harden our positions so we can't get to a resilient critical infrastructure.

I could go on with examples. I know my colleague from Arizona wants to come to the floor, but I just want to say one more thing. I have been involved in this from not only my work on the Intelligence Committee, but we fund the Justice Department through the Appropriations Committee, and they are very involved and hands on with the policy issues around the FBI.

Now, if Director Mueller were here, he would say the FBI currently has 7,600 pending bank robbery cases. Guess what. He has 9,000 pending cyber banking attacks. There are more cyber heists than there are regular heists. That doesn't make it right.

Now, is a cyber attack coming? Is it something out of Buck Rogers or Betty Rogers or the cyber Betty Crocker cookbook or whatever? The NASDAQ, as the gentlelady from New York knows, the NASDAQ and New York Stock Exchange has already been attacked. Hackers repeatedly penetrated the computer networks at the NASDAQ stock market. The New York Stock Exchange has been the target of cyber attacks. That sounds so vague but, remember, successful attempts to shut down or steal our information are going on every day.

Madam Chair, do you remember in 2010 the Dow Jones plunged 1,000 points because of a flash crash? That was a result of turbulent trading. That can be manipulated by cyber, and it could happen several times a week. What are we going to do?

Our banking industry clears $7 trillion worth of financial goods, products, and actual real money every day. Imagine what would happen if that was thrown into turmoil or shut down. I don't want to go through grim example after grim example, but let me say this: Good people in this body have been working on both sides of the aisle.

We are close, and I urge my colleagues now: Let's either vote for cloture or come to a regular agreement to be able to offer amendments. For those who worry about the costs, for those who worry about regulation, for those who worry about homeland security, I understand that. That is why I would be willing to sunset the bill so we can always look ahead and reevaluate this. I want everyone to know if a cyber attack comes and happens to the United States and we have failed to act, we will overreact, we will overregulate, and we will overspend.

Why do I have a sense of urgency right now? Let me say this: When we adjourn tomorrow for the August break, we don't come back until September 10. We will go out somewhere around October 1. That means if we don't act by tomorrow or Friday, we will essentially only have about 14 working days in September to do this. Well, we can't let this go.

I conclude my remarks by saying this: To my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's be the red, white, and blue party. Let's come to the middle ground. Let's do what we need to do to protect and defend the United States of America. There are good people who have been working on this. Some have extraordinary national security credentials. Let's put our best heads together and come up with the best amendments. Let's come up with the best protections of the United States of America, and let's do it by tomorrow night.

God bless America. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, 32 months almost 3 full years. That is how long Maryland native Alan Gross has been held by Cuba as a political prisoner.

Alan Gross went to Cuba in 2009 on an USAID contract to help install wireless Internet. The Cuban government responded by putting him in jail. They declared him a spy, ran a sham trial and sentenced him to 15 years in prison.

Alan Gross is from Potomac, MD, and like me, studied social work at the University of Maryland. I have met his wife on numerous occasions. Her focus and strength are truly inspiring. While her husband has been held in a Cuban prison, she has held down the fort and held the pressure on the Cuban government for its poor treatment of her husband.

And Alan Gross has held strong in the face of his unfair imprisonment. To maintain his physical and mental strength, he would pace his room and do pull ups. Unfortunately, however his health has declined. He has lost more than 100 pounds, is having difficulty walking, and--most worryingly--has had a mass develop behind his shoulder. Rather than act humanely, the Cuban government has been reluctant to share information on Mr. Gross's medical condition.

At home, Mr. Gross's mother is facing inoperable lung cancer and the family is concerned he will not have a chance to say goodbye. That is why the Gross family petitioned the Cuban government to allow him to come home for 2 weeks to see his mother for her 90th birthday.

This request was made following a U.S. Federal judge's humane decision to allow a Cuban intelligence agent on probation in the United States to return home to see his ailing brother. Their plea was met with silence.

Cuba has held Alan Gross as a political hostage, trying to leverage their possession of an American citizen for concessions from the United States. While Cuba might oppose U.S. policy, it has a responsibility to behave humanely to its people.

I want to thank Senator Dodd for his continued focus on the detention of Alan Gross. The Senator has been one trying to improve relations between the United States and Cuba, but has put those efforts on hold because of their unwillingness to release Mr. Gross. I appreciate his decision and his unrelenting work to see Mr. Gross freed.

And most importantly, I want to send my thoughts and prayers to Mr. Gross, his wife Judy and their family. I think about you every day and am hopeful your family will be reunited soon. The pain you face is unfair, but the strength you show is inspiring. I promise we will continue to work to bring Alan back to Maryland.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, every Senator has to decide what they are going to do every day when they wake up in the morning. For some in this Chamber, they wake up every day thinking about how they are going to stop President Obama, how they are going to stop his agenda, and how they are going to do everything they can to stop him from having a second term. Some spend their time waking up every day thinking about how they want to stop America from moving forward.

That is not how I spend my day. I try to look at two things every day: the needs of my people--their day-to-day needs for a job, for an opportunity, for health care--and how that translates into national policy; then I try to look at the long range needs of our country. That is why I am excited about being on the Intelligence Committee, where I am working on protecting America from the cyber attacks that are happening every day to our country, including the stealing of identity and the stealing of trade secrets. I want to move America forward. I have worked very hard to do that.

One of the areas I am most proud of that I have worked on with the men and women in this Chamber from both sides of the aisle is the whole area of women's health care. Many want to talk about repealing Obama health care. Well, I don't want to repeal it. They talk about replacing it. They never have an idea. So let me tell my colleagues one of the areas we fought for.

One of the things we knew as we embarked upon the health care debate was that we wanted to save lives and we wanted to save money. One of the areas where we wanted to do both was to look at how to utilize the new scientific breakthroughs in prevention, particularly early detection and screening. We could identify those diseases with early intervention and save lives as well as money and counteract escalating disease that ultimately costs more and can even cost a life.

Nowhere was it more glaring than with the issue of women's health care. My hearings revealed that women were charged more for their health care and got less than men of equal age and health care status. We found that we had barriers to health care because everything about being a woman was treated as a preexisting condition. If a woman had a C-section for the delivery of her baby, that was counted. In eight States, they even counted domestic violence as a preexisting condition. Then what we saw during this debate was the fact that they even wanted to take our mammograms away from us. Well, that just went too far.

So during the health care debate, while everybody was being a bean counter, I wanted American women to know they could count on the Senate and the women and men of the Senate to stand up for them. So we came to the floor. We suited up, and we fought for a preventive health care amendment that not only passed but goes into effect tomorrow, on August 1. It will be a new day for women of all ages, who will be able to get health care coverage for preventive health care at no additional cost, no copays, no deductibles, and no discrimination where they are charged more and get less. That is what ObamaCare is. If somebody wants to repeal that, then bring it on. We are ready to fight. We want to fight for that annual health care checkup that will involve mammograms, Pap testing, and pelvic exams. We want to be able to do the screening for that dread ``C'' word, for colorectal cancer and lung cancer. We want to make sure that if a person thinks they are possibly a victim--a doctor suspects domestic violence--we can screen and counsel. We want women to be able to have that access, to be able to know early on what are those illnesses they are facing.

August 1 means our long-fought battle will actually go into effect. Where does it go into effect? Well, it is already in effect on the Federal law books. Now it will go into effect in doctors' offices. Women will have access to the health care their doctor says they need, not what an insurance company says they need or what some rightwinger wants to take away from them.

We are pretty mad about this. We were mad 2 years ago when they wanted to take our mammograms away from us, and we are going to be pretty mad if they try to take our health care away from us. But what we are happy about--what we are happy about--is that for over more than 50 million American women tomorrow it will be a new day. They will be able to walk into their doctor's office. In the doctor's office they will say: Good morning. Can I help you? And when they say: When was the last time you had a mammogram, and the patient says: Well, I never had one because I could not afford it, they will say: Oh, we can sign you right up for that. Tell me about your family history. Is it true that your father had colon cancer? Well, listen, we worry about that for you. You could be at high risk. We are going to take a look at that and make sure you are OK.

For young women, we are going to make sure you have other kinds of counseling and services you need in order to have a productive family life. This is what this health care bill is all about. It is about people. It is about access. It is about preventing dread diseases.

People will come to this floor and they will pound their chest and complain about the President. We want to pound the table and make sure women have gotten the health care they need.

Tomorrow, we are going to be very excited when we keep the doors of doctors' offices open to the women of America.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am so glad the Presiding Officer is in the chair while I am making these remarks. I wish to salute the Presiding Officer for his service in the Senate and his service to the Nation. One knows he is a member of the U.S. Marine Corps although he no longer wears the uniform. I believe once a marine, always a marine. And his service in Vietnam and to the Nation as Secretary of the Navy is well known and well appreciated. The Presiding Officer has served as a marine in the Marine Corps and as Secretary of the Navy and now in the Senate as a Member of the Democratic Party. The Presiding Officer really serves the Nation.

I come to the floor today to talk about cyber security and the need to pass cyber security legislation this week, in this body. And I come to the floor not as a Democrat, I come to the floor as a patriot.

I say to my colleagues in the Senate that this week, on this floor, the Senate has a rendezvous with destiny. We have pending before us cyber security legislation, a framework to protect critical infrastructure of the dot-com world against cyber attacks from those who have predatory, hostile intent to the United States of America. We are bogged down. We are not moving. We are once again following what has become a usual pattern in the Senate: when all is said and done, more is going to get said than gets done.

But I say to anyone listening and anyone watching, we cannot let that happen. The United States of America is in danger. And this danger is not something in the future. It is not something written in science fiction books. This is not the wave that is going to come. It is happening right now in cyber attacks on our banking services, our personal identity, our trade secrets, and things I will talk about more.

The naysayers here say: We can't pass this bill because it will be overregulation and it will lead to strangulation, and, oh my gosh, we can't ask the private sector to spend one dime on protecting itself.

Well, I respect healthy criticism, but let me say to my friends, because I want them to know that if anything happens to the United States of America--if the grid goes down, if NASDAQ goes down, if our banking system goes down, if we will not be able to function because the streetlights won't be on and we won't be able to turn the electricity on--I will tell you what will happen. Once again, politicians will overreact, we will overregulate, and we will overspend.

In a very judicious, well-thought-out, well-discussed process, we could come up with a legislative framework that would defend the United States of America and at the same time balance that sensible center that another great patriot, Colin Powell, calls us to do: Always look for the middle ground while we look at where we want to go.

There is a cyber war, and I want everybody to know about it. Cyber attacks are happening right now. Cyber terrorists are thinking every single day about attacking our critical infrastructure. There are nation states that want to humiliate and intimidate the United States of America and cause catastrophic economic destruction. How do they want to do it? They want to take over our power grids. They want to disrupt our air traffic control. They want to disrupt the financial functioning of the United States of America. Cyber spies are working at breakneck speed to steal many of our state secrets. Cyber criminals are hacking our networks. So what are we talking about in this bill? We are talking about critical infrastructure.

Now, I am a Senator from Maryland, and the Presiding Officer is a Senator from Virginia. Does he remember that freaky storm a couple weeks ago? Remember Pepco? Oh, boy. I still have my ears ringing from my constituents calling about Pepco. I can tell you what it was like in Baltimore when that freaky storm hit. You couldn't get around when the stoplights were down. It was like the Wild West getting around. You could go into stores--if they were open--and nothing functioned. The lights weren't on. The refrigeration was off. Businesses were losing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars. There were families, like a mother with an infant child and another child, with no electricity for 5 days who went to hotel rooms.

Now, they want to talk about this bill costing too much money? Just look at what it cost the national capital region of the United States of America because of a freaky storm.

It took us 5 days to get the utilities back on because of the utility company, but what happens if our destiny is outside of our control, if cyber terrorists have turned off the lights in America and we can't get them turned back on? It is going to cost too much? Wait until this kind of thing happens. I don't want it to happen, and we can prevent it from happening, and we can do it in a way that understands the needs of business.

I want to understand the needs of small business, but I sure understand the needs of families.

For those who say it is going to cost too much and they have the concerns of the chamber of commerce, fine. I don't want to trash-talk them. My father owned a little neighborhood grocery store. I know what it is like when the electricity goes down. My father lost thousands of dollars because the frozen food melted, lost thousands of dollars when we had a freaky storm because of the refrigeration and his meats and produce went bad. My father lost thousands of dollars years ago in a freaky storm.

This bill means that if we come up with the kind of legislation that we want, we can deal with it. Just remember what critical infrastructure means. It means the financial services. It means the grid. So when there is no power, schools are shut down, businesses are shut down, public transit is crippled, no traffic lights are working. By the way, in Virginia didn't 9-1-1 stop working, and they are still investigating? Don't we love to investigate? Well, right now I don't want to investigate and I don't want to castigate, but I sure want the Senate to be able to get going.

Then there is the issue of financial services. The FBI is currently investigating 400 reported cases of corporate account attacks where cyber criminals have made unauthorized transfers from bank accounts of U.S. businesses. The FBI tells me they are looking at the attempt to steal $255 million and an actual loss of $85 million. Hackers are already going into the New York Stock Exchange, they are already going into NASDAQ in an attempt to shut down or steal information. Gosh, if we allow this to continue, they could attack and cost us billions of dollars.

Does the Presiding Officer remember that in 2010 we had a flash crash? New vocabulary, new things out there. The Dow plunged 1,000 points in a matter of minutes because automatic computer traders shut down. This was the result of turbulent trading. But just imagine if terrorists or nation states that really don't like us--and I am really not going to name them, but we really know who they are--really create flash crashes?

I know there are patriots in this Senate who have been the defenders of the Nation in other wars. They have said themselves that they worry about the Asia Pacific, they worry about China. I worry about China too. So while we are looking at the Defense authorization and appropriations--and people want more aircraft carriers to defend us in the blue waters against China. But what happens if there is a cyber attack? Now, we do know how to protect dot-mil, but don't we also want to protect dot-com in the same way? I think so.

I salute Senators Lieberman and Collins. They have come forth with a bill that does two things from a national security perspective. First of all, it tells business: You can come in voluntarily. There is no mandate to participate. But if you do come in, you will get liability protection.

Wow. In other words, we are actually going to offer incentives. We are actually going to offer good-guy bonuses. We are not going to do it through tax breaks or more things that add to the deficit or debt. We are going to say: Come on in. Participate in both the setting of standards--we want you at the table--and then living by the standards, and for that, you will get liability protection.

There are also those who say: We just don't like Department of Homeland Security being in charge. We worry about a cyber Katrina.

I worried about that too, but I must say that in all of our meetings, we can see that the Department of Homeland Security has made tremendous advances. I have been one of their sharpest critics in this area, and I have been skeptical from the beginning. But now, as we have moved along and listening to Secretary Napolitano and General Alexander, the head of the National Security Agency, on how they can work together honoring the Constitution and civil liberties, I think we have a good bill.

Why do we need this bill? General Alexander, who heads up the National Security Agency and the Cyber Command, says that we are facing attacks and the potential of attacks that are mind-boggling. He talks about the stealing of trade secrets that amounts to the greatest transfer of wealth the country has ever seen. He worries about the security of the grid. He worries about financial services, while he also worries very much about the dot-com.

But we live in the United States of America. We have a constitutional government. Our military, no matter how powerful and how strong, has a responsibility to certain areas, but we need a civilian agency in charge of how to protect dot-com, a civilian agency benefiting from the incredible turbo intellectual and technical power of the National Security Agency.

So we have a bill that offers the framework. I would say, let's have the bill, let's vote for cloture, and let's have regular order with actual germane amendments. We have patriots here, but who are we for? Are we for protecting America or are we for coming up with the same old platitudes that resist any activity of government at all to protect the American people?

I am no Janie-come-lately to this bill. I represent one of the greatest States in America. We are home to the National Security Agency. I have the high honor of being on the Intelligence Committee. I have been working on this topic for almost a decade, and I have watched the threat grow as I watched the technology against us grow in power and the number of people who could attack us in this area.

I sit on the Appropriation Committee, where, as a member of the DOD appropriations, I have been proud to work with both the authorizers and Senator Inouye to stand up for Cyber Command, the Tenth Fleet, which is the cyber fleet, and others relating to it. But also what I have been proud of is being able to take a look at what we do need to do here in terms of everything from workforce to protecting others.

My subcommittee funds the FBI. Working with Director Mueller, I have been able to see up close and personal the growing threats right here in the United States of America, whether cyber criminals can literally invade large banking. I could give example after example. Working also with other departments, we can see that there are cyber-attacks. We need to be able to do this.

I could give other examples and I will do so in the debate, but let me summarize. The attacks are now. The question is, are we going to build a cyber bomb shelter? This is not like the bunkers of old. This is where we work with the private sector. Remember, our grid and our telecommunications are owned and operated by the private sector. We cannot do this without the private sector. We, your government, come together with a legislative framework that is constitutionally sound and legally reliable. The fact is that we will make the best and highest use of our military under that rubric. But at the end of the day we will be able to have a voluntary framework bringing the private sector together with incentives around liability that invite them to participate in the formulation of the regulation, the implementation of the regulation, and living by it. This is not regulation that leads to strangulation, this is regulation that helps them be able to protect the United States of America.

Let me conclude. Everybody says: Gee, what could I do? Could I have protected against an attack on the United States of America? What is the name of that little-known group you didn't know how to spell years ago? Al-Qaida? Would we have done everything in the world to protect against the al-Qaida attack? I certainly would. I say today, if you want to protect against the next big attacks on the United States of America, vote for cloture. Let's have an informed debate. Let's find at the end of the day the sensible center that will give us a constitutional but effective way of defending America.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of quorum.

Good afternoon, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of a dear friend, someone whom I admire, and someone whom the whole world cheered on, Dr. Sally Ride.

Dr. Ride was the first American woman in space. When she went out there, she blazed a trail out into the stars for women in science and women in technology, inspiring not only American girls but girls around the world.

Last night, we got the very sad news that Dr. Ride passed away after a brave fight against pancreatic cancer.

I wanted to come to the floor to speak about her. We all know the biography. Dr. Ride became an astronaut after answering an ad in her college newspaper. She had earned a Ph.D. in physics from Stanford. She also earned a graduate degree in Shakespeare. She joined the first group of women in the astronaut corps and trained to be a mission specialist.

I knew Sally Ride both professionally and personally. I have had the great honor in my years in the Senate to be on the committee that funds the American space program. I have important space assets in my own State of Maryland: the great Goddard Space Flight Center and Wallops Island, from where we hope to do some new launches later this summer.

But for me, my journey into space, my love for space began not only when John Glenn went into space, and when we walked on the Moon, but I will never forget that day Sally Ride, in 1983, boarded that shuttle, strapped herself in, put on her helmet, the rockets roared, and out she went. The whole world had signs, cheers saying: Go Sally. Go Sally. Wow, I will never forget it.

I was in the House of Representatives. I was down there. We were waiting. We were excited. There was nothing like it. Mr. President, if you have not seen a shuttle launch, it is the most amazing thing. The ground shakes. You feel it. You feel it in your body. You feel it in your heart. Then, as that rocket took off, we cheered her on. It was an enormously patriotic moment. Once again, our shuttle flew high into the sky. It was the Challenger, and later on it would have its own rendezvous with destiny.

I was so proud of Dr. Ride. But I was proud of my country. I was proud of its vision, of its innovation, and I was proud of the fact that we live in a country where women can follow their dreams, to take the talents God has given them and be able to pursue them.

When I saw Dr. Ride go into space, another barrier was broken for women. Even though Sally was the first, she did not want to be the only. When she launched into space, yes, she broke a barrier; yes, she took with her the hopes and dreams of many girls, but she wanted more to come. She had a characteristic of many of us who are the first. She said though she was the first American woman, she did not want to be the only American woman. She devoted her career to encouraging young women to go into science and to also come into the space program. Now more than 50 women have gone into space, and it has been an astounding--an astounding--accomplishment.

Dr. Ride and I talked about what it is like to be the first. When I was elected to the Senate, I became the first Democratic woman elected to the Senate in her own right. Among the first 10 phone calls I got was from Sally Ride, congratulating me. She said: Hey, you broke a barrier and you are going to go into new space. It is called Senate space. After we joked and laughed, and so on, we said: Gee, we ``firstees'' ought to have a club that should meet on the first Monday of the first month, the first of the year. We had Sandra Day O'Connor. There was Sally Ride. President George Bush was to go on to appoint Bernadine Healy as the first woman to head NIH.

As we talked about it, she said: We who are the first cannot be the only. Another characteristic of ``we the first'' was where she said-- and we would agree--that you do not get to be a ``me'' without a whole lot of ``we.'' She was a firm believer in public schools, public education, public libraries--those opportunities that enable you to go to school, that enable you to go get a Ph.D. at Stanford, that enable you to get out there and compete, to be an astronaut, that when we think about ourselves, we think about our families, we think about our teachers, we think about our coaches.

We are so indebted to them, and she was too. She was so indebted that that is the way she wanted to devote her life. Sally Ride knew she was famous, but she had no desire to get rich. She did not capitalize on her big name, her big iconic international brand. She wanted to use her name, her reputation, the Sally Ride brand, to be inspirational and motivational. She did not seek profit. She sought to inspire others.

After retiring from NASA, she dedicated her entire life to encouraging young women to study science, math, and technology, to love that which she loved and wanted to do. She continued to do that all the way up to the last months of her life.

I recall in 2008 I invited her to Baltimore to celebrate the 25th anniversary of her going into space. We had this great afternoon. After a wonderful lunch of crab cakes and talking things over, we went to the Maryland Science Center. There were these girls there, Girl Scouts working on badges about science and technology. There was this great globe that showed planet Earth, and she talked about what it is like to study the planet. She talked about what it is like to go into space. What she said was, when you are busy looking out there in space, and you look back, you see this great planet, and you want to do all you can to help it and save it.

Those young girls were mesmerized. Well, wow, that was 4 years ago. Many of them have now finished their Girl Scout badges, many have finished middle school and are in high school. But, hopefully, they are not finished their great interest in science.

That is what her work was.

She also had a great impact on the space program itself.

When Al Gore was here as a Senator, he was on the authorizing committee, and I, of course, was an appropriator. She worked with NASA and us on a new strategic vision for NASA. Then, what did she say about what we should study? Planets, galaxies, asteroids, you name it; rings around Saturn, yes. But you know what else she said? She said: Let's study this planet where we suspect there is intelligent life. She had a great sense of humor. Al Gore and I leaned forward in our chairs and said: What would that be? What did Sally know that had been dreamt about for ages--intelligent life? She said: Yes, it is called planet Earth. Let's see if we can find it.

Dr. Ride, after we had our laughs that day, suggested that we study our own planet as if it were a distant star so that we would get to know it, we would know its climate, we would know its weather, and also we would take the time to know its people, and that we would do it to save the planet and save the people who are on the planet.

I regret that our own science is not yet advanced to have saved Dr. Ride. She died of pancreatic cancer. I know the gifted and talented people at NIH and those who benefit from the funding of NIH are working all over this great country to find cures for that dread ``C'' word. Pancreatic cancer is deadly and it is fast and it is painful. She died steadfast and true to herself and true to her mission.

I think the entire world owes a debt of gratitude to her. The way we can honor her memory is to encourage students to search for the stars, but let's search here for the problems that hurt our own people. Let's find a cure for pancreatic cancer. And let's continue to be a great country that innovates and also educates and believes in educating its women and girls in the same way.

God bless Sally Ride. And God bless America, the kind of country that made Dr. Ride's life possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the nation is mourning the senseless loss of 12 people in Aurora CO, and the wounding of 58 people.

Today, we mark the sad anniversary of another tragedy that took place in the Capitol on July 27, 1998.

We remember Officer Jacob J.J. Chestnut, from Ft. Washington in my home State of Maryland and Special Agent John Gibson, of Woodbridge, VA, who gave their lives to protect the U.S. Capitol, all the people who work at and visit the Capitol, and to protect this building that is the symbol of freedom and democracy the world over.

Today, we honor the lives and heroism of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. We also commend all the Capitol Hill police officers who put their lives on the line to protect democracy.

These two fine men were part of one of the most unique police forces in the country. They are excellent Federal law-enforcement officials who protect Members of Congress from crooks, terrorists, or anyone else who would want to harm us, and they also protect all the people in the building, whether it is a foreign dignitary or a Girl Scout troop from Iowa.

Second, they are also ``Officer Friendly''--welcoming people and answering questions; and many have taken special language training to help visitors from around the world.

Third, many are also trained for other possible emergencies: to provide basic paramedic help in the case of an ill tourist, or to provide basic fire-fighting and help evacuate buildings in the case of fires.

These police are like our own ``Cops on the Beat.''

Finally, so many of the Capitol Hill Police Officers are my Maryland constituents, just like J.J. Chestnut.

Officer Chestnut was always one of the stars: trained as an MP in the military, he was with the Capitol Police for 18 years and was known for having a unique touch with tourists and constituents. We were very proud of him, and he was even nominated at one time for Capitol Police Officer of the Year.

And I know how proud we were of Detective Gibson as well: he was from just across the river in Virginia. He was a true hero--stopping the gunman from entering the building.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues in the Senate in marking this sad anniversary and in paying respect to the families of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. They were heroes that sad day in 1998, and they are heroes for today and all eternity.

I thank the Senator from Rhode Island, a former member of the Intelligence Committee and an activist in this area.

Madam President and colleagues, I am happy to be on the floor with a bipartisan group of people who are really worried about our country, and we are worried about its survivability in the event of a cyber attack.

Cyber attacks are not the work of science fiction, though they were once written about. That which was once science fiction is now a hard reality that could cripple our country and bring it to the ground. We have to come up with the legislative framework to be able to protect dot.com and also be able to protect critical infrastructure. I am talking about something that could create catastrophic economic damage, severe degradation.

Why am I obsessed about it? Let's take the grid. There are those who say America runs on oil. Barbara Mikulski says it runs on electricity. You cannot have a community without electricity. Look at what happened to us in this north capital region when, 2 weeks ago, we had this freaky storm. We nearly came to our knees. Metro couldn't function, stoplights were out, and communication went down. People didn't have access to many communications. Their homes were without electricity, food went bad, and tempers rose. We could not function as a community.

The good news is that no matter how late the utilities were in coming in to respond, they could turn the lights back on, they could turn the electricity back on. But I will tell you, in a cyber attack, that international predator will fix it so that we won't be able to turn it back on or not turn it on for hours, days, or weeks. Do you know what that means? They want to humiliate us, they want to intimidate us, and they want to terrorize us.

We have it within our hands to pass legislation that would bring the appropriate sources together for our privately owned critical infrastructure to be able to make the significant efforts, and I believe we need to incentivize them to be able to protect us. I don't want to wake up one day and find out America has been hit because of gridlock here. And I will tell you, if we are hit, we will overreact, we will overspend, we will overregulate, and we will go over the top.

I want to listen to my other colleagues, but we have to get off of our pet peeves here and move America to a safe result.

I thank Senator Whitehouse for what he said and the fact we really had a great study group, both sides of the aisle eager for information, eager to come up with the best policies.

Much has been said about the private sector. I talk to the private sector a lot because of our work on the committees, and the private sector is looking for leadership. They are looking for a framework. They worry that overregulation could be both costly and strangulating; would we be so prescriptive that we mandate--first of all, that we mandate, and that we essentially mandate dated technology because this is a fast-moving, evolving field. They are looking for us to give a legislative framework where they could work with their government on what they want to bring to the table and feel free, because of certain proprietary concerns, to do it.

I talked to people who have responsibility for delivering power in Maryland. They are working. Edison Institute, which represents essentially the electric companies and the grid, would like us to have a framework. They want to be at the table. They want to know who is in charge, who do you call, what do you do in the event of an attack.

When you say to them how can we prevent the attack, they say that is where we need government, to tell us where you think we are heading, to bring the great Federal labs to bear with their ideas and how do you do this in a way that encourages not whatever government is going to do but voluntary efforts, but voluntary efforts with some teeth, some standards to be met--standards that are not prescriptive, that could be dated, but again the ever evolving of the state of science.

I think we have the elements. Where the problem is, is not do we know what to do, but the problem is are we going to do it and can we put aside where we make the perfect the enemy of the good. Colin Powell had a great phrase: ``America always needs to seek the sensible center.'' That is what I am talking about here. I want to protect civil liberties. I certainly do want to protect civil liberties. But you know the first civil liberty is that you can turn your lights on, and when you go to bed you know your refrigerator is going to be working; the stoplights are going to be working when you wake up the next day; or if your child is at school or at camp, you are going to be able to get to that child, and that 911 is going to be working if you call 911. That is civil liberty. It means you can function in a free and democratic society but that you are not terrified that you are literally in the dark, you are literally in the cold, you have no power politically, you have no power with electricity. It is all because we failed that.

I think we can do that. I think Senators Lieberman and Collins have given us a great only starting point. I think to use the language of our future Super Bowl champions, the Ravens, which will happen, we are beyond the 50-yard line. We can do this.

I hope in the spirit we came here today, we need a sense of urgency, we need a bipartisan effort, and we need the will to serve America and put that interest first.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bring Jobs Home Act.

Growing up in a blue-collar neighborhood in Baltimore during World War II, my father had a small neighborhood grocery store.

We were the neighborhood of mom-and-pop businesses and factories. We made liberty ships. We put out turbo steel to make the tanks. Glenn L. Martin made the seaplanes that helped win the battle of the Pacific. We were in the manufacturing business. But the blue-collar Baltimore of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam just isn't what it used to be.

The jobs are leaving now. Our shipyard jobs have left. Our steel mills have shrunk to miniscule levels. We don't make ships. And we don't make clothing.

Where did those jobs go?

Those jobs are on a slow boat to China. They are on a fast track to Mexico and other jobs are in dial 1-800 anywhere.

And why did they go?

In some cases, they went because of tax breaks that rewarded corporations for moving manufacturing overseas.

It is wrong to give companies incentives to send millions of jobs to other countries, especially when millions of Americans are looking for work. It is wrong to put companies that stay in America at a competitive disadvantage.

It is time we look at our Tax Code and call for a patriotic tax code.

We walk around the floor of the Senate. We go to rallies. We love to be in parades. We wear our flags because we want to stand up for our troops, and we should stand up for our troops. But we also have to stand up for America.

The current Tax Code is putting companies that stay in America at a disadvantage because they keep their business here, hire their workers at home, pay their share of taxes, and provide health care to their employees. We should be rewarding these companies with ``good guy'' tax breaks for hiring and building their businesses right here in the United States.

I have been on a jobs tour of Maryland. I visited bakeries, microbreweries, and factories of small machine tool companies. I visited Main Street, small streets, and rural communities.

I talked with business owners and their employees. These are ``good guy'' businesses. They work hard and play by the rules. They have jobs right here in the United States. They want to expand. They want to hire. They need a government on their side and at their side. They are harmed by thoughtless government tax incentives that reward competitors who move overseas.

That is why I am a proud cosponsor of the Bring Jobs Home Act. This bill ends the loophole that gives companies a tax break for sending jobs overseas.

There is a loophole in the Federal Tax Code that lets businesses deduct the ``business expense'' for costs of moving the company or its workers right out of the country.

This legislation tells these companies. If you want to export jobs out of America, you can't file a deduction for doing it. And it ensures the Tax Code can't be used to boost corporate rewards at the expense of American workers.

This bill is about helping those ``good guy'' businesses who are creating jobs here. It says: If you bring jobs back to the United States, you can get a tax break for 20 percent of the cost of bringing the jobs home.

That is why I am proud to stand with my colleague from Michigan to call on us to think about economic patriotism, a tax code that rewards American companies that bring jobs back home, and a tax code that ends despicable tax breaks and subsidies to companies that move jobs overseas.

I call upon my colleagues to think about where America is going in the 21st century. Where are we going to be? Are we going to create more opportunity? Are we going to create more jobs that pay good wages with good benefits or are we going to resemble the economy of a third-world country?

I really want to have a tax code that brings our jobs back home, brings our money back home, and stands up for America. So let's pass the Bring Jobs Home Act and take an important step toward economic patriotism.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the DISCLOSE Act. I rise in very strong support of this bill. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse, for his leadership on this bill. He brings such great background, with his legal training, as attorney general and U.S. attorney, well versed on issues of the Constitution and also his very strong commitment that elections should be free and fair and not rigged by big special interests.

Today, we have a vote to protect the voice of ordinary Americans who now more than ever need to be able to trust their political system. But you know what. We have a big problem and it is something called a super PAC. Nobody knows what that means, but I am going to spell it out in plain English.

First of all, a super PAC means we can have unlimited secret money being pumped into our elections. That is not the American way. That is why we are calling our bill the DISCLOSE Act. It is balanced, it is common sense, and it protects the rights of the individual, looking out for the little guy or gal, and also protects the integrity of our political system.

I am a reformer, and I absolutely believe in the Constitution of the United States and that wonderful first amendment. In our country, we can speak our mind and we can organize. I stand before you today because of the first amendment. I fought a highway that would have ripped through Baltimore. I challenged political machines and political bosses. I challenged powerful special interests that were going to make money. But because of the Constitution I had the right to speak my mind, the right to organize--and I did.

In other countries, they take people like me and throw them in jail. With me, because of the first amendment, I

could run in an election, do a sweat-equity campaign door to door, and come to the city council, the Congress, and the Senate. I love that first amendment.

Right now, under the guise of free speech, there are those who say we cannot in any way impede big-buck donors or big special interests from giving what they want and not even saying who they are. I think when Tom Jefferson and John Adams and Charles Carroll sat around Philadelphia writing the Constitution, they did not think the first amendment was about protecting the right of secret donors to rig elections. I do not believe that unfettered influence of super donors and big business with no limits or requirements for disclosure was what the Founders wanted when they wrote that Bill of Rights.

When the Supreme Court decided a case called Citizens United, it opened the floodgates to unlimited secret money. We knew there would be risk and it took no time for it to take root. In the 2010 midterm elections, we saw a fourfold increase in this type of so-called super PAC spending. Three-quarters of that spending came from groups that were previously prohibited. The worst of it, it is all being kept from the American people--who are these organizations and what do they stand for.

At a time when the American public needs a government on their side, they need to know who is working behind the scenes to get people elected. The DISCLOSE Act is simple. It requires a covered organization to file disclosure with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours after they spend $10,000 or more on a campaign. What is a covered organization? Corporations, labor unions, PACs, and super PACs. This is not a new concept in Congress. We have regulations. If you are a candidate like candidate Mikulski, you face limits on donors. During a campaign, I have to say who is giving me money, I have to disclose who is giving me money, and the donor has limits. Whether it comes from a political action committee such as the National Association of Social Workers, which has always supported me, whether it is the American Nurses Association, which has always supported me, they disclose it. So we know it is the nurses; we know it is the social workers.

Also, there are donors whose names appear. Why can that not be true for all campaigns? What is wrong about saying who you are when you are giving more than $10,000 a year? The American public has a right to know. They have a right to be heard, and they need to be represented.

I am a Shirley Chisholm Democrat. She said she wanted a government that was unbought and unbossed. Put me in that Shirley Chisholm Democratic column. Our Democratic process is currently clouded by a cloak of secrecy. The integrity of our political system is important to me. We are not sent to do the business of secrecy or high-dollar bidding on our seat. We are sent to do the work of the people and make their lives better. We owe it to the public to shed light on who gives us money--who they are, how much they give, and what is it that they do. Let's vote in favor of democracy. Let's support the DISCLOSE Act and let's have a Congress that is unbought and unbossed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to honor Senator Collins, a colleague and dear friend, on her landmark 5,000th consecutive vote.

Since becoming a Senator in 1997, Senator Collins has never missed a single vote. This is a sign of her commitment to the people of Maine and the entire country. The commitment began in her home. Her parents taught her what it meant to work hard and serve the people, both in the family-owned lumber business and both as mayors of her hometown of Caribou, ME. She has carried on their legacy and deep commitment to public service.

I stand here in recognition of Senator Collins because her 5,000 votes have stood not only for the people of Maine, but for our great Nation. She has stood for science, innovation and research, women's equality and veterans. Her voice and her votes have shaped and will continue to shape our Nation.

Let me tell you a little bit about what her votes have accomplished. Senator Collins is a fighter for funding for science, innovation and research. Together we cosponsored the Spending Reductions through Innovations in Therapies (SPRINT) Act which would spur improvement in research and drug development for chronic health conditions such as Alzheimer's.

When I reach across the aisle, I know Senator Collins is there to find a sensible center that will be good for America.

Her leadership has extended beyond her bipartisan efforts. She continues to serve as a role model for young women nationwide. As a fellow Girl Scout, we both learned that determination, principles and respect for others are the foundation for a productive future. We designated 2012 the ``Year of the Girl,'' in support of Girl Scouts and the organization's lasting lessons.

Today we celebrate Senator Collins' record of integrity, unsurpassed work ethic, and a steadfast commitment to the people of Maine. Her voting record is exemplary of the fact that we are continuing to crack the marble ceiling. Not only are women getting elected to the Senate, we are raising hell, holding powerful leadership positions and taking on America's biggest issues.

She is a valued Member, colleague and dear friend. Congratulations Senator Collins on your 5,000th vote and your extraordinary commitment to the people of Maine and our great Nation.

Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to celebrate 125 Years of United Way, the world's largest privately supported non-profit with 1,800 communities based throughout 41 countries and territories.

In 1887, a group of Denver community leaders recognized the need for cooperative action to address their city's problems. They created an organization to collect funds for local charities, and to coordinate relief services, counsel, and make emergency assistance grants. This community establishment sparked a national movement that ultimately became the world's leading community impact organizations.

Over the last 125 years, United Way has worked collaboratively with communities in the U.S. and around the globe, enabling individuals to achieve their maximum human potential through education and financial stability.

In my home State, the United Way of Central Maryland has had a significant impact on the lives of my constituents. Each year, over 33,000 Marylanders receive nutritious meals, and 7,000 are provided with housing. Nearly 200 Maryland youths received scholarships this year, and 600 were provided with school readiness services. The resources provided by United Way of Central Maryland have assisted each and every kind of problem my constituents face--from helping a single father of two children get employment, to providing the necessary treatment and funding for a local woman with advanced heart disease.

United Way is known for its successful partnerships. One example includes the collaboration between United Way and the Alliance of Information and Referral Systems resulted in the successful petitioning of the Federal Communications Commission to designate the telephone number ``211'' for health and human services information and referral. Partnerships with corporations such as MTV and CNN, along with 120 United Ways Global Corporate Leadership Companies, and the establishment of the United Way Financial Stability Partnership, have allowed United Way to be an extraordinary contributor to thousands of communities in this country and abroad.

Since its inception, United Way has led disaster response in crises around the globe. In response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the United Way of New York City and the New York Community Trust established the September 11th Fund to mobilize financial resources for the needs of the individuals impacted by the tragedies. It raised an astounding $425 million. Three years later, in response to the tsunami that stuck Southeast Asia, The United Way Coordinated Crisis Response Team worked with United Way communities around the world to respond to the nations impacted by the disaster.

The invaluable impact of the United Way and its associates is without question. On behalf of myself, and speaking for the countless individuals and communities that have regained their strengths and lived better lives due to this organization, I would like to congratulate United Way on 125 years of extraordinary global service.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the transportation conference report. This legislation will establish for the first time Federal safety standards for metro systems.

My promises made are promises kept. After the deadly DC Metro crash on June 22, 2009, I promised two things to the workers at Metro and my constituents who ride Metro. One, I would deliver the $150 million in dedicated funding for Metro's capital improvements in the annual Transportation appropriations bill. I have done this every year. Two: pass legislation giving the U.S. Department of Transportation authority to establish safety standards for metro systems across the country. Today, this legislation delivers on that promise.

We always say a grateful nation will never forget. Then we pound our chests, hold hearings, and nothing is ever done. Well, not this time and not this Senator. Immediately following the Metro crash, I was the first to introduce a bill, the National Metro Safety Act of 2009, to establish Federal standards. My bill required the U.S. Department of Transportation to work with the National Transportation Safety Board to implement their most wanted safety recommendations: crashworthiness standards, emergency entry and evacuation design standards, and data event recorders for rail cars; and hours-of-service regulations for train operators.

Now, 3 years later, Congress has finally acted. This highway bill includes similar language to my transit safety bill. It requires the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation to create and implement safety standards and a safety training program. The Secretary must also take into consideration the recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board when establishing the safety performance standards for railcars.

This bill before us today also requires transit authorities to complete comprehensive safety plans and States to have a safety oversight program approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The Secretary must certify that these oversight programs are meeting the new Federal safety standards each year. If a State oversight agency is not doing its job, the Secretary can withhold Federal funding or require that 100 percent of funding be used to fix the metro system's problems.

In addition, the U.S. Department of Transportation has the power to conduct inspections, investigations, and audits of transit system railcars, facilities, and operations. It can also investigate accidents and provide corrective guidance. The Secretary has the authority to issue a subpoena when investigating an accident as well as require additional reporting and recordkeeping.

Every weekday more than 7 million people board railcars. Now they can breathe a bit easier knowing their metro will soon have Federal safety standards just like commercial buses, airplanes, and commuter rail systems. I want to thank Senators Tim Johnson and Bob Menendez for working with me on this important safety issue.

Madam President, I rise to speak on the Affordable Care Act. Today I am so relieved that the Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act as constitutional. With this ruling, our Nation's highest Court has made it clear that no matter who you are--a man or a woman, a senior facing cancer, a child with juvenile diabetes--you will have health care that is available, reliable, and undeniable.

Health care reform has achieved many goals that the American people wanted us to do: One, expanding universal access. Now 32 million people will have health care they did not have before. Second, it breaks the stranglehold of insurance companies, ending their punitive practices, particularly in those areas of preexisting conditions where they denied health care because a child might have autism or asthma or for women where they had a particular approach where they charged us more than for men of comparable health status--30 percent more. Then they treated simply being a woman as a preexisting condition, or a pregnancy, sometimes the need for a C section. In some States being a victim of domestic violence was considered a preexisting condition. We ended that practice.

We also saved and strengthened Medicare, and we emphasized prevention, early detection, and screening. That will save lives, improve lives, and also save money.

I am proud of what we did in Congress with the universal coverage. For the first time in our history we are committed to covering every single American with health care. It helps young families to be able to look out for their children. It helps young adults recently graduated from college, some looking for a job, some working in startups where there is no health insurance.

Because of health care reform, 52,000 young adults in Maryland will have coverage on their parents' policies while they go back to school, look for a job, or get that entrepreneurial spirit going.

Then there are these punitive practices of the insurance companies. Much has been said about how we interfere with people's right to see the doctor of their choice or get health care.

That is what insurance companies have been doing for years. People in pinstripes sitting in boardrooms made decisions on who could get health care and who couldn't. We stopped them from denying families health insurance. We stopped insurance companies from denying children's coverage. Congress ended, as I said, discrimination against women.

I remember when they tried to take our mammograms away, and I said no and organized the preventive health care amendment. We women fought to have access to mammograms and other things related to our particular life needs. The fact is we wanted it for the men too. We organized for the prevention amendment so we could limit the need of copays for this, so we women could have access to mammograms, so men could have access to screening for prostate cancer, so all Americans could get that screening for the dread ``C'' word, such as colon cancer, and how about diabetes and heart disease. These are the kinds of things that, if we can have early detection and early screening, will save lives, stop the spread of the disease or keep it from getting worse.

Diabetes, undetected, uncontrolled, and unmanaged, can result in the loss of an eye, a kidney or a leg, all because one has lost their health insurance. Because of what we have done in the Affordable Care Act, not only will people have health care, but they will have the preventive services where, early on, they will be able to examine exactly where they are and have access to a diabetic educator and have the monitoring and coaching they need and, hopefully, the diabetes comes under control and the health care costs come under control. That is what we did in this bill, and I am very proud of it.

I travel my State a lot. As I went from diner to diner out there in the communities, where I could talk to the people unfettered, unchoreographed, they said to me: Barb, I not only worry about losing my job, but I worry about losing my health insurance. I don't know what will happen to my family. I fear that I am one health care catastrophe away from family bankruptcy. I want to make sure my family is taken care of.

I talk to small businesses. How can they afford that? They need predictability and understanding and they need access to something called the health care exchange, where it will be akin to an economic mall, where they will be able to go to the health exchange and see the whole lineup of private health insurance companies and the benefits they offer. Small businesses will be able to navigate that and see what they need and what they can afford for the benefit of their workers.

This is the American way. This does use market techniques, but at the same time we don't use the free market to endanger the people in terms of universal access and some of these others.

There are many things in this bill. One of the other things I like so much was that we insist that 80 percent of the premium we pay goes into health care, not into the executives' pockets for perks, privileges or profits.

I believe in the free enterprise system, and I believe in profit, but I don't believe in profiteering. So we said 20 percent goes into administrative costs, and if they can control those, they will make a bigger profit. But 80 percent has to actually go to rewarding providers for the health care they do, for their education and training. I think it is terrific.

Part of the bill has already kicked in. My constituents in Maryland will see over $5 million returned to them because we insisted on this provision. We are for providers getting what they need in terms of reimbursement but at the same time looking at and making sure it goes into the health care they need.

Today we have had the ruling of the Supreme Court. I was out there on the steps of the Supreme Court, and I loved every minute of it. As you know, I got into politics as a neighborhood protester. I fought a highway and the downtown establishment and I fought the political bosses. When I talk to young people around the world--particularly those with aspirations in autocratic or dictatorial environments--I tell them that in America when you are a protester, they don't put you in jail, they send you to the Senate. I am here because of the first amendment of the Constitution--free speech, freedom of assembly.

When I was out there on the steps today and heard the roar of the crowd, whether it was the tea party who had access to a microphone or whether it was me who had access to a microphone, I knew the Founders' vision of America had worked. They believed in limited government. They believed in checks and balances. No President should have unlimited power. No Congress should have unbridled power, and the Supreme Court would be an independent judiciary to act as referee.

President Obama proposed a bill. We duked it out in the Congress and we passed it and sent it out into the land. There have been legal challenges. It went to the Supreme Court, and the Court looked at the bill not for utility or even desirability, they looked at it for constitutionality. Today, they ruled that the bill was constitutional.

I am sure somewhere there is Tom Jefferson, John Adams, and his wife Abigail, who said they lived the Constitution, and in that health care bill, by the way, John, they didn't forget the ladies.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about antibiotic resistance, a public health threat to Americans across the country. I have heard first hand from hospitals, health care providers, public health officials, scientists, and life sciences companies in Maryland that we need new antibiotics in our arsenal. Bacteria, like viruses, are crafty and constantly evolving to thwart existing treatments. Everyday, Americans are infected by multi-drug resistant microbes.

In most instances, antibiotics, much like vaccines, are not meant to be used everyday to treat a condition for months, years, or a lifetime. You use antibiotics sparingly, so you do not build up resistance. Yet, drug development for these infectious pathogens can take just as long as developing any other drug whether it is for HIV, heart disease, or cancer. Because antibiotics are used for a short period of time, they are not really profitable to the companies investing the time and money to develop the product. There are not many small start-up companies or big pharma companies that want to take the risk. Research and development costs hundreds of millions of dollars, so these companies are reluctant to invest in a safe and effective drug that doctors are told to use sparingly. Bottom line, developing a next generation Viagra pill is far more profitable for shareholders.

So, House and Senate Republicans and Democrats came together and worked on a bipartisan bicameral solution to incent development of drugs to treat serious or life-threatening bacterial infections. We need to get more antibiotics in the drug development pipeline. We are running out of antibiotics to treat MRSA, tuberculosis, acute pelvic infections, complicated urinary tract infections, or complicated intra- abdominal infections. There are many anaerobic gram negative and anaerobic gram positive bacteria that are fatal, cause lifelong injuries, increase the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, or affect the reproductive and gastrointestinal tracts.

Title VIII of our bill, provides incentives for the development of antibiotics to treat serious or life-threatening infections, including infections where tolerance and resistance to existing antibiotics make them ineffective. We need to clear up infections that can cause poor outcomes for patients or negatively impact the public's health.

This bill will increase exclusivity for manufacturers that invest the time as well as the research and development dollars to bring new antibiotics to the market that knock out infections that cause pre-term labor or target bacterial infections in patients with unmet needs.