Floor Statements

Mr. President, last June, Senator Hatch and I introduced S. 3538, the National Cyber Infrastructure Protection Act. This bill responds to the concern expressed by former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell that ``[i]f we were in a cyber war today, the United States would lose.''

The bill is built on three principles. First, we must be clear about where Congress should, and, more importantly, should not legislate. Second, there must be one person in charge--someone outside the Executive Office of the President who is unlikely to claim executive privilege, but who has real authority to coordinate our government cyber security efforts. Third, we need a voluntary public-private partnership to facilitate sharing cyber threat information, research, and technical support.

Since filing the bill, we have continued to work with government, industry, and privacy experts in making sure that the solutions identified in this bill are effective. There are many different opinions out there on how best to tackle the cyber security problems we face, and so we remain open to looking at ideas for improving the bill. Earlier today, we filed a substitute amendment to S. 3538 that incorporates a number of these suggested improvements. It has been referred to committee.

The original bill would have housed the National Cyber Center administratively in the Department of Defense so as to reduce start-up costs and logistics. We appreciate the concerns some may have with the appearance we are militarizing cyber security, so our substitute creates the center as a stand-alone entity, like the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. In this way, it will be clear we are not militarizing cyber security and one department does not have the inside track over any other when it comes to securing our government networks. In order to make sure there is appropriate input from DOD and DHS, we are also creating two deputy directors, instead of one, with each appointed by the respective Secretaries with the concurrence of the Director of the National Cyber Center.

Second, the Cyber Defense Alliance is a pivotal component for encouraging government and the private sector to collaborate and share information on cyber-related matters. We recognize that the private sector is often on the front lines of cyber attacks, so any information they can provide to increase government awareness of the source and nature of cyber threats will make both government and the private sector stronger. The corollary to this is that the government must share its own cyber threat information, including classified or declassified intelligence, with the private sector.

All of this sharing can raise significant privacy concerns. So, in response to suggestions we have heard, our substitute bill adds language to clarify that at least one of the private sector members of the board of directors must have experience in civil liberties matters. We believe this will ensure that privacy concerns are taken seriously at the very top levels of the Alliance. We all have an interest in making sure that threat information is shared, but we also have an interest in making sure that no one's privacy rights are violated.

The next Congress needs to focus on passing effective cyber legislation. I believe that S. 3538, as amended, provides a solid starting point for that effort. The bill addresses the most pressing needs: it puts someone outside the White House in charge of cyber policy and the Federal cyber budget; it provides a national cyber center that can oversee and coordinate cybersecurity for dot.gov and dot.mil; and it creates a public-private partnership that will harness the creativity of the private sector to better protect our dot.com networks.

Congress should avoid the temptation to overlegislate in this area. We need to walk before we can run. Once this basic cyber infrastructure is established, it will bring the leading public and private cyber experts together to shape cyber activities and policies. These experts will then be in an ideal position to advise Congress and the administration on the need for any additional steps to ensure our cybersecurity.

I thank my good friend Senator Hatch for his close collaboration on this legislation. I know he will be an effective advocate for this approach when the bill is filed in the next Congress.

Mr. President, today, I rise to pay tribute to not only a giant of the Senate, a hero to Alaska, and a war hero, but also someone I counted among my valued friends, and a true mentor--Ted Stevens.

When I first heard the news about Ted's death, I was shocked and saddened. Today, the loss of my dear friend is no easier to bear, and I know many of my colleagues here feel the same.

Later today, we will lay to rest this giant of the Senate, but I first want to say a few words about my friend Ted.

Much has been said about Senator Stevens' sometimes grouchy and intimidating demeanor. But if you took the time to look past the Hulk ties, the scowling countenance, the vigorous defense of any and all attacks on Alaskan priorities, and the cowed staff who feared they had fallen on the wrong side of the esteemed senior Senator, you saw another more compassionate--some would even say softer side.

I was a lucky beneficiary of that softer side, which changed the course of my time here in Washington.

When I first arrived in Washington, DC, in 1987, my son was entering first grade at the same time as Ted's beloved daughter. Sam and Lily became fast friends, and, lucky for me, so did their parents.

Over the years, Ted and Catherine were very close friends of ours and like godparents to Sam.

Anyone who knew Ted well knew how important his family was and the high value he placed on his children and their friends. He was truly a most kind, gentle, and readily approachable father, uncle, and godfather.

His concern about others' children and family members was equally heartfelt. As he exercised his many leadership roles, Senator Stevens' was always willing to take our family obligations into account. He realized how important it is to schedule time for our families in the chaotic, hectic life we lead in the Senate.

In addition to the close personal friendship I enjoyed with the Stevens family, I had the opportunity to work closely with Chairman Stevens as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. As chairman, Ted was solicitous of the concerns of even his most junior members. He was also a devoted friend of his partner--sometimes ranking member and sometimes chairman--Senator Dan Inouye.

Ted was a very passionate defender of the Appropriations Committee, its prerogatives, and its responsibilities. Woe unto the person who attacked the appropriations process or the work that he had done. We could use more of that wisdom around here today.

As former President pro tempore and the longest serving Republican Member of the U.S. Senate in our country's 230-year history, Ted was a faithful and dedicated leader of the Senate.

But Senator Stevens' influence extended far beyond the Senate to Alaska, the Nation and the world.

Many of the accomplishments of the Senate over the last 4 decades bear the mark of Ted Stevens.

As a war hero himself, Ted was tireless in his leadership to secure a strong military--and funded a strong personnel system, the most needed, up-to-date equipment and the most promising research. The current strength and superiority of the U.S. Armed Forces is due in no small part to Senator Stevens.

He was a leader in the natural resources, transportation issues, and climate change issues important to all of America but that particularly affect his home State.

Ted was passionate about Alaska--its natural beauty, its people, its needs, and its fishing. Many of us have enjoyed traveling to Alaska with Senator Stevens and discovering firsthand the treasures it has to offer.

The many roads, parks, and buildings named for him are but a hint of all he has done for the State. His contributions are extensive and lasting, from improving the infrastructure to safeguarding the wildlife and natural resources Alaska has in abundance.

Alaskans rightly dubbed the Senator the ``Alaskan of the Twentieth Century.''

It was a tremendous honor and privilege to serve with Ted Stevens.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside and that the Committee on Environment and Public

Works be discharged from further consideration and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3072, introduced by my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, that would delay for 2 years U.S. EPA implementation of carbon regulations; I further ask unanimous consent that if the majority is serious about protecting American jobs, that we must be allowed to take bipartisan action to protect the American people from the backdoor national energy tax coming in the form of new job-killing carbon regulations from EPA; that the bill be read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, the regulations the EPA is proposing will hit every American family with higher electric bills, more expensive food and clothes, and more pain at the pump. American workers, especially those in energy-intensive manufacturing jobs, will face job loss or more difficult job prospects.

We have bipartisan language. Six Democrats have already stated on the floor they favor this. Whatever one thinks about the cap and tax, I believe there is a strong majority who thinks a regulatory agency should not establish it bureaucratically.

There is a lot of work we need to do in energy. We need to develop our own energy. When we talk about nuclear power, when we talk about clean coal technology, when we talk about biofuels and woody biomass, all of these things are good. But when we talk about wind power and solar power, how much is it going to cost us? We have found that the costs are overwhelming.

I welcome a discussion of this issue, but the first thing we need to do is make sure our country is not shut down by overreaching EPA regulations. That is why I proposed the unanimous consent request. I understand the leader on the majority side has promised we can vote on the Rockefeller bill. We need to vote by the end of the year.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to join the distinguished Chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence in supporting the passage of H.R. 2701, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, with a Senate substitute amendment. This substitute amendment is very similar to S. 3611, which the Senate passed by unanimous consent nearly 2 months ago in an effort to encourage House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to allow consideration of an intelligence authorization bill.

It is often said that the third time is the charm. I certainly hope so. Last summer, we passed our intelligence authorization bill through the Senate in time for the Intelligence Committee to impact fiscal year spending. Unfortunately, our bill got held up in the House for political reasons. So, in August of this year, we tried again. Still, our bill was held up. Now, here we are, on the eve of a new fiscal year, and it looks like we finally have a compromise that will allow Congress to pass an intelligence authorization bill once again.

Why does passing an authorization bill matter at this late date in the fiscal year? This bill does more than just authorize funding for intelligence activities--a vital purpose in and of itself. By providing current congressional guidance and statutory authorities, we can ensure that the intelligence community has the maximum flexibility and capability it needs to function effectively, spend taxpayer funds wisely, and keep our Nation safe.

The intelligence authorization bill before us is a good bill. It will give the intelligence community much-needed flexibility and authority and will ensure appropriate intelligence oversight by this committee.

Two months ago, the Senate confirmed a new Director of National Intelligence. I have often said that in creating the DNI, we gave him an awful lot of responsibility without all the authority he needed. Well, our bill attempts to address that problem by giving the DNI clearer authority and greater flexibility in overseeing the intelligence community. As Director Clapper takes on his new assignment, I expect these provisions will play a big part in helping him lead the intelligence community--and ensuring the rest of the intelligence community recognizes his role, too.

There are also a number of provisions in this bill that I believe are essential for promoting good government and smarter spending. Too often, we have seen programs or acquisitions of major systems balloon in cost and decrease in performance. That is unacceptable. We are in difficult economic times and the taxpayers are spending substantial sums of their hard-earned money to ensure that the intelligence community has the tools it needs to keep us safe. If we do not demand accountability for how these tools are operated or created, we are failing the intelligence community and, ultimately, we are failing the American people.

So, for the past several years, I have sponsored amendments that require the intelligence community to perform vulnerability assessments of major systems and to keep track of excessive cost growth of major systems. This latter provision is modeled on the Nunn-McCurdy provision which has guided Defense Department acquisitions for years. I am happy to say that these provisions are part of this bill. I believe that these, and other good-government provisions, will encourage earlier identification and solving of problems relating to the acquisition of major systems. Too often, such problems are not identified until exorbitant sums of money have been spent--and, unfortunately, at that point, bureaucratic inertia takes over and there is often reluctance to cancel the project.

Similarly, the intelligence community must get a handle on its personnel levels. In these tough economic times, it is more important than ever to make sure that the intelligence community is appropriately resourced so it can effectively perform its national security missions.

This is not, however, an open invitation for more contractors. Far too many times, contractors are used by the intelligence community to perform functions better left to government employees. There are some jobs that demand the use of contractors--for example, certain technical jobs or short-term functions--but the easy, quick fix has been to just hire contractors, not long-term support. And so, our bill includes a provision calling for annual personnel level assessments for the intelligence community. These assessments will ensure that, before more people are brought in, there are adequate resources to support them and enough work to keep them busy.

These are just a few of the provisions in this bill that I believe are important for the success of our intelligence collection efforts and equally important for ensuring sound oversight by the Intelligence Committee.

Now, the substitute amendment does not change any of these provisions. It does make some minor technical changes, and because the fiscal year will be over before the bill becomes law, some of the authorizing provisions have been removed.

The most significant changes in the substitute reflect the compromise reached by Speaker Pelosi with the Senate and the administration on the issues of congressional notification and the relationship between the intelligence community and the Government Accountability Office.

This new version of the congressional notification provision revives language similar to the first fiscal year 2010 intelligence authorization bill that passed the Senate by unanimous consent last year. This language provides that the executive branch will be required to provide a ``general description'' to all of the members of the congressional intelligence committees regarding a covert action finding or congressional notification that has been limited to the ``Gang of Eight.'' This provision is limited to a description that is consistent with the reasons for not yet fully informing all the members of the intelligence committees, so the provision is somewhat weaker than our original language.

Another change to the congressional notification provision is the insertion of a requirement that the decision to limit access to ``Gang of Eight'' findings and notifications be reviewed within the executive branch every 180 days. If the President determines that such limitations are no longer necessary, then all the members of the congressional intelligence committees will be provided access to such findings and notifications.

These limitations are often revisited periodically by the executive branch, so this time period should not cause difficulty for the administration. We have seen in the past the benefits that come from bringing the full committees into the loop as soon as possible. Moreover, operational sensitivities can change over time. By requiring a periodic review, this provision ensures that highly sensitive matters will remain protected as long as necessary, while also promoting a full cooperative relationship between the two branches.

The substitute amendment contains only one real new provision, section 348, which requires the DNI to issue a written directive governing GAO access to information in the possession of the intelligence community. This provision does not change the underlying law with respect to GAO access to intelligence information, but will allow Congress to study this issue more closely in the future.

It is well past time that Congress sent an intelligence authorization bill to the President for his signature. Only by fulfilling our legislative function will we get back on track with performing effective and much-needed intelligence oversight.

I commend Senator Feinstein for her leadership in shepherding this bill through the committee and the Senate. I appreciate her willingness to work through the countless issues raised throughout this process. I also thank my colleagues for supporting this bill.

This 2010 intelligence authorization bill has the full support of the Senate. Senior administration officials have said they will recommend that the President sign this compromise text into law. I urge the House of Representatives to pass this bill as soon as possible so that we can get back on track with our intelligence oversight.

Mr. President, I do not object. Whatever time she needs I hope will be added on to the time that has previously been allotted. I do not want to cut short the comments of my friend from California.

Mr. President, this morning, all across America families are struggling to make ends meet. Their incomes are stagnant, but the cost of living keeps rising and the tax burden they face at the Federal, State, and local level keeps getting worse--and they are threatening to go higher.

Just as troubling, today's ongoing economic uncertainty is crippling job creation and hurting small businesses--the real engines of growth in our country. Some of our small businesses have told me it is not uncertainty, it is the certainty that they know what the Federal Government has already done in the health care bill this body, unfortunately, passed.

But what is the answer from Washington to this situation? More job- killing taxes.

Let me be very clear: The last thing we should be doing in this difficult economy is raising taxes on American families and small businesses. It is a recipe for disaster. I do not think anyone believes raising taxes on somebody in a recession is a good idea, particularly on the very small businesses we need to hire more workers and get the economy back on track. But unless Congress acts before the end of this year, that is exactly what will happen.

This is not a Republican or Democratic issue, which is why 31 House Democrats have recently written the Speaker of the House urging her to act now to stop the tax increases on the American people. As these 31 Democrats said, defying their leadership, raising taxes now could ``negatively impact economic growth.'' Obviously, that would affect jobs.

Instead of listening to the American people, and even those members of his own party, President Obama is trying to convince our Nation that the largest tax increase in history will not hurt them.

Whether it is justifying their failed trillion-dollar stimulus bill or government takeover of health care, which will cost even more, and now their historic tax increases, the administration is guilty of using some very fuzzy math.

Last week, the President took to the airwaves and claimed he ``opposes tax cuts for millionaires''--a statement he repeated in Ohio as well. But the President's plan to increase taxes is on any individual earning $200,000 or more or any couple earning $250,000 or more. I do not know who the President is talking to, but I do not know any Missouri families with two working people making $250,000 a year who consider themselves millionaires. In fact, these Missouri families would be surprised that the President lumps them in the same category as George Soros, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates.

In fact, the tax on these ``rich'' people, as the President calls them, is a tax increase on small businesses. Under the President's tax increase plan, half of all small business income would be affected, and the President's tax increase plan would affect up to 25 percent of all American workers. They are employed by those small businesses, and they certainly will be affected.

According to the Wall Street Journal's September 9 article entitled ``The Small Business Tax Hike and the 3 percent Fallacy,'' IRS data shows that 48 percent of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes over $200,000 a year in 2007.

It is very clear we are talking about small businesses that have a much broader impact than just 3 percent of all taxpayers, as the spin we hear from the White House puts it.

This plan to increase taxes defies common sense. At a time when we need small businesses to expand and to create jobs, President Obama plans on raising their taxes. Imagine that. When jobs should be our top priority, with unemployment near 10 percent, this Congress and the President are proposing a historic job-killing tax increase.

Bear in mind, according to the Small Business Administration, small businesses employ half of all private sector employees. They generated 65 percent or 9.8 million of the 15 million net new jobs produced over the past 17 years. They produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.

The President has actually been very clear about his intensions for additional revenue raised by tax increases. As a matter of fact, on September 8, in Parma, OH, the President repeatedly said:

I've got a whole bunch of better ways to spend the money.

Well, Mr. President, I strongly disagree. As Milton Friedman once famously said:

Nobody spends somebody else's money as wisely as they spend

their own.

I think we have all seen proof of this over the past 21 months, and it is not

working. The nearly trillion-dollar stimulus plan that was supposed to create jobs immediately and keep unemployment below 8 percent failed, and now our children and our children's children are stuck with the bill that will be on their credit cards for a long time. But now the administration is pushing for even more tax increases in order to finance their massive spending spree.

Each time I return home, I am reminded of the anger and the distrust that my constituents have for Washington. The people of my State are angry. They are on fire. They have every right to be. The people in Missouri know that additional tax revenue generated from their hard work will not be used to pay down our national debt but, instead, it will be used for more spending they do not want and the country cannot afford. The people in Missouri know they cannot afford these tax increases. They want to keep more of their hard-earned paychecks so they can support their families.

On dividends and capital gains, the administration believes that taxes should go up. They also believe these two types of taxes on investment should be treated differently, with dividends being taxed as high as nearly 40 percent.

Higher taxes on investment income will halt new investment and force these investors with much needed capital on to the sidelines. If you tax something, you get less of it. If you reduce taxes, you get more of it.

But since Congress passed the 2,000-plus page regulatory overreach bill this year, we have seen a drop in capital formation, and tax increases will only continue to discourage private productive capital formation in the nongovernmental private sector.

The looming tax increases will raise the price of capital and make lending much more expensive than it would be if we had properly reined in the bad actors and allowed the lending system to revert to practices based on creditworthiness, which means it will be even harder for our small businesses to get the lending, borrow what they need to continue to meet their payrolls, continue to employ workers, and keep their lights on.

Dividends are payments made to shareholders by a profitable firm. They are the owners of the firm. Many of the folks who receive dividend income are not multimillion-dollar investors but, rather, many of them are seniors who rely on this as a supplement to their retirement income. We should not raise taxes on seniors who rely on this income.

Recently, I heard from a utility in my State that came in and talked about the increased dividend tax and the concern as to what it would do to their shareholders. Many of their investors are senior citizens who are by no means rich and who live off of this income every day. They do not want to have, and they cannot afford to have, the government reach into their pockets and take more money.

On the estate tax, death should not be a taxable event. There should not be taxation without respiration.

The death tax hurts small, family-owned businesses, especially our family farmers. According to the Farm Bureau, individuals, family partnerships, or family corporations own 98 percent of our Nation's 2 million farms and ranches.

When faced with the death tax, farmers and ranchers are in an especially tough spot with most of their assets tied up in land and buildings, livestock and equipment. This gives them little flexibility when settling an estate. Unlike an investor with a stock portfolio, they can't simply sell off the stock and move on.

The death tax punishes the American dream, making it virtually impossible for the American family to build wealth across generations, and this is particularly true for family farms.

The death tax is antisavings, antifamily, and anti-investment. Quite simply, it is un-American, and it should be eliminated, or at least it should be reduced.

Sadly, because of the Senate's failure to repeal this tax, I have signed on to the next best alternative--a bipartisan bill introduced by Senators Lincoln and Kyl which would increase the exemption for families to $5 million from the $3.5 million under the previous law.

Under the President's plan, when you die, your estate will be taxed at a whopping 55 percent for assets above $1 million. The Kyl-Lincoln bill I am cosponsoring would reduce this rate to 35 percent for assets above the $5 million exception.

Why is this important? Let me talk about farm country, where I live. Everybody knows that a successfully operated family-owned grain or corn or soybean farm is likely to have $1 million worth of land and likely more than $1 million worth of farm equipment so they can be a productive farmer in the world competitive economy. The President's plan would force these family farms to close rather than pass to the next generation of family farmers.

I say to my colleagues, unless Congress acts now, in less than 100 days Americans will be hit with the largest tax hike in our Nation's history. That is why I have joined with Senators McConnell, Grassley, and others to stop these tax hikes, cosponsoring the Tax Hike Prevention Act. This bill prevents the tax hikes scheduled for next year, permanently passes the alternative minimum tax, and protects families from increased death taxes.

For most Americans across the Nation, recovery is what we desperately need. We need it in my State and we need it in every State. Small businesses are not hiring new workers or expanding. It is not just the uncertainty; it is the certainty of what the Federal Government is doing to them. Also, unemployment has been hovering at almost 10 percent. More than 3 million Americans have lost their jobs since February of 2009, and more have quit looking or are underemployed.

One of the best ways to help our economy and end the uncertainty that is crippling job creation is to stop the coming tax hikes. In addition to helping small businesses, stopping the coming tax hikes would let Americans keep more of their paychecks that they can save and invest. Our citizens know how to spend their money better than any government bureaucrat.

We have tried it with the government money. We have tried it with the government stimulus. The government stimulus stimulated the expansion of government. That is not productive. Let's try it the other way. Let's go back to what we used to do in this country and let the private sector work and develop useful products and services, sell those products, gain a profit, and hire more workers. It is time this Congress acts, and I hope they will act soon.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee, earlier this morning said small businesses are the engine that drives jobs in the economy. I agree with him. I agree.

As the former chairman of the Small Business Committee, I know how important small businesses are. I traveled around the State during the past breaks to find out, meeting with small businesses, why they are not creating jobs. We, frankly, have cut off the fuel supply, the profits that drive these jobs.

I asked a group of small businesses: Why is it that you are not creating jobs? Is it because of the uncertainty people are talking about? I was immediately corrected.

They said: It is the certainty. We know what you have done in the health care law, putting unbelievable burdens on us.

They did not even know about this 1099 requirement at the time. But the health care costs are burdening small businesses, and it is making it impossible and unwise for them to try to hire. I talked to a small businessman today, and I asked him about it. I told him what the requirements were. He said: That is nuts. What do you think they are talking about? We are going to have to hire more bookkeepers.

Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to listen to small businesses in passing this bill. They put burdens on them that are unbelievable. The new health care bill passed and signed into law is a boondoggle that will bury small businesses in higher taxes, new mandates, and more paperwork.

This particular job-killing mandate of the 1099 we are debating today will drown small businesses in paperwork by requiring a small business owner to file two forms, one with the vendor and one with the IRS, for every business-to-business transaction over $600.

According to the Wall Street Journal this morning, this means more than 30 million small businesses will be hit by the new paperwork mandate beginning in 2013. That is not the worst of it. Even the National Taxpayer Advocate at the Treasury Department, Nina Olson, said the cost of this measure is ``disproportionate as compared with any resulting improvements in tax compliance.''

That is the problem. That is the problem, and the Johanns amendment is the only solution. We have to correct this job-killing mandate as urged by the NFIB, the Chamber of Commerce, and the National Small Business Association. Democrats are trying to sell a pig in a poke.

The Nelson alternative would leave the same bad provision in place, only making it more complicated for small business owners to comply. It would only exempt small businesses with 25 employees or less. So, in other words, we are telling small businesses not to hire the 26th worker while we are having unemployment up around 10 percent.

If you have small businesses in your State, you better listen to them. They are wanting a repeal, the full repeal of this burdensome mandate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from today's Wall Street Journal editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on behalf of my fellow Missourians, I extend my warmest congratulations to the citizens of Iron County and Ironton upon their celebration of the 150th anniversary of the Iron County Courthouse.

Courthouses like the one in Iron County symbolize the basis of America's freedoms: a fair and independent judiciary. America is a nation based on laws and not men.

While it is not perfect, to be sure, our system of justice makes it possible for all Americans to live in relative peace and prosperity most of the time.

The Iron County Courthouse has long stood as a mark of this community's history. The county from which the courthouse takes its namesake was originally established from portions of the counties of St. Francois, Madison, Washington, Dent, Reynolds, and Wayne by an act of the legislature approved February 17, 1857. According to county records, the Iron County Courthouse was the product of an order which called for the construction of a courthouse and the issuing of county bonds, bearing 10 percent interest, for $10,000. The courthouse's cornerstone was laid on July 4, 1858, and the structure was completed just 2 years later in October 1860.

In its 150-year history, the Iron County Courthouse has been the site of countless hearings and trials in addition to serving as the home of county offices ranging from soil and water to university extensions. The circuit court for Iron County was organized on May 16, 1858, by Judge John H. Stone. In September 1864, during the Civil War, the courthouse received damage in the Battle of Pilot Knob.

The courthouse has been featured on the cover of several local and regional publications and, even more notably, has earned the honor of inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

We recognize the important role the courthouse has played in Iron County's history and congratulate local residents on its 150th anniversary.

Madam President, I thank the chair of our committee. I thank her, her staff, for all of the good work that has gone into this bill, repeatedly, as she pointed out.

For too many years Congress has failed to pass an intelligence authorization bill that could be signed into law. I am very pleased to join with Senator Feinstein, the distinguished chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, in achieving passage of S. 3611, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.

Over the past several months, we worked closely with the House Permanent Select Committees on Intelligence and Administration to reach a compromise text that could serve as a conference report for this bill. The bill now before this Senate and having passed the Senate contains all of the elements of the compromise. It has been agreed to in advance by representatives of the administration. But, unfortunately, the House has thus far declined to move the process forward, bringing this bill formally to conference.

The chair and I agreed that we would be able to move this process forward by having the Senate pass the compromise text for the House to consider when it returns next week.

The intelligence authorization bill before us is a good bill. It will give the intelligence community the flexibility and authorities it needs to function effectively and will ensure appropriate intelligence oversight by this committee.

I have often said that in creating the Director of National Intelligence, we gave him an awful lot of responsibility without all the authority he needed. Well, our bill attempts to address that problem by giving the DNI clearer authority and greater flexibility in overseeing the intelligence community.

There are also a number of provisions in this bill that I believe are essential for promoting good government. Too often, we have seen programs or acquisitions of major systems balloon in cost and decrease in performance. That is unacceptable. We are in difficult economic times and the taxpayers are spending substantial sums of money to ensure that the intelligence community has the tools it needs to keep us safe. If we don't demand accountability for how these tools are operated or created, then we are failing the intelligence community, and, ultimately, we are failing the American people.

So, for the past several years, I have sponsored amendments that require the intelligence community to perform vulnerability assessments of major systems and to keep track of excessive cost growth of major systems. This latter provision is modeled on the Nunn-McCurdy provision which has guided Defense Department acquisitions for years. I am happy to say that these provisions are part of this year's bill, too. I believe that these, and other good-government provisions, will encourage earlier identification and solving of problems relating to the acquisition of major systems. Too often, such problems have not been identified until exorbitant sums of money have been spent--and, unfortunately, at that point, there is often reluctance to cancel the project.

Similarly, the intelligence community must get a handle on its personnel levels. In these tough economic times, it is more important than ever to make sure that the intelligence community is appropriately resourced to ensure that its personnel can effectively perform their respective national security missions.

However, I am concerned about the number of contractors used by the intelligence community to perform functions better left to government employees. There are some jobs that demand the use of contractors, for example, certain technical jobs or short-term functions, but too often, the quick fix is just to hire contractors, not long-term support. And so, our bill includes a provision calling for annual personnel level assessments for the intelligence community. These assessments will ensure that, before more people are brought in, there are adequate resources to support them and enough work to keep them busy.

These are just a few of the provisions in this bill that I believe are important for the success of our intelligence collection efforts and equally important for ensuring sound oversight by the intelligence committee.

I commend Senator Feinstein for her leadership in shepherding this bill through the committee and the Senate. I appreciate her willingness to work through the countless issues raised throughout this process. I also thank my colleagues for supporting this bill.

It is well-past time that Congress send an intelligence authorization bill to the President for his signature. Only by fulfilling our legislative function will we get back on track with performing effective and much-needed intelligence oversight.

I, again, extend and expand my thanks to the distinguished chair for making sure the Senate Intelligence Committee can work in a bipartisan manner, which we have done on this bill, and on lengthy oversight matters that we have undertaken out of view of public scrutiny, obviously, but spending many days, many hours in meetings, looking over the wide range of critical efforts that are needed by our intelligence community to keep our country safe.

Why does passing an authorization bill matter at this late date in the fiscal year? An annual intelligence authorization bill does more than just authorize funding for intelligence activities, funding that in many cases has already been appropriated and spent. But it is vital that the intelligence committees be able to provide direction for the expenditure of funds for the intelligence community. But by providing current and congressional guidance and statutory authority we can ensure that the intelligence community has the maximum flexibility, the capability it needs to function effectively, spend taxpayer funds wisely, and keep our Nation safe.

The Senate bill has the full support of the Senate. Senior administration has said they will recommend the President sign this compromise text into law. I urge, once again, the Speaker of the House of Representatives to bring up this bill and pass it when the House returns to session next week so we can get back on track with performing effective intelligence oversight.

Mr. President, today I wish to thank Rose Penn Ross for her dedicated service to our Nation during World War II. Mrs. Ross, or Penny as she is called, is a retired school teacher who selflessly answered the patriotic

call to duty when she enlisted in the Women Airforce Service Pilots-- WASP--organization during World War II.

Like many of her counterparts in the ``Greatest Generation,'' Penny wanted to help the war effort. As a licensed pilot, Penny wanted to serve by flying planes, and joined 25,000 women in applying for the WASP program. After completing exactly the same rigorous military flight training as her male counterparts, Penny became one of only 1,100 women to receive her Silver Wings.

While the WASP organization was not recognized as part of the military until 1977, Penny and the other women serving in WASP played a critical role in the war effort. Within the United States, Penny brought planes from factories to bases, flew experimental aircraft, and towed targets for the gunnery school vital tasks that also freed up male pilots for combat service and duties.

Prior to the war, Penny graduated from the University of Wisconsin with a bachelor's degree in business and earned her master's in education from the University of Missouri. She married her beloved Vernon M. Ross and settled in Missouri. Vernon and Penny started a family, which grew to include four children: Robert, Barbara, David, and Richard; eight grandchildren; and five great-grandchildren. After WASP was disbanded in 1944, Penny began her teaching career. She taught secondary school for 30 years in Harrisburg, Glasgow, and Moberly, molding young minds in the subjects of business, math, and French.

In addition to her legacy of family and her love of learning, Penny has created a legacy of service to our Nation.

Penny, her fellow female pilots, and the countless other men and women who served their nation during World War II made possible the conquering of some of freedom's worst foes of the 20th century: Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito. Thanks to the struggles and sacrifices of all of our troops from here at home, to Normandy, Tunisia, Midway, and Guadalcanal, those of us in subsequent generations have lived in relative peace and prosperity.

It is only fitting that earlier this year Americans like Penny were recognized for their contributions to the freedom we enjoy today. On March 10, 2010, Mrs. Ross attended the WASP Congressional Gold Medal Ceremony in the U.S. Capitol. With her family by her side, she was presented with a bronze medal replica of the Gold Medal. Today, Penny resides in the Veterans Home-Mexico, MO.

Penny, we are grateful for your service to your family, your community, and your country. Your story is an inspiration to people in all generations today who want to make a difference.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the financial overregulation bill. The so-called financial reform bill before us is being sold to the American people as holding Wall Street accountable for the economic crisis that hurt every American family and business in every community across the Nation. We are told this bill will end ``too big to fail'' and prevent future bailouts.

Unfortunately, just as the stimulus bill was supposed to reduce unemployment and the health care bill was supposed to lower health costs and reduce the deficit, this bill, too, will do the opposite of what is advertised. It will not prevent future bailouts. It will create another huge Federal bureaucracy; and instead of punishing Wall Street, it will punish Main Street and the families who suffered--not caused-- the financial meltdown.

This bill was meant to rein in Wall Street. Yet the biggest supporters are Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, and the biggest opponents are community banks and small businesses in every city and town and community in the Nation. I think that tells us all we need to know about this bill. I urge my colleagues to listen to the folks at home, the people who have to make a living who are going to be burdened by it.

I strongly oppose cloture on this bill. Yes, there have been improvements made, and I worked with my colleague, Senator Dodd, to make sure we did not devastate the venture capital area. Unfortunately, that is coming in another bill. But despite some of the progress we have made, the provisions most harmful to taxpayers, families, and small businesses still remain.

As a matter of fact, new provisions have been airdropped into the conference report that are so problematic

that neither Chamber could agree to include them in either version. If we are truly committed to enacting real bipartisan reform, then the majority would never allow items that were never debated and voted on to be included in the bill.

I hope my Democratic colleagues will stand up for these principles about which they have talked so loudly and say no to this backroom practice of airdropping totally new concepts into the bill.

I wish to talk now about some of the most egregious provisions in the bill.

First, it is unbelievable and unacceptable that so many of my colleagues want to turn a blind eye to the government-sponsored enterprises, GSEs, that contributed to the financial meltdown by buying high-risk loans that banks made to people who could not afford them.

Everyone here knows what I am talking about. Despite this bill's 2,300 pages, it completely ignores the 900-pound gorilla in the room: the need to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or the toxic twins as I not so fondly have to refer to them now.

The irresponsible actions by Fannie and Freddie turned the American dream into the American nightmare for too many families who have either had their homes foreclosed or who are hanging on by a thread.

The irresponsible actions, pushed by previous administrations on Fannie and Freddie, devastated neighborhoods and communities as property values diminished.

To add insult to injury, after Freddie and Fannie went belly up, it was the very Americans who suffered from their irresponsible actions who were left footing the bill.

As if that were not bad enough, unless we act now to reform the toxic twins, over the next 10 years Fannie and Freddie will cost the American taxpayers at least an additional $389 billion.

In the joy of the Christmas holiday last December, the administration took off the $400 billion limit on them. I have to ask: How much money do they think they can lose if $400 billion is not enough for them to lose?

What is in this bill to address this problem? Absolutely nothing. Zip. Zero.

Next, this bill lumps in the good guys with the bad guys and treats them all the same, particularly when it comes to derivatives.

Folks who are trying to manage and control costs are treated the same as folks who are spending and speculating in the market, making shady bets with money they did not have, making insurance bets on property they did not own.

This was described in the book, ``The Big Short,'' by Michael Lewis. These computer game derivatives, or insurance policies, were dreamed up by Wall Street geniuses, some who made billions, others who lost billions. The billions in losses almost destroyed our financial system and poisoned the world's financial system.

I have heard some folks say: Why do these bad practices mean something is going to happen to me? The way this bill is drafted, utility companies may not be able to lock in steady rates for their customers, leaving them instead at the whim of a volatile market. The utility companies will have to pay billions to Wall Street or Chicago to clear their normal long-term contracts and postcollateral with energy suppliers through clearinghouses run by big financial firms. That money will be immediately passed along to every consumer of power from that utility company. That is what utilities do--they pass it on to you and me as electricity or gas or other customers of theirs.

Mr. President, you and I and folks in every community across the country could pay higher costs every time we flip on the light switch or turn on the air conditioner or heat.

That means family farms may not be able to get long-term financing, forcing many to quit farming and prevent many from beginning to farm.

The Wall Street Journal today, in a front-page article headed ``Finance Overhaul Casts Long Shadow on the Plains'' tells how this bill will clobber folks in agricultural communities who have to have forward contracts. They never caused the problem, but it will tie up capital and make them pay tribute to big firms on Wall Street or Chicago. No wonder those big firms are for them. There is a lot of business for them, a lot of expense for the farmer, the commodity hauler trying to make a living.

I am stunned that any Senator in good conscience would vote for a bill that would increase costs for every American, especially at a time when working families are struggling to make ends meet. One thing is certain: This bill will enlarge government.

Today's Wall Street editorial opines that:

Dodd-Frank, with its 2,300 pages, will unleash the biggest

wave of new federal financial rulemaking in three

generations. Whatever else this will do, it will not make

lending cheaper or credit more readily available.

They go on to state that one law firm has estimated that the new law ``will require no fewer than 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different agencies.''

What will be the effect? More lawyers, more bureaucracy, more taxpayer money, and more lawsuits.

Certainly, I cannot vote in good conscience for a bill that creates a massive new superbureaucracy with unprecedented authority to impose government mandates and micromanage any entity that extends credit.

We are not talking about the big guys--the Goldman Sachs and the AIGs. In the real world, we are talking about the community banks, small retailers, and even your dentist.

I talked with a lot of small businesses and listened to them. A lot of people were concerned this past week when I was home about what is going on in Washington. I was talking with a group in Maryville in northwest Missouri.

I said: The uncertainty is really a problem for small businesses.

One small businessman corrected me. He said: No, it's the certainty. We know what Washington has already done to the deficit, to the debt, to health care, what it is going to do to financial regulation, and what it is threatening to do to energy costs.

I asked everybody around the table: Should I have said ``certainty'' rather than ``uncertainty''?

They said: You certainly should.

Small businesses are not willing or able or even inclined to create jobs when this massive government rollout of spending, taxation, and regulation is coming down on them.

Let's not be naive. Any of the new costs as a result of new mandates and regulations, regardless of the entity on which they are imposed, will be passed down to the very people this bill claims to protect. Under the new, misnamed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, the decisions on allocating credit will no longer be based on the safety and soundness requirement for healthy banks. Instead, by empowering this new superbureaucracy with unprecedented power, decisions on credit will be driven by the administration's political will and agenda. Politics will then decide how to allocate credit while operating outside the framework of safety and soundness, thus putting more risk back into the system when we were supposed to be taking risk out of the system.

This giant bill also contains a provision creating a new Office of Financial Research. You will get to know this one. It is given the authority to access personal financial information of any citizen in the United States. Well, I don't know about you, but I would prefer not to have a new bureaucracy rifling through my personal account information in an era of economic and electronic communications where fraud and identity theft run rampant. Ordinary Americans who did not cause the financial meltdown should not be punished and placed at risk because the government wishes to create this new, unnecessary office.

I could continue to list provision after provision, pointing out expansions of government and ill-intended policies that will create more uncertainty while failing to hit the objective of regulatory reform. However, this Chamber doesn't have the hours for my speech alone. I could say: Harsh letter to follow. If anybody wants to know, we will be happy to send them lots of chapters and lots of verses. But, much like the health care bill recently signed into law, I fear small businesses will soon learn of many more unintended consequences which have yet to be seen. Even the bill's sponsors admit that the bill's long reach will not be

fully known until it is in place. Remember when the leader on the other side of this building said: If you want to find out what is in the bill, you will have to pass it. Well, in this bill, if you want to find out what it is going to do, unfortunately, you are going to find out if you pass it. I don't want to have my fingerprints on what is going to happen to businesses, to communities, and to jobs in the United States if it passes.

To sum it up, if the goal is to enact real reform that ensures we never, ever have another financial crisis like the one we had 18 months ago, the bill falls woefully short of that goal. It is light on reform, heavy on overreach and unintended consequences. Overall, this bill is too large, too costly for consumers, and would kill job creation at a time when working Americans need to be left to do what they do best, and that is succeed.

There is no doubt we need to protect every American from ever again falling victim to Wall Street gone wild. But what we do not want--and why this debate is so important--is to punish Americans for a crisis they didn't cause. Unless we scrap this failed version and start over, the Democrats' bill will do just that, and the costs will be paid by Main Street.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial from today's Wall Street Journal to which I referred.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor U.S. Marine Cpl Todd Nicely, of Arnold, MO--a true American hero.

Corporal Nicely is greatly admired by his fellow marines--and when you hear his story you will admire him too.

As a marine, Corporal Nicely brought the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan, so our families in Missouri and across the Nation could live in peace and security.

But what makes Corporal Nicely an American hero is not only his leadership on the battlefield but also his leadership here at home.

On March 26, 2010, Corporal Nicely and his fellow marines were on a foot patrol in Helmand province--one of the most dangerous regions in Afghanistan--when he stepped on an improvised explosive device, triggering a devastating explosion. When Corporal Nicely woke up, he realized that all four of his limbs were lost in the blast.

Instead of defeat, however, Corporal Nicely faced his injuries with the same warrior spirit he showed on the battlefield. This brave marine has astounded many with his swift progress--evidence of his unwavering spirit and courage

among overwhelming odds. Corporal Nicely remains one of the few surviving quadruple amputees from the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At Bethesda Naval Hospital and Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Corporal Nicely has endured--and surpassed--these odds with the love and support of his lovely wife Crystal, who also served her country as a marine. His story, courage and unwavering service make me proud to be an American. Our prayers and thoughts are with Corporal Nicely and his family, and I ask unanimous consent that this poem--penned in honor of this great American, by Bert Caswell--be printed in the Record.

Madam President, today Members of the Senate will go to the White House to meet with President Obama on energy legislation. There is general agreement among Republicans that we need to do more to promote clean energy and reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. We also need real reform of our oilspill protection laws and agencies.

However, today I talk about where we disagree, and that is on the Democratic proposal to impose a national energy tax related to carbon emissions.

The President will try to convince Senators and the public to impose a national energy tax. Of course, he will use fancy terms such as ``pricing carbon.'' But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck, and this duck is an energy tax.

One form the Democratic national energy tax will take is a tax on gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Senator Hutchison and I just released a new report documenting the size of the gas tax in the Kerry-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill. My colleagues can find it on our office Web sites.

The Kerry-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill includes a $3.4 trillion gas tax--with a ``t.'' That is an average of $90 billion a year.

The number is so large because Americans consume a lot of fuel--over 200 billion gallons a year. Putting a price on the carbon in this fuel, as Democrats and President Obama want to do, will impose a massive new tax increase on the American people. You don't have to take my word for it. Anyone can add up the cost of this new gas tax. We used all publicly available government information, such as the fuel consumption data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency and carbon pricing estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency. The rest is just simple addition and multiplication--multiplication and multiplication and multiplication--combining how much fuel we will use with the carbon tax rate they propose.

The $3.4 trillion figure is based on EPA's estimates of future carbon prices. By law, as proposed by Kerry-Lieberman, the gas tax could be as high as $7.6 trillion if carbon prices hit the price ceilings in this bill.

Kerry-Lieberman's $3.4 trillion total gas tax will include a $1.9 trillion gasoline tax on families, workers, and small businesses, a $1.1 trillion diesel tax on farmers, truckers, and businesses, and a $425 billion jet fuel tax on airline passengers.

Of course, politicians do not want to admit they support a new multitrillion-dollar gas tax. They use code words such as ``pricing carbon'' or ``requiring the purchase of allowances.''

They also try to take advantage of the current disasters, such as the gulf oilspill, to impose a new gasoline tax. I say we should be punishing BP, not the American people, with a new gas tax. A gas tax will not stop the oil from leaking, it will not clean up the oil that has been spilled, and it will not do anything to restore the environment in the coastal areas where that oil will hit.

To quote an MIT economist highlighted this week:

People are kidding themselves to believe that penalizing

carbon will significantly shrink oil imports or the need for

offshore drilling.

EPA's recent analysis of Kerry-Lieberman confirms this, showing that U.S. fuel consumption would decrease by only \1/2\ percent by 2050.

All we do with a new gas tax is take trillions of dollars from American families and workers with no real impact on our oil dependency. In fact, the thing that has slowed gasoline consumption in the United States has been the recession. When people are out of work and businesses are not selling and work is not being done, then consumption goes down. Is that how we want to reduce dependence on foreign oil and reduce pollution? I say not.

Sponsors say a portion of these funds is going to the highway trust fund. However, this bill sends less than 2 percent of its value to the trust fund, or only a few billion dollars per year by my calculations. Even that will end in 2040.

Sponsors also point to their refund program where they claim they will give back two-thirds of the carbon tax revenues the government will take in. How many trust the Federal Government to return tax revenue to us once they get their tax-and-spend fingers on it? They have schemes that will send that money to politically favored groups. That is what has happened in the past, and that is what will happen in the future.

While they give back two-thirds of the revenues, the government still keeps one-third of the tax. One-third of a $3.4 trillion gas tax means American families and workers, even if they got it back on a fair pro rata basis--which nobody believes they will--Americans will still face $1.1 trillion in net new taxes from the gas tax.

You know something funny must be going on when big oil actually supports this bill. You heard me right; big oil supports this bill. BP, Shell, and ConocoPhillips actually helped draft Kerry-Lieberman. Do my colleagues know why they did that? They are not worried about a tax on gasoline because they know every single penny will be shifted to the consumers with their profit margins added. It may not be a bad deal for the gas and oil companies, but it is a bad deal for all of us as consumers.

Big oil knows they can pass most of the new tax on to consumers, so they are not worried about it. But Senator Hutchison and I remain deeply worried about families, farmers, truckers, small businesses, and fliers who will pay this $3.4 trillion gas tax.

There is a better way. We can come together on new incentives for hybrid and electric cars, nuclear power, advanced fuels such as cellulosic ethanol and biomass, and even higher fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. But what we should not do is punish American families, farmers, workers, and businesses with a $3.4 trillion gas tax.

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

Mr. President, I rise to say a few words about our departed colleague.

This week the Senate lost its longest serving Member not only of the Senate but of the Congress. More than that, the Nation lost a true servant of the people.

From humble beginnings, Senator Byrd was, first and foremost, a champion for the people of West Virginia. Throughout his many years of service, there has been no greater student, teacher, and protector of the Senate institution. Senator Byrd was not only a guardian of the Senate institution, he was a guardian of the rights our Nation holds dear, which is why his most constant companion was the Constitution of the United States in his pocket.

I had the opportunity, when I first arrived in the Senate in 1990, to work on the acid rain trading provisions in the Clean Air Act. It was known as the Byrd-Bond amendment. We called it the Bond-Byrd amendment back in Missouri. The acid rain trading system has worked because there was technology available. The cost enabled the equitable sharing of the major utilities which had to install expensive equipment that provided more benefit than they needed so they could sell off the other parts of their credits to smaller companies that could not afford to install expensive equipment. That was just a small success for Senator Byrd.

He was a true champion. He will be missed on the Senate floor. My thoughts and prayers are with Senator Byrd's family, his staff, and the people of West Virginia.

Mr. President, my friend and colleague from North Dakota has been kind enough to allow me to speak because of some scheduling concerns, and I ask unanimous consent when I complete my remarks he be recognized for 15 minutes.

I thank the Chair.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 3538 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')