Floor Statements

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, we are already on S. 3414, which is the cyber security bill. The time until 2:15 p.m., is for debate only, and the time until 12:30 p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. The majority will control the first hour and the Republicans the second hour.

The Senate will recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly caucus meetings.

I will alert everyone to this: I hope those people, led by Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins, will work to come up with a finite list of amendments so we can move on the cyber security bill.

I spoke to the Republican leader yesterday and have been very patient and tried to get a list of amendments we can agree on. I hope that can be done soon. It is very important that we make a determination of whether we are going to be able to get a bill. There is not a lot of time left to tread water, so to speak.

This is an important piece of legislation. All one needs to do is look at what is going on in India today. There are no cyber problems there that I am aware of, but one-half of the country of India is without electricity today. Transportation has been shut down, financial networks in India, which are significant, are down, and it is a chaotic place. There are 600 million people in India who are without electricity. As we have been told time and time again, the most important issue we have facing this country today for security is cyber. We have been told that by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and by the head of the CIA. We have been told that by Democrats and Republicans. It is an issue that is important, and we have been told it is something we can prevent.

If we don't do this bill, it is not a question of if there will be a cyber attack that will be devastating to our country, it is only a question of when. It can be stopped. I hope the chamber of commerce will get some sense.

There was a big meeting in the Chamber yesterday. They were moving forward on all that was bad about the bill. The problem is they were dealing with the wrong bill. So I hope we can get something done. It is extremely important that we do.

There will be a Senators-only briefing today at 5 p.m. in the Visitor Center today in SVC-217.

I am told there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with regard to these bills at this time.

Mr. President, I am going to spend a few minutes talking about the Affordable Care Act. I wonder how many people on the Republican side today are going to talk about ObamaCare. If they do, they should be in a very positive state. We know that as a result of this bill, the Affordable Care Act, people are getting or soon will get a rebate. One of the things we did--led by Senator Franken and others-- was make sure that 80 percent of the money paid for premiums goes to patient care and any amount that doesn't has to be refunded to the patients. That is in the process now. In the month of August, all those moneys will come back in a significant amount to Americans who, in effect, are part of programs that spend too much on salaries for bosses.

Also, we are going to talk a little bit today about what this Affordable Care Act does for women in America. As I said, I am going to speak very briefly, but we are going to have people come--as soon as I and the Republican leader finish--to talk about good things in this bill for women. I will touch on them very briefly.

There is no question this bill that was signed by President Obama is a landmark piece of legislation. It signaled an end to insurance company discrimination among many but especially against those who are ill, those with a preexisting condition, and especially against women.

As a result of this bill we passed, being a woman is no longer a preexisting disability in America. For many years, insurance companies charged American women higher premiums. Why? Because they are women. For years, American women have unfairly borne the burden of the high cost of contraception as well. Even women with private insurance often wind up spending hundreds of dollars more each year for birth control. Today, women of reproductive age spend two-thirds more out of their own pockets for health care costs than men, largely due to the high cost of birth control. But starting tomorrow--Wednesday of this week--new insurance plans must cover contraception and many other preventive health services for women. How much? No additional pay at all. Under health care reform, about 47 million women, including almost 400,000 women in Nevada, will have guaranteed access to those additional preventive services without cost sharing.

Many on the other side downplayed the importance of these benefits or fought to repeal them altogether. It is hard to comprehend but true. Forcing American women to continue struggling with the high price of contraception has very real consequences. Every year millions of women in the United States put off doctors' visits because they can't afford the copay and millions more skip pills or shots to save money.

It is no mystery why the United States has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies of all industrialized nations. Half of all pregnancies in America are unplanned. Of those unintended pregnancies, about half wind up in abortion. Increasing access to contraception is the most effective way to reduce unintended pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions, but the high cost is often a barrier.

That is why, in 1997, Olympia Snowe and I began a bipartisan effort to prevent unintended pregnancies by expanding access to contraception. It has not been an easy path, but we did make a start. As part of this effort, we helped pass a law ensuring Federal employees access to contraception. It was a big issue. That was 15 years ago or more. It is an issue that is still important, but we started it, and I am very happy about that. Olympia Snowe was terrific to work with.

When this benefit took place in 1999, premiums did not go up one single dime because neither did health care costs--not one penny. It was rewarding to note that a pro-life Democrat and pro-choice Republican were able to confront the issue with a practical eye rather than a political eye. It is unfortunate that over the last 15 years an idea that started as a common-ground proposal has become so polarizing in Congress. The controversy is quite strange when we consider that almost 99 percent of women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives, and many have struggled to afford it. The Affordable Care Act will ensure that insurance companies treat women fairly and treat birth control as any other preventive service.

Prior to Senator Snowe and me doing this, anything a man wanted they got. Viagra, fine; we will take care of that. Anything a man wanted they got--but not a woman. The law doesn't just guarantee women's access to contraception, it assures their access to many other lifesaving procedures as well.

Thanks to the health care bill--the Affordable Care Act--insurance companies are already required to cover preventive care such as mammograms. For a person who is able to have a mammogram, it is lifesaving. Most people in the Senate know my wife is battling breast cancer. She had a mammogram in December and in August discovered a lump in her breast. Think of what would have happened if she had waited 1 year because she couldn't afford that mammogram. Frankly, the thought of it is very hard for me to comprehend because even though she had that mammogram in December, she had found it and was in stage 3 of breast cancer. It has been very difficult. What if she waited an extra year? Many people wait a lot longer than an extra year.

Colonoscopies save lives. I was talking to one of my friends in the Senate who is going to have his done. They do it every 5 years. It takes at least 10 years for polyps to develop into cancer, and some polyps develop into cancer if they are not taken out. People need to have this done.

Blood pressure checks, childhood immunizations without cost sharing is part of what is in this bill. It used to be a bill; now it is the law.

Starting tomorrow--again, Wednesday of this week--women will no longer have to reach in their pockets to pay for wellness checkups. They can do screening for diabetes, HPV testing, sexually transmitted infection counseling, HIV screening and counseling, breastfeeding support, domestic violence screening and counseling. That is all in the law starting tomorrow. All women in new insurance plans will have access to all forms of FDA-approved contraception without having to shell out more money on top of their premiums. Ending insurance company discrimination will help millions more women afford the care they need when they need it. It will restore basic fairness to the health care system. Sometimes the practical thing to do is also the right thing to do, and that is what the legislation we worked so hard to pass is all about. It is about doing the right thing for everyone. Today we are going to focus on women.

Mr. President, I wonder if the official reporter could show the big smile on my face. Can my colleagues imagine how ridiculous my friend the Republican leader's statement is. Listen to what he said. We are doing cyber security. We have talked about the dangers of cyber security if we don't do something about it. He is now telling me he wants a vote to repeal all the stuff I just talked about on the cyber security bill? That is very difficult to comprehend.

I think we should understand that I don't think a woman getting contraception has a thing to do with shutting down the power grids in America or the financial services in America or our water systems or our sewer systems. That is what cyber security is all about, not whether a woman can have contraception or whether she can have a wellness check to find out if she has cancer from not having had a mammogram.

I would be happy to yield.

My response to my friend is this: I try to be very calm about things in life generally, especially things here on the floor, but I can't remain very calm about this. I have, as do a lot of people I know, 16 grandchildren. They are evenly divided between boys and girls. I want my granddaughters to be treated so that if they want to go get some contraception, have some contraceptive device while in school at New York University or Berkeley--I am bragging that they got into those schools--they should have the ability to do that.

I just can't imagine what we are talking about here on the Senate floor. Cyber security is one of the most important--it is the most important issue, as I have already said. If my colleagues want to talk to General Petraeus, he will tell us about what it is, or General Dempsey will tell us what the important issue is. The No. 1 issue today is whether we are going to have bad people attack our country and shut it down. Now we are here being asked if we are going to have a vote, on cyber security, as to when my grandchildren can have contraception.

Mr. President, my friend asked me a question.

OK. I won't answer the question then.

Mr. President, I appreciate very much the Senator from New Jersey coming to the floor to discuss this issue. As my friend from New Jersey knows, as the chairman of the Finance Committee knows, I support the wool and cotton trust funds. That is very clear in the record of this body for what I believe was wrong with the Olympic uniforms. It is such a shame our athletes over there are wearing clothes made in China. I think that is too bad. I support the wool and cotton trust fund. I support the citrus trust fund. There are only three of them. I support all of them. I agree with my friend from New Jersey that we need to find a way to move these forward and ensure that American manufacturers are placed on equal footing with foreign manufacturers so there is an easier place for people to go if they want products made in the United States.

I am happy to work with Senator Menendez and Chairman Baucus to find a vehicle to ensure that these trust funds and these American jobs are a priority that is addressed this year. So my friend has a commitment that I will do everything within my abilities to make sure we have an agreement on extending these very important trust funds this year.

Mr. President, before I yield to my friend from New Jersey, I wish to also state on the record that no one is a better advocate for an issue they believe in than Senator Menendez from New Jersey. This is an issue he has spoken loudly and clearly about. So I reiterate what I said: I feel very compelled to do something to satisfy my friend from New Jersey on such a worthy cause.

Will my friend yield to me for 1 minute?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate on S. 3414, the cyber security bill, be extended until 5 p.m. and at that time I be recognized.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the senior Senator from Tennessee wishes to speak for another 10 minutes, is that right?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for debate only on S. 3414, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, be extended until 6:40, and that at 6:40 I be recognized.

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

Mr. President, to say I am disappointed is a tremendous understatement. This body is debating a measure that would prevent what national security experts on a bipartisan basis have called a serious threat to our Nation since the dawn of the nuclear age. Senator McCain called this danger an existential threat to our Nation.

Democrats were prepared to work on a bipartisan basis to pass this legislation. I, personally, have convened many meetings, going back 2 years ago, to have a piece of legislation that we could pass through this body. In that 2 years' time, things have gotten worse, not better, as far as threats to our country. We have been prepared to address concerns raised by the private sector, and I think it is only fair to say that for the leaders of the committees involved in this issue, there has been real cooperation, from both Democrats and Republicans.

I have said on the Senate floor many times that the work of Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins has been exemplary. The major part of this bill is within their jurisdiction dealing with homeland security. I have always envisioned they have been prepared to engage in a robust debate and to consider amendments designed to perfect the bill. I know that is how I feel. Above all, I thought we had all been prepared to put national security above partisan politics to address this urgent matter.

I was surprised this morning to hear Senator McConnell say he would like a vote on repealing ObamaCare on this bill. That is really not appropriate. Some Republican Senators have said this matter is going to be filibustered unless they have the right to vote on an amendment to repeal health care reform. Obviously, that is it. The Republican leader said that, but then I thought that might fade away.

Every Tuesday after our caucuses--the Republicans have one and the Democrats have one--Senator McConnell and I meet at the Ohio clock, as it is called, and both of us make a statement and answer questions the press gives us. It is not a jump ball, as in whoever gets there first gets to make the first presentation. We wait, and if one of us is not ready, the other goes first.

Sometimes he goes first; sometimes I go first. But the important point in the one today is that--and I am paraphrasing but the point is certainly valid--the Republican leader said out here, with the entire press corps and his leadership team with him, that cyber security-- remember, I am paraphrasing--is something we should do, but it will take several weeks to do it. Not this week.

Compare that to the words of GEN Keith Alexander, commander of the U.S. Cyber Command, who wrote Senator McConnell and I today. And here is what he said. This is a quote:

The cyber threat facing this Nation is real and demands

immediate action. The time to act is now. We simply cannot

afford further delay.

I have tried to figure out a way of describing how I feel about this. I said ``disappointed,'' and that is certainly true; ``flummoxed,'' that is certainly true. I cannot understand why we are in this position. I am so disappointed that Leader McConnell and his colleagues--some of his colleagues--would

prevent us from acting on this urgent threat. I am particularly astounded they would rather launch yet another attack, for example, on women's health than work to ensure the security of our Nation.

I have no choice but to file cloture on this matter. I would hope we could get cloture, but I am a realist, as I have learned after having tried to work through 85 different filibusters in this congressional session. I remain hopeful that they will come to their senses and realize the urgent need for action on this matter.

There was a really inspirational presentation made in our caucus today by Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland. Again, I am paraphrasing, but I am pretty direct in remembering what she said. I was not present when Senator McConnell made his statement. Senator Mikulski said: I have served on the Intelligence Committee for 10 years. And she said: This legislation creates a rendezvous with destiny for our country. We have to do something, and we have to do it soon.

I have stated to Senator Lieberman, to Senator Collins--anyone who will listen--this is not a partisan piece of legislation. It should not be. I am happy to work on an agreement to consider relevant amendments, but this matter has been pending since last Thursday. Today is Tuesday, and basically the slow walk that I am so used to around here has taken place.

I hope we can find a final path forward. Senators from both sides of the aisle have come to me personally and said they have invested time-- lots of time--in this matter, and they are trying to forge a consensus. I take them at their word, but they all seem powerless to buck the filibuster trend we have.

So I hope when the dust settles we can set aside crass politics and work together for the good of our Nation and can achieve a strong, effective, bipartisan cyber security bill.

Mr. President, Tom Donohue, head of the Chamber of Commerce, is my friend. He really is. But I am terribly disappointed in the Chamber of Commerce. We started out with having a requirement that businesses in the private sector would be required to do certain things. Senators Lieberman and Collins backed off from that, and now it is kind of a voluntary deal. It is much weaker than I think it should be. Why in the world would they oppose that--``they'' meaning the Chamber of Commerce, which has sucked in most all of the Republicans on this. That is really unfortunate.

Amendment No. 2731

So, Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Lieberman, Collins, and others, I call up amendment No. 2731, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Franken, I call up amendment No. 2732, which is also at the desk.

Mr. President, I have an amendment to the language proposed to be stricken.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.

Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.

Mr. President, I have a motion to commit the bill with instructions, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion.

Mr. President, I have an amendment to the instructions at the desk.

I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.

Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII be waived with respect to the cloture motion that has just been filed.

Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 473,

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we are on the motion to proceed to S. 3414, which is the cybersecurity bill. This is postcloture. At 4:30 p.m., the Senate will proceed to executive session to vote on the nomination of Robert Bacharach, of Oklahoma, to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Tenth Circuit. This likely will be our last vote on a circuit judge for this Congress. I hope we can be successful. This is a person whom I will talk about a little bit, and he is certainly well qualified. He came out of committee unanimously.

At 5:30 p.m., today, there will be a cloture vote on the Bacharach nomination. If cloture is not invoked on the Bacharach nomination, the Senate will resume legislative session and begin consideration of the cybersecurity bill following the vote.

Measure Placed on the Calendar--H.R. 6082

I am told H.R. 6082 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with regard to this bill.

Mr. President, I was glad to hear Speaker Boehner say last week he will bring the Senate-passed middle-class tax cut to the House floor for a vote. I heard again today he is going to hold to what he said. I think that is very good.

Our struggling Nation is one vote away from avoiding the fiscal cliff for middle-class families. Every Member of the House of Representatives should have an opportunity to show where they stand: with millionaires or the middle class. Members can support the Democrats' plan to cut taxes for 98 percent of Americans while reducing the deficit by almost $1 trillion or they can support the Republican plan to hand out more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, increasing taxes for 25 million American families struggling to put kids through college or even food on the table.

The two approaches demonstrate a glaring difference in priorities. There is another difference between the two plans. The Democrats' proposal is the only one with a chance of becoming law. President Obama said he would sign it tomorrow. What he will not do is sign into law any more wasteful giveaways to the wealthiest 2 percent.

The Senate has defeated the Republican proposal in a bipartisan vote, so it is simply a waste of time for House Republicans to continue to pursue their middle-class tax hike. House Republicans should stop holding the middle class hostage to extract more tax cuts for the richest of the rich. They

should pass our middle-class tax cut now. American families cannot afford to wait until the last moment to find out how their bottom line will look come January 1. People are sitting around their kitchen tables now trying to figure out whether they can afford to buy a home or rent a home, should they send their kids to college or trade school or should they or can they retire? Republicans shouldn't force 114 million families to guess whether they will have $1,600 less to spend or save next year. They certainly need to do something and do it now, and one simple vote can give them that certainty.

Mr. President, cybersecurity is basically a new word. Today, the Senate also continues to work to address this problem. This is a problem that national security experts call the most urgent threat to our country; that is, weakness in our defense against cybersecurity. Cyber terrorism could cripple the computer networks that control our electrical grid, water supplies, sewers, nuclear plants, energy pipelines, transportation networks, communications equipment, and financial systems, to name a few. GEN Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: ``A cyber attack could stop this society in its tracks.'' Cyber espionage does not just threaten our national security, it threatens our economic security as well. Hackers have already attacked one of the most important businesses we have in America today, the Nasdaq stock exchange. Major corporations are under attack every day, spending millions and millions of dollars to protect against cyber attacks. These attacks cost our economy billions of dollars a year and thousands of jobs.

GEN James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, said Chinese cyber theft of American intellectual property is ``the greatest pillaging of wealth in history.''

``That's our future disappearing in front of us,'' added GEN Keith Alexander, Director of the National Security Administration.

In a report released last year, the American Chamber of Commerce said the government and private sector should work together to develop incentives for businesses to voluntarily act to protect our Nation's critical infrastructure. The legislation before this body today does exactly that. It establishes a public-private partnership to make our Nation safer and protect American jobs. I hope the Chamber will join in our efforts to pass this important legislation.

I personally believe this bill could go further to address the critical infrastructure, such as the networks operating our electrical grid, our water supply, and other life-sustaining systems. It is a tremendously important first step.

I applaud Senators Lieberman, Collins, Feinstein, and Rockefeller for their work on this legislation. The bill managers are compiling a list of relevant amendments for consideration. I hope we can cooperate to work through the list and pass this legislation this week. We can't afford to fail to address what experts have called the greatest security challenge since the dawn of the nuclear age.

Bacharach Nomination

I said I would talk a little bit about Judge Bacharach, and I intend to do that now.

Today, the Senate will vote on whether to end a filibuster of Judge Robert Bacharach, a nominee from Oklahoma to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. By any measure, this man is the type of noncontroversial nominee the Senate would routinely confirm with broad bipartisan support. He was reported out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote. Everybody said he is a good guy. He has the support of two Republican Senators from his State of Oklahoma. Senator Coburn, the junior Senator from Oklahoma, said Friday that Judge Bacharach is a stellar candidate and ought to get through.

Yet Republicans have signaled they are going to block his nomination. If they hold up this consensus candidate, it will be the first time an appeals court nominee with this bipartisan support has ever been filibustered on the floor.

Why should we ever be surprised? We have already had 85 filibusters, so we can add another one to it. I hope they don't filibuster this good man. I have already said this would be our last circuit court judge. It is too bad that is the case.

If Senator Coburn and Senator Inhofe broadly support this qualified nomination, blatant partisanship will be to blame. Senator Coburn said Judge Bacharach is ``an awfully good candidate caught in election-year politics.''

Will the Chair announce the business of the day.

Reservation of Leader Time

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of debate only on S. 3414, and that this will go forward until 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, July 31; further, that at 2:15 p.m. on that date, Tuesday, I be recognized.

The Senator can do that. It is totally appropriate.

Madam President, if I could ask my friend to withhold for a brief moment.

It is my understanding that Senator Coburn has been waiting around for a while to talk.

The Senator is OK waiting?

OK.

Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 470, S. 3414, which is the Cybersecurity Act.

Mr. President, I would now yield to the senior Senator from the State of Iowa, Mr. Grassley.

Mr. President, I appreciate my friend's remarks about his pastor. They were very well thought out, and I appreciate them very much.

Schedule

Mr. President, the first hour here today will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. The majority will control the first half and the Republicans the final half.

I filed cloture last night on a motion to proceed to the cybersecurity bill. I hope we can reach an agreement to have that cloture vote sometime today. If not, we will have it tomorrow.

When a major storm ripped through the Mid-Atlantic region last month, it left millions of people without power--I repeat, millions of people. I was at my home here in Washington, which is different from my home in Searchlight, NV. In Searchlight, the wind blows a lot, so you can hear the wind. It is kind of pleasant for me. But the wind we heard at our home in Washington was not pleasant. At 9:30 or 10:00 at night, it was loud and it was abusive and it was, quite frankly, a little scary.

Our power was not affected, but that wasn't the case for millions of other people. Residents of Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, and the District of Columbia soon realized how quickly a major power outage can alter life as we know it. I talked to Senator Manchin of West Virginia, and a week later power was still out in large parts of West Virginia. He said it was the worst storm they have ever known in West Virginia.

This power outage altered life as people knew it here in the entire eastern part of the United States. The blackout was devastating to many families and many businesses. But it was also minor compared to the devastation that malicious cyber terrorists could wreak with a single keystroke. I repeat, as damaging and frightening as this storm was, we could have a malicious cyber attack by terrorists that would be far more devastating than this violent storm. Cyber attackers could all too easily shut down the electric grid for the entire east coast, the west coast, and the middle part of our country. Any one attack could leave dozens of major cities and tens of millions of Americans without power. We know, because we were shown in a room here in the Capitol, how an attack could take place and what damage it would do, so we know this is not just make-believe.

Without ATMs or debit card readers, commerce would immediately grind to a halt. My daughter, who lives here in the DC area, lost power when the storm hit. They waited for a number of hours, and then they took all the food out of their freezer, they gave away what they could, and they threw the rest away. And that was the way it was all over. Their power was out for about a week, and it made it very difficult. They are fortunate enough to have a basement, and the heat wasn't oppressive down there.

Without refrigeration, food would rot on the shelves, the freezers would have to be emptied, and people could actually go hungry. Without gas pumps, transportation arteries would clog with abandoned vehicles. Without cell phones or computers, whole regions of the country would be cut off from communication and families would be unable to reach each other. Without air-conditioning and without lifesaving technology and the service of hospitals and nursing homes, the elderly and sick would become much sicker and die. Most major hospitals have backup power, but it is only for a limited amount of time. It depends on how much fuel they can store, and that is very limited.

The devastation is really unimaginable, but we have heard these ominous scenarios before. What many Americans haven't considered is that the same power grids that supply cities and towns, stores and gas stations, cell towers and heart monitors also power every military base in our country. About 99 percent of electricity used to power military installations comes from outside the bases. Nellis Air Force Base, one of the largest in the world of its type, has some solar energy there that they have developed, but over 90 percent of their power, in spite of that, comes from outside the base, and more than 85 percent of that power is provided by the same electric utilities that power homes and businesses and schools in the civilian world. So a cyber attack that took out a civilian power grid would also soon cripple our Nation's military--very soon.

Although bases would be prepared to weather a short power outage with backup diesel generators, within hours, not days, fuel supplies would run out. Command and control centers would go dark. Radar systems that detect air threats to our country would shut down. Communication between commanders and their troops would go silent. And many weapons systems would be left without either fuel or electric power.

Much of what we do militarily is now done by computers and done very remotely. It is no secret that the drones that operate for our country all over the world are not operated from Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Somalia, they are operated from a base 35 miles outside Las Vegas. That is all done with electricity. So in a few short hours or days, the mightiest military in the world would be left scrambling to maintain base functions.

That is why our top national security officials--including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Director of the National Security Agency, the Secretary of Defense, and the CIA Director--have said that the kind of malicious cyber attack I have just described is among the most urgent threats to our country. In fact, they have said that unless we do something and do it soon, it is not a question of if, it is only a question of when.

There have already been cyber attacks on our nuclear infrastructure, our Defense Department's most advanced weapons, the NASDAQ stock exchange, and most major corporations. These are just a few of the things that have already been attacked by cyber.

Senator McConnell and I recently received a letter from a bipartisan group of former national security officials, including six former Bush and Obama administration officials, that presented the danger in stark terms:

We carry the burden of knowing that 9/11 might have been

averted with the intelligence that existed at the time. We do

not want to be in the same position again when ``cyber 9/11''

hits--it is not a question of whether this will happen; it is

only a question of ``when.''

That is what they said, not me. The group said the threat of cyber attack ``represents the most serious challenge to our national security since the onset of the nuclear age sixty years ago.''

The bill before this body, proposed by a coalition of Democrats and Republicans--including Chairman Lieberman

and ranking member Collins--is an excellent piece of legislation endorsed by many members of the national security community.

In my view, it is not strong enough, but it is a tremendous step forward, and I admire the work they have done. I know some of my colleagues have suggestions on how to improve this legislation. I have a few of my own. There is plenty of room for good ideas. Some of them are already on the table. It is my intention for Senators to have an opportunity to have a robust debate on these proposals. Let's stick with what this bill is all about and let's have as many amendments as people feel is appropriate.

The national security experts agree we can't afford to waste more time. The question is not whether we should act but whether we will act in time.

As I mentioned at the start, we are scheduled to have this vote an hour after we come in tomorrow. I am working with Senator McConnell now to try to arrange a time, perhaps even today. My goal is to get on the bill. I hope we can get on the bill. It would be terrible for our country if we are not on the bill. I would like to get on the bill and have Senators Lieberman, Collins, Rockefeller, Feinstein, and the other committees that are involved come up with a list of amendments as we have done so well on a number of the bills we have worked through. When we come back next week, let's start doing some legislating and have some robust debate, get some of these amendments disposed of, and pass this bill on to the House.

The House has done their bill. We can go to conference and get something done. It would be very important for our country.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Madam President, I appreciate my friend yielding, my dear friend from Vermont.

Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk with respect to this nomination.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session.

I ask unanimous consent that at 3:30 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to proceed--or what we can do, we will start the vote at 3:25; and if somebody is going to be a bit late, we will protect them on that.

So I ask unanimous consent we start voting at 3:25 p.m. today on the motion to proceed to S. 3414, the cybersecurity bill.

Madam President, I meant that request to be 3:22 p.m.

All for my friend from Louisiana.

Madam President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 467, the Middle Class Tax Cut Act of 2012.

Madam President, we are now in the midst of another Republican filibuster. So the time until 2:15 today will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. The Republicans will control the first 30 minutes and the majority will control the second 30 minutes. At 2:15, there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the Middle Class Tax Cut Act that was just outlined by the clerk.

Measure Placed on the Calendar--S. 3429

Madam President, I understand that S. 3429 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

Madam President, I would object to any further proceedings with respect to this legislation.

Madam President, for the third time in as many weeks, Republicans are poised to kill a tax cut without ever debating it on the Senate floor.

Two weeks ago, Republicans filibustered legislation to cut taxes for small businesses. Last week, they filibustered a bill to end tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas and cut taxes for companies that move jobs back to America. Now they are filibustering our plan to cut taxes for 114 million middle-class families. Not one of these bills has gotten a debate on the Senate floor. So let's look at what led to this latest Republican filibuster.

Two weeks ago, Senator McConnell came to the Senate floor to ask for two votes, one on the Democratic plan to cut taxes for 98 percent of American families and reduce the deficit by about $1 trillion. The other vote he wanted was on the Republican plan to raise taxes by $1,000 each for 25 million middle-class families while handing out tax breaks to millionaires of $160,000 each.

That afternoon, I told the minority leader that Democrats were willing to give Republicans what they said they wanted--those two votes. But although it had been only a few short hours since Senator McConnell asked for those two votes, my offer was refused. He said he had to see our proposal first.

It seemed like a thin excuse at the time. He hadn't seen our proposal when he asked for the votes in the first place, but others within his caucus had seen it, and the staff had seen it, of course. But I took the minority leader at his word.

So Democrats produced legislation in legislative form, and we offered once again to vote on our bill and on the Republicans' plan to hike middle-class taxes. Again, they refused the up-or-down votes they had asked for. This time they wanted a third vote now, on a different plan, we are told.

We have President Obama's tax plan before us. I am not going to make up some tax plan of the President that they said they are going to do. We have President Obama's tax plan. We have worked hand in glove with him now for months to come to the body with what we have today. So this third vote is again a charade.

The Presiding Officer has a couple of small children. My children aren't so small anymore. But small children being small children, it is very often they have a bedtime tactic that has been used forever. I am sure the Presiding Officer's children--and I know my kids--when they needed to get to sleep always wanted one more story. They would ask for one more story and then one more story. But parents learned and saw this bedtime story for what it is, a delaying tactic to stave off bedtime.

Americans see the Republicans' hollow request for one more vote, a made-up vote, for what it is, an excuse to put off a simple majority vote on the Democrats' plan to cut taxes for the middle class. Of course, we know why Republicans are filibustering our plan to protect the middle class: They know it would pass if we held an up-or-down majority vote on that today.

Our bill has the support of President Obama, it has the support of the Democratic caucus, and it has the support of the American people. A majority of Americans--including a significant majority of Republicans--agree taxes should remain low for the middle class and that the top 2 percent should pay their fair share to reduce the deficit. As I said, the majority of Republicans agree. The only place there is no agreement is with the Republicans in Congress. They once again have decided to obstruct rather than to legislate. So the Senate may not even get to debate the merits of our plan to cut taxes for 98 percent of American families.

There is still time for Republicans to reverse course and drop their filibuster. They owe the American people a serious debate on this proposal.

Cybersecurity

Madam President, I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will allow us to debate a crucial cybersecurity bill before the end of this month. We hope to have a vote on this as early as tomorrow or the next day.

Cybersecurity--a new word, but there is nothing more important to national security than doing something about cybersecurity. If we do not pass this legislation that is now before the Senate, if we don't do something about this, we are told by the experts it is not a question of if; it is a question of when. This legislation is extremely important.

National security experts from the left, the right, and center say weaknesses in our cyber defenses are among the greatest threats facing our Nation--and some say it is the greatest threat facing our Nation. So Congress must act rapidly to address this issue.

The House and Senate must also act before Congress leaves for the August recess to pass the final version of legislation initiating new Iran sanctions.

This past year, the Senate conference has been hard at work to complete this agreement. I have been clear that I expect the negotiations to conclude soon so we can further tighten these sanctions against Iran. Sanctions are critical. It is a critical tool to help stop Iran's nuclear weapons program and ensuring the security of our ally, the State of Israel.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that at 4 p.m. the cloture motion with respect to the motion to proceed to S. 3412 be withdrawn; the Senate adopt the motion to proceed to S. 3412, a bill extending the 2001, 2003, and 2009 tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans and 90 percent of all small businesses; that the only amendment in order to the bill be a substitute amendment offered by Senators McConnell and Hatch, which is identical to the text of S. 3413; that the amendment not be divisible; that the time until 4 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to a vote on the McConnell-Hatch amendment; that upon disposition of the McConnell- Hatch amendment, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended; that there be no motions, points of order, or amendments in order to the amendment or the bill; that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the votes; finally, that when the Senate receives a companion bill from the House providing for the extension of tax cuts, as designated by the majority leader, it be in order for the majority leader to proceed to its immediate consideration; strike all after the enacting clause and insert the text of S. 3412 as passed by the Senate in lieu thereof; that the House bill, as amended, be read a third time, a statutory pay-go statement be read, if needed, and the bill, as amended, be passed with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the President's bill is the one that is before this body that I asked unanimous consent on. We have a Statement of Administration Policy. It is the President's bill. So I respectfully object to my friend's suggested modifications.

Mr. President, my friend is objecting to the last paragraph in my request. He has asked consent to add a third provision. I have objected to the third provision. He has objected to the last paragraph. I would be willing to renew my consent minus the last paragraph which begins ``finally'' and ends with the word ``debate.''

Mr. President, the vote will occur at 4 o'clock today on these two amendments. I appreciate very much the Republican leader allowing us to arrive at the point where we are. I would tell everyone that the time until 4 o'clock is evenly divided, approximately an hour for each side.

I ask unanimous consent that if there are quorum calls between now and 4 o'clock the time be equally divided between the two sides.

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