Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, the Texas Center for Superconductivity at the University of Houston (TCSUH) commemorates 25 years of achievements following the discovery of the High Temperature Superconductor YBCO by Dr. Paul C. W. Chu and colleagues in 1987 and the establishment the Center by the State of Texas.

With ongoing support from the State, the Center has continued to grow in size and in the breadth of its programs which include basic and applied research, technology development and transfer and advanced education and training. TCSUH maintains an infrastructure that supports the interdisciplinary research and education that is necessary to advance new fields and accelerate scientific discovery.

I am intensely committed to investing in science and research and Texas' place at the top of that ladder. In 2004, I worked to create TAMEST The Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas a vehicle for Texas institutions to share knowledge and research, to know what others in the scientific fields were working on. Today, with better information sharing, Texas has gone from sixth to third as a recipient of Federal research funding.

Science and technology are critical to the future growth and prosperity of our country. America must continue to prioritize scientific research and technological development that fuels our economy, creates jobs, improves health care and helps to promote our national security and global leadership.

This is incredibly important to both Texas and America. Since World War II, more than half of US economic growth can be attributed to technological innovation; part of this is a direct result of Federal investment in science and technology.

Texas' world-class research institutions and university-based innovation centers like TCSUH bring new technology and research together with savvy entrepreneurs, creating new businesses and, most important, creating jobs.

TCSUH contributes to the goals of strengthening the prominence of Texas as a national research leader by attracting top quality researchers to the State, educating the next generation of scientists and engineers, and building links with industry to commercialize new technologies and create quality jobs.

I congratulate Dr. Chu and his colleagues at TCSUH on this important occasion and extend my best wishes to all for many more years of continued success.

Madam President, I am pleased to follow the Senator from Minnesota because we did work on a piece of legislation, which she perfected. It was my bill that first passed on stalking that would take the antistalking laws nationwide because so often it happens across State lines, and so we had to put it all together so that if someone did cross State lines to stalk a woman or her children or a man or anyone, that would be prosecutable.

I was so pleased Senator Klobuchar then came with a bill which I was proud to cosponsor which updated the technology criminals now use to harass, scare and really make life miserable for people they know. I had a stalker myself for about 12 years. I didn't know him, but he certainly did make my life different, that is for sure. And sometimes it is worse than what I experienced because there are actual threats.

I will never forget the time I got a call from an attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Austin, TX, and he said: I just wanted you to know we got our first conviction under your antistalking law. It was a man who was harassing his ex-wife and his children, threatening them with a gun, and we were able to put him away and make that family a lot safer. I thought, you know, we live to actually know something we have done makes a difference. So I thank the Senator from Minnesota for carrying that forward.

Honoring Our Foreign Servants

I rise today, Madam President, to talk about Neil Armstrong and about NASA, but I can't stand here today with what is going on in the Middle East and not say that I join the thousands and maybe millions of others who mourn the loss of a U.S. Ambassador who was killed in Libya. You know, I would mourn any U.S. Ambassador who is killed in the line of duty, but it makes it even harder when we know this one was doing such a great job. Christopher Stevens had dedicated his life really trying to make peace and trying to be a force for the positive in the Middle East. He was our Ambassador to Libya.

I am sad to say it appears this was a plot. It was not an accident. It wasn't something that happened because he happened to be in the consulate. It apparently was a premeditated murder of our Ambassador. And I know the whole country mourns the loss of someone who tried so hard to do what is right and to then have this happen. So I want to pay my respects to him and to all who knew and worked with him.

In the travels I have been fortunate to make as a U.S. Senator, I am always so impressed with the representatives of the United States in our embassies and consulates throughout the world. Our Foreign Service representatives do a fabulous job. They take their lives and put them in danger sometimes, especially in countries that are strife-torn, as certainly Libya is right now and Egypt as well. So my great respect goes out to our Foreign Service community, and I think we have just been reminded of the service they give and the sacrifices they make.

Honoring Neil Armstrong

Madam President, I wish to speak today about the life of a gentle giant, Neil Armstrong, and also about the future of NASA. This all came together this week because I have just returned from the National Cathedral, where I joined congressional colleagues, Senators, and many others in paying our final respects to a man who unquestionably was a true American hero. Of course, we know Neil Armstrong made world history when he stepped out on the Moon's surface for the first time an American had done so and he uttered those words that will be forever enshrined in American consciousness.

They say that some seek fame and some have it thrust on them, but Neil Armstrong was the rare man who earned his fame and yet shied away from it at every turn. He preferred to live the life of, as he described it himself, ``a white-sock, pocket-protector, nerdy engineer.'' He chose to live a private life rather than bask in well- deserved glory. For that, he was more than a hero, he was a role model we would all be fortunate to follow. We have too few of those today. Neil Armstrong served his country in Korea, where he was a fighter pilot and was shot down. He certainly served at NASA, which we all know, and he served his community as a professor at the University of Cincinnati. He was a serious, dedicated scientist who loved what he did and just wanted to get the job done.

There is a story told about him of an incident that occurred during training before the Moon landing where his vehicle forced an ejection. His only injury was biting his own tongue, but it was a near-death incident nonetheless. It was a very lucky escape. Another astronaut saw Neil working at his desk and said he had heard about Neil being thrown out of his vehicle. Then he asked when it happened, and Neil said: About an hour ago. The astronaut--Alan Bean--later told Neil's biographer:

I can't think of another person, let alone another

astronaut, who would have just gone back to his office after

ejecting a fraction of a second before getting killed.

I was lucky enough to know Neil Armstrong. We first met when he, Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell, and Gene Cernan expressed concern over the administration's proposal to abandon NASA's manned space exploration program. They wrote an open letter. And let me tell you, when the first and last men to set foot on the Moon had an issue with the direction of NASA, everybody listened. It was a rare occasion that these astronaut leaders would speak publicly on such an issue, and considering Neil's propensity to shy away from the spotlight, it had even more significance. But he thought it was important, and a great bipartisan number of our colleagues agreed it was important that he chose to speak out on this very important issue.

The plan proposed canceling the existing space exploration program and suspending plans to build a replacement for the space shuttle. It placed immediate reliance on commercial capabilities, which at the time were undeveloped and unproven. Neil was particularly concerned about leaning too heavily on commercial crew vehicles because he rightly believed NASA should have ultimate ownership and stewardship of the next phase of deep space exploration.

When I asked if that group would testify before the Senate Commerce Committee and give us the benefit of their immense experience, Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan were able to do so. Their testimony in May of 2010 helped us craft the NASA Reauthorization Act of 2010, which we managed to pass with a balanced plan that prioritized NASA's development of future exploration beyond low Earth orbit, while putting significant resources into commercial development of crew vehicles to the space station. We passed it unanimously in the Senate, very bipartisan, and we passed it on Neil Armstrong's birthday--on August 5, 2010.

When the space shuttle was retired, some thought the space program was ended. You know, I took a group of Cub Scouts to Johnson Space Center in Houston just a few months ago. They have a great program for our Scouts--well, for any group who actually wants to go and spend the night at the visitor's center at Johnson Space Center. They get to tour NASA and hear about the great feats of our country in space. And one of the little boys said to our NASA administrator at Johnson: Gosh, I am really sorry the space program is ending. And I was shocked and the administrator was shocked, and we said: Oh, but it is not ending. The space program is not ending.

If we allow people to think, if we allow our young--possibly the next generation of astronauts and scientists--to think the program is ending, are they going to be inspired to take those courses in aeronautical engineering that will give them the background to propel them to the next level of space exploration that is going to do things maybe we haven't even thought of yet? We would eliminate the potential that manned space exploration can produce in the next decade.

We had a hearing in the Commerce Committee yesterday where we heard from NASA scientists about the Mars rover called Curiosity.

It was just breathtaking to hear the advancements that we have made with that rover that is now plodding around exploring the dirt and the rocks and the atmosphere on Mars.

One of the scientists pointed out that these NASA programs aren't just about exploration, they result in technologies that we use every day and that make our lives better right here on Earth. One pointed out that Curiosity is the first step in the next frontier of space, probing the atmosphere and geology of Mars. Each mission will build on the success of the last, and these robots and rovers that are going up now will be the precursors to the time when we put people--astronauts--on Mars.

There are myriads of practical results from NASA's programs, and there are many reasons to keep them alive and fully funded, but I think the astronauts--Neil Armstrong, Jim Lovell, and Gene Cernan put it best in their open letter:

America's space accomplishments earned the respect and

admiration of the world. Science probes were unlocking the

secrets of the cosmos. Space technology was providing

instantaneous worldwide communication; orbital sentinels were

helping man understand the vagaries of nature. Above all

else, the people around the world were inspired by the human

exploration of space and the expanding of man's frontier. It

suggested that what had been thought to be impossible was now

within reach.

Gene Cernan was one of those who gave the eulogy today at Neil Armstrong's memorial service at the National Cathedral. He gave a personal account. They were very close friends. They went fishing together. They had a long-term and lasting mutual respect, admiration, and friendship.

America cannot lose its preeminence in space. We are the leaders of the free world, and we are the natural leaders beyond its atmosphere. This is not done in dominance or hegemony but to ensure that technology can be used for our economic benefit. The satellites we have discovered with the space exploration have transformed communications, and satellite-guided missiles have given us defense capabilities that hit the target with less collateral damage.

This is my last of 19 wonderful years in the United States Senate, during which I have championed and fought for NASA and our manned spacecraft and space flight programs. I have worked with so many dedicated colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I am proud of what we have accomplished. I am asking that my colleagues do not let all of the hard work of the past be for nothing. We saved the manned exploration program, but there is so much more to be done. NASA must continue to be a priority.

I am a budget cutter. I will match anyone with the budget cutting that I think we need to do in this country. But the key for Congress is to remember what the Constitution says: The purse strings belong to Congress. So our responsibility is to set that cap on spending--set that cap at the lowest level we can and cover our functions that are necessary to run the government of this country.

The normal average spending of the Federal Government is about 20 percent of our gross domestic product. We are up to 24 percent in the last few years. We have to come back. We have to come back to 20. We may have to go to 18 in order to end at 20, but we must not refuse to set the priorities that will make sure we have a strong economy in the future. We must invest in the programs that will yield the benefits that will keep our economy going, our people working, and our engineers able to continue to produce the great things that have happened in our space program, in our medical research, and more.

This is so important to all of us. America's competitiveness depends on maintaining our dominance in science and technology. We cannot do it without NASA. Neil Armstrong left his mark on the American people and on generations around the globe. This is his enduring legacy. Ours must be to maintain the great organization--NASA--that made him a legend and helped make America the greatest Nation on Earth.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this statement be included in the Record upon introduction of my legislation, the Church Plan Clarification Act of 2012, with Senator Cardin.

Today, my colleague Senator Cardin and I are reintroducing this legislation, which refines the language included in our previous bill,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this statement be included in the Record upon introduction of my legislation, the Church Plan Clarification Act of 2012, with Senator Cardin.

Today, my colleague Senator Cardin and I are reintroducing this legislation, which refines the language included in our previous bill,

Mr. President, I wanted to get the time for our side and the time for the bill sponsor's side and clarify that the people on our side would have 15 minutes. Is that correct?

I wanted to clarify that there would be time for the opposition side. I did not know if Senator Collins is speaking for the majority side then or the minority side. I am trying to clarify to assure that the opposition is getting some equal amount of time or close to equal.

Then how much time would the proponents have with Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman on the proponents' side?

How much, then, would be left on the Republican side?

Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the opponents have at least 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to be notified when I have 5 minutes left, because Senator McCain is expected on the floor, and if Senator Chambliss or others come, I would like to have the time.

Mr. President, I rise to express my disappointment that we are taking a vote that is very premature. Not that we have not been discussing this bill for over a year. I have certainly been one of the first to say that we should vote on a cyber security bill. This is a complicated bill. It is a bill that did not get marked up in committee.

In our discussions, we are talking about amendments. I want to say that the proponents of the bill before us have certainly been willing to talk and adjust and try to make changes in the bill. It is not there yet even though we have been meeting pretty much constantly. There are three different groups that have a very strong interest. All of us are interested in getting a cyber security bill, but none of us likes what is before us--well, obviously the proponents of the bill like what is before us.

But two other groups are very concerned about further needs in the bill. Let me say that we have an alternative called SECURE IT. It is cosponsored by eight of the ranking members of committees and subcommittees that have jurisdiction over cyber security. Senators McCain, myself, Chambliss, Grassley, Murkowski, Coats, Burr, and Johnson are cosponsoring a bill that could pass the House and go to the President.

My concern with S. 3414, on which we are voting on cloture, is on the process, because we have not had a chance to amend this bill. The majority leader is attempting to invoke cloture and fill the tree so that we are not able to put any amendments on this bill at all. It is a bill that will not get 41 votes for sure. And there are many others who are very concerned about the substance of the bill.

You cannot have a bill with no amendments that is this important and this technical. Let me state some of my concerns on the bill before us. First, it will actually undermine the current information sharing between the government and the private sector. The biggest priority we have is to get the private sector to the table and to make sure they have the ability to not only give information to the government but get information from the government. Furthermore, they must be able to share among the other industries, if they see a cyber threat, on an expedited basis.

No. 2, the Department of Homeland Security would be granted authority over standard setting for private sector systems. That is unacceptable in the private sector and most certainly is not going to produce what is a consensus for getting the information we need. It assumes that government must take the adversarial role against private network owners in order to get cooperation when, in fact, both the government and the private sector share the same goals of increased cyber security.

Let me read from a couple of letters we have received with concerns about this bill. The American Bankers Association, the Financial Services Roundtable, the Consumer Bankers Association, and 6 other organizations say: This legislation threatens to undermine important cyber security protections already in place for our customers and institutions. It misses an opportunity to substantially improve cyber threat information sharing between the Federal Government and the private sector.

The National Association of Manufacturers says: The creation of a new government-administered program in an agency yet to be named forces unnecessary regulatory uncertainty on the private sector.

The defense industry groups are very concerned about not having direct access to the National Security Agency with whom they deal now, and this bill would take that away from their capabilities.

Let me ask my colleagues, I have reserved the 5 minutes that I have for opponents. Is that going to change, Senator Lieberman? If not, I will give 2\1/2\ minutes each to Senator McCain and Senator Chambliss of my 5 minutes.

I will ask my colleagues, Senator McCain--I can give you 2\1/2\ minutes to you and Senator Chambliss. While they are going to their microphones, I want to say that they have been instrumental in trying to get a consensus bill. And they, like myself, are very disappointed that we are prematurely voting on a cloture motion when we have had no ability to amend the bill.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to Senator McCain.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the two letters from which I read in my statement and an article from the Wall Street Journal this morning on this issue.

Mr. President, I have listened to the distinguished Senator and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and the presentation of the bill that I assume will be voted on today. I appreciate very much that we have had the meetings. There are really two bills that have been introduced: the Lieberman-Collins, bill with their cosponsors, and then I have introduced legislation called the

Mr. President, our bill also allows for a true collaborative effort.

The reason we are not supporting the bill that is on the floor today is because we believe it does not do the priorities that we can pass, and it does increase the mandates and the regulatory overkill, in our opinion, that will keep our companies from being able to move forward on an expedited basis to start protecting our systems.

A priority of mine throughout this process has been that we help the private sector combat cyber attacks by breaking down the barriers to sharing information. If we could take that one step, we would be a long way toward ensuring that we are increasing the security of all Americans. The bill before us will actually undermine current information sharing between the government and the private sector. That bill's information-sharing title is a step backward because it slows the transfer of critical information to our intelligence agencies, and there is not sufficient protection from antitrust. In addition, there is no consensus in the Senate to grant the Department of Homeland Security broad new authority to impose burdensome regulations on the private sector.

While I am pleased our colleagues who are cosponsoring the bill that is before us have made an effort to move away from direct regulation of our Nation's systems, it has a long way to go. While their bill allows the private sector to propose standards that are described as voluntary, the bill actually empowers Federal agencies to make these voluntary standards mandatory. If an agency does not make the standards mandatory, it would have to report to Congress why it had failed to do so. That is a pretty big incentive for mandates to start being put on with regulations that will be required.

I believe there is a way forward. If the Senate takes the well- reasoned and broadly supported provisions of the SECURE IT bill and puts them with a voluntary and industry-driven critical infrastructure protection title, we could pass a Senate bill with overwhelming support.

The key to reaching consensus has five parts:

The cybersecurity standards must be developed by the private sector and must be truly voluntary. The relationship between government and the private sector in this area must be cooperative, not adversarial and not regulatory.

The National Institute for Standards and Technology should be the convening authority for the private sector standard-setting process. The government can have a role in ensuring the standards are sufficient, and it should, but it can't establish a regulatory regime that will lengthen and hamper the efforts to open information sharing.

Companies--and here is the incentive for the companies to do exactly what we are asking them to do--companies that adopt the voluntary standards must receive robust and straightforward protections from liability as well as necessary antitrust and Freedom of Information Act exemptions. If a company is going to turn over its proprietary information to the government, it must be protected from freedom of information requests from the government that then would take its private proprietary information public.

As in the SECURE IT Act, the information-sharing title must be strong and encourage the private sector to share information, and it must encourage the government to share with the private sector. It cannot cut out those with the most expertise in the area, meaning the national security agencies should not have to be subservient to the Department of Homeland Security.

In addition, a 5-year sunset would allow Congress to revisit the act and make needed changes. FISA has certainly shown that with a sunset, it allows the flexibility to adapt to new issues that arise and stay current in its processes to deal with cybersecurity. We believe a 5- year sunset would be the right amount of time to get this going, set things in place, see what works, and see what needs to be adjusted.

I am hopeful my colleagues and I can come to a compromise on this critical issue. We want a strong cybersecurity bill. We want one that can pass both Houses. The five points I have laid out could get us to a bill that will significantly take the steps to improve our Nation's cybersecurity.

I wish to read a couple of excerpts from the Heritage Foundation's views of the bill that is before us today:

Cybersecurity legislation will likely be taken up by the

Senate tomorrow.

This was written yesterday.

Regrettably, the idea that we just need to do something

about cybersecurity seems to be trumping the view that we

need to do it right.

The Cybersecurity Act of 2012, authored by Senators

Lieberman and Collins, seeks to solve our cybersecurity ills

but only threatens to make the situation worse.

The ``voluntary'' nature of the CSA's standards is also

questionable. Any voluntary standard is one step away from

mandatory, and Senator Lieberman has already indicated that

if the standards aren't voluntarily used, he would push to

make them mandatory.

Even more concerning, section 103(g) of the CSA gives

current regulators the power to make these ``voluntary''

standards mandatory.

It specifically authorizes that action.

If a regulator doesn't mandate the standards, the

regulatory agency will have to report to Congress why it

didn't do so.

Again, there is strong encouragement to just make the standards mandatory and avoid a congressional inquisition.

Finally, the Heritage Foundation goes on to say:

Finally, the sharing and analysis of cybersecurity threat

information was weakened by confining cybersecurity

information exchanges to civilian organizations. Though in an

ideal world the Department of Homeland Security would have

the capability to lead our cybersecurity efforts, it

currently lacks those capabilities and needs to lean on more

capable organizations such as the National Security Agency.

The recent changes, however, give DHS more responsibility

than it is likely able to handle.

So we will certainly move forward with the understanding that we will

have the ability to offer amendments and try to make this a workable bill. It is certain that because the committee was not able to mark up the bill, we have to have the amendments to try to perfect it.

I would very much like to take the first step forward in cybersecurity, which is why, assuming we have the right to amend, I will support going to the legislation so that we can start the amendment process next week. I think the people who are cosponsors of my legislation, along with Senator McCain, Senator Chambliss, Senator Grassley, Senator Burr, Senator Murkowski, Senator Coats, and Senator Johnson, want to make sure we do this right. As the Heritage Foundation has so aptly said, we don't want a big, new regulatory scheme that is not going to be successful in our efforts to improve the cybersecurity safeguards in our system.

We are the ranking members of all but one of the relevant committees. We know this area. We deal with the agencies that deal with cybersecurity and all of the national security in our country. We know what can work, we know what we have a chance to pass, and we know how to take the first step forward without another big regulatory overreach, as we have seen happen in the last 3\1/2\ years in this administration. We hope to work with the majority, with the Lieberman- Collins bill, and come up with something that everyone will feel is the right step forward. We would like to have a bill that will get a large number of votes rather than a very lopsided vote against it.

I appreciate very much that we are now beginning to discuss this. I am appreciative that we have had several meetings with all of the sides that have been put forward as having concerns with the bill that is on the floor as well as its sponsors. I hope we can keep working toward a solution that will protect America and do it in the right way.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, because the Senator from Ohio is in the chair, I wish to say that I am very pleased we have been able to pass a bus safety bill that was in response to two tragic bus accidents, one in Ohio and one in Texas, and the many other bus accidents that have happened, because the buses that often transport people in our country are not safe.

I think we have strengthened those safety regulations, working together, and I appreciate very much the effort the Senator from Ohio made.

Looming Fiscal Cliff

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the looming tax cliff that will affect every American who pays taxes at the end of this year. The Senate must be clear with the American people about what our priorities are and where ownership of the money made by hard-working Americans belongs. Does the money belong to the government to decide what will be done with it--except for our responsibility to add to the things the Federal Government should do--or should that money belong to the people who earned it? I think that is one of the key issues we are facing right now in this Congress, and most certainly in the campaign.

The American dream is that anyone--anyone--who is willing to work hard in this country can start from nothing and, through hard work and sacrifice, become a success. It is the defining characteristic of our country and it is what has made us a shining example for people all over the world. But that dream is under threat if, at the end of this year, all of a sudden, because we don't address the major tax hikes that will affect all Americans, that hard work and sacrifice will simply result in giving a larger portion of people's paychecks to the government. If we do not enact relief, every single person who pays taxes will face an increase on January 1--every single person. Every person will move into a higher bracket and face a higher rate of taxation.

If we do not enact relief, small businesses will be hit with higher taxes, entrepreneurship will be discouraged, owners will not invest in growing their businesses, and hiring will remain in a deep freeze. And there can be no argument in this country that hiring is in a deep freeze. We have had unemployment rates above 8 percent over the last 3\1/2\ years. That is on the path to stagnation.

If we do not enact relief, marriage will be penalized at a greater rate than it is today. The marriage penalty, which is an issue that I have championed since I was elected to the Senate, pushes people who are working and single and get married into a higher bracket. If two single people pay taxes on their own earnings, it is at a lower rate than when they get married. One of the highest priorities I have had in the Senate has been to relieve Americans from this punitive burden. After years of fighting for fairness, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts included my bill as an amendment. It made great strides toward eliminating the marriage penalty by lowering the tax rates, doubling the standard deduction--which had not been the case before--and simplifying other elements of the Tax Code. Prior to this tax relief, an estimated 25 million couples paid a penalty for being married--let's use 1999--of approximately $1,400.

Along with doubling the standard deduction, we have been able to give relief since 2001. But if we don't do something before the end of this year, the marriage penalty will return, and we will not have doubling of the standard deduction.

Let's say a Houston policeman with a taxable income of $50,000 and a San Antonio schoolteacher with a taxable income of $30,000 are getting married this year. How would their taxes compare if they were filing jointly as a married couple or as two single taxpayers? For this year, filing jointly as a married couple, they would save approximately $500 because we have marriage penalty relief. However, when the relief expires at the end of this year, they would pay approximately $800 next year, not save $500, because they are filing jointly as a married couple. This is the time when they need the money the most--they are starting a family, they would like to buy a house--yet we would penalize them for entering the institution of marriage. In this economy, every dollar matters, and many households do rely on two incomes. So how is it that Congress has decided that we should penalize people who are working extra hours, extra hard, to begin their lives as a family?

My bill, S. 11, provides permanent relief by raising the standard deduction for married couples, doubling it--when two single people get married, the standard deduction should double--increasing the 15- percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single filers. That is very key because starting next year the 15-percent bracket is the people making the lowest amount who are paying taxes. So if we double it before they have to go into the next bracket, that is going to give them significant relief. We also extend the earned-income tax credit marriage penalty relief.

I offered my bill as an amendment last week, but we were not able to vote on amendments. So I am going to continue to offer this as an amendment as we consider a myriad of options for tax relief for our countrymen because if we don't do something by the end of the year, not only are these taxes going to go into effect but many others. I urge my colleagues to work with me on extending this relief.

We have an outsourcing bill that is going to be coming to the floor for a vote today. We must create a job creators bill, which is what this bill purports to do. It is very important, though, that we look at some of the major issues facing corporations and small businesses, which are our job creators in many instances, and see what they really need for relief.

Today we have the dubious honor in America of having the highest corporate tax rate in the world. We used to be second, but just recently Japan changed their corporate tax rate and lowered it so that they would not have the confiscatory taxes that would discourage Japanese companies from investing in Japan. So now America has the highest corporate tax rate in the world--at 35 percent. So on top of punishing businesses with that high tax rate, our homefront looks even less business-friendly when you consider the mountain of regulations, the burdens of the President's new health care mandate, and the lack of a long-term, comprehensive tax plan.

The bill the Senate is now considering would be another punitive attack on companies and will hamper business growth. Instead, with unemployment rates above 8 percent for 41 straight months, we should be doing everything in our power to spur hiring in the private sector.

We need the President of the United States, the leader of the greatest Nation on Earth, to recognize, respect, and encourage the job creators who are investing in our country, which helps everyone get a shot at success. Unfortunately, last Friday the President shocked many Americans with his comment, ``If you've got a business--you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.'' This highlighted the fundamental difference in the way the President and many in Congress view the hard work Americans put into achieving the American dream. The American dream is that somebody can come to this country, they can start with nothing, and they can build and work and sacrifice and give their kids a better chance than they had. That is why people have been coming to this country.

My office received calls and letters from all over Texas when they heard the President's comment last week. I am going to give some excerpts from one small business owner in Beaumont, TX.

I have to say that I am appalled by President Obama's

recent statement about small businesses not being responsible

for their own success. I am a small-business owner, and I can

assure you that I built the business from nothing. I sure

didn't get any government help. I gave my all to grow this

business. I was not given the idea or the plans for

building a successful business. An idea, a dream, and a

risk--that's what mine and all of America's small businesses

have been built on.

He goes on to say:

I put everything on the line, including my wife's wedding

ring. With over 20 years of hard work, my wife and I have

grown the company from four employees to over 40. When we

first began our venture, she worked a full-time job that

supplemented our income, while I ran the operation, and

together raised our children. Nobody did that for us, we

worked hard. We take pride in customer service and the

quality of our work as well as giving back to our community.

This has created customer loyalty and allowed us to expand,

not a government handout.

Our goal should be to spur growth, encourage hiring, and support the millions of small businesses that serve as the backbone of our economy, not to extinguish the entrepreneurial spirit and innovation that built this country. It just doesn't seem as though our President relates. What built this country is innovation, taking risk, and entrepreneurship. We have established an education system, and at least we used to have a regulatory system that encouraged business, that encouraged the private sector.

A few weeks before the President said that these small businesspeople didn't do it on their own, he said, and I am paraphrasing here, ``You know, the private sector isn't in trouble. It is the government sector that is in trouble.'' Oh my gosh. You just think, ``Who is he talking to? Who is he relating to?'' because it is small businesspeople and big businesspeople and all businesspeople who are creating the jobs that create more jobs that make a vibrant economy. It isn't government. Government sometimes gets in the way and sometimes worse--it takes away from the vibrance of our economy.

So it is time for the leaders of our country--in Congress and in the White House--to get a perspective on who can create a vibrant economy. My definition of ``who'' is not the government; it is the business sector and especially the small business sector because they are growing, and if they grow, they create jobs for more people.

I hope that this Congress at some point will start working on tax reform and relief from regulations and the oppressive health care system that is going to also have a major effect at the beginning of next year and say: What can we do together to spur private sector growth that will create jobs in the private sector, that contributes to the economy, not withdraws from it?

I only hope we can all pursue the American dream and be the leaders who can make it happen for everyone.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from which I read.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Madam President, I applaud the Senator from Massachusetts for introducing the bill. He is trying to make a constitutional way so those who have done the service for our country and earned the medals are assured that those medals mean something and cannot be in any way misrepresented without a consequence. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.

Tax Policy

I rise to talk about this week's issue, which is taxes on our Nation's small

businesses. Small businesses are the economic engine of America. It is not big business. Jobs are created by small businesses that grow and become medium-size businesses. They are responsible for driving most of the job growth in this country. Fifty-five percent of private sector jobs are created by small business. Punishing them with new taxes in a time of economic stagnation is incomprehensible. It is incomprehensible.

This tax that is suggested by the President on those who make $200,000 to $250,000 or more will affect small business, make no mistake about it. I have been a small businessperson, and I know if someone is paying all the expenses they are paying, if they are taxed as an individual in their small business, they are not going to be able to hire new people--not with what is looming next year in increased taxes. Even the talk of it is part of the reason we have the stagnation we do.

Seventy-five percent of the small businesses in our country pay taxes at an individual rate. They are organized as flowthrough businesses: Partnerships, S corporations, LLCs, and sole proprietorships. Fifty- three percent of all flowthrough business income will be subject to the top two individual income tax rate increases subject to take place in 2013. Even our talking about tax increases is on the minds of our small businessespeople. It makes them very nervous.

We have an already uncertain environment. Hiring is stalled. We have been strangling growth in our country and the hope of recovery is not there. The first round of taxes in the health care law the President's party and the President passed will kick in, in 2013. I do not want to have to go back to the small business owners whom I have just visited with last week all over my State and say: Yes, it is true. You are going to have the taxes involved in the health care plan that will take effect in 2013 and your taxes are going up because you are going into a higher bracket, and if the President has his way, the rates are going to increase too. That is not the message anyone in this body should want to take back to their home States and I do not want to go back to the hard-working employees and customers and tell them the same thing because it will not be just small business owners caught in the net of higher taxes, every American is going to see their taxes increase if they are paying taxes today.

We have a cliff. Everyone around here is talking about the fiscal cliff. It happens on December 31 of this year. Taxes will automatically go up on January 1. Everybody will go into a higher bracket. We will lose the marriage penalty relief we have had. We are going to see tax increases on the middle class, and it is going to be steep. Approximately 31 million Americans will be hit for the first time with the alternative minimum tax. Most people know the alternative minimum tax was enacted in 1969 to target a few hundred millionaires in America to try to ensure that those millionaires paid a tax. Well, guess who qualifies next year if we don't do something. A single person making $33,750 and a married couple earning $45,000 will be considered as not paying their fair share of taxes. That is outrageous for this Congress to let that happen. We must work with the President to ensure that those steep tax increases do not take effect.

The tax increases, the astronomical debt we face, and the persistent high unemployment rate have come together to create a perfect recovery- killing storm. And if this weren't enough to send our economy into permanent hiding, we now have the dubious honor of having the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 35 percent. We used to be second, but Japan had the good sense to lower its rate earlier this year, so now it is America that holds that dubious honor.

This is not a recipe for growth. Is it any wonder that we have a recurring over 8 percent unemployment rate in this country? If we don't do something before the end of this year, those who are employed are going to pay more taxes next year, and for those who are not employed, it is going to be harder to find a job. So what is the answer? The answer, as we all know, is for this Congress and the President to do something before the election.

Now, Senator Reid has introduced a tax bill. It is a bill that will provide two temporary tax credits, but a 1-year temporary tax credit is really not enough. Many of us voted in support of the motion to proceed to this bill because we would like something to start with, and I hope the majority leader is going to allow amendments because there are many amendments for us to try to cobble together a bill that will really make a difference in our economy. So it is a start, and I am going to give the leader credit for that.

A real long-term solution is what business is looking for. If we have a 1-year tax credit, we are going to get a 1-year plan, and a 1-year plan is not going to encourage people to be hired. It is not going to encourage employers when they see a 1-year plan and know that Congress is going to do what it has done so often; that is, get to the last of the year and then cobble something together that will perhaps last a year. Maybe it will be the same or maybe it won't. That is not the way business works. They have to plan. They have to know what they are going to have in the next 5 years in expenses so they know what they can produce and what they can charge. That is the private sector.

We should be focusing on the underlying issue. It should be tax relief and tax reform. We can alleviate the employers' conundrum and get them to start hiring if they know what to expect, and a 1-year fix will not do it. We need long-term tax reform, we need to address the looming debt, and we know it. We know what the fiscal cliff is.

I would like to read a letter I received in answer to a congratulatory note I wrote to the former football coach at Texas A&M, R.C. Slocum, who is one of the finest men I have ever met. He is exactly what America is. He was just inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame, and I congratulated him sincerely because he is the kind of person we want coaching our young men in football.

Well, he wrote me back, and I am going to read an excerpt from his letter. He does the niceties of thanking me for writing him, and then he says:

I am really concerned that the America that you and I grew

up in is being attacked from within. Although I grew up in a

poor family, I was taught that I was privileged because I was

born in America, the land of opportunity. We did not begrudge

the ``rich'' but was encouraged that through hard work and

education, some day we could be one of them. Thankfully, I

was not taught that it was someone else's fault that we were

poor or that government would, or should, come bail us out.

We worked our own way out and felt the great feeling of

accomplishment that goes with it. In my career as a coach, I

encouraged my players to try the formula I was given. It

still works and I am so proud of the young men that have

dramatically changed their lives, and with it the course of

their families' lives.

That is what America is, and that is what we ought to be working to achieve.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, we have had a monumental decision from the Supreme Court of the United States, and I have to say I am disappointed, because while the opinion is not very clear, in many respects, the result is clear, and that is we are getting ready to see one of the largest tax increases in the history of our country.

We are all talking about the fact the Supreme Court has declared the Obama health care plan constitutional, but let's look at how it was declared constitutional. It was not based on the commerce powers of the Congress in the Constitution. It was based, instead, on taxing capabilities--the taxing power--of the Congress.

I wish to read excerpts from an interview George Stephanopoulos did with President Obama.

Under this mandate--

Stephanopoulos says--

the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you

if you don't. How is that not a tax?

President Obama replies:

No. That's not true, George. For us to say that you've got

to take a responsibility to get health insurance is

absolutely not a tax increase.

Stephanopoulos goes on later to say:

But you reject that it's a tax increase?

President Obama replies:

I absolutely reject that notion.

Yet the Court today said this is constitutional because of Congress's power to tax. So we are going to see the tax increase go forward, and the small businesses and businesses that are looking at this, the individuals, are going to have a whopping increase in the cost of doing business at a time when--I certainly don't have to point out--we are in an economic downturn, when the private sector is not hiring, when we have an over 8-percent unemployment rate. Yet now we see more costs on top of what we already have in this country.

I don't think that is the recipe for getting this country going again and hiring people to work.

I would like to read a few quotes from employers on the impact of the Obama health care plan on their businesses.

Scott Womack, the president and owner of Womack Restaurants, is an IHOP franchisee. He said:

Let me state bluntly. This law will cost my company more

than we make.

Grady Payne, who is the CEO of Connor Industries, said--it is very interesting because Conner Industries is headquartered in my home State of Texas:

Conner Industries is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas

with plants in 8 different states. Conner Industries started

in 1981 with five people and one location. Today they have

grown to 450 employees and eleven plant locations. They offer

health coverage to their employees and the company pays over

half of the total premium cost. In 2014, the company will

have to choose how to comply with the law, either buy a more

expensive, government-approved healthcare benefit or drop

health coverage completely and pay the $2,000 fine for each

of their employees. Thus, Mr. Payne has stated that the

impact of this law will cost them over $1,000,000 no matter

what option they choose.

The chairman and CEO of NuVasive, a medical device company in San Diego, in an op-ed said:

Provisions of the Affordable Health Care Act are destroying

jobs, hindering innovation and slowing the economic recovery.

To offset the medical device tax increase, we will be forced

to reduce investments in research and development and cut up

to 200 planned new jobs next year.

So what we have seen today is a validation of what many of us were concerned about when this law was going through Congress; that is, the enormous increase in the tax, the fine, and the overall burden to the businesses of this country which would do several things that are not good for the people of our country: It will increase costs to American consumers; it will inject the government into doctor-patient relationships; it will most certainly add new burdens on business in an environment in which we have over 8 percent unemployment. I also think it is very clear that though the President promised that people will be able to keep their health care coverage as they know it, that health care coverage is not going to be there because so many companies are going to drop the health care coverage they have been offering because it is too expensive to comply with the government conscription of the plan that is required in order to avoid the $2,000 fine.

I think what the Court said is insightful in this respect; and that is, while they said this law is constitutional based on the taxing power of Congress, they are not ruling on the wisdom nor the fairness of the policy. I think it is going to come down to the people of our country because the election this year is going to determine the ultimate fate of this bill. The Republican nominee, Gov. Mitt Romney, has said very clearly, on the first day he is sworn into office he will ask for the repeal of this health care law.

I think it will become an issue in every contested congressional race and

every Senate race: Are you going to vote to keep this law that has been ruled constitutional based on the fact that it is a taxing power of Congress? The people will be able to decide if they want this jolt on their health care, if they want the extra cost, if they want the intrusion on the patient-doctor relationship, and if they want to possibly lose the coverage they have and be taxed to go into another plan--a government plan.

We are going to see the erosion of the quality of health care in this country if we are not able to repeal this law and start all over.

Now, I will say the purpose of passing health care reform is to provide more options for people to get affordable health care coverage. I think that is a worthy goal. I think we should go for that goal in a way that does not burden the economy of our country, stop employers from employing people; in a way that preserves the doctor-patient relationship and doesn't intrude on the people who do have coverage they want to keep. That should be our goal.

There are several months before the election. I hope we will be able to do something in this Congress to start a new process of providing affordable health care options for the people of our country and not continue on this path of enormous tax increases--which have been validated by the Court--as well as an intrusion on the quality of our health care, and not something that in the bigger picture is going to keep our businesses from hiring more people to get the economy jump- started, which should be every one of our goals.

I hope we can work on this in a productive way before the election, but I also hope the people will make the final decision in the election if Congress has not acted before; that we will have a decisive election that will say we can do better. We, the people of the strongest country on Earth, can do better than a health care system that will be eventually turned over to the government if we go down this path.

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

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

Madam President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Madam President, I rise today because we have introduced a new version of the Strengthening and Enhancing Cybersecurity by Using Research, Education, Information and Technology Act of 2012, a bill known as the SECURE IT Act.

Senator McCain and I, along with Senators Chambliss, Grassley, Murkowski, Coats, Burr, and Johnson, are reintroducing the SECURE IT Act after making improvements and clarifications in response to constructive feedback we received from the first bill we introduced.

We are employing rule XIV on this bill because it is clear it will not receive the benefit of the traditional committee process, and the majority leader has indicated he intends to debate this issue on the Senate floor in July. What those of us who are cosponsors of this bill are trying to do is have our version of a cybersecurity bill on the floor, introduced, so that everyone will be able to see it. Then, when the Senate turns to this issue, we will be able to see the differences between the bills.

The sponsors of our bill include eight ranking members of committees and subcommittees that have jurisdiction over cybersecurity. We have combined our expertise to develop a balanced piece of legislation that we believe will greatly enhance our country's cybersecurity of the infrastructure that could be affected. We believe it is now time for Congress to act. The Nation faces an evolving array of threats from hackers, criminal groups, and terrorists who seek to sabotage networks, gain access to sensitive government information, and steal valuable intellectual property.

SECURE IT is centered on consensus items. It sets aside controversial provisions that are of questionable value at this time, and we believe our bill can pass both Chambers. It offers a balanced approach that will significantly advance cybersecurity in both the public and private sectors by focusing on four issues and areas on which we believe everyone can agree: first, to facilitate sharing of cyber-threat information among private sector entities, and to and from the government; second, to better secure Federal networks, including requiring Federal contractors to notify the Federal agencies of cyber attacks that would threaten government networks; third, to strengthen the ability to prosecute cyber crime; and fourth, to prioritize cybersecurity research and development so that our Nation will continue to lead the world in this area.

Let me start with No. 1, facilitate sharing of cyber-threat information.

SECURE IT helps the private sector combat cyber attacks by breaking down barriers to sharing information about threats and vulnerabilities. Currently, antitrust laws and liability concerns inhibit private companies from exchanging information that we believe is necessary to defend against and respond to cyber threats.

I was talking to someone last night who is in the high-tech Internet field. There are great concerns about their company calling a competitor and saying: We are seeing signs of a possible threat here, and we wanted to share what the type of red flag we are seeing is so that you would be able to check your networks to see if you are getting the same thing.

These are two competitors, but this is not an anticompetitive situation. It is not something that should not be, we believe, subject to antitrust. They are still competitors, but everybody wants security for all of our networks in this country against any kind of intervention, whether it is criminal or foreign intelligence.

Our bill's liability protection and limited antitrust exemptions will allow these companies to rapidly respond so that they do not have to go to a lawyer and say: Would it be anticompetitive if we called our competitor and started sharing this information right away?

So it needs to be timely, fast, and safe. Those are the criteria.

Sharing should be a two-way street. Our bill sets up a framework that promotes timely sharing of classified, declassified, and unclassified information by the Federal Government with trusted private sector entities, while allowing private sector companies to share cyber-threat information with the government.

Since the introduction of SECURE IT, we have been working with stakeholders in all of the areas of infrastructure and Internet access to make a number of improvements and clarifications to the bill. I am pleased that we introduced the bill early, that we got the feedback from the different stakeholders and we have now been able to make adjustments to provisions that would help the bill but also protect privacy and preserve the issue we are trying to address, which, of course, is safety and cybersecurity.

We tightened the definition of what information is shared. We refined the process for sharing it. This will ensure that only essential information is shared and that it is handled appropriately. For example, it is vital that Federal agencies be informed if their systems are compromised. Our bill requires Federal contractors to coordinate with their supervisory agencies and to notify them of significant cyber incidents that would impede their mission. We have added explicit and strong privacy protections and increased oversight throughout our revised bill. At every stage of information sharing, there are statutory safeguards that will ensure cyber-threat information is handled in a manner that will protect the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans while preserving the ability to address cyber threats that could affect them as well as other members of the public.

No. 2, secure Federal networks. The government needs to do a much better job of securing its own networks. To address this problem, SECURE IT provides necessary reforms to the Federal Information Security Management Act by modernizing the way the government monitors and mitigates its own cyber-risks. SECURE IT requires agencies to use automated realtime network monitoring by upgrading their current primarily paper-based reporting. Our revisions also ensure that agencies will be continuously updating their technologies to prevent and remediate significant cyber incidents.

No. 3, we facilitate the prosecution of cyber crime. We update the Federal criminal statutes and streamline existing confusing penalties to facilitate the prosecution of cyber criminals. No. 4, cybersecurity research and development is essential to harness innovation and to train IT professionals to counter future attacks.

If we focus on these four areas, we believe we can significantly improve the cybersecurity of our country by facilitating the sharing of cyber-threat information in the private sector, securing Federal networks, strengthening criminal penalties for cyber crimes and prioritizing cybersecurity research and development.

Equally important is what our bill does not do. Secure IT does not give the Department of Homeland Security open-ended power to regulate networks for infrastructure that it deems to be critical. It does not give them the power to determine what is critical infrastructure. Instead, we take a different approach that is not heavy-handed and regulatory. It sets up a true partnership between the public and private sector to combat these cyber threats.

We will not improve this country's cybersecurity by creating an adversarial system based on a regulatory compliance structure. We believe subjecting industry to more regulation from an agency that is ill-equipped to understand the private sector system will ultimately erode the ability of business to provide effective, nimble, and innovative responses to cyber threats.

Diverting precious resources from security and innovation to regulatory compliance could ultimately harm security, not improve it, which is why we are taking the different approach from the more heavy- handed regulatory approach of the other bill sponsored by

my colleagues. We do not want Americans to be fooled into a false sense of security by imposing an unproven prescriptive regulatory framework that no agency could effectively implement, and that we do not think that the Department of Homeland Security could implement. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in supporting the SECURE IT Act of 2012. I will just reiterate again that our bill is sponsored by Senator McCain and myself, Senator Chambliss, Senator Grassley, Senator Murkowski, Senator Coats, Senator Burr, and Senator Johnson of Wisconsin, all of whom are either ranking members of full committees or subcommittees that have a jurisdiction in this area. We have worked very hard with all of the different interest groups, including privacy groups, the groups that handle the private sector networks, and the groups that are Federal contractors to assure we are doing the best balanced approach that can possibly be done to take the next step with a bill we believe we can pass not only in the Senate, but also the House and then to the President. I believe he will sign it because it is a major first step forward.

I thank the chair.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I appreciate very much that the Senator is on the Intelligence Committee and that he knows the sensitivities and all of the stakeholders we must work with in order to do the right thing for our country, both in the private sector as well in our government infrastructure. As always, the Senator from North Dakota is a person who is a visionary and one who looks out for the best interest of our country, and I hope we come together on this bill.

Mr. President, I appreciate the sponsors of the bill working with us. Just as an example, the Ogallala Aquifer has gone down 100 feet since irrigation has been allowed from this water source. It is a source for cities such as the city of San Antonio and other cities around New Mexico and Texas. That is just one example. It is happening all over our country. So conservation has to be a part of keeping our farms and ranches alive, and that is the purpose of the amendment.

We appreciate the managers working with us and hope we can go forward and highlight the importance of conservation to keep our water resources for our farmers and ranchers.

Mr. President, I share the concern of the Senator from New Mexico. A large area in western Texas overlies the Ogallala Aquifer as well. We, too, have seen alarmingly high levels of groundwater depletion. Water is a precious resource in our part of the country, and the Ogallala is a major source of water for agriculture, our communities, and industrial development.

I understand that the Regional Conservation Partnership Program is intended to address water quantity as well as water quality issues, so funding under the program could be directed to address situations where high historic levels of groundwater depletion have occurred due to agricultural use. Is that correct?

I thank the chairwoman and ranking member.

Mr. President, on June 19, 1865, Union soldiers led by Major General Gordon Granger reached Galveston, Texas to announce that the Civil War had ended and that slaves had been emancipated.

It was a bittersweet day; the news traveled slowly, reaching Galveston nearly 2\1/2\ years after President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. But it was a joyous occasion, a triumph of freedom that has been remembered since. In commemoration of that historic day, I am delighted to introduce a Joint Resolution designating June 19 as ``Juneteenth Independence Day,'' a National Day of Observance.

It is a day to reflect on history and to celebrate freedom. To remember, in the words of W. E. B. Du Bois, that ``The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression.''

This resolution offers recognition of the role that Juneteenth Independence Day has played in African-American culture in Texas and throughout the Southwest. Enshrining Juneteenth in our national consciousness will confer the recognition it merits and serve as inspiration for all Americans. I am proud to be part of this bipartisan joint resolution to commemorate this day that reminds us that in America, we are all blessed to live in freedom.

United States law provides for the declaration of selected public observances by the President of the United States as designated by Congress or at the discretion of the President. I believe that marking Juneteenth Independence Day as a National Day of Observance will honor freedom and liberty, something that Americans of all races, creeds, and ethnic backgrounds can celebrate.

This legislation is an important reminder of that extraordinary day in 1865, a day that carried liberty across America. My fellow Texan Barbara Jordan once said, ``A nation is formed by the willingness of each of us to share in the responsibility for upholding the common good.'' There is no plainer common good than commemorating American freedom. I encourage all of my colleagues to join in cosponsoring this resolution.

Mr. President, on June 19, 1865, Union soldiers led by Major General Gordon Granger reached Galveston, Texas to announce that the Civil War had ended and that slaves had been emancipated.

It was a bittersweet day; the news traveled slowly, reaching Galveston nearly 2\1/2\ years after President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. But it was a joyous occasion, a triumph of freedom that has been remembered since. In commemoration of that historic day, I am delighted to introduce a Joint Resolution designating June 19 as ``Juneteenth Independence Day,'' a National Day of Observance.

It is a day to reflect on history and to celebrate freedom. To remember, in the words of W. E. B. Du Bois, that ``The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression.''

This resolution offers recognition of the role that Juneteenth Independence Day has played in African-American culture in Texas and throughout the Southwest. Enshrining Juneteenth in our national consciousness will confer the recognition it merits and serve as inspiration for all Americans. I am proud to be part of this bipartisan joint resolution to commemorate this day that reminds us that in America, we are all blessed to live in freedom.

United States law provides for the declaration of selected public observances by the President of the United States as designated by Congress or at the discretion of the President. I believe that marking Juneteenth Independence Day as a National Day of Observance will honor freedom and liberty, something that Americans of all races, creeds, and ethnic backgrounds can celebrate.

This legislation is an important reminder of that extraordinary day in 1865, a day that carried liberty across America. My fellow Texan Barbara Jordan once said, ``A nation is formed by the willingness of each of us to share in the responsibility for upholding the common good.'' There is no plainer common good than commemorating American freedom. I encourage all of my colleagues to join in cosponsoring this resolution.

Madam President, I too object, along with Senator Rockefeller. I have been on the National Transportation Safety Board, and I know well the kinds of cases that are pilots' license revocations and the NTSB process for appeals of those. I understand Senator Inhofe's explanation for what happened with him and that he is in somewhat of a disagreement with some of the reporting of that incident.

I also understand the Senator from Oklahoma's long-time record of being a pilot, and I respect that very much, but I am afraid that what he is not taking into consideration is most certainly a safety issue.

We have tasked the FAA with air safety, and we have given them the responsibility for revoking pilots' licenses when there is a need to do that in their opinion, whether it be for a violation of landing on a runway that has an X, which pilots know means that runway cannot be used at that time.

As happened with Senator Inhofe's case, he is saying that he had a clearance, but the X was there and the FAA cited him for that. They did not revoke his pilot's license at all, yet he is coming forward with a bill that not only addresses some of his legitimate concerns, which I agree with. The FAA's expertise and its mission, which is given to it by Congress, is to provide for safety and to revoke a private pilot's license or commercial pilot's license or aviation mechanic's license. Senator Inhofe's bill that would allow pilots to not have to go through the appellate process with the National Transportation Safety Board, which is the appellate authority, which also has the expertise and experience to know when a revocation would be questionable or if the FAA was right. They have the pilots, they have the expertise to make those decisions, and after the NTSB appeal, they then have the right to go to Federal court if they so choose.

What Senator Inhofe's bill does is take away the NTSB portion of the appeals process. Let me say that I have offered to Senator Inhofe-- because he knew I objected to this bill--to do everything in his bill that he has addressed, including the openness, the requirement that an enforcement action that the FAA would grant the pilot all the relevant evidence in 30 days prior to a decision, that it would clarify the statutory deference as it relates to NTSB. NTSB is not a rubberstamp at all. I think they have been fair with their expertise. The FAA has the responsibility for aviation safety. Requiring the FAA to undertake a notice to the Airmen Improvement Program, I think, is certainly legitimate. Making flight service station communications available to all airmen is a legitimate piece of this legislation.

What I object to and have asked Senator Inhofe to let us work together to do is not to bypass NTSB, but to let the appellate process go forward, and then at the end, if there is still a feeling of unfairness on the part of the pilot, that they would have access to the Federal courts. They can do that now.

So I think Senator Inhofe insisting on bypassing NTSB is holding up the good parts of his bill because it is very important, in my opinion, that we keep the expertise for safety in the skies where it is, in the FAA, the NTSB, and then go to the Federal courts if rights are violated.

In 2011, the NTSB had 350 appeal cases for administrative law judges and the number was similar in 2010. Cases are typically disposed of in 90 to 120 days, so there is not a long lag time in which the pilot doesn't have the access to his or her license. The NTSB held 62 appeals hearings in 2011 and 36 cases went to the full board. The breakdown of the cases was private pilots, 48 percent; airline mechanics or aviation mechanics, 13 percent; commercial pilots, 6 percent; air carriers, 8 percent; and medical with 25 percent.

Senator Rockefeller and I, as the relevant chairman and ranking member on the Commerce Committee, have agreed to have a hearing on Senator Inhofe's bill so that this can be fully vetted, and most certainly I have on many occasions offered to work with Senator Inhofe to get the notification requirements, the openness requirements--every part of his bill that would require reforms of the process for fairness to the pilots--I would agree with and work to help him pass. But I think taking out the NTSB and going directly to Federal courts is not necessary, and I think it will hurt aviation safety.

I also believe that a different, extraneous issue is that our Federal courts are pretty clogged already and the Federal courts do not have those with pilots' licenses on their staff clerkship rolls, to a great extent. Maybe they happen to be. But they don't have the familiarity with the requirements of FAA and the issues that FAA looks at, and they do have access to Federal courts in the end anyway. But I think the NTSB part is important so that the experienced pilots in the NTSB have the appellate authority, as they do now, to decipher what happened with the FAA and determine if fairness was given to the pilot. It is also to help determine if that pilot should continue to fly or if it would endanger aviation safety, which should not be the role of the Federal courts.

So Senator Rockefeller and I do object. I hold my hand out to Senator Inhofe to work with him on the notification and fairness issues in his bill, which I support. I just don't think bypassing the expertise of the NTSB and adding another burden to the Federal courts where they do not have the expertise is in anyone's best interest in this country, and I am happy to work with anyone who is interested in this issue and hope we can resolve it.

Mr. President, on the point of the hearing, Senator Rockefeller and I have agreed certainly with Senator Inhofe to hold a hearing, which we notified Senator Inhofe we would, and I expect it to be next month for the hearing schedule. I just hope we can pass a good part of his bill, which I would like to work with him on, but I think the motivation should be safety and assuring safety. I know the personal conflict Senator Inhofe has with what happened to him, and I am sympathetic, but I don't think passing legislation that could hurt the aviation safety community is the right approach to meet the objections of Senator Inhofe.

I would love to have a hearing and have all the witnesses he would put forward to get an objective look at what this would do to taking the expertise and the mission from FAA and allow it to be bypassed at the NTSB level and go to Federal courts where there is not the experience and the aviation safety mission that is well protected today.

I hope we can work together on this. I understand the Senator's frustration, but I don't think this is the right solution for what happened to him with one incident.

Madam President, I heard the remarks of my colleague from California, and I just cannot let the record stand that President Obama took over in the worst circumstances of our time. Really? The debt of this country was around $10 trillion when President Obama took office. In just 3\1/2\ years, that debt has almost doubled. We are now over $15 trillion and will soon be hitting the $16 trillion debt ceiling limit in just 3\1/2\ years. We are in a debt crisis not from the previous administration, we are in a debt crisis because we are spending too much, we are borrowing too much, and the President keeps talking about more taxes.

Just last Friday, the President came out and said: ``The private sector is doing [just] fine.'' It is government that is in a crisis. Well, yes, government is in a crisis. The private sector

is not doing just fine, and the government crisis is not caused because we are losing government jobs.

The government crisis is caused because we are spending too much, and we are going into debt that is unsustainable in this country.

For the millions of Americans who are out of work in this country, the President's assessment of the private sector must be like salt poured in a wound. My goodness, we have seen job numbers of over 8 percent unemployment since the President took office. The last 3 months have been not so good. We are still over 8 percent, and we went up a little bit to 8.2 percent in May.

So to the nearly 13 million Americans who are unemployed and the millions more who are underemployed or have left the labor force altogether because they have lost hope--Mr. President, things are not fine, and the private sector is not fine in this country, and the middle class is bearing the brunt.

On top of the unemployment rate for those who are in poverty conditions, the people who hold jobs are also losing ground. On Monday, the Federal Reserve reported that the median net worth of American families fell 39 percent between 2007 and 2010. We have not seen these levels since 1992.

During the same period, incomes also dropped sharply. Average household income fell 11 percent to $78,500, down from $88,300. The hardest hit? Families in the rapidly diminishing middle class. While these statistics are troubling, there is a concern that cannot be measured in dollars and cents; that is, that families are losing faith in a secure future. There was a time when every generation had a better quality of life and expected a better quality of life for their children than their parents had. That is not the case today.

In 2010, 35 percent of families said they did not have a good idea of what their income would be just for the next year. That was 31.4 percent in 2007, 35 percent now. So the number of families who are losing the faith that their children are going to have a better life than they have had is diminishing.

How could they be confident? The job creators in the private sector are the ones under siege. I cannot believe the President of the United States is so off base as to say the private sector is doing fine. Just this week, the National Federation of Independent Business released its monthly survey of small business optimism. Survey results continue to be historically low and consistent with the subpar performance of gross domestic product.

According to this survey, levels of hiring and spending remained depressed in May. We all know that. More important, so did plans for the future. The same report states that expectations for increasing future sales continued to be weak in May, far below readings recorded in any other similar period since 1973.

Many small business owners are reluctant to expand their businesses or hire more workers. Small business owners who expect the economy to further deteriorate outnumber those who think there will be an improvement. Small businesses are our Nation's primary job creators. Small business provided 55 percent of all jobs in the private sector.

Small business has created two of every three net jobs in the United States since the early 1970s. So I would say to the President of the United States, it is small business that is the economic engine of America, not government. That is the fundamental disagreement we have with this administration.

We must spur the private sector to create income, growth, and security in this country. The private sector is not doing fine. What should we be doing to help Americans get back to work? We need to address what is causing the uncertainty. Why are businesses not hiring? Because government spending that serves to crowd out the private sector is increasing. There are tax increases being talked about by the President constantly.

So they are looking at looming tax increases, burdensome regulations that they see coming by the bills, such as this, out of the U.S. Government. Those regulations hamper job growth in this country.

Then, on top of all that, on top of the talk of new taxes, on top of the burdensome regulations our small businesses face every day, in bigger numbers every day, it is the health care law that was passed 2 years ago this December.

If we want people to be hired, we cannot saddle our entrepreneurs and small businesses with new taxes, more regulations, and the cost, the overwhelming burden of the Obama health care plan.

President Obama, in an interview yesterday, dismissed questions from a small business owner about the negative impact of the health care law and what it is already doing to small businesses. Anybody who has paid their part of insurance, if they are lucky enough to be covered, knows that the premiums have increased and the coverage has decreased in anticipation of the Obama health care law, adding the new burden and cost on insurance companies, hospitals, doctors.

The costs of doing business in health care are increasing in anticipation of that health care law taking full effect in the next year. I have heard so much opposition in my home State when I travel around from small businesses that are just throwing up their hands and saying: I cannot provide the government-approved health care for my employees, which is going to mean I will have a new tax burden for every one of them as they then have to go on the government plan and fend for themselves.

Even families are going to have to do it or they will have to pay a tax. It is not just a good plan, it is the government-approved plan. So if they provide 35 percent of their employees' premiums, which is what they can afford, but the government requires more than that, they will still have to pay the fine. The small businesses are saying: I am going to pay the fine because that is my only alternative. Those with more than 50 employees, will have costly new Federal regulations to comply with. The financial penalty is so great we are seeing businesses stop at 49 so they will not have more workers and therefore have a bigger responsibility.

I received a letter from a small business owner in Arlington who said it best: ``Did Congress and the President know they were going to freeze our country's businesses' ability to help grow this economy when they passed this bill?'' I will point out that not one Republican in the House or Senate voted for this bill in Congress. So I would have to say to my small business constituent in Arlington: This was the Democrats in Congress and the President's bill. Not one Republican would support it because of the fear of exactly what is happening; that is, small business owners are losing faith that they will be able to grow, and that is what is causing the economic crisis we are in with unemployment over 8 percent.

A small business owner in Corpus Christi, TX, who has 34 employees told my office that his company's cheapest option for health insurance would boost premiums by 44 percent over last year. How can they do it? It is happening everywhere. I hear it everywhere I go. Clearly, this is not the incentive our economy needs right now.

We need government to get out of the way of the job creators in this country not block their path with miles of regulations, new burdens and costs--new regulations, new costs--and then the talk of new taxes which is prevalent everywhere.

Our best hope is that the Supreme Court will see this has a constitutional problem. Then we can start again and take a step-by-step reform. That will do what all of us want to do. Everyone in Congress and the President had the same goal; that is, to have more Americans with affordable coverage and options.

But that is not the bill that was passed, and it is why Republicans could not possibly support it, because they saw the burdens on families, on businesses, and they knew it was not going to encourage hiring, which is what we need in this country. We have a chance to start a process that will be positive. We need to do something to spur small business in this economy.

One thing that could be done, which is in discussions right now, is the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would create a $7 billion, shovel- ready, privately funded project that would transport over 700,000 barrels of oil from Canada

to the United States. It has been estimated it would create 20,000 construction jobs and as many as 100,000 jobs at refineries and other businesses.

By the way, we would be trading with a friendly partner, Canada, so we would not have to import more from unfriendly parts of the Middle East, and we would also be able to know that these are privately funded jobs, not one government cent. In fact, it would create taxes being paid to the government because people would be working, and that is the way we should be growing our revenue in this country.

But the President suggested a different solution. He said the answer is not to spur the private sector because they are doing just fine. He said let's spend more money bailing out the States because they are having a hard time. They are having a hard time. We can do something for the States, and it is not bailing them out with more borrowed Federal dollars that will continue to weigh down the dollar itself. No. We can do something for State governments; that is, stop sending Federal mandates that we do not pay for that we require them to do, put a moratorium on Federal mandates on States today. Let's start repealing these Federal mandates we are requiring States to absorb. It is killing their economies.

Medicaid and the lack of flexibility in Medicaid is the biggest expense most States have. It is a Federal mandate unpaid for and inflexible, not the choice States could make to cover the people who need the help. We can help the States but not at the expense of our dollar and our debt.

So the President is suggesting more spending and bailing out States, and we are offering a solution that says let's create jobs in the private sector. Keystone XL is ready to go right now, private sector, 100,000 future jobs, not one penny from the Federal Government.

Let's take these Federal regulations and let's put a moratorium on them right now and free our small businesses to be the entrepreneurs that built this country. It was the entrepreneurs who built this country in freedom. This country has been a magnet for people coming from all over the world because they could do their research in freedom. They could grow in freedom. They could keep the fruits of their labor and give their kids a better chance than they had, which they could not get in their home country. That is what built this country.

We can get right back there, but it is not by borrowing more, spending more, taxing more, and regulating our small businesses out of existence. We can do something positive, and it is time we got started.

I yield the floor.