Floor Statements

Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, before I begin my remarks on the subject that brings me to the floor today, which is the DREAM Act, I wish to take a moment to reflect on the brutal, unconscionable attacks that occurred on our diplomatic posts in Libya and Egypt. Like many of my colleagues, I am outraged and saddened by the brutal murder of four courageous Americans in a cowardly, unconscionable attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Their families are in the thoughts and prayers of my family as they are for many others of my colleagues.

These great diplomats were patriots and professionals, putting their lives on the line to advance American ideals and interests. Their vital work is done daily by countless Americans, diplomats abroad who serve in every corner of the world.

In my own visit to Libya last year with a number of my colleagues, including Senator McCain and Senator Graham, I saw the vital work and the accomplishments of such brave Americans on the ground as well as the great peril and severe danger they constantly face. I also saw their sense of satisfaction and patriotism in the work they are doing. I add my voice to that of my colleagues asking for more support for security, enhanced safeguards, and protection for our diplomats in these kinds of situations. They go about their work with understated perseverance and determination as well as constant courage in the face of often chaotic and unpredictable dangers.

The cowardly attacks on these patriots should not deter the people of Libya from moving forward. Neither should it deter us from working together with others abroad who have a common interest in tolerance, freedom of speech, and democracy.

I commend President Obama and Secretary Clinton for their immediate response to this situation, their words of encouragement. I wish Godspeed to the Marine Corps Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team en route to Libya.

The diplomats who were killed in this tragic and brutal action embodied American values and the highest traditions, not only of the professionals among our career diplomats, but all who serve and sacrifice for this country in uniform in very similar situations of danger--the marines who guard our embassies as well as the other marines and troops who are fighting on foreign soil to uphold our freedoms.

The DREAM Act

Those American values in some sense bring me also to the floor today to talk about the DREAM Act and about a young generation of people in our communities across America and across the country who would benefit from this important legislation. Our immigration system right now is broken and is in dire need of comprehensive reform. Any comprehensive immigration reform legislation must include the DREAM Act. I believe the DREAM Act is worthy of adoption without that comprehensive overarching reform because these young Americans in our communities deserve the opportunity to earn their citizenship by contributing to our Nation. That is exactly the opportunity the DREAM Act seeks to afford them.

Over this last recess I was pleased to talk to many of those DREAMers. I was particularly proud to talk to them about the work a number of us are doing here, to try to achieve and make possible this legislation that would enable and empower them to contribute further. I am grateful to Senator Durbin and others who have championed this measure at the Federal level, much as I have done in the State of Connecticut as attorney general. I was also proud to talk about the Department of Homeland Security's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy. This policy took effect on August 15 when DHS started to accept applications for deferred action.

Under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DREAMers will have a temporary reprieve--and I emphasize temporary reprieve--from deportation. This policy step is a good one. It is in the right direction. But it affords only a temporary reprieve.

The DREAM Act would afford a permanent path to individuals who qualify: individuals who have entered the United States before the age of 16; they have been brought here by parents who may be undocumented-- but young children, many of them much younger than 16, most of them in fact younger than 5 or 6 years old and who have been present in the United States for at least 5 consecutive years prior to enactment of the bill; are here through no fault or action of their own but who want to be here permanently and contribute and give back. They must have graduated from a U.S. high school or have obtained a GED or have been accepted into an institution of higher education. They must be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of application and be of good moral character.

These requirements establish a path for people who want to contribute,

have come here through no fault of their own, know the United States as the only country where they have ever lived. They usually speak no other language. Their life and their friends and their future are here.

I want to talk, as I hope to do literally every week that I am able, about an individual who embodies the DREAM Act. Her name is Zuly Molina. Her full name, actually, is Zuleyma Molina, but she goes by ``Zuly.'' She is a proud member of our Connecticut community, one of 11,000 to 20,000 young people living in Connecticut who would benefit from the DREAM Act. Zuly is here with us today through her picture. I want to talk about her life, which has been full of hardships and challenges, but also her future.

She was born in Mexico and brought to America when she was 6 years old. Her family settled in Connecticut--in fact, in New Britain. She had to learn English, which was not easy for her. In fact, she was taunted and bullied because of her lack of language skills. But she was up to the challenge. She learned English. She speaks it absolutely fluently. She decided to go to the library and translate books on her own so that she would have a command of English. She went through the New Britain public schools and graduated from New Britain High School in 2008, but at that point there were additional challenges.

Zuly wanted to stay in Connecticut and perhaps attend 2 years of community college before going to a 4-year institution. But she was not eligible at that point for in-State tuition and the option of staying in Connecticut was simply too expensive.

What did she do? Endlessly resourceful and determined, she decided to commute every day to Bay Path College in Massachusetts. There she worked in many leadership positions outside the classroom. She was president of Rotaract, which is Rotary's youth service club for young people. She was vice president of the Bay Path Christian Fellowship. She was cocaptain of the cross-country team. And she graduated with a bachelor's degree in biology, becoming the first college graduate in her family.

She felt discouraged even after graduation because she knew she could not apply for many jobs that require documentation. She decided to pursue further education, a master's degree from Bay Path College in occupational therapy. She understands now life will not be easy, but her goals of working for a hospital's feeding program and pursuing an MD are realistic. She hopes she can pursue that profession so she can work for nonprofits that help families with low income--not altogether different from the one where she grew up.

It has taken many years for Zuly to accept and thank her mother for sending her to America. She would be upset--more than upset--if the land of her life, the land that she loves--America--refuses to give her the opportunity to stay here. She has that opportunity temporarily with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program. It is an administrative program. It could be ended with a new administration. It could be ended by any administration virtually overnight. She has applied for deferred action and she is undergoing the process, but she deserves more than a temporary reprieve. That is why I stand here urging my colleagues to enable Zuly to come out of the shadows, to seek a career that will enable her to contribute mightily and monumentally to all of us as a doctor, and to raise a family of her own here, as a proud United States citizen.

To these young people who identify as Americans and who were brought to this Nation at young ages as children or infants and who are here through no fault of their own, I urge my colleagues to offer one of the greatest gifts, one of the greatest privileges one can have, which is United States citizenship, so that we can say to the DREAMers on some day soon, ``my fellow American.''

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

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

Mr. President, I hope that many of my colleagues, in returning to their home States for the August recess, may have an opportunity to attend a citizenship ceremony. I do so regularly when I go home. During the July 4th break, I had the wonderful opportunity to attend several. These ceremonies can occur in courthouses or in townhalls. They swear the oath and are newly made citizens. They are accompanied by families and friends. It is a uniquely joyous and proud day in their lives. Many have waited years to become U.S. citizens, and they do so not only willingly but joyfully. There are tears in many of their eyes, and there are tears in my eyes as well because it recalls to me the day many years ago, decades ago, when I first attended such a ceremony, which in turn recalls for me the stories of my own relatives who came to this country from other shores. So did many of the parents or grandparents--forebears of we who serve in this body.

The meaning of citizenship of the United States and the value of those rights that come with citizenship are often forgotten or unappreciated by many of us who were born in this country. We sometimes, unfortunately, take them for granted. But there is a tremendous value placed on those rights and liberties by people who come to the United States.

Today I wish to talk about people who come to the United States or more precisely are brought to the United States as young people, as infants or children, many under 4 or 5 years old, and this country becomes the only one they have known. The history of this country is their history. They may not even know the language of the country from which they came. The language of this country is the only one they know, and they have no memories or scant recollections of the countries where they were born. These young people are here, and they were brought here perhaps by parents who came illegally, but they are here through no fault of their own.

Many of them have achieved remarkably and have contributed extraordinarily. Their promise of future achievement is staggering, extraordinarily impressive in its potential contribution to the lives of their communities--to teaching, to giving back to their communities--their contributions in terms of scientific or literary accomplishments.

One such young person is Muller Gomes. I am going to tell his story today much as Senator Durbin has told

other stories on the floor of this Chamber in his steadfast and energetic advocacy of a measure called the DREAM Act. I want to follow him in engaging this Chamber in this effort. I thank distinguished colleagues, such as Senator Durbin, who have been tireless advocates for the passage of the DREAM Act.

The DREAM Act, called by its full name, ``Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors,'' should be a top priority for this Congress. States such as Connecticut have passed their versions of it, but a national and uniform effort is essential. Much as we hope and I support that we will have comprehensive immigration law reform, I also believe the DREAM Act is an idea whose time has more than come. We should be adopting it as soon as possible in this Chamber to provide the kind of certainty and promise that is so important to young people like Muller Gomes.

Muller Gomes was brought to this country from Brazil when he was 5 years old. He came with a tourist visa in 1995. The tourist visa expired a year later, in 1996, so he has been here without proper documentation since then. He has been through the Bridgeport public schools, Central High School in Bridgeport, and then he went to Fairfield University.

This is this young man at his graduation from Fairfield University-- his graduation summa cum laude. He was a member of Phi Beta Kappa, Pi Mu Epsilon and Sigma Xi. He won the American Chemical Society Outstanding Senior Chemistry Major Award, and he has been accepted at the University of California at Berkeley's physical chemistry Ph.D. program.

All that he lacked was a student visa to pursue his studies at UC Berkeley. He lacks a student visa, and if he returns to Brazil to seek one, he will be denied it because he has been undocumented in this country.

If there were ever a catch-22, Muller Gomes is its poster child under our current immigration law. Under current law, that student visa will be denied him. Fortunately, on June 15, 2012, the Obama administration made a very strong statement of support for young men and women like Muller Gomes. They issued a regulation or a directive that will permit him to remain in this country. That directive is lacking in a number of respects compared to the DREAM Act. It will be temporary--only for a couple of years. It is not a path to citizenship, as the DREAM Act would provide. It does not make him eligible for the kind of financial aid he would need. Most importantly, it requires him to go through the stress and uncertainty of applying again for deferred action. It is only a deferral of deportation.

So the DREAM Act remains a vitally important measure for literally thousands of young people--between 11,000 and 20,000 young people living in Connecticut who would benefit from the DREAM Act and 2 million young people nationwide. Under the DREAM Act, they would comply with rigorous standards and requirements--lack of criminal record, criminal history, and they would in effect be provided this pathway to citizenship because of their promise and their potential for contributing to this country--in Muller Gomes' case, the potential for contributing to this country as a scientist who would make new discoveries, perhaps breakthrough discoveries that would benefit the entire country. We laud young people like him who are motivated and smart and dedicated to this country.

I am committed to comprehensive immigration reform achieved through bipartisan congressional action. That ought to be one of our immediate goals so that young people like Muller Gomes, brought to this country as children through no fault of their own, will have the opportunity to contribute to this Nation and be part of their communities, as the DREAM Act would provide and as comprehensive immigration reform would also achieve. But in the meantime, let's pass the DREAM Act so these dreamers, such as Muller Gomes, will have the basic guarantees and certainty that they can remain in this country and that the promise of the greatest Nation in the history of the world will be truly theirs and irrevocable. This country will be theirs regardless of religion, race, gender, or any of the arbitrary labels we say consistently and constantly should have no place in our judgments about human beings.

Our Nation will be better because Muller Gomes will be with us and our Nation would be better still if the millions like him have the security and certainty of a path toward citizenship--a path that will benefit them and benefit the greatest Nation in the history of the world.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Gaetano ``Tom'' Mazzarella, an admired Connecticut constituent and Norwich resident, military hero, and beloved member of our veterans community.

I had the privilege and honor of knowing Tom, who truly was extraordinary in dedication to country, drive to service, and passionate loyalty to his fellow veterans. He was rich in personality and so warm and generous to me that I feel the loss almost as a family member.

The Nation will be forever indebted to Tom for his military service as a U.S. Marine and a member of the Connecticut Army National Guard. For extraordinary bravery and sacrifice in the Pacific Theater during World War II, he was decorated with the Silver Star and Purple Heart. He also served courageously in the Korean war. But these honors reflected only part of the significance of his service.

The city of Norwich will never forget Tom's good-spirited dedication to community, gracious sense of humor, and engaging smile. He worked part-time at both the Norwich Ice Rink and the Norwich Golf Course. He also gave years of devoted, hard work to Electric Boat.

Throughout his lifetime, his service to his country never ebbed or ended. Dressed in his Marine Corps dress blues, he inspired current military members, veterans, and citizens of Connecticut as a representative of ``the greatest generation.'' He and his brothers would visit local groups, telling stories and sharing memories that displayed their genuine pride of their military service for a country that they loved deeply. He was an eloquent, moving speaker, who instilled national loyalty, civic duty, and the importance of public service at many parades, military ceremonies, and veterans organizations with memories of American bravery and sacrifice.

Through my moving conversations with Tom--most recently at the ribbon cutting for Jewett City, Connecticut's housing for homeless veterans--I came to know why he was a hero to so many. He inspired all to aspire to a life of valor and patriotism and to understand the true importance of working for the greater good.

I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Tom--a national hero and a hero for all who adored and knew him in daily life. He will live on through the love of country, strength, friendship, and comradeship that he instilled, and continues to instill to this day on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. President, I am honored and grateful to follow that very enlightening and energetic exchange between two of the most able and respected Members of this body on a range of issues.

One of them I want to address now, and I want to particularly thank the Presiding Officer for his contribution, my distinguished friend from Minnesota, who has really addressed so instructively some of the privacy concerns in various proposals in an amendment I have joined. I think his work on that issue is really reflective of the approach that has been brought to this issue of cyber security--an issue that this entire body, in my view, has a historic opportunity and also a historic obligation to address this week, deal with it now authoritatively and effectively and in a way that the Nation expects us to do it.

I thank not only the Presiding Officer but a bipartisan group of colleagues, beginning with Senators Lieberman, Collins, Rockefeller, Feinstein, and Carper, who deserve our appreciation for drafting this bill and bringing it to the floor, and a number of other colleagues, including, along with the Presiding Officer, Senators Whitehouse, Mikulski, Coons, Coats, Blunt, Akaka, and Kyl. I mention this number because I think it is an important fact about the process that has brought us to this point. It really reflects the kind of collegial approach that is so important to this legislation.

This legislation has undergone very significant and substantial revisions to reflect suggestions made by myself and our colleagues, and this bill will give the government and private sector an opportunity to collaborate and share information so that they can confront the ongoing, present, urgent cyber threat directly and immediately.

This bill is not a top-down approach; it is voluntary in its direction to the private sector. What it says to critical industries-- industries that are critical to our infrastructure--is that you determine what the best practices are, you tell us what the standards should be, and then those standards will be shared throughout the industry and overseen by a council that the Departments of Commerce and Justice and Defense and Homeland Security will be involved in implementing. And if companies comply with those standards--voluntary standards--they receive benefits that will enlist them in the program, benefits that will form incentives in the form of limited immunity in the event of an attack. If companies decline to comply, if they are not provided with sufficient incentives, in their judgment, there is no compulsion, no legal mandate that they need to do so. To use an often overused imagery, what we are talking about here is a carrot, not a stick, in solving one of the most pressing and threatening challenges our country faces today. It is the challenge of this moment, the challenge of our time.

I have been in briefings, as has been the Presiding Officer and other Members of this body, with members of the intelligence community and others who have, in stark and staggering terms, presented to us the potential consequences of failing to act.

Just last week, GEN Keith Alexander, the chief of the U.S. Cyber Command and the Director of the National Security Agency, said that intrusions on our essential infrastructure have increased 17-fold between 2009 and 2011 and that it is only a matter of time before physical damage will result. He has said that the loss of industrial information and intellectual property--putting aside the physical threat and taking only the economic damage--is ``the greatest transfer of wealth in history.''

We are permitting with impunity the greatest transfer of wealth in history from the United States of America to adversaries abroad, companies based overseas, at a time when every Member of this body says our priority should be jobs and protecting the economy of this country. It is an economic issue, not just a national security issue. In fact, cyber security is national security.

The United States is literally under attack every day. General Alexander described 200 attacks on critical infrastructure within the past year. He alluded to them without describing them in detail. And on a scale of 1 to 10, he said our preparedness for a large-scale cyber attack--shutting down the stock exchange or a blackout on the scale comparable to the one in India within the past few days--is around a 3 on a scale of 1 to 10. That situation is unacceptable.

We are, in a certain way, in a period of time now that is comparable to 1993, after the first World Trade Center bombing. Remember, in 1993 the World Trade Center--1,336 pounds of explosives were placed in a critical area of the World Trade Center, killing 6 people, injuring 1,000, fortunately, at that point, failing to bring down the building, which was the objective. That first bombing was a warning as well as a tragedy. America, even more tragically, disregarded that warning in failing to act. We are in that period now, comparable to 1993 and before 9/11, when the country could have acted and neglected to do so. We cannot repeat that failure now. We cannot disregard the day-to-day attacks, the serious intrusions that are stealing our wealth and endangering our security, our critical grid, transportation, water treatment, electricity, and financial system. The scale of damage that could be done is horrific, comparable to what 9/11 did. We have an obligation to act before that kind of damage is faced in reality by the country.

We have been adequately and eloquently warned on the floor of this body, in private briefings available to Members of this body, and in the public press, to some extent. One of the frustrations I think many of us feel is that we cannot share some of the classified briefings we have received which would depict in even more graphic and dramatic terms what this Nation faces. Some of these attacks are launched by foreign countries that seek to do us harm. Some are launched by domestic criminals who simply want to steal money. Some are sophisticated and some are very crude.

Former Deputy Secretary William Lynch has detailed just one attack in which a foreign computer hacker--or group of them--stole 24,000 U.S. military files in March of 2011. As others have noted on the floor as recently as a few minutes ago, in late 2011 the computers of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were completely compromised for more than a year by hackers. Yet today the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has essentially opposed the voluntary standards-based plan to help secure our Nation against attack. In fact, how extraordinary it is that certain parts of this bill have actually combined a consensus among the business community, the privacy advocates, as well as public officials, the National Security Agency. That consensus on privacy, again, reflects a profound and extraordinary feature of this bill, which is that we are coming together as a nation to face a common problem in a way that is demanded by the times and threats we face.

Shawn Henry, the Executive Assistant Director of the FBI, has said that ``the cyber threat is an existential one, meaning that a major cyber attack could potentially wipe out whole companies.'' That is the reason the business community has been involved and should support these proposals.

These attacks are not only ongoing, they have been occurring for years. These criminals are infiltrating our communications, accessing our secrets, and sapping our economic health through thefts of intellectual property.

Finally, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, as has been frequently quoted, said:

The next Pearl Harbor we confront could very well be a

cyber attack that cripples our power system, our grid, our

security systems, our financial systems, our government

systems.

The panoply of harm is staggering, and we cannot wait for that harm to be a reality to this country. The consequences comparable to 9/11 are tragic to contemplate. FBI Director Mueller has said the cyber threat, which

cuts across all programs, will be the No. 1 threat to our country.

FBI Director Mueller speaks the truth. We must make sure our government has the tools and authority they have asked for. The NSA, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, our business community and privacy advocates are all united in feeling this threat must be confronted. We have the opportunity but we also have a historic obligation to make sure we move this bill and that it moves forward so we do not squander this opportunity.

I thank the Presiding Officer and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am honored to follow the Senator from Vermont, who has been such an extraordinary leader in this area, and look forward to yielding shortly to the Senator from Washington, who has championed this bill and helped us all see the urgency of approving it.

In the minutes that I will be talking, and they will be brief minutes, every minute, two to three women will become victims of domestic abuse. Every minute that I am standing here, every minute that we occupy with debate and delay on this measure, two to three people in the United States, the greatest country in the history of the world, will become victims of domestic violence.

We cannot afford to wait. That is why I urge that my colleagues advance this critical piece of legislation and urge the House of Representatives to agree to the Senate version of this bill so we can make this bill more inclusive to include Native Americans and immigrants and others who would not be covered by the House version.

We find ourselves at a crossroads. We can either strengthen VAWA or we can retreat and go back. I say let's go forward with the philosophy that the Senator from Vermont has articulated so well as a prosecutor, not to mention knowing how our police work. We do not ask whether someone is an immigrant, what their sexual preference is, whether they are Native American. We protect them if they are victims of domestic abuse and violence. That should be our philosophy in the greatest country in the history of the world.

There are two protections for battered immigrant women in VAWA that are particularly important. The first allows immigrant women married to an abusive U.S. citizen to apply for legal status independent of that spouse. The second, which is the U visa, provides temporary status to victims who cooperate with law enforcement to prosecute their abuser.

The reauthorization of VAWA is currently stalled principally because of the U Visa provisions in the Senate bill, S. 1925.

Let me illustrate the importance of this provision with one story. A woman who came to Connecticut from Guatemala fled her native country to escape her abuser and arrived in Connecticut in 2005. Her abuser followed her to Connecticut, where he continued to abuse her. He was eventually deported to Guatemala on criminal charges, but she found herself in another abusive relationship. Eventually, she was able to find shelter at a local domestic violence agency. She could not convince family to sponsor her so she could apply for legal status. She would have had nowhere to turn but for a transitional living program for domestic violence victims that connected her to a Connecticut legal aid attorney, who then enabled her to file for a new visa.

I am happy to report that this constituent survivor received her new visa in May of 2012. Because of VAWA, she is now safe, and so is her son.

This story is repeated countless times across Connecticut and the country by women who suffer in silence.

Their undocumented status makes them particularly vulnerable and powerless to escape their abusive situations. My constituents tell me-- and I want to listen to them--that we cannot afford to compromise those basic protections that are fundamental to human rights and dignity, and that is why I urge this body, and the Congress as a whole, to move forward, not backward.

Again, every minute, two to three women become the victims of domestic violence. The consequences of this horrific problem are too high and the costs too dire to stay the course and simply repeat the inaction we have seen so far.

Thousands of victims of domestic violence are entrusting us with their safety today. We have an obligation to them to avoid the gamesmanship, end the gridlock, and move forward with S. 1925.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank my very distinguished and effective colleague from Delaware for his great work as part of a team that has sought to enhance the protections of privacy in this bill. His perspective as a local official, as a constitutional expert, as someone who cares deeply about privacy and civil liberties, has been invaluable to this effort. He too has participated in the critical infrastructure team which both of us have been privileged to join with Senators Whitehouse and Kyl, who have been so enormously helpful in this effort. I join him as well in thanking our colleagues Senators Akaka, Durbin, Franken, Sanders, and Wyden for their very important efforts to protect privacy and civil liberties in the information-sharing title of the cybersecurity act.

We have truly worked as a team and, in many ways, a bipartisan team in forging this legislation. Of course, we have followed the lead of Senators Lieberman and Collins who have been at the forefront of this effort, as well as Senators Rockefeller, Feinstein, and Carper, who deserve our appreciation for drafting the bill, shepherding it through committee, and bringing a modified version to the floor where now we have the historic opportunity to move forward. I am here to urge my colleagues, in fact, to move forward and vote to proceed to the bill later today.

We have made good progress on this legislation. I am optimistic that we will pass a cybersecurity bill in the very near future--as we must for all the reasons that have been articulated by myself and others. This Nation is under attack. It is under cyber attack. Literally, every day our defense industrial base, our military systems, and our private industry are under attack by nations and by hackers, both sophisticated and unsophisticated, abroad and at home. We must make sure we provide the tools and the resources, legal resources and authority to stop that attack, to deter it, to defeat it, to make sure our country is defended against it effectively and comprehensively.

The nature of defending against cyber attack involves information sharing. There is no way around that basic fact that information about the attacks--the sources, the objects and targets, the times--all the details are, in essence, the power to defend. Information is power when it comes to defending against cyber attack. Yet we also know that information, when shared, can also be abused. Some of the most tragic chapters of our Nation's history have involved snooping, spying, surveilling, and then sharing of information that is inappropriate and unnecessary and sometimes illegal.

We know also that one of our core constitutional protections is, in fact, the right to privacy. It is enshrined in our Constitution. It dates from our founding. It is integral to the fabric of the rule of law. We resisted and rejected the rule of the British, in part, because they had no respect for the privacy of the colonials. That basic value has inspired the rule of law since.

There is a saying--I believe it is a Latin saying--that in war, law is the first casualty. We are in a cyber war, but our constitutional law cannot be a casualty. Our right to privacy and civil liberties must be protected.

Information sharing must involve the right information shared with the right people and officials for the right purposes. There must be red lines and red lights. There must be consequences if those red lines or red lights are disregarded or dismissed.

This bill meets those basic requirements. It is enforceable and it must be enforced. In fact, I will offer an amendment to increase the enforceability and enforcement of these basic protections by increasing the penalties for violating these basic protections. The trust and confidence of our Nation in the rule of law depends on our getting it right: information sharing with the right information to the right people and for the right purposes.

The kinds of modifications contained in this bill are critically important. They are in sharp contrast to the House-approved version of CISPA, which utterly fails to protect civil liberties and privacy rights in sufficient degree. Unlike past versions, this measure establishes unequivocal civilian control of cybersecurity information exchanges. Unlike past versions, this bill bars companies from using cybersecurity as a pretext for violating FCC net neutrality rules. Unlike other versions, this bill bars companies from using cybersecurity as a pretext for violating other guarantees, and it allows citizens to hold companies accountable and take them to court for knowingly or grossly negligent violations of the information- sharing provisions of this bill.

Equally important, it enables them to hold the U.S. Government and other public officials responsible and take them to court if they violate the privacy guarantees in this bill.

A private company receiving someone's private information while monitoring for cyber threat should protect that information. It is a public trust and a public responsibility. This act protects Americans' privacy by requiring companies that obtain that kind of information-- some of it medical or financial of the most confidential and private nature--through monitoring, to protect that information.

This measure also imposes restrictions on the use of shared information for law enforcement purposes. The government can only provide information to law enforcement if it relates to a cyber crime or a serious threat to public safety; that is, physical safety--bodily harm. Law enforcement can only use information to prosecute or stop cyber attacks to prevent that kind of imminent and immediate harm to a person or a child.

There are other protections--some of them have been mentioned by Senators Franken and Coons before me--that I will support. For example, Senator Franken mentioned that his amendment would eliminate new authorities in the bill to monitor communications or operate countermeasures. Senator Coons mentioned a 5-year sunset on the use of information sharing under this measure to help guard against unforeseen consequences of the legislation and ensure that congressional oversight occurs on a regular and foreseeable basis. Other measures which I consider important would require Federal agencies that suffer a data breach to notify affected individuals and allow those individuals to recover damages and require the creation of a new office in the Office of Management and Budget, that of Chief Privacy Officer.

I support these amendments and I support also increasing the penalties in the event that government or companies violate the protections in this statute.

We have indeed made progress. There is more to do. I hope more progress will be made. I foresee passage of a cybersecurity measure that is desperately and direly needed in this country--not at some point in the future but now. As others before me have said on this floor and as I have said before, cybersecurity is national security and we must protect our national security while at the same time retaining the reason, our fundamental rights and civil liberties, that we want to protect our Nation and its constitutional values.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I am here today to express my sincere appreciation and thanks and admiration to a number of our distinguished Foreign Service officers who were similarly lauded by Senator McCain earlier today. I heard his remarks, and I wish to be associated with them.

I wish to express my thanks to three very brave and able men who have served this country under the most demanding and difficult conditions, requiring huge personal courage as well as insight and strong action. They are Ryan Crocker, who has served as Ambassador to Afghanistan; his deputy who will replace him shortly, James Cunningham; and our Ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter. What they share and what they have given us in these two critical posts is the best of our Nation's public service and foreign service.

I had occasion to meet both Ambassador Crocker and Ambassador Cunningham on a number of visits to Afghanistan and to be briefed by both of them, so I know personally how extraordinarily honest and forthright they are in the insight and intelligence they give to congressional visitors. And many of us have been among those visitors and many of us have met with them, so I know others have had that experience as well. I know them both to be extremely capable and intelligent, thoughtful, and insightful. They understand the complexities of this region, and they have succeeded in maintaining strong relationships with our partners in Afghanistan and Pakistan to the extent they were able to do so amid the most complex and challenging circumstances.

Somehow, in between all of the challenges they faced on the ground day to day, they also welcomed congressional visitors with extraordinary grace and

graciousness and generosity. I was proud to be one of them in visiting both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

I wish to recognize particularly the efforts of Ambassador Munter in addressing the supply chain of IED--improvised explosive device-- ingredients, the fertilizer and other chemicals that compose the roadside bombs that have literally caused more than half of our Nation's casualties in Afghanistan. Those ingredients are smuggled, sometimes in broad daylight, across the border from Pakistan. He has worked hard and made a valuable contribution in challenging the Government of Pakistan to do better, and to confront the threat and to ensure interagency coordination between the Department of State and the Department of Defense in confronting and attacking the IED network. He has written to me personally, and I thank him for his commitment to a cause that others have also made a priority, including Dr. Ashton Carter, presently Deputy Secretary of Defense. Together, we worked on this issue and made progress, but so much more must be done to stop the flow of IED bomb-making material across the border which does such horrific, destructive damage to our troops. One need only visit the Bethesda Naval Center to see it firsthand. Our hearts go out to the young men--principally men--and women and their families who are victims of these bombs. Thank you to Ambassador Munter for making it a priority.

I thank Ambassador Crocker likewise for working on this problem as he led the Embassy in Kabul through profoundly and deeply challenging times. When we here in Washington revise our policy toward Afghanistan and as we go through those revisions now, he has adopted and he has carried out policies, and he has served well our national interests, even in the midst of change and challenge.

I welcome Deputy Ambassador Cunningham to his new post. I have worked and been briefed by him. I, in fact, stayed with him in the Embassy. I have seen his keen insight, his quiet, understated manner, and his strength and will.

Indeed, all of these men are men of intellect, but they are also men of action, committed to delivering results to the Nation. They are men of loyalty and courage.

I will just finish on this note. Nobody should underestimate the courage that is required to serve in these positions. Anyone who has visited these countries knows the threat of physical danger is ever- present not only to the brave men and women who serve in uniform in our Armed Forces but to our diplomats who every day put their lives on the line to serve us. So I thank not only them but the thousands of men and women who have served with them in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and in other countries, at postings in places whose names most Americans can barely pronounce. They have demonstrated the kind of bravery that Ambassadors Crocker, Munter, and Cunningham have every day. They deserve our thanks and our good wishes as they leave their present posts--as Ambassador Crocker retires--and our good wishes for continued success for the sake of their lives and for the sake of our Nation.

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

Mr. President, I am honored on the opening day of the 2012 London Olympics to congratulate our U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Teams. Proudly, 16 of our top Olympian athletes hail from Connecticut, including 6 women, who played for our legendary University of Connecticut women's teams and will represent our State and Nation as members of the U.S. women's basketball team.

These athletes will make history on a global stage, representing the United States and sharing personal stories that fuel their drive to win. They have this momentous opportunity and responsibility because they have worked hard, demonstrated unremitting character and integrity, and believed in the power of athletic excellence to bring our nation and the world together.

Six extraordinary UConn alumni will compete as members of the 2012 U.S. women's basketball team: Sue Bird, Swin Cash, Tina Charles, Asjha Jones, Maya Moore, and Diana Taurasi. All six players brought UConn teams to national championships during their college careers. The head coach of the U.S. Olympic team, Geno Auriemma, has led the University of Connecticut teams through many exciting seasons while serving as a tremendous role model and mentor. Both Asjha Jones and Tina Charles currently live in Uncasville and play for the Connecticut Sun. Although the others may no longer list Connecticut as their formal residence, these players remain a part of our lives.

Charlie Cole, Ken Jurkowski, Nick LaCava, Sara Hendershot, and Sarah Trowbridge will compete in London as members of our U.S. rowing team. Mr. Cole grew up in New Canaan, CT, and attended New Canaan High School and Yale University where he rowed for the heavyweight team. He has received many national and international titles, including most recently winning the pair at the 2012 National Selection Regatta number 1 and finishing fourth in the four at the 2011 World Rowing Championships. He has been named USRowing's 2011 Athlete of the Year.

Mr. Jurkowski was raised in New Fairfield and attended New Fairfield High School and Cornell University, where he walked onto the team his freshman year, competed all 4 years, and graduated with a degree in biological engineering. He has also served as a volunteer assistant coach for the University of Texas women's rowing team. In London, he will compete in the single sculls event an event that he placed 11th in during the 2008 Beijing games.

Mr. LaCava is from Weston, CT, and attended Phillips Exeter Academy and Columbia University. Among other distinctions, he placed fifth in the lightweight eight at the 2011World Rowing Championships and placed first at the lightweight eight at the 2011 Head of the Charles Regatta. In London, he will compete in the men's lightweight four.

Ms. Hendershot grew up in West Simsbury Connecticut, only starting to row in 2003 as a high school freshman. Already by 2004 and again in 2005, she won the open eight at the USRowing National Championships. She rowed for Princeton University and graduated in 2010. She will compete in the Women's Pair in London with Sarah Zelenka of Illinois.

Ms. Trowbridge was born in Washington, DC, and is a member of the Potomac Boat Club. She was raised in Guilford, CT, and attended Guilford High School. She rowed at University of Michigan on a scholarship. Most recently among her international and national results, she finished ninth in the double sculls at the 2011 World Rowing Championships and won the double sculls at the 2011 National Selection Regatta No. 2. She cites her parents, coaches, teammates, and Olympic hero, Nadia Comaneci, as inspirations. She will compete in the Women's Double Sculls event.

Craig Kinsley and Donn Cabral will represent the United States in track and field. Hailing from Fairfield, CT, Mr. Kinsley brings his experience at high jump and javelin at Fairfield Preparatory High School and Brown University to the international arena. He won the NCAA title in the javelin event in 2010 and in the same year was named Academic All-American and Northeast Region Field Athlete of the Year by the U.S. Track and Field and Cross Country Coaches Association. At Brown University, he studied geology and economics.

Mr. Cabral was born and raised in Glastonbury, CT. He attended Princeton University, where he received All-American titles in track and field and cross country, and in 2012 won the NCAA title and set the U.S. collegiate record in the steeplechase event. He will compete in the Men's 3000M steeplechase this Olympic games.

Rob Crane will hit the water in sailing. Born in Stamford and raised in Darien, he went on to attend the Holderness School and Hobart College. He continues a family legacy of sailing, joining the ranks of his mother and father, who won world and North American championships, respectively. In 2011, he finished 14th in the International Sailing Association and Federal's Sailing World Championships. This Olympics, he will participate in the men's singlehanded laser dinghy sailing event.

In addition to the successes of these 10 accomplished and inspiring athletes, I wish to recognize all around the world poised to participate in the USA Paralympics. Guided by the U.S. Olympic Committee's Paralympic Military, Veteran, and Community Program, State and local communities have developed important programs to enable individuals with physical or visual disabilities to participate and compete in sports. The growing prevalence of community level sports clubs, such as the paralympic sports clubs, offers disabled Americans the opportunity to come together as a community, share their love of sports, and rally around each other.

Our American competitors are inspirational to athletes and nonathletes of all generations. Athletics and sportsmanship connect us, reaching the core of our humanity. They represent our hopes, dreams, and aspirations. They serve as national and international diplomats, working together as a team to best represent our country. Along with my Senate colleagues, I wish our athletes from Connecticut and around the Nation the best of luck and thank them for their incredible public service as leaders during these Olympic games.

Mr. President, let me begin by thanking my colleague from California for her leadership over many years and her steadfast courage and vision on this issue; likewise, my colleague from the State of Washington who spoke before her, Senator Murray, for her leadership, as well and others in this body who passed VAWA, the Senate's version of that measure, S. 1925, by an overwhelming bipartisan margin, in fact, 68 to 31, back in April.

This measure truly is bipartisan, and it has commanded overwhelming support in this body and, more important, from across the American public.

In Connecticut, I hear again and again from men and women, members of all communities, that the Violence Against Women Act is an idea whose time came 18 years ago but continues to demand the kind of respect and support the Senate has given it.

Now is the time for the House to adopt the Senate bill because it is more inclusive and more effective. For a bill that works, as this measure truly does, to include more potential victims, to provide more tools of enforcement is absolutely appropriate and necessary at this point in our history.

Of course, I hear from Connecticut constituents such as Hillary from Fairfield, who tells me:

One in four women, worldwide and in the U.S. is at risk for

violence at some point in her life. Men are at risk too, and

VAWA supports provisions for men to be safe and healthy in

their relationships as well. VAWA supports programs for both

men and women perpetrators of abuse to get the help they need

to stop the violence, and it ensures that women and their

children have a safe place to go when in danger.

Susan from New Haven:

Reauthorizing VAWA sends the message that survivors of

sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and

stalking must have the tools to heal and reclaim their lives;

that women and girls, our communities and our families, must

be safe; that the next generation must be engaged in this

effort--and that the evolution of our collective thinking on

how to break the cycle of violence is a national priority. To

send any other message is unconscionable. Congress must act

swiftly. Renew VAWA now.

Renew VAWA is the message we carry to the House: Renew VAWA with the improvements and reforms we have wisely adopted in this body and continue a measure that has benefited 54,000--let me repeat that, 54,000--domestic violence victims in Connecticut alone, millions across the country, and has provided organizations in Connecticut nearly $5 million in just the last fiscal year from VAWA programs.

These measures make a difference in people's lives. So often we can speak and think in this Chamber without the kind of connection to individual lives, where we see legislation, our acts here, making a difference. This measure offers us the opportunity to make a difference by broadening and making more inclusive this measure.

It makes it more effective. I am proud it makes it more effective with an amendment I offered to prosecute criminals who use the Internet to intimidate, threaten, harass, and incite violence against women and children.

The use of the Internet is increasingly prevalent for these kinds of crimes. The legislation I introduced, included in the Senate's bill, enhances current law for the Internet age. That section of the bill is not in the House version. It should be. That is a reason I am urging the House to adopt the Senate version.

But it is also more inclusive in including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender constituents--whom all of us have--in these protections.

LGBT Americans experience domestic violence at the same rate as the general population, but they often face discrimination in accessing services. In fact, a survey found that 45 percent of LGBT victims were turned away when they sought help from a domestic violence shelter. There is a real need--an unquestionable and immediate need--to improve the access and availability of services for LGBT victims, and our measure does it; the House version does not.

Over 800 constituents--and I welcome them in contacting me--have written me to urge that we preserve the LGBT provisions of the Senate bill as VAWA moves forward.

S. 1925 also includes protections for Native Americans that are absolutely vital. One of the invisible, unknown, unrealized, unacknowledged facts about this community is that nearly three out of five Native American women are assaulted by their spouses or intimate partners. One-third of all American Indian women will be raped during their lifetime. Those numbers alone should dictate the result. The members of the Tribal Council of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation and others across the country--the Mashantucket Pequots happen to be from Connecticut--have appealed to me to protect the tribal provisions in the Senate measure, not to waiver, not to relent to the House version.

Again, I urge the House to adopt our measure.

Protecting immigrant populations ought to be a given for the Senate. The House version of VAWA would ``endanger the safety of noncitizen victims and society as a whole.'' That is a quote from the International Institute of Connecticut, which has urged me to hold firm to support the provisions of the Senate bill and not surrender to the House and relent on protecting immigrants who need this help.

Again, I quote. The House version would ``endanger the safety of noncitizen victims and society as a whole.''

VAWA symbolizes for our immigrants, those who come to this country, what makes America great. We protect everyone who needs it. We enforce the laws equally without discriminating against people as to their national heritage or origin or ethnicity or race or other background. Equal protection of the law is one of the unique constitutional principles of the American democracy and the American Constitution. Our landmark measure enhances and enforces equal protection of the law.

I hope this body stands firm. I hope the House understands that it is not one body being better than another. We are way beyond that kind of comparison at this point. It is one version of the same legislation, one set of provisions seeking a common goal, doing it better, more inclusively, and more effectively in the great tradition of the legislative process.

I urge the House of Representatives to put partisanship aside, to put aside any kind of cameral personal differences and take immediate action to support all in America who are victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to say a few words about the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, legislation Congress passed with strong bipartisan support just before we returned home to our States for the Fourth of July.

This bill was a big one. It was a big bill with complex provisions and an essential purpose: to safeguard the public, to protect patients and encourage innovation and invention, which are so important to treating and curing diseases in this country as well as other problems. And this measure was revolutionary in many ways. It contained complex, new provisions, provisions that we must make sure are implemented as Congress intended.

I was proud to work on many parts of this bill with my colleagues, including title VIII of this legislation, to generate new antibiotics to treat emerging serious and life threatening superbug infections. I want to clarify two points for the record on this legislation: I want to be clear that pathogens identified in this title are illustrative, not all-inclusive. There are many deadly pathogens that we may not even know of yet; title VIII is intended to spur innovation against all superbug infections as soon as they arise. And, I want to be clear, language in section 801(b) is not intended to prohibit or preclude innovative drug products that will spur the antibiotic pipeline, so long as they meet the definition for a qualified infectious disease product.

FDA approval of new antibiotics has decreased by 70 percent since the mid-1980s, yet reports from the CDC suggest that resistant MRSA infection deaths are now at more than 17,000 lives lost in the United States each year--more than AIDS. Resistant infections have now been elevated to one of the World Health Organization's top three threats to human health. It is my sincere hope that title VIII will spur production of the weapons we need to fight this threat.

Madam President, for a few minutes, let us recall a young patriot, a military veteran, and a Connecticut son who tragically passed away on July 15, 2012. His name was Kenneth Saavedra, Jr. He was just 29 years old.

Kenneth was born in Bridgeport, CT and lived in Shelton for most of his life. He graduated from Shelton High School and the University of Connecticut. Kenneth was an electrician and worked for Sikorsky Aircraft.

But I speak about Kenneth today because of another job a different distinction that he held for a number of years: sergeant in the U.S. Army.

Kenneth Saavedra, Jr., served with the Army's 1st Battalion, 102nd Infantry Regiment, including two tours of duty in Afghanistan, and served with the National Guard for almost 10 years.

Kenneth was an American patriot. He selflessly dedicated his life to serving his country and never asked what he would receive in return. And after he came home from two tours in Afghanistan, he continued to stay active in veterans' causes as vice chair of the Teamsters Veterans Caucus Connecticut Chapter 1 and an avid supporter of the Wounded Heroes Fund.

This Saturday, Kenneth will be laid to rest in the Connecticut Veterans' Cemetery in Rocky Hill with full military honors. We owe a debt of gratitude to Kenneth Saavedra, Jr., and to military men and women like him who have risked everything to protect our Nation, and served and sacrificed, often at great cost to themselves. We must keep faith with them and make sure that we leave no veteran behind.

I want to offer my sincere condolences to Kenneth's parents, Evelyn and Kenneth Sr., as well as to his many family members and friends who are mourning his loss.

Madam President, I am very honored and proud to follow the Senator from Maryland, who has been such an extraordinary leader in so many areas and, most prominently and recently, this one that involves the future of our country. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his leadership and my colleague, Senator Coons of Delaware, because he has been at the forefront. This issue truly is bipartisan. Senator Blunt has played a leading role, as have Senator Graham and Senator Kyl and, of course, Senators Lieberman and Collins and Senator McCain, who was on the floor before, and Senator Chambliss. This kind of amassing senatorial consensus reflects the urgency and immediacy of this problem. Our Nation is under attack.

I came today from a meeting with one of the major accounting and consulting companies in the United States, whose name would be immediately recognizable to you, and by happenstance, sheer coincidence, he said to me that his company is attacked literally 1,000 times a day. His company has information that is intensely valuable and private and has taken steps to safeguard itself. But the magnitude of this attack on this single company and others like it that may have intellectual property lost to this country if it gets stolen by hackers and by other nations reflects the seriousness and importance of this issue.

Time is not on our side. We must act immediately. The Senate must follow its duty and make sure we meet the challenge, No. 1, of bringing together all the stakeholders to enhance the resiliency of our critical infrastructure systems. Much of this infrastructure lies beyond the purview of the Federal Government. Cybersecurity is a major concern of both the government and the private sector. There must be a partnership between them; it is not for either to do alone.

Today, the computers that control energy and manufacturing, water, and chemical facilities across the country are connected via the Internet. None of them is an island. No one is an island in the Internet age. We are all under attack when any one of us is under attack.

I believe we have a path forward to strengthen protection of our Nation's network industrial control systems without heavyhanded regulation and in partnership with the businesses that own the systems. Many are already pursuing best practices. Many already are addressing this threat. And my hope is that the legislation coming forward as a result of the leadership by my colleagues here today will make sure these best practices become common practices and uniform to every industry so that access to controls and audits and monitoring is done systemically.

Finally, let me emphasize--and I think this point is especially critical to many who are watching this process today--we can make progress in strengthening the privacy and civil liberties protection in cybersecurity while preserving its underlying goal of safeguarding the Nation.

Americans have become aware of the need to protect online privacy. As

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to join the voices of my colleagues in favor of supporting strongly, and I hope persuasively, the Bring Jobs Home Act.

The Bring Jobs Home Act is a measure that contains some provisions that are hardly novel, not complex, and a matter of common sense.

They involve some of the basic ideas we have advanced and advocated in this Chamber for some time. They are measures that are contained in a proposal very eloquently argued for by my colleague, Senator Stabenow, and I thank her for her leadership, as well as for Leader Reid's leadership, in bringing this measure to the floor now.

Very simply, the Bring Jobs Home Act will reshore and restore jobs to this country with two simple, straightforward provisions. This measure provides a 20-percent tax credit for the expenses incurred in moving facilities or plants--basically, jobs--back to America. It also does something that is critically vital to this country, which is to close the loopholes that right now reward companies for moving those jobs overseas. Again and again over the past 2 years I have advocated this straightforward, simple step: Close the loopholes that permit companies to deduct expenses when moving those jobs overseas.

The average American--certainly the average person in Connecticut-- when told that these loopholes exist, simply is incredulous. They cannot believe the United States of America rewards companies for moving these jobs overseas. Let's close that loophole now. It will produce revenue for the United States. Literally tens of millions of dollars will come back to our country as a result of closing this loophole, and jobs will come back as well. The 20-percent tax credit, although it may not sound like a lot of money to major corporations, could well be the tipping point for executives considering what to do in terms of investing in this country. It is an incentive to invest in the United States instead of moving those jobs abroad. A 20-percent tax credit could be a critical decision point and a turning point in those decisions. The Boston Consulting Group surveyed 37 companies which have $10 billion or more in revenues and found that 50 percent are at that tipping point.

This measure should not be partisan. It should not be a matter of geography or party as to whether one of our colleagues supports it. There should be a bipartisan coalition behind it. I have found in Connecticut, as I go around the State, regardless of party, people support this idea of bringing jobs home and reshoring and restoring jobs to our State and to our country, particularly manufacturing jobs.

In the city of Waterbury, I visited on Monday a steel plant where there are

3,000 manufacturing jobs--part of the 165,000 manufacturing jobs that we have in Connecticut. Manufacturing is alive and well. Taxpayers should not be subsidizing companies that move those kinds of jobs overseas. In the last 10 years, 2.4 million jobs were shipped overseas--mostly manufacturing--and taxpayers helped to foot the bill for it. In Connecticut, the National Bureau of Economic Research has found more than 250,000 jobs are at risk of being outsourced. People are angry and outraged that they are subsidizing that risk, that outsourcing and offshoring of jobs.

In the steel plant I visited, fortunately those jobs have stayed. But from around the country and in Connecticut, many of them have moved overseas because of the economic incentives we have created and that now we should stop. At a time when job creation is our No. 1 priority, American taxpayers deserve that these loopholes and hidden subsidies be closed and ended forever.

I hope I speak for many of my colleagues in saying shipping jobs overseas with the subsidies and incentives now provided very simply is unacceptable. Let's pass the Bring Jobs Home Act now to close those loopholes and to provide these incentives so that companies such as Otis Elevator, United Technology, DuPont, Ford, Master Lock, GE, Spectrum Plastics in Ansonia, CT, will be encouraged to continue doing the right thing, bringing those jobs back, walking the walk, and walking jobs back to Connecticut and to the United States. I will be voting yes to bring jobs home.

Again, I thank my colleague Senator Stabenow for her invaluable leadership on this issue. I am proud to join her today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the tremendous lifetime of service by one of our Nation's most courageous heroes, CDR William Moeller. Commander Moeller has served for 22 years in the Coast Guard in four location assignments, dedicating his time, energy, and even risking his life for his fellow servicemen and women, the U.S. Coast Guard, and his country. On September 1, 2012, he will retire from the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve.

Upon graduation from the United States Coast Guard Academy in 1990 with a B.S. in government, Commander Moeller began his career and his sea tour as a deck watch officer aboard the USCGC Tamaroa. He soon rose to first lieutenant and in this capacity led the rescue of four members of the Air National Guard in October 1991. This rescue among monstrous waves, churned by the worst storm off the Eastern seaboard in 100 years, captured the Nation's imagination in the book and later the film adaptation of ``The Perfect Storm.''

Following his commission as group captain, he transferred to reserve status at the Port Long Island Sound in New Haven. Promoted to lieutenant commander in the Marine Safety Office located in Portland, ME, he served in the Coast Guard Reserve until recalled to active duty during 9/11. Returning to reserve status and to the Sector Long Island Sound, he was promoted to commander in 2006. After a few years at Activities New York, he returned to New Haven in 2010 for the last time as reserve logistics section chief. Commander Moeller's dedicated protection of the Nation, most of which took place at the Long Island Sound--waters significant to Connecticut and the Eastern seaboard--is appreciated by millions.

In addition to receiving extensive military recognition--including the Coast Guard Medal for Extraordinary Heroism, the Coast Guard Commendation Medal, and the Air Force Commendation Medal--Commander Moeller has been awarded the Coast Guard Medal by President George W. Bush. In

April 2012, he was inducted as a member of the Coast Guard Academy's Wall of Gallantry.

Commander Moeller has further contributed to our Nation's safety and security as a business executive with Pratt & Whitney. In this capacity, he has furthered the development of the aerospace industry, committed to our national defense by both air and sea.

I invite my Senate colleagues to join me in congratulating Commander Moeller on his retirement and remarkable allegiance to the Coast Guard and his country. We wish him great success and thank him for his tremendous service.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his very powerful and eloquent words, and I particularly want to thank my distinguished friend and colleague from

Rhode Island for his leadership on this issue. I also thank others who have been at his side and working with him. I have been proud to be a cosponsor of this measure.

I would like to thank Senator Schumer, who introduced a similar measure in 2010. The DISCLOSE Act of 2010 has been, in fact, considerably narrowed and tailored to target the anonymity of huge donations--increasingly large donations today--and it is the kind of tailoring and narrowing that reflects the care and precision and hard work that my colleague from Rhode Island and others--and I am proud to be among them--have given to this matter.

As I rise at this late hour, we can't know--we can only hope--that America is listening or that our colleagues are listening, but I do know we should be listening to America. I am listening to Connecticut, and what I hear from Connecticut, the people of my State--as so many of my colleagues are hearing from their constituents and citizens--is they are losing trust in the greatest democracy in the history of the world. The greatest country in the history of the planet is losing the confidence and faith of its people.

I am hearing from people such as Catherine Sturgess of New Canaan, CT, who says:

Undisclosed campaign money influences candidates, elections

and undermines the role of the voter. In turn, the election

process is corrupted. Only a few cannot be allowed to impact

a system which is intended to represent us all.

Lawrence Poin of Fairfield tells me, and I am listening:

Right now, foreign governments, oil tycoons, and Wall

Street banks can spend millions to buy our democracy, and the

American public will never know.

And I am listening also to Garrett Timmons of Brooklyn, CT, who says:

I think campaign and election reform should go much further

and include a constitutional amendment in light of Citizens

United, but I know how unrealistic that is. At least this

act--

He is referring to the DISCLOSE Act of 2012--

is a step in the right direction, and I hope a no-brainer

for our Congress. The people of this country are losing their

representation in government to special interests and the

funders of political campaigns. And to make matters worse, we

don't even know who are stealing our elections.

I am listening to those people who are watching. They are watching what is happening in this country, and they are losing faith because they believe Washington is failing to listen to them. There are millions of other hard-working families who are struggling to put food on the table, stay in their homes, and find jobs who believe the system is not working for them and not listening to them as much as it is to the people who can afford to give to political campaigns, let alone who can afford to give tens of millions.

If we listen to the people of America--and I am listening to the people of Connecticut--we will pass the DISCLOSE Act of 2012.

All this bill requires is openness and disclosure and accountability. It places no limits on what can be contributed, on what can be done, on what can be said. It is completely consistent with Citizens United. I am not here to relitigate that case.

The Supreme Court, in the Bullock decision, recently indicated it would not relitigate that case anytime soon. It invalidated a Montana State law that prohibited corporations from making independent expenditures. We are not going to relitigate whether a corporation is a citizen or whether any of these entities can contribute or in what amounts.

The DISCLOSE Act of 2012 is completely consistent with Citizens United. In fact, in a certain very true sense, Citizens United, in its majority opinion, presumed disclosure. The Supreme Court, in the majority opinion in that case, made clear the first amendment protects political speech when it said:

. . . and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to

react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way.

The framework, the reasoning, the logic of Citizens United is no limits on speech but disclosure of who is speaking and who is funding and supporting that speech. That basic premise is one that runs through the precedence of this Court and of others who have litigated these cases. It is not too much to say that the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 is an essential predicate to the framework, the legal framework, that Citizens United presumes.

I would rather go further as well. As one of my constituents said, I would favor a constitutional amendment that would enable some limits consistent with the Constitution. Money is corrosive. Too much money in the system corrupts. But, again, we are not here to set limits, we are here to deal with secrecy, with anonymity. Secrecy and anonymity not only corrode, they destroy the essence of our democracy. By opening the system to the sunshine that will eliminate that secrecy, we are helping to restore trust and faith in government, and we would be showing that Washington will listen to the American people, including the people of Connecticut.

The Supreme Court decisions, like elections, have consequences, and Citizens United certainly has shown that it has consequences. During the 2010 midterm elections, the first election season after Citizens United, outside groups spent nearly $300 million--four times as much money as in the 2006 midterm election before the Citizens United decision. Nearly half of the money spent in the 2010 election after Citizens United was spent by just 10 groups. Think about it. Ten groups spent more than half of that $300 million.

As spending has quadrupled, transparency has been lessened. Nobody knows where this money is coming from. In 2006, only 1 percent of political spending by outside groups was anonymous. In 2010, 44 percent--nearly half--was anonymous. We know anonymity on the Internet or in the public sphere breeds negativism, it breeds deception, and often it breeds outright lies.

Accountability is one of the watch words of our democracy, and the anonymity of this spending, of these contributions of tens of millions--indeed, hundreds of millions of dollars that are contributed by a handful of people and entities, whether it is corporations or business associations or unions, is corrupting to the process.

The majority opinion in Citizens United dismissed concerns about unlimited political spending by claiming that prompt disclosure would make these entities and individuals accountable to shareholders, voters, consumers, and the public at large. Yet elections have been inundated with secret money.

Citizens United had consequences unintended and unanticipated by the Supreme Court. People may say: Well, the Justices were naive. But the fact is this body, the Congress, must compensate to ameliorate and remedy the unintended consequences of that decision. The American people have shown in polls as well as those letters I mentioned earlier that they expect us to do so. Seven in ten Americans believe super PACs should be illegal, including majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. This issue is not partisan. It should be bipartisan. It has been bipartisan in the past and must be again. More than seven in ten Americans feel there is too much money in politics, including, again, the majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Seven in ten Americans, including majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, believe there should be limits on contributions to political campaigns. One in four Americans say they are less likely to vote because of the super PACs and these anonymous donations. Finally, seven in ten Americans agree that ``new rules that let corporations, unions, and people give unlimited money to super PACs will lead to corruption.''

Let the Senate listen to the people of Connecticut and America. Let them say: We respect what you are saying again and again, and we will act in a bipartisan way to protect our democracy.

Americans want their choice of candidates to be an election, not an auction. At the very least, we should tell them and make possible for them to know who is doing the bidding in those auctions, who is doing the buying, and who is doing the selling. Nobody wants there to be an auction, but if contributions are not limited, the auction at the very least should be in the open so that the public can see who is buying, who is selling, and who is bidding. That view of American democracy may not

be a very elevating one, but we deal with practical reality, and as we speak, tens of millions of Americans are watching what we will do. Maybe not tonight, perhaps not at this hour, but at the end of the day, at the end of this debate, they will hold the Senate accountable for what it does or what it fails to do.

I urge my colleagues to reconsider and approve the DISCLOSE Act of 2012.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am reminded today of the old saying that we campaign in poetry but we govern in prose. We are in the midst of a campaign season when we hear a lot of rhetoric perhaps posing as poetry, but we have an obligation to govern. I rise today in support of S. 2337, which is most certainly simple, straightforward prose in dedication to the art of government. It is the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act. It is about as simple and straightforward as it possibly could be.

It has two compelling, concise concepts. The first is a tax credit of 10 percent on new payroll. It can be either new hiring or increased wages in 2012 as compared to 2011, and it is capped at $500,000--pretty simple, straightforward prose in aid of jobs, in aid of employment.

It also extends for 1 year the 100-percent bonus depreciation allowance to stimulate economic investment--again, to create jobs. It is a very simple and straightforward extension of the accelerated depreciation that boosts gross domestic product and will benefit 2 million businesses--it is estimated 2 million businesses--most of them small businesses across the United States. In fact, this measure is very specifically targeted and aimed at small businesses creating jobs. They are the backbone of our economy. They are the source of the majority of new jobs.

It economizes, very prudently and practically, the aid that is designed to boost new jobs, as well as overall output in our economy.

It is supported by a broad consensus of economists, including Alan Blinder, who has endorsed this idea as a job creator, saying:

The basic idea is to offer firms that boost their payrolls

a tax break. As one concrete example, companies might be

offered a tax credit equal to 10% of the increase in their

wage bills. . . . No increase, no reward.

That is the concept: ``No increase, no reward.'' But the reward and the incentive are a powerful potential driving force to aid small businesses in increasing the numbers of jobs they provide.

I thank Leader Harry Reid for this very targeted and profoundly meaningful proposal. But when I think about the impact of this legislation, I do not think of the folks who are gathered in this Chamber. I think of people in Connecticut--13,000 people in Connecticut--who will have jobs if we move forward on this bill.

I think of a man named Hector Hernandez. I met Hector at a jobs fair I hosted in East Hartford this past September. After 25 years of working for the same company--as they say, working hard and playing by the rules--Hector lost his job. He is willing to do most anything to find a new job, but he cannot find one. There are simply no jobs for Hector. This measure will help to provide him one.

At that same jobs fair I met Ty Wagner. Ty took a very smart path. He decided he was going to get all the education that could possibly be accessible to him. He got a technical degree from a top university. He wanted to work in the State when he graduated. His dream job was to give back, to provide public service. He has not been able to find any job, let alone his dream job, and he is every bit as lost as Hector Hernandez.

That situation faced by Hector and Ty is only one aspect of the crisis in America's job market. I think of Jodey Lazarus who moved to Stamford 5 years ago in search of economic opportunity. She put her two kids in local schools, signed up for college classes, started to get her finances in order, and today she makes barely enough to feed her family. She receives no benefits. She has been looking for a job that will pay her more and give her more security, but in this economy her efforts have come to nothing. Every week she hopes and prays her income will be enough to provide food for her family. People like Jodey and Hector and Ty deserve better.

As I travel across Connecticut, I hear often that there are jobs and employers cannot find people with the skills to fill them. We need to provide those skills to develop our workforce, to make sure education and training are available so people have skills to fill the jobs that exist.

Washington can do more for them. This kind of targeted, practical approach--not Republican or Democrat, not conservative or progressive-- simply provides the tools small businesses need: a 10-percent payroll tax cut, accelerated depreciation--simple,

straightforward prose, not poetry, prose--that will put people back to work in Connecticut and around the country.

I urge that my colleagues come together--as the American people want us to do desperately, are seeking for us to do--and to govern in prose that makes a practical difference in their lives, a tool for small business--not as a panacea but as a practical aid so small businesses can put people back to work across the State of Connecticut and the country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.