Floor Statements

Madam President, may I simply interject, with the Senator's permission, to say how much of a pleasure it has been to work with him on this issue and to say that I think a great number of Senators on both sides of the aisle have worked in very good faith to get to a point where we can pass a bill. And I pledge to him, despite the unfortunate outcome of today's cloture vote, that I am committed to continuing to work with him, Senator Kyl, Senator Graham, Senator McCain, and others--I guess Senator Chambliss--on the other side of the aisle so we can indeed take the necessary steps to protect our Nation from this threat. But I say this with a strong consciousness of the very good will and the very hard work Senator Blunt put into this effort and with great appreciation to him personally.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, at this point I will speak, if I may, in the nature of a colloquy with the chairman and with the Senator from Delaware, but first let me thank the Senator from Delaware for his very kind remarks. Senator Carper, as everybody knows in the Senate, is really a bellwether of bipartisanship, and he constantly seeks cooperation. So I appreciate very much his efforts to bring us together.

The chairman has been working very hard on these bills for many years, and the bill on the floor now is the product of considerable work in his committee--Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--considerable work in the Intelligence Committee, and considerable work in the Commerce Committee primarily, although we in the Judiciary Committee have had some input as well. So while there has been no specific hearing on the assembled bill, because it covers so many committees, it has to be brought together at some point, and its components have had extensive committee work. So we have all put a lot of effort into this, and we have actually all come a very long way, I believe.

Our window is very short, and I hope and expect we can use the hours ahead of us literally to work to close this gap. But I believe the distance we have come, and particularly that last bit of distance, when the chairman changed S. 3414 to go from a traditional mandatory regulatory system to the new voluntary standards, really has moved us in enormous ways. We are almost on the 1 yard line now, and I believe it would be such a shame, with things being that close, if we couldn't close the deal.

I would like to ask the chairman to react to that assessment of our situation, and I would also like to ask him to react to one other point, which is that the House took action on cyber security but it only did so in the form of legislation on information sharing. All of our information--the letter yesterday from General Alexander and everything we have heard from our national security officials--is that is not enough.

We have two really important jobs. One is information sharing, and the other is defending America's privately owned critical infrastructure--our electric grids, our communications networks, our data-processing systems. Those are our great liability. Those are the things Secretary of Defense Panetta was referring to when he said that the next Pearl Harbor we confront could very well be a cyber attack.

So are we as close as I think and is it important that the Senate do its job because the House simply failed to address the critical infrastructure part of our responsibilities?

Will the Senator yield for another question?

I mentioned, to use the Senator's words, it was important to help the private sector strengthen itself. Some of the debate that has surrounded this bill has suggested that if we just get the heavy hand of government out of the way and let the nimble private sector do its thing to protect critical infrastructure, all will be well, and that a purely private sector way of proceeding is the best way to proceed.

In that context, the Senator mentioned the study that showed that only 13 percent of the private businesses that were reviewed were adequately cyber security prepared. The NCIJTF, which is the FBI-led joint task force that protects our national cyber infrastructure, has said that when they detect a cyber attack and they go out to work with the corporation that has been attacked, 9 out of 10 times the corporation had no idea. It is not just a government agency, the NCIJTF, saying that, there is a company called Mandiant which is sort of ``Who are you going to call? Ghost Busters.'' When someone is hit, they come in and help the companies clean up. They say the same thing: Out of 10 times, these companies had to find out that they had been penetrated from a government agency telling them, ``By the way, you have been hacked. They are in there.''

In fact, he said 48 out of the last 50 companies they dealt with had no idea. The Aurora virus hit 300 American companies, and only three of them knew it. The chamber of commerce, which is very active in this debate, had Chinese hackers with complete impunity throughout its cyber systems without knowing about it for at least 6 months. It was only when the government said, ``By the way, guys, your info was on a server in China,'' that they realized, ``Oh, my gosh; we have been hacked too.''

Then the Senator has used the statistic I have used before--that General Alexander, who is head of Cyber Command, has adopted--which is that America is now on the losing end of the biggest transfer of wealth in history through illicit means as a result of cyber industrial espionage--stealing from us our chemical formulas, our manufacturing processes, and various things that create value in the country.

So I am not just pinpointing individual examples. If we look at it from

a macro point of view, we are getting our clocks cleaned in this area. The private sector, it seems to me all of the evidence suggests, is an area in which it is not adequately protecting itself without a government role to spur cooperation and to set an agreed standard that NSA and the people who are watching this with real anxiety every day know is an adequate standard to meet the needs.

If the Senator from Connecticut would respond, I would be grateful.

The only reasonable conclusion one could draw is that it would be prudent to view, with some caution and some skepticism, the claims of folks who are hacked and penetrated at will--and who often usually don't even know it--that: Don't worry. Trust us. We can take care of this. Everything is fine.

Mr. President, I am here this afternoon to speak about the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, the measure that is on the Senate floor right now. This important bill addresses a serious and immediate threat to our Nation's security. I served 4 years on the Intelligence Committee during which I worked hard to understand the cyber security threat. I helped Senator Mikulski and Senator Snowe write the Senate Intelligence Committee Cyber Security Report. I am the chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism that has jurisdiction over cyber security. As I have explained before on the floor of the Senate, the cyber threat against our Nation--against our intellectual property, against our privacy, and against our safety--is vast and it is upon us. It is a national security threat. It is a national economic threat. We cannot afford to wait to pass legislation to respond to this threat. The leading national security experts in each party agree: Now is the time to pass comprehensive cyber security legislation.

The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 is a strong, comprehensive bill that will make our Nation safer. It will provide for the sharing of threat information between the government and private sector, and it will provide for the hardening, for the protection of the networks of the private companies that operate America's critical infrastructure--that run our electric grid, that run our financial networks, that run our communications systems and the other infrastructure that is essential to conducting the day-to-day way of life Americans enjoy, that is essential to our national security and to our economic well-being.

The Senate voted to proceed to this bill in a very broad, bipartisan manner--84 votes, as I recall. It has been disappointing in the wake of that that some elements within the business community are failing to cooperate, are failing to, for instance, provide constructive suggestions in areas where they have disagreement with this important legislation. Indeed, some appear intent on just preventing the Senate from passing legislation that would make us all safer.

In some cases these interests are not negotiating to get a bill that protects their interests. They are blockading to stop a bill that will protect all of our interests. To put this blockade into context, consider the views of GEN Keith Alexander, the Director of the National Security Agency and of United States Cyber Command. General Alexander is the most senior and respected cyber security expert in our Nation's military. He runs our two most technically sophisticated and skilled cyber operations. Today he wrote:

The cyber threat facing the Nation is real and demands

immediate action. The time to act is now; we simply cannot

afford further delay. Moreover, to be most effective in

protecting against this threat to our national security,

cyber security legislation should address both information

sharing and core critical infrastructure hardening.

The Cybersecurity Act addresses both of those issues, information sharing and core critical infrastructure hardening. It does what our military's leading cyber security expert says is necessary to be done to protect the Nation.

That, then, is the view of the leader of our military cyber warriors and cyber defenders based on both deep experience and access to the most deeply classified information held by the U.S. Government.

In contrast, industry arguments against cyber security legislation appear to have been developed with little or no awareness of the threat facing our Nation. Kevin Mandia of the leading security firm Mandiant has explained, for example, that ``in over 90 percent of the cases we have responded to, government notification was required to alert the company that a security breach was underway. In our last 50 incidents, `` he said, ``48 of the victim companies learned they were breached from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Defense, or some other third party.''

The FBI's experience was similar. When the FBI-led National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force informs the corporation it has been hacked, 9 times out of 10, the FBI reports, the corporation had no idea.

In Operation Aurora, the cyber attack which targeted numerous companies, only 3 out of the approximately 300 companies attacked were aware that they had been attacked before they were contacted by the government.

These are not unique incidents. Globally, I have said, General Alexander has said, and others have said that America is right now on the losing end of the largest illicit transfer of wealth in human history through cyber attack and through the theft through cyber attack of our intellectual property. So this is an industrywide problem.

Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been the completely unwitting victim of a long-term and extensive cyber intrusion. Just last year the Wall Street Journal reported that a group of hackers in China breached the computer defenses of the U.S. Chamber, gained access to everything stored on its systems, including information about its 3 million members, and remained on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's network for at least 6 months and possibly more than a year. The chamber only learned of the break-in when the FBI told the group that servers in China were stealing its information.

Even after the chamber was notified and increased its cyber security, the article stated that the chamber continued to experience suspicious activity, including a ``thermostat at a townhouse the Chamber owns on Capitol Hill . . . communicating with an Internet address in China . . . and . . . a printer used by Chamber executives spontaneously . . . printing pages with Chinese characters.'' These are the people we are supposed to listen to about cyber security.

A recent Bloomberg News article makes it clear that this was not an isolated incident. It describes how hackers linked to China's army have been seen on the networks of a vast array of American businesses. The article describes how what started as assaults on military and defense contractors have widened into a rash of attacks from which no corporate entity is safe. Among other cyber attacks, Bloomberg News reported, the networks of major oil companies have been harvested for seismic maps charting oil reserves--it saves work if you can steal that information rather than find it yourself--

patent law firms have been hacked for their clients' trade secrets-- again, free access to valuable information--and investment banks have been hacked into for market analysis that might impact the global ventures of certain state-owned--nation-state-owned, foreign-country- owned operations.

After having been victimized repeatedly by cyber attacks and having learned about them only when the government arrived to help them fix the problem, one would think critical infrastructure operators or their representatives would be keenly aware of the urgent need for cyber security legislation. One would think they might come to this issue with some sense of humility based on the patent inadequacy of their defenses. One would think that elected officials sworn to the protection of this country might view with some caution and some skepticism claims by folks who are hacked and penetrated virtually at will, usually without even knowing about it, that they can handle this just fine on their own. Yet industry opposition remains, even after the bill has been revised to include a very business-friendly, voluntary, incentive-based approach to hardening up critical infrastructure that we all depend on. Unfortunately, some colleagues can only hear the siren song of the industry lobbyists, even with plain and ominous national security threats staring them in the face.

Some in industry claim that a bill with only information sharing between the government and business would be sufficient and that protection of critical infrastructure is not necessary. This premise is wrong. Statements to the contrary are simply false. Such assertions have been repudiated by the people who lead the charge with our Nation's defense, and who have been confirmed in these roles by the Senate who have repeatedly, and as recently as today, emphasized the need to protect critical infrastructure. These officials include Secretary of Defense Panetta, Director of National Intelligence Clapper, Attorney General Holder, Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano, and others.

Indeed, it is not just this administration that holds this view. A wide range of national security experts from previous Republican administrations have emphasized the vulnerability of our critical infrastructure, including former Director of National Intelligence and NSA Director ADM Mike McConnell, former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and former assistant attorney general OLC, and now Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith. These people know what they are talking about, they are not kidding around, and they deserve to be listened to.

Secretary Chertoff has explained that the existing status quo is not generating adequate cyber security for our critical infrastructure. The marketplace, former Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff has explained, is likely to fail in allocating the correct amount of investment to manage risk across the breadth of the networks on which our society relies. One example of this type of market failure is the decision of gas, electric power, and water utility industries to forgo implementation of a powerful new encryption system to shield substations, pipeline compressors, and other key infrastructure from cyber attack because of cost concerns. It should be noted the costs in this case would be approximately $500 per vulnerable device, and they still would not do it.

The unwillingness of industry to adopt necessary security standards is particularly troubling when we consider the scope and scale of the risks associated with a failure of critical infrastructure. The current electricity grid knocked down in India--leaving 600 million people without power--shows how bad things can get when critical infrastructure fails. The cause of this massive failure is not clear, and there is not yet any evidence that it was caused by a cyber attack, but it vividly illustrates the vulnerability of humankind when the critical infrastructure we depend on is knocked down and of the terrible possible consequences of the failure of that critical infrastructure.

The scale of the threat we face, the plain inadequacy of current safeguards in the corporate sector, and the consequences of failure in this area of critical infrastructure all join together to demand passage of comprehensive cyber security legislation. This is a matter of national security. It is our responsibility here in this building to do what we can to make the Nation safer regardless of any parochial interests. Now is the time for us all to come together to get this important job done.

I will conclude by saying we are tantalizingly close to having an agreement. If people will take one last step forward to get that agreement, I think we can do it. If people back away because of the urging of parochial interests, we will fail at this opportunity.

I want to conclude by expressing my congratulations to the chairman of the committee on Homeland Security and his ranking member who have worked hard and who have given an enormous amount. We began with a traditional government-run regulatory procedure, which is one that everybody is familiar with and has lots of checks and balances in it, but it is also a fairly mandatory and top-controlled procedure. As a result of considerable bipartisan discussions, a new model emerged that allows the industry immense independence and control in this area.

The regime it has been moved to is a huge step by the chairman and the ranking member and begins with the rule that originates in the private sector, has it vetted by experts from the private sector, has a national institute for science and technology review as well, ends up with an array of government agencies approving or disapproving that, and whatever standard is ultimately approved by the government council of agencies, the industry companies are free to opt in or opt out. If they think the regulation is unreasonable, they are at liberty to opt out entirely. A comprehensive liability protection structure has been created as an inducement for companies to participate, but it is a strong and powerful check on the standard-setting apparatus that ultimately the industry can choose to opt out if it is unreasonable. An enormous step has been taken by the authors of the current bill toward a compromise. We need a step coming back the other way in order to get this done.

I see my distinguished colleague from Tennessee is here. Let me take one moment as I yield to express my appreciation to Nick Patterson of the Department of Justice who has been on my staff on assignment from the national security division for months and months working on this issue. Today is his last day. I want to thank him for his work on this effort. I want to thank the Department of Justice for loaning him to me and having them lose this valuable member of their national security division to help us develop this legislation. He has been a valuable part of an immensely capable team in my office, led by Stephen Lilley, that has gotten us to at least where I am today on this legislation.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his courtesy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss three amendments to the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 that I am introducing today with Senator Mikulski. This important piece of legislation, which was introduced by Senators Lieberman, Collins, Feinstein, Rockefeller, and Carper, responds to the serious and growing cyber security threat facing our Nation. It will strengthen our national security, our economic well- being, the safety of our families, and our privacy. The three amendments Senator Mikulski and I are introducing today would ensure that the bill also harnesses law enforcement agencies' cyber authorities and capabilities as effectively as possible.

I am very honored that Senator Mikulski is introducing these amendments with me today. She has a long record of continued leadership on law enforcement and national security issues. It has been a privilege to work with her on the challenge of protecting Americans against cyber security threats, first on the Intelligence Committee and more recently in a series of

discussion and working groups. As the chairman for the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, her assessment of the right approach to law enforcement issues in cyberspace draws from a wealth of experience and expertise. I am very grateful to her for her leadership on these issues.

The first amendment we have introduced addresses the scale and structure of law enforcement's cyber resources. Law enforcement agencies have vital roles to play against cyber crime, cyber espionage, and other emerging and growing cyber threats. Congress must ensure that law enforcement agencies are organized and resourced in a manner that allows them to fulfill these important responsibilities. To date, investigatory responsibilities for cyber crime have been assigned within existing agencies, with some held by the FBI and others by the Secret Service or other agencies. Prosecutorial responsibilities have been distributed among the National Security Division, the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, and U.S. attorneys' offices across the country. Law enforcement has had some important successes with this model, such as the FBI's takedown of the Coreflood botnet, but these successes need to be achieved with much greater frequency.

FBI Director Mueller stated that a ``substantial reorientation of the Bureau'' will be necessary to achieve that goal. It is Congress's responsibility to ensure that any reorientation of law enforcement maximizes law enforcement's effectiveness against the cyber threat and uses Federal resources as efficiently as possible. This will require Congress to consider important issues such as whether cyber crime should have a dedicated investigatory agency akin to the DEA or ATF, whether existing task force or strike force models are well suited for addressing the cyber threat, and how cyber resources should be scaled given the future threat.

To address these questions, our amendment would require an expert study of our current cyber law enforcement resources. This study will evaluate the scale and structure of these resources, identifying strengths and weaknesses in the current approach and providing recommendations for the future. This amendment thus will provide Congress a necessary expert assessment to guide our work in the years ahead.

The second amendment we have introduced would ensure that existing and effective cyber law enforcements efforts are not unintentionally disrupted by changes made in title II of the bill, which covers ``Federal Information Security Management and Consolidating Resources.'' This title makes a number of valuable changes and reforms to current law, including the creation of a center within the Department of Homeland Security that will lead efforts to protect Federal Government networks. The creation of this center is an important step forward in protecting Federal networks, but we must ensure that its operations do not disrupt law enforcement relationships and activities that currently are making our country safer. For example, the FBI-led National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force, NCIJTF, must be allowed to continue its much needed and effective work on cyber law enforcement and intelligence.

Our amendment would clarify that the new center is focused on the protection of Federal networks and that its responsibilities do not extend to law enforcement. Specifically, the amendment would add a savings clause indicating that the title does not pertain to law enforcement or intelligence activities. It also would add definitions that help provide a clearer picture of the new center's role in protecting Federal Government networks and responding to cyber threats, vulnerabilities, or incidents.

The final amendment we are introducing today is to title VI, which covers international cooperation. This title, which incorporates legislation first introduced by Senator Gillibrand and Senator Hatch, will help clarify and strengthen the ability of the Federal Government and particularly the Department of State to develop international cyber security policy. Language in the title, however, could be read to disrupt existing and effective working relationships between American and foreign law enforcement agencies, interfere with the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and to limit the Department of Justice's accountability to Congress for the law enforcement decisions it makes. Our amendment would ensure that the Department of Justice works collaboratively with the Department of State as it exercises its prosecutorial discretion and that it is accountable to Congress for cyber crime issues for which it is responsible and regarding which it has particular expertise.

I look forward to working with the managers of S. 3414 and any interested colleagues on these important issues. I thank Senator Mikulski for her cosponsorship.

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

Mr. President, I return to the floor today to give voice once again to the issue I feel will most significantly define this generation of leadership in the United States and around the globe. I rise to discuss the notable, evident changes taking place in our Earth's climate, the relationship between our own activities and the change and the rate of change being observed, and our, so far, forsaken responsibility to address climate change head on and with purpose.

Last month, representatives from world governments, the private sector, NGOs, and other major stakeholders gathered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Marking the 20th anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, this year's conference was nicknamed ``Rio+20.''

So-called sustainable development principles consist of a set of principles and strategies that, when acted upon by the global community, will balance strong economic growth, expansion of just civic and government structures, and environmental protection. Another way to view sustainable development is in the balance of the needs of the present with those of future generations through the fair use of resources.

As Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said:

In the 21st century, the only viable development is

sustainable development. The only way to deliver lasting

progress for everyone is by preserving our resources and

protecting our common environment.

One positive aspect of this Rio+20 conference was discussion of the power of economic forces in promoting sustainability. The official Outcome Document adopted by the conference participants entitled ``The Future We Want'' highlights the role of private companies, the private sector--and their close collaboration with governments--in driving sustainable development. It reads in part:

We acknowledge that the implementation of sustainable

development will depend on active engagement of both the

public and private sectors. We recognize that the active

participation of the private sector can contribute to the

achievement of sustainable development, including through the

important tool of public-private partnerships.

A number of Rio+20's corporate participants have stepped forward to accept this challenge. Many of those global businesses are recognizing that greening their operations is not just good for the environment, it is good for their business as well.

Dell, for example, has committed to reducing its worldwide facilities' greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent by 2015. Dell is a computer technology corporation based in Texas that ranks 44th on the Fortune 500 and employs over 106,000 people. I doubt they made that decision rashly.

Bank of America, based in Charlotte, NC, is number 13 on the 2012 Fortune 500 list and was the first bank to offer coast-to-coast operations in the United States. They have committed $50 billion over 10 years to finance Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy and Energy Access, and other activities that advance the low-carbon economy.

Marriott has displayed both internal and external efforts by committing to build 10 Fairfield by Marriott hotels constructed to sustainable building standards; as well, pledging $500,000 to help preserve 1.4 million acres of rainforest in the Juma Reserve in the state of Amazonas, Brazil. Marriott ranks first on the Fortune 500 list in the category of the hotel-casinos-resorts industry.

Microsoft has committed to going completely carbon neutral, and will be factoring the costs of carbon output into the company's business operations in over 100 countries.

These companies are just a few examples from the effort that is being undertaken in the private sector to meet our responsibilities to address climate change. As leaders in government, we must recognize that the private sector will not, however, be able to halt climate change on its own. But these commitments do signify that action on climate change does not need to come at the expense of economic growth.

Governments can--and must--provide incentives for sustainable production and consumption. Indeed, the Rio+20 Outcome Document goes on to say: ``We support national regulatory and policy frameworks that enable business and industry to advance sustainable development initiatives taking into account the importance of corporate social responsibility.''

As leaders in the public sector, we have the capacity to establish those effective incentives that can leverage billions in private sector investment into sustainable products and services that support environmental and social improvements. The constructive role that government can play is being recognized not just in capitals around the world but in boardrooms around the world.

Yet, unfortunately, here in Washington, the special interests that deny carbon pollution causes global temperatures to rise, that deny melting icecaps destabilize our climate so that, for instance, regions face extreme drought--as the Senator from Colorado discussed earlier-- or outsized precipitation events--that we have seen in my home State of Rhode Island--those special interests in Washington still have a strong hold, and they pretend the jury is still out on climate changes caused by carbon pollution. This is, to be perfectly blunt about it, an outright falsehood.

The fact that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere absorbs heat from the Sun was discovered at the time of the Civil War--1863. Mr. President, 1863 was when the Irish scientist John Tyndall determined that carbon dioxide and also water vapor trapped more heat in the atmosphere as their concentrations increased.

The 1955 textbook, ``Our Astonishing Atmosphere''--from the year I was born--notes that ``Nearly a century ago''--in 1955--``the scientist John Tyndall suggested that a fall in the atmospheric carbon dioxide could allow the earth to cool, whereas a rise in carbon dioxide would make it warmer.''

So this is not something new. This is not something unusual or extraordinary. This is solidly established science.

In the early 1900s, it became clear that changes in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can account for significant increases and decreases in the Earth's annual average temperatures, and that carbon dioxide, released primarily by the burning of coal, would contribute to these changes. Again, this is not new stuff. These are well-established scientific principles.

Let's look at the changes we observe in our changing planet. Over the last 800,000 years, until very recently, the atmosphere has stayed within a bandwidth of 170 to 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide-- 170 to 300 parts per million. That has been the range for 8,000 centuries. By the way, that is a measurement, not a theory. Scientists measure historic carbon dioxide concentrations by locating trapped air bubbles in the ice of ancient glaciers. So we know by measurement over time what the range has been of our carbon dioxide concentration.

What else do we know? Well, we know since the Industrial Revolution, we have burned carbon-rich fuels in measurable and ever-increasing amounts, and that we are now up to 7 to 8 gigatons each year going into our atmosphere. A gigaton, by the way, is a billion--with a ``B''-- metric tons. Releasing all this carbon into the atmosphere has, predictably, increased the carbon concentration in our atmosphere. That should not be a difficult proposition, that when you are dumping 7 to 8 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, it raises the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere.

We now measure those carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. We measure them climbing. Again, this is a measurement, not a theory. The present concentration exceeds 390 parts per million. Mr. President, 8,000 centuries between 170 to 300 parts per million, and now we are out over that range, as far as 390 parts per million. In the Arctic, we have actually clipped over into 400 parts per million.

Here is what the Christian Science Monitor said about this:

The Arctic is the leading indicator in global warming, both

in carbon dioxide in the air and effects, said Pieter Tans, a

senior NOAA scientist.

The Arctic is our leading indicator in global warming, both in terms of the carbon dioxide concentration in the air and the effects of that carbon dioxide concentration.

``This is the first time the entire Arctic is that high,''

he said.

Tans called reaching the 400 number ``depressing,'' and

[his colleague Jim] Butler--

Who is the global monitoring director at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Lab in Boulder, CO--

said it was ``a troubling milestone.''

``It's an important threshold,'' said Carnegie Institution

ecologist Chris Field, a scientist who helps lead the Nobel

Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ``It

is an indication that we're in a different world.''

``It is an indication that we're in a different world.''

In this article, they make the same point I made a moment ago. I quote the article:

It's been at least 800,000 years--probably more--since

Earth saw carbon dioxide levels in the 400s, Butler and other

climate scientists said.

So another thing we do pretty regularly around here in business, in the military, in science, is plotting trajectories. It is something that, frankly, scientists, businesspeople, and military folks do every day. There is nothing new here.

When you plot the trajectory for our carbon concentration, the trajectory for our carbon pollution predicts 688 parts per million in the year 2095 and 1,097 parts per million in the year 2195. Mr. President, 688 parts per million in the year 2095, when for 8,000 centuries it has been between 170 and 300 parts per million. So 8,000 centuries at 170 to 300 parts per million, and by the end of this century: 688 parts per million.

To put that 800,000-year figure in perspective, mankind has engaged in agriculture for maybe 10,000 years, maybe a little more. Mr. President, 800,000 years ago, it is not clear we had yet figured out how to make a fire. Millions of years ago goes back into geologic time. Those carbon concentrations--688 parts per million, 1,097 parts per million--those are carbon concentrations that we have not seen in millions of years on the surface of the Earth. And we are headed for them in just a century and a half--two centuries.

As Tyndall determined at the time of the Civil War, increasing carbon concentrations will absorb more of the Sun's heat and raise global temperatures, and experience around the world is proving that is taking place in front of our faces in undeniable ways.

We think often of climate change as happening to our atmosphere, and we think of its effects on our lands because we are land-based creatures. But let me talk for a moment about our oceans.

In April of this year, a group of scientific experts came together to discuss the current state of our oceans. Their workshop report stated this:

Human actions have resulted in warming and acidification of

the oceans and are now causing increased hypoxia.

Hypoxia is when there is not enough oxygen trapped in the ocean to sustain life of the creatures that live in the ocean.

Studies of the Earth's past indicate that these are the

three symptoms--

Warming, acidification and increased hypoxia--

associated with each of previous five mass extinctions on

Earth.

We experienced two mass ocean extinctions 55 million years ago and 251 million years ago. Last year, a paleobiologist at Brown University, whose name is Jessica Whiteside, published a study demonstrating that it took 8 million years after that earlier extinction--the one 251 million years ago--it took 8 million years after that for plant and animal diversity to return to preextinction levels. So that was a pretty heavy-duty wipeout if it took 8 millions years to recover.

Here is the tough part. In the lead-up to these past mass ocean extinctions, scientists have estimated that the Earth was emitting carbon into the atmosphere at a rate of 2.2 gigatons per year for the earlier extinction, and somewhere between 1 and 2 gigatons per year for the second extinction over several thousand years.

Remember how much are we releasing now--7 to 8 gigatons a year. So 2.2 and somewhere between 1 and 2 were the levels that led to those mass extinctions in geologic time, and we are now at 7 to 8 gigatons a year.

As the group of Oxford scientists noted, both of these estimates, the ones for how much was being released in those geologic times, are dwarfed in comparison to today's emission. Our oceans are indeed changing before our very eyes, and anyone who spends time on the oceans or who studies the oceans knows this. The oceans are rising. The oceans are swept by more violent storms. The oceans are getting more acid, affecting already the creatures at the bottom of the food chain, upon which ocean life depends.

It is very hard for a creature to succeed in an environment in which it is becoming soluble. That is what is happening as our oceans acidify, and the small basic creatures at the very bottom of the food chain that live by making their shells can no longer make shells successfully because the water is too acidic.

In the Arctic, we see unprecedented icemelt. The caps are shrinking. Every day it seems we hear about a new record being broken, a new loss of ice cover in the Arctic. In the tropics, we see coral dying. In some places, 80 percent of the coral is gone. I have been to places I can remember live and lively coral reefs, and now we go back and the coral is still there, but it is dead. It is like an abandoned building. Fish can swim around in it, but it is not the fountain of life that a coral reef is supposed to be.

There is a garbage gyre in the Pacific that is estimated to be larger than the size of the State of Texas in which enormous amounts of the plastics we discard are being swept and floating.

We have whales that are poisoned to the point where if they come ashore in Rhode Island on a summer day, if they are hurt or get washed ashore because they are injured, we often end up with whale cadavers in the summers on our coast. When that happens, it is reasonably likely that whale is toxic waste; that if we towed the body back out to the ocean to let it sink and let nature take its course, we would be violating our clean water laws by disposing of toxic waste. If we cranked that whale's body up into the back of a truck and took it to the town dump and chucked it, we would be violating the hazardous waste disposal laws of the State of Rhode Island because we have put so much poison into the ocean that creatures such as whales that live at the top of the food chain have now become so infiltrated with these poisons that they are now swimming toxic waste.

Around here we like to think pretty highly of ourselves. But the laws of physics, the laws of chemistry, the laws of science, these are laws of nature. These are laws of God's Earth. We can repeal some laws around here; we cannot repeal those. Senators are used to our opinions mattering around here. These laws are not affected by our opinions. For these laws of nature, because we can neither repeal them nor influence them, we bear a duty of stewardship, of responsibility to future generations to see and respond to the facts that are before our faces and to see and respond to those facts according to nature's laws.

There is no lobbyist so powerful, there is no secret special interest so wealthy that it can change the operation of those laws. What they have done is to change the operation of our laws, inhibited our ability to meet our duty to respond to the laws of our God-given Earth. We do indeed bear a duty to make the right decisions for our children and grandchildren and our God-given Earth. right now we are failing, shamefully failing, in that duty. We are deluded if we think that somehow we will be spared the plain and foreseeable consequences of our failure to act. Some may hope they will find a wizard's hat and wand with which to wish all this away. That is not rational thinking. If we have a simple obligation to our children and to future generations, it is to be rational human beings and to make rational decisions based on the evidence and the laws of nature. These laws of nature are known. Earth's message to us is clear. Our failure is blameworthy. Its consequences are profound, and the costs will be very high.

I see the distinguished Senator from Alaska who actually brought a wonderful scientist from the University of Alaska who gave one of the better presentations on ocean acidification that I have ever seen as part of our Oceans Caucus.

I yield the floor to Senator Murkowski.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Rhode Island native Olivia Culpo for her recent win of the Miss USA title. Miss Culpo is the first Rhode Islander to win the Miss USA competition, and my fellow Rhode Islanders and I couldn't be happier for her. We offer her our heartfelt congratulations.

A Cranston native, 20-year-old Olivia is the middle child of Peter and Susan Culpo. As a parent myself, I would especially like to extend my congratulations to Peter and Susan, who I know must be extremely proud of their daughter's accomplishment.

Olivia sets a great example for all Rhode Island children, graduating from Rhode Island's own St. Mary's Academy Bay View as a member of the National Honor Society. She currently attends Boston University in neighboring Massachusetts, where she has made the dean's list every semester.

In addition to excelling in her academic studies, Miss Culpo is a talented and dedicated musician. With two musicians for parents, Olivia was encouraged to pursue her love for music at a young age. She took cello lessons from second grade on, and has since performed with the Rhode Island Philharmonic Youth Orchestra, RI Philharmonic Chamber Ensemble, Bay View Orchestra, and Rhode Island All-State Orchestra. She has also had the distinct honor of performing with the Boston Symphony Hall in Boston and Carnegie Hall in New York City, and completed a tour of England in 2010. Most recently, Olivia performed with the Boston Accompanietta.

Olivia will spend her yearlong reign as Miss USA giving back to the community by raising awareness about breast and ovarian cancer, and by working closely with organizations fighting to find cures for these devastating diseases.

I would like to thank Miss Culpo for being a great representative for the State of Rhode Island in the Miss USA pageant, and again offer my congratulations to her and her family on her incredible win.

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

Mr. President, before I go into the closing business, let me say I had the pleasure of presiding in this body during the remarks that were just made by the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, the distinguished ranking member of that committee, Senator Collins of Maine, and the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee and, until recently, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia.

I simply want, briefly, to add my voice to theirs and echo the three points they emphasized: One, we absolutely must take action on cybersecurity; two, it is a genuine and undeniable matter of our American national security; and, three, we cannot claim to have done the job, we cannot claim to even have attempted the job seriously if we do not address the question of the critical infrastructure on which American life and our economy depend that is in private hands and, therefore, cannot be protected under the existing regime in place protecting our government and military networks. We have to solve that problem. Anything that does not solve that problem is a clear failure of our duty, as national security experts from Republican and Democratic administrations alike have very clearly explained.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Hatch in introducing the bipartisan Designer Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2012. This measure will help keep American children and families safe from dangerous designer drugs that masquerade as healthy dietary supplements. This legislation is based on Senator Specter's work in the previous Congress, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Doctors and scientists have long recognized the health hazards of non-medical use of anabolic steroids. For that reason, Congress has previously acted to ensure that these drugs are listed as controlled substances. Nonetheless, according to investigative reporting and Congressional testimony, a loophole in current law allows for designer anabolic steroids to easily be found on the Internet, in gyms, and even in retail stores.

Designer steroids are produced by reverse engineering existing illegal steroids and then slightly modifying the chemical composition, so that the resulting product is not on the Drug Enforcement Administration's, DEA, list of controlled substances. When taken by consumers, designer steroids can cause serious medical consequences, including liver injury and increased risk of heart attack and stroke. They may also lead to psychological effects such as aggression, hostility, and addiction.

These designer products can be even more dangerous than traditional steroids because they are often untested, produced from overseas raw materials, and manufactured without quality controls. As one witness testified at a Crime Subcommittee hearing in the last Congress, ``all it takes to cash in on the storefront steroid craze is a credit card to import raw products from China or India where most of the raw ingredients come from, the ability to pour powders into a bottle or pill and a printer to create shiny, glossy labels.''

The unscrupulous actors responsible for manufacturing and selling these products often market them with misleading and inaccurate labels. That can cause consumers who are looking for a healthy supplement--not just elite athletes, but also high school students, law enforcement personnel, and mainstream Americans--to be deceived into taking these dangerous products.

Loopholes in existing law allow these dangerous designer steroids to evade regulation. Under current law, in order to classify new substances as steroids, the DEA must complete a burdensome and time- consuming series of chemical and pharmacological testing. As a DEA official testified before Congress: ``in the time that it takes DEA to administratively schedule an anabolic steroid used in a dietary supplement product, several new products can enter the market to take the place of those products.''

The Designer Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2012 would quickly protect consumers from these dangerous products. First, it would immediately place 27 known designer anabolic steroids on the list of controlled substances. Second, it would grant the DEA authority to temporarily schedule new designer steroids on the controlled substances list, so that if bad actors develop new variations, these products can be removed from the market. Third, it would create new penalties for importing, manufacturing, or distributing anabolic steroid's under false labels.

Senator Hatch and I have worked closely with a range of consumer and industry organizations to ensure that this legislation would not interfere with consumers' access to legitimate dietary supplements. I am pleased that the measure has been endorsed by the United States Anti-Doping Agency, the Alliance for Natural Health, the Council for Responsible Nutrition, the American Herbal Products Association, the Natural Products Association, the Consumer Health Products Association, and the United Natural Products Alliance.

I thank these organizations for their support, and look forward to working with them, with Senator Hatch, and with colleagues from both sides of the aisle to enact this common sense measure into law.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Hatch in introducing the bipartisan Designer Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2012. This measure will help keep American children and families safe from dangerous designer drugs that masquerade as healthy dietary supplements. This legislation is based on Senator Specter's work in the previous Congress, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Doctors and scientists have long recognized the health hazards of non-medical use of anabolic steroids. For that reason, Congress has previously acted to ensure that these drugs are listed as controlled substances. Nonetheless, according to investigative reporting and Congressional testimony, a loophole in current law allows for designer anabolic steroids to easily be found on the Internet, in gyms, and even in retail stores.

Designer steroids are produced by reverse engineering existing illegal steroids and then slightly modifying the chemical composition, so that the resulting product is not on the Drug Enforcement Administration's, DEA, list of controlled substances. When taken by consumers, designer steroids can cause serious medical consequences, including liver injury and increased risk of heart attack and stroke. They may also lead to psychological effects such as aggression, hostility, and addiction.

These designer products can be even more dangerous than traditional steroids because they are often untested, produced from overseas raw materials, and manufactured without quality controls. As one witness testified at a Crime Subcommittee hearing in the last Congress, ``all it takes to cash in on the storefront steroid craze is a credit card to import raw products from China or India where most of the raw ingredients come from, the ability to pour powders into a bottle or pill and a printer to create shiny, glossy labels.''

The unscrupulous actors responsible for manufacturing and selling these products often market them with misleading and inaccurate labels. That can cause consumers who are looking for a healthy supplement--not just elite athletes, but also high school students, law enforcement personnel, and mainstream Americans--to be deceived into taking these dangerous products.

Loopholes in existing law allow these dangerous designer steroids to evade regulation. Under current law, in order to classify new substances as steroids, the DEA must complete a burdensome and time- consuming series of chemical and pharmacological testing. As a DEA official testified before Congress: ``in the time that it takes DEA to administratively schedule an anabolic steroid used in a dietary supplement product, several new products can enter the market to take the place of those products.''

The Designer Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2012 would quickly protect consumers from these dangerous products. First, it would immediately place 27 known designer anabolic steroids on the list of controlled substances. Second, it would grant the DEA authority to temporarily schedule new designer steroids on the controlled substances list, so that if bad actors develop new variations, these products can be removed from the market. Third, it would create new penalties for importing, manufacturing, or distributing anabolic steroid's under false labels.

Senator Hatch and I have worked closely with a range of consumer and industry organizations to ensure that this legislation would not interfere with consumers' access to legitimate dietary supplements. I am pleased that the measure has been endorsed by the United States Anti-Doping Agency, the Alliance for Natural Health, the Council for Responsible Nutrition, the American Herbal Products Association, the Natural Products Association, the Consumer Health Products Association, and the United Natural Products Alliance.

I thank these organizations for their support, and look forward to working with them, with Senator Hatch, and with colleagues from both sides of the aisle to enact this common sense measure into law.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 464, S. 285.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 471,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, July 26; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the majority leader be recognized, and that the first hour be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half.

Mr. President, today the majority leader filed cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 3414, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. If no agreement otherwise is reached, that vote would be on Friday. However, we hope to reach an agreement to hold that vote tomorrow.

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

Madam President, tomorrow we will have the opportunity to deliver a little bit of tax certainty to the American people by advancing the Middle Class Tax Cut Act. This legislation would prevent tax rates from increasing for the vast majority of American families and would preserve an important tax credit that currently helps millions of students and families afford the costs of a higher education.

The Middle Class Tax Cut Act is the right thing to do for the middle class, and I intend to vote for it. The question is, Will it be filibustered--a tax cut for millions of hard-working Americans, filibustered simply to protect the wealthiest Americans from paying a fair share? We will find out.

This is not a new story. In 2001, when President George W. Bush decided to spend a large portion of the surpluses he inherited from President Clinton to cut tax rates across the board, many Democrats opposed it because the tax cuts were unfairly weighted toward the highest income Americans. As a result of this opposition, Republicans were forced to set the tax cuts to expire at the end of 2010.

As 2010 drew to a close, President Obama and many Democrats in Congress, including myself, supported extending the tax cuts for middle-class families but letting the lower rates on income above $200,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a family revert to the Clinton-era levels as was scheduled. Senate Republicans filibustered that effort, refusing to allow the middle-class tax cut without a tax cut for America's wealthiest. Not wanting tax rates to go up on middle- class families still struggling during the recovery, the President and Senate Democrats reluctantly agreed to extend all the tax cuts through this year, which brings us to now. Once again, these tax rates are set to expire.

I would like to keep rates low for middle-class families. Families in Rhode Island are still struggling in the aftermath of the mortgage meltdown on Wall Street, and this is not the time to raise their taxes. But I agree with President Obama that for reasons of fairness and to begin to address our deficit, it would be wise not to extend the Bush tax cuts for high levels of income.

Bear in mind in this discussion that the Middle Class Tax Cut Act would benefit even high-end taxpayers. When we protect the rates for the first $250,000 in income, it is the first $250,000 for somebody making $1 million; it is not just the first $250,000 for a family who makes $100,000 or $185,000. Whether someone makes $100 million or $185 million, they still get the first $250,000 tax cut. If a family, for instance, makes $255,000, they would only see an increase on the $5,000 and only to the Clinton-era rates that were in effect during the 1990s when our economy was thriving. A family earning $255,000 would pay an extra $150 as a result of this bill. Extending the lower tax rates for income above $250,000 for 1 year, as the Republicans have proposed, would

add over $49 billion to our deficit. Even in Washington $49 billion is significant money, money that would have to be borrowed and would add to our deficit problem.

Many of the same Republicans who voted in the name of deficit reduction to end Medicare as we know it--deficit reduction was so important to them that they voted on the Ryan budget to end Medicare as we know it and would put thousands of dollars in costs on our seniors-- would support deepening the deficit with high-end tax cuts. There is a double standard here, and for most Rhode Islanders these are exactly the wrong priorities when it comes to deficit reduction.

In addition to the deficit concerns, we should let the tax cuts at the top expire just for fairness reasons. Loopholes and special provisions allow many super high-income earners to pay lower tax rates than many middle-class families. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, 65 percent of individuals earning $1 million or more annually pay taxes at a lower rate than median-income taxpayers making $100,000 or less.

Let me say that again so it sinks in. Sixty-five percent, nearly two- thirds, of individuals earning $1 million or more a year--the vast majority of individuals earning $1 million or more annually--pay taxes at a lower rate than median-income taxpayers making $100,000 or less. Because of the loopholes, because of what the special interests have done, our supposedly progressive tax system is upside down to the point where 65 percent of those earning over $1 million pay a lower tax rate than the median-income taxpayer making $100,000 or less.

Earlier this year we voted on my Paying a Fair Share Act, legislation that would implement the so-called Buffett rule and ensure that multimillion-dollar earners paid at least a 30-percent overall effective tax rate. During debate on my Buffett rule bill, I cited an IRS statistic that the top 400 taxpayers in America in 2008 who earned an average of $270 million each in that 1 year paid the same 18.2- percent effective tax rate on average that is paid by a truckdriver in Providence, RI.

The single biggest factor driving this inequality is the special low rate for capital gains, 15 percent under the Bush tax cuts. The special capital gains rate allows hedge fund billionaires to avail themselves of that so-called carried interest loophole and pay taxes at lower rates than their doormen, secretaries, or chauffeurs. If we let the tax cuts at the top expire, these rates revert to 20 percent instead of 15 percent. Now 20 percent is still a pretty low rate for someone making $100 million a year, but more like what a family making $100,000 a year pays.

Let's also be very clear about one thing: The proposal that Republicans prefer, the tax cut bill introduced by Finance Committee ranking member Orrin Hatch, would raise taxes. It would raise taxes on 25 million lower and middle-income Americans. It would raise taxes on those 25 million Americans still struggling in these challenging economic times. Republicans claim not to want to raise taxes, but the Republican tax bill would let very popular lower and middle-income provisions expire that would cost 25 million Americans an average of $1,000 each. Under the Republican bill, 12 million families would lose part or all of their child tax credit, 6 million families would lose part or all of their earned income tax credit, and 11 million families would lose their American opportunity tax credit which helps pay for college. It provides a $2,500 tax credit for higher education. That popular tax credit has already helped millions of students and their parents pay for college, along with Pell grants, another subject of Republican attack.

Extending the American opportunity tax credit, the college tax credit, through 2013 would cost about $3.2 billion. Republicans believe we cannot afford a $3.2 billion investment in higher education for middle-class Americans, but we can afford $49 billion in continued tax cuts for ultra high-income earners. A $2,500 tax credit might seem pretty small in comparison to the $92,000 average tax break that millionaires, or people earning $1 million a year, would receive from another year of high-end tax cuts, but that $2,500 may make a much bigger difference in the life of that middle-class family with that child trying to get into a college they can afford than that $92,000 would make in the life of somebody earning well over $1 million a year.

Once again, look at the priorities here. Republicans fought to protect the tax loopholes and taxpayer subsidies for big oil. They fought to protect the carried interest tax loophole that lets hedge fund billionaires pay lower tax rates than their chauffeurs and doormen. They want to go after the child tax credit, they want to go after the earned income tax credit, and they want to go after the college tuition tax credit. Those are priorities that, like our Tax Code, for too many Americans are upside down.

I hope Republicans will join us tomorrow in voting to advance a measure that would keep taxes low for the vast majority of Americans, and I urge them to reexamine their proposal to raise taxes on 25 million low- and middle-income Americans.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.