Floor Statements

Madam President, the job market is still suffering from the fallout of the recession from the end of the Bush years. The unemployment rate nationally is near 10 percent; in my State, it is well over 11 percent. The proposal of Chairman Baucus would inject hundreds of billions of dollars into this faltering economy, helping struggling families make ends meet and creating jobs in the process. On behalf of the 65,000 Rhode Islanders who are out there currently looking for work, I express my support for the Baucus 1-year extension of emergency unemployment benefits. Without this extension, thousands of Rhode Islanders will soon be left with no source of income as they continue to search the want ads, no money for the mortgage or rent, no money for food, no money for medicine or for holiday presents for the children.

The 1-year extension of this lifeline will quite literally mean for Rhode Island families the difference between keeping a home or facing homelessness this winter. The vast majority of unemployed Rhode Islanders are out there looking for work. They are out of work through no fault of their own. They are looking for work every day. The jobs simply are not there.

I was at the Cranston senior center yesterday for their Christmas holiday party and spoke to a lady whose son had been in the workforce for 28 years. He had a substantial career. He was out of work. He is stocking shelves at the minimum wage. People are not ducking work. The jobs are not there.

Historically, Congress has extended unemployment benefits when the national unemployment rate has been above 7.2 percent. It is over 9 percent. It is 9.8 percent, according to a report Friday. This 1-year extension will give the 65,000 unemployed Rhode Islanders and over 15 million unemployed Americans the support they need to continue weathering this tempestuous economy.

In addition, this tax package would continue a powerful incentive for more investment in smaller companies. Under the proposal of the chairman, qualified investments made in 2011 in small businesses would be eligible for a 100-percent capital gains tax exclusion, if they are held for at least 5 years. As the credit market continues to slowly thaw, I have heard from numerous Rhode Island business owners that they would like to expand operations, but they can't get the capital. This provision will encourage much needed equity investments so businesses in Rhode Island and around the country can create and expand jobs.

The Baucus proposal would make permanent the current tax rates for 97 percent of taxpayers and deliver tax savings to 100 percent of taxpayers. I am sure my colleagues hear from their constituents, as I hear from Rhode Islanders, that it is getting more and more difficult for families to balance their budgets. Each year ticks by bringing higher fuel, food, and medicine costs. Budgets are stretched paper thin. It would be harsh now to let taxes go up for middle-class families. The Baucus proposal would keep tax rates where they are for individuals earning less than $200,000 per year and families earning less than $250,000 per year. Continuing these rates will spare middle- class families considerable tax increases. For example, a family of four earning $60,000 per year would save $2,500 under our plan. I can assure my colleagues that for some of my constituents, that $2,500 could be the difference between paying their mortgage and facing foreclosure or sending a child to college instead of into the minimum- wage workforce.

In addition to continuing the middle-class tax cuts, this will inject about $200 billion into the economy over the next 2 years. When middle- class families get additional resources, they tend to spend them, invigorating the economy and supporting local and regional jobs. From family budgets to the national economy, extending the middle-class tax cuts is a clear win-win.

This is not necessarily the case for extending tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Under the Democratic plan, the first $250,000 of income for a wealthy family would benefit from extended lower rates. This means $6,000 to $7,000 in savings. But our Republican friends want to go much further and give the average multimillionaire a $100,000 tax bonus. Every economist knows a middle-class family is more likely to spend an extra few thousand dollars on groceries, on clothes, on pharmaceuticals, than a person who already has millions to spend will with an extra $100,000. In an age of large deficits, we need to start to make tough choices on our budget, and this should be an easy one. Let's keep rates where they are for the vast majority of Americans and permit the rates at the very tiptop to go back to Clinton-era levels.

We are warned that if millionaires and billionaires have to pay the same tax rates as the 1990s, the economic recovery will suffer. But were the Clinton years a time of economic suffering? Of course not. The economy thrived in the 1990s under Clinton income tax rates, far better than it did under the Bush tax rates. There is no reason to think the recovery would suffer if we restored the Clinton-era rates for the very wealthiest and most fortunate.

I find it astonishing that our Republican colleagues continue to filibuster our efforts to get a tax break for all Americans in order to secure a bigger tax bonus for the top 3 percent of the American population at a cost to our debt and deficit of $700 billion. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earn about 21 percent of all income and own over one-third of our Nation's wealth. Those figures are at their highest levels since the Roaring Twenties. Quite simply the rich are richer than they have ever been, and Senate Republicans are holding hostage a tax benefit for all Americans to demand a superbenefit for the superwealthy.

I hope our Republican colleagues will stop obstructing this important tax reduction and emergency unemployment legislation. From funding the government to authorizing the military, we have so much work to do this year. The price for regular Americans of obstruction in the Senate is becoming too high.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I see my distinguished friend, the Senator from Wyoming, on the floor, and I would like to make a few remarks about the Social Security COLA.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

I thank the Chair.

At the end of my remarks, I will propound a unanimous consent request that the minority party is aware is coming.

I travel around my State pretty often, and when I do, I hear a lot in Rhode Island about the sacrifices people have had to make during what are, for our State, still very difficult economic times. We are still over 11 percent unemployment. Many of my constituents have adjusted to this difficult economic climate by cutting back on extras and finding savings in their personal lives wherever they can. But for our seniors--Rhode Island has a very large population of seniors--who live on a limited budget, simply cutting back is a very harsh option for them.

In 2008, Rhode Island seniors on Social Security received an average monthly payment of about $1,130. Madam Present, $1,130 a month is not a lot to live on, particularly in the Northeast. I have heard from seniors who worry about keeping the heat on in their homes because oil prices are so high. I have heard from seniors who have to split pills or skip doses because their prescription costs are so high. And I am hearing this from people who have worked hard all their lives, who paid into the system throughout their careers and who believed they would be able to grow old comfortably. Instead, many of them are really just scraping by on their Social Security benefits, and the benefits often no longer cover their daily living expenses. So for people in this situation, every penny counts.

This past year, for the first time since 1975, Social Security recipients in Rhode Island, in New York, and elsewhere did not receive a cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, and it appears they will not receive a cost-of-living adjustment in 2011 either. These yearly adjustments are dictated by a specific formula that is tied to inflation. I know that because of the slow economy, inflation has been stagnant over the past 2 years. So the rigid mathematical formula that drives the cost-of-living adjustment does not presently provide for the cost-of-living adjustment seniors need.

This is a misfire in the cost-of-living calculation because it is based on a market basket that includes things seniors don't buy a lot of and it doesn't put adequate weight on heat and oil and energy, prescriptions and medical devices, and things on which seniors do spend a lot of money. It also overlooks people such as Chuck, who is a 67- year-old retiree from North Providence, RI, who wrote to me recently to express his concern that his monthly Social Security income will be frozen at its current level for yet another year. He wrote that regardless of what the COLA formula concludes, his cost of living continues to rise. Chuck says:

Prices have risen at the supermarkets. Medications have

also increased in copayments. Today, I am paying more and

getting less for the dollar.

I believe Chuck speaks for many American seniors when he expresses concern about the lack of an increase in Social Security payments. So today I rise in support of the Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act, introduced by my colleague, Senator Sanders of Vermont. This bill would help ease the strain on the budgets of our seniors by providing a special one-time payment in 2011 of $250 to all Social Security recipients. In effect, it would be a COLA replacement. Although a $250 COLA replacement may not sound like much money, for those on a limited budget, the extra financial assistance provides a little extra peace of mind amid skyrocketing health care and prescription drug costs. And for seniors in New England, the payment could help keep the heat on through the approaching winter.

This assistance would not be unprecedented. While this was the first year in decades that seniors did not receive a COLA, we have taken steps in recent years to provide special help to seniors and to disabled Americans struggling through this recession. In 2008, I worked very hard with my colleagues to secure a $300 rebate for seniors and SSDI recipients in that year's economic stimulus act. In 2009, we again worked to make sure the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included a one-time $250 payment to seniors and SSDI recipients. We now have a chance to once again lend that helping hand to our seniors.

Passing this bill would be the right thing to do for seniors, obviously, but it is also a good thing to do for our struggling economy. In Rhode Island, for example, the payments would inject more than $51 million into our economy--money that would quickly be spent on essential items such as food and medicine.

As I said at the beginning, Rhode Island is hurting. Unemployment stands at 11.4 percent, gas is now more than $3 per gallon, and our seniors face yet another year of frozen Social Security payments. By passing this Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act, we can show our seniors that they are not forgotten and in turn provide a valuable boost to the local grocery stores, pharmacies, and shopping centers that remain such an integral part of our local economy.

I urge my colleagues to join me in standing by our Nation's seniors and to support the Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act.

In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged of S. 3976, which is the Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act of 2010 that I have been discussing; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that there be 4 hours of debate with respect to the bill divided and controlled by Senator Sanders and the Republican leader or his designee, and that no amendments or motions be in order during the pendency of this agreement; that upon use or yielding back of time the bill be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill.

I am happy to discuss with colleagues on the other side how this can be paid for, but I cannot help but note that colleagues on the other side do not share their concern for the payment and pay-go side of the equation when it comes to the tax cuts for people making many millions of dollars a year whom we are trying to get exempted as we try to get tax relief for the middle class.

It would be hard for me to hold seniors getting a $250 one-time benefit in a year in which the COLA formula has misfired and they are getting no COLA benefit despite their other costs going up, and at the same time be asked to agree to hundreds of thousands of dollars per millionaire, in some cases, in tax relief that is not paid for. I think, if anything, the seniors should be held to a lower standard than multimillionaires for whom the tax benefit would amount to potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I appreciate my colleague's very legitimate concern about the cost this would incur. I submit we are still, at least in my State, in a stage in the recovery where we continue to need to revive the economy. This will be very beneficial to the country in terms of its economic recovery, and it would be unfair to hold seniors to a different standard for this $250 COLA, a harsher standard than we would hold our millionaires to, for hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax relief. So I stand by the request as propounded in the unanimous consent.

I appreciate the objections of the Senator.

I would respond by saying that even if we assume that the right answer at this point is to continue a massive tax cut for people who make--I think it was most recently reported that the 400 biggest income earners in the country earned an average, each, of $344 million, a third of $1 billion each. So the tax cuts for people like that create a very significant cost to the country.

I understand it is the theory of the Senator that this is to our economic benefit. But, clearly, there is a very high cost in our deficit to going down that path.

My motivation in offering this unanimous consent is that our seniors, who will spend the $250 one-time payment virtually immediately--which every economist I have ever seen who discusses the economic stimulus effect of these different types of expenditure agrees would be far more beneficial if it were the $250 payment on behalf of seniors than it would be when these highest end people get these massive tax refunds and benefits--that it would be fair to treat seniors the same way.

I regret that we face this objection. I think the objection is inconsistent in the sense that the Senator is holding, with this objection, seniors to a higher standard, a harsher standard, than he is holding millionaires and billionaires to. Everybody knows about the marginal utility of money. For a senior on a fixed income, $250 extra at the end of the year, Christmas time, whether it means keeping the house warm, affording their prescription drug payments, being able to set a little money aside for presents for their grandchildren--that is very important funding, and not just from a humanitarian point of view. From an economic point of view it means it gets plowed right back into the local economy--the local toy store, the local grocery store, the local pharmacy. It gets put right back to work. I don't know what happens when somebody making $334 million a year gets a $1 million tax break.

In that case, I yield the floor and thank the Presiding Officer for her courtesy.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

A question, through the Chair: Would the Senator explain why it is that when it comes to the deficit it is more important to protect our national debt than it is to help our seniors, but it is less important to help our deficit and our debt than it is to give tax breaks to multi-multimillionaires?

As I said, the 400 highest income earners the IRS has reported earning more than a third of $1 billion each on average, it would strike me that the deficit and the debt is a matter of national concern that should apply equally to millionaires--I mean multi-super-ultra- hyper-millionaires--than it is to seniors struggling to get by on Social Security. I don't understand why the deficit matters so much when it comes to depriving our seniors of a COLA adjustment, but it doesn't appear to matter at all when it comes to providing the very wealthiest Americans--people who have their own jets, have their own yachts, people who have, you know, seven homes--additional tax relief that most billionaires who have come forward in this matter say they don't want or need; that it is unpatriotic, frankly, from their perspective not to be asked to contribute more.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3998, which was introduced earlier today.

I ask the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 637, S. 987.

I ask unanimous consent that the Durbin amendment be agreed to; the committee-reported substitute, as amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed en bloc to the following Federal naming bills, Calendar Nos. 658 through 661: H.R. 4387, H.R. 5651, H.R. 5706, and H.R. 5773.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 686.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be

agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, December 2; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the Republicans controlling the next 30 minutes. Finally, I ask that the Senate recess from 12:30 until 3:30 p.m. for the Democratic caucus meeting.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. I commend Senator Durbin, Senator Harkin, and the many other Senators who have worked so hard for so long on this important legislation. It is long past time that we make improvements to our food safety procedures in the United States, and we can see by the diversity of interests that have come together to support this bill from industry to farm to consumer groups that the time to address this issue is now.

Like so many Rhode Islanders, I have been appalled by the stories of deaths and serious illnesses from seemingly benign foods such as peanut butter and spinach. These are foods we bring into our homes, expecting them to nourish our families. We shouldn't have to worry that they might make our children sick. American families need to know that their government is protecting the food supply.

This bill goes a long way toward improving the Food and Drug Administration's food inspection and recall system. First, the bill improves our ability to prevent food safety emergencies through better record keeping, hazard analysis, controls, and food safety plans. These standards are also applied to imported foods, which is increasingly important in our global economy. Second, FDA's ability to react to foodborne illness outbreaks is significantly enhanced by increasing inspection and surveillance, making food more traceable in order to more quickly pinpoint the source of an outbreak. Furthermore, the bill grants the FDA the authority to order a mandatory recall of food if a company refuses to participate in a voluntary recall. Finally, this bill enhances FDA's capability to protect the American food supply from terrorist threats and from intentional contamination through building cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security at our ports.

I am very pleased that all of this is accomplished while protecting small farmers and producers. Rhode Island is

very proud of its small farms, local produce, and the wonderful farmers markets that can be found throughout the State. Our farmers are proud to feed families in Rhode Island and the surrounding States, and I know they do everything possible to ensure the food they sell is safe. I thank Senator Tester for his work on a compromise to protect farmers like those in Rhode Island, and throughout Nation, who believe in the value of locally grown food.

It has been disappointing that the process to bring this bill about has taken so long. The bill's sponsors have been trying to bring it to the floor of the Senate for a vote for months, during which time the outbreak of salmonella in eggs made the need to improve our food inspection system even more clear. This is not a perfect bill, but it is a necessary one. Once it is passed, we must continue to build upon it. The matter of our families' safety is not a partisan issue; ensuring food safety is a fundamental function of our Federal Government.

Mr. President, may I associate myself with the remarks of my distinguished senior Senator and reemphasize our pride in the contacts that Chairman Dodd, Senator Dodd, our friend Chris Dodd has with Rhode Island.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill I recently introduced: S. 3941, the Combating Military Counterfeits Act of 2010. This bill will help protect America's Armed Forces from the risk of defective equipment by enhancing the ability of prosecutors to keep counterfeit goods out of the military supply chain.

The safety of our servicemembers and the success of their missions depend upon the proper performance of weapon systems, body armor, aircraft parts, and countless other mission-critical products. Unfortunately, America's military faces a significant and growing threat: the infiltration of the military supply chain by counterfeit products. These counterfeit products do not meet military standards, putting troops' lives at risk, compromising military readiness, and costing taxpayers millions in replacement costs. In the case of microelectronics, counterfeit parts also provide an avenue for cybersecurity threats to enter military systems, possibly enabling hackers to disable or track crucial national security applications.

Let me give you a few examples from a recent report by the Government Accountability Office:

The Defense Department discovered in testing that it had procured body armor that was misrepresented as being ``Kevlar.'' Think about that: a criminal sold fake body armor to the military, putting our troops' lives at risk just to make a buck. The law must provide strong deterrence and harsh sanctions for such conduct.

And in another example, a supplier sold the Defense Department a personal computer part that it falsely claimed was a $7,000 circuit that met the specifications of a missile guidance system. As my colleagues may know, military grade chips are required to withstand extreme temperature, force, and vibration. Chips that don't meet those specifications are prone to fail--for example, when a jet is at high altitude, when a missile is launching, or when a GPS unit is out in the field. The possible tragic consequences of such equipment failing are unthinkable.

And the increasing number of counterfeits has broad ramifications for our national security. A January 2010 study by the Commerce Department, for example, quoted a Defense Department official as estimating that counterfeit aircraft parts were ``leading to a 5 to 15 percent annual decrease in weapons systems reliability.'' And the risk is growing. The Commerce Department study, which surveyed military manufacturers, contractors, and distributors, reported approximately two and a half times as many incidents of counterfeit electronics in 2008 as in 2005. It is only going to get worse as the high prices of military grade products attract more and more counterfeits. Consider, for example, that before fleeing the country, the supplier that sold a counterfeit $7,000 circuit for a missile guidance system had been paid $3 million as part of contracts worth a total of $8 million.

We should also evaluate this bill in the context of the relentless cyber attacks America weathers every day. The chip might not only be counterfeit, it might be the carrier for dangerous viruses and malware that may create

windows for enemies to enter to sabotage our military equipment to steal our military secrets.

I applaud those of my colleagues who have been working with the Department of Defense to ensure that it does everything it can to keep counterfeits out of its supply chain. And I am pleased the administration, and particularly the intellectual property enforcement coordinator, Victoria Espinel, is taking on this issue.

But I also believe that Congress needs to give the executive branch more tools to address these problems. As a former U.S. attorney, I know the significant deterrent effect criminal sanctions can provide. To that end, the Department of Justice has a vital role to play in using criminal investigations and prosecutions to identify and deter trafficking in counterfeit military goods.

Current law is insufficient. The existing counterfeit trafficking statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2320, provides for heightened penalties for trafficking in counterfeits that result in bodily injury or death. But unlike cases of counterfeit pharmaceuticals, it may not be possible to prove that a military counterfeit caused bodily injuries or death, since the faulty part may never be recovered from a battlefield. As a result, traffickers in military counterfeits are likely to face penalties that do not reflect the unacceptable risk that counterfeits impose on our troops, our military readiness, and our national and cyber security.

We must address this flaw in our laws and we must do so soon. Traffickers should face stiff penalties if they knowingly sell the military a piece of counterfeit body armor that could fail in combat, a counterfeit missile control system that could short-circuit at launch, or a counterfeit GPS that could fail on the battlefield.

The Combating Military Counterfeits Act of 2010 will make sure that such reprehensible criminals face appropriate criminal sanctions. It creates an enhanced offense for an individual who traffics in counterfeits and knows that the counterfeit product either is intended for military use or is identified as meeting military standards. It doubles the statutory maximum penalty for such offenses. The bill also directs the Sentencing Commission to update the Sentencing Guidelines as appropriate to reflect Congress's intent that trafficking in counterfeit military items be punished sufficiently to deter this reckless endangerment of our servicemembers and weakening of our national security.

The bill is narrowly crafted. It adds to an existing offense so that it only targets particularly malicious offenders--those who already are guilty of trafficking in counterfeit goods and know that the goods in question are intended for military use. As a result, this bill will not affect legitimate military contractors who might be unaware that a counterfeit chip has made its way into one of their products. Nor will it apply to makers of products that unintentionally fall short of military specifications as a result of innocent mistakes. Indeed, this bill will help military suppliers by deterring criminals from selling counterfeits to them or to their subcontractors. Manufacturers will benefit from the protection of their intellectual property.

To that end, I have received a letter of support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which explains that ``[t]his legislation would . . . provide an important deterrent to those seeking to profit from the sale of counterfeit parts to the military.'' The Semiconductor Industry Association has similarly weighed in with their support, explaining the irresponsible manner in which counterfeit chips are made and the harm that counterfeit chips, most of which are imported into the United States, can cause to the military and to their industry. I am grateful for their early support and I welcome the comments of other stakeholders as I work to make the legislation as effective as possible in its deterrence of this shameful criminal activity.

I of course also very much look forward to working with my colleagues on what I expect to be bipartisan legislation that we can act on promptly. We all have had the privilege of visiting with our troops. We all know the sacrifices they make for our country. We all want to do everything we can to ensure that their equipment functions properly and that counterfeits do not compromise our nation's military readiness or security. By deterring trafficking in counterfeit military goods, the Combating Military Counterfeits Act of 2010 is a vital and necessary step towards these important goals.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment in the failure of the Senate to invoke cloture on the Paycheck Fairness Act. After our triumph 2 years ago in advancing gender equality through the Lilly Ledbetter Act, the first piece of legislation signed by President Obama, the Paycheck Fairness Act would have been another step towards ending gender discrimination in the workplace.

Four decades after the Equal Pay Act was signed into law, women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. That equates to almost $11,000 less per year. In Rhode Island, women on average make approximately $36,500 where men make $49,000. For full- time, college educated Rhode Island workers over 25 years old, women make an average of $55,000, while men average $70,000. This is simply unacceptable and shows that the

remedies provided by current law are not adequate. Those who dismiss the disparity as a consequence of women's ``choice of work'' ignore the fact that the wage gap exists even in highly skilled industries such as aerospace engineering and network systems and data communications analysis.

The Paycheck Fairness Act would have required employers seeking to pay women less money than their male counterparts to justify the difference with legitimate business factors. It would also have allowed women to compare their wages to those of their colleagues in the same county, not just their own office, providing a larger and fairer pool of comparative examples. And the bill would have allowed women to receive punitive and compensatory damages equal to those in cases of race-based discrimination. We owe it to the hard-working women of the United States, especially in these difficult economic times, when every penny of every paycheck counts, to continue to fight for equality.

I commend the bill's original sponsor, Secretary Clinton, as well as Senator Dodd and Senator Mikulski, who have worked so hard to bring attention to the issue of gender discrimination in the workplace. I will continue to fight alongside my colleagues for the passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for perhaps 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the legislation that will be required in order to bolster our Nation's cyber defenses and to protect our Nation's intellectual property from piracy and from theft.

In the course of my work on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, it has become all too clear that our laws have not kept pace with the amazing technological developments we have seen, many information technologies over the past 15 or 20 years. Earlier this year, I had the privilege of chairing the Intelligence Committee's bipartisan cyber task force, along with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Snowe and Senator Mikulski, who made vital contributions and were great teammates in that effort. We spent 6 months conducting a thorough review of the threat and the posture of the United States for countering it.

Based on that review and my work on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have identified six areas in which there are overarching problems with the current statutory framework for protecting our country. The first is a really basic one; that is, that current law does not adequately facilitate or encourage public awareness about cyber threats. The government keeps the damage we are sustaining from cyber attacks secret because it is classified. The private sector keeps the damage they are sustaining from cyber attacks secret so as not to look bad to customers, to regulators, and to investors. The net result of that is that the American public gets left in the dark.

We do not even have a good public understanding of how extensive and sophisticated the cyber forces arrayed against America are. Between the efforts of foreign governments and international organized crime, we are a long way from the problem of hackers in the basement. It is a big operation that has been mounted against us, and I would like to be able to describe it more fully, but it is both unhelpfully and unnecessarily classified, and so I can't even talk about that.

Americans are sadly uninformed about the extent of the risk and the extent of the capacity that is being used against us. If Americans understood the threat and the vital role they themselves can play in protecting themselves and the country, I think we would all be more likely to engage in the cyber equivalent of routine maintenance. People would understand and they would support legislative changes which we need to protect our intellectual property and our national infrastructure.

One of the principal findings of our cyber task force was that most cyber threats--literally the vast majority of cyber threats--can be countered readily if Americans simply allowed automatic updates to their computer software, ran up-to-date antivirus programs, and exercised reasonable vigilance when surfing the Web and opening e- mails. So we need far more reporting from the government and the private sector to let Americans know what is happening out there on the wild Web. Disclosures can be anonymized, where necessary, to safeguard national security or protect competitive business interests. But

basic facts, putting Americans on notice of the extent of the present danger and harm, need to be disclosed.

Second, we need, beyond just public information, to create a structure of rights and responsibilities where the public, consumers, technology companies, software manufacturers, and Internet service providers are all able to take appropriate roles for us to maintain those basic levels of cyber security. The notion that the Internet is an open highway with toll takers who have no responsibility for what comes down the highway, no responsibility no matter how menacing, no responsibility no matter how piratical, no responsibility no matter how dangerous can no longer be valid. We protect each other on our physical highways with basic rules of the road and we need a similar code for the information highway.

Australia's ISPs have negotiated a cyber security code of conduct, and ISPs in compliance with the code can display a trust mark. That is one idea worth exploring. But one way or the other, there needs to be a code of conduct for safe travel on the information highway just as there is on our geographic highways.

Third, we need to better empower our private sector to defend itself. When an industry comes together against cyber attackers to circle the wagons, to share information, and to engage in a common defense against those cyber attackers, we should help and not hinder that private sector effort. Legal barriers to broader information sharing among private sector entities and between the private sector and government must be lowered. I believe we can encourage cyber security in this way--common defense within the private sector--without undermining other areas of public policy. But it is not going to be a simple task, and we will have to work our way through it because those other areas of public policy are serious areas--antitrust protection, the safeguarding of intellectual property, protecting legal privileges, liability concerns, and even national security concerns in those areas where the government may be asked to share classified information.

Bear in mind that there are three levels of threat. As I have said, the vast majority of our cyber vulnerabilities can be cured by simple patches and off-the-shelf technology. That is the lowest level--just follow basic, simple procedures and we can rid ourselves of most of the attacking. The next is a more sophisticated set of threats that require the best efforts of the private sector to defend against. Those private sector efforts are becoming increasingly sophisticated and capable. As to those types of attacks, the private sector can handle them alone and particularly so if we have empowered the private sector, industry by industry, to engage in more effective common defense and information sharing. The most sophisticated threats and attacks, however, will require action by our government. The notion that we can leave our Nation's cyber defense entirely to the private sector is no longer valid.

This brings us to a fourth question--the increasingly important issue of cyber 911. When the CIO of a local bank or electric utility is overwhelmed by a cyber attack, whom do they call and under what terms does the government respond? Right now, the answers to those questions are dangerously vague. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act--or ECPA--is a vitally important statute. In 1986, 25 years ago, Chairman Patrick Leahy worked hard to establish statutory privacy protections in a domain where constitutional privacy protections were weak.

It is an enduring legislative accomplishment and we must preserve its core principles. Since ECPA was enacted, however, the threat has dramatically changed. Imagine how technology has changed in 25 years. It is no longer true that private firms are capable of defending their networks from sophisticated thieves and spies on their own.

As we found in the Cyber Task Force, there is now a subset of threats that cannot be countered without bringing to bear the U.S. Government's unique authorities and capabilities. There always needs to be strong privacy protections for Americans against the government. But we do let firemen into our house when it is on fire and the police can come into our house when there is a burglar. A similar principle should apply to criminals and cyber attacks when private capabilities are overwhelmed.

There is one more step, and here is where it gets a little bit more tricky. You call 9-1-1 and the police or the ambulance rushes right over. But in cyber security, by the time you call cyber 9-1-1, it may be too late. Attacks in cyberspace happen at light speed, as fast as electrons flow. Not all the risks and harms that imperil Americans can be averted by action after the fact. Some attacks are actually already there, in our networks, lying in wait for the signal to activate.

We as a country are naked and vulnerable to some forms of attack if we have not predeployed our defenses. Because the viruses and cyber attack nodes can travel in the text portion of messages, we have to sort out a difficult question: whether, and if so how and when, the government can scan for dangerous viruses and attack signals.

In medieval times, communities protected their core infrastructure from raiders by locating the well, the granary, and the treasury inside castle walls. Not everything needs the same level of protection in cyberspace, but we need to sort out what does need that kind of protection, what the castle walls should look like, who gets allowed to reside inside the walls, and what the rules are.

That leads to the question of a dot-secure domain. I have mentioned this before, but I would like to highlight it as an option for improving cyber security, particularly of the critical infrastructure of our country.

Recently, General Alexander, Director of the NSA and commander of U.S. Cyber Command, has echoed this as a possibility. His predecessor at NSA, and a former Director of National Intelligence, Admiral McConnell, is also an advocate of such a domain for critical infrastructure. This doesn't have to be complicated or even mandatory. The most important value of a dot-secure domain is that, like dot-gov and dot-mil, now we can satisfy consent under the fourth amendment search requirements for the government's defenses to do their work within that domain, their work of screening for attack signals, botnets, and viruses. Critical infrastructure sites could bid for permission to protect themselves with the dot-secure domain label and be allowed in if they could show that lives and safety for Americans would be protected by allowing them entry. Obviously, core elements of our electric grid, of our financial, transportation, and communications infrastructure would be obvious candidates. But we simply cannot leave that core infrastructure on which the life and death of Americans depends without better security.

Fifth, we must significantly strengthen law enforcement against cyber crooks. There is simply no better deterrent against cyber crime than a prospect of a long stretch in prison. We need to put more cyber crooks behind bars. It is not for want of ingenuity and commitment by our professionals that there are not more cyber crooks behind bars.

During my work on the Cyber Task Force, I received a number of briefings and intelligence reports on cyber crime. The FBI and the Department of Justice have some real success stories under their belts, such as the arrests of the alleged perpetrators behind the Mariposa botnet this summer, and our agencies are beginning to work together better and better over the lines of turf defense that separate them.

The problem is, the criminals are also ingenious and they are greedy and they are successful and they are astoundingly well funded. Again, we are not talking about hackers in the basement. We are talking about substantial criminal enterprise with enormous sums of money at their disposal and at stake.

Many enterprises appear to work hand-in-hand with foreign governments, which puts even greater assets for attack at their disposal. They have a big advantage. The architecture of the Internet favors offense over defense. Technologically, it is generally easier for savvy criminals to attack a network and to hide their trail than it is for savvy defenders to block an attack and trace it back to the criminals. We are not on a level playing field against cyber criminals. That is the

problem not easily overcome. What we can overcome, however, are the gaps, the weaknesses, the outdated strategies, and the inadequate resources in our own legal investigative processes.

One example: the most dangerous cyber criminals are usually located overseas. To identify, investigate, and ultimately prosecute those criminals under traditional law enforcement authorities, we have to rely on complex and cumbersome international processes and treaties established decades ago that are far too slow for the modern cyber crime environment.

We also need to resource and focus criminal investigation and prosecution at a level commensurate with the fact that we, America, are now on the losing end of what is probably the biggest transfer of wealth through theft and piracy in human history.

I will say that again: We are at the losing end of what is probably the biggest transfer of wealth through theft and piracy in human history.

I am pleased that in fiscal year 2010 the FBI received an additional 260 cyber security analysis and investigative positions. DOJ's Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property Section has not received new resources in 5 years. With the FBI poised to ramp up its investigatory actions against our cyber adversaries, I am concerned the DOJ may not have the resources to keep up.

Sixth, we need clear rules of engagement for our government to deal with foreign threats. That is, unfortunately, a discussion for another day since so much of this area is now deeply classified. But here is one example: Can we adapt traditional doctrines of deterrence to cyber attacks when we may not know for sure which country or nonstate actor carried out the attack? If we can't attribute, how can we deter?

With respect to any policy of deterrence, how can it stand on rules of engagement that the attacker does not know of? Not only do we need to establish clear rules of engagement, we need to establish and disclose clear rules of engagement if any policy of deterrence is to be effective in cyberspace.

Finally, as we go about these six tasks, the government must be as transparent as possible with the American people. I doubt very much that the Obama administration would abuse new authorities in cyberspace to violate Americans' civil liberties. But on principle, I firmly and strongly believe that maximum transparency to the public and rigorous congressional oversight are essential. We have to go about this right.

I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and with the administration as the Congress moves toward comprehensive cyber security legislation to protect our country before a great cyber attack should befall us.

Let me close my remarks by saying the most somber question we need to face is resilience.

First, resilience of governance: How could we maintain command and control, run 9-1-1, operate FEMA, deploy local police and fire services, and activate and direct the National Guard if all of our systems are down?

Second, resilience of society: How do we make sure people have confidence during a prolonged attack that food, water, warmth, and shelter will remain available? Because the Internet supports so many interdependent systems, a massive or prolonged attack could cascade across sectors, compromising or taking over our communications systems, our financial systems, our utility grid, and the transportation and delivery of the basic necessities of American life.

Third, our American resilience as individuals: Think about it. Your power is out and has been for a week. Your phone is silent. Your laptop is dark. You have no access to your bank account. No store is accepting credit cards. Indeed, the corner store has closed its doors and the owner is sitting inside with a shotgun to protect against looters. Gasoline supply is rationed with National Guard soldiers keeping order at the pumps. Your children are cold and hungry and scared. How, then, do you behave?

I leave this last question, our resilience as a government, as a society, and as individuals to another day. But I mention it to highlight the potentially catastrophic nature of a concerted and prolonged cyber attack. Again, such an attack could cascade across multiple sectors and could interrupt all of the different necessities on which we rely.

When your power is down, it is an inconvenience but you can usually call somebody on the phone. Now the phone is out, so you can go to the laptop and try to e-mail somebody, but there is no signal on the laptop. You need cash. You go to the ATM. It is down. The bank is not open because a run would take place against its cash assets, given the fact that it can no longer reliably electronically let its customers know what their bank account balances are.

We are up against a very significant threat. I hope some of the guideposts I have laid out will be helpful in designing the necessary legislation we need to put in place to empower our country to successfully defend against these sorts of attacks.

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

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

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