Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the distinguished public service of Robert Epplin, who served for nearly 20 years as staff in the Senate, and most recently for the past 3\1/2\ years as my legislative director. Rob's service in the Senate, as well

as his service in the executive branch, has typified what a dedicated public servant should be: he took pride in his work and faced challenges with determination and tenacity; he recognized what an honor it was to serve the people of this country and my constituents, in particular; and he had a respect for and an unparalleled understanding of the Senate as an institution. Because of these many fine qualities, Rob earned the respect and admiration of so many of his staff colleagues, as well as so many Senators.

Rob got his start in Washington in 1989 working as a research analyst at the Republican National Committee. In 1991 he went to work at the Department of Education, serving in the office of then-Secretary Lamar Alexander.

Rob began his work in the Senate in 1993 when he served as an adviser for budget, economic, foreign affairs, and defense issues for former Senator Bob Packwood of Oregon. At the time he accepted the position, I am sure he had little inkling that his work would lead to more than a decade of service to the Oregon congressional delegation. In 1994, Rob moved to the Senate Finance Committee, where he continued to work for Senator Packwood as a professional staff member responsible for pensions, benefits, social security, and economic issues. He then worked for the Office of Management and Budget before returning in 1997 to the Senate and Oregon delegation as a senior adviser, and later legislative director, to my friend and former colleague, Senator Gordon Smith.

During his career in public service, Rob left his mark on issues ranging from tax and national security to budget policy. But it was his long fight for the passage of historic civil rights legislation, including the repeal of the don't ask, don't tell law and hate crimes legislation, that gives him the most pride. America now welcomes the service of any qualified individual who is willing to put on the uniform, and we no longer dismiss brave, dedicated, and skilled service men and women simply because they are gay. In addition, those who commit hate crimes against individuals based on their sexual orientation can now be punished under Federal law.

As Rob leaves the Senate after nearly 20 years of hard work and dedicated public service, he also leaves behind an impressive list of accomplishments, and colleagues whose lives he touched because he was such an exceptional role model and mentor. I wish him continued success and every happiness in the years to come.

Mr. President, when I talk to employers in my State about what Washington could do to get people back to work, they inevitably point to the flood of excessive regulation as a major barrier. Many of us have offered proposals to reform the regulatory process. Even the President's own Jobs Council has put forth ideas such as strengthening cost-benefit analysis. This just makes common sense. But, regrettably, the Senate has failed to act. Meanwhile, the burden of Federal regulation grows ever larger. Right now, Federal agencies are at work on 2,700 new rules. These rules will go on top of a pile of regulations measuring millions of pages. If we want to put people back to work, we have to cut the redtape that is strangling our job creators.

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

Mr. President, earlier today I voted against invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to a 6-month spending bill, a stopgap measure, and I wish to explain to my colleagues and my constituents why I voted that way.

I am deeply disappointed that the Senate has been unable to complete the annual appropriations bills on time before the start of the new fiscal year. This is a failure that only reinforces the public's perception of gridlock in Washington. It is not as if the start of a fiscal year is a surprise to Members of this body. It happens every year on October 1. We know the spending authority is going to run out and we know one of the most important responsibilities of the Congress is to pass the appropriations bills.

While the House of Representatives has managed to pass 7 of the 12 annual spending bills, the Senate majority leader regrettably has not brought a single regular appropriations bill to the Senate floor for consideration.

It is important to note that the Senate Appropriations Committee did its job. Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Cochran, we have reported 11 of the 12 appropriations bills, in many cases with strong bipartisan support. For example, as the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, I worked very closely with the subcommittee's chairman, Senator Patty Murray, to craft a truly bipartisan bill for fiscal year 2013. The T-HUD bill strikes a balance between thoughtful investment and fiscal restraint. In fact, this bill honors an allocation that is nearly $14.5 billion or 22 percent less than fiscal year 2010 levels. These deep cuts reflect an even deeper commitment to getting our fiscal house in order.

I am proud of the work Senator Murray and I did on this bill and the strong bipartisan vote of 28 to 1 this bill received from the Appropriations Committee this past April. Like our bill, the Agriculture appropriations bill, the Commerce, Justice, and Science bill, the Department of Defense bill, Energy and Water, Homeland Security, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and the State Department and Foreign Operations bills were all reported from the Appropriations Committee on a bipartisan basis.

In putting together all of these bills, the Appropriations Committee functioned the way committees are supposed to function. We worked together to develop thoughtful and fiscally responsible bills that could be brought to the full Senate for consideration, debate, amendment, and, most likely, passage. But, instead, not a single one of those bills--not even those bills for which the counterpart had been passed by the full House--was brought to the Senate floor.

I am very disappointed that House and Senate leaders have announced that rather than consider and complete these appropriations bills, they would instead kick the can down the road by passing a 6-month stopgap funding bill. The House has done just that and will soon leave town.

With 2 weeks left in the fiscal year, it is still not too late. There is no reason why the individual spending bills could not be brought to the Senate floor, allowing Senators to offer amendments and letting the Senate work its will on this important constitutional responsibility. Given the state of our Nation's economy and the need to ensure that tax dollars are wisely and appropriately spent, it is simply unacceptable that we would agree to put our government on autopilot for the next 6 months rather than working together to establish priorities, make the tough choices to evaluate programs, and to restrain spending.

Long-term continuing resolutions such as the one we are about to consider represent an abdication of our responsibility and often end up with government departments and agencies, particularly the Department of Defense, incurring additional costs due to delays and uncertainty. Think how difficult it is for Federal managers to decide whether they can enter into long-term contracts to consider changes in programs, to manage the dollars they have, when they don't know what is going to happen 6 months from now. In some cases we do even shorter continuing resolutions that create chaos and additional costs throughout the Federal Government.

As our Nation struggles to recover and to regain its economic footing, we must provide more certainty by completing appropriations bills on time. I am extremely disappointed this did not occur for fiscal year 2013 and, therefore, I will continue to oppose the continuing resolution to protest what I believe is a failure of leadership.

Let me be clear: I do not support a government shutdown, but it is unacceptable that not a single one of the regular appropriations bills has been brought to the Senate floor for consideration. Indeed, it has been more than 3 years since the Senate has passed a budget. This is simply wrong. We must do our work. The American people deserve better.

Mr. President, I am delighted to commend the Solon Elementary School of Solon, ME, on being named a 2012 National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence. This prestigious recognition of high accomplishment was bestowed by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

Created in 1982, the Blue Ribbon Schools award is considered the highest honor an American school can obtain. Schools singled out for this national recognition reflect the goals of our Nation's education reforms for high standards and accountability. Specifically, the Blue Ribbon Schools Program is designed to honor public and private schools that are either academically superior in their States or that demonstrate dramatic gains in student achievement.

This award recognizes that Solon Elementary students achieve at the highest level academically. Solon Elementary School is a top-performing school on State-required assessments, and staff at the school use assessments throughout the academic year as a tool for improving and customizing instruction. The school works closely with families to forge a strong school community where students are connected and encouraged to pursue their interests.

I applaud not only the students, but also the administrators, teachers, staff, and parents of Solon Elementary School. Together, they are succeeding in their mission to generate momentum for learning. They are making a difference in the lives of their students, helping them reach their full potential as independent, responsible learners and engaged citizens.

I am pleased that the U.S. Department of Education has selected Solon Elementary School for this well-deserved honor, and I congratulate the entire community for this outstanding achievement.

Mr. President, I am delighted to commend the Hope Elementary School of Hope, ME, on being named a 2012 National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence. This prestigious recognition of high accomplishment was bestowed by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

Created in 1982, the Blue Ribbon Schools award is considered the highest honor an American school can obtain. Schools singled out for this national recognition reflect the goals of our Nation's education reforms for high standards and accountability. Specifically, the Blue Ribbon Schools Program is designed to honor public and private schools that are either academically superior in their States or that demonstrate dramatic gains in student achievement.

This award recognizes that Hope Elementary students achieve at the highest level academically. Hope Elementary School is a top-performing school on State-required assessments, and staff at the school use assessments throughout the academic year as a tool for improving and customizing instruction. The school works closely with families to forge a strong school community where students are connected

and encouraged to pursue their interests.

I applaud not only the students, but also the administrators, teachers, staff, and parents of Hope Elementary School. Together, they are succeeding in their mission to generate confidence and momentum for learning. They are making a difference in the lives of their students, helping them reach their full potential as independent, responsible learners and as engaged citizens.

I am pleased that the U.S. Department of Education has selected Hope Elementary School for this well-deserved honor, and I congratulate the entire community for this outstanding achievement.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the National Women's History Museum Commission Act of 2012, a bill that would create a commission to evaluate and plan into the establishment of a museum that would be dedicated to women's history in our Nation's capital city. I appreciate the co-sponsorship of Senator Mikulski, Senator Hutchinson, Senator Lieberman, Senator Murray, Senator Akaka, Senator Merkley, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Stabenow, Senator Murkowski, Senator Landrieu, Senator Shaheen, and Senator Boxer.

American women have made invaluable contributions to our country in such diverse fields as government, business, medicine, law, literature, sports, entertainment, the arts, and the military. The need for a museum recognizing the contributions of American women is long overdue.

In 1999, a Presidential commission on commemorating women in American history concluded that, ``Efforts to implement an appropriate celebration of women's history in the next millennium should include the designation of a focal point for women's history in our Nation's capital.''

Although Congress has made commendable provisions for the National Museum for African American History and Culture, the National Law Enforcement Museum, and the National Museum of the American Indian, there is still no institution in the capital region dedicated to women's role in our country's history.

This bill would be a good step toward rectifying this oversight. The bill would simply establish a commission, similar to what was done for the African American History and Culture Museum, to develop a feasible plan for establishing such a museum in here in Washington, D.C.

It is important to note that, unlike previous museum commissions, taxpayers will not shoulder the funding of this project. The proposed legislation calls for the commission to fund its own costs.

A museum dedicated to women's history would help ensure that future generations understand what we owe to the many generations of American women who have helped build, sustain, and advance our society. They deserve a museum to present the stories of pioneering women like abolitionist Harriet Tubman, founder of the Girl Scouts Juliette Gordon Low, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, astronaut Sally Ride, and Senator Margaret Chase Smith.

Yes, of special pride to the State of Maine is a legendary predecessor in the Senate seat I now hold: Margaret Chase Smith, the first woman nominated for President of the United States by a major political party, and the first woman elected to both houses of Congress. Senator Smith began representing Maine in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1940, won election to the Senate in 1948, and enjoyed bipartisan respect over her long career for her independence, integrity, wisdom, and courage. She remains my role model and, through the example of her public service, an exemplar of the virtues that would be honored in the National Women's History Museum.

Again, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment I recently filed with Senator Leahy to the Veterans Jobs Corps Act of 2012. We filed this amendment to ensure that veterans service organizations are provided access to Federal surplus property as we intended when we introduced the FORVETS Act of 2010. This law provides that veterans service organizations should be categorized as eligible nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations that may acquire surplus personal property for the purposes of education or public health.

Unfortunately, the General Services Administration has interpreted this law in the strictest of terms. In its published guidelines, veterans service organizations may acquire the surplus property for the purposes of education or public health but with minimal flexibility in what an educational or public health service may be. For example, acquiring a van to transport a disabled veteran to a doctor's appointment may not be considered an eligible use for a veterans organization under current guidelines.

This amendment makes the legislative modification necessary for GSA to carry out the original intent of the FORVETS Act of 2010.

The National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property, NASASP, has identified the need for this legislative modification to ensure that veterans service organizations are able to receive surplus equipment to enable them to better provide the critical services they offer for our Nation's veterans.

Veterans groups whose work enhances the lives of countless veterans every day benefit from access to these goods just as other service organizations do. Many veterans organizations offer career development and job training assistance to our Nation's veterans, yet often lack the computer equipment needed to best assist our veterans in the often difficult transition from military service to the civilian work force.

These are just a few examples of the needs that veterans service organizations have. This amendment is one way to say ``thank you'' to those Americans who have worn the uniform and to the families that supported them. In these challenging fiscal times, the need for excess federal property to be used for job training, rehabilitation, and other important assistance to our veterans is greater now more than ever.

I urge my colleagues to support the inclusion of this amendment to the Veterans Jobs Corps Act of 2012.

Mr. President, since 2004, active duty military suicides have more than doubled, and the problem only continues to get worse. The Army recently reported that in July of this year 38 of its soldiers took their lives, a rate of more than one per day. This is a tragedy of the highest magnitude and it is something that the Congress and the American people must not ignore. Action is needed now, and we must take every practical step that we can to help the military reverse this disturbing trend. Not only are we losing dozens of America's finest each month, squandering precious talent that our Nation needs, but today's soldiers are tomorrow's veterans, and the crisis of mental and behavioral health that the epidemic of suicides represents foreshadows a troubling prospect for the future.

In Afghanistan, we have invested billions of dollars and devoted some of the military's best minds to protect our soldiers and give them the tools they need to reduce the threat of an improvised explosive devise attack. Unfortunately, we have only devoted a fraction of the same resources or creativity to suicide prevention, even though through early June 2012 military suicides had outpaced the number of combat deaths in Afghanistan. It is estimated that more than 250 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have taken their own lives this year.

There is substantial evidence that prescription drug abuse is a major factor in military suicides. In its January 2012 report Army 2020: Generating Health and Discipline in the Force, the Army found that 29 percent of suicides had a known history of psychotropic medication use including anti-depressants, anti-anxiety medicine, anti-psychotics, and other controlled substances such as opioids.

Active-duty drug use was a factor in more than a third of suicides where drug use could be determined and a factor in two-thirds of suicide attempts. The Army's report recommends the establishment of a military drug take-back program to help combat prescription drug abuse in the ranks. Given that more than 49,000 soldiers were issued three or more psychotropic or controlled substance prescriptions last year and an estimated 3,500 soldiers illicitly used prescription drugs, it's time we act on this recommendation.

At present, only the Drug Enforcement Administration has the inherent authority to conduct a drug take-back program. The Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2010, however, provided the Attorney General the flexibility necessary to delegate similar authority to other agencies to conduct a drug take-back program. Thus far, however, the Attorney General has declined to act, and neither the Attorney General nor the DEA has provided mechanisms or authority to the military to establish its own drug take-back program.

Senator Lieberman and I, building on work done by Senator Murray, wrote the Attorney General in July of this year to request his support for efforts to reduce military suicides by allowing military treatment facilities to conduct controlled substance take-back and destruction programs.

Senator Lieberman and I understand that accountability of drugs must be strictly maintained and that these drugs must be prevented from being misused, abused, or from entering the black market. We are confident, however, that an accountable drug take-back program could be established at military treatment facilities with sufficient safeguards put in place to prevent diversion, misuse, theft, or loss of returned drugs. Military treatment facilities are unique, and the military has established successful accountability programs for handling nuclear weapons, conventional weapons, and classified materials. We have no reason to doubt that an appropriate degree of accountability could be established in a drug take-back program.

Excluding the military from conducting drug take-back programs has a detrimental effect on the military's ability to reduce controlled substance abuse in the Force, decrease non-medical use of prescription drugs, prevent diversion of controlled substances, and limit the possibility for accidental overdose and death for our servicemembers or their family members. Providing this authority will give the military one more tool in its efforts to reduce suicides.

The loss of even one servicemember to a potentially preventable suicide involving controlled substance abuse or misuse is unacceptable. For that reason, Senator Lieberman and I filed this amendment to the Veterans Jobs Corps Act. I urge my colleagues to support inclusion of this amendment in this legislation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, later this morning we will vote on whether to invoke cloture on a major cyber security bill. In the past 3 days we have received letters from GEN Keith Alexander, who is the head of Cyber Command as well as the chief of the National Security Agency, from the Secretary of Homeland Security, and from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, urging us to act immediately on this important legislation. Let me read briefly from all three of these letters.

General Alexander said the following:

I am writing to express my strong support for passage of a

comprehensive bipartisan cyber security bill by the Senate

this week. The cyber threat facing the Nation is real and

demands immediate action. The time to act is now; we simply

cannot afford further delay.

That is what General Alexander has told us.

Secretary Napolitano wrote to us:

I am writing to express my strong support for S. 3414, the

Cybersecurity Act of 2012. I can think of no more pressing

legislative need in our current threat environment.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, wrote the following:

I am writing to add my voice to General Alexander's and

urge immediate passage of comprehensive cyber security

legislation. We must act now.

How many more implorings do we need from our Nation's top homeland and military officials to act on what many believe to be the greatest threat that is facing our Nation? A cyber attack with catastrophic consequences is a threat to our national security, our economic prosperity and, indeed, to our very way of life. Our adversaries have the means to launch a cyber attack that would be devastating to our country. All the experts tell us, it is not a matter of if a cyber attack is going to be launched, it is when it is going to occur.

So I find it incredible and indeed irresponsible that this body is unable to reach an agreement to allow us to move forward on this important legislation. It is astonishing to me that irrelevant, nongermane amendments have been filed to this important bill on both sides of the aisle. It is unacceptable that we have worked hard and have come up with a list of relevant and germane amendments, and yet we cannot seem to reach an agreement to proceed.

American officials--our government officials--have already documented that our businesses are losing billions of dollars annually and millions of jobs due to cyber attacks, attacks that are happening on our government and business computers and individual computers each and every day.

Yet our defenses are not there. General Alexander, who knows more about the cyber threat than any individual in this country, was asked to rank our preparedness for a large-scale cyber attack on a scale of 1 to 10. Do you know what he said? He deemed us to be at a 3. Is a 3 adequate to protect this country from what we know is coming, that is only a matter of time?

There have been all sorts of suggestions for improving this bill. We have adopted many of those suggestions. Indeed, we have made major changes to make this bill more acceptable to those on my side of the aisle. And what has been our reward? To be criticized for making changes in the bill, for having Members on our side of the aisle, my side of the aisle, say, well, now it is a different bill.

Well, it is a different bill because we took their suggestions, and we took the suggestions of a bipartisan group acting in good faith headed by Senator Kyl and Senator Whitehouse. There is much more I want to say on this issue. I see the chairman has arrived on the floor. I know opponents to the bill such as Senator Hutchison wish to speak and should certainly be given the right to do so. But let me say that rarely have I been so disappointed in the Senate's failure to come to grips with a threat to our country that all of these officials have warned us over and over again is urgent and must be addressed now. Not maybe in September; not probably by the end of the year; not in the next Congress, but now.

Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding that I am managing the time on the Republican side. I, of course, want to make sure that the Senator from Texas is treated fairly and is given an opportunity to present her views. But it was my understanding that the 15 minutes is allocated to me to dole out or to allocate on our side.

I have no objection.

Madam President, first let me thank the Senator from Delaware for his graciousness. In light of the fact that there are so many people who are waiting to speak, I will be brief. But I want to talk about the legislation that is before us, the cyber security bill. This bill represents the Senate's best chance this year to pass urgently needed cyber security legislation.

Why do I say it is urgent? Virtually every national and homeland security expert, from President Bush's administration including President Obama's administration, has warned us repeatedly that a cyber attack is coming and it is an attack that is going to be aimed at our critical infrastructure. For us to let disagreements over exactly how to counter this threat prevent the passage of this bill would be a tragedy and could lead to a tragedy. This is serious.

Yesterday we had a meeting with the FBI, with the Department of Homeland Security, with GEN Keith Alexander, who is the head of cyber command, and the head of the National Security Agency. They were unanimous in warning us that Congress must act and must act now. Every single day nation states, terrorist groups, hacktivists, persistent hackers, transnational criminal gangs, are probing our cyber defenses. Intrusions are rampant. As one expert told me, there are really only two kinds of large companies in this country: those that know they have been hacked and those that do not know they have been hacked. It is so important that we act. I must say we are working very hard to try to accommodate the concerns that have been raised by some of our colleagues and by some in the business community. We, therefore, have altered our bill in a significant way.

Another charge I have heard thrown loosely around here is that somehow there has not been enough study; somehow there is not enough process; somehow we need more hearings. Our homeland security committee alone has had 10 hearings on cyber security--10 hearings. The Senate, as a whole, has had 25 hearings and numerous classified briefings. How many more briefings, hearings, and reports do we need? The head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, has told us that in his judgment the threat of a cyber attack will soon exceed the threat of a terrorist attack. Of course, they may be combined. It may be a terrorist group using cyber tools to launch an attack on this country. There is a Web site video that shows an arm of al-Qaida which encourages cyber attacks and talks about how easy it would be to conduct it.

Senator Lieberman and I, along with our three principal cosponsors: Senator Feinstein, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Carper, have made significant changes in our bill to respond to concerns that have been raised. Most notably we have gone from having a mandatory framework to a voluntary approach to enhance the security of our most critical infrastructure. The underlying concept of this approach, which was suggested in a very constructive way by our colleagues Senator Kyl and Senator Whitehouse, is to encourage owners of our most critical infrastructure to enhance their cyber security by providing them with various incentives, the most important of which is liability protections. We have also made changes to improve the privacy protections and the information-sharing title of our bill.

The bill establishes a multiagency council, the National Cyber Security Council, to respond to concerns that too much power was being given to the Department of Homeland Security. So now we have an interagency body that includes the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, represented by the FBI, the Department of Commerce, the intelligence community--undoubtedly it would be the Director of the National Intelligence Office--and appropriate sector- specific Federal agencies, such as FERC, if we are talking about how best to protect our electric grid.

The council would work in partnership with the private sector and would conduct risk assessments to identify our Nation's most critical cyber infrastructure. What do we mean by that? We hear that term. What exactly is critical cyber infrastructure? It is that which, if damaged, could result in mass casualties, mass evacuations, catastrophic economic damage to our country or severe harm to our national security. Don't we want to safeguard critical national assets that if damaged would cause numerous deaths, people to flee their homes, their communities, a disaster for our economy, or a severe blow to our national security? I can't believe there is even any discussion about the need for us to have robust systems to protect us against mass casualties, a devastating blow to our economy, and catastrophic consequences. That is a high bar in our bill for defining what is critical cyber infrastructure. It isn't every business in this country. Those who are implying that it is and that this is sweeping are not accurately reading the bill. We would be irresponsible if we did not act when the warnings are so loud and are coming from so many respected sources.

We have had the Aspen Institute Group on Cyber Security Issues endorse our bill and urge us to go toward its consideration. That is chaired by President Bush's Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and by a renowned expert on the other side of the aisle, former Congresswoman Jane Harman. It also includes people such as Paul Wolfowitz, not exactly a liberal activist the last time I checked, but certainly one who commands great respect for his knowledge in this area.

I am amazed we are letting the clock tick down when we know it is not a matter of if there is going to be a cyber attack on this country, it is a matter of when.

Let me very briefly address another issue. Is there some opposition among the business community to this bill? Yes, there is. But there is also a great deal of support from the business community. We have, for example, a letter from the NDIA, which represents 1,750 defense firms. We have letters of endorsement from Sysco, Oracle, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, the Business Software Alliance, from Semantec, EMC Corporation, the Center for a New American Security, endorsements from individuals in the previous administration such as General Hayden, Mike McConnell, and Asa Hutchinson. There are many supporters for this bill. It is not surprising because they know how important it is that we act.

In closing, I wish to read a little from General Alexander's letter, which is dated today. In it he says:

I am writing to express my strong support for passage of a

comprehensive bipartisan cyber security bill by the Senate

this week. The cyber threat facing the Nation is real and

demands immediate action--

Not action next year, not action next Congress, not action even after the recess we are about to take. As General Alexander says:

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.

That is exactly what the bill we have brought before the Senate would do. I urge our colleagues to join us. If they have other ideas, offer amendments, but let's get on with the task before us

before we are looking back and saying: Why didn't we act? Why didn't we pay attention to all of those warnings?

Madam President, if I could respond through the Chair to my colleague from Delaware, he is absolutely correct, this is a collaborative partnership with the private sector, and indeed, it has to be. Eighty-five percent of the critical infrastructure is owned by the private sector, so it makes sense to have their involvement. We restructured the bill to require that, and there is another safeguard. Since this is a voluntary system we have now devised, adopting the Kyl- Whitehouse approach, if the private sector decided not to participate, it essentially invalidates the standards that are developed. So why would this interagency council, which has developed the standards based on the recommendations of the private sector, not adopt reasonable standards? They want industry to participate. That is the ultimate safeguard, I say to my colleague from Delaware and my colleague, the chairman from Connecticut, who also may want to add to this.

Madam President, I want to rise very briefly--I know there are a number of Members who are seeking recognition--to thank my friend and colleague from Illinois for his statement today. He has worked very hard on this bill. I know it is an issue he cares deeply about, and I very much appreciate his taking the time to come to the floor and to urge Members to vote for the motion to proceed to the debate on this absolutely vital piece of legislation.

I must say I was disappointed to hear some of the comments made on the Senate floor today in opposition to this bill. The fact is both Republican and Democratic officials have, with very

few exceptions, endorsed the framework of this bill and urged us to move forward. In fact, they have warned us repeatedly in saying the only question is when a major cyber attack will occur. Not whether it will occur, but when it will occur. We have letter after letter, statement after statement from national and homeland security experts, representing both President Bush's administration and the current administration, urging us to act.

Indeed, yesterday the Aspen Institute Homeland Security Group put out a statement, stating the following:

The Aspen Homeland Security Group strongly urges the U.S.

Senate to vote this week to take up S. 3414, the cyber-

security bill, for debate on the Floor.

The statement goes on to say:

We urge the Senate to adopt a program of voluntary cyber-

security standards and strong positive incentives for

critical infrastructure operators to implement those

standards. The country is already being hurt by foreign

cyber-intrusions, and the possibility of a devastating cyber-

attack is real. Congress must act now.

This letter is signed by officials from the previous administration, such as Charles Allen, Stewart Baker, Michael Leiter, and Michael Chertoff. There are numerous representatives of past administrations and individuals who are renowned for their expertise. How can we ignore their warning that we must act, that it is urgent, and that we must have voluntary standards for critical infrastructure--infrastructure that, if it were attacked, would result in mass casualties, mass evacuations, a severe blow to our economy, or a serious degradation of our national security?

That is the definition of the core critical infrastructure we want to cover and to help make more secure through a partnership with the private sector. And it has to be a partnership because 85 percent of critical infrastructure is owned by the private sector. We have worked hard to alter our bill to take suggestions from the private sector, from our colleagues, from the administration, and from experts across the philosophical range to improve our bill.

I heard a Member saying this morning that somehow we are going to be hurting the high-tech sector of our society. Well, that is not what Cisco and Oracle think--certainly two of the leading businesses in the high-tech sector. This morning they wrote to us, the chief sponsors of the bill--Chairman Lieberman, Chairman Rockefeller, Chairman Feinstein, myself, and Senator Carper--and I want to read a brief excerpt from their letter. They said:

. . . we appreciate your efforts to craft legislation that

addresses the important issue of cybersecurity by supporting

American industry in its efforts to continue to be the

world's leading innovators.

The fact is, it is American businesses that are being robbed of billions of dollars every year due to cyber intrusions from foreign governments, from transnational criminals, and from hackers. This is a threat not only to our national security but to our economic prosperity.

That is why the letter from Cisco and Oracle goes on to say:

We praise your continued recognition of the importance of

these objectives through the provisions of S. 3414.

They say they support those provisions. Continuing to read from the letter:

We also commend your commitment to ensuring that the IT

industry maintains the ability to drive innovation and

security into technologies and the network.

So the idea we heard this morning on the Senate floor that somehow we are going to bring innovation in America to a standstill or hurt this important sector of our economy is not supported by a reading of our bill, and it is certainly contradicted by the letter we received from Cisco and Oracle, leading companies in the high-tech sector.

Finally, I would point out they thank us for our outreach, our willingness to engage in an exhaustive process around this issue set, and to consider and to respond to the views of America's technology sector. That is what we have done. That is what we are continuing to do with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who bring varying views to this issue. But what we cannot do is to fail to act when the warnings are so constant and alarming about the threats to our Nation, to our economy, and to our way of life.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the statement from the Aspen Institute Homeland Security Group as well as the July 26 letter from Cisco and Oracle.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, that is very kind of the Senator from West Virginia. My statement is quite lengthy. So if the Senator from West Virginia, in light of his commitment, would like to precede me, I would be more than happy to have him do so. I would encourage him to go ahead. Then the Senator from Connecticut has graciously said he would allow me to go next. We are all so nice around here.

Mr. President, first, let me thank the Senator from West Virginia for his comments. He has worked so hard on this issue for many years but, in particular, the past 3 years, as he and the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Feinstein, have worked with Senator Lieberman and me.

I rise this evening to urge our colleagues to vote to begin the debate on the Cyber Security Act of 2012. Senator Lieberman and I have introduced this bill along with our colleagues Senator Rockefeller, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Carper. It has been a great pleasure to work with all of them--and work we have--in numerous sessions over literally a period of years, as we have attempted to merge the bills that were reported by the Commerce Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.

Of course, it is always a great pleasure to once again work with my dear friend the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman, as we bring forth yet another bipartisan bill to the Chamber for its consideration.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has warned that the cyber threat will soon equal or surpass the threat from terrorism. He has argued that we should be addressing the cyber threat with the same kind of intensity we have applied to the terrorist threat. This vital legislation would provide the Federal Government and the private sector with the tools needed to help protect our country from the growing cyber threat. It would promote information sharing, improve the security of the Federal Government's own networks, enhance research and development programs and, most important of all, it would help to better secure our Nation's most critical infrastructure from cyber attack. These are the powerplants, the pipelines, the water treatment facilities, the electrical grid, the transportation systems, and the financial networks upon which Americans rely each and every day.

The fact is the computerized industrial controls that open and close the valves and switches in our infrastructure are particularly vulnerable to cyber attack. Indeed, the Internet is under constant siege on all fronts by nations such as China, Russia, and Iran, by transnational criminals, by terrorist groups, by activists, and by persistent hackers. That is why our Nation's top national security and homeland security leaders from the current and former administrations have urged us to take legislative action to address this unacceptable risk to both our national security and our economic prosperity.

Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta described our bill as ``essential to addressing our Nation's critical infrastructure and network cyber security vulnerabilities, both of which pose serious national and economic security risks to our Nation.''

Just last month, the Secretary reiterated his call for Congress to pass our bill and stress the potential for a cyber attack to cripple our critical infrastructure in a way that would virtually paralyze this country.

The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, has also sounded the alarm. He has described the cyber threat as a ``profound threat to this country, to its future, its economy and its very being.''

The warnings have not been confined to officials in the Obama administration. Former national security officials, including Michael Chertoff, Michael McConnell, Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Hayden have written that the cyber threat ``is imminent and . . . represents one of the most serious challenges to our national security since the onset of the nuclear age sixty years ago.'' They have urged us to protect the ``infrastructure that controls our electricity, water and sewer, nuclear plants, communications backbone, energy pipelines, and financial networks'' with appropriate cyber security standards.

Similarly, in a letter to our colleague, Senator John McCain, GEN Keith Alexander, the commander of U.S. Cyber Command and the Director of the National Security Agency, wrote:

Given DOD reliance on certain core critical infrastructure

to execute its mission, as well as the importance of the

Nation's critical infrastructure to our national and economic

security overall, legislation is also needed to ensure that

infrastructure is sufficiently hardened and resilient.

The threats to our infrastructure are not hypothetical; they are already occurring. For example, while many of the details are classified, we know multiple natural gas pipeline companies have been the target of a sophisticated cyber intrusion campaign that has been ongoing since December of last year.

The cyber threat to our critical infrastructure is also escalating in its frequency and severity. According to DHS's Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team, last year, almost 200 cyber intrusions were reported by critical infrastructure owners and operators. That is nearly a 400-percent increase from the previous year, and these are only the intrusions that have been reported to the Department of Homeland Security. Many go unreported and, even worse, many owners are not even aware their systems have been compromised.

What would a successful cyber attack on our critical infrastructure look like? We have just seen recently what a serious storm that leaves more than 1 million people without power can cause: the loss of life, the blow to economic activity, the hardship for the elderly, the nonworking traffic lights that resulted in accidents. Multiply that impact many times over if there were a sustained cyber attack that deliberately knocked out our electric grid.

The threat is not just to our national security but also to our economic edge, to our competitiveness. The rampant cyber theft targeting the United States by countries such as China has led to the ``greatest transfer of wealth in history,'' according to General Alexander. You have heard many of us use his quote. Let me give some specifics of his estimates. He believes American companies have lost about $250 billion a year through intellectual property theft, $114 billion to theft through cyber crime, and another $274 billion in downtime the thefts have caused.

In their op-ed earlier this year, former DNI McConnell, former Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff, and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Bill Lynn warned that the cost of cyber espionage and theft ``easily means billions of dollars and millions of jobs.'' The threat of a cyber attack doesn't just go to our national security, critical though that is. It also directly is a threat to America's ability to compete, to our economic edge.

In recent years, a growing number of U.S. firms, including sophisticated firms such as Google, Adobe, Lockheed Martin, RSA, Sony, NASDAQ, and many others have been hacked by malicious actors. Earlier this month, the security firm McAfee released a report on a highly sophisticated cyber intrusion dubbed ``Operation High Roller,'' which has attempted to steal more than $78 million in fraudulent financial transfers at at least 60 different financial institutions.

Trade associations have been attacked too. The Chamber of Commerce was the victim of a cyber attack for many months, blissfully unaware until informed by the FBI that its membership data was being stolen. The evidence of our cybersecurity vulnerability is overwhelming. It compels us to act.

Yesterday 18 experts in national security strongly endorsed the revised legislation we have introduced. The Aspen Homeland Security Group, made up of officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations and chaired by former Secretary Chertoff and former Congresswoman Jane Harman, urged the Senate to adopt a program of voluntary cybersecurity standards and strong positive incentives for critical infrastructure to implement those standards. This group called for action on our bill, saying:

The country is already being hurt by foreign cyber

intrusions, and the possibility of a devastating cyber attack

is real. Congress must act now.

Mr. President, you have heard some Members of this body say that somehow this process has been rushed or the bill inadequately considered. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since 2005--7 years ago--our Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee alone has held 10 hearings on cybersecurity. Other Senate committees have also held hearings, for a total of 25 hearings since 2009, not to mention numerous briefings the Presiding Officer and Senator Mikulski of Maryland have helped to convene--classified briefings--for any Member to attend.

In 2010, Chairman Lieberman, Senator Carper, and I introduced our cybersecurity bill, which was reported by our committee later that same year. As I indicated, we have been working with Chairman Rockefeller to merge our bill with legislation he has championed, which was reported by the Commerce Committee. We have also worked very closely with Senator Feinstein, an expert on information sharing.

The bill we are urging our colleagues to proceed to today is the product of these efforts. It also incorporates substantial changes based on the feedback from the private sector, our colleagues, and the administration.

This new bill is a good-faith effort to address the concerns raised by Members on both sides of the aisle by establishing a framework that relies upon the expertise of government and the innovation of the private sector. It improves privacy protections that Americans expect from their government.

It also reflects many concepts proposed by Senators Kyl, Whitehouse-- the Presiding Officer--Blunt, Coats, Graham, Mikulski, Blumenthal, and Coons. We have revised our bill in a very substantial way. We have abandoned the approach--which I still believe to be a good idea--of mandatory standards and, instead, have adopted a voluntary approach to standards. This is a significant change from our initial bill, and it was one that was promoted by Senator Kyl's and Senator Whitehouse's group.

The new version encourages owners of critical infrastructure to voluntarily adopt the cybersecurity practices in exchange for various incentives for entities complying with these best practices. This was also one of the primary recommendations of the House Republican Cybersecurity Task Force.

These incentives include liability protection against punitive damages. I, for one, am open to making that a more robust liability protection. They include the opportunity to receive expedited security clearances, eligibility for prioritized technical assistance from the government, and access to timely cyber threat information held by the government.

These major changes from the approach we initially proposed demonstrate our willingness to adopt alternatives recommended in good faith by our colleagues, and we are still open to changes to the bill.

Our bill also includes strong information-sharing provisions that promote voluntary information sharing within the private sector and the government, while ensuring that privacy and civil liberties are protected. And again, we incorporated some suggestions from the Democratic side of the aisle to strengthen these provisions.

To be sure, more information sharing is essential to improving our understanding of the risks and threats. But let us be clear: More information sharing, while absolutely essential, is not sufficient to ensure our Nation's vital, critical infrastructure is protected. If you survey the vast majority of experts in this field, they will tell you that to pass a bill that only provides for more information sharing does not begin to accomplish the job that must be done

to better secure our Nation from this threat.

With 85 percent of our Nation's critical infrastructure owned by the private sector, government obviously must work with the private sector. Our bill--both our original bill and our revised bill--has always envisioned a partnership between government and the private sector. We have a very stringent definition of what constitutes covered critical infrastructure. It is infrastructure whose disruption could result in truly catastrophic consequences.

What do I mean by that? I am talking about mass casualties or mass evacuations or severe degradation of our national security or a serious blow to our economy. That is the kind of disruption we are talking about. Obviously those who have claimed that every company or every part of our infrastructure is going to be considered as critical infrastructure have not read the definition in our bill.

But here is more evidence of why we must act. A study done in 2011 by the computer security firm McAfee and CSIS revealed that approximately 40 percent of the companies surveyed--the critical infrastructure companies--were not regularly patching and updating their software, despite the fact these safeguards are among the most basic and widely known cybersecurity risk mitigation practices. We have even found reports where companies haven't bothered to change the default password that came with the industrial control software. In many cases, the control devices used to operate our Nation's most critical infrastructure are inherently insecure.

A Washington Post special report last month noted that security researchers found six out of seven control system devices are ``riddled with hardware and software flaws,'' and that ``some included back doors that enabled hackers to download passwords or sidestep security completely.''

Another front-page story in the Post earlier this month highlighted the fact that as technological advances have allowed everyone from plant managers to hospital nurses to control their systems remotely via the Internet, these vital systems have become even more vulnerable to cyber attacks. To prove the point, the story described how a security researcher was able to easily steal passwords from a provider that connects millions of these systems to the Internet.

These examples illustrate that far too many critical infrastructure owners are not taking even the most basic measures to protect their systems, and this is simply dangerous and unacceptable to the security of our country. These basic practices need not be expensive. In most cases, they are not expensive. And I will tell you, they are a lot less costly than the consequences of a breach, not to mention a major cyber attack.

A recent report by Verizon, the Secret Service, and other international law enforcement agencies analyzed 855 data breaches and found that 96 were not difficult to pull off and 97 percent of them could have been prevented through fairly simple and inexpensive means.

The point is, we must act, and we must act now. We cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before taking action on this legislation.

In all the years I have been working to identify vulnerabilities facing our country in the area of homeland security, I cannot identify another area where I believe the threat is greater and that we have done less.

I urge my colleagues to listen to the wisdom of former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and former NSA Chief General Hayden. They wrote the following:

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

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

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

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

it is a question of ``when.''

And this time all the dots have been connected. This time we know that attacks are occurring against our Internet systems and cyber systems each and every day. This time the warnings from all across the board are loud and clear. I urge our colleagues to heed these warnings and to support the motion to proceed to the cybersecurity bill.

Mr. President, today I have filed an amendment to extend for 1 year the individual income tax provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax relief acts for all Americans, but with a surtax of two percent on those earning $1 million or more, coupled with a ``carve-out'' to protect our nation's small businesses.

The Congressional Budget Office has warned us that the ``fiscal cliff'' created by the expiration of current tax rates on December 31, coupled with ill-advised and deep cuts in defense spending that would result from ``sequestration,'' would likely result in a recession in the first half of next year. It makes no sense and should be unacceptable to all of us to allow our country to go over this ``fiscal cliff.''

I have long urged that we begin the debate on comprehensive tax reform aimed at creating a simpler, fairer, pro-growth tax code. I also believe that multimillionaires and billionaires can afford to pay more to help us deal with our unsustainable deficit.

My amendment would, therefore, impose a 2 percent surtax on millionaires, with a carve-out to protect small business owners who pay taxes through the individual income tax system. Our Nation's small businesses must not be lumped-in with millionaires and billionaires. The ``carve-out'' I am proposing would shield small businesses owners from tax increases intended to fall on the very wealthy.

These small business owner-operators are on the front lines of our economy, and of the communities in which they live. The income that shows up on their tax returns is critical to their ability to create jobs, finance investment, and grow their businesses. Left in their hands, this income will lead to more jobs and buy the tools that help American workers compete.

Congress still could tackle tax reform this year but, unfortunately, this is not likely. That is why, in my amendment, I propose extending the current individual tax rates for all Americans through 2013, to give us the time we need to consider and adopt comprehensive reform that results in a simpler, fairer, pro-growth Tax Code. The surtax on the very wealthy, combined with protection for small businesses, will help us begin to deal with the deficit without harming the job creation engine of our economy--small business.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in support of Senate debate and passage of the fiscal year 2013 appropriations bills.

I want to begin by commending both Chairman Inouye and Vice-Chair Cochran for their leadership on the Appropriations Committee. In what has been largely a bipartisan process, the Senate Appropriations Committee has approved 9 of the 12 funding bills so far. A lot of hard work on both sides has gone into putting these bills together.

As ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, Senator Murray and I worked closely together to craft a truly bipartisan fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill. The T-HUD bill strikes a balance between thoughtful investment and fiscal restraint. In fact, this bill honors an allocation that is nearly $14.5 billion below fiscal year 2010 levels, a 22-percent reduction. These deep cuts reflect an even deeper commitment to getting our fiscal house in order.

I am proud of the work that went into this bill and the strong bipartisan vote this past April to report it out of committee. Like the T-HUD bill, the Agriculture; Commerce, Justice, and Science; Energy and Water; Military Construction and Veterans Affairs; State and Foreign Operations; and Department of Homeland Security bills have all been reported with overwhelming bipartisan support. In putting together these bills, the Appropriations Committee functioned the way committees are supposed to: we worked together to develop thoughtful and responsible bills that could be recommended for the full Senate for consideration.

As such, I was very disappointed to hear the majority leader's recent announcement that not one of the 12 appropriations bills would be brought to the Senate floor until after the election, virtually guaranteeing that we end up with a continuing resolution or catch-all omnibus that the full Senate has not had an opportunity to properly vet. I hope he will reconsider in light of our commitment to work with him to develop a workable and fair process for considering these bills.

Given the immense workload that we have before the end of the year-- including enacting appropriations bills and preventing the so-called fiscal cliff, when enormous tax hikes and indiscriminate cuts to defense spending are set to kick in--I am disappointed that we have spent much of July haggling over proposals that never really stood a chance of going anywhere.

I understand that the majority leader has said that he doesn't want to bring the bills to the floor because the House is writing its bills to a lower level, but we have a process to deal with disagreements. It is called a conference. The Senate Appropriations Committee has reported several bipartisan bills that are ready for floor consideration. Why not bring them to the floor, allow Senators to offer amendments, and let the Senate work its will on this important constitutional responsibility?

As our Nation's economy struggles to recover, it is important that we complete appropriations bills on time and through regular order. It is important for the Senate as an institution that we proceed. It is also important for the American people to see that we can work together in an open and bipartisan manner to establish priorities, make hard decisions, and complete the work that the Constitution requires of us.

Last November, I joined Chairman Murray as well as Chairmen Kohl and Mikulski and Ranking Members Blunt and Hutchison to usher the first group of fiscal year 2012 spending bills to final passage, avoiding a long-term continuing resolution for fiscal year 2012. It is my hope that we will build on last year's success and bring the fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill to the floor to be considered through a similarly open and transparent process.

These bills make investments that not only create jobs now when they are needed most but also establish the foundations for future growth. Just as important to our economic future, however, is reigning in Federal spending; we must strike the right balance between thoughtful investments and fiscal restraint, thereby setting the stage for future economic growth. Uncertainty only makes matters worse.

Mr. President, the Height of Land in Maine's Rangeley Lakes Region is a crown jewel among my State's abundant natural treasures. The panorama of lakes and mountains, streams and valleys, offered by this lofty perch in the Western Mountains, is among the most spectacular sights in New England.

I rise today to congratulate a remarkable group of local citizens, the Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust, for their hard work and commitment over more than 2 decades to protect and preserve this extraordinary place and to make it accessible to all. The Height of Land Overlook on the Rangeley Lakes National Scenic Byway, officially dedicated on July 15, 2012, demonstrates the great partnership they have formed with State and Federal Government, conservation organizations, businesses, and neighbors to achieve lasting accomplishments.

Since the Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust was formed in 1991, it has conserved more than 12,800 acres of land, including 45 miles of lake and river frontage, 15 islands, and the commanding 2,443-foot Bald Mountain, so that these features might be accessed and enjoyed by residents and visitors forever. The Height of Land Overlook has converted a narrow and dangerous corridor into a spacious, safe, and welcoming place for inspiration and reflection.

To complete this outstanding project, the Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust brought together a wide range of people and organizations into a common cause. It overcame the boundaries between towns, bridged the divide between government agencies, and worked collaboratively with the private sector. The commitment by the Maine Department of Transportation is especially commendable.

In 2009, I was pleased to help secure $2.9 million in U.S. Department of Transportation funding for this important project. It is essential that the Federal Government be a strong member of partnerships to preserve our natural treasures, enhance recreation, promote economic growth, and help protect the environment. The Height of Land Overlook and the conservation walk that will be completed next spring will help make this area a national destination.

Sir Edmund Hillary said that, ``People do not decide to become extraordinary. They decide to accomplish extraordinary things.'' Like that famous mountaineer, the citizens who came together to establish the Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust had a lofty goal. They not only reached the summit, they went far beyond. Their amazing success speaks volumes about the commitment that the people of Maine have to preserve our special places and to share them with all Americans.

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate the men and

women of L.L.Bean as they celebrate their 100th anniversary. This legendary Maine company is one of America's most inspiring family business success stories and one of my State's most cherished institutions.

Many L.L.Bean customers know the story of the company's origin. Leon Leonwood Bean was an avid Maine outdoorsman who was tired of cold, wet feet while hunting or fishing. In 1912, he invented the Maine Hunting Shoe, a boot with leather uppers and a thick rubber sole. His fellow outdoorsmen liked the boot and a business was born.

The second, less-known part of the story really tells the tale. The rubber bottoms of those shoes separated from the leather tops and 90 of the first 100 pairs were returned. Although it nearly put him out of business, L.L. kept his word and refunded the purchase price. He borrowed more money, corrected the problem and, with undiminished confidence, mailed more brochures. L.L. had learned the value of personally testing his products, of honest advertising based on firm convictions and of keeping the customer satisfied at any cost.

Leon Leonwood Bean founded his business on his personal guarantee of ``100 percent satisfaction in every way.'' In all the years since, that promise has been kept. Whether seeking expert advice, making a purchase, or exchanging or returning a product, generations of customers have found L.L.Bean to be a place where that first commitment to customer satisfaction still resonates.

Today, L.L.Bean is one of the world's most respected retailers, with sales exceeding $1.5 billion. From the flagship store in Freeport, ME, to dozens of stores and outlets throughout the United States, more than 11 million people visit L.L.Bean stores each year. The company's famous catalogues are sent to 160 countries, and its Internet presence leads the industry. In its first century, the company has grown from a one- room operation selling a single product to a global enterprise providing some 4,900 year-round jobs, and that figure typically doubles during peak holiday season.

In addition to its remarkable retail success, L.L.Bean remains true to its origins as a manufacturer. In Brunswick and Lewiston, ME, more than 435 skilled workers craft such iconic products as the Maine Hunting Shoe, the L.L.Bean Boot and the Boat and Tote Bag. Leon Leonwood Bean made 100 pairs of boots in his first production run in 1912. Last year, Maine workers produced more than 400,000 pairs.

When the man TIME magazine called ``The Merchant of the Maine Woods'' passed away in 1967, leadership of the company was passed on to his grandson, Leon Gorman.

Soon after becoming president, Leon introduced the stakeholder concept, which clearly linked L.L.Bean's success as a business to key stakeholders--customers, employees, shareholders, vendors, communities and the natural environment. In his 30 years as president, Leon Gorman led L.L.Bean from a $4.75 million catalog company to an over-one- billion-dollar multichannel enterprise. Leon firmly established L.L.Bean as a leader in the outdoors industry, offering high-quality equipment and apparel, backed by world-class service and products guaranteed to last.

It is fitting that L.L.Bean is celebrating its centennial with special projects that advance the company's guiding principles. These include the Million Moment Mission, in which L.L.Bean will contribute $1 to the National Park Foundation for every outdoor moment shared by customers up to a total of $1 million, and a commitment of an additional $1.5 million at the local and State levels to encourage our young people to discover the outdoors.

I am often asked what L.L.Bean means to our State. As one of Maine's largest employers, the company certainly means a great deal to the thousands who work there. L.L.Bean offers careers with opportunities for advancement in a respectful, positive environment. The spin-off benefits to other Maine industries, including product vendors and business suppliers, are enormous. The continued commitment to Maine- made products--wreaths, maple syrup, mustard, furniture, running shoes, slippers, in addition to the company's famous tote bags and boots-- sustains a great many businesses and households throughout our State.

Certainly, the sales, revenue, and growth numbers are impressive. Even more impressive is the fact that this family company succeeds in a modern, global economy with the timeless values that foster dedicated employees and loyal customers. It is a pleasure to congratulate the people of L.L.Bean on this centennial and to thank them for their contributions to our Nation and to the great State of Maine.