Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the regulations the EPA is proposing will hit every American family with higher electric bills, more expensive food and clothes, and more pain at the pump. American workers, especially those in energy-intensive manufacturing jobs, will face job loss or more difficult job prospects. We have bipartisan language. Six Democrats have already stated on the floor they favor this. Whatever one thinks about the cap and tax, I believe there is a strong majority who thinks a regulatory agency should not establish it bureaucratically. There is a lot of work we need to do in energy. We need to develop our own energy. When we talk about nuclear power, when we talk about clean coal technology, when we talk about biofuels and woody biomass, all of these things are good. But when we talk about wind power and solar power, how much is it going to cost us? We have found that the costs are overwhelming. I welcome a discussion of this issue, but the first thing we need to do is make sure our country is not shut down by overreaching EPA regulations. That is why I proposed the unanimous consent request. I understand the leader on the majority side has promised we can vote on the Rockefeller bill. We need to vote by the end of the year. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I do not object. Whatever time she needs I hope will be added on to the time that has previously been allotted. I do not want to cut short the comments of my friend from California.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this morning, all across America families are struggling to make ends meet. Their incomes are stagnant, but the cost of living keeps rising and the tax burden they face at the Federal, State, and local level keeps getting worse--and they are threatening to go higher. Just as troubling, today's ongoing economic uncertainty is crippling job creation and hurting small businesses--the real engines of growth in our country. Some of our small businesses have told me it is not uncertainty, it is the certainty that they know what the Federal Government has already done in the health care bill this body, unfortunately, passed. But what is the answer from Washington to this situation? More job- killing taxes. Let me be very clear: The last thing we should be doing in this difficult economy is raising taxes on American families and small businesses. It is a recipe for disaster. I do not think anyone believes raising taxes on somebody in a recession is a good idea, particularly on the very small businesses we need to hire more workers and get the economy back on track. But unless Congress acts before the end of this year, that is exactly what will happen. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue, which is why 31 House Democrats have recently written the Speaker of the House urging her to act now to stop the tax increases on the American people. As these 31 Democrats said, defying their leadership, raising taxes now could ``negatively impact economic growth.'' Obviously, that would affect jobs. Instead of listening to the American people, and even those members of his own party, President Obama is trying to convince our Nation that the largest tax increase in history will not hurt them. Whether it is justifying their failed trillion-dollar stimulus bill or government takeover of health care, which will cost even more, and now their historic tax increases, the administration is guilty of using some very fuzzy math. Last week, the President took to the airwaves and claimed he ``opposes tax cuts for millionaires''--a statement he repeated in Ohio as well. But the President's plan to increase taxes is on any individual earning $200,000 or more or any couple earning $250,000 or more. I do not know who the President is talking to, but I do not know any Missouri families with two working people making $250,000 a year who consider themselves millionaires. In fact, these Missouri families would be surprised that the President lumps them in the same category as George Soros, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates. In fact, the tax on these ``rich'' people, as the President calls them, is a tax increase on small businesses. Under the President's tax increase plan, half of all small business income would be affected, and the President's tax increase plan would affect up to 25 percent of all American workers. They are employed by those small businesses, and they certainly will be affected. According to the Wall Street Journal's September 9 article entitled ``The Small Business Tax Hike and the 3 percent Fallacy,'' IRS data shows that 48 percent of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes over $200,000 a year in 2007. It is very clear we are talking about small businesses that have a much broader impact than just 3 percent of all taxpayers, as the spin we hear from the White House puts it. This plan to increase taxes defies common sense. At a time when we need small businesses to expand and to create jobs, President Obama plans on raising their taxes. Imagine that. When jobs should be our top priority, with unemployment near 10 percent, this Congress and the President are proposing a historic job-killing tax increase. Bear in mind, according to the Small Business Administration, small businesses employ half of all private sector employees. They generated 65 percent or 9.8 million of the 15 million net new jobs produced over the past 17 years. They produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms. The President has actually been very clear about his intensions for additional revenue raised by tax increases. As a matter of fact, on September 8, in Parma, OH, the President repeatedly said: I've got a whole bunch of better ways to spend the money. Well, Mr. President, I strongly disagree. As Milton Friedman once famously said: Nobody spends somebody else's money as wisely as they spend their own. I think we have all seen proof of this over the past 21 months, and it is not working. The nearly trillion-dollar stimulus plan that was supposed to create jobs immediately and keep unemployment below 8 percent failed, and now our children and our children's children are stuck with the bill that will be on their credit cards for a long time. But now the administration is pushing for even more tax increases in order to finance their massive spending spree. Each time I return home, I am reminded of the anger and the distrust that my constituents have for Washington. The people of my State are angry. They are on fire. They have every right to be. The people in Missouri know that additional tax revenue generated from their hard work will not be used to pay down our national debt but, instead, it will be used for more spending they do not want and the country cannot afford. The people in Missouri know they cannot afford these tax increases. They want to keep more of their hard-earned paychecks so they can support their families. On dividends and capital gains, the administration believes that taxes should go up. They also believe these two types of taxes on investment should be treated differently, with dividends being taxed as high as nearly 40 percent. Higher taxes on investment income will halt new investment and force these investors with much needed capital on to the sidelines. If you tax something, you get less of it. If you reduce taxes, you get more of it. But since Congress passed the 2,000-plus page regulatory overreach bill this year, we have seen a drop in capital formation, and tax increases will only continue to discourage private productive capital formation in the nongovernmental private sector. The looming tax increases will raise the price of capital and make lending much more expensive than it would be if we had properly reined in the bad actors and allowed the lending system to revert to practices based on creditworthiness, which means it will be even harder for our small businesses to get the lending, borrow what they need to continue to meet their payrolls, continue to employ workers, and keep their lights on. Dividends are payments made to shareholders by a profitable firm. They are the owners of the firm. Many of the folks who receive dividend income are not multimillion-dollar investors but, rather, many of them are seniors who rely on this as a supplement to their retirement income. We should not raise taxes on seniors who rely on this income. Recently, I heard from a utility in my State that came in and talked about the increased dividend tax and the concern as to what it would do to their shareholders. Many of their investors are senior citizens who are by no means rich and who live off of this income every day. They do not want to have, and they cannot afford to have, the government reach into their pockets and take more money. On the estate tax, death should not be a taxable event. There should not be taxation without respiration. The death tax hurts small, family-owned businesses, especially our family farmers. According to the Farm Bureau, individuals, family partnerships, or family corporations own 98 percent of our Nation's 2 million farms and ranches. When faced with the death tax, farmers and ranchers are in an especially tough spot with most of their assets tied up in land and buildings, livestock and equipment. This gives them little flexibility when settling an estate. Unlike an investor with a stock portfolio, they can't simply sell off the stock and move on. The death tax punishes the American dream, making it virtually impossible for the American family to build wealth across generations, and this is particularly true for family farms. The death tax is antisavings, antifamily, and anti-investment. Quite simply, it is un-American, and it should be eliminated, or at least it should be reduced. Sadly, because of the Senate's failure to repeal this tax, I have signed on to the next best alternative--a bipartisan bill introduced by Senators Lincoln and Kyl which would increase the exemption for families to $5 million from the $3.5 million under the previous law. Under the President's plan, when you die, your estate will be taxed at a whopping 55 percent for assets above $1 million. The Kyl-Lincoln bill I am cosponsoring would reduce this rate to 35 percent for assets above the $5 million exception. Why is this important? Let me talk about farm country, where I live. Everybody knows that a successfully operated family-owned grain or corn or soybean farm is likely to have $1 million worth of land and likely more than $1 million worth of farm equipment so they can be a productive farmer in the world competitive economy. The President's plan would force these family farms to close rather than pass to the next generation of family farmers. I say to my colleagues, unless Congress acts now, in less than 100 days Americans will be hit with the largest tax hike in our Nation's history. That is why I have joined with Senators McConnell, Grassley, and others to stop these tax hikes, cosponsoring the Tax Hike Prevention Act. This bill prevents the tax hikes scheduled for next year, permanently passes the alternative minimum tax, and protects families from increased death taxes. For most Americans across the Nation, recovery is what we desperately need. We need it in my State and we need it in every State. Small businesses are not hiring new workers or expanding. It is not just the uncertainty; it is the certainty of what the Federal Government is doing to them. Also, unemployment has been hovering at almost 10 percent. More than 3 million Americans have lost their jobs since February of 2009, and more have quit looking or are underemployed. One of the best ways to help our economy and end the uncertainty that is crippling job creation is to stop the coming tax hikes. In addition to helping small businesses, stopping the coming tax hikes would let Americans keep more of their paychecks that they can save and invest. Our citizens know how to spend their money better than any government bureaucrat. We have tried it with the government money. We have tried it with the government stimulus. The government stimulus stimulated the expansion of government. That is not productive. Let's try it the other way. Let's go back to what we used to do in this country and let the private sector work and develop useful products and services, sell those products, gain a profit, and hire more workers. It is time this Congress acts, and I hope they will act soon. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee, earlier this morning said small businesses are the engine that drives jobs in the economy. I agree with him. I agree. As the former chairman of the Small Business Committee, I know how important small businesses are. I traveled around the State during the past breaks to find out, meeting with small businesses, why they are not creating jobs. We, frankly, have cut off the fuel supply, the profits that drive these jobs. I asked a group of small businesses: Why is it that you are not creating jobs? Is it because of the uncertainty people are talking about? I was immediately corrected. They said: It is the certainty. We know what you have done in the health care law, putting unbelievable burdens on us. They did not even know about this 1099 requirement at the time. But the health care costs are burdening small businesses, and it is making it impossible and unwise for them to try to hire. I talked to a small businessman today, and I asked him about it. I told him what the requirements were. He said: That is nuts. What do you think they are talking about? We are going to have to hire more bookkeepers. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to listen to small businesses in passing this bill. They put burdens on them that are unbelievable. The new health care bill passed and signed into law is a boondoggle that will bury small businesses in higher taxes, new mandates, and more paperwork. This particular job-killing mandate of the 1099 we are debating today will drown small businesses in paperwork by requiring a small business owner to file two forms, one with the vendor and one with the IRS, for every business-to-business transaction over $600. According to the Wall Street Journal this morning, this means more than 30 million small businesses will be hit by the new paperwork mandate beginning in 2013. That is not the worst of it. Even the National Taxpayer Advocate at the Treasury Department, Nina Olson, said the cost of this measure is ``disproportionate as compared with any resulting improvements in tax compliance.'' That is the problem. That is the problem, and the Johanns amendment is the only solution. We have to correct this job-killing mandate as urged by the NFIB, the Chamber of Commerce, and the National Small Business Association. Democrats are trying to sell a pig in a poke. The Nelson alternative would leave the same bad provision in place, only making it more complicated for small business owners to comply. It would only exempt small businesses with 25 employees or less. So, in other words, we are telling small businesses not to hire the 26th worker while we are having unemployment up around 10 percent. If you have small businesses in your State, you better listen to them. They are wanting a repeal, the full repeal of this burdensome mandate.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from today's Wall Street Journal editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of my fellow Missourians, I extend my warmest congratulations to the citizens of Iron County and Ironton upon their celebration of the 150th anniversary of the Iron County Courthouse. Courthouses like the one in Iron County symbolize the basis of America's freedoms: a fair and independent judiciary. America is a nation based on laws and not men. While it is not perfect, to be sure, our system of justice makes it possible for all Americans to live in relative peace and prosperity most of the time. The Iron County Courthouse has long stood as a mark of this community's history. The county from which the courthouse takes its namesake was originally established from portions of the counties of St. Francois, Madison, Washington, Dent, Reynolds, and Wayne by an act of the legislature approved February 17, 1857. According to county records, the Iron County Courthouse was the product of an order which called for the construction of a courthouse and the issuing of county bonds, bearing 10 percent interest, for $10,000. The courthouse's cornerstone was laid on July 4, 1858, and the structure was completed just 2 years later in October 1860. In its 150-year history, the Iron County Courthouse has been the site of countless hearings and trials in addition to serving as the home of county offices ranging from soil and water to university extensions. The circuit court for Iron County was organized on May 16, 1858, by Judge John H. Stone. In September 1864, during the Civil War, the courthouse received damage in the Battle of Pilot Knob. The courthouse has been featured on the cover of several local and regional publications and, even more notably, has earned the honor of inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. We recognize the important role the courthouse has played in Iron County's history and congratulate local residents on its 150th anniversary.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank the chair of our committee. I thank her, her staff, for all of the good work that has gone into this bill, repeatedly, as she pointed out. For too many years Congress has failed to pass an intelligence authorization bill that could be signed into law. I am very pleased to join with Senator Feinstein, the distinguished chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, in achieving passage of S. 3611, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. Over the past several months, we worked closely with the House Permanent Select Committees on Intelligence and Administration to reach a compromise text that could serve as a conference report for this bill. The bill now before this Senate and having passed the Senate contains all of the elements of the compromise. It has been agreed to in advance by representatives of the administration. But, unfortunately, the House has thus far declined to move the process forward, bringing this bill formally to conference. The chair and I agreed that we would be able to move this process forward by having the Senate pass the compromise text for the House to consider when it returns next week. The intelligence authorization bill before us is a good bill. It will give the intelligence community the flexibility and authorities it needs to function effectively and will ensure appropriate intelligence oversight by this committee. I have often said that in creating the Director of National Intelligence, we gave him an awful lot of responsibility without all the authority he needed. Well, our bill attempts to address that problem by giving the DNI clearer authority and greater flexibility in overseeing the intelligence community. There are also a number of provisions in this bill that I believe are essential for promoting good government. Too often, we have seen programs or acquisitions of major systems balloon in cost and decrease in performance. That is unacceptable. We are in difficult economic times and the taxpayers are spending substantial sums of money to ensure that the intelligence community has the tools it needs to keep us safe. If we don't demand accountability for how these tools are operated or created, then we are failing the intelligence community, and, ultimately, we are failing the American people. So, for the past several years, I have sponsored amendments that require the intelligence community to perform vulnerability assessments of major systems and to keep track of excessive cost growth of major systems. This latter provision is modeled on the Nunn-McCurdy provision which has guided Defense Department acquisitions for years. I am happy to say that these provisions are part of this year's bill, too. I believe that these, and other good-government provisions, will encourage earlier identification and solving of problems relating to the acquisition of major systems. Too often, such problems have not been identified until exorbitant sums of money have been spent--and, unfortunately, at that point, there is often reluctance to cancel the project. Similarly, the intelligence community must get a handle on its personnel levels. In these tough economic times, it is more important than ever to make sure that the intelligence community is appropriately resourced to ensure that its personnel can effectively perform their respective national security missions. However, I am concerned about the number of contractors used by the intelligence community to perform functions better left to government employees. There are some jobs that demand the use of contractors, for example, certain technical jobs or short-term functions, but too often, the quick fix is just to hire contractors, not long-term support. And so, our bill includes a provision calling for annual personnel level assessments for the intelligence community. These assessments will ensure that, before more people are brought in, there are adequate resources to support them and enough work to keep them busy. These are just a few of the provisions in this bill that I believe are important for the success of our intelligence collection efforts and equally important for ensuring sound oversight by the intelligence committee. I commend Senator Feinstein for her leadership in shepherding this bill through the committee and the Senate. I appreciate her willingness to work through the countless issues raised throughout this process. I also thank my colleagues for supporting this bill. It is well-past time that Congress send an intelligence authorization bill to the President for his signature. Only by fulfilling our legislative function will we get back on track with performing effective and much-needed intelligence oversight. I, again, extend and expand my thanks to the distinguished chair for making sure the Senate Intelligence Committee can work in a bipartisan manner, which we have done on this bill, and on lengthy oversight matters that we have undertaken out of view of public scrutiny, obviously, but spending many days, many hours in meetings, looking over the wide range of critical efforts that are needed by our intelligence community to keep our country safe. Why does passing an authorization bill matter at this late date in the fiscal year? An annual intelligence authorization bill does more than just authorize funding for intelligence activities, funding that in many cases has already been appropriated and spent. But it is vital that the intelligence committees be able to provide direction for the expenditure of funds for the intelligence community. But by providing current and congressional guidance and statutory authority we can ensure that the intelligence community has the maximum flexibility, the capability it needs to function effectively, spend taxpayer funds wisely, and keep our Nation safe. The Senate bill has the full support of the Senate. Senior administration has said they will recommend the President sign this compromise text into law. I urge, once again, the Speaker of the House of Representatives to bring up this bill and pass it when the House returns to session next week so we can get back on track with performing effective intelligence oversight.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I wish to thank Rose Penn Ross for her dedicated service to our Nation during World War II. Mrs. Ross, or Penny as she is called, is a retired school teacher who selflessly answered the patriotic call to duty when she enlisted in the Women Airforce Service Pilots-- WASP--organization during World War II. Like many of her counterparts in the ``Greatest Generation,'' Penny wanted to help the war effort. As a licensed pilot, Penny wanted to serve by flying planes, and joined 25,000 women in applying for the WASP program. After completing exactly the same rigorous military flight training as her male counterparts, Penny became one of only 1,100 women to receive her Silver Wings. While the WASP organization was not recognized as part of the military until 1977, Penny and the other women serving in WASP played a critical role in the war effort. Within the United States, Penny brought planes from factories to bases, flew experimental aircraft, and towed targets for the gunnery school vital tasks that also freed up male pilots for combat service and duties. Prior to the war, Penny graduated from the University of Wisconsin with a bachelor's degree in business and earned her master's in education from the University of Missouri. She married her beloved Vernon M. Ross and settled in Missouri. Vernon and Penny started a family, which grew to include four children: Robert, Barbara, David, and Richard; eight grandchildren; and five great-grandchildren. After WASP was disbanded in 1944, Penny began her teaching career. She taught secondary school for 30 years in Harrisburg, Glasgow, and Moberly, molding young minds in the subjects of business, math, and French. In addition to her legacy of family and her love of learning, Penny has created a legacy of service to our Nation. Penny, her fellow female pilots, and the countless other men and women who served their nation during World War II made possible the conquering of some of freedom's worst foes of the 20th century: Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito. Thanks to the struggles and sacrifices of all of our troops from here at home, to Normandy, Tunisia, Midway, and Guadalcanal, those of us in subsequent generations have lived in relative peace and prosperity. It is only fitting that earlier this year Americans like Penny were recognized for their contributions to the freedom we enjoy today. On March 10, 2010, Mrs. Ross attended the WASP Congressional Gold Medal Ceremony in the U.S. Capitol. With her family by her side, she was presented with a bronze medal replica of the Gold Medal. Today, Penny resides in the Veterans Home-Mexico, MO. Penny, we are grateful for your service to your family, your community, and your country. Your story is an inspiration to people in all generations today who want to make a difference.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the financial overregulation bill. The so-called financial reform bill before us is being sold to the American people as holding Wall Street accountable for the economic crisis that hurt every American family and business in every community across the Nation. We are told this bill will end ``too big to fail'' and prevent future bailouts. Unfortunately, just as the stimulus bill was supposed to reduce unemployment and the health care bill was supposed to lower health costs and reduce the deficit, this bill, too, will do the opposite of what is advertised. It will not prevent future bailouts. It will create another huge Federal bureaucracy; and instead of punishing Wall Street, it will punish Main Street and the families who suffered--not caused-- the financial meltdown. This bill was meant to rein in Wall Street. Yet the biggest supporters are Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, and the biggest opponents are community banks and small businesses in every city and town and community in the Nation. I think that tells us all we need to know about this bill. I urge my colleagues to listen to the folks at home, the people who have to make a living who are going to be burdened by it. I strongly oppose cloture on this bill. Yes, there have been improvements made, and I worked with my colleague, Senator Dodd, to make sure we did not devastate the venture capital area. Unfortunately, that is coming in another bill. But despite some of the progress we have made, the provisions most harmful to taxpayers, families, and small businesses still remain. As a matter of fact, new provisions have been airdropped into the conference report that are so problematic that neither Chamber could agree to include them in either version. If we are truly committed to enacting real bipartisan reform, then the majority would never allow items that were never debated and voted on to be included in the bill. I hope my Democratic colleagues will stand up for these principles about which they have talked so loudly and say no to this backroom practice of airdropping totally new concepts into the bill. I wish to talk now about some of the most egregious provisions in the bill. First, it is unbelievable and unacceptable that so many of my colleagues want to turn a blind eye to the government-sponsored enterprises, GSEs, that contributed to the financial meltdown by buying high-risk loans that banks made to people who could not afford them. Everyone here knows what I am talking about. Despite this bill's 2,300 pages, it completely ignores the 900-pound gorilla in the room: the need to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or the toxic twins as I not so fondly have to refer to them now. The irresponsible actions by Fannie and Freddie turned the American dream into the American nightmare for too many families who have either had their homes foreclosed or who are hanging on by a thread. The irresponsible actions, pushed by previous administrations on Fannie and Freddie, devastated neighborhoods and communities as property values diminished. To add insult to injury, after Freddie and Fannie went belly up, it was the very Americans who suffered from their irresponsible actions who were left footing the bill. As if that were not bad enough, unless we act now to reform the toxic twins, over the next 10 years Fannie and Freddie will cost the American taxpayers at least an additional $389 billion. In the joy of the Christmas holiday last December, the administration took off the $400 billion limit on them. I have to ask: How much money do they think they can lose if $400 billion is not enough for them to lose? What is in this bill to address this problem? Absolutely nothing. Zip. Zero. Next, this bill lumps in the good guys with the bad guys and treats them all the same, particularly when it comes to derivatives. Folks who are trying to manage and control costs are treated the same as folks who are spending and speculating in the market, making shady bets with money they did not have, making insurance bets on property they did not own. This was described in the book, ``The Big Short,'' by Michael Lewis. These computer game derivatives, or insurance policies, were dreamed up by Wall Street geniuses, some who made billions, others who lost billions. The billions in losses almost destroyed our financial system and poisoned the world's financial system. I have heard some folks say: Why do these bad practices mean something is going to happen to me? The way this bill is drafted, utility companies may not be able to lock in steady rates for their customers, leaving them instead at the whim of a volatile market. The utility companies will have to pay billions to Wall Street or Chicago to clear their normal long-term contracts and postcollateral with energy suppliers through clearinghouses run by big financial firms. That money will be immediately passed along to every consumer of power from that utility company. That is what utilities do--they pass it on to you and me as electricity or gas or other customers of theirs. Mr. President, you and I and folks in every community across the country could pay higher costs every time we flip on the light switch or turn on the air conditioner or heat. That means family farms may not be able to get long-term financing, forcing many to quit farming and prevent many from beginning to farm. The Wall Street Journal today, in a front-page article headed ``Finance Overhaul Casts Long Shadow on the Plains'' tells how this bill will clobber folks in agricultural communities who have to have forward contracts. They never caused the problem, but it will tie up capital and make them pay tribute to big firms on Wall Street or Chicago. No wonder those big firms are for them. There is a lot of business for them, a lot of expense for the farmer, the commodity hauler trying to make a living. I am stunned that any Senator in good conscience would vote for a bill that would increase costs for every American, especially at a time when working families are struggling to make ends meet. One thing is certain: This bill will enlarge government. Today's Wall Street editorial opines that: Dodd-Frank, with its 2,300 pages, will unleash the biggest wave of new federal financial rulemaking in three generations. Whatever else this will do, it will not make lending cheaper or credit more readily available. They go on to state that one law firm has estimated that the new law ``will require no fewer than 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different agencies.'' What will be the effect? More lawyers, more bureaucracy, more taxpayer money, and more lawsuits. Certainly, I cannot vote in good conscience for a bill that creates a massive new superbureaucracy with unprecedented authority to impose government mandates and micromanage any entity that extends credit. We are not talking about the big guys--the Goldman Sachs and the AIGs. In the real world, we are talking about the community banks, small retailers, and even your dentist. I talked with a lot of small businesses and listened to them. A lot of people were concerned this past week when I was home about what is going on in Washington. I was talking with a group in Maryville in northwest Missouri. I said: The uncertainty is really a problem for small businesses. One small businessman corrected me. He said: No, it's the certainty. We know what Washington has already done to the deficit, to the debt, to health care, what it is going to do to financial regulation, and what it is threatening to do to energy costs. I asked everybody around the table: Should I have said ``certainty'' rather than ``uncertainty''? They said: You certainly should. Small businesses are not willing or able or even inclined to create jobs when this massive government rollout of spending, taxation, and regulation is coming down on them. Let's not be naive. Any of the new costs as a result of new mandates and regulations, regardless of the entity on which they are imposed, will be passed down to the very people this bill claims to protect. Under the new, misnamed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, the decisions on allocating credit will no longer be based on the safety and soundness requirement for healthy banks. Instead, by empowering this new superbureaucracy with unprecedented power, decisions on credit will be driven by the administration's political will and agenda. Politics will then decide how to allocate credit while operating outside the framework of safety and soundness, thus putting more risk back into the system when we were supposed to be taking risk out of the system. This giant bill also contains a provision creating a new Office of Financial Research. You will get to know this one. It is given the authority to access personal financial information of any citizen in the United States. Well, I don't know about you, but I would prefer not to have a new bureaucracy rifling through my personal account information in an era of economic and electronic communications where fraud and identity theft run rampant. Ordinary Americans who did not cause the financial meltdown should not be punished and placed at risk because the government wishes to create this new, unnecessary office. I could continue to list provision after provision, pointing out expansions of government and ill-intended policies that will create more uncertainty while failing to hit the objective of regulatory reform. However, this Chamber doesn't have the hours for my speech alone. I could say: Harsh letter to follow. If anybody wants to know, we will be happy to send them lots of chapters and lots of verses. But, much like the health care bill recently signed into law, I fear small businesses will soon learn of many more unintended consequences which have yet to be seen. Even the bill's sponsors admit that the bill's long reach will not be fully known until it is in place. Remember when the leader on the other side of this building said: If you want to find out what is in the bill, you will have to pass it. Well, in this bill, if you want to find out what it is going to do, unfortunately, you are going to find out if you pass it. I don't want to have my fingerprints on what is going to happen to businesses, to communities, and to jobs in the United States if it passes. To sum it up, if the goal is to enact real reform that ensures we never, ever have another financial crisis like the one we had 18 months ago, the bill falls woefully short of that goal. It is light on reform, heavy on overreach and unintended consequences. Overall, this bill is too large, too costly for consumers, and would kill job creation at a time when working Americans need to be left to do what they do best, and that is succeed. There is no doubt we need to protect every American from ever again falling victim to Wall Street gone wild. But what we do not want--and why this debate is so important--is to punish Americans for a crisis they didn't cause. Unless we scrap this failed version and start over, the Democrats' bill will do just that, and the costs will be paid by Main Street. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial from today's Wall Street Journal to which I referred.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to honor U.S. Marine Cpl Todd Nicely, of Arnold, MO--a true American hero. Corporal Nicely is greatly admired by his fellow marines--and when you hear his story you will admire him too. As a marine, Corporal Nicely brought the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan, so our families in Missouri and across the Nation could live in peace and security. But what makes Corporal Nicely an American hero is not only his leadership on the battlefield but also his leadership here at home. On March 26, 2010, Corporal Nicely and his fellow marines were on a foot patrol in Helmand province--one of the most dangerous regions in Afghanistan--when he stepped on an improvised explosive device, triggering a devastating explosion. When Corporal Nicely woke up, he realized that all four of his limbs were lost in the blast. Instead of defeat, however, Corporal Nicely faced his injuries with the same warrior spirit he showed on the battlefield. This brave marine has astounded many with his swift progress--evidence of his unwavering spirit and courage among overwhelming odds. Corporal Nicely remains one of the few surviving quadruple amputees from the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. At Bethesda Naval Hospital and Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Corporal Nicely has endured--and surpassed--these odds with the love and support of his lovely wife Crystal, who also served her country as a marine. His story, courage and unwavering service make me proud to be an American. Our prayers and thoughts are with Corporal Nicely and his family, and I ask unanimous consent that this poem--penned in honor of this great American, by Bert Caswell--be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, today Members of the Senate will go to the White House to meet with President Obama on energy legislation. There is general agreement among Republicans that we need to do more to promote clean energy and reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. We also need real reform of our oilspill protection laws and agencies. However, today I talk about where we disagree, and that is on the Democratic proposal to impose a national energy tax related to carbon emissions. The President will try to convince Senators and the public to impose a national energy tax. Of course, he will use fancy terms such as ``pricing carbon.'' But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck, and this duck is an energy tax. One form the Democratic national energy tax will take is a tax on gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Senator Hutchison and I just released a new report documenting the size of the gas tax in the Kerry-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill. My colleagues can find it on our office Web sites. The Kerry-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill includes a $3.4 trillion gas tax--with a ``t.'' That is an average of $90 billion a year. The number is so large because Americans consume a lot of fuel--over 200 billion gallons a year. Putting a price on the carbon in this fuel, as Democrats and President Obama want to do, will impose a massive new tax increase on the American people. You don't have to take my word for it. Anyone can add up the cost of this new gas tax. We used all publicly available government information, such as the fuel consumption data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency and carbon pricing estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency. The rest is just simple addition and multiplication--multiplication and multiplication and multiplication--combining how much fuel we will use with the carbon tax rate they propose. The $3.4 trillion figure is based on EPA's estimates of future carbon prices. By law, as proposed by Kerry-Lieberman, the gas tax could be as high as $7.6 trillion if carbon prices hit the price ceilings in this bill. Kerry-Lieberman's $3.4 trillion total gas tax will include a $1.9 trillion gasoline tax on families, workers, and small businesses, a $1.1 trillion diesel tax on farmers, truckers, and businesses, and a $425 billion jet fuel tax on airline passengers. Of course, politicians do not want to admit they support a new multitrillion-dollar gas tax. They use code words such as ``pricing carbon'' or ``requiring the purchase of allowances.'' They also try to take advantage of the current disasters, such as the gulf oilspill, to impose a new gasoline tax. I say we should be punishing BP, not the American people, with a new gas tax. A gas tax will not stop the oil from leaking, it will not clean up the oil that has been spilled, and it will not do anything to restore the environment in the coastal areas where that oil will hit. To quote an MIT economist highlighted this week: People are kidding themselves to believe that penalizing carbon will significantly shrink oil imports or the need for offshore drilling. EPA's recent analysis of Kerry-Lieberman confirms this, showing that U.S. fuel consumption would decrease by only \1/2\ percent by 2050. All we do with a new gas tax is take trillions of dollars from American families and workers with no real impact on our oil dependency. In fact, the thing that has slowed gasoline consumption in the United States has been the recession. When people are out of work and businesses are not selling and work is not being done, then consumption goes down. Is that how we want to reduce dependence on foreign oil and reduce pollution? I say not. Sponsors say a portion of these funds is going to the highway trust fund. However, this bill sends less than 2 percent of its value to the trust fund, or only a few billion dollars per year by my calculations. Even that will end in 2040. Sponsors also point to their refund program where they claim they will give back two-thirds of the carbon tax revenues the government will take in. How many trust the Federal Government to return tax revenue to us once they get their tax-and-spend fingers on it? They have schemes that will send that money to politically favored groups. That is what has happened in the past, and that is what will happen in the future. While they give back two-thirds of the revenues, the government still keeps one-third of the tax. One-third of a $3.4 trillion gas tax means American families and workers, even if they got it back on a fair pro rata basis--which nobody believes they will--Americans will still face $1.1 trillion in net new taxes from the gas tax. You know something funny must be going on when big oil actually supports this bill. You heard me right; big oil supports this bill. BP, Shell, and ConocoPhillips actually helped draft Kerry-Lieberman. Do my colleagues know why they did that? They are not worried about a tax on gasoline because they know every single penny will be shifted to the consumers with their profit margins added. It may not be a bad deal for the gas and oil companies, but it is a bad deal for all of us as consumers. Big oil knows they can pass most of the new tax on to consumers, so they are not worried about it. But Senator Hutchison and I remain deeply worried about families, farmers, truckers, small businesses, and fliers who will pay this $3.4 trillion gas tax. There is a better way. We can come together on new incentives for hybrid and electric cars, nuclear power, advanced fuels such as cellulosic ethanol and biomass, and even higher fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. But what we should not do is punish American families, farmers, workers, and businesses with a $3.4 trillion gas tax. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words about our departed colleague. This week the Senate lost its longest serving Member not only of the Senate but of the Congress. More than that, the Nation lost a true servant of the people. From humble beginnings, Senator Byrd was, first and foremost, a champion for the people of West Virginia. Throughout his many years of service, there has been no greater student, teacher, and protector of the Senate institution. Senator Byrd was not only a guardian of the Senate institution, he was a guardian of the rights our Nation holds dear, which is why his most constant companion was the Constitution of the United States in his pocket. I had the opportunity, when I first arrived in the Senate in 1990, to work on the acid rain trading provisions in the Clean Air Act. It was known as the Byrd-Bond amendment. We called it the Bond-Byrd amendment back in Missouri. The acid rain trading system has worked because there was technology available. The cost enabled the equitable sharing of the major utilities which had to install expensive equipment that provided more benefit than they needed so they could sell off the other parts of their credits to smaller companies that could not afford to install expensive equipment. That was just a small success for Senator Byrd. He was a true champion. He will be missed on the Senate floor. My thoughts and prayers are with Senator Byrd's family, his staff, and the people of West Virginia.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my friend and colleague from North Dakota has been kind enough to allow me to speak because of some scheduling concerns, and I ask unanimous consent when I complete my remarks he be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 3538 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, over the past several months, our Homeland has experienced direct terrorist attacks against two military bases and attempted terrorist attacks on Christmas Day and in Times Square. These attacks quickly captured the attention of the American public and stand as stark reminders of the threats our Nation continues to face from terrorists across the globe. After these recent attacks, I have no doubt that every American is aware of the threat from a terrorist with a bomb, which could take out a city block or bring down an airplane. But I am afraid that right now, the American public is largely unaware of a silent threat that could devastate our entire Nation--cyber attacks. These cyber attacks happen every day, but have remained largely under the public radar. Our government, businesses, citizens, and even social networking sites all have been hit. Cyber attacks are on the rise and unless our private sector and Congress start down a better path to protect our information networks, serious damage to our economy and our national security will follow. In an ever-increasing cyber age, where our financial system conducts trades via the Internet, families pay bills online, and the government uses computers to calculate benefits and implement war strategies, successful cyber attacks can be devastating. The nightmare scenarios no longer exist just in Hollywood movies. Imagine if a terrorist disrupted our air traffic control on an average day with more than 28,000 commercial aircraft in our skies; if a hacker took down Wall Street trading for just hours; or if an attack destroyed an electrical grid in a major city. Scenarios like these make it even more important that we listen to the recent comments by former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell who testified that ``[i]f we were in a cyber war today, the United States would lose.'' That is no insignificant statement coming from a military and intelligence veteran like Mike McConnell and it should cause all of us to pause and take a look at how we should neutralize this rising threat. Our networks and way of life could be taken down by an enemy state, a terrorist group, or a single hacker. That is why Senator Hatch and I are introducing the National Cyber Infrastructure Protection Act of 2010 today. Let me be blunt here: our enemies won't wait for us to do our homework, solve our turf battles, or modernize our laws before using our networks as a deadly weapon; in fact, the attacks have already started. We do not have another day to waste, and I believe our bill is the best solution to address this threat. This act is built on three principles: first, we must be clear about where Congress should, and, more importantly, should not legislate. Congress should set lanes in the road to protect our Nation's cyber security, but leave flexibility for the private sector and government to adapt to changing threats within those lanes. In 1978, when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was enacted, it put into law certain technologies. Those technologies changed and thus FISA was ineffective in enabling us to listen in on cell phone and e-mail traffic between terrorists in foreign countries. We have seen within the past few years the national security problems that can arise when laws are too rigid to keep pace with technology. We have also heard repeated concerns from industry, the private sector, and those operating critical infrastructure that overlegislating by Congress ultimately will make it harder to protect our networks as innovation and quick response get overrun by unnecessary regulatory schemes and mandates. Second, right now virtually every Federal department or agency has someone who is responsible for cyber security issues. But who makes sure that all those departments and agencies work together to protect all of our government networks? Who is the one person responsible, with authority to impact our cyber security strategies and activities? Unfortunately, right now, the answer is ``no one.'' To solve this problem, our bill establishes a National Cyber Center and designates a single, Senate-confirmed individual, accountable to the Congress and the American people and reporting directly to the President, to serve as the Director. The Director has the statutory responsibility and authority to coordinate activities to protect government networks and develop policies and procedures to help Federal agencies do the job. In order to reduce the center's operating costs and to capitalize on the cyber expertise we all know resides in the Department of Defense, the National Cyber Center is administratively placed in DOD. But, out of deference to concerns that the military should not have too much control over government networks, the center is not run by the Defense Department and the Director does not report to the Secretary of Defense. Because a key part of the center is to make sure the right people are talking to each other, the act requires those parts of DOD, the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation needed to carry out the center's missions to collocate and integrate within the center, much like the National Counterterrorism Center integrates elements of the intelligence community. Other Federal agencies may also participate in the center. As we put this bill together, former senior intelligence community officials told us that providing strong budget authority was essential for the Director to have the clout needed to do the job. And so, this act gives the Director clear input into cyber budgets across all Federal agencies, much like the Federal drug czar has in coordinating counterdrug budgets across different agencies. To hit this point home, the act also creates a National Cyber Security Program, similar to the National Intelligence Program. Such influence--influence that the current cyber czar simply does not have--is essential to creating a comprehensive, cost-effective approach to securing our government information networks. The third and final principle underlying this act is the idea that there must be a venue for the government and the private sector to collaborate and share information on cyber-related matters. The private sector is often on the front lines of cyber attacks, so any information it can provide to increase government awareness of the source and nature of cyber threats will make both government and the private sector stronger. The corollary to this is that the Government must share its own cyber threat information, including classified or declassified intelligence, with the private sector. Moreover, this collaboration, in order to be effective, must be voluntary. Once the private sector stands to gain technical advice and greater access to cyber threat information, there will be a clear incentive to join with the government in protecting our networks. Our bill codifies this collaboration, creating a public-private partnership known as the Cyber Defense Alliance to facilitate the flow of information about cyber threats and the latest technologies between the private sector and the government. The Alliance will be the clearinghouse for passing sensitive cyber threat information to the private and critical infrastructure entities on the front lines, but without compromising our intelligence sources and methods. We agree with intelligence experts and private sector representatives who have told us if the heavy hand of government drives this collaboration, it will not be effective. Therefore, the alliance will be managed by a board of directors consisting largely of private sector representatives and located in the Department of Energy, where the existing National Labs have great expertise to share. Because our private partners must know the information will not be compromised or other consequences will occur, the act gives solid protections from FOIA, antitrust restrictions, and other limitations. This bill is one of many cyber-bills introduced in Congress, so some may be asking why this approach is better. A key aspect of this bill is that it provides a practical public- private cyber infrastructure designed to address effectively the cyber threat rather than preserve the jurisdictional turf of any one agency or congressional oversight committee. In other words--I don't have a dog in this fight--I just want to pass the best bill to protect our networks. The cyber threat will only be eliminated when we get all of the public and private players working together in harmony under a common vision toward common mission objectives. Our bill does not impose mandates on industry and the private sector--mandates and regulations that form the core of other bills, raising substantial concerns among our industry and private sector partners. Our economy is in turmoil as it is and the last thing we need are mandates imposed on U.S. businesses that will put them at a serious competitive disadvantage and jeopardize their proprietary information in the global marketplace. Many industry partners have told us that if we mandate this it would put them at a competitive disadvantage. Finally, our bill moves away from the notion that creating a statutory cyber coordinator in the Executive Office of the President will solve the cyber security problem. The current cyber security coordinator in the White House has neither the authority nor the staff to coordinate the government's wide-range of cyber operations and strategies. Simply enshrining his position in statute will not overcome the claims of ``Executive Privilege'' that are bound to come when Congress asks for information and it will not guarantee the leadership necessary to address the cyber threat. Also, I think many of my colleagues would agree that now is not the time to give the Department of Homeland Security more responsibility, as some of the cyber bills out there want to do. I don't think many in this Chamber would disagree that DHS is already overburdened. The bill we are introducing today has already earned praise from the electric power sector because of the cooperative relationship that the Cyber Defense Alliance created in this bill fosters between the government and private sector. The entities that are part of the electric power sector recognize that this bill builds on what is already working and creates the infrastructure necessary to ensure a cooperative relationship between all of the relevant public and private cyber players to address the evolving cyber-security threat. I ask unanimous consent that this statement from the electric power sector be made a part of the Record.

Mr. BOND. In addition, because, the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, believe no legislation in this area should impede the intelligence community's ability to protect our nation from terrorist attacks and other threats, we asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for an informal assessment of our bill. They told us that, unlike other bills that have been introduced, this bill protects intelligence community equities, especially with respect to protecting classified intelligence sources and methods. The National Cyber Infrastructure Protection Act of 2010 provides broad lanes in the road, without micromanaging, to give all partners in cyber security, whether government or private, the flexibility to defend against threats from our enemies. The private sector already has a tremendous incentive to protect their own networks; all the Federal Government needs to do is support them with technology and information and get out of the way. Cyber attackers have been stealing intellectual property, threatening to take down our critical infrastructure, and gaining insight into our national security networks. The longer Congress waits to act, the more our vulnerability to these attacks increases. The National Cyber Infrastructure Protection Act will put the Government, our critical infrastructure companies, and the private sector on the right path to securing our networks. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, over the past several months, our Homeland has experienced direct terrorist attacks against two military bases and attempted terrorist attacks on Christmas Day and in Times Square. These attacks quickly captured the attention of the American public and stand as stark reminders of the threats our Nation continues to face from terrorists across the globe. After these recent attacks, I have no doubt that every American is aware of the threat from a terrorist with a bomb, which could take out a city block or bring down an airplane. But I am afraid that right now, the American public is largely unaware of a silent threat that could devastate our entire Nation--cyber attacks. These cyber attacks happen every day, but have remained largely under the public radar. Our government, businesses, citizens, and even social networking sites all have been hit. Cyber attacks are on the rise and unless our private sector and Congress start down a better path to protect our information networks, serious damage to our economy and our national security will follow. In an ever-increasing cyber age, where our financial system conducts trades via the Internet, families pay bills online, and the government uses computers to calculate benefits and implement war strategies, successful cyber attacks can be devastating. The nightmare scenarios no longer exist just in Hollywood movies. Imagine if a terrorist disrupted our air traffic control on an average day with more than 28,000 commercial aircraft in our skies; if a hacker took down Wall Street trading for just hours; or if an attack destroyed an electrical grid in a major city. Scenarios like these make it even more important that we listen to the recent comments by former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell who testified that ``[i]f we were in a cyber war today, the United States would lose.'' That is no insignificant statement coming from a military and intelligence veteran like Mike McConnell and it should cause all of us to pause and take a look at how we should neutralize this rising threat. Our networks and way of life could be taken down by an enemy state, a terrorist group, or a single hacker. That is why Senator Hatch and I are introducing the National Cyber Infrastructure Protection Act of 2010 today. Let me be blunt here: our enemies won't wait for us to do our homework, solve our turf battles, or modernize our laws before using our networks as a deadly weapon; in fact, the attacks have already started. We do not have another day to waste, and I believe our bill is the best solution to address this threat. This act is built on three principles: first, we must be clear about where Congress should, and, more importantly, should not legislate. Congress should set lanes in the road to protect our Nation's cyber security, but leave flexibility for the private sector and government to adapt to changing threats within those lanes. In 1978, when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was enacted, it put into law certain technologies. Those technologies changed and thus FISA was ineffective in enabling us to listen in on cell phone and e-mail traffic between terrorists in foreign countries. We have seen within the past few years the national security problems that can arise when laws are too rigid to keep pace with technology. We have also heard repeated concerns from industry, the private sector, and those operating critical infrastructure that overlegislating by Congress ultimately will make it harder to protect our networks as innovation and quick response get overrun by unnecessary regulatory schemes and mandates. Second, right now virtually every Federal department or agency has someone who is responsible for cyber security issues. But who makes sure that all those departments and agencies work together to protect all of our government networks? Who is the one person responsible, with authority to impact our cyber security strategies and activities? Unfortunately, right now, the answer is ``no one.'' To solve this problem, our bill establishes a National Cyber Center and designates a single, Senate-confirmed individual, accountable to the Congress and the American people and reporting directly to the President, to serve as the Director. The Director has the statutory responsibility and authority to coordinate activities to protect government networks and develop policies and procedures to help Federal agencies do the job. In order to reduce the center's operating costs and to capitalize on the cyber expertise we all know resides in the Department of Defense, the National Cyber Center is administratively placed in DOD. But, out of deference to concerns that the military should not have too much control over government networks, the center is not run by the Defense Department and the Director does not report to the Secretary of Defense. Because a key part of the center is to make sure the right people are talking to each other, the act requires those parts of DOD, the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation needed to carry out the center's missions to collocate and integrate within the center, much like the National Counterterrorism Center integrates elements of the intelligence community. Other Federal agencies may also participate in the center. As we put this bill together, former senior intelligence community officials told us that providing strong budget authority was essential for the Director to have the clout needed to do the job. And so, this act gives the Director clear input into cyber budgets across all Federal agencies, much like the Federal drug czar has in coordinating counterdrug budgets across different agencies. To hit this point home, the act also creates a National Cyber Security Program, similar to the National Intelligence Program. Such influence--influence that the current cyber czar simply does not have--is essential to creating a comprehensive, cost-effective approach to securing our government information networks. The third and final principle underlying this act is the idea that there must be a venue for the government and the private sector to collaborate and share information on cyber-related matters. The private sector is often on the front lines of cyber attacks, so any information it can provide to increase government awareness of the source and nature of cyber threats will make both government and the private sector stronger. The corollary to this is that the Government must share its own cyber threat information, including classified or declassified intelligence, with the private sector. Moreover, this collaboration, in order to be effective, must be voluntary. Once the private sector stands to gain technical advice and greater access to cyber threat information, there will be a clear incentive to join with the government in protecting our networks. Our bill codifies this collaboration, creating a public-private partnership known as the Cyber Defense Alliance to facilitate the flow of information about cyber threats and the latest technologies between the private sector and the government. The Alliance will be the clearinghouse for passing sensitive cyber threat information to the private and critical infrastructure entities on the front lines, but without compromising our intelligence sources and methods. We agree with intelligence experts and private sector representatives who have told us if the heavy hand of government drives this collaboration, it will not be effective. Therefore, the alliance will be managed by a board of directors consisting largely of private sector representatives and located in the Department of Energy, where the existing National Labs have great expertise to share. Because our private partners must know the information will not be compromised or other consequences will occur, the act gives solid protections from FOIA, antitrust restrictions, and other limitations. This bill is one of many cyber-bills introduced in Congress, so some may be asking why this approach is better. A key aspect of this bill is that it provides a practical public- private cyber infrastructure designed to address effectively the cyber threat rather than preserve the jurisdictional turf of any one agency or congressional oversight committee. In other words--I don't have a dog in this fight--I just want to pass the best bill to protect our networks. The cyber threat will only be eliminated when we get all of the public and private players working together in harmony under a common vision toward common mission objectives. Our bill does not impose mandates on industry and the private sector--mandates and regulations that form the core of other bills, raising substantial concerns among our industry and private sector partners. Our economy is in turmoil as it is and the last thing we need are mandates imposed on U.S. businesses that will put them at a serious competitive disadvantage and jeopardize their proprietary information in the global marketplace. Many industry partners have told us that if we mandate this it would put them at a competitive disadvantage. Finally, our bill moves away from the notion that creating a statutory cyber coordinator in the Executive Office of the President will solve the cyber security problem. The current cyber security coordinator in the White House has neither the authority nor the staff to coordinate the government's wide-range of cyber operations and strategies. Simply enshrining his position in statute will not overcome the claims of ``Executive Privilege'' that are bound to come when Congress asks for information and it will not guarantee the leadership necessary to address the cyber threat. Also, I think many of my colleagues would agree that now is not the time to give the Department of Homeland Security more responsibility, as some of the cyber bills out there want to do. I don't think many in this Chamber would disagree that DHS is already overburdened. The bill we are introducing today has already earned praise from the electric power sector because of the cooperative relationship that the Cyber Defense Alliance created in this bill fosters between the government and private sector. The entities that are part of the electric power sector recognize that this bill builds on what is already working and creates the infrastructure necessary to ensure a cooperative relationship between all of the relevant public and private cyber players to address the evolving cyber-security threat. I ask unanimous consent that this statement from the electric power sector be made a part of the Record.

Mr. BOND. In addition, because, the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, believe no legislation in this area should impede the intelligence community's ability to protect our nation from terrorist attacks and other threats, we asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for an informal assessment of our bill. They told us that, unlike other bills that have been introduced, this bill protects intelligence community equities, especially with respect to protecting classified intelligence sources and methods. The National Cyber Infrastructure Protection Act of 2010 provides broad lanes in the road, without micromanaging, to give all partners in cyber security, whether government or private, the flexibility to defend against threats from our enemies. The private sector already has a tremendous incentive to protect their own networks; all the Federal Government needs to do is support them with technology and information and get out of the way. Cyber attackers have been stealing intellectual property, threatening to take down our critical infrastructure, and gaining insight into our national security networks. The longer Congress waits to act, the more our vulnerability to these attacks increases. The National Cyber Infrastructure Protection Act will put the Government, our critical infrastructure companies, and the private sector on the right path to securing our networks. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I wish to extend my thanks to Dr. Robert Tabash for dedicating his career to the Holy Family Hospital in Bethlehem, Palestine. Thanks to his concern for the people of Palestine, Dr. Tabash has created a hospital that is truly an oasis of peace in the troubled region and is a shining example of humanitarian assistance. Dr. Tabash's work to build an oasis of peace to serve mothers and babies in conflict-torn Palestine has not been an easy road. After serving as a staff physician beginning in 1971, Dr. Tabash was appointed the Director of Administration to the Holy Family Hospital in 1985. That same year the hospital was forced to close due to the Arab- Israeli conflict. After a 5-year renovation period, Dr. Tabash's vision finally came to life when the hospital was inaugurated. That same year, Dr. Tabash saw the first baby born in the new facility. Since, the hospital has successfully delivered over 50,000 newborns. With the only neonatal intensive care unit in the area, Holy Family Hospital has amazingly limited the mortality rate to around 2 percent, on par with Western hospitals and remarkably different than the roughly 30 percent mortality rate found in government-run hospitals in the West Bank. This impressive success rate with high risk pregnancies and track record for saving premature babies makes the Hospital special. But what makes Holy Family truly shine is their commitment to serving pregnant women and babies in the West Bank, regardless of religion or race. Despite this commitment, more than 90 percent of Holy Family's patients are Muslim. Backed by U.S. dollars--and I am proud to have secured $3.5 million for the hospital in 2005--Holy Family not only gives the unborn a chance at life in a troubled part of the world, it also works to dispel the false notions that America is at war with the Muslim world and sides only with the Israeli people. Holy Family Hospital is one of the most successful and touching examples of Smart Power in the Middle East--where through non-military engagement, like diplomacy, education, and in this case, humanitarian assistance, we can win hearts and minds, a necessary first step to peace. Dr. Tabash is a Christian Palestinian doctor. Born in Bethlehem himself, it is Dr. Tabash, and his endless devotion to serving the most vulnerable in Bethlehem--pregnant mothers and babies--that has made the hospital the success story it is today. Dr. Tabash is the rare individual who recognizes that the work of one person--every person-- can make a difference. Through his work, Dr. Tabash has saved thousands of babies' lives and touched countless more. On the occasion of Dr. Tabash's retirement I offer gratitude and congratulations for the good Doctor's contributions--to the lives of many mothers and babies and to the long-hoped dream of peace in the Middle East.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Thune amendment. In a few weeks we will celebrate our Nation's birthday. I find it ironic that 234 years after our forefathers first led the fight for independence with the battle cry of ``no taxation without representation,'' I am hearing similar protests from Missourians today. Their frustration is not only understandable, it is warranted. Missourians and, I believe, Americans in every State across our Nation have said: No more. They have said no to runaway spending. They have said no to more big government policies. Failing to represent these views, the majority in Congress has fallen down on the job. It is no wonder that Americans feel as though Washington is not listening since my friends on the other side of the aisle are asking us to ignore our Nation's $13 trillion debt, the largest in our Nation's history, and pass a bill that would add nearly another $79 billion to the deficit. But there is a better way. There is a more responsible way. My colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, has offered a substitute amendment that is paid for--paid for--cuts the deficit by $68 billion, and includes all the major priorities agreed to on a bipartisan basis by Democrats and Republicans. In the Thune substitute, of which I am a proud cosponsor, we have a real opportunity to show the American people that we in Washington are listening. We have an opportunity to show the American people we are serious about addressing the most severe financial crisis this country has ever faced, and we have an opportunity for a rare moment of bipartisanship which, in recent years, has become all too uncommon in this body. As does the proposal from Senator Baucus, the Republican alternative extends expiring unemployment benefits for struggling families until November; and as does the Baucus bill, the Republican alternative extends tax breaks to small businesses which they so desperately need to get back on their feet and start creating jobs. We need to assure them the longstanding tax benefits they depend on will continue. However, unlike the Baucus bill which the majority is using as a vehicle to increase taxes permanently, increase spending and increase the deficit, the Republican alternative cuts taxes even more by an additional $26 billion, cuts spending by over $100 billion and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, reduces--reduces--the deficit by $68 billion, instead of increasing it. The Thune amendment also stops the cuts to doctors and provides a 2- percent increase in Medicare reimbursement payments that go to doctors this year, and an additional 2 percent in 2011 and 2012. That is one more year than the doc fix in the Baucus bill, and it is actually paid for, not put on our children's credit cards. I have heard from doctors across Missouri and they can no longer face the devastating cuts that threaten their livelihood and threaten our seniors' access to care. They are telling me they are going to have to stop taking Medicare patients, because the way Medicare is implemented now, they only get 80 percent of what it costs them to provide the service and they are saying, We just can't cut any more--we can't take any more Medicare patients. Hospitals are saying the same thing. That is before the half trillion dollar cut in Medicare reimbursement comes in. It perplexes me that the majority has not addressed that problem in what they told us was a comprehensive health care law. Something else that was largely left out of the new health care bill was malpractice reform. The Thune amendment corrects this oversight and enacts comprehensive medical malpractice reform that will save up to $49 billion over 10 years. My friend from Montana, Senator Baucus, takes the opposite approach. The bill he and the majority leader are asking us to support increases spending by $126 billion, including over $70 billion in new and permanent tax increases, and will increase the deficit by $79 billion over the next 10 years. The Baucus-Reid bill is exactly the kind of approach that history has shown us won't work and the American people have told us they don't want. The American people have had it with Washington-gone-wild policies. They have had enough of the spending, the tax increases, the debt, the bailouts, the big government job-killing policies that have been pushed through Congress and have been supported by the administration. Today, the Republican alternative offers the majority an opportunity to reverse course, to end the out-of-control spending and get serious about fiscal responsibility. When facing a crisis, words mean very little. To say you are concerned about the debt while voting to increase it means very little to our children and grandchildren who will have that bill on their credit cards and will have to foot the bill in the future. As the old country and western song goes: We need a little less talk and a lot more action. The Thune amendment offers us a real chance to bring sanity back to Washington policies and for Members of this body to show the American people they are serious about meeting needs while also addressing our growing deficit. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Thune amendment and, after months of ignoring them, finally demonstrate to the American people that, yes, we are listening to them, we are concerned, we are going to do something about the debt, the deficit, and the other problems this country faces. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise in support of the Murkowski EPA disapproval resolution. We must prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from imposing a backdoor energy tax on suffering families and workers. This is our chance to stand with American families and workers and stand against unelected bureaucrats at EPA trying to expand government's reach. Missouri families and workers do not want the higher energy costs and lost jobs that would come from allowing EPA's big government carbon regulations to go forward. Missouri manufacturing workers, like those in States across the Midwest, are dependent on affordable energy. Missouri workers would suffer terribly when EPA's carbon regulations drive up the cost of their energy and raw materials. Allowing the regulations to go forward would allow India, China, and other counties to take those energy-intensive jobs away from American workers. Missouri families, like those in States across the Midwest, are struggling to pay their power, heating, and cooling bills. Missouri families would suffer even more when EPA carbon regulations drive up the cost of their electricity, gas, and gasoline bills. Allowing EPA carbon regulations to go forward would punish Missouri families with higher energy prices. Like all families and workers in the Midwest, Missourians wonder why we would allow EPA to impose this punishing pain for no environmental benefits. Let me make it clear: For those who want to talk about what this vote means for the science of global emissions, EPA itself admits that unilateral U.S. actions, without China and India, which have clearly indicated they will not take action, will have no measurable impact on world temperatures. So if you actually believe the climate science and want world temperatures to stop rising, these EPA regulations will do nothing to address your concerns. You are basically telling us you want to impose trillions of dollars in costs, hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes, and hundreds of billions of dollars in new government spending for no environmental gain. Some also try to hide behind the auto deal between EPA, the State of California, and automakers. We should not punish Midwestern families and workers with a new energy tax in order to uphold some backroom deal between EPA, the automakers, and the State of California. Even so, these EPA regulations are totally unnecessary for those who care about reducing carbon emissions from vehicles. Let me be clear: Congress has already authorized the Department of Transportation to impose new, stricter auto emissions standards, and the Obama administration announced recently they were going to do so. So, again, opponents want to punish American families and workers with job-killing energy taxes for no net environmental gain. Some also say this issue is linked to the gulf oilspill and we should respond by allowing EPA's new backdoor energy taxes. For the life of me, I do not see how imposing a new national energy tax is the right response to the gulf oilspill. It will not stop the oil from flowing, it will not mitigate the environmental damage, and it will not compensate the workers and others for lost wages and revenue. We should be punishing British Petroleum, not the American people with new taxes. And do not be misled about the empty rhetoric against big oil. Big oil just passes along the cost of these taxes to us in higher prices for the gas and oil we must buy and we must use. But some, as they say, never want to let a crisis go to waste. Unfortunately, many of my Democratic colleagues seek any opportunity to expand the reach of government and impose new taxes. They admit it, too, although they use fancy ways to say it. This week, President Obama repeated his call for ``putting a price'' on carbon. These are code words for imposing a carbon tax. We also need to stop and think about what the majority leader has said. He and others have said that if EPA is allowed to move forward with their carbon regulations, it will cut oil usage. The reason is because this new energy tax will punish American consumers with so much pain at the pump, they will use less gasoline because they cannot afford it. It is like saying we need another recession because in a recession people drive less. We want recessions? That is hardly the way to make the economy thrive and make the progress we need. We must stop this policy of pain. We must stop EPA from moving forward with job-killing, energy cost-raising regulation. The choice is stark: Stand with EPA bureaucrats imposing a backdoor tax or stand with American families and workers. I urge my colleagues to stand with American families and workers and support the Murkowski amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to make some remarks on this extenders bill now before us. It would seem to me, from what I have heard as I traveled this past week, that Americans want to send a very clear message to Washington. They have had enough of runaway spending, exploding debt, the bailouts, and the job-killing policies coming out of this Congress and this administration. Unfortunately, with the bill on the floor now, it is clear that Washington, or most of it, has stopped listening to the American people. This bill is supposed to be about getting job creators some certainty that temporary tax benefits they rely on to retain workers will continue to be there. Instead, it seems Democrats cannot resist the opportunity to use this bill to expand the debt and extend the government reach because this $126 billion baby does all of the above. It is loaded up with unrelated spending that has nothing to do with extending necessary benefits and creating jobs. It is not fully paid for and would add another $78.7 billion to the debt. With the national debt at now a whopping $13 trillion, the American people have said enough. Our children and grandchildren, if they were here, would say: Don't put any more on our credit cards. Our debt is now at an unprecedented $13 trillion for the first time in history. This is no small milestone. Make no mistake, the next crisis our Nation must deal with is the exploding debt crisis that is upon us. I believe Chairman Bernanke referred to that today. I support the provisions in this bill that would give our small businesses, our job creators, the security that longstanding tax benefits they are counting on will continue. I also support extending necessary benefits such as the Medicare reimbursements to keep doctors supplying Medicare patients with health care. This was left out of the ObamaCare bill to make it look not as expensive as it really was. But we need to pay for that. The difference between our view on this side of the aisle and that of those on the other side of the aisle is that we should pay for temporary tax extensions with reductions and cuts in spending, not with permanent tax increases. We want to pay for necessary benefits with cuts now, not saddle our children and grandchildren with even more debt down the road. I believe most of my colleagues on this side of the aisle agree. Like me, many Republicans support some of the provisions buried in this boondoggle of a bill. In fact, many of these provisions would easily sail through the Senate, but Democrats continue to bury these provisions in massive spending bills such as the ones before us, compelling anyone who cares about our Nation's fiscal health to vote no. Americans are demanding that we say no, that we put an end to the Washington-gone-wild policies. They have had enough spending, tax increases, debt, bailout, government overreaching, and job-killing policies. Right now it appears that the majority is not listening. This bill contains provisions that will severely curtail the ability of U.S. businesses that operate internationally, and will drive countless more jobs and corporate headquarters overseas at a time when we should be focusing on job creation and improving the competitiveness of the United States. These tax increases are a step in the wrong direction. The President has even said we are going to have an economic recovery driven by exports. Well, he has not stepped up and said we need to do free trade agreements which would do that; free trade with Colombia, South Korea, Panama. This bill, by taxing the people who go overseas to create the opportunity for more exports of American goods, will obviously destroy our ability and lessen our ability to export more. As a technical matter, six of the eight international tax increases in the extenders bill have not even been considered in the committee. Two of the eight were in the President's Greenbook. The other six were only publicly bounced out for the first time May 20. This is $14.5 billion of tax increases over the next 10 years. Let me point out, as I have traveled overseas and looked at job creation, I have been stunned to see that America is one of only two countries that taxes businesses overseas and taxes them at home. Most other countries which are growing in their export and their influence overseas do not tax double. Well, we are taxing double and we are increasing those taxes now. Several of the international tax increases are retroactive tax increases. Many companies, in their reports with the SEC for the benefit of the investing public, have already claimed financial statement benefit for certain foreign tax credits they have already earned but for which they have not yet claimed credit. The retroactive tax increases affect companies that have already claimed credit for the tax credits to which they were entitled. They have been treated properly as money in the bank. This extenders bill would cause such companies to lose the credits, issue earnings restatements and perhaps even lay off U.S. employees. These international tax increases are permanent changes to the Internal Revenue Code, meant to pay for 1 year of temporary provisions in the Internal Revenue Code, a real mismatch. And how will the extenders be paid for next year? Some on the other side may say these tax increases are necessary to preserve American jobs or keep business in America. Well, I can tell you firsthand that is not the way it works. If you say that, you do not understand economics and international business. I have made many statements on this floor and written a book about how the best foreign policy we can have is export and foreign investment from this country. It is vitally important as a foreign policy imperative, but also, I have seen firsthand that investment overseas not only creates wealth overseas, but it brings more exports from the United States, creating more jobs here. So it is a win-win for both countries. Foreign countries where we want to strengthen their economy are crying for investments and for more of our exports because that is how we can help them grow. But these tax increases make it less likely that American businesses will hire, that American businesses will grow. Instead, Germany, India, and Chinese companies, Australia, and the British will outcompete us. They will be hiring more as they grow overseas and as we shrink. This is not the way we should move forward in job creation. You may say there are reforms needed in the international tax arena, but I think the biggest reform is to put us back on the same footing as most other countries in the world that do not tax overseas. Why are we the only ones? We are one of only two that do it. Does it make good economic sense to penalize productive investment abroad which brings back profits, capital, and export opportunities here at home? That is just one. That is a $14\1/2\ billion job killer. Another $14 billion job killer is on entrepreneurs, the people who are creating jobs and need to have venture capital. This is designed to cut the ability of venture capital groups to put together the money you need for researchers or inventors who are creating jobs. I happen to be very interested in this, because my State of Missouri has tremendous research in universities and in organizations such as the Danforth Plant Science Center coming up with innovation in agricultural biotechnology that can provide better food, better products, pharmaceuticals, improve the environment, and improve the well being of people around the world. But there is a big jump between having something in the lab that may work and getting it out in sufficient quantity to supply the Nation and the world. Under the current law, entrepreneurs have a clear signal to take risks on investments in partnerships. The signal is this: They pay a 15-percent tax if they put their time and effort to bring money and ideas together and make it workable. They have to pay a 15-percent tax when it becomes valuable enough to sell. That clear signal incentivizes the flow of capital into startup and other ventures. You cut that off and we are going to see venture capital-driven new business opportunities disappear. What are we thinking about? Let's go back. The No. 1 concern of Missourians, of Americans, is creating jobs. These are the jobs of the 21st century. We are losing lots of jobs of the 20th century. We have to replace them with the jobs of the 21st century. That is where venture capital comes in working with entrepreneurs, working with researchers, bringing together the business acumen, the business skill to get these good ideas into provable products in the marketplace and supply the needs of the people in the world. Unfortunately, the majority and the Obama administration want to raise that rate to 33 percent in a little over 6 months. This 33- percent hit is set to be augmented by an additional tax hike on the part of the partnership gain attributable to carried interest. It means there is a double whammy coming at startups and other business entities seeking capital to grow and, by the way, not incidentally, primarily create jobs. We want jobs. Stop the idea of taxing people who are going to create jobs. Rule 1, if you want more of something, tax it less. If you want less of something, tax it more. We want less jobs. That is the message this substitute sends. The double whammy on startups and other businesses would mean that almost half that carried interest, that is now capital gain, would be treated as ordinary income. So with ordinary rates set to rise to almost 40 percent, which will help kill small businesses, it means two-thirds of that carried interest would be almost 40 percent. That is a lot worse deal. That is the kind of thing this country cannot afford when we need jobs. Even though many in the business sector said they want some of the extenders, the temporary extenders the bill includes, research and development and other things, they do not want them if the price of getting them is these international tax increases. Those opposing the bill include the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the National Foreign Trade Council, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Information Technology Council, IBM, and Microsoft. You can see that the innovative companies in our country know this is going to shrink their business if these tax increases go forward and it is going to cut both in international exports and to startup venture capital. This goes back to what the Gallup poll has shown, that only 16 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, and 80 percent disapprove. If you poll those who will lose their jobs, the disapproval rate would be even higher. I believe the only way to restore America's confidence in elected officials, particularly in this body, is to prove we are listening. The folks in my home State of Missouri, like most Americans, want Congress and the President to quit treating their hard-earned tax dollars like Monopoly money. The folks in Missouri want me to vote no and oppose any effort to pile more debt on our children and grandchildren, and to oppose efforts that would tax exports and job-creating investments in small and growing businesses. I have heard. I am listening. I want to act on it. I hope my colleagues will join me. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.