Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I am pleased to follow the Senator from Minnesota because we did work on a piece of legislation, which she perfected. It was my bill that first passed on stalking that would take the antistalking laws nationwide because so often it happens across State lines, and so we had to put it all together so that if someone did cross State lines to stalk a woman or her children or a man or anyone, that would be prosecutable. I was so pleased Senator Klobuchar then came with a bill which I was proud to cosponsor which updated the technology criminals now use to harass, scare and really make life miserable for people they know. I had a stalker myself for about 12 years. I didn't know him, but he certainly did make my life different, that is for sure. And sometimes it is worse than what I experienced because there are actual threats. I will never forget the time I got a call from an attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Austin, TX, and he said: I just wanted you to know we got our first conviction under your antistalking law. It was a man who was harassing his ex-wife and his children, threatening them with a gun, and we were able to put him away and make that family a lot safer. I thought, you know, we live to actually know something we have done makes a difference. So I thank the Senator from Minnesota for carrying that forward. Honoring Our Foreign Servants I rise today, Madam President, to talk about Neil Armstrong and about NASA, but I can't stand here today with what is going on in the Middle East and not say that I join the thousands and maybe millions of others who mourn the loss of a U.S. Ambassador who was killed in Libya. You know, I would mourn any U.S. Ambassador who is killed in the line of duty, but it makes it even harder when we know this one was doing such a great job. Christopher Stevens had dedicated his life really trying to make peace and trying to be a force for the positive in the Middle East. He was our Ambassador to Libya. I am sad to say it appears this was a plot. It was not an accident. It wasn't something that happened because he happened to be in the consulate. It apparently was a premeditated murder of our Ambassador. And I know the whole country mourns the loss of someone who tried so hard to do what is right and to then have this happen. So I want to pay my respects to him and to all who knew and worked with him. In the travels I have been fortunate to make as a U.S. Senator, I am always so impressed with the representatives of the United States in our embassies and consulates throughout the world. Our Foreign Service representatives do a fabulous job. They take their lives and put them in danger sometimes, especially in countries that are strife-torn, as certainly Libya is right now and Egypt as well. So my great respect goes out to our Foreign Service community, and I think we have just been reminded of the service they give and the sacrifices they make. Honoring Neil Armstrong Madam President, I wish to speak today about the life of a gentle giant, Neil Armstrong, and also about the future of NASA. This all came together this week because I have just returned from the National Cathedral, where I joined congressional colleagues, Senators, and many others in paying our final respects to a man who unquestionably was a true American hero. Of course, we know Neil Armstrong made world history when he stepped out on the Moon's surface for the first time an American had done so and he uttered those words that will be forever enshrined in American consciousness. They say that some seek fame and some have it thrust on them, but Neil Armstrong was the rare man who earned his fame and yet shied away from it at every turn. He preferred to live the life of, as he described it himself, ``a white-sock, pocket-protector, nerdy engineer.'' He chose to live a private life rather than bask in well- deserved glory. For that, he was more than a hero, he was a role model we would all be fortunate to follow. We have too few of those today. Neil Armstrong served his country in Korea, where he was a fighter pilot and was shot down. He certainly served at NASA, which we all know, and he served his community as a professor at the University of Cincinnati. He was a serious, dedicated scientist who loved what he did and just wanted to get the job done. There is a story told about him of an incident that occurred during training before the Moon landing where his vehicle forced an ejection. His only injury was biting his own tongue, but it was a near-death incident nonetheless. It was a very lucky escape. Another astronaut saw Neil working at his desk and said he had heard about Neil being thrown out of his vehicle. Then he asked when it happened, and Neil said: About an hour ago. The astronaut--Alan Bean--later told Neil's biographer: I can't think of another person, let alone another astronaut, who would have just gone back to his office after ejecting a fraction of a second before getting killed. I was lucky enough to know Neil Armstrong. We first met when he, Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell, and Gene Cernan expressed concern over the administration's proposal to abandon NASA's manned space exploration program. They wrote an open letter. And let me tell you, when the first and last men to set foot on the Moon had an issue with the direction of NASA, everybody listened. It was a rare occasion that these astronaut leaders would speak publicly on such an issue, and considering Neil's propensity to shy away from the spotlight, it had even more significance. But he thought it was important, and a great bipartisan number of our colleagues agreed it was important that he chose to speak out on this very important issue. The plan proposed canceling the existing space exploration program and suspending plans to build a replacement for the space shuttle. It placed immediate reliance on commercial capabilities, which at the time were undeveloped and unproven. Neil was particularly concerned about leaning too heavily on commercial crew vehicles because he rightly believed NASA should have ultimate ownership and stewardship of the next phase of deep space exploration. When I asked if that group would testify before the Senate Commerce Committee and give us the benefit of their immense experience, Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan were able to do so. Their testimony in May of 2010 helped us craft the NASA Reauthorization Act of 2010, which we managed to pass with a balanced plan that prioritized NASA's development of future exploration beyond low Earth orbit, while putting significant resources into commercial development of crew vehicles to the space station. We passed it unanimously in the Senate, very bipartisan, and we passed it on Neil Armstrong's birthday--on August 5, 2010. When the space shuttle was retired, some thought the space program was ended. You know, I took a group of Cub Scouts to Johnson Space Center in Houston just a few months ago. They have a great program for our Scouts--well, for any group who actually wants to go and spend the night at the visitor's center at Johnson Space Center. They get to tour NASA and hear about the great feats of our country in space. And one of the little boys said to our NASA administrator at Johnson: Gosh, I am really sorry the space program is ending. And I was shocked and the administrator was shocked, and we said: Oh, but it is not ending. The space program is not ending. If we allow people to think, if we allow our young--possibly the next generation of astronauts and scientists--to think the program is ending, are they going to be inspired to take those courses in aeronautical engineering that will give them the background to propel them to the next level of space exploration that is going to do things maybe we haven't even thought of yet? We would eliminate the potential that manned space exploration can produce in the next decade. We had a hearing in the Commerce Committee yesterday where we heard from NASA scientists about the Mars rover called Curiosity. It was just breathtaking to hear the advancements that we have made with that rover that is now plodding around exploring the dirt and the rocks and the atmosphere on Mars. One of the scientists pointed out that these NASA programs aren't just about exploration, they result in technologies that we use every day and that make our lives better right here on Earth. One pointed out that Curiosity is the first step in the next frontier of space, probing the atmosphere and geology of Mars. Each mission will build on the success of the last, and these robots and rovers that are going up now will be the precursors to the time when we put people--astronauts--on Mars. There are myriads of practical results from NASA's programs, and there are many reasons to keep them alive and fully funded, but I think the astronauts--Neil Armstrong, Jim Lovell, and Gene Cernan put it best in their open letter: America's space accomplishments earned the respect and admiration of the world. Science probes were unlocking the secrets of the cosmos. Space technology was providing instantaneous worldwide communication; orbital sentinels were helping man understand the vagaries of nature. Above all else, the people around the world were inspired by the human exploration of space and the expanding of man's frontier. It suggested that what had been thought to be impossible was now within reach. Gene Cernan was one of those who gave the eulogy today at Neil Armstrong's memorial service at the National Cathedral. He gave a personal account. They were very close friends. They went fishing together. They had a long-term and lasting mutual respect, admiration, and friendship. America cannot lose its preeminence in space. We are the leaders of the free world, and we are the natural leaders beyond its atmosphere. This is not done in dominance or hegemony but to ensure that technology can be used for our economic benefit. The satellites we have discovered with the space exploration have transformed communications, and satellite-guided missiles have given us defense capabilities that hit the target with less collateral damage. This is my last of 19 wonderful years in the United States Senate, during which I have championed and fought for NASA and our manned spacecraft and space flight programs. I have worked with so many dedicated colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I am proud of what we have accomplished. I am asking that my colleagues do not let all of the hard work of the past be for nothing. We saved the manned exploration program, but there is so much more to be done. NASA must continue to be a priority. I am a budget cutter. I will match anyone with the budget cutting that I think we need to do in this country. But the key for Congress is to remember what the Constitution says: The purse strings belong to Congress. So our responsibility is to set that cap on spending--set that cap at the lowest level we can and cover our functions that are necessary to run the government of this country. The normal average spending of the Federal Government is about 20 percent of our gross domestic product. We are up to 24 percent in the last few years. We have to come back. We have to come back to 20. We may have to go to 18 in order to end at 20, but we must not refuse to set the priorities that will make sure we have a strong economy in the future. We must invest in the programs that will yield the benefits that will keep our economy going, our people working, and our engineers able to continue to produce the great things that have happened in our space program, in our medical research, and more. This is so important to all of us. America's competitiveness depends on maintaining our dominance in science and technology. We cannot do it without NASA. Neil Armstrong left his mark on the American people and on generations around the globe. This is his enduring legacy. Ours must be to maintain the great organization--NASA--that made him a legend and helped make America the greatest Nation on Earth. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this statement be included in the Record upon introduction of my legislation, the Church Plan Clarification Act of 2012, with Senator Cardin. Today, my colleague Senator Cardin and I are reintroducing this legislation, which refines the language included in our previous bill, S. 143. Our goal is to resolve an unfortunate application of our current pension rules on church pension beneficiaries, and protect the retirement security of ministers and church lay workers. Church pensions are critically important compensation plans that help support over one million clergy members across the country in their retirement--particularly those who dedicated their careers to serving in economically disadvantaged congregations. Some of these plans date back to the 18th Century, and they are designed to ensure that our pastors and lay staff, who are often paid lower salaries, have adequate resources during their retirement years. Today, denominational church plans provide benefits to an estimated one million-plus ministers, church workers, and their dependents, most of them working for small churches throughout the nation. Church plans developed structures and mechanisms that reflect the differing church polities they serve and their unique status has been recognized in law. However, recent IRS regulations governing 403(b) pension programs and legislative changes have resulted in uncertainty and compliance issues for church pension plans. In response, Senator Cardin and I sent a letter to the Internal Revenue Service informing them of our legislation, nothing that the unintended consequences of their regulations may negatively affect church ministers and church lay workers. I hope we can work to provide clarity for these distinctive plans and resolve this issue before the end of the year. This unequal treatment is simply unfair, and it is time we correct it. I ask my colleagues to join Senator Cardin and me today in establishing parity for the beneficiaries of church pensions by supporting this necessary, long overdue fix to the Internal Revenue Code. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this statement be included in the Record upon introduction of my legislation, the Church Plan Clarification Act of 2012, with Senator Cardin. Today, my colleague Senator Cardin and I are reintroducing this legislation, which refines the language included in our previous bill, S. 143. Our goal is to resolve an unfortunate application of our current pension rules on church pension beneficiaries, and protect the retirement security of ministers and church lay workers. Church pensions are critically important compensation plans that help support over one million clergy members across the country in their retirement--particularly those who dedicated their careers to serving in economically disadvantaged congregations. Some of these plans date back to the 18th Century, and they are designed to ensure that our pastors and lay staff, who are often paid lower salaries, have adequate resources during their retirement years. Today, denominational church plans provide benefits to an estimated one million-plus ministers, church workers, and their dependents, most of them working for small churches throughout the nation. Church plans developed structures and mechanisms that reflect the differing church polities they serve and their unique status has been recognized in law. However, recent IRS regulations governing 403(b) pension programs and legislative changes have resulted in uncertainty and compliance issues for church pension plans. In response, Senator Cardin and I sent a letter to the Internal Revenue Service informing them of our legislation, nothing that the unintended consequences of their regulations may negatively affect church ministers and church lay workers. I hope we can work to provide clarity for these distinctive plans and resolve this issue before the end of the year. This unequal treatment is simply unfair, and it is time we correct it. I ask my colleagues to join Senator Cardin and me today in establishing parity for the beneficiaries of church pensions by supporting this necessary, long overdue fix to the Internal Revenue Code. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the two letters from which I read in my statement and an article from the Wall Street Journal this morning on this issue.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will ask my colleagues, Senator McCain--I can give you 2\1/2\ minutes to you and Senator Chambliss. While they are going to their microphones, I want to say that they have been instrumental in trying to get a consensus bill. And they, like myself, are very disappointed that we are prematurely voting on a cloture motion when we have had no ability to amend the bill. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to Senator McCain.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Then how much time would the proponents have with Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman on the proponents' side?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to be notified when I have 5 minutes left, because Senator McCain is expected on the floor, and if Senator Chambliss or others come, I would like to have the time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to express my disappointment that we are taking a vote that is very premature. Not that we have not been discussing this bill for over a year. I have certainly been one of the first to say that we should vote on a cyber security bill. This is a complicated bill. It is a bill that did not get marked up in committee. In our discussions, we are talking about amendments. I want to say that the proponents of the bill before us have certainly been willing to talk and adjust and try to make changes in the bill. It is not there yet even though we have been meeting pretty much constantly. There are three different groups that have a very strong interest. All of us are interested in getting a cyber security bill, but none of us likes what is before us--well, obviously the proponents of the bill like what is before us. But two other groups are very concerned about further needs in the bill. Let me say that we have an alternative called SECURE IT. It is cosponsored by eight of the ranking members of committees and subcommittees that have jurisdiction over cyber security. Senators McCain, myself, Chambliss, Grassley, Murkowski, Coats, Burr, and Johnson are cosponsoring a bill that could pass the House and go to the President. My concern with S. 3414, on which we are voting on cloture, is on the process, because we have not had a chance to amend this bill. The majority leader is attempting to invoke cloture and fill the tree so that we are not able to put any amendments on this bill at all. It is a bill that will not get 41 votes for sure. And there are many others who are very concerned about the substance of the bill. You cannot have a bill with no amendments that is this important and this technical. Let me state some of my concerns on the bill before us. First, it will actually undermine the current information sharing between the government and the private sector. The biggest priority we have is to get the private sector to the table and to make sure they have the ability to not only give information to the government but get information from the government. Furthermore, they must be able to share among the other industries, if they see a cyber threat, on an expedited basis. No. 2, the Department of Homeland Security would be granted authority over standard setting for private sector systems. That is unacceptable in the private sector and most certainly is not going to produce what is a consensus for getting the information we need. It assumes that government must take the adversarial role against private network owners in order to get cooperation when, in fact, both the government and the private sector share the same goals of increased cyber security. Let me read from a couple of letters we have received with concerns about this bill. The American Bankers Association, the Financial Services Roundtable, the Consumer Bankers Association, and 6 other organizations say: This legislation threatens to undermine important cyber security protections already in place for our customers and institutions. It misses an opportunity to substantially improve cyber threat information sharing between the Federal Government and the private sector. The National Association of Manufacturers says: The creation of a new government-administered program in an agency yet to be named forces unnecessary regulatory uncertainty on the private sector. The defense industry groups are very concerned about not having direct access to the National Security Agency with whom they deal now, and this bill would take that away from their capabilities.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Let me ask my colleagues, I have reserved the 5 minutes that I have for opponents. Is that going to change, Senator Lieberman? If not, I will give 2\1/2\ minutes each to Senator McCain and Senator Chambliss of my 5 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. How much, then, would be left on the Republican side?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the opponents have at least 10 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wanted to get the time for our side and the time for the bill sponsor's side and clarify that the people on our side would have 15 minutes. Is that correct?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I wanted to clarify that there would be time for the opposition side. I did not know if Senator Collins is speaking for the majority side then or the minority side. I am trying to clarify to assure that the opposition is getting some equal amount of time or close to equal.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have listened to the distinguished Senator and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and the presentation of the bill that I assume will be voted on today. I appreciate very much that we have had the meetings. There are really two bills that have been introduced: the Lieberman-Collins, bill with their cosponsors, and then I have introduced legislation called the SECURE IT Act along with Senators McCain, Chambliss, Grassley, Murkowski, Coats, Johnson, and Burr. These are eight ranking members of committees and subcommittees who have jurisdiction over cybersecurity, and we differ in a major way from the bill that is before us that is cosponsored by the Chair and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee. All the other ranking members of the committees that have jurisdiction, are in disagreement with their approach. Now, the good news is we have been meeting to try to begin to work out the differences and see if we can move forward. Our bill, the SECURE IT bill, will be introduced as an amendment in the nature of a substitute if, in fact, we take up the bill today. I would agree with what Senator Lieberman said right off the bat in that I believe, as long as we have an open amendment process, we will vote to move to the bill. I don't think anyone in our group or anyone with whom I have talked wants to hold up dealing with cybersecurity. We know America's systems could be under threat, and some have been hacked into already. There are terrorists who seek to sabotage networks. There are people who want access to proprietary information and intellectual property. We need to protect our systems and our country against those attacks, which is why as long as we have an amendment process and we are not shut out from discussing this, we will vote to move forward to the bill. This bill was not marked up in committee. It did have a lot of hearings in committee. Since it wasn't marked up, amendments were not able to be introduced and discussed and voted on, which makes it harder, as we all know, when we come to the floor with a bill where there are major disagreements. We have not had the capability for the committee to take up the amendments and vote on them. That is why I think we need to have the open amendment process and why we do want to move forward on the good faith that it will be open. Now, our bill, the SECURE IT Act, is centered on consensus items. It sets aside the controversial provisions that are of questionable need, and it is also one that we believe we can work with the House on to pass and send to the President. The bill we have would greatly improve information sharing to and from and with the government with other private sector industries in the same field, and we think that is the most important step we could all take on a fairly quick basis to start the process of getting more security throughout our systems. We must also ensure that the entities and government and industry share information back and forth. It has to be a two-way street. Obviously, if an industry is going to share information about potential threats, if they see risks or they see problems in a system, it must get information from the government agencies that are doing the intelligence gathering on a quick basis. Our bill also dramatically improves cybersecurity for Federal agencies themselves. It does update the rules that govern cybersecurity, and it requires any government contractor to inform their agency clients if their clients' systems are under a significant risk or attack. We think that is reasonable as a part of a government contracting requirement. Today antitrust laws and liability concerns inhibit private companies from exchanging the information that is necessary to defend against and respond to cyber threats. If a company is going to be encouraged to share information with a competitor about cyber threats, they have to know they are not going to be then hit with an antitrust lawsuit. I think that is pretty clear. So our bill does address that. We make it very clear there are antitrust immunities as well as most certainly immunity from a lawsuit if they provide information on a voluntary basis. If they are sued, and they have acted in accordance with our bill, then they would have protection from liability for a lawsuit on cyber attack. So those are the things we do that I think will open up the information sharing, which is the way we believe it is important as the next step. It is also very important that we have the safeguards for privacy. I do believe the underlying bill certainly protects privacy, and so does our substitute. We have safeguards that protect the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans while we preserve the right to ensure that we try to protect America in general from attack from the outside. We also in our bill improve the security of Federal information systems and facilitate the prosecution of cyber crime. We want to beef up protections against criminals who are hacking in, as well as potential terrorists who might, in order to be able to prosecute against cyber crime as a disincentive to break the law. Finally, our legislation has broad industry support. The businesses in the private sector that know their systems best and that fight every day to protect their systems and networks believe SECURE IT is the best way to go. We believe that with the cooperation of the business community, without having a big regulatory morass, is the way we are going to get the most cooperation from the people who are running the networks and systems. I have letters of endorsement from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, U.S. Telecom, National Retail Federation, the Internet Security Alliance, and I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, our bill also allows for a true collaborative effort. The reason we are not supporting the bill that is on the floor today is because we believe it does not do the priorities that we can pass, and it does increase the mandates and the regulatory overkill, in our opinion, that will keep our companies from being able to move forward on an expedited basis to start protecting our systems. A priority of mine throughout this process has been that we help the private sector combat cyber attacks by breaking down the barriers to sharing information. If we could take that one step, we would be a long way toward ensuring that we are increasing the security of all Americans. The bill before us will actually undermine current information sharing between the government and the private sector. That bill's information-sharing title is a step backward because it slows the transfer of critical information to our intelligence agencies, and there is not sufficient protection from antitrust. In addition, there is no consensus in the Senate to grant the Department of Homeland Security broad new authority to impose burdensome regulations on the private sector. While I am pleased our colleagues who are cosponsoring the bill that is before us have made an effort to move away from direct regulation of our Nation's systems, it has a long way to go. While their bill allows the private sector to propose standards that are described as voluntary, the bill actually empowers Federal agencies to make these voluntary standards mandatory. If an agency does not make the standards mandatory, it would have to report to Congress why it had failed to do so. That is a pretty big incentive for mandates to start being put on with regulations that will be required. I believe there is a way forward. If the Senate takes the well- reasoned and broadly supported provisions of the SECURE IT bill and puts them with a voluntary and industry-driven critical infrastructure protection title, we could pass a Senate bill with overwhelming support. The key to reaching consensus has five parts: The cybersecurity standards must be developed by the private sector and must be truly voluntary. The relationship between government and the private sector in this area must be cooperative, not adversarial and not regulatory. The National Institute for Standards and Technology should be the convening authority for the private sector standard-setting process. The government can have a role in ensuring the standards are sufficient, and it should, but it can't establish a regulatory regime that will lengthen and hamper the efforts to open information sharing. Companies--and here is the incentive for the companies to do exactly what we are asking them to do--companies that adopt the voluntary standards must receive robust and straightforward protections from liability as well as necessary antitrust and Freedom of Information Act exemptions. If a company is going to turn over its proprietary information to the government, it must be protected from freedom of information requests from the government that then would take its private proprietary information public. As in the SECURE IT Act, the information-sharing title must be strong and encourage the private sector to share information, and it must encourage the government to share with the private sector. It cannot cut out those with the most expertise in the area, meaning the national security agencies should not have to be subservient to the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, a 5-year sunset would allow Congress to revisit the act and make needed changes. FISA has certainly shown that with a sunset, it allows the flexibility to adapt to new issues that arise and stay current in its processes to deal with cybersecurity. We believe a 5- year sunset would be the right amount of time to get this going, set things in place, see what works, and see what needs to be adjusted. I am hopeful my colleagues and I can come to a compromise on this critical issue. We want a strong cybersecurity bill. We want one that can pass both Houses. The five points I have laid out could get us to a bill that will significantly take the steps to improve our Nation's cybersecurity. I wish to read a couple of excerpts from the Heritage Foundation's views of the bill that is before us today: Cybersecurity legislation will likely be taken up by the Senate tomorrow. This was written yesterday. Regrettably, the idea that we just need to do something about cybersecurity seems to be trumping the view that we need to do it right. The Cybersecurity Act of 2012, authored by Senators Lieberman and Collins, seeks to solve our cybersecurity ills but only threatens to make the situation worse. The ``voluntary'' nature of the CSA's standards is also questionable. Any voluntary standard is one step away from mandatory, and Senator Lieberman has already indicated that if the standards aren't voluntarily used, he would push to make them mandatory. Even more concerning, section 103(g) of the CSA gives current regulators the power to make these ``voluntary'' standards mandatory. It specifically authorizes that action. If a regulator doesn't mandate the standards, the regulatory agency will have to report to Congress why it didn't do so. Again, there is strong encouragement to just make the standards mandatory and avoid a congressional inquisition. Finally, the Heritage Foundation goes on to say: Finally, the sharing and analysis of cybersecurity threat information was weakened by confining cybersecurity information exchanges to civilian organizations. Though in an ideal world the Department of Homeland Security would have the capability to lead our cybersecurity efforts, it currently lacks those capabilities and needs to lean on more capable organizations such as the National Security Agency. The recent changes, however, give DHS more responsibility than it is likely able to handle. So we will certainly move forward with the understanding that we will have the ability to offer amendments and try to make this a workable bill. It is certain that because the committee was not able to mark up the bill, we have to have the amendments to try to perfect it. I would very much like to take the first step forward in cybersecurity, which is why, assuming we have the right to amend, I will support going to the legislation so that we can start the amendment process next week. I think the people who are cosponsors of my legislation, along with Senator McCain, Senator Chambliss, Senator Grassley, Senator Burr, Senator Murkowski, Senator Coats, and Senator Johnson, want to make sure we do this right. As the Heritage Foundation has so aptly said, we don't want a big, new regulatory scheme that is not going to be successful in our efforts to improve the cybersecurity safeguards in our system. We are the ranking members of all but one of the relevant committees. We know this area. We deal with the agencies that deal with cybersecurity and all of the national security in our country. We know what can work, we know what we have a chance to pass, and we know how to take the first step forward without another big regulatory overreach, as we have seen happen in the last 3\1/2\ years in this administration. We hope to work with the majority, with the Lieberman- Collins bill, and come up with something that everyone will feel is the right step forward. We would like to have a bill that will get a large number of votes rather than a very lopsided vote against it. I appreciate very much that we are now beginning to discuss this. I am appreciative that we have had several meetings with all of the sides that have been put forward as having concerns with the bill that is on the floor as well as its sponsors. I hope we can keep working toward a solution that will protect America and do it in the right way. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, because the Senator from Ohio is in the chair, I wish to say that I am very pleased we have been able to pass a bus safety bill that was in response to two tragic bus accidents, one in Ohio and one in Texas, and the many other bus accidents that have happened, because the buses that often transport people in our country are not safe. I think we have strengthened those safety regulations, working together, and I appreciate very much the effort the Senator from Ohio made. Looming Fiscal Cliff Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the looming tax cliff that will affect every American who pays taxes at the end of this year. The Senate must be clear with the American people about what our priorities are and where ownership of the money made by hard-working Americans belongs. Does the money belong to the government to decide what will be done with it--except for our responsibility to add to the things the Federal Government should do--or should that money belong to the people who earned it? I think that is one of the key issues we are facing right now in this Congress, and most certainly in the campaign. The American dream is that anyone--anyone--who is willing to work hard in this country can start from nothing and, through hard work and sacrifice, become a success. It is the defining characteristic of our country and it is what has made us a shining example for people all over the world. But that dream is under threat if, at the end of this year, all of a sudden, because we don't address the major tax hikes that will affect all Americans, that hard work and sacrifice will simply result in giving a larger portion of people's paychecks to the government. If we do not enact relief, every single person who pays taxes will face an increase on January 1--every single person. Every person will move into a higher bracket and face a higher rate of taxation. If we do not enact relief, small businesses will be hit with higher taxes, entrepreneurship will be discouraged, owners will not invest in growing their businesses, and hiring will remain in a deep freeze. And there can be no argument in this country that hiring is in a deep freeze. We have had unemployment rates above 8 percent over the last 3\1/2\ years. That is on the path to stagnation. If we do not enact relief, marriage will be penalized at a greater rate than it is today. The marriage penalty, which is an issue that I have championed since I was elected to the Senate, pushes people who are working and single and get married into a higher bracket. If two single people pay taxes on their own earnings, it is at a lower rate than when they get married. One of the highest priorities I have had in the Senate has been to relieve Americans from this punitive burden. After years of fighting for fairness, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts included my bill as an amendment. It made great strides toward eliminating the marriage penalty by lowering the tax rates, doubling the standard deduction--which had not been the case before--and simplifying other elements of the Tax Code. Prior to this tax relief, an estimated 25 million couples paid a penalty for being married--let's use 1999--of approximately $1,400. Along with doubling the standard deduction, we have been able to give relief since 2001. But if we don't do something before the end of this year, the marriage penalty will return, and we will not have doubling of the standard deduction. Let's say a Houston policeman with a taxable income of $50,000 and a San Antonio schoolteacher with a taxable income of $30,000 are getting married this year. How would their taxes compare if they were filing jointly as a married couple or as two single taxpayers? For this year, filing jointly as a married couple, they would save approximately $500 because we have marriage penalty relief. However, when the relief expires at the end of this year, they would pay approximately $800 next year, not save $500, because they are filing jointly as a married couple. This is the time when they need the money the most--they are starting a family, they would like to buy a house--yet we would penalize them for entering the institution of marriage. In this economy, every dollar matters, and many households do rely on two incomes. So how is it that Congress has decided that we should penalize people who are working extra hours, extra hard, to begin their lives as a family? My bill, S. 11, provides permanent relief by raising the standard deduction for married couples, doubling it--when two single people get married, the standard deduction should double--increasing the 15- percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single filers. That is very key because starting next year the 15-percent bracket is the people making the lowest amount who are paying taxes. So if we double it before they have to go into the next bracket, that is going to give them significant relief. We also extend the earned-income tax credit marriage penalty relief. I offered my bill as an amendment last week, but we were not able to vote on amendments. So I am going to continue to offer this as an amendment as we consider a myriad of options for tax relief for our countrymen because if we don't do something by the end of the year, not only are these taxes going to go into effect but many others. I urge my colleagues to work with me on extending this relief. We have an outsourcing bill that is going to be coming to the floor for a vote today. We must create a job creators bill, which is what this bill purports to do. It is very important, though, that we look at some of the major issues facing corporations and small businesses, which are our job creators in many instances, and see what they really need for relief. Today we have the dubious honor in America of having the highest corporate tax rate in the world. We used to be second, but just recently Japan changed their corporate tax rate and lowered it so that they would not have the confiscatory taxes that would discourage Japanese companies from investing in Japan. So now America has the highest corporate tax rate in the world--at 35 percent. So on top of punishing businesses with that high tax rate, our homefront looks even less business-friendly when you consider the mountain of regulations, the burdens of the President's new health care mandate, and the lack of a long-term, comprehensive tax plan. The bill the Senate is now considering would be another punitive attack on companies and will hamper business growth. Instead, with unemployment rates above 8 percent for 41 straight months, we should be doing everything in our power to spur hiring in the private sector. We need the President of the United States, the leader of the greatest Nation on Earth, to recognize, respect, and encourage the job creators who are investing in our country, which helps everyone get a shot at success. Unfortunately, last Friday the President shocked many Americans with his comment, ``If you've got a business--you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.'' This highlighted the fundamental difference in the way the President and many in Congress view the hard work Americans put into achieving the American dream. The American dream is that somebody can come to this country, they can start with nothing, and they can build and work and sacrifice and give their kids a better chance than they had. That is why people have been coming to this country. My office received calls and letters from all over Texas when they heard the President's comment last week. I am going to give some excerpts from one small business owner in Beaumont, TX. I have to say that I am appalled by President Obama's recent statement about small businesses not being responsible for their own success. I am a small-business owner, and I can assure you that I built the business from nothing. I sure didn't get any government help. I gave my all to grow this business. I was not given the idea or the plans for building a successful business. An idea, a dream, and a risk--that's what mine and all of America's small businesses have been built on. He goes on to say: I put everything on the line, including my wife's wedding ring. With over 20 years of hard work, my wife and I have grown the company from four employees to over 40. When we first began our venture, she worked a full-time job that supplemented our income, while I ran the operation, and together raised our children. Nobody did that for us, we worked hard. We take pride in customer service and the quality of our work as well as giving back to our community. This has created customer loyalty and allowed us to expand, not a government handout. Our goal should be to spur growth, encourage hiring, and support the millions of small businesses that serve as the backbone of our economy, not to extinguish the entrepreneurial spirit and innovation that built this country. It just doesn't seem as though our President relates. What built this country is innovation, taking risk, and entrepreneurship. We have established an education system, and at least we used to have a regulatory system that encouraged business, that encouraged the private sector. A few weeks before the President said that these small businesspeople didn't do it on their own, he said, and I am paraphrasing here, ``You know, the private sector isn't in trouble. It is the government sector that is in trouble.'' Oh my gosh. You just think, ``Who is he talking to? Who is he relating to?'' because it is small businesspeople and big businesspeople and all businesspeople who are creating the jobs that create more jobs that make a vibrant economy. It isn't government. Government sometimes gets in the way and sometimes worse--it takes away from the vibrance of our economy. So it is time for the leaders of our country--in Congress and in the White House--to get a perspective on who can create a vibrant economy. My definition of ``who'' is not the government; it is the business sector and especially the small business sector because they are growing, and if they grow, they create jobs for more people. I hope that this Congress at some point will start working on tax reform and relief from regulations and the oppressive health care system that is going to also have a major effect at the beginning of next year and say: What can we do together to spur private sector growth that will create jobs in the private sector, that contributes to the economy, not withdraws from it? I only hope we can all pursue the American dream and be the leaders who can make it happen for everyone. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from which I read.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I applaud the Senator from Massachusetts for introducing the bill. He is trying to make a constitutional way so those who have done the service for our country and earned the medals are assured that those medals mean something and cannot be in any way misrepresented without a consequence. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. Tax Policy I rise to talk about this week's issue, which is taxes on our Nation's small businesses. Small businesses are the economic engine of America. It is not big business. Jobs are created by small businesses that grow and become medium-size businesses. They are responsible for driving most of the job growth in this country. Fifty-five percent of private sector jobs are created by small business. Punishing them with new taxes in a time of economic stagnation is incomprehensible. It is incomprehensible. This tax that is suggested by the President on those who make $200,000 to $250,000 or more will affect small business, make no mistake about it. I have been a small businessperson, and I know if someone is paying all the expenses they are paying, if they are taxed as an individual in their small business, they are not going to be able to hire new people--not with what is looming next year in increased taxes. Even the talk of it is part of the reason we have the stagnation we do. Seventy-five percent of the small businesses in our country pay taxes at an individual rate. They are organized as flowthrough businesses: Partnerships, S corporations, LLCs, and sole proprietorships. Fifty- three percent of all flowthrough business income will be subject to the top two individual income tax rate increases subject to take place in 2013. Even our talking about tax increases is on the minds of our small businessespeople. It makes them very nervous. We have an already uncertain environment. Hiring is stalled. We have been strangling growth in our country and the hope of recovery is not there. The first round of taxes in the health care law the President's party and the President passed will kick in, in 2013. I do not want to have to go back to the small business owners whom I have just visited with last week all over my State and say: Yes, it is true. You are going to have the taxes involved in the health care plan that will take effect in 2013 and your taxes are going up because you are going into a higher bracket, and if the President has his way, the rates are going to increase too. That is not the message anyone in this body should want to take back to their home States and I do not want to go back to the hard-working employees and customers and tell them the same thing because it will not be just small business owners caught in the net of higher taxes, every American is going to see their taxes increase if they are paying taxes today. We have a cliff. Everyone around here is talking about the fiscal cliff. It happens on December 31 of this year. Taxes will automatically go up on January 1. Everybody will go into a higher bracket. We will lose the marriage penalty relief we have had. We are going to see tax increases on the middle class, and it is going to be steep. Approximately 31 million Americans will be hit for the first time with the alternative minimum tax. Most people know the alternative minimum tax was enacted in 1969 to target a few hundred millionaires in America to try to ensure that those millionaires paid a tax. Well, guess who qualifies next year if we don't do something. A single person making $33,750 and a married couple earning $45,000 will be considered as not paying their fair share of taxes. That is outrageous for this Congress to let that happen. We must work with the President to ensure that those steep tax increases do not take effect. The tax increases, the astronomical debt we face, and the persistent high unemployment rate have come together to create a perfect recovery- killing storm. And if this weren't enough to send our economy into permanent hiding, we now have the dubious honor of having the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 35 percent. We used to be second, but Japan had the good sense to lower its rate earlier this year, so now it is America that holds that dubious honor. This is not a recipe for growth. Is it any wonder that we have a recurring over 8 percent unemployment rate in this country? If we don't do something before the end of this year, those who are employed are going to pay more taxes next year, and for those who are not employed, it is going to be harder to find a job. So what is the answer? The answer, as we all know, is for this Congress and the President to do something before the election. Now, Senator Reid has introduced a tax bill. It is a bill that will provide two temporary tax credits, but a 1-year temporary tax credit is really not enough. Many of us voted in support of the motion to proceed to this bill because we would like something to start with, and I hope the majority leader is going to allow amendments because there are many amendments for us to try to cobble together a bill that will really make a difference in our economy. So it is a start, and I am going to give the leader credit for that. A real long-term solution is what business is looking for. If we have a 1-year tax credit, we are going to get a 1-year plan, and a 1-year plan is not going to encourage people to be hired. It is not going to encourage employers when they see a 1-year plan and know that Congress is going to do what it has done so often; that is, get to the last of the year and then cobble something together that will perhaps last a year. Maybe it will be the same or maybe it won't. That is not the way business works. They have to plan. They have to know what they are going to have in the next 5 years in expenses so they know what they can produce and what they can charge. That is the private sector. We should be focusing on the underlying issue. It should be tax relief and tax reform. We can alleviate the employers' conundrum and get them to start hiring if they know what to expect, and a 1-year fix will not do it. We need long-term tax reform, we need to address the looming debt, and we know it. We know what the fiscal cliff is. I would like to read a letter I received in answer to a congratulatory note I wrote to the former football coach at Texas A&M, R.C. Slocum, who is one of the finest men I have ever met. He is exactly what America is. He was just inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame, and I congratulated him sincerely because he is the kind of person we want coaching our young men in football. Well, he wrote me back, and I am going to read an excerpt from his letter. He does the niceties of thanking me for writing him, and then he says: I am really concerned that the America that you and I grew up in is being attacked from within. Although I grew up in a poor family, I was taught that I was privileged because I was born in America, the land of opportunity. We did not begrudge the ``rich'' but was encouraged that through hard work and education, some day we could be one of them. Thankfully, I was not taught that it was someone else's fault that we were poor or that government would, or should, come bail us out. We worked our own way out and felt the great feeling of accomplishment that goes with it. In my career as a coach, I encouraged my players to try the formula I was given. It still works and I am so proud of the young men that have dramatically changed their lives, and with it the course of their families' lives. That is what America is, and that is what we ought to be working to achieve. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, we have had a monumental decision from the Supreme Court of the United States, and I have to say I am disappointed, because while the opinion is not very clear, in many respects, the result is clear, and that is we are getting ready to see one of the largest tax increases in the history of our country. We are all talking about the fact the Supreme Court has declared the Obama health care plan constitutional, but let's look at how it was declared constitutional. It was not based on the commerce powers of the Congress in the Constitution. It was based, instead, on taxing capabilities--the taxing power--of the Congress. I wish to read excerpts from an interview George Stephanopoulos did with President Obama. Under this mandate-- Stephanopoulos says-- the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax? President Obama replies: No. That's not true, George. For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. Stephanopoulos goes on later to say: But you reject that it's a tax increase? President Obama replies: I absolutely reject that notion. Yet the Court today said this is constitutional because of Congress's power to tax. So we are going to see the tax increase go forward, and the small businesses and businesses that are looking at this, the individuals, are going to have a whopping increase in the cost of doing business at a time when--I certainly don't have to point out--we are in an economic downturn, when the private sector is not hiring, when we have an over 8-percent unemployment rate. Yet now we see more costs on top of what we already have in this country. I don't think that is the recipe for getting this country going again and hiring people to work. I would like to read a few quotes from employers on the impact of the Obama health care plan on their businesses. Scott Womack, the president and owner of Womack Restaurants, is an IHOP franchisee. He said: Let me state bluntly. This law will cost my company more than we make. Grady Payne, who is the CEO of Connor Industries, said--it is very interesting because Conner Industries is headquartered in my home State of Texas: Conner Industries is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas with plants in 8 different states. Conner Industries started in 1981 with five people and one location. Today they have grown to 450 employees and eleven plant locations. They offer health coverage to their employees and the company pays over half of the total premium cost. In 2014, the company will have to choose how to comply with the law, either buy a more expensive, government-approved healthcare benefit or drop health coverage completely and pay the $2,000 fine for each of their employees. Thus, Mr. Payne has stated that the impact of this law will cost them over $1,000,000 no matter what option they choose. The chairman and CEO of NuVasive, a medical device company in San Diego, in an op-ed said: Provisions of the Affordable Health Care Act are destroying jobs, hindering innovation and slowing the economic recovery. To offset the medical device tax increase, we will be forced to reduce investments in research and development and cut up to 200 planned new jobs next year. So what we have seen today is a validation of what many of us were concerned about when this law was going through Congress; that is, the enormous increase in the tax, the fine, and the overall burden to the businesses of this country which would do several things that are not good for the people of our country: It will increase costs to American consumers; it will inject the government into doctor-patient relationships; it will most certainly add new burdens on business in an environment in which we have over 8 percent unemployment. I also think it is very clear that though the President promised that people will be able to keep their health care coverage as they know it, that health care coverage is not going to be there because so many companies are going to drop the health care coverage they have been offering because it is too expensive to comply with the government conscription of the plan that is required in order to avoid the $2,000 fine. I think what the Court said is insightful in this respect; and that is, while they said this law is constitutional based on the taxing power of Congress, they are not ruling on the wisdom nor the fairness of the policy. I think it is going to come down to the people of our country because the election this year is going to determine the ultimate fate of this bill. The Republican nominee, Gov. Mitt Romney, has said very clearly, on the first day he is sworn into office he will ask for the repeal of this health care law. I think it will become an issue in every contested congressional race and every Senate race: Are you going to vote to keep this law that has been ruled constitutional based on the fact that it is a taxing power of Congress? The people will be able to decide if they want this jolt on their health care, if they want the extra cost, if they want the intrusion on the patient-doctor relationship, and if they want to possibly lose the coverage they have and be taxed to go into another plan--a government plan. We are going to see the erosion of the quality of health care in this country if we are not able to repeal this law and start all over. Now, I will say the purpose of passing health care reform is to provide more options for people to get affordable health care coverage. I think that is a worthy goal. I think we should go for that goal in a way that does not burden the economy of our country, stop employers from employing people; in a way that preserves the doctor-patient relationship and doesn't intrude on the people who do have coverage they want to keep. That should be our goal. There are several months before the election. I hope we will be able to do something in this Congress to start a new process of providing affordable health care options for the people of our country and not continue on this path of enormous tax increases--which have been validated by the Court--as well as an intrusion on the quality of our health care, and not something that in the bigger picture is going to keep our businesses from hiring more people to get the economy jump- started, which should be every one of our goals. I hope we can work on this in a productive way before the election, but I also hope the people will make the final decision in the election if Congress has not acted before; that we will have a decisive election that will say we can do better. We, the people of the strongest country on Earth, can do better than a health care system that will be eventually turned over to the government if we go down this path. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today because we have introduced a new version of the Strengthening and Enhancing Cybersecurity by Using Research, Education, Information and Technology Act of 2012, a bill known as the SECURE IT Act. Senator McCain and I, along with Senators Chambliss, Grassley, Murkowski, Coats, Burr, and Johnson, are reintroducing the SECURE IT Act after making improvements and clarifications in response to constructive feedback we received from the first bill we introduced. We are employing rule XIV on this bill because it is clear it will not receive the benefit of the traditional committee process, and the majority leader has indicated he intends to debate this issue on the Senate floor in July. What those of us who are cosponsors of this bill are trying to do is have our version of a cybersecurity bill on the floor, introduced, so that everyone will be able to see it. Then, when the Senate turns to this issue, we will be able to see the differences between the bills. The sponsors of our bill include eight ranking members of committees and subcommittees that have jurisdiction over cybersecurity. We have combined our expertise to develop a balanced piece of legislation that we believe will greatly enhance our country's cybersecurity of the infrastructure that could be affected. We believe it is now time for Congress to act. The Nation faces an evolving array of threats from hackers, criminal groups, and terrorists who seek to sabotage networks, gain access to sensitive government information, and steal valuable intellectual property. SECURE IT is centered on consensus items. It sets aside controversial provisions that are of questionable value at this time, and we believe our bill can pass both Chambers. It offers a balanced approach that will significantly advance cybersecurity in both the public and private sectors by focusing on four issues and areas on which we believe everyone can agree: first, to facilitate sharing of cyber-threat information among private sector entities, and to and from the government; second, to better secure Federal networks, including requiring Federal contractors to notify the Federal agencies of cyber attacks that would threaten government networks; third, to strengthen the ability to prosecute cyber crime; and fourth, to prioritize cybersecurity research and development so that our Nation will continue to lead the world in this area. Let me start with No. 1, facilitate sharing of cyber-threat information. SECURE IT helps the private sector combat cyber attacks by breaking down barriers to sharing information about threats and vulnerabilities. Currently, antitrust laws and liability concerns inhibit private companies from exchanging information that we believe is necessary to defend against and respond to cyber threats. I was talking to someone last night who is in the high-tech Internet field. There are great concerns about their company calling a competitor and saying: We are seeing signs of a possible threat here, and we wanted to share what the type of red flag we are seeing is so that you would be able to check your networks to see if you are getting the same thing. These are two competitors, but this is not an anticompetitive situation. It is not something that should not be, we believe, subject to antitrust. They are still competitors, but everybody wants security for all of our networks in this country against any kind of intervention, whether it is criminal or foreign intelligence. Our bill's liability protection and limited antitrust exemptions will allow these companies to rapidly respond so that they do not have to go to a lawyer and say: Would it be anticompetitive if we called our competitor and started sharing this information right away? So it needs to be timely, fast, and safe. Those are the criteria. Sharing should be a two-way street. Our bill sets up a framework that promotes timely sharing of classified, declassified, and unclassified information by the Federal Government with trusted private sector entities, while allowing private sector companies to share cyber-threat information with the government. Since the introduction of SECURE IT, we have been working with stakeholders in all of the areas of infrastructure and Internet access to make a number of improvements and clarifications to the bill. I am pleased that we introduced the bill early, that we got the feedback from the different stakeholders and we have now been able to make adjustments to provisions that would help the bill but also protect privacy and preserve the issue we are trying to address, which, of course, is safety and cybersecurity. We tightened the definition of what information is shared. We refined the process for sharing it. This will ensure that only essential information is shared and that it is handled appropriately. For example, it is vital that Federal agencies be informed if their systems are compromised. Our bill requires Federal contractors to coordinate with their supervisory agencies and to notify them of significant cyber incidents that would impede their mission. We have added explicit and strong privacy protections and increased oversight throughout our revised bill. At every stage of information sharing, there are statutory safeguards that will ensure cyber-threat information is handled in a manner that will protect the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans while preserving the ability to address cyber threats that could affect them as well as other members of the public. No. 2, secure Federal networks. The government needs to do a much better job of securing its own networks. To address this problem, SECURE IT provides necessary reforms to the Federal Information Security Management Act by modernizing the way the government monitors and mitigates its own cyber-risks. SECURE IT requires agencies to use automated realtime network monitoring by upgrading their current primarily paper-based reporting. Our revisions also ensure that agencies will be continuously updating their technologies to prevent and remediate significant cyber incidents. No. 3, we facilitate the prosecution of cyber crime. We update the Federal criminal statutes and streamline existing confusing penalties to facilitate the prosecution of cyber criminals. No. 4, cybersecurity research and development is essential to harness innovation and to train IT professionals to counter future attacks. If we focus on these four areas, we believe we can significantly improve the cybersecurity of our country by facilitating the sharing of cyber-threat information in the private sector, securing Federal networks, strengthening criminal penalties for cyber crimes and prioritizing cybersecurity research and development. Equally important is what our bill does not do. Secure IT does not give the Department of Homeland Security open-ended power to regulate networks for infrastructure that it deems to be critical. It does not give them the power to determine what is critical infrastructure. Instead, we take a different approach that is not heavy-handed and regulatory. It sets up a true partnership between the public and private sector to combat these cyber threats. We will not improve this country's cybersecurity by creating an adversarial system based on a regulatory compliance structure. We believe subjecting industry to more regulation from an agency that is ill-equipped to understand the private sector system will ultimately erode the ability of business to provide effective, nimble, and innovative responses to cyber threats. Diverting precious resources from security and innovation to regulatory compliance could ultimately harm security, not improve it, which is why we are taking the different approach from the more heavy- handed regulatory approach of the other bill sponsored by my colleagues. We do not want Americans to be fooled into a false sense of security by imposing an unproven prescriptive regulatory framework that no agency could effectively implement, and that we do not think that the Department of Homeland Security could implement. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in supporting the SECURE IT Act of 2012. I will just reiterate again that our bill is sponsored by Senator McCain and myself, Senator Chambliss, Senator Grassley, Senator Murkowski, Senator Coats, Senator Burr, and Senator Johnson of Wisconsin, all of whom are either ranking members of full committees or subcommittees that have a jurisdiction in this area. We have worked very hard with all of the different interest groups, including privacy groups, the groups that handle the private sector networks, and the groups that are Federal contractors to assure we are doing the best balanced approach that can possibly be done to take the next step with a bill we believe we can pass not only in the Senate, but also the House and then to the President. I believe he will sign it because it is a major first step forward. I thank the chair. I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.