Angus King

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, I rise today to discuss two important issues--first, the Export-Import Bank. There is a lot about this place that puzzles me, but one of the things that this year has puzzled me the most is the movement to somehow defund or end the Export-Import Bank. I just don't get it. This is an agency of the Federal Government that has been extraordinarily effective. It creates jobs in the United States. It supports jobs. It supports American businesses. It supports small American businesses. It returns money to the Treasury. It fills a market niche that the private sector has been unwilling or unable to fill. This isn't competition with the private sector. This isn't the government doing something the private sector should do. This is the government filling a niche that has been identified for over 80 years. And it makes a difference. I have visited several small companies in Maine--I think there may be eight or so--that benefit directly from this program, which supports 2 percent of the financing of U.S. exports. We are engaged in intense global competition for the export of goods and services, and to unilaterally disarm by taking away one of the tools our businesses use just doesn't make any sense. I don't understand what the impetus is for this move to undermine this very valuable program that is important to our companies. I toured a little company in Maine that resells computer and networking equipment all over the world, particularly to third-world countries that need this equipment desperately for various needs but particularly for coping with emergencies. It is a small business in Maine, has 35 employees, and is owned by a woman, Connie Justice. I visited with her, and she told me this story. I don't like to read, but I think this quote is so powerful from a real live business owner in Maine as to how important this program is. Ex-Im's Working Capital Loan Guarantee program helped us expand our export sales during a period of rapid growth, when private banks were unwilling to lend to us without a guarantee. This is important to understand, that one of the most important programs the Export-Import Bank sponsors is a guarantee of receivables from foreign countries, which American banks--quite logically in many cases because they don't have the history, they can't collect--are very reluctant to factor or to finance. She said: After 2 years of solid exports, our financial position strengthened so that the Ex-Im guarantee was no longer needed. Private banks now meet all our credit needs. Our expansion and increased sales would have been impossible without Ex-Im's involvement. We continue to use Ex-Im Bank to insure our receivables to Ex-Im approved customers in developing countries. We pay reasonable premiums for this insurance. This program makes money for the Federal government. This isn't a handout. This isn't corporate welfare. They are paying insurance premiums, which, over the past 20 years or so, have returned $7 billion to the U.S. Treasury. This makes money. She pays her premiums, and that is a positive for U.S. taxpayers. Being able to offer open payment terms for U.S.-made goods opens previously inaccessible markets for us. Our major manufacturers--including HP, Dell and Lenovo--have committed to making more systems domestically to comply with Ex-Im's ``Made in USA'' requirement for eligibility. This has a huge multiplier effect on US employment. . . . Since 2004, Planson's annual export sales have grown from $5 million to $35 million. Our staff has grown from 5 to 35, and our payroll has increased to almost $2 million. We use local suppliers for a broad range of goods and services. She goes on to conclude: We achieve all this entirely through export sales. The U.S. Export-Import Bank is a key partner in our success. Why would we want to let this very valuable program expire for some theoretical reason that, frankly, I just find inexplicable? It makes money for the American taxpayers. It is projected to continue to make money. But my passion here is about its support for small businesses in Maine that otherwise could not make these sales into the international market. As I mentioned, allowing the Export-Import Bank charter to expire is a kind of unilateral disarmament in an era of intense global competition. It makes no sense. Sixty other countries have similar kinds of programs, and if we take ours away, what we are doing is handcuffing our businesses while the rest of the world is moving forward with their programs to support exports. I used to start speeches in Maine by saying, simply, ``Five percent.'' People would look at me and say: What is he talking about, 5 percent? Well, 5 percent is the percentage of the world's population that lives in North America. That means that if our businesses are going to ultimately be successful, we have to sell into the rest of the world. We have to be able to export, and the Export-Import Bank is a very valuable tool in order to facilitate the export of goods from the United States. There is bipartisan support. I believe the votes are there in the House. Senator McConnell has committed to a vote here in the Senate. I commend Senator Cantwell and Senator Graham for their work on behalf of this. I hope we can bring this matter to a vote promptly and avoid the deadline of June 30. I do not know why we cannot do things around here before the night before. Let's get this done and move on to more important topics. We should not even be having this debate. This ought to be automatic, as, indeed, it has effectively been for some 80 years. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this program. We should not be playing games with this important agency at a time of such intense global competition. Madam President, I also wish to talk about the national defense authorization bill, which is also coming to the floor today and is on the floor today. Sixty-five years ago this week a freshman Senator from Maine rose on this floor, in this place, and made one of the most important speeches in American history. It certainly was one of the most important speeches of the 20th century. It was June 1, 1950. That freshman Senator was Margaret Chase Smith of Maine. I got to know Margaret Chase Smith after she left the Senate, in the 1980s and 1990s in Maine, before we lost her in 1995. She told me about that speech. The speech was about the dangers to the country and, particularly, to this institution of the practices of Joseph McCarthy, of the smear campaigns, of the innuendo, of the threats. Her speech took enormous courage. She told me two stories about the speech that I think are interesting that I want to note before I go on to the implications of that speech for what we are considering today. One was that, as she had the speech in her hand and got on the little trolley to come from the Russell Building over here--at that time the Russell Building was the only Senate office building--who should be sitting in the trolley in the seat next to her but Joe McCarthy. Senator Smith sat down and McCarthy turned to her and said: What are you up to today, Margaret? She told me that she responded: I am about to make a speech, Joe, and you are not going to like it. She went on to the Senate floor. She had written that speech with her close aide Bill Lewis at her kitchen table in Skowhegan, ME, over Memorial Day weekend of 1950. She had the speech in her hand, and Bill Lewis was in the press gallery right up here. But she told him not to hand out a copy of the speech until she was well into giving it on the Senate floor because she was afraid that she would lose her nerve and not deliver the speech. That speech took enormous courage. It took enormous courage because she was telling her colleagues an uncomfortable truth--an uncomfortable truth. I believe that today it is also important that we face uncomfortable truths. I am a strong supporter of the National Defense Authorization Act that is on the floor. I am a strong supporter of the need and the importance and how crucial that bill is to the defense and the security of this country. The most solid responsibility we have in this place is set forth in the preamble to the Constitution itself: to ``provide for the common defense'' and ``insure domestic Tranquility.'' That is what governments are established to do. That is the basic fundamental responsibility--to ``provide for the common defense'' and ``insure domestic Tranquility.'' That is national security. That is what this bill that is on the floor today is all about. I worked in subcommittee on it. I have been to numerous, repeated hearings, as the Presiding Officer has, all through the winter and early spring, where we learned about the strategic challenges facing this country. I commend the chair of the committee for putting this in a strategic context. We talked about big issues with people such as Henry Kissinger and Brzezinski and Madeleine Albright before we started talking about the specifics that are in this bill. And then we had lengthy subcommittee meetings and subcommittee markups. For me, one of the most satisfying parts of my legislative experience here has been the markup of this bill, where we met as a committee, where we argued and debated and voted and had a lot of amendments and tried to deal with it for 2 solid days and came to a conclusion, where, as I recall, the vote out of the committee was something like 22 to 4. It was a very powerful vote. I am in total support of this piece of legislation. However, my problem with the legislation is that it attempts to avoid the impact of the sequester through the use of the overseas contingency account money, which is not paid for. We have had hearings. Every hearing we have had this year has been talking about the danger of the sequester to national security. Indeed, I have been working with a number of my colleagues to try to find a solution for the sequester, but the solution for the sequester is not simply to borrow the money from our grandchildren. What bothers me about this legislation is that it is part of a pattern. When the chips are down around here, we borrow the money from our grandchildren. If 5- year-olds could vote and knew what we were doing to them, we would all be dead ducks because we are passing the bill on to them. I think we should fully fund the Department of Defense and the request at the level that is in this bill. I just do not think we should borrow the money to do it. Make no mistake, that is what we are doing. We are saying it is very important, these are important expenditures, and it is critical for national defense that we make these expenditures but not critical enough to pay for them. That is the pattern. Earlier this year we passed the so-called tax extenders. They ought to be called tax-cut extenders because that is what they are. Everybody said they were important to economic development and they were important for the country and important for certainty for businesses. All that was true, but it was not enough to pay for them. We borrowed the money. Last year we passed a major rewrite of the Veterans' Administration program, where everybody talked about how important this was, how important the Veterans Affairs Department was to our veterans, how much we owed our veterans, and how we had to take care of this. But then we turned around and borrowed the money from our grandchildren in order to fund it. We did not fund it. Recently, just in the last month or so, we fixed the so-called doc fix, which has been plaguing this place for a dozen years. But we did not really fix it. We fixed it as far as the docs are concerned, but we fixed it by borrowing the money. We did not pay for it. Many of my colleagues talk a lot around here about the deficit and the danger to the country. I think they are right. I think the deficit is a serious danger to this country. But it seems that the deficit is only a problem when we think it is a problem, and then the next day, it is not a problem anymore because we are going to borrow $38 billion more to put into this bill. I think we need to stand up and pay for things. I am no angel. I voted for all those things that I listed. But I think it is time to start saying: Wait a minute; we cannot do this. By the way, by fixing the sequester in the Department of Defense, of course, we are not fixing it anywhere else in the Federal Government. Some people say: Well, that is OK because defense is important, and we are not so worried about these other programs. Well, I am sorry, but some of those other programs are little items such as the FBI. There has never been a time in the history of this country when the FBI was more important. We are facing serious, dangerous imminent threats. To not fund the FBI or the Border Patrol or the TSA and to have the sequester affect those agencies and kid ourselves that we are dealing with our national security responsibilities is just not responsible. It is just not right. And to borrow the money to fix some of these things is not responsible or fair to our grandchildren. We are saying: We are just going to fix defense with this funny-money deal, a gimmick wrapped up in a trick, but we are not going to fix anything else. I talked about the FBI, the TSA, Border Patrol, and national security issues, but what about NIH and what about scientific research that can save lives? And we are having the sequester and saying: It is OK; we can do that. What about education? What about, yes, Head Start, which gives young people a chance to make a serious contribution to this country? I think the OCO trick that is in this bill is wrong on two counts. It is wrong on three counts, actually. No. 1, it is not paid for. No. 2 it is not really what the Defense Department needs. They need base budget authority so they can plan, so they can look to the future, and so they can make decisions on an ongoing basis that are necessary to commit to programs, plans, and projects that will defend this country. The short- term OCO solution does not do that. That is No. 2. No. 3, by ignoring the needs of the rest of the Federal Government, by ignoring the needs of other parts of the national security apparatus, we are not serving the public we were sent here to look after. I support this bill, but I think we really ought to be thinking about alternative ways to fund the needs we have identified. It is too easy to say this is an important national priority but not important enough to pay for it. We are continually--even today, after all of the talk about deficits and budget control and everything else--finding ways to shift the burden to our kids and to our grandchildren. I do not think that is right. Senator Reed of Rhode Island has an amendment to this bill that I think is an important one. All it simply says is that we are not going to spend that OCO money in defense until we solve the problem more generally throughout the rest of the Federal Government. I realize it is not the responsibility of the Defense Department or of the Armed Services Committee to solve the overall budget problem within the Defense bill. But I think we have a responsibility to look at the larger problem, and we can contribute to its solution by saying to our colleagues throughout this body and in the House that there has to be a comprehensive solution before we say we are going to fix only defense and we are only going to fix defense with borrowed money. There are three ways to solve this budget problem--three ways. One is by cuts, and there have already been substantial cuts. From the projected budgets back in 2010, there is something like three-quarters of a trillion dollars that has already been cut from defense and other areas of the Federal budget. We have to continue to look at that, and we have to look at all aspects of the Federal budget. The second way is revenues. Nobody is supposed to talk about revenues around here, but the reality is that we are not paying our bills. To pat ourselves on the back for tax cuts when in reality we are passing the expenses on to our children is just not honest. When we pass tax cuts here in a deficit situation and borrow the money to fill the hole, we are not cutting taxes. We are shifting the tax to our children. I do not think that is honest. I do not think that is responsible. I do not think that is what we were sent here to do. The third way, of course, to solve this budget problem is by economic growth. Some people say that the only way to grow the economy is to cut taxes. I have seen no economic study that says that works. Maybe it works if you are reducing taxes, as they did in 1960, from a 90-percent top marginal rate to now about 35 percent. Ok, I think that is significant. But to reduce that marginal rate by two or three points and say that it will stimulate a huge amount of economic activity-- there is no economic justification for that. The two single biggest economic development projects in the recent history of the United States were the GI bill after World War II and the interstate highway system. Both of them were investments, both of them cost money, and, by the way, our predecessors paid for them. They didn't pass the bill on to us. They paid for them. So, yes, we need to control taxes. Yes, we need to think about strategic tax reductions in ways and areas that will actually help stimulate the economy. I don't understand how having some guy who is managing money in New York pay half the tax rate that his secretary makes is a stimulus to the economy. Yet that is what we are doing. We have to look at this problem in a comprehensive way. We have to look at health care costs, we have to look at the effects of demographics on Federal expenditures over the next 20 to 30 years, and we have to look at investments that will help our economy grow. The Presiding Officer and I work hard on this bill. I think it is an important bill for the future of this country. I think it is an important bill to protect the national security and to provide for the common defense, but I think we need to do it in an honest and open way and not try to fill a short-term budget gap with money our children and our grandchildren are going to have to repay. I believe we can do this. I believe we can face this responsibility because that is why we are here. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise to address the bill before us, the USA FREEDOM Act, and its predecessor, the PATRIOT Act. Before talking about the specifics of those bills, I will try to address the historical context of what it is we are wrestling with and why it is so hard. What we are really trying to do in this body this week is to balance two critical constitutional provisions. The first is in the preamble, which is to provide for the common defense and ensure domestic tranquility. That is a fundamental purpose of this government. It is a fundamental purpose of any government--to provide for the common defense and ensure domestic tranquility. That is national security, and it is in the very core preamble to the Constitution of the United States. Of course, the other provisions are found in the Bill of Rights, particularly in the Fourth Amendment, which talks about the rights of the people to be secure in their persons and papers from unreasonable searches and seizures. ``Unreasonable'' is a key word. The people who drafted our Constitution were geniuses and every word counts. The word was ``unreasonable.'' So there is no absolute right to privacy, just as there is no absolute right to national security. We have to try to find the right balance, and that is what we have to do year in and year out, decade in and decade out, in relation to developments in technology and developments in terms of the threats which we face. It is a calibration that we have to continue to try to make. Now, I have been concerned, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, about the retention of large quantities of telephone data by the government. I think the program under which that data has been analyzed is important, and I will talk about that in a few minutes. I share the concern of many in this body who feel that simply having and retaining all of that information in government computers, even though it was hedged about with various protections and even though there were requirements for how it was to be accessed--and the level of attention to the detail of that access was important--and there is no evidence that it had ever been abused, was a danger to the liberty of our country. I feel the same as many of the Members of this body who have expressed that concern. Therefore, the USA FREEDOM Act, which we have before us now, proposes to move to leave the data with the phone companies. Instead of the government collecting and having it in the government's hands, the data will be in the phone companies. If it is necessary to access that information for national security purposes, the government will have to go through the process of going through the Justice Department and the court in order to get permission to access that data. Why shouldn't the government simply hold it? I am a subscriber to Lord Acton's famous maxim that ``power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'' While the current administration or the prior administration may have no inclination to misuse that data, we have no idea what may come in the future, what pressures there may be, what political pressures there may be. Therefore, it struck me as sensible to get it out of government's hands. The trouble I have had with the USA FREEDOM Act is that I felt it went too far in the other direction because there was no requirement in the bill, as it passed the House, that the phone companies retain and hold the data for any particular period of time. They now hold it, as a matter of business practice, for 18 months to 2 years, which is all that is necessary in order to have the data available for a national security search if necessary. The problem is that there is no requirement that they maintain that level of retention. In fact, in an open hearing, one of the vice presidents of one of the carriers said categorically: We will not accept a limitation on how long we have to hold the data. I think that is a glaring weakness in the USA FREEDOM Act, and, in fact, it led me to vote against the consideration of the motion to proceed when it came up last week. Today or tomorrow--whenever the timing works out--there will be a series of amendments proposed by the Senator from North Carolina, the chair of the Intelligence Committee, designed to deal with several of these technical but very important aspects of this program. One of those amendments would require the carriers--if they decide to hold the data for a shorter period of time--to notify the government, notify the Congress, and we could then make a decision as to whether we thought that some additional required period of retention would be necessary in order to adequately protect our national security. Another amendment that I understand is going to be proposed is that the transition period from the current program to the private carriers holding the data will be extended from 6 months to 1 year, simply because this is a major, Herculean technical task to develop the software to be sure that this information will be available for national security purposes on a timely basis. Now, the final question, and the one we have been debating and discussing here is this: Is it an important program? Is it worth maintaining? There has been a lot of argument that if you can't point to a specific plot that was specifically foiled by this narrow provision, then we don't need it at all. I don't buy that. It is part of our national security toolkit. It is interesting to talk about the history of this provision. It came into being shortly after September 11, because a gap in our security analysis ability was identified at that time, and that was that we could not track phone connections--not content, and I will talk about that in a minute--between the people who were preparing for the September 11 attack. For that reason, the section 215 program was invented. I want to stop for just a moment and make clear to the American people that this program does not collect or listen to or otherwise have anything to do with the content of phone calls. As I talked to people in Maine and they approached me about this, they said: We don't want the government listening to all of our phone calls. The answer is: They don't. This program does not convey and has not conveyed any such authority. We are talking about a much more narrow ability to determine whether a particular phone number called another phone number, the duration and date of that phone call, and that is it. An example of its usefulness was at the Boston Marathon bombing. The two brothers perpetrated that horrendous attack in Boston in April of 2013. This program allowed the authorities to check their phone numbers to see if they were in touch with other people in the country so they could determine whether this was a nationwide plot or whether it was simply these two guys in Boston. That, I will submit, is an important and--some would say--critical piece of information. It turned out that they were acting on their own, but had there been connections with other similarly inclined people in the country at that time, that would have been important information for us to know, and that is the way this program is used. Is it absolutely critical and indispensable in solving these cases? I don't think anybody can argue that that is the case. Is it important and useful as a part of the national security toolkit? Yes, particularly when the invasion of privacy, if you will, is so limited and really so narrowly defined. I liken it to a notebook that a police officer carries at the scene of a crime. A detective goes to the scene of a crime, takes out his notebook, and writes some notes. If we said that detectives can no longer carry notebooks, would it eliminate law enforcement's ability to solve crimes? No, but would it limit a tool that was helpful to them in solving that crime or another crime? The answer, I think, would be yes. We should not take a tool away that is useful and important unless there is some compelling argument on the other side. Since we are not talking about the content of the phone conversations--we are simply talking about which number called which other number, and it can only be accessed through a process that involves the Justice Department and then permission from the court--I think it is a program that is worthy of protection and useful to this country, and I think it is particularly important now. It is ironic that we are talking about, in effect, unilaterally disarming to this extent at a time when the threat to this country has never been greater and the nature of the threat is changing. September 11 is what I would call terrorism 1.0, a plot that was hatched abroad. The people who perpetrated it were smuggled into the country in various ways. They had a specific target and a specific plot that they were working on. That is terrorism 1.0, September 11. Terrorism 2.0 is a plot that is hatched abroad but communicated directly to people in the United States who are part of the jihadist group. But now we are on to terrorism 3.0, which is ISIS sending out what amounts to a terrorist APB to no particular person but to anyone in this country who has been radicalized by themselves or by the Internet. There is no direct connection between them and ISIS. It might be a Facebook post. That person then takes up arms and tries to kill Americans, and that is what their intent is. That is the hardest situation for us to counteract, and that is a situation where this ability to track numbers calling numbers can be extremely useful. In fact, it might be the only useful tool because we are not going to have the kind of specific plotting that we have seen in the past. This is the most dangerous threat that I think we face today. To throw aside a protection or a safeguard that I believe passes constitutional and legal muster and goes the extra mile to protect the privacy rights of Americans by getting this data out of the hands of the government and that is worthy of the support and the active work in this Chamber to find that balance--the balance between the imperative, the most solemn responsibility we have in this body, which is to provide for the common defense and ensure domestic tranquility, and to protect the safety and security of the people of this country in light of the constitutional limitations in the Bill of Rights that protect our individual liberties that make us who we are--we can do both things. There is never going to be a final answer to this question. But what we have to do is just what we are doing this week, and that is to assess the threats, assess the technology developments, and try to find the right calibration and the right balance that will allow us to meet that most solemn of our responsibilities. I look forward, hopefully, to the consideration of amendments later either today or tomorrow and look forward to what I hope will be a quick passage of this legislation in the next 24 to 48 hours so we can look our constituents and the people of this country in the eyes and say: We took the responsibility to protect your security seriously, and we also took seriously your rights, your liberty, and your understanding that the government is not going to impinge unreasonably in any way in violation of the principles of this Constitution. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Mr. Timothy P. Wilson on receiving the Gerda Haas Award for Excellence in Human Rights Education and Leadership from the Holocaust and Human Rights Center of Maine. The Gerda Haas Award recognizes and honors individuals who demonstrate excellence and initiative in human rights education and leadership. In the late 1970s, Gerda Haas was appointed to the Maine State School Board of Education and while serving on the board learned that students were not being taught about the Holocaust in Maine schools. Gerda identified this critical educational void and took action to remedy it, establishing the Holocaust and Human Rights Center of Maine with the goal of combating prejudice and discrimination while encouraging individuals to reflect and act upon their ethical and moral responsibilities in the modern world. Tim Wilson certainly lives up to this philosophy. Over the course of his vibrant life as a teacher, coach, philanthropist, consultant, government official, husband, father, and grandfather, Tim has dedicated his time to serving others both at home in Maine and in the international community. After graduating from Slippery Rock University and the University of Washington, where he was certified to teach English as a second language, Tim served in the Peace Corps in Thailand from 1962 to 1965. When he returned to the U.S., Tim took over as the head coach of the Dexter High School football team leading them to two Class C co-state championships and two Little Ten Conference titles. Over the course of his coaching career Tim has been a mentor to hundreds, if not thousands of students throughout Maine advocating education and sportsmanship. One of Tim's greatest legacies is his work with Seeds of Peace. This student exchange program is focused on bringing young people from conflict zones around the world together in order to build lasting relationships and develop the skills needed to advance peace. In the program's first year, Tim managed the International Camp in Otisfield, ME where a group of 46 Israeli, Palestinian, Egyptian, and American teenagers attended the camp for the inaugural season. As Seeds of Peace grew to accommodate over 100 students every year, Tim worked as director of both the Seeds of Peace International Camp in Maine and the Seeds of Peace Center for Coexistence in Jerusalem. Currently, Tim serves as a special international advisor to Seeds of Peace which has generated over 5,000 international alumni and which continues to help young people work towards peace in international conflict areas. Tim Wilson has worked under four Maine Governors, including myself. He has served in posts such as chair of the Maine Human Rights Commission, State ombudsman, and associate commissioner of programming for the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Corrections. He served as director of the State Offices of Energy, Community Services, and Civil Emergency Preparedness. He has also been the director of admissions at Maine Central Institute in Pittsfield, the associate headmaster at the Hyde School in Bath, ME, and the annual key note speaker at Dirigo Girls State. In 1997, the late King Hussein of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan presented Tim with a Medal of Honor. Seeds of Peace has recognized his efforts with a Distinguished Leadership Award and the Maine Youth Camping Association honored him with the Halsey Gulick Award. Tim has also been honored with the Distinguished American Award by the Maine Chapter of the National Football Foundation. Most recently, Tim received the Franklin H. Williams Award which recognizes ethnically diverse returned Peace Corps Volunteers who exemplify a commitment to community service and the Peace Corps' goal of promoting a cultural awareness among Americans. Tim Wilson has devoted his life to promoting peace and understanding, to educating young people, and to empowering them to make their communities--and the world--a better place. I can think of no one more deserving of the Gerda Haas Award. Tim has led a career dedicated to teaching the next generation of young people and he has done a truly spectacular job of preparing them.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the bill that is before us with regard to the Iran negotiations. I wish to address two fundamental and major segments of this process. One is the process and the other is the substance of the agreement which, hopefully, will come before this body at the end of June or July. First is the process. We are operating in a constitutional gray area. There is no question that the Constitution assigns principal responsibility for the conduct of foreign policy to the President, but it also assigns responsibility to the Congress--responsibility with regard to treaties, responsibility with regard to funding the foreign policy of the United States, and responsibility with regard to approving foreign policy officials. So there is an opportunity here for us to break, in a sense, new ground to establish a rational, formal, predictable process for considering this important issue. If we don't pass a bill, such as the one that is before us today, we will be in a kind of disorganized, chaotic situation of what will be the congressional reaction, what is Congress's role, how will it be played out, and how will it work. I believe that it is very important for us to establish this process before the agreement is laid before the world and the American people. It sets forth a process whereby Congress with can weigh in in a meaningful way and determine the merits and the quality of the arrangement that is being set before us. I cannot imagine a more solemn responsibility for this body than the consideration of this matter. This is a decision which will affect the United States, our ally Israel, and all the countries of the Middle East for generations to come. This is a consideration that must be taken on the merits, on the facts, on the data, on the actual alternatives--and I will talk about that in a minute--that we have to the deal, or the arrangement, that we hope will ultimately be brought to us later this summer. Let's treat this issue on its merits, and, please, to my colleagues, let's not treat it as simply another partisan issue. We have a tendency around here for everything to become a partisan issue. A great Republican Senator of the 1950s said that ``politics should stop at the water's edge.'' That means that this kind of issue, which involves war and peace and ridding or preventing a major country from obtaining nuclear weapons and thereby destabilizing the region and possibly the world, is the most solemn kind of issue that we can face. I know that there are people in this body who are not supportive of the President. They oppose the President. They don't like what he did on health care or don't like what he did on immigration. This is not the place for partisan politics. That does not mean I am saying we should roll over and do whatever the President says. I don't mean that at all. What I mean is that this matter should be considered in the context of the facts and the merits. What will it actually do and what are the alternatives? It is not about whether we agree with this President or whether we want this President to have an international accomplishment on his resume. We have to try to separate ourselves from that kind of consideration. Let's talk a bit about the agreement itself. The first thing to say about it is that it doesn't exist yet. It has not been finalized. We don't know what it is. I am a little surprised, frankly, when I hear many of my colleagues say that it is a terrible deal and won't work, when we don't even know what it is. It is true that we have a framework. Interestingly enough, many of the same people who are saying this is a terrible deal are the same people who said that the joint plan of action 1\1/2\ years ago was terrible--a historic mistake. It turned out to be a very important step toward an agreement and essentially froze Iran's nuclear program for the past 18 months. Let's take a deep breath and reserve judgment about whether this is a good deal, a bad deal or something in between until we actually see what it is and see what is signed. Hopefully, there will be something signed. We don't even know that for sure. Clearly, the framework agreement that was announced a few weeks ago is an important step in this process. It gives us some information, but it does not give us the all-important detail. First, let's do ``ready, aim, fire,'' not ``ready, fire, aim.'' Let's understand what it is we are debating and talking about before we fill the airwaves with rhetoric about whether this is a good or bad deal. Second, it has to be a good deal or we should not approve it. If the deal is illusory and structured in such a way that Iran has a clear path to the bomb and it would not slow them down, and, in fact, would facilitate it in some way, clearly we should not approve it and it should not be before us. I start with the premise that, A, we should hold our fire until we see what it actually says, and, B, it has to say the right things. It has to affirmatively stall, delay, and prohibit Iran's path to a nuclear weapon, and it must be totally verifiable. Ronald Reagan, of course, said ``Trust, but verify.'' In this case, it is don't trust and verify to the nth degree. I will submit that verification is the heart of the agreement, and it has to involve technology and people on the ground. It has to involve an openness to inspections that is unprecedented. We have experience from dealing with North Korea. We had a ``kind of'' agreement with North Korea which turned out not to be sufficient, and, in fact, they moved toward nuclear weapons by cheating. We cannot make that mistake again, and verification is the heart of it. It has to be as vigorous and as intrusive as is necessary in order to assure us and the world that Iran is not cheating and is not moving in any way, shape, or form toward a nuclear weapon. In this regard, I think we are extraordinarily fortunate in this moment of history when this particular negotiation is taking place, in that one of the President's principal advisers, the Secretary of Energy, happens to be a nuclear physicist. I don't know if we have ever had a nuclear physicist in that position before, but he is uniquely positioned to understand the details and the implications and the alternatives that can help us to assure that this arrangement provides the protection that we believe must be the case. In assessing this arrangement--whatever it is--I start with the premise that it has to be solid, verifiable, and meaningful. It cannot be just window dressing. It has to stop Iran's progress toward a bomb and create at least a 1-year breakout period so that the other alternatives can be exercised if they start moving in that direction. In order to assess that deal, it is imperative that we also assess alternatives. We cannot just say: Well, this is good or bad. It has to be, compared to what? There are really only two alternatives that I can see. If we don't make this arrangement, one alternative is more severe sanctions--more sanctions. Some people throw that out as if it was easy. ``More severe sanctions'' comes ``trippingly on the tongue,'' as Shakespeare would say. What is missing in this discussion is that we are not the only player here. This is not Barack Obama and the Supreme Leader. This is not the United States and Iran. This includes five other major countries, members of the Security Council of the United Nations, major countries that are involved in this whole discussion and negotiation, but most importantly, they are engaged in the sanctions. There is no doubt that our sanctions are important, but it is not only our unilateral sanctions that are necessarily providing all of the pressure on Iran. In fact, an argument can be made that it is the participation in sanctions by other countries in the world, not only by the P5+1, but by other countries as well that are not buying Iranian oil. We have not bought Iranian oil for 35 or 40 years. But people not buying Iranian oil include countries such as China, India, and Japan. Their decisions are contributing to the pressure that has brought Iran to the negotiating table. If the world decides this is a sufficient deal and sufficiently restricts Iran and that the verification is as vigorous as it needs to be--if the world decides that and we say, the heck with you, we are walking away, they may say that we have taken that step unilaterally and against the best judgment of what this deal means for keeping Iran from a nuclear weapon. Then the sanctions regime starts to fray, and, indeed, it starts to unwind. We can do all we want. We can stomp our feet and do more sanctions, but if the rest of the world is not with us, it is not going to be effective. The idea that somehow in this body, in this Congress, in this city we unilaterally can make the decision to impose additional sanctions that will bring Iran to its knees when the rest of the world doesn't agree with us is not a valid observation. So it is not so easy to say, oh, well, the alternative here is that if we don't like this deal, we will just go to more sanctions. Now, if the other members of our negotiating group decide they agree with us that it is not a good deal, then sanctions will continue and, indeed, probably strengthen. But I don't think we should feel that we have this kind of unilateral ``the heck with the rest of the world, we are going to do this ourselves'' mentality. I think that is a very important point to understand, that we are part of an international community that is negotiating this deal, and what other members of the community are doing in the way of sanctions is important, as well as our sanctions. Of course, the other alternative is military action. The other alternative is some kind of strike. There are various estimates I have heard in various forums and settings, but the most common estimate I have heard is that we could destroy their entire atomic infrastructure. We could level the buildings, destroy all the centrifuges, and we would set back their nuclear weapons program by 2 to 3 years. But what if we did that? We set it back by 2 to 3 years. We can't erase the knowledge they have. We have simply erased their infrastructure. The infrastructure can be rebuilt, and three things will have changed: No. 1, they will have the knowledge; No. 2, they will never ever negotiate; and No. 3, we will have created enemies of an entire new generation of Iranian people. We will have alienated those people to the point where it will be impossible to negotiate, and we will be in a situation of some kind of military intervention as far as the eye can see. The military option has to be on the table. The President has to retain that option, and he has. But I think we have to be realistic about what that option means and the commitment it entails both from us and our allies. I am not saying it is off the table. I am not saying it would never happen. But what I am saying is we have to assess the negotiated arrangement in light of the realities of either the deterioration of the sanctions regime or the realities of facing military action. Finally, I know that as this debate continues there are going to be a series of amendments and a lot of those amendments are going to be appealing. For example, as part of the condition of the deal, Iran shall recognize Israel's right to exist or as part of the negotiation of the deal, Iran must forswear terrorism or the President has to certify that Iran forswears terrorism. Those are desirable, but they will never happen. Iran will not agree to those. So when we propose an amendment such as that, what we are really saying is we don't want an agreement, because that is never going to be an idea they are going to accept. I would submit I think Iran is a mischievous--that is too light a word--a dangerous country in terms of exporting terrorism. We see it throughout the region. There is only one scenario worse than an Iran that is attempting to support terrorism and destabilize regimes in the region, and that is an Iran that is supporting terrorism, destabilizing the region, armed with nuclear weapons. We can't solve all the problems in the region with this agreement. The purpose of this agreement is to keep Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon. That is what we have to keep our eye on. And if amendments--no matter how desirable, no matter how good they sound, no matter how politically appealing, if those amendments will undercut or effectively eliminate our ability to keep our eye on the main ball, which is to keep them from having nuclear weapons, those amendments will not serve us, our interests, Israel's interests, the Middle East's interests, or the world's interests. We have to focus on what it is we are trying to achieve, and what it is we are trying to achieve is incredibly important. A nuclear-armed Iran is a danger to the region, and it is a danger to the world. Right now, I think it is a very pivotal moment as to whether we are going to be able to achieve a realistic agreement that will make that less likely. Now, it may be that the agreement which we agree to and which goes into place doesn't work. It may be that they cheat. I would submit that at that point, we will be right where we are now. We can then talk with the rest of the world about additional sanctions. We do have the military option. We are no worse off than we are if we at least try to achieve a resolution of this grave issue through diplomacy, negotiation, and working with the rest of the world to try to eliminate this one problem. We are not going to eliminate all the world's problems with this one arrangement or negotiation, but if we can keep Iran, through this process, from achieving a nuclear weapon, from aspiring to a nuclear weapon, then we will have achieved something important for ourselves, for the future generations not only in the Middle East but in America and the world. Before I close, I would like to share my thoughts on the role of Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Cardin in bringing this matter to us in a thoughtful, responsible, deliberative way. This is the way the Senate is supposed to work--committee consideration, debate, discussion, review of amendments, and bringing a bill to the floor for discussion and debate. I wish to acknowledge the work of the Senator from Tennessee, who has taken this so seriously and who is doing it in the best traditions of this body. I think we are embarking upon an important and solemn project here that can have enormous ramifications for ourselves and for our posterity. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment. This simply simplifies the repayment options for students under the present student loan program, which is, frankly, very confusing--up to nine different programs with confusing names and confusing terms. This boils it down to two simple ones: a fixed repayment schedule or a variable schedule based upon income. I should mention that I see this as an important stand-alone provision. I am also going to support Senator Warren's amendment on refinancing student loans. I believe this is an important amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote yes.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment and in support of the United States finally joining the civilized nations of the world in providing for family leave for our citizens. I know this amendment doesn't go as far as some would like, but I believe it is very credible, enforceable legislation that can move forward and really change the lives of thousands and millions of people across this country. I commend the Senator from Nebraska for bringing this amendment forward, and I intend to support it and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I join the senior Senator from Maine in congratulating Job Corps on 50 years of service to our country's youth. Across the Nation, Job Corps provides training and career skills to economically disadvantaged young adults, helping them attain a high school diploma or equivalent and career technical training to prepare them for success in today's job market. This program is extremely important, giving young people who need a second chance the opportunity to forge a better career for themselves through hard work and meaningful study. The Penobscot Job Corps Center in Bangor, ME, and the Loring Job Corps Center in Limestone, ME, have consistently proven to be outstanding assets to our State, helping young Mainers prepare to enter the workforce or pursue post-secondary education every year. Through a combination of unique learning experiences, these institutions are helping the next generation of Maine students work towards stable, long-term jobs. In October of 2013 I was proud to congratulate the Penobscot Job Corps Academy for its certification as a Center of Environmental Excellence. This distinction recognizes Job Corps campuses that show leadership in implementing Job Corps' guiding principles for high performance green buildings. At the time, the Penobscot Job Corps was one of only two centers in the country to receive this distinction. This initiative prompted Job Corps facilities across the United States to not only reduce their environmental impact, but to also teach their students to live and work sustainably. The skills and knowledge that students receive from this program will surely help them compete in an increasingly environmentally focused labor market. Job Corps centers are an important facet of our workforce development system and have a proven record of success in preparing disadvantaged students to obtain and hold a job or pursue opportunities in higher education. I wish Job Corps another 50 years of success, and I am proud of the many young people in Maine and across the country who have used this program to make a better life for themselves. The contributions of Maine's Job Corps centers simply cannot be overstated, and I look forward to watching their continued development.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the Burr-King amendment No. 622, which creates a deficit-neutral reserve fund to reduce overlapping student loan repayment programs. The student repayment system is a mess right now. There are nine different alternatives and they are very confusing. Even the names are confusing. There is the income-based repayment, the income-contingent repayment, the income-sensitive repayment, and the pay-as-you-earn repayment. In other words, it is very complicated and it is one of the things that makes it confusing and hard for students. Senator Burr and I have introduced this amendment in order to simplify this decision. Basically we have taken suggestions from individuals--students, institutions, as well as the President--to simplify the loan repayment provision to reduce it to basically two options, a fixed repayment over 10 years or an income-related repayment over a longer period of time. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I believe it is an overdue simplification of this process, and I believe it will enable the students of America to deal with this issue in a more constructive way. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I wish to honor the many years of service provided by the Kennebunk Rotary Club, which is now entering its 90th year as an integral part of the Kennebunk community. The Kennebunk Rotary Club is an organization founded on a steadfast dedication to ``Service Above Self'', a motto that I believe we should all strive to fulfill. I have had the privilege of speaking with rotary members on multiple occasions and I value their insight as important members of their local communities. I have also attended a number of rotary club meetings in Maine and as the son of a rotarian I have seen firsthand the positive impact that Rotary International has on communities in Maine and across the country. For generations, local students, families, seniors, and people around the world have benefited from the Kennebunk Rotary Club and the many charitable events that it hosts annually. Indeed, some of these events have been a source of Kennebunk pride for years. These include cyber- crime awareness trainings for seniors, a 5K every summer, and a Christmas party to provide gifts for children who otherwise wouldn't have any under the tree. In addition to these community events, the Kennebunk Rotary Club sponsors philanthropic programs such as the club's annual scholarship fund, which provides several local high school seniors with up to a $1,500 to cover some college expenses. Scholarship programs such as the Kennebunk Rotary Club's open the door to success for Kennebunk graduates. The first recipient of this scholarship, Thomas Putnam, demonstrates the success of the program. Several years after he received his scholarship funds, he joined the Kennebunk Rotary Club and is today the director of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library in Massachusetts. Finally, the Kennebunk Rotary Club has been able to extend their love of community beyond the bounds of their scenic hometown, crossing international borders to help those in need. After a train carrying crude oil exploded in the small town of Lac-Meegantic, Quebec, the Kennebunk Rotary Club and the rest of Rotary International District 7780 sprang into action. They helped raise over $25,000 in donations, which was used to provide 400 children with Christmas presents. It was my pleasure to work with Rotary International and U.S. Customs to ensure that those gifts arrived safely in Lac-Meegantic. Through collaboration and a little hard work, the Kennebunk Rotary Club was able to make a huge impact on the lives of many. I would like to again thank the Kennebunk Rotary Club, and congratulate them on their 90 years of dedication to ``Service Above Self.'' Their investment in Kennebunk, the great State of Maine, and communities across the globe has had a great effect on students, families, and seniors and will continue to open the doors of opportunity for years to come.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate John Donato of Smithfield, ME, for his achievements in coaching over the past 45 years. His hard work for girls' basketball teams across the State led to an impressive 500th win this past December, placing him in an exclusive club of extraordinary coaches. The season finished on a high note for his Lawrence High School team with a State championship win, marking his fifth State championship title over the course of his career. Mr. Donato's coaching record is stunning. While he passed the 500 mark for basketball wins in December and now has 514, he has a grand total of 1,247 wins across all sports. His longest winning streak with a basketball team was an incredible 88 games. Mr. Donato has a long history of excellence in sports, from playing at the Boston Garden in semifinals games as a shooting guard in high school to bringing teams to wins as a coach at Houlton, Messalonskee, Mount View, Hall-Dale, and Lawrence High Schools. After attending Ricker College, Mr. Donato spent an impressive 18 years coaching basketball and 25 years coaching baseball at Houlton alone. While he was coach, the Houlton girls' basketball team won nine Eastern Maine Class B titles in 11 years and four State championships in 6 years. They had 261 wins overall. On top of that, his baseball team won two Eastern Maine titles, with 324 wins overall, and the golf team won two State championships. Mr. Donato then moved to central Maine, and after a year coaching at Hall-Dale High School, he began coaching at Messalonskee High School. There his team went 17-1 during his first season, a major turnaround from their 5-13 run the previous year. He would spend 8 years at Messalonskee, followed by 4 years at Mount View High School, and then began coaching girls' basketball at Lawrence in 2010. The girls' State championship victory this year marks Lawrence's first in 21 years. I am not the first to recognize Mr. Donato's great achievements. He was the McDonald's All-Star Coach of the Year 12 times, Eastern Maine Class B Coach of the Year 8 times, Kennebec Valley Athletic Conference Coach of the Year 4 times, and State of Maine Girls' Basketball Coach of the Year 5 times. Mr. Donato is not only a coach, but also a teacher and former business owner, now in his 14th year teaching science at Lawrence High School. In each respect, he has proven a strong commitment to his community. Whether in the gym or the classroom, Mr. Donato brings knowledge of leadership and team building that is invaluable for our students. I am proud to represent people such as Coach Donato, an outstanding citizen of Maine, in the U.S. Senate. On the occasion of his 500th win and fifth State championship title, I extend my congratulations to him and the teams he has coached over the years.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve and Laudholm Trust on the completion of the final stage of their solar energy project. On March 20, 2015, they will officially finish the project and be 100 percent energy self-sufficient. They are the first nonprofit organization in Maine to reach this milestone. The solar array project represents only the most recent environmental conservation landmark on the Wells Reserve. In fact, the land on which the Wells Reserve sits has been a key link between the community and the environment for not just decades but centuries. It was settled for farming in 1643 and was the largest saltwater farm in York County at one time, shipping its products to Boston weekly. By 1978, the farm was derelict, but devoted community members decided to join together to revitalize it. Laudholm Trust was soon born from that initiative. Officially established in 1982, the Laudholm Trust has been a vital supporter of stewardship, research, and education efforts surrounding Maine's coastal communities, enabling the success of the Wells Reserve. Due in part to the Trust's efforts, the 2,250 acres of farmland were designated a National Estuarine Research Reserve in 1984. The solar array project is an outstanding example of what can be accomplished when stakeholders at all levels work together. The $200,000 in funding to purchase the solar panels was made possible by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, NOAA, the Mattina R. Proctor Foundation, the Davis Conservation Foundation, the Town of Wells, Efficiency Maine, and, of course, Wells Reserve and Laudholm members. A Maine company, Revision Energy of Portland, ME, installed the array. Through the hard work of this community, the project was completed a full two years ahead of schedule. For such a significant project to be finished years ahead of schedule proves the dedication of the organizations and individuals involved with completing this venture. The local initiative and collaboration demonstrated on the Wells Reserve for this project represents the very best of Maine community moxie. On the occasion of the completion of the Wells Reserve and Laudholm Trust solar array, I extend my congratulations to the two leading organizations and all those involved in making the project possible.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I wish to honor two remarkable women, Ellen Golden and Dr. Barbara Woodlee, who are new inductees to the Maine Women's Hall of Fame. Like all members of this prestigious group, Ellen and Barbara have had a tremendous impact on the lives of family and friends in their communities and on women throughout the State of Maine. Indeed, to be considered for the Maine Women's Hall of Fame, nominees' achievements must have had significant statewide impact, must have improved the lives of women in Maine, and must have made contributions with enduring value for women. I am pleased to say that Ellen and Barbara have not only met these criteria, they have far exceeded them. Ellen Golden, from Woolwich, ME, is the senior vice president and founder of the Women's Business Center at Coastal Enterprises, Inc., CEI. She has played a leading role in supporting women business owners and microenterprise growth through research, policy, and program development. She has also been at the forefront of expanding small business opportunities for minorities and immigrants in Maine. Ellen's efforts through CEI and a number of other boards and civic organizations have provided financial and career possibilities that would otherwise have been unavailable to many Mainers. Ellen's work truly embodies the spirit of American opportunity. Dr. Barbara Woodlee, from Vassalboro, ME, was the president of Kennebec Valley Community College in Fairfield, ME for nearly 30 years. A trailblazer in her field, she served as the first woman president within the Maine Community College System. Throughout her presidency, Barbara strove to increase educational opportunities for Maine women by developing programs, particularly in the health care field, that met the needs of the many women who used the college to launch their careers. Her efforts to open up opportunities for women to access higher education, and the well-paying jobs that come with it, are commendable. But it is not just women at the college who have benefited from her work; thanks to her, Maine community college students pay the lowest in-state tuition and fees in all of New England. She kept costs low while facing difficult budget challenges--a task with which we here in Congress can sympathize. Congratulations to both Ellen and Barbara for their induction into the Maine Women's Hall of Fame. With this well-deserved honor, they join the likes of Senator Margaret Chase Smith, who in 1950 courageously stood here, on the Senate floor, to denounce McCarthyism. I thank Ellen and Barbara for all that they have done for Maine women and for our State as a whole. Maine is fortunate to have such tireless advocates promoting education and fighting for economic opportunity.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, I rise to share some good news from my home State of Maine. It is the story of veterans helping veterans--of three people from Maine who have positively impacted the lives of thousands of veterans in my State and have done so in a unique way. They make personalized wooden canes with a bold and intricate bald eagle head carved into the handle for any Maine veteran who wants one. I have some pictures that show a large number of the canes and a closeup. As I noted when one of these canes appeared in my office recently, this eagle has an attitude and he is positive about the future of this country. About 8 years ago, George and Donna Gunning from Windsor, ME, heard about a project in Oklahoma called the Eagle Cane Project. The mission was to help post-9/11 veterans who had trouble walking because of leg disabilities due to combat-related action by providing them with a unique hand-carved cane. As a Navy veteran, George and his wife Donna Gunning, who grew up in a Navy family, were both intimately familiar with the sacrifices and difficulties that accompany military service. This project touched their hearts and they quickly recognized it as an opportunity to give back to veterans in Maine. They brought their own version of the project to our State, offering a personalized eagle cane to any Maine veteran who had served anywhere in the world in any conflict across the globe. It wasn't long before the Gunnings were joined by another fellow named Burt Truman from Hallowell, ME, who spent two decades in the military, in the Navy, Army Reserve, and the Air National Guard. The trio worked together on each cane they made--crafting them, painting them, personalizing each one by etching the veteran's name and molding medals to show their branch of the service and any honors they received. As impressive as each of these masterpieces is, the number that these three people have produced is what is astounding and remarkable. The current count is 2,474 of these personally hand-made canes, made free of charge and funded for Maine veterans entirely through donations. For all their hard work and dedication, the trio remains adamant that they deserve no special recognition, although I am giving it to them here today. Instead, they would rather the attention and admiration and thanks of all of our people be directed toward the veterans who are receiving these canes, who have borne so much for our country. That is the true magic of this project. It is about recognizing our veterans, supporting them, and giving them something to lean on, both literally, physically, and emotionally. In recent months, as the Presiding Officer knows, there have been a number of efforts in the Congress to further support our veterans--to improve their access to care and support services. While the Choice Act, which was signed into law last August, made progress in this area, more work needs to be done. To ensure that provisions of this legislation we all voted for and supported last year are implemented in accordance with our intent, Senator Jerry Moran, Senator Susan Collins, myself and others have introduced a bill to improve how the VA determines eligibility for the Choice Program. Currently, veterans can only use their Choice cards if they cannot get an appointment within 30 days at a VA facility and face an excessive burden of travel, such as a body of water, or if they live more than 40 miles as the crow flies from any VA facility, regardless of whether it provides the type of care they need. In my opinion this isn't what Congress intended. In rural States such as Maine, as the crow flies is not a good definition of distance. We have to take into account whether the VA facility in question can provide our veterans with the specific care services they require. So the bill sponsored by Senators Moran, Collins, myself, and others offers a fix by requiring the VA to use its existing authority to offer community care to veterans who live more than 40 miles driving distance from the nearest VA facility that provides the type of care they need. I hope in the coming weeks the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and the similar committee in the House will hold hearings on this issue so we are able to provide a path forward and correct what I think is certainly a fixable portion of the Choice Act we passed last year. As we look for that path, and as we think about veterans' issues, I think these eagle canes provide some inspiration. The bald eagle of course is a national symbol of freedom and independence, and with these canes it has also come to symbolize in Maine the debt of gratitude we owe to our Nation's veterans. Each cane is a treasured reminder that someone cares, someone notices, and someone appreciates what they have done. I have seen firsthand the powerful effect these canes have. Earlier this month I was meeting with members of the Maine Veterans of Foreign Wars and one of the gentlemen who sat right next to me in my office had with him this beautifully carved eagle cane. Thinking it was the only one of its kind, I asked him where he found something so unique and interesting and powerful. He said: Well, it was made right here in Maine, and I am not the only person who has one. It was one of thousands made in a Windsor, ME, workshop. Even more telling was how quickly and enthusiastically the VFW members, also in my office that day, jumped in to explain where the canes came from and how glowingly they spoke of this project and what it has meant to veterans in Maine. They knew the history of the project, they described the meticulousness of the craftsmanship--which we can see here--and they quickly gave me George Gunning's name. Their enthusiasm underscored their true appreciation for the support and recognition this Eagle Cane Project in Maine had given to them and their fellow veterans. Burt, George, and Donna's work is a true testament to the strength of our veterans community in Maine, and that is what it is all about. Good news from Maine, Madam President. Good news about our commitment to each other and our commitment to our veterans. It is often said that Maine is a big small town with very long streets. We know each other, we care about each other, and in this case we deeply care about our veterans. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, there is little I can add to the remarks of the Senator from Virginia on this issue. I think this institution is being tested this week, this month, and over the next several months in a way that is really somewhat new. The test, the question, is: Can we deal with the most serious of issues facing this country and the world in a responsible, reasonable, and, yes, bipartisan, nonpartisan way? I also worked with Bob Corker, Senator Kaine, and the whole group that worked on putting together--Senator Menendez--a bipartisan bill to provide Congress a role in the approval of whatever deal is struck with Iran. I believe Congress should have that role. But in those discussions, my concern was that some of our Members will not be able to resist the temptation to politicize and make a partisan issue--even this grave issue of war and peace, this grave issue that faces this country and the entire world--of the possibility of a regime such as that in Iran achieving nuclear weapons. This is not an ideological debate. This is a serious debate about the future of this country. This is one of the most serious negotiations of our adult lives. I want Congress to have a role, but I want it to play that role weighing the merits, pro or con, the actual materials that are in the treaty--in the agreement. I want us to have that role, but I want to be sure we can respond to that in a responsible way. Frankly, the actions of the last few days have shaken that confidence, because we have seen what appears to be an effort to gain political and partisan advantage from this gravest of national issues. I understand there are differences about what the deal should look like and what the terms should be. That is OK. That is what we should be discussing. But to turn this into a partisan issue I think does a grave disservice to this entire country, and to undercut the President in the last stages of the negotiation to me is unprecedented and unthinkable. I was a young man at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. I cannot imagine the Congress of the United States writing a letter to Kruschev in the midst of those discussions and saying, Don't worry about this guy Kennedy, he doesn't speak for the country. Yet that essentially is what took place yesterday. I don't understand the need or the helpfulness of such a statement at a time when we were already moving toward a bipartisan--I believe probably veto-proof--bill to provide this institution with a check on the quality of the deal that is being struck. It is not productive or helpful to turn issues of this kind into partisan issues. I hope we can step back from this partisan posture and meet this solemn responsibility to assess what the President and the administration and the other five countries--the agreement they come to with Iran--to determine whether, indeed, it is in the best interests of the region and the world. That is our responsibility. I hope we can muster the ability to meet that responsibility in a serious way and not, for once, turn it into a partisan issue. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise today on a sad occasion. Yesterday, Bowdoin College--indeed, the entire State of Maine--lost a truly great man. Wil Smith, who was a good friend to countless people in Maine, passed away yesterday at the age of 46 following a courageous 3-year battle with cancer. It is difficult to encapsulate in words the remarkable depth and breadth of someone like Wil. He grew up in Jacksonville, FL, the youngest of 10 children. His mother, Mildred, passed away when he was 15 years old. After high school, Wil briefly attended Florida A&M University before enlisting in the U.S. Navy and becoming an aviation electronics technician. He served in the first gulf war and was later transferred to the Naval Air Station in Brunswick, ME. While stationed in Brunswick, Wil began coaching football at Brunswick Middle School. It wasn't long after that when the coach of the Bowdoin College men's basketball team spotted him and was impressed by his talent and natural ability to work with kids. He asked Wil if he had ever thought about attending college. After some convincing, Wil applied to and was accepted at Bowdoin. It was also during this time that Wil became a father--and only months before his first semester began, he was granted full custody of his 11-month-old daughter Olivia. To say the least, he was a nontraditional student in almost every sense. Matriculating at age 28, he was a decade older than most of his freshmen classmates. He was one of just three African-American students in his class. And he was the first single father in Bowdoin's history to attend the college. He worked tirelessly--carrying Olivia to class and then to basketball practice, taking evening shifts at the local Staples store, and volunteering at area high schools. He faced challenges unfathomable to most of his classmates at Bowdoin--struggling to balance a commitment to his daughter and his rigorous coursework. But Wil persevered--and he did so with a strength of conviction and determination that would come to define the influence he would have on students who would follow in his footsteps at Bowdoin. Following graduation, Wil continued to devote his time and energy to his community, and in particular, to young people of nontraditional or underrepresented backgrounds. He continued to serve in the U.S. Navy Reserves, and joined the staff of Bowdoin College, serving as director of multicultural student programs. Driven to continue his education, he then enrolled in the University of Maine School of Law, where 3 years later, he would graduate with a law degree and once again return to Bowdoin. At Bowdoin, Wil served as a beacon of light to so many students--many of whom, like him, toiled with the challenges of the transition to college. But as a gifted mentor and as someone who had the rare ability to genuinely connect with people, to understand them, and to relate to them, Wil inspired a newfound sense of hope in countless students, and his advice, unfailing support, and encouragement turned around the lives of hundreds and perhaps thousands of people. And while students were away from Bowdoin during the summer, Wil dedicated his time to the Seeds of Peace International Camp in Otisfield, ME. It was an endeavor that he joined in the summer of 1999, before he graduated from Bowdoin, and it was one he carried on until last summer. At the camp, he mentored children from across the world, and challenged them to look at and judge their peers not by their race, ethnicity, or differences, but by their thoughts and their merit. Wil was truly a team player in this work, serving in numerous positions at Seeds of Peace over the years, from coach to counselor to associate director. But the title was always less important to Wil than knowing he was helping those he worked with at the camp. And true to the camp's mission, Wil cultivated seeds of peace within the heart of every child he met--his reach and impact extending around the world. That same spirit of mentorship drew him to the basketball courts of Catherine McAuley High School in South Portland, where he coached the girls' varsity team for a decade, amassing nearly twice as many wins than losses and, in a testament to his talent as a coach, bringing home a prized state championship in 2007. Through the game he loved, he taught young women about the power and virtue of leadership, character, and teamwork--the same traits he worked so hard to instill in students at Bowdoin, in young people at Seeds of Peace, or in anyone who came to him in search of help. There is a hole in the heart of our community today. But while Wil's loss is felt by countless people, his legacy will be carried on by the thousands who were fortunate enough to know him. Indeed, it is that legacy of caring, of hope, and of understanding which he has given to us and which we will give to future generations along with his story as proof that even the most unlikely of beginnings can yield remarkable outcomes. Today, the world is a lesser place for Wil's loss, but we are all better for him having been in it. My heart goes out to his daughter Olivia, his partner Maha Jaber, and her son, Nim, his family, and to all the people whose lives were touched by this extraordinary man's unfaltering enthusiasm, caring, and generosity.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a little-discussed aspect of the Affordable Care Act. Before touching on the main subject, I should point out that I think as of tonight there will be more than 11 million Americans who will have already signed up for health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act so far this year. Of course, the deadline is coming up next week, and this weekend there could be a very large influx of newly insured Americans, which I think is an occurrence we should all feel very proud of and should celebrate. I wish to speak about a part of the Affordable Care Act that gets very little mention, very little discussion, and very little controversy. It is a provision that enables local organizations within a State to form cooperative insurance entities, to form nonprofits, to provide insurance to their citizens. Today I wish to speak about one of those--and one of the most successful in the country--the Maine Community Health Options program. It is a story of an opportunity. It is a story of a vision. It is a story of an idea. It is a story of risk taking. It is a story of creative and dedicated Maine professionals who were willing to take a risk and try to implement a new idea. It is one of the health insurance co-ops, as I mentioned, that was established by the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act provided the opportunity to develop something new and different in health insurance--a company where purchasers of health insurance also become members and then elect other members to serve on the board of directors of their insurance company. Kevin Lewis and Robert Hillman, two of the founders, saw an opportunity in the ACA to develop this idea they knew was needed to address the challenges of health care coverage for Maine citizens. Working with a group of people in Maine who shared their concerns about health care, they built Maine Community Health Options based on this vision of meeting Maine's people's health insurance needs in a direct and hands-on way. Would it work? Nobody knew. When the enrollment opened last year, their goal, their hope, their vision was for 15,000 signups. By the time the dust settled at the deadline last spring, they had 40,000 signups. Eighty-three percent of the marketplace signups in Maine had signed up with this fledgling company. This year, I am told, as of today they have over 60,000 signups. I did a tour of their offices recently in Lewiston, ME, and we talked about this phenomenon of all the signups that came unexpectedly. It reminded me of a TV commercial we all saw a few years ago where these young people start an Internet startup. They see the sales orders coming in, and they are happy. Then they start to come in even faster, and they get even more excited. Then they start to come in even faster, and they look at each other and say, what do we do now? These people in Maine experienced exactly that. Great, it is working. A few more. Wow, that is great. Then it went crazy. They all shook their heads. When we talked about this in Lewiston a few weeks ago, they said that is exactly the way it felt. This sounds simple and straightforward, and it wasn't. When those 40,000 folks were signing up and the systems were challenged, Maine Community Health Options faced those issues head-on. They figured out where the problems were, addressed them, and communicated to members quickly and directly. That is really the Maine way. The explosion of growth of this little company from zero to 60,000 is a jobs story as well. Maine Community Health Options now employs over 130 people and has even contracted with a local call center in Maine to provide additional customer support during this enrollment period. Even their chosen location is a good-news story. It is a great news story for New England and for Maine because they are in an old textile mill. The textile industry flourished in New England up through the 1950s but then left these beautiful old mills in Lewiston, ME. One of these mills--first one floor and now two floors--is being repurposed for this 21st century project of bringing health insurance to the people of Maine. It is humming with activity, new jobs, and people supporting their families. It is also a local control story. Maine Community Health Options recently held elections for the board--a board that has to be made up of 51 percent of their individuals who are members who are elected by other members. In other words, the people who use the products and who buy the health insurance are actually making decisions about how those products should be designed. They are responsible to the folks who elect them--like us. The structure of the organization is only part of the story. I think this is very important. They are also focused on the business of health--individual health and community health. They are focused on prevention. The cheapest medical intervention of all of this is the one that never occurs, because people have preventive care that keeps them from more serious chronic care. They have a chronic illness support program and a tobacco cessation program which are both designed to make it easier and cheaper for members to manage chronic care or stop smoking. That is how we are going to save money in the health care system. They have a behavioral health partnership creating a nearly seamless transition for members in need of short-term mental health services, with no copay for the first three visits. They are doing community outreach. They recognize many people who have never had health insurance coverage before don't fully understand how to use it. Their community outreach effort includes informational presentations on health care for members and nonmembers alike. Another part of the good-news story is Maine Community Health Options has just expanded its coverage into New Hampshire and is providing a new health care option for the people of New Hampshire. Whereas last year, as I understand it, New Hampshire only had one option on their exchange, now I think they have at least two, and perhaps three or four, one of which I commend to the Presiding Officer is based in Lewiston, ME. Finally--and I think this is very important--what has this done for rates? I think we have lost sight of this in the last couple of years. For many years, one of the problems in health care in this country was the exaggerated inflation of health care costs--5, 6, 7, 8 percent a year was not unusual in the late 1990s and the early first decade of this century. That was the typical, somewhat expected inflation in the rates of health care costs--in the cost of health care and, therefore, in insurance rates. Maine Community Health Options not only has reduced its already competitive rates, reduced its rates by 1 percent this year, but that competitive pressure, we believe, has also brought pressure to reduce rates for other providers and other carriers in Maine. This is a great news story. This is people who saw an opportunity created by the Affordable Care Act to create a new kind of health insurance company that is owned and run by its members, that is delivering health care, quality health care insurance coverage, to the people of Maine and now the people of New Hampshire, that is helping to control costs, and I think most importantly is taking an active role in assisting its members in improving their own health. Of course, this is about cost. Of course, it is about access. Of course, it is about all the mechanics of health insurance. But in the end, if the result is healthier people, people who need the intervention of the health care system less frequently, that is a huge win for those individuals, for our State, for our region, and for our country. I come to the floor today just to share some good news about an aspect of the Affordable Care Act that is absolutely working, and it is making a huge difference in the lives of thousands, tens of thousands, of Maine people. Better health coverage, better health at a lower cost--what is not to like about that formula? I am very proud of what these entrepreneurial individuals in Maine have undertaken and the success they have enjoyed so far. I look forward to working with them as they continue the project that has meant so much to my people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KING

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

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, there are two items I want to touch on today. One is bad news and the other is good news. This week we learned there was a data breach of 80 million people's records--300,000 in Maine--at Anthem. Fortunately the data breach did not include credit card numbers, but it did include Social Security numbers. This news comes about a month after Sony. What is it going to take for this body, for this Congress, for this city, to act to protect us against these threats? We keep getting warning shots, and we keep ignoring them. I am going to have to go home this weekend, and 300,000 people in Maine are going to say: What have you done to keep this from happening? Am I really going to be able to say: Well, it is complicated; we have four committees of jurisdiction and it is very difficult for us to make these decisions and it takes some time? That is not good enough. The intelligence committee reported out a bill last July. We had a bill on the floor here in the fall. It is time for us to act. We keep getting warned, and we keep not doing anything. I can't justify it. There is no excuse for us not taking steps-- concrete steps--to protect this country against cyber attacks. They keep happening. My regional representatives in Maine have surveyed both small businesses and health care facilities, and all of them either have been attacked or are concerned about attacks. Whether it is from a foreign country or whether it is from garden-variety criminals, the point is this is a major threat facing this country, and it is one we have within our power--we can't control it, but we can at least work together to try to prevent it and to minimize the damage. It is beyond time--way beyond time--for us to take action on this subject. I hope my colleagues on all the relevant committees can come together in the next several months--before the summer--to take action to deal with this problem. There is no excuse, particularly given the continuous warnings we are having, for not dealing with the issue of the cyber threat to this country. This week it is Anthem. A few weeks ago it was Sony. What is going to happen when it is the gas pipeline system, when it is the financial system, when it is the New York Stock Exchange, when people's bank accounts disappear overnight? It is time for us to act, and it is time for us to act promptly.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I also come to the floor today with some good news. It comes as no surprise that our debates here in the Senate focus generally on challenges, such as the one I just outlined, that face the United States. After all, that is our task and it is our fundamental responsibility to identify our Nation's problems and work together to find solutions. But too often--and I am sure everyone in this body realizes--the bad news gets more attention than the good news. The old saying is, bad news gets halfway around the world before good news gets its shoes tied. The problems we face should not, I believe, drown out the accomplishments of our citizens as we go about our work every day here in the United States. I think we should take a little time every now and then to reflect on the great things that are happening all over America, and in my case in Maine. There are stories of perseverance, innovation, individual accomplishments, and community effort. It is in that spirit that I rise today with good news from my home State of Maine. I will spend a few minutes talking about Dr. Ed Bilsky and the impressive work he and a dedicated team of scientists, physicians, and students have been doing at one of my favorite schools, the University of New England in Biddeford, ME, to better understand and treat chronic pain. Dr. Bilsky was recently named a member of the Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives, a group of neuroscientists who work together to advance public education about the progress and benefits of brain research and to provide information on the brain in a way that is understandable and accessible for those of us who don't have a Ph.D. in neuroscience. His inclusion in this group is recognition of his terrific work to advance our understanding of chronic pain. It is also a reflection of the prominent role he and his colleagues are playing in a critical national effort to address this problem. Chronic pain--and that means pain that persists for days, weeks, and months at a time--can be absolutely debilitating for people in Maine and around the country and is responsible for more than $500 billion a year--$\1/2\ trillion a year--in direct and indirect medical costs. Periodically in my life I have experienced back pain, and when it persists for a period of time, it changes everything. It changes your mood, it changes your attitude, it changes your ability to get anything done, to focus on the work at hand. There are people in this country who are suffering--the estimate is 100 million people suffer chronic pain at some point in their lives. That is why the work done at the University of New England Center for the Study of Pain and Sensory Function, where Dr. Bilsky is one of the leaders, is so important. This center is built around a core group of scientists, educators, health care professionals, whose research at the University of New England is focused on understanding the neurobiology of pain. How does it happen? How is it caused? What can we do about it? Faculty and students work together to study the causes of chronic pain and apply this knowledge to preventing and better treating this very challenging and very prevalent condition. Projects include working to develop new kinds of nonopioid painkillers. That is a big deal because of all of the side effects and dangers of opioid painkillers which we are experiencing in our society. To develop nonopioid painkillers would be a tremendous boon to this country, those which don't have the side effects of opioids. They are also studying the genes and proteins that can turn acute pain into chronic pain and trying to find out the genetic and chromosomal basis of this terrible problem. As with any success story, certain key events, people, and investments have made this research community what it is today. The recruitment of key faculty scientists, such as Dr. Bilsky and his codirector Dr. Ian Meng, in the early 2000s was pivotal to this effort. The addition of complementary research-driven faculty and administrators as well as the launch at the university of the Center for Excellence in the Neurosciences continue to move this project forward. I should mention here the leadership of Daniel Ripich, the president of the University of New England, who is a true visionary and a great leader in the advancement of science and medicine as well as the mission of this great university. The NIH took notice, awarding the university a 5-year, $10 million grant in 2012 to create the Center for the Study of Pain and Sensory Function, focusing on the neurobiology of pain. As is often the case, that Federal investment in research, which I believe is one of the most important and valuable investments the Federal Government can make, has been critical to the growth of these research opportunities and projects and has helped to attract further Federal and private investment. The importance of cooperation and collaboration in a project such as this cannot be overstated. Dr. Bilsky and his colleagues have developed in-State and national networks for collaborative research, training, and public advocacy. They have partnered with clinicians, other researchers, the private sector, community leaders, and schools throughout Maine and the country to not only further their research and advance the bodies of knowledge relating to chronic pain, but also to maximize the positive impact of that research by applying it in their communities. This improves the lives of our citizens by helping them understand the causes and potential treatments for their pain. Any university's primary mission is to educate, and Dr. Bilsky and his colleagues have taken their important work into the surrounding community. They have developed a vibrant and award-winning K-12 outreach program led by Dr. Mike Burman that focuses on brain safety and brain awareness. This innovative approach to STEM education has been recognized by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. This program engages more than 3,000 local kids each year and inspires kids to enter STEM-related careers, which is one of the most important objectives we can encourage in this country. The research has also helped to spur economic development in Maine. Faculty members work in partnership with local biotech and pharmaceutical companies, helping the private sector with local research and development they may otherwise be unable to afford. This cooperation has helped Maine companies grow and create jobs. It is a win-win for everyone involved. It has built the reputation of the University of New England, and it draws positive attention to the State of Maine and, most importantly, it helps change lives. If my colleagues can't tell, I am very proud of this work done in my State. As we go about our work here in this body, it is important, I believe, every now and then to recognize the success stories at home. We might even learn a thing or two from them. With that positive thought, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, first I wish to associate myself with the comments of the Senator from Maryland and my senior colleague from Maine. I know this industry is growing in Maine. It is entrepreneurial, exciting, energetic, and they are adding jobs and only want to continue to grow. I think this bill makes total sense. It is a way we can express support for the entrepreneurial and innovative growth of businesses in all of our States. I am delighted to be able to join and essentially add my encouragement and support to your work on this bill. Since it is a bipartisan bill, I hope we can move it through this body in a reasonably short period of time.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, first, as an original cosponsor of the good Senator's bill, I compliment him for taking the leadership position he has on this issue, for bringing it forward and so eloquently expressing his support for it. This is an important bill. I think it is one we all can agree on, on a bipartisan basis. Let's get it through and to the President. Cyber Security Mr. President, I start with a question, a basic question: Why are we here? Why do we have those jobs? What is it we are supposed to do? The clearest expression of the answer to that question comes from the preamble to the Constitution, which lays out exactly what our responsibilities are. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. This is the purpose of the Constitution. It is the purpose of the government. The most solemn responsibility of any government, I would submit--any government, anywhere, any time--is to provide for the security of its citizens, to provide for the common defense. That is our most solemn and fundamental responsibility. We are not doing that right now. We are avoiding, missing, obfuscating, and not dealing with one of the most serious threats facing our country. I refer to the threat of cyber attack. Every intelligence official I have talked to in the last 2 years, every military official, everybody with any knowledge of the defense and the security, the national security of this country, has emphasized that the most serious threat we face right now is cyber. What does that mean? Cyber attacks. The disabling of critical infrastructure, attacks on our businesses, financial systems. This is a direct threat that is heading at us like a freight train on a track. The problem is we see it coming, but we are not doing what we should to deal with it. To say it is coming is kind of an understatement. This is an unusual chart, but it goes in time from 2004 until today. It is basically the frequency and size of cyber attacks in our country. The bigger bubbles are bigger attacks. The smaller bubbles are smaller attacks. From 2004 to 2006, a few but not many. It is bubbling up and it is about to boil over. Each year we have seen more attacks, larger attacks, more serious attacks. The evidence is overwhelming that this is a threat we are facing. Sony was a wake-up call if ever there was one. What if the Sony attack had been the New York Stock Exchange or the railroad system, where cars bearing toxic materials are derailed, or the natural gas pipeline system or any other of the critical infrastructure of this country, financial or physical, would have disabled us? I was at a hearing yesterday in the Armed Services Committee. We had the testimony of two of the wisest men in America--Brent Scowcroft, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who was the National Security Adviser to President Ford and President George H.W. Bush, and Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was the National Security Adviser to Jimmy Carter-- talking about threats. Brent Scowcroft said he believes the cyber threat was analogous to the nuclear threat: People would not be killed, but our country could be destroyed. He saw this as one of the two fundamental threats we face. Yet what are we doing in Congress? Not much. It is as if we got a telegram from Admiral Yamamoto in 1941 saying, I am steaming toward Pearl Harbor and we are going to wipe you out, and we did nothing, or a telegram or a text message from Osama bin Ladin saying, We are heading for the World Trade Center, what are you going to do, and we did nothing. We have the notice. It is right in front of us. Yet we are not acting. What are the risks? The biggest risk is in the nature of our society. The good news is we are the most technologically advanced society on Earth. The bad news is we are the most technologically advanced society on Earth--because it makes us vulnerable. It is what they call an asymmetric vulnerability. We are the most vulnerable because we are the most wired. We are in the most danger because of our technical advancement. What can they do to us? This gives you an idea of how this risk is accelerating and how it fits. This is the number of devices in the world connected to the Internet. Back in 2003 it was very few. By 2010 we were up to 10 billion devices connected to the Internet. The projection is, by the end of this year, we will be at 25 billion devices connected to the Internet. By 2020, not that long from now, 50 billion devices will be connected to the Internet and therefore vulnerable to cyber attacks. Critical infrastructure, I have mentioned. The financial system, what would it do to the country if all of a sudden everybody's bank account disappeared? Most of us, many workers in America, have their--we do not see cash money or a paycheck. It goes electronically into our bank account. What if all of that just disappeared? Chaos would ensue. The same thing with transactions on the New York Stock Exchange or the great transactions of our banks. It would be chaos that would tumble through the economy and then into people's daily lives. Transportation could be paralyzed. The simply act of messing around with how red and green lights work in a major city could paralyze a major city for hours, if not days. The transportation of toxic or volatile compounds could be compromised. Of course, the energy system, the electrical grid, we do not realize how dependent we are on these modern facilities until they go down. Periodically in Maine, when I was Governor, we had an ice storm where three-quarters of our people lost electricity for sometimes 2 weeks at a time. We learned what a disaster that was. One of the things we learned was that home furnaces, heating oil furnaces, need electricity to fire. People got cold. It was not just: Gee. I cannot watch TV tonight. It became life threatening. The second area of vulnerability is financial. Data breaches, that is something that is happening all of the time. Then, finally, property ideas, theft of ideas. Where are these threats coming from? All over the place. North Korea, Russia, China, Iran. Terrorist organizations are now looking into the cyber field--hackers for hire, somebody in some country or somebody's basement somewhere in the world who hires out to take advantage of the vulnerability, particularly of the Western countries and particularly the United States. We are already incurring huge costs, the cost of these data breaches, the cost of protection against these data breaches. Our financial system is spending a huge amount of money to protect itself from these breaches. We have to act. We have to act. It is beyond time to act. My favorite quote from Mark Twain--and there are many. But my favorite is: History doesn't always repeat itself, but it usually rhymes. History doesn't always repeat itself, but it usually rhymes. Nothing new ever happens. This would not be the first time in history a great nation ignored threats to its existence. In August of 1939, Winston Churchill, in talking about the House of Commons, but he could have been talking about the U.S. Congress: At this moment in its long history, it would be disastrous, it would be pathetic, it would be shameful for the House of Commons to write itself off as an effective and potent factor in the situation, or reduce whatever strength it can offer to the firm front which the nation will make against aggression. Earlier in the thirties he said--and this is a perfect analogy of where we are today: When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure. We are at the line between manageable and too late. I would argue it is almost over that line. Now is the time that we have to act, but we aren't acting because of a variety of reasons: the complexity of our process--four committees have to consider cyber legislation; the differences with the House; the differences with the White House. There are all kinds of complications in our system which seem to be preventing us from acting. Again, Churchill is appropriate: There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the Sibylline Books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Boy, that is a dark judgment. Continuing: Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong--these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history. Let's act before the crisis starts. Let's act while we still have time. There are at least three bills that I know of that are available. One is a bipartisan bill that was heavily negotiated in the Intelligence Committee, came out of the committee I think 12 to 3 last summer. That is available. It is a new Congress, but the ink is barely dry. There is a bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee. A bill that came out of the homeland security committee in December of 2012--and lost in this body by a couple of votes--from my friends Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman also dealt with this problem. In other words, we don't have to start from zero. We don't have to invent these solutions; we just have to have the will to put them in place. Yet we don't act. People say: Well, we have national security, Senator. What are you talking about? We are spending almost $600 billion a year on the defense of this Nation. And the answer is yes, but in some ways it reminds me of the famous Maginot Line of France in the thirties. The Maginot Line has come to symbolize a faulty defense premise, which really isn't true. The Maginot Line worked. The problem was that the Maginot Line stopped. It went from Switzerland to the Belgian border. It stopped at the Belgian border, and the Germans came around it and behind it and overwhelmed France in 6 days. So the problem wasn't that the Maginot Line was not an effective defense--and our defense budget certainly is not ineffective; it is absolutely essential. But we are not defending the whole frontier. There is a piece of it, like Belgium, that is undefended, and that is our failure. So what are we going to say when the crisis strikes? What are we going to say when we go home to our citizens in our home States when the financial system goes down and people can't get their money? There are threats of violence and violence across our country when toxic waste is spilled in our waterways. What are we going to say? ``Well, we would have done something about it, but that was in four committees, and that was really hard'' or ``You know, we just got in this argument with the White House and couldn't work it out'' or ``Gee, we would have solved it and your paycheck wouldn't have disappeared except the House--you know how they are.'' Can you imagine trying to defend yourself with that kind of argument? You would be laughed out of the place. Come on. Let's do this. I don't know exactly how to proceed, except maybe those four committees should get together, talk to each other, and say: Let's bring a bill to the floor. I would like to see this body decide that we are going to pass cyber protection legislation between now and May 1. There is no reason we can't do it. The bills are drafted. We just have to pull ourselves together and take collective responsibility for defending our country. If we don't do this--a friend and colleague on this floor yesterday-- we were talking about it, and he said: It is political malpractice if we don't get this done. This is a threat we know about. It is important. It is serious. We know at least some of the important things we have to do to coordinate better between the government and the private sector. We know how we can help to solve this; we just have to summon the political will to do it. And it isn't even that controversial. There are differences here and there, but this isn't one of the big fights in the Senate where we have great ideological differences, this is one where we should be able to come together. It is a lack of coordination and a lack of political will. I don't know how I can say this more strongly. I think this is one of our most fundamental responsibilities. I go back to the preamble to the Constitution--the primary reason that governments are established and that our government was established, one of the basic reasons is to provide for the common defense. If we don't do that in the face of this threat, shame on us. This is one of the most solemn responsibilities we have as Senators, as Members of the Congress, and as members of the Federal Government of the United States. I deeply hope that the next several weeks and months will be a time of productive discussions and a commitment to at least an attempted solution, the beginning of a solution to this grave threat facing the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Economic development and jobs is what unites us in this body. That is what we all want. That is what everyone here is striving to achieve--jobs and opportunity for the people of this country. There are many factors that contribute to that, and we can discuss and debate all of them this year. I suspect that we will. There is infrastructure, tax policy, smart regulation, and regulatory reform. But the one about which there is very little dispute is education. The single greatest job creation and economic development act in the history of the United States was the GI bill, subsequent to World War II, which opened the doors of college and higher education, to millions of Americans and literally built the middle class in this country. Education is what it is all about and education is even more important now than it was then. There was a time in this country when you could graduate from high school and get a pretty good job in a mill, make good money, have two cars in the garage, and lead a successful life. That is much more difficult today. Even those jobs in those mills require more education. In my State of Maine we did a survey a few years ago that showed 70 percent of the jobs had people touching a computer every day. That is what takes an education, and to get an education takes access. I will share one rather chilling statistic in terms of the competitive nature of the 21st century. We are engaged in competition. We are engaged in competition with the entire world and they want our jobs. A little statistic is the top 8 percent of high school graduates in China are equal in number to all the high school graduates in the United States. Think about that for a minute--the top 8 percent in China are equal in number to all the high school graduates of the United States. We are going to have to work to compete, and the only way we are going to be able to do that is if we work smart, and the only way we are going to be able to work smart is with education and expanded opportunity and access to education. Higher education in the 21st century, I would submit, is more important than ever. There has been attention to this over the years by State governments, local governments, by parents, by students, and by the Federal Government, going back to the midst of the Civil War, when one of the great education bills of all time was passed, the land grant college system in 1864. Support for research at our great universities has been a Federal effort. Student loans have been a part of what we have tried to contribute to this system for many years. Then, of course, we have Pell grants, which have enabled millions of students to find opportunity in higher education. But, ironically, the very programs that are designed to increase access to higher education have, themselves, become inaccessible. Senator Alexander and Senator Bennet made a dramatic showing today with these ridiculous forms. When you read the forms the conclusion is: I guess my kid isn't going to go to college. We have created a system where you need an accountant, a lawyer at your shoulder in order to fill out a form for financial aid, and the people who need it the most are the least likely to have the resources to bring those experts to bear on the process. Programs designed to promote access have themselves become inaccessible. So that is what today is all about. That is what our discussion is all about. It is about accessibility and simplification. Senators Alexander and Bennet and Booker have brilliantly articulated the power of the idea behind the FAST Act: reduce the questions to just a few simple questions to get the necessary information. You don't need 80 pages of instructions to answer two questions. It will open the doors to literally millions of students whom we need. This isn't nice to have; this is need to have. This is an economic security and a national security question. We need these people. The current form is discouraging the very people we want: those who may or may not take the plunge into higher education. The simple fact is you shouldn't need an accountant to figure out whether you can get financial aid to go to college. The complementary bill Senator Burr and I are introducing today, along with Senator Rubio and Senator Warner, is called the Repay Act. The bill Senator Alexander is speaking to is about accessibility and simplification on the front end. Our bill is accessibility and simplification on the back end, dealing with the issue of repayment. It basically reduces eight current options--and I have a chart that would make Rube Goldberg blush in terms of the complexity of the current options--to two. One is a 10-year fixed repayment plan, which certain students can select if it makes sense for them, and the other is a variable income-driven plan. As Senator Burr pointed out, the ideas for this bill came from across the spectrum--from students, financial aid offices, financial aid administrators, Republicans, Democrats, and President Obama in his most recent budget. By the way, one of the groups Senator Burr mentioned is the Young Invincibles. I would like to be a Young Invincible. I would like to see where I can join that group because sometimes I don't exactly feel that way. But this is an idea I think is invincible because it just makes so much common sense. Borrowers can switch between the fixed payment and the variable payment depending upon their circumstances, but they never pay more than 15 percent of their disposable income. I think another important provision is if a borrower is totally and permanently disabled and the loan is forgiven, they do not have to pay tax on the loan that is forgiven. Under current law, they have to pay an income tax on the phantom income of the loan that is forgiven. I particularly thank Senators Warner and Rubio for joining us on this bill. They had their own bill on this repayment structure last year, and they have generously decided to join forces with us on this bill, and I believe that will add substantial weight to our work. They have already made contributions to the drafting of the bill, and I think that will help us considerably as we move forward with this legislation. Quite often around here we talk about things we can't do--we can't do--problems we can't fix. This is something we can do. This is a human problem of our making by layering programs over one another and having the bureaucratic rules build over the years to the point where, as I said, it has created an accessibility problem for the very program designed to give access. These are important bills. They are not necessarily the bills that are going to get the headlines or cause all the fights and the friction, but these are the quiet kinds of changes that will change our country. They will provide opportunity for our students, for our families, and for our country. I am proud to join Senator Alexander, the chair of the HELP Committee, and Senator Burr particularly, who has worked so hard on this bill. I think we have a combination of bills that will make a difference in people's lives and in the future of this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Economic development and jobs is what unites us in this body. That is what we all want. That is what everyone here is striving to achieve--jobs and opportunity for the people of this country. There are many factors that contribute to that, and we can discuss and debate all of them this year. I suspect that we will. There is infrastructure, tax policy, smart regulation, and regulatory reform. But the one about which there is very little dispute is education. The single greatest job creation and economic development act in the history of the United States was the GI bill, subsequent to World War II, which opened the doors of college and higher education, to millions of Americans and literally built the middle class in this country. Education is what it is all about and education is even more important now than it was then. There was a time in this country when you could graduate from high school and get a pretty good job in a mill, make good money, have two cars in the garage, and lead a successful life. That is much more difficult today. Even those jobs in those mills require more education. In my State of Maine we did a survey a few years ago that showed 70 percent of the jobs had people touching a computer every day. That is what takes an education, and to get an education takes access. I will share one rather chilling statistic in terms of the competitive nature of the 21st century. We are engaged in competition. We are engaged in competition with the entire world and they want our jobs. A little statistic is the top 8 percent of high school graduates in China are equal in number to all the high school graduates in the United States. Think about that for a minute--the top 8 percent in China are equal in number to all the high school graduates of the United States. We are going to have to work to compete, and the only way we are going to be able to do that is if we work smart, and the only way we are going to be able to work smart is with education and expanded opportunity and access to education. Higher education in the 21st century, I would submit, is more important than ever. There has been attention to this over the years by State governments, local governments, by parents, by students, and by the Federal Government, going back to the midst of the Civil War, when one of the great education bills of all time was passed, the land grant college system in 1864. Support for research at our great universities has been a Federal effort. Student loans have been a part of what we have tried to contribute to this system for many years. Then, of course, we have Pell grants, which have enabled millions of students to find opportunity in higher education. But, ironically, the very programs that are designed to increase access to higher education have, themselves, become inaccessible. Senator Alexander and Senator Bennet made a dramatic showing today with these ridiculous forms. When you read the forms the conclusion is: I guess my kid isn't going to go to college. We have created a system where you need an accountant, a lawyer at your shoulder in order to fill out a form for financial aid, and the people who need it the most are the least likely to have the resources to bring those experts to bear on the process. Programs designed to promote access have themselves become inaccessible. So that is what today is all about. That is what our discussion is all about. It is about accessibility and simplification. Senators Alexander and Bennet and Booker have brilliantly articulated the power of the idea behind the FAST Act: reduce the questions to just a few simple questions to get the necessary information. You don't need 80 pages of instructions to answer two questions. It will open the doors to literally millions of students whom we need. This isn't nice to have; this is need to have. This is an economic security and a national security question. We need these people. The current form is discouraging the very people we want: those who may or may not take the plunge into higher education. The simple fact is you shouldn't need an accountant to figure out whether you can get financial aid to go to college. The complementary bill Senator Burr and I are introducing today, along with Senator Rubio and Senator Warner, is called the Repay Act. The bill Senator Alexander is speaking to is about accessibility and simplification on the front end. Our bill is accessibility and simplification on the back end, dealing with the issue of repayment. It basically reduces eight current options--and I have a chart that would make Rube Goldberg blush in terms of the complexity of the current options--to two. One is a 10-year fixed repayment plan, which certain students can select if it makes sense for them, and the other is a variable income-driven plan. As Senator Burr pointed out, the ideas for this bill came from across the spectrum--from students, financial aid offices, financial aid administrators, Republicans, Democrats, and President Obama in his most recent budget. By the way, one of the groups Senator Burr mentioned is the Young Invincibles. I would like to be a Young Invincible. I would like to see where I can join that group because sometimes I don't exactly feel that way. But this is an idea I think is invincible because it just makes so much common sense. Borrowers can switch between the fixed payment and the variable payment depending upon their circumstances, but they never pay more than 15 percent of their disposable income. I think another important provision is if a borrower is totally and permanently disabled and the loan is forgiven, they do not have to pay tax on the loan that is forgiven. Under current law, they have to pay an income tax on the phantom income of the loan that is forgiven. I particularly thank Senators Warner and Rubio for joining us on this bill. They had their own bill on this repayment structure last year, and they have generously decided to join forces with us on this bill, and I believe that will add substantial weight to our work. They have already made contributions to the drafting of the bill, and I think that will help us considerably as we move forward with this legislation. Quite often around here we talk about things we can't do--we can't do--problems we can't fix. This is something we can do. This is a human problem of our making by layering programs over one another and having the bureaucratic rules build over the years to the point where, as I said, it has created an accessibility problem for the very program designed to give access. These are important bills. They are not necessarily the bills that are going to get the headlines or cause all the fights and the friction, but these are the quiet kinds of changes that will change our country. They will provide opportunity for our students, for our families, and for our country. I am proud to join Senator Alexander, the chair of the HELP Committee, and Senator Burr particularly, who has worked so hard on this bill. I think we have a combination of bills that will make a difference in people's lives and in the future of this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Bless you.