users were breached. now, there arepeople here that are concerned with pepperral information. look at the breach of personal information that has taken place because we haven't been able to stop it. destructive attacks on sands casino. that's in early 1914 iran launched an attack on the sands casino in las vegas that rendered their systems inoperable according to james clapper. target in december 2013, target discovered that up to 70 million customers may have had their credit card information taken by hackers. that's just the last year and a half mr. president. i remember before this was

unclassified in 2008 when hackers broke into citibank and broke into the royal bank of scotland and robbed individuals of more than each one $10 million. that was classified for a long time because they didn't want anybody to know. that was 2008, and that was the real beginning of what's been happening. well that's seven years ago and we haven't done anything about it. there are some breaches from the past year and a half. they are cybercrimes and theft of personal information intellectual property, and money every single day. in 2011, in 2012 there were denial-of-service attacks against major wall street banks and nasdaq, showing that our financial institutions are vulnerable. in 2012 saudi aramco, the

world's largest oil and gas company, had three-quarters of its corporate computers wiped out in a cyber attack. so we are vulnerable, and these attacks will continue. this legislation, which was approved by a 14-1 vote in march and has been significantly improved since then, will not end these attacks but it will greatly enhance the ability of companies and the united states government to learn from each other about the threats they see and the defenses they employ. i would like to just make a couple of comments about the bill on specific points, if i may. we have made some 15 privacy

information improvements in this bill and i'd like to read page 16 of the bill on removal of certain personal information. "an entity sharing a cyber threat indicator pursuant to this act shall prior to such sharing, a review such cyber threat indicater to assess whether such cyber threat indicator contains any information that the entity knows at the time of sharing to be personal information of or identifying a specific person not directly related to a cybersecurity threat and remove such information; b implement and utilize a technical

capability configured to remove any information contained within such indicator that the entity knows at the time of sharing to be personal information or of or identifying a specific person not directly related to a cybersecurity threat." that's the first personal information scrub in this bill. the second scrub is really left to the agencies receiving the information. and to that end the attorney general is directed to issue guidelines to all agencies once the information goes through the d.h.s. portal and goes to defense or f.b.i. or any other agency. these are the agencyies' guidelines that will be developed to make a scrub.

"not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this act, the attorney general shall in coordination with leaders of the appropriate federal entities and in consultation with officers designated under section 1062 of the national security intelligence reform act of 2004" -- and then there is a site -- "develop, submit to congress and make available to the public interim guidelines relating to privacy and civil liberties which shall govern the receipt, retention use and dissemination of cyber threat indicators by a federal entity obtained in conduction with his activities authorized in this act. 2 -- final guidelines. not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this act, the attorney general shall in coordination with heads of

the appropriate federal entities and in consultation with officers designated under section 1062 of the national security intelligence reform act of 2004" -- site -- "and with such private entities with industry expertise as the attorney general feels -- relating to privacy and civil liberties which shall govern the receipt, retention use and dissemination of cyber threat indicators by a federal entity obtained in connection with activities authorized in this act." and then there is a section on periodic review. then there's a section on contense. and let me quickly read that. "the guidelines required by paragraphs one and two shall consistent with the need to protect information systems from

cybersecurity threats and mitigate cybersecurity threats a, limit the impact on privacy and civil liberties of activities by the federal government under this act; b limit the receipt retention use, and dissemination of cyber threat indicators containing personal information or of identifying specific persons included by establishing a process," and it goes on through page 27 of the bill -- everyone can pick it up and read it -- and section e on line 20 says it must protect the confidentiality of cyber threat indicators containing personal information or identifying specific persons to the greatest extent practicable -- excuse me, mr. leader. i was so caught up, i didn't see you on the floor. mcpopcorn will the senator from california yield for a

minute? -- mr. mcconnell: will the senator from california yield for a minute? mrs. feinstein: yes, of course. mr. mcconnell: could i propound a consent agreement? mrs. feinstein: certainly. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the senator from california's remarks not be interrupted in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: the democratic leader and myself continue to discuss the way forward on cyber. we've made some progress. but to make that more possible for us to reach some kind of agreement, i now ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, the cloture vote with respect to the motion to proceed to s. 754 occur at 2:00 p.m. today. further, that the mandatory quorum call under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i thank the senator from california. fine foon i thank the leader. -- mrs. feinstein: i thank the leader. so somebody can pick this bill up and read section -- pages 26 and 27 and see the second

personal information scrub that's in this bill. it happens first the company must scrub the information and then second, the government must scrub the information. and i think those are very substantial mandates. i have been very disappointed, mr. president, by our inability to move this bill. yesterday i cited the history. this is the third bill we have dealings with and it gets into a question of committee jurisdiction. but the intelligence committee has been working on this issue for five years now. we have worked with companies we have worked with technicians, our staffs are very well-aware of all of the issues and the technical difficulties of putting together a bill. the earlier bills were

fragmented in community support. this bill has a solid support from 56 different companies and associations. i want to read just a few of them. for the first time the united states chamber of commerce supports a bill. the software alliance supports this bill. the information technology council supports this bill. yesterday i received a letter from general motors supporting this bill. the american bankers association, the american financial services association the american insurance association, agricultural retailers, airlines for america alliance of automobile manufacturers, american cable association, chemistry council fuel and petrochemical manufacturers, gaming association, gas association

insurance association petroleum institute, public power association, water with association, -- water works association, association of railroads, metropolitan rail agencies the clear house consumer banking association credit union electronic transfers association financial services independent community bankers, investment company -- and it goes on and on and on. i will point out oracle the national association of manufacturers association supports it, i.b.m., as i said, general motors and the united states telecommunications association. i would ask this list be entered into the record, if i may mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much. so i want to say something about jurisdiction of committees.

the homeland security committee certainly is free to do a bill. the judiciary committee is certainly free to do a bill. we happened on intelligence -- and you were a member of this committee, mr. president -- to have been working on this for a long long time. and we have done two bills. and this bill, i believe has hit the mark of support across the nation from the companies both corporate and privately owned, who would have to use this. it is all voluntary. it does not force anybody to do anything they do not want to do. and if you do share and you share according to the strictures of this bill, you are protected with liability insurance. it is -- if you reduce it to its basic elemental truths, it is the on ramp to cybersecurity

protection in this country. it gives companies the ability to talk to each other about a well-defined threat indicator to talk with the government and to be able to take advice from the government. and if they follow the bill, they don't have to worry about a lawsuit. that's what this bill does. so i must say, we have made at least 15 different privacy amendments to meet individual senators' needs. there is a managers' package a substitute amendment full, that takes out -- if you will, that takes out any use of this information from being used for any other purpose purpose -- violent crime, any other purpose other than cybersecurity because a

number of senators weighed in, and they felt it could be used and it could be used to be monitored a surveillance bill. this is not a suferl surveillance bill. what it is meant to be is, as i said a voluntary effort that companies can enter into with some protection if they follow this law. and it gives the attorney general the obligation to come up with secure guidelines to protect private information. now, it's very hard for me, candidly to understand this has become such a big issue because we protect privacy information. today out in this vast land of internet, there is very little privacy protection. you can see that by the cyber

interruptions. you can see that by the use of insurance data, by company to company. you can see companies that are designed to accumulate data about an individual so they can sell that data to another country, which can tell you mr. president, who uses a credit card how you use it, where you use it, at what time you use it. to me, that's a privacy violation. we have taken every step to prevent that kind of thing from happening. and yet there are individuals who still raise that as a mainl concern. -- as a major concern. i really believe it is bogus. i really believe it is a detriment to our taking this first step to protect our american industry. and if key don't pass we don't pass it the thefts are going to go on and on and on. so i understand that the cloture

vote has been postponed to 2:00. i will vote for cloture. i believe we have in good faith senator burr and i the committee as a whole the staffs on both sides of the aisle have gone out of their way to listen to senators, to present amendments where they felt they were workable and applicable to the bill. and we need to get on with it because the litany that i read in the last year and a half of almost half of the american people being affected by cyber crime just can't go on. so i make these remarks and hope at least it can clear the air somewhat and when a cloture motion does come at 2:00 that we will have the votes to proceed to the bill. i thank the chair. i yield the floor. i notice the absence of a quorum mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the time spoken on this issue be accorded proportionally to both sides. during quorum calls. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. leahy: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: thank you. this is not the first time -- it is actually not going to be the last time -- that i'll speak in this chamber about the iran nuclear agreement but i listened to some of the hearings on the subject of both bodies, the house and senate last week, and i wanted to provide a bit of my own perspective on the challenge before us. i was a law student here in washington during the 1962 cuban missile crisis, and while my wife and i were living probably two miles from the white house

we were paying very close attention to what might happen. and afterward as more of the history came out we realized that some of president kennedy's top advisors and members of congress pushed for a military attack on cuba actually a military attack against the then-soviet union. the war between the two nuclear superpowers would, at the very least, risk the annihilation of both countries. fortunately, president kennedy has the thoughtfulness and patience and fortitude to resist the pressure to go to war. now, it is not easy to stick with the long road of tough negotiations when many are clamoring for a military solution rather than negotiations. that's the same today as it was back in the time of the cuban missile crisis. today we're considering an agreement at the end of such a road of negotiations between the

united states and our allies and russia and china and iran to curb and i will illicit nuclear program that threatens the middle east, actually threatens the world. i know from my conversations with the president and with secretaries kerry and moniz how difficult this was. i also know from my conversations with them, they were prepared to walk away rather than settle for a bad deal. based on their efforts so far this is not a bad deal. there are legitimate aspects that we have concerns b we know that prior to the negotiations iran's nuclear program was hurtling forward despite multilateral captions.

-- multilateral sanctions. i remember back in 2012 i had been named as senate delegate to the u.n., and israeli prime minister netanyahu warned that iran was within months, months, of producing a nuclear bomb. well, whether or not that was accurate then it certainly not accurate if this agreement is implemented. we know the negotiations succeeded in freezing iran's nuclear development in place and now we have an agreement to roll back iran's program. we also know this is the most rigorous monitoring and inspection regime ever included in a nonproliferation agreement. actually i think it's a lot more rigorous than many observers had ever predicted it would be. and we know that without this deal the monitoring, the on-site inspections would go away and so would support for

the international sanctions that we painstakingly built. remember it took years for us to put together a coalition of other countries to put together these sanctions. many of them did it at great economic strain in their own countries, their own economies. but they stuck with us because we thought we were negotiating in good faith and we'd have a deal. if we walk out now many of these countries are going to say, okay, you're in it by yourself. the u.s. can do sanctions but they'll be nowhere near as effective as when we joined you. and we know that the sanctions reprieve in this agreement is limited and reversible. it's structured so that many sanctions remain in place sanctions in which other countries have joined us, and adurablely if iran fails to -- and additionally, if iran fails to meet its shall we can impose

additional sanctions. some criticize this agreement within minutes of the agreement being announced and they were long on scorn but they were short on alternatives. i remember that speech by prime minister netanyahu that we were just months away from nuclear weapons in iran. now people are expressing about what may happen 15 years from now, no the a few not not a few months from now. they ignore the fact that if congress rejects this agreement iran can immediately resume its development of highly enriched uranium, build a nuclear weapon in far less than 15 years. i might ask, is that the alternative they support?

or is it another war in the middle east which our senior military leaders say could spiral out of control and at best would delay the resumption of iran's nuclear weapons programs by two to three years after which it would not be subject to international inspections. now, some of the most vociferous critics of this agreement reflective support sending american troops to overthrow saddam hussein and occupy iraq. we did this after having hearings and meetings where the vice president of the united states implied that irk iraq was involved in the attack of 9/11 and made it very clear that they had weapons of mass destruction. ii voted against that war because i actually read the intelligence files.

it was very clear they had no weapons of mass destruction. it was very clear they had nothing to do with 9/11. in that colossal mistake hundreds of thousands of americans were killed or maimed, and by now it has cost $2 trillion. the first war in this nation's history where we did it on the credit card, we didn't have a tax to pay for it. even unpopular wars like vietnam and korea we paid for it. or is it the critics' alternative -- we look at the alternatives they have -- to say, reject the agreement and then somehow we're going to convince the other parties to -- russia china the rest of the p-5 plus 1 to impose even stronger multilateral captions, -- multilateral sanctions. certainly statements that they have made make it very clear those chances to use a

precise -- to use a precise expression are zilch. now, i am as outraged as anyone by iran's support of terrorism and its arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of americans their use of torture and other vials of human rights, the -- and other violations of human rights, the summary excuse of political opponents just as i objected to those same things when done by many of the countries we deal with every day. but as horrific as iran's behavior is, it pales compared to the havoc that iran could wreak if it obtains a nuclear weapon a nuclear-armed iran could committee commit acts of terrorism that dwarfs by millions or those

today. there is no comparison. a workable agreement doesn't just buy more time. it can also buy more opportunities. in iran, the impetus for reform comes from the iranian people. for decades the iranian middle class has been smothered first by a revolution that ciewshed her aspirations then by -- that crushed her aspirations then by a regime that imposed harsh consequencesconsequences of criminal behavior on the iranian population. iranians do not want empire. they want economic opportunities, freedom of expression to reengage peacefully with the world. actually with this agreement the iranian middle class can continue to be a factor in future negotiations.

in congress we agree or disagree we debate and vote. one of the members i wanted to be a member of this body. we do so in a manner that reflects respect that each us owes to this institution. there's only 100 of us that have the privilege at any given time to serve in this body. we have to remember, we don't occupy these seats for life. we're transitory occupants of the seats the voters have afforded us the opportunity to occupy. in carrying out our responsibilities, we should do our best to live up to the standards. i mention this because i earlier i listened to portions of the hearings in various house and senate committees on the iran nuclear agreement in which the secretaries of state and

treasury and energy testified. presumably they are asked to testify because members of those committees have questions and concerns about the agreement and wanted to hear the witnesses' responses. however, rather than a substantive exchange, as too frequently occurs, it's been an embarrassing display of political theater. we've heard a series of speeches containing assertions that either contradicted by the actual words. words of the agreement or without factual basis. when the witnesses tried to answer, they were interrupted or told time had expired. now i like many vermonters vermonters have talked to me about these

hearings. it did a disservice to the american people who deserve to know that their representatives are engaged in an in-depth exchange of views on the hugely important issue of how to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. i have questioned myself because short of unilateral surrender by one party every agreement involves compromise. that is as true for national diplomacy as it is for the united states senate. neither side get everything it wants. anyone suggests that was a possible income here is full of themselves or even worse deceiving the voters. the president has been unwaivingering in his insistence the goal of this agreement to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. i commend them for his vision and resolve. i have spoken with him publicly. i've also spoken with him at length privately about this.

and i'll say to my colleagues what i said to the president: it is now up to congress to carry out its oversight responsibility. we can strive to make this work keeping in mind the national security of the united states and our allies or we could possibly sabotage the chance. but we should engage in this process in a manner that enhances the image of the united states senate which those in our government spent years on this agreement. mr. president, there have been many thoughtful articles and opinion pieces written about the iran nuclear agreement. i'm sure there are going to be many more. i ask unanimous consent that one of them authored by two former

assistant secretaries of state be printed in the record at the end of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, i will speak further on this subject but i see no other senators seeking the floor. while i do appreciate the opportunity to be here, i must admit that looking at the weather and live views of vermont this morning, i will look forward to the time we complete our work because after the last vote of this week i'll be on the first flight i can get on. i look forward to being in vermont. i will miss all of you, of course not so much that i want you all to come and join me there. with that, mr. president i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the

clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: as senators get ready to head home for the august recess, i think it's a good time to look back at what we have been able to achieve so

far this year. i would say by any measure the record of the senate this year has been one of the great accomplishments and bipartisan achievements because we worked together to find ways for the country to move ahead. the republicans have set a very fast pace for the first 100 days of the new congress. we kept up that pace now over the first six months of the congress and we're going to continue to build on that momentum for the rest of the year and i believe achieve even greater success on behalf of all americans. under majority leader mitch mcconnell, senate republicans are now governing and we're doing it in a bipartisan way just as we promised. the senate passed the first budget resolution with the house since 2009, the first one since 2009. the appropriation committee passed all 12 spending bills for the first time in six years. we passed the longest reauthorization of the highway trust fund in almost a decade. the senate passed trade

promotion authority for the first time since 2002. we passed a permanent doc fix to be prevent medicare payment cuts after 17 temporary patches since 2002. and the senate ended washington's test-based education policies by making states responsible and accountable. now, a lot of people in washington had written about gridlock and they had gotten used to the gridlock when democrats ran the senate. now that they are starting to realize that the senate really is working again they realize that we can actually get things done. now, that's not me speaking, mr. president. that's what the bipartisan policy center recently said. now, this is a group of former republican and democrat members of congress, and they came out with a report called the healthy congress index. they did it for the first six months of 2015. the headline of the report was

-- quote -- "continued signs of life in congress." continued signs of life. imagine that. signs of life and activity taking place in congress this year. this bipartisan group reported that the total number of days worked is up from previous years. 15 more days worked just so far in the first six months of this senate compared to last year. that's three more weeks of work on the senate floor than the year before under harry reid. the bipartisan policy center also said congressional committees have been extremely accurate. the committees are actually working again. reporting, they say a significantly large number of bills, a significantly larger number of bills than the previous two congresses. that's because the committees are working again. in the first six months of this year we had 102 bills reported out of the committees in the senate compared to just 69 in the first six months of the last congress and just 42 in the congress before that. now, that's just through the end

of june. our committees have produced even more bills since then, so committees are working and we're working together to push out bipartisan bills. right now both houses of congress are in a 60-day period of scrutinizing the iran nuclear agreement. we're able to do that because the iran nuclear agreement review act had unanimous support in the foreign relations committee, republicans and democrats voting together, and then it got overwhelming bipartisan support on the senate floor. that's just one way that the senate is working again. so far in this congress, we have passed 65 different bills. the highway trust fund legislation was bipartisan. it will fund highways and transportation all across the country and 26 democrats voted in favor of that legislation. we passed the education reform bill with 40 democrats in favor. we passed the trade promotion authority, 14 democrats joined republicans to get that done.

these important pieces of legislation are just part of our commitment to work together to solve problems for the american people. now, even tom daschle tom daschle is the former democrat senate leader. he recently said the good news is that congress is continuing to move in the right direction staying in session more often empowering committees to work together. that's from a former democrat leader majority leader of the senate, tom daschle. well he's exactly right the senate is working again and we're moving in the right direction and we are just getting started. now, i'm hopeful that we can continue to work together and to find solutions on more issues that matter to the american people. mr. president, there is still a lot of work to be done. specifically related to our economy. people want a healthy economy but there is still far too much red tape and regulations coming out of washington and it continues to strangle our

economy. new numbers came out last week about the slow pace of economic growth over the first half of the year. one of the headlines came out last friday about the slow pace, and it said -- "worst expansion since world war ii gets even worse." "worst expansion since world war ii gets even worse." the article says that the economy expanded at a 2.3% annual rate in the second quarter of the year. once again it says, falling short of projections for a decisive rebound and raising concerns that the 6-year-old expansion will never pick up steam, will never pick up steam ever. so the recovery from the last recession has been far weaker than recoveries from other recessions under presidents reagan and clinton. one reason is because the obama administration has tied the hands of those who hire others.

it makes it much harder to get our economy going again. hardworking families are still struggling because their wages are not growing. that's what another set of government numbers said on friday. according to the bureau of labor statistics employment costs had their worst gains ever in the second quarter of the year. well what does the white house plan to do about it? what is president obama's plan for worst expansion since world war ii gets even worse? what does the president want to do about it? well on monday, president obama and the administration announced its so-called so-called clean power plan, and it is going to mandate massive new red tape and job-crushing regulations. it is a national energy tax. more americans will lose their jobs. more hardworking families across the country will be hit with higher electric bills.

congress can stop this costly and destructive regulation from taking effect, and that is where we are headed. the way to do it is by passing a bipartisan piece of legislation called the affordable reliable energy now act. affordable reliable energy now. the american people have seen that congress is capable of coming together to take on important issues, and this is certainly one. hardworking americans are extremely anxious for us to continue working together to solve some of these problems that continue to face our country. mr. president, we've done it before and we can do it again as long as we have a willing partner. the senate passed the bipartisan keystone x.l. pipeline jobs bill then president obama vetoed it. we passed an appropriation bill out of committee that funded the department of defense at the

levels the president requested and the democrats here in the senate have blocked those funds for our troops. in fact, democrats are blocking all of the appropriations bills including ones that passed out of the committee with bipartisan support. mr. president, the american people want their elected representatives in the united states senate to deal with these issues. the american people want to see us get past the gridlock once more like we've already done so many times this year. the american people want us to tear down the barriers to stronger economic growth so that they can get back to work, they can earn a decent wage, they can take care of their families. this senate has accomplished a lot in the first half of the year. i believe we can do even more in the second half of the year. that is the commitment republicans made to the american people and we are keeping that commitment. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democrat whip. mr. durbin: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i had the honor of serving in the senate now for three terms i'm in my fourth term. i've been in the public life and witnessed a lot of things that have occurred here and remember quite a few of them but the one that really sticks in my memory goes back to 2002. it was the end of september

the beginning of october i'll get the exact date, and there was a critical debate taking place on the floor of the senate here that went late into the night, final vote happened around midnight. the question was whether the united states should be authorized to invade iraq. i remember that debate because we were still reeling from the tragedy of 9/11. we were still determined to keep america safe. we worried about hour vulnerabilities and our strengths. and the administration, the george w. bush administration, after several months of preparing for this debate, led most americans to believe that saddam hussein the leader in iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. some of the testimony that came

out even suggested that those weapons could threaten our allies our friends and even the united states of america. and it was in that context that a decision was made to invade iraq. but first the decision had to come through congress. the american people had their chance through their elected representatives in the senate and the house to make that decision. the public sentiment behind the war in iraq was overwhelmingly positive as we voted. the belief was that we had to stop saddam hussein before there was another attack on the united states like 9/11. sentiments ran very high. the rhetoric was heated. and i remember that night and i remember that there were two of my colleagues on the floor after everyone had gone home. one was kent conrad, the senator from north dakota, and the other paul wellstone the senator from minnesota.

23 of us had voted no on authorizing the war in iraq. it included the three of us who remained. i was up for reelection as was senator wellstone. and i went to paul wellstone in the well of the senate and i said paul, i hope that vote doesn't cost you the election in a few weeks. paul wellstone said to me it's all right if it does. this is who i am and this is what i believe and the people of minnesota expect nothing less. the story unfolds that in the ensuing weeks paul wellstone died in today plane crash before the election took place but i still remember that moment and i remember what i considered to be an act of conscience by my friend and colleague from minnesota. i thought about the thousands of votes that i've cast in the house and the senate and only a handful are still right there in front of me. and they include the votes that

you cast that relate to war. you know if you vote to go to war even under the right circumstances, that innocent people will die that americans will die. so there's no more serious or grave responsibility than to take those questions of foreign policy as seriously or more seriously than virtually any other issue. fast forward to where we are today. we leave this week, be gone for four or five weeks and return in september. and the first item of business will be the iran agreement. i view this vote on the iran agreement in the same class as the vote on the war in iraq. it is a question a serious foreign policy question about whether iran will be stopped from developing a nuclear weapon. and we have added into this

conversation the decision of congress as to whether they approve the president's treaty. that doesn't often happen but it will in this case. and we have to look at the possibility that congress will reject the iran treaty even if the president vetoes it, there is still a question as to whether congress would override that veto. and we have to ask ourselves what happens if this iran agreement comes to an end. military action. some form of military action. one of the senators on the other side of the aisle assured us four days, will take care of the iranian nuclear problem in four days. he wasn't here when we were told the war in iraq would last two weeks. 4,844 american lives later tens of thousands injured unless of dollars spent that

war ended with a result that none of us really view as a success for american foreign policy. now we face that same question. those who would reject the iranian agreement have a responsibility to come to this floor and explain what happens next. yesterday, we called a meeting. i asked the ambassadors from the five nations that joined us in the negotiations with iran to come meet with members of the senate on the democratic side. we had the ambassador from russia the ambassador from china, the ambassador from the united kingdom and the deputy chiefs of mission from germany and france. and about 30 democratic senators gathered to ask questions at a completely off the record, informer atmosphere. and the first question that was asked was what happens if congress rejects this iranian agreement? what happens the next day? what is the next step? they said the notion that we'll sit back down at the table with

the iranians, in the words of one of these ambassadors is far-fetched. we have spent 35 years bringing iran to this table. these nations joined us in an effort to try to stop iranians from developing a nuclear weapon. these nations are satisfied that what we have put together is an agreement and a treaty -- an agreement, i should say, that is verifiable with inspections. i think back to ronald reagan. i didn't agree with him on a lot of things, but i sure agreed with him when he said when it comes to these agreements trust but verify, trust but verify. there is verification in this agreement. the iaea, which is the united nations group that inspects atomic facilities around the world, is tasked with inspecting and reporting and continuing to investigate iran throughout the life of this agreement. can we trust them? well just as an historic reminder, it was the iaea that

said to the united states there are no weapons of mass destruction that we can find in iraq. we ignored them. we invaded. we paid a heavy price for it. turns out they were right. some of our leaders were just plain wrong. so the agency has credibility it has a track record, and it is authorized under this agreement to move forward. what struck me as i looked at those ambassadors sitting across the table from 30 members of the senate yesterday was how historic this moment is. china, russia, the united kingdom, germany france and the united states all together, all together negotiating to try to bring at least some modicum of peace to the middle east. some of the statements that were made were compelling. statement from the german side.

a gentleman who was there said i won't go into the history of germany. you know it well. but i will tell you we are more committed to the survival of israel than any nation in europe. any student of history knows exactly what he was speaking of. and now we have an opportunity to turn to diplomacy to avoid the military and to avoid war and what do we find? in april of this year, 47 senators on the other side of the aisle, 47 of them sent a letter to the ayatollah in iran, the supreme leader of iran and said do not negotiate with pres subject to congressional approval and don't expect the next president of the united states to abide by any agreement. 47 senators on the other side of the aisle signed that letter. what would have happened if 47 democratic senators had sent a letter to saddam hussein before the invasion of iraq and said

the same thing don't negotiate with president obama don't even think that you can avoid a war. well i think they would have had us up on charges. at least vice president cheney would have. but 47 senators in april before the agreement was even announced on the other side of the aisle said don't waste your time negotiating. i think they're wrong. i think that we ought to go back to the words of john kennedy. john kennedy said we should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate. and leaders in our country republican presidents, have stepped up to that negotiating table with a flurry of criticism that they would even sit down with these enemies of the united states and try to find a more peaceful world. ronald reagan sat down with gorbachev, looking for containment of nuclear weapons. it was richard nixon another

republican president who sat down with the chinese to open relations with them while the chinese were supplying and fortifying the north vietnamese fighting american forces. despite that criticism they had the courage to sit down and look for a diplomatic way to find a more peaceful world. that's what we face today. this iran agreement is our opportunity to test diplomacy and i invite israel, our friends in israel, our allies in israel to join us in holding iran to the letter of the law in this agreement. join us in reviewing -- in renewing these inspections. join us in calling for the availability of these facilities so that we know what exactly is going on in iran from this point forward. let's join us together in a force to make this a more peaceful world. i think this is our chance.

i know this is a vote of conscience for me and i'm sure it is for all my colleagues. i hope that there will be the courage to try diplomacy before we turn to war. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president we're facing the days ahead one

of the most consequential issues we'll face as a nation. this issue about an agreement with iran. some people want to make this into a partisan conversation. it's not a partisan conversation. it's a national security issue and it's a world security issue. the senate has already held multiple hearings on iran and on this particular agreement. the intel committee that i sit on the armed services committee, the foreign relations committee, i personally met with secretary of treasury jack lew secretary of energy earnest moniz, secretary of state john kerry. i have been through the agreement and through the classified portion of this agreement in every detail. i wish i could also go through the iaea information about how the inspections will actually occur because the agreement itself gives broad statements, the iaea agreement will be how they are actually going to do inspections. but i have been told over and over again by the administration and by officials that the u.s.

will not have a role in determining how the inspections will be done and that they will not even see the methods of how we will do inspections before they actually begin. they told me they had been orally briefed on the process but they have not actually seen it which means they haven't seen it, i can't see it. it seems odd to me that the final aspect of the agreement that actually gives the greatest detail of how the inspections will occur none of us can actually see. it's difficult to have this trust but verify attitude when we are actually not given the ability to verify how they're verifying and to see how much trust is actually being given in this process. the white house has told us over and over again that if you don't like this deal, there's two options. it's either war or you provide a better solution. i'm telling everyone let's slow down, let's look at both of those things and let's also back up and see where we are. the u.s. and the u.n. have for

years said that iran should not enrich uranium. in fact, there are six u.n. resolutions saying iran should not enrich uranium. why? because iran is the single largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. iran has propped up the assad regime in syria. they are saying the soldiers to walk side by side and to fight with assad right now and hold up that syrian government. iran is paying for and propping up the coup that's in yemen right now on saudi arabia's southern border. they are still chanting in the streets death to america and they are actively pursuing larger and larger weapons. i think there is a reason to take this seriously. now, back to the statement the white house has said if you don't agree with this agreement then it's either war or you come up with a better option. let me touch on those two things briefly. i think in many many ways this agreement actually pushes us faster to a process towards war.

and why would i say that? because the conventional weapons ban is lifted under this agreement and iran can freely purchase weapons from around the world that has been banned by u.n. treaty now. that's now lifted under this agreement. to pacify the gulf states in israel immediately the administration went to the gulf states and said we understand the conventional weapons ban is being lifted there so we're going to provide you greater technology in weapons and we're going to provide you greater access to weapons and help to be able to get those weapons. so help me understand why encouraging the middle east to start dialing up with more and more weapons on both sides of this doesn't actually curb us towards war even faster. then this statement about you provide a better solution as if this is the only option that's sitting out there. well the agreement itself was written in such a way that the u.n. would approve this first. then the european union would approve it second. and then the united states congress would get it third.

that was intentionally done to try to add pressure to this congress to say you can't turn away from this, the rest of the world has signed on to it, so you can't turn away from it. this congress should not process things under fear, and this congress should not process things saying you're the last in line so you better sign up to where the rest of the world is. we have to look at this because we are directly affected by this. remember iran has said over and over again that the united states is the great satan in the world, and anyone who believes that iran wants to be able to come alongside of us and be a peaceful member of the club is not actually reading what iran is actually saying. not to mention this whole theory of if you don't sign onto this agreement, there is no better deal let me just mention something that was in "bloomberg" last week. last week, "bloomberg" reported that the french senior dip low mat dubair, the senior advisor to the president the individual that led the discussions in iran

with the p-5 plus one group the one that was in the room earlier this month directly disputed kerry's claim that a congressional rejection of the iran deal would result in the worst of all worlds, the collapse of sanctions and iran racing to a bomb without restrictions. the french senior diplomat actually said if congress votes this down, there will be sabre rattling and some chaos for a year or two but in the end nothing will change and iran will come back to the table and negotiate a better deal that will be to our advantage. let me run that past you again. he said he thought if congress voted this down, we would get a better deal. that means two things. one is he believes again that iran will come back to the table on this, and he also believes there is a better deal out there, that this is not the best deal that we could get. after going through the agreement, i had very serious concerns about it. my concerns are there are loopholes in this agreement big enough to drive a truck through

specifically this truck is the truck that is big enough to drive through. let me go through some of my concerns. this agreement assumes that the intelligence community can identify locations in a country the size of texas all the locations for possible inspection notify the iaea, which places they should go, that we would be able to contact iran get permission from them to visit those sites which takes approximately a month. i will go into greater detail on that. and that we would actually access those sites and find the information that we wanted there. the iaea is reporting that they can really only track for uranium, so all of the other research that goes into building a nuclear weapon, they couldn't actually track that after 24 days but they feel confident that if there was niewrm that was there they could actually track that. if we're in the final stages of them assembling something and we catch them and we're able to get permission to get in there we could get to it. not to mention the fact that the iran leaders have said over and over again since the agreement was signed there is no way that

the iaea will get access to military sites in iran. that's a loophole big enough to drive this truck through. the iaea has to give 24 hours notice of its intent to inspect. then iran has 14 days to let the inspectors in. of course, they can stall for ten more days in the agreement itself. that's 25 days minimum to hide whatever they're working on. that's a lot of time to be able to move computer equipment and all sorts of installed things. at the end of it, the iaea would say we could actually determine if there was ever uranium there even after 25 days, but basically nothing else. we have incredible people that work in the intelligence community, that work for us, that most americans will never see and will never meet, but there are some amazing patriotic americans. but they can't see everything, and they can't catch every needle in the haystack that is in iran. it would help the intelligence community, it would help us in our inspections if we had access to the previous military

dimensions for the nuclear weapons program that iran has had on board but the agreement itself only says we have to get all things from right now forward that we don't have to have the documents previous. and if we do iran will actually pick the documents that we see previous in their nuclear practice. so now we have to find a location with no previous documents with no way to be able to really see what research they've done and how advanced they are. you see we're looking for different things if they are different stages of their research and development on a nuclear weapon. to say in the agreement we're not going to have to get all the previous research they've done in the past is an enormous loophole in this. and it's a definite detriment to what we're doing in our own discovery. iran has to decrease the number of refuges centrifuges. that's true and i'm glad for that. they have to pull out what is a known stockpile and reduce that.

i'm glad of that and that's a positive thing. but iran can continue to enrich uranium with 5,000 cascadeing centrifuges. just in smaller amounts and using their older centrifuges. again, that sounds like a win but there's no reason if you have peaceful purposes for uranium to keep 5,000 centrifuges spinning. if our only doing it for peaceful pumps. iran can keep testing their centrifuges and small cascades, their ir-6's and 8's and development on their most advanced form of centrifuges. worst of all, they can keep over a thousand of their most advanced centrifuges still in the cascade and their most heavily fortified facility they just have to promise they won't put uranium in that. but they can continue testing and development so when that time comes able to accelerate uranium faster there. so basically they can do everything in the process except put uranium at that point. we're allowing them time to

increase their research. with a thousand centrifuges at the most advanced level. why would we agree to that? that doesn't seem to be a pathway to peaceful purposes, that seems to be a pathway to high-grade uranium in the development within country. the conventional, i've alreadyventioned already but just a few years the conventional weapons ban is lifted in this agreement and allowing additional weapons to flood in to the single largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. not to mention the fact that what's flooding in before all of those con generational -- conventional weapons all of those billions of dollars held in sanctions. there's been no change on tactics of terrorism. there's been no change of statement from telescope leadership of iran but they're getting billions of dollars if they use an -- under sanctions if they use money to prop up money yemen and a coup there what are they doughgoing to do

with an additional $60 billion $70 billion? this administration has said they desperately need the money for their infrastructure. they're getting billions of dollars. you're not going to tell me a major portion of that is not going to be used for terrorism. they've said, the administration has said we've built in snapback sanctions that if iran violates something, immediately we'll snap a back the sanctions. but if you actually look at the details of how the snapback happens, it's months and months in the process of getting everyone back together and forming an agreement we're going to do that and if we snap back sanctions, written into the agreement it says iran can then if we snap back sanctions, they can then kick out their part of the agreement as well and consider it a violation of the agreement and walk away. and now there's no restrictions on them. so basically we're the ones that are punished if we ever snap back sanctions. if we snap back sanctions iran can say see i told you soy and

immediately kick into the process they were into before. the advanced centrifuges are spinning they're still continuing nothing was diminished if that. i didn't even mention things like research and development can continue at all their weapons systems. all that's unabated. the only limitation is around enriched uranium but everything else continues the same. i was also appalled as i went through this agreement and saw the leader of the cueds force general sole manny -- sol amani the distribution and installation of improvised explosive devices in iraq designed to kill americans. this leader personally was engaged in killing hundreds of american soldiers in the war in iraq hundreds. the sanctions on that general is

lifted so he can have normalized relationships worldwide and four american hostages remain. can someone tell me why the murderer general of americans his sanctions are lifted but american citizens still remain hostages in iran? i have to tell you, i have stunned by many things that were in this agreement and how many loopholes were built into it. but none surprised me more than the part of the agreement that we made as a country apparently that if iran is attacked the united states will now come to their defense. help me understand this. as they continue a nuclear weapons program if a country steps in and attacks them and says no, you can't do that, that's a violation we're going

to stop that, the united states is now agreeing to come to defend iran as they're advancing a nuclear program? have we lost our mind? the administration when asked about this said i won't happen. if it won't happen, why did we put it in the agreement? why is it there at all? there seems to be a struggle to get an agreement, more than it is a struggle to say we have got to prevent the world's largest sponsor of terrorism from getting a nuclear weapon at any cost. this about slowing their nuclear program. it should be about stopping their nuclear program. this cannot come to our doorstep. this cannot come to the middle east. and while the middle east further weaponizes to prepare for an aggressive iran, we continue to step up and say we'll help you weaponize and i don't see how that's deterring us from war. there is a better agreement out there.

and we should push to get it. and we should take care of the loopholes that are big enough to drive a truck through and we should resolve this issue and we should not pretend this is a partisan issue. this is not about republican and democrat. this is about peace and this is about trying to work out the differences and the differences are strong with all nations and iran. let's work that out together and let's keep pushing until we get this resolved but i cannot support this agreement with iran. with that i yield back. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of both the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and

that the requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to speak in favor of the cybersecurity information sharing act of 2015. i want to first recognize the hard work of chairman burr and vice chairman feinstein for their leadership on this very important legislation. as a member of the senate intelligence committee i'm well aware of the need to strengthen our computer networks against our adversaries whether they be nation states like china, russia and iran,

or terrorist groups or international criminal gangs or hacktivists. mr. president, along with former senator joe lieberman i offered the terrorism prevention act of 2004. this bill implemented many of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission report in the wake of the al qaeda terrorist attack on our country that took the lives of nearly 3,000 people. many of the reforms enacted in our law were well known and recommended prior to far before the attacks on our country on 9/11. but they simply were never implemented despite the clear and present threat posed by al qaeda.

today, mr. president my concern is that we are repeating much the same mistake when it comes to the cyber domain. our nation has unparalleled strength but cyberspace allows much weaker adversaries to target our people, our economy, and our military. just as modern passenger planes designed in the united states were turned against us and used as weapons back in september of 2001 so, too, could the digital tools designed in the united states be turned against us to deal a devastating blow to our economy our national security our way of life. we already know many of the

steps necessary to reduce the likelihood of a cyber 9/11, yet many of these actions not have yet been taken in either the government or the private sector. as one former official told the 9/11 commission last year, in preparation for its tenth anniversary report, we are at september 10 levels in terms of cyber preparedness. mr. president, how many experts have to tell us that it is not a matter of if we are going to be the subject of a major cyber attack but when? how many more serious intrusions do we have to have in the private sector with banks major retailers affected, or in

the public sector, where we've had the huge and serious o.p.m. breach which affects some 21 million americans. how many more of these do we have to have occur before congress finally acts? consider the fact that the economic and technological advantages that the united states enjoys today requires -- required decades of research and development and investment of literally billions of dollars. and yet these competitive edges are eroding because hackers in other countries are stealing the intellectual property that gives us our competitive edge in the world. mr. president, three years ago

i stood on the senate floor with senator joe lieberman to urge the passenger of the cybersecurity act of 2012 which we wrote. i quoted the then n.s.a. chief general keith alexander who said that we are in the midst of the greatest transfer of wealth in our nation's history. yet this transfer of wealth continues and accelerates. information sharing remains fragmented and the private sector is still hesitant about sharing and receiving information with government. mr. president, we have lost three years and endured endless endless, expensive data

breaches since the senate refused to stop a filibuster on our cyber bill in 2012. i urge my colleagues let's not make the same mistake today. passing the cybersecurity information sharing act of 2015 would make it easier for public and private sector entities to share cyber threat vulnerability and information to stop the theft of trade and national security secrets to stop the theft of personally identifiable information, to stop the theft to -- to help stop the theft of important information that all of us hold dear and consider to be private.

the bill would eliminate some of the legal and economic disincentives impeding voluntary to sharing information between private industry and government. it is a modest but essential first step, especially for businesses like and small trying to protect their networks and informs. just this week, i met with an individual whose trade association has been compromised according to the f.b.i., and indeed back in 2012 when we were debating whether to bring the lieberman-collins cybersecurity bill to the senate floor one of the chief opponents was being hacked at that