quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that it be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the cloture motion with respect to the motion to proceed to s. 754. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: northbound, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the democratic leader, the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 28, s. 754, i further ask that senator burr then be recognized to offer the burr-feinstein substitute amendment and that it be in order for the bill managers or their designees to offer up to 10 first-degree amendments relevant to the subject matter per side. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: so for the information of all senators the first amendment is on the republican side will be the following -- paul number 2564,

heller 2548, make 2582, vitter 2578 vitter 2579, cotton 2581 kirk 2603, coats 2604, gardner 2631, flake 2580. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: i would imagine we would alternate republican and determined amendments? is that right? mr. mcconnell: that's right. mr. reid: i would ask it be modified to allow 11 democratic amendments instead of 10. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: it would be carper 2627 coons 2552, franken

2612 leahy 2587, murphy 2589 whitehouse 2626, wyden 2621 wyden 2622, carper 2615. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further reading of the quorum call be dispensed with. officer without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that following leader remarks on tuesday september 8 the senate proceed to the consideration of h.j. res. 61 and that the majority leader or his designee be recognized to offer a substitute amendment related to coppingal disapproval of the proposed iran nuclear agreement. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: reserving the right to ork the debate we're going to have in a matter of weeks, i want it to be -- i think all of us do tsh dig dignified befitting the gravity of the issue of the day. so this is a step forward. i do not object. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: with this

agreement, we've set up expedited consideration of the cyber bill and the iran resolution. the senate will hold voice votes on executive nominations but there will be no further roll call votes this week. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president so that all are clear with respect to where matters are with the cybersecurity legislation a couple of days ago it was my fear mr. president that this bill would be brought up -- it is a badly flawed bill -- and it would be brought up with no opportunity for senators on both sides of the aisle to fix the legislation. it would come up with no amendments people would say oh my goodness, there are

serious cyber threats. that is unquestionably correct. my constituents, for example have been hacked in oregon by the chinese. and people would say we've got all these cyber dlet threats we've got to act. and there would be no real opportunity to show how the legislation in its current form creates more problems than it solves. now, so that all concerned understand where things are there are going to be more than 20 amendments to this badly flawed bill. those of us who want to make sure that there is a full airing of the issues have come to understand that there is no time limit that has yet been agreed to on those amendments. so there's going to be a real debate. and, of course, that's what the

united states senate is all about. and i particularly want to commend the millions and millions of advocates around the country who spoke out -- i understand there were something like 6 million faxes that were sent to members of this body -- and i'm just going to talk a few minutes -- i see my colleagues are here as well -- to describe where i think this debate is and give a sense of what the challenge is going forward. i start with the basic proposition, mr. president that we have a very serious set of cybersecurity threats as i touched on seeing at home. second information sharing can be valuable.

there's certain will a a lot of it now. it can be constructive. information sharing however without vigorous, robust privacy safeguards will not be considered by millions of americans to be a cybersecurity bill. millions of americans will say that legislation is a surveillance bill. so what i am going to do tonight just for a few minutes because it is my understanding there are colleagues who would also like to speak is describe exactly where this debate is. as written the cybersecurity legislation prevents law-abiding americans from suing private companies that inappropriately share their personal information with the government. when i say personal information i'm talking about the contents of emails, financial information, basically any data

at all that is stored electronically. cisa as the bill is called, would allow private companies to share large volumes of their customers' personal information with the government after only a cursory review, and colleagues who want to look at that provision ought to take a look at page 16 of the bill. and we were told repeatedly that this legislation was voluntary. well the fact is it is voluntary for the companies but for the citizens of pennsylvania the citizens of oregon those across this country, it's not voluntary. the people of pennsylvania won't be asked first whether they want their information sent to the government. oregonians won't have the chance to say whether or not they want that information sent for them, this legislation is mandatory. now, to explain the damage that

i believe this legislation would do i want to take a minute to explain how cybersecurity information sharing works now. right now the department of homeland security operates a national cybersecurity watch center 24 hours a day seven days a week. this watch center receives cybersecurity threat information from around the federal government and from private companies, and this watch center sends out alerts and bulletins to security professionals to provide them with technical information about cybersecurity threats. in fiscal year 2014, this watch center sent out nearly 12,000 of these alerts to more than 100,000 recipients. that happens today lots of companies participating. the system that's in place today includes rules to protect the preserve of law-abiding

americans. these rules ensure that companies have a strong interest in protecting the preserve of their -- privacy of their customers, but the legislation as it's been written now overrides those rules. the bill in front of us prevents individual americans from suing companies who have mishandled, mishandled their private information. as a result, companies would suddenly in my view not have the same incentive with respect to care about sharing their customers' personal information with the government, and my concern and the concern i believe, of millions of americans is that the interests of some who are overzealous overzealous in government, overzealous in the private sector would overwhelm the interests of all those customers who have handed over their information voluntarily. and i thought i would just give

a couple examples of the problems that the bill in its current form causes. imagine that a health insurance company finds out that millions of its customers' records have been stolen. if that company has any evidence about who the hackers were or how they stole this information of course it makes sense to share that information with the government but that company shouldn't simply say here you go and hand millions of its customers financial and medical information over to a wide array of government agencies. the records of the victims of a hack should not be treated the same way that information about the hacker is treated. if companies are sharing information for cybersecurity purposes they ought to be required to make a reasonable effort to remove personal information that isn't needed for cybersecurity before that information is handed over to

the government, and those government agencies ought to focus on using that information to combat a cybersecurity threat. that mr. president colleagues, is not what the bill says. page 16 of the bill would very clearly authorize companies to share large amounts of personal information that's unnecessary for cybersecurity after only a cursory review. now, i want to talk about just one other issue specifically that i think senators are not familiar with, and that is the issue of cyber signatures. cyber signatures are essentially recognizable patterns in online code. a number of informed observers have raised the concern that once individual cyber signatures are shuttled over to the government by private companies they could be used as the basis for broad surveillance affecting

law-abiding americans. now, i'm not going to confirm or deny any of the press reports that have raised concerns about cyber signatures being used in this way but i believe senators should understand that this is certainly -- and it's been being widely discussed in the public arena -- theoretical possibility, and that helps underscore the importance of including a strong requirement for private companies to remove unrelated personal information about their customers before dumping data over to the government. i also in wrapping up would be remiss if i didn't note that a secret justice department legal opinion that's clearly relevant to the cybersecurity debate continues to be withheld from the public. this opinion interprets common commercial service agreements, and in my judgment it is inconsistent with the public's understanding of the law.

so once again mr. president we have this question of what happens when the people of pennsylvania virginia and oregon think that there is a law because they read it in the public arena or on their ipad at home and then there is a secret interpretation. i have urged the justice department to withdraw this secret department of justice opinion that relates directly to this cybersecurity debate, they declined to do it. i suspect many senators haven't had the chance to review it. and i would urge, as i have done before on this type of topics, i would urge senators or their staffs to take the time to read it because i believe that understanding the executive branch's interpretation of these agreements is an important part of understanding the relevant legal landscape on cybersecurity.

and i am going to close by talking about the question of effectiveness because i think we all understand that we are facing very real cyber threats. i'm of the view this bill in its present form would do little, if anything to stop large sophisticated cyber attacks like the office of personnel management hack, and i don't think senators ought to take just my word for it here. in april, 65 technologists and cybersecurity professionals expressed their opposition to the bill in a letter to chairman burr and vice-chairman feinstein. in referring to the bill and two similar bills they wrote and i quote -- "we appreciate your interest in making our networks more secure, but the legislation proposed does not materially further that goal, and at the same time it puts our users' privacy at risk."

as they wrap up their letter, this group of technologists and cybersecurity professionals state these bills weaken privacy law without promoting security. and, mr. president that has always been my concern. if you look back at our experience we try to write these new digital ground rules. fortunately, we took a step in the right direction related to n.s.a. rules. the challenge has always been the same. the people of our country want to be safe and secure in their homes and in their businesses and in their communities and they want their liberty. and ben franklin said anybody who gives up their liberty to have security doesn't deserve either. what troubles me and why i am glad that the senate has stepped back from precipitous action where we would have just passed this bill without any

amendments we'll have a chance in the fall to look at ways to address cybersecurity in a fashion that i think does respond to what our people want, and that is to show that security in this case cybersecurity and liberty are not mutually exclusive. it's sensible policies worked out in a bipartisan way will respond to the needs of this country in what is unquestionably a dangerous time. with that, mr. president i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president we're about to start our traditional august recess. congress is an interesting place because we not only get a recess a vacation, as many americans do, but we're legally required to take one. that's right. my an act of congress, congress is required, absent a separate agreement, to take a month off during august. i learned that just yesterday

during a great presentation from one of our senate historians, kate scott. this mandated august adjournment is part of the legislative reorganization act of 1970, and the act provides that in odd-numbered years the house is adjourned from the first friday in august until the tuesday after labor day. mr. president, there is an exception the mandated recess -- quote -- shall not be applicable if on july 31 of such year a state of war exists pursuant to a declaration of war by congress. again, the mandated recess is not applicable if on july 31 of such year, a state of war exists pursuant to a declaration of war by congress. this provision makes basic sense, doesn't it? congress shouldn't go out for a mandatory 30-day vacation when the nation's at war. it's not right that american troops should risk their lives overseas far from home while congress takes a month off. the congress that passed this bill in 1970 had an expectation about how serious war was and

how congress, the institution charged with declaring war would treat such a serious obligation. well, we are about to go on a one-month adjournment with the nation at war. in fact, this saturday, august 8 marks one year since president obama initiated u.s. air strikes against the islamic state in northern iraq. in the past year, more than 3,000 members of the united states military have served in operation inherent resolve thousands are there now launching more than 4,500 air strikes, carrying out special forces operations and assisting the iraqi military, the kurdish peshmerga and syrians fighting the islamic state. virginians connected with the u.s.s. roosevelt carrier group are stationed there right now. we made major gains in northern iraq and more recently in northern syria but the threat posed by the islamic state continues to spread in the region and beyond. the war has cost $3.2 billion

through mid july, an average of $9.5 million a day and seven american service members have lost their lives serving in support of the mission. and recently, we have heard that the administration may be expanding the scope of the war to defend u.s.-trained syrian fighters against attacks including from the bashar assad regime. we're expanding our cooperation with turkey in the region. we're even hearing rumors of a u.s. humanitarian zone in syria. each of these steps is potentially significant and could even lead to even more unforeseen expansions of the ongoing war. we have already had testimony by military leaders to suggest that the war will likely go on for years. but as the war expands and our troops risk their lives far from home and as we prepare to go on our traditional one-month recess a tacit agreement to avoid debating this war persists in washington. the president maintains that he can conduct this war without authorization from congress. he waited more than six months

after the war started to even send congress a draft authorization of the mission. congressional behavior has been even more unusual. although vested with the sole power to declare war by article 1 of the constitution, congress has refused a meaningful debate or vote on the war against the islamic state. a congress quick to criticize any executive action by the president has nevertheless encouraged him to carry out an unauthorized war. as far as our allies, the islamic state or our troops know congress is indifferent to this war. i first introduced a resolution to force congress to do its job and debate this war in september, 2014. that led in december to an affirmative vote by the senate foreign relations committee to authorize the war with specific limitations, but the matter wasn't taken up on the floor because the senate was about to change to a new majority, and that party wanted to analyze the issue afresh. six months then went by, and

senator jeff flake and i introduced finally a bipartisan war resolution in june to encourage the senate to take its constitutional responsibility seriously after so many months of inaction. we wanted to show there is a bipartisan consensus against the islamic state. the result -- a few discussions in the senate foreign relations committee but otherwise silence. one year of war has randall formed a president elected in part because of his early opposition to the iraq war into a war president. it has stretched the authorization for use of military force passed to defeat the perpetrators of 9/11 far beyond its original meaning or intent. all it's shown is that neither the president nor the congress feels owe climate changes to follow the war powers resolution which would cause