[laughter] >> i just want to say as a republican as well, thank you for running for president and for the being a voice of reason in this race. it's much appreciated. [applause] a few years ago wall street crashed, and they got a bailout while the middle class still crashed, and they haven't gotten a bailout. today wall street is doing greater than ever. what is, what is your plan specifically to make sure that main street gets their bailout? because it's long overdue. thank you. [applause] >> okay, thank you. rather than the government bailing out main street, how about creating jobs on main street? [applause] if you think the government is the salvation of the middle class, don't vote for me. if you think jobs are the salvation of the middle class, vote for me. [applause] a little about me. i grew up in the back of a

liquor store. this is why i would be a good president for you. [laughter] my mom and my dad, neither one of them finished high school. they owned a liquor store, a bar and a poolroom. we lived in one room until i was in high school. i was well loved. they worked six days a week. it's a hard way to make a living. when i was, i went to college for the first time of anyone in my family, in 1975 after coming back from our first vacation to disney world which was like going to mars -- [laughter] my mom was diagnosed with hodgkins disease. by june of '76, she had passed. we got wiped out because we were underinsured. fifteen months later my dad dies, i'm 22, my sister's 13. if it had not been for social security survivor benefits, we would not have made it. so when i talk about social security, i know what i am talking about. i would give up some benefits today. i'm 60, i'm not married, i don't have any kids, i've got a 401(k)

plan, and i've got a congressional retirement, i've got a military retirement. i would gladly shave my benefits to save a system worth saving so it's there for other people who need it more than i do. [applause] to those who work about the economy, a $15 hour minimum wage is going to displace people, not grow the middle class. the middle class is somebody who has to not go on vacation when the child's sick. you make too much to be on government assistance, but you still live paycheck to paycheck. let me end on this note. competition for labor is the best hope of the middle class. a bunch of people wanting to hire you, not a few people. why did boeing come to south carolina? why did bravo come to social security? why did bmw come to south carolina? because we wanted 'em to come to south carolina. we would take your work force needs, go to the neck call

colleges -- technical colleges and train a work force superior, second to none, ready to go, helping you help yourself. we would get permits done in times that you never even envisioned, still being environmentally sensitive. of we had a tax structure that welcomed you. there's a reason they came to south carolina, and let me tell you what happened to the middle class in south carolina. everybody who had a manufacturing business had to pay more because if you didn't, your employer was going to go to boeing. the best thing i can do for waitresses in this country and waiters is to create an environment somebody else will open up a restaurant across the street and hire you away. i want to take what we did in south carolina to washington. i want to unleash the greatest economy in the world. people are more screwed up than we are. we're this far away from energy independence. manufacturing with the right kind of tax code can bloom. we can take this money parked overseas, bring it back in a

one-time good deal in the highway trust fund. we can build roads and we can build bridges -- [applause] and these technologies you have in your pocket may be made in china, but they were invented here. our best days are ahead. we're going to lean into our enemies, we're going the hold each other, and we're going to solve problems for the good of us all. thank you very much. [applause] ♪ ♪ >> well, senator graham and his colleagues are in recess from the senate for the next few moments for their weekly party lunches. lawmakers will be back at 2:15 eastern after which they'll immediately hold a vote to advance a measure removing funds for sanctuary cities. you can see the senate live here

when they gavel back in in just under ten minutes live here on c-span2. earlier today on the senate floor texas senator and republican presidential candidate ted cruz offered his thoughts about the sanctuary cities legislation that the white house has threatened to veto. >> americans are tired of seeing their laws flouted and their communities plagued by the horrible crime that typically accompanies illegal immigration. but for too long the pleas of the american people on this issue have gone unheeded here in washington. you see, when it comes to the problem of illegal immigration, the political class and the business class, our nation's elites, are of one mind. they promise robust enforcement at some point in the future but

only on the condition that the american people accept a pathway to citizenship now for the millions of illegal immigrants who are already in this country. not wanting to be swindled, the american people wisely rejected this deal which the washington class calls, quote, comprehensive immigration reform. of course, the elites don't like this one bit. so instead, they've taken matters into their own hands. they bend or ignore the law to make it more difficult for immigration enforcement officers to do their job. we've seen this repeatedly with the obama administration. president obama has illegally granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants with no statutory authorization whatsoever. even though before his re-election the president assured the american people that

he couldn't do so without an act of congress. presidentpram as president obamd when asked about could he grant amnesty, i am not an emperor. well, i agree with president obama. but yet just a few months after saying he couldn't do this because he was not an emperor, apparently he discovered he was an emperor, because he did precisely what he acknowledged he lacked the constitutional authority to do. and although the administration today claims to be focusing its resources on deporting illegal immigrants with criminal records, it has adopted a policy where many illegal immigrants that the administration deems to be low priority not be detained -- will not be detained and deported, but will be released back into our communities. remarkably, in the year 2013, the obama administration released from detension roughly

36,000 convicted criminal aliens who were actually awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings. these criminal aliens were responsible for 193 homicide convictions. they were responsible for 426 sexual assault convictions. 303 kidnapping convictions. 1,075 aggravated assault convictions. and 1670 drunk driving convictions. all of this was on top with the criminal convictions that the federal government encountered in 2013 but never took into custody for deportation. dwell on those numbers for a

moment. in one year the obama administration releases over 104,000 criminal illegal aliens, people who have come into this country illegally who have additional criminal convictions; murderers, rapists, thieves, drunk drivers. one wonders what the administration says to the mother of the child lost to a murderer released by the obama administration because they will not enforce the laws. one wonders what the obama administration says to the child of the man killed by a drunk driver released by the obama administration because they will not enforce our immigration laws. and the white house's administration refusal to

enforce laws is bad enough. the scandalously poor enforcement of our immigration laws is made much, much worse by the lawless actions of the roughly 340 so-called sanctuary jurisdictions across the country. although these jurisdictions are more than happy, eager even to take federal taxpayer dollars, they go out of their way to obstruct and impede federal immigration enforcement by adopting policies that prohibit their law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal officers. some of the jurisdictions even refuse to honor requests from the federal government to temporarily hold a criminal alien until federal officers can take custody of the individual. not only are these sanctuary policies an affront to rule of law, they are extremely dangerous. according to a recent study by the center for immigration

studies, between january 1 and september 30, 2014 -- just a nine month period -- sanctuary jurisdictions released 9,295 alien offenders that the federal government was seeking to deport. that is roughly 1,000 offenders a month that sanctuary jurisdictions were releasing to the people. now, of those 9,295, 62% had prior criminal histories or other public safety issues. and amazingly, to underscore just how dangerous this is to the citizenry,2,320 of those criminal offenders were rearrested within the nine month period for committing new crimes

after they had already been released by the sanctuary jurisdiction. if that doesn't embody lawlessness, it's difficult to imagine what does. jurisdictions that are releasing over and over again criminal illegal aliens, many of them violent criminal illegal aliens, and exposing the citizens who live at home to additional public safety risk, to additional terrorist risk. this same study found that the federal government was unable to reapprehend the vast majority of the alien offenders released by the sanctuary jurisdictions. 69% as of last year. even homeland security secretary jeh johnson has admitted that these sanctuary policies are, quote, unacceptable. quote: it is counterproductive to public safety, he said, to

have this level of resistance to working with our immigration enforcement personnel. well, i'm thrilled to hear the secretary of homeland security say so out loud. i assume that means that the obama administration will be supporting the legislation before this body. i mean, after all, the secretary of homeland security says it's unacceptable. that it is counterproductive to public safety. and yet, sadly, the obama administration is not supporting the legislation before this body. indeed, it has taken the tragic and terrible death of kate steinle to galvanize action here in washington. kate died in the arms of her father on a san francisco pier after being fatally shot by an illegal alien who had several felony convictions and had been

deported from the united states multiple times. her death is heartbreaking. the senate judiciary committee, we had the opportunity to hear from kate steinle's family. the heartbreak is even more appalling because kate's killer had been released from custody and not turned over to the federal government to be deported because of san francisco's sanctuary policy. the city of san francisco is proudly a sanctuary city. they say to illegal immigrants across the country and across the world, come to san francisco. we will protect you from federal immigration laws. we, the elected democratic leaders of this city. >> see the rest of senator cruz's remarks online at c-span.org. we are returning now to live coverage of the senate where law make pers will continue --

lawmakers will continue consideration of the sanctuary cities bill. a vote to move forward with debate on that bill is expected in just a moment. live coverage of the u.s. senate coming up in just a moment here on c-span2. order. the clerk will report the motion to move to cloture. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 252 s. 2146, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum has been waived. the question is, is it the sense

of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to sprs 2146, a bill to hold sanctuary jurisdictions accountable for defying federal law, to increase penalties for individuals who illegally enter the united states after being removed and to provide liability protection for state and local law enforcement who cooperate follower federal law enforcement and for other purposes shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chairman per wishing to o wishing to change their vote? yeas are 54, the nays are 45,

three-fifths of the chamber having duly voted and sworn, the motion is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: thank you, mr. president. i don't think any of us in in of the 50 states have not had calls from our constituents about the veterans administration. i know certainly in florida i have. we are blessed to have so many people in our state who are in uniform or who have served in uniform. and we make two fundamental promises to the men and women that serve our country. the first is that if we ever put them into hostilities, they will be better equipped, better trained and have more information than their adversaries. and i, of course, fear that all three of those promises are eroding. but here's the second promise we make them. after they take care of us and they come home, we will take care of them. and that's a promise that sadly is also not being kept. there are a lot of different issues we can get into when it comes to veterans and what

they're facing in this country but one that's received a lot of attention is the veterans administration and particularly the role it plays in providing health for those who have served our countries -- country and have been facing challenges ever since. we've all had calls to our office and seen the media reports about it, and i'm proud last year we were able to pass legislation that gave the secretary of the v.a. the ability to fire senior executives that weren't doing their jobs. and this is the point in this where i remind everyone that there are really good people working at the v.a. in fact, the enormous majority of people at the v.a. are really good people who care passionately about our veterans, and there are some phenomenal v.a. facilities in this country. and then there are some facilities that aren't working. and there are some individuals within that agency that, quite frankly, are not doing their jobs well. the problem is they can't be held accountable because they're protected by law. and as a result, they can't be removed. now we expanded that law a year ago to include the ability to

fire senior executives that weren't doing that job, but to date that has not really been used to much effect. so earlier this year we introduced follow-up legislation, and the follow-up legislation gives the vaifer -- secretary of the department the authority to remove any employee of veterans administration based on misconduct. it gives them the ability to demote the individual through reduction in grade or annual pay rate. and i'm proud that this bill has gone through the process here in the senate. it's passed out of committee and is now ready for action. and i hope that we will take action on this. there is a different version in the house. it has also gone through their committees and waiting for their process to move through. there are some differences between the two which of course would be worked out in a conference. but i think the prudent thing to do at this point given the fact that the senate bill has worked its way through the process and is now ready for action is to take action. this is about creating

accountability. by the way, this is about taking care of our veterans but it's also about taking care of the people at the v.a. who are doing their job. this is also about them. it isn't fair to them that people who aren't doing their jobs continue in their positions. and in many instances are increasing the workload on others because they're not performing or carrying their weight. and so that's why, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 272, s. 1082, and further that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to, the bill be amended amended -- the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: mr. president, reserving the right to object, i respect deeply and in fact support the arguments made by my colleague from florida.

there are goals here to be served and i strongly support them as well. accountability has been lacking for too long at the department of veterans affairs. that's a simple fact. we can all agree on it. and in fact, we took a major step in the right direction with the passage of the access and accountability act during the last session with bipartisan support. and i would support this measure if a number of simple changes were made in it to comply with the constitution. this measure lacks some of the basic constitutional guarantees that again and again and again the supreme court of the united states has said are absolutely mandatory. this bill unfortunately fails to provide sufficient notice in advance of any firing or disciplinary action, a statement

of causes, a right to be heard and an opportunity for basic administrative constitutional guarantees. and i commit to work with my colleague from florida on seeking to improve this bill. in fact, i have proposed a measure that is now pending in the committee on veterans' affairs, s. 1856, which will improve the management of the v.a. in many of the same ways. but it avoids these constitutional pitfalls. as a former attorney general, i care deeply about enforcement, which is to say effective enforcement. a disciplinary action now under appeal in the federal circuit will decide the constitutionality of exactly these procedures. and in the meantime, we ought to avoid creating unnecessary

litigation and challenge to a law that should be enforced effectively. this one unfortunately cannot be. i believe strongly there are measures and ways to achieve greater accountability. it isn't a luxury or convenience. it is a necessity that the v.a. be held accountable. the more effective way to hold the v.a. accountable is to pass a measure that is fully constitutional and in addition provides more effective protection for whistle-blowers. they are the ones who come forward speaking truth to power. they are the ones with critical facts necessary for accountability. this measure, unfortunately, fails to afford sufficient protection for those whistle-blowers and, therefore, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. rubio: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: in fact, the

difference between this bill and the one in the house is that whistle-blower protection action. and so if that is the issue that the senator is concerned about, i would ask if he would then be willing to not object or lift his objection if we could move forward on the house bill that is now here and ready for us to take up as well because it does contain the whistle-blower protection language. mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i would be more than willing, indeed happy to work with my colleague from florida on specific language that improves whistle-blower protection. i think his bill takes a step in the right direction by providing the office of special counsel to provide approval for any disciplinary action. that's a good step, but i believe it can be made more effective. and i think the opportunity to be heard with notice for cause or discipline or firing is essential to effective

enforcement. i share the goal, strongly share it, of making sure that accountability is enforced. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: again, the house version of this bill which is ready for us to take up today has the stronger accountability thraj which we do -- accountability language which we do not oppose. it was not included for the purposes of time at the committee level but we're prepared to move on it now if we could. because the house version is here and ready for action on our part, and it has the stronger accountability language. it sounds like no matter what, we're probably going to have a delay here in acting on this matter. but i would say this for people who are watching here in the gallery or at home or anywhere they might see this later. i want everybody to understand what we're saying here. all we're saying in this bill is if you work at the v.a. and you aren't doing your job, they get to fire you. i think people are shocked that that isn't actually existing in the entire government, since there is really no other job in the country where if you don't do your job, you don't get fired. but in this instance we're just

limiting to one agency. this should actually be the rule in the entire government. if you're not doing your job, you should be fired. but this is limiting to the v.a. because we've got a crisis there with the lack of accountability. i'm prepared that we can move forward with this. we went through the normal course and process in the senate. it went through the committee. it had hearings, opportunities for amendment were offered at the time. and so there was a good-faith effort, and i believe that there is, then let's improve this and take action on it because we need to have a v.a. that's more interested in the welfare and security of our veterans than in the job security of federal employees. and i said it at the outset. there are really good people at the v.a. the vast majority of the employees at the v.a. are doing their jobs and doing them well. they care about these veterans. it isn't fair to them that there are people on the payroll there taking up seats, taking up slots, taking up money and taking up time that aren't doing their jobs and they literally cannot be fired. they literally cannot be removed. it is a near impossibility, the process is so expensive, so

long, so troublesome, so complicated that in essence they cannot be removed. and so unfortunately we won't be able to move forward on this today, it appears. but i hope that in quick succession we'll be able to come together and get this done to provide a higher level of accountability that is so necessary in every agency of government but none more so than veteran affairs. with that, i yield the floor. mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: one last word, and i want to simply concur in the very powerful and eloquent statements made by my colleague from florida. i think we all share those sentiments in this body, that -- and i'm quoting now from the legislation -- any employee who engages in malfeasance, overprescription of medication, insubordination, a violation of any duty of care should be

disciplined. and very possibly fired. we're talking here about the process to achieve that end. and i can commit that i will work with my colleague from florida to make sure this body approves a measure that is effective as a deterrent to those kinds of violations of basic duty to be effective as a deterrent, it has to be enforceable. and that's our common goal here. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, just a few moments ago the senate refused to move forward on an important piece of legislation sometimes called the sanctuary cities bill. and i just want to explain for whoever may be listening, and particularly for our colleagues, what a terrible mistake our democratic colleagues made, with the is exception of two who voted to block even consideration of this piece of legislation. what this bill would do, it would withhold federal funds

from jurisdictions that basically violate current law, that violate the information sharing requirement in immigration law section 642 of the 1996 illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act. and secondly, it would withhold federal funds from those jurisdictions that refuse to honor lawful, legal process known as a detainer or request to notify federal authorities if local law enforcement decides to release an gleam -- illegal immigrant who happens to have been arrested for some other unrelated reason. this is a really important issue, as we've seen from the news, of kate steinle in california who was killed by somebody who repeatedly violated our laws not only by entering

the country illegally but by committing offenses against the person or property of american citizens. and essentially what happens is when local jurisdictions give up and refuse to honor the detainers or give notice to federal authorities before they release individuals, then people are going to get hurt. the kate steinles of the world will get killed. in my state in texas, we've had houston police officers and other law enforcement personnel killed by illegal immigrants who have routinely broken our laws and have terrible criminal records. but if we can't get the cooperation of local law enforcement authorities to work with the federal authorities, then unfortunately, public safety will be harmed. i want to pull back a little bit and just ask my colleagues to look at this perhaps from 30,000 feet. there's a reason why at the time

our constitution was written that article 6, clause 2, of the constitution was written. that simply said is that the federal law is the supreme law of the land. in other words, federal laws trump state laws and local laws. and if you think about it, as james madison said, if you didn't do, have federal law as the supreme law of the land, essentially the authority of the whole country, the elected officials, the president, the congress, those of us serving in the federal government, that the laws of the country would be made subordinate to the parts of the country: the cities, the counties, the states, that essentially defy federal law, and our system would be in chaos. and indeed what our colleagues across the aisle appear to have ratified here is not one nation

under the law, but a confederation of different jurisdictions that can pick and choose what laws they want to comply with. that is a recipe for chaos. one of the reasons i think that the american people are so angry with what they see happening here in washington these days -- indeed, i think they've moved beyond anger to fear. they're fearful for the future of our country. and when you see individual cities and states effectively nullify federal law by refusing to cooperate or saying we don't care what the federal government says, we're going to impose our own will, this is a recipe for chaos and for our country to -- the very fabric of our country to unravel. at different points in our nation's history we have had states which said we aren't going to respect federal law. we're going to nullify it in effect. and that's what these cities who

defy the federal authorities and the supremacy of federal law are doing. they're saying we don't have to comply with the law. and so, the american people, i think, out of apprehension over what they see happening here when states, cities and other jurisdictions decide to pick and choose which laws will apply, they realize this is a recipe for disunity, and in this case for danger. the people that we are fighting for are the families and communities who want to live in peace and safety in their local communities. that's what this legislation is about. this legislation of course is called stop sanctuary policies and protect americans act, and all it does, simply stated, is to restore law and order across the country and to hold certain cities who want to defy federal

law accountable. it would limit federal funding for state and local governments who refuse to cooperate. basically, the stop sanctuary policies and protect americans act encourages compliance with federal law, as i said a moment ago, and uses the power of the purse to withhold federal funds from those jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal law. and the goal as i said is to protect our communities from those who would pose a danger to our society. it does not target legal immigrants who seek to live in law-abiding and productive lives here. so i -- i frankly do not understand why our colleagues across the aisle, with the exception of two who voted to get on this legislation and offer amendments and constructive suggestions, i don't understand the democrats' refusal to move this legislation forward because it harms the public safety and it causes our

country to become a confederation of different jurisdictions that can pick and choose which laws they want to enforce. i mentioned one terrible incident over the summer, the murder of kate steinle in san francisco by an illegal immigrant with a known and lengthy criminal record. this is just one example and this sad story poignantly demonstrates the consequences of the administration's abject failure when it comes to enforcing our immigration laws. people get hurt. people get killed. this legislation would address the root cause of this tragedy by targeting criminal aliens and those local entities who refuse to do anything to help the kate steinles of the world. and it would specifically serve to counter the policies of those city governments like san francisco that are known to

shield criminal aliens from deportation. they openly defy the 1996 federal law that requires information sharing. they openly refuse to cooperate with federal orders and detainers and to notify the federal government when people are released from their jail sentence when they know that there is an outstanding deportation order pending. this bill also extends the mandatory minimum sentence for those who attempt to re-enter the country after being removed for breaking our laws. time and time again, we are met with the tragic news that some other american citizen who is killed or injured or assaulted by somebody who has entered the country, who has been removed for violating our laws and then who keeps coming back time and time again committing other criminal acts. we need to send a clear signal to those who attempt to enter the country illegally and

violate our laws that if you ignore those laws, you will have to answer for them, and you certainly will not be allowed to come back. some have rightly noted that this bill is not about immigration reform, and i agree. this bill is simply about enforcing our current law, and holding those jurisdictions who refuse to comply with current law accountable by withholding federal funds. this legislation underscores the concept that unbelievably has been lost among municipalities across the country, that despite what the current administration might have you think, upholding the federal law is not a suggestion, it's a legal requirement for all of us. we can't in good faith ask the american people to trust us when it comes to reforming our broken immigration system until they see us willing to stand up and

enforce the laws that are currently on the books, and we are -- until we hold accountable those jurisdictions, those municipalities, those states and other local entities that refuse to comply with federal law. that's why organizations like the national sheriffs association and the national association of police officers have voiced their support for this legislation. so to sum up, the stop sanctuary policies and protect americans act really serves as a confidence-building exercise for congress. if the american people don't see us standing up and demanding local jurisdictions actually enforce current law, how can they expect us to pass complex immigration reform legislation to address our broken immigration system? and unfortunately in this confidence-building exercise, the united states senate, led by our colleagues across the aisle

have failed in that confidence-building exercise. what they have done is reinforce the belief that there are members of the united states senate who believe that local jurisdictions can openly defy federal law and that there will be no recourse, no accountability. mr. president, it's frankly hard for me to understand how our democratic colleagues can in good conscience block this legislation given some of the horrific crimes that occurred like that committed against kate steinle of san francisco, but there are many, many, many tragic examples of this happening over and over again in our country, and this was our opportunity to do something about it, but unfortunately for reasons unbeknownst to me, our democratic colleagues will not even allow us to pass a bill which holds jurisdictions who refuse to enforce current

federal law, to hold them accountable. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. thune: i would ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, this week, we have been discussing taking up legislation to address the problem of sanctuary cities. in fact, just earlier today, we had a procedural vote on a

motion to proceed to actually get on the bill. it failed. it got only 54 votes. the threshold here in the senate to get on a bill is 60. democrats here in the senate decided to block consideration of this bill and to put that 60-vote threshold in play, and as a consequence, it failed. we got 54. i think only two democrat senators voted to proceed to this legislation, and, mr. president, i would argue that is very unfortunate because this is a -- this is a piece of legislation which is -- which represents common sense. it represents what i think the american people want us to be focused on when it comes to this issue of dealing with crime in our communities, dealing with the issue of illegal immigration in a way that ensures that those who come to this country and commit crimes aren't allowed to stay here. and right now, according to the department of homeland security, there are 340 jurisdictions across our country that have

official policies, discouraging cooperation with federal immigration enforcement officers. among other things, what that means is that these jurisdictions regularly ignore what are called detainers, requests from the department of homeland security to hold an individual for deportation. as a city prepares to release an illegal immigrant who has been convicted of or charged with a crime, department of homeland security will send a detainer asking that the individual be held for a brief period, usually for 48 hours until federal immigration officers can take custody. in a majority of cities across this country, law enforcement would simply comply with this request and hold the individual until the department of homeland security could arrive, but in sanctuary cities, officials regularly ignore these requests and simply release these individuals from jail back into the population at large, a practice that has resulted in the release of approximately a

thousand undocumented criminals per month. according to information from u.s. immigration and customs enforcement, 9,295 imprisoned individuals whom federal officials had sought to deport were released into the population between january 1 and september 30 of last year. 9,295 in just nine months. and of those 9,295 individuals, 5,947 or 62% had a significant prior criminal history or had presented a threat to public safety even before the arrest that preceded their release, and many rent on to be arrested again within a short period of time. mr. president, there is a terrible human cost to sanctuary cities decisions to refuse to cooperate with u.s. immigration

law. there has been a lot of discussion here on the floor about kate steinle. kate steinle paid that cost when she was murdered on a san francisco pier while walking with her father on july 1 of twist. -- of 2015. she was shot by an undocumented immigrant who had been convicted of no fewer than seven felonies prior to the city of san fro's decision to ignore a request from the department of homeland security and then go on and release this man into the population. and, unfortunately, mr. president, kate stei steinls not alone. another woman was raped and bludgeoned by an undocumented immigrant that had been released by the local sheriff's office decided to ignore a request to detain him until he could be taken into federal custody. a 2-year-old california girl was brutally beaten by her mother's

boyfriend, who was released on bail after the crime despite a request from federal officials that he be detained. in 2011, dennis mccann was killed when he was hit and killed by a car driven by an drunk driver. his killer turned out to be an undocumented imdprants with a prior undocumented conviction. the homeland security filed a request that immigration and customs enforcement be notified of his release. cook county, however, chose to ignore this request and after being released on bail dennis' killer apparently fled the country. four years later, ken nighs' family is still waiting to see justice done. mr. president, unfortunately, i could go on and on. decisions to release undocumented immigrants convicted of crimes instead of detaining them for federal

officials have resulted in far, far too many tragedies like those of marilyn fairies and kate steinle. and too many families in this country are mourning as a result. mr. president, cooperation between local and federal law enforcement is essential to protecting americans, and the detainer requests are a key tool that helps federal officials make sure that dangerous individuals are not going back onto our nation's streets. when cities and counties ignore these requests, they force immigration officers to attempt to track down undocumented criminals after they've been released into the community. according to the center for immigration studies, this requires an exponentially larger expenditure of funds and manpower and success is not guaranteed. immigration and customs enforcement needs the support of cities and local law enforcement if it's going to keep these individuals off our nation's streets.

mr. president, the legislation that we've been discussing today would take a substantial step forward -- toward -- forward, i should say, toward ending the threat posed by sanctuary policies. this stop sanctuary policies an protect americans act will redirect the funds to jurisdictions that comply with federal immigration laws. it will also provide crucial legal protections to law enforcement officers that will allow them to cooperate with federal immigration authorities without the fear of lawsuits. this act also incorporates provisions known as kate's law, named after kate steinle. these provisions would increase the maximum penalty for illegally reentering the united states after being deported and create a maximum penalty of ten years for reentering the country illegally after being deported three or more times.

kate's law would also create a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for those reentering the country after having been convicted of an aggravated felony prior to deportation or for those who reenter the country after two previous convictions for illegal reentry. mr. president, what happened to kate on that pier in san francisco should never have happened. and it likely could have been prevented if san francisco had chosen to respect the department of homeland security's request to hold her killer until immigration officers could pick him up. i hope that the stop sanctuary policies act will move forward in the senate and that we will be able to send a version of this legislation to the president. it's time that we started ensuring that dangerous criminals like kate steinle's killer don't end back up on our streets. we had that opportunity today. we had a vote to get on this bill.

and what's really truly remarkable and amazing is that we couldn't even get on the bill to debate it. it was blocked by our colleagues on the other side, who prevented even proceeding to the bill -- the motion to proceed which takes 60 votes here in the united states senate. it would have been very easy to get on the bill and at least have the debate. if they didn't like the provisions, have an opportunity to debate it, amend it. but instead, the democrats in the senate chose to block the consideration, even the very consideration of legislation that would go to great lengths, mr. president, to try and prevent the types of tragedy that we witnessed this last summer with kate steinle and so many others who have fallen prey to acts of violence committed by those who are here illegally and had prior experience with the law, prior convictions, clear dangers to people and families

all across this country. it is a tragedy that we weren't able to get on the bill. i hope that our democrat colleagues will change their minds and allow us to proceed to this legislation, to debate it, vote on it, pass it, and send it the president for his signature. mr. president, i also want to speak today in support of senate bill 754, which i think we're going to be discussing here momentarily, the cyber threat information-sharing act, which the senate is going to be debating this week. i commend chairman burr and vice-chairman feinstein for their bipartisan work on this -- bringing this bill to the floor. the it seems that every week we learn of another serious cyber attack against u.s. businesses and government agencies. the most devastating recent attack is the one against the office of personnel management that compromised the background check of more than 21 million americans. the pace of such attacks appears to be accelerating. according to the security firm symantec, last year alone, more than 300 million new types of

malicious software and computer viruses were introduced on the web, or nearly, if you can believe this, one million new threats each and every day. just last month, director of national intelligence james clapper testified before the house intelligence committee that -- and i quote -- "cyber threats to u.s. national and economic security are increasing in frequency, scale, sophistication, and severity of impact." end quote. as head of the senate commerce committee, i promoted the potential of the internet of things, which connects everyday products to the web. but i've also held several hearings on the cybersecurity threats and challenges that accompany an increasingly connected world.

the bill would authorize the voluntary sharing of cyber threat information and would provide commonsense liability protections for companies that share such information with the government or their pearc -- orr piers. the goal is to help the companies better protect their networks. similar bipartisan legislation was reported by the senate bell generals committee last year but was never considered by the democrat-controlled senate at the time. this year, the intelligence committee passed the bill by a bipartisan vote of 14-1, which should portend a strong bipartisan vote here on the floor of the senate. the house of representatives has also passed two bills to facilitate the sharing of cyber threats, so we are now within striking distance of finally enacting critical cybersecurity information-sharing legislation after several false starts in recent years. i know that some have questioned whether this bill provides

appropriate protections for personal privacy and civil liberties. i appreciate these concerns, and i believe this bill's sponsors have meaningfully addressed them including through modifications to be included in the managers' amendment. this bill is not a surveillance bill. the modified bill would limit the sharing of information to that defined as cyber threat indicators and defensive measures taken to defect, prevent, or mitigate cybersecurity threat. the bill also requires private sector to remove personally identifiable information. and the federal government can only use the cyber threat information it receives for cybersecurity purposes and address a narrow set of crimes such as the sexual exploitation of children. the bill also requires regular oversight of the government's sharing activities by the privacy and civil liberties oversight board and by relevant

agency inspectors general. in the end, it is important to remember that it is about cyber threats like the malwear being used by criminals in hostile states, not personal information. meanwhile, failing to enact this bill could actually make it easier for criminals to continue collecting our personal information from vulnerable systems. l mr. president, let me be clear. this is not a silver bullet and it will not render cyberspace completely safe. no bill could do that. but sisa is an important part of effort to improve our cybersecurity. last year congress enacted five cybersecurity laws that target other pieces of the cyber puzzle. i coauthored one, the cybersecurity security enforcement act with jay rockefeller. this ensures the continue aiftion a voluntary and

private-sector led process of the commerce department's national institute of standards of technology to identify best practices to protect our nation's critical infrastructure from cyber threats. cybersecurity enhancement act also promotes cutting-edge research, and improvements in our cybersecurity workforce. it will work together with this you in law t to ensure that businesses have timely warning about current threats so they can better protect themselves and all of us from cyber attacks. it does so in a manner that protects individual privacy and avoids government mandates. mr. president, i look forward to the coming debate on the bill, including a healthy consideration of amendments, and i urge my colleagues to join the bipartisan sponsors and a broad coalition of stakeholders around this country in supporting this much-needed legislation.

mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator or omplet. mr. wyden: since we're still on the sanctuaries bill we'll be turning to the cyber legislation next, i would ask unanimous consent that allowed to address the senate after chairman burr has completed her remarks and the ranking member, senator feinstein, has completed her remarks. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, we're quickly moving to a point that i think the majority leader will come to the floor and will call up the cybersecurity bill. now, let me remind my colleagues that we've been on the floor briefly before, and the conclusion then was that we passed a unanimous consent request that made in order 22 amendments. it was not a limiting u.c. so there is the opportunity for additional amendments to come to

the floor. but as we start, i want to say to my colleagues that if we have a level of cooperation by the members, if in fact you come, you debate, you vote on your amendments, we can resolve this in literally a matter of a couple days. if people want to try to obstruct, then it's going to be a lengthy process procedurally. and i don't think that there's a lot new that we're going to learn. what's the fact? the fact is that actors around the world continue to attack u.s. systems and in many cases penetrate them. sony films, o.p.m., anthem -- the president knows because he is a member of our committee. the amount of personal data that's being accumulated out

there somewhere provides almost a road map to everything about anybody. and what we're attempting to do with this cyber bill, i want the american people to understand, this is not to prevent cyber attack. i would love to figure out technologically how we do it. nobody has been able to do it. what this is designed to do is to minimize the data that's lost, to minimize the personal information that an individual bleeds out of going into -- gleans out of going into a database and pulling that information out. so the vice-chairman and i have worked with other members of the complete to report a bill out of the committee on a 14-1 vote we're two, almost three months behind the house of representatives who has passed two bills, that we desperately need to get out of the united states senate a piece of legislation that we can conference with the house of representatives and in a

conversation just this morning that i had with the white house, they are supportive of this bill getting out of the united states senate and having a bill on the president's desk that he can sign into law, and we can have this in place. but let me make some overall points on the cyber bill. one, the most important, it's voluntary. any business in america can choose to participate or not to participate. they can tell the federal government that they have been penetrated. they can provide the appropriate data for us to begin the forensics and to tell them in real time here is the defensive software package you can put on your system that will make you immune from that tool again but more importantly might minimize the amount of data that's lost and certainly will allow the government then to broadcast the business more widely. here's in fact, a tool that is being used today. here's a defensive mechanism to keep other businesses from

having the same penetration and data lost. now, it's important that i say when we started, there were 22 amendments that were placed in order. i'm proud to tell my colleagues that we have worked out eight of those amendments. they will be incorporated in a managers' amendment which will also have an additional six amendments that we think strengthen the concerns that have been expressed by privacy. they also address certain areas across jurisdiction like the department of hoasmedz. we -- of homeland security. we now have those chairman fully on board in support of the piece of legislation. now we have to go through the process. at the root of this is moving forward a piece of legislation on cyber that is a voluntary piece of legislation by companies. i mentioned real time. i know the president has heard this in committee. if we can't promise real time,

we can't promise to anybody who's willing to provide the data that we can actually stop or minimize data loss. so it's absolutely crucial that this all function in real time. to have a voluntary program that involves real-time transfer of information, it means that there have to be incentives for that to be done. so let me just point out two things. for a company to talk to a competitor after they have been attacked and penetrated, we provide antitrust protection to them to talk directly to that competitor as fast as they possibly can, to find out whether we've got multiple systems that are at risk. for the company to report to the federal government, we provide liability protection just for the transfer of that information. and as members read the bill, they will see that stat statuto, we don't allow personal data that is unrelated to the

forensics needed to identify who did the attack, what type of a tool and what's the defensive mechanism. that personal data statutorily cannot be transferred from a private company to the government. additionally, we say to every federal agency that might receive in real time this data if there is personal data that's transmitted from a company to the federal government, you cannot distribute personal data. i'm not sure how it gets stronger than where we are, but i have come to this conclusion after working on this legislation for this entire year and the vice chairman has worked on it for multiple years. there are some people who don't want legislation. we have met with every person that had a -- a good thought. legislation that would send us in a positive direction but

still embrace the policy found in this legislation. there is some. it's limited. some that we can't in fact satisfy. so let me say to those companies that have expressed opposition to this piece of legislation, it's real clear. choose not to participate. it's voluntary. if you have got an aversion to what we have written, even though a majority of business in america is actually calling my office and the vice chairman's office saying when are we going to get this done, we need it, to those companies that find no value in it, don't participate. it is that simple. that's the beauty of voluntary. voluntary also means that the national chamber of commerce is 100% supportive of this legislation. now, you never have full agreement from membership of an association, but it takes a majority. as a matter of fact, it takes well over a majority for an organization like that to come

out publicly supportive. so i say very boldly if you don't like the piece of legislation, it's real easy. you just don't participate in it. now, some have called this a surveillance bill. let's just knock that down real quick. first, this bill requires private companies and the government to eliminate any irrelevant personal identification, identifiable information before sharing cyber threat indicators or defensive measures. requires. second, this bill does not allow the government to monitor private networks or computers. third, this bill does not let the government shut down web sites or require companies to turn over personal information. fourth, this bill does not permit the government to retain or use cyber threat information for anybody other than cybersecurity purposes, identifying a cybersecurity threat, protecting individuals from death or serious bodily or

economic harm, protecting minors or investigating limited cyber crime offenses. fifth, it provides rigorous oversight and requires a periodic interagency inspector general report to assess whether the government has violated any of the requirements found in this act. the report will also assess any impact that this bill may have on privacy and civil liberties. and finally, our managers' amendment has incorporated additional provisions that enhance privacy protection. first our managers amendment omitted the government's ability to use cyber information to investigate or prosecute serious violent felonies. personally, i thought that was a pretty good thing. i can understand where it's outside of the scope of a cyber bill, but information about a felony that you learned in this i thought was something the american people would want us to act on.

individuals raised issues on it. we dropped it out of the bill. secondly, our managers amendment limited cyber threat information sharing authorities to those that are shared for cybersecurity purposes. so, in other words, it's only for cybersecurity purposes. both of these changes ensure that nothing in our bill reaches beyond the focus, cybersecurity threats that it intends to prevent and deter. nothing in this bill creates any potential, any potential for surveillance authorities. despite rumors to the contrary, this is a voluntary cyber threat indicator sharing, authorities do not have to provide in i any way for the government to spy on or use library or book records or educational records or medical records. given that cyber hackers have hacked into and stolen publicly

disclosed so much private personal information it's astounding that privacy groups would oppose a bill that has nothing to do with surveillance and seeks to protect their private information from being stolen and i guess that's been the most troubling aspect of the road we have traveled, is that we're trying to protect personal data, yet the groups that say they are the stewards of personal data are the ones that in fact are most vocal on this. this ensures that the government cannot install, employ or otherwise use cybersecurity systems on private sector networks. no one can hack back into a company computer system even if their purpose is to protest against or quash cyber attacks. the government cannot retain or use cyber threat information for anything other than cyber

security purposes, preventing, investigating, disrupting or prosecuting limited cyber crimes, protecting minors and protecting individuals from death and serious bodily or economic harm. the government cannot use cyber threat information in regulatory proceedings. that's what we're here talking about. voluntary, targeted at minimizing the data loss. targeted at trying to protect the personal data of the american people found in everyday debates in every company around the world. so mr. president, i'm going to turn to my vice chairman as we get ready for senator wyden to make some remarks and for leader mcconnell to come to the floor, and i would put members on notice once again, it's our intent to have some opening comments, to actually make the

managers amendment pending, to make those amendments that were part of the unanimous consent but not worked out as part of the managers package pending. i would encourage those members who have authorship of those amendments if they're pending, if you will come and debate them, we'll schedule the votes for them. if you have additional amendments, come, offer those amendments, we'll start the debate on it, but it's our goal with the cooperation of members to work as expeditiously, to work through all of the amendments that one wants to consider to dispose of them and to finalize cybersecurity legislation in the united states senate so we can move to the house and conference a bill. i yield the floor. mrs. feinstein: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: thank you, mr. president. i want to begin by saying that i very much agree with what chairman burr has just stated.

it's factual. it's the truth. for me, i have worked on this for seven years now. and so this is actually our third bill that we've tried to move. i want to thank the two leaders for bringing the bill to the floor, and i hope it can be considered quickly. up front, i want to make clear, if it hasn't been made clear, that this legislation is a first step only to improve our nation's defenses against cyber attack and cyber intrusion. it's not a panacea, and it will not end our vulnerabilities, but it is the most effective first legislative step, we believe, that we can take. this legislation is about providing legal clarity and legal protection so that companies can share cyber threat information voluntarily with each other and with the government. it provides companies the protections they need and puts

strong privacy rules in place. at the beginning of this debate, i think it's important to talk about the depth and breadth of the cyber threat we actually face every day because rarely does a month go by without the announcement of a significant cyber attack or intrusion on an american company or an agency of the united states government. these attacks compromise sensitive personal information, expectual property or -- intellectual property or both. just in the last year, major banks, health insurers, tech companies, retailers have seen tens of millions of their customers' sensitive data stolen through cyber means. in 2014, the internet security company symantec, reported that over 348 million identities were

exposed through data breaches. threats in cyberspace do not just risk the personal data of americans. they are a significant and growing drain on our economy. as malicious actors steal our money, rob companies of intellectual property and threaten our ability to innovate. the cybersecurity company macafee and the think tank center for strategic and international studies estimated last year that the annual cost of cyber crime is more than $400 billion. that's annual, a year. the same study stated that losses from cyber threats could cost the united states as many as 200,000 jobs. these are not theoretical risks. they are happening today and every day. as we know all too well, in the

wake of cyber intrusions, at the office of personnel management, cyber threats are not only aimed against the private sector, they're aimed against the public sector. every day, foreign nation states and cyber criminals scour united states government systems and our defense industrial base for information on government programs and personnel. every single day. more than 22 million government employees and security clearance applicants had massive amounts of personal information stolen from the office of personnel management, reportedly taken by china. these employees now face increased risk of theft and fraud and also their information will likely be used for intelligence operations against them and the united states. as bad as this is -- and it is bad -- we are now seeing in the

last few years an acceleration of an even more concerning trend, that of cyber attack instead of just cyber theft. in 2012, major united states financial institutions saw an unprecedented wave of denial of service attacks on their systems. saudi aramco, reported to be the world'world's largest oil and gs company, was the victim of a cyber attack that wiped out a reported three-quarters of its corporate computers. in 2013, we saw further escalations of these threats as waves of denial-of-service attacks were aimed at some of our largest banks. in early 2014, iran launch add cyber attack on the sands casino, which according to the public testimony of the director of national intelligence, james clapper, rendered thousands of

computer systems inoperable. last november we saw one of the most publicl publicized cyber as when north korean hackers broke into sony pictures entertainment, stole vast amounts of data, and destroyed the company's internal network. these breaches of personal information, loss of intellectual property, theft, and destructive attacks continue online every day. it is only a matter of time before america's critical infrastructure, major banks, the electric grid, dams, waterways, the air traffic control system, others, are tarkted fo targetedr attack that could seriously affect hundreds of thousands of lives. so, clearly, it's well beyond

the time to act. there is no legislative or administrative step we can take that will end cybercrime and cyber warfare. however, since we began looking at this the on the intelligence community in 2008, we've heard consistently that improving the exchange of information about cyber threats and cyber vulnerabilities can yield a real and significant improvement to united states cybersecurity. that's why this bill is the top cyber legislative priority for the congress, the obama administration, and the business community. i've heard directly from dozens of corporate executives about the importance of cybersecurity legislation, as had the intelligence community staff in hundreds of meetings over the course of years in drafting this

legislation. not only, as our chairman has said, has the chamber of commerce called for this legislation, but so have dozens -- some 52 -- industry groups representing some of the largest sectors of our economy. on the floor in early accuracy i listed 40 associations that have written in support of the legislation. today there are 53. i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that the list of companies and associations be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you, mr. president. regrettably, this is the third attempt to pass a cybersecurity information sharing bill in recent years. in 2012, the lieberman-collins cybersecurity act of 2012 was on the floor and included a title

on information sharing which fell to the intelligence committee. it was an important piece of legislation, but it only received one republican vote. last congress, then-vice-chairman of intelligence, saxby chambliss, and i set out to draft a narrower bill in the hopes of attracting bipartisan spowmplet the intelligence committee approved a bill in 2014 by a strong bipartisan vote of 12-3. but it never reached the senate floor due to privacy concerns. so this is the third try. i'm very pleased that chairman burr and i now have the opportunity to bring a bill to the floor that both sides can and should support. this bill is bipartisan. it is narrowly focused, and it puts in place a number of

privacy protections, many of which we will outline shortly. i believe the bipartisan vote of 14-1 in the senate intelligence committee in march underscores this fact. i'd like to commend senator burr's leadership and his willingness to negotiate a bipartisan bill with me that can and should -- and i hope does -- receive a strong vote in the senate. let me take a few minutes, mr. president, to describe the main features of the bill and its privacy protections. in short, it does the following five things: first, the bill recognizes that the federal government has information about cyber threats that it can and should share with the private sector and with state, local, and tribal governments. the bill requires the director of national intelligence to put

in place a process to increase the sharing of information on cyber threats already in the government's hands, with the private sector to help protect an individual or a business. so that's the sharing between the government and the private sector. this includes sharing classified data with those with security clearances and an appropriate need to know but also requires the d.n.i. to set up a process to declassify more information to help all companies secure their networks. we have heard over and over again from companies that the information they get from the government today is not sufficient. that needs to change. secondly, the bill provides clear authorization for private sector entities to take appropriate actions.

that includes, first, an authorization for a company to monitor its networks or information on its networks for cybersecurity purposes only. no other type of monitoring is permitted. nor is use of information acquired through such monitoring allowed for purposes other than cybersecurity. secondly, authorization for a company to implement a defensive measure on its network to detect, prevent, or mitigate a cyber threat. this authorization, by definition, does not cover a measure that destroys, renders unusable, or substantially harms a computer system or information on someone else's network. this is an important point.

there's been concern that the bill would immunize a company for damage it might cost other people's networks. the managers' amendment makes clear that the authorization in this bill allows companies to block malicious traffic coming from outside their networks and stop threats on their systems but -- but -- not conduct offensive activities or otherwise have significant effects off their networks. third, an authorization for companies to share limited cyber threat information or defensive measures with other companies or with government agencies. it does not authorize sharing anything other than cyber information. in a critical change, the managers' amendment states that

sharing is for cybersecurity purposes only. so this really is a very limited authorization. it's important to note that while these activities are authorized, they are not mandatory. information sharing, monitoring, and use of defensive measures are all voluntary, and the bill makes explicit that there are no requirements for a company to act or not to act. i've heard from technology companies in the past couple of weeks that they're concerned that this bill requires them to share customer information with the government. that is false. first, companies can choose to participate or they can choose not to. if they do, they can only share

cyber threat information, not their company's personal information on their online activity. the third thing this bill does is to put in place procedures and limitations for how the government will receive, handle, and use cyber information provided by the private sector. the bill requires two sets of policies and procedures. the first set to be written by the attorney general and the secretary of homeland security requires that cyber information that comes to the federal government will be made available to all appropriate federal departments and agenci agencies, without unnecessary delay, and that the information-sharing system inside the government is auditable and is consistent with

privacy safeguards. the second set of required guidelines are designed to limit the privacy impact of the sharing of cyber information and specifically limit the government's receipt, retention, use, and dissemination of personal information. these guidelines are to be written by the attorney general. they will be made public. the bill specifically limits the use of cyber information by the government. federal agencies can only use the information received through this bill for a cybersecurity purpose, the purpose of identifying a cyber threat, preventing or responding to an imminent threat of death, serious bodily harm, serious economic harm, including an imminent terrorist attack. four, preventing or responding

to a serious threat of harm to a minor and preventing, investigating, or prosecuting specific cyber-related crime. the bill creates what we call ensured hand, a portal at the department of homeland security, and requires that cyber information is received by the government through the homeland security portal. -- from which it can be districted quickly and responsibly to appropriate departments and agencies. this portal was the joint proposal a few years ago by former d.h.s. secretary janet napolitano, f.b.i. director bob mueller, and n.s.a. director keith alexander. the purpose of the portal is to centralize the entry point for cyber information sharing so that the government can

effectively and efficiently receive that cyber information, can protect privacy, can ensure that all the appropriate departments with cybersecurity responsibility can quickly learn about threats. a key aspect of this centralized portal is to enable information to move where it needs to go automatically. once cyber threat information enters the portal, it will be shared in real-time, meaning without human intervention and at machine speed to the other appropriate federal agencies. the belief is that they can put in a filter and do a kind of scrub, if you will, just in case there is any privacy information like a social security number, driver license number, or something like that that can be instantly moved out. such real-time exchange is

necessary because if there are indications that a cyber attack is under way, the response to stop that attack will need to be immediate and not subject to delay. and the bill makes clear that this can and should be done in a way that ensures that privacy is protected, improving both privacy protections and the ability to quickly protect sensitive systems. finally, the bill provides liability protection to companies who act in accord with the bill's provisions. specifically, the bill provides liability immunity for companies who properly monitor their computer networks or who share information the way the bill allows. the bill specifically does not protect companies from liability in the case of gross negligence

or willful misconduct. nor does it protect those who do not follow its privacy protections. as i mentioned earlier, there are many -- as i mentioned earlier, there are many privacy protections throughout the bill. because this is a key point of interest for a number of senators, let me list ten of them. one, it's voluntary. the bill doesn't require companies to do anything they choose not to do. there's no requirement to share information with another company or with the government. and the government cannot compel any sharing by the private sector. so, if there's this tech company or that tech company that doesn't want to go into this, don't do it. nothing forces you to do it. this is 100% voluntary. secondly, it narrowly defines the