and it's all very quiet in what you can find out about it. and the information is not really shared by companies. this happened to our company. you know, can you share anything that might help us handle this? that kind of thing doesn't happen because everybody's afraid of liability. and so it's a very disparate area. and i remember when joe lieberman was on the committee and the homeland security committee had a bill, as you remember, we had the information sharing part of it, and we sat down with the chamber of commerce, i think, on three occasions to try to work out differences, and we couldn't, and the chamber is massive, it's sprawling, it's all over the united states, it's small businesses, medium sized, some

big businesses. and there was deep concern. so that took years to work out, and finally this first step may be upon us, and this first step is to permit the voluntary sharing of information which if it is strapped of private data will be protected and protected with liability immunity and protected with -- because it goes through a single portal, it doesn't go directly to law enforcement department, which was a lot of the privacy community's concern, so all of this has been worked out to try to come up with a basis for taking this first step. and as you know, i'm sorry, you are no longer on our committee because you were really a great asset and florida's lucky to have you.

so this is the beginning, and i very much hope that on all our iterations, it's been bipartisan, and that's got to say something to people. it really has. we have learned, as we have done the drafting on this, and we have very good staff that are technically proficient, which i am certainly not. i won't speak for my chairman, but the staff is technically proficient, so they know what can work and what can't work. i hope i've answered that. if i can, i would like to go on and make some remarks. yesterday, senator burr and i spoke on this floor, mr. president, to describe the cybersecurity information sharing act of 2015, which is now the pending business. senator burr filed a manager's

package on behalf of both of us, and i'd like to quickly run through that package. this amendment is the product of bipartisan negotiations over the past several weeks within the intelligence committee and with sponsors of other amendments to the bill. the manager's amendment makes several key changes to the bill to clarify authorization language, improve privacy protections and make technical changes. it also, and i think this is of note, includes the text of 14 separate amendments. that's of the -- of those offered by our colleagues, some of which are taken from the 21 amendments. i think there are eight, as well as others that senator burr and my staff have worked out to be able to add to this. if sum, this amendment has two

main components. it makes important changes to the bill that we announced in august to address privacy concerns about the legislation. and secondly, it includes several amendments authored by our colleagues that had agreement on both sides of the aisle. so let me run through these amendments that will be part of the manager's package, and i do so to hopefully reassure members that these are positive amendments. the first, it eliminates a provision on government use of cyber information on noncyber crime. the manager's amendment eliminates a provision in the committee-passed bill that would have allowed the government to use cyber information to investigate and prosecute -- quote -- serious violent felonies -- end quote. eliminating this provision is a

very significant privacy change. we made this change because it has been a top bipartisan concern, and the provision had been used by privacy groups to claim that this is a surveillance bill. and as the chairman made clear on the floor yesterday, it is not, and it is not because it prohibits the government to use information for crimes unrelated to cybersecurity. so let me be clear. the chairman said it and i want to say it today -- this is not a surveillance bill. we have eliminated this provision and helped, i believe, to eliminate these concerns, so please let's not speak of it as something that tp isn't. secondly, it limits the authorization to share cyber

threat information to cybersecurity purposes. the manager's amendment limits the authorization for sharing cyber threat information provided in the bill, to sharing for cybersecurity purposes only. this is another significant privacy change and it has been another top bipartisan and privacy group concern. third, it eliminates a new foia exemption. the manager's amendment eliminated the creation of a new exemption in the freedom of information act specific to cyber information that was in the committee-passed bill. cyber threat indicators and defensive measures share in accordance with the bill's procedures would still be eligible for existing foia exemptions, but it doesn't add new ones. four, it ensures the defensive

measures are properly limited. the bill allows a company to take measures to defend itself as one might expect, and the manager's amendment clarifies that the authorization to employ defensive measures does not allow an entity to gain unauthorized access to a computer network. fifth, it includes the secretary of homeland security as co-author of the government-sharing guidelines. the manager's amendment directs both the attorney general and the secretary of homeland security rather than solely just the attorney general to develop policies and procedures to govern how the government quickly and appropriately shares information about cyber threats. that should be a no-brainer. sixth, it clarifies exceptions to the department of homeland

security so-called portal. the manager's amendment clarifies the types of cyber information sharing that are permitted to occur outside the d.h.s. portal created by the bill. specifically, the billionaire owes communications outside of the department of homeland security portal regarding previously shared cyber threat information. seventh, it requires procedures for notifying u.s. persons whose personal information has been shared by a federal entity in violation of the bill. the manager's amendment adds a modified version of wyden amendment 2622 which requires the government to write procedures for notifying u.s.

persons whose personal information is known or determined to have been shared by the federal government in a manner inconsistent with this act. next, it clarifies the real-time ought mated process for sharing through the d.h.s. portal. i wish i could make this more interesting, but one of the things about writing this bill has really been how very complicateed it is, that different things have different meanings to different people, and to reconcile all of this has taken a period of time. here the manager's amendment adds a modified version of the carper amendment 2615 which clarifies that there may be situations under which the automated real-time process of d.h.s. portal may result in very

limited instances of delay modification or other action due to the controls established for the process. the clarification requires that all appropriate federal entities agree in advance to the filters, fields or other aspects of the automated sharing system before such delays, modifications or other actions are permitted. now, senator carper has played a very positive role in all of this. he's the ranking member on the homeland security committee. he has sat down with both senator burr and myself. he has proposed some very good changes, and this is one of them that is in the manager's package. also, the clarification ensures that such agreed upon delays

will apply across the board uniformly to all appropriate federal entities, including the department of homeland security. so this was an important change for both senators carper and senator coons and for the department of homeland security, and i'm pleased we were able to reach agreement on it because essentially what it allowed is a fast real-time filter -- and i understand this can be done -- that it can do an additional scrub of things going through that portal before they go to other departments to take out anything that might be related to personal information -- a driver's license, a health care account, a social security number, whatever it may be, that they believe that they can put together the technology to be able to do that scrub in as

close to real time as possible. so this should be very meaningful to the privacy community, and i really hope it is because i want to believe that their actions aren't just to kill the bill, that their actions really are to make the bill better, and if i'm right in that, this is a very important addition, and i want to thank senator carper, senator coons, and i also want to thank the chairman for agreeing to put this in. ninth, it clarifies that private entities are not required to share information with the federal government or another private entity. this is clear now, so this amendment adds the flake amendment 2580, which reinforces this bill's core voluntary

nature by clarifying that private entities are not required to share information with the federal government or another private entity. in other words, if you don't like the bill, you don't have to do it. so it's hard for me to understand why we have companies like apple and google and microsoft and others saying they can't support the bill at this time. you have no reason, because you don't have to do anything, but there are companies by the hundreds if not thousands that want to participate in this. this we know. next, it adds a federal cybersecurity enhancement title. the manager's amendment adds a modified version of another

carper amendment, that's 2627, the federal cybersecurity enhancement act of 2015, as a new title 2 of the cyber bill. the amendment seeks to improve federal network security and authorize and enhance an existing intrusion center -- excuse me -- intrusion detection and prevention system for civilian federal networks. next, we add a study on mobile device security. the manager's amendment adds a modified version of the coats amendment 2604 which requires the secretary of homeland security to carry out a study and report to congress on the cybersecurity threats to mobile devices of the federal government, and i want to thank senator coats who is a

distinguished member of the intelligence committee and understands this bill well for his addition to it. next, it adds a requirement for the secretary of state to produce an international cyberspace policy strategy. the managers' amendment adds gardener-cardin amendment 2631 which requires the secretary of state to produce a comprehensive strategy focused on united states international policy with regard to cyberspace. it's about time we do something like this. so i am personally grateful to both senators gardner and cardin for this amendment. it adds a reporting provision concerning the apprehension and prosecution of international cyber criminals.

the managers' amendment adds a modified version of kirk-gillibrand 2603, which requires the secretary of state to engage in consultations with the appropriate government officials of any country in which one or more cyber criminals are physically present and to submit an annual report to appropriate congressional committees on such cyber criminals. it's really about time that we get to the point where we can begin to make public more of what's happening from abroad because it is venal, it is startling, it is continuing, and in its continuation it is growing into a real monster. let there be no doubt about that. next, it improves the contents

of the biennial report on implementation of the bill. the managers' amendment adds a modified version of the tester amendment 2632 which requires detailed reporting on, one, the number of cyber threat indicators received under the d.h.s. portal process. and, two, the number of times information shared under this bill is used to prosecute certain cyber criminals. oh, if we can catch them, we should. we should know. we should prosecute them. and, three, the number of notices that were used -- excuse me -- that were issued, if any, for a failure to remove personal information in accordance with the requirements of this bill. mr. president, i do this because

there are kinds of rumors beginning to circulate that this does this or that does this that are not correct. and this managers' package is really a major effort to encapsulate what members on both sides -- i think the numbers are about equal of republican and democratic amendments that are incorporated, that both of us really feel would benefit the bill. so i just have a little bit more, but i want the record to reflect what this does. it is very important, at least to me. it improves the periodic sharing of cybersecurity best practices with a focus on small businesses. the managers' amendment adds the shaheen amendment 2597 which promotes the periodic sharing of cybersecurity best practices. good.

that are developed in order to assist small businesses as they improve their cybersecurity. i think this is an excellent amendment and senator shaheen should be commended. next, it adds a federal cybersecurity workforce assessment title. the managers' amendment adds bennet-portman number 2558, the federal cybersecurity workforce assessment act, as a new title 3 to this bill. the title addresses the need to recruit highly qualified cyber workforce across the federal government. next, and just a few more, but again, i do this to show -- and the chairman is here -- that we have listened to people and we have tried to include this. and so nobody should feel we're ramming through a bill that we

haven't considered others. and the managers' amendment is in fact a major change to the bill that reflects this collegial, sometimes a little more exorcised, but collegial discussion. do you not agree, mr. chairman? i'll break up this litany with a little dialogue here. mr. burr: i appreciate the opportunity to participate. no, i would totally agree. the vice chairman and i have worked aggressively for the entirety of the year. where we have differences, we found ways to bridge those differences. where we heard from members, where we heard from associations, where we heard from businesses, we worked with them to try to accommodate their wishes as long as it stayed within the spirit of what we were trying to accomplish, which is information sharing in a voluntary capacity. and i think the vice chair and i have come to the floor yesterday and said if an amendment, if an

initiative falls outside of that, then we will stand up and oppose it because we understand the role that this legislation should play in the process. and the vice chairman said this is the first step. i don't want to scare members, but there are some other steps. we're not sure what they are today or we would be on the floor suggesting those. but if you can't take the first step, then it's hard to figure out what the next and the next and the next are. so i am committed to work continually with the vice chairman and, more importantly, with all members to incorporate their great suggestions as long as we all stay headed in the same direction. and i know the vice chairman and i are doing that. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much, mr. chairman. if i may, through the chair, i want you to know how much i appreciate this takata that you have taken -- this tact that you have taken because you have been flexible and willing to extend

into this managers' package. so i believe, i truly believe what we have come up with in this managers' package and what members have contributed to it makes it a better bill. and i know you feel the same way, and we can just march on shoulder to shoulder and hopefully get this done. so i will just finish up the few others that i have here, because i want those people listening to this -- assuming that people do listen -- that have concerns to listen to what's being said because it's, the changes have a major impact. the 17th change is it establishes a process by which data on cybersecurity risks or incidents involving emergency response information systems can be reported. the managers' amendment adds

heitkamp amendment 2565 -- excuse me. yes, 255 -- excuse me -- which requires the secretary of homeland security to establish a process by which a statewide interoperability coordinator may report data on any cybersecurity risk or incident involving emergency response information systems or networks. this is a process for reporting, and certainly we need to know more. number 18, requires a report on the preparedness of the health care industry to respond to cybersecurity threats. and the secretary of state of health and human services to establish a health care industry cybersecurity task force. the managers' amendment adds

alexander-murray amendment 2719. now this is a reporting requirement to improve the cybersecurity posture of the health care industry. i don't think anyone wants to have their health care data hacked into. this is, by virtue of law, by tradition, by preference, deeply personal material, and it should be inviolate. the provision requires the secretary of health and human services to submit a report to congress on the preparedness of the health care industry to respond to cybersecurity threats. can they respond? do we need to know? i think so. if we really want to help individuals protect their health care information, we have to know what's going on. and that's what this amendment enables. it also requires the secretary

to establish a health care industry cybersecurity task force. 19, it requires new inl sperkts general to -- new inspectors general to report. the managers' amendment adds a modified version of the hatch amendment 2712, which requires relevant agency inl -- inspectors of inspector generals to file reports with appropriate committees on the logical access standards and controls within their agencies. let's know what standards and what controls they have. i think it's a very prudent request of the senator from utah, and i'm glad we were able to include it. 20, it adds a requirement for the d.h.s. secretary to develop a strategy to protect critical infrastructure at greatest risk. the managers' amendment adds the

collins amendment number 2623, which requires d.h.s. to identify critical infrastructure entities at the greatest risk of catastrophic cybersecurity incident. this is where we have had a number of calls. and the chairman's staff and my staff are working on this. this is a voluntary bill, and we do not want any language that might be interpreted to imply that this is not a voluntary bill. so, i know senator collins very well, and i know and appreciate her knowledge of this area, and i believe we're going to be able to work this out. this amendment does not convey any new authorities to the secretary of homeland security to require that critical infrastructure owners and

operators take action, nor does it mandate reporting to the federal government. its intent, which i applaud, is for the government to have a better understanding of those critical infrastructure companies that if hacked could cause extremely significant damage to our nation. i want to thank my colleagues for their thoughtful and helpful amendments. and so i'm pleased that we have such a fulsome managers' package. i believe this managers' package strengthens our bill. it adds important clarifications, meaningful privacy protections. it does not do operational harm. and it further improves the strong bill that the intelligence committee passed by a strong vote of 14-1 earlier this year. again, mr. president, i do this so that all members know,

because a cloture motion has been filed by the leader on this package, and i want everybody to know what is in the package, and both the chairman and i believe that the additions are in the best interest of making a good bill even better. so i thank you for your forebearance, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i want to comment on the distinguished senator from california and north carolina on their important work on the cyber bill. i know we're going to be discussing a lot of that, how important that is to our national security. what i wanted to do this

afternoon was talk about another important bill that's moving its way through the process of becoming law, and that's the national defense authorization act, the ndaa. you know, mr. president, like many of us, i spent last week back home in my great state of alaska. and in alaska, it's hard not to see the strength and pride in our military everywhere, every day, everywhere you go. i'll provide a few examples. we had what's called the alaska federation of natives convention. it is an annual convention we have with a very important group of alaskans. and the theme this year was heroes among us at the convention. and it was about heroes among us because alaska natives serve in the u.s. military at higher rates than any other ethnic

group in the country; a real special kind of patriotism. so i had the honor really to meet dozens of these great veterans from all kinds of wars. i met some veterans from world war ii, the campaign where a lot of people don't recognize that alaska was invaded by the japanese. i met veterans from the philippines campaign under general macarthur. i met veterans from the korean . had a great opportunity to meet an honor flight coming back from washington, our veterans from world war ii and korea. and of course just walking around anchorage, you see and you hear military members training all the time. we have a great base, f-22's

ripping through the sky. our members -- our military members keeping us safe, what we call in alaska the sound of freedom when you hear those jets roaring. so that's everywhere. and in alaska, we love our veterans, our military. we honor them, and we know that providing for the national defense of our great nation and taking care of our troops and taking care of our veterans is certainly one of the most important things we do in the united states senate. and of course it's not just alaska. mr. president, i'm sure when you were home in the great state of nebraska that there's that same feeling, that patriotic feeling of supporting our troops and the importance of our national defense. and for the most part, for the most part, that feeling exists here in washington. i have the honor to sit on two

committees that focus on these issues a lot, on the armed services committee, on the veterans' affairs committee, and these are very bipartisan committees. very bipartisan. where the support for our national defense, our troops, our veterans is across the board, both sides of the aisle. no doubt about it but i do say for the most part because, as you know, mr. president, nothing is truly as it seems here in washington, d.c. and i have spoken on the floor, a number of us have, about what motivated a number of us last year to actually throw our hat in the ring and run for the united states senate. and, mr. president, like you, i know that a lot of us were concerned about the cup going in the wrong direction, about a dysfunction in washington, about a government that's run up an

$18 trillion debt, no economic growth, our credit rating downgraded, no amendments even brought on the senate floor, no budget. no budget for the federal government. even attempted. no appropriations bills attempted for years. the most deliberative body in the world was certainly a body that had been shut down, and a lot of us thought we needed to change that. so we're starting to change that. we're back to regular order. we're talking here about debating bills. there have been dozens if not hundreds of amendments already this year. last year, there was only 14. we passed a budget. we passed 12 appropriations bills to fund the government, very bipartisan. and we're focusing on the issues, whether it's cybersecurity, whether it's defense, whether it's taking care of our veterans, that the

vast majority of the american people want us to focus on. so, for example, mr. president, we brought to the floor two critical appropriations bills just a couple months ago, the defense appropriations bill and the veterans' affairs and military construction bill. these passed out of the appropriations committee by huge bipartisan majorities. 27-3 on the defense appropriations bill. 21-9 on the veterans' affairs bill. this is what the american people want us to do, back to regular order, funding the government, putting together a budget. so so far so good. that's what we're called to do. but here's where the dysfunction of washington, d.c. began to rear its head again. these bills that are critical to our troops, our defense, our veterans, strong bipartisan support in the committee were brought to the floor of the u.s. senate and they were filibustered, they were

filibustered. let me say that again. the bills that fund our military, that fund our national defense, that take care of our veterans were filibustered, were blocked, were stopped, by our friends on the other side of the aisle. not sure why. still don't know why. as a matter of fact, i haven't seen anyone who actually voted to filibuster these important bills come down to the senate floor and say here's why we voted against funding our troops. here's why we voted against funding our veterans. and i think the overwhelming majority of americans, regardless of what state they live in, would say no, no, you needed to vote for these bills. funding the military, funding our veterans, funding our national defense, that's one of the most important things we do. that's one of the most important things we want you to do. so bottom line on that -- on those votes, mr. president, our

troops, our veterans, our national defense were shortchanged because they didn't get funded. then we moved on to the defense authorization bill, what i wanted to talk about today. this is an annual undertaking. it sets the policies, programs, defense strategy for our military. it also authorized -- authorizes spending on national defense and on our military, and it's certainly again one of the most important things i think this body does, and i think most senators on both sides of the aisle would agree with that. once again, like the appropriations bills, we were working very closely together on this, bipartisan. i was on the armed services committee as this moved through the committee. it was very bipartisan. it was voted out on a strong bipartisan vote to come to the floor. i want to commend chairman mccain who did a great job on that, the chairman of the armed services committee, ranking

member reed, jack reed from rhode island who did a fantastic job, but i must admit, mr. president, i feared a little bit of a replay in terms of the scenario that we saw with the appropriations bills, meaning strong bipartisan support out of the committee and then coming to the senate floor and being filibustered. i feared this in part because at one point during the defense authorization debate, the minority leader came and stated that the defense authorization bill was -- quote -- a waste of time. a waste of time. the defense authorization bill. tell that to the marines and the soldiers and the airmen and the sailors and their families, those members of the military that are defending our country

right now that this bill was a waste of time. i guarantee you they would not agree with that statement. and fortunately neither did the u.s. senate. to the contrary, the senate has now voted on the defense authorization bill twice. once an original bill, once part of a conference report, with very strong, bipartisan and veto-proof majorities. 71 senators the first time around. 73 when we voted on it a couple of weeks ago. now, mr. president, i mention that phrase veto-proof majorities, and i have to mention that veto-proof majority phrase because incredittably the president of the united states, the commander in chief has said he's going to veto this bill when it comes to his desk.

it was just sent to him yesterday. now, i don't know how the commander in chief is going to explain that to the troops or to their families or to the american people or to the 73 senators who voted for that bill, and one thing i think it's important to recognize, mr. president, sometimes we think hey, this is all inside washington, no one's really following it. well, on something like this, this impacts morale. when the commander in chief is saying hey, troops, i'm going to veto this. this is a copy of "the marine corps times scwtion scwtion i get this, a lot of marines, members of the military read this all over the world. guarantee our guys deployed and women overseas read "the marine corps times." in this edition of "the marine corps times" there is an article

talking about how president obama has vowed to veto the defense authorization bill. so we've got marines fighting overseas who are reading this, and they're not getting it. let me give a couple of quotes from this article. again, just this week in "the marine corps times q the military advocacy groups have argued against a presidential veto, calling this legislation critical policy that cannot be delayed. the ndaa has been signed into law 53 years in a row, and includes a host of specialty pay and bonus reauthorizations. here's a quote from the military officers association of america, and this article that thousands of our active duty troops are reading. quote -- "the fact is that we are still a nation at war, and

this legislation is vital to filling -- fulfilling war-time requirements. there comes a time when this year's legislative business must be completed and remaining disagreements left to be addressed next year." mr. president, to govern is to choose. to govern is to prioritize. now, president obama's administration has spent years negotiating the iran deal, and this body spent weeks debating the president's iran deal. we put a lot of time, the president's administration has put an enormous amount of time. by the way, on that -- on that agreement, on the iran deal, part of the hope from secretary kerry and the president and the others was that once it got

passed by the u.s. congress -- by the way, a minority vote, partisan minority vote -- that iran would somehow start to change its behavior, that they would look at america as someone they would want to partner with. so since the senate passed the iran deal, let's see what's happened. iran has sent troops to syria. iran has backed hamas which is now engaging in knife-murdering attacks against israelis. and the iranian leader has stated that israel shouldn't exist in the next 25 years. iran has violated the ballistic missile u.n. security council resolutions. and i think and many others have already violated the iran deal by firing ballistic missiles with the range of a thousand miles. iran has sentenced an american reporter for "the washington

post" for spying. so i don't think that the behavior that a lot of the supporters of this deal anticipated is happening. but more broadly, mr. president, i think it's important to put into context what's going on with our national security and the ndaa and moving forward on the iran deal, and the president's threat to veto the ndaa. the president's iran deal, once implemented, will be giving billions, tens of billions to iran, the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism. but the president threatens to veto our defense bill that actually funds our military. the president's iran deal will lift sanctions on iranian

leaders such as general soleimani, who literally has the blood of american soldiers on his hands. the president threatens to veto u.s. troop pay bonuses and approve military retirement benefits. the president's iran deal gives iran access to conventional weapons and ballistic missile technology and advanced nuclear centrifuges, but the president threatens to veto funding for advanced weapons systems for our armed forces. and finally, the president's iran deal certainly is going to allow funding for terrorist groups like hezbollah and hamas, but the president is threatening to veto a bill that provides additional resources for our troops to fight terrorists like isis. mr. president, to govern is to

choose. to govern is to prioritize. has it really come to the point where the white house is more focused on freeing up funds for iranian terrorists than funding america's brave men and women in uniform? i certainly hope not. so i ask all my fellow senators who voted for this bill in a very strong bipartisan way, and my fellow alaskans, fellow americans to reach out to the white house, let them know that you oppose the president's veto of this bill. what we need is a strong military, particularly now. we need to support our troops and our veterans, and we need president obama to sign -- not veto -- this bill, which is critical to our national

defense. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, i would ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, this past sunday was the 43rd anniversary of the enactment of the clean water act. in 1972, the clean water act amended the federal water pollution control act, which was the first maiblg u.s. law t majo address water pollution. this law was enacted with bipartisan support -- i should really say it was a nonpartisan issue because the administration and congress recognized that clean water was an international interest, it was important to our public health, our environment, it was important to our economy. this law established a basic structure for regulating pollutant discharges into the waters of the united states and has been the cornerstone of ow

efforts to protect our -- of our efforts to protect our nation's waterways. several times we have done cost analysis of the cost of regulation versus the benefit of clean water, and it's over-wellcomeingly on the side -- overwhelmingly on the side of better health and better environment and a better economy. i would like to speak about the e.p.a.'s final clean water rule and why we should defend these efforts and allow for nationwide implementation. in may the e.p.a. released their final clean water rule, which completed another chapter in the clean water act's history. as the clean water act worked to restore the health of our nation's water resources, we saw the u.s. economy grow, demonstrating that america doesn't have to choose between environment and robust economy.

a clean environment helps build a robust economy. two supreme court decisions, however, call on the e.p.a. and the army corps to clarify the definitions of the "waters of the u.s." the aps e.p.a.'s final rule ress some long overdue certainty to the clean water act. in reviewing the rule, it basically reestablishes the lo longstanding understanding of what are the waters the u.s. this allows the clean water act to continue its important function of restoring the health of our nation's waters. the rule became effective this august but immediately following the implementation on this anniversary there have been unprecedented attacks on the final rule. as the rule came out of federal district court in north dakota grantinged a preliminary injunction block being its implementation. the e.p.a. continued to implement the rule but the 13

states that filed the suit that led to the injunction p. in october the u.s. court of appeals for the sixth circuit decide to stay implementation of clean water for the entire country. this attempt to overturn the clean water rule is dangerous, shortsighted and a step away from good governance, public health, and environmental protection. let me tell you what's at risk. what's at visk that our nation's -- it what's at risk is that our nation's streams, and 200 million acres of wetland, over half of our streams and over 200 million acres of wetland are now at risk of not being under regulation under the clean water act. these protections are needed for drinking supplies of one out of every three americans. i am very concerned about the impact on all states, but let me just talk a moment if i might about my own state. marylanders rely upon water as our way of life. 70% of marylanders live on

coastal areas. we live upon clean water. we are particularly concerned about our drinking supply water as well as the health of the chesapeake bay. we are at risk with the waters of the u.s. confusions out there by the supreme court decisions and now the stay of this rule by the administration. the clean water act, of e.p.a.'s final rules are essential to the health of the chesapeake bay. wetland protections are especially critical to the chesapeake bay because the chetlands soak up harmful nutrient pollution. this past monday i was in howard county at an announcement of the chesapeake bay be wet announcements. these are small dollars that go to institutions to help educate our children, in this case the howard county conservancy received a grant because they bring all the students from the

howard county public schools to an outdoor experience to rate and judge the streams in our community, the streams of course flow into the chesapeake bay. and they're giving us a report card. i must tell you, that report card isn't going to be as good as it should be. without the protections in the clean water act, it's going to be more difficult to meet the goals we need to in order to protect the chesapeake bay and all the watersheds in this country for future generations. the health of the bay is closely linked to upstream water quality and the restoration of protection of headwaters. it should go without saying that these waters are located in states beyond maryland's borders. improvement to upstream water quality is positively correlated with the water quality of the bay. we need a national program. that's what the clean water act is. it's a national commitment because we know that watersheds go beyond state borders. in maryland we set up the ches

chesapeake bay partnership. yes, maryland and virginia are working together but we also have the cooperation of pennsylvania, new york, west virginia. why? because -- delaware. because these states contribute to the water supplies going into the chesapeake bay. would end to protection these waters. -- we need to protect these waters. protecting of america's waters are critically important to the public health. what's at stake here if we derail the clean water rule, public health for the people of maryland and all states around this country? public health and environment an the states of my colleagues have become seriously at risk from this decision to hinder this essential commonsense guidance. i hope the court moves swiftly to affirm the rule in its final decision and restores the invaluable protections needed for the drinking supplies of one out of every three americans. as we recognize the anniversary of the clean water act, i want us to continue to defend this nation's waters from pollution.

this act ensures that every citizen receives the clean water they need and deserve. the e.p.a.'s final clean water rule provides further regulatory clarity that we need to ensure the health of our water resources. i urge my colleagues to continue to fend and fight for the clean water as we recognize the 43rd anniversary of the clean water act. mr. president, every congress should, as its legacy, add to the protections that we provide for clean water in this country. that should be the legacy of every congress. but we certainly don't want to hinder that record. and, therefore, we need to implement the e.p.a.'s clean water rule nationwide, and i urge my colleagues to support such action. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: i request permission to address the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casmr. cassidy: you can't ht ntsz when you work in a public hospital system but also in private hospitals how often mental health issues are directly a part of a patient who comes to see you. but it doesn't just have to be a physician seeing patients in the emergency room. each of our families, mine included, has a family member or a friend with serious mental illness. it is nonpartisan, it cuts across demographic lines. if i go before a group anywhere in my state, indeed anywhere in the nation, and bring up the need to address mental ill -- serious mental illness, all

heads nod yes. it is true of my family, it is true of yours, it is true of almost everybody watching today. i'm old enough to remember when people wouldn't speak of cancer. there was a stigma associated with having cancer. that's long gone, much to our advantage. but for some reason, there continues to be a stigma and a shame associated with mental illness, and i would argue that that sigma and sense o stigma ae has retarded what we've been able to do. this is something we have to discuss and go forward. the discussion is being driven by tragedy. lafayette, louisiana, newtown, charleston, oregon, tennessee -- we've heard stories and they are beyond heartbreaking. but what is not spoken of is the broken families, the parents that know there is something wrong with their child but don't know where to go to receive that

help ending up with an overcrowded emergency room or their child in a jail or prison when a more appropriate setting would be elsewhere. and it is in the midst of these terrible tragedies that at least we can hope that they can serve as a catalyst for society and congress to begin to fix america's broken mental health system. maybe something good can happen, even from tragedies as horrific as these. so the question is, if one of roles of congress is to respond to needs that justify federal involvement, shouldn't we ask ourselves why has there been such a failure to address the issue of serious american tail s mental illness. we've introduced the bipartisan mental health reform act which now has ten sponsors, both republican and democrat. our bill begins to fix our mental health system and

attempts to address the root cause of mass violence, which is recognized but untreated mental illness. so how does our bill begin to do snow first, patients too often cannot get the care they need and too often have a long delay between diagnosis and treatment. access delayed is access denied. access is hampered by a shortage of mental health providers and too few beds forb beds for bedsh serious mental illness had a need to be hospitalized. right now people with major mental illness tend to die from physical illness as much as 20 years younger as someone who does not have serious mental illness. as a physician, i know if we treat the whole patient, if we integrate kairks it i care, it . medicaid by policy will not pay for a patient to see two physicians on the same day.

imagine this, a family practitioner sees a patient who clearly has mental illness, because the patient is right there would like him to walk down the hallway to see her friend the psychologist while the patient is there. the medicaid will not pay -- will not pay the psychiatrist. -- will not pay the psychiatrist. on the other hand, the patient might be seeing the psychiatrist and has seriously high blood pressure or evidence for diabetes out of control, but the psychiatrist cannot say, wait a second, let me walk you down the hallway to see my colleague the family practitioner because medicaid will not pay for that. by the way, private health insurance will. this is a policy change we need for the public health insurance. our bill would allow patients who use both mental and physical health services the same day. secondly, most people have their first episode of serious mental illness between the ages of 15

and 25, starting down a path theandthat ends with their lifed their family's life tragically ended. mr. burr: could i ask unanimous consent to interrupt the gentleman? mr. cassidy: yes. mr. burr: i ask for purples of th-- i askfor purposes of the ad not be shown an interruption. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: i call for the regular order with respect to the franken amendment 2612. the presiding officer: amendment is not pendings. #*z. mrs. feinstein: i ask that the amendment be further modified to correct the instruction line in the amendment. the presiding officer: the amendment is so modified. mr. burr: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the sno senator from north carolina. mr. burr: call for regular order with respect to the cotton amendment number 2581. the presiding officer: the amendment is not pending. -- the amendment is now pending. mr. burr: i yield back to the gentleman from louisiana. mr. cassidy : it demonstrates intervention for children who demonstrate signs of metal illness. a second grant program supporting pediatricians consulting with mental health teams, this program has already been successful in states like massachusetts and connecticut. and third, without appropriate treatment options, prison, jails, emergency rooms have become the de facto mental health care providers. more than three times as many mentally ill are housed in prisons or jails than in hospitals, according to the national sheriffs association. overcrowded u.s. emergency rooms have become the treatment source

of last resort for psychiatric patients. we incentivize states to create alternatives where patients may be seen and treated and supervised outpatient studies. our bill creates an understudy for mental health. this under secretary's responsibility to coordinate mental health services across the system to help identify and implement effective and promising models of care. it reorganizes successful programs like state-based data collection. the bill increases funding for critical biomedical research in mental health. on top of this, this strengthens the transparency and enforcement of mental health parity by requiring the u.s. department of labor, health and human services and treasury to augment the implementation of the mental health parity movement to

determine the parity between the two. our bill does other things but the most important thing it does is to help prevent tragedies, help families and help those broken individuals affected by mental illness become whole. in 2006, william bruce of maine was a 24-year-old who needed help. he suffered with schizophrenia and had been hospitalized. without contacting his parents, our broken health care system allowed william to be released even though his doctors said he was very dangerous, indeed, for release into the community. sadly two months later he murdered his mother at home with a hatchet. this story is tragic and heartbreaking, and even worse, it could have possibly been prevented if we had worked then to fix our broken mental health system. we wish to fix it now so there's not another such episode in the future. the time for mental health reform is now.

if not now, when? if not us, who? if not now, not us there will be more lafayettes, more newtowns, charlestons, tennessees and oregons or broken family. this bill does not wave a magic wand but puts us on a path where we can say these things that once occurred perhaps no longer will. thank you. i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. i'm here on the floor today to join my good friend from louisiana, senator cassidy, as we introduce to the chamber formally the mental health reform act of 2015. and i want to thank him very personally for all the time that he has put into this not just as a member of the senate, but previous to this as a member of the house of representatives. this effort is patterned after a bill that senator cassidy and my namesake, representative tim

murphy of pennsylvania, worked on for years in the house of representatives. i just want to begin by sharing a story with you. that's the way senator cassidy ended. i'm going to talk about a woman from bloom field, connecticut. her name is betsy. she has a 28-year-old son, john, who suffers from schizo effective disorder. his signs began showing when john was 15 years old. he was hospitalized -- think about this -- 15 different times between the ages of 15 and 18 years old. generally only for really time-limited stays ranging from about five days to maybe two weeks. and despite the severity of the condition, he was told that upon discharge there was really nowhere for him to go, no permanent solution for this young man. he was just in adolescence, but his parents were told that there was no place for him to be

treated. and what resulted was not only john getting to a breaking point, but his parents as well. as we know, serious mental illness just doesn't affect the individual person, but the family members who are trying to care for them. without needed supports and services, john became increasingly remote and psychotic until he was hospitalized again. upon discharged this time john went to a shelter, the only place that he could go. since he couldn't follow the shelter's rules, john, who his mother said was young, fragile, vulnerable and mentally unstable, was kicked out to survive homeless on the streets. now, john finally, finally was able to get a bed that was able to house him for longer than two weeks at connecticut valley hospital. and that ability to get john stabilized for a longer period of time, get him into a real treatment plan allowed him to then transfer into a community bed in middle town, connecticut.

that's where john is today. john's been living out in the community successfully for three years. but we spent millions of dollars on john's care that led to no better outcome for him. we wasted millions of dollars, and potentially thousands of hours of time because he shuttled in and out of hospitals without any long-term treatment and without any hope for him and his family. and what senator cassidy and i are trying to say is that there's a better way. we're already spending billions of dollars on inadequate mental health care in this country. now, we need to do better, but a lot of this is just about spending money in a more effective way. now one of the programs which ol helps fund is an early intervention program for

individuals who show their first episode of psychosis. the program that the national institute of mental health just evaluated with findings released yesterday was the raze program. in connecticut we run a similar program called the step program. what this study showed yesterday is that if you provide wrap around services to an individual who shows a first episode of psychosis with comprehensive immediate services, that you can get a dramatic decrease in the number of episodes that they show later in life. in connecticut, we found that the step program reduced hospitalizations by nearly 50% after you gave those wrap-around services immediately. and when they did need hospitalizations later on, they were on average six days fewer than when you didn't provide these wrap-around services.

these are the types of programs that could have helped betsy's son john early so he could have started recovery as a teenager rather than in his 20's, could have saved the united states government and the state of connecticut a lot of money as well. and the trend lines beyond the anecdotes are really disturbing. mental illness has been on the rise for the past few decades. one of five adults today are coping with mental illness. if you look at the time period from 1987 to 2007, the number of people with mental disorders that qualify for s.s.i. have risen by two and a half times, from 1980 to 2000, we put up to 72,000 people in our jails who prior to deinstitutionallation would have in psychiatric hospitals, people in jail primarily because of their psychiatric disorder. just in the last two years alone, just in two years the number of people that hrsa estimates to be living in a

mental health shortage area has gone from 91 million up to 97 million. that's just two years' worth of data. and since 2005, we've closed 14% of our inpatient beds in this country. so what's happening is a dramatic increase in the number of people who are suffering from mental illness and a rather dramatic decrease in both the outpatient and in-patient capacity. we've got to provide more resources to meet the demand but we also have to spend money better. so senator cassidy covered our piece of legislation, i think, aptly, and so i won't go into detail. so let me talk a little bit about our process. what we decided to do at the beginning of this year was bring together all of the groups, the provider groups, the advocacy groups, the hospital groups that have worked on this issue for years. and then bring in those in the house of representatives that have been working on this as well. representative tim murphy and

eddie johnson, they have a bipartisan reform bill in the house and so we decided not to start from scratch but take their piece of legislation knowing it has a good chance of passage in the house and try to build and improve upon it. and so we spent six months meeting with all of these groups and coming up with our own consensus product that today has the support of a cross section of behavioral advocacy groups all across the country, including nami, the national council for behavioral p health, the american psychological association, psychiatric association, social workers, foundation for suicide prevention. the list goes on. but we also went out to our colleagues, knowing nothing here can pass without just bipartisan support but bipartisan support that reflects the diversity of both of our caucuses and we were able to build, we think, a good foundation of cosponsors for this bill. senator franks, stabenow, blumenthal and schumer on the

democratic side. senators murkowski, collins, vitter and capito on the republican side. and we hope that this coalition of groups on the outside, this alliance with a reform effort in the house that we believe has legislative legs and a good one-for-one list of cosponsors here in the senate will allow us to move this bill forward. and we have to. we have to. and so i'll -- you know, end where senator cassidy began his remarks, which is why the nation's attention has turned to this question of how we reform our mental health system. we lived through a tragic and gut-wrenching episode of mass destruction in newtown, connecticut. senator cassidy has had his own experience with mass tragedy.

and the reality is that the reasons why we see these episodes of mass shootings are complicated. but if you read the report on adam lanza's intersection with connecticut's mental health system, you see that it failed him. it failed him and it failed his family. i don't know that correcting the mental health system alone would have changed what happened in newtown, but i know if we fix our mental health system, wield have a downward pressure on the episodes of mass violence that in this country. but as senator cassidy said, we should fix our mental health system because it's broken for everyone, regardless of whether an individual has a predisposition towards violence. because of course the reality is people with mental illness are much more likely to be the victims of violence than they are the perpetrators of violence. there is no inherent connection between mental illness and violence. but these mat shootings have drawn the -- mass shootings have drawn the nation's attention to what congress can agree on right now that will try to improve

public safety across this nation. we are not going to get a background checks bill this year. i hope we could, but we won't. what we can get is a mental health reform bill. and that will help everyone -- the case in maine, the individual in bloomfield, and millions of others who have had a miserable experience with a mental health system that is broken today in part because of lack of coordination, in part because of lack of funding. i'm so thankful to senator cassidy for being with me on the floor today. i'm grateful for his friendship and cooperation on bringing this truly bipartisan mental health reform act to the floor of this senate. we recommend it to our colleagues. we look forward to the upcoming hearings in the help committee that we both sit on. and we hope to be back here on the floor of the senate as soon as possible to move forward on its passage through this body. thank you, mr. president. thank you to my colleague,

senator cassidy. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. is quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the proceedings under the quorum be

suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i rise to express my strong support for the bill before the senate, s. 54 -- 754, cybersecurity information sharing act, and i want to thank the bill's managers for their leadership in drafting this bill, putting in a lot of hard work on the bill. cybersecurity challenges that threaten us are very real challenges. we receive almost daily reminders of the importance of effective cybersecurity to protect our private data and the safety and security of the entire nation from cyber attacks. these attacks have compromised the personal information of so many americans as well as sensitive national security information, and that national security issue might even be the biggest of the ones that we hope

to deal with. the legislation before us will encourage the government and the private sector to work together to address these cybersecurity challenges. this bill helps create a strong legal framework for information sharing that will help us respond to these threats. this bill authorizes private companies to voluntarily share cyber threat information with each other and with the government. in turn then, the bill permits the government to share this information -- this type of information with private entities. the bill reduces the uncertainty and, most importantly, legal barriers that either limit or prohibit the sharing of cyber threat information today. at the same time, the bill

includes very significant privacy protections to strike a balance between maintaining security and protecting our civil liberties. for example -- it restricts the government from acquiring or using cyber threat information except for limited cybersecurity purposes. so, as i did at the beginning, i want to salute the leadership of the chair and vice chair of the intelligence committee, senator burr and senator feinstein, for their efforts 0en this bill. i know from the last couple of congresses that this type of legislation isn't easy to put together. in the 112th congress, i cosponsored cybersecurity legislation along with several of my colleagues, which involved working across several committees of jurisdiction. last congress, as then- ranking member of the judiciary committee, i continued to work with the intelligence committee

and others on another -- on an earlier version of this bill. unfortunately, democratic leadership never gave the senate an opportunity to debate and to vote on that bill in the last congress. but senators burr and feinstein were undaunted. this congress they diligently worked, continued to seek input from relevant committees of jurisdiction, including the judiciary committee i chair. they incorporated the views of a broad range of senators and worked to address the concerns of stakeholders outside of the congress. and this has then produced their managers' amendment. this is a bill that enjoys broad bipartisan support. now, as most pieces of

legislation that comes before the senate, it's not a perfect piece of legislation from any individual senator's point of view. but, finding common ground, it has turned out out for a good bill that addresses a very real problem. it's time for us to do our job and to vote. this is how the senate is supposed to work. now is the time for action because the question isn't whether there will be another cyber attack. the question is when that attack will happen. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: mr. president, i'm here to briefly talk on s. 754, the cybersecurity bill. yesterday vice chairman dianne feinstein and i came to the floor and encouraged our members who had amendments or who had interest in debating the bill to come to the floor. it was my hope we could finish

in a couple days with the cooperation of members. we've not gotten that level of cooperation. therefore, this will take several more days to finish. but it doesn't lessen the importance for those members who have amendments in the queue, meaning they're pending, to come to the floor and talk about their amendments if they would like to. at some point, as the president of the senate knows, we will culminate this process, and those amendments that have yet to be disposed with will have votes with a very limited amount of debate time included. it's my hope that we will have a wholesome debate, that people will have an opportunity to know what's in this bill, if they don't today. but more importantly, through that debate we're able to share with the american people why a cybersecurity bill is so important. and more importantly, why we've done it in a way that we think it will be embraced and endorsed

by not just corporate america but by individuals throughout the country. so let me announce today this bill will be done either monday evening or tuesday morning based upon what the leadership on both sides can agree to as it relates to the debate. the vice chair and i also came to the floor, and we made this statement, that we have worked aggressively in a bipartisan way to incorporate in the managers' package, which is currently pending, 14 amendments s. eight of those amendments were included in the unanimous consent request earlier this year when we delayed consideration of the bill until today, where we move forward. there were several amendments that we weren't able to reach an agreement on or that we believed

changed the policy significantly enough that this was not just an information-sharing bill that was voluntary for corporations throughout this country. in the absence of being able to keep this bill intact in a way that we thought we needed to, the vice chairman and i have agreed to lock arms and to be opposed to those additional amendments. now, having said that, the debate to date has focused on the fact that there are technology companies across this country that are opposed to this bill. and the vice chairman and i repeatedly yesterday reminded our colleagues and the american people this is a voluntary bill. there's nothing mandatory in it.

the reality is that if you don't like what's in this -- if for some reason participating in what i would refer to as a community watch program, it's real simple. it's voluntary. don't participate. choose not to inform the federal government when hackers have penetrated your system and stolen personal data out of it. just choose not to tell us. but don't ruin it for everybody else. in a minute i'm going to go through again why i think the cybersecurity bill should become law, why i think this is just the first step of how we protect the personal data of the american people. and why, quite frankly, hundreds, if not thousands, of businesses support this information-sharing bill. but i can't stress enough that

for those that oppose this, most of them are in fact companies that hold the most private data in the world. let me say that again. those that are expressing opposition to this bill hold the largest banks of personal data in the world. now, the decision as to whether they are for the bill or against the bill is their decision. the decision whether they utilize this voluntary program to further protect the personal data that's in their system is between them and their customers but i have to say, mr. president, it defies reason as to why a company that holds that much personal data wouldn't at least like to have the option

of being able to partner with the federal government in an effort to minimize data loss, whether it's at their company or whether it's in their industry sector or whether it's in the global economy as a whole. last time i checked the health of u.s. businesses was reliant on the health of the u.s. economy. and the health of the u.s. economy is affected by the health of the global economy. i know the presiding officer understands that because he was in business like i was for 17 years. so it really does concern me that one could be opposed to something that insulates the u.s. economy from having an adverse impact by cybersecurity act and believe that they're okay even though it might tank the u.s. economy. at the end of the day, i want to try to put this in 101 terms.

the most simplest terms of what the information-sharing bill does. and i'm going to break it into three baskets. it's about business to business. what this bill does is it allows a company that has been hacked and somebody has penetrated their computer system and has access to their data to immediately pick up the phone and call their competitor and to ask their competitor whether they have had a similar penetration of their system. it's only reasonable to expect that the first person you would go to is a company that has a business that looks exactly like yours. in that particular case, this legislation provides that company with protection under the antitrust laws. antitrust forbids companies from collaborating together. andha