executive and ambassadorial nomination. we expect votes on those as well. hillary clinton is testifying this morning at a house in gaza committee. you can see live coverage on c-span3. and now live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. today's opening prayer will be offered by reverend kathryn pocalyko, pastor of the lutheran church of our savior in north chesterfield, virginia. the guest chaplain: let us pray. o god most mighty, o god most merciful, o god our strength and our song, you call these leaders to serve the public, promote justice and

establish peace in our land. we lift before you all who govern and serve our nation through this body, its senators, its staff and its pages. bless member with collaboration in this holy experiment. give to those whom we entrust with authority the spirit of wisdom and understanding. guide them with the spirit of counsel and insight. grant them a spirit of knowledge. grace them with your presence. for you show us a vision of a tree whose leaves are for the healing of the nation. may that tree take root here, bearing fruit in the hearts and work of these servants. we pray this through your holy name. amen.

the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: president obama regularly calls on republicans and democrats to work together to advance the priorities of our nation, and we certainly agree. our top priority is our national security, and congress worked together on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis to pass the national defense authorization act. so while americans were

surprised to learn the president announced he would veto that bipartisan bill, they must be really shaking their heads in disbelief now that they've learned the president will not only veto the bill, he's going to brag about it. not only going to veto the bill, he's going to brag about it in a photo op today down at the white house. remember what it is the president will veto today. this bipartisan bill will attack bureaucratic waste, authorize pay raises and improve quality of life programs for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. it will strengthen sexual assault prevention and response. it will help wounded warriors and heroes who struggle with mental health challenges. and it will equip the men and women who serve with what they need to defend this nation. this is the worst possible time

for an american president to veto a national defense bill and especially to do so for arbitrary partisan reasons. republicans and democrats here in congress work so hard to pass this important legislation, legislation that authorizes the exact amount, the exact amount the commander in chief requested. so now we will have to work together again this time hopefully to override the president's veto. the president should be highlighting his signature on this bipartisan legislation that supports the men and women who defend our nation. instead, with our service members facing threats and instability in several theaters, he'll be bragging, mr. president, bragging about using his veto pen. our allies are seeking leadership and stability, not indecision.

a partisan veto of this bipartisan bill is simply unacceptable. now, mr. president, on another issue, americans know that cyber attacks are attacks on their privacy and their property. no one wants to think about a stranger rifling through their medical records. no one wants to think about a criminal stealing their credit card information. that's why we have this bipartisan cybersecurity bill before us here in the senate. this bipartisan legislation will help protect america's most private and personal information by sharing information between the private and public sector on cyber threats. experts say the tools in this bill can help prevent future attacks in both the public and the private sectors. it contains important measures to protect civil liberties and individual privacy. and it's been carefully vetted and scrutinized by senators of

both parties. no wonder this bill passed through a committee with nearly unanimous bipartisan support 14-1. the house already voted to protect the privacy of americans by passing cyber legislation. with a little cooperation, the senate can as well. that's why i urge all members to vote today to move forward on this bipartisan bill which will set up votes on amendments from both parties with continuing cooperation we can take an important step toward protecting the privacy of our constituents. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: the day before yesterday, i was surprised by some saying things about congressman ryan, and they said nice things about him.

since then, a handful of people have demanded to know why whenever i say nice things about a man who has attacked medicare, medicaid and social security. he has done it in recent history. the answer is very simple -- democrats need, our country needs responsible republicans negotiating partners in congress. if we're to avoid the twin challenges facing us in the coming weeks, avoiding the first-ever default on the full faith and credit of the united states and prevent another government shutdown, we need someone to deal with. we must avoid the self-inflicted wounds that have typified the rule of house republicans and certainly senate republicans. despite our ideological differences, in my view, congressman ryan is the only house republican that i am aware of with real potential to impose a basic modicum of order in the house of representatives and work with us to avoid a default in another government shutdown.

he's helped in the past. i'm confident he could in the future if he chose. and i say to my allies rest assured, i'll continue to oppose congressman ryan's plans to privatize social security, to privatize medicare and if not to privatize social security, certainly to slash up the way that he talks about it. i will oppose that. i said the ryan budget would lead to a koch-topia. kochtopia. i believe that's to be truer now than ever. congressman ryan -- excuse me -- co-authored the murray-ryan budget compromise. that was good work. house chairman ryan, senate chairman murray, both the budget chairs, did really a good job.

he also appears to be supportive of comprehensive immigration reform. he joined democrats in saying america's auto industry and financial system should be saved. maybe the problems are too deep to be resolved any time soon. i hope not. i am concerned that we have already seen congressman ryan capable of reigning in members of the so-called freedom caucus. i hope that's not a sign of things to come. but with the stakes as high as they are, we owe it to the american people to pursue the most responsible path, and that would be it, i believe. now is the time to rebuild a system where compromise is no longer considered a dirty word and where republicans and democrats work side by side in addressing the challenges our government faces. however, one of the conditions that congressman ryan has given the house republicans is that he doesn't want to work weekends.

well, if he gets the job, i hope he will not take weekends off until we do something to solve the debt crisis and to fund the government. mr. president, i would ask consent that there be a different place in the record for what i'm going to say now. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, congressional republicans continue to govern destructively during this congress. with nearly a year in control of the senate, what do republicans have to show for it? shutdown threats, lapsed laws, vital programs expired and an abiding sense of uncertainty. instead of looking for opportunities to govern constructively, republicans appear to be bent on mayhem. they're doing everything they can to appeal to their extreme right wing without regard to the consequences. it seems o'mr. president, that every day that's a bad day for government, we have a large segment of the republican caucus who are cheering that's great.

anything that's bad for government is a good day for us is what they're saying. instead of looking for opportunities to govern constructively, they are doing everything they can to not do things constructively. they're doing everything they can to appeal to, i guess, the extreme right wing. i don't know how else to phrase it, without regard to the consequences. the consequences are very, very significant. this afternoon, we're finally confirming four career ambassadors for several african nations. but to view the confirmation of four individuals as a success would be a mistake. when we consider that senate republicans are doing everything they can to stop these nominees. just two weeks ago, the junior senator from arkansas announced his intention to hold up ambassadors to sweden, norway and the bahamas.

at a time when american leadership is needed abroad, these posts sit empty because the junior senator from arkansas is stopping them. why is senator cotton blocking these nominees? he has admitted that his hold has nothing to do with the nominees' qualifications, nothing. indeed, all were reported out of the foreign relations committee with bipartisan support months ago. instead, the junior senator from arkansas is holding these nominees hostage until he gets information from the department of homeland security. no, i haven't made a mistake. that's right. he's holding upstate department nominations to get a response from the department of homeland security. blocking important ambassadors to get information from a completely different agency makes zero sense. that's like having a fight over iran. there is two fighters. one of the fighters decides to go after the refer instead of the other boxer. that's about what we have here.

and the sad part about it, mr. president, is that this junior senator from arkansas is not alone in indiscriminately blocking qualified nominees. the republican caucus is supporting them, obviously. why? i've spoken before about, for example, the crucial need to confirm gayle smith as an ambassador to the united states agency for international development. she would be the administrator. i talked to one of my staff yesterday, and this person has -- my staff has -- one of his relatives works for this agency. it's terrible. there's nobody leading the agency. it's affected the whole department. that's wrong. why is this nomination important? the agency for international development, better known as usaid, plays a central role in our nation's foreign policy. how?

by administering humanitarian and development aid to nation's of people in need. and a personal only need to watch the nightly news to see their help needed across the globe. the pictures of the huddled masses, men, women and children now with the weather turning in europe, and these millions of people trying to get out of syria, trying to get out of the middle east because of what's going on there, with blankets, wet blankets over their bodies, little kids being protected by their mothers as much as they can be, their dads. victims of civil wars, disease outbreaks, natural disasters depend on the aid and compassion of the american people. to our credit, we try our best to help as much as possible. let's just take one example. the syrian refugee crisis, the worst humanitarian crisis since world war ii. that says a lot.

millions -- not thousands, millions of syrians have been displaced because of the country's civil war, and thousands are fleeing to europe to escape the violence. because of that, i.t. estimateds estimated that there are 4 million displaced people in syria alone. millions have been displaced in iraq. the whole middle east is in turmoil. the united states has an obligation to assist, a humanitarian obligation to assist. we're the single-largest donor of humanitarian aid to the syrian crisis, but how can we help if senate republicans are hamstringing this agency? and they're doing that. gayle smith has been nominated to lead this agency. this good woman can't even get a

vote in the senate. senator cruz has been blocking her nomination for months. why? is there anything that's wrong about her? of course not. the agreement -- it's because he doesn't like the iran nuclear agreement. remember what the iran nuclear agreement was. it was an effort by the international community, including russia and china, to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. that's what it was all about. so, mr. cruz, i guess in his attempt to become president -- one of 15 republicans to become president -- thinks this will be a good issue for him, blocking the person this government has chosen to lead this agency. she has extensive -- ms. smith,

gayle smith has extensive experience in african affairs. she worked at this agency during the clinton administration. she is exactly what we need to confront this crisis in europe. even the chairman of the foreign reels committee, the junior -- foreign relations committee, the junior senator from tennessee, said eftion "glad the executive branch nominated someone who has the kind of experience that smith has." her nomination has won support from prominent republicans, including bill frist, who was one of my predecessors as the majority leader here in the senate, and from richard lugar, the distinguished republican, former chair of the foreign relations committee here in the senate. a man who has expertise in foreign relations. they both see her as the person to do the job. but that does not affect the junior senator from texas. and we know how others feel about him.

former president bush gave his opinion of the junior senator from texas two days ago. there's widespread support for her nomination. if ohm the republica only the rr would bring it to the floor. yet republicans continue to hold ms. smith and other important foreign policy nominations as ransom to exact political prices from the white house while our diplomacy suffers. i'm disappointed that the junior senators from arkansas and texas would hold up these proud americans who only want to serve their country, but i'm far more disheartened by the actions of republicans who should frankly know better. why do other republicans support these callous actions? republicans have blocked nominees to other ambassadorships for years, but now they're even blocking career

foreign service officers. these are people who simply receive a promotion they've earned and serve our nation regardless of the president. foreign service officers are not democrats, they're not republicans. they do our country so much go good, so i've had the good fortune to travel the world. i always meet when i travel, with foreign service officers, i get everybody together and tell them what a wonderful job they do for our country. they go to the most remote outposts of the world representing the interests of america. they're career people. i also try to visit with the peace corps volunteers. but, mr. president, i'm so disappointed -- and i've talked to him. i'm disappointed in the senior senator from iowa holding up a list of 20 career foreign service officers. he's hold them up for month --

he's held them up for months, until he gets answers from secretary hillary clinton's aide huma abedin. what does this have to do with these foreign service career officers? nothing. he sent nine letters to the state department demanding things regarding this woman and some e-mails from hillary clinton. haven't we heard enough about e-mails? e-mails for hillary clinton? as we talk, she is over there before this great committee of the house that even the majority leader of the house said is nothing more than -- i'm paraphrasing -- a political witch-hunt. the republican congressman from new york said basically the same thing. a person was fired who works

over there on this committee because he thought it was wrong they were going after hillary clinton when the purpose of the whole hearing was supposed to be to find out what happened in iraq -- in i'm sorry, in libya. but there's been a concerted effort toker moor tha for more s to try to embarrass hillary clinton. huge amounts of money have been spent by outside groups and the house of representatives which is supposedly so frugal -- this republican-controlled house of representatives, they don't want to spend any money that should be spent. $5 million on this worthless committee. wasting time. listen to these people who are being held up, being denied a well-deserved promotion and rank by the senior senator from iowa. this is an important thing -- these people served for decades and they work hard, a understand

they get a promotion once in a while. not with the senior senator from iowa's help. he'll hold them up because he wants to try to embarrass hillary clinton, who's running for president of the united states. here's who he's holding up. the deputy director for east african operations in kenya. an education officer? honduras, a deputy in el salvador, a regional food for peace officer in ethiopia, the director of food for peace program in south sudan, the democracy and government director in el salvador. there are others. what could the senior senator from iowa possibly have against the deputy director for african operations in kenya? they have absolutely nothing to do with senator grassley' grasss concerns and these individual

have no ability to respond to any of his requests. i have spoken with him and told him i think it is a mistake to target these people. career diplomats are some of the finest people. they have committed their lives to public service under democratic and republican administrations. the foreign service committee reported these unanimously. these people i've named -- some of them hail from texas, from florida, from michigan, from arizona, virginia, new mexico, and a few other states. like other foreign service officers across this great world, these fine individuals will lick wop tomorrow ready to serve -- wake up tomorrow ready to serve in places like irk, afghanistan, libya, where we lost four. denying them a promotion they've earned will affect their career advancement. and it is a real consequence for the families.

this is not anything that is going to hurt president obama. it affects our country. these are people who have families, they have children, and they're being held up, stopped for this little promotion they get once in a while? we shouldn't be singling out these nonpart sang officers and putting their careers -- nonpartisan officers and putting their careers on hold because the senior senator from iowa not getting answers to his letter that have nothing to do with this. they shouldn't now be subjected to political gamesmanship because people concerned that hillary clinton may be elected president. while senators grassley and cotton have also named holds on a man named brian eagan to serve as a state department legal advisor, a lawyer, a position

that's been vacant for two and a half years. the senior senator from iowa says his hold does not question the credentials of brian eagan in any way but are related to huma abedin. he sent nine different letters requesting ms. abedin's sensitive private employment information. not only does he wrants e-mails and time sheets, he wants access to all information related to maternity leave. she had a baby. i wonder if he thinks he faked that? this is nothing more than a transparent attempt to drag this good woman through the mud. for what? and let's be clear. this isn't about her. this is about hillary clinton's presidential campaign. congressional republicans are desperate to find anything to embarrass this good woman, a

woman who ha served as first won of this country, served as the senator from new york, served as secretary of the state. they'll do anything they can to embarrass her. they're in the process of doing it across the capitol complex now. we have eight hours of questioning. and, remember, mr. president, their questions are dealing with things that have nothing to do with what happened in libya. this is their frantic attempt to damage her politically. so i say to my friend from iowa, stop this nonsense. have some dignity. stop this obstruction for political sake -- i should say "politics sake." for whatever sake, it's wrong. she is no longer secretary of state. secretary kerry has been there a long time now. stop trying to undermine the state department and instead give it the resources it needs

to work for the american people. i would suggest my republican colleagues, that they seek expedited responses to all their inquiries, it would make more sense to confirm the legal advisor who can advise on these issues and respond to their questions. they don't have a lawyer down there. rather than block his nomination so he can't assist anyone. senate reerntion i say, in sum -- senate republicans, i say, are holding ambassadors captive over an issue that has nothing to do with the state d they're holding up career foreign service officers. senate republicans are blocking promotion for a group of career people over an issue that has nothing to do with them, that they can't possibly resolve, they can't do anything about t they're blocking the person that would be running our international aid agency because they don't like the iran agreement, an issue that nominee does not handle. they're blocking the nomination of the legal advisors of the state department, a person that could answer their legal questions, if he were confirmed.

so thanks to the republicans' failure to govern -- i am neat making this up. it has been determined by political scientist in our country that this congress is the most unproductive congress in the history of the country. so thanks to the republicans' failure to govern, we're behind historic norms in confirming nominees and innocent public servants caught in the middle of this do-nothing congress. i hope adult voices in the republican caucus will say enough is enough. sometimes enough is enough. people have to rise up against these people who are giving republicans such a name. the brand is not so good. i hope the presiding officer understands that. partisanship should not extend beyond the borders of our nation. it's time for republicans to start acting like a governing party, stop playing these games

with our national security based on the fact that they don't like the person who's president of the united states and the one who's going to become president of the united states. would the chair announce what our business is today. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 754, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 28, s. 754, a bill to improve cybersecurity in the united states through enhanced sharing of information about cybersecurity threats and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 11:00 a.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: mr. president, thank you. in my years of growing up in

nevada, i appreciate the values that make nevadans distinct. fiercely independent and very diverse. in fact, as diverse as the terrain is in nevada. but what never ceases to amaze me about nevadans is our passion for protecting america's privacy from intrusion of the federal government. it is a value that is shared across the entire state and one that i swore to uphold. but many americans have lost faith that their government will uphold their civil liberties. so it is congress' responsibility to ensure that every piece of legislation passed by this body protects the privacy and liberties of all americans. i will not accept attempts to diminish these nonnegotiable rights. mr. president, that's why i'm on the floor today, to continue protecting americans and nevadans' privacy by pushing for my amendment on the cybersecurity information sharing act. to begin with, i want to commend

my colleagues, both chairman burr and ranking member feinstein, for recognizing the need to address the serious issue of cybersecurity, and as the ranking member of the commerce committee's consumer protection subcommittee last congress, i delved into these issues and understand the impact of data breaches and cyber threats. it's an economic concern as well as a national security concern for our country. so i share the desire to find a path forward on information sharing between the federal government and the private sector as another tool in the cybersecurity toolbox. but these efforts cannot come at the expense of personal privacy, and the bill, including the substitute amendment that i see today, does not do enough to ensure personal identifiable information is stripped out before being shared, and that's why i have offered this simple fix. let's strengthen the standard for stripping out this

information. right now, this legislation says that the federal government only has to strip out personal information if they know it's not directly related to cyber threat. that word being know. my amendment to 25848 as modified would ensure that when personal information is being stripped out, it's because of the entities reasonably believes it's not related to cyber threat, so that's a change, mr. president, from knowing to reasonably believing. this distinction creates a wider protection for personal information by ensuring these entities are making an effort to take out personal information that's not necessary, and frankly i'm proud of the support that i have from senators leahy and wyden, both great advocates in the senate for privacy. however, i'm disappointed that my amendment was not included in the substitute amendment that we see today. the supporters of this bill talk about how this legislation

upholds privacy but couldn't accept a reasonable amendment that complements those privacy provisions. and our friends over in the house of representatives already agree that the private sector should be held to this standard, which is why they included this language in the cybersecurity bill that they passed. so i guess the question, mr. president, if this is good enough for the private sector, shouldn't it be good enough for the government sector? furthermore, d.h.s. has publicly acknowledged the importance of removing personal identifiable information because it will allow information sharing regime to function more efficiently. so this is what it's come down to, mr. president, is our nation's commitments to balancing the needs for sharing cybersecurity information with the needs to protect america's personal information. so like many in the tech committee have already stated, security should not come at the expense of privacy. in fact, that was said a couple

hundred years ago by benjamin franklin. security should not come at the expense of privacy, and i believe that my amendment 2548 to hold the federal government accountable strikes that balance and hopes that this simple fix can be incorporated into this legislation. so i encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense effort to strengthen this bill and keep our commitment to upholding the rights of all u.s. citizens. so i appreciate both senators burr and feinstein's willingness to work with me on this amendment and look forward to continuing this debate. thank you, mr. president. with that, i yield the floor. mr. burr: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, i want to thank my colleague from nevada and say to him genuinely, we tried to put everything in the manager's amendment that we could, and the threshold was that we had to have total agreement, and i -- i -- i know my colleague understands that it's difficult but we have done

everything we can to protect the rights of every individual member to bring an amendment to the floor, to debate the amendment, to have an up-or-down vote. even for the ones that were not germane, and it's unfortunate that one on both sides will be kicked out because they have to happen before the cloture vote and that was not allowed to take place. mr. president, i understand that there is a bill at the desk that's due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 2193, a bill to amend the immigration and nationality act to increase penalties for individuals who illegally re-enter the united states after being removed and for other purposes. mr. burr: mr. president, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceedings. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the

calendar. mr. burr: mr. president, in just shy of 25 minutes, the senate will have a procedural vote on the cybersecurity information sharing bill. the committee worked diligently for most of this year in a bipartisan way to achieve a balance of great policy and reported that bill out on a 14-1 vote. now, i say to my colleagues we have reached a very delicate balance. there has been bending and twisting and giving and taking, and we have done it not only within the senate of the united states and within the committee, we've done it with stakeholders all around the country. i'll remind my colleagues that this bill that we're attempting to get through the senate is a voluntary information sharing

bill, and the mere fact that it's voluntary means that we have to have in place certain incentives that provide a reason for companies to participate. i want to commend chairman johnson and the ranking member senator carper, their committee and their staff with worked with us side by side to try to incorporate their thoughts, the thoughts of all the agencies but also to work with stakeholders around the country. i'm pleased to tell my colleagues today that we received this morning a notice from the u.s. chamber of commerce and it says the chamber urges the united states senate to pass this expeditiously. overwhelming support. but, mr. president, when the vice chair and i ventured into

this, we also made a commitment to lock arms because we thought we had found the right balance, and although it may be enticing for members to support amendments that might come up, there's a reason that we didn't incorporate them in the manager's amendment, and it may be differences that the vice chair and i have or it may be that for stakeholders around the country, this killed their support for it. we will have one of those amendments today, and it's going to be inviting for people to do it, but let me say to my colleagues if you do it, information sharing is over with, the effort is dead, it's been tried for three years, yet we continue to see attacks happen and massive amounts of personal data goes out of the system to be used for criminal or espionage reasons.

so this is really our last chance. and the vice chairman and i have reached what we think is the absolute balance that provides the buy-in of those who will be asked to voluntarily turn over this data and to help minimize the loss of data in our entire economy. so i urge my colleagues support the cloture motion that will happen at 11:00. we'll have a short debate and we will take up an amendment, and the vice chair and i at that time will ask our colleagues not to support that amendment. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum calls with respect to the cloture motion on senate amendment number 2716 and on s. 754. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. burr: mr. president, i yield the floor.

mrs. feinstein: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the following senators on the democratic side be permitted to speak for five minutes each on our time. feinstein, five, wyden, five, and carper, five. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much, mr. president. after many years of effort, the senate is about to take its first vote to move forward on important cybersecurity legislation. as i stated in my remarks yesterday, this substitute makes 20 changes to the underlying bill. it includes 14 amendments offered by other senators to improve privacy protections, ensure better cybersecurity for emergency services, the health care industry and the federal government, so we have been listening as the chairman has just said and we have tried to incorporate a substantial number

of amendments in the manager's package. this is a good bill. it is a first step. it's not going to prevent all cyber attacks or penetrations, but it will allow companies and the government to share information about the cyber threats they see and the defensive measures to implement, to protect their networks. right now -- and this is important -- the same cyber intrusions are used again and again to penetrate different targets. that shouldn't happen. if someone sees a particular virus or harmful signature, they should be able to tell others so they can protect themselves. that's what this bill does. it clears away the uncertainty and the concern that keeps companies from sharing this information. it says that two competitors in a market can share information on cyber threats with each other

without facing antitrust lawsuits. it says that companies sharing cyber threat information with the government for cybersecurity purposes have liability protection. the bill is completely voluntary. i don't know how to say that over and over more times than i've done. if you don't want to participate, don't. if a company wants to take the position that it can defend itself and doesn't want to participate in real-time sharing with the department of homeland security, that is its right. so i would thank my colleagues who came to the floor in support of this bill and this manager's amendment yesterday. senator mcconnell, reid, grassley, nelson, mccain, king, thune, flake, senator carper in particular, senator blunt and others have described

the need for this bill, and i so appreciate their support. i urge my colleagues to support cloture on this substitute manager's package so that we can start moving on to other amendments that are pending. i also want to thank senator burr and his staff. over the past couple of days, they have been going through comments and proposing technical changes and perfecting changes to the substitute. it's my understanding that chairman burr will ask a unanimous consent agreement on that perfecting amendment shortly. i do want to thank senator collins for agreeing to changes in her provision, section 407, to start to address concerns that were raised by its inclusion. i also want to thank senators whitehouse, leahy and wyden for reaching an agreement on text that senator whitehouse very much wanted to include, and i'm

pleased we were able to include that in this unanimous consent package. so, mr. president, i appreciate the support of my colleagues. i urge a strong yes vote on the cloture vote to allow us to proceed to this bill. thank you. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i rise today to speak against cloture on the substitute. this substitute would not have stopped the target hack, the anthem hack, the home depot hack, or the o.p.m. hack. but when it comes to real privacy protection for millions of americans, with this substitute there is simply no "there" there. the and you see that, mr. president, by looking at page 17 of the substitute. "companies only have to remove

personal, unrelated information if they know that it is personal and unrelated." how would they know under this amendment? under this amendment, they're required to virtually do no looking. it is the most cursory review. and that's why, mr. president, the nation's leading technology companies have come out overwhelmingly against this legislation and are not satisfied by this substitute. now, the sponsors of the bill have been pretty vociferous about attacking these companies for coming out against the legislation. well, these companies know a lot about the importance of protecting both cybersecurity and individual privacy. these tech companies that are being attacked now have to

manage that challenge every single day. the challenge gets harder all the time with things like the e.u. ruling that i opposed. these companies know that customer confidence is their lifeblood and that the only way to ensure customer confidence is to convince people that if they use their product, their information is going to be protected both from malicious hackers and from unnecessary collection by the government. the fact is, we have a serious problem with hacking and cybersecurity threats. the fact is, information-sharing can be good. but a cybersecurity information-sharing bill, without real and robust privacy protections that this amendment lacks, i would submit, mr. president, millions of americans are going to look at that and they're going to say, this isn't a cybersecurity bill; this is yet another surveillance

bill. with this amendment, colleagues, the senate is again missing another opportunity to do this right and promote both security and liberty. just because a proposal has the word "cybersecurity" in its title doesn't make it good. but that's, of course, why the leading technology companies in this country, companies that make a living every single day by being sensitive to entire threats and privacy -- to cyber threats and privacy have come out overwhelmingly against this. i know my colleagues have tried to improve this, and i appreciate that. but the core protections that america deserves in a bill like this are still lacking, that's why i oppose cloture. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware.

mr. carper: mr. president, i wans to respond very briefly to what our colleague from oregon has said, and senator feinstein shared with me a copy of the -- the text of the managers' amendment. i would make two points. one, if a private company elects to share information -- they don't have to -- but they elect to share information, as senator feinstein has said, it's their call. but if they do, there is a requirement under the law that they scrub it, the reporting entity that's submitting the indicator to d.h.s., the federal entity, they've got to scrub it. they have the responsibility, whoever initiating it, to personally scrub that information. the way they don't -- the way the legislation comes before us today, in order for a company that chooses to submit threat indicators to the federal government, they -- in order to get the liability, help on the

liability protection that they're looking for, they have to submit it through the department of homeland security, through the portal of the department of homeland security. which is literally set up to do privacy scrubs, literally set up to do privacy scrubs. and then to share information, once, with other relevant federal agencies. very infrequently will there be some reason -- maybe less than 1% of the time, the threat indicators coming through the portal, there might be a need to take a closer look at that information, make sure there's nothing personally identifiable or problematic. but i think with the compromise that's been worked out, the issue that the colleague has has raised has been addressed. we know the situation. it is grim. when the secretary of defense has his e-mails by an entity, we don't know who, when we have 22

million records hacked by the chinese, maybe by somebody else, that's not good. when companies like dupont and others are having their information stolen and presumably stolen for bad reasons so they can beat us to the punch in terms of economic activity, that's not good. what are we going to do about it? we did quite a bit about it in the last congress. senator feinstein two congresses ago proposed comprehensive cybersecurity lels. the whole kit an kit 'n kaboodl. we tried to get that enacted. couldn't get it done. and finally we gave up, at the end -- i think that was the 112th congress. tom coburn was the ranking member on homeland security. i was privileged to be chairman. he and i partnered with the people on our committee and with a lost folks outside our committee to strengthen the

ability, the capability of the department of homeland security to do their job, a better job, a much better job protecting not just the federal government but the country as a whole against cyber attacks. we passed three pieces of legislation. they are helpful. not the whole package, but they are the three -- three very helpful bills to make d.h.s., a more effective partner in all of this. this year, the intel committee under the leadership of senator burr and feinstein came forward with their proposal. the administration comes afford with an information-sharing proposal as well. the committee looks at the president's proposal and try to figure out what should we retain here, what should we change to make better. and we d we changed it, made it better. the intel committee reported out their legislation 14-1 and we've been working with senator burr and senator feinstein and their staff ever since to try to infuse the elements of the president's proposal to make a

more perfect -- not a more perfect union, but a more perfect bill. is it better? sure it's better. and i think it will enable us to do a much better job protecting that which needs frock. -- which needs to be protected. i love to ask people who have been married long time, what is the secret to a long marriage? the two c's, communicate and compromise. i would add a third c. communicate and compromise. and i would add a third c. the third c is collaborate. on this legislation, it is a great example of communicating, talking with one another, stakeholders in capitol hill, across the country, around the world. but at the end of the day to figure out how to compromise and to do so by collaborating. we came up with a very good piece of legislation. at the end of the day, if a business wants to share information, i hope they would, they want to share that with the federal government, the idea is to get liability protection,

share it through the portal of the department of homeland security, that information is scrubbed, privacy scrub, share it with other federal agencies as appropriate after it's been dutifully scrubbed and then we're in a better position to defend thence thos against thosn the future. i think when people send us to work on big problems -- and this is a big problem -- they want us to work toct of they wan work t. we have been talking about this for three or four years. now we have an opportunity to get things done. let's pass this and pass this to the house. thank you very much. mr. johnson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from which is is w. mr. johnson: i rise to support the cybersecurity information-sharing act, legislation designed to reduce our vulnerability to cyber attack. i with a nt want to thank the sr

their collaborative effort. this is an example when you seek to find areas of agreement that unify us versus exploit our divisions, we can accomplish good things. this is one of those examples. partisan cyber threat we face today is real and growing. adversaries like china and north korea are constantly probing american companies and federal agencies' computer networks to steal valuable and sensitive data. international criminal organizations are exploiting our networks to commit financial fraud and health fraud. cybercrime is so pervasive that general keith alexander described it as the greatest transfer of wealth in human history. and cyber terrorists are trying to connect the infrastructure threatening our very way of life. we've already experienced the impact of this threat. within the last year and a half

alone, more than 20 top american companies and federal agencies have experienced major breaches. a breach of the office of personnel management allowed a foreign adversary to steal 19.7 million government background checks and 4 million personnel records. a breach at i.r.s. allowed cyber criminals abroad to access over 330,000 taxpayer financial records. a destructive cyber attack on sony pictures resulted in the destruction of cyber computers and theft of the company's most valuable intellectual property. data breaches at both anthem and j.p. morgan rowlted in the theft of health care data and banking customers' information. even the white house i is not immune from attack. six months ago. foreign adversaries breached white house network.

federal agencies are neglecting to protect americans' data and federal law is preventing companies from defending the networks. congressional oversight including hearings held by my committee, the senate committee on homeland security and government affairs, has shown agencies are not doing enough to protect their sensitive data. our committee's oversight hearings of the i.r.s. and o.p.m. data breaches revealed that basic cybersecurity hygiene would have stopped hackers in their tracks. the department of homeland security has not fully implemented the cybersecurity programs we need to protect federal agencs' networks. meanwhile, current law hinders the sharing of indicators that can be used to stop attacks against networks. to be effective, cyber threat indicators must be shared very quickly. the 2015 verizon data breach

investigation report revealed that 75% of attacks spread within 24 hours and 40% spread within just one hour. and yet our current network in antitrust and wiretap laws ham per companies from -- hamper companies from sharing that information quickly, creating a threat for sharing information companies can use to identify and stop attacks. there is no easy solution but there are things congress can do to improve cybersecurity and might make cyber attacks more divmendifficult. that is why i am proud to have worked with senator burr and feinstein to create this ages act which takes a significant first step in addressing both of these issues. first, it enables information-sharing to improving cybersecurity within private companies and, second, it improves cybersecurity at federal agencies. i especially appreciate the collaboration of senator carper in working with me to help craft title 2 of the bill, the federal

cybersecurity enhancement arcti- enhancement act. this bill would put federal agencies on track to implement cybersecurity solutions thereby improving the security of americans' data at federal are agencies. the federal cybersecurity enhancement act will achieve four key goals: first, it will mandate -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. johnson: i ask the senate for an extra minute. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. johnson: first it will mandate deployment and implementation of an intrusion system for federal networks. second, it will require o.m.b. to develop an assessment plan so government agencies can hunt down an erad ca erad cat threat. finally, it will give the

secretary of homeland security and the director of office of management and budget the authority they need to oversee cybersecurity across the federal government. in short, the cybersecurity information-sharing act with the inclusion of the cybersecurity enhancement act will significantly improve our cybersecurity posture. this bill will not solve all our cybersecurity woes, but it is an important step in the right direction and i am glad to support it. thank you, mr. president, and i yield back. mr. burr: mr. president? mr. president, i ask unanimous consent for two additional minutes before we move to cloture. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. a senator: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon.

mr. wyden: mr. president, reserving the right to object, i am happy to extend the debate for a couple of minutes for each side, but i think it does need, in the interest of fairness, for the proponents and opponents to have equal time for purposes of wrapping up. if my colleagues want to go further. mr. burr: i ask unanimous consent for two additional minutes on both sides. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fiept: mr. president, just so the record is clear, i was told i did not utilize my entire five minutes, and i wanted to make a very brief closing statement on my five minutes. mr. wyden: mr. president? mr. burr: unanimous consent request would grant me two additional minutes and would grant the vice chair two minutes and 45 seconds. mr. wyden: mr. president, i don't want to prolong this. reserving the right to object.

do i have any additional time because i wasn't sure i used my full five minutes. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon has 45 seconds remaining in his time from before. mr. burr: i ask unanimous consent that each side be given two additional minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mccain: i'm about to object. let's get going here. the presiding officer: is there an objection to the request from the senator from north carolina for two additional minutes for each side? without objection. mr. burr: mr. president, i thank my colleagues for allowing me the time.

very quickly, it was said that this bill won't prevent and would not have prevented the attacks that took place at american companies. it's in fact right. the vice chair and i have never portrayed that this was a prevention bill. we have said it is not a prevention i bill. it is a bill designed to share information and minimize the loss of data. as it relates to personal data my colleague from oregon forgets that the manager's amendment strengthens by making sure on the government side that they only draw in the fields that the entire government collaborative group agrees needs to be used for forensic purposes over and above what senator carper pointed out the responsibility of the private sector companies. it was said that the vice chair and i have been critical of

technology companies that oppose this bill. i don't think we have been critical. we have been confuseed. confused that the companies that hold the most personal data on the american people in the country want to deprive every other business in america from having the ability to share their information when they're hacked. so i'm not critical. i'm challenged to figure out why they would take that position, but i've come to this conclusion that there is some questions in life that have no answers and i have now reached one of those. given that we're at the end of this debate, let me once again thank chairman johnson and ranking member carper for the unbelievable contribution that both of them individually made in their committee and on behalf of the vice chair and i urge our colleagues to support cloture and allow this process to move forward so we can conference with the house. i yield the floor.

mrs. feinstein: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much. i just want to urge people to vote yes on cloture. we have been at this for six years. this is the third bill. we have been bipartisan. the bill is considered. this is a complicated and difficult arena. the bill is all voluntary. the moaning and groaning of companies. i say if you don't want to participate, don't participate, but i can give you hundreds and thousands of companies that are desperate to participate to be able to protect themselves without a lawsuit, and this enables that. so it's a first step bill. i want to just particularly thank the chair and ranking on the homeland security committee.

i very much appreciate this support. and i know senator burr and i and others will continue to work as we recognize this most serious threat on our economy and the privacy of individuals. to do nothing now is to admit that we cannot come up with a bill, and in fact we can. please vote yes. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i hope colleagues will vote no, and three quick points. first the chairman of the committee, we worked together often, acknowledged that this substitute would not have prevented these major hacks that we are all so concerned about, number one. number two, once again, we have heard an attack on the country's major technology companies. all of them, all of them, colleagues, are opposed to this legislation. we're talking about apple and dropbox and twitter. the list goes on and on. why? because these companies have got

to be concerned about both cybersecurity and protecting their employees and their customers' privacy. unfortunately, this legislation does very little to protect cybersecurity, which has now been acknowledged by the lead sponsor of the legislation and has major problems with respect to protecting the liberty of the american people. i urge colleagues to vote no. a senator: mr. president, are we out of time on the democrat side? the presiding officer: 20 seconds remain. mr. carper: keep in mind ient one and ient two are already in effect. they do not block these intrusions. einstein three authorized by our legislation puts a new player on the field, defensive player to be able to block these intrusions. this is new and requires agencies to implement that. and that's -- for no other reason than that, it's a good reason to support this proposal. thank you.

the presiding officer: the senator's time is expired. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment number 2716 to s. 754, a bill to improve cybersecurity, and so forth and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on amendment number 2716 offered by the senator from north carolina, mr. burr, to s. 754 shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 83, the nays are 14. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. there will now be 10 minutes of debate equally divided prior to

the vote in relation to amendment number 2564, offered by the senator from north carolina, mr. burr, for mr. paul. the senate will be in order. the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, the senate's not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. burr: mr. president, let me say to my colleagues that there is so minutes inbetween -- 20 minutes of debate inbetween this vote. so those members that have conversations, take them off the floor. if they're not going to have conversations, stay and listen to the debate. mr. president, i've said to my colleagues from the floor about the information sharing bill, that this is a very delicately balanced piece of legislation.

what we've attempted to do is to create a voluntary program that companies around this country can choose to participate in or not. some have already expressed their opposition to it and i would say that's very easy. pass the bill and just don't participate. there are going to be amendments, though, that change the balance. and i don't want to get into the details of every amendment. let me just say to my colleagues , if we change the balance that we have reached, not just on both sides of the aisle but with the comfort level of businesses across this country to where they believe that they can no longer participate in it, then we won't have a successful information sharing bill. i think every member of this body and every american knows that cyber attacks are not going to go away. they're going to continue. they're going to become more numerous. and we're going to be down here debating something that's probably much more specific in

future. i wish we could prevent it, but right now our only tool is legislation that voluntarily asks companies to participate to minimize the loss of data. i would encourage my colleagues, as the vice chair and i have, we're going to oppose all the amendments that come up. we have gone through all the amendments and those that we could accept and we felt embraced the balance that we had achieved and still held together the support we have across the country, we incorporated those in the managers' amendment and that managers' amendment will be voted on as we come back on monday or tuesday. with that, i yield the floor to my vice chair. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: i'd like to vote "no" on this amendment and i'd like to explain why. this amendment would create an exemption to the bill's narrowly tailored liability protections for companies that take responsible actions to look for

cyber threats and share information about them if a company -- quote -- "breaks a user or privacy agreement with a customer, regardless of how trivial it may be." the underlying cyber bill has been carefully drafted to ensure that it is totally voluntary and that activities can only be conducted on a customer's behalf with express authorization. and let me read the language in the bill. the bill reads -- and it's behind me -- "nothing in this title shall be construed to amend, repeal or supersede any current or future contractual agreement, terms of service agreement, or other contractual relationship between any entities or between any entity and a federal entity." now, there is tremendous

objection to the paul amendment that's coming in from the chamber of commerce to various companies, the health industry. they understand what's in our bill. this amendment would actually fatally disturb what's in the bill, which is clear and concise. so i urge a "no" vote. mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: paul: paul: this cybe- mr. paul: this cybersecurity bill attempts to enhance security for troxz the internet but i think actually -- transactions on the internet but i think actually weakens privacy in the process. the bill would grant legal immunity to companies who, in sharing information, actually violate your privacy. most companies have a privacy agreement. you've seen it when you get on the internet. it's supposed to guarantee that your information and your individual is choices on the

internet are not revealed to anyone. this bill says that if the company violates it in sharing your information, that there is no legal -- there will be legal immunity for that company. i think that weakens privacy. it makes your privacy agreement not really worth the paper it's written on. i think privacy is of great concern to americans. the government doesn't have a really good record with privacy. in the news today, a teenager is now reading the e-mail of the c.i.a. director. doesn't sound like the government's very good at protecting privacy. i'm not really excited about letting them have more information. the government revealed 20 20 million individual records of their employees, private records of their employees. this is the same government that now says, trust us and let's give everybody involved immunity so the consumer has no recourse

if their privacy is breached. this is the same government that allowed obamacare web site to be hacked and looked at. this is a government that doesn't have a lot of concern or ability to protect privacy. we're now asked to entrust this government with volumes and volumes of personal information sent across the vastness of the internet. there is good reason that many of our largest technological companies oppose this legislation. my amendment will give companies and the internet users clarity on what information is shared with the government and it will protect the privacy agreement. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: i'd just like to respond to that because we have been told for the industries that support this bill that this amendment is a bill killer. and the opposition to it has come in far and wide.

we have 52 industrial associations and business and financial and banking and troll yum and water works and railroads and public power and real estate and retail, 52 associations. they're on your desk. supporting it. and particularly the health industry has weighed in against this amendment. we accomplished the purpose in our bill in a way that is acceptable. please vote "no." thank you. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: let's be clear that most of the high-tech companies that have anything to do with the internet and anything to do with information sharing oppose this bill. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, i think everybody would like to vote. i'll say one last thing to my colleagues.

any company in america -- any company in america that chooses not to participate doesn't have to. if for some reason they find there's something in this piece of legislation that they're uncomfortable with or they are concerned about the transfer of any personal data, it's very simple. they don't have to participate. but to deny everybody who would like to participate is wrong. i would encourage you to defeat the amendment and support moving on. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: