incentives for employee or or recruiter fraud and misrepresentation and exploitation. multiple studies have been done on this so not that every employee or is coming in with killing tension but structurally it lends itself to that.

the bill had a proposal i said the programs okay. i think as we move forward about was the result of a lot of compromise organized labor. the business community, chamber of commerce, we are all at the table, so they can it can be done again. >> we have come to the end of the session. thank you all for participating and the panel for their contributions not just in this panel that their books, so thank you all for coming. [applause]

their legislative priorities in the coming years including

bursting the economy and getting a federal commitment to rebuilding and expanding u.s. infrastructure and the chamber's role in the upcoming 2016 election. they were at the christian science monitor last week. >> as you know there are [inaudible] so we will have people join us in progress, but we want to stay on schedule. our guests today are tom donohue, president and ceo of the u.s. chamber of commerce and the u.s. chamber executive vice president for governmental affairs the world's largest not-for-profit business federation. we are glad they came back. mr. donohue luggage & 97 and

according to "the new york times," he once wrote the chamber was to build up the biggest gorilla in this town. "-end-double-quote. before leaving the chamber he served 13 years as president and chief executive officer of the american trucking association prior to his two or at the ata he was at the chamber of commerce for eight years and early in his life he was deputy assistant postmaster general and vice president at fairfield university. bruce josten is the senior government political affairs executive in the chamber's new york office in 1974. he came to the organization well equipped for the rise and he oversaw the divisions in the chamber. so much for geography now in the process portion of the program. as always we are on the record here. please note live blogging or tweeting were filing of any kind while underway. there is no embargo in the

session. if you would like to ask a question, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle non- threatening signal and i will happily call on one and all and give the opportunity for opening comments and questions around the table. >> thank you very much and i am pleased to be back. i am sure that we will have a few others coming in but there are plenty in the crowd to begin. joining me as was indicated, we have a great system he died. if i don't like the question, i gave it to him. let me begin with a very brief statement. we are focusing on for major issues right now making economic growth for lawmakers and people in the administration making growth move in the right direction. it's critical to our future.

and we are going to spend as much time as we can on this subject because everything else follows it. our second major point is pursuing the right policies. we were vigorously pursuing a public policy agenda to generate growth for a long time and we are -- this is going to be a debate within the congress and within the country of how we are moving forward. are we going to move forward with more government or a more private growth? and it's critical to where we are going in the future. the third issue for us is what are we going to do to elect the right people, and we are particularly in the chamber concerned about the course involved in the house, but these are issues of high significance. and perhaps what is most important is winning the war on

ideas and in that regard, it will be the debate on how we go forward on the issues and entitlements on the questions of immigration and what we are going to do about budgets and deficits and in a very current right now, can we please do something about our infrastructure. let me just conclude with these remarks by getting a little bit specific. first we are very concerned as all of the rest of us are about the issue of what's going to happen today when the administration releases the next climate program and i would like to say where we are on it and other climate issues in first, in addressing climate change, we

believe we should guide what has already worked here and around the world. remember the united states is the only major country that actually and substantially reduced to the admissions while continuing to grow in the economy. how do we do that? gains in efficiency and new technologies and increased use of natural gas and renewable fuels and continued role of nuclear methods of improving and using coal that's where the focus should be going forward. we are not debating the existence of climate change but proposals meant to address it must be thoroughly scrutinized to determine the impact on jobs, energy and economic well-being of the workers and our family. having said that, let me simply conclude by saying i'm very happy to be here and i'm very happy to answer a discussion

with you. there is no better time for this. this is a critical time for america. we have major choices to make and we better make them. >> will go to dmitri to start. what is the chamber's view of paul ryan as the speaker can't help you give a blow is it to lose and what is the speakership for the business community? >> let me first say that we made it our business not to get involved in the internal workings of the house and the senate that is a very dangerous place to go. we are a fan. we think that he's a great american and he worked very hard in a successful way to get a lot of things done in the house.

we understand the reason that he's decided to retire. once we have a speaker in place, paul ryan is a man of experience. he chairs perhaps the most significant committee in the house of representatives in terms of where we are going in economic growth. we are observing the give and take on figuring out whether or not he's going to be he is going to be elected and we believe that we are going to be very happy to have him and he's a quality person into someone that shares planning the views of the committee. let me ask one more independent of the colleagues about the chamber's will and the 2016 election as you know press coverage leading up to coming here today was to talk about the fact that the chamber intends to

send $100 million of the effort versus roughly 703014 of your already engaged in the primaries in some states spending 3 million a month and as you mentioned was keeping the senate. can you talk about the scope of the chamber intends to do in 2016? >> we will obviously be engaged in the senate. it is a challenge because the large number of republicans who are up for election versus a moderate member of democrats and what we are looking for is an opportunity to keep the benefits that we've gotten by going to normal order and having an opportunity in the senate to actually talk about complicated things like budgets. we will be very aggressive in the selections as you indicated. we have already begun in some

communication around that. we of course will also engage ourselves and those in seats in the house house and to make sure that any of the candidates that we think are critical to expanding economic growth and supporting the challenges facing the business community are well represented. the amount of money that we spend is something that we don't talk about everybody else that i can basically say that one of the deciding factors as how much money you can raise. we don't keep it in the basement and we are looking forward to a vigorous participation in the total processing 2016. one final comment on that is very unique and different. it started so early.

the process started probably what almost six months before where it normally happened? for the candidates that means a lot more expenditures for us gave a little bit more time to get more focus and begin to move forward on those elections. we are all just a little side comment when we had 17 republican candidates, we have all been observing that with a lot of curiosity. >> are you sticking with the normal role of not being involved in the presidential? >> yes. >> the members this week talk about the debt limit. can you talk a little bit more about your concerns there and also how this sort of plays into

the larger conflict the business community is having with conservatives such as the health freedom caucus. as we've done it again and again and again the fundamental reality of the united states of america cannot default on its own budgets and maintain the respect of the world in our trading positions in the world and the stability of our instruments of death where people invest in from all over the world is simple as that and we cannot default. we must fix our debt. >> talking about the conservatives conservatives and the role that they are playing in this. >> i believe that what i just suggested to you is exactly what we believe should be the case for conservatives and liberals. you know it's interesting to

look at the congress now and that hole in the middle is getting bigger as more and more people get conservative and more and more people get very liberal. we hope to fill that role with the american people who need the government to act on xp have. >> from the financial times -- >> on tax reform specifically -- what do you think that the idea talking about using revenue? >> i wanted i wanted to comment about this. number one, the reason that we have people looking about money is because we have the most disadvantaged tax system for

american companies. we are taxed twice on overseas income, and that's why some people even overseas. it's not liquid capital. it's building and facilities in factories so it takes some time to look into that. then the conversations that i've heard on both sides of the aisle is that people would like to get to some tax reform in 2017 and there is a lot of hesitancy about taking those funds on an ad hock short-term basis. we need finally to get down to the fundamental reality that america's infrastructure is a very bad shape and we need to get the funds we need that are required to fix the infrastructure and the best way to do that is the way that we did it for years and the only problem is that the last 23

years have never increased the federal fuel tax and everybody here is driving the car that drives far more miles than years ago. do the math and the government is in trouble. >> the most simple way to curb the versions is to do comprehensive tax reform and adopt the territorial system to be aligned with every other major industrialized economy in the entire world absence you're not solving the problem, you are tinkering around the margins. it's important because i think that this gets completed and confused pretty much every time somebody opens up there now for the repatriation. there've been three reports in the past year that to tom's point say that the liquid cash is a range of about 750 to

850 million. the g8 reports 11. just yesterday i was reading there were $2.1 trillion of cash sitting in the bank of ireland. bank of ireland. well, there's not. the majority of it as property plans and equipment some of which have been there for decades by the way. so if you are talking about the reaction in corporate america, if you things -- a few things drive them on the capital invested for several decades and in the grounds of another country. so what are we talking about? the third point is the deal of the voluntary find and who cares how they deploy that money if you will using the infrastructure would be a smart way to do it. by the the reader is about 150 billion that comes back every year as we sit right now that the larger point even if you do the repast deal you don't come close to solving the problem and basically it is an

immediate hole and that's about it when you clearly need an ongoing sustainable funding mechanism end and this is where congress keeps talking in terms of the point about the excise tax on fuel. absent that you are tinkering in the margins. that isn't going to get us where we need to be as a country. he spent most of his career planning to be the guy that undertakes the competence of tax and entitlement reform, and i think that as we assume and expect that he will be next week even though he departs, the post that would enable him to guide the process, he would have a hand guiding the process as the speaker. >> kevin drum mcclatchy. >> i appreciate that no one else got to ask how well we all go on?

a little more detail if possible on this idea of the tax reform in the major last one cow was that dynamic of being in the ways and means committee moving up can you talk a little bit about how this may or may not differ from others and what it strengths and weaknesses might become and then more broadly the easier question on donald trump that you don't get involved in presidential politics but clearly if trump becomes the nominee that poses a lot of questions where the senate did -- but we come i doubt you will answer but how much does he troubled you in terms of your ability to keep the senate? >> you go first. >> look, you all know tax reform is complicated. it's easy for everybody to say i'm in favor of tax reform because who isn't in favor of tax reform. nobody's going to pay for the current tax system except maybe

the tax accountant to prepare taxes for people because it's good for their business. but after that it's not good for anybody else. i think as you all know, brian was a tutor under a guy named bill thomas. he is now in his current dream job. get ready to depart for more responsible job in the sense. he is going to push this deal in the three-way race that we are expecting to erupt if he is he's leaving then who is going to take over between brady and nunez put all three of them have been on the train to drive the fundamental contents of tax reform. they all have been involved in the subgroup working groups going back to camp. these are people that are committed to getting it done. i'm not going to kid anybody.

this isn't easy to get done. there are any mechanisms whatsoever for the first comment easy to talk about and hard to do. the reality is we are going to have to bite the bullet and do it and i think increasingly, the parent to anybody in congress, that's the reality that they are going to confront. they are going to have no choice and entitlements play into that as well as everything else in the federal government. >> and now mr. trump. >> i think the candidacy of mr. trump and the many interesting things he's had to say in his numbers is a reflection of what we have been saying for a long time, and that is the american people are frustrated. they are frustrated with their government because the government has been avoiding the fundamental reality of what is critical to them, and that is an infrastructure bill that's

dealing with their health care issues in a reasonable way. it's making sure that we are protecting our flow citizens and that we work hard to drive economic growth so that we can put people to work and it is a message to the far right and the far left. it is a message that everything you think the voters might do, you better think about it again. and i think -- i believe that's going on. and folks that are going far off the pole on either side are losing sight of the fact the american people have their own idea of what the issues are to be and how the congress ought to behave. >> kevin with the associated press. >> thank you. with the white house threatening to veto the legislation that would lose in the crude oil exports ban are you fearful that

window is basically closing with such a glow. >> i think the reality that prevents us from exporting. we sat on the long, long lines they said why would we export oil and since that time we've come to learn that we have more oil and other energy sources than just about anybody in the world and make sense to export it because it would help us deal with the challenges that the nation has in terms of growth and revenues and we believe that the houses of the congress will

move on this in an orderly fashion. on the matter of exporting the vetoing export i heard the white house talk about that it'll be a very difficult time to say we are going to stop that and we are going to allow as a result of our agreement for iran to export oil all around the world. i don't think that would be a comparison that the white house would like to deal with >> is the veto of that hundred% from? >> no veto is 100% firm. circumstances change the number of people that support a bill that goes up and down so the bottom line is we are pushing very hard to make this happen.

it's in a way that lets them understand the options they would be facing a. >> you keep talking at infrastructure but the one party that is really pushing for infrastructure is the democrats where the people of the gop but don't want to see more government spending are the ones that are tapping it down. >> first off on energy we shouldn't overlook this reality it would be a deeper and probably longer had it not been for the energy resolution but we are experiencing in the country number one. number two the job loss unfortunately in the last year if the creator of the jobs into the exact same energy sector because of the precipitous drop in price due to the volume of

production. one way to help in elyria to the nearly areas that and help turn around and stop those that are going out of the ground back in the bt repeal a law that exists from the 70s banning exports as tom said as he began to reverse the act but that i just said and we employ people general etc.. let me put a point on it for you. naming the proposal anyone of you have put forward in the program. >> democrat or republican. >> may be the democrat that is funding the problem because the answer is nobody. and every member of the administration is opposed to the gas tax. the democratic leader is opposed to the gas tax.

when you start to look at this they all pose the mild tax. >> what do you think are the prospects of it going through before 2017 [inaudible] on the safe harbor across the atlantic. >> they've support a positive trade bills all around the world in the interest of our extraordinary economy when it's cooking and the ability to put together our consumer economy with a strong export economy we were very pleased that the trade facilitation was taken care of and we are pleased the technology bills are moving in the right direction.

we worked very, very hard to get the trade facilitation and arrangements in the trade promotion authority taken care of and we have worked with others on completing the agreement. nobody has seen it, nobody has read it, nobody has to look at any of the sidebars and why we are supporting the process we look forward to reading the bill were the agreement and we find that works best. when we get there, we will be a participant in bringing that to a healthy positive collusion give you code conversion in 2016. >> we have taken -- i said i will jump in because tom is on the road a lot. we are probably in a sense on usually supported the legislation for the legal

redress since that is the only out for the technology companies because of the heat they have been under going under the nsa so we are very concerned about that safe harbor is you and we are supporting legislation in the u.s. congress that would permit the citizens to seek access to the u.s. courts. >> support from bloomberg. >> have you said in may of 2014 if the republicans don't do it they shouldn't bother the candidate in 2016. i'm wondering if they didn't do it to you think they should run again and could candidate when?

a we need people so that we don't have to move agriculture out of our country. we need people for seasonal work. we need people very, very important for the care of the elderly. there is is a lot going on this getting as close and closer to an immigration bill. i don't think, i think, in thinking about it, that it's difficult in an election year to finish that but we are much closer than we were when i said

that. i still think they would be stronger if they had it but i suppose -- >> on the election front, do you think that republicans could have avoided the whole donald trump phenomena? >> no. i don't think that donald trump's comment go far, far beyond immigration. the american people sort of, they watch a lot of television. they think that's what they are seeing with the donald trump, because not only is the entertaining but he is saying things they think about. why doesn't the government do this? >> everybody in washington is stupid your they could buy into easily. >> the point is i think he's an articulation of frustration. he is somebody who will be

positive participant in this process for a while. my own view, if other candidates on both sides focus the message a little more clearly, i don't think he will keep the lead he now has. after all, we don't to presidential politics so that was just an observation from tom donohue. >> car from the "new york time times." >> you mentioned the chamber strong relationship with the john mayer which has been a real benefit to the gym over the years. some of the same people who helped push john boehner out both in the congress in the freedom caucus and many outside groups has been very antagonistic about -- >> excuse me? >> antagonistic about the chamber accusing you of the crony capitalism and not been in touch with the grassroots. what you think of those groups and those attacks? do you think your influence has

been diminished at all by that? >> i notice over long time in this town when there is concentrated effort to lay some criticism on somebody like the chamber, an organization like the chamber. we should look at it very carefully and find out are we wrong in what we do or are we right and what we are doing? and is the criticism coming because what we are doing different than what they like? if that's the case then i always like to double down. my view here is that we have an extraordinary level of support from the american business community of all sizes. that support continues to grow. we have received unbelievable amount of support from our board in the face of some of these criticisms. and i've noticed that most of those critics have not been able to move their views forward while at the same time much of

what we are trying to do is give the i think more support from the american people. >> you are not bothered by this? you don't think it is hurting the chamber? >> it doesn't bother me. we don't have a stock price, but i have a stock price of my own. i look at our renewal rate, which is at an all-time high. and i look at our inability to attract different industries that were not strong engaged with us in the past, and that his favorite imported come and we are doing very well. the reason is the american business community is facing unbelievable challenges from dodd-frank, which still has 200 regulations to put in place, from the cost associated with obamacare, and we see, there was

a bipartisan effort in the house and the senate to change one of those components. they are concerned about infrastructure as we talked about. i'm comfortable, i am not, i am not dismissive of people's criticism. if you just we've criticism off, bad idea. you've got to analyze it, look at it, find out where it's coming from and then you have to do what you think is right. >> one area coming up next week, ex-im bank. they think that is a prime example right now of crony capitalism. so where do you see that? how do you see that working out? >> if the folks that were trying to eliminate the ex-im bank had, take something that would save some money, because ex-im bank

doesn't draw funds from the government. it means positive cash flow. and if they have thought about it, because while yes, they could make a case that there are a number of major companies, and not as many small companies, both of those major companies between them have about 25,000 small subcontractors. in my view, is, just one last thing, there are 30 countries in america come in the world that will not accept capital goods from america unless they are associated and assisted with a government related export finance organization. so without them, big companies that are selling airplanes, for example, are going to to locate their headquarters somewhere else, or 30 countries are going to say we are not going to buy your airplanes. so i think it's an issue that people are learning more about. they are beginning to find out what it is they hope the horse to. and i believe at some time, i

don't know how it will happen, i don't know if it will happen next month, i don't know if it will happen now, but we will put a form of export financing back in place, maybe some adjustments, but if we don't have it, you will lose companies that will go somewhere else to get it. >> thanks for taking this questions. -- taking these questions. tom and other influential money behind movement asking democratic candidates to come up with with a climate change plan that will solve this problem. hillary clinton has been moving left on a lot of these issues. she's come out against keystone pipeline. she's got some environmental friendly policies come all these things. i'm curious what both of you

gentlemen's assessment is of the environmental movement within the democratic party, what kind of role with a sort of money and organization in that movement played in the 2016 election and how to assess in relation to the role you will play speaks i'm curious if you can give me a quick rundown want to die with 60 million in the last election speak with that's a good question for him. >> i think the answer is pretty obvious. i did it but you understand my point. kind of like tom's point to call. it lists all the successes the far right wing has had. are they really suggesting we should just concede infrastructure work abroad? if you want to talk about where export financing credit from a government agency is required virtually every government in the world if you're going to delay major infrastructure project requires some. my question in part would be do those people want us to see that

to th the german and french a nl jobs and revenues that go with that? look, the environmental do is what it is. 85% of the country, pro-environment. our members don't want dirty water. they don't want to dirty air. so forth and so on. we believe we been perfectly consistent about what needs to be done about this. the only way we're going to do with climate is you're going to support the development of new technologies across the board and the entire renewable space and boundaries. you need to preserve american jobs. the global part of this is one of the things we've been tortured,% in your sense of the only solution is a global solution. for quite some time people use that as an excuse. it's ironic we are now stepping up to negotiate in paris for global agreement, so go figure. this is not going to go away. nhb economy wide.

we are an organization that favors all of the above and we mean that literally and that includes from below. some people say they're in favor of all about except for below if you listen to them. we are not of that ilk. i think is always a factor in elections. i think if you look closely at the votes in congress it tends to be a bicoastal issue on a boat skill more than anything else. but it's an issue. >> the democratic front runner comes out against the keystone pipeline seems to be a signpost as to where the party is on these issues. >> that's where a candidate in the party is because the president of the party, president of the country, hasn't declared a position yet. >> my tax reform issue was already out. i'm curious on 2016 i know you don't wait in a presidential races but already we are seeing the ways these outsiders, trump,

but also carson and turn one, are shaping the house freedom caucus. they excite, it's would have an influence on the senate and house races. i'm curious, you recognize that tap into some sort of frustration but what a successful message to counter some of the things you disagree with, and to counter what will be tea party challenges in the house and the senate. >> first, just to comment about the candidates you mentioned. carson, by the way, extraordinary person, editing people appreciate what he is done with his life. but those are not the candidates of the far right. those were candidates that showed up on their own volition to participate in this debate. you know, we have a very clear

message. we believe that economic growth done any sensible is going to create jobs, and a lot of jobs in the middle class. we believe that pursuing a series of all appropriate legislative activities not only will help economic growth but will take burdens off some part of the populace and simplify their lives of the. we need to fix the potholes. we need to deal with immigration because we need those workers. we need to stop this behavior here in washington where people look at us all and wonder what planet we are from. but congress and the senate were put together in a way that the idea was they would work

together and find a common root forward on the way that we solve america's problems. when you look at carson, when you look at trump, when you look at the majority of the people that of command a lot of attention, what they're basically doing is expressing some of the frustrations that americans have been carrying around for a long time. i think it's been a great process. i think when we get finished we will end up with a couple of decent candidates in the republican party, president and vice president. and i think it will make for an interesting election. i'll tell you one little side thing. i asked our guy, scott reed, two months ago, when you have 17 candidates come down to 15 now, when you have 17 candidates and it's not winner-take-all in all other states, could you ever go back to the harry truman time

and have a real smoke-filled, smoke-filled convention? and he said no. i don't know, i asked him the other day. he said, i think no. >> that the ad a little bit do that. i think trump and fiorina, particularly, initial jump in on the economic growth bandwagon. i'm not sure about carson but just to be clear, that's the same ligand that we are on. in terms of the freedom caucus issue it has been mentioned that i think needs to put on the table for you people to consider as well, if you look at the public opinion polls, your papers have all been reporting for 15 years on right track, wrong track, the american public has stated is on the wrong track for about 15 years. i think the locus only about 65% and a ghost up from there to about 78. you've got a country in the sense that is searching for

confidence he around the federal government. a consequence within that not literally but almost literally every two years out of frustration that public flips the senate. to get to my point, the same frustration exhibit in the house freedom caucus is exhibited in the democracy of lines greater, moveon.org and other groups have openly declared in the past six months they want to remove the dinos in the democratic party. if you look at the major senate battleground states starting right here in maryland and go to illinois and look at florida and look at ohio, what did you see? you see the parties preferred candidate being challenged by outside groups who are posturing for their kind of come and every open about this, they want to copy the tea party. and push the democratic party even further left.

so all i'm saying is there's a national frustration an and a national anger. i think what we are hearing from a trump and summaries of the people you're asking about, and trump may be the more master of playing the tabloid "new york post" came in getting his falling out better, but they are tapping into anger or my kids going to grow up in a country worst? only going to leave it worse, to stand in the world? the fact that the government seems incapable of just functionifunctioni ng on basic issues like pass a budget, paid potholes. i think anger is an expression that is coming at people in a mode of response i do on both sides of the aisle. >> we have about 15 minutes left. we will try to get five questions in. joseph lawler.

>> i just want to fall on the tax reform question if i may. do you support the portman schumer ryan idea of the infrastructure repatriation mix as a stopgap for now? >> as a stopgap for what? as a paid for her highways because as a paid for for highways. >> first of all they pulled the plug on that two weeks ago. they pulled the plug, ryan announced i pulled the plug on that, not pursuing that. i'm not sure what i'm talking about. if it doesn't exist how do i answer your question? >> i think that the issue here is that there was a lot of sentiment that doing that per se as discussed would interfere eventually doing a reasonable comprehensive tax reform. and i do believe it would've been very hard to get it done in

the senate. i mean, excuse me, in the house. and when you get down to it, the point that bruce me before is i think a lot of folks are found there's not so much kashmir. >> any innovation box cost a lot of money. the concern in the corporate community, it would be of benefit to some, not all. how do you ever get territorial? if you start doing this ad hoc things to plug a hole to fill i would problem, it's going to be that much more difficult to ever undertake comprehensive tax reform. >> thanks for being here. i want to circle back to the paul ryan house dynamic right now. when he was meeting with some of these freedom caucus members to get their support, their support that came out yesterday that they discussed him stepping in and the case that outside groups wanted to get into private

collections, one of the freedom caucus members mentioned one of your groups. could you comment on that report? related also in these discussions, ryan told him he would not bring up any comprehensive immigration bill and less that a majority of the majority. comment on why you're still the optimistic spin the latter problem has been contradicted by two of the freedom caucus neighbors. you have to who are saying they gave us the commitment. you have to who are saying he didn't give any commitment. been you have ryan who said what sosa does anybody in the conference and we will discuss the procedures of the house to vacate the chair to the issue about what goes to the floor and under what circumstances. so since none of us were in the room on any of these, if you people contradicting each other in terms of what they have said, he said and what he said he said, that's about the best and i can give you on he said/she said. i think we need to wait. >> you know, when they were

considering another candidate, for the speaker's job, allegedly they were six or seven principles put forth by the far right that would have to be adhered to get and you just talked about one of them that would have to agree to finance against anything we would do any primary. i'm glad about that. remember i told you to double down is sort of a good idea. and there were other issues about the chamber. look, when the tea party was first formed and had four or five principles of sound economics, reasonable taxation, et cetera, et cetera, i mean, who could be opposed to that? it has gone far beyond that to the point that what the fund of the rail is, that is to govern in a way to create economic growth and to create jobs.

we are not much worried about any of those discussions. we are going to go out and do what we plan to do. we are not a government organization. we don't have to adhere to what they want to be. we are going to do what we want to do and we're going to do what we think the american business community, large and small, needs us to do to help them, and that our country needs us to do to help expand the american economy in the way to create jobs and give the next generation and opportunity that otherwise will not have. >> just quickly i would say, in the comment released after met with the freedom caucus, i think probably the most important sentence in it was we need to be, a proposition party, not simply an opposition party. party. you can interpret that however you will buy me insurance of the house freedom caucus which has pretty much been an opponent faction in that conference, i

think it's a pretty powerful signal he's sending. >> this is along the same lines. i was wondering if you could just speak a bit more explicitly, are you going to be doubling down on candidates, primary candidates who are going to challenge tea party incumbents in the house? and could you also give us a sense, decency backlash out there by more government minded republicans who are going to try and move these tea party candidates out of these very red districts speak was we're going to split that and i will answer the first part. there are 28 resignations and open seats. there will be some of us. we will look at whoever the primary candidates are there. we will consider any other

opportunity that is presented to us on the primary side, most of them by the way don't materialize, but if they other we will look at them. we are also very concerned about the move to the far, far, far left, and what that is doing to the democratic party. if we advertise the opportunities that we would think about that as well. bruce, you can add to the second question. question. >> which part of the second question? >> act lash among republicans who are more than -- >> i think it depends on the district because that's what you're talking about. you are talking about how seditious or a senator he or they. some of the tea party members based upon -- they are fairly entrenched. they will will not be a viable challenger that will succeed against them. we are not going to put good money after a bad outcome.

to tom's point, the first issue is, is there a viable challenger? can we find and help recruit one? are they capable of fund raising? do they have the capability or higher people to build the political infrastructure that suggests that kate could -- there's a lot of issues here, okay? i think in some cases, clearly in michigan does a bit of a backlash two years ago. they unelected and. there was not a backlash in the same state. it'it's tough to keep and one answer and to do that. it kind of depends. >> one more since. i do think there is a high level of angst and anger also in the business community. if you look at the decisions that ge made to move out of connecticut. and by the way, they are doing it. they are moving out of

connecticut as the chairman of ge said at the economic club in washington. he said when you go for a long period of time and the cabinet and the two senators and the downstate, members of the house, we don't expect them to vote on issues we need every time, but when they never ever respond, it's time to go somewhere else. and that's the kind of backlash you're going to see some of. >> going back to the primaries. the freedom partners chamber of commerce had different ideas what chamber of commerce ought to be doing and what you guys duke spirit but they needed that name, didn't they, chamber of commerce? >> it's working for them. they are big on crony capitalism, big on killing off ex-im bank that they say they're going to be putting $250 million into politics this year. what does this mean for you all? >> not much.

look, you've got to be for something. if the only thing you par four is canceling getting rid of or opposing things that are going on, you're not going to get a lot of support from the american people. >> they say you are for more freedom and less government. who could be against that? >> i think we have to be, i'm vigorously in support of freedom, the right to speak, the right to risk, the right to prosper. but reality says that we have to do something about american entitlements, or by 2025 we will have 6 trillion plus budget, 80% of which will be spent on interest on the debt. this is the government's numbers. and social security, medicare and medicaid. dad would leave is not enough to do a fraction of the federal cosmic. and we need to face fundamental

reality. reality means we have to govern. we have to come together to serve the american people, and people on the far right and the far left who are living in a fantasyland when it comes to what we need to do to help the american economy survive and the american people prosper, that's what folks are figuring out. we are going to try to help make it work. >> one of the challenges, peter, let's take a budgets of champions cup on the. this by the way isn't everywhere you all i think should think about. so they say it puts taxpayers at risk despite the fact that we know extremist cut checks for $700 million in the past eight years to the treasury. bayside at gao study that suggests that if they're forced to use a fair value accounting

measure that they might show losses. i haven't heard anybody who points out that study who is an opponent to reauthorizing ex-im address the reality that the congress of the united states determined the county system that ex-im is currently using. so it's kind of easy, isn't it, to point a finger and complain about and then used one from one study, when the responsibility for dictating what financing system ex-im uses is the sole discretion of congress? just let me finish, okay? that's number one. number two, i want to be clear about this. every time congressman hensarling who chairs the house financial services committee says that a majority of house republicans on my committee -- >> we believe the last minute or so of this program to take you live to the floor of the u.s. senate. they come back today to continue work on a cyprus to get ago. final passage votes scheduled for tomorrow.

live coverage of the senate now on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal lord, you inspire us to joyfully resign to your will, refusuing to demand our own way. fill our lawmakers with patience, contentment, and peace. lord, provide them with interior humility, not just the outward

form. give them a spirit that enables them to be easily reconciled with others, determined to labor for the common good. may they remember to cast their cares on you, leaning on your sustaining power. use them to encourage and build up each other, striving always to accomplish the most good for the most people. we pray your sacred name. amen. the president pro tempore: pleae join me in reciting the pledge f 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: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i understand there's a bill at the desk due a second reading. the presiding officer: the cloarclerk will read the title e bill port second time. the clerk: a bill to amend the fair labor standards act of 1938 to strengthen equal pay requirements. mr. mcconnell: ford place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceedings. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the

calendar. mr. mcconnell: now, madam president, last week senators voted overwhelmingly to advance legislation that will help protect the privacy of their constituents. experts say the tools and the bipartisan cybersecurity bill the senate voted to advance can help prevent future attacks through the sharing of information between the public and private sectors. the legislation's voluntary information-sharing provisions are key to protecting the personal in fact of the people we all represent. the bill has also been carefully examined by senators of both parties and contains important measures to protect civil liberties and individual privacy. i want to thank chairman burr, vice-chairman feinstein of the intelligence committee for their hard work on the bipartisan bill. we'll consider a variety of amendments from both sides of the aisle tomorrow. after that we can take a final vote on the underlying bill. so that will be the senate's initial focus this week.

i'll have more to say about it tomorrow. in the meantime, we also know that fiscal negotiations are ongoing, as the details come in and especially if an agreement is reached, i'll tend to consult and discuss the details with our colleagues. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: as the republican leader mentioned, we continue to work toward a budget agreement. motions are ongoing -- negotiations are ongoing. i would hope that we'd come to a resolution, democrats and republicans, that is good for our country and economy. it is imperative that we avoid a manufactured crisis that threatens our economy and jobs. we must do it in a responsible manner. as i have been saying far a long, long time, it is past time that we do away with the harmful, draconian sequester cuts. we must also ensure that there is ensthiewr equaldefense and n.

i see no one on the in regard wishing to speak. i would ask the chair to announcing the business of the rest of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. mr. reid: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. kaine:i rise today to recognize an important but largely unheralded anniversary. seven years ago yesterday president harry truman changed the design of the presidential flag and seal. that moment, which is a small moment in the grand scope of american history, was nevertheless very symbolic, and i would like to discuss it. first, some context on president true man. truman was a great wartime president. he fought bravely in world war i and france, and then he had to make very momentous decisions at the close of world war ii.

some would argue -- and i think properly -- that the decision about whether or not to use atomic weapons at hiroshima, nagasaki, might have been the single momentous decision made by a president. he wasn't aware of the program until f.d.r. died and in the very moment had to make the decision about whether it use those weapons against japan. no one would question whether harry truman w's a softie. in march of 1947 america was war-weary, but he went to congress and in an address to congress said, we need to continue to provide military and economic support to nations that are battling against soviet influence. in this case, it was the nailingnationsof greece and tout began the truman dock trirng the basic strategic principle whereby the united states for the next 40 years would sort of check off efforts by the soviet

union to expand their influence. harry truman w's a great wartime president. but harry truman did something on october 25, 1945, that was most unusual. he called the press into his office and he said, look what i've done. and he unveiled the fact that he had taken the seal and flag of the presidency of the united states and redesigned them. and that design is essentially the same today with the exception that two stars were added for the states of hawaii and alaska. the seal of the president, as everybody knows, we can look around the room and see some up on the wall here originally, the seal was an eagle, and the eagle has two claws. the in one set of claws, the eagle is grasping the arrows of war and in the other set of claws, the eagle is grasping the olive branches of peace and diplomacy. prior to the truman presidency, the eagle faced toward the arrows of war.

and harry truman, this great war time president changed the seal so the olive branches of diplomacy would be in the right claw, the preferred position and the eagle facing the olive branches. he said the new branch faces the eagle toward the staff which is looking all the time you're on the march. it has the eagle looking at the olive branch for peace instead of the arrows of war. mccullough said it meant it represented a nation on the march and dedicated to peace and diplomacy. president truman did something else notable and symbolic. he renamed the department we think of as the pentagon from the department of war to the department of defense also symbolic of the nation's post war dedication to peace. while we want to be the strongest -- and we are the

strongest military nation in the world -- and madam president, you know this so very well, we want to always suggest to the world that our interest is not primarily war. no, our interest is peace and prosperity for all. we always have to preserve and advance america's military strength because we know of the connection. sometimes the better your military strength, the more successful you can be diplomatically. but it is also the case that the strength of your diplomacy can also add to the credibility of your military might. i want to talk quickly about the olive branches of peace and diplomacy and then the arrows of war. the olive branches of peace and diplomacy. america has a great diplomatic tradition. let's just talk about recent presidential history. president truman went to congress and said let's spend, in today's dollars, tens of billions of dollars to rebuild the economies of japan and germany, the two nations that have been at war against the united states. germany had been engaged in two

wars with the united states in the previous 30 years. japan had invaded the united states at pearl harbor, but president truman said tomorrow is more important than yesterday. let's spend dollars to rebuild these economies. it was controversial when he proposed it but the marshall plan ended up being one of the most successful things the united states has done from a foreign policy perspective. president kennedy right after the cuban missile crisis of 1962, president kennedy engaged in negotiations with the soviet union to reduce the nuclear threat and the result was an agreement in 1963 to ban atmospheric nuclear test, the nuclear test ban treaty. president reagan. president reagan was actively engaged in trying to undermine the power of soviet union and communism, but during those very vigorous and aggressive activities he also was negotiating with the soviet union on an arms control agreement, probably the paramount example of this during the reagan presidency was the

intermediate range nuclear force treaty in 1987 that he successfully negotiated. and i happen to believe that history is going to judge the recent iran nuclear deal in the same way. an effort to make tomorrow more important than yesterday and find even in the midst of significant challenges between the united states and iran a way to reduce nuclear tension. diplomacy is always a judgment that we can try to -- we should try to let go of some of the baggage of the past and see if we can find a better way to tomorrow. madam president, i'm a little bit worried that the truman legacy of putting peace and diplomacy first is fraying in this body and maybe nationally. and i hope by bringing to mind this anniversary today just to remind us of our great diplomatic history and the power of our diplomatic principles. in recent years what we've seen in this chamber, we've seen a number of bits of evidence of a fraying commitment to diplomacy, in my view.

one of the great truman institutions was the international monetary fund designed to help nations work together on economic and monetary policy issues. great global institution. the challenge with an institution like that is when you set it up in the 1940's and new nations emerge and rise, how do you incorporate nations that are newly powerful into the fund? the most recent example, a challenging example has been the nation of china. as china has gotten more and more important, there are many who advised us to bring china more closely into the fund so that they can asift nations -- assist nations throughout the world but congress refused to change the bylaws of the i.m.f. to give china proportionate responsibility given the population of its strength and economy. what did china do after we would not change the bylaws to allow them a proportionate place at the table? china established their own development bank completely separate from the i.m.f.

there's a debate going on right now in congress about whether or not we should reauthorize the ex-im bank. this dates back to f.d.r. presidency, a premier institution that helps financial markets find markets abroad. suddenly it's controversial after 80 years. there were a number of u.n. treaties we could profitly advance our interest by. if the u.s. ratified that, we would have an additional diplomatic tool to chinese island building. the u.n. treat yeep on the rights of women. the u.n. treaty on the rights of those with disabilities. these are treaties that would reflect american values and american principles because we're leaders in the world in these areas and yet we won't ratify the treaties. the prospect of trade deals are much less popular in congress than they were 15 years ago. trade is going to happen. the question is whether the united states will be part of

the -- will play a leadership role in writing the rules. and if we step back and we don't play leadership roles, some other nations will. but these are getting more and more complicated here in this body. and then finally, madam president, something that i feel very strongly, it's hard to face the world with this strong diplomatic might when you have a lot of ambassadorial positions that are vacant. and especially in the last six or seven years, we've seen efforts to block or delay ambassadorial appointments that have left key posts in many nations around the world vacant. and it sends a message to other countries when they don't think -- when they look at us as the united states not putting an ambassador in place, they basically conclude, the u.s. may not think we're important. and that is a very, very bad signal to send to other nations, especially many nations that are allies have been without ambassadors for awhile. so i'm hoping that we can reembrace on the 70th anniversary the wisdom of a

truman who said the nation has to be vigorous and forceful and look toward diplomacy first. now, with respect to the arrows of war, like president truman i prefer diplomacy. i think we should lead with diplomacy but we have to be willing to use military force and i voted for military force twice during my years in the senate. the president asked us to vote for military investigators intens is syria tounish bashar al-assad. that was in twitter, the only -- that was in the 2013, and i voted for it with kind of a foreboding and heavy heart because i knew there would be virginians, some of who i might know would be affected but nevertheless i thought it was an person principle for america to stand for. i've been pushing sense september 2014 to have congress authorize a war against isil which has been going for 15 months. there's a lot of critique in this body and i have critique

about the way that war is being waged, about strategic decisions the president is undertaking with respect to the war. but i think at the end of the day it's our gist to be a critic. it is supposed to be congress that authorizes war rather than a president doing it on his own. the -- i mentioned the point earlier, the truman olive branches of diplomacy and arrows of war reinforce one another. obviously you can be a stronger negotiator at the table in advancing a diplomatic solution if people understand that you have significant military capacity and the willingness to use it. in the appropriate instance. so the more we can do, the better we can do to empower our military through wise budgeting, for example, as we help to find an end to sequester and a path forward, the stronger we'll make our diplomatic effort. similarly the reverse is also true. the more we are vigorous in going after diplomacy, the more moral credibility we have in those instances where we can

say, looking at the world, looking at our citizens, looking at our own troops we now think we need to take military action, and we have exhausted the diplomatic alternatives first. that improves the moral credibility behind military effort. it enables us to make the case better to all about the need for military effort and often it even creates a better international justification for military effort. as i conclude, madam president, i think you and i were together last week when former secretary gates testified before the armed services committee. it was one of the best bits of testimony that of i've seen in my time in the senate. he had a word of caution for us. he said -- quote -- "while it's tempting to assert that the challenges facing the united states internationally have never been more numerous or complex, the reality is that turbulent, unstable and unpredictable times have occurred to challenges u.s.

leaders regularly since world war ii. we live in a challenging and complex world where we see challenges that are known but also many unpredictable cheajts but other -- challenges but other leaders have seen a world that looks equally challenging and confusing to them. but we're true to our best traditions if the u.s. does what truman so emblemmateically suggested we should do and we push in a vigorous and creative way all the diplomatic tools at our disposal and that involves diplomacy but also involves trade and humanitarian assistance. the u.s. is one of the most generous nations in the world. the strength of our moral example. if you live in a nation where journalists are being put in jail, the u.s. freedom of press stands as a moral example. if you live in a nation where people are prosecuted because of their sexual orientation the u.s. is a great moral example. we're not exemplary in

everything but we're exemplary in so many things and people around the world still look at us and that in fact is a example of diplomatic emblem that is so important to us. finally, i'll say this. so much, so many of the challenges that we're facing now are challenges that at the end of the day really are about diplomatic solutions. we often are in armed services or the foreign relations committee are talking about the vexing conundrum and humanitarian disaster in syria but we hear at the end of the day it has to be about a political solution to the civil war. there has to be a political solution to the conflict in yemen. there has to be a political solution to the decades-long conflict between the taliban and the government in afghanistan. to find a political solution, you have to have strong diplomacy, military action will not be enough to forge a political consensus moving forward. so ultimately this was the message of what harry truman did

70 years ago. this strong wartime president who made some of the toughest decisions that have ever been made by anybody in the oval office recognized that america was a great nation because when push came to shove, we would prefer and push and advocate for diplomacy first knowing that we would be militarily strong if we needed to be. and it is my hope that we in congress will take a lesson from that anniversary and continue to pursue that same path. and with that, madam president, i yield the floor. ms. collins: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: madam president, what is are the pending business? the presiding officer: we're in a period of morning business, senator. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to speak for up to

15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise to speak in favor of the cybersecurity information sharing act of 2015. and i urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation. nearly three months ago the senate was unable to find a path forward to adopt this important bill. let's look at what has happened since the time that the senate has refused to proceed. the fact is our country has continued to endure a wave of damaging and expensive cyber attacks. these incidents include the first major hack of apple's

popular app store. the compromise of 15 million t-mobile users due to a breach at experion. the exposure of data of up to 8,000 army families through the improper procedures followed by the general services administration. for the army families that were affected, this sensitive information included medical histories, social security numbers, and child day-care details. today i renew my support for this bill in light of the continuing state of cyber insecurity that affects information held in the public and private sectors. madam president, passing the

cybersecurity information sharing act would make it easier for public and private sector entities to share intieb threat information -- cyber threat information and vulnerabilities in order to lessen the theft of trade secrets, intellectual property, national security information as well as the compromise of sensitive personal information. it would eliminate some of the legal and economic barriers impeding voluntary two-way information sharing between private industry and government. it is a modest but essential first step to protect networks and their information. and, madam president, this bill would not in any way compromise our personal information. its purpose is to help safeguard

our personal information that breach after breach, intieb attack after -- cyber attack after cyber attack has proven to be most vulnerable. while this bill promotes appropriate information sharing between the government and the private sector, a good first step, as i've indicated, it unfortunately does little in its original form to harden the protection of federal networks or to guard the critical infrastructure we rely upon every day. thus, i have introduced two amendments to further strengthen our nation's cybersecurity. the first amendment is directed at improving the security of sensitive personal data that is stored on networks of federal

civilian agencies. the insecurity of federal deabz and networks -- databases and networks has been evident for years. inspector generals reports have warned of it, and yet by and large those calls for action have not been heeded by federal agencies. and certainly the weaknesses in our federal agency's security systems is underscored by recent breaches and intrusions. in june, more than 20 million, 20 million current, former and retired federal employees learned that their personal data were stolen from the poorly secured databases of the office of personnel management. since that time, we've learned that the personal emails of the director of the c.i.a. have been

hacked. we have learned from the state department's inspector general that the state department is, and i quote, among the worst agencies in the federal government at protecting its computer networks -- end quote. this substandard performance at the department of state continued even as an adversary nation breached the department's email system last year. according to the i.g., compliance with federal information security standards remains substandard at the state department. madam president, i know from my many years of service on the homeland security committee where we worked on cybersecurity issues for literally a decade producing legislation in 2010 and 2011 that unfortunately was

not approved by this body, that this problem is of long-standing and it is only growing worse, and we ignore it at our peril. this appalling performance at so many agencies and departments led to my introducing bipartisan legislation with my colleague from virginia, senator warner, senator mikulski, senator coats, senator ayotte and senator mccaskill to strengthen the security of the networks and federal civilian agencies. our bill has five elements, but the most important provision would grant the department of homeland security the security to issue binding operational directives to federal agencies to respond in the face of

substantial breaches or to take action in the face of an imminent threat to a federal network. although the secretary of homeland security is tasked with a very similar responsibility to protect federal civilian networks, he has far less authority to accomplish this responsibility than does the director of the national security agency for the dot.mil networks. we can no longer ignore the damaging consequences of failing to address these issues. our amendment would fortify federal computer works from cyber threats in many ways. the key elements, i am pleased to say, in our bill were incorporated into an amendment that has been filed by senator carper along with the chairman of the homeland security and

governmental affairs committee, senator johnson, senator warner, my chief cosponsor of the bill we introduced and, of course, myself. our amendment has been included in the manager's substitute amendment, and i want to thank chairman burr and vice chairman feinstein for their willingness to include these much-needed provisions to boost the security of the networks at federal civilian agencies. madam president, just think of the kind of data that civilian agencies have in the federal government. whether you're talking about the social security administration or the medicare agency or the i.r.s. or the v.a. or the department of defense, it's

evident that millions of americans, indeed most americans, have personal data, sensitive data like social security numbers that are stored in these networks of federal civilian agencies, and we have an obligation to protect as best we can that data. i've also filed another amendment to the cyber bill, amendment numbered 2623, that is aimed at protecting our country's most vital critical infrastructure from cyber attack. this bipartisan amendment was cosponsored by senator coats, senator warner and senator hirono. madam president, the livelihood and well-being of almost every

american depend upon critical infrastructure that includes the electricity that powers our communities, the national air transportation system that moves passengers and cargo safely from one location to another and the elements of the financial sector that ensures the $14 trillion in payments made every day are scurrile -- securely routed through the banking system. those are just some examples of critical infrastructure. there are obviously many more. our amendment would have created a second tier of mandatory reporter to the government for the fewer than 65 entities identified by the department of homeland security where damage caused by a single cyber attack would likely result in

catastrophic harm in the form of more than $50 billion in economic damage, 2,500 fatalities or a severe degradation of our national security. in other words, madam president, only cyber attacks that could cause catastrophic results would fall under this reporting requirement. for 99% of businesses, the voluntary information sharing framework established in the bill before us will be enough, and the decision on whether or not to share cyber threat information should rightly be left up to them. a second tier of reporting is necessary, however, to protect the critical infrastructure that is vital to the safety, health

and well-being, economic well-being of the american people. under our amendment, the owners and operators of the country's most critical infrastructure would report significant cyber attacks just as incidents of communicable disease outbreaks must be reported to public health authorities and to the centers for disease control and prevention. think about the situations we have here. does it make sense that we require one case of measles to be reported to a federal government agency but not a cyber attack that could result in the death of more than 2,500 people? how does that make sense? the threats to our critical infrastructure are not

hypothetical. they are already occurring at increasing frequency and severity. at a recent armed services committee hearing on cybersecurity, senator donnelly asked the director of national intelligence, jim clapper, what the number one cyber challenge was that he was most concerned about. director clapper testified that obviously, it was a large-scale cyber attack against the united states' infrastructure. in light of this number one threat, how protected is our country? well, i proposed that very question to the director of the n.s.a., admiral mike rogers. his answer on a scale of one to ten was that we are at about a five or six. that is a failing grade when it

comes to protecting critical infrastructure no matter what curve we are grading on. although i am very disappointed that the senate will not consider the original amendment i filed, i do want to acknowledge that chairman burr and vice chairman feinstein have worked closely with me on a compromise to begin to address the issue of cybersecurity risks that present such significant security threats to our critical infrastructure, and i am grateful for their acknowledging that this is a problem that deserves our attention. this new amendment, which is section 407 of the manager's amendment, requires the d.h.s. secretary to conduct an assessment of the fewer than 65

critical infrastructure entities at greatest risk and develop a strategy to mitigate the risks of a catastrophic cyber attack. so, madam president, let me just stress two things -- we're only talking about fewer than 65 entities that have already been designated by the department of homeland security as critical infrastructure where a catastrophic cyber attack would cause terrible consequences. and let me -- second, let me again describe by what we mean by a catastrophic attack. it means a single cyber attack that would likely result in $50 billion in economic damage,

2,500 americans dying or a severe degradation of our national security. we are talking about significant consequences, consequences that would be catastrophic for this country, consequences that we cannot and should not ignore. there are plenty of cyber threats that cannot be discussed in public because they are classified. i know that as a member of the senate intelligence committee. but, in light of the cyber threat to critical infrastructure described by admiral rogers and director of national intelligence clapper in open testimony before the congress, the bear minimum we ought to do is to ask to require

d.h.s. and the appropriate federal agencies to describe to us what more could be done to prevent a catastrophic cyber attack on our critical infrastructure. madam president, i don't want a year or two from now for us to be standing here after a cyber-911 and chaseifiesing ourselves and saying, why didn't we do more to confront an obvious and serious threat to our critical infrastructure? by including these two provisions into the mearption' 1250u9 amendment -- managers' substitute amendment -- stren strengthening the protections for federal civilian agencies, and beginning -- not going nearly a as far as i would like-

but beginning the vital task of protecting our critical infrastructure, we will be strengthening the cyber defenses of our nation. i urge my colleagues to support the managers' amendment and the underlying bill. by passing this long-overdue legislation, we will begin the work, the long-over-yo overdue f securing our economic and national security and our personal information for generations to come. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. madam president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mr. nelson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: i request consent to lift the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: madam president, i am rising today to speak about the takata air bag recall and the continued need for urgency in this area. last week the national highway traffic safety administration announced that they currently had -- now, this figure will just blow your mind -- 19 million vehicles and 23 million air bags under recall. and so far the completion rates

for this recall are not very good. there's a national completion rate of some 22%. appeareand for states like flor, where there is high heat and humidity, that is suspected as part of the reason that the components break down, the completion rate is just under only 30%. meaning that people are not taking their cars in to fix the problem that causes the recall in the first place. now, a takata started running as through the print media and social media, and honda is running ads to get consumers to a dealer to replace their defective air bags. and i'm also aware that to boost

replacement inflaters, three other air bag manufacturers are helping to manufacture them. so i want to take this opportunity, wherever this message can be delivered to consumers, you better take your car, if it's under recall, and get it into the dealer in order to get a replacement air bag. otherwise you are walking around with, in effect, a grenade in the middle of your steering wheel or your dashboard. now, i want to show you, madam president, what this thing is. this is -- i ask consent, madam president, that i be allowed to

show a number of items in the senate to illustrate what i'm talking about about air bags. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: to the members of the senate, this is a deflated air bag that has already been exploded. if you could see, this part is the center of the steering wheel -- in this case, this happens to be a honda; here's the "h" -- and this would be sitting right in front of you in the steering wheel. and, of course, when you have an citizens, if it's of sufficient impact, it's going to cause the air bag to inflate, and this is designed as a lifesaver.

but this is the explosive device inside the air bag, and the gases in there that are ammonium nitrate, the compound in there that is ammonium nitrate, if it is defective, when the explosion occurs, the hot gases that are released from the compound come out through these little holes around the side, and that then inflates this air bag. but p wha what has happened ands caused almost 20 million cars to be recalled is the fact that the

hot gases are exploding in this device with such force that it is causing the metal to break and to come out in the inflated bag with such force, tearing through the bag, as this particular bag has a big hole in it -- well, it's here and i just saw it and now i can't find the hole ... right here. here is the hole that the metal has come out. and what this is doing is it's like a grenade exploding in front of you in your steering

wheel, and it's like shrapnel going into the people that are driving or either in the passenger seat with the dashboard air bag. well, we're finding out now just a few months ago there is the explosion of one of the side air bags in some of the cars in the doors. there are side air bags so that if you get hit from the sierksd yo-- get hit from the side, you get that protection. but lo and behold, that's throwing out shrapnel as well. so i want to show the senate what this is like when these inflaters explode. madam president, this is an inflater inside the device that i just showed you. all right?

this is -- and this is a blowup by the battelle institute for the national highway traffic safety administration. this is a blowup photograph of the inflator starting to inflate, and what it's supposed to do is shoot the gases out here, which inflates that bag that i showed you. but look what's happening. it is being ruptured in the side, throwing out metal. and look what it looks like under very fast photography, that these metal fragments are coming out what otherwise should have been just gas coming out to inflate the bag. and let me show you what one of those pieces of metal looks

like. so that is a shard of metal that is part of that inflator. can you me imagine that thing hitting you in the neck i? well, that's what happened to one of my citizens in florida in the orlando area. she ran into a fender bender in a cross-section at a traffic light, and lo and behold, when the police got there, they found her slumped over the wheel, and the first thing was they thought it was a homicide because her neck was slashed. come to find out, what happened, it was a piece of metal like this that had lacerated her neck

and cut her jugular vein. so, too, another one of my constituents -- a fireman, a big hulking gierkhulking guy, the kl pick you up if you are disabled in a house that's burning down and carryin carry you out safele you -- well, he won't be a fireman anymore because one of those metal fragments hit him in the eye, and he is blind in one eye. and that's just two incidents of some close to scores across the country of which there are a handful of deaths. so if a jagged piece of metal can cause severe injury because

it's coming to you at high spe speed, don't you think if you have one of these vehicles that's under recall you better get it in to your dealer to have it replaced and to check t? and to check to see if your car is under recall -- because sometimes people don't get it in the mail or they don't open the mail -- if you go to www.saf www.safecar.gov -- safecar.goca. put in your car's vehicle identification number, the v.i.n. number, then you can see if your car is on a recall list. now, those that are on the recall list that i mentioned

earlier, unfortunately, they may not be the last that we hear of the recall because "the new york times" has just reported that a study had been commissioned by takata with penn state showing larger issues with the use of ammonium nitrate in the air bag inflators. in addition, there was another incident just this past june where a takata side air bag ruptured in a relatively new 2015 volkswagen, and just a week ago general motors recalled 400 vehicles that may also have defective takata side air bags. and so it raises the question: are any of the takata inflators

safe? last week senator thune and i sent a letter to takata asking for additional documents and information regarding these side air bags. and we also asked more questions about the use of ammonium nitrate. last week also the national highway traffic safety administration announced that it may be considering to expand its recall to all the model year vehicles with any takata air bag. nhtsa must use all of its tools under the law to maximize consumer protection. these potential grenades stored in a steering wheel or dash board must get off the road. the american driving public