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 cannot afford any more wasted

time. and don't we think that these corporations that are causing this outrageous situation that has killed seven people in the united states and severely injured dozens more, don't we think that they ought to be held accountable? if executives at takata knew about their defective products, and if they knew that and did nothing -- or worse, if they covered it up, then they ought to go to jail. not another fine. not another settlement. somebody ought to be going to jail. lying about a danger of this magnitude is a criminal act.

we have a crisis of consumer confidence in the vehicle safety area. certainly that's been demonstrated with these takata air bags. what about general motors misinformation and lack of information and outright deception about the defective ignition switches? and now what about volkswagen's deliberate efforts to lie and to cover up about emissions from its diesel vehicles? a week ago i sent a letter to the chairwoman of the federal trade commission asking them to crack down on volkswagen's unfair and deceptive practices in connection with its clean diesel vehicle claims.

well, today i received a response, and the chairwoman of that commission told me that they are investigating the claims against volkswagen, also investigating along with the department of justice and the environmental protection agency. and in her response, she said -- quote -- "no reasonable consumer would knowingly purchase a vehicle that he or she could not legally drive. i agree. don't we all agree? and so it's time to get tough and to hold these folks and these corporations accountable. madam president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i would ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: madam president, i rise today as a staunch supporter of every american's right to privacy. i rise because like many montanans, i have grave concerns about whether my personal information gets handed over to the government. so as the senate debates the

cybersecurity information sharing act, i start by acknowledging the inherent conflict between the right to privacy and national security. some folks want to pretend that this conflict doesn't exist, but it does. ask yourself this -- how do we stop cyberterrorists from crashing our networks, stealing our personal information and throwing our economy, our entire economy into a tailspin, an economy that is dependent on technology? how do we do this without violating your right to privacy and mine? how do we do this without giving the federal government far-reaching authority to share personal information of law-abiding citizens. these are tough questions that require thoughtful answers. and i do believe that we can answer them. i do believe that we can strike a balance that protects our

right to privacy and protects our nation from threats. and that's why i want to offer my support for a couple of amendments sponsored by my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. the first amendment from senators flake and franken provides a necessary six-year sunset for this legislation. that means that in six years, congress will be forced to have another conversation about how we ensure every american's right to privacy while ensuring our national security. these conversations are incredibly important, and we should revisit them often. we should revisit them be often because we know that a government unchecked is dangerous. in a world where technology changes faster than our laws, we cannot and must not give

corporations and the federal government unbridled authority for generations to come. we already know that several federal agencies have engaged in invasive surveillance of law-abiding americans. they have utilized intrusive monitoring techniques, tracking our phone calls, listening to our conversations, gathering storehouses of personal information. and they've done it in the name of the patriot act. one of the worst pieces of legislation ever to come out of this body. it took a long time for those agencies to own up to the fact that certain operations were far bigger in scope than what they had led congress or the american public to believe. the best thing that we can do to try to prevent the repeat of those mistakes is to pass the amendment offered by my good friend, senator wyden. this amendment would improve cybersecurity and better protect privacy by reducing the amount

of unnecessary personal information that would be shared about a possible cybersecurity threat. it seems like common sense to me, and i certainly appreciate senator wyden championing this issue. as members of congress, we all took an oath to the people of this nation to protect them from enemies both foreign and domestic, and we should not give up our ability to check and balance this administration or for that matter the next one. that is why the flake-franken amendment and the wyden amendment are so critical, and i would urge my colleagues to support them when they come to the floor. with that, madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: and, madam president, i ask to be recognized for such time as i shall consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: you know, i came back today and really had good news. it was good news over the weekend. i think a lot of the people have gotten together on both sides in the house and the senate, and you do what we're supposed to be doing. you know, i've offered treeferredz tharearedreferredtod the constitution.

there are two things we're supposed to be doing here. one is defending america and the other is building roads and bridges. that's what we are supposed to be doing here. and you've heard me say before that my top priority as clean -s chairman of the environment and public works committee is the -- and continues to be passing a long-term highway reauthorization bill. the last one we passed was 2005. i was proud to be the author of it at that time. it expired the end of 200 the. -- it expired the end of 2009. since that time we have not had anything but short-term extensions. i have to remind my friends that the conservative position is to have a long-term reauthorization bill. because the short-terms cost about 30% off the top. now, as a result, the industry's takindustry'sstakeholders have y to maintain and advance our

surface transportation infrastructure. the ranking member, barbara bomb boxer, and i have been fighting to change this and reverse the trend of wasteful short-term patches for a long period of time. on june 2 24-rbgs our committee -- and this is very unusual for this to happen -- our committee unanimously voted to advance the drive act, ways six hft yea sixr reauthorization bill. the senate gave authorization by a tw 2-1 majority. this is not something that happens with a major piece of legislation. also included contributions from the senate commerce committee and the senate banking committee. it is not just the environment and public works committee. it is the other committees that have parts of this legislation also. the senate worked hard and across party lines to put forward a solution for our nation's roads and bridges.

we passed another short-term patch in order to give the house more time to join oiforts. unfortunately, we are now three days away from facing another cliff and the two chambers have not yet been able to conference a long-term transportation solution. but i just talked to chairman schuster of the house shall the house transportation and infrastructure committee. and they marked up a six-year reauthorization bill just this last thursday. and i'm proud to see that both chambers are on similar pages. both bills recognize the need for a national freight program. we approach it a little bit different listen than each other. environmental streamlining, both bills are doing that. we place a new focus on innovation, provide states with flexibility. i know that in my state of oklahoma we give the flexibility to the states. we get a lot more done.

this idea that no good ideas are put to work unless they ornl nate in washington is just not -- unless they originate in washington is just not true. also the long-term sternts that is there that we are -- certainty that is there that i e are concerned with. it is my understanding that the house intends to move chairman shuster's six-year reauthorization bill through the full house over the next two weeks. i just talked to him a few minutes asmght unlike in years past, i expect a very short conference period. and because we still face this important process, congress will need one more extension to get us to the finish line. the finish line should be the 20th of november, and it can be done, and i don't see any -- and by the way, when i say a very short knches period, it is because there's very little difference between the house bill and the senate bill.

so -- and i have a talked to the likely conferees, they're in accord with us being able to do this within a matter of hours, not days. i realize there are a lot of moving discussions on larger deals on the debt limit and budget caps. however, there is agreement that the surface transportation bill can and will move on its own time line. the house will move a short-term extension to november 20 this week. the ones that i've talked to have assured me that's going to happen. i hope the senate passes it quickly so the house can move the t.n.i.-reported bill on the floor and we can move to conference. you don'due to similarity in bo, i am hopeful we should have this on the president's desk by thingthanksgiving. we are going to be faced with two significant hurdles. first, congress has other pressing deadlines to address in december to include december 11

when legislative fund of the federal government expires and december 31 when a host of important tax provisions will expire and another december 31 deed line would be the provisions of the national defense authorization act. i can remember in years past when we got dangerously close to december 31, and one time is when the big four had to take it and it was not even a product of the committees. i was one of the big four, and we were able to pass it and we came so close to december 31, it was scary. here we are in the middle of a bunch of wars, and all of a sudden you would have provisions out there, re-enlistment bonuses, hazard pay and things that would expire. iing into would be worse worse o have our kids in combat facing that. some of the solutions for these

bills could result i fear in members attempts to siphon off the payoffs of the drive act. that's why this is important. the second significant hurdle we face is that later this year the highway trust fund will drop to a dangerously low level, as dots secretary fox has warned, at that point agencies at the federal and state level will begin to implement tash management procedures that is significantly affect the state's construction seasons. in sum, we would lose in the gart of the united states a construction season in such states and iowa and the northern states. now, mark my words, failure for congress to enact a long-term billing by thanksgiving would result in a loss of a 2015 construction season. congress would return to its curntd pattern of -- current pattern of short-term extensions. they siphon about 30% off the top. it's a terrible outcome that

should be avoided at all costs. and we have the opportunity to do it now. by making industry and states continue to hold their breath and budgets, we rob taxpayers of cost-efficient project planning and continue to stall on launching major economy-boosting projects. look at my state of oklahoma, which lost $63 million in construction dollars over the last few years as a direct result at efficiency and contracting uncertainty that comes from short-term extensions. i've used that figure of 30% off the top to some of my conservative friends. i said if you oppose a long-term extension, a long-term reauthorization bill, then you're saying you want to have the liberal alternative, which is to lose 30% off the top. now, with a fully funded long-term reauthorization, oklahoma would actually see a savings of $122 million and millions more in efficiency savings from long-term

commitments and early completion savings from contracts. this is something a lot of people don't realize. the streamline you get, the -- many of the nepa requirements, the requirements, environmental requirements can be offset if you're able to get to a long-term bill. but you can't do it -- you can't start any large projects, none of these big projects -- the bridge projects and others, you can't do on short-term extensions. so we haven't had an authorization bill since 2005, and i believe it's time for congress to fulfill its constitutional duty to fix our roads and our bridges. as i stated earlier, i'm confident the senate and house will work together to get this bill to the president's desk within the next few weeks. it's my wish my counterpart on the house side, shuster, the best of luck in moving forward. he's going to get this done.

he kept his word in getting the job done last thursday and now he's going to be able to get this bill up so that we can conference it together. i anticipate we can do a conference in a matter of just a few hours. it wouldn't take the normal time. so, that's good news. it's good news to come back on a monday and find we're going to be doing what the constitution says we ought to be doing. that is roads and bridges. with that, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, i rise to take a moment to congratulate the newly elected -- the newly confirmed district judge for the western district of new york, larry vilardo. he is from the western district. it could not come too soon, madam president because the western district has been working without a single sitting federal judge. that will finally change now that mr. vilardo has been confirmed. he can now begin to hear cases and tackle the backlog that's been steadily building in the

western district. and there are few more qualified to help take on this task than larry vilardo. that's because, madam president, mr. vilardo is a classic buff low -- buffalo man. he went to kenishis college, took a detour to attend harvard law school and clerk on the fifth circuit court in texas. he then practiced at a firm he cofounded. buffalo is where he was born, raised and educated, where he chose to raise his family. buffalo is in his bones. when he was nominated i heard the voices chanting vilardo, vilardo, vilardo. not just the legal community but about the whole community. like so many other people from the region, the city made him tough, levelheaded, fair and decent and is the first in his family to graduate from college,

he adds an important element to the socioeconomic diversity of the court. the people of the western district are incredibly lucky to have larry vilardo on the bench. i congratulate larry vilardo on this milestone of his career. thank you. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon.

mr. wyden: i would ask unanimous consent to vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. if the senator would withhold. morning business is now closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, lawrence joseph vilardo of new york to be united states district judge for the western district. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be up to 30 minutes of debate. the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 20 minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. it is so ordered. mr. wyden: mr. president, tomorrow we will be turning to the cybersecurity bill which my colleague, the president of the senate, is familiar with as a member of the committee, and i'd like to speak about my amendment, numbered 2621, to that legislation, and i also intend to address the amendment of our colleague, senator

franken, our colleague, senator heller, and our colleague, senator coons, because i believe all four of these amendments seek to achieve the same goal. and that goal, the goal of all four of these amendments, is to reduce the unnecessary sharing of americans' private and personal information. now, the senate has had a robust debate over the cybersecurity bill over the past week, and i think it's fair to say that senators agree on a fair number of points. for example, the sponsors of the legislation have now acknowledged that the cybersecurity bill we will shortly vote on would not have prevented sophisticateed cyber attacks like the target and home depot hacks, and it would not have prevented the theft of millions of personnel records at

the office of management and budget. as for my part, i agree that sharing information about cybersecurity threats is generally a constructive idea. if private companies identify samples of malicious code or information that identifies foreign hackers, i would absolutely encourage them to share that information. however, i think companies should also take reasonable steps -- i underline reasonable steps -- to remove unrelated personal information about their customers before sharing that data with the government. it is important to understand that this legislation simply does not require companies to do that, and senators can see that for themselves. if you turn to page 17 of the

bill, companies there are allowed to conduct only a cursory review of the information they provide and would only be required to remove data that they know is personal information unrelated to cybersecurity. when it comes to customers' personal information, the message behind this bill is when in doubt, hand it over. and once that data is shared -- and this is not widely known, mr. president -- the department of homeland security would be required to send it on to a broad range of government agencies from the n.s.a. to the f.b.i. the amendment that i've offered to the legislation we'll vote on tomorrow would give companies a real responsibility for safeguarding their customers' information. it would say that for that

company to receive liability protection before a company shares data with the government, it has to make efforts to the extent feasible to remove any personal information that is not necessary to identify or describe a cybersecurity threat. in my view, that would give this legislation a straightforward standard that could give consumers real confidence that their privacy is actually being protected. let me give an example of how this might work in practice. imagine that a health insurance company finds out that millions of its customers' records have been stolen. if that company has any evidence about who the hackers were or how they stole this information, of course it makes sense to share that information with the government, but the companies

shouldn't simply say well, here you go and hand millions of its customers financial and medical records over for distribution to a broad array of government agencies such as the f.b.i. and the n.s.a. the records of the victims of a hack should not be treated the same way that information about the hacker is treated. companies should be required to make reasonable efforts to remove personal information that is not needed for cybersecurity before they hand that information over to the government. that in short is what my amendment seeks to achieve. now, the sponsors of the legislation have argued that my amendment would somehow hold companies to an almost impossible standard. i would say respectfully that the language of this amendment

is quite measured. companies are required to remove unrelated personal information and the legislation specifically states this, to the extent feasible. the language certainly doesn't require perfection. it creates a reasonable and flexible approach for companies to make a real effort to remove unrelated personal information about their customers instead of simply performing the sort of cursory review that would be permitted under the current language of the bill. now, a quick reading through the list of the pending amendments to the bill will make it clear that i am not the only member of this body who is concerned about the unnecessary sharing of personal information. our colleague from nevada, senator heller, has a similar amendment that would seek to create a stronger requirement

for companies to remove personal information. our colleague from delaware, senator coons, has crafted a very constructive amendment that will strengthen the requirement for review by the department of homeland security. his amendment would create a stronger obligation for the homeland security department to filter out unnecessary personal information before passing cybersecurity data on to other parts of our government. senator franken as well has drafted a strong amendment that would clarify the bill's definition of cybersecurity threat information to ensure that it focuses on information about real threats. it's important to remember that reducing unnecessary sharing of personal information will make any information sharing program more effective and make it easier to focus on the genuine

threats involved. finally, our colleagues, senator flake from arizona has drafted an amendment that would require the congress to come back and review this information sharing approach after six years. so as to evaluate how it's worked in practice and whether privacy protections ought to be strengthened. in my view, mr. president, each of these amendments -- and i have cited amendments by democrats and i've cited amendments by republicans. the president of the senate knows i feel strongly about working in a bipartisan way whenever i possibly can, and that's why i thought it was important to mention as we go to these amendments that all of these amendments that i have described have sought to ensure that this body would make it clear that cybersecurity is a problem, a very real problem. cybersecurity in terms of

tackling it when it involves information sharing can be very constructive, and we ought to try to find ways to do it, but each of these amendments is designed to make sure that when americans hear about cybersecurity legislation, my colleague and i have discussed it, we don't have millions of americans walking away and saying they're sharing all this unnecessary personal and unrelated information. i guess it's another one of those surveillance kind of bills. we don't want that here. we want bills that are bipartisan, that deal with very real threats and certainly cybersecurity is one of them. but we also want to make sure that the rights of innocent people are protected, as these amendments would do, by ensuring that we have more than a cursory approach to filtering out unrelated and personal information. so it's my judgment,

mr. president, that each of these amendments would be significant improvements to the bill, and i hope my colleagues will support all of them as well as an amendment by our colleague from vermont, senator leahy, that would real estate move unnecessary modification of the freedom of information act. now let me close, mr. president, by saying it is not just senators -- and i have listed both democrats and republicans tonight. it is not just democrats and republicans in this body who've raised concerns about this bill's inadequate privacy protections. privacy advocacy groups from the american library association to the oregon technology institute have come out against the bill. america's leading technology companies, companies that have to have expertise in both cybersecurity and protecting the data of our customers, have

opposed it as well, companies like apple, dropbox, twitter, sales force, reddi thank you. , and yelp have all said they oppose the legislation because it does not include adequate privacy protections. the trade association that represents google and amazon, facebook, microsoft, yahoo, netflix, and paypal said, "cis "cisa's prescribed mechanism for sharing of cyber threat information does not sufficiently protect users' privacy." now, reflect, if we might, for a minute, mr. president, on what that means. these are america's leading technology companies. they are advantage america because they are the envy of the world for their innovation and

their way of serving, you know, customers and businesses, not just in this country but around the world. these companies that have millions and millions of customers and have spoken out publicly against the bill in its current form before these, you know, amendments are considered, they sure know a lot about the importance of protecting both cybersecurity and individual privacy. the reason i say that is they have to manage that challenge each and every day. customer confidence is the lifeblood of these companies, and the only way to ensure customer confidence is to convince customers that if they use your product, their information is going to be protected, both from malicious hackers and from unnecessary collection by our government.

last thursday a coalition of america's leading consumer groups basically joined those major technology companies in announcing their opposition to the bill. they endorsed the pending consumer privacy amendments, including the amendment that i will offer, 2621. so i hope colleagues, in conclusion, mr. president, will listen to what these technology groups and companies have said and i hope that our colleagues will support the amendments that i and others, both democrats and republicans, will be offering tomorrow. let's work together to produce a bill that does a better job of dealing both with real cyber threats and the liberties of the american people. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor, and i note, mr. president, the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mccain: further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended? the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent automatic time be yielded back. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: and, mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a significant -- sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: