mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i rise today to speak against cloture on the substitute. this substitute would not have stopped the target hack, the anthem hack, the home depot hack, or the o.p.m. hack. but when it comes to real privacy protection for millions of americans, with this substitute there is simply no "there" there. the and you see that, mr. president, by looking at page 17 of the substitute. "companies only have to remove personal, unrelated information if they know that it is personal and unrelated." how would they know under this amendment? under this amendment, they're required to virtually do no looking. it is the most cursory review. and that's why, mr. president, the nation's leading technology companies have come out overwhelmingly against this legislation and are not satisfied by this substitute. now, the sponsors of the bill have been pretty vociferous about attacking these companies for coming out against the

mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: before he leaves the floor i want to commend my colleague from nevada. mr. president and colleagues, the first vote that we will have at 11:00 is on my amendment 2621. this amendment, colleagues, is supported by a wide variety of leaders across the political spectrum, progressive voices that have focused on cybersecurity and privacy as well as conservative organizations. freedom works, for example, an important conservative organization, announced last night that they will consider the privacy amendment that i will be offering. it will be the first vote, a key vote on their congressional score card. and it was the view of freedom works that this amendment, the first vote, would add crucial privacy protections to this legislation. the point of the first amendment we'll vote on, mr. president, is to strengthen privacy protections by requiring that companies make reasonable efforts to remove unrelated personal information about their customers before providing data to the governmen

feinstein, for mr. wyden, proposes an amendment numbered 2621, as modified, to amendment numbered 2716. mr. burr: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: madam president, as the vice chair and i said numerous -- i have said numerous times this afternoon, nothing would make us happier than for members to come to the floor. we've got amendments pending. we've got a manager' amendment amendment -- a managers' amendment. everybody knows exactly what's in this bill. let's start the debate, let's vote on amendments, let's end this process in a matter of days. we're prepared to vote on every amendment. so at this time, i would ask unanimous consent that on thursday, october 22, at 11:00 a.m., the senate vote on the pending amendments to the burr-feinstein substitute to s. 754, with a 60-vote threshold. for those amendments that are not germane. and that following the disposition of the amendments, the substitute, as amended, if amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, b

mr. wyden: mr. president, yesterday, chairman hatch and i began imagining this legislation on the floor of this distinguished body. it seems to me speaking for more than a couple of minutes at this point would just be excessive. but i think i want to summarize what the central question is at this late hour. it would be fair to say that we have spirited debates here, and fiscal battles that play out in this chamber take place at virtually every news cycle and certainly with every election. that's as it should be. that ensures that we have the vigorous debate about important issues that the founding fathers wanted this senate to be part of, but that must never endanger the sterling economic reputation that our country has built over the generations, and passing this legislation in my view helps to preserve that reputation. with this bipartisan legislation, it is possible to avert a catastrophic default and a mindless sequester which would give an opportunity that the president of the senate and i care

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

mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: before my colleague, the distinguished chairman of our intelligence committee, and i'm always thinking about the history of the committee. i believe chairman burr, ranking minority member senator feinstein and i have been on the intelligence committee almost as long as anybody in history, so i always like to work with my colleague. this is an area where we have a difference of opinion. i'm going to try to outline what that is and still try to describe how we might be able to work it out. mr. burr: i thank my colleague. i think he diplomatically referred to me as old, but i know that wasn't the case. he's exactly right. we have served on -- served a long time. most issues we agree on. this is one we disagree on, but we do it in a genuine diplomatic way, and contrary to maybe the image that some portray to the american people, we fight during the day and we can have a drink or go to dinner at night, and we're just as likely to work on a piece of legislation together next week. so

mr. wyden: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, today we're kicking off a debate on major bipartisan legislation. chairman hatch and i are also involved in an important senate finance committee hearing. he will be here a little bit later. i would ask unanimous consent that our colleague, senator durbin from illinois, be allowed to speak after i do. i believe that his remarks will also be completed before chairman hatch arrives. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: thank you very much, mr. president. and chairman hatch and i will be managing this bill. and we also would like to say to colleagues that we're anxious to have everyone have an opportunity to speak out on this extraordinarily important issue. and if they come down and consult with the finance staff, the majority and minority in our respective cloakrooms, we're going to work very hard to accommodate all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. here in my view, mr. president, is what this issue is all about. fiscal battles in the congress com

mr. wyden: mr. president, the senate is now going to consider a bipartisan budget agreement, and i believe it's important to pass that bipartisan effort to avoid catastrophic default and to put an end to the mindless sequestration and pass funding to keep the government open. regrettably, because i often agree with my friend from kentucky and we team up on so many issues, the request to take up the cut, cap, and balance legislation is a step in the wrong direction. when you push for cut, cap, and balance in this context, you're really pushing for default and recession and joblessness because that is what all of the independent financial authorities tell us is what's ahead if we don't act here in the united states senate. the desire to set aside what we're working on and pursue this other legislation is specifically an approach that would throw aside the bipartisan agreement before the senate. this bipartisan effort is exactly the kind of bipartisan work where democrats and republicans come together

mr. wyden: mr. president, the senate is now going to consider a bipartisan budget agreement, and i believe it's important to pass that bipartisan effort to avoid catastrophic default and to put an end to the mindless sequestration and pass funding to keep the government open. regrettably, because i often agree with my friend from kentucky and we team up on so many issues, the request to take up the cut, cap, and balance legislation is a step in the wrong direction. when you push for cut, cap, and balance in this context, you're really pushing for default and recession and joblessness because that is what all of the independent financial authorities tell us is what's ahead if we don't act here in the united states senate. the desire to set aside what we're working on and pursue this other legislation is specifically an approach that would throw aside the bipartisan agreement before the senate. this bipartisan effort is exactly the kind of bipartisan work where democrats and republicans come together

mr. wyden: mr. president, i want to thank my colleague, senator merkley, the son of douglas county, and just reflect for a few minutes on the horrendous events of the last week. and my colleague has eloquently talked about the victims, and i'm grateful for that. i want to talk for a few moments, senator merkley and i will be returning home tomorrow. i want to talk a little bit about what was inspiring last friday. my colleague and i and our colleague from the house, congressman defazio, we went to mercy medical center and we saw all of the staff, and my own sense is that there's no way that you really can prepare for something like this. you can go through as many training programs, have as many drills, have as many handbooks as anybody can invent, but you're never really prepared for it. and when senator merkley and i and our colleague from the other body, congressman defazio, we walked into that meeting -- i think there were probably 150 staff there -- i said, this is the face of douglas county. t

senator wyden. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i appreciate you pointing out this question of the tax preparers because this is another area you and i have worked on in a bipartisan fashion with all our colleagues. on the question of however the 501 c-4 rules because this is an area where there's been spirited debate, i think it is very much in the public interest that the agency clarify the rules for americans to follow in elections. and i would urge you, as i did in my opening statement, to work with us on a bipartisan basis. you've heard me say that a couple of times this morning. that's what's so important if you're going to come up with a approach that's substantively right and sustainable. so i urge you to do that and to work closely with us. chairman grassley and i, commissioner koskinen, have been following these new reports about the question of the irs cell phone tracking. the irs obtained and received training for hailstorm cell site simulator, a device that connects metadata from phones that connect to it. this comes o

mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator wyden.day's witness is the honorable john koskinen the 48th commissioner of the internal revenue service. he was confirmed to this position in december 2013. prior to his appointment to lead thee irs he served at freddie mc where he served as the acting chief executive officer. before that time the commissioner held various high-profile positions in public service including president of the u.s. soccer foundation, deputy mayor of the district of columbia, deputy director for management at the office of management and budget and president clinton's chair of the president's council on year 2000 conversion. the commissioner also spent more than two decades in the private sector including time as ceo and chairman of the palnieri company. he has a law degree from yale university school of law and a bachelor's degree from duke university so we welcome you back to the senate finance committee, commissioner. and we want to thank you once again for being here today. so, you can proceed with your open

with that, i'll turn to our distinguished co-chairman, senator wyden for his opening remarks. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. in early august, the finance committee released the final report on the bipartisan inquiry we undertook to examine the irs' processing of applications for tax exempt status. our investigation looked back at the period between 2010 and 2013. the committee reviewed 1.5 million pages of e-mails and documents and conducted interviews with more than 30 irs officials. the finance committee inquiry colleagues was the only bipartisan inquiry on either side of capitol hill. what we found on a bipartisan basis was alarming bureaucratic dysfunction. many applicants for tax exempt status were treated badly. for example, between 2010 and late 2011 a total of 290 applications for tax exempt status had been set aside for review. only two applications had been resolved successfully. not 200. two. that was unacceptable mismanagement. the investigation, however, did not find any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. chairman hatch and i both took time to speak about our views on the senate floor

mr. franken: thank you, madam president. franken-leahy-durbin-wyden amendment addresses concerns raised by privacy advocates, tech companies and security experts. the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: my amendment addresses concerns raised by privacy advocates, tech companies and security experts, including the department of homeland security. the amendment tightens definitions of the terms "cybersecurity threat," and "cyber threat indicator," which are currently too broad and too vague and would encourage the sharing of extraneous information, unhelpful information. overbreadth isn't just a privacy problem. as d.h.s. has noted, it is bad for cybersecurity if too much the wrong kind of information floods into agencies. my amendment redefines cybersecurity threat as an action that is at least reasonably likely to triad versely impact an information -- to try to adversely impact an information company. and it ensures that there is appropriate

wyden? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i appreciate you pointing out this question of the tax preparers because this is another area that you and i have worked on in a bipartisan fashion with all of our colleagues. on the question, however, the 501-c4 rules because this is an area where there has, let's say, been spirited debate. i think it is very much in the public interest that the agency clarify the rules for americans to follow in elections. and i would urge you as i did in my opening statement to work with us on a bipartisan basis. you've heard me say that a couple of times this morning. that's what's so important if you're going to come up with an approach that's substantively right and sustainable, so i urge you to do that and work closely with us. chairman grassley and i, commissioner koskinen, has been following the news reports about the question of the irs cell phone tracking and the press reported yesterday that the irs obtained and received training for hailstorm cell site simulator, a device which works by m

mr. franken:ty. madam president, tomorrow we'll vote on my amendment to the cybersecurity information-sharing act or cisa. i am a proud to be joined on this amendment by senators leahy, durbin, and wyden, each of whom have has worked to try toto ensure that any cyber legislation passed by this body is effective and adequately safeguards the privacy and civil liberties of the american people. my amendment tightens the definitions of the terms "cybersecurity threat" and cyber threat indicator" in the bill. these changes will help ensure that cisa's broad authorities are not triggered in circumstances where no real cyber threats are present. this makes the bill more privacy-protective and more likely to work effective i.ly. the amendment is supported by more thank 30 -- more than 30 civil society organizations from the american civil liberties union to prominent libertarian groups like our street. as i'll describe it, it addresses specific concerns that have been raised by security experts, major tech companies, and even the department of homeland security. under cisa, companies are authorized to monitor users' online, sharing information with one another and with the federal government

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 legisl