[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 125 (Tuesday, August 4, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6263-S6270]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   CYBERSECURITY INFORMATION SHARING ACT OF 2015--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank my friend from 
Florida, Senator Nelson, for allowing me to speak for 5 minutes. I ask 
unanimous consent that he be recognized immediately following me--not 
the Senator from New Mexico, the Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 754, the 
Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act. I want to thank my colleagues 
Chairman Burr and Vice Chairman Feinstein for their leadership on this 
critically important legislation. This bill, of which I am an original 
cosponsor, was overwhelmingly approved by a 14-to-1 vote in the Senate 
Select Committee on Intelligence in March.
  Enacting legislation to confront the accumulating dangers of cyber 
threats must be among the highest national security priorities of the 
Congress. Cyber attacks on our Nation have become disturbingly common. 
More recently, it was the Office of Personnel Management. A few weeks 
before that, it was the Pentagon network, the White House, and the 
State Department. Before that it was Anthem and Sony--just to name a 
few. The status quo is unacceptable, and Congress needs to do its part 
in passing this legislation. But the President, as our Nation's 
Commander in Chief, must also do his part to deter the belligerence of 
our adversaries in cyber space.
  The threats from China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran--not to mention 
the aspirations of terrorist organizations like ISIL and Al Qaeda--are 
steadily growing in number and severity. And our national security 
leadership has warned us repeatedly that we could face a cyber attack 
against our Nation's critical infrastructure in the not too distant 
future. I believe our response to such an attack, or lack thereof, 
could define the future of warfare.
  To date, the U.S. response to cyber attacks has been tepid at best, 
and nonexistent at worst. Unless and until

[[Page S6264]]

the President uses the authorities he has to deter, defend, and respond 
to the growing number and severity of cyber attacks, we will risk not 
just more of the same but emboldened adversaries and terrorist 
organizations that will continuously pursue more severe and destructive 
cyber attacks.
  As ADM Mike Rogers, the commander of U.S. Cyber Command, told 
listeners at the Aspen Security Forum a couple weeks ago, ``to date 
there is little price to pay for engaging in some pretty aggressive 
behaviors.'' According to James Clapper, the Director of National 
Intelligence, ``we will see a progression or expansion of that envelope 
until such time as we create both a substance and psychology of 
deterrence. And today we don't have that.''
  According to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General 
Dempsey, our military enjoys ``a significant military advantage'' in 
every domain except for one--cyber space. As General Dempsey said, 
cyber ``is a level playing field. And that makes this chairman very 
uncomfortable.'' Efforts are currently underway to begin addressing 
some of our strategic shortfalls in cyber space, including the training 
of a 6,200-person cyber force. However, these efforts will be 
meaningless unless we make the tough policy decisions to establish 
meaningful cyber deterrence. The President must take steps now to 
demonstrate to our adversaries that the United States takes cyber 
attacks seriously and is prepared to respond.
  This legislation before us is one piece of that overall deterrent 
strategy, and it is long past time that Congress move forward on 
information sharing legislation. The voluntary information sharing 
framework in this legislation is critical to addressing these threats 
and ensuring that the mechanisms are in place to identify those 
responsible for costly and crippling cyber attacks and, ultimately, 
deter future attacks.
  Many of us have spent countless hours crafting and debating cyber 
legislation back to 2012. Mr. President, 2012 was the last time we 
attempted to pass major cyber legislation. This body has come a long 
way since that time. We understand that we cannot improve our cyber 
posture by shackling the private sector, which operates the majority of 
our country's critical infrastructure, with government mandates. As I 
argued at that time, heavyhanded regulations and government bureaucracy 
will do more harm than good in cyber space. The voluntary framework in 
this legislation represents the progress we have made in defining the 
role of the private sector and the role of the government in sharing 
threat information, defending networks, and deterring cyber attacks.
  This legislation also complements actions we have taken in the 
National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, currently in conference 
with the House. As chairman of the Armed Services Committee, cyber 
security is one of my top priorities. That is why the NDAA includes a 
number of critical cyber provisions designed to ensure the Department 
of Defense has the capabilities it needs to deter aggression, defend 
our national security interests, and, when called upon, defeat our 
adversaries in cyber space.
  The NDAA authorizes the Secretary of Defense to develop, prepare, 
coordinate, and, when authorized by the President, conduct a military 
cyber operation in response to malicious cyber activity carried out 
against the United States or a United States person by a foreign power. 
The NDAA also authorizes $200 million for the Secretary of Defense to 
assess the cyber vulnerabilities of every major DOD weapons system. 
Finally, Congress required the President to submit an integrated policy 
to deter adversaries in cyber space in the fiscal year 2014 NDAA. We 
are still waiting on that policy, and this year's NDAA includes funding 
restrictions that will remain in place until it is delivered.
  Every day that goes by, I fear our Nation grows more vulnerable, our 
privacy and security are at greater risk, and our adversaries are 
further emboldened. These are the stakes, and that is why it is 
essential that we come together and pass the Cybersecurity Information 
Sharing Act.
  Mr. President, I thank again my friend from Florida, who is a valued 
member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, for his indulgence to 
allow me to speak. I thank my colleague.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                      Nuclear Agreement With Iran

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I rise to announce my decision on the 
Iranian nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
  This decision of mine comes after considerable study of the issue--as 
have our colleagues in the Senate taken this quite seriously. I have 
talked with folks on all sides of the issue. These include colleagues 
as well as constituents. It includes experts on the Middle East and 
Central Asia, arms control experts, foreign allies, and, as we say in 
my constituency, it includes just plain folks. I want to say that 
Secretary Moniz, a nuclear physicist, has been especially helpful.
  Needless to say, I wish that the three Americans jailed in Iran and 
Bob Levinson, a former FBI agent missing in Iran for 8 years, had been 
a part of an agreement--of this agreement--to return them. The Levinson 
family in Florida is anxious for information and help to return Bob. 
This is personal for me.
  I am a strong supporter of Israel, and I recognize that country as 
one of America's most important allies. I am committed to the 
protection of Israel as the best and right foreign policy for the 
United States and our allies.
  I am blessed to represent Florida, which also has among our citizens 
a strong and vibrant Jewish community, including many Holocaust 
survivors and Holocaust victims' families, some of whom I have worked 
with to help them get just compensation from European insurance 
companies that turned their backs on them after World War II and would 
not honor their insurance claims.
  In our State we are also proud to have a Floridian, a former U.S. and 
Miami Beach resident, as the Israeli Ambassador to the United States. 
Ambassador Ron Dermer grew up in Miami Beach. His father and brother 
are former mayors. He is someone I have enjoyed getting to know and 
have had several conversations with over the years and recently spent 
time talking to him about his opposition to this joint agreement.
  I acknowledge that this has been one of the most important 
preparations and will be one of the most important votes that I will 
cast in the Senate because the foreign and defense policy consequences 
are both huge for the United States and our allies.
  Unless there is an unexpected change in the conditions and facts 
before the vote is called in September--and it will be called on the 
very first day that we return in September--unless there is an 
unexpected change, I will support the nuclear agreement between Iran 
and the P5+1--which are the United States, the UK, France, Russia, 
China, and Germany--because I am convinced it will stop Iran from 
developing a nuclear weapon for at least the next 10 to 15 years. No 
other available alternative accomplishes this vital objective.
  The goal of this almost 2-year negotiation--culminated in this deal--
was to deny Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This objective has 
been fulfilled in the short term. For the next 10 years, Iran will 
reduce its centrifuges--the machines that enrich the uranium--by two-
thirds. They will go from more than 19,000 centrifuges to 6,000. Only 
5,000 of those will be operating, all at Natanz, all the most basic 
models. The deeply buried Fordow facility will be converted to a 
research lab. No enrichment can occur there, and no fissile material 
can be stored there. For the next 15 years, Iran's stockpile of low-
enriched uranium--which currently amounts to 12,000 kilograms; enough 
for 10 bombs--will be reduced by 98 percent, to only 300 kilograms. 
Research and development into advanced centrifuges will also be 
limited. Taken together, these constraints will lengthen the time it 
would take for Iran to produce the highly enriched uranium for one 
bomb--the so-called breakout time. It will lengthen it from 2 to 3 
months that they could break out now to more than 1 year. That is more 
than enough time to detect and, if necessary, stop Iran from racing to 
a bomb.
  Iran's ability to produce a bomb using plutonium will also be blocked 
under this deal. The Arak reactor--which as currently constructed could 
produce enough plutonium for one to

[[Page S6265]]

two bombs every year--will be redesigned to produce no weapons-grade 
plutonium. And Iran will have to ship out the spent fuel from the 
reactor forever.
  Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968, in which 
they agreed they would not pursue nuclear weapons. Iran has reaffirmed 
this principle in this joint agreement. Iran also says they want to 
eventually make low-grade nuclear fuel, as other NPT-compliant nations 
do, in order to produce electricity. If they comply, they will 
eventually be allowed to do so under this joint agreement. Our 
expectation is that in 15 years, when Iran can lift the limit of 300 
kilograms of low-enriched uranium, if they have not cheated, they will 
continue to abide by their NPT obligations and use their fuel only for 
electricity and medical isotopes. If they deviate from those civilian 
purposes, then harsh economic sanctions will result, and, very 
possibly, U.S. military action.
  The world will be a very different place in 10 to 15 years. If we can 
buy this much time, instead of Iran developing a nuclear bomb in the 
near future, then that is reason enough for me to vote to uphold this 
agreement. If the United States walks away from this multinational 
agreement, then I believe we would find ourselves alone in the world 
with little credibility, but there are many more reasons to support 
this agreement.
  The opponents of the agreement say that war is not the only 
alternative to the agreement. Indeed, they, as articulated by the 
Israeli Ambassador, say we should oppose the agreement by refusing to 
lift congressional economic sanctions, and the result will be that the 
international sanctions will stay in place, that Iran will continue to 
feel the economic pinch, and therefore Iran will come back to the table 
and negotiate terms more favorable to the United States and our allies.
  If the United States kills the deal that most of the rest of the 
world is for, there is no question in this Senator's mind that the 
sanctions will start to erode, and they may collapse altogether. We 
just had a meeting with all the P5+1 Ambassadors to the United States, 
and they reaffirmed that exact fact. Sanctions rely on more than just 
the power of the U.S. economy, they depend on an underlying political 
consensus in support of a common objective. China, Russia, and many 
other nations eager to do business with Iran went along with our 
economic sanctions because they believed they were a temporary cost to 
pay until Iran agreed to a deal to limit their nuclear program. That 
fragile consensus in support of U.S. policy is likely to fall apart if 
we jettison this deal.
  I think it is unrealistic to think we can stop oil-hungry countries 
in Asia from buying Iranian oil, especially when offered bargain 
basement prices. It is equally unrealistic to think we can continue to 
force foreign banks that hold the Iranian oil dollars--banks in China, 
India, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan that have sequestered Iranians' 
oil dollars--it is unrealistic to expect that they will hold on to that 
cash simply because we threaten them with U.S. banking sanctions. How 
will such threats be taken seriously when these countries, taken 
together, hold nearly half of America's debt, making any decision to 
sanction them extraordinarily difficult. Killing this deal by rejecting 
it means the sanctions are going to be weaker than they are today, not 
stronger, and the United States cannot simply get a better deal with 
Iran, with less economic leverage and less international support. That 
is a fact we are having to face. Of course, if we rejected it and if 
the sanctions crumbled, all of this would probably happen while Iran 
would be racing to build a bomb. Without this deal, Iran's breakout 
time could quickly shrink from months to a handful of weeks or days.
  It is reasonable to ask why Iran would agree to negotiate a delay in 
their nuclear program that they have advanced over the years at the 
cost of billions of dollars. The simple answer is they need the money. 
The Iranian economy is hurting because of the sanctions, and Iran's 
Supreme Leader needs to satisfy rising expectations of average 
Iranians, who are restless to have a bigger slice of the economic pie 
with more and better goods and supplies.
  So they have an interest in striking a deal, but does that mean we 
trust Iran's Government? No, not at all. The Iranian religious 
leadership encourages hardliners there to chant ``Death to America'' 
and ``Death to Israel.'' Therefore, this agreement can't be built on 
trust. We must have a good enough mechanism in place to catch them when 
and if they cheat; in other words, don't trust but verify.
  I believe the agreement sets out a reasonable assurance that Iran 
will not be able to hide the development of a bomb at declared or 
undeclared sites. The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors 
will have immediate access to declared sites--the Arak reactor and the 
enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow.
  For the next 20 to 25 years, inspectors will also have regular access 
to the entire supply chain, including uranium mines and mills, 
centrifuge production, assembly, and storage sites. That means 
inspectors will catch Iran if they try to use the facilities we know 
about to build a weapon or if they try to divert materials to a secret 
program. To confirm that Iran is not building a covert bomb, this 
agreement ensures that inspectors will have access to suspicious sites 
with no more than a 24-day delay. I know there has been a lot of 
conversation about that. It is broken off into days. At the end of the 
day, it must be physical access. Now, would this Senator prefer they 
get in instantaneously? Of course. Could Iran hide some activities 
relevant to nuclear weapons research? Possibly. But to actually make a 
bomb, Iran's secret activity would have to enrich the fuel for a 
device--and they couldn't cover that up if they had years, let alone do 
so in a few weeks. Traces of enriched uranium or a secret plutonium 
program do not suddenly vanish, and they can't be covered up with a 
little paint and asphalt. So I am convinced that under the agreement, 
Iran cannot cheat and expect to get away with it.
  On top of the unprecedented IAEA inspections established by this deal 
is the vast and little understood world of American and allied 
intelligence. This Senator served on the Intelligence Committee for 6 
years and now has clearances on the Armed Services Committee. I can 
state unequivocally that U.S. intelligence is very good and extensive 
and will overlay IAEA inspections. Remember, we discovered their secret 
activities in the past, even without the kinds of inspections put in 
place by this joint agreement. So if Iran tries to violate its 
commitment--its commitment not to build nuclear weapons--and if the 
IAEA doesn't find out, I am confident our intelligence apparatus will.
  What about the part of the joint agreement that allows the 
conventional arms embargo to be lifted in 5 years and missile 
technology to be lifted in 8 years? I understand it was always going to 
be tough to keep these restrictions in place, and I don't like that 
those restrictions are not there. Fortunately, even when the arms 
embargo expires, five other U.N. resolutions passed since 2004 will 
continue to be in force to prohibit Iran from exporting arms to 
terrorists and to militants. These have had some success, albeit 
limited, as in the case of the U.S. Navy stopping arms shipments to the 
Houthis in Yemen. These same U.N. resolutions will stay in place to 
block future Iranian arms shipments to others. We also have nonnuclear 
sanctions tools we can--and we must--continue to use to go after those 
who traffic in Iranian arms and missiles.
  Will this agreement allow Iran to continue to be a state sponsor of 
terrorism? Yes, but they now have the capability to develop a nuclear 
weapon within months and still be a state sponsor of terrorism. I 
believe it is in the U.S. interest that Iran is not a nuclear power 
sponsoring terrorism. As dangerous a threat that Iran is to Israel and 
our allies, it would pale in comparison to the threat posed to them and 
to us by a nuclear-armed Iran.

  Would I prefer a deal that dismantles their entire program forever 
and ends all of Iran's bad behavior? Of course I would. But how do we 
get a better deal that the opposition wants? We don't have that 
opportunity if the sanctions fall apart, and that is exactly what would 
happen if we reject this deal. Iran will emerge less isolated and less 
constrained to build a nuclear weapon.

[[Page S6266]]

  Under the deal, we keep most of the world with us. That means, if the 
Iranians cheat, they know we can snap back the economic sanctions and 
cut off their oil money. This joint agreement declares that Iran will 
never ever be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. If they break their 
agreement, even in 10 or 15 years, every financial and military option 
will still be available to us, and those options will be backed by 
ever-improving military capabilities and more and better intelligence.
  So when I look at all the things for the agreement and against the 
agreement, it becomes pretty obvious to me to vote in favor of the 
agreement.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, our government was recently struck by a 
devastating cyber attack that has been described as one of the worst 
breaches in U.S. history. It was a major blow to the privacy of 
millions of Americans. We know the private sector is vulnerable to 
attack as well. The House has already passed two White House-backed 
cyber security bills to help address the issue. Similar legislation is 
now before the Senate. It is strong, bipartisan, and transparent. It 
has been vetted and overwhelmingly endorsed 14 to 1 by both parties in 
committee.
  It would help both the public and private sectors to defeat cyber 
attacks. The top Senate Democrat on this issue reminds us it would 
protect individual privacy and civil liberties too. Now is the time to 
allow the Senate to debate and then pass this bipartisan bill.
  In just a moment, I will offer a fair consent request to allow the 
Senate to do just that. The Democratic leader previously said that both 
he and the senior Senator from Oregon believe the Senate should be able 
to finish the bill ``in a couple of days . . . at the most.'' And just 
today he said the Democrats remain willing to proceed to this 
bipartisan bill if allowed to offer some relevant amendments. The 
senior Senator from New York has also said that Democrats want to get 
to the bill and that they want to get a few amendments too.
  Our friends across the aisle will be glad to know that the UC I am 
about to offer would allow 10 relevant amendments per side to be 
offered and made pending. That is a good and fair start that exceeds 
the request from our friends across the aisle.
  Now that we have a path forward that gives both sides what they said 
they need, I would invite our colleagues to join us now in moving 
forward on this bill. I invite our colleagues to allow the Senate to 
cooperate in a spirit of good faith to pass a bill this week so we can 
help protect the American people from more devastating cyber attacks.
  I notified the Democratic leader that I would propound the following 
consent request: I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion on the 
motion to proceed to calendar No. 28, S. 754, be withdrawn and that the 
Senate immediately proceed to its consideration. I further ask that 
Senator Burr then be recognized to offer the Burr-Feinstein substitute 
amendment and that it be in order during today's session of the Senate 
for the bill managers, or their designees, to offer up to 10 first-
degree amendments relevant to the substitute per side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. The Republican leader is my friend, and I don't mean in any 
way to disparage him, other than to bring out a little bit of history. 
I can't imagine how he can make this offer with a straight face. Have 
amendments pending? That is like nothing. We tried that before, as 
recently as the highway bill. Having amendments pending doesn't mean 
anything.
  We want to pass a good cyber security bill. We have a bill that has 
been crafted in the intelligence committee. Other committees have been 
interested in participating in what we have here on the floor, but they 
are willing to say: OK. We have a bill from the intelligence committee.
  There have been no public committee hearings, no public markups. 
There has been nothing done other than a rule XIV which, of course, my 
friend said he would not do if he got to be the leader and there would 
be a robust amendment process. Having a robust amendment process has 
nothing to do with having amendments pending.
  We want to pass a good bill. But we want to have a reasonable number 
of amendments, and there will be votes on those amendments. We are not 
asking for longtime agreements. The Republican leader's proposal would 
not lead to votes on the amendments. He would allow the amendments to 
be pending, but if the Republican leader were to file cloture, as he 
has done repeatedly the last few months--and an example is what he did 
with the recent highway bill--all amendments that were not strictly 
germane would fall.
  Remember, we are not asking for germane amendments. We are asking for 
relevant amendments. We are willing to enter into an agreement that 
provides votes on a reasonable number of amendments that would be 
germane in nature, and we should be working on that agreement.
  In contrast, if we fail to get that agreement, we are going to have a 
cloture vote an hour after we come in in the morning, and 30 hours 
after that--sometime late Thursday afternoon or early Thursday 
evening--he would have to file cloture on that. That puts us right into 
the work period when we get back on September 8.
  When we get back, we have the 8th to the 17th, including weekends and 
a holiday that is celebrated every year that we always take off, which 
includes 2 days. It is a Jewish holiday. I can't imagine why we would 
want this to interfere with what we are trying to do in the month of 
September.
  We are willing to do this bill. We can start working on these 
amendments right now if we can have votes on them, but we are not going 
to agree to some arrangement like this. If the Republicans are going to 
push this, we can come in here tomorrow, and we will vote. The 30 hours 
of time will go by--and we know how to use 30 hours; we were taught how 
to do that--30 hours of postcloture time. And Thursday afternoon, the 
leader can make whatever decision is necessary.
  We want a cyber bill. This bill is not the phoenix of all cyber 
bills, but it certainly is better than nothing. We should--following 
the recommendation and the suggestion and what the Republican leader 
has said he would do--be allowed some amendments to vote on. We can 
start that today. Today is Tuesday. We can finish these amendments--I 
would hope on the Democratic side--in a fairly short order of time.
  As for the Republicans, I don't know. All I heard following the 
caucus is one Republican Senator wanted to offer an amendment on the 
cyber bill dealing with auditing the Fed. I can't imagine why that has 
anything to do with this bill.
  We are serious about legislating. We want to do something that is 
good, we believe, for the country, good for the order of the Senate. 
Otherwise, we will look at each other around here until Thursday 
afternoon, and the Republican leader can look forward to this being the 
first thing we take up when we get back in September. We are willing to 
be fair and reasonable to finish this, with our amendments, in a very 
short period of time. So I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me say, I think there may well be a 
way forward here. What I thought I heard the Democratic leader say is 
that they are interested in passing a bill. That is important. He said 
when it was offered on the defense authorization bill that it was a 2-
day bill, and we could agree to a limited number of amendments.
  I think we both agree this is an important subject. I can't imagine 
that either the Democrats or the Republicans want to leave here for a 
month and not pass the cyber security bill. I think there is enough 
interest on both sides to try to continue to discuss the matter and see 
if there is a way forward. That would be in the best interest of the 
country if we could come together and do this. This bill came out of 
the intelligence committee 14 to 1.
  Chairman Burr and Vice Chair Feinstein have been asking for floor 
time. They are anxious to move this bill

[[Page S6267]]

across the floor. I am hoping the Democratic leader and I can continue 
to discuss the matter and that we can find a way forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I look forward to that discussion. Keep in 
mind, being reported out of committee--this is a committee that holds 
everything in secret. They do nothing public. So having a 14 to 1 vote 
in a meeting that takes place in secret doesn't give the other Senators 
who are not on that committee a lot of solace.
  I look forward to the Republican leader and me and our staffs working 
together to try to come up with some way to move forward on this 
legislation. We want to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as my good friend the Democratic leader 
used to remind me, the majority leader always gets the last word.
  This is not a new issue. It was around during the previous Congress. 
Other committees acted--other committee chairmen like what Chairman 
Burr and Vice Chair Feinstein have done. Hopefully, we can minimize 
sort of manufacturing problems here that keep us from going forward 
when it appears to me that both sides really would like to get an 
outcome and believe it would be best for the country to get an outcome 
before we go into the recess. We will continue to discuss the matter 
and hope that we can find a way forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I understand there 
has already been an objection.
  I will speak later in the afternoon or early evening in some detail 
about why I have significant reservations with respect to this 
legislation.
  To say--as we heard again and again throughout the day--that this is 
about voluntary information sharing is essentially only half true. The 
fact is, companies could volunteer to share their customers' 
information with the government, but they wouldn't have to ask for 
permission from their customers before handing it over. That is one 
reason every major organization with expertise and interest on privacy 
issues has had reservations about the bill. It may be voluntary for 
companies, but it is mandatory for their customers and their consumers. 
They are not given the opportunity to opt out.
  The legislation has been public for months, and dozens of cyber 
security experts have said it wouldn't do much to stop sophisticated, 
large-scale attacks such as the horrendous attack at the Office of 
Personnel Management.
  On Friday, the Department of Homeland Security--an absolutely 
essential agency as it relates to this bill--wrote a letter to our 
colleague, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Franken, and 
said if this bill's approach is adopted, ``the complexity and 
inefficiency of any information sharing program will markedly 
increase.'' The Department of Homeland Security added that the bill 
``could sweep away important privacy protections.'' That is a pretty 
strong indictment from the agency that would be in charge of 
implementing the legislation.
  As I have indicated a couple of times in the last day or so, I think 
the managers, Senator Feinstein and Senator Burr, have made several 
positive changes, but the bottom line is it doesn't address the very 
substantial privacy concerns that relate to this bill. The fact is, 
cyber security is a very serious problem in America.
  Oregonians know a lot about it because one of our large employers was 
hacked by the Chinese. SolarWorld was hacked by the Chinese because 
they insisted on enforcing their rights under trade law. In fact, our 
government indicted the Chinese for the hack of my constituents and 
others.
  So cyber security is a serious problem. Information sharing can play 
a constructive role, but information sharing without robust privacy 
safeguards is really not a cyber security bill. It is going to be seen 
by millions of Americans as a surveillance bill, and that is why it is 
so important that there be strong privacy guidelines.
  The fact is, in the managers' legislation, the section allowing 
companies to hand over large volumes of information with only a cursory 
review would be essentially unmodified. The Department of Homeland 
Security asked for some specific changes to the language, which the 
managers' amendment does not include. So my hope is, we are going to 
have a chance to have a real debate on this issue. Personally, I would 
rather go down a different route with respect to cyber security 
legislation. In particular, I recommend the very fine data breach bill 
of our colleague from Vermont Senator Leahy, but if Senators have their 
hearts set on doing the bill before us, it is going to need some very 
substantial amendments, both to ensure that we show the American people 
that security and privacy are not mutually exclusive, that we can do 
both, and to address the very serious operational reservations the 
Department of Homeland Security has raised. Neither set of concerns is 
thoroughly addressed by the managers' amendment.
  So my hope is that we are going to have a chance to make some very 
significant reforms in this legislation. After seeing what has happened 
over the last few weeks, where the government isn't exactly doing an 
ideal job of securing the data it has, and now we are going to propose 
legislation that has private companies, without the permission of their 
customers, for example, to dump large quantities of their customers' 
data over to the government with only a cursory review--this 
legislation is not going to be real attractive to the millions of 
Americans who sent us to represent them.
  In fact, in just the last few days, I read in the media that some of 
the opponents of this legislation have sent something like 6 million 
faxes to the Senate--and people wonder if there are still fax machines. 
I guess the point is to demonstrate it is important that we understand, 
as we look at digital communications, what the challenge is.
  I will have more to say about this later in the afternoon and in the 
evening, but I wanted to take this opportunity, since we have just 
gotten out of the party caucuses, to make some corrections with respect 
to what we were told this morning and particularly on this question 
about how this is a voluntary bill. Ask millions of Americans whether 
it is voluntary when companies can hand over their private information 
to the government without their permission.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Nuclear Agreement With Iran

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, cyber security is an important issue, but I 
come to the floor to talk for a bit about one of the most consequential 
decisions that I, as a Member of the U.S. Senate, and my colleagues 
will make, and that concerns the negotiated agreement between the P5+1 
and Iran--the proposed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran. In 
my view, it provides too much relief in return for too few concessions. 
The deal implicitly concedes that Iran will become a nuclear power and 
will gain the ability and legitimacy to produce a weapon in a matter of 
years while gaining wealth and power in the meantime.
  I serve on the Senate Banking Committee. The sanctions that were 
created by Congress originate from that committee. Those sanctions were 
put in place to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power--a country 
capable of delivering a nuclear weapon across their border. Those 
sanctions were not put in place to give Iran a path or a guideline to 
become a nuclear-weapon-capable country. The key is to keep nuclear 
weapons out of the hands of Iran's Government. The key to that is to 
permanently disable Iran from nuclear capability and remove the 
technology used to produce nuclear materials. This deal fails to 
achieve this goal by allowing Iran to retain nuclear facilities. Though 
some of it will be limited in use in the near term, the centrifuges 
used to enrich nuclear matter will not be destroyed or removed from the 
country. This deal allows Iran's nuclear infrastructure to remain on 
standby for nuclear development when the restrictions expire.
  Also troubling is the agreement's lack of restrictions on nuclear 
research and development. Iran seeks to replace its current enrichment 
technology

[[Page S6268]]

with a more advanced centrifuge that more efficiently enriches nuclear 
material. By failing to restrict research and development now, we are 
priming Iran's nuclear program to hit the ground running toward a bomb 
once the restrictions are lifted in a matter of years.
  Also, the inspection regime agreed to in this negotiation is 
dangerously accommodating. The agreement provides Iran a great deal of 
flexibility regarding the inspection of military sites just like those 
where Iran's past covert nuclear development work took place. The deal 
allows Iran to hold concerned international inspectors at bay for 
weeks, if not months, before granting access to a location suspected of 
being a site for nuclear development.
  The value of any access to suspected Iranian nuclear sites that 
international inspectors ultimately do receive will depend upon their 
understanding of Iran's past nuclear weapons research. A comprehensive 
disclosure of possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear research 
is necessary for inspectors to fully understand Iran's current 
infrastructure and is critical to their ability to rule out any future 
efforts to produce nuclear weapons.
  The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, has not made public its 
site agreement with Iran about their previous nuclear developments. 
This is an aside, but I would say none of us should agree to this 
negotiated agreement without seeing, reading, and knowing the content 
of that agreement. Under the proposed deal, that vital full disclosure 
of Iran's nuclear past may not occur, diminishing the value of 
inspections and increasing the risk that another covert weaponization 
of Iran will take place.
  Painfully absent from the agreement's requirements is Iran's release 
of American hostages: Saeed Abedini, Jason Rezaian, Robert Levinson, 
and Amir Hekmati. The freedom of Americans unjustly held in Iran should 
have been a strict precondition for sanctions relief instead of an 
afterthought.
  In return for very limited concessions, this deal gives Iran way too 
much. If implemented, the agreement would give Iran near complete 
sanctions relief up front. This isn't a Republican or Democratic issue. 
Common sense tells us that you don't give away a leverage until you get 
the result that you are looking for, and this agreement provides 
sanctions relief upfront, delivering billions in frozen assets to the 
Iranian Government and boosting the Iranian economy. Included in this 
relief are sanctions related to Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, which 
were to be lifted only when Iran ceased providing support for 
international terrorism.
  The sanctions relief in this proposal not only fails to require 
preconditions and cooperation regarding nuclear disarmament but will 
remove sanctions from the Iranian Guard, despite their status as a top 
supporter of terrorist groups around the Middle East and globe.
  This type of gratuitous flexibility for Iran is found elsewhere in 
the agreement. The P5+1 acceptance of Iranian demands for a relaxed 
U.N. arms embargo is both perplexing and scary. This deal would relax 
trade restrictions on missiles after 8 years, while immediately erasing 
limits on missile research and development. It would also lift 
restrictions on Iranian centrifuge use and development after just 8 to 
10 years. The deal grants Iran the ability to more efficiently produce 
nuclear material just as it gains the ability to access the delivery 
weapons system.
  Earlier this month, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN 
Martin Dempsey, said: ``Under no circumstances should we relieve 
pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms 
trafficking.'' Lifting the U.N. arms embargo was ``out of the 
question.'' Yet, just 1 week later, negotiators announced the lifting 
of the embargo in 5 to 8 years or less. I wonder what has changed. 
Unless the menace of an increased flow of weapons in and out of Iran 
somehow substantially decreased during the intervening week, the 
consequence of this sudden capitulation should have us all greatly 
concerned.

  This fear of increased money flow to terror organizations linked to 
the Iranian Government is not based upon merely an outside possibility; 
it is a likelihood. Last week Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister stated: 
``Whenever it's needed to send arms to our allies in the region, we 
will do so.'' More money and more weapons in the hands of terrorist 
organizations are the fuel for increased violence and further 
destabilization in the conflict-torn Middle East.
  We have little reason to believe Iran's behavior will change as a 
result of this agreement. In fact, their chants of ``Death to America'' 
become more real.
  Since the announcement of the agreement, the leader of Iran has been 
openly antagonistic to the United States. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has 
promised to continue to incite unrest and said Iran's ``policy towards 
the arrogant U.S. will not change.'' These anti-American statements 
come from an Iranian leader whose commitment the Obama administration 
is relying on for the nuclear accord to work. It should trouble every 
American that the Obama administration is asking us to support a deal 
that relies on the total cooperation of those who, as I say, strongly 
state their commitment to bringing about ``death to America.''
  Given the Obama administration's troubling efforts to push through 
this deal to the United Nations and restrict the influence of the 
American people through this Congress in the decision, it is all the 
more important that we follow through with a serious assessment of this 
nuclear agreement. We are faced with a circumstance that, by the 
administration's own previous standards, concedes too much and secures 
too little.
  I strongly oppose this nuclear deal. It is intolerably risky, and the 
result will be a new Iran--a legitimized nuclear power with a growing 
economy and enhanced means to finance terror, to antagonize, and to 
ultimately pursue a nuclear weapons program. I will support the 
congressional resolution to express Congress's explicit disapproval.
  President Obama has used fear in his agenda in seeking our support 
for this agreement. The warning has been that a vote against his policy 
is a vote for war with Iran. The President's political scare tactics 
are not only untrue but also illogical.
  Incidentally, we were not at war with Iran when the agreements were 
in place before the negotiation. The absence of agreeing to the 
negotiated agreement would not mean we will be at war thereafter.
  The President's claims undermine numerous statements his own 
administration has made about the negotiation process, the nature of 
the Iranian nuclear program, and the proposed agreement's prospects for 
success. If true, the President's words concede that his foreign policy 
has led America into a dangerous position.
  We would expect a President to provide the American people as many 
alternatives to war as possible, not just a single narrow and risky one 
such as this. According to the President, the only alternative to war 
is this agreement--a deal that results in better financed terrorists, a 
weakened arms embargo, and the need for boosting U.S. weapons sales to 
Iran's regional rivals. If this prospect of war is his concern, the 
President would benefit by reevaluating the geopolitical consequences 
of the deal and seeking out much better options.
  I had hoped these negotiations would result in a strong but fair deal 
to dismantle Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Again, the purpose of 
placing sanctions on Iran was to get rid of their nuclear capability as 
far as delivery of nuclear material across their borders. Yet this 
agreement leaves that infrastructure in place and puts them on a 
promising path toward that nuclear capability.
  Regrettably, that kind of deal was not reached. Now my hope is a 
simple one: that we are able to reverse some of the damage that is 
already done and that this agreement is rejected.
  I would say that there are those who argue that we would be isolated 
by rejection of this agreement, that other countries would approve and 
the United Nations may approve. This is an issue of such importance 
that we need to do everything possible to see that Iran does not become 
a nuclear power, and we need to have the moral character and fiber to 
say no to this agreement.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

[[Page S6269]]

  

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              Economic Security for Our Country's Workers

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, across our country today, so many of our 
workers clock in 40 hours a week. They work very hard, and yet they are 
unable to provide for their families.
  Just last fall, NBC News interviewed a woman named Latoya who worked 
in a fast food restaurant. She was protesting as part of a fast food 
workers strike. Latoya is raising four children alone on $7.25 an hour. 
That is less than $300 a week and is well below the poverty line for 
her and her family. For part of last year, she was living in a homeless 
shelter. She told the reporter: ``Nobody should work 40 hours a week 
and find themselves homeless.'' On top of rock-bottom wages, Latoya 
said she and her colleagues experienced unpaid wages, unpredictable 
scheduling, and having to make do with broken equipment on the job.
  In today's economy, too many of our workers across the country face 
the same challenges as Latoya. They are underpaid, they are overworked, 
and they are treated unfairly on the job. In short, they lack 
fundamental economic security.
  Several places around the country and in my home State of Washington 
are working to address this at the local level. This Senator believes 
we need to bring the Washington State way here to Washington, DC. In 
Congress, I believe we need to act to give workers some much needed 
relief. We need to grow our economy from the middle out, not the top 
down, and we should make sure our country works for all Americans, not 
just the wealthiest few.
  There is no reason we can't get to work today on legislation to do 
just that. That is why I have joined with my colleagues over the past 
few months in introducing several bills that will help restore some 
much needed economic security and stability to millions of workers. 
That is why I am hoping we can move some of these bills forward before 
we all go back home to our States.
  For too long we have heard from some Republicans the theory--a deeply 
flawed theory--that if we would only grant more tax cuts to the 
wealthiest Americans and if we would just keep rolling back regulations 
on the biggest corporations, those benefits would eventually trickle 
down and reach working families in our country. Not only does that 
theory not work, as we have seen over the past few decades, that 
trickle-down system has done real damage to our Nation's middle class 
and our working families. While worker productivity has actually 
reached new heights, workers have lost basic protections they once had.
  While trickle-down economics allows corporations to post big profits, 
too many of our workers are paying the price. Let me give some 
examples. Today the Federal minimum wage can leave a family in poverty 
even after working full time and even without taking a single day off. 
Not only that, today some businesses are using unfair scheduling 
practices to keep workers guessing about when they are going to be 
called in to work, with no guarantee of how much money they will earn 
in a given week. Those types of scheduling abuses take a real toll on 
workers' lives and prevent them from getting ahead. Attending college 
classes is not an option when someone's work schedule is always in 
flux. Taking on a second job to earn more money is nearly impossible 
when you can't plan around your first job. And that is not all. Today, 
43 million workers in this country don't have paid sick leave. When 
they get sick, they have to choose between toughing it out at work and 
passing that illness on to others or staying at home and potentially 
losing their job. When their child is sick, they have to choose between 
losing money on their paycheck or missing out on caring for their son 
or daughter. If that is not enough, in our country women are paid just 
78 cents for every dollar a man makes. That is not just unfair to 
women, by the way; it is bad for families and it hurts our economy.
  Many businesses are doing the right thing and are supporting their 
workers, but other corporations that don't, put those businesses that 
are doing the right thing at a competitive disadvantage by running a 
race to the bottom and pulling their workers down with them.
  This worker insecurity isn't just devastating for the millions of 
workers and their families who are impacted by it, it is also hurting 
our economy. Truly robust and strong economic growth comes from the 
middle out, not the top down. When our workers lack security, when they 
are not treated fairly, they can't invest in themselves and their 
children or spend money in their communities or move their families 
into a middle-class life.
  I believe we have to address this challenge on multiple fronts. We 
can start by making sure our workers are treated fairly so they can 
earn their way toward rising wages and increased economic security.
  There are important things we can do here in Congress to expand 
economic security and stability for millions of our working families 
today. For starters, we should pass the Paycheck Fairness Act that the 
senior Senator from Maryland has championed for so many years to 
finally close the pay gap between men and women. The Paycheck Fairness 
Act would tackle pay discrimination head-on. This Senator hopes we can 
all agree that in the 21st century, workers should be paid fairly for 
the work they do, regardless of their gender.
  We should also raise the minimum wage to make sure hard work does pay 
off. My Raise the Wage Act increases the minimum wage to $12 by 2020 
and is enough to lift a family of three out of poverty. It will put 
more money in workers' pockets so they can spend it in their local 
communities. It will help to build a strong floor--a Federal minimum--
that workers and cities can build off of and go even higher where it 
makes sense, like in Seattle in my home State in Washington. It is a 
level that Republicans should be able to agree with and start moving 
toward right now.
  I have also worked on a bill, along with Senators Warren and Murphy, 
to crack down on the scheduling abuses I just talked about, so 
businesses would no longer keep their workers guessing on when they 
would be called in or how many hours they might get in a given week.
  In February I introduced the Healthy Families Act to allow workers to 
earn up to 7 paid sick days. I want to move forward on that legislation 
to give our workers some much needed economic security because no one 
should have to sacrifice a day of pay or their job altogether just to 
take care of themselves or their sick child.
  We as a nation should not turn our backs on empowering our workers 
through collective bargaining, especially since strong unions ensure 
workers have a strong voice at the table. It is the very thing that 
helped so many workers climb into the middle class in this country.
  Enacting these critical policies won't solve every problem facing our 
workers and their families today. It is not the only way that I and 
Senate Democrats will be fighting to protect workers and making sure 
the economy is growing from the middle out, not the top down. But these 
policies would be very strong steps in the right direction to bring 
back that American dream of economic security and a stable middle-class 
life for millions of workers who have seen it slip away.
  When workers succeed, businesses succeed and thus the economy 
succeeds. We know this works. I have seen it in my home State of 
Washington where State and local governments have taken the lead on 
proposals such as raising the minimum wage and paid sick days. I think 
it is time to bring some of that Washington State way right here to 
Washington, DC.
  I recently heard from a small business owner by the name of Laura. 
She owns a small auto repair shop in Renton, WA. She shared something 
that I hear all the time from business owners: Doing the right thing by 
workers starts a virtuous cycle. Laura said, ``When workers have more 
money, businesses have more customers. With more customers, businesses 
can hire more workers, which in turn generates more customers.''
  Working families in our country have been waiting long enough for 
some relief from the trickle-down system that hurts the middle class. 
That is why I

[[Page S6270]]

am going to be asking for unanimous consent to work on the policies 
that would restore economic security and stability to more workers.
  Let's finally restore some stability and security for workers across 
our country. Let's make sure hard work pays off. Let's help more 
families make ends meet, expand economic opportunity, and grow our 
economy from the middle out.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak for 3 minutes and that I be followed immediately by the 
Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, is the parliamentary procedure that there 
was an objection to the Senate moving forward with the consideration of 
the cyber bill? Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was an objection that was heard to the 
request of the majority leader.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, do I have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. I have the floor, I tell the Senator from Washington.
  This is unbelievable. It is unbelievable that this body would not 
move forward with a cyber bill with the situation of dire consequences 
and dire threats to the United States of America. Admiral Rogers, the 
commander of U.S. Cyber Command, told listeners at the Aspen Security 
Forum that ``to date there is little price to pay for engaging in some 
pretty aggressive behaviors.''
  According to James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, 
``we will see a progression or expansion of that envelope until such 
time as we create both the substance and psychology of deterrence. And 
today we don't have that.''
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, our 
military enjoys ``significant military advantage'' in every domain 
except for one--cyber space. General Dempsey said cyber ``is a level 
playing field. And that makes this chairman very uncomfortable.'' The 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is uncomfortable about the cyber 
threats to this Nation.
  What just took place is millions of Americans had their privacy 
hacked into. God only knows what the consequences of that are. The 
other side has decided to object to proceeding with a bill that passed 
through the Intelligence Committee by a vote of 14 to 1. This is 
disgraceful--this is disgraceful. I tell my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, by blocking this legislation, you are putting this 
Nation in danger. By blocking this legislation, you are putting this 
Nation in danger by not allowing the Senate of the United States to act 
against a very real threat to our very existence.
  I say this is a shameful day in the Senate. I urge the Democratic 
leader to come to the floor and allow us to consider amendments, move 
forward with this legislation because the security of the United States 
of America is in danger.
  I thank my colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.

                          ____________________