[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 153 (Tuesday, October 20, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7323-S7332]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 STOP SANCTUARY POLICIES AND PROTECT AMERICANS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                               Continued


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 252, S. 2146, a bill to hold 
     sanctuary jurisdictions accountable for defying Federal law, 
     to increase penalties for individuals who illegally reenter 
     the United States after being removed, and to provide 
     liability protection for State and local law enforcement who 
     cooperate with Federal law enforcement and for other 
     purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, David Vitter, John Barrasso, Dan 
           Sullivan, David Perdue, Bill Cassidy, Ron Johnson, 
           Steve Daines, James Lankford, James E. Risch, John 
           Boozman, Mike Lee, Richard C. Shelby, John Cornyn, Jeff 
           Sessions, Johnny Isakson, Patrick J. Toomey.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Portman). By unanimous consent the 
mandatory quorum call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 2146, a bill to hold sanctuary jurisdictions 
accountable for defying Federal law, to increase penalties for 
individuals who illegally reenter the United States after being 
removed, and to provide liability protection for State and local law 
enforcement who cooperate with Federal law enforcement and for other 
purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 280 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--45

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Graham
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are 
45.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The Senator from Florida.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1082

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I don't think any of us in any of the 50 
States have not had calls from our constituents about the Veterans' 
Administration. I know that certainly in Florida, I have. We are 
blessed to have so many people who are either in uniform or have served 
in uniform.
  We make two fundamental promises to the men and women who serve our 
country. The first is that if we ever put them into hostility, they 
will be better equipped, better trained, and have more information than 
their adversaries. I, of course, fear that all three of those promises 
have eroded.
  Here is the second promise we make to them: After they take care of 
us and they come home, we will take care of them. That is a promise 
that, sadly, is also not being kept.
  There are a lot of different issues we can get into when it comes to 
veterans and what they are facing in this country, but one that has 
received a lot of attention is the Veterans' Administration and in 
particular the role it plays in providing health care for those 
returning or those who have served our country and have been facing 
challenges ever since. We have all had the phone calls to our office, 
and we have seen the media reports about it.
  I am proud that last year we were able to pass legislation that gave 
the Secretary of the VA the ability to fire senior executives who 
weren't doing their jobs. This is the point--and this is where I always 
stop and remind everyone there are really good people working in the 
VA. In fact, the enormous majority of people at the VA are good people 
who care passionately about our veterans. There are some phenomenal VA 
facilities in this country, and then there are some facilities

[[Page S7324]]

that aren't working. There are some individuals within that agency who, 
quite frankly, are not doing their jobs well. The problem is that they 
can't be held accountable because they are protected by law, and as a 
result they can't be removed.
  We expanded that law a year ago to include the ability to fire senior 
executives who weren't doing their jobs, but to date that has not been 
used to much effect. So earlier this year we introduced followup 
legislation, and the followup legislation gives the Secretary of the 
Department the authority to remove any employee of Veterans Affairs 
based on performance--or lack thereof--or misconduct. It gives them the 
authority to remove such individuals from the civil service or demote 
the individual through a reduction in grade or annual pay rate.
  I am proud that this bill has gone through the process here in the 
Senate. It has passed out of committee and is now ready for action. I 
hope we will take action on this. There is a different version in the 
House. It has also gone through their committees, and they are waiting 
for their process to move it through. There are some differences 
between the two, which, of course, would be worked out in conference.
  I think the prudent thing to do at this point, given the fact that 
the Senate bill has worked its way through the process and is now ready 
for action, is to take action. This is about creating accountability. 
By the way, this is about taking care of our veterans, but it is also 
about taking care of the people at the VA who are doing their jobs. 
This is also about them. It isn't fair to them that people who aren't 
doing their jobs continue in their positions and in many instances are 
increasing the workload on others because they are not performing or 
carrying their weight.
  That is why I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 272, S. 1082; further, that the 
committee-reported amendments be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be 
read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I 
respect deeply and in fact support the arguments made by my colleague 
from Florida. There are goals here to be served, and I strongly support 
them as well. Accountability has been lacking for too long in the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. That is a simple fact on which we can 
all agree. In fact, we took a major step in the right direction with 
the passage of the access and accountability act during the last 
session with bipartisan support.
  I would support this measure if a number of simple changes were made 
to it to comply with the Constitution. This measure lacks some of the 
basic constitutional guarantees that again and again the Supreme Court 
of the United States has said are absolutely mandatory. This bill, 
unfortunately, fails to provide sufficient notice in advance of any 
firing or disciplinary action, a statement of cause, a right to be 
heard, and an opportunity for basic administrative constitutional 
guarantees.
  I commit to work with my colleague from Florida on seeking to improve 
this bill. In fact, I have proposed a measure that is now pending in 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, S. 1856, which will improve the 
management of the VA in many of the same ways, but it avoids these 
constitutional pitfalls.
  As a former attorney general, I care deeply about enforcement, which 
is to say effective enforcement. A disciplinary action now under appeal 
in the Federal circuit will decide the constitutionality of exactly 
these procedures. In the meantime, we ought to avoid creating 
unnecessary litigation and challenge to a law that should be enforced 
effectively. This one, unfortunately, cannot be. I believe strongly 
there are measures and ways to achieve greater accountability. It isn't 
a luxury or convenience; it is a necessity that the VA is held 
accountable. The more effective way to hold the VA accountable is to 
pass a measure that is fully constitutional and, in addition, provides 
more effective protection for whistleblowers. They are the ones who 
come forward speaking truth to power. They are the ones with critical 
facts necessary for accountability. This measure, unfortunately, fails 
to afford sufficient protection for those whistleblowers. Therefore, I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, the difference between this bill and the 
one in the House is the Whistleblower Protection Act. So if that is the 
issue the Senator is concerned with, I would ask if the Senator from 
Connecticut would then be willing not to object, to lift the objection, 
if we could move forward on the House bill that is now here and ready 
for us to take up as well because it does contain the whistleblower 
protection language.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I would be more than willing--indeed, 
happy--to work with my colleague from Florida on specific language that 
improves the whistleblower protection language. I think his bill takes 
a step in the right direction by providing that the Office of Special 
Counsel provide approval for any disciplinary action. That is a good 
step, but I believe it could be made more effective. I think the 
opportunity to be heard with notice for cause or discipline or firing 
is essential to effective enforcement. I share the goal--strongly share 
it--of making sure that accountability is enforced.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Again, the House version of this bill, which is ready for 
us to take up today, has stronger accountability language which we do 
not oppose. It simply was not included for purposes of time at the 
committee level. But we are prepared to move now, if we could, because 
the House version is here and ready for action on our part, and it has 
the stronger accountability language. It sounds as though, no matter 
what, we are probably going to have a delay here on acting on this 
matter.
  I would say this for people watching here in the Gallery or at home 
or anywhere they might see it later--I just want everybody to 
understand what we are saying here. All we are saying in this bill is 
that if you work for the VA and you aren't doing your job, they get to 
fire you. I think people are shocked that doesn't actually exist in the 
entire government since there is no other job in the country where, if 
you don't do your job, you don't get fired. But in this instance, we 
are just limiting it to one agency. This should actually be the rule in 
the entire government. If you are not doing your job, you should get 
fired. But this is just limiting it to the VA because we have a crisis 
there with the lack of accountability.
  I would hope we can move forward on this, and I am prepared to listen 
to anyone who wants to improve this. We went through the normal course 
and process in the Senate. We went through the committee. It had 
hearings. Opportunities for amendments were offered at the time. So if 
there is a good-faith effort--and I believe that there is--then let's 
improve this and take action on it. We need to have a VA that is more 
interested in the welfare and security of our veterans than the job 
security of Federal employees.
  I said at the outset that there are really good people at the VA. The 
vast majority of employees at the VA are doing their jobs and doing 
them well. They care about these veterans. It isn't fair to them that 
there are people on the payroll taking up seats, taking up slots, 
taking up money, and taking up time who aren't doing their jobs, and 
they literally cannot be fired. They literally cannot be removed. It is 
a near impossibility. The process is so expensive, so long, so 
troublesome, so complicated that in essence they cannot be removed.
  Unfortunately, we will not be able to move forward on this today, it 
appears, but I hope that in quick succession we will be able to come 
together and get this done to provide a higher level of accountability 
that is so necessary in every agency of government but none more so 
than Veterans Affairs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, one last word. I want to simply concur

[[Page S7325]]

in the very powerful and eloquent statements made by my colleague from 
Florida. I think we all share those sentiments in this body that--and I 
am quoting now from legislation: Any employee who engages in 
malfeasance, overprescription of medication, insubordination, violation 
of any duty of care should be disciplined and very possibly fired.
  We are talking about the process to achieve that end. I can commit 
that I will work with my colleague from Florida to make sure this body 
approves a measure that is effective as a deterrent to those kinds of 
violations of basic duty. To be effective as a deterrent, it has to be 
enforceable, and that is our common goal here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, a few moments ago the Senate refused to 
move forward on an important piece of legislation, sometimes called the 
sanctuary cities bill. I want to explain for whoever may be listening 
and particularly for my colleagues what a terrible mistake our 
Democratic colleagues made--with the exception of two--by voting to 
block consideration of this piece of legislation.
  What this bill would do is withhold Federal funds from jurisdictions 
that basically violate current law--that violate the information-
sharing requirement in immigration law, Section 642 of the 1996 Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Secondly, it would 
withhold Federal funds from those jurisdictions that refuse to honor 
the lawful, legal process known as the detainer, or request to notify 
Federal authorities if local law enforcement decides to release an 
illegal immigrant who happens to have been arrested for some other 
unrelated reason.
  This is a truly important issue. As we have seen from the news, Kate 
Steinle out in California was killed by somebody who had repeatedly 
violated our laws not only by entering the country illegally but also 
by committing offenses against the persons and property of American 
citizens. Essentially what happens is when local jurisdictions give up 
and refuse to honor the detainers or give notice to Federal authorities 
before they release individuals, then people are going to get hurt. The 
Kate Steinles of the world will get killed.
  In my State of Texas, we have had Houston police officers and other 
law enforcement personnel killed by illegal immigrants who have 
routinely broken our laws and have terrible criminal records. But if we 
can't get the cooperation of local law enforcement authorities to work 
with the Federal authorities, then unfortunately public safety will be 
harmed.
  I am going to pull back a little bit and ask my colleagues to look at 
this perhaps from 30,000 feet. There is a reason at the time our 
Constitution was written that article VI, clause 2 simply said the 
Federal law is the supreme law of the land. In other words, Federal 
laws trump State laws and local laws.
  If we think about it, as James Madison said, if we didn't have 
Federal law as the supreme law of the land, essentially the authority 
of the whole country--the elected officials, the President, the 
Congress, those serving in the Federal Government--the laws of the 
country would be made subordinate to the parts of the country--the 
cities, the counties, the States--that essentially defy Federal law, 
and our system would be in chaos.
  Indeed, what our colleagues across the aisle appear to have ratified 
here is not one Nation under the law, but a confederation of different 
jurisdictions that can pick and choose what laws they want to comply 
with. That is a recipe for chaos.
  One of the reasons I think the American people are so angry with what 
they see happening in Washington these days--indeed, I think they have 
moved beyond anger to fear. They are fearful for the future of our 
country. When we see individual cities and States effectively nullify 
Federal law by refusing to cooperate or saying: We don't care what the 
Federal Government says; we are going to impose our own will, this is a 
recipe for chaos and for the very fabric of our country to unravel.
  At different points in our Nation's history we have had States which 
said: We aren't going to respect Federal law; we are going to nullify 
it, in effect. That is what these cities that defy the Federal 
authorities and the supremacy of Federal law are doing. They are saying 
we don't have to comply with the law, and so the American people--I 
think out of apprehension over what they see happening here when 
States, cities, and other jurisdictions decide to pick and choose which 
laws will apply--realize this is a recipe for disunity and, in this 
case, for danger.

  The people whom we are fighting for are families and communities that 
want to live in peace and safety in their local communities. That is 
what this legislation is about. This legislation, of course, is called 
Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act. All it does, simply 
stated, is to restore law and order across the country and to hold 
certain cities that want to defy Federal law accountable. It would 
limit Federal funding for State and local governments that refuse to 
cooperate. Basically, the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans 
Act encourages compliance with Federal law, as I said a moment ago, and 
uses the power of the purse to withhold Federal funds from those 
jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with the Federal law. The goal, 
as I said, is to protect our communities from those who would pose a 
danger to our society. It does not target legal immigrants who seek to 
live a law-abiding and productive life here.
  Frankly, I do not understand the Democrats'--with the exception of 
two who voted to get on this legislation and offer amendments and 
constructive suggestions--refusal to move this legislation forward, 
because it harms the public safety and it causes our country to become 
a confederation of different jurisdictions that can pick and choose 
which laws they want to enforce.
  I mentioned one terrible incident over the summer, the murder of Kate 
Steinle in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant with a known and 
lengthy criminal record. This is just one example. This sad story 
poignantly demonstrates the consequences of the administration's abject 
failure when it comes to enforcing our immigration laws. People get 
hurt. People get killed. This legislation would address the root cause 
of this tragedy by targeting criminal aliens and those local entities 
that refuse to do anything to help the Kate Steinles of the world, and 
it would specifically serve to counter the policies of those city 
governments, such as San Francisco, that are known to shield criminal 
aliens from deportation. They openly defy the 1996 Federal law that 
requires information sharing. They openly refuse to cooperate with 
Federal orders and detainers and to notify the Federal Government when 
people are released from their jail sentence even though they know 
there is an outstanding deportation order pending.
  This bill also extends the mandatory minimum sentence for those who 
attempt to reenter the country after being removed for breaking our 
laws. Time and again we are met with the tragic news of some other 
American citizen who was killed, injured or assaulted by somebody who 
has reentered the country, after being removed for violating our laws, 
and keeps coming back and committing other criminal acts.
  We need to send a clear signal to those who attempt to enter our 
country illegally and violate and ignore our laws that they will have 
to answer for them and certainly will not be allowed to come back.
  Some have rightly noted that this bill is not about immigration 
reform, and I agree. This bill is simply about enforcing our current 
law and holding those jurisdictions that refuse to comply with current 
law accountable by withholding Federal funds.
  This legislation underscores the concept that, unbelievably, has been 
lost among municipalities across the country. Despite what the current 
administration might have us think, upholding the Federal law is not a 
suggestion. It is a legal requirement for all of us. We can't, in good 
faith, ask the American people to trust us when it comes to reforming 
our broken immigration system until they see us willing to stand up and 
enforce the laws that are currently on the books and hold those 
jurisdictions, municipalities, States, and other local entities that 
refuse to comply with Federal law accountable. That

[[Page S7326]]

is why organizations such as the National Sheriffs' Association and the 
National Association of Police Organizations have voiced their support 
for this legislation.
  To sum up, the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act 
really serves as a confidence-building exercise for Congress. If the 
American people don't see us actually stepping up and demanding that 
local jurisdictions enforce current law, how can they expect us to pass 
complex immigration reform legislation to address our broken 
immigration system? Unfortunately, in this confidence-building 
exercise, the Senate, led by our colleagues across the aisle, has 
failed in that confidence-building exercise. What they have done is to 
reinforce the belief that there are Members of the Senate who believe 
that local jurisdictions can openly defy Federal law and there will be 
no recourse and no accountability.
  Frankly, it is hard for me to understand how our Democratic 
colleagues can, in good conscience, block this legislation, given some 
of the horrific crimes that have occurred, such as the crime that was 
committed against Kate Steinle in San Francisco. There are many, many, 
many tragic examples of this happening over and over in our country. 
This was our opportunity to do something about it, but unfortunately, 
for reasons unbeknownst to me, our Democratic colleagues will not even 
allow us to pass a bill which will hold jurisdictions that refuse to 
enforce current Federal law accountable.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this week we have been discussing and 
taking up legislation to address the problem of sanctuary cities. In 
fact, just earlier today, we had a procedural vote on a motion to 
proceed to actually get on the bill. It failed. It only had 54 votes. 
The threshold in the Senate to get on a bill is 60 votes. Democrats 
here in the Senate decided to block consideration of this bill and to 
have that 60-vote threshold in play, and as a consequence, it failed. 
We had 54 votes. I think only two Democratic Senators voted to proceed 
to this legislation, and I would argue that is very unfortunate because 
this is a piece of legislation which represents common sense and what I 
think the American people want us to be focused on when it comes to the 
issue of dealing with crime in our communities and illegal immigration 
in a way that ensures that those who come to this country and commit 
crimes aren't allowed to stay here.
  According to the Department of Homeland Security, there are 334 
jurisdictions across our country right now that have official policies 
discouraging cooperation with Federal immigration enforcement officers. 
Among other things, that means these jurisdictions regularly ignore 
what are called detainers, requests from the Department of Homeland 
Security to hold an individual for deportation. As a city prepares to 
release an illegal immigrant who has been convicted of or charged with 
a crime, the Department of Homeland Security will send a detainer 
asking that the individual be held for a brief period--usually 48 
hours--until Federal immigration officers can take custody.
  In a majority of the cities across the country, law enforcement would 
simply comply with this request and hold the individual until the 
Department of Homeland Security can arrive, but in sanctuary cities 
officials regularly ignore these requests and simply release these 
individuals from jail and back into the population at large--a practice 
that has resulted in the release of approximately 1,000 undocumented 
criminals per month. According to information from U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, 9,295 imprisoned individuals whom Federal 
officials sought to deport were released into the population between 
January 1 and September 30 of last year. They released 9,295 imprisoned 
individuals in just 9 months. Of those 9,295 individuals, 5,947, or 62 
percent, had a significant prior criminal history or presented a threat 
to public safety even before the arrest that preceded their release, 
and many went on to be arrested again within a short period of time.
  There is a terrible human cost to sanctuary cities' decision to 
refuse to cooperate with U.S. immigration law. There has been a lot of 
discussion on the floor about Kate Steinle. Kate Steinle paid that cost 
when she was murdered on a San Francisco pier while walking with her 
father on July 1, 2015. She was shot by an undocumented immigrant who 
had been convicted of no fewer than seven felonies--seven felonies--
prior to the decision of the city of San Francisco to ignore a request 
from the Department of Homeland Security and then go on and release 
this man into the population.
  Unfortunately, Kate Steinle is not alone. Marilyn Pharis of Santa 
Maria, CA, was raped and then bludgeoned by an undocumented immigrant 
who had previously been arrested for battery but had been released 
after the local sheriff's office decided to ignore a request to detain 
him until he could be taken into Federal custody.
  A 2-year-old California girl--a 2-year-old--was brutally beaten by 
her mother's boyfriend, an undocumented immigrant with felony drug and 
drunk driving convictions, who was released on bail after the crime 
despite a request from Federal officials that he be detained.
  In 2011, Dennis McCann was killed when he was hit and dragged by a 
car driven by a drunk driver with a blood alcohol content nearly four 
times the legal limit. His killer turned out to be Saul Chavez, an 
undocumented immigrant with a prior drunk driving conviction. After 
Dennis McCann's death, the Department of Homeland Security filed a 
request asking that Immigration and Customs Enforcement be notified if 
Chavez was scheduled to be released. Cook County, however, chose to 
ignore this request, and after being released on bail, Dennis's killer 
apparently fled the country. Four years later, Dennis's family is still 
waiting to see justice done.
  Unfortunately, I could go on and on. Decisions to release 
undocumented immigrants convicted of crimes, instead of detaining them 
for Federal officials, have resulted in far too many tragedies like 
those of Marilyn Pharis and Kate Steinle, and too many families in this 
country are mourning as a result.
  Cooperation between local and Federal law enforcement is essential to 
protecting Americans, and detainer requests from the Department of 
Homeland Security are a key tool that helps Federal officials make sure 
dangerous individuals are not going back onto our Nation's streets.
  When cities and counties ignore these requests, they force 
immigration officers to attempt to track down undocumented criminals 
after they have been released into the community. According to the 
Center for Immigration Studies, this requires an exponentially larger 
expenditure of funds and manpower and success is not guaranteed. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement needs the support of cities and 
local law enforcement if it is going to keep these individuals off our 
Nation's streets.
  The legislation we have been discussing today would take a 
substantial step forward toward handling the threat posed by sanctuary 
cities. The Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, which 
has strong support from law enforcement organizations and victims' 
families, will withhold Federal funds under three grant programs and 
redirect those funds to jurisdictions that comply with Federal 
immigration laws. It will also provide crucial legal protections to law 
enforcement officers that will allow them to cooperate with Federal 
immigration authorities without the fear of lawsuits.
  This act also incorporates provisions known as Kate's Law, named 
after Kate Steinle. These provisions would increase the maximum penalty 
for illegally reentering the United States after being deported and 
create a maximum penalty of 10 years for reentering the country 
illegally after being deported three or more times. Kate's Law would 
also create a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years for those 
reentering the country after having been convicted of an aggravated 
felony prior to deportation or for those who reenter the country after 
two previous convictions for illegal reentry.

[[Page S7327]]

  What happened to Kate Steinle on that pier in San Francisco should 
never have happened. It likely could have been prevented if San 
Francisco had chosen to respect the Department of Homeland Security's 
request to hold her killer until immigration officers could pick him 
up.
  I hope the stop sanctuary policies act will move forward in the 
Senate so we will be able to send a version of this legislation to the 
President. It is time we started ensuring that dangerous criminals like 
Kate Steinle's killer don't end up back on the streets. We have that 
opportunity today. We ought to vote to move to this bill.
  What is truly remarkable and amazing is that we couldn't even get on 
the bill to debate it. It was blocked by our colleagues on the other 
side who prevented even proceeding to the bill--a motion to proceed, 
which takes 60 votes in the Senate. It would have been very easy to get 
on the bill and at least have that debate. If they didn't like the 
provisions in the bill, they would have an opportunity to amend it and 
discuss the bill as we should be doing in the Senate, but instead the 
Democratic Senators chose to block the consideration, even the very 
consideration of legislation that would go to great lengths to try and 
prevent the types of tragedies we witnessed this last summer with Kate 
Steinle and so many others who have fallen prey to acts of violence by 
those who are here illegally and have prior experience with the law, 
prior convictions, and who are clear dangers to people and families all 
across this country.
  It is a tragedy we weren't able to get on the bill. I hope our 
Democratic colleagues will change their minds and allow us to proceed 
to this legislation, to debate it, to vote on it, to pass it, and to 
send it to the President for his signature.


                 Cybersecurity Information Sharing Bill

  Mr. President, I also wish to speak in support of S. 754, which I 
think we will be discussing momentarily, the Cybersecurity Information 
Sharing Act, or what is referred to as CISA, which the Senate is going 
to be debating this week. I commend Chairman Burr and Vice Chairman 
Feinstein for their bipartisan work to bring this bill to the floor.
  It seems that every week we learn of another serious cyber attack 
against U.S. businesses and government agencies. The most devastating 
recent attack is the one against the Office of Personnel Management 
that compromised the background check information of more than 21 
million Americans. The pace of such attacks appears to be accelerating. 
According to the security firm Symantec, last year alone, more than 300 
million new types of malicious software or computer viruses were 
introduced on the Web or nearly, if my colleagues can believe this, 1 
million new threats each and every day.
  Just last month, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper 
testified before the House Intelligence Committee that ``cyber threats 
to U.S. national and economic security are increasing in frequency, 
scale, sophistication, and severity of impact.''
  From my position as head of the Senate commerce committee, I have 
promoted the great potential of the emerging Internet of Things--which 
promises to yield improvements in convenience, efficiency, and safety 
by connecting everyday products to the Web--but I have also held 
several hearings on the cyber security risks and challenges that 
accompany an increasingly connected world. By increasing the sharing of 
cyber threat information between and among the private and public 
sectors, the bill would authorize the voluntary sharing of cyber threat 
information and would provide commonsense liability protections for 
companies that share such information with the government or their 
peers, when they abide by the bill's requirements. The goal is to help 
companies and the government better protect their networks from 
malicious cyber attacks by sharing information about those threats 
earlier and more broadly.
  Similar bipartisan legislation was reported by the Senate 
Intelligence Committee last year that was never considered by the 
Democratic-controlled Senate at the time. This year the Intelligence 
Committee passed a bill by a bipartisan vote of 14 to 1, which should 
portend a strong bipartisan vote on the floor of the Senate.
  The House of Representatives has also passed two bills to facilitate 
the sharing of cyber threats, so we are now within striking distance of 
finally enacting critical cyber security information-sharing 
legislation after several false starts in recent years.
  I know some have questioned whether this bill provides appropriate 
protections for personal privacy and civil liberties. I appreciate 
these concerns, and I believe the bill's sponsors have meaningfully 
addressed them, including through modifications to be included in a 
managers' amendment.
  This bill is not a surveillance bill. Among other things, the 
modified bill would limit the sharing of information to that defined as 
``cyber threat indicators'' and ``defensive measures'' taken to detect, 
prevent or mitigate cyber security threats.
  The bill also requires private sector and Federal entities to remove 
personally identifiable information prior to sharing threat indicators, 
and the Federal Government can only use the cyber threat information it 
receives for cyber security purposes and to address a narrow set of 
crimes, such as the sexual exploitation of children.
  The bill also requires regular oversight of the government's sharing 
activities by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board created 
after 
9/11 and by relevant agency inspectors general.
  In the end, it is important to remember that CISA is about cyber 
threats--like the malware being used by criminals in hostile states--
not personal information. Meanwhile, failing to enact this bill could 
actually make it easier for criminals in rogue states to continue 
collecting our personal information from vulnerable systems.
  Let me be clear. This is not a silver bullet and it will not render 
cyberspace completely safe--no bill can do that--but CISA is an 
important piece of the ongoing effort to improve our cyber security.
  Late last year, after a decade without passing major cyber security 
legislation, Congress enacted five cyber security laws that target 
other pieces of the cyber puzzle. I coauthored one of these--the 
Cybersecurity Enhancement Act--with former Senator Jay Rockefeller. 
This law ensures the continuation of a voluntary and private sector-led 
process at the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards 
and Technology, or what we refer to as NIST, to identify best practices 
to protect our Nation's critical infrastructure from cyber threats. The 
Cybersecurity Enhancement Act also promotes cutting-edge research, 
public awareness of cyber security risks, and improvements in our cyber 
security workforce.
  CISA will work together with this new law and others to ensure that 
businesses have timely warning about current threats so they can better 
protect themselves--and all of us--from cyber attacks. It does so in a 
manner that protects individual privacy and avoids government mandates.
  I look forward to the coming debate on the bill--including a healthy 
consideration of amendments--and I urge my colleagues to join the 
bipartisan sponsors and a broad coalition of stakeholders around this 
country in supporting this much needed legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, since we are still on the sanctuaries bill, 
before we turn to the cyber legislation, I ask unanimous consent that I 
be allowed to address the Senate after Chairman Burr has completed his 
remarks and after Ranking Member Feinstein has completed her remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, we are quickly moving to a point where I 
think the majority leader will come to the floor and will call up the 
cyber security bill.
  Let me remind my colleagues that we have been on the floor briefly 
before, and the conclusion then was that we agreed to a unanimous 
consent request that made in order 22 amendments. It was not a limiting 
UC. So there is the opportunity for additional amendments to come to 
the floor.
  As we start, I say to my colleagues that if we have a level of 
cooperation

[[Page S7328]]

by the Members--if in fact they come, debate, and vote on amendments--
we can resolve this in literally a matter of a couple of days. If 
people want to try to obstruct, then it is going to be a lengthy 
process procedurally.
  I don't think there is a lot new that we are going to learn. What is 
the fact? The fact is that actors around the world continue to attack 
U.S. systems and, in many cases, penetrate them: Sony Films, Anthem 
Health, OPM.
  The Presiding Officer, as a member of our committee, knows that the 
amount of personal data that is being accumulated out there somewhere 
provides almost a roadmap to everything about anybody. What we are 
attempting to do with this cyber bill I want the American people to 
understand: This is not to prevent cyber attacks. I would love to 
figure out technologically how we do it. Nobody has been able to do it. 
What this is designed to do is to minimize the data that is lost, to 
minimize the personal information that an individual gleans out of 
going into a database and pulling out that information.
  The vice chairman and I have worked with other members of the 
committee to report a bill out of the committee on a 14-to-1 vote. We 
are now almost 3 months behind the House of Representatives, which has 
passed two bills that we desperately need to get out of the Senate in a 
piece of legislation that we could conference with the House of 
Representatives. In a conversation just this morning that I had with 
the White House, they are supportive of this bill getting out of the 
Senate and having the bill on the President's desk so that he could 
sign it into law and we could have this in place.

  Let me make some overall points on the cyber bill. One, most 
importantly, it is voluntary. Any business in America can choose to 
participate or not to participate. They can tell the Federal Government 
that they have been penetrated. They can provide the appropriate data 
for us to begin the forensics and to tell them in real time: Here is a 
defensive software package you can put on your system that will make it 
immune from that tool again. But more importantly, it might minimize 
the amount of data that is lost and certainly would allow the 
government to then broadcast to business more widely: Here is the tool 
that is being used today and here is the defensive mechanism to keep 
other businesses from having the same penetration and data loss.
  Now, it is important that I say that when we started there were 22 
amendments that were placed in order. I am proud to tell my colleagues 
that we have worked out eight of those amendments. They will be 
incorporated in a managers' amendment that will also have an additional 
six amendments that we think strengthen the concerns that have been 
expressed about privacy. They also address certain areas of cross-
jurisdiction, such as the Department of Homeland Security. We now have 
those chairmen and those ranking members fully on board in support of 
this legislation. Now we have to go through the process. At the root of 
this is moving forward a piece of legislation on cyber that is a 
voluntary piece of legislation by companies.
  I mentioned real time. I know the Presiding Officer has heard this in 
committee. If we can't promise real time, we can't promise to anybody 
who is willing to provide the data that we can actually stop or 
minimize data loss. So it is absolutely crucial that this all function 
in real time. To have a voluntary program that involves real time 
transfer of information means that there have to be incentives for that 
to be done.
  Let me just point out two things. For a company to talk to a 
competitor after they have been attacked and penetrated, we provide 
antitrust protection to them to talk directly to that competitor as 
fast as they possibly can to find out whether we have multiple systems 
that are at risk. For the company to report to the Federal Government 
we provide liability protection just for the transfer of that 
information. As Members read the bill, they will see that statutorily 
we don't allow personal data that is unrelated to the forensics--needed 
to identify who did the attack, with what type of a tool, and what the 
defensive mechanism is--that statutorily cannot be transferred from a 
private company to the government. Additionally, we say to every 
Federal agency that might receive in real time this data that if there 
is personal data that is transmitted from a company to the Federal 
Government, you cannot distribute personal data.
  I am not sure how it gets stronger than where we are, but I have come 
to this conclusion after working on this legislation for this entire 
year--and the vice chairman has worked on it for multiple years: There 
are some people who don't want legislation. We have met with every 
person who had a good thought--legislation that would send us in a 
positive direction but still embrace the policy found in this 
legislation. It is limited, but there are some who we can't in fact 
satisfy.
  So let me say this to those companies that have expressed opposition 
to this piece of legislation. It is really clear. Choose not to 
participate. It is voluntary. To those companies that find no value in 
it, if you have an aversion to what we have written, don't 
participate--even though a majority of businesses in America are 
actually calling my office and the vice chairman's office saying: When 
are we going to get this done? We need this. We need it.
  It is that simple. That is the beauty of it being voluntary. 
Voluntary also means that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is 100 percent 
supportive of this legislation. Now we never have full agreement from a 
membership of an association, but it takes a majority--in fact, it 
takes well over a majority--for an organization such as that to come 
out publicly supporting it. So I say very boldly, if you don't like the 
piece of legislation, it is real easy: You just don't participate in 
it.
  Some have called this a surveillance bill. Let me just knock that 
down real quick. First, this bill requires private companies and the 
government to eliminate any irrelevant personal, identifiable 
information before sharing cyber threat indicators or defensive 
measures. Second, this bill does not allow the government to monitor 
private networks or computers. Third, this bill does not allow the 
government to shut down Web sites or require companies to turn over 
personal information. Fourth, this bill does not permit the government 
to retain or use cyber threat information for anything other than cyber 
security purposes, identifying the cyber security threat, protecting 
individuals from death or serious bodily or economic harm, and 
protecting minors or investigating limited cyber crime offenses. Fifth, 
it provides rigorous oversight and requires a periodic interagency 
inspector general report to assess whether the government has violated 
any of the requirements found in this act. The report would also assess 
any impact this bill may have on privacy and civil liberties.
  Finally, our managers' amendment has incorporated additional 
provisions that enhance privacy protection. First, our managers' 
amendment omitted the government's ability to use cyber information to 
investigate or prosecute serious violent felonies.
  Personally, I thought that was a pretty good thing. I can understand 
where it is outside of the scope of a cyber bill, but information about 
a felony that you learned in this I thought was something the American 
people would want us to act on. Individuals raised issues on it. We 
dropped it out of the bill.
  Secondly, our managers' amendment limited cyber threat information 
sharing authorities to those that are shared for cyber security 
purposes. In other words, it is only for cyber security purposes.
  Both of these changes ensure that nothing in our bill reaches beyond 
the focused cyber security threats that it intends to prevent and 
deter. Nothing in this bill creates any potential for surveillance 
authorities. Despite rumors to the contrary, CISA's voluntary cyber 
threat indicator sharing authorities do not provide in any way for the 
government to spy on or use library and book records, gun sales, tax 
records, educational records or medical records. Given that cyber 
hackers have hacked into and stolen so much publicly disclosed private, 
personal information, it is astounding that privacy groups would oppose 
a bill that has nothing to do with surveillance and seeks to protect 
their private information from being stolen. I guess that has been the 
most troubling aspect of the road we have traveled--that we are trying 
to protect personal data, and yet

[[Page S7329]]

the groups that say they are the stewards of personal data are the ones 
that, in fact, are the most vocal on this.
  CISA ensures the government cannot install, employ or otherwise use 
cyber security systems on private sector networks. No one can hack back 
into a company computer system even if their purpose is to protest 
against or quash cyber attacks.
  The government cannot retain or use cyber threat information for 
anything other than cyber security purposes; preventing, investigating, 
disrupting or prosecuting limited cyber crimes; protecting minors; and 
protecting individuals from death or serious bodily or economic harm. 
The government cannot use cyber threat information in regulatory 
proceedings.
  That is what we are here talking about. This is voluntary and it is 
targeted at minimizing data loss. It is targeted at trying to protect 
the personal data of the American people found in every database in 
every company around the world.
  Mr. President, I am going to turn to my vice chairman as we get ready 
for Senator Wyden to make remarks and for leader McConnell to come to 
the floor.
  I would put Members on notice once again. It is our intent to have 
some opening comments, to actually make the managers' amendment 
pending, to make those amendments that were part of the unanimous 
consent agreement but not worked out as part of the managers' package 
pending.
  I encourage those Members who have authorship of those pending 
amendments to come and debate them, and we will schedule a vote for 
them. If you have additional amendments, come and offer those 
amendments and we will start debate on it. It is our goal, with the 
cooperation of Members, to work expeditiously through all of the 
amendments one wants to consider and to dispose of them and to finalize 
cyber security legislation in the Senate so we can move to the House 
and conference a bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to begin by saying that I very 
much agree with what Chairman Burr has just stated. It is factual. It 
is the truth.
  For me, I have worked on this issue for 7 years now. And this is 
actually the third bill that we have tried to move.
  I want to thank the two leaders for bringing the bill to the floor, 
and I hope it can be considered quickly.
  Up front I want to make clear, if it hasn't been made clear, that 
this legislation is a first step only to improve our Nation's defenses 
against cyber attack and cyber intrusion. It is not a panacea, and it 
will not end our vulnerabilities. But it is the most effective first 
legislative step we believe that we can take.
  This legislation is about providing legal clarity and legal 
protection so that companies can share cyber threat information 
voluntarily with each other and with the government. It provides 
companies the protections they need and puts strong privacy rules in 
place.
  At the beginning of this debate, I think it is important to talk 
about the depth and breadth of the cyber threat we actually face every 
day, because rarely does a month go by without the announcement of a 
significant cyber attack or intrusion on an American company or an 
agency of the U.S. Government. These attacks compromise sensitive 
personal information, intellectual property or both.
  Just in the last year, major banks, health insurers, tech companies, 
and retailers have seen tens of millions of their customers' sensitive 
data stolen through cyber means. In 2014 the Internet security company 
Symantec reported that over 348 million identities were exposed through 
data breaches. Threats in cyber space do not just risk the personal 
data of Americans. They are a significant and growing drain on our 
economy as malicious actors steal our money, rob companies of 
intellectual property, and threaten our ability to innovate.
  The cyber security company McAfee and the think tank Center for 
Strategic and International Studies estimated last year that the cost 
of cyber crime is more than $400 billion annually. The same study 
stated that losses from cyber theft could cost the United States as 
many as 200,000 jobs. These are not theoretical risks; they are 
happening today and every day.
  As we know all too well in the wake of cyber intrusions at the Office 
of Personnel Management, cyber threats are not only aimed against the 
private sector. They are also aimed against the public sector. Every 
day, foreign nation-states and cyber criminals scour U.S. Government 
systems and our defense industrial base for information on government 
programs and personnel--every single day.
  More than 22 million government employees and security clearance 
applicants had massive amounts of personal information stolen from the 
Office of Personnel Management, reportedly taken by China. These 
employees now face increased risk of theft and fraud, and also their 
information could be used for intelligence operations against them and 
the United States.

  As bad as this is--and it is bad--we have seen in the last few years 
an acceleration of an even more concerning trend, that of cyber attack 
instead of just cyber theft. In 2012 major U.S. financial institutions 
saw an unprecedented wave of denial-of-service attacks on their 
systems.
  Saudi Aramco--reported to be the world's largest oil and gas 
company--was the victim of a cyber attack that wiped out a reported 
three-quarters of its corporate computers. In 2013 we saw further 
escalations of these threats as waves of denial-of-service attacks were 
aimed at some of our largest banks. In early 2014 Iran launched a cyber 
attack on the Sands Casino which, according to the public testimony of 
the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, rendered 
thousands of computer systems inoperable. Last November we saw one of 
the most publicized cyber attacks when North Korean attacks broke into 
Sony Pictures Entertainment, stole vast amounts of sensitive and 
personal data, and destroyed the company's internal network.
  These breaches of personal information and loss of intellectual 
property and destructive attacks continue online every day. It is only 
a matter of time before America's critical infrastructure--major banks, 
the electric grid, dams, waterways, the air traffic control system, and 
others--is targeted for a cyber attack that could seriously affect 
hundreds of thousands of lives.
  Clearly it is well beyond the time to act. There is no legislative or 
administrative step we can take that will end cyber crimes and cyber 
warfare. However, since the Intelligence Committee began looking 
seriously at this in 2008, we have heard consistently that improving 
the exchange of information about cyber threats and cyber 
vulnerabilities can yield a real and significant improvement to U.S. 
cyber security. That is why this bill is the top cyber legislative 
priority for the Congress, the Obama administration, and the business 
community.
  I have heard directly from dozens of corporate executives about the 
importance of cyber security legislation, as have the Intelligence 
Committee staff in hundreds of meetings over the course of years in 
drafting this legislation. As Chairman Burr has said, not only has the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce called for this legislation but so have 
dozens--specifically 52--of industry groups representing some of the 
largest sectors of our economy. On the floor in early August, I listed 
40 associations that have written in support of the legislation. Today 
there are 52.
  I ask unanimous consent that the list of supporters of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act


                              Endorsements

       Agricultural Retailers Association, Airlines for America, 
     Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, American Bankers 
     Association, American Cable Association, American Chemistry 
     Council, American Coatings Association, American Fuel & 
     Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Gaming Association, 
     American Gas Association, American Insurance Association 
     American Petroleum Institute.
       American Public Power Association, American Water Works 
     Association, ASIS International, Association of American 
     Railroads, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, BITS--
     Financial Services Roundtable, College of Healthcare 
     Information Management,

[[Page S7330]]

     Computing Technology Industry Association, Executives 
     Computing Technology Industry Association, Edison Electric 
     Institute, Electronic Payments Coalition, Electronic 
     Transactions Association, Federation of American Hospitals, 
     Food Marketing Institute.
       Global Automakers, GridWise Alliance, Healthcare 
     Information and Management Systems Society, Health 
     Information Trust Alliance, Large Public Power Council, 
     National Association of Chemical Distributors, National 
     Association of Manufacturers, National Association of Mutual 
     Insurance Companies, National Association of Water Companies, 
     National Business Coalition on e-Commerce & Privacy, National 
     Cable & Telecommunications Association, National Retail 
     Federation.
       National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Property 
     Casualty Insurers Association of America, Real Estate 
     Roundtable, Retail Industry Leaders Association, Rural 
     Broadband Association, Security Industry Association, 
     Software & Information Industry Association, Society of 
     Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates, Telecommunications 
     Industry Association, Transmission Access Policy Study Group, 
     United States Telecom Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 
     Utilities Telecom Council, Wireless Association.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, regrettably this is the third attempt 
to pass a cyber security information sharing bill in recent years. In 
2012 the Lieberman-Collins Cybersecurity Act of 2012 was on the floor. 
It included a title on information sharing which the Intelligence 
Committee helped produce. It was an important piece of legislation, but 
it only received one Republican vote.
  Last Congress, then-vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee Saxby 
Chambliss and I set out to draft a narrower bill just on information 
sharing in the hopes of attracting bipartisan support. The Intelligence 
Committee approved a bill in 2014 by a strong bipartisan vote of 12 to 
3, but it never reached the Senate floor due to privacy concerns. So 
this is the third try.
  I am very pleased that Chairman Burr and I now have the opportunity 
to bring a bill to the floor that both sides can and should support. 
This bill is bipartisan. It is narrowly focused. It puts in place a 
number of privacy protections, many of which we will outline shortly. I 
believe the bipartisan vote of 14 to 1 in the Senate Intelligence 
Committee in March underscores this fact. I would like to commend 
Senator Burr's leadership and his willingness to negotiate a bipartisan 
bill with me that can and should--and I hope will--receive a strong 
vote in the Senate. Let me take a few minutes to describe the main 
features of the bill and its privacy protections.
  In short, it does the following five things:
  First, the bill recognizes that the Federal Government has 
information about cyber threats that it can and should share with the 
private sector and with State, local, and tribal governments. The bill 
requires the Director of National Intelligence to put in place a 
process to increase the sharing of information on cyber threats already 
in the government's hands with the private sector to help protect an 
individual or a business. So that is the sharing between the government 
and the private sector. This includes sharing classified data with 
those with security clearances and an appropriate need to know but also 
requires the DNI to set up a process to declassify more information to 
help all companies secure their networks. We have heard over and over 
again from companies that the information they get from the government 
today is not sufficient. That needs to change.
  Second, the bill provides clear authorization for private sector 
entities to take appropriate actions. That includes an authorization 
for a company to monitor its networks or information on its networks 
for cyber security purposes only. No other type of monitoring is 
permitted, nor is the use of information acquired through such 
monitoring allowed for purposes other than cyber security.
  There is also an authorization for a company to implement a defensive 
measure on its network to detect, prevent, or mitigate a cyber threat. 
This authorization by definition does not authorize a defensive measure 
that destroys, renders unusable, or substantially harms a computer 
system or information on someone else's network. This is an important 
point. There has been concern that the bill would immunize a company 
for damage it might cause to other people's networks. The managers' 
amendment makes clear that the authorization in this bill allows 
companies to block malicious traffic coming from outside their network 
and stop threats on their systems but not conduct offensive activities 
or otherwise have substantial effects off their networks.
  Finally, there is an authorization for companies to share limited 
cyber threat information or defensive measures with other companies or 
with government agencies. It does not authorize sharing anything other 
than cyber information. In a critical change, the managers' amendment 
states that sharing is for cyber security purposes only. So this really 
is a very limited authorization.
  It is important to note that while these activities are authorized, 
they are not mandatory. Information sharing, monitoring, and use of 
defensive measures are all voluntary. The bill makes explicit that 
there are no requirements for a company to act or not to act.
  I have heard from technology companies in the past couple of weeks 
that they are concerned that this bill requires them to share customer 
information with the government. That is false. Companies can choose to 
participate or they can choose not to. If they do, they can only share 
cyber threat information, not their company's personal information or 
their online activity.
  The third thing this bill does is it puts in place procedures and 
limitations for how the government will receive, handle, and use cyber 
information provided by the private sector. The bill requires two sets 
of policies and procedures. The first set--to be written by the 
Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security--requires that 
cyber information that comes to the Federal Government will be made 
available to all appropriate Federal departments and agencies without 
unnecessary delay and that the information sharing system inside the 
government is auditable and is consistent with privacy safeguards.
  The second set of required guidelines is designed to limit the 
privacy impact of the sharing of cyber information and specifically 
limits the government's receipt, retention, use, and dissemination of 
personal information. These guidelines are to be written by the 
Attorney General. They will be made public.
  The bill specifically limits the use of cyber information by the 
government. Federal agencies can only use the information received 
through this bill for a cyber security purpose, for the purpose of 
identifying a cyber threat, preventing or responding to an imminent 
threat of death, serious bodily harm, serious economic harm, including 
an imminent terrorist attack, preventing or responding to a serious 
threat of harm to a minor, and preventing, investigating, or 
prosecuting specific cyber-related crimes.
  Fourth, the bill creates what we call in shorthand a portal at the 
Department of Homeland Security and requires that cyber information is 
received by the government through the Homeland Security portal, from 
which it can be distributed quickly and responsibly to appropriate 
departments and agencies. This portal was the joint proposal a few 
years ago by former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, FBI Director Bob 
Mueller, and NSA Director Keith Alexander. The purpose of the portal is 
to centralize the entry point for cyber information sharing so that the 
government can effectively and efficiently receive that cyber 
information, can protect privacy, and can ensure that all the 
appropriate departments with cyber security responsibility can quickly 
learn about threats.
  A key aspect of this centralized portal is to enable information to 
move where it needs to go automatically. Once cyber threat information 
enters the portal, it will be shared in real time--meaning without 
human intervention and at machine speed--to the other appropriate 
Federal agencies. The belief is that they can put in a filter and do a 
privacy scrub, if you will, just in case there is any private 
information, such as a Social Security number, a driver's license 
number, or something like that, that can be instantly moved out.
  Such a real-time exchange is necessary because if there are 
indications that a cyber attack is underway, the

[[Page S7331]]

response to stop that attack will need to be immediate and not subject 
to any delay. The bill makes clear that this can and should be done in 
a way that ensures that privacy is protected, improving both privacy 
protections and the ability to quickly protect sensitive systems.
  Fifth and finally, the bill provides liability protection to 
companies that act in accord with the bill's provisions. Specifically, 
the bill provides liability protection for companies that properly 
monitor their computer networks or that share information the way the 
bill allows. The bill specifically does not protect companies from 
liability in the case of gross negligence or willful misconduct, nor 
does it protect those who do not follow its privacy protections.
  As I mentioned earlier, there are many privacy protections throughout 
the bill. Because this is a key point of interest for a number of 
Senators, I wish to list 10 of them.
  No. 1, it is voluntary. The bill doesn't require companies to do 
anything they choose not to do. There is no requirement to share 
information with another company or with the government, and the 
government cannot compel any sharing by the private sector. So if there 
is this tech company or that tech company that doesn't want to provide 
this information, don't do it. Nothing forces you to do it. This is 100 
percent voluntary.
  No. 2, it narrowly defines the term ``cyber threat indicator'' to 
limit the amount of information that may be shared under the bill. Only 
information that is necessary to describe or identify cyber threats can 
be shared.
  No. 3, the authorizations are clear, but they are limited. Companies 
are fully authorized to do three things: monitor their networks or 
provide monitoring services to their customers to identify cyber 
threats, use limited defensive measures to protect against cyber 
threats on their networks, and share and receive cyber information with 
each other and with Federal, State or local governments. No 
surveillance, no sharing of personal or customer information is 
allowed.
  No. 4, there are mandatory steps that companies must take before 
sharing any cyber threat information with other companies or the 
government. Companies must review information before it is shared for 
irrelevant privacy information, and they are required to remove any 
such information that is found. A bank would not be able to share a 
customer's name or account information. Social Security numbers, 
addresses, passwords, and credit information would be unrelated to a 
cyber threat and would, except in very exceptional circumstances, be 
removed by the company before sharing.
  No. 5, the bill requires that the Attorney General establish 
mandatory guidelines to protect the privacy of any information the 
government receives. These guidelines will be public. The guidelines 
will limit how long the government can retain any information and 
provide notification requirements and a process to destroy mistakenly 
shared information. It also requires the Attorney General to create 
sanctions for any government official who does not follow these 
mandatory privacy guidelines.
  No. 6, the Department of Homeland Security, not the Department of 
Defense or the intelligence community, is the primary recipient of the 
shared cyber information.
  No. 7, the managers' amendment includes a new provision, which was 
suggested by Senator Carper, with the backing of a number of privacy 
groups, to allow the Department of Homeland Security--and I say this 
again--to scrub the data as it goes through the portal to make sure it 
does not contain irrelevant personal information.
  No. 8, the bill restricts the government's use of voluntarily shared 
information to cyber security efforts, imminent threats to public 
safety, protection of minors, and cyber crimes. Unlike previous 
versions, the government cannot use this information for general 
counterterrorism analysis or to prosecute noncyber crimes.
  No. 9, the bill limits liability protection to only monitoring for 
cyber threats and sharing information about them when a company 
complies with the bill's privacy requirements, and it explicitly 
excludes protection for gross negligence or willful misconduct.
  No. 10, above and beyond these mandatory protections, there are a 
number of oversight mechanisms in the bill which involve Congress, the 
heads of agencies, the inspectors general, and the Privacy and Civil 
Liberties Oversight Board.
  In sum, this bill allows for strictly voluntary sharing of cyber 
security information with many layers of privacy protections.
  As I have noted, the managers' amendment that we will consider 
shortly, I hope, will include several key privacy protections. We will 
be describing them in more detail when we turn to that amendment.
  Mr. President, I hope this has made clear that we have tried to very 
carefully balance the need for improved cyber security with the need to 
protect privacy and private sector interests. As I said earlier, this 
is the third bill on information sharing. We have learned from the 
prior two efforts.
  It is clear from the headlines and multiple data breach notifications 
that customers and employees are now receiving that this bill is 
necessary and we need to act now instead of after a major cyber attack 
seriously impacts hundreds or thousands of lives or costs us billions 
or trillions of dollars.
  We have a good bill. I know there are some cynics. I know there are 
some tech companies that may be worried about what their customers 
might do. Then don't participate if you don't want to, but I have 
talked to enough CEOs who have said to me: Please do this. We need this 
ability to share, and the only way we can get this ability is with 
liability protection for sharing cyber threat material, so this is very 
important.
  I again thank the chairman for everything he has done to lead this 
effort. It is my hope that we will have a good, civil debate and that 
we will be able to pass this bill with a substantial margin.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this afternoon we begin the discussion of 
cyber security legislation. I think it is important to say at the 
outset that I think everybody who hears the notion that the Senate is 
talking about cyber security would say: Boy, you have to be for that. 
We all read about cyber hacks regularly, so you ask: Why not be for 
what they are talking about in the Senate?
  I begin by way of saying that the fact is not every bill with cyber 
security in the title is necessarily a good idea. I believe this bill 
will do little to make Americans safer but will potentially reduce the 
personal privacy of millions of Americans in a very substantial way. In 
the beginning, I think it is particularly telling who opposes this 
legislation at this time. The Business Software Alliance has said they 
cannot support this bill. They have members such as Apple, IBM, and 
Microsoft, and they are saying that at this time they cannot be for 
this bill. The Computer and Communications Industry Association has 
members such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon. They have said they 
cannot support the legislation at this time. America's librarians 
cannot support it at this time. Twitter cannot support it at this time. 
Wikimedia Foundation and Yelp can't support it at this time.
  The groups I am talking about are ones with members who have 
companies with millions and millions of customers, and they are saying 
they can't support this bill at this time.
  I think I know why these companies that didn't have a problem with 
previous kinds of versions of this legislation are saying they don't 
support it. These companies are hearing from their customers and they 
are worried their customers are saying: This doesn't look like it is 
going to protect our privacy. Of course, we want to be safe. We also 
want to have our liberty. Ben Franklin famously said anyone who gives 
up their liberty to have security really doesn't deserve either--so we 
know what Americans want.
  I would submit the reason these companies are coming out in 
opposition to this legislation is they don't want their customers to 
lose confidence in their products. They are looking at this 
legislation, and they are saying the privacy protections are woefully 
inadequate and their customers are going to lose confidence in their 
products.
  I appreciate that the managers are trying to make the bill better. It 
is

[[Page S7332]]

quite clear to me, having listened to two colleagues--whom I respect 
very much--that they are very much aware that their bill has attracted 
widespread opposition. The comment was made that Apple, Google, 
everyone should be for this.
  I would say again--respectfully to my colleagues, the authors, with 
whom I have served since we all came to the committee together--even 
with the managers' amendment, the core privacy issues are not being 
dealt with.
  I would just read now from a few of the comments--maybe I am missing 
something. Maybe I heard a list of all the privacy issues that had been 
addressed. I haven't seen any privacy groups the Democrats or 
Republicans look to saying they support the privacy protections in the 
bill, but let me give you an example of a few who surely don't.
  This is what Yelp says: ``Congress is trying to pass a `cyber 
security' bill that threatens your privacy.''
  This is what the American Library Association is saying. I will 
admit, Mr. President, I am a little bit tilted toward librarians 
because my late mother was a librarian. We all appreciate the 
librarians we grew up with. The librarians say that this bill ``de 
facto grants broad new mass data collection powers to many federal, as 
well as state and even local government agencies.''
  Salesforce, a major player in the digital space located in 
California, says:

       At Salesforce, trust is our number one value and nothing is 
     more important to our company than the privacy of our 
     customers' data. . . . Salesforce does not support CISA and 
     has never supported CISA.

  They have a hashtag.

       Follow #StopCISA for updates.

  This is the group that represents the Computer and Communications 
Industry Association--this is Google, Amazon, and Microsoft, the 
biggest major tech companies. Again, these are companies with millions 
of customers, and the companies are worried that this bill lacks 
privacy protections and their customers are going to lose confidence in 
some of what may be done under this. They say they support the goals, 
of course--which we all do--of dealing with real threats and sharing 
information. They state: ``But such a system should not come at the 
expense of users' privacy, need not be used for purposes unrelated to 
cyber security, and must not enable activities that might actively 
destabilize the infrastructure the bill aims to protect.''
  Mr. President, we heard my colleague, the chair of the committee, a 
member of the Committee on Finance whom I have worked with often, say 
that the most important feature of the legislation is that it is 
voluntary. The fact is that it is voluntary for companies. It will be 
mandatory for their customers. And the fact is that companies can 
participate without the knowledge and consent of their customers, and 
they are immune from customer oversight and lawsuits if they do so. I 
am all for companies sharing information about malware and foreign 
hackers with the government, but there ought to be a strong requirement 
to filter out unrelated personal information about customers.
  I want to emphasize this because this is probably my strongest point 
of disagreement with my friends who are the sponsors. There is not in 
this bill a strong requirement to filter out unrelated personal 
information about these millions of customers who are going to be 
affected. This bill would allow companies to hand over a large amount 
of private and personal information about millions of their customers 
with only a cursory review. In my judgment, information about those who 
have been victims of hacks should not be treated in essentially the 
same way as information about the hackers. Without a strong requirement 
to filter out unrelated personal information, that is unfortunately 
what this bill does.
  At the outset of this discussion, we were told this bill would have 
substantial security benefits. I heard for days, for example, that this 
bill would have prevented the OPM attack, that it would have stopped 
the serious attack on government personnel records. After technologists 
reviewed that particular argument, that claim has essentially been 
withdrawn.
  There is a saying now in the cyber security field: If you can't 
protect it, don't collect it. If more personal consumer information 
flows to the government without strong protections, my view is it is 
going to end up being a prime target for hackers.
  Sharing information about cyber security threats is clearly a worthy 
goal, and I would like to find ways to encourage more of that 
responsibly. Yet if you share more information without strong privacy 
protections, millions of Americans will say: That is not a cyber 
security bill; it is a surveillance bill. My hope is that, working in a 
bipartisan way, by the time we have completed this legislation on the 
floor, that will not be the case.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I listened patiently to my friend and 
colleague, and we are on the committee together, so this is not the 
first time we have had a frank discussion. But let me say to those 
companies that have reached out to him, and he listed them--I am not 
going to bother going through 53 associations and the number of 
companies that are represented because there are hundreds and hundreds. 
They are sectors of our economy. It is the financial industry. It is 
automotive. It is practically everybody in retail.
  There are a couple of things that still shock me because I really 
can't make the connection. A technology company has a tremendous amount 
of users, and those users put their personal data on that--pick one--
and the company says there is nothing more important than protecting 
the data of their users. It strikes me, because I was in business for 
17 years before I came to this insane place, that any business in the 
world would say: I don't have a problem with putting this in place as 
long as I don't have to use it. I can make a decision whether I use it 
or whether I don't.
  It may be that when they get an opportunity to see the final product 
and it is in place, they may say: Well, you know what, this isn't so 
bad. This actually took care of some of the concerns we have.
  But to make a blanket statement for a company whose No. 1 concern is 
the protection of its customers' data--to ignore the threat today that 
is real and will be felt by everybody, if it hasn't been felt by them, 
and not have something in place is irresponsible by those companies.
  Again, I point to the fact that if this were a mandatory program, I 
could understand why they might, for market share reasons or marketing 
reasons, go out and say: We are not covered by this. But this is 
voluntary for everybody. There is not a soul in the world who has to 
participate. But the ones that are really concerned about their 
customers' data, the ones that really understand there are companies, 
individuals, and countries trying to hack their systems will succumb to 
the fact that something is better than nothing.
  It is sort of like going home to North Carolina--and I see the leader 
is coming--where this year we have had a rash of sharks. It is one 
thing to know there are sharks out there and swim and say: How could 
one bite me? Well, you know you have hackers out there. It seems as if 
you take precautions when you go swimming, and it seems as if you 
should take precautions to keep from being hacked.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________