[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 93 (Thursday, June 11, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4063-S4064]
CYBER SECURITY
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on a different matter, I think a lot of
people were shocked to hear that the Obama administration was unable to
prevent the information of 4 million Americans from being compromised
by hackers.
Officials in the White House now owe it to every American to let
Congress help them get out of the past and up to speed with the cyber
security realities of the 21st century. That is just what the measure
we will soon consider would help do.
It contains modern tools that cyber security experts tell us could
help deter future attacks against both the public and the private
sectors. The measure would also help get the word out faster about
attacks as soon as they are detected, provide governments and
businesses with knowledge they can use to erect stronger defenses, and
help strike a critical balance between security and privacy in the
process. The bill would do so, for instance, by mandating the creation
of guidelines to limit the use, retention, and diffusion of consumers'
personal information.
This is more than just a smart measure. It is a transparent one too.
It has been carefully scrutinized by Senators from both parties. It has
been endorsed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis by nearly every
single Democrat and every single Republican on the Intelligence
Committee, and it has been posted online and available for anyone to
read for quite some time.
The need for this smart, bipartisan, transparent measure couldn't be
clearer. We shouldn't wait for the administration to fumble away
another 4 million Social Security numbers or personal addresses before
we help them get modernized and up to speed.
That hasn't stopped some Democratic leaders from thinking they should
try to score some political points by taking down a bipartisan measure
to combat cyber attacks.
I hope they won't do that.
Most Americans would find it awfully cynical for Democratic leaders,
in the wake of the administration's inability to stop such a massive
cyber attack, to vote against the very same cyber security legislation
their own party vetted and overwhelmingly endorsed in committee for the
sake of scoring some kind of political point.
We have a smart, transparent, bipartisan, fully vetted measure before
us that can help make our country safer.
[[Page S4064]]
Senators in both parties have a chance to offer other amendments to the
bill and amend it, too.
My hope now is that we can work together to help pass a measure that
is in support of the American people and backed by a broad coalition of
supporters--everyone from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the U.S.
Telecom Association. The sooner we do, the sooner we can conference it
with two similar White House-backed bills that passed the House, and
the sooner we can finally get a good cyber security law on the books to
help protect Americans.
____________________
[...]
[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 93 (Thursday, June 11, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4073-S4090]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
[...]
Amendment No. 1569, as Modified
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, earlier this year, the Senate
Intelligence Committee reported the Cybersecurity Information Sharing
Act to the Senate floor. This bill is intended to facilitate sharing of
cyber threat information between the private sector and the government.
While this could be useful in protecting against cyber attacks, I am
concerned that certain provisions in the Senate Intelligence
Committee's bill would severely undermine Americans' privacy.
Senator Burr's bill would remove all existing legal restrictions to
allow an unprecedented wave of information--including Americans'
personal communications--to flow from the private sector into
government databases without any meaningful controls or limitations. It
would explicitly authorize the government to use this information to
``prevent'' crimes that have nothing to do with cybersecurity, such as
firearms possession, arson, and robbery.
These problems are compounded by the fact that this bill requires all
information provided to the government through the information-sharing
regime to be immediately disseminated, which does not allow time for
removal of unnecessary private information, to a number of Federal
agencies--including the National Security Agency and others. We do not
know whether this information would also be shared with the Drug
Enforcement Administration, or the Internal Revenue Service, for
example. We do know this would open a new flow of information to the
Federal Government, without appropriate restrictions on how these
agencies can store, query, or mine this information.
Congress should enact cybersecurity legislation to protect American
businesses and the American people. But we need a cyber security bill,
not a cyber surveillance bill.
There are also provisions in this bill that add entirely new
exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. These provisions
are completely unnecessary, and have the potential to greatly weaken
government transparency.
Senator Burr's information sharing bill is major legislation that
deserves full debate and a meaningful opportunity for Senators to offer
amendments to improve the bill. It has had neither.
The bill was drafted behind closed doors. It has not been the subject
of any open hearings or public debate. The text of the bill was only
made public by the Intelligence Committee after it was reported to the
Senate floor, and no other committee of jurisdiction--including the
Judiciary Committee--was allowed to consider and improve the bill. I
shared with Chairman Grassley my concern that the Judiciary Committee
should also consider this bill, and Chairman Grassley assured me that
there would be a ``robust and open amendment process'' if this bill
were considered on the Senate floor. I expect that the Senate Homeland
Security Committee received the same assurances.
Senator Burr's attempt to offer the Intelligence Committee's
information sharing bill as an amendment to the
[[Page S4078]]
National Defense Authorization Act runs directly counter to those
assurances. This is not a sincere effort to consider and pass this bill
under regular order. Instead, through a series of procedural maneuvers,
Republican leadership is deliberately preventing any type of meaningful
debate on this bill.
I agree that we must do more to protect our cyber security, but we
should not rush to pass legislation that has significant privacy
implications for millions of Americans. We must be thoughtful and
responsible. Attempting to stifle meaningful debate and pass this bill
as an amendment to the NDAA is the wrong answer. That is not how the
Senate should operate. I urge Senators to vote no on cloture.
[...]
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I
initially say to my impatient friend, he has to be patient and allow me
to say a few words. During the short time we have been in the minority,
we have behaved in a way that I think is proper for a responsible
minority. For example, on this bill dealing with the authorization of
our defense capacity in the United States, we have been very clear how
we support the troops. But remember, we have this little difficult
issue. The President of the United States has said he is going to veto
this bill. So we have worked through all this with that in mind. Having
said that, in spite of that, we did not ask for a cloture vote on the
motion to proceed. When we were in the majority, having the minority
not do that was a big day. It happened extremely rarely. We have been
doing that consistently--with some exceptions but not many.
On this Defense bill, we have allowed amendments to become pending.
There are a dozen or so pending right now. We have allowed the Senate
to conduct votes. We have allowed managers' amendments to be cleared--
lots of them. We have reacted in a responsible way. We have no regret
for having done that.
The two managers were working together to get amendments pending in a
mutually agreed-upon fashion when out of the blue, up comes this cyber
security amendment. It was also done in a very unusual way where
Senator Burr employed parliamentary devices to get the cyber security
bill pending to where we are right now. We could have been playing
around all week with our offering amendments, but I have always felt
that it should be done extremely rarely, for the minority to do
something like that. We could have done that.
If you look at the amendments that have been offered by us Democrats,
they are all, with rare exception, dealing with the security of this
Nation--not sage grouse, not all the other things the Republicans have
brought up in this bill.
To say that the Ex-Im Bank and the cyber security amendments have
impeded progress is a gross understatement. The cyber security bill is
a major bill in its own way--a major bill. I can speak with some
authority in this regard. Five years ago, I got every committee chair
who had jurisdiction over this subject and we met over a period of days
to come up with a cyber security bill. We did that. Republicans stopped
us. We kept getting a smaller
[[Page S4086]]
group of people involved as we were narrowing the bill, and we actually
were scheduled to finally have a vote on the cyber security bill. It
wasn't as good as I thought we should have, but it was an important
bill. And what happened on that? The chamber of commerce made a call to
some of the Republican leaders in the Senate, and suddenly that bill
was gone and we were voting on another ObamaCare amendment that, of
course, went nowhere.
But we have tried cyber security.
The Intelligence Committee reported out this bill, and I appreciate
that they did. It was on a bipartisan basis, but it also contains a lot
of matter within the jurisdiction of other committees--for example, the
Homeland Security Committee and the Judiciary Committee.
To her credit, the ranking member, Senator Feinstein, recognized that
and went to the Democrats and said: We will work with you and make sure
the problems you have with this bill when it gets to the floor--we will
work with you on this.
Senator Feinstein is a person of her word. I know she will do that,
and she will do that.
This morning, the Republican leader, who is on the floor, was saying
that we just had an attack on 4 million people and that it is Obama's
fault. I think that is stretching things a little bit, especially
recognizing that I have only given a brief travel through the times we
have tried to get up the cyber security legislation. We should take the
time to do it right.
I have told the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and I have
checked with our ranking member of the Finance Committee, who is
extremely interested--and hasn't been for 10 minutes or 10 days or 10
months but 10 years--in privacy. He has been our leader on privacy on
this side of the aisle, and he believes we could finish it, if we had a
free shot at this cyber bill, in a couple of days--and I agree with
him--at the most. So we are not trying to avoid cyber. I believe--we
believe it is an important part of what we need to do. But we should
take time to do it right. We should not be tacking this important piece
of legislation onto a bill the President has already said he is going
to veto just so the Republicans can blame Obama for vetoing this bill
as well.
If the majority would withdraw their cyber amendment and agree to
take it up after this bill, we could do it in a couple of days and then
we could return to working on the Defense bill. But we cannot take up
all these new amendments my friend the chairman of the committee wants
to set up votes on--we have the 9 he talks about, plus 6; that is 15--
until we resolve this matter dealing with cyber security.
So without belaboring the point--and I appreciate my impatient friend
being patient with me and listening to me go through all of this--I ask
the majority leader or my friend the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee if he would modify his consent request as follows.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion with
respect to amendment No. 1569--that is cyber security--as modified, be
withdrawn; that the pending amendment No. 1569--again, that is cyber
security--as modified, be withdrawn; and that upon the disposition of
H.R. 1735, the Defense authorization bill, the Senate proceed to the
consideration of Calendar No. 28, S. 754. That is the bill which came
out of the Intelligence Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am
going to propose a modification of the consent request propounded by
the Democratic leader: that following disposition of H.R. 2685, the
Defense appropriations bill, the Senate turn to consideration of S.
754, the cyber security measure reported by the Senate Intelligence
Committee. I further ask that there be 10 relevant amendments to be
offered by each bill manager or designee, with 1 hour of debate
followed by a vote on the amendments offered, with a 60-vote threshold
on those amendments that are not germane to the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the
majority leader?
The minority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object to my friend's
modification, I repeat, the cyber security bill is important and the
Senate should turn to it, but putting it after the Defense
appropriations bill is a false promise. It is a facade. I think it is
very clear. I heard the Republican leader give a speech on the floor
today that he knows, unless there are some changes made, we are not
going to get on the Defense appropriations bill. So this is a false
promise.
If we could do it in a more specific, determined time, that would be
one thing, but the Republican leader obviously has no plan to complete
the Defense appropriations bill if this is how we are proceeding;
rather, they are proceeding ahead with his partisan budget plan--a plan
the President said will not become law.
Until Republicans sit down to work out a bipartisan Senate budget,
the Senate will not finish the Defense authorization bill. Once again,
the right way to do this would be to consider the cyber security bill
on its own merits after the Defense authorization bill is done. It
would take 2 days.
So I ask the majority leader if he would modify his consent request
to the following: that upon disposition of the Defense authorization
bill, H.R. 1735, the Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar No.
28, S. 754, which is the cyber security bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I
will object, I will point out that the Defense appropriations bill was
reported out of the Appropriations Committee today with only three
members voting against it. There was a lot of discussion about the
Democratic leader saying ``We are not going to pass the bill,'' but
when the votes were counted, only three members--all on the Democratic
side but only three--voted against reporting the bill out of committee.
My good friend the Democratic leader and I have had this discussion
back and forth, but one of the advantages of being in the majority is
that we set the schedule, and we are going to do the Defense
appropriations bill after we do the Defense authorization bill;
therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the
majority leader?
Mr. REID. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Does the Senator from Arizona modify his request with the request of
the Democratic leader?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, may I make a couple of comments real quick
before the distinguished majority leader modifies his request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I would remind my good friend from Nevada, the Democratic
leader, for the last 2 years we took up the Defense authorization bill,
and it was taken up so late there was not a single amendment--not a
single, solitary amendment on the Defense authorization bill for the
last 2 years. So I understand the Democratic leader's commitment to
amendments. It is too bad that for 2 years we never had a single
amendment to the Defense authorization bill.
As far as relevant amendments are concerned, one of the things about
this body is that everybody has the right to propose an amendment until
their amendments are not made germane. The three pending Democratic
amendments we have now on the bill are not germane.
So all I can say is that I hope we can get a modification. I hope we
can move forward.
I just wish to point out one more time what I know that my colleagues
have heard over and over, and I will make it brief. Henry Kissinger
testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the world has
never been in more crises. This world is at risk, and we have to--we
have to protect the men and women who are serving in our security. I
would argue that a national defense authorization act is probably more
important now than it has been at any time in recent history.
I refuse to modify my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator's original
request?
Mr. REID. Which Senator?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
[[Page S4087]]
Mr. REID. Yes, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote on amendment No. 1569 be
moved to 3 p.m. today and that the mandatory quorum call be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will be extremely brief. We can have a
debate here. We can look at all the press clippings of both sides on
what happened in the last 2 years on Defense authorization. We didn't
get a bill. We got a bill, but it was done in secret by the managers of
the two bills in the House and the Senate. The reason that happened--it
wasn't our fault. They wouldn't let us on the bill--``they'' meaning
the Republicans. So we can debate that all we want. Those are the
facts.
I do not object to my friend's request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The majority leader.
Cloture Motion
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk on
the McCain substitute amendment No. 1463.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill 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 McCain
amendment No. 1463 to H.R. 1735, an act to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Richard C. Shelby, Jeff
Flake, John Barrasso, John Cornyn, Mike Rounds, Jeff
Sessions, Shelley Moore Capito, Lamar Alexander,
Lindsey Graham, Joni Ernst, John Hoeven, Roger F.
Wicker, Kelly Ayotte, Richard Burr, Thom Tillis.
Cloture Motion
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk
with respect to the underlying House bill, H.R. 1735.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill 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 H.R. 1735, an
act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for
military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Richard C. Shelby, Jeff
Flake, John Barrasso, John Cornyn, Mike Rounds, Jeff
Sessions, Shelley Moore Capito, Lamar Alexander,
Lindsey Graham, Joni Ernst, John Hoeven, Roger F.
Wicker, Kelly Ayotte, Richard Burr, Thom Tillis.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Amendment No. 1569, as Modified
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in just a moment, the Senate will
consider an important cyber security measure. I urge every one of my
colleagues to support it.
USA TODAY recently cited a cyber security expert who noted that this
Senate legislation has the potential to greatly reduce the number of
victims targeted by the kinds of hackers we have seen in recent years.
It contains modern tools to help deter future attacks against both the
government and the private sector, to provide them with knowledge to
erect stronger defenses, and to get the word out faster about attacks
when they are detected.
The top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee reminded us that the
cyber security measure before us would also protect individual privacy
and civil liberties. She has urged Congress to ``act quickly'' to deter
a threat that is literally impossible to overstate.
The White House has also urged Congress to act.
The new Congress has been asked to act, and today we are, with a
good, strong, transparent, bipartisan measure which has been thoroughly
vetted by both parties in committee and which has been available for
months--literally months--for anyone to read. It was endorsed by nearly
every Democrat and every Republican on the Intelligence Committee, 14
to 1. It is also backed by a broad coalition of supporters, everyone
from the chamber of commerce to the United States Telecom Association.
It is legislation that is all about protecting our country, which is
why it makes perfect sense to consider it alongside defense legislation
with the very same aim. Cyber security amendments can be offered, and
the debate will continue.
So let's work together to advance this measure. There are now 4
million extra reasons for Congress to act quickly. The sooner we do,
the sooner we can conference it with similar legislation that passed
the House and get a good cyber security law enacted to help protect our
country. The opportunity to begin doing that will come in a few moments
with a vote for cloture on this bipartisan cyber security bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The minority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have on the Senate floor an authorization
bill for about $600 billion--Defense authorization for about $600
billion. I can't imagine the procedural games, the chicanery involved
in this. Why did we yesterday have on this bill something on Ex-Im
Bank? Was it just to check it off so they could say we tried and
Democrats wouldn't let us do it? Why would we have on this $600 billion
bill dealing with the security of this Nation something else that also
deals with the security of this Nation and that deserves a separate
piece of legislation so we can have amendments and talk about that? We
have agreed to do it in a very short period of time.
There is no good reason for doing it this way. We should limit the
matter at hand to the Defense authorization bill at some $600 billion,
and then we have agreed to go to cyber security. We are willing to do
that. But I cannot imagine--I cannot imagine--why the Republican leader
is doing this. It makes a mockery of the legislative process.
Mr. WYDEN. Will the leader yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield to the ranking member of the
committee for a question.
Mr. WYDEN. Leader, I strongly oppose cloture on this cyber measure
and I want to ask the Senator a question.
I think we all understand how dangerous hackers are. They are
increasingly sophisticated. The most dangerous hackers rarely use the
same technique twice. I believe what the Senator is saying is we can't
deal with this responsibly by stapling the cyber bill to something
else. Is that one of the key reasons the leader is opposing this?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, respectfully, I suggest we are on leader
time now. My time is protected--or used to be--and the Senator asked me
a question. I yielded to him for a question. He should have the right
to answer the question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. I will be very brief.
I oppose cloture on the cyber measure. I think what the leader is
saying is that the cyber measure is so serious we shouldn't deal with
it by stapling it to something else. It is so important we ought to
have an opportunity over that 2-day period to deal with it separately;
is that the leader's view?
Mr. REID. Without any question.
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 bill 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 amendment No.
1569, as modified, to the McCain
[[Page S4088]]
amendment No. 1463 to H.R. 1735, an act to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Lamar Alexander, John Cornyn, Orrin G.
Hatch, David Perdue, Bob Corker, Michael B. Enzi, Susan
M. Collins, Jeff Flake, Mike Rounds, Richard Burr,
David Vitter, James M. Inhofe, Daniel Coats, John
McCain, Deb Fischer, Tom Cotton.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 1569, as modified, offered by the Senator from Arizona,
Mr. McCain, for the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Burr, to the
substitute amendment No. 1463, 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 Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) and
the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 40, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 207 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
NAYS--40
Baldwin
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Kaine
Lee
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Paul
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Cruz
Leahy
Merkley
Rubio
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are
40.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[...]
