Al Franken

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the widespread and harmful impact of forced arbitration--mandatory arbitration. Last November, the New York Times published a three-part investigative series, which I recommend to every Member, on the pervasive use of forced arbitration--or mandatory arbitration. Mandatory arbitration is a privatized system of justice that corporations rely on when their customers or workers seek justice for being cheated, injured, or mistreated. The series in the New York Times, while shocking, illustrates something that I have been saying for a long time: Mandatory arbitration agreements--forced arbitration agreements, which are often buried in the fine print of employment and service contracts, severely restrict Americans' access to justice by stripping consumers and workers of their legal rights and insulating corporations from liability. From nursing home contracts and employment agreements to credit card and cell phone contracts, corporate America uses forced arbitration clauses to rig the system against ordinary Americans in a wide variety of cases. My staff recently heard from a Minnesota lawyer who represents families with serious injury and wrongful death claims. He told the heartbreaking story of a man who suffered from dementia and was eventually checked into a nursing home. Twenty-one days after entering the home, it became clear to the man's family that his life was in danger; he was rapidly losing weight and had fallen into a coma. He was then sent to a hospital, where it was discovered that he was suffering from ``profound dehydration.'' Unfortunately, the hospital could not correct the harm caused by the nursing home, and the man died shortly thereafter. He was 71 years old. Then, instead of being able to take the nursing home to court, the man's family was forced to settle their wrongful death claim through arbitration. When all was said and done, the arbitrators actually received greater compensation than the family, and the nursing home got away with a slap on the wrist. Egregious cases like that of this Minnesota family are not rare. Time and again, arbitration clauses stack the deck in favor of big business and against consumers, as if the deck weren't stacked enough already. As the number of unbelievable stories grows, the need for reform has become clearer and more urgent. That is why I am proud to be joining Senator Leahy, as well as Senators Blumenthal, Durbin, and Whitehouse, in introducing the Restoring Statutory Rights Act to ensure that Americans can enforce their civil rights. As Members of Congress, we have fought hard to pass legislation that will protect Americans from discrimination. This critical work is undermined, however, if we strip away their right to go to court and instead force these claims into a privatized justice system. Remember that corporations can write the rules for the arbitration proceedings; everything can be done in secret, without public rulings; discovery can be limited, making it hard for consumers to get the evidence they need to prove their case; and there is no meaningful judicial review, so there is not much a consumer or an employee can do if the arbitrator gets it wrong. It is simply not fair. I have also introduced with a number of colleagues my own bill, the Arbitration Fairness Act, which would fix these unfair practices by amending the Federal Arbitration Act to prohibit the use of mandatory, predispute arbitration agreements in consumer, employment, civil rights, and anti-trust cases. This bill gives Americans a real choice: If a consumer or worker wants to take his claim into arbitration, then, by all means, he is free to do so, provided that the corporation is willing to do so as well. However, if the consumer or employee wants to go to court, that option will once again be available. To put it simply, both of these bills are about reopening the courthouse doors to American consumers and workers, because the courthouse doors never should have been closed in the first place. I ask others to please join me in fighting back against mandatory arbitration and cosponsor the Restoring Statutory Rights Act and the Arbitration Fairness Act. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the widespread and harmful impact of forced arbitration--mandatory arbitration. Last November, the New York Times published a three-part investigative series, which I recommend to every Member, on the pervasive use of forced arbitration--or mandatory arbitration. Mandatory arbitration is a privatized system of justice that corporations rely on when their customers or workers seek justice for being cheated, injured, or mistreated. The series in the New York Times, while shocking, illustrates something that I have been saying for a long time: Mandatory arbitration agreements--forced arbitration agreements, which are often buried in the fine print of employment and service contracts, severely restrict Americans' access to justice by stripping consumers and workers of their legal rights and insulating corporations from liability. From nursing home contracts and employment agreements to credit card and cell phone contracts, corporate America uses forced arbitration clauses to rig the system against ordinary Americans in a wide variety of cases. My staff recently heard from a Minnesota lawyer who represents families with serious injury and wrongful death claims. He told the heartbreaking story of a man who suffered from dementia and was eventually checked into a nursing home. Twenty-one days after entering the home, it became clear to the man's family that his life was in danger; he was rapidly losing weight and had fallen into a coma. He was then sent to a hospital, where it was discovered that he was suffering from ``profound dehydration.'' Unfortunately, the hospital could not correct the harm caused by the nursing home, and the man died shortly thereafter. He was 71 years old. Then, instead of being able to take the nursing home to court, the man's family was forced to settle their wrongful death claim through arbitration. When all was said and done, the arbitrators actually received greater compensation than the family, and the nursing home got away with a slap on the wrist. Egregious cases like that of this Minnesota family are not rare. Time and again, arbitration clauses stack the deck in favor of big business and against consumers, as if the deck weren't stacked enough already. As the number of unbelievable stories grows, the need for reform has become clearer and more urgent. That is why I am proud to be joining Senator Leahy, as well as Senators Blumenthal, Durbin, and Whitehouse, in introducing the Restoring Statutory Rights Act to ensure that Americans can enforce their civil rights. As Members of Congress, we have fought hard to pass legislation that will protect Americans from discrimination. This critical work is undermined, however, if we strip away their right to go to court and instead force these claims into a privatized justice system. Remember that corporations can write the rules for the arbitration proceedings; everything can be done in secret, without public rulings; discovery can be limited, making it hard for consumers to get the evidence they need to prove their case; and there is no meaningful judicial review, so there is not much a consumer or an employee can do if the arbitrator gets it wrong. It is simply not fair. I have also introduced with a number of colleagues my own bill, the Arbitration Fairness Act, which would fix these unfair practices by amending the Federal Arbitration Act to prohibit the use of mandatory, predispute arbitration agreements in consumer, employment, civil rights, and anti-trust cases. This bill gives Americans a real choice: If a consumer or worker wants to take his claim into arbitration, then, by all means, he is free to do so, provided that the corporation is willing to do so as well. However, if the consumer or employee wants to go to court, that option will once again be available. To put it simply, both of these bills are about reopening the courthouse doors to American consumers and workers, because the courthouse doors never should have been closed in the first place. I ask others to please join me in fighting back against mandatory arbitration and cosponsor the Restoring Statutory Rights Act and the Arbitration Fairness Act. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, that is too bad. There is no one else in this body who believes that Sam Heins shouldn't be Ambassador to Norway or that we shouldn't be sending an ambassador to Norway, and/or that Azita Raji wouldn't be perfect to be Ambassador to Sweden. This is really a shame. It is another sad moment, frankly. Let me talk a little bit about Sam Heins. Sam is from Minnesota, home of more Norwegian Americans than any other State. I think we have more Swedish Americans, as well, than any other State. Norway is an important NATO ally, as Senator Klobuchar so ably put it. We coordinate on important security issues. We have important collaborations in Minnesota among our universities and in the private sector in this country on research projects, renewable energy, health care, and other areas. Confirming an ambassador to Norway--especially such a highly qualified ambassador--is especially important to the people in my State. More than 20 percent of Minnesotans trace their ancestry to Norway. There are more Norwegian Americans living in Minnesota than any other State. Sam Heins is a very distinguished Minnesotan who has worked on behalf of women's rights, human rights, and victims of torture. We have a center in Minnesota for victims of torture. It is a shining example of our State and of our country. Sam has been nominated to serve as our next Ambassador to Norway. He is being blocked, unfortunately, for reasons that are totally unrelated to his qualifications. I believe that blocking this nominee from confirmation is completely irresponsible. As I said, Norway is an important ally, and it is in our mutual interests to have an ambassador to Norway who represents the United States. I hope the next time we do this, we can get unanimous consent. This is unfortunate, and I think it has not been done in a way that is consistent with the protocol of the Senate in terms of Senators creating conditions for the lift of a hold and then changing what that position is. I think that is too bad. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to talk about the importance of updating our Nation's energy policy. I thank Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and their staffs for their hard work in crafting a bipartisan energy bill. Congress hasn't passed a comprehensive energy bill since 2007, and a lot has changed in the energy sector since then. We have seen a transformation in renewable energy. Electricity generation from wind power has grown by more than 400 percent. Wind energy now supplies electricity for 20 million Americans. The growth of solar energy is equally impressive. In its early days, solar power was known for powering satellites and space stations. Now we are seeing residential and utility-scale solar power becoming important components of the grid. Since the passage of the last Energy bill in 2007, our solar generation capacity has increased more than 2,000 percent. During that time, the cost of solar energy has dropped more than 60 percent. We have to build on these trends and reorient our energy sector toward a clean energy future. Comprehensive energy legislation needs to promote innovation, deploy clean energy technology, and create good-paying jobs. The bipartisan Energy bill we are currently debating is an important step forward. It improves our Nation's energy efficiency through commonsense measures, such as updating building codes. It invests in energy storage, which will turn intermittent renewable energy into baseload power. It also helps States and tribes to access funds to deploy more clean energy technologies. These are good measures, and that is why I voted to support this bill out of the energy committee. However, the current bill does not go far enough to fight the challenge of climate change. Climate change presents a Sputnik moment-- an opportunity to rise to the challenge and defeat the threat of climate change. In response to Sputnik, we mobilized American ingenuity and innovation. We ended up not just winning the space race and sending a man to the Moon, we did all sorts of great things for the American economy and for our society. By rising to the challenge of climate change, we can bet again on American ingenuity. We have the opportunity not just to clean up our air but also to drive innovation and create jobs. That is why I am offering my American Energy Efficiency Act as an amendment to this bill. This amendment, which is cosponsored by Senators Heinrich, Warren, and Sanders, establishes a national energy efficiency standard that requires electric and natural gas utilities to help their customers use their electricity more efficiently. This is something that 25 States are already doing, and what those programs have shown us is that energy efficiency standards work. Our amendment will send market signals that we are serious about energy efficiency. It will unleash the manufacturing and deployment of all kinds of energy-efficient products throughout our economy. It will help households and businesses save money on their electricity bills. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy--the experts in energy efficiency who rated the energy savings in the Portman-Shaheen bill--our amendment will generate more than three times the energy savings of the entire Portman-Shaheen energy efficiency title in the base bill. By the year 2030, our amendment will generate 20 percent energy savings across the country and result in about $145 billion in net savings to consumers. Our amendment is modeled on the experience of States that have adopted energy efficiency standards. In fact, the first State to adopt efficiency standards was Texas. Similar programs have been adopted by both red and blue States. What we have seen with these programs is that they work. They are saving energy, and they are saving consumers money, both in businesses and homes. My State of Minnesota passed its energy efficiency standards under a Republican Governor--Governor Tim Pawlenty--in 2007. We have a goal of 1.5 percent annual energy savings, and we don't just meet that goal, we exceed it. These energy efficiency standards also send a market signal to companies to innovate and deploy energy savings technologies. The State of Arkansas set its energy savings targets in 2011, and according to the Arkansas Advanced Energy Foundation, the program has generated $1 billion in sales by energy efficiency companies. The standard has also helped create 9,000 well-paying jobs in the State. The program has been so successful that the State public service commission recently extended the energy efficiency goals through 2019. Arizona implemented its energy efficiency savings targets in 2011. Just 3 years after its implementation, Arizona went from being 29th to the 15th most energy-efficient State in the country. Through the program, utilities have saved electricity equivalent to powering 133,000 homes for 1 year. Businesses and residents have already saved $540 million from reduced energy and water usage. These savings put more in people's pockets. That means more money to buy groceries, a new car, or to pay for college. The States have shown that energy efficiency standards work. We should learn from Pennsylvania, Illinois, Colorado, and 22 other States and bring this successful experiment to the whole country. I again applaud the efforts of Senator Murkowski and Senator Cantwell in bringing this bipartisan Energy bill to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment when it comes to a vote this afternoon. My amendment will make this good piece of legislation stronger. It will reduce emissions. It will save Americans money. It will unleash clean energy innovation and jobs throughout the Nation. I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and to bet on our future. This is a Sputnik moment. When we responded to Sputnik, we did amazing things. This is a piece of it. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3115 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask for order so my colleagues might hear my wise remarks.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I call on my colleagues to support my amendment No. 3115 that I offer with Senators Heinrich, Warren, and Sanders. This amendment establishes a national energy efficiency standard that requires electric and natural gas utilities to help their customers use energy more efficiently. Our amendment is modeled on the experience of Minnesota and 24 other States that have already adopted energy efficiency standards, including States such as Texas, Arizona, and Arkansas. The State programs are working great, helping reduce energy usage, saving customers, consumers, and businesses money on their electricity bills, creating well-paying jobs, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, our amendment will generate more than three times the energy savings of the entire Portman-Shaheen energy efficiency title, which is a great title in and of itself, in the base bill. By the year 2030, our amendment will generate 20 percent energy savings across the country and result in about $145 billion in net savings to consumers. We like to say that States are the laboratories of democracy, and half our States have shown that these policies work. So it is time to build on their successes and bring this successful experiment to the entire country. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the senior Senator from Minnesota for her remarks about Wilhelmina Wright. I join her in rising not just in strong support but enthusiastic support for Justice Wilhelmina Wright's nomination to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. We call her Justice Wright because she is on the Minnesota Supreme Court. She has been an excellent consensus nominee. I would like to thank Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Leahy for working to ensure that the Judiciary Committee reported out her nomination favorably. I would also like to thank Leader McConnell for scheduling this afternoon's vote. As of today, Justice Wright's nomination has been pending for 279 days--more than 9 months. The seat she has been nominated to fill has been declared a judicial emergency. So I am pleased the Senate is moving to confirm Justice Wright and that Minnesotans seeking justice will soon be able to have their day in court. Justice Wright is, without question, the best candidate for this position. Not only did she earn a stellar reputation as a Federal prosecutor in Minnesota, but Justice Wright is the only person in our State's history to serve as a judge at all three levels of Minnesota's judiciary. In her 15 years on the bench, Justice Wright has heard more than 2,000 cases, and none of her rulings in those cases raised concern during her hearing, which is why her nomination was approved without objection by the Judiciary Committee in September. For those who have known her, this comes as no surprise. Justice Wright understands the role of a judge. Her unwavering commitment to fairness and impartiality, as well as her reputation for professionalism, explains why Justice Wright enjoys a deep well of support in Minnesota from both sides of the aisle, and I emphasize that. Senator Klobuchar and I formed a bipartisan selection committee to assist us in identifying a nominee for this vacancy. That committee was cochaired by Tom Heffelfinger, a Republican former U.S. attorney for the District of Minnesota under Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. They are two different people, H.W. and W. Bush, both Presidents. In recommending Justice Wright to Senator Klobuchar and to me, Mr. Heffelfinger said that her nomination ``continues the long Minnesota tradition of selecting federal judges based on their professionalism and experience, rather than political connections. Justice Wright embodies everything one could look for in a federal judge: experience, intellectual firepower, a calm and patient demeanor, and a deep personal understanding of the issues facing the people of this country.'' I think everybody on that panel absolutely agreed with Tom Heffelfinger, who is a great public servant. If Tom Heffelfinger, who is a great public figure himself, says those words, they are high praise indeed. And it was echoed by other conservative voices before Justice Wright's hearing before the Judiciary Committee. Chairman Grassley noted that several Republicans had called him to voice support for her nomination. One of those calls came from my colleague in the House, Representative Erik Paulsen, who represents Minnesota's Third District. It is clear to me why the people of my State, regardless of their political persuasion, support her nomination. Justice Wright's integrity, her dedication to public service, and her commitment to equal justice reflect Minnesota values. I strongly urge that all of my colleagues support Wilhelmina Wright, and I look forward to her confirmation. This is very important. We have other judges who are up for confirmation who come from States such as Iowa and Nebraska. They have been signed off by both of their Senators, including the Presiding Officer. This is a bipartisan commission with bipartisan support, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for Justice Wilhelmina Wright, who now sits on the Minnesota Supreme Court, to sit on the Federal district court. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I rise today to celebrate the successful climate negotiations that were just wrapped up in Paris. This past Saturday, 196 countries came together to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions, taking a very important step in the fight against climate change. This historic agreement is a recognition that we cannot afford to ignore the negative impacts of climate change and that we must work together globally to put the planet on a safer path forward. The agreement does not simply take countries at their word, but it requires transparent measurement and verification to ensure that they live up to their promises. Crucially, the deal requires countries to revisit their emission reduction targets every 5 years. That way countries can factor in new technologies and new policies in order to keep global warming under 2 degrees Celsius. This truly historic deal has been nearly 25 years in the making. International climate efforts date back to 1992, when governments around the world met in Rio de Janeiro with the objective of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations. Nations have met every year since to further the goal. While some meetings have been more successful than others, most have been met with disappointment and lack of action. After all, climate change is a complex issue, and bringing about a consensus action for any international issue is no small feat. That is why this agreement is truly, truly impressive. Two weeks ago I traveled to Paris with nine of my colleagues. We met with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, with U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, and with our top U.S. climate change negotiator, Todd Stern. I congratulate all of them for their fine work. Part of the purpose of our trip was to demonstrate to the world that there is a strong coalition in the U.S. Congress that supports the President's efforts on climate change, a message we conveyed to other nations, including Bangladesh. It is a country that has contributed little to industrial air pollution, but it is one of the most vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change. It is estimated that unless we act, rising sea level will inundate some 17 percent of Bangladesh, displacing about 18 million people in this low-lying nation. They will be uprooted and turned into climate refugees without a home. But, of course, climate change isn't something that will just impact Bangladesh and other low-lying nations. It is already impacting us right here at home. While we cannot attribute any single extreme weather event to climate change, we do know that climate change impacts the frequency, duration, and severity of extreme weather events. Just look at the damage caused by Superstorm Sandy. The storm surges caused by Sandy along the eastern seaboard were far more damaging because of climate-induced sea level rise. May I remind you that the damage caused by Sandy cost taxpayers $60 billion. We are also seeing climate impacts to our forests. When Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell testified before the Senate energy committee a few years ago, he told us that throughout the country we are seeing far longer fire seasons and that wildfires are also larger and more intense. I asked Chief Tidwell whether scientists at the Forest Service have concluded that climate change has been exacerbating the intensity, the size, and duration of wildfires in the wildfire season. Without hesitation, he said yes. As a result, the Forest Service is spending more and more of their budget fighting fires--now more than half of their entire budget. We are seeing more intense droughts. Unless we act, these droughts will have a major impact on food security around the world. That is why I recently penned an op-ed in the Minneapolis StarTribune with Dave MacLennan, the CEO of Cargill, the Nation's largest privately held corporation. As the CEO of a company focused on agriculture, Dave is concerned about what climate change is going to do to our food supply in a world that is expected to go from 7 billion to 9.5 billion inhabitants by midcentury. That is why Cargill called for a strong outcome at the global climate negotiations. So you can see that Cargill has a strong business case to make on why we have to deal with climate change. But, of course, that business case isn't just confined to the agriculture sector. Addressing climate change presents a tremendous opportunity to transform the energy sector. For the very first time just this last week, Beijing issued its most severe warning to alert citizens of intense smog and local air pollution levels. Officials ordered half of the city's private vehicles to stay off the road, halted all operation at outdoor construction sites, and advised schools to temporarily close their doors. Citizens were encouraged to limit outdoor activities and recommended to wear a mask when outside. China is choking on its own fumes from fossil fuels. As China and others recognize that they have to race toward clean energy, I want to make sure that our nation leads that race. I want to make sure that our startups are innovating tomorrow's solutions, that our companies are the ones that are developing and deploying clean energy technologies here and around the world. Again, I want to reiterate that. Addressing climate change head on would not only mitigate unprecedented damage to our economy but spur growth and innovation in a world that is hungry for advancements in clean energy. My State of Minnesota recognized this opportunity in 2007 when it established a renewable energy standard and an energy efficiency standard. These kinds of policies send a strong signal to the private sector to develop and deploy clean energy solutions, and major investors are catching on to the opportunities. Just this month, Bill Gates launched the Breakthrough Energy Coalition to develop transformative energy solutions. The Coalition of nearly 30 billionaires from 10 different countries will invest in early stage energy companies to help them bridge the gap between government-funded lab research and the marketplace. According to Gates, the ``primary goal with the Coalition is as much to accelerate progress on clean energy as it is to make a profit.'' To back up this statement, Gates alone plans to invest $1 billion in clean energy in the next 5 years. So you can see that the very serious threat of climate change presents a ``Sputnik moment'' for our Nation, an opportunity to rise to the challenge and defeat that threat. In response to Sputnik, we ended up not just winning the space race and sending a man to the Moon, but we did all sorts of great things for the American economy and for our society. We did it once, and we can do it again. By rising to the challenge of climate change, we will not just clean up our air but also drive innovation and create jobs--and not only in the clean energy sector--just as the space program created economic growth in so many economic sectors. The Obama administration deserves a lot of credit for its leadership on climate change. Our domestic commitment through the Clean Power Plan, which builds on the work of my State and others, has established a Federal plan for reducing emissions. This important policy has provided American innovators and businesses the confidence to take on new risks and to drive new technologies forward. After dragging our feet for so many years, I am proud that the United States is acting domestically and leading internationally. But our job is not done. The agreement in Paris puts the planet on a safer trajectory than the one we have been on, but we have to remain vigilant and build upon that success. Internationally, we have to hold other nations accountable, ensure that they commit to stronger emission reduction targets over time, and make sure that those reductions are transparent and verifiable. Domestically, we have to build on the success of our cities and our States, and we have to work to make sure that the Clean Power Plan and other emissions reduction policies are effective. As a member of the Senate energy committee, I intend to do just that. Two years ago, my first grandchild was born, and I am expecting my second grandchild in January. God willing, they will live through this century and into the next. I want them to know that when we had the opportunity to put Earth on a safer path, we seized the moment. So let's celebrate this agreement because it is an important milestone, and then let's build on it to make the planet a safer and more habitable place for our grandchildren and their children. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, we have been living under No Child Left Behind, or NCLB, for 13 years, and during that time we have learned what about NCLB works and a lot more about what doesn't work. Students, teachers, and parents across the country have been waiting for a long time for us to fix this law. As a member of the ESEA conference committee, I am proud to work on the legislation before us today, the Every Student Succeeds Act, and to have helped to get it this far. I thank Representatives John Kline and Bobby Scott and Senators Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray for building the bipartisan foundation that got this bill done and will help to reform our national education system. The bill, of course, is not perfect, but it is a huge improvement over NCLB. Over the last 13 years, we learned that the one-size-fits- all approach to fixing failing schools just wasn't working. That is why this bill is designed to find a balance between giving States more flexibility while at the same time still making sure States intervene and fix schools where students are not learning. Over the last several years, starting when I got here, I have met with principals, teachers, students, parents, school superintendents, and other school administrators in Minnesota. These conversations have helped me to develop my education priorities to help improve our schools, our communities, and our Nation's future because that is what this is about. I worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find common ground. I am pleased that many of my priorities to improve student outcomes and close the achievement gap are reflected in the legislation that is before us today. These priorities include things such as strengthening STEM education, expanding student mental health services, increasing access to courses that help high school students earn college credit, and improving the preparation and recruitment of principals for high- need schools. I also successfully fought to renew the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program, which provides critical afterschool learning activities for students. Another one of my priorities helps increase the number of counselors and social workers in our schools. My provision to allow States to use computer adaptive tests will go a long way toward improving the quality of assessments used in our schools, will give teachers and parents more accurate and timely information on their students' progress, and will measure their growth instead of what NCLB did. In the beginning, NCLB just measured the percentage of kids who exceeded a certain arbitrary line of proficiency. This will measure every kid and how far they have come because I always thought that a sixth grade teacher who takes a kid from a third grade level of reading to a fifth grade level of reading is a hero and not a goat, as that teacher was in No Child Left Behind. I was also able to include a new Native language immersion program because I believe language is critical to maintaining cultural heritage and helping Native American students succeed. In addition, I wrote a provision to provide foster children who get new foster parents to stay in their same school district, when that is in their best interest, and not have to move to another school because very often the one essential and stable thing in their lives as foster children is their friends and teachers at school. I am very pleased that these priorities have been included in the legislation we are considering today, and I thank my colleagues for working with me on them. These provisions will help hundreds of thousands of students in Minnesota and millions of students across the country reach their full potential. At the same time, I do have to express my deep disappointment that my measure to help protect LGBT students from bullying and discrimination was not included in the final bill. I will keep fighting to get this critical measure passed into law because I think it is our responsibility here in the Senate, as adults, to protect children. Finally, I want to note that the Every Student Succeeds Act makes critical investments in early childhood education, which has been a priority of mine for a long time. A quality early childhood education doesn't just start kids off on the right foot, it is also good for our budget. Study after study has shown that for every $1 we spend, we get up to $16 back in the long run. A kid who has had a quality early childhood education is less likely to be in special education, less likely to be left back a grade, and has better health outcomes. The girls are less likely to get pregnant and more likely to graduate from high school, go to college, and get a good job so they can pay taxes, and are much less likely to go to prison. That is why it is such a great investment. It is also a great investment because a 3-year-old child is a beautiful thing. After working on a bill to replace NCLB for years, I am very pleased that we have gotten this reform effort finished. I thank my dedicated staff, both present and past, who has worked hard to move education priorities forward--Sherry Lachman, Amanda Beaumont, Gohar Sedighi. Thanks, Gohar. Once the President signs the Every Student Succeeds Act into law, I look forward to making sure the new law is implemented in a way that will benefit students, teachers, and parents in Minnesota. I thank the Presiding Officer. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my education fellow, Cristina Veresan, be given floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, we are just 1 month away from the new year 2016, which will bring a lot of good new things, I hope. The one thing it will not bring is a cost-of-living increase for seniors, veterans, and for people with disabilities. Despite the fact that the costs of health care, prescription drugs, and housing are increasing, the size of a Social Security check will not go up 1 cent on January 1, unless we act--unless Congress acts. That is why Senator Warren, my colleagues, and I have introduced the Senior And Veterans Emergency Benefits Act or SAVE Benefits Act. The SAVE Benefits Act is a one-time payment to seniors and veterans receiving their earned benefits so they can better meet their basic living expenses. The stagnant level for benefits in 2016 and its damaging effects are part of the bigger problem. Too many of our seniors are feeling the squeeze and just aren't secure enough in their retirement. Today's Social Security benefits are not enough to live on, and other retirement savings aren't filling the gap. You see, the share of private sector workers with pensions has fallen precipitously in recent years, and yet half of all Americans don't have retirement accounts or 401(k) plans or IRAs. So without sufficient pensions or retirement accounts, many seniors depend on Social Security. Social Security benefits comprise over 90 percent of income for the poorest 25 percent of retirees. Social Security comprises 70 percent of income for the middle 50 percent of retirees. With the cost of things seniors have to spend money on increasing, the absence of a cost-of-living increase in Social Security benefits is especially damaging. I have heard from many Minnesota seniors who are worried about the squeeze that no increase in Social Security will put on their budgets. Jeff from Minneapolis wrote: ``Food prices are up and my rent is up 4 percent in 2015 and will be up again in 2016.'' He continues: ``I lost most of my IRA earnings in the 2008-2009 debacle and now I rely almost entirely on Social Security.'' If we want Minnesotans like Jeff--and millions of Americans across the country facing similar situations--to have a secure retirement, we need to increase these benefits. That is what the SAVE Benefits Act does. Under our bill, seniors and veterans have a 3.9-percent increase--the same percentage increase that CEO pay went up from 2013 to 2014. For the average beneficiary, a 3.9-percent raise would come to about $580 a year. While that $580 may not sound like a lot compared, of course, to the raises that CEOs are getting, $580 can make a big difference to the average American, especially the average senior. The $580 may cover several months of groceries or out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs for a senior on Medicare who has gone into their doughnut hole. Some may ask if we can afford to give seniors and veterans a raise right now. Too often the ideas we have heard for ``fixing'' Social Security focus on cutting benefits, such as reducing cost-of-living increases by using chained CPI or raising the retirement age, but I think that is the wrong approach. We shouldn't cut our way to solvency. We need to strengthen our Social Security System by protecting and enhancing the benefits that seniors and veterans have earned, and that means improving Social Security's finances. A good place to start is by removing special provisions to the wealthiest Americans in our current Tax Code. Right now, individuals making millions of dollars a year still pay payroll tax only on the first $118,500 of their income. Over the long term, that is the sort of thing we need to address in order to strengthen Social Security. This bill proposes to pay for the one-time increase of Social Security benefits in the same spirit--rebalancing our Tax Code by ending a tax deduction for CEO pay that doesn't make sense and allows corporations to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. CEOs and big businesses will still do just fine under this bill. At the same time, the SAVE Benefits Act will provide critical assistance to Americans struggling to meet their expenses. In fact, this increase in benefits will lift about 8,000 Minnesotans out of poverty and thousands more in every State of our Union. Ultimately, the debate over this bill comes down to priorities. What is more important to us--protecting high pay for the wealthiest Americans or tax deductions for corporations on that high pay or ensuring that veterans, seniors, and people with disabilities have the income security they need to pay for health care, prescription drugs, and housing? As this year comes to a close, it is time to get our priorities straight and to stand up for our seniors and our veterans. They need a raise in 2016. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to express my condolences to the people of France for the tragedy they have experienced. No words can describe the barbaric and senseless acts of terrorism committed against the innocent victims in Paris, people who are simply going about their lives, people who are just enjoying a meal with their family or attending a concert with friends. These barbaric acts were an affront to the people of France and to all humanity. This is a time for solidarity with France and with all victims of terrorism. The world has rightly come together to condemn these barbaric acts. Now we have to work together and redouble our efforts to defeat ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq and elsewhere. Syrian Refugee Crisis As we remember the victims of the attacks in Paris, we cannot forget all those who are fleeing the terror in Syria. The ongoing conflict in that country has created 4 million refugees. These are people who are fleeing Assad's barrel bombs, his brutal assault on them on the ground, and they are fleeing murderous terrorist attacks committed by ISIS and other groups. Of those 4 million refugees, 1.9 million are in Turkey; 650,000 are in Jordan, a country of 6.5 million people; and 1.2 million are in Lebanon, making up a fifth of Lebanon's entire population. The White House has a very modest plan to bring 10,000 Syrian refugees into the United States over the next year. It is a tiny number compared to what other countries are doing. Even France--the country that just suffered the terrorist attacks--is going to honor its commitment to take 30,000 refugees over the next 2 years. Each one of the 10,000 refugees we are accepting is important because it could be the difference between life and death for those individuals. That is why I was proud to join Senator Durbin and other Members to urge the White House to do more--because we can and we should do more. The United States has always been a refuge for the vulnerable, for those who are fleeing political repression or those who are persecuted simply because of their religion. The Syrian refugees the administration is prioritizing for entry are, in fact, the most vulnerable. These are survivors of violence and torture, people with medical conditions, and women and children. The news site BuzzFeed has published a series of images of children, of young Syrian refugees. I encourage everyone to look at these images because they capture the vulnerability and desperation of the people we are trying to help, children like Ahmed, who is sleeping in this picture I have in the Chamber. As the BuzzFeed story says, Ahmed is a 6-year-old who carries his own bag over the long stretches his family walks by foot. His uncle says: ``He is brave and only cries sometimes in the evenings.'' His uncle has taken care of Ahmed since his father was killed in their hometown in northern Syria. There are children like Maram. Maram is an 8-year-old, and the story describes how her house was hit by a rocket. A piece of the roof landed right on top of her, and the head trauma caused her brain hemorrhage. She is no longer in a coma but has a broken jaw and cannot speak. We can only hope these children won't share the fate of Aylan Kurdi, whose image I can't get out of my mind. He is the drowned 3-year-old boy whose photograph on that beach galvanized the world. He was part of a group of 23 who had set out in two boats to reach the Greek island of Kos, but the vessels capsized. Aylan drowned, as did his 5-year-old brother Galip, and so did the boys' mother, Rehan. In the aftermath of the gruesome terrorist attacks in Paris, some have taken the view that we should turn our backs on these people, the very people who are fleeing from the terrorists. Some argue that we cannot both help these vulnerable men, women, and children and keep our country safe, but they paint a false choice. We can do both and we should do both. I wish to take just a minute to describe the stringent and very extensive security screening procedures these individuals go through before they can even enter the country, procedures so extensive that it can take up to 2 years--usually between 1\1/2\ years and 2 years--for them to be cleared to come here. These refugees are subject to the highest levels of security checks of any category of traveler entering the country. Those screenings include the involvement of our security and intelligence agencies, such as the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, and the Department of Defense. All available biographic and biometric information of these refugees is vetted against law enforcement and intelligence community databases so that the identity of the individual can be confirmed. Every single refugee is interviewed by a trained official from the Department of Homeland Security. Finally, the screening process accounts for the unique conditions of the Syria crisis and subjects these refugees to additional security screening measures. We absolutely need to make sure these security measures are as stringent and as thorough as possible, and if there are ways to enhance these screening protocols, we should make sure we are doing that. Each year the United States accepts tens of thousands of refugees from around the world, and there is no reason why some of those can't be Syrian refugees who are the most vulnerable. We can strike the right balance. We can protect our security and do our part to address the largest refugee crisis since World War II. But rather than showing compassion and standing up for American values, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to close the door to people who are fleeing the most horrendous forms of persecution. I believe that would betray our core values, and it would send a dangerous message to the world that we judge people based on the country they come from or from their religion, and that would make us less safe by feeding into ISIS's own propaganda that we are at war with Islam. We are better than this. Remember the closing lines of the poem that is inscribed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty, the gift from France to the United States that is a symbol of freedom and of generous welcome to foreigners. The poem, ``The New Colossus,'' was written by Emma Lazarus, who was involved in charitable work for refugees and deeply moved by the plight of Russian Jews--like my grandfather--who had fled to the United States. These are the closing lines of her poem: Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! There should always be a place in this country for men, women, and children who are fleeing horror--the same kind of horror that befell so many innocent people in Paris last week. This is not the time to score political points; this is the time when we come together and show leadership. This is the time--this is now the time--when we uphold the values of the United States of America. I thank the Chair.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I would like to return the kind words of my colleague from Delaware and thank him for his leadership in this whole field of manufacturing and filling the skills gap that we see all over this country and getting young people and getting people in midcareer trained up to do jobs that manufacturers and people in the IT industry and other industries need to fill. I rise today to recognize the very first week of November as the very first ever National Apprenticeship Week. I want to talk a little bit about the benefits of apprenticeship training programs, about what I hear in my State of Minnesota, and about my bill, the Community College to Career Fund Act, which would expand apprenticeship training programs through partnerships between employers and community and technical colleges. When I travel around my State--and I am sure the Presiding Officer hears this in Louisiana as well--I hear over and over again that employers are desperate to hire good people with the right skills for jobs that pay well. Today there are over 6,500 open manufacturing jobs in my State. And other sectors such as IT, health care--and mechanics for the aerospace industry, for airplanes--these sectors in our economy are experiencing similar problems. They cannot find workers with the necessary training and the right skills to fit jobs that are there. These jobs are there. This is what is called the skills gap. I am sure that my friend, the Presiding Officer from Louisiana, sees the skills gap in his State as well. One Minnesota employer, Kimberly Arrigoni of Haberman Machine in Oakdale, MN, put it this way: For my company specifically it no longer is a capacity issue because of equipment, but one with people. We are limited in what we can produce and ship out the door. . . . Imagine what this very ripple effect is causing my state and our country as a whole. She is right, by the way. I visited Haberman Machine, and it is a very good precision machine tooling company. It is a family-owned business, and it is great. They have jobs they want to fill, but people aren't being trained up fast enough. There are many registered apprenticeship programs nationwide in more than 1,000 occupations that prepare workers with the skills they need for tomorrow's jobs, yet they don't get the support they need. I have a bill that would address that and provide that support. My bill, the Community College to Career Fund Act, would encourage apprenticeship training programs by supporting public-private partnerships among communities, technical colleges, and businesses. These partnerships create job-training programs that provide direct hiring opportunities for students, and they give businesses the trained workforce they desperately need at little or no cost to the student. Programs such as the one supported by my bill will help employers fill available jobs, they will help students get those jobs and graduate with very little or no college debt, and they help our economy stay competitive globally. This is a win, win, win. Labor Secretary Tom Perez has described apprenticeship programs as college ``without the debt'' or ``earn while you learn.'' In Minnesota we have many great examples of such programs. I want to talk a little bit about one of them. Erick Ajax is the co-owner of EJ Ajax Metalforming Solutions in Fridley, MN. This is the third generation of Ajaxes. It was Ajax and Son, but the son, I think, is too old to be called a son anymore. Erick is third generation. They make 70 percent of North America's appliance hinges. His company has over 70 employees--one for every percent, evidently, of our appliance industry. Half of his employees were trained, hired, and had their college tuitions fully paid through his earn while you learn registered apprenticeship program. To do this, Erick partnered with local community and technical colleges to find and train students, including veterans, women, first-generation Americans, and ex- offenders. I went to his factory floor, and he introduced me to an ex-offender who had been working there at EJ Ajax for 6 years. He just bought his first home because of a training program he had taken that had been made available through a community technical college. For all of these categories I am talking about, I met first- generation Americans who have great middle-class jobs, got their training, and received degrees. There was a veteran who has his bachelor's degree now, paid for by Erick, by the company. These are full-time, high-paying, solid, middle-class jobs. Because Erick fully covered college tuition for his employees, some of his veteran employees were able to transfer their GI bill benefits to their spouses and their children to help pay for them to go to college. This is a great answer to our college affordability, our vexing college affordability problem that we all talk about. Erick Ajax's employees are evidence that apprenticeship training programs work. They increase their career opportunities, they provide businesses with skilled workers, they generate higher paying jobs, and they help our competitiveness globally. Did you know that individuals who have completed registered apprenticeship programs earn, on average, a starting salary of $50,000 a year and $300,000 more over their careers than their peers who did not participate in registered apprenticeship programs? In fact, the apprenticeships can be the start of a pathway to business leadership positions. Take Martin Senn, who is Swiss. Martin is the CEO of the Zurich Insurance Group, a Swiss company with offices around the world. The last I checked, it was one of the Fortune 500 companies--well, actually, in the Fortune 200 companies in 2012. I don't know exactly where it is now, but Martin is CEO of a huge company. Like many Swiss executives, he is a believer in apprenticeship programs. When he was asked why Swiss executives choose to implement apprenticeship programs in the United States, he said: ``I started my career as an apprentice and know first-hand how powerful such a program can be in inspiring young people to achieve their full potential.'' From apprentice to CEO, I would like to see more of these success companies involving U.S. companies here at home. Not all apprentices are going to become CEOs, but apprenticeship programs--their training programs--are providing a proven path for workers to enter the middle class and for business owners to develop a high-skilled workforce to fill today's available jobs. So as we recognize the first ever National Apprenticeship Week, I invite my colleagues to take a close look at my Community College to Career Fund Act. Let's expand the apprenticeship training model so we can better serve the needs of our students seeking good-paying jobs and of our businesses looking for qualified employees. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, the Franken, Leahy, Durbin, and Wyden amendment addresses concerns raised by privacy advocates, tech companies, and security experts, including the Department of Homeland Security. The amendment tightens definitions of the terms ``cyber security threat'' and ``cyber threat indicator,'' which are currently too broad and too vague, and would encourage the sharing of extraneous information--unhelpful information. Overbreadth is not just a privacy problem; as DHS has noted, it is bad for cyber security if too much of the wrong kind of information floods into agencies. My amendment redefines ``cyber security threat'' as an action that is at least reasonably likely to try to adversely impact an information system. It is a standard that tells companies what is expected of them and assures consumers that CISA imposes appropriate limits.

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 20 more seconds.

Mr. FRANKEN. The amendment also tightens the definition of ``cyber threat indicator'' to avoid the sharing of unnecessary information. The amendment is intentionally modest. It makes only changes that are most needed for the sake of both privacy and security. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 6 minutes.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, tomorrow we will vote on my amendment to the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, or CISA. I am proud to be joined on this amendment by Senators Leahy, Durbin, and Wyden, each of whom has worked to try to ensure that any cyber legislation passed by this body is effective and adequately safeguards the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. My amendment tightens the definitions of the terms ``cyber security threat'' and ``cyber threat indicator'' in the bill. These changes will help ensure that CISA's broad authorities are not triggered in circumstances where no real cyber threats are present. This makes the bill more privacy protected and more likely to work effectively. The amendment is supported by more than 30 civil society organizations, from the American Civil Liberties Union to prominent Libertarian groups like R Street. As I will describe, it addresses specific concerns that have been raised by security experts, major tech companies, and even the Department of Homeland Security. Under CISA, companies are authorized to monitor users online, share information with one another and with the Federal Government, and deploy defensive measures--all to protect against ``cyber security threats.'' Any action that may result in any unauthorized effort to adversely impact cyber security can be deemed a cyber security threat; that is, may result. That sets the lowest possible standard for determining when actions under CISA are justified, and that is a problem. It sets us up for the oversharing of information, or worse it jeopardizes privacy and threatens to hinder our cyber defense efforts by increasing the noise-to-signal ratio. My amendment would clarify that a threat is any action at least reasonably likely--reasonably likely--to result in an unauthorized effort to adversely impact cyber security. That definition gives companies ample flexibility to act on threats and ensures Americans that CISA isn't a free pass to share people's personal information when there is no threat. CISA's definition of cyber threat indicator has also been criticized by security experts, by companies such as Mozilla and, again, even by DHS, which has called the definition ``expansive'' and said that expansive definition heightens concerns raised by the bill. My amendment addresses the two parts of the definition that experts have suggested are the most likely to open the door to the sharing of extraneous information. First, as drafted, CISA would let companies share people's communications if they believe that the files have been harmed in a cyber attack or could potentially--potentially--be harmed by a perceived threat. The latter is especially problematic. The range of information that could be shared as evidence of potential harm is vast, and, as experts have explained, unnecessary to the technical work of identifying cyber threats. My amendment continues to allow companies to share information that reveals harms caused by a cyber incident but doesn't extend this to conjecture about hypothetical potential harms, which is unnecessarily broad. Finally, my amendment eliminates a troubling loophole in the cyber threat indicator definition. In addition to letting companies share information that reveals certain specified attributes or features of cyber threats, CISA also lets them share information that reveals ``any other attribute of a cybersecurity threat'' if the disclosure of that attribute is legal. Bill supporters claim that this final clause adequately limits the scope of this provision, but looking at whether disclosure of a threat attribute is lawful is an unclear and unhelpful standard. Privacy law is about protecting information, not threat attributes. So my amendment clarifies that companies can share information in this catchall category only if it is legal to share the information being provided. It is a technical change, but it matters. This amendment represents a real effort to find common ground for moving forward. Quite frankly, it doesn't do all the work that needs to be done to limit the definitions in this act, but it makes necessary changes--necessary changes--to improve the legislation, both for the sake of privacy and ultimately security. I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 2612. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Intelligence Committee bill we are currently debating, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015, or CISA. This Chamber sees its fair share of disagreements, so it is worth noting when there is something we can all agree on, and I think we can all agree on the need for congressional action on cyber security. We face ever-increasing cyber attacks from sophisticated individuals, organized crime syndicates, and foreign regimes. These attacks pose a real threat to our economy and to our national security. It is clear that we must respond to these new threats because the cost of complacency is too high, but it is critical, in deciding how we protect our information networks, that we also continue to protect the fundamental privacy rights and civil liberties of Americans. In short, there is a pressing need for meaningful, effective cyber security legislation that balances privacy and security. Unfortunately, as it now stands, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act falls short. Since this legislation was first introduced, I and a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have raised serious concerns about the problems the bill presents for Americans' privacy and for the effective operation of our Nation's cyber defense. My colleagues and I are not alone. Serious concerns have been raised by technologists and security experts, civil society organizations from across the political spectrum, and major tech companies, such as Apple, Dropbox, Twitter, Yelp, salesforce.com, and Mozilla. Neither the Business Software Alliance nor the Computer & Communications Industry Association supports CISA as written. In a letter I received from the Department of Homeland Security this summer, the agency--which has a leading role in cyber security for the Federal Government--expressed concern about specific aspects of CISA. DHS explained that under the bill's approach, ``the complexity--for both government and businesses--and inefficiency of any information sharing program will markedly increase.'' The letter explained that CISA would do away with important privacy protections and could make it harder, not easier, to develop ``a single, comprehensive picture of the range of cyber threats faced daily.'' Senator Burr and Senator Feinstein, the bill managers, have worked very hard over the last months to improve various aspects of the bill, and their substitute amendment offers a significantly improved version of CISA. I really appreciate their efforts, but it is clear to me and others that the improvements did not go far enough. Major concerns raised in the letter from DHS and voiced by security experts, privacy advocates, and tech companies still have not been resolved. Let me briefly describe three of them. First, the bill gives companies a free pass to engage in network monitoring and information sharing activities, as well as the operation of defensive measures, in response to anything they deem a ``cyber security threat,'' no matter how improbable it is that it constitutes a risk of any kind. The term ``cyber security threat'' is really the linchpin of this bill. Companies can monitor systems, share cyber threat indicators with one another or with the government, and deploy defensive measures to protect against any cyber security threats. So the definition of ``cyber security threat'' is pretty important, and the bill defines ``cyber security threat'' to include any action that ``may result in an unauthorized effort to adversely impact'' cyber security. Under this definition, companies can take action even if it is unreasonable to think that security might be compromised. This raises serious concerns about the scope of all of the authorities granted by the bill and the privacy implications of those authorities. Security experts and advocates have warned that in this context, establishing the broadest possible definition of ``cyber security threat'' actually threatens to undermine security by increasing the amount of unreliable information shared with the government. I have written an amendment, which is cosponsored by Senators Leahy, Wyden, and Durbin, which would set the bar a bit higher, requiring that a threat be at least ``reasonably likely'' to result in an effort to adversely impact security. This standard gives companies plenty of flexibility. They don't need to be certain that an incident or event is an attack before they share information, but they should have at least determined that it is a plausible threat. The definition of a cyber security threat isn't the only problematic provision of the bill. This brings me to the second concern that I would like to highlight. The bill provides a blanket authorization that allows companies to share information ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.'' As DHS explained this past summer, that statutory language ``sweeps away important privacy protections.'' Indeed, it means that CISA would override all existing privacy laws, from the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA, to HIPAA, a law that protects sensitive health information. Moreover, this blanket authorization applies to sharing done with any Federal agency. Companies are free to directly share with whomever they may choose, including law enforcement and military intelligence agencies. This means that, unbeknownst to their customers, companies may share information that contains customers' personal information with NSA, FBI, and others. From a security perspective, it also means we are setting up a diffuse system. I want to emphasize this. This is setting up a diffuse system that, as DHS's letter acknowledged, is likely to be complex and inefficient, where it is actually harder for our cyber security experts to connect the dots and keep us safe. These are all reasons why privacy experts, independent security experts, and the Department of Homeland Security have all warned that CISA's blanket authorization is a problem. Earlier this year, the House avoided this problem when they passed the National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act by a vote of 355 to 63. That information sharing bill only authorizes sharing with the government through a single civilian hub at the Department of Homeland Security--a move toward efficient streamlining of information that is also good for privacy. But understand that this is the House of Representatives, 355 to 63, saying: Let's make this easier for the government to have all the information in one place. Finally, CISA fails to adequately assure the removal of irrelevant personal information. This, of course, is a major concern. The bill allows personal information to be shared even when there is a high likelihood that the information is not related to a cyber security threat. Combined with the bill's overly broad definition of ``cyber security threat,'' this basically ensures that private entities will share extraneous information from Americans' personal communications. If companies are going to receive the broad liability protection this bill provides, they should be expected to do better than this. Senator Wyden has offered an amendment, which I am proud to be the cosponsor of, which would require companies to be more diligent and to remove ``to the extent feasible'' any personal information that isn't necessary to identify a cyber security threat. The ``extent feasible'' is a crucial improvement, but it is hardly novel; in fact, it is basically the same standard that is in place today when information is shared between private companies and the Department of Homeland Security. There is no justification for lowering that standard in CISA, especially because the bill also provides companies with significant liability protection. Mr. President, the amendments I have talked about today, as well as a number of other pending amendments, would make CISA a better deal, one that is significantly more protective of Americans' privacy and more likely to advance cyber security. I want to encourage my colleagues to support these amendments. Without them, I fear that, however well intentioned, CISA would do a disservice to the American people. I suggest the absence of a quorum.