Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it has been more than 4 years since the Senate overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan resolution ending the ability of Senators to place secret holds as a way to block passage of legislation and confirmations of nominees. The resolution--which I worked on with our colleague from Iowa Senator Grassley for more than a decade, and Senator McCaskill joined in these efforts--overwhelmingly passed the Senate by a 92-to-4 vote. Under the resolution, Senators who object to requests to pass legislation by unanimous consent are supposed to record their opposition by sending notice to the cloakroom and to the Secretary of the Senate, notifying colleagues of their objection. The objection is then listed in the Senate Calendar on a page--I took today's with the title ``Notice of Intent to Object to Proceeding.'' Mr. President, if you look at the page in the Senate Calendar where holds on bills are supposed to be listed, right now you will find a single entry on the page. It concerns a public hold that I placed on the intelligence authorization legislation last July. I wish I could say the reason that only one objection to a unanimous consent request is listed in the Senate Calendar is that my objection is the only hold placed on a bill in the past few months. Regrettably, that does not seem to be the case. For example, my colleague from New Hampshire has been talking about her bill, known as the CREED Act, S. 966. It was hotlined back on June 18 to determine if any Senator objected to passing that bill by unanimous consent. An objection was made after the bill was hotlined back in June, but the objecting Senator was not publicly identified as the timely objection was made. My understanding is that Senator Shaheen and her staff subsequently learned that multiple Senators had objected to passing her bill by unanimous consent, but not one of those Senators made their objection public through the notice requirements that were part of the bipartisan resolution. I think it is important to note that Senator Shaheen's CREED Act was determined to have no cost to Federal taxpayers. It is funded entirely by fees paid by the borrowers and lenders under the SBA 504 Loan Program. It strikes me as a very good bill that would benefit America's economy. I gather there are some Senators who might not agree about the value of the program, which, of course, is their right as Senators. But if they object to passing a bill, Senators ought to be publicly accountable. That is how we voted--92 to 4. They shouldn't be able to hide opposition behind anonymous objection. Senator Grassley and I and Senator McCaskill and others have said: Look, public business has got to be done in public. So Senator Grassley and I have publicly announced our holds by putting statements in the Congressional Record, and I don't think that Western civilization has exactly been harmed as a result of this kind of transparency and accountability. I would like to ask my colleague Senator Shaheen, given her interest in living up to both the letter and the spirit of the bipartisan resolution, whether it is her intent to state a unanimous consent request at this time to ensure the kind of transparency and accountability that was envisioned in the bipartisan resolution.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to be recognized to ask my colleague from New Hampshire a question.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN. Yes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be allocated equally.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, yesterday Chairman Hatch and I began managing this legislation on the floor of this distinguished body. It seems to me that speaking for more than a couple of minutes at this point would just be excessive, but I think I want to summarize what the central question is at this late hour. It would be fair to say that we have spirited debates in the Senate, and fiscal battles that play out in this Chamber take place at virtually every new cycle and certainly with every election. That is as it should be. That ensures that we have vigorous debate about important issues the Founding Fathers wanted this Senate to be part of. But that must never endanger the sterling economic reputation our country has built over the generations, and passing this legislation, in my view, helps to preserve that reputation. With this bipartisan legislation, it is possible to avert a catastrophic default and a mindless sequester, which would give an opportunity that the President, the Senate, and I care a great deal about, and that would be the opportunity to come up with smart, effective, targeted reforms, such as fixing the broken system of fighting wildfires in our country. That system is broken today. With this legislation and the opportunity to bring a bit more flexibility to the cause of reforming our government, there will be an opportunity on a bipartisan basis to fix that broken policy which has consumed, literally and figuratively, so much of our land in the West. To me, having the opportunity to prevent a government shutdown and demonstrate once more that our country pays its debts and pays them on time is central to our obligations in the Senate--obligations we must meet on a bipartisan basis. The reality is, as it has been for decades, that America is the economic rock in tumultuous seas with this legislation. Once again, we preserve our status, our prestige, with the ability to say to the world: America pays its debts. Our full faith and credit is intact. The reality is the cycle of fiscal crisis has gone on for far too long. To me, the Senate ought to view this legislation as, in effect, a springboard to go back to very different and robust and bipartisan budget debates. The people of this country--certainly the people of my State--expect Senators on both sides of the aisle and of differing philosophies to come together to solve the big economic challenges ahead. The reality is, if you count the votes here in the Senate, to get the important work done, you have to find some common ground. Neither side can forge the progress we need here in this body all by itself. So let's pass this bipartisan legislation tonight, and let's reaffirm our pledge to protect the full faith and credit of the United States. This evening I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to support this important legislation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to commemorate the honorable veterans and civilians of Umatilla County, OR, who worked tirelessly and fought valiantly for their community and country during the Second World War. These brave men and women served in a variety of capacities on all fronts, working to support the war effort at home, defending our coastlines from attack, and risking their lives in battle overseas. As the country continues to mark the 70th anniversary of World War II this year, I am proud to raise my voice to pay tribute to the men and women of Umatilla County for their part in the Allied victory. Umatilla County played a unique and important role in helping our country achieve victory in World War II. In 1941, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers created an airport in Pendleton, OR, which became home to the U.S. Army Air Forces 17th Bombardment Group. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the 17th Bombardment Group was called upon to defend the west coast from Japanese submarines. The group's aircraft and many of its members participated in the daring Doolittle Raid on Tokyo--the first U.S. bombing of the Japanese homeland. All 80 of Jimmy Doolittle's raiders trained in Pendleton, and 5 of them were Oregonians. Umatilla County also played home to another facility vital to the war effort: the Umatilla Army Depot, located near Hermiston, OR. The Umatilla Army Depot was a repository for munitions and supplies in hundreds of semisubterranean silos. The depot created an economic boom for Hermiston--then a town of 800--which ended up harboring 7,000 new workers. The Umatilla County Depot became the largest munitions facility in the world and stayed active in Hermiston until 2001. Umatilla County lost 86 people during World War II, but their spirit and stories live on through their families and in their communities. One of these men, SGT Modie L. Hubbard, even has a great nephew who now works in my office. Sergeant Hubbard was killed in action, and his is just one of many stories of those fearless men and women who died preserving the freedom of future generations. There is sometimes a temptation to focus on the massive scale of events like World War II, on the number of tanks built or brigades in the field. As we reflect on these and other aspects of America's war effort, I would encourage people to remember the communities across this country--communities like Umatilla County--that built those tanks or provided those soldiers. It must be our responsibility to honor these communities and their sacrifices to this great country, and it is my hope that their stories will continue to live on and inspire future generations of Americans to service.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Presiding Officer. Chairman Hatch and I will be managing this bill, and we want our colleagues to know that we are anxious to give everyone an opportunity to speak out on this extraordinarily important issue. If Senators who wish to speak come down and consult with the Finance staff--majority and minority--in our respective cloakrooms, we are going to work very hard to accommodate all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Here, in my view, is what this issue is all about. Fiscal battles in the Congress come and go, but nothing should ever be allowed to threaten America's sterling economic reputation, and this legislation will preserve it. Without this agreement, the Congress is staring at a potential debt default--a debt default that would be literally days away, when the Treasury would lose its authority to borrow in order to make payments. By now, I think a lot of Senators understand the disastrous consequences of default: housing costs shooting upward, retirement accounts shrinking, jobs disappearing, and consumer confidence dropping. We also understand that no one can get particularly thrilled by the prospect of raising the debt ceiling. Yet it is a job that must be done. Our country is an economic rock in tumultuous seas, and we certainly have disagreements. Disagreements practically come with every news cycle and election. But what doesn't change is that our country pays its debts and we pay them on time. That is why this legislation is so important. The bipartisan compromise reduces the threats of a potential government shutdown in December. When this becomes law, the pin, in effect, goes back in the grenade, where it belongs. That is positive news, as we look for some predictability and certainty, and we all hear from our businesses, our employers, and our citizens that this is so important. Congress ought to look at this compromise, in my view, as a springboard to a full and productive debate over the budget in the upcoming 2 years. The fact is, last-minute deals have become too commonplace and they have left a lot of important policy reforms and policy improvements on the cutting room floor. For example, with America's West getting hotter and drier each year, our broken system of budgeting for wildfires is in drastic need of improvement. The same goes for many programs and services that are a lifeline for rural America. Fortunately, this legislation lays the groundwork for the Congress to go back to having robust budget debates that can actually solve these challenges. With my time this morning, I wish to address some specific elements of the bill, starting with what I see as several particularly constructive policies. First, the legislation staves off the full brunt of the automatic budget cuts known in the corridors of Washington as sequestration. This policy was designed in effect to be painful from the get-go, and it would weaken Medicare, the lifeline for older people, and other domestic programs. It was supposed to be considered so god-awful that it would vanish 2 years after it began, but it continues to haunt budget debates to this day. It is important that this legislation eases the burden by $80 billion over 2 years. That means more opportunities to invest in education, in medical and scientific research, in housing assistance, in public health, and more. Second, this bipartisan plan is going to prevent a big spike in Medicare costs for millions of older people. Several weeks ago, the news came down that seniors were facing a hike in premiums and deductibles in Medicare Part B, the outpatient portion of Medicare, of potentially more than 50 percent. That would amount to an increase of hundreds of dollars--perhaps more--in a year when Social Security benefits are not expected to grow. From my years as codirector of Oregon's Gray Panthers, I can tell my colleagues that for many seniors living on a fixed income, that would have really hit them like a wrecking ball. When we got those initial reports, several of my Democratic colleagues and I got together and introduced legislation that would fully shield older people from this huge financial hit. Following our work, the bipartisan compromise before the Senate includes a version of this important fix. It is not as generous as the proposal my colleagues and I introduced. There are questions about how it will affect the landscape a few years down the road. But, make no mistake about it, this approach goes a long, long way toward protecting seniors, particularly the dual eligibles--seniors eligible for Medicare and Medicaid--and this is a very important part of this legislation. Third, the budget compromise takes an extraordinarily important step to shore up one of our country's most vital safety net programs: the Social Security Disability Insurance Program. Without a fix, what is called SSDI--Social Security disability insurance benefits--that workers have earned would have been slashed by 20 percent, and that 20- percent cut would have hit those affected very quickly. This proposal is going to follow what has been a frequently used bipartisan approach of shifting funding within the Social Security Program to make sure that those who depend on this program are protected through 2022. I introduced legislation earlier this year, along with 28 of our colleagues, which would have gone further by guaranteeing that the program remain solvent through 2034, but this compromise package strengthens the program for several years, and we will have a chance to come together--hopefully on a bipartisan basis-- and go even further. Fourth, the budget package makes real progress on what is called complying with our tax laws--tax compliance. It is important to note that these are not tax hikes. This is a question of enforcing tax law so that when taxes are owed, they are actually paid. In the tax compliance area, there are several important proposals that are going to crack down on taxpayers who seek to dodge their responsibilities and pass the buck to other Americans. For example, enforcing the tax laws with respect to large partnerships has been a challenge for some time. There are more than 10,000 of these complex businesses in our country. More than 500 of them have at least 100,000 partners. So there has not been an effective way to conduct audits under the current rules because the rules are basically decades old and haven't kept up with the times. In my view, the proposal before the Senate makes meaningful improvements. More taxpayers will pay what they owe instead of using sleight-of-hand approaches to dodge their responsibilities. We all understand that the Tax Code almost boggles the mind in terms of its complexity. I think it would be fair to say there may be more work that goes into getting this policy right as it relates to partnerships and several of the other issues, and my colleagues and I on the Finance Committee intend to keep giving the scrutiny the partnership issue deserves on an ongoing analysis. Those are four specific areas of progress in this compromise that staves off a risky budgetary battle. I do feel it is important to share one of my concerns with the bill at this time, and it is a provision that really has little to do with the budget. It is called section 301, and it allows debt collectors to make robocalls directly to Americans' cell phones. Here is my view. Debt collectors should not be gifted broad permission to harass our citizens, particularly through robocalls, running up costly charges in many cases. The Federal Communications Commission has limits on the number and duration of calls, and they are not sufficient. In a healthier budget process, this kind of proposal would get weeded out. So I would like to say to our colleagues in the Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, that I am going to do everything I can to reverse this action in the weeks ahead. Finally, in my capacity as ranking member of the Finance Committee, I wish to discuss how these fiscal agreements ought to be financed in the future. Medicare and Social Security absolutely cannot become the honey pots that Congress raids whenever it needs to pay for legislation. If we go around the country--to Oregon, to Illinois, to Georgia, to the Dakotas, to Texas--and we ask typical Americans what they want their representatives in Congress to do, protecting Medicare and Social Security is right at the top of the list. I hear it in every townhall meeting. I have had more than 700 of them in my home State. And I have to believe many colleagues in South Dakota and Illinois and elsewhere hear the same thing. There is a longstanding tradition that says changes in Medicare policy should be for strengthening Medicare in the future. The same principle goes for Social Security. Yet, twice now, these vital programs have been used to fund budget deals, and Medicare sequestration is sticking around long past its original expiration date. This legislation preventing a calamitous default is coming down to the wire. I would tell colleagues that this is a must-pass bill. I support it, and I urge Democrats and Republicans to do so as well. I would also say as we talk about where we go from here that it is important to recognize that Medicare and Social Security must not be used as ATMs for other spending in the future. The bottom line has to be that the process of reaching a budget and keeping the lights on in this wonderful institution--the people's branch--keeping the lights on in the process of reaching a budget has to change. The Congress cannot continue to just go from crisis to crisis to crisis. It is our job as lawmakers, working in a bipartisan way, to set the right temperature in our economy with smart, forward-looking policies that help our businesses succeed and give everybody in America--I want to emphasize that; everybody in America--the opportunity to get ahead. It is pretty hard to do when we lurch from one crisis to another. Let's use this legislation as an opportunity to get back to writing the budget in a bipartisan fashion through the traditional approaches that have been used in what is called regular order, pass this bill now so as to ensure that America's sterling economic reputation is intact, and then let's look to the future around some of the principles I have laid out. Again, Chairman Hatch will be here in a bit. He and I, as the managers of the bill, want to make it clear we want to try to accommodate as many colleagues as we can, and we ought to be able to. I look forward to the remarks of the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois. I believe that before too long Chairman Hatch will be here as well. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today we are kicking off a debate on major bipartisan legislation. Chairman Hatch and I are also involved in an important Senate Finance Committee hearing. He will be here a little bit later today. I ask unanimous consent that our colleague, Senator Durbin from Illinois, be allowed to speak after I do. I believe that his remarks will also be completed before Chairman Hatch arrives.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering a bipartisan budget agreement. I believe it is important to pass that bipartisan effort to avoid catastrophic default and to put an end to the mindless sequestration and pass funding to keep the government open. Regrettably, because I often agree with my friend from Kentucky and we team up on so many issues, the request to take up the Cut, Cap, and Balance legislation is a step in the wrong direction. When you push for cut, cap, and balance in this context, you are pushing for default, recession, and joblessness because that is what all of the independent financial authorities tell us is what is ahead if we don't act in the Senate. The desire to set aside what we are working on and pursue this other legislation is specifically an approach that would throw aside the bipartisan agreement before the Senate. This bipartisan effort is exactly the kind of bipartisan work where Democrats and Republicans come together to tackle a major issue. The American people expect their leaders to find common ground on key issues. That is what this legislation does. For those reasons, I object.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to address a small but important aspect of the hospital outpatient policy that is included in the budget agreement. The legislation does not address what happens to outpatient departments that are currently under construction. The bill allows current outpatient departments to continue to receive the Medicare outpatient payment rate because hospitals rely on those payments. Hospitals that want to build new facilities in the future go in with ``eyes open'' because they know they will not receive the higher outpatient rate. But that is not the case for outpatient departments that are currently being constructed as we speak. These hospitals made the decision to build, understanding that these facilities would receive the outpatient rate--they had no idea that Congress would be voting on this policy as part of this bill at this exact time. Facilities under construction should be treated the same as current facilities. I think it is unfortunate that this was not addressed when the bill was drafted, and I hope my colleagues will join me in ensuring this issue is addressed, either through regulations or through a technical legislative fix.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to honor an illustrious individual in both Oregon and the Nation's HIV/AIDS research and treatment community who passed away on October 4 of this year. Dr. Jim Sampson, while born a Georgia southerner, made Portland, OR, his home for the past 36 years. As a father, husband, brother, uncle, and friend, Jim generated an inclusive atmosphere of passion, love, and laughter wherever he went. As a medical doctor and a fervent leader in the fight against HIV/AIDS through research and treatments, Jim brought hope and compassion to his daily interactions with colleagues and patients alike. For Jim, no person or job was too big or too small to embrace. In 1979, after Jim graduated from Emory University and the Medical College of Georgia, he moved to Portland to become the medical director of the health services division and the HIV/AIDS program at Multnomah County Health Department. At a time when a lack of public education and stigmatization of HIV/AIDS stymied research in America, Jim fought to build a greater understanding of the disease. Because of Jim's desire to see HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment improve through extensive research and because of the way he showed love and hope in his interactions with his patients, Jim helped push the doors open wide in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Over the years, Jim expanded his involvement in the community and the field of HIV/AIDS research and treatment. He would go on to become the chairman of the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners; cofound the Oregon AIDS taskforce; cofound Art AIDS; and sit as executive director and principal investigator at the Research and Education Group, where Jim and his colleagues conducted clinical research. Jim even managed to find time to serve on the board of trustees for the Portland Institute for Contemporary Art and the Pacific Northwest College of Art. Also, over the past 35 years, both Jim and his husband, Geof Beasley, created an unbelievable Sherwood, OR, garden, Bella Madrona, a place where Jim's love of community, advocacy, and family still live on. The Bella Madrona garden has been nationally and internationally recognized, not only for its remarkable beauty, but as the site for many benefits through the years, including human and animal rights, environmental causes, and the arts. Jim was a valued and loved leader, a healer, and a family man worthy of emulation. With a full and loving heart and an ambitious mindset, Jim selflessly served Oregon and the Nation. While Jim will be remembered by those whose lives he touched, he will especially be remembered as a loving husband and partner of 47 years to Geof Beasley; dedicated father to daughter Adele; and caring brother to sisters, Miriam Tillman and Elizabeth Martin, and brother, George. I honor the esteemed life and career of Dr. Jim Sampson and thank him for his enduring legacy.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this year marks the 40th anniversary of the Skanner News Group, a renowned print and online news publication that serves African and African-American communities in Portland, OR, and the Northwest. Since 1975, the Skanner News Group has provided in-depth and essential coverage of its community as it relates to politics, social justice, civil rights, art, and food, all while holding true to its mission statement: ``Challenging people to shape a better future now.'' The Skanner certainly has been a catalyst for change. In the late 1980s, it was the Skanner's coverage of the debate to rename Union Avenue in Northeast Portland for Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard that played a crucial role in ensuring the community's request was fulfilled. Whether it is honoring minority-owned businesses or running profiles on the Black Lives Matter movement, the Skanner is there to cover and inform all of us in Portland about the most important issues and topics of our time. The Skanner's long list of awards is a testament not just to the importance of this publication, but also the quality of its reporting. It has received multiple National Newspaper Publishers Association awards and is a three-time winner of the West Coast Black Publishers Association's ``Publisher of the Year'' award. As well as the national recognitions are local well- earned accolades that further demonstrate what the Skanner means to readers across the Northwest. Behind the success of this historic publication is a hard-working team that has been instrumental in building the Skanner these past four decades and positioning it for success for decades to come. I would like to especially acknowledge cofounders Bobbie and Bernie Foster, two people I consider the heart and soul of this operation. Beyond the publication, they created the Skanner Foundation, which runs a scholarship program that awards $1,000 each to the best and brightest young people to help them accomplish their educational goals. Bobbie and Bernie's passion for giving back is a key component of what makes them and the Skanner so special. In addition to all this great work, the foundation organizes an annual Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., breakfast that is renowned in Oregon as being an event that justly honors one of the greatest civil rights leaders of our time. I have been privileged to attend the breakfast and know full well what a huge impact it has. The Skanner News Group is an institution that serves to better our community, by inspiring, uplifting, and informing. I would like to congratulate the staff on reaching their 40th anniversary and wish them the best in the years to come.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Before he leaves the floor, I want to commend my colleague from Nevada. I strongly support his amendment. Amendment No. 2621, as Modified Colleagues, the first vote we will have at 11 o'clock is on my amendment No. 2621. This amendment is supported by a wide variety of leaders across the political spectrum, progressive voices that have focused on cyber security and privacy as well as conservative organizations. FreedomWorks, for example, an important conservative organization, announced last night that they will consider the privacy amendment that I will be offering. It will be the first vote, a key vote on their congressional scorecard. It was the view of FreedomWorks that this amendment, the first vote, would add crucial privacy protections to this legislation. The point of the first amendment we will vote on is to strengthen privacy protections by requiring that companies make reasonable efforts to remove unrelated personal information about their customers before providing data to the government. It says that companies should take these efforts to the extent feasible. Let me say that this truly offers a great deal of flexibility and discretion to companies. It certainly does not demand perfection, but it does say to these companies that they should actually have to take some real responsibility, some affirmative step. We will have a chance, I guess for a minute or so, when we get to the amendments, but for purposes of colleagues reflecting before we start voting, the first amendment I will be offering is backed by important progressive organizations, such as the Center for Democracy and Technology, and conservative groups, such as FreedomWorks, which last night said this is a particularly important vote with respect to liberty and privacy. It says that with respect to the standard for American companies, you just cannot hand it over, you have to take some affirmative steps--reasonable, affirmative steps--before you share personal information. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after Chairman Burr has spoken, I be recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, virtually all agree that cyber security is a serious problem. Virtually all agree that it is useful to share information, but sharing information without robust privacy standards creates as many problems as it may solve. The first amendment I am offering is supported by a wide variety of organizations across the political spectrum because they want what this amendment would do; that is, reasonable efforts have to be made to strike unrelated personal information before it is handed over to the government. Without that, you have a flimsy standard that says: When in doubt, hand it over. I urge colleagues to support this amendment. It is backed by progressive groups and conservative groups. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Warren as a cosponsor to my amendment.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter of support from FreedomWorks, a leading conservative voice on these issues.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, tomorrow we will be turning to the cyber security bill, which the Presiding Officer is familiar with as a member of the committee, and I wish to speak about my amendment No. 2621 to that legislation. I also intend to address the amendments of our colleagues Senator Franken, Senator Heller, and Senator Coons because I believe all four of these amendments seek to achieve the same goal, and that goal--the goal of all four of these amendments--is to reduce the unnecessary sharing of Americans' private and personal information. The Senate has had a robust debate on the cyber security bill over the past week, and I think it is fair to say that Senators agree on a fair number of points. For example, the sponsors of the legislation have now acknowledged that the cyber security bill we will shortly vote on would not have prevented sophisticated cyber attacks, such as the Target and Home Depot hacks, and it would not have prevented the theft of millions of personnel records at the Office of Personnel Management. As for my part, I agree that sharing information about cyber security threats is generally a constructive idea. If private companies identify samples of malicious code or information that identifies foreign hackers, I would absolutely encourage them to share that information. However, I think companies should also take reasonable steps--and I underline ``reasonable steps''--to remove unrelated personal information about their customers before sharing that data with the government. It is important to understand that this legislation simply does not require companies to do that, and Senators can see that for themselves. As Senators can see for themselves, on page 17 of the bill, companies are allowed to conduct only a cursory review of the information they provide and would only be required to remove data that they know is personal information unrelated to cyber security. When it comes to customers' personal information, the message behind this bill is, when in doubt, hand it over. Once that data is shared-- and this is not widely known--the Department of Homeland Security would be required to send it on to a broad range of government agencies, from the NSA to the FBI. The amendment I have offered to the legislation we will vote on tomorrow would give companies a real responsibility for safeguarding their customers' information. It would say that in order for a company to receive liability protection before a company shares data with the government, it has to make efforts to the extent feasible to remove any personal information that is not necessary to identify or describe a cyber security threat. In my view, that would give this legislation a straightforward standard that could give consumers real confidence that their privacy is actually being protected. Let me give an example of how this might work in practice. Imagine that a health insurance company finds out that millions of its customers' records have been stolen. If that company has any evidence about who the hackers were or how they stole this information, of course it makes sense to share that information with the government. But the company shouldn't simply say ``Well, here you go'' and hand millions of its customers' financial and medical records over for distribution to a broad array of government agencies, such as the FBI and the NSA. The records of the victims of a hack should not be treated the same way information about the hacker is treated. Companies should be required to make reasonable efforts to remove personal information that is not needed for cyber security before they hand that information over to the government. That, in short, is what my amendment seeks to achieve. The sponsors of the legislation have argued that my amendment would somehow hold companies to an almost impossible standard. I say respectfully that the language of this amendment is quite measured. Companies are required to remove unrelated personal information and the legislation specifically states ``to the extent feasible.'' The language certainly doesn't require perfection; it creates a reasonable and flexible approach for companies to make a real effort to remove unrelated personal information about their customers instead of simply performing the sort of cursory review that would be permitted under the current language of the bill. A quick reading through the list of the pending amendments to the bill will make it clear that I am not the only Member of this body who is concerned about the unnecessary sharing of personal information. Our colleague from Nevada, Senator Heller, has a similar amendment that would seek to create a stronger requirement for companies to remove personal information. Our colleague from Delaware, Senator Coons, has crafted a very constructive amendment that would strengthen the requirement for review by the Department of Homeland Security. His amendment would create a stronger obligation for the Homeland Security Department to filter out unnecessary personal information before passing cyber security data on to other parts of our government. Senator Franken has drafted a strong amendment that would clarify the bill's definition of ``cyber security threat information'' to ensure that it focuses on information about real threats. It is important to remember that reducing unnecessary sharing of personal information will make any information sharing program more effective and easier to focus on the genuine threats involved. Finally, our colleague from Arizona, Senator Flake, has drafted an amendment that would require the Congress to come back and review this information sharing approach after 6 years to evaluate how it has worked in practice and whether privacy protections ought to be strengthened. I have cited amendments by Democrats and Republicans. The Presiding Officer knows that I feel strongly about working in a bipartisan way whenever I possibly can, and that is why I thought it was important to mention, as we go through these amendments, that all of these amendments I have described have sought to ensure this body would make it clear that cyber security is a very real problem. Cyber security, in terms of tackling it, which involves information sharing, can be very constructive, and we ought to try to find ways to do it. Each of these amendments is designed to make sure that when Americans hear about cyber security legislation--my colleague and I have discussed it--we don't have millions of Americans walking away and saying: They are sharing all of this unnecessary personal and unrelated information; I guess it is another one of those surveillance kind of bills. We don't want that here. We want bills that are bipartisan, that deal with very real threats--and certainly cyber security is one of them-- but we also want to make sure the rights of innocent people are protected. With these amendments, we do that by ensuring that we have more than a cursory approach to filtering out unrelated and personal information. So it is my judgment that each of these amendments would be significant improvements to the bill, and I hope my colleagues will support all of them, as well as an amendment by our colleague from Vermont Senator Leahy that would remove an unnecessary modification of the Freedom of Information Act. Let me close by saying it is not just Senators--and I have listed both Democrats and Republicans tonight--it is not just Democrats and Republicans in this body who have raised concerns about this bill's inadequate privacy protection; privacy advocacy groups from the American Library Association to the Oregon Technology Institute have come out against the bill. America's leading technology companies-- companies that have to have expertise in both cyber security and protecting the data of their customers--have opposed it as well. Companies such as Apple, Dropbox, Twitter, Salesforce, Reddit, and Yelp have all said that they oppose the legislation because it does not include adequate privacy protections. The trade association that represents Google and Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Netflix, eBay, and PayPal said: ``CISA's prescribed mechanism for sharing of cyber threat information does not sufficiently protect users' privacy.'' Now, reflect if we might for a minute on what that means. These are America's leading technology companies. They advantage America because they are the envy of the world for their innovation and their way of serving customers and businesses not just in this country but around the world. These companies have millions and millions of customers and have spoken out publicly against the bill, in its current form, before these amendments are considered. They sure know a lot about the importance of protecting both cyber security and individual privacy. The reason I say that is they have to manage that challenge each and every day. Customer confidence is the lifeblood of these companies, and the only way to ensure customer confidence is to convince customers that if they use a product, their information is going to be protected from both malicious hackers and from unnecessary collection by our government. Last Thursday, a coalition of America's leading consumer groups basically joined those major technology companies in announcing their opposition to the bill. They endorsed the pending consumer privacy amendments, including the amendment I will offer, No. 2621. In conclusion, I hope colleagues will listen to what these technology groups and companies have said, and I hope our colleagues will support the amendments that I and others, both Democrats and Republicans, will be offering tomorrow. Let's work together to produce a bill that does a better job of dealing with both real cyber threats and the liberties of the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am happy to extend the debate for a couple of minutes for each side, but I think it does need, in the interest of fairness for the proponents and opponents, to have equal time for the purposes of wrapping up, if my colleagues want to go further.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak against cloture on the substitute. This substitute would not have stopped the Target hack, the Anthem hack, the Home Depot hack, or the OPM hack. When it comes to real privacy protection for millions of Americans with this substitute, there is simply no ``there'' there. We see that by looking at page 17 of the substitute. Companies have to remove only personal, unrelated information if they know that it is personal and unrelated. How would they know under this amendment? Under this amendment, they are required to virtually do no looking. It is the most cursory review. That is why the Nation's leading technology companies have come out overwhelmingly against this legislation. They are not satisfied by this substitute. The sponsors of the bill have been pretty vociferous about attacking these companies for coming out against the legislation. These companies know a lot about the importance of protecting both cyber security and individual privacy. These tech companies that are being attacked now have to manage that challenge every single day. The challenge gets harder all the time with things such as the EU ruling that I opposed. These companies know that customer confidence is their lifeblood, and the only way to ensure customer confidence is to convince people that if they use their product, their information is going to be protected both from malicious hackers and from unnecessary collection by the government. The fact is, we have a serious problem with hacking and cyber security threats. The fact is, information sharing can be good, but a cyber security information sharing bill without real and robust privacy protections that this amendment lacks--I would submit millions of Americans are going to look at that, and they are going to say this isn't a cyber security bill, this is yet another surveillance bill. With this amendment, colleagues, the Senate is again missing another opportunity to do this right and promote both security and liberty. Just because a proposal has the words ``cyber security'' in its title doesn't make it good. But that is, of course, why the leading technology companies in this country--companies that make a living every single day by being sensitive to cyber threats and privacy--have come out overwhelmingly against this bill. I know my colleagues have tried to improve this issue, and I appreciate that. But the core privacy protections that America deserves in a bill like this are still lacking, and that is why I oppose cloture.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I don't want to prolong this. Reserving the right to object--do I have any additional time? I wasn't sure I had used my full 5 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I hope colleagues will vote no. I have three quick points. No. 1, the chairman of the committee--and we work together often--acknowledged that this substitute would not have prevented these major hacks that we are all so concerned about. No. 2, once again we have heard an attack on the country's major technology companies. All of them, all of them, colleagues, are opposed to this legislation. We are talking about Apple and Dropbox and Twitter. The list goes on and on. Why? Because these companies have to be concerned about both cyber security and protecting their employees and their customers privacy. Unfortunately, this legislation does very little to protect cyber security, which has now been acknowledged by the lead sponsor of the legislation and has major problems with respect to protecting the liberty of the American people. I urge colleagues to vote no.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to the students, parents, staff, and alumni of the Head Start Program and to join them in celebrating Head Start Awareness Month. The dedicated individuals at Head Start have served our Nation's most vulnerable children and families for 50 years. Since its founding in 1965, this program has provided comprehensive social and emotional development services to children from birth to age 5. Because of Head Start, many young parents have been able to get the support they need during the crucial first years of their child's life. These services go far beyond what any parenting book could ever achieve. Head Start staff provides real-life guidance for young parents who, for example, may need the name of a local dentist or help finding adequate housing to keep their families healthy and safe. In Oregon, we have 336 program locations that enrolled more than 13,000 individuals and families last year. You can find a Head Start location anywhere from Clatskanie, OR, all the way to Chiloquin. Earlier this month, Clatsop County celebrated Head Start's anniversary by holding simultaneous block parties at the county's three locations. These Head Start and Early Head Start centers are helping Oregon families who want to see their children reach their full potential. The Head Start Program fosters literacy and prepares Oregon's children for success in school. Early learning through Head Start can put children on a path toward high school graduation and a better future. In my view, the Head Start Program is a critical investment in the development of our Nation's youngest children. I speak today to honor those who are working to make a difference for our young people at all the Head Start locations in Oregon and across the country. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to continue to support early childhood education programs like Head Start.