[国会记录第161卷第93号（2015年6月11日星期四）][参议院][第S4063-S4064页]网络安全McCONNELL先生。总统先生，在另一件事上，我想很多人听到奥巴马政府无法阻止400万美国人的信息被黑客窃取的消息都感到震惊。白宫官员现在有责任让国会帮助他们摆脱过去，跟上21世纪网络安全的现实。这正是我们很快会考虑的措施。它包含网络安全专家告诉我们的现代工具，可以帮助阻止未来针对公共和私营部门的攻击。这项措施还将有助于在发现攻击后尽快公布攻击消息，为政府和企业提供可用于建立更强大防御的知识，并有助于在此过程中在安全和隐私之间达成关键平衡。例如，该法案将规定制定限制消费者个人信息使用、保留和传播的指导方针。这不仅仅是一个明智的措施。它也是透明的。两党的参议员都仔细审查了这份报告。情报委员会中几乎每一位民主党人和每一位共和党人都在两党的基础上以压倒性多数通过了这本书，而且这本书已经在网上发布，供任何人阅读已有相当一段时间。这项明智、跨党派、透明的措施的必要性再清楚不过了。我们不应该等到政府再摸索出400万个社会保险号码或个人地址，然后再帮助他们实现现代化和更新。这并没有阻止一些民主党领导人认为，他们应该通过采取跨党派措施打击网络攻击来争取一些政治分数。我希望他们不会那样做。在政府无法阻止如此大规模的网络攻击之后，大多数美国人会发现民主党领导人为了获得某种政治分数而投票反对他们自己的政党在委员会中审查并以压倒性多数通过的网络安全立法，这是非常愤世嫉俗的。我们面前有一个聪明、透明、跨党派、经过充分审查的措施，可以帮助我们的国家更加安全。两党的参议员都有机会对该法案提出其他修正案，并对其进行修正。我现在的希望是，我们能够共同努力，帮助通过一项支持美国人民并得到广泛支持者联盟支持的措施——从美国商会到美国电信协会的所有人。我们做得越早，我们就越早能够与众议院通过的两项类似的由白宫支持的法案进行磋商，我们就越早能够最终制定一部好的网络安全法来帮助保护美国人[…][国会记录第161卷第93号（2015年6月11日，星期四）][参议院][第S4073-S4090页]2016财年国防授权法案[…]第1569号修正案，经莱希先生修改。主席女士，今年早些时候，参议院情报委员会向参议院报告了《网络安全信息共享法》。该法案旨在促进私营部门和政府之间共享网络威胁信息。虽然这有助于防范网络攻击，但我担心参议院情报委员会法案中的某些条款会严重损害美国人的隐私。参议员伯尔的法案将取消所有现有的法律限制，允许前所未有的信息（包括美国人的个人通信）从私营部门流入政府数据库，而不受任何有意义的控制或限制。它将明确授权政府使用这些信息“防止”与网络安全无关的犯罪，如持有枪支、纵火和抢劫。这项法案要求通过信息共享制度向政府提供的所有信息立即分发给一些联邦机构，包括国家安全局和其他机构，这使得这些问题更加复杂，因为这些机构没有时间删除不必要的私人信息。我们不知道这些信息是否也会与缉毒署或国税局共享。我们知道这将为联邦政府打开一个新的信息流，而不会对这些机构如何存储、查询或挖掘这些信息进行适当的限制。国会应该通过网络安全立法来保护美国企业和美国人民。但我们需要的是网络安全法案，而不是网络监视法案。这项法案中还有一些条款为自由贸易增加了全新的豁免dom of Information Act, FOIA. These provisions are completely unnecessary, and have the potential to greatly weaken government transparency. Senator Burr's information sharing bill is major legislation that deserves full debate and a meaningful opportunity for Senators to offer amendments to improve the bill. It has had neither. The bill was drafted behind closed doors. It has not been the subject of any open hearings or public debate. The text of the bill was only made public by the Intelligence Committee after it was reported to the Senate floor, and no other committee of jurisdiction--including the Judiciary Committee--was allowed to consider and improve the bill. I shared with Chairman Grassley my concern that the Judiciary Committee should also consider this bill, and Chairman Grassley assured me that there would be a ``robust and open amendment process'' if this bill were considered on the Senate floor. I expect that the Senate Homeland Security Committee received the same assurances. Senator Burr's attempt to offer the Intelligence Committee's information sharing bill as an amendment to the [[Page S4078]] National Defense Authorization Act runs directly counter to those assurances. This is not a sincere effort to consider and pass this bill under regular order. Instead, through a series of procedural maneuvers, Republican leadership is deliberately preventing any type of meaningful debate on this bill. I agree that we must do more to protect our cyber security, but we should not rush to pass legislation that has significant privacy implications for millions of Americans. We must be thoughtful and responsible. Attempting to stifle meaningful debate and pass this bill as an amendment to the NDAA is the wrong answer. That is not how the Senate should operate. I urge Senators to vote no on cloture. [...] Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I initially say to my impatient friend, he has to be patient and allow me to say a few words. During the short time we have been in the minority, we have behaved in a way that I think is proper for a responsible minority. For example, on this bill dealing with the authorization of our defense capacity in the United States, we have been very clear how we support the troops. But remember, we have this little difficult issue. The President of the United States has said he is going to veto this bill. So we have worked through all this with that in mind. Having said that, in spite of that, we did not ask for a cloture vote on the motion to proceed. When we were in the majority, having the minority not do that was a big day. It happened extremely rarely. We have been doing that consistently--with some exceptions but not many. On this Defense bill, we have allowed amendments to become pending. There are a dozen or so pending right now. We have allowed the Senate to conduct votes. We have allowed managers' amendments to be cleared-- lots of them. We have reacted in a responsible way. We have no regret for having done that. The two managers were working together to get amendments pending in a mutually agreed-upon fashion when out of the blue, up comes this cyber security amendment. It was also done in a very unusual way where Senator Burr employed parliamentary devices to get the cyber security bill pending to where we are right now. We could have been playing around all week with our offering amendments, but I have always felt that it should be done extremely rarely, for the minority to do something like that. We could have done that. If you look at the amendments that have been offered by us Democrats, they are all, with rare exception, dealing with the security of this Nation--not sage grouse, not all the other things the Republicans have brought up in this bill. To say that the Ex-Im Bank and the cyber security amendments have impeded progress is a gross understatement. The cyber security bill is a major bill in its own way--a major bill. I can speak with some authority in this regard. Five years ago, I got every committee chair who had jurisdiction over this subject and we met over a period of days to come up with a cyber security bill. We did that. Republicans stopped us. We kept getting a smaller [[Page S4086]] group of people involved as we were narrowing the bill, and we actually were scheduled to finally have a vote on the cyber security bill. It wasn't as good as I thought we should have, but it was an important bill. And what happened on that? The chamber of commerce made a call to some of the Republican leaders in the Senate, and suddenly that bill was gone and we were voting on another ObamaCare amendment that, of course, went nowhere. But we have tried cyber security. The Intelligence Committee reported out this bill, and I appreciate that they did. It was on a bipartisan basis, but it also contains a lot of matter within the jurisdiction of other committees--for example, the Homeland Security Committee and the Judiciary Committee. To her credit, the ranking member, Senator Feinstein, recognized that and went to the Democrats and said: We will work with you and make sure the problems you have with this bill when it gets to the floor--we will work with you on this. Senator Feinstein is a person of her word. I know she will do that, and she will do that. This morning, the Republican leader, who is on the floor, was saying that we just had an attack on 4 million people and that it is Obama's fault. I think that is stretching things a little bit, especially recognizing that I have only given a brief travel through the times we have tried to get up the cyber security legislation. We should take the time to do it right. I have told the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and I have checked with our ranking member of the Finance Committee, who is extremely interested--and hasn't been for 10 minutes or 10 days or 10 months but 10 years--in privacy. He has been our leader on privacy on this side of the aisle, and he believes we could finish it, if we had a free shot at this cyber bill, in a couple of days--and I agree with him--at the most. So we are not trying to avoid cyber. I believe--we believe it is an important part of what we need to do. But we should take time to do it right. We should not be tacking this important piece of legislation onto a bill the President has already said he is going to veto just so the Republicans can blame Obama for vetoing this bill as well. If the majority would withdraw their cyber amendment and agree to take it up after this bill, we could do it in a couple of days and then we could return to working on the Defense bill. But we cannot take up all these new amendments my friend the chairman of the committee wants to set up votes on--we have the 9 he talks about, plus 6; that is 15-- until we resolve this matter dealing with cyber security. So without belaboring the point--and I appreciate my impatient friend being patient with me and listening to me go through all of this--I ask the majority leader or my friend the chairman of the Armed Services Committee if he would modify his consent request as follows. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion with respect to amendment No. 1569--that is cyber security--as modified, be withdrawn; that the pending amendment No. 1569--again, that is cyber security--as modified, be withdrawn; and that upon the disposition of H.R. 1735, the Defense authorization bill, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 28, S. 754. That is the bill which came out of the Intelligence Committee. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am going to propose a modification of the consent request propounded by the Democratic leader: that following disposition of H.R. 2685, the Defense appropriations bill, the Senate turn to consideration of S. 754, the cyber security measure reported by the Senate Intelligence Committee. I further ask that there be 10 relevant amendments to be offered by each bill manager or designee, with 1 hour of debate followed by a vote on the amendments offered, with a 60-vote threshold on those amendments that are not germane to the bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the majority leader? The minority leader. Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object to my friend's modification, I repeat, the cyber security bill is important and the Senate should turn to it, but putting it after the Defense appropriations bill is a false promise. It is a facade. I think it is very clear. I heard the Republican leader give a speech on the floor today that he knows, unless there are some changes made, we are not going to get on the Defense appropriations bill. So this is a false promise. If we could do it in a more specific, determined time, that would be one thing, but the Republican leader obviously has no plan to complete the Defense appropriations bill if this is how we are proceeding; rather, they are proceeding ahead with his partisan budget plan--a plan the President said will not become law. Until Republicans sit down to work out a bipartisan Senate budget, the Senate will not finish the Defense authorization bill. Once again, the right way to do this would be to consider the cyber security bill on its own merits after the Defense authorization bill is done. It would take 2 days. So I ask the majority leader if he would modify his consent request to the following: that upon disposition of the Defense authorization bill, H.R. 1735, the Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 28, S. 754, which is the cyber security bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, I will point out that the Defense appropriations bill was reported out of the Appropriations Committee today with only three members voting against it. There was a lot of discussion about the Democratic leader saying ``We are not going to pass the bill,'' but when the votes were counted, only three members--all on the Democratic side but only three--voted against reporting the bill out of committee. My good friend the Democratic leader and I have had this discussion back and forth, but one of the advantages of being in the majority is that we set the schedule, and we are going to do the Defense appropriations bill after we do the Defense authorization bill; therefore, I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the majority leader? Mr. REID. Yes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. Does the Senator from Arizona modify his request with the request of the Democratic leader? Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, may I make a couple of comments real quick before the distinguished majority leader modifies his request? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona. Mr. McCAIN. I would remind my good friend from Nevada, the Democratic leader, for the last 2 years we took up the Defense authorization bill, and it was taken up so late there was not a single amendment--not a single, solitary amendment on the Defense authorization bill for the last 2 years. So I understand the Democratic leader's commitment to amendments. It is too bad that for 2 years we never had a single amendment to the Defense authorization bill. As far as relevant amendments are concerned, one of the things about this body is that everybody has the right to propose an amendment until their amendments are not made germane. The three pending Democratic amendments we have now on the bill are not germane. So all I can say is that I hope we can get a modification. I hope we can move forward. I just wish to point out one more time what I know that my colleagues have heard over and over, and I will make it brief. Henry Kissinger testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the world has never been in more crises. This world is at risk, and we have to--we have to protect the men and women who are serving in our security. I would argue that a national defense authorization act is probably more important now than it has been at any time in recent history. I refuse to modify my request. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator's original request? Mr. REID. Which Senator? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona. [[Page S4087]] Mr. REID. Yes, I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The majority leader. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote on amendment No. 1569 be moved to 3 p.m. today and that the mandatory quorum call be waived. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will be extremely brief. We can have a debate here. We can look at all the press clippings of both sides on what happened in the last 2 years on Defense authorization. We didn't get a bill. We got a bill, but it was done in secret by the managers of the two bills in the House and the Senate. The reason that happened--it wasn't our fault. They wouldn't let us on the bill--``they'' meaning the Republicans. So we can debate that all we want. Those are the facts. I do not object to my friend's request. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The majority leader. Cloture Motion Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk on the McCain substitute amendment No. 1463. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion. The bill clerk read as follows: Cloture Motion We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the McCain amendment No. 1463 to H.R. 1735, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Richard C. Shelby, Jeff Flake, John Barrasso, John Cornyn, Mike Rounds, Jeff Sessions, Shelley Moore Capito, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, Joni Ernst, John Hoeven, Roger F. Wicker, Kelly Ayotte, Richard Burr, Thom Tillis. Cloture Motion Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk with respect to the underlying House bill, H.R. 1735. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion. The bill clerk read as follows: Cloture Motion We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 1735, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Richard C. Shelby, Jeff Flake, John Barrasso, John Cornyn, Mike Rounds, Jeff Sessions, Shelley Moore Capito, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, Joni Ernst, John Hoeven, Roger F. Wicker, Kelly Ayotte, Richard Burr, Thom Tillis. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. Amendment No. 1569, as Modified Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in just a moment, the Senate will consider an important cyber security measure. I urge every one of my colleagues to support it. USA TODAY recently cited a cyber security expert who noted that this Senate legislation has the potential to greatly reduce the number of victims targeted by the kinds of hackers we have seen in recent years. It contains modern tools to help deter future attacks against both the government and the private sector, to provide them with knowledge to erect stronger defenses, and to get the word out faster about attacks when they are detected. The top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee reminded us that the cyber security measure before us would also protect individual privacy and civil liberties. She has urged Congress to ``act quickly'' to deter a threat that is literally impossible to overstate. The White House has also urged Congress to act. The new Congress has been asked to act, and today we are, with a good, strong, transparent, bipartisan measure which has been thoroughly vetted by both parties in committee and which has been available for months--literally months--for anyone to read. It was endorsed by nearly every Democrat and every Republican on the Intelligence Committee, 14 to 1. It is also backed by a broad coalition of supporters, everyone from the chamber of commerce to the United States Telecom Association. It is legislation that is all about protecting our country, which is why it makes perfect sense to consider it alongside defense legislation with the very same aim. Cyber security amendments can be offered, and the debate will continue. So let's work together to advance this measure. There are now 4 million extra reasons for Congress to act quickly. The sooner we do, the sooner we can conference it with similar legislation that passed the House and get a good cyber security law enacted to help protect our country. The opportunity to begin doing that will come in a few moments with a vote for cloture on this bipartisan cyber security bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The minority leader. Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have on the Senate floor an authorization bill for about $600 billion--Defense authorization for about $600 billion. I can't imagine the procedural games, the chicanery involved in this. Why did we yesterday have on this bill something on Ex-Im Bank? Was it just to check it off so they could say we tried and Democrats wouldn't let us do it? Why would we have on this $600 billion bill dealing with the security of this Nation something else that also deals with the security of this Nation and that deserves a separate piece of legislation so we can have amendments and talk about that? We have agreed to do it in a very short period of time. There is no good reason for doing it this way. We should limit the matter at hand to the Defense authorization bill at some $600 billion, and then we have agreed to go to cyber security. We are willing to do that. But I cannot imagine--I cannot imagine--why the Republican leader is doing this. It makes a mockery of the legislative process. Mr. WYDEN. Will the leader yield for a question? Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield to the ranking member of the committee for a question. Mr. WYDEN. Leader, I strongly oppose cloture on this cyber measure and I want to ask the Senator a question. I think we all understand how dangerous hackers are. They are increasingly sophisticated. The most dangerous hackers rarely use the same technique twice. I believe what the Senator is saying is we can't deal with this responsibly by stapling the cyber bill to something else. Is that one of the key reasons the leader is opposing this? The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Mr. REID. Mr. President, respectfully, I suggest we are on leader time now. My time is protected--or used to be--and the Senator asked me a question. I yielded to him for a question. He should have the right to answer the question. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered. Mr. WYDEN. I will be very brief. I oppose cloture on the cyber measure. I think what the leader is saying is that the cyber measure is so serious we shouldn't deal with it by stapling it to something else. It is so important we ought to have an opportunity over that 2-day period to deal with it separately; is that the leader's view? Mr. REID. Without any question. Cloture Motion The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state. The bill clerk read as follows: Cloture Motion We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment No. 1569, as modified, to the McCain [[Page S4088]] amendment No. 1463 to H.R. 1735, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. Mitch McConnell, Lamar Alexander, John Cornyn, Orrin G. Hatch, David Perdue, Bob Corker, Michael B. Enzi, Susan M. Collins, Jeff Flake, Mike Rounds, Richard Burr, David Vitter, James M. Inhofe, Daniel Coats, John McCain, Deb Fischer, Tom Cotton. The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on amendment No. 1569, as modified, offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, for the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Burr, to the substitute amendment No. 1463, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) are necessarily absent. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 40, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 207 Leg.] YEAS--56 Alexander Ayotte Barrasso Bennet Blunt Boozman Burr Capito Cassidy Coats Cochran Collins Corker Cornyn Cotton Crapo Daines Donnelly Enzi Ernst Fischer Flake Gardner Graham Grassley Hatch Hoeven Inhofe Isakson Johnson King Kirk Klobuchar Lankford Manchin McCain McConnell Moran Murkowski Nelson Perdue Portman Risch Roberts Rounds Sasse Scott Sessions Shelby Sullivan Thune Tillis Toomey Vitter Warner Wicker NAYS--40 Baldwin Blumenthal Booker Boxer Brown Cantwell Cardin Carper Casey Coons Durbin Feinstein Franken Gillibrand Heinrich Heitkamp Heller Hirono Kaine Lee Markey McCaskill Menendez Mikulski Murphy Murray Paul Peters Reed Reid Sanders Schatz Schumer Shaheen Stabenow Tester Udall Warren Whitehouse Wyden NOT VOTING--4 Cruz Leahy Merkley Rubio The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are 40. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. [...]