[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 53 (Thursday, April 18, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H2130-H2139]
CYBER INTELLIGENCE SHARING AND PROTECTION ACT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during
further consideration of H.R. 624 in the Committee of the Whole,
pursuant to House Resolution 164, the last amendment in House Report
113-41 be modified in the form that I have placed at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 12, after line 18, insert the following:
Page 4, line 18, strike ``Federal Government'' and insert
``entities of the Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of Justice designated under paragraphs (1) and (2)
of section 2(b) of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and
Protection Act''.
Page 5, line 5, strike ``Federal Government'' and insert
``entities of the Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of Justice designated under paragraphs (1) and (2)
of section 2(b) of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and
Protection Act''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
General Leave
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
add extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 624.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sessions). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 164 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 624.
Will the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham) kindly take the
chair.
{time} 1023
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 624) to provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat
intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence
community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Denham (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday,
April 17, 2013, amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 113-41 offered
by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) had been disposed of.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Sinema
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 113-41.
Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 17, line 17, insert ``Department of Homeland Security
and the Inspector General of the'' before ``Intelligence
Community''.
Page 17, line 21, insert ``jointly and'' before
``annually''.
Page 17, line 22, strike ``congressional intelligence
committees'' and insert ``the Committee on Homeland Security
of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the
congressional intelligence committees''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 164, the gentlewoman
from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment is simple and straightforward. Currently, this bill,
H.R. 624, requires the inspectors general of the intelligence
community, Departments of Justice and Defense, as well as the Privacy
and Civil Liberties Board to submit a report to Congress every year
regarding the use of the information shared with the Federal
Government. This amendment adds the inspector general of the Department
of Homeland Security to the list of inspectors general that are
required to submit the report.
It also adds the House and Senate Committees on Homeland Security to
the list of committees that will receive the report. Currently, only
the House and Senate Intelligence Committee will receive the report.
Having the Department of Homeland Security, a civilian department,
included in this reporting requirement adds one more layer of
accountability to this review and report.
Allow me to briefly talk about the overall bill and why it has my
support. I believe we need a 21st century solution for this 21st
century problem. I've heard from businesses and constituents in Arizona
who have firsthand knowledge of this issue. It's affecting both large
corporations and small businesses alike. Our national security, our
financial security, and our innovations are under very serious threat.
This bill ensures that research and development, intellectual property,
and software code is no longer being stolen by China, Iran, and Russia.
Countries and cyber hackers steal trade secrets and they steal
innovation and research, but they also steal American jobs. Americans
are known for their ingenuity and hard work, but we are losing that
hard work to hackers. One of the biggest cyber threats is to an
American's personal information--information like bank accounts, health
records, and Social Security numbers.
This is very, very serious and a real threat to all Americans, and
this threat is growing. Terrorist organizations have taken credit for
taking down the online systems at Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank
of America. Three weeks ago, American Express also admitted that they
were hacked.
Cyber attacks are becoming more sophisticated. Instead of merely
disrupting commerce and stealing information, the attacks are focused
on destroying our Nation's digital systems, destroying our national
security, our infrastructure and financial systems that Americans
depend on every day. It is imperative that we partner with private
companies to discover, and then prevent, more attacks such as these.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, while I do not oppose the
amendment, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized or 5
minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I will support this amendment, and I want to thank the
gentlelady from Arizona for her diligence and work in coming down to
the briefings and getting well educated on the threat and familiarizing
herself with the classified material. Thank you for your extra work on
this issue, and thank you for being a strong voice in advocating our
solution.
This amendment is important. It adds the inspector general at the
Department of Homeland Security to the list of entities responsible for
creating an annual report reviewing the use of information shared with
the Federal Government. The amendment also adds the congressional
Homeland Security Committee to the recipients of the report. This adds
one more layer of oversight to make sure our civil liberties and
privacy are protected in the bill.
[[Page H2131]]
I stand in support and appreciate all the efforts of the gentlelady
from Arizona, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Maffei).
Mr. MAFFEI. I thank the gentlelady from Arizona for offering this
amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak in support of the Cyber Intelligence
Sharing and Protection Act. I opposed the PATRIOT Act because many of
its elements I did feel violated civil liberties and allowed things
like profiling and abusive wiretapping; and while I don't think this
was an easy decision, I do feel that this is certainly a different
case.
Every day international agents, terrorists, and criminal
organizations attack the public and private networks of the United
States, as we speak. They disrupt services, attack newspapers and
banks, infiltrate government agencies. They can steal intellectual
property, and most alarmingly, they access private information of
millions of citizens.
{time} 1030
We've already seen state actors like the People's Republic of China
pursue widespread data theft from American computer networks.
Intelligence experts believe that rogue nations like Iran and even
independent groups like WikiLeaks are pursuing very aggressive measures
to hack into our Nation's power grid, our air traffic control systems,
and individuals' personal financial records and other sorts of records
across the country; and I do believe we should be very concerned. So
while I do have some concern that the U.S. Government may access our
private information in the cybersphere, I am more concerned that the
Chinese Government will access our private information. This is a clear
and present danger.
This bill does have protections that strictly prohibit the Federal
Government from using or retaining any information other than for cyber
threat purposes. And it remains illegal, after this bill is passed, for
a company to share its information, except for cybersecurity reasons.
This amendment will help to further enforce that.
We must recognize that cybersecurity threats are real and constantly
changing. This bill is an important measure that allows private
companies to share the cyber threat information with the Federal
Government to help protect critical networks and infrastructure from
attack.
I support this bill. It is an important step in our United States
security strategy to protect our country from emerging cyber threats at
home and abroad. And I support this amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might
consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I thank the chairman for yielding.
First thing, to the Congresswoman from Arizona, I really appreciate
all of your work on this bill. You came to Congress; you did your
homework; you decided that it was important to protect our country; and
you've done a lot of work. I just want to let you know that you've done
a great job for your district and for America, generally, and I want to
thank you for that.
Basically, this amendment really allows the Committee on Homeland
Security and the Inspector General to oversee and to do reporting. It's
important that we have oversight. I know the chairman and I have worked
hard to make sure that we deal with all of the privacy issues, and this
is just another example of how we're going to protect our privacy. You
cannot have security if you don't have privacy.
Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to emphasize again that this
amendment helps add another layer of accountability. It includes the
Homeland Security Department as a civilian interface for Congress in
both the Homeland Security Committee and the Intelligence Committee.
I want to thank, in particular, the chair and the ranking member for
their leadership on this issue over the course of several years. I know
in my district it's important not just to consumers, but also to
industry leaders who are leading the way forward on American
innovation. I want to thank them for that.
I encourage Members to support this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr.
Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 8, as Modified, Offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of
California
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 113-41.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment
at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 18, beginning on line 24, strike ``Director of
National Intelligence and'' and insert ``Director of National
Intelligence,''.
Page 19, line 1, insert ``and the Privacy Officer and the
Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the
Department of Homeland,'' after ``Justice,''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 164, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the challenge of defending our Nation on a constantly
expanding cyber front continues to grow. I believe that I'm one of
those Members of the Congress that sits both on the House Armed
Services Committee and on the Homeland Security Committee and I see it
from both angles, both from the civilian side and the military side.
I've constantly tried to improve how we address the need for the
next-generation technology, public-private cooperation, and ensuring
that we have the right personnel to counter this 21st-century cyber
threat. However, I am uncompromising in safeguarding the rights of our
citizens, and I will never sacrifice our civil liberties for unneeded
intrusion.
To this end, the amendment I am offering today would strengthen
existing provisions in the bill to include the Privacy Officer and the
Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department of
Homeland Security as key stakeholders in the report that would assess
the impact activity caused by this legislation.
This report would assess how this legislation affected our civil
liberties and privacy throughout our Federal Government. The Department
of Homeland Security is ``the'' key civil Department in our Federal
Government that develops and implements cybersecurity protocols for the
rest of the Federal Government. It's crucial that they be part of any
civil liberty and privacy assessment.
I have worked closely with both the Privacy Office and the Office of
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. The individuals in these offices are
experts in their fields and they should have a say; they should be in
the room as we take a look at this.
Much work needs to be done, but I urge my colleagues to support my
amendment to continue improving this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, while I do not oppose the
amendment, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I will support this amendment;
and I want to thank the gentlelady for her work and interest on this
very,
[[Page H2132]]
very important issue and her taking the time to be involved in the
process of making this a better bill and protecting privacy and civil
liberties.
What this bill does is add a Privacy Officer and Officer of Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department of Homeland Security to
the list of entities responsible for producing an annual report
assessing the privacy and civil liberties impact of activities
conducted by the Federal Government under this bill.
Because the bill requires the Senior Privacy and Civil Liberties
Officer of each department or agency receiving information under the
bill to participate in the report, I will not oppose this effort to
specifically include these officials from the Department of Homeland
Security.
I think this is, again, making more clarification, making our privacy
and civil liberties protection that much more robust in the bill, and I
want to thank the gentlelady for her efforts.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the kind
chairman for his remarks and his support.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified
with the modification that is at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Insert ``Security'' after ``Homeland'' in the second
instruction.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is so modified.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
Mr. McNERNEY. I thank my colleague from California, and I rise in
support of Ms. Sanchez's amendment, but in opposition to the underlying
bill, H.R. 624.
This legislation has positive aspects, but I'm concerned with the
civil protections not required in H.R. 624. Ms. Sanchez's amendment is
a necessary step toward improving the bill by giving oversight
authority to a civilian agency.
Sharing information is absolutely essential; however, in exchange for
the liabilities protections given to businesses that share cyber threat
information with the government, it is our responsibility here in
Congress to protect our constituents' private information. Businesses
should be required to remove personally identifiable information before
submitting data to Federal agencies.
I thank Ms. Sanchez again for her efforts, as well as Mr. Rogers and
Mr. Ruppersberger for their efforts as leaders of the Intelligence
Committee.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I would thank the gentlelady again and yield
back the balance of my time.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified,
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in House Report 113-41.
Mr. LaMALFA Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in
order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 22, after line 7 insert the following:
``(7) Limitation on surveillance.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to authorize the Department of Defense or
the National Security Agency or any other element of the
intelligence community to target a United States person for
surveillance.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 164, the gentleman
from California (Mr. LaMalfa) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
{time} 1040
Mr. LaMALFA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today and speak in
favor of my amendment to the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection
Act. This is an example of the process working. A lot of folks have
expressed concerns about the measure here, not only on the cyber
intelligence side but as well the privacy and personal security side. I
think this amendment and many others that we have seen today, and will
see, are addressing that issue so we get the right balance between
cybersecurity and individual liberties and freedoms, Fourth Amendment
concerns.
The threat we face today in the cyber realm is nothing short of a
serious threat to our national security. Nation-states like China and
Russia are targeting the American government and the American private
sector alike for cyber espionage, and potentially for cyber attack.
Chinese espionage targeting the American private sector to steal core
research and development information--at the very heart of American
innovations and jobs--represents an unprecedented threat to our very
way of life.
While strongly supporting this legislation, I am pleased to have
worked with Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger to further
clarify that nothing in the legislation should be construed to be a
surveillance program directed at American citizens.
The amendment is very concise yet extremely important. Titled the
``Limitation on Surveillance,'' it simply reads as follows:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the
Department of Defense or the National Security Agency or any
other element of the intelligence community to target a
United States person for surveillance.
As we act to protect the United States from cyber attack by foreign
countries and terrorist groups, we must ensure that our constitutional
rights and privacy are maintained. The term ``United States person''
includes U.S. citizens and legal residents or legal visitors to the
country, limiting the surveillance powers of this bill to foreign
nationals and those entering the Nation illegally.
This amendment helps to strike the balance this measure strives for,
granting our government the means to defend the Nation while,
importantly, preventing any inappropriate use of these powers.
Again, I am pleased to support legislation that creates no new
regulatory regime and does not create additional Federal bureaucracy or
require significant additional spending.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition,
even though I am not opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Maryland is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chair, while we never believe that any
surveillance of Americans was permitted under our bill, we are taking
any and all precautions to make it entirely clear that no element of
the intelligence community--which, of course, includes the Department
of Defense and the National Security Agency--is authorized to target
any United States person for surveillance. The chairman's amendment
solidifies the privacy and civil liberties protections that we always
have intended to have as part of the bill. No American activities or
communications will be targeted--period. We cannot have security
without privacy.
Therefore, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. LaMALFA It is my pleasure to now yield 1 minute to the chairman
of the Intel Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I support this amendment, which
makes very, very clear that nothing in this bill authorizes the
government to target an American citizen for surveillance. It's
incredibly important.
Though the underlying bill would not allow the surveillance of an
American citizen under CISPA, I will support this amendment as a
further clarification that settles some Members' concerns and ensures
the scope of the bill stays as narrow as we intended it to be.
[[Page H2133]]
The amendment is an important myth buster about the intentions of
CISPA. I commend Mr. LaMalfa for his leadership on this issue and urge
strong support for the LaMalfa amendment.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I would like to yield to the gentleman from
Virginia, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Congressman
Goodlatte, as much time as he may consume. And I would also like to
thank him personally for working closely with us on this bill to have a
bill that will protect the citizens of the United States of America.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the ranking
member, for not only yielding me this time, but also for the great work
that he has done, and also the great work that Chairman Rogers has
done. They have worked together in a bipartisan fashion to accomplish
something very, very important to accomplish in terms of fighting cyber
terrorism, cyber crime, and making sure that we are safe in this
country from cyber attacks to which we are very vulnerable today.
I also want to thank the gentleman from California for his amendment.
I support efforts to make it absolutely clear that this legislation
does not in any way authorize the surveillance of American citizens.
I also want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger
for working with me to enhance the liability provisions in the
legislation, for working with me to address some jurisdictional issues
in the bill that affected the Department of Justice and the House
Judiciary Committee.
I would also like to note that the President's statement in
opposition to this bill insists on exposing our best technology
providers to even more lawsuits when they are simply helping to defend
our Nation against cyber attacks. The President's opposition statement
expresses a deep distrust of private industry that America has rejected
since its founding.
The bill before us today instead welcomes the private sector and
acknowledges that we need the best minds in the country to help protect
our citizens from ever-evolving cyber attacks by the likes of China and
Iran. And the work done by the chairman and the ranking member to
improve the provision of this bill, working with my committee and my
staff to make it clear that we have a definite definition of what
constitutes good faith and what constitutes circumstances under which a
business that does not act in good faith would be exposed to lawsuits
and liability, is one that helps protect the privacy of American
citizens, because those citizens will be assured they will know under
what circumstances a business has exceeded its authority under the law
and be protected and have a clear right to bring an action under those
circumstances. And the businesses themselves will be protected because
they will not share information if they know they are not acting in
good faith, because they know what the definition of good faith is in
the bill.
So the gentleman from Michigan, the gentleman from Maryland, the
chairman and ranking member, have done a great job with this
legislation. I support their efforts and urge my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. LaMALFA Mr. Chair, again, thank you to my colleagues. The ranking
member from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), I really appreciate your kind
words and your strong support. To my colleague from Virginia, thank you
for your kind words on the amendment as well. And to my colleague, Mr.
Chairman, Mr. Rogers from Michigan, thank you for letting me offer this
amendment here.
It does strike the balance I think we need with cybersecurity. The
great threat to many of our institutions in this Nation is something
that we do have to act upon, but also finding that balance with
personal privacy that is so key to the elements of the founding of our
Nation. I'm proud to be able to carry this amendment. I ask for your
support, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
{time} 1050
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Paulsen
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in House Report 113-41.
Mr. PAULSEN. I offer an amendment, Mr. Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.
It is the sense of Congress that international cooperation
with regard to cybersecurity should be encouraged wherever
possible under this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 164, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, last month at a Senate hearing outlining the threats
facing our security, it was the Director of National Intelligence,
James Clapper, who warned that the intelligence community is seeing
indications that some terror groups are interested in ``developing
offensive cyber capabilities, and cyber criminals are using a growing
black market to sell cyber tools that fall into the hands of both state
and nonstate actors.''
Mr. Chair, just last week in Chairman Rogers' committee, it was
Director Clapper who also said, ``As more and more state and nonstate
actors gain cyber expertise, its importance and reach as a global
threat cannot be overstated.''
Our society has increasingly become reliant on modern technology in
nearly every aspect of our daily lives, making the possibility of a
cyber attack that much more dangerous. Under cyber terrorist or cyber
crime, industries as diverse as financial systems, transportation,
social media, and even utilities could be negatively impacted. A
successful attack could disrupt the lives of Americans and result in
other unpredictable consequences.
We do know the threat is real. We've already experienced attacks on
our Nation's financial institutions and have faced hackers trying to
gain access to the Pentagon and our Nation's critical infrastructure.
According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the number of
U.S. organizations believed to have been hacked has dramatically
increased in just the last 6 years. Back in 2006, there were about
5,500 separate attacks noted, compared to 48,500 in 2012. As a January
2013 U.S. Government report found, cyber attacks and intrusions in
critical energy infrastructures rose 52 percent between 2011 and 2012
alone. That's in a 1-year period, Mr. Chair.
Cyber weapons will likely continue to be used by a greater number of
countries and other actors as a form of warfare. Between 20 and 30
states already have the capability to launch cyber warfare, including
China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea and others, as has been stated as
part of the debate on this bill.
Fortunately, these attacks have so far been thwarted by our
intelligence before significant and lasting damage could occur, but it
would be unwise to choose to act alone in the face of the growing fact
of cyber criminality. In order to produce effective outcomes, our
intelligence community must continue to promote collaboration among
experts and across boards.
Just as we conduct our drills and our training exercises with our
allies, we need to work together to share our best practices to keep
our citizens safe from cyber attacks. My amendment would call on
Congress to encourage international cooperation when it comes to
cybersecurity.
This amendment would not bind the United States to working with other
[[Page H2134]]
nations, but it simply does promote doing so in situations that would
be mutually beneficial. Such collaboration would more effectively allow
us to combat cyber terrorism and threats by sharing resources and using
proven security techniques when possible.
Mr. Chair, in the end, by working together on an issue that poses a
threat to all of us, the international community will benefit from the
exchange of experiences and potential solutions.
Mr. Chair, I just want to thank the gentleman from Michigan and the
gentleman from Maryland for their leadership on this very challenging
issue. I know that looking forward we will continue to see success in
battling these real threats.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I rise to claim the time in opposition to this
amendment even though I'm not opposed.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I thank Congressman Paulsen for his work on this
bill. I support his amendment with the sense of Congress to encourage
international cooperation with regard to cybersecurity whenever
possible under this bill.
Given that cyber threats are global in nature, as are our networks
and computer systems, international efforts must work together to
protect against domestic and foreign actors who seek to destroy our
industries, government, agencies, and utilities.
Therefore, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the
committee chairman.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and
agree that we must employ international cooperation to combat the
scourge of economic cyber espionage and leverage our official state
relationships and alliances to help stop the bleeding.
China's economic espionage has reached an intolerable level, and I
believe U.S. officials should demand that it stop at every meeting and
engagement we have with Chinese officials. Moreover, the United States
and our allies in Europe and Asia have an obligation to confront
Beijing and demand they put a stop to this piracy.
Beijing is waging a massive trade war on us all, and we should band
together to pressure them to stop. Combined, the United States and our
allies in Europe and Asia have significant diplomatic and economic
leverage over China, and we should use this to our advantage to put an
end to this activity.
I commend the gentleman from Minnesota for offering this amendment,
and I urge my colleagues' strong support for it.
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chair, I urge support for my amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Barton
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in House Report 113-41.
Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO CONSUMER DATA.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act
shall be construed to provide new or alter any existing
authority for an entity to sell personal information of a
consumer to another entity for marketing purposes.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 164, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Barton) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chair, when this same bill or bill similar to it was
on the House floor last year, I had to reluctantly rise in opposition
to it because it was my opinion that the privacy protections in the
bill were not sufficient to protect the privacy of the American people.
I think that surprised a lot of people that I was not for the bill.
After the bill failed to move in the Senate, I went to Chairman
Rogers and I told him that I supported the underlying intent of the
bill and I was hopeful that, if the bill came back up in this session,
he and myself and our staffs could work together to improve the privacy
protections. He promised then that he would do it, and Chairman Rogers
and his staff have been men and women of their word. The result is a
bill that was reported out of the Intelligence Committee on a
bipartisan basis with much stronger privacy protections.
When I went to the Rules Committee, Chairman Rogers supported that
this amendment I'm about to offer should be made in order, and it has
been. And if this amendment is accepted--and I'm told that the chairman
and the ranking member are going to support it, as I'm not aware of any
organized opposition to it--it is going to be my intent to vote for the
bill.
We obviously have a cyber threat that faces the American people, and
Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger have talked about that
in some detail earlier in this debate. We want to combat that threat.
But in doing it, we do not want to eliminate or weaken the privacy
protections of the American people that we represent in this body.
So what my amendment does is make sure that any information that is
collected is going to be used simply for the purpose of protecting
against cyber threats. It's a very short amendment. It adds a new
section to the bill, section 4. Here I will read the amendment since
it's in clear English and very short.
Nothing in this act or the amendments made by this act
shall be construed to provide new or alter any existing
authority for an entity to sell personal information of a
consumer to another entity for marketing purposes.
What this does, Mr. Chair, is simply nail down the fact that when we
find information that might be necessary to protect against a cyber
threat, that's all it's going to be used for. It can't be used for any
other purpose.
As I said earlier, Chairman Rogers has worked very closely with
myself, and his staff has worked with my staff. Congressman Markey of
Massachusetts, who is the cochairman of the Privacy Caucus, strongly
supports this amendment.
Again, I think it was unanimously accepted at the Rules Committee.
I'm aware of no opposition, so I hope that we can adopt the amendment.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1100
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I rise to claim the time in opposition even though
I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Maryland is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. First, I would like to thank Congressman Barton
for his work on the bill.
You've made the bill stronger, and we want to make sure that there is
no perception that people's privacies are being violated.
I support Congressman Barton's amendment, which ensures that nothing
in our bill, CISPA, provides the authority for any entity to sell a
consumer's personal information for marketing purposes.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON. I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished
chairman of the Intelligence Committee and also a distinguished member
of the Energy and Commerce Committee, a former FBI agent, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Barton, for your work on this.
Last year, you expressed strong reservations about certain privacy
protections, and you were willing to sit down and work with us to try
to find and make sure that we sent that very clear
[[Page H2135]]
message about protecting privacy in this bill. I thought the language
was excellent, and it added to that purpose. It really does prevent any
information in the bill from being misused by a company for anything
other than the bill's strictly defined cybersecurity purpose. But his
amendment adds an important clarification to make Congress' intent
absolutely clear, to try again to reassure the American public that
this is about protecting privacy and civil liberties while protecting
the country.
I want to thank Mr. Barton for working with me and my ranking member
on this important issue, and I urge my colleagues to strongly support
this amendment.
Mr. BARTON. In reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, before I yield back,
I want to thank my staff member Emmanual Guillory. He has worked
tirelessly on this issue and on this amendment. I also want to thank
Congressman Ed Markey of Massachusetts and his staff for working with
me and Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in House Report 113-41.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 4. SAVINGS CLAUSE WITH REGARD TO CYBERSECURITY PROVIDER
OBLIGATION TO REPORT CYBER THREAT INCIDENT
INFORMATION TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act
shall be construed to provide authority to a department or
agency of the Federal Government to require a cybersecurity
provider that has contracted with the Federal Government to
provide information services to provide information about
cybersecurity incidents that do not pose a threat to the
Federal Government's information.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 164, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the chairman and the ranking member for
the work that they have done in getting us here today and in crafting
the legislation, and I thank the Rules Committee for making what I
think is a very important amendment in order. I thank this process for
allowing clarifying amendments because we are here representing the
American people.
Mr. Chair, my amendment is straightforward. It improves the bill by
indicating that:
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act
shall be construed to provide authority to a department or
agency of the Federal Government to require a cybersecurity
provider that has contracted with the Federal Government to
provide information services to provide information about
cybersecurity incidents that do not pose a threat to the
Federal Government.
We want to be concerned about that.
It makes it clear that the only instance in which a cloud service
provider can share information about a cyber incident with a government
agency is when the objective of an attempted intrusion of the service
provider's network was to gain unauthorized access to the government's
information.
I am pleased to state that this commonsense amendment is supported by
a number of groups, including Constitutional Alliance, The Constitution
Project, Liberty Coalition, and the ACLU.
In other words, if a cyber incident does not threaten the
government's information, then the incident is none of the government's
need to intrude, and this is especially true when disclosure to the
government would compromise an individual's privacy and proprietary
information of businesses.
Mr. Chairman, today, something commonly called the ``cloud'' plays an
unseen but critical part in the lives of millions of Americans and
thousands of businesses. Persons and businesses that use iPhones,
Gmail, Yahoo!, and MSN email services are connected to the cloud. This,
of course, does not in any way hinder our homeland security or national
security. Cloud services include popular online services like Facebook
and YouTube. The cloud is saving consumers and businesses from the loss
of valuable data through storage services, and when you speak to our
industries, they are protected.
This is the cloud--all private sector. They are not intruded upon,
but add the government--if the government comes in and decides just
without any clarification that we'll give your information to others
without it being necessary, without it being government information,
without it being related to government operations, my amendment
protects you in the private sector from that kind of intrusion.
So I believe that this amendment will protect commerce. These are
well-known names. This is who this amendment will protect--all of those
who are generating commerce in the midst of cloud computing.
Mr. Chairman, cloud computing is such an important innovation that it
is changing how people, businesses, and government agencies manage
information. The Jackson Lee amendment recognizes the importance of
cloud computing to our economy, and it is consistent with the
objectives of the bill while ensuring that the privacy and civil
liberties rights of citizens are protected.
Again, they are doing business with each other. Once we put in the
government, the question has to be whether or not the government
transmits information that is not necessary. My amendment protects
consumers and businesses that are in the midst of providing and helping
in their lives to make sure that users have their privacy. The cloud
allows users seamless access to information from any location in the
United States where the Internet is accessible and available. My
amendment protects them and is ready to help clarify this bill, and I
ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the ranking member of the committee, the
distinguished gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I just want to thank the gentlelady from Texas for
her hard work on this bill, and I support this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, while I do not oppose this
amendment, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). Without objection, the gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I want to thank the gentlelady for working
with us. It is her concern and a genuine concern, and we've had
discussions on this bill about the protection of privacy. It's an
important element of the way we move forward to try to protect those
companies that you talk about in the networks that protect the jobs of
every American and the privacy of every American.
Every piece of this bill is voluntary. No one is pressured or
compelled to give anything to the government under this bill. In fact,
the bill contains two important protections to drive this point home:
First, the bill prohibits the government from requiring a private
sector entity to share information with the government. It is
completely, 100 percent voluntary;
Second, the bill prohibits the government from conditioning the
sharing of classified cyber threat intelligence with a private sector
entity on the provision of cyber threat information back to the
government in return. In other words, no quid pro quo, and this is a
good protection that I know the gentlelady supports.
I believe that these important provisions make it very clear that
every molecule of this bill is 100 percent voluntary, and this
amendment, I think, reaffirms the strong language that is in the bill
in order to give that next level of confidence on all the privacy
amendments we've adopted today and to make it very clear that it is
paramount that we protect individuals' privacy in the conduct of
sharing cyber threat information.
I, therefore, support the amendment, and would urge the body to do
the
[[Page H2136]]
same. Again, I thank the gentlelady for her work on this issue and for
working with the committee to come to a better place.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 45 seconds
remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Again, I say that the cloud is saving consumers and
businesses from the loss of valuable data. The Jackson Lee amendment
adds to the firewall of protecting Americans' privacy and, in the flow
and the discourse of business, of protecting the privacy of our
businesses that do not have data that is necessary for the government's
information. That should be said over and over again.
I thank both the ranking member and the chairman for their kind
remarks, and I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment
that provides, again, the firewall of privacy.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask support of my amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member
Ruppersberger for the work in crafting this legislation and the Rules
Committee for making my amendment in order.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It improves the bill
by providing that:
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act
shall be construed to provide authority to a department or
agency of the Federal Government to require a cybersecurity
provider that has contracted with the Federal Government to
provide information services to provide information about
cybersecurity incidents that do not pose a threat to the
Federal Government's information.
Mr. Chairman, the Jackson Lee amendment makes clear that the only
instance in which a cloud service provider can share information about
a cyber incident with a government agency is when the objective of an
attempted intrusion of the service provider's network was to gain
unauthorized access to the government's information.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to state that this commonsense amendment
is supported by interested groups across the spectrum, from the ACLU on
the left to the Constitutional Alliance on the right.
In other words, if a cyber incident does not threaten the
government's information, then the incident is none of the government's
business.
And this is especially true where disclosure to the government would
compromise individuals' privacy and proprietary information of
businesses.
Mr. Chairman, today something commonly called ``the Cloud'' plays an
unseen but critical part in the lives of millions of Americans and
thousands of businesses. Persons and businesses who use iPhones or use
Gmail, Yahoo and MSN e-mail services are connected to the Cloud.
Cloud services include popular online services like Facebook,
YouTube, ``LinkedIn'' (a professional networking service) and
``Flickr'' (a place where millions of personal and family photos are
stored).
The Cloud is saving consumers and businesses from the loss of
valuable data through storage services like the popular Apple iCloud.
The Cloud protects digital information from loss should their computer
or smart phone be damaged, lost or stolen. The Cloud also allows users
seamless access to information from any location in the United States
where internet access is available.
Mr. Chairman, ``cloud computing'' is such an important innovation
that it is changing how people, businesses, and government agencies
manage information.
The Jackson Lee amendment recognizes the importance of ``cloud
computing'' to our economy and is consistent with the objectives of the
bill while assuring that privacy and civil liberty rights of citizens
are protected.
This is an important amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support
it.
Organizations Endorsing Jackson Lee Amendment
ACLU
Constitutional Alliance
Stop Real ID Coalition
The Constitution Project
The Liberty Coalition
{time} 1110
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. McCaul
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider the amendment
printed in section 3 of House Resolution 164 as modified by the order
of the House of today.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
After section 1, insert the following new section (and
renumber subsequent sections accordingly):
``SEC. 2. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION WITH RESPECT TO
CYBERSECURITY.
``(a) Coordinated Activities.--The Federal Government shall
conduct cybersecurity activities to provide shared
situational awareness that enables integrated operational
actions to protect, prevent, mitigate, respond to, and
recover from cyber incidents.
``(b) Coordinated Information Sharing.--
``(1) Designation of coordinating entity for cyber threat
information.--The President shall designate an entity within
the Department of Homeland Security as the civilian Federal
entity to receive cyber threat information that is shared by
a cybersecurity provider or self-protected entity in
accordance with section 1104(b) of the National Security Act
of 1947, as added by section 3(a) of this Act, except as
provided in paragraph (2) and subject to the procedures
established under paragraph (4).
``(2) Designation of a coordinating entity for
cybersecurity crimes.--The President shall designate an
entity within the Department of Justice as the civilian
Federal entity to receive cyber threat information related to
cybersecurity crimes that is shared by a cybersecurity
provider or self-protected entity in accordance with section
1104(b) of the National Security Act of 1947, as added by
section 3(a) of this Act, subject to the procedures under
paragraph (4).
``(3) Sharing by coordinating entities.--The entities
designated under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall share cyber
threat information shared with such entities in accordance
with section 1104(b) of the National Security Act of 1947, as
added by section 3(a) of this Act, consistent with the
procedures established under paragraphs (4) and (5).
``(4) Procedures.--Each department or agency of the Federal
Government receiving cyber threat information shared in
accordance with section 1104(b) of the National Security Act
of 1947, as added by section 3(a) of this Act, shall
establish procedures to--
``(A) ensure that cyber threat information shared with
departments or agencies of the Federal Government in
accordance with such section 1104(b) is also shared with
appropriate departments and agencies of the Federal
Government with a national security mission in real time;
``(B) ensure the distribution to other departments and
agencies of the Federal Government of cyber threat
information in real time; and
``(C) facilitate information sharing, interaction, and
collaboration among and between the Federal Government;
State, local, tribal, and territorial governments; and
cybersecurity providers and self-protected entities.
``(5) Privacy and civil liberties.--
``(A) Policies and procedures.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Attorney General, the Director of National
Intelligence, and the Secretary of Defense shall jointly
establish and periodically review policies and procedures
governing the receipt, retention, use, and disclosure of
non-publicly available cyber threat information shared
with the Federal Government in accordance with section
1104(b) of the National Security Act of 1947, as added by
section 3(a) of this Act. Such policies and procedures
shall, consistent with the need to protect systems and
networks from cyber threats and mitigate cyber threats in
a timely manner--
``(i) minimize the impact on privacy and civil liberties;
``(ii) reasonably limit the receipt, retention, use, and
disclosure of cyber threat information associated with
specific persons that is not necessary to protect systems or
networks from cyber threats or mitigate cyber threats in a
timely manner;
``(iii) include requirements to safeguard non-publicly
available cyber threat information that may be used to
identify specific persons from unauthorized access or
acquisition;
``(iv) protect the confidentiality of cyber threat
information associated with specific persons to the greatest
extent practicable; and
``(v) not delay or impede the flow of cyber threat
information necessary to defend against or mitigate a cyber
threat.
``(B) Submission to congress.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Attorney General, the Director of National
Intelligence, and the Secretary of Defense shall, consistent
with the need to protect sources and methods, jointly submit
to Congress the policies and procedures required under
subparagraph (A) and any updates to such policies and
procedures.
``(C) Implementation.--The head of each department or
agency of the Federal Government receiving cyber threat
information shared with the Federal Government under such
section 1104(b) shall--
``(i) implement the policies and procedures established
under subparagraph (A); and
``(ii) promptly notify the Secretary of Homeland Security,
the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence,
the Secretary of Defense, and the appropriate congressional
committees of any significant violations of such policies and
procedures.
[[Page H2137]]
``(D) Oversight.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, the
Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and
the Secretary of Defense shall jointly establish a program to
monitor and oversee compliance with the policies and
procedures established under subparagraph (A).
``(6) Information sharing relationships.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to--
``(A) alter existing agreements or prohibit new agreements
with respect to the sharing of cyber threat information
between the Department of Defense and an entity that is part
of the defense industrial base;
``(B) alter existing information-sharing relationships
between a cybersecurity provider, protected entity, or self-
protected entity and the Federal Government;
``(C) prohibit the sharing of cyber threat information
directly with a department or agency of the Federal
Government for criminal investigative purposes related to
crimes described in section 1104(c)(1) of the National
Security Act of 1947, as added by section 3(a) of this
Act; or
``(D) alter existing agreements or prohibit new agreements
with respect to the sharing of cyber threat information
between the Department of Treasury and an entity that is part
of the financial services sector.
``(7) Technical assistance.--
``(A) Discussions and assistance.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to prohibit any department or agency of
the Federal Government from engaging in formal or informal
technical discussion regarding cyber threat information with
a cybersecurity provider or self-protected entity or from
providing technical assistance to address vulnerabilities or
mitigate threats at the request of such a provider or such an
entity.
``(B) Coordination.--Any department or agency of the
Federal Government engaging in an activity referred to in
subparagraph (A) shall coordinate such activity with the
entity of the Department of Homeland Security designated
under paragraph (1) and share all significant information
resulting from such activity with such entity and all other
appropriate departments and agencies of the Federal
Government.
``(C) Sharing by designated entity.--Consistent with the
policies and procedures established under paragraph (5), the
entity of the Department of Homeland Security designated
under paragraph (1) shall share with all appropriate
departments and agencies of the Federal Government all
significant information resulting from--
``(i) formal or informal technical discussions between such
entity of the Department of Homeland Security and a
cybersecurity provider or self-protected entity about cyber
threat information; or
``(ii) any technical assistance such entity of the
Department of Homeland Security provides to such
cybersecurity provider or such self-protected entity to
address vulnerabilities or mitigate threats.
``(c) Reports on Information Sharing.--
``(1) Inspector general of the department of homeland
security report.--The Inspector General of the Department of
Homeland Security, in consultation with the Inspector General
of the Department of Justice, the Inspector General of the
Intelligence Community, the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties
Oversight Board, shall annually submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a report containing a review of the
use of information shared with the Federal Government under
subsection (b) of section 1104 of the National Security Act
of 1947, as added by section 3(a) of this Act, including--
``(A) a review of the use by the Federal Government of such
information for a purpose other than a cybersecurity purpose;
``(B) a review of the type of information shared with the
Federal Government under such subsection;
``(C) a review of the actions taken by the Federal
Government based on such information;
``(D) appropriate metrics to determine the impact of the
sharing of such information with the Federal Government on
privacy and civil liberties, if any;
``(E) a list of the departments or agencies receiving such
information;
``(F) a review of the sharing of such information within
the Federal Government to identify inappropriate stovepiping
of shared information; and
``(G) any recommendations of the Inspector General of the
Department of Homeland Security for improvements or
modifications to the authorities under such section.
``(2) Privacy and civil liberties officers report.--The
Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the
Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the Inspector
General of the Intelligence Community, and the senior privacy
and civil liberties officer of each department or agency of
the Federal Government that receives cyber threat information
shared with the Federal Government under such subsection (b),
shall annually and jointly submit to Congress a report
assessing the privacy and civil liberties impact of the
activities conducted by the Federal Government under such
section 1104. Such report shall include any recommendations
the Civil Liberties Protection Officer and Chief Privacy and
Civil Liberties Officer consider appropriate to minimize or
mitigate the privacy and civil liberties impact of the
sharing of cyber threat information under such section 1104.
``(3) Form.--Each report required under paragraph (1) or
(2) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include
a classified annex.
``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
`appropriate congressional committees' means--
``(A) the Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on
the Judiciary, the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, and the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives; and
``(B) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Select Committee
on Intelligence, and the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate.
``(2) Cyber threat information, cyber threat intelligence,
cybersecurity crimes, cybersecurity provider, cybersecurity
purpose, and self-protected entity.--The terms `cyber threat
information', `cyber threat intelligence', `cybersecurity
crimes', `cybersecurity provider', `cybersecurity purpose',
and `self-protected entity' have the meaning given those
terms in section 1104 of the National Security Act of 1947,
as added by section 3(a) of this Act.
``(3) Intelligence community.--The term intelligence
community' has the meaning given the term in section 3(4) of
the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).
``(4) Shared situational awareness.--The term `shared
situational awareness' means an environment where cyber
threat information is shared in real time between all
designated Federal cyber operations centers to provide
actionable information about all known cyber threats.''.
Page 4, line 18, strike ``Federal Government'' and insert
``entities of the Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of Justice designated under paragraphs (1) and (2)
of section 2(b) of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and
Protection Act''.
Page 5, line 5, strike ``Federal Government'' and insert
``entities of the Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of Justice designated under paragraphs (1) and (2)
of section 2(b) of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and
Protection Act''.
Page 5, strike line 6 and all that follows through page 6,
line 7.
Page 7, beginning on line 17, strike ``by the department or
agency of the Federal Government receiving such cyber threat
information''.
Page 13, strike line 13 and all that follows through page
15, line 23.
Page 17, strike line 15 and all that follows through page
19, line 19.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 164, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. McCaul) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I want to first thank Mr. Rogers, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Thompson,
and all the staff for their real-time collaboration over the last
several days, very late night hours, to get this amendment to
perfection, and let me just say thanks again for that.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly encourage support of this amendment. Cyber
threats that the United States faces are real and immediate, and the
key to addressing these cracks in our cyber defenses lies with bridging
the gap between government and industry. My amendment helps do just
that.
This amendment would direct the Federal Government to conduct
cybersecurity activities in a real-time, coordinated, and integrated
way so that there is shared situational awareness across agencies to
protect the Nation from cyber attack. This amendment would designate an
entity within the Department of Homeland Security as the civilian
Federal entity interface to receive cyber threat information from the
private sector. This is an important improvement and provides an
additional layer of review for information sharing procedures by a
robust civilian privacy office in order to ensure Americans' civil
liberties are protected.
Additionally, another important improvement to the underlying bill by
way of this amendment is designating an entity within the Department of
Justice as the civilian Federal entity to receive cyber threat
information from the private sector related to cyber crime.
This bipartisan amendment improves the underlying bill and addresses
concerns raised by privacy groups. These changes ensure that DHS and
DOJ will serve as points of entry for those seeking to share cyber
threat information with the Federal Government.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, while I am not opposed to
the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes.
[[Page H2138]]
There was no objection.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of
this amendment.
Enhancing our security in cyberspace is of the highest importance,
but it cannot be done at the expense of our privacy and civil
liberties. The key to ensuring the necessary protections are in place
is codifying in statute a strong civilian lead for information sharing
with the private sector. Our amendment does just that.
Yesterday, I reached an agreement with Chairman Rogers, Ranking
Member Ruppersberger, and Chairman McCaul to offer this bipartisan
amendment to strengthen the bill. The amendment establishes a center
within the Department of Homeland Security as the Federal hub for cyber
threat information shared under this bill, and the Department of
Justice as the hub for all cyber crime information.
With this amendment, citizens may take comfort knowing that their
information will be more likely shared with the appropriate civilian
agencies with the accompanying accountability and transparency; and
businesses can be more sure that their dealings abroad will not be
colored by the perception, fair or otherwise, that they are in cahoots
with the National Security Agency.
To be clear, this amendment does not fix all of the privacy or
liability issues with the underlying bill, but it does establish the
strong precedent of civilian control of cyber information sharing; and
I hope we can fix the broader issues with the bill, should it pass,
further down the line.
This amendment is absolutely essential to the bill, and it sends the
right message to the world about the way the United States will act in
cyberspace.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Enhance the CIVILIAN Authorities in CISPA
Enhance the CIVILIAN Authorities in CISPA
Dear Colleague: Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member
Ruppersberger of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, together with Chairman McCaul and Ranking
Member Thompson of the House Homeland Security Committee,
will offer an amendment that will designate a civilian lead
for the cyber security information sharing program under the
Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).
This amendment requires the President to designate a
civilian entity within the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) to be the entry point to receive cyber threat
information and to designate an entity within the Department
of Justice (DOJ) as the civilian entity to receive cyber
threat information related to cybersecurity crimes. These
changes make clear that DHS and the DOJ will serve as points
of entry for those seeking to share cybersecurity threat
information with the federal government.
The amendment also requires the Secretary of DHS, the
Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and
the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures to eliminate
any personal information from cyber threat information shared
with the federal government. Cyber threat information shared
with the government from any source will be scrubbed of any
personally identifiable information and deleted--this is also
known as ``minimization.''
Every agency receiving cyber threat information must notify
these four agencies, and Congress of significant violations
of the procedures required by the bill. These agencies must
also establish a program to oversee compliance with the
minimization procedures.
We urge you to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
Sincerely,
Michael T. McCaul,
Chairman, Homeland Security Committee.
Bennie Thompson,
Ranking Member, Homeland Security Committee.
Mike J. Rogers,
Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Dutch Ruppersberger,
Ranking Member, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Mr. Thompson and
Mr. McCaul for working so hard on this particular amendment to try and
get it right. An agreement was agreed to and then undone, and then
agreed to by some involvement who are filled with self-importance
beyond this Chamber. We were able to work out those differences and get
to a place where we all agreed.
This is an important amendment. This is that civilian face that so
many talked about for so long on this bill. And I want to thank both
the chair and the ranking member of Homeland Security for working
through all of the difficulties to get us to this place where we could
present that civilian face and add yet one more reassurance about
privacy, civilian liberty protection, and that this is not a
surveillance bill.
And I want to thank again Mr. Thompson for your graciousness, your
patience for working with us, and Mr. McCaul for your leadership on
this issue as well. I urge strong support for the McCaul-Thompson-
Ruppersberger-Rogers amendment.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic
leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, today the Internet and new technologies are
shaping a world that we could scarcely have imagined even 10 years ago.
It's giving Americans an easy way to build friendships, build business,
and participate in democracy, all with the click of a button.
But because so much of our daily lives are invested in cyberspace, it
only takes one more click to put our personal identities, our economic
stability, and our national security at risk. The threat of a cyber
attack on our country is real, and our response must always balance our
security with our liberties. That has always been the case in the
history of America, the balance between liberty and security.
There can be absolutely no doubt or delay in shoring up our Nation's
cybersecurity. We must take clear, responsible, effective action to
enhance the security of the American people.
I want to commend Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger,
working together in a bipartisan way, for their leadership on this
issue and their efforts to craft and try to improve this legislation. I
want to thank Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson on the
Homeland Security Committee for their energetic leadership on this
subject as well. I thank both committees for recognizing the
jurisdiction of the other committee.
I had hoped that today we would be addressing some major concerns of
Members of Congress and the White House by improving the legislation's
protections of personal information. With all of the respect in the
world for the work of our chairs and ranking members on this, and it
has been considerable. You have standing on this issue that is
recognized and respected. I am disappointed, however, that we did not
address some of the concerns, as I mentioned, of the White House about
personal information.
Unfortunately, this bill offers no policies, did not allow any
amendments--and I don't put that to you, no amendments--and no real
solutions that adequately uphold an American's right to privacy.
For one thing, in promoting the sharing of cyber threat information,
the bill does not require the private sector to minimize irrelevant
personally identifiable information from what it shares with the
government, or other private matters. They can just ship the whole kit
and caboodle. We are saying minimize what is relevant to our national
security; the rest is none of the government's business.
The bill continues to offer overly broad liability protections and
immunities to the businesses that could violate our liberties rather
than offering more targeted liabilities to ensure that the private
sector only shares appropriate information.
{time} 1120
We thought there might be a way to get this done by amendment--I'm
sure that it would enjoy bipartisan support--but the Rules Committee
did not allow that amendment to come forward.
Most importantly, the bill fails to critically address the greatest
weakness in our cybersecurity: our Nation's infrastructure. Too many of
our country's systems, both physical and virtual, are still exposed to
an increasing number of intrusions and attacks.
[[Page H2139]]
Now, as a longtime former member of the Intelligence Committee, I
know that infrastructure is not your jurisdiction, so in your original
bill you couldn't go to that place. But now the Rules Committee could
have allowed, with the cooperation of the Homeland Security Committee,
us to go into infrastructure.
If we're truly going to secure a reliable and resilient cyberspace
that reflects our country's values, we must target our clearest
vulnerabilities, while preserving a space that promotes the innovation,
expression, and security of the American people.
The world we live in and the threats our country faces can change
with just one click. While we should never let Americans doubt our
vigilance, our preparation, our effectiveness, we must never let us
compromise their civil liberties.
If we fail to meet the standard of security, we always do more harm
than good.
I, myself, am personally going to vote ``no'' on this legislation
but, in doing so, salute the chairs and ranking members of the
committees for taking us way down the road on this issue. It's just
that crucial balance between security and liberty that I do not think
has been struck in that bill. So, for my own part, it will not have my
support.
Mr. McCAUL. We have no more speakers. I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), the ranking member on the
Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. First thing, I want to thank the ranking member,
Mr. Thompson, and I want to thank Mr. McCaul and Mr. Rogers for coming
together. That's what we're elected to do, to come together in a
bipartisan way and to deal with difficult issues. And they were
difficult issues. But we're here today to all support this amendment.
The White House and the privacy groups raised this as one of the main
issues with the bill. These groups were concerned that there was an
impression, wrongly, I believe, that the military would control the
program. This was never the case, but we heard these concerns, and we
are addressing them in this amendment.
It means that companies sharing information about cyber threats will
go to the Department of Homeland Security, a civilian agency. If the
information is related to cybersecurity crime, the companies will go to
the Department of Justice, another civilian agency.
The amendment requires that the Department of Homeland Security share
this information with other government agencies in real-time so they
can use it to protect against future cyber threats and attacks.
This amendment ensures we protect the security of our Nation, but
also protect the privacy and liberties of our country and our citizens.
I strongly support this amendment and urge other Members to do the
same.
I commend, again, Ranking Member Thompson, Chairman McCaul, Chairman
Rogers for coming together at the last moment. I respectfully request a
``yes'' vote on the amendment.
You can't have security if you don't have privacy and liberty.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, who has the right to close?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Mississippi has the right to
close.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me just say this: when it comes to this issue, particularly,
which we know is one of the greatest threats that the United States
faces right now, and that's the threat of cyber attacks, this is not a
Republican-Democrat issue. It's really an American issue.
And with all due respect, this does provide, I think, the balance
between security and civil liberties; and it provides the civilian
interface to the private sector to protect our critical infrastructures
that are already under attack by countries like Iran, China, and
Russia.
So I think that, if anything, the recent events in Boston demonstrate
that we have to come together as Republicans and Democrats to get this
done in the name of national security. In the case in Boston, they were
real bombs, explosive devices. In this case, they're digital bombs, and
these digital bombs are on their way.
That's why this legislation is so important. That's why it's so
urgent that we pass this today. For if we don't, and those digital
bombs land and attack the United States of America, and Congress fails
to act, then Congress has that on its hands.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, at this point, I'd like to
say that I agree with Democratic Leader Ms. Pelosi's issue with respect
to cyber, particularly critical infrastructure. And I look forward to
working with Chairman McCaul on submitting legislation.
With that, Mr. Chair, I encourage Members to support this bipartisan
amendment that the chair of the Committee on Homeland Security and I
drafted.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I am in support of the amendment offered
by Intelligence Committee Chairman Rogers, Congressman McCaul and
Homeland Security Ranking Member Thompson to H.R. 624, the Cyber
Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2013. This is very similar
to the amendment I offered before the Rules Committee, but was not made
in order. I am pleased that the focus of my amendment is addressed by
this amendment that was made in order.
This amendment just as I outlined in my amendment offered to the
Rules Committee would establish a lead role for the Department of
Homeland Security--a civilian agency in matters related to cyber
security threats. DHS would be the agency to receive all cyber threat
information. This amendment designates the Department of Justice (DOJ)
as the civilian entity to receive cyber threat information related to
cybersecurity crimes.
These changes make clear that DHS and the DOJ will serve as points of
entry for those seeking to share cybersecurity threat information with
the federal government.
The amendment also requires the Secretary of DHS, the Attorney
General, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Secretary of
Defense to establish procedures to eliminate any personal information
from cyber threat information shared with the federal government. Cyber
threat information shared with the government from any source will be
scrubbed of any personally identifiable information and deleted--this
is also known as ``minimization.''
Every agency receiving cyber threat information must notify these
four agencies, and Congress of significant violations of the procedures
required by the bill. These agencies must also establish a program to
oversee compliance with the minimization procedures.
The importance of a civil agency in a central role regarding the
establishment and functions of domestic cyber protection programs is
critical to building in the transparency, accountability and oversight
the American public expects. I am in strong support of this amendment
and thank my colleagues for their efforts to address the concerns of
many of our constituents as we work to assure the Internet is as safe
as it can be and that we maintain the level of oversight that is
needed.
This is an important amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support
it.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Denham) having assumed the chair, Mr. Yoder, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 624) to
provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber
threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity
entities, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________
[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 53 (Thursday, April 18, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H2140-H2145]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CYBER INTELLIGENCE SHARING AND PROTECTION ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 164 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 624.
Will the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder) kindly take the chair.
{time} 1146
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 624) to provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat
intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence
community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Yoder (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
a request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. McCaul) had been postponed.
Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on
those amendments printed in House Report 113-41 on which further
proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 7 by Ms. Sinema of Arizona.
Amendment No. 9 by Mr. LaMalfa of California.
Amendment by Mr. McCaul of Texas.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Sinema
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona
(Ms. Sinema) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 411,
noes 0, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 113]
AYES--411
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--21
Bachmann
Blackburn
Burgess
Capuano
Ellmers
Holding
Keating
Kennedy
Lynch
Markey
McGovern
Miller, Gary
Neal
Nugent
Pitts
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Smith (NJ)
Tierney
Tsongas
Velazquez
{time} 1213
Mr. CICILLINE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. ELLMERS. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 113, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Flores was allowed to speak out of order.)
A Moment of Silence for the Victims in Boston, Massachusetts, and West,
Texas
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chair, I rise today in the wake of two grave
tragedies in our Nation. The terrorist attack in Boston and then the
tragedy in West, Texas, last night remind us of the risks that modern
life presents. I ask that all Americans pray for these two communities
and to hug your families a little tighter tonight.
As we gather on the House floor, I want to take a moment to remember
all of those affected by the explosion in West, Texas, who have been
injured or killed, and their families and their loved ones.
I would also like to recognize the bravery of the first responders
and the volunteers from our community and, actually, from all over
Texas who have come to the aid of those in need.
I want to thank my House colleagues for their many offers of support,
and I also ask for a moment of silence.
[[Page H2141]]
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. LaMalfa) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 413,
noes 0, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 114]
AYES--413
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--19
Bachmann
Blackburn
Capuano
Cardenas
Holding
Keating
Kennedy
Lynch
Markey
McGovern
Miller, Gary
Neal
Nugent
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Tierney
Tsongas
Velazquez
Watt
{time} 1221
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. McCaul
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
McCaul) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 409,
noes 5, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 115]
AYES--409
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
[[Page H2142]]
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--5
Benishek
Bentivolio
Posey
Sensenbrenner
Wolf
NOT VOTING--18
Bachmann
Blackburn
Capuano
Forbes
Holding
Keating
Kennedy
Lynch
Markey
McGovern
Miller, Gary
Neal
Nugent
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Tierney
Tsongas
Velazquez
{time} 1227
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Webster) having assumed the chair, Mr. Yoder, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 624) to
provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber
threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity
entities, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution
164, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
{time} 1230
Motion to Recommit
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). Is the gentleman opposed to the
bill?
Mr. PERLMUTTER. In its current form, I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Perlmutter moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 624, to the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following amendments:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. __. PROTECTING THE PRIVACY OF INTERNET PASSWORDS AND THE
CREATIVITY OF THE INTERNET.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act
shall be construed to--
(1) permit an employer, a prospective employer, or the
Federal Government to require the disclosure of a
confidential password for a social networking website or a
personal account of an employee or job applicant without a
court order; or
(2) permit the Federal Government to establish a mechanism
to control United States citizens' access to and use of the
Internet through the creation of a national Internet firewall
similar to the ``Great Internet Firewall of China'', as
determined by the Director of the National Intelligence.
In section 2(c)(1)(F) of the bill (as inserted by the
amendment offered by Mr. McCaul), strike ``; and'' and insert
a semicolon.
In section 2(c)(1)(G) of the bill (as inserted by the
amendment offered by Mr. McCaul), strike the period and
insert a semicolon.
At the end of section 2(c)(1) of the bill (as inserted by
the amendment offered by Mr. McCaul), add the following new
subparagraphs:
(H) the number of Americans who have--
(i) been required by employers, prospective employers, or
the Federal Government to release confidential passwords for
social networking websites; and
(ii) had personal information released to the Federal
Government under this section or obtained in connection with
a cybersecurity breach; and
(I) the impact of the information that has been released or
obtained as referred to in subparagraph (H) on privacy,
electronic commerce, Internet usage, and online content.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state the inquiry.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Is it not the case that if my amendment, if this
motion to recommit is adopted, the House would immediately vote on
final passage of this bill with the motion to recommit, this amendment,
included?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If a motion to recommit with forthwith
instructions is adopted, the amendment is reported by the chair of the
committee and is immediately before the House.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to offer this final
amendment to this bill. It does not kill the bill or send it back to
the committee. If adopted, as the Speaker just mentioned, it would move
immediately to final passage.
Now, I want to just take a moment, because I know everybody was
listening very closely to the Clerk's reading of the amendment a few
minutes ago, but there are two paragraphs that I think are very
important--they're very simple and they're very direct--about privacy,
individuals' right to privacy, their reasonable expectation of privacy.
And I would just say, my friend, Mr. Rogers, stated, in discussing
and debating the bill as a whole, it is paramount to protect an
individual's right to privacy, and I couldn't agree with him more.
So this amendment says nothing in this act or the amendments made by
this act shall be construed to:
One, permit an employer, a prospective employer, or the Federal
Government to require the disclosure of a confidential password for a
social networking Web site or a personal account of an employee or job
applicant without a court order; or
Two, permit the Federal Government to establish a mechanism to
control a United States citizen's access to and use of the Internet
through the creation of a national Internet firewall, similar to the
great Internet firewall of China, as determined by the Director of
National Intelligence.
So boil that down, those are two pretty direct and simple paragraphs.
Boil it down, as a condition of employment, you can't be made to give
up a password to your Twitter account, your Facebook account, your
LinkedIn account, your other social media types of accounts.
Now, have we done something like this in the past? Absolutely. And
I'd remind the Members that in the eighties,
[[Page H2143]]
there was a requirement, or there was an effort on the part of
employers to get people to take polygraph tests, to take lie detector
tests.
We, here in the Congress, said that's just not going to be a proper
condition of employment. You can do background checks; you can ask for
references; you can do a number of things, but we're not going to allow
lie detector tests as a condition of employment. We said an employer
shall not require, request, suggest, or cause an employee or
prospective employee to take or submit to any lie detector test as a
condition of employment.
Now, this thing has exploded as social media has exploded so that
people are being asked for their private passwords to these various
social media networks. And I would refer the House to an article in
Yahoo! News from last year, which says, ``Employers ask jobseekers for
Facebook passwords.''
A gentleman was seeking employment as a consultant in New York. The
H.R. person wanted to see his profile, asked him for his password, for
instance. He said no. He was no longer allowed to apply for that
particular job.
A law professor at George Washington University here said, ``It's
akin to requiring someone's house keys,'' said the law professor and
former Federal prosecutor, who calls it ``an egregious violation of
privacy.''
This is a very simple amendment that really does two things: it helps
the individual protect his right to privacy, and it doesn't allow the
employer to impersonate that particular employee when other people are
interacting with that person across social media platforms. So for two
reasons: one, that an individual's right to privacy shouldn't be
breached just because he's seeking employment; and, two, the employer
shouldn't be in a position to impersonate that individual who's seeking
a job. It's very clear. We've done it with respect to polygraph, lie
detector tests. We should do it now.
This is an amendment that, whether you're a Democrat or a Republican,
should be part of our law. And so with that, Mr. Speaker, I ask for a
``yes'' vote on this final amendment to the bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. You know, it's the time-honored tradition of
this House that we allow the minority of whomever is in the majority to
have a motion to recommit, and it's a legislative instrument designed
to draw that very bright line down the center of this Chamber. It tends
to be music to your ears on the oral presentation and poison to the
paper when you get to the details.
I appreciate the gentleman's efforts. Well done, sir; I tell you
that.
Clearly, this belongs in employer-employee law. I'm sure the Labor
Committee, Mr. Kline, would be delighted to deal with this very serious
issue. It doesn't comport to our language, has nothing to do with our
bill. But I'll take this opportunity again to say thank you for that
very bright line in the center of the aisle, to commend all of the
folks on both sides of this aisle who have come together on a bill that
is so important to our national security. I'm going to give you a
couple of quick examples.
American Semiconductor, a company that lost its intellectual property
to China, theft of China. The President one time called American
Semiconductor a model of cooperation with China.
{time} 1240
Their partner in China stole their intellectual property, canceled
their contracts, and almost put them out of business. They were worth
$1.8 billion. Now they're worth $170 million. Their stock price is down
90 percent, from a $44 high to just $2 today. They had to lay off 70
percent of their staff.
That's real. Those are real people losing real jobs to intellectual
property theft as we speak.
The credit cards in your pockets will get hit 300,000 times by people
trying to steal that information today, alone. Each and every one of
them.
There's an unnamed large manufacturing company here in the United
States. Through cyber espionage, they lost a particular product. They
stole the blueprints, took it back to China, and repurposed it to
compete in the global market against this particular company. Their
estimate: 20,000 manufacturing jobs lost.
This is as serious an issue as we are not prepared to handle as
Americans, and it is happening every minute of every single day.
When you look at the weight of those issues of the people before us
in this Chamber and what they had to deal with--people like Adams and
Henry and Madison--it was the size of their politics that tipped the
scale for making really hard, difficult decisions and moving on. I'm
going to challenge everybody in this Chamber today to not have those
small, petty politics about what gets done and doesn't get done, about
what I wanted in there and didn't get in there, about how my feelings
got hurt or didn't get hurt.
There are Americans suffering under the weight of loss of
opportunity. And those are middle class jobs. That's one rung on the
ladder that's taken out for any hope for moving up and prosperity in
this country.
We have a constitutional obligation to defend this Nation. We have
done it in a way that doesn't allow the government to meddle with the
Internet. It protects privacy, it protects civil liberties, and it has
the government not even touching the Internet. This is the answer to
empower cyber information sharing, to protect this Nation, to allow
those companies to protect themselves, and move on to economic
prosperity. If you want to take a shot across China's bow, this is the
answer.
Reject this motion to recommit and let's pass this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 5-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-
minute votes on passage of H.R. 624, if ordered, and agreeing to the
Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 224, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 116]
AYES--189
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
[[Page H2144]]
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--224
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--19
Bachmann
Bishop (GA)
Blackburn
Capuano
Chu
Holding
Keating
Kennedy
Lynch
Markey
McGovern
Miller, Gary
Neal
Nugent
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Tierney
Tsongas
Velazquez
{time} 1250
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 288,
nays 127, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 117]
YEAS--288
Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Beatty
Benishek
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Cardenas
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Higgins
Himes
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--127
Amash
Andrews
Bass
Becerra
Bentivolio
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Broun (GA)
Capps
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Cohen
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSantis
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (SC)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fleming
Gabbard
Garrett
Gibson
Gohmert
Gosar
Grayson
Grijalva
Hahn
Hall
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Johnson (GA)
Jones
Kildee
Kingston
Labrador
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Maloney, Carolyn
Marchant
Massie
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McNerney
Meadows
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Rigell
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Speier
Stockman
Takano
Tonko
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Yoho
NOT VOTING--17
Bachmann
Blackburn
Capuano
Holding
Keating
Kennedy
Lynch
Markey
McGovern
Miller, Gary
Neal
Nugent
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Tierney
Tsongas
Velazquez
{time} 1259
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
personal explanation
Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, on April 18, 2013 I was not able to vote
on rollcall votes 113, 114, 115, 116 and 117. At the time, I was
performing my duties as a designee of the U.S. House of Representatives
attending the funeral of Baroness Margaret Thatcher in London. Had I
been present for the vote, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes
113, 114, 115 and 117. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 116.
[[Page H2145]]
personal explanation
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I missed several votes today to attend an
Interfaith Service in Boston. I wish to state for the record how I
would have voted had I been present:
Rollcall No. 113--``Yes''
Rollcall No. 114--``Yes''
Rollcall No. 115--``Yes''
Rollcall No. 116--``Yes''
Rollcall No. 117--``No''
Authorizing the Clerk to Make Corrections in Engrossment
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in
the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 624, the Clerk be authorized to make
such technical and conforming changes as necessary to reflect the
actions of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
____________________
[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 53 (Thursday, April 18, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E489-E490]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CYBER INTELLIGENCE SHARING FOR PROTECTION ACT
______
speech of
HON. RUSH HOLT
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 624) to
provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence
and cyber threat information between the intelligence
community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes:
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this bill. I believe
my former colleagues on the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence who have brought this bill to the floor today have only
the very best of intentions. They seek to prevent cyber attacks against
our nation. So do I. Unfortunately, their proposed solution is a
radical over-reach that would not stop such attacks but would open up
the private lives and information of Americans for the government and
business to see, at will.
This bill contains the key phrase ``Notwithstanding any other
provision of law . . .''. What does that mean? It means that
notwithstanding even the limited privacy protections in the PATRIOT Act
and the FISA Amendments Act, this bill would give businesses the
ability to share the public's private data among themselves and the
government by invoking
[[Page E490]]
the phrase ``cyber threat''. It means that notwithstanding the privacy
protections in HIPAA, businesses can share personal medical information
with each other and the government if there is a ``cyber threat''. And
the definition of cyber threat is so nebulous, so sweeping that it can
be invoked for almost anything that simply look unusual or is not
immediately explainable.
Chillingly, the bill in its current form would allow companies to
share sensitive and personal information directly with the NSA and
other military agencies, even if it is purely domestic, American
information that is no way associated with foreign threats or national
security events. CISPA would allow companies to share personally
identifiable information without making even reasonable efforts to
protect it. Finally, CISPA grants broad immunity for any ``decisions
made'' based on cyber information, regardless of whether the company
was acting recklessly or causes unintended collateral damage. This week
the President indicated that he would veto this bill were it presented
to him in its current form, as well he should. The better outcome would
be for this bill to never reach his desk.
Many competent security experts have shared their views with Congress
that we can better protect our nation from cyber attacks without
compromising the privacy and interests of our citizens. I regret that
their counsel has been ignored, which is why I urge my colleagues to
join me in rejecting this badly flawed bill.
____________________
[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 53 (Thursday, April 18, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E492-E493]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CYBER INTELLIGENCE SHARING AND PROTECTION ACT
______
speech of
HON. MIKE ROGERS
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 624) to
provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence
and cyber threat information between the intelligence
community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes:
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I submit the following letters.
Congress of the United States, House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, April 10, 2013.
Hon. Mike Rogers,
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Rogers: I am writing concerning H.R. 624, the
``Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act,'' which is
scheduled for consideration in your Committee today. This
bill contains provisions that fall within the Rule X
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.
As a result of your having made mutually agreed-upon
changes to the provisions in question, and in order to
expedite the House's consideration of H.R. 624, the Committee
on the Judiciary will not assert its jurisdictional claim
over this bill by seeking a sequential referral. The
Committee takes this action with our mutual understanding
that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 624 at this time, we
do not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter contained
in this or similar legislation, and that our Committee will
be appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or
similar legislation moves forward so that we may address any
remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our Committee also
reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate
number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving
this or similar legislation, and requests your support for
any such request.
I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 624, and would ask
that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be
included during floor consideration.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence,
Washington, DC, April 11, 2013.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Goodlatte: Thank you for your letter
regarding H.R. 624, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and
Protection Act. As you noted, elements of the bill fall
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. As
you also noted, mutually agreed upon changes to the
provisions in question were adopted by the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence during its consideration of the
bill, and we will be glad to continue to work with you on
these provisions. We will also support the request of the
Committee on the Judiciary for conferees in any conference
that may occur on the bill.
I appreciate your willingness to forego consideration of
the bill in the interest of expediting this legislation for
floor consideration. I acknowledge that by agreeing to waive
consideration of the bill, the Committee on the Judiciary
does not waive any jurisdiction it may have over provisions
of the bill or any matters under your jurisdiction. I will
include a copy of your letter and this response in our
Committee's report on H.R. 624 and the Congressional Record
during consideration of the legislation on the House floor.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Mike Rogers,
Chairman.
[[Page E493]]
____
House of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security
Washington, DC, April 11, 2013.
Hon. Mike Rogers,
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Rogers: On April 10, 2013, the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence ordered H.R. 624,
the ``Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act'',
reported favorably to the House with certain provisions in
the legislation that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of
the Committee on Homeland Security. Specifically, this
legislation identifies the Department of Homeland Security's
National Cybersecurity and Communications Integrations Center
(NCCIC) as a principal entity for sharing cybersecurity
information with the Federal government and amongst
stakeholders.
The NCCIC partners with all Federal departments and
agencies, State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments,
as well as private sector and international entities. The
Center works with critical infrastructure owners and
operators to reduce risk, coordinates national response
efforts to significant cyber incidents, and shares
cybersecurity threat and vulnerability assessment information
throughout the Federal government. These actions, along with
the cybersecurity information provided through the NCCIC,
trigger the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland
Security over functions of the Department of Homeland
Security relating to integration, analysis, and dissemination
of homeland security information.
In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed
expeditiously with consideration of this important
legislation, the Committee on Homeland Security will not
request a sequential referral over provisions within our
jurisdiction. However, I do so with the mutual understanding
that the Committee's jurisdictional claims over subject
matters contained in this and similar legislation are in no
way diminished or altered. I request that you urge the
Speaker to name members of this Committee to any conference
committee for consideration of provisions that fall within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security in the
House-Senate conference on this bill or similar legislation.
Finally, I ask that you place this letter and your response
into the committee report on H.R. 624 and into the
Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on
the House floor. Thank you for your consideration of this
matter.
Sincerely,
Michael T. McCaul,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence,
Washington, DC, April 12, 2013.
Hon. Michael T. McCaul,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McCaul: This responds to your letter dated
April 11, 2013 concerning H.R. 624 the Cyber Intelligence
Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). Specifically, you noted
the provision contained in the legislation relating to the
Department of Homeland Security's National Cybersecurity and
Communications Integration Center (NCCIC).
I appreciate your decision to forego requesting referral of
H.R. 624 to the House Homeland Security Committee in the
interest of expediting floor consideration of this
legislation. I also acknowledge that this decision will not
diminish or alter the Homeland Security Committee's
jurisdictional claims over subject matters contained in this
and similar legislation. I will also support your request
that the Speaker name members of the Homeland Security
Committee to any conference committee for consideration of
provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Homeland Security in the House-Senate conference on this
bill. Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this
response letter in the Committee's report on H.R. 624 and in
the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 624 on
the House Floor.
Sincerely,
Mike Rogers,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, April 18, 2013.
Chairman Mike Rogers,
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Rogers: I am writing to raise concerns
relating to amendment #42 to the Cyber Intelligence and
Sharing Protection Act (CISPA), H.R. 624, as modified and
introduced by you, Chairman McCaul, and Ranking Members
Ruppersberger and Thompson.
First, I am concerned about the possible impact of this
amendment on current cyber threat information sharing
programs with the Department of Defense (DOD). Based on the
short amount of time we have had to review and comment on the
amendment, we have not had an opportunity to fully assess the
potential effects on DOD activities. In particular, we must
ensure that there is no ``chilling effect'' on sharing
between the Defense Industrial Base and DOD that is so
critical to our national security.
Second, I am also seeking to clarify the intent behind a
specific change proposed by the modified amendment. The
amendment would alter the current text, which states that a
cybersecurity provider may share cyber threat information
``with the express consent of a protected entity'' with any
entity, ``including, if specifically designated, the Federal
Government.'' The amendment would change the reference from
``Federal Government'' to the Departments of Homeland
Security and Justice. I seek to confirm that the intent of
the amendment is not to preclude sharing of cyber threat
information with the Department of Defense when a
cybersecurity provider has received the consent of a
protected entity.
More generally, we must ensure that there is no time delay
or other obstructions to passing cyber threat information
critical for our national defense to DOD.
I am seeking a commitment from you to work with the Armed
Services Committee to determine if any further changes to the
legislation might be needed, and if possible incorporate
those changes when this bill is conferenced with the Senate.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence,
Washington, DC, April 18, 2013.
Hon. Buck McKeon,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This responds to your letter about an
amendment I co-sponsored with Chairman McCaul, and Ranking
Members Ruppersberger and Thompson during floor consideration
of H.R. 624, The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection
Act (CISPA).
I understand you have concerns about a possible ``chilling
effect'' of this amendment on current cyber threat
information sharing programs with the Department of Defense,
and about changing the reference to ``Federal Government'' to
the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice. I confirm
that the amendment is not intended to, and does not, preclude
sharing of cyber threat information with the Department of
Defense when a cybersecurity provider has received the
consent of a protected entity.
Additionally, I understand your concerns about the
application of (b)(3)(A) and section 941(c)(3) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. I
commit to working with you in an effort to identify a
mutually agreeable approach to this matter.
Sincerely,
Mike Rogers,
Chairman.
____________________
[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 53 (Thursday, April 18, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E495-E496]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CYBER INTELLIGENCE SHARING AND PROTECTION ACT
______
speech of
HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 624) to
provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence
and cyber threat information between the intelligence
community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes:
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I rise to speak on H.R. 624, The Cyber
Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act.
I thank and appreciate the hard work done by Chairman Rogers and
Ranking Member Ruppersberger for their leadership of the House
Committee on Intelligence that crafted the legislation we are
considering. They have demonstrated their strength of bipartisanship in
their work to make great improvements in the bill that was considered
during the last Congress.
The bill is intended to improve our nation's ability to investigate
and prosecute cybersecurity crimes; secure the protection of
individuals from danger of death or serious bodily harm and investigate
and prosecute crimes against the most vulnerable in society--our
children. The bill's objective regarding minors is to provide physical
safety for them from sexual abuse, kidnapping and trafficking.
The debate on H.R. 624, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection
Act afforded members of the House of Representatives and the American
public a view into some of the more complex issues related to the
protection of digital information.
The bill's drafters and those who have contributed to the process
through the amendments offered worked to improve the work already done
by the Intelligence Committee. The goal of the bill is not to lay bare
the personal digital records of every individual living in the United
States. The text of the legislation explicitly states that the
government could not obtain library records, library patron lists, book
sales records, book customer lists, tax return records, education
records or medical records.
The Internet challenges us as policymakers because it introduces into
our deliberative process a class of technology that can change far
faster than other forms of technology. This fact is acknowledged by the
bill's sponsors by highlighting the nature of threats that exists on
the Internet--rapid and automated. Cyber attacks can be as short as a
few minutes or last for only 2 hours. Thieves work together and have
learned to use our own personal computers to help them hurt us. The
tools that have proven to be the most threatening are called botnets. A
botnet uses a computer virus or worm program to infiltrate computers
and take control of them. One botnet can be made of millions of private
personal computers. A botnet of this size would have the computing
power to overwhelm a major institution's network with a brute force
attack that searches for the password to one account on a computer
network. Once the botnet controller has gotten access to a private or
government network they can use that access to seek greater control.
The question for us today is should the Congress view the threats
posed by the Digital Information Age with the same urgency as when our
nation has faced events such as September 11 or catastrophic
hurricanes.
Many of my colleagues have joined me in expressing great concern
about privacy and civil liberties as the Federal presence on the
Internet has grown. Federal government agencies are now using Facebook,
Twitter and YouTube to communicate with and engage millions of
Americans.
There appears to be no scarcity in the capacity of the Internet to
accommodate new business websites, technological innovations or the
millions of new Internet users who purchase digital devices, create
blogs or e-mail accounts.
The Internet is more than ones and zeros--it is how the world is
working, living, and communicating. Its borderless nature and
ubiquitous presence means that billions of computing devices can
interact and connect using the global telecommunication infrastructure.
Computing technology was once tethered by technical limitations to
physical spaces--now computing devices are mobile. For example, a few
years ago, portable phones that were as powerful as computers were
difficult for most consumers to imagine--now they are common place.
Unfortunately, with every advance in computing innovation we see that
there are those within society who would search for vulnerabilities in
these innovations to disrupt their operation.
The Internet is a critical path forward for our nation's recovering
economy. However, to meet the challenges and take advantage of the
opportunities the Internet makes possible, we must understand the
threats and risks as well as take full advantage of innovation.
One of the central challenges for us as legislators is to preserve
the Constitution of the United States for future generations. Each
generation of Americans has had the task of defining the role of
government in their lives. Today, the Internet is making the role of
government in American life in some ways more transparent and
accessible through government agency websites.
We as members of Congress are using the Internet to bring more
transparency to the work we do on behalf of our constituents. The
content found on House web pages provides access to information
regarding the work we do on behalf of the public.
The Internet could also make the government's presence in our lives
much more opaque. For example, the same social networking services that
families and friends create to share details about their lives is not
held solely under their control.
What once would have been words shared among family members are now
digital data stored with social networking service providers. Computer
stored data can live on far longer than may be prudent for the peace
and tranquility of family life or economic opportunities as our child
transition from youth into responsible adults.
If the government gained access to the digital equivalent of your
papers and effects--it would leave no signs of having done so. Digital
information unlike paper does not fade way nor do the words in digital
files degrade when they are copied over and over again.
What is more problematic for the purpose of our debate on this bill
is what would happen if the government had open access to decades of
communications: the books read; videos watched; thoughts expressed; or
the joys and sorrows of millions of our nation's citizens. How would
this impact the America experience?
We know that the founders of this nation were determined to protect
the privacy of people from the power of the government. The Fourth
Amendment states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The constantly shifting Internet environment creates challenges for
policy makers. Today, the ``papers and effects'' of persons have
changed in the new Information Age into digital data. This information
is not limited to the home, but is mobile as well as remote from the
owners of the information.
How do we make sure that the Constitution is preserved and that we as
its stewards pass it to the next generation in better condition than
when we took an oath to protect it--not just the parts of the document
that we like, but all of it.
Although the challenges are great, the rewards of an environment that
supports innovation while protecting privacy, civil liberties, and
freedom should be the focus our nation's policies and laws that govern
our decisions regarding the Internet.
As members of Congress we must keep a watchful eye on preserving,
defending and protection the Constitution. It is our duty--our passion
and our calling to serve this nation--unwavering in our commitment to
act first in the interests of the entire country as we see to the needs
of the people we serve.
[[Page E496]]
____________________
[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 53 (Thursday, April 18, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E499]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CYBER INTELLIGENCE SHARING AND PROTECTION ACT
______
speech of
HON. EARL BLUMENAUER
of oregon
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 624) to
provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence
and cyber threat information between the intelligence
community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes:
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, cybersecurity experts in government and
the private sector agree that the biggest impediments to strengthening
cybersecurity are obstacles that prevent the sharing of cyber threat
information. The intent of the bill before the House, H.R. 624, the
Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) is laudable in
that it eliminates some of those obstacles. Security and privacy,
however, should not be mutually exclusive and CISPA does not go far
enough to protect privacy. This is the bottom line for me, my
constituents, and I hope the Obama Administration, and why I oppose
this legislation.
____________________
