amendments will not be considered today. i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule and the underlying bill. we can and we will have the opportunity to do better. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield two and a half minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schiff: i rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill in its current form. i greatly appreciate the nonpartisan work on the issue by chairman rogers and ranking member ruppersberger, they have worked in a reflesh gri -- refreshingly collaborative fashion. yet i find i cannot support this bill due to concerns about

privacy of american citizens. i offered amendments but they were not made in order under the rule. i share the view that cybersecurity is a serious issue that requires congressional action and i believe that information sharing is an important piece of responding to the cybersecurity threats, though it is by no means sufficient alone without other elements such as hardening critical infrastructure against cyberattacks. i'm disappointed in the rule because the problems with the bill are eminently fixable and multiple amendments, including my own, were submitted that would improve the bill. yesterday, the white house issued a statement of policy saying the president's senior advisors would advise him to veto the bill if it came to him in its current form because of the lack of protection of civil liberties. as he said, cybersecurity and privacy are not mutually exclusive. i believe we can and must

protect ourselveses from cyberattack and can and must preserve our privacy. this is eminently doable but we're not there yet. my amendment, which was not made in order, would have made d.h.s., a civilian agency, the primary coordinating agency for information sharing, second, would require rules to min midse sharing of personally ikent dent fiable information. the amount of personally identifyable information shared would be the least amount needed to combat the cybersecurity threat, and in more. third, it would narrow the uses of cybersecurity information for cybersecurity purposes, specific national security threats and certain other serious crimes. finally, it would more specifically define cyberthreat information to make sure that we don't sweep up information we don't intend to and don't need. in conclusion, amendments like this one would have improved the bill and better balanced the need to protect ourselves against cyberthreats with the

equal imperative of preserving the privacy of the american people. i'm disappointed that the house won't have the opportunity to vote on those amendments and as a result i urge a no vote on the rule. i yield pack. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i yield one toin -- one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. bar ton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. barton: thank you, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. barton: mr. speaker, i do rise in support of the rule. i think the number of amendments they made in order is consistent with speaker boehner's policy of running an open house. unfortunately, one of those amendments that was not made ined offer is the barton-markey amendment on privacy. i am going to vote no on the underlying bill because it does not protect the privacy of the individual american citizen. we do have a real threat, a

cyberthreat in this country, this bill is an honest attempt to deal with that threat, but absent explicit privacy protection against individuals, to me that is a greater threat to democracy and liberty than the cyberthreats that face america. so unless they pull the bill and they revise some of the privatecy -- privacy protections, i'm going to ask for a no vote on the bill but on the rule, i think we should vote for the rule. i thank the gentleman for yielding to me. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman fromical. -- from colorado. mr. polis: i yield two and a half minutes to the gentleman, mr. thompson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for two and a half minutes. mr. thompson: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in

opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. at the beginning of this congress, expectations were high for meaningful progress on cybersecurity. speaker boehner even established a task force within the republican conference to come up with recommendations. but a funny thing happened on the way to cyberweek. key republican task force recommendations were abandoned. they abandoned measured to improve data breach notification laws, formalize d.h.s.'s cyberrole and more importantly, enhance the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure networks. these are missions from cybersecurity week -- these omissions were no small batter. -- with no small matter. we have critical infrastructure in our districts and top security officials both in the obama and bush administrations have briefed of us -- briefed

us on attacks on infrastructure. they said voluntary information sharing was not enough. the c.i.s. cybercommission, and n.s.a. alexander all said that congress must do something to proactively address critical infrastructure vulnerabilities. but house leadership ignores these voices and decided that information sharing aloan is enough to fix the problem. mr. speaker, this boils down to a simple question -- who do you trust? turning to h r. 2533, what does it do? an effort to improve our cybercurt this bill would erode the privacy protections of every single american using the internet. put simply, this bill would allow any certified business to share with any government agency who can then use this information for any national security purpose and grant that business immunity from virtually any liability.

none of these amendments offered by the intelligence committee would change this truth. further, the rules committee decided to block consideration of amendments submitted by me and other like-minded colleagues to address the fundamental policy flaws in this bill. if my colleagues want to do something on cybersecurity, then vote yes on any or all of the suspension bills to be considered today. but do not vote for h.r. 3523. it would set us back privacy rights that our constituencies have enjoyed since the beginning of the internet. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and the underlying bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my honor to yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two

minutes. mr. markey: this legislation might as well be called the cyberinsecurity bill because it fails to address the reality of cyberthreats already facing our nation. if this bill had a privacy policy, it would read, you have no privacy. they would not even allow the barton-markey privacy language to be put in order to debate on the house floor. let's talk about what the bill does not do. although the bill would allow the government to tell nuclear power plant operators that a new version of the computer worm could cause widespread fukushima style meltdowns in this country, would it require the industry to take a single tep to -- step to protect nuclear reactors? no. would it require industry to even tell the government what it is doing to protect against a cyberthreat nuclear meltdown? no. would this bill require

industry to even tell the government when it had experienced an actual cyberattack? no. now let's talk about what this bill would do. could companies share personal information about consumers with other companies, even if that information had nothing to do with cybersecurity? yes. would companies be free from liability if they share that personal information of every american? yes. could the government use personal information to spy on americans? yes. in this last congress, fred upton and i wrote the grid act which passed by voice vote on the suspension calendar two years ago. it would have said to the federal energy regulatory commission that you have the authority to mandate grid security standards against an attack coming from iran or china. this bill does nothing to protect against the threat at the electricity grid system in this country that could lead to nuclear meltdowns.

this republican congress still refuses to bring out the real security we need against a cyberattack. we have an all-volunteer army in iraq and afghanistan, brave men and women, but they follow orders. we must give the orders. to the electric industry. to the other industries, to protect this country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. markey: this bill does not do it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida continues to reserve. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i'll offer an amendment to the rule that to the provide that immediately after we adopt this rule, we'll bring up h.r. 4816 to prevent a doubling of student interest rates fully paid for and then some reduce big deficit by $7 billion by reducing tax gaveaways for big companies. to discuss the student loan

bill, i introduce the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. tierney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tierney: it is imperative that the house take action to stop the student loan interest rate from doubling at the end of june. if we defeat the previous question, we can take up a bill i have filed to keep the interest rates at 3.4% for one year. we recognize the importance of being responsible so our bill is completely paid for. we pay for it by ending unnecessary tax subsidies from oil and gas companies. these are the same companies that took home $80 billion in profits last year, the same company, exxon that pocketed nearly $4.7 million every hour. we have to make choices here in congress. our side of the aisle believes it's a fair and reasonable choice to eliminate an unjustified subsidy to a hugely profit -- to hugely profitable industries so seven million students, including 177,000 in massachusetts alone, who will

-- so that they will not see an increase in their student loans. our side of the aisle believes that encouraging middle class students and their families to be able to pay for college education should be a bigger priority than continuing tax subsidies for big oil. the other side of the aisle has been tremendously late to this issue. i know the presumptive nominee for the presidential race has changed his mind and come around to believe that this is important, it's a practice he does on this a regular basis, but the fact is, they've come around to knowing we should keep the interest rates low. but the fact of the matter is that they have decided to make the wrong choice in how to pay for it. the bill that's expected to come to the house floor tomorrow includes a short-term fix for the student loan issue but will do it at the expense of women and children. what is it with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle with the knee jerk reaction that every time they have to do something they take a gratuitous swipe at women's health benefits and women's health choices?

their bill would end funding for breast and cervical cancer screenings for women. it would end funding for child immunizations. it makes the wrong and reckless choice. i urge my colleagues to defeat this motion so we can consider the bill on the floor for a vote take mas the right choice. make sure we keep the rate lose, make sure the oil companies get rid of that subsidy they no longer need. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida continues to reserve. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, the ranking member of the educational work force committee, mr. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the swrelt is recognized for two minutes. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and rise in strong support of the tierney motion, the legislation he and mr. courtney of connecticut introduced yesterday in the congress. for years now, the democrats have stood on the side of lower interest rates for families and students.

we fade for four years of that starting in 2007. we took the -- we paid for four years of that starting in 2007. we took subsidies away from big banks and gave toyota students and families to lower the cost of college to make it more affordable for those families seeking a college education for their children. the fact of the matter is the republicans fought that effort, they are fighting that effort today, actually, they were fighting it yesterday and change thared minds. after almost a unanimous vote in their budget, the ryan budget, the republican budget, to allow student interest rates to double, they have change thared mind. that's important, that's good, and we need to make sure that they don't double on july 1. but the fact of the matter is, when you say, how are you going to pay for that? we want to pay for it, we don't want to provide $46 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest americans and add it to the deficit. $46 billion in new deficit spending in one year. so the speaker says, well, he's going to take it out of the slush fund.

really? the speaker of the house thinks the prevention fund is a slush fund? the speaker of the house thinks that birth defects and the funding to mitigate birth defects is a slush fund? does the speaker of the house really believe that a screening program for women and -- women's cervical and breast canser is a slush fund? no, this is a matter of life and death. for young children who get immunized out of the prevention fund, for women who get their screening, we know early detection of breast cancer means for women, and survivability rates. this isn't a slush fund but what they're asking you to do is to repeal this fund that goes to communities all over this country so that people will have access to this kind of preventive care. yes, they'll say, but you took some money out of this this fund to do the payroll tax reduction for middle class. yes, but we didn't repeal the fund. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

mr. miller: repealing it, putting women and children at risk, that's not a slush fund, mr. speaker. that's immoral. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired, the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield one minute to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, our second president, john adams, once said fax are stubborn -- facts are stubborn things. how we got here in the student loan hear, hear are the facts, unlike what's stated by the proponents of the rule. on january 24, the president of the united states stood on that podium and challenged congress to block the increase of rates from 3.4% to 6.8%. the republican majority has done nothing over the last three months to respond to that. no bill, no hearing, no markup. and in fact, passed a ryan budget which locked in the higher rate at 6.8% and doubled down and went after pell grants

for needy students who need those grants to pay for college. the politics have changed. that's the fact. it would happen here. and the speaker's reversal over the last 24 hours, which we welcome, is now being paid for by a grotesque pay-for which goes after women and children rather than going after the folks who can afford to pay for it, the oil companies, the gas companies who made $137 billion in profits last year. support the tierney motion and oppose this rule. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: continues to reserve. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my honor to yield one minute to my colleague, the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. peters: mr. speaker, i'm proud to have co-sponsored legislation to keep student loan rates from doubling in 65 days. my colleagues, mr. courtney and mr. tierney. right now millions of high school seniors are deciding where they are going to attend college.

at kitchen tables across the country, students are making decisions that will impact the rest of their lives. so today i find it hard to believe that republicans have decided to pit public health against higher education. by introducing this misguided deeply partisan bill, it is clear that my republican colleagues are taking the responsibilities to families very seriously. it is unconscionable that this body would be playing politics with our children's future. with the same urgency that republicans ram through a $46 billion tax cut to millionaires and billionaires, i am sure we can find a responsible way to prevent piling on even more debt on our college students. i urge my colleagues to vote for defeat of the previous question and adopt a bipartisan, bicameral solution that can be quickly signed by the president. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: continue to reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'd like to inquire of the gentleman from florida if he has or is expecting any

additional speakers. mr. nugent: i do not. mr. polis: it is my honor to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. pelosi, the democratic leader. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california, the democratic leader, is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and for giving us this opportunity to talk about a choice we have here today. everybody knows that essential to a drauks is the education -- democracy is the education of our children, of our investment in the future so people can reach their own personal self-fulfillment and provide for their families. also so that our country can be competitive in the global economy. it is a very important part of

the american dream. democrats believe in building ladders of opportunity where people can have opportunity to succeed if they want to work hard, play by the rules, take responsibility. and an important part of the ladder is education. we all know the imfact of the g.i. -- impact the g.i. bill had on middle america. the education of returning veterans to our country. enabling them to have more education than their parents, and that has been the way it has always been in our country's history. the enduring theme of the -- of reigniting the american dream. and so we have a challenge before us because the clock is ticking on a july deadline. at that time, left to the

budget of the republicans, the ryan republican tea party budget, there would have been a doubling of interest rates from 3.4% to 6.8%. we've been having this debate for a while on how we can stop that doubling from happening. the republicans told us they were tired of hearing about the interest rate debate. until now thanks to taking this issue to public by president obama and that the doubling of interest rates would deprive some people of even going to college and more costly for many others. in fact, seven million children will be affected, and that means at least 20 million people, assuming they have an average of two people in their

families. this has a direct imfact on many people in our country -- impact on many people in our country. the bread and butter issue where people talk about how they're going to make ends meet and one of those ends is the education of their children. so all of a sudden the republicans in the house have seen the light. they're willing to reverse a vote that they took not more than a week ago, 100% of them voted for the ryan budget which would allow that interest -- the interest rates to double from 3.4% to 6.8%. thank god they've seen the light. thank you, president obama, for shedding some light on this, and now they say they're for stopping that. but -- but how do they want to pay for it? they want to -- they want to take it from their favorite target -- women's health.

i don't know why it hasn't dawned on them yet that the health of america's women is very important to the health of america's families. and so they want to take the funds from women's health and then also childhood immunization. that's very important. immunization of every child in america is important to every other child in america. and that's where they want to take the money from. with the motion that we have here today is to say instead of taking the money, instead of robbing paula to pay peter, we should be taking the money from the tax subsidies that go to big oil in our country. that's what we should be doing. isn't that a better show of what our values are, that we value the health of our women and our children?

why would we -- and not only -- to make matters worse, not only are they suggesting that we take the money from the prevention fund, the immunization and screening for breast cancer and cervical cancer and other women's health issues, not only are they saying we should take the money from there, we should take the additional $5 billion that's left in the account and repeal it. repeal it. we're not even -- you know, we're taking twice as much money we need for the student loan bill because we want to do away. we will use this as an excuse to do away this prevention initiative that affects women's health so directly. it's outrageous. it's outrageous. we prefer tax subsidies for big oil rather than the health of america's women.

once again we're targeting women's health. and so i am -- i urge my colleagues to vote against our -- the previous question so we will have an opportunity to at least put before the house an alternative that says, give us a choice to choose between whether we want to pay for the -- our young people's education by removing some of -- some of the subsidies to big oil or we want to take it out of women's health. the very idea that the republicans would deny us a vote to do that speaks very clearly about how focused they are on targeting women's health as something they want to cut. so, again, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question, which would allow the house to vote on a democratic bill that reduces the interest rates, keeps them at 3.4%

instead of raising them to 6.8% which is in the republican budget. and if we cannot do that, i urge my colleagues to vote no on this ill-conceived, way out of whack statement of values that we would make women's health pay for children's education when you should be doing both. and so no on the previous question. at least even take a vote, no on the bill and let's admit that we can do better than that. with that, mr. chairman -- mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

a minute and a half. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment, mr. tierney's amendment, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: thank you. and, again, mr. tierney's bill will not only provide what was passionately argued by ms. pelosi and mr. tierney, this will reduce the deficit by $7 billion. at a time of record deficits, when restoring the fiscal integrity of our nation is critical to our competitiveness and job creation, i hope this house acts boldly by defeating the previous question and allow us to vote on reducing the deficit by $7 billion. with regard to cispa, it simply strikes the wrong balance between security and liberty.

information sharing is important. i think a bipartisan consensus can be reached. the bill is so far from perfect we need to continue to work on it and defeat this rule and allow more amendments. any american who values his or her privacy should be concerned about the implications of this bill, trusting big government and secret agencies with our most personal information. the reality is that cispa represents a massive government overreach in the name of security. we need accountability and we need oversight. we can't have secret agencies accountable to no one with vast powers over american citizens on our soil. for these reasons i oppose the underlying pieces of legislation, i urge a no vote on the rule and the previous question and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i've been here now a year and four

months and i'm always amazed at what we hear from the other side. i hear about how this is supposed to be an attack on women's health. you know, it's interesting because that's the position that president obama's taken. i understand that's the position that my friend on the other side of the aisle has, but it's not true. you know, yesterday in markup at energy and commerce in regards to this pay-for, they talked about a number of issues with regard to this slush fund that h.h.s. has. now, it's interesting, part of that slush fund comes out to a partly paid for by the u.s. department of health and human services, the department as you communities putting prevention to work campaign. $100 million. and part of it was in neutering pets, which i agree with, but i

don't agree how that's taking money away from women's health. if you go on to h.h.s.'s website where they actually chronicle the spending from this slush fund, not one place does it talk about cervical cancer, breast cancer, in regards to the dollars spent, not one place. so to stand here on this floor and accuse republicans of being against women and women's health, when the facts don't back it up, to go to h.h.s. web -- if you go to h.h.s. website you'll see specifically where the spending has been spent. like i said, one area is $100 million. the other area is they've -- the other areas they've gone after is media campaigns as it relates to soda, fast foods, and others. that's not women's health. the democrats who -- would like you to forget, mr. speaker, that in 2010, they took over $9

billion away from student financial aid, the same argument that they're making today, they took it away. mr. speaker, i wasn't here in 2010, so it's kind of hard to have your cake and eat it too. when we said robbing from peter to pay paul, and now peter needs the money, those are our students that need the money. those are students that can't afford to pay additional interest on loans that they're already having a hard time paying off because they're trying to find a job. mr. speaker, you know, we've heard so much about cybersecurity today, but remember this -- the committee started to work on cybersecurity over a year ago in regards to hearings and working in a bipartisan way that produced a bill that was

overwhelmingly bipartisan. 17-1. 17-1. in this congress, that's pretty difficult to do. but they saw the need, based upon their experience within where we stand today as it relates to threats against our infrastructure, those people that actually create jobs and against our government. you know, not only have they worked tirelessly amongst themselves but they reached out to other stake holders, that has been unprecedented, that i believe has been unprecedented, trying to craft a bill, while not perfect, but it is the step in the right direction. this isn't about government coming in, you heard one gentleman up here talking about how government should tell -- tell businesses what to do. folks, this is america. this is about the freedom for

businesses if they don't act upon information, shame on them. but it's not about government takeover of private businesses to tell them thousand operate. it is about, though, the ability for government to help formulate the aspect of protecting our cybersecurity. it's all about that. it's about sharing of information. it's about right now, the federal government is precluded from sharing information. to help alert those businesses out there to protect themselves. we know about it, we can't tell them. if you go back to 9/11, that was one of the inherent problems we had back in 9/11. the fact that we couldn't talk to each other. that agencies didn't talk and share information. and so now we want to set ourselves up for a great erica it's a fee, one that could bring this nation down to its knees, or worse. you know, you heard about

regular order, or not regular order. we had regular order on the cybersecurity bill and it's not enough. i mean, 16 amendments were made in order. the gentleman from colorado's amendment was made in order. five privacy-related amendments were made in order. two republicans, and three of those bipartisan but a tall of those 16 amendments made in order, eight republican, four democrats and four bipartisan. mr. speaker, i believe in regular order. i think that was a perfect example of how this house is supposed to work. regular order at its best. talk about a fair and open process, i want to make sure we protect the american people. that when you go to bed tonight, your financial information will be secure tomorrow, that you'll have the ability to protect yourself financially in one of -- and

one of those is to allow businesses to share cyberthreats. that are made against them and others. and also for the federal government to share when they see a cyberthreat coming that could affect a business today in america. you know, h.h.s. has discretion on how they spend that slush fund. remember, that money was stolen from students back in 2010 to provide for their education. stolen. call it what you want, but now it's just righting a wrong. it's about making sure that our students have the ability to get an education and hopefully get a great job. we also heard my good friend from colorado mention about how we're going to make a decision as to whose a national security threat he mentioned the tea party in the same word as

communists. the tea party is not a national security threat, communism is. i don't think that takes a lot of rocket science. one of the things about both of those bills -- >> would the gentleman yield? mr. nugent: certainly. mr. polis: the point being made is it depends on one's political perspective. as to where you see a threat. some see it on the left, some on the right. i don't trust government to make a decision about what is a security threat. mr. nugent: i get what you're saying but at the end of the day when you're trying to say, i guess a description in regard to that and you say communist and then you say tea party, i think it's pretty clear, the tea party is not a threat to national security. communism is. and has been. mr. speaker, i support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as well. we're talking about two issues here today that have a lot of

bipartisan agreement. our nation's cybersecurity is just an integral part of our national security as a whole. it's part, not all, but part of our national security as a whole. we agree something must be done with our nation's students as it relates to the loan debt that they have. these are issues that i think we all agree on. democrats and republicans alike. i know from some of our previous conversations that my friend, mr. polis is a fan of npr. so i wanted to let him know this. just in case you weren't this morning, npr did a story about the fact that china and russia aren't the only threats to our nation's cybersecurity anymore. in fact, according to the story today, the newest cybersecurity threat we face today is going to continue and grow and it's from iran.

you know, iran might not have a strong cyberpresence now as russia and china do, it's continuing to grow. it's growing at the same time as their nuclear program is growing too. iran has learned to manipulate the internet, to shut down protesters in their own country, to hack websites within -- that have pro government or anti-government messages and carry out sophisticated cyberattacks in their own country to identify those dizz -- those dissidents who may disagree with the government. with threats like that growing every day, we need to make sure our networks here at home in america are safe and secure. this bipartisan, i can't stress this enough this bipartisan cybersecurity bill is just, it's critical. it's a critical step in ensuring america and our private industry are safe from cyberattacks.

you know, we talk about bipartisan a lot in this chamber. we don't always practice it. but this committee not only practiced it, but they reached outside of the committee itself to those that may be supportive and may be opposed and they tried to work and put forth amendments that would make this a better bill. and that's what it's all about. the amendment process. is to make something better. not tear it down. i encourage colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this strongly. i say strongly -- to support this strongly, i say strongly, bipartisan legislation, both on cybersecurity and protecting our students and student loans. a as the president begin his taxpayer funded college tour which is really more like a re-election tour, he's going to be talking a lot about student loan debt.

he can talk all he wants because this house, in this house, we're going to act and we're going to do it in a way that fixes a problem that was -- this was a temporary fix for five years. guess what, we're going to fix it again. we're going to make sure our students have the ability to get a college education and be able to pay it back in a way that they can be successful in the future. we're going to make sure that the student loan debt, the ratio of the student loan rates don't double come this july 1. in washington speak, to a lot of people, that's a ways off but up here, this house, this congress has kicked cans down the road before to the tune of 20 queers when they're looking out and saying, we've got plenty of time and all of a sudden we have other issues facing this country and now we have one here and this house is

taking action to correct a wrong or a problem that exists today in america both in cybersecurity and in student loans. and we're going to do it without costing the taxpayers anything, by taking money out of the obamacare slush fund, which was funding by cuts to student loan programs to begin with and sending it back to our student loans. remember this slush fund can be used for anything. as we saw, they used it for a whole bunch of things, but not one as they tried to link us to women's health issues, not one of those were related to that. not one nickel or dime was spent on those even though they like to say it was. so mr. speaker, i support the rule and the underlying legislation and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adopting house resolution 631 if ordered, and suspending the rules and passing h.r. 2240, if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by

the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. fund furned fund -- any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 241. the nays are -- the yeas are 241. the nays are 179. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> madam speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 236. the nays are 185. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. . the unfinished business is the question on sess spending the rules and passing h.r. 2240 as amended which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: union calendar number 314. h.r. 2240, a bill to authorize the exchange of land or interests in lands between lowell national historical park and the city of lowell in the commonwealth of massachusetts and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the rules are -- the ayes have

it. the rules have suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will come to order. all members will please take their conversations from the aisles.

the house will come to order. the chair will ask all members to please take their conversations from the aisles. the chair will ask members to take their seats. the chair will ask the house to come to order.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 3523. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 631 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 3523. the chair appoints the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: members will take their conversations off the floor. members will clear the aisles.

the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 3523 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill 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. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. rogers, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. ruppersberger, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself four minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. rogers: never a problem i have seen when it comes to our national security, madam chair, that we are just not prepared to handle. in just the last few years,

nation states like china have stolen enough intellectual property from just defense contractors that would be equivalent to 50 times the print collection of the library of congress. we have nation states who are literally stealing jobs and our future. we also have countries that are engaged in activities and have capabilities that have the ability to break networks, computer networks which means you can't just reboot. it means your system is literally broken. those kinds of disruptions can be catastrophic when you think about the financial sector or the energy sector or our command and control elements for all our national security apparatus. this is a serious a problem as i have seen. so last year my partner, dutch ruppersberger, the vice chairman and ranking member of the intelligence committee, we agreed that this was a

significant enough problem to the future prosperity of america that we better do something about it. we needed to stop the chinese government from stealing our stuff. we needed to stop the russians from what they're doing to our networks and people's personal information data and resources. we needed to prepare for countries like iran and north korea so that they don't do something catastrophic to our networks here in america and cause us real harm to real people. so in a bipartisan way, we set out to do something very, very, very narrow. when the government spies overseas, it collects malware, viruses, software that is dangerous to our computers. it means they can either steal our stuff, the personal information off your computer or they can steal the secrets that make your business viable, the kinds of secrets that give people jobs. so wouldn't it be great if we could take that source code, that software and share it with the private sector so they can

put it on their private systems like they do every single day to try to protect networks and have that added advantage of that extra coverage from that malicious source code? the good news is this happens every day. if you norton or mcof a fee or any other anti-vy -- mcafee or any other anti-virus software, there is patches of information they know is really bad stuff. when you boot up it tries to protect your personal information. this is all this is, adding to that patchwork, some zeros and some ones that we know is malicious code that we know will steal your information or break your computer or something worse. that's all this bill is. it draws a very fine line between the government and the private sector. it is all voluntary. there is no new mandates. there is no government surveillance. none. not any in this bill. it just says if we know we have

this source code, shouldn't we be obligated to give it so it doesn't do something bad to the companies and individuals in america. that's all this bill does. we've worked collaboratively with civil libry tarians, we have -- libritarians, we have worked with government folk. over a year. we have kept this bill open in an unprecedented transparented way to try to meet the need of civil liberties concerns. we wanted to make sure this was a bill that people understood exactly what we were trying to do, how simple it is and how crucial it is to the future defense of this great nation. you know, without our ideas, without our innovation that countries like china are stealing every single day, we will cease to be a great nation. they are slowly and silently and quickly stealing the value

and prosperity of america. i yield myself one more additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one more minute. mr. rogers: a credit card says they get attacked with your personal information 300,000 times a day. one company. we have a company that can directly show you that stolen intellectual property, one particular company estimated 25,000 manufacturing jobs that they lost that were good-paying jobs because countries like china stole their intellectual property and illegally competed against them in the marketplace. this is as bad a problem, madam speaker, as i have seen. i think you'll hear throughout the day this has been a responsible debate. it has been a responsible negotiation to get to privacy concerns and our ability to protect your information on your computer through these series of zeros and ones, the binary code, on our computers. again, i want to thank my ranking member for his

partnership and his work. he's been exceptional to work with on something we both agree and we agreed in a bipartisan fashion was a danger to the future and prosperity of america. with that i'd reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: yes, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. ruppersberger: i do thank the chairman for working with us in a bipartisan way to protect our country from this very serious threat of cyber attack. people often ask me, what keeps me up at night? i tell them weapons of mass destruction entering the country undetected and also a catastrophic cyberattack shutting down our power supply, banking supply and those are one of the many things that can be set down. websites and our nation's networks are threatened by countries like china, russia and other groups trying to steal our money and valuable

trade secrets. according to the national counterterrorism executive, the number one thing cyberthieves are trying to steal is information and communication technology which forms the backbone of nearly every other technology. in fact, $300 billion of trade secrets are stolen every year, according to the united states cybercommand. this proves we need to make real changes to how we protect our cybersystems. the cyberintelligence sharing and protection act helps the private sector to protect itsselves and its clients from data thieves. if they have the ability to detect these attacks, virus codes before they attack our networks, but right now federal law prohibits the intelligence community from sharing the classified cyberthreat with the companies that will protect us,

that control the network, the at&t's, the verizon, the comcasts, those groups. we have the ability to give them the information to protect us and yet -- but yet we have to pass a law to do that and that's why we are here today. the cyber intelligence sharing and protection act will do that if we pass this bill. it will allow them to share the codes with malware and the means to counter the bad stuff with the companies. these companies keep a lookout for these viruses and work to stop them before it is able to attack their system. . company that voluntary give information about the cyberattack back to the government, machine code consisting ever strings of zeros and ones uniquely identifies the malware, cyberanalysts will use this information to better understand the attack and decide who lunched it and where it came from. this information will be used to protect against similar attacks in the future. the democrats worked hard to protect privacy and civil liberties in this bill

throughout the entire process. we fought for additional privacy protections in the original bill marked up in committee. in the version we will vote on tomorrow morning, additional changes are also included in the amendments. the privacy and civil liberty groups and the white house all agree we made important positive changes that went a long way to improve the initial bill that came out of committee. we severely limit what information could be shared with the government and how it could be used. it is also important to note the entire process is completely voluntary and provides industry the flexibility they need to deal with the business realities. the bill also requires an annual report from the inspector general of the intelligence community to ensure none of the information provided to the government is mishandled or misused. this is a very important privacy issue. the review will include recommendations, annual recommendations to improve the protection of privacy and civil liberties. that review will be done again by the i specter general. we also made it clear this legislation grants no new authority to the department of

defense, the national security agency, or the intelligence community. at the urging of the white house and others, we included in the department of homeland security in the process. so there is not even the perception that our intelligence agencies or military will be in control of this. the homeland security department will be coordinating as a civil body. in addition, companies that act in good faith to protect systems and networks can receive liability protection. this is what our bill does. now, what does it not do? the bill does not allow the government to order companies to turn over private email or other personal information. this is not surveillance. the bill does not allow government to monitor private networks, read private email, censor or shut down any website. we have a broad coalition of support with 100 co-sponsors, close to 30 companies, and industry groups and dozens of trade organizations, facebook, microsoft, i.b.m., a lot of different groups supporting this bill. this is not a perfect bill, but the threat is great.

i believe this legislation is critical for our national security and yet deals with the issue of privacy. we can do better in prifecy. we hope to get the bill to the senate where there will be a lot more negotiation. congress must act now and i encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady, mrs. myrick, who is on the intelligence committee and tremendous expertise on counterterrorism issues. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mrs. myrick: i want to say a big thanks to the chair and ranking member for all of their months of hard work on putting this cybersecurity bill together. it is a bipartisan intelligence committee bill. you know, we all know the private sector is a very diverse world that includes reputable companies but also great market suppliers and counterfeiters and state-owned enterprises and other intertits that often act against the national security interest of the united states, as well as other private companies.

the information technology sector in particular includes companies that are associated with some foreign governments and militaries and intelligence services of nations that attack the united states in cyberspace daily. state and local entities along with the private sector don't have the resources or capabilities or the information necessary to address these cybersecurity threats. this bill creates the necessary mechanism for the federal government to share its informational resources and cybersecurity threat analysis with the private sector and with state and local entities. the purpose of the bill is to transmit important cybersecurity information from the federal government to the private sector, not vice versa. the bill would empower the private sector to begin taking necessary steps to protect itself from cyberattacks. some they don't have any clue or happening.

ultimately, though, it's going to be important for congress and the federal government to continue to debate on cybersecurity to determine how to best confront the changing threats because this world is changing daily. and the federal government can't leave those responsibilities solely to the private sector. especially like the chairman already mentioned, countries like china are developing continuously cyberwarfare capabilities and the cyberattacks they commit against the western companies and infrastructures and government entities we all know about. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this important piece of legislation and important step in trying to protect the private sector in this country. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: -- who seeks time? the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague from

the state of utah, mr. boswell, who formerly served on the intelligence committee. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. bodswell: thank you -- mr. bozz well: -- mr. boswell: we grow important in iowa and potatoes in idaho. a little bit of fun. i rise to speak in support of this bill today. i look across at chairman rogers and here at ranking member ruppersberger and i have great confidence. i know these men. i know their staff. they have come to these very serious matters that lays before our country that we need to understand. we must take action. i'm encouraged by the process to involve key stakeholders from private industry and privacy groups during this drafting. this transparent nangement shaped many of the bipartisan amendments being considered today to improve the bill and

it's a good thing. the threat from malicious actors in cyberspace is real. you have heard it said over and over already by those that have spoken ahead of me, and i concur with what they say. it's an absolutely real thing. you only need to pick up the newspaper and turn on the tv to see the threats facing our networks. these networks include those that power our homes, factories, small businesses. alowl a banking system to function, provides the very backbone to our current american way of life. we rely on these networks every day. the bill under consideration today is a very narrow piece, but what we can agree is a critical one to helping secure our networks and therefore the way of life as we know it today. there is continuing debate on how to implement the bill but the debate isn't over. it needs to be done. it must be done. information we ask our intelligence community use in the protection of government networks should in a secure way, should in a secure way be shared to protect the many other critical networks we rely

on. companies are doing what they can to protect their networks to the extent they can today, but there is more that must be done. we cannot be be in a situation where the government had information to prevent or mitigate a catastrophic cyberattack and yet we did not have the procedure in place to share this information. it includes a great respect for privacy and our civil liberties. we make no mistake about that. this bill with the addition of many of the amendments which were drafted in concert with privacy groups addresses many of those concerns. in addition, the annual unclassified report required for the statutory intelligence community inspector general will inform whether there are additional adjustments that immediate to be made. 10 seconds? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 10 seconds. mr. boswell: in closing i want to say this. congress cannot wait to act.

network security hasn't kept up with network speed. this is the fundamental purpose of this bill. i encourage members to begin to secure networks through sharing information about the threats. please vote yes. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, madam chair, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. >> i thank the ranking member and the chairman for your hard work on this issue and the members of the committee. this is very important, it goes beyond partisanship. this is about national security. the idea of cyberattack is not something that is just out there in space. we don't need to worry about. this is an issue that's here today and right now. mr. kinzinger: in fact just today the new york stock exchange was the target of a dedot attack on some of its external computer systems. that's not something we magically happen today. this is happening every day. thousands and thousands of times a day. i'm a military guy a. military

pilot. i think a lot about the threats from outside. you think a lot about threats of terrorism and threats of invasion or anything along that line, one of the biggest threats that keep us up at night is this idea of a cyberattack. and i think it's something that we have to take head on. this voluntary information sharing, classified portions of our government and certified private actors will serve to enhance our defenses greatly. it's important to note the amount of classified information currently shared between our government and private industry is muddled at best. a few private companies were lucky enough to received an invitation into the current classified annex of cybersecurity sharing, face significant challenges when it comes to even understanding what this information is. many times they simply can scan a print out of current information from which they try to prevent a future attack and it's woefully inadequate. we talk a lot about the russians and chinese and their use of cyberwarfare against us. that's a significant threat. that's something very serious. but i want to speak just

momentarily about the threat from iran. we all know that iran is a very serious country that's very seriously focused on bringing down in many cases the west. they have said it themselves. the iranian regime from the highest level down has publicly stated their plans to fight enemies with abundant power in cyberspace and internet warfare. it's also publicly stated that iran blames the left for the virus which disrupted their nuclear program and vowed retaliation. the combination of low-cost and effectiveness of cyberwarfare has led the iranian revolutionary guard to actively and effectively recruit islamic attackers for nefarious purposes. we can't stand by while we see nations like iran threaten the future of this country. i support this bill and commend the folks who have worked on it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague from the state of new jersey, mr. rush holt, formerly on the intelligence committee.

the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. holt: madam chair, i thank the gentleman. the proponents of this legislation who are all friends and well-intentioned have repeatedly said there is a real threat. a threat to our critical infrastructure affecting our waterworks and electric grid. but this bill is so poorly constructed it is not designed to protect against those threats. there are any number of flaws with it. but the american civil liberties union points out that the -- there would be an exception to all privacy laws. and it would allow companies to share private and personal data that they hold on their american customers. actually among themselves and with the government. it would not limit companies to sharing only technical or nonpersonal data. they would be free from any liability of misuse. they would only have to plead good intentions. the bill fails to narrowly define the privacy law that

would contravene, fails to put the cybersecurity efforts in a civilian agency. it fails to require companies to remove personal ible -- personal identify tent final -- identifiable information about individuals. it limits the government's use of information. it fails to create a robust oversight and accountability structure. the bill in its current form, there's no requirement that personal information must be removed. there's no consumer or stakeholder group involved in the oversight. there is no way for any member of the public to know if their data has been shared in error. and on and on. you know, ultimately passing this bill -- i should point out it's not just the american civil liberties union that opposes this. even the american library association and the president himself says if this passes he

will veto it. passing this bill in response to the cyberthreat would be like going into iraq because al qaeda terrorists were a real threat. yes, there is a real threat. this is not the answer. the chair: the gentleman yields back. who seeks time? the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from ohio. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to thank the gentleman from michigan for yielding me time. i'd also like to thank him for his leadership on this effort as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from maryland. i rise today in support of the cybersecurity legislation under consideration. as a member of the cybersecurity task force i'm pleased that many of our recommendations are included in this bill. and cybersecurity is a very important issue. every day there are people trying to use cyberattacks to steal our money, steal our jobs, and attack our national

security. our financial sector, member of the financial services committee, our financial sector spends billions of dollars every year trying to protect against cyberattacks. . they increase controls, making sure they have inscription, authenticating customers while protecting our wallets. mr. stivers: we need to protect our jobs. unfortunately there are folks who would use cyberattack to steal our intellectual property, give it to others to steal our jobs. not allowing information sharing would be like saying to the marines and the army, you are not sure how the enemy is going to attack you. as a member of the national guard for the last 26 years, i know that cyber is also a real threat to our national security. and this bill will update our information sharing to allow

private companies to share information with the government, the government to share information and include some important liabilities on -- liability protection as well. it's carefully crafted bill. i think the gentleman from michigan and the gentleman from maryland have been very open to working with folks to try to improve this bill. i'm looking forward to supporting some of the bipartisan amendments that i think will improve this bill. but, madam speaker, we must protect ourselves against cyberattacks, against those who would steal our money, steal our jobs and afact our country. this bill is not a panacea but it's a great start. i'm happy to support it and i hope all my colleagues will vote yes. thank you for your time and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: i yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague from the state of california, mr. adam schiff, who is also the ranking member on the tech nick -- technical tactical committee.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schiff: i rise in reluctant opposition to the bill but i want to acknowledge the extraordinary work done by mike rogers and our ranking member, dutch ruppersberger. these two gentlemen have changed the nature and culture of our committee, made it far more productive and have done great work getting us to this great point. there is still work to be done, and i want to talk about that. in two areas. i want to acknowledge why we are here. we do ourselves a disservice when we talk about a cyberthreat. that sounds like something that may come in the future, something to be concerned about that might take place down the line. we are under cyberattack right now. this is not speculative. this is not intangible. this is happening right now, so this needs to be dealt with and we do need a sense of urgency. there is distance yet to go. and in two areas in particular. one, when we gather cyberinformation and we share it between companies or between the government and companies as

we must do, we want to make sure we minimize any unnecessary invasion of privacy of the marn people. and we can do -- american people. and we can do both and we have to do both. we need to protect ourselves from cyberattack and we need to protect the privacy rights of the american people. i think the bill needs a requirement that personally identifiable information be minimized to the maximum extent pract kabul. -- practicalable. we are not asking the federal government or the private sector to do the impossible but ask they minimize personal information that is protected against cybercrime. that's the first thing. the second thing that needs to be incorporated in this bill that my colleague, mr. thompson, will talk about as well is the need to protect critical infrastructure. that is a big missing piece in the bill and i understand from my colleagues, that's not within the intelligence committee jurisdiction. that's correct. but as we saw from the rules committee, they are more than capable of incorporating things for more than one committee's jurisdiction in the rule as we see in a rule that incorporates

student a lot interests in a bill and that's subject with a bill on cybersecurity. so there's nothing preventing the rules committee from bringing into the discussion today and allow amendments on critical infrastructure. the absence of those two big pieces makes it impossible for me to support the bill today but i look forward to working with both parties. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. schiff: could i have 30 more seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 more seconds. mr. schiff: i want to conclude by saying i look forward to our continued work on this bill. i appreciate the great cooperation between the chair and ranking member and respect all members of the committee and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: thank you, madam chair. i would yield two minutes to the gentleman from nevada. the chair: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i come to the floor to voice my strong support of the cyber intelligence shares and protect action act. we know that every day american companies and computer systems are targeted by foreign nation

state actors who prey on sensitive business and personal advantage. the theft of research and development results negotiating positions or pricing information costs us jobs here at home and puts personal information at risk. the same vulnerabilities that can result in the theft of sensitive business information could be used to attack critical infrastructure we rely on such as power plants, air traffic control systems and electrical grids. an attack on these systems would be devastating and protecting them and the constituents they serve must be considered an urgent national security concern. mr. heck: the government currently uses classified cyberthreat intelligence to protect its own systems, computer networks and critical infrastructure. the business community has voiced the desire to protect themselves from cyberthreats. this bill will allow the government to provide classified cyberthreat information to private sector companies so they can protect

sensitive information and their customers privacy against malicious cyberattacks. the bill places no mandates or burdens on private sector companies and does not expand the size or scope of the federal government. all information sharing is totally voluntary under this legislation, and there are strong privacy protections in place for the information that is shared. after receiving input from the private sector and civil liberty groups and upon building the success of existing intelligence sharing with defense contractors we have produced a bill that upholds constitutional rights to privacy while providing the private sector with the necessary means to defend itself against cyberattackers. i want to commend chairman rogers and ranking member ruppersberger for their leadership in crafting this legislation that was written in a transparent and bipartisan fashion. i urge my colleagues to support this bill that protects our homeland, protects our economy and protects our privacy and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague from the state of mississippi, mr. bennie thompson, who is also ranking member of the homeland security committee. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for two minutes. mr. thompson: thank you very much. madam chairman, i rise in opposition to h.r. 3523. i also appreciate my colleague on intelligence committee for fostering a great sharing of cyberthreat information. this bill is a start, but my opposition is because it does not do what we know that we need to have done. having been involved in homeland security issues for nearly a decade, i know how important it is to protect our nation's network from cyberattacks, but in an effort to foster information sharing, this bill would erode the privacy protections of every single american using the

internet. it would create a wild west of information sharing where any certified business can share with any government agency whock then use the -- who can then use the information for any national security purpose and grant the business immunity from virtually any liability. none of the amendments offered by the chairman and ranking member would change any of those basic facts. i offered an amendment that would have addressed those concerns by ensuring that civilian agencies would take the lead in information sharing, restricting our government could use the information and making sure consumers' sensitive information is adequately protected. unfortunately, the house will not have an opportunity to consider them today. if my colleagues want to accomplish something on cybersecurity, then vote yes on any of the all suspension bills

before us today. but do not vote for h.r. 3523. it vow lights the do not harm law and would set back the privacy rights of all of the citizens who've enjoyed the establishment of the internet. this fatally flawed bill is opposed by not only every private civil liberties group, from the aclu, to the center of democracy but also the obama administration. for these reasons, madam speaker, i strongly urge a no on h.r. 3523. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: madam chair, i would yield two minutes to the gentleman from kansas. nebraska. and kansas as well. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. terry: i thank the

gentleman from illinois. madam chair, i rise in support of this bill. it's a sensible bill that builds a necessary pillar in the cybersecurity strategy of our nation. i've immersed myself in cybersecurity over the last couple of years. i've been on two task force. i'm on the committee of jurisdiction, the commerce -- energy and commerce committee. i've met with industry leaders in all of the critical infrastructure areas. and as i've gathered information and input, there's two principles at stake here. the common thread from all of them have said we have to be flexible and we have to be able to communicate. those are the two principles on which this bill is based. number one, flexibility. what it means is you can't lock this into a government agency because when government agencies start taking control of setting standards or working with an industry group to set

standards on cybersecurity, the hackers take five seconds to get around that and it will take years then for the industry to move around that. you are setting them up as ducks waiting to be shot if we do that. so we can't. we got to give them the flexibility so that the least government interference is what gives them the flexibility. the next part is communication. when i learned from the critical infrastructure industry is what they want to know is, is there a threat out there and what is the specifics of the threat? they know they're under attack every day, but maybe our defense agencies have specific information they can share but they can't because it's top secret. so this bill allows there to be communication of specific threats to perhaps communicate from government to private sector some better practices that they can enact. that's what this breaks down is

that barrier, not some of the civil liberty conspiracy theories. this is simple communication between government and private sector. private sector to private sector. this isn't reporting on whether you're downloading an illegal movie or whatever. this is about securing our infrastructure, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: yes, madam speaker, i yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague and friend from the state of rhode island, mr. langevin, who is also a member of our intelligence committee and has worked very hard with the chairman and myself on the issue of cybersecurity. i consider him one of our experts on the hill in the area of cybersecurity. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for two minutes. mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection. mr. langevin: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. and i rise in strong support of h.r. 3523.

i want to thank chairman rogers and ranking member ruppersberger. while i don't believe this legislation is perfect and much work remains to be done. since this represents an important group to come -- towards better cybersecurity for our nation. i have long worked on this issue for many years to raise awareness and secure our nation against the threats that we face in cyberspace and quite frankly we are running out of time. i believe that it's important that we act now to begin our legislative response to this critical issue. we all know how dependent we are on the internet and how we use it so much in our daily lives. the internet was never built with security in mind. what's happening is our adversaries are using the vulnerabilities and the -- against us. so i've also said that we need, of course, to have -- been very clear we need to have robust

privacy protection. it must be included to safeguard personal and -- information and also defend civil liberties. any cybersecurity response we do enact. i'm pleased to say this legislation has been strengthened in that regard and i believe more can be done as we continue this important debate. that being said, the information sharing is vital to combating vital cyberthreats and stemming the massive ongoing theft of identities, sbrectual property, sensitive -- intellectual property and sensitive security. this legislation, clear and simply, will provide the government with classified information -- threats to the private sector and also allow the private sector to share with us the cybersecurity attacks that they are experiencing, sharing that with the government so we have better situational awareness. if you look at this it basically gives us a radar, if you will, in cyberspace, sharing information back and forth on cyberthreats that are

-- that are based in the country. this bill is a good step, but it's only a first step. voluntary information sharing is helpful and it's needed, but it does not constitute strong cybersecurity. i've long maintained we must also move forward to establish minimum standards -- another 15 seconds. mr. ruppersberger: about 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for the additional time. i have long maintained we must also move forward on legislation that establishes minimum standards for the cybersystems that govern our critical infrastructure, particularly the electric grid and our war systems. with that i again want to thank chairman rogers and mr. ruppersberger for their outstanding efforts and i ask my colleagues to support this important cybersecurity information share -- sharing legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: i'd recognize two minutes to the gentlelady from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes.

ms. bone oy mack: i rise in strong support of -- mrs. bono mack: i stries in strong support of this bill. this would prevent rogue nations, terrorists and cybercriminals. we need to act before a disaster takes place, not after it. and this is our chance. as chairman on commerce manufacturing and trade, i've spent the past 16 months holding hearings and thoroughly examining the issue of online privacy so as a co-spon or of this legislation, i have carefully reviewed its privacy provisions and i'm satisfied it will not negatively impact american consumers. frankly, the privacy concerns are exaggerated. there's no bookyman hiding in the closet and big brother is not tapping into your hard drive this provides no authority to the federal government to monitor private networks, none. additionally, all information sharing with the government would be completely voluntary. the bill also encourages the

private sector to anonmies the information it shares with the government and other entities, including the removal of personally idebit official -- ident fieable information prior to sharing it and reviewing information sharing between the private sector and the government and provide a report to congress on its findings. i applaud chairman rogers and ranking member runnersberg for working to hard to protect the american consumer and making this a bipartisan effort. some people will say anything to try to scuttle this bill, sounding false alarms, raising imaginary red flags, despite the real and dangerous threats posed by terrorists and our enemies if we do nothing. madam chair, i strongly urge the adoption of h.r. 3523 and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland.

mr. ruppersberger: ms. johnson. i yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague from the state of georgia, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the gentleman veck niced for two minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, ranking member ruppersberger and madam speaker. i rise in opposition to this very disturbing bill. one thing that is important to keeping our country number one has been the personal freedoms that we have all enjoyed since this country's beginning. those freedoms lie in the bill of rights and the fourth

amendment to the united states constitution within that bill of rights provides for a right of privacy. now, right of privacy can be impacted by technology and various advances in science that make eavesdropping and surveillance and investigation easier. and also more secretive. by law enforcement and by personal individuals and by corporations, by any component that may look to misuse information for their personal

benefit and so i rise in opposition to this disturbing bill. this bill would grant the private sector blanket permission to harvest americans' data for extremely broad cybersecurity purposes, notwithstanding any other provision of law. it would grant the private sector blanket permission to share that data with the federal government, notwithstanding any other privacy laws or agreements with users. then, if i may have 30 more seconds. mr. ruppersberger: 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: then, as if that wasn't disturbing enough, this bill would grant the government broad authority to share that information between intelligence and law enforcement agencies and use it for virtually any purpose

defined as important to cybersecurity or national security. i know it's 2012, but it sure feels like 1984 in this house today. if you value liberty, privacy, and the constitution, then you will vote no on cispa and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> the bill before us is targeted toward a very specific and growing threat to our nation. every day, american businesses are being targeted by china, russia, and other foreign actors for cyberexploitation and theft. these acts of industrial espionage are causing enormous losses of valuable american intellectual property that ultimately costs the united states jobs. we cannot afford to allow high

paying jobs to be stolen in this manner nor can we sit by and allow the cyberwarfare conducted against us to continue without consequences. mr. speaker, jobs are at stake, as is the technological capital of the united states. but if the reality of this economic cyberwarfare isn't convincing enough, you should understand that there are other good reasons for taos support this bill. -- for us to support this bill. the state of the ort technology stolen from americans can easily be turned against us and represents a serious threat to america's critical infrastructure. none in this body would likely disagree that we have to prevent our enemies from protecting american military technology. that's why we have long had export controls and other mechanisms to prevent such a thing from occurring. madam speaker, how is the theft of intellectual property any less a threat today, whether we

like it or not, cyberwarfare is a reality. our government and its security agencies understand this and are using both classified and unclassified information to fight threats. but without passage of this bill, they are being forced to do so without the meaningful participation of industries, private industry -- private industries, that are being subjected to attack. in some cases our government even knows about but can't share that with those private companies. so we shouldn't expect america's private sector innovators to protect themselves if we won't tell them where the attacks are coming from. mr. nunes: if we don't share this information or allow them to share information with us, how do we expect to secure the sensitive information? 30 more seconds, mr. chairman. mr. rogers: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. nunes: we can pass this

bill, very narrowly focused, allowing our intelligence community to work with private industry, or we can fund a massive new government program, which i think we've proven that massive new government programs seldom work and are often costly, or with the opponents -- or would the opponents of the bill simply rather do nothing and allow our country to continue to be attacked every day? we need to pass this bill tone able cyberthreat sharing and provide clear authority for the pivet sector to defend its networks. madam speaker, i want to close by saying that we should congratulate chairman rogers and ranking member ruppersberger for the work that they have done to protect this country. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: i yield three minutes to my distinguished colleague from oklahoma, mr. dan boyd, who has worked closely with me to bring this bill to the floor.

the chair: the gentleman is reck no -- recognized. mr. boren: i'm proud to have been part of this bipartisan effort by chairman rogers and ranking member ruppersberger to bring this bill to the floor today. there's one fact on which everyone can agree. our country must strengthen its cybersecurity capabilities. to achieve this we need the cooperation of industry, government, and our citizens. and we need to protect the unique interests of each of these groups. some may be asking the question, how does this bill protect american industry? it gives private companies the ability to receive classified information from the government to protect their networks. the bill also gives them flexibility to share information with the government without compromising their business exby -- equities or harming their customers. this information sharing partnership will enhance government efforts to analyze

and understand malicious codes and other cyberthreats. i think companies that have publicly supported this legislation have gotten a bad rap in the press and i think we all need to remember, these american companies are not the enemy. they employ thousands of americans and provide essential cyberservices to millions of people. they are profit making entities that twant satisfy their customers and grow their businesses. these american companies have absolutely no motivation to send private customer information to the government or anyone else. in fact, they have every reason to protect it. under this legislation, american companies will enhance their capability to protect the private information of their customers by receiving classified assistance from the government. moreover, they will help their customers and the country by volunteering -- by voluntarily informing the government of mall wear and -- of mall ware

and other -- of malware and other malicious content. but this is not the only way it protects privacy, it restricts the government's use of personal information the company mace choose to share. in addition, it directs the inspector general to monitor and report any abuse of users' privacy. finally, we must also remember that the government is not the enemy. the intelligence community does not want to squander this opportunity to improve our nation's cybersecurity by abusing the civil liberties or privacy of american sints. to this end, the bill specifies that the government can only use the information it receives from the private sector for purposes directly related to addressing cyberthreats. national security, and threats to life and limb. in closing, this legislation strikes the appropriate balance

between the interest of the private sector industry, the federal government, and private citizens. it will help our cupry avoid potential cybercatastrophe -- 30 additional seconds. mr. ruppersberger: 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. boren: it will help avoid a cybercatastrophe that can threaten our national security and endanger our economic prosperity. with that, i urge my fellow members to join me in supporting this bill. i want to say specifically to our ranking member and chairman, thank you for putting the country's interest ahead of partisan gain while working together in this committee, both democrats and republicans, to do what's in the best interest of our intelligence community and the united states of america. i yield back. mr. ruppersberger: may i ask how much time we have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from maryland has eight minutes remain, the gentleman from michigan has 10 and a half minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: i yield one minute

and 30 seconds to the gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute and -- 50 seconds? mr. rogers spst 30. mr. barton: the rifingt a person to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrant shall -- -- the right of a person to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated without written statement of the things to be searched. that's a part of the constitution, one of the original 10 amendments of the bill of rights, protecting the united states citizenry. i want to give mr. rogers and mr. ruppersberger an a for effort in terms of identifying the problem, but an f for identifying the solution. the word privacy is mentioned one time and that in passing. there are no explicit

protections against privacy. in fact, there was an explicit exemption of liability to all people who engage in the collection, dissemination, transfer, and sharing of information and the course of action if you feel your privacy has been violated is to go to district court and prove there's willful and knowingly sharing of your information without your permission and if you prevail in federal dict court you get $1,000. -- in federal district court, you get $1,000 or whatever it cost you. my friends, we have a real problem. i take the chairman at his word, he's a former f.b.i. agent, that he wants to solve this cyberthreat. i know he means it. but until we protect the privacy rights of our citizens, the solution is worse than the problem they're trying to solve. please vote no on this bill. the chair: the gentleman from maryland.

mr. ruppersberger: i have no other speakers. i'd like to yield myself as much time as i may consume. there were some comments that i would like to respond to. first thing, this bill does not allow the wholesale violation of the privacy rights. this bill eaks -- bill's extremely important to our national security and our citizens of this great country. and we are -- we have taken this very seriously. we know this is not a perfect bill. there will probably be additional changes. we will have more debate later on this afternoon. now, some of the things i want to address. during the drafting of this legislation, we put forward a wide range of privacy protections. first, and we worked for the last year with the white house, privacy groups, business groups, to come to a coalition to make sure that we get this bill right. first, the bill severely limit what is kind of information can be shared with the government. only information directly pertaining to the threat can be

shared, which is mostly formula's, -- formulas, x's and o's. it's something that the companies deal with now in dealing with spam. second, the bill encourages companies to voluntarily strip out personal information that may be associated with these o's and occasionally that does occur and we have to deal with that and we will continue to deal with that issue. there are also are strong use limitations on the data. this information must be used for cybersecurity purposes or the protection of national security. the information cannot be used for regulatory purposes. for example, if there's evidence of tax evasion, that information cannot be used in a criminal proceeding, only national security, only in the areas of life and limb or for anything involving juvenile crimes. the bill prohibits the government from requiring companies to give information to the government in exchange for receiving the cyberthreat intelligence. that means that when we pass the information of the attacks, it's

called the secret sauce, to the providers, that those -- it's only voluntarily, the government can't put any restrictions on that whatsoever. and that really means that this is not surveillance at all. the bill does not allow the government to order you to turn over private email or other personal information. this is not, again, surveillance. the bill disease not allow the government to monitor private networks, read private emails, sensor or shut down any private website. this is not sopa. in an effort to improve the bill even more, the intelligence committee, thanks to the chairmanship of leader rogers, has worked with privacy groups, the white house and other interested parties to address these concerns. we on our side of the aisle take again this issue of privacy very seriously. the committee has maintained an open-door policy and made more changes to the bill to make it even more better, as we have gone on, up until today. the legislation grant noes new authority to the department of defense -- grants no new authority to the department of defense.

the government violates any of these restrictions placed on it by the legislation, the government can be sued for damages caused and attorneys fees. i think it's extremely important. we on the intelligence committee deal with these issues every day. this is a very sophisticated -- it's an area of -- that we deal with that most people don't know. and so we're attempting and we have for the last year to educate as many of our members as we can. but it's important to know that national security is clear, our effort and what we're attempting to do, but also maintain the privacy, the constitution and rights of our citizens. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: i would yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i don't think we can say often enough how important it is that the chairman and ranking member have worked together, not only on the substance of this bill,

but in the process of getting us here. they have truly put the country's interests first and i think all members should commend them for that. this was a good bill when it was reported out of committee 17-1. i think it will be a better bill once the amendments are considered and adopted and for any member who has concerns about privacy or misuse of information, i think they should look at the amendments that are going to be adopted and any reasonable concern, any semi-reasonable concern about privacy will be addressed with the limitations that those amendments add. mr. thornberry: madam chair, it is -- this bill does not solve all the problems in cybersecurity. all four bills that we're considering today and tomorrow don't solve all the problems we have in cybersecurity. but it makes no sense to me, as some seem to have argued, that we should not solve this problem of information sharing because we're not solving all the

problems that somebody can see out there. and this problem of information sharing has been central to cybersecurity concerns for some time. i happened across a report from december, 2004, that was issued by subcommittee i chaired of the select committee on homeland security, along with the gentlelady from california, ms. lofgren, where we wrote whether it is vulnerability assessments, threat warnings, best practices or emergency response, information sharing with the private sector is critical to securing the united states from cyberattack. that was eight years ago. why has it not occurred? because all the legal obstacles, all the fear of being sued has prevented it from occurring. and that's what this bill does. it clears away the legal underbrush that has prevented the kind of information sharing that people have been talking about for a decade. this is a good, important step.

it doesn't solve all the problems, but it puts more information at the disposal of critical infrastructure so that they can be protected. it should be adopted. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: i have a speaker on the way. mr. rogers, do you have any more speakers? mr. rogers: i do. mr. ruppersberger: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: i would yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great state of oregon. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. walden: i thank the chairman and ranking member for their approach to this incredit pli important issue. i -- incredibly important issue. i commend you on this legislation. better information sharing between the private sector and the government. such sharing is a force multiplier, it combines the technological strength of our network providers with the ongoing efforts of our agencies to combat growing cyberthreats. from the get-go, the bill has

protected privacy and civil liberties and ensured that any information sharing is voluntary. i understand chairman rogers has also gone the extra mile to reach out to the privacy community and will be offering and supporting the amendments to address any lingering concerns that may remain from misunderstandings over the language. breaking down the barriers to information sharing is a lynch pin to better cybersecurity. this legislation will be a tremendous step forward in securing cyberspace for our citizens but don't take my word for it. that's what cybersecurity firms and researchers, internet service providers and government officials told the subcommittee on communications and technology, which i chair, in the three separate hearings that we held. that's what a bipartisan working group i convened concluded when it interviewed a broad spectrum of stakeholders in the cybersecurity debate. by contrast, no matter how well intentioned, cybersecurity regulations would likely just expand government, reduce flexibility, impose cost, create

more red tape and not more security. according to one government witness, regulating cybersecurity practices would, quote, stifle innovation and harm the industry's ability to protect consumers from cyberthreats. indeed, voluntary efforts, not government regulation, are already improving cybersecurity for communications networks that cover 80% of americans. when congress is looking at a complex issue like cybersecurity, we need to heed the hippocratic oath, first do no harm. so i want to thank my colleagues for making this process especially open and transparent. representative rogers has graciously reached out to members of the energy and commerce committee to understand our concerns about protecting privacy and civil liberties and preventing regulatory overreach. representative thornberry's work in organizing the house republican cybersecurity task force, which included representatives terry and latta, members of my subcommittee. bottom line is, we're going to

protect america from the greatest threat to america and to americans with this legislation. we need to make sure that our private sector is nimble and flexible and innovative and tying its hands with regulation. we heard over and over again this our subcommittee hearings would do the opposite of that and would result in the bad guys getting an edge on the good guys. i support this bipartisan legislation, i urge its passage. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: i yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague from the state of georgia, mr. john lewis, one of the most respected members of our congress. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. lewis: madam speaker, i want to thank my friend, the gentleman from maryland, for yielding. madam speaker, i rise to oppose h.r. 3523. it is a step back.

those of us who protested in the 1950's and the 1960's, who were called criminalalists, who had our telephone calls recorded, we have a long memory, we remember our nation's past. martin luther king jr.'s telephone was wiretapped. his hotel room was wiretapped. his home was wiretapped. our as of was wiretapped, our -- our office was wiretapped. it was people protesting against the war in vietnam. we didn't have a facebook, a twitter, a email. these new tools must be protected. today we have a mission, a mandate and a moral obligation to protect future generations of activists and protesters. so i say to my colleagues, stand

with us today, stand up and stand on the right side of history. oppose h.r. 3523. and with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rogers: lots of misinformation about this bill today. i respect the gentleman from georgia greatly for his efforts. i heard the gentleman from texas talk about searches and seizures. this is the good news. there are none of those things in this bill. none. you know, if i knew that your house was to be robbed, i would expect, if the police knew, that they'd pick up the phone and call you and say, you're going to be robbed. take precaution. we'll be there shortly. this bill just says, if we have this nasty source code, these zeros and ones, i want to give

it to you so you can protect your systems. that's it. no monitoring, no content, no surveillance, nothing. that's not what this bill is about. i understand the passion about it, that's why we've taken a year to forge this bipartisan effort to get where we believe privacy is protected, it is paramount that we do that. that our civil liberties are protected. it is paramount that we do that. but we at least take down the hurdle to share nasty source code or software that's flying through the internet, that's developed, and it's very sophisticated by the chinese and russians and iranians and other groups and non-nation state actors that are going to steal your personal information. that's all this is. it's sharing bad source code so you can put it on your system, so you don't get infected. end of story. i wish people would read the

bill. all of it. every word of it. i think you'll find the carefully crafted language to make sure that our rights are protected, that the fourth amendment is protected and by the way just like the army, the navy, the marines, your f.b.i. is protecting you. that's what this bill allows it to do. simply that. so as i said, i respect greatly the gentleman from georgia, a lot of atrocities i think he lived through in his life, that no one should have to live through. we took those things into consideration when we wrote this bill and that's why we've got so much support and so much technical company support, companies like facebook and microsoft and all of those groups. so i hope people read the bill and support the bill and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from maryland is

recognized. mr. ruppersberger: madam speaker, first -- the chair: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. mr. ruppersberger: i have three minutes. first i want to again say that the purpose of this bill, as the chairman just said, is very basic and simple. we want to protect our citizens from attacks, we're being attacked as we speak right now. just last year it's estimated we have lost $300 billion worth of trade secrets. we even know that one country is attacking our fertilizer country to find out how we make it better than they do. this is putting our business at jeopardy, our jobs at jeopardy and we know we sure need jobs. more importantly, those of us who work in this field know how serious these threats are. the head of our f.b.i. whose responsible it is to provide our domestic national security has said that one of the most serious threats, if not a bigger threat than terrorism, it would be this catastrophic cyberattack. we've already talked about it today, what that would be. we have our secretary napolitano

has said the same thing, the director of homeland security, one of the most serious issues our country deals with and yet it's unfortunate, but most of our citizens aren't aware of how serious this threat is. so we attempted to get to allow our intelligence community who is one of the best in the world, when they have the ability to see these threats coming in from other countries or terrorist groups, and to be able to right now give this information over to the private sector, to protect us, you, me, our businesses, that's what this bill does, nothing more. and what we're attempting to do is to move the bill, get the bill to the senate. we can always do better in the area of privacy and civil liberties and we're going to continue to do that. we can always do better in the area of homeland security and go further to protect those institutions and our grid systems and that type of thing. but this is the start. because the one thing that now is stopping our country, stopping us from protecting our citizens is this congress, this

congress needs to pass this -- pass this bill now, we need to move forward we need to get it to the senate, we need to start working with the senate and hopefully we'll deal and work very closely with the white house and find a bill so that we can protect our citizens but also protect our civil liberties and privacy. i respect mr. lewis and i understand what he's gone through and as a former lawyer who worked on many search and seizure warrants, i can tell you there are no violations in this bill at all. that's not what the bill is about, if it were, i wouldn't be in favor of this bill. i yield back. and i thank you mr. rogers for working with us in this bipartisan manner on a serious issue. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized, you have two minutes remaining. mr. rogers: i want to thank the ranking member and both staffs from both committees for their effort to get it right, to find the place where we can all be

comfortable. this follows months of fworkses and work with many organizations, privacy groups, we have worked language with the center for democracy and technology and they just the other day said they applauded our progress on where we're going with privacy and civil liberties. so we have included a lot of folks. it's been a long road. it's been the most open and transparent bill i've ever worked on here. we kept it open to the very end to make sure that we can find the language that clarified our intent to protect privacy, protect civil liberties and just be able to share dangerous information with victims. that's all this bill is. the whopping 13 pages it is does only that. so i appreciate the comments today, i look forward to the amendment debate and again, mr. ruppersberger, it's been a joy to work with you on this particular issue. as an old army officer once told me, once you find a

problem, you are morally obligated to do something about it. we set about it a year ago to make america safe and to protect the networks at home from people stealing it, breaking it and doing something worse. so madam chair, thank you very much. i yield back my time and look forward to the debate on the amendment. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the permanent select committee on intelligence printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the rules committee print 112- 20. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a subs institute shall be in order except those printed in house report 112-454. each may be offered only in the

order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1, printed in house report 112-454. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. langevin: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-454, offered by mr. langevin of rhode island. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 454, the gentleman, mr. langevin, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. langevin: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the bill, madam chair that we

are considering today, creates a voluntary information sharing network which would provide owners of infrastructure with valuable threat information that would help secure their networks from cyberattack. unfortunately, the legislation specifies it applies only to, and i quote, private sector entities and utilities. while utilities is defined extremely broadly in the legislation as any entity that provides essential services, including telecommunications and transportation providers, there remains the possibility that the definition may exclude pieces of our critical infrastructure that have significant cybervulnerability. my amendment which i'm offering with my good friend mr. lungren of california, strikes the uses of the -- uses of the words utilities and replaces it in etch instance with the phrase critical infrastructure owners and operators. this is a common sense way to avoid potential confusion and

elimb at the possibility that critical entities could be denied the opportunity to opt into this voluntary information sharing framework and thereby share and receive the valuable classified threat information that will be available under cispa pa -- cispa. this amendment will not significantly expand the scope of the legislation but instead will help prevent interpretations of language that could be contrary to the committee's intent which i believe is the same as mine. now, while i recognize that any regulation of critical infrastructure would be outside the intelligence committee' jurisdiction, i nonetheless want to take this opportunity to voice my strong conviction that our efforts must not stop with the legislation there that we're considering this week. just as the airline industry must follow federal aviation safety standards, companies that own and operate the infrastructure on which the public most relies should be accountable for protecting

their consumers when confronted with a significant risk. i, along with many members of both sides of the aisle and experts within and outside of government have come to the same basic conclusion. the status quo of voluntary action will not result in strong cyberprotections from our -- for our most valuable and vulnerable industry. the homeland security committee emphasized last week that our infrastructure control systems, which are mainly in private hands, must come up to certain paceline levels, cybersecurity standards. with the increased public awareness helping to build momentum, legislative action, we have a real chance to address these threats and i hope that we will not look back on this moment years from now regretting a missed opportunity after damage has been done. the amendment we're offering today will not be itself provide the protection that mr. lungren and i ultimately believe necessary for our critical infrastructure. it is a useful first step and i am grate to feel mr. lungren

for joining me in this effort and with that, ma cam chair -- madam chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman veck niced for five minutes. mr. rogers: i want to first compliment mr. langevin for working with us on the cybersecurity bill. he has been an instrumental force in pushing the cybersecurity issue to the front and getting the ladgewadge -- language we have that finds that right balance my concern with this, and i think this is why the president's, at least his advisors who are recommending to the president that he veto the bill, are misguided is we have done something fairly unique. it is all voluntary and we separated the government and private sector. the government won't be involved in the private sector networks, and they won't be involved in government networks. perfect. with this, it crosses both of those. it gets taos a place that i think we need to have a lot

more discussion on. you can see by this he -- by the level of debate just on this issue how people are really nervous about the federal government getting into their business. this, i'm afraid -- i'm afraid, opens it up to that. the term, here's the good news, we believe this is already covered in the bill as far as the sharing component and you replace the word utility with something that isn't defined, critical infrastructure owners and operators. we're not sure what that is. in some cases you could extrapolate that to be even the low cat police who argue they're part of the national security infrastructure, does that mean local police will get very sensitive foreign cyberintelligence information? and why would they have it? we don't know the answers to those questions. that's why we were having such a hard time with the amendment. i would argue there does need to be a homeland security bill and it shouldn't be done in the intelligence committee. it should be done in the homeland security committee. so i would love to work with mr. langevin as the process works its way through the homeland security committee and

believe that should be fully debated. remember, when you start getting regulation into the private sector including private networks, that i, i argue, is troublesome and worrisome to me and something i have a hard time supporting. i look forward to working with the gentleman, i have to oppose this amendment, but i want to thank you for your work on the cyberissue and this cyberinformation sharing bill. i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for his thought, i respectfully disadepree. the word utilities is important but i believe critical infrastructure is a better term than the term utilities. with that, i would like to yield -- how much time do i have, madam chair? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. langevin: i yield a minute and a half to the distinguished chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. lungren: i thank the

gentleman for yielding and i'm pleased to join in offering this amendment. as written, the information -- the bill allows for the information to be share with private sector and utilitiesed but there are those who don't fall within that who should be allowed to have this relationship. our amendment would have the simple effect of including those elements shutch as airport authorities, mas transit authorities or knews any pal hospital chrs neither private sector nor utilities to participate in this voluntary information sharing regime. i find it odd to find out the committee is worried about the definition of critical infrastructure. that has been defined in the u.s. code for over a decade. it is the -- it is in the language in 42 u.s.c. 5195-c, the critical infrastructure protection act of 2001 which defines it as sorms assets whether physical or virtual so vital to the united states that the incapacity or destruction of such asset woufs a debilitating impact on

security, national public safety, health or safety or a combination of these. that's the definition we have supported, that's the definition we worked on. your committee, our committee, all committees have. i find this a very simple amendment that tries to reach what i think we all are trying to reach, does not grant any more authority to the federal government, it allows for the sharing of information to vital entities as the gentleman suggest wed all agree to be there i would hope that pride of authorship is not the problem here. we're trying to do something that we think makes common sense. and if folks have trouble with the definition of critical infrastructure, you would have thought it would have been raised in the last decade. i would hope we could have support -- mr. langevin: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. mr. lungren: i hope we have support for this bipartisan amendment, i serve on the homeland security committee, seems to me to make eminent sense, i do not understand why

there's some opposition to this amendment. i thank the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. mr. rogers: the definition in this bill does not go back to that and it causes serious issues. as you can see, the people who are very concerned that the government is going to get in to regulating anything on the internet. i would say this is no pride of authorship. wron if mr. ruppersberger or i could have any more authors participate in our bill than we have. the problem here is very real and very substantive. that's why i think both the gentlemen who have as much passion and care and commitment to this issue as i've seen need to work that issue on the homeland security committee so you can do it in a way that won't rise to the level of objections we have seen when just the suggestion of regulating outside of the

purview of national security come into discussion. that's why i would hope the gentleman would exercise extreme caution when taking that walk. it is perilous for the government to get into regulating the internet and i oppose that completely. that's why we have these problems arise from it. if these are issues they can get over, this should have substantive debafmente this very narrow bill took one year. one yore of work and negotiation and discussions to get where we are today. so i would encourage that maybe more thought ought to be put in it and i would look forward to working with both gentlemen as they introduce and work their bills through the homeland security committee as i think would be appropriate and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves, the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: thank you, madam chair. i thank the chairman of the intelligence committee for his thoughts. i want to be very clear that this term, substituting critical

infrastructure for utilities, does nothing regulating critical structure it just allows the broadest possible definition of information sharing among those entities that are deemed to be critical infrastructure. with that i thank chairman lungren for his support of the bipartisan amendment and with that i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. langevin: i ask the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 18, further proceedings offer by -- offered on the amendment by the gentleman from rhode island will be postponed. amendment 2 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in

house report 112-454. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? mr. pompeo: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-454 offered by mr. pompeo of kansas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 631, the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: thank you. i want to thank chairman rogers and chairman ruppersberger foyer for their hard work on this -- for their hard work on this important piece of legislation. i'm among those folks when who first learned of this legislation, i had concerns to make sure it was balanced and it did the right things. i also recognized the deep national security implications of the cyberthreat. but wanted to make sure that we also did everything that was necessary to protect everyone's privacy rights. you know, this is a simple amendment. it makes clear that the liability protection in the

bill, with respect to the use of such systems, only extends to the identification and acquisition of cyberthreat information and no further. there's unprecedented threats from countries like china and rush yarks these are hostile -- russia, these are hostile nations. while this new threat is being developed by our foreign enemies, organized criminals and foreign hackers also justify -- just as easily deploy malicious cyberattacks to disrupt stock markets, transportation networks, businesses, governments and even our military operations. a devastating cyberattack could easily be unleashed from the remote comfort of enemy computers thousands of miles away from our nation. we must take this threat very, very seriously. part of the challenge in cyberspace is that a line of computer code could be just as deadly as a traditional military weapon. we've already seen these attacks used as an instrument of war. in 2008 georgia suffered a significant cyberattack prior to

the invasion by russia. this attack crippled georgia's banking system and disrupted the nation's cell phone services, helping to clear the battlefield for the invading russians. perhaps the most significant dangerous activity in cyberspace even goes unnoticed. cyberspies delay and wait for years to steal military and economic secrets. each of these examples further illustrates the need for legislation. unfortunately some civil liberties and privacy advocates claim that liability protection in this bill with respect to the use of cybersecurity systems could lead to broader activities than authorized. this legislation doesn't do that but my amendment clarifies it further. this amendment simply does -- provides clarifying language to the original language of the bill and thus enjoys support of bipartisan co-sponsors of the legislation as well as the outside groups that raise these concerns. i urge approval of this amendment and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does any member seek time in

opposition? the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> i want to thank mr. pompeo for working with us. this was worked to clearly define the intention of the bill and i think it offers protections and i think we should all strongly support mr. pompeo's amendment and i would yield back. mr. pompeo: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: thank you. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 11-454. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- 112-454.

for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. rogers: i have an amendment at the desk, madam chair. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-454 offered by mr. rogers of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 631, the gentleman from michigan, mr. rogers, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, i yield myself as much time as i might consume. i strongly encourage the support of this amendment, it's a simple amendment. we negotiated just collar fige language again on -- clarifying language again on foia and with that i yield the remainder of my time to mr. issa from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i thank the gentleman for yielding. hopefully there will be time left over to mr. chaffetz who has worked on hard on this amendment -- worked hard on this amendment. this amendment clarifies in the cybersecurity sharing and protection act that foyia, the

freedom of information -- foia, the freedom of information access act, is in fact clearly in effect for the vast majority of this information. we understand that companies, i'll just take an example, companies such as electric utility companies, may share their very vulnerabilities as part of a process to reduce or eliminate these vulnerabilities. we certainly understand that that's not foia-able. national security is not foia-able. but we make sure everything is at least possibly foia-able when appropriate and the only question is, does it stand for one of the exclusions? so by making it narrow, we tell the american people that the freedom of information act is in effect on cybersecurity and will not be unreasonably with held. i think this is critical at a time in which greater transparency is the promise and there is a great deal of concern about cybersecurity somehow being something that would take away america's freedoms.

just the opposite is true. our freedom of the internet, our freedom to have an effective and efficient system on which to build our infrastructure, both for electricity and other utilities, but also for our everyday life, it essentially requires the cooperation we anticipate and with that i'd yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. >> i claim time in opposition to the amendment. however i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: i agree with mr. issa's comments and i know our chairman, this is a joint amendment with mr. rogers and i. the amendment would make it clear that while foia exemption protects the information obtained under the bill, regulatory information required by other authorities remains subject to foia requests. the chairman and i agree the law should not create a broad change from the type of information that is available under the freedom of information. we have a responsibility to

protect classified information from disclosure but we also understand the need to keep information open to the public. the amendment makes clear that information available under other authorities remains subject to foia and i urge all members to support this bipartisan amendment. i yield -- i mean i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields time to the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: thank you. i appreciate the bipartisan nature in this which this is moving forward. i appreciate specifically chairman rogers, chairman issa and the ranking member. i stand in support of this amendment. i think foia's a very important principle we have in this and this just strengthens this. i would also say, madam chair, that i was opposed to sopa. i was adamantly opposed to it but this bill in particular is desperately needed in this country. cybersecurity is a very real threat and this bill is something that's needed in this country. it's strong and i think it's appropriate for this nation to do this. we need to make sure that we're smart on how we advance.

there have been some much-needed amendments that were adopted, but, again, the bill as we see it moving forward, i think will strengthen cybersecurity in this country and i'm proud of the fact that chairman rogers is pringing this bill to the floor -- bringing this bill to the floor. i urge support of this amendment and the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan yield back his time? mr. rogers: i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from maryland yields back. mr. ruppersberger: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. it is now -- oh, no. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment -- mr. rogers: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to rule 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-454. for what purpose does --

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 precipitationed in house report 11-454 offered by mr. quail of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 63 1, the gentleman from arizona, mr. quayle, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. quayle: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. i appreciate the opportunity to speak in favor of this bipartisan amendment that i am offering along with congressman

eshoo, congressman thompson and congressman brown. h.r. 3523 is designed to increase the sharing of government intelligence and cyberthreats with the private sector. and allow private sector companies to share threat information on a voluntary basis. the bill is consistent with our founding principles and our constitution. indeed, as the nature of the threats facing our nation change, i believe this legislation is vital to protecting our country. every day our military intelligence communities work to counter traditional threats like nuclear and biological weapons in order to prevent a catastrophic attack on u.s. soil. but today's security threats are becoming less traditional. foreign nations have chosen cyberspace as an area of particular vulnerability for america. and are targeting critical military and economic cyberinfrastructure. admiral mike mullen listed cyberattacks as one of the top threats facing the united states. secretary of defense and former c.i.a. director panetta warned

that the next pearl harbor we confront could very well be a cyberattack that crippled our power systems, our grid, our security systems, our financial systems, our governmental systems. this legislation not only protects our national security and intellectual property, it also provides private and public entities to voluntarily work with the government to protect every individual's personal information from nation state actors like china, russia and iran. who are determined to use cyberattacks to steal from us and weaken us. this bipartisan amendment will further solidify our commitment to protecting the homeland from foreign nation states wishing use it us harm while protecting civil liberties. this amendment significantly narrows the bill's current limitation of the federal government's use of cyberthreat information that is voluntarily shared by the private sector. specifically, this amendment strictly limits the federal government's use of voluntary shared cyberthreat information to the following five purposes. cybersecurity purposes, investigation and prosecution of

cybersecurity crimes, protection of individuals from danger of death or serious bodily harm, protection of minors from child pornography, any risk of sexual exploitation and serious threats to the physical safety of a minor and finally protection of our national security of the united states. if the government violates the use limitation, the bill provides for government liability for actual damages, costs and attorney fees in federal court. these provisions together ensure that information cannot be shared with the government or used under this bill unless there's a direct tie to cybersecurity. cyberterrorists work fast. so congress needs to work faster to protect america. enabling information sharing between the government and private sector is the quickest and easiest way to prevent a cyberattack on our nation. our amendment assures we can accomplish this goal while also protecting the privacy of all americans and i urge my colleagues to support it and i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: how much time do i have? the chair: is the gentleman claim time in opposition? mr. ruppersberger: yes. i claim time in opposition but i don't oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ruppersberger: first, off this amendment -- i'm going to yield my time to mr. thompson from california. he's on the intelligence committee and also a sponsor of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, i rise in support of the thompson-eshoo-quale-brown amendment to this bill. the threat of a devastating cyberattack is real and can't be understated. i believe the federal government and the private companies need to work together to protect our national and economic security. but in doing so we still have a responsibility to protect the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

i'm concerned that the underlying bill is drafted in a way where consumer information could be shared too broadly and use in ways unrelated to combating surekt -- cybersecurity threats. the thompson-eshoo-quayle-brown amendment will help with cyberthreat information shared under this legislation. specifically, our amendment will limit the federal government's use of shared information only for cybersecurity purposes. for the investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes, to protect against the threat of imminent harm and to protect our country's national security. this bill, even with our amendment, isn't perfect. as this legislation moves forward, i expect the word of the chairman to be honored when he says that our committee will work together to further protect personal information and limits its use.

for example, further narrowing terms in this bill such as, quote, to protect the national security of the united states, end quote, will be necessary, i believe, to fully protect our civil liberties. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. qualequale i'd like to yield -- mr. quayle: i'd like to yield to the chairman of the intelligence committee, mr. rogers. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: this is note with consultation with all of the private groups and civil liberties groups, we wanted to make sure that the intent matched the language and we think this is a limiting amendment on what it can be used for which is very narrow. it is very specific. and we think this enhances already good privacy protections in the bill. and i strongly support it and would encourage the house to strongly support the bipartisan

amendment. mr. quayle: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. quayle: i want to thank the staffs for working tirelessly on this bill. this amendment strengthens this bill. i urge my colleagues to support it and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. ruppersberger: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-454. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. amash: i have an amendment

at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: amount number 7 printed in house report 112-454 offered by mr. amash of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 631, the gentleman from michigan, mr. amash, and a member oppose each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. amash: the liability waiver goes too far and the government can access too much of american's -- america's private information. our amendment addresses that last concern. our amendment prohibits cispa from being able to be snooped. it is library and book records, information on gun sales, tax returns, educational records and medical records. we didn't pull this list out of thin air. in fact, the list already

exists in federal law as part of the patriot act. under the patriot act the federal government can obtain these documents as part of a foreign intelligence investigation only if senior f.b.i. officials request the documents and the federal judge approves. many have questioned the documents even in the more limited circumstances. if the patriot act requires the approval of a federal judge and senior f.b.i. official, surely we can't allow access to such personal information without any judicial or agency oversight. i don't know why the government would want to snoop through library lists or tax returns to counter a cyberattack, but if the government wants these records it has existing legal processes to obtain them. our constituents' privacy demands that we not give the government unfettered and unsupervised access to these documents in the name of cybersecurity. please support the

amash-labrador-paul-nadler-poli s amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. does any member seek recognition? opposition to the amendment? no one seeking recognition. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. amash: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. amash: madam chair, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: in the opinion of the chair, the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-454. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. mulvaney: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 454 offered by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 631, the gentleman from south carolina, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mulvaney: madam speaker, i appreciate the opportunity to rise today and speak in favor of this amendment to the cyberintelligence sharing and protection act. the cispa act is fundamentally based on the authority granted the congress in article 1 of the constitution and article 4 of the constitution, specifically to provide for the common defense and to protect the nation against invasion. in fact, the only affirmative duty that this government is obligated to meet under the

terms of our constitution, this bill protects our nation from foreign cyberthreats to the voluntary sharing of cyberthreat information. it is important for members to understand this bill allows for only voluntary sharing of information on cybersecurity threats to the united states between the government and the private sector. it includes no mandates to the private sector. it contains no new spending and strictly limits how the government can use the information that is voluntarily provided by the private sector. the amendment that i offered with mr. dicks today goes one step further to protect the private information of american information. it prohibits the federal government from retaining or using the information for purposes other than specifically specified or set forth in the legislation. let's make it clear that government cannot keep or use these -- the shared information to see if you fail to pay your taxes. the government cannot use this information to read your emails. the government cannot use this information to track your credit card purchases or lock

at the websites that you've been visiting. under our amendment, the federal government cannot use retained information unless it was directly related to a cyber or national security threat. finally, this bipartisan amendment requires, requires the federal government to notify any private sector entity that shares information with the government if that information is not in fact cyberthreat information so that it doesn't happen again and the government must delete that information. privacy of the american citizens is too important to dismiss. our amendment ensures personal information is protected and we are focusing on the true threat, advanced foreign state sponsored cyberattacks against america and its private entities. with that i would yield such time to the gentleman -- to the chairman as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, madam chair. i want to rise in strong support of this amendment. i appreciate mr. mulvaney for

working with the committee. this is a limiting amendment. it is in response to making sure that the intent of the bill meets the language of the bill and this is well done to continue to protect privacy and civil liberties of all americans and still allow for the share malicious source code with the private sector. and i would yield back. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina. -- maryland. mr. ruppersberger: i rise in support of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ruppersberger: this protects the civil liberties of our citizens and it is a bill that we need to protect them from a national security perspective and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

mr. mulvaney: i ask for the taking of the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. mulvaney: i do. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-454. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-454 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 631, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the chair. this amendment is straightforward. it would require the inspector general of the intelligence community to include a list of federal agencies and departments receiving information shared with the government in the report already required by the underlying legislation. this act is an important piece

of legislation that will help private entities and utilities protect themselves from catastrophic attacks to their networks by creating the authority for private entities and utilities to voluntarily share information. h.r. 3523 avoids placing costly mandates on private industry and the creation of a new regulatory structure. that's what i really appreciate about this legislation as i'm sure everyone does, it's voluntary. as with any new intelligence program, however, it's incumbent on us to make sure robust protections exist to safeguard privacy rights. the inspector general requires -- report required under h.r. 3523 will provide a thorough review of the information shared under these new authorities and will address any impacts such sharing has on the privacy and civil -- on privacy and civil liberties, adding the list to departments and agencies as recipients

would add information on what government agencies exactly -- which government agencies exactly are receiving shared information. such information will further mitigate the risk of abuse to privacy rights and increase the effectiveness of the inspector general's report. i commend my colleagues from michigan and maryland. they've been working hard to put together this bipartisan measure. working up until the very last minute to ensure members' concerns are addressed, and i believe this is an important piece of legislation. i'd like to yield to the gentleman from michigan such time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you. i want to thank the gentleman from arizona for working with us. this again was negotiated amendment. the gentleman approached us with concerns to make sure that with the i.g. report adequately reflected and allowed us to perform the adequate oversight. this amendment does that. i appreciate his work and effort and i think this strengthens the bill and continues to provide the oversight and protection of civil liberties and privacy for

all americans. mr. flake: i yield back my time. the chair: does any member seek recognition in opposition? the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i just want to say i support the legislation and the underlying bill and i would urge support of this amendment as well and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . in the opinion of the chair, the yeas have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-454.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 11. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 112-454 offered by mr. pompeo of kansas. the chair: the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo and a member

opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: i appreciate this opportunity to offer a second amendment to this incredibly important piece of legislation that has been worked on for a long time to balance the securities of our nation and the privacy rights of every united states citizen. similar to the first amendment i offered, this amendment addresses some of the concerns raised by me, privacy folks and to make very clear the intentions of this legislation. i talked earlier about the threats we face today. it's real, it's foreign, domestic. these cyber attacks are a risk to our national security and our economic security. and i now strongly support this legislation. i have had a chance to work with chairman rogers and the ranking member to solid file limitations on this legislation to make it clear that this government's use of this information will be limited. i think some coined incorrectly that the current bill could be

read to provide new authority to the federal government and to monitor traffic and send it back to the government with absolute no limitations. that's wrong. this amendment makes it even more clear. this amendment makes clear that nothing in this bill would alter existing authorities or new authority to any entity to a cybersecurity system on a private sector system or network. i'm pleased to support the legislation and doesn't create any new regulatory regime or any more federal bureaucracy and has no additional spending. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying legislation. i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. rogers: i yield time. >> this is an important amendment.

and i think it alleviates some of the concerns that were misguided but this makes it very tight and makes it very clear of the limiting of this information, which is the intent of this bill. mr. rogers: i think this amendment addresses the privacy and civil liberties advocates' claims that the liability protection in the bill with respect to the use of cybersecurity systems could be read to be broader than the activities authorized by the legislation. as i said, that was not true and certainly not the intent. this amendment makes that very clear in the bill that that would not be its purpose and it is a limiting amendment and i strongly support this amendment. it is a bipartisan amendment as well. and i yield back my time. the chair: does any member seek opposition to the gentleman's amendment? the gentleman from kansas? mr. pompeo: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the yeas have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in house report 112-454. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 2 frinted in house report 112-454 offered by mr. woodall of georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: my amendment is a simple amendment. what we're doing here in this bill today to the great credit of the chairman and ranking member is instituting a voluntary system by which our private companies and utilities can cooperate in the name of securing america's cyber space. but what happens so often is when the federal government

creates a voluntary standard, those folks who choose not to play are subject to new liabilities because they rejected that voluntary standard. if it is going to be a truly voluntary standard we have to be sure those who reject it are not held to any new liabilities. that was the intent of the committee when they crafted that legislation. my amendment makes it clear that new -- no new liabilities arise that choose not to participate in this cybersecurity cooperative regime. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. any member seek recognition in opposition? the gentleman from georgia? mr. woodall: i thank you, madam chair. with that, i thank the ranking member and the chairman for their tremendous openness throughout this entire process, briefing after briefing, phone call after phone call, they made

themselves available to members on both sides of the aisle to get our questions answered in sometimes what is a difficult area to understand and digest and i thank them for their leadership and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aste have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 13. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: to offer an amendment number 39. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment nument 13 printed in house report 112-454 offered by mr. goodlatte of virginia. the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia.

demrat goodlatte thank you, madam chairman, i rise to offer an amendment. this amendment is a result of a long series of discussions and various privacy and civil liberties groups. as many know i have long worked with these groups and industry to make sure where congress acts with respect to technology it does so in a way that is thoughtful, intelligent and shows respect for privacy and civil liberties. congress can draft legislation that allows the private sector to flourish while protecting the rights of americans. this amendment seeks to move the legislation further down that path. to do so, this amendment carefully narrows the definitions of the key terms in the bill, cyber threat information, cyber threat intell against, cybersecurity purposes and cybersecurity systems and adds in three new definitions from the existing law.

together, these new definitions ensure that companies in the private sector can protect themselves against very real cyber threats. at the same time, they limit what information the private sector can identify, obtain and share with others. and they do so in a way that is technology-neutral so the definitions we write into law today do not become obsolete before the ink is dry. these definitions remove language that could have been interpreted in broad ways. they remove or modify definitions that could have been thought to cover things that the bill did not intend to cover, like unauthorized access to a system or network that purely involves violations of a terms of service. these revised definitions also rely in part on existing law to cover the appropriate set of threats to networks and systems without being overly broad. i would note these deficiental

changes are important on their own for the narrowing function they serve in groups like the center for democracy and technology, this amendment represents, quote, important privacy improvements end quote. the change to the definition addresses a number of committee issue raised by a variety of groups and many in the internet user community. this moves the important bill in an even better direction. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does any member seek recognition in opposition to the gentleman's amendment? the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: i rise in opposition but i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection. mr. ruppersberger: i yield one minute -- the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> any time the government gets

involved there is a possibility for abuse. i hear from my constituents in texas that they continue to lose information to cyber attacks from abroad. most of these attacks come from none other than the organized crime syndicate of china as i call it. they steal our intellectual property and use the stolen information to compete against the united states. mr. poe: we need a commonsense information sharing system to combat the threat of this way of life we have in america. we have to do it in such a way that protects our privacy and constitutional rights of citizens. while the intent of the base bill wasn't to have the government use information it obtained. i believe it is clear and simple language in mr. goodlatte's amendment is necessary to make it 100% that this is strictly prohibited. as we remember from the 2012 debate it is important especially in dealing with

legislation that affects civil liberties and constitutional rights, congress needs to be perfectly, 100% clear. and i believe the goodlatte amendment does this. i urge all members to support it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: i yield one minute to the chairman of the intelligence committee, mr. rogers. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. rogers: i thank mr. goodlatte for his commonsense amendment. again, this is working to make sure that this bill is restricted for both information, privacy and civil liberties and why the coalition continues to grow because of good folks like mr. goodlatte and i urge the body's support for the goodlatte amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yield back? mr. goodlatte: i'm not aware of

any other speakers. i would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. it is as the chairman indicated and ranking member indicated, bipartisan legislation that will improve the underlying bill in significant ways and protect the civil liberties of american citizens in a more clear fashion. i thank all of those in the chamber and outside who contributed ideas to help us craft this amendment and urge all of my colleagues to support it. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the yeas have it and the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. rogers: i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan -- mr. rogers: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee do now rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the yeas have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the chair: the committee of the whole house having had under consideration directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon the speaker pro tempore: chair of the committee of the whole of the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 3253.

>> during further consideration of h.r. 3523 pursuant to house resolution 631, amendments number 10 and number 5 in the house report 112-454 may be considered out of sequence. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. . pursuant to house resolution 631 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 3523. will the gentlewoman from west virginia, mrs. capito, kindly resume the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 3523 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide

for the certain sharing cybersecurity entities and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 13 printed in house report 112-454 by the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, had been postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 14 printed in house report 112-454. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. turner: madam chair, amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in house report 112-454 offered by mr. turner of ohio. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 631, the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: thank you, madam chairman. this amendment would make a technical correction to the definition section of this bill to ensure that u.s. cybersecurity policies remain consistent for protections

against threats to our government and private sector networks. this amendment will maintain consistency among this bill and other cybersecurity policies. the terms, quote, deny, degrade, disrupt, destroy, are found throughout our national security strategy and guidance documents. guide was emitted from h.r. 3523. inserting it will make -- the increase in cybersecurity incidences led to the development of centers like the air force's cyberspace technical of excellence in my district in deyton, ohio. to combat this growing trend in the sophistication of cyberattacks, the center of technical excellence has been turned to that focus. the need to protect u.s. networks from denial of service attacks was made clear three weeks of 2007 estonia was denied service attacks against government websites, banks,

universities and estonia newspapers. i urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, madam chair woman. i thank mr. turner. this is an important clarification amendment and working with us to improve the status of the bill to make sure that we are able to protect america's networks increases the ability for us to protect privacy andively liberties. i'd appreciate the gentleman's good effort. i encourage the house to support the turner amendment. the chair: does any member seek recognition in opposition? the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: madam chair, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from ohio yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 15 printed in house report 112-454. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. 34ul8 vainy: -- mr. mulvaney i have amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 offered by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 454, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: this bill will sunset in five years. by its own terms, if the bill is passed, it will automatically cease to be enforceable after five years

unless this congress acts to affirm it. several people say that one of the biggest difficulties we're having in this town is we simply create laws all the time and we never go away. so generally speaking i think sunset clause rs to be admired and encouraged -- clauses are to be admired and encouraged. we have concerns regarding -- for individual liberties. we worked very, very hard to make this bill is good bill. it's an excellent bill. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of this bill. but every single time we start moving into the realm where the government action starts to bump up against individual liberties, it's a good idea to take a pause after a certain amount of time, in this case, five years, look at the implementation of the bill and make sure we did what we thought we were going to do. finally i think in a case when we're dealing with technology, which moves so very rapidly, that we've written this bill as well as we could to try to anticipate technology and development but when you deal

with technology that moves so rapidly and changes so quickly we think after a certain period of time, in this case five years, to step back, look our hands over and make sure things worked exactly as we thought they would. so for that reason, madam chairman, i ask that this amendment be considered and be approved and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does any member seek recognition in opposition to the member's amendment? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. mulvaney: madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: madam chair, i have amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-454 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 631, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, madam chair. let me thank you for your courtesy. let me thank the chairperson for his courtesy and the ranking member for his courtesy. i was very appreciative with the overlapping committee work for the courtesy of the floor. i thank you very much. let me hold up the constitution and say that i believe in the constitution and the bill of rights, particularly protects us against search and seizure and i recognize the bipartisan effort of this particular legislation and recognize that

we may have disagreement. my amendment ensures that a comprehensive policies and procedures implemented by the department of homeland security to protect federal systems from cybersecurity threats and minimize the impact on privacy. what it does not do is allow homeland security and the justice department to spy on americans. let me be very clear. it does not allow the infrastructure of homeland security and the justice department to spy on americans. i would not adhere to that. it is a shame that oversight of our nation's critical infrastructure, however, was not included in this bill. the hard work that has been done by the committee of homeland security, mr. lungren and ms. clarke, joined with other members, was worthy of consideration. i understand the structure we're dealing with. we would allow the department

of homeland security to protect federal systems that enable air traffic controllers to operate. madam chair person, we know the climate that we live in. god has blessed us, if i might even say that, but more importantly the hard work of men and women who happen to be federal employees that no action has occurred on our soil since 9/11. this amendment would allow the department of homeland security to protect federal systems that enable air traffic controllers to operate, that enables congress to operate, that enables all federal agencies to operate. my amendment is intentionally narrowly tailored to go after known or regional threats to our federal systems. let me be very clear, this is not a reflection on this legislation from the extent of hard work. i am just saying that coming from my perspective i would hope that we would look at infrastructure. i'm not advocating for the bill. i'm advocating for an open discussion on this issue that certain elements to -- have to be resolved dealing with cyberthreats that we face.

i have long been an advocate to protecting the rights of privacy and the civil liberties of all americans. that is very much a part of this amendment, but i'm also mindful of the importance of the infrastructure. as we have said, cybersecurity measures and take steps to implement legislation, i believe we must ensure or be sure that to strike the proper balance between effective and strong security for our digital networks and protecting the privacy of individuals as well as infrastructure that involves transportation. i am ever mindful that we must be careful not to go about strengthening cybersecurity at the expense of infringing on people's privacy rights and civil liberties which is why my amendment is narrowly tailored and sets clear restrictions on the scope of communications addressed and why and how that information can be used. our nation's critical infrastructures are composed of public and private institutions in the sectors of agriculture, food, water, public health, emergency services, government

defense, industrial based, telecommunications, banking and finance, chemicals and hazardous materials. it is designed to do so. i ask my colleagues to support the amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. rogers: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: thank you very much. i would yield myself a minute and a half. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. rogers: if you thought it was good for the businesses to require facebook to give you their password, you'll love this, if not you should go appeplectic. i will read just from the law. notwithstanding any other provision, it allows them to acquire, intercept, retain, use and disclose communications and other system traffic that are transiting to and from the -- or stored on the federal system and to deploy countermeasures with regard to such communications and system traffic for cybersecurity

purposes. this is dangerous. it's dangerous for the very narrow bill that has been misrepresented from what we do, this is big brother on steroids. we cannot allow this to happen. this would be the government tracking communications, your medical records from the veterans association. it would track your i.r.s. forms coming in and out of the federal government. this is exactly what scares people about trying to get into the business of making sure we protect our networks but we can't do it by trampling privacy and civil liberties. this is awful. i -- i'm just shocked that after all of this debate and all of this discussion on our very narrow bill that my friends would come up with something that wholesale monitors the internet and gets the information that we fought so hard to protect on behalf of average americans.

i will yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. westmoreland: i want to thank the chairman for yielding. let me say this to my colleague from texas that we have had a number of amendments here today that have tried to streamline this bill, to make it even narrower and to take out any perception that it would be personal information and limit what government can do and be very explicit in the terms of what this sharing is that is voluntary, that it's narrowly drawn and the chairman and the ranking member have done a wonderful job with working with other members to allow these amendments to make this bill better. i'm very disappointed, and this amendment basically guts the bill. it expands it to where everybody that's been down here so far has been trying to narrow it in. this just expands it even more.

this is the type of amendment that people fear, that we would give homeland security the ability to intercept the transmissions. that is totally out of hand, and i just hope that we will vote against this amendment and support the underlying bill. and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank you very much. what an exaggeration. i know they have been propeled by all of the media that has given them great support. let me just say that they know that the bill -- underlying bill, in fact, is considered an invasion of privacy, but if you look at my amendment, what it does is only when the communication is associated with known or reasonably respected -- suspected cybersecurity threat. it is narrow, but more importantly it is has a privacy -- it has a privacy provision.

i believe in privacy. i was not going to be denied the right to come to the floor, to be able to frame what we should be doing. looking at infrastructure and the complement of making sure that privacy is protected. this particular book, even with the amendments they have, will not draw this to the point of acceptance. so i would argue that this is a productive debate, but the amendment that jackson lee submitted does not in fact at all violate privacy. so i would say to them i look forward to be able to address this question as we go forward and i'm going to ask at this time unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment for the misinterpretation that my friends on the other side of the aisle have predicted or thought they were going to put on this particular amendment. i thank the speaker. .

the chair: is there objection? the amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-454. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. richardson: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-454 offered by mrs. richardson of california. the chair: the gentlewoman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes of the the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. richardson: i stand in support of the richardson amendment, but i would like to thank the majority leader, chairman rogers and ranking member for your tolerance in allowing us to come to the floor. i was ranking member of a committee that was in operation

at this time and thank you for allowing us to come forward. the amendment ensures that owners and operators of critical infrastructure systems receive information about cyber threats. some examples of our critical infrastructure systems that this amendment would apply to are energy facilities, banking and finance facilities, chemical facilities, dams, emergency services, agricultural and food systems, water treatment systems, many of these that would be in great danger and need information. every single member of congress has critical infrastructure sectors in their district whether they be public or private and every community in this nation has some critical infrastructure that should be protected and advised of threats. in my district i have the home depot athletic center which holds up to 27,000 people. the boeing corporation, the long beach police and fire department. long beach oil and gas

department, water treatment facilities. the numbers go on. we need to make sure that not only ports and government facilities but also private facilities are approved and entitled to have the same information. some inherent complications are there are 18 different federal government agencies that have jurisdiction over critical infrastructure sectors. the department of homeland security has jurisdiction over chemical, dams and emergency services and nuclear power alone. h.r. 3523 does not mention how critical infrastructure sectors that do not fall within the jurisdiction of government intelligent agencies would receive critical information or have systems in place to share information appropriately. this amendment makes an important improvement to that legislation. i would like to commend chairman rogers and ranking member

ruperts berger that there was was a key fault here in this key critical infrastructure section. i'm pleased that the rules committee found this amendment in order and urge my colleagues to consider this seriously. while chairman lungren's orange cyber -- original cyber bill didn't make it to the floor, i offer this in the same spirit. mr. lungren and mr. langevin spoke earlier on the bipartisan amendment regarding critical infrastructure and that is hence me building my comments on that. the amendment ensures that our critical infrastructure sectors will not be left out by receiving information that could protect their systems against a terrorist attack. this amendment makes sure that industries most at risk of a cyber attack receive information that they need to protect pt public and the facilities at large. my amendment makes explicit that

critical infrastructure sectors be included in information-sharing relationships and does not include any new federal authority. with that, madam chairman, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment number 10. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. rogers: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized tore five minutes. mr. rogers: i appreciate the gentlelady's efforts again. we were careful of trying to find a narrow solution because of all of the challenges that come with trying to get a piece of legislation across the house to the senate and the president's desk. i argue that the homeland security committee should engage in a critical infrastructure debate. here's the problem. not defined for the purposes of this bill so we don't know what this means. we have been careful to separate the government from the private sector. no government involvement in the private sector network.

it's source code sharing. this, we aren't sure where it goes. many in industry believe they are talking about the backbone of the internet? it's not well-defined. that would mean that the government for the first time gets into the backbone of the internet and that is a terrible idea. i don't think that's what the gentlelady intends but the problem is that's what the amendment says. i look forward as she works through those issues. these are hard and tricky. sometimes a word will get you in trouble as we have found along the path. we should be careful about how we are doing this. i encourage the gentlelady to work with us and we'll provide and i know mr. ruppersberger and we can provide help and we look forward to the product you worked on that is geared towards the infrastructure piece. this was never intended to solve all the problem but intended to be a very narrow first step that

says if your house is being robbed, we want to tell you before the robber gets there. if your computer is going to get hacked we want you to have the malicious code to protect yourself. that's all this bill does. we get nervous when it starts crossing that divide that we have accomplished between the government and the private sector. we don't want -- you start crossing that divide, we think you could get into serious trouble in a hurry without clearly defined language and definitions. i would -- unfortunately i have to oppose the amendment but look forward to working with the gentlelady in a very important issue, infrastructure protection as the homeland security does its work. and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. ruppersberger: i claim time in opposition to the amendment although i do not oppose the amendment the chair: the gentleman from michigan yield time?

mr. rogers: i yield such time to mr. ruppersberger. mr. ruppersberger: our bill is extremely limited and we are attempting to allow our government, intelligence community to give the information that's necessary to protect our citizens from these cyber attacks. ours is the most active bill that is out there now. our bill hopefully will pass and go to the senate and lot more negotiations. there is a lot more work to do such as homeland security. and i know there are some issues involved in homeland security markup. i know that there are issues involving judiciary. and i can say this. i know that the chairman and i for one year now have worked very openly with every group that we think would be involved in this bill. and because of different positions taken, including aclu and other positions and this bill is better and hope that it

passes. we clearly will work with you, but we on the intelligence committee are very limited to our jurisdiction. and that's why a lot of these issues we can't deal with other than what is in our bill right now. i have one more speaker that is on his way for the bill -- what? he's not coming? then i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california. ms. richardson: again, i would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member and look forward to the opportunity to work with you. i would just give you one analogy to consider as we move forward. as you recall on 9/11 when the planes hit those two twin towers, the government had the ability to notify the private airlines to scramble the planes and demand that all of the planes would be landed because we didn't know where they were going to go. at that point, the government had the ability to work with the private sector, with the airline industry to communicate information.

i'm not suggesting that we interfere with the free-flowing ideas of the internet. what this amendment is suggesting and i look forward to working with you in the future is that the government does have the ability if in the event something happens with dropping some chemicals into water treatment facilities that the government should have the ability to work with those private sector companies to be able to notify them and ensure that the public is protected. but i thank you for hearing the amendment. i look forward to working with you going forward. mr. rogers: i thank the gentlelady and i look forward to that opportunity and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the the gentlewoman from california yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 112-454 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1, amendment number 4, amendment number 6, amendment number 7, amendment number 8, amendment number 13 by mr. goodlatte of virginia, amendment number 15. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-454 by the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-454

offered by mr. langevin of rhode island. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote shall rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]