cyberthreat information with the government. it would also create a cyberthreat intelligence center within the national intelligence director's office. live coverage now to the house floor on c-span. e spea the houwill b in order tayer will bofred reend tom ckerrothe si orl baptischch in mill, noh roli then: with praisan thainweow before u ather. we thank y your lovd

gdancin each peonife wherves inthis room. g th theisdom to takup theutie today. jam sf a mike widom,e fve w prayfo wiom in t tmentnd mey r judgment. wihoutwe canthing, y c things. maye n behtened by e probhat ro us as nation buve tnk that yo with i ts hour. mayouwordbe a lam unto our feetnd lit un our i n our svior's name. the eaker: pursuant to cl 1 oruthe jonalnds ro pledgece will ld by the gentl frnew hashire,r.uinta. r.uint ileallegi to tlag of t unitestates endthe republic

rhi ids, one nati r isle libti f t speak: without cti the gentlemn from sth rolina,vaney nized for on mine. mr. mney: is withreat onor and prilege introce toheouse verend tom tucke who is aastort sisc memori st chuar my. hid hwas called mistrwhenwas 18 an fout thatilheas 3 he presintf thouth carolina ptis stor's con- coeren he's featureevoal -- votnal spear r th blly grah e ofhom, ystal marr to d r, themy gorireid ribfrom

wisin. eapro tempore: the chair witeaio 15 rther ruests for one-te speees on ea side ofhe aisle forose does t ntlemaom teseek gentlen is recogniz f neinut >> mr. speaker lastmes border cris was rt of predent obama's d f gr amnesty to so llegal immrantsn las vemb oma ged amnesty even mo ial immnt lio more. me matters wor fo amecataxper these illegammits can get rkmits. thien tto getocial

secity numbers and gt benefits mae miak whatmas ng is hard worng american taxpayers. mr. jnson: that's why i'm troding myhno sociecury and fitsor ilel aliens act ericis ctry of laws not men. m flly itted spping preside'segal actn. i back. e eaker pro temp members areemindetoper rerences to the presiden e gentlanime has expi four ds e gentlewoman califor ek recnion thout ction t gentwoman recognedor onte hahn: tha, mr. spker. i rise in solidarity with the armenian comni t commorate the 100

anveary theen tha le to tharmeniangenode 100 yea agoe an armean lrs we taken from eirom, sted syematallyxecud. elwh cafo and the unittas for making sure at the hto of thatrac iod is kwn and urging r gernmto official recogze theenoce.

foaturses the getlem seek recognion >> i ask unanoucot to drs theouor one minut d revi and extd my rarks. the spear prmpore: witut objecon t gentlem is gnized r. wilson: me th 1 mil soutcarolinians ceive their poer tgh ratives who wok toeep clow d intain gh energ standa unfortunely,rent oba esd nregulatons, stroyg bs. thestisent nto fecta week d have negative impacted the coopes blimi ali dufime making consers pay r iffient use of reur local businesses like the electric cooperatives are the back bone of america's economy.

the forefront of new innovations and our leaders providing affordable, reliable energy. in conclusion, god bless our troops and may the president by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise in support of the solar ready vets program, the recently announced initiative to train vets for solar industry. solar powered accounts for 0% of electricity generating capacity, creating 31,000 american jobs. the energy company solar city will soon open one of the largest solar panel manufacturing plants in the world in my home community of buffalo, new york, creating 3,500 jobs in our region. 174,000 americans work in the

solar industry and a number that is quickly increasing. mr. higgins: we should seize the opportunity to ensure our veterans can participate in this growth. the solar ready vets program trains veterans for jobs in the solar industry at 10 military bases across the country. we are calling for the niagara falls air reserved station to be one of those sites. this program creates jobs, fights climate change and provides economic opportunity to returning veterans. i call on congress to support our veterans, support clean energy and support american jobs by supporting the solar ready vets program. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor jeff engels, a granite stater, american hero and former prisoner of war. this week he's being rightfully

recognized in the prisoner of war medal ceremony this friday. he grew up in north woodstock, new hampshire, and enlisted in the navy in july of 1978 where he served as a member of an elite unit of highly technical divers. he served in missions that were not only incredibly complex and challenge bug also dangerous. in june of 1985, he was aboard t.w.a. flight 847 when it was hijacked by terrorists. the six-man detachment, including five u.s. navy divers were held in captivity by terrorists during which time one bravely lost his life. these six men showed bravery courage and dedication in the face of an enemy. we will never forget your sacrifices, your fight in the name of freedom and democracy. american heroes like jeff engels are the reason our country remains the land of the free and the home of the brafe and for that we are forever gratele. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week the house republicans marked 100 days of republican control of both bodies of congress. 100 days spent working for the wealthy special interests against the hardworking american families, 100 days where we saw our national security threatened when we came dangerously close to shutting down the department of homeland security. 100 days where we saw republicans vote to end the medicare guarantee and turn it into a voucher program. now today, we're seeing house republicans attempt to undermine the consumer financial protection bureau, an entity designed to protect american consumers by taking what was a

bipartisan bill that came out of committee with nearly unanimous support and using it as a vehicle through the rules committee to slash funding for this important federal program. mr. kildee: we had a bipartisan bill that could have been an important piece of legislation that we all could get behind and it had to be used as a way to undermine this really important and essential government function of protecting the american consumer. we have just gone too far with this. we need to get back to doing the work that the american people sent us here to do. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: while we are all hardworking americans dedicated to the freedom and future of our country, our districts and states are vastly different. house republicans reject the notion that washington knows

best. and our policies reflect that. by putting power back into the hands of the states, we can ensure the decisions made best -- made best reflect the decisions of the people with represent. in the people's house we understand this more than any other brampling. we understand that a top down approach to government is unrealistic and unfair. we hear the voices of those we represent. parents don't need bureaucrats in washington to tell them where to send their children to school or what doctor they should see. our approach gives families the flexibility they need to make these essential decisions. what works for one district may not for another and we understand that. in the people's house, we're so proud of the individual districts we come from like mine in the great state of north carolina and we're going to advance policies that let the people there thrive. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in remembrance of the 1.5 million victims of the armenian genocide which began 100 years ago on april 24. i join with the armenian national committee of the merrimac valley of massachusetts and armenian communities adelose country and throughout the world in mourning those lost and honoring the survivors and their descendants as we recognize this centennial. i support the armenian genocide resolution. the systemic, premeditated mazz burden committed by the ottoman empire against the armenians was again jide. other -- genocide. other countries have recognized dark moments in their past and it's time for turkey to do the same. the families of those who were

victimized deserve justice. we have a responsibility to acknowledge the truth about this horrific event. it's a necessary step to building a more just, good future for all armenians. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker, as we meet today shortly after noon here it's evening in the persian gulf. it's evening off the coast of yemen. and as we speak, iran is supplying the rebels with weapons. their ships are heading toward them. iran is in fact our enemy and iran is in fact in an active war to destabilize many of the ashe countries as we speak. mr. issa: iran is a terrorist state but we're pretending it isn't. the huttis have been determined by the united nations to be

stopped as rebels yet the theodore roosevelt is circling rather than sinking that ship or stopping it. we, america, are negotiate agnew clear deal that may or may not work that remains to be seen, but we're negotiating with a terrorist state a terrorist state that will, i guarantee it, continue going forward to destabilize the region and cause american lives to continue to be lost. this is the peril that we have, we've had it since 1989, if we do not stop i-- since 1979, if we do not stop iran we in fact will lose american lives every day for the rest of my life. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. i'm congressman ted lou. in a modend society all of us deal with a thousand issues. there's only one issue that can kill humanity, and that's

climate change. rising sea levels, more extreme weather events and hotter temperatures are not partisan issues. last month president reagan's former secretary of state, george shultz, wrote a column in the "washington post" asking for action on climate change. today on earth day, i'm introducing climate solutions act which will tackle climate change by focusing on three areas, slashing carbon pollution, implementing bold renewable portfolio standards, and setting high energy efficiency standards. in the future our history books will write that america led the world on climate change and saved the planet, or there will be no more history books. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman virginia tech for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today with great concern over the obama administration's ongoing nuclear negotiations with iran.

i also rise in support of the efforts of our colleagues in the senate to ensure that any agreement made with iran has the consent of our stilts elected officials here in congress. mr. speaker, we have seen in regions across the world the obama administration's limited ability to enforce its international agreements and promote our country's interests. the recent horrific chemical weapon attacks in syria, the growth of isis, and moscow's continued dominance all call into question the strength and resolve needed by this administration to enforce an agreement with one of our nation's most dangerous foes iran. mr. stutzman: i strongly urge my colleagues to carefully consider the ability of the administration to uphold and enforce the terms decided on with iran and the impact this will have on our security and the security of one of our nation's closest allies, israel. mr. speaker, i believe it is a critical moment for our nation and for the world and future

generations, we must be determined to make sure that enemies do not get a hold of weapons that could destroy our friends and allies w that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. foster: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to commend the community in my district that have rejected the governor of illinois' efforts to create so-called right to work zones. rather than lifting illinois up to make life better for working families, the governor's divisive plan would drag down all corners of the state in a race to the bottom. these zones are a chimic to pit communities against each other, to deprive workers of their rights and to weaken unions. rather than creating good-paying jobs for illinois workers, these zones will depress wages across the state by incentivizing companies to move to whatever town offers them the possibility of paying lower wages and offering fewer benefits.

we shouldn't be asking hardworking men and women to work for poverty level wages to make up for the fiscal deficit illinois faces, a deficit which is caused in large part by laws we passed right here on the floor of congress that caused the citizens of illinois to pay $20 billion more each year in taxes than we get back in federal spending. unions did not cause the problems that illinois faces, and cutting workers' pay will not solve them. so i commend those in naperville oswego, and communities throughout ill know fighting against this bad policy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman virginia tech for one minute. >> mr. speaker as a proud graduate of duke university's graduate school, i rise today to honor the duke men's basketball team and their coach mike

krzyzewski, who recently won the ncaa title. mr. lipinski: the 2015 duke basketball team was led by veteran senior guard quinn cook freshman chicagoan jalil okafor named a.c.c. player of the year and was a unanimous all-american selection. coach k led the team to 35-4 record and a national tightle with a heart fought victory over wisconsin in the title game. coach k, has won more men's basketball games than any coach in history. over 1,000. including 945 and five ncaa titles at duke. as all college basketball fans know there is no place to see a game like cameron. mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing the outstanding achievement of the 2015 duke university men's basketball team and coach mike

krzyzewski on winning the 2015 ncaa tournament championship. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gallego: mr. speaker, a college education should be accessible to all americans. currently, 40 million americans have student loans with an average balance of $29,000. this impacts our entire economy as it prevents young people from buying homes, starting a family, and even buying a car. mr. speaker, we provide an education for all students because we recognize advantages for our children and society to have a good education. but a high school education is no longer enough if you want to get a good-paying job. college education is necessary and essential in today's society in order to move ahead.

it's an essential step to getting a good-paying job and joining the middle class. mr. speaker, we are stacking the deck against our young people. the cost of higher education is through the roof and student loans are weighing on our youth and one of the most vull -- at one of the most vulnerable points in their lives. mr. speaker, our parents and grandparents didn't have to take on this level of debt just to get an education. it is our responsibility to ensure that future generations have the same opportunities that our parents and grandparents had to higher education without the burdensome student loan debt we now carry. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute. thank you, sirment the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman virginia tech for one minute. mr. cohen: there was a story in today's "washington post" about the vaccine being approved for useage in this country 50 years ago on april 12, 19555. there was a picture after second grade student getting a shot as

a test case in 1954. it brought back memories to me that i wanted to relate. my father was a physician. and in 1954 gave shots to second grade children as part of the testing of the salk vaccine. i had a brother in the second grade and my father gave him the shot as he gave all other second graders. i was in kindergarten, and my father's mission was not to give shots beyond the second grade. so while the vaccine was in my home and he thought about giving it to me, he didn't. and in the spring of 1954, i came down with polio. my father never forgave himself for not having given me that vaccination, and i suffered for it ever since and will continue through the rest of my life. i relate this story to tell people in america, vaccinate your children. don't listen to the hysteria. science has given us ways to stop children from getting diseases that have threatened society for generations and generations. do vaccinate, it's safe. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. polis: i rise today in solemn recognition of the 100-year anniversary of the genocide of over a million armenians at the hands of the ottoman turks. the armenian genocide began the 24th of april, 1915 when 250 armenian intellectuals and individuals were arrested. and by 1918, between 800,000 and 1.a 5 million armenians had had disappeared. the armenian genocide joins other great human tragedies of the 20th century including the holocaust, perpetuated by nazi germany against jews, gypsies homosexuals, and political opponents. the massacre of the opportunitiesies in the rawandan genocide the khmer rouge and

stalin's mass murders. i rise today to remember those whose lives perished the in the armenian genocide and recognition the armenian americans in their ongoing quest to ensure that those who perished are remembered for their contributions as one of the great genocides of the 20th century. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 212 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 24, house resolution 2123. resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 1560, to improve cybersecurity in the united states through enhanced sharing of information

about cybersecurity threats, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the permanent select committee on intelligence. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the permanent select committee on intelligence now printed in the bill. the committee amendment to the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be

offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only 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 not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, at any time after adoption of this resolution, the

speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 1731 to amend the homeland security act of it 2002 to and hands multidirectional sharing of information related to cybersecurity risks and strengthen privacy and civil liberties protections and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and amounts specified in the section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on homeland security. after general debate 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 committee on homeland security, now 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 rules committee print 114-12. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment to the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only 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 not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of

consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. . section 3, a in the engrossment of section 1560, the clerk shall one add the text of h.r. 17 1 as passed by the house as new matter at the end of h.r. 1560. two, conform the title of h.r. 1560 to reflect the adecision of h.r. 1731 as passed by the house to the engrossment. three, asign appropriate designations to provisions

within the engrossment, and four, conform cross references and provisions for short titles within the engrossment. b, upon the addition of the text of h.r. 1731, as passed by the house to the engrossment of h.r. 1560 h.r. 17 1 shall be laid on -- 1731 shall be laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins is recognized for one hour. mr. collins: i yield the customary 30 minutes to the the gentleman from colorado for debate only pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on house resolution 212 currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. i am pleased to bring this rule forward on behalf of the rules committee. it is a rule that erect -- reflects the legislative process and reflects the congress' duty

to work on this. as a result of a thorough and deliberative committee hearing yesterday evening there are five amendments to h.r. 1560 and 11 amendments to h.r. 1731 that this body will have the opportunity to debate and ultimately vote for or against. the bipartisan nature of these bills speaks to the critical need for this legislation. both bills passed their respective committees with bipartisan support and i'm hopeful this rule will enjoy similar overwhelming support. for each bill amendments offered by democrats exceeded those offered by republicans. i'd like to thank chairman nunes and chairman o'connell for their work both within our conference and across the aisle to bring forward two bills that reflect compromise, consistency and a deep understanding of the dangers cyberattacks pose every day. if both bills are adopted this rule combines the bill and sends to the senate as a package in an effort to work with the other chamber, go to conference and are produce a product that will

be signed into law. this is a fair rule that respect this is body, the importance of this issue and the legislative process as a whole. the world has changed greatly since this body last discussed cybersecurity. the internet has made greater risks and made it impossible for companies to talk to each other. our enemy is adapting. north korea, iran, russia and china seek to exploit and de-state our economic security as a nation and our data security as individuals through cyberattacks that we cannot adequately anticipate, respond or even communicate about. foreign governments aren't the only ones who wish to do americans harm. terrorists and criminal enterprises also recognized that american companies are crippled by the ambiguity in our law as it relates to sharing cyberinformation. the cyberattack surface has expanded. wearables, connected vehicles and others have made it possible for cyberattacks to be driven into the parking lot or walked

through doors. the traditional way of responding to cyberthreats and recovering from them are not sufficient to safeguard the data privacy of americans and the economic security of our neigh. the scope of these attacks are increasing as rapidly as attackers are themselves. these bills are not a magic pill. they will not render inoperable the scores of foreign companies that want to see american exceptionalism brought to its knees but they do give clear, positive legal authority to american companies to allow them to protect their own and appropriately share cyberthreats with other companies and in certain cases federal agencies. let me be clear. these are not surveillance bills. these are not data collection bills. this is not the patriot act or fisa. the body will debate intelligence gathering collecting sharing and using at some point in the future but today is not that day. i know those rightly concerned with government surveillance like myself would like to use this rule for that purpose and underlying measures as a platform to debate it but i urge

them to refloodplain. -- refrain. we'll have that debit but today's focus is on the thousands of cyberthreats american businesses face every single day. let the attention be on north korea, on iran, on the countless enemies of the yoits who want to destroy this nation. today we speak with a united voice that they will fail. we declare with one voice that american companies have the right to protect their own. to protect and defend their own networks. to share techny information with appropriate agencies on a voluntary basis if they so choose. i thank the intelligence and homeland security committees and their staffs for their tireless work they have done to ensure that we can protect our economy our infrastructure and our private information. i know detractors of the legislation may attempt to paint this rule and underlying measures in a different slight let's allow the facts to speak for themselves. these bills have three components -- key components. first, they provide for completely voluntary participation by private companies in a program with positive legal authority. this program allows three kinds

of sharing private company to private company, government to private company and private company to government. but this sharing of information is limited only to cyberthreat indicators. second, they require the removal of all unrelated personnel information. it is a technical cyberthreat information that is being shared. zeros and ones. in fact, there is a requirement that both the government and the private entity remove personal identifiable information when the information is shared and also when it is received. and third the legislation expressly prohibits the cyberthreat indicators from being used for surveillance. these bills will benefit all persons by helping businesses better protect sensitive information. attacks often seek to steal american's personal information this can include credit and debit card information, medical records or even social security numbers. many of the recent attacks that we have all read about in the news were specifically aimed at stealing the personal information of americans. cyberattackers are also increasingly targeting small

businesses. in fact in 2014, 60% of all targeted tax struck -- attacks struck at small and medium sized businesses. it will help protect american jobs by protecting the intellectual property of american business. it is estimated that cyberattacks cost americans roughly 500,000 jobs a year. fortune companies often use cyberattacks to target the trade secrets of u.s. companies and use the information to produce their own competing products thch ethreat is real to our economic security as a nation and our personal information as a nation. if we fail to act on this rule our personal privacy is more at risk than ever before. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from georgia for yielding me the cust mir 30 minutes and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: i rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying legislation.

today the house is convening to debate a matter that we all agree is critical for our national security, our economic competitiveness, our prosperity and the success of our private sector. the recent sign attacks on sony and anthem are but two prominent examples of cases in which american businesses or government entities have come under attack by hackers among many other instances that haven't even been reported. i want to recognize the work that the house intelligence and homeland security committees did on these piece of legislation and their attempts to address these issues. unfortunately, in spite of their hard work, and the work of those that went into crafting these two bills, i regret that they fall short of their goals and would likely do more harm than good. not only do both bills, particularly the protecting cybernetworks act, raise enormous concerns about inappropriate sharing of

personal information and surveillance on americans' private lives, but they're built on the premise that many security experts have warned is fundamentally flawed. that sharing information with the federal government should be the central focus of our efforts to protect american cybernetworks rather than simply one aspect to a multiprong strategy to defeat hack foreign and domestic. now before i address the substance of these two bills i want to discuss this unusual rule before us and how it treats two bills which contradict each other in significant ways. ordinarily when two committees share jurisdiction over a matter, in this case the homeland security committee and the intelligence committee they collaborate. one committee handles one portion of the bill reports it out, the other committee handles the other portion, reports it out and they work together to bring a single piece of legislation to the floor for members to debate, amend and

vote for or against. this is what happened, for instance work the recent s.g.r. repeal legislation which had components under the jurisdiction of no less than sex different committees in this body but was presented before us as a single bill. in this case however, because there seems to be some kind of turf war between the intelligence committee and the homeland security committee, we're actually voting on two overlapping bills that in several respects contradict one another. for instance the bills have drastically different determinations of what kind of information may be sheared, what purposes the government may use the information for and what hacking countermeasures companies are allowed to take to protect their networks. but instead of having a meaningful debate on the merits of each bill's report this body would forgo that and simply debate and vote on each bill separately and if they both passed, the rule directs the clerk to mesh them together

through something called conforming amendments. not only would this leave businesses to wade their way through two separate, contradictory regulatory schemes but it leaves it unclear which bill's provisions would actually prevail in practice and under which circumstances. it actually would create more uncertainty in the marketplace rather than less. i don't think anybody could reasonably call this an open process. we shouldn't be depriving our constituents of an open debate on important issues. the major amendments of this bill that would have restored privacy, many of which i was a co-sponsor, are not even allowed to be debated on the floor of the house, not for 0 minute, not for five minutes, not even for one minute, my colleagues and i on both sides of the aisle are being denied a vote on the very amendments that we feel could address the concerns we have with the cybersecurity legislation and make sure that we keep american networks safe.

mr. speaker, in the two years since the n.s.a.'s shockingly broad data collection program came to light we have heard from many of our constituents. the american people want an end to unwarranted surveillance. they want congress to restore desperately needed accountability and transparency to our nation's often out of control intelligence gathering apparatus. so it's bewildering to many people that at the very time the american people have spoken out that we want more safeguards, instead we're bringing forward two bills whose central objective is to facilitate the flow of more personal information to the federal government. when we continue to put off the question of surveillance reform and bringing an end to the n.s.a.'s bulk data collection without warrants. it's especially disappointing in light of the fact that several patriot act provisions will sunset at the end of next month, giving congress a crucial opportunity to re-examine and

rein in security programs. but by putting off this issue and bringing mass information sharing to the floor, congress is asking the american people for a blank check. congress is saying trust the president no president would allow this information sharing to infringe on your civil liberties. even cho we've -- even though we've utterly failed to pass a single piece of legislation to stop abuses that have occurred you should this administration and the prior administration. the problem with these bills is they go far beyond and open up additional loopholes and potential abuses with regard to privacy abuses, particularly h.r. 1560, the so-called protecting cybernetworks act. both open up americans' private information to inappropriate scrutiny by the federal government. i expect we'll hear proponents argue that the protections against sharing personal information are sufficiently robust. for instance, under both bills they'll cite that cyberthreat

data is scrubbed twice for personal information. once by private entities before they transmit it to the government and once by government entities before they store the information or share it with anybody else. now, that sounds good, but unfortunately the devil is in the details. close reading of the bill shows that there's an enormous loophole in the information scrubbing component and that it fails to offer americans safeguards for the personal information. under both bills any federal entity in receipt of cyberdata threat information may store and share personal information it receives unscrubbed information, if they believe that it is related to a cybersecurity threat. now, this standard isn't just too vague, considering what information is related to a cybersecurity threat could be interpreted to mean just about anything, it's also incredibly broad. it includes an implicit assumption that american's personal information should be shared unless federal officials

have information that it's not related to a cybersecurity attack. in many cases the burden is to show that the personal information is not related to a cybersecurity threat for it to be scrubbed rather than the other way around system of yes, companies and federal entities are required to quote-unquote scrub data for information that could be used to identify a specific person person but the loophole calls on them not to remove personally identifiable information unless they can show that it's not related to cybersecurity, even if there's an off chance that something at some point might be pertinent to some kind of investigation. it puts americans' personal information without warrant, without due process, including informations about patterns of internet use location, content of online communications at great risk. . we have seen before the federal government has a poor track record of safeguarding our

personal information when entrusted with it. the last thing we ought to be doing is empowering federal agencies even more with a broad discretion for -- to look at personal information unless there is clear evidence doing so would combat -- would combat a cybersecurity threat. i introduced along with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle a number of amendments to both bills. one i introduced with representative zoe lofgren and one with zoe roffgren and representative amash. our proposal would simply require the government to remove personally identifyle information -- identical information unless it was directly necessary to identify or mitigate a cybersecurity threat. the purported purpose of this bill. these amendments would have imposed no additional burden on private companies, but they would have given our nation's technology companies and customers who keep them globally competitive more confidence that private information shared under these bills would not be subjected to inappropriate mass

scrutiny by the government. sadly, our amendments met the same fate as nearly two dozen others put forth to add in important privacy safeguards. the potential for abuse of private information under h.r. 1560 is is even more far-reaching. the homeland security bill at least made clear the information companies transmit to d.h.s. should be shared specifically with other agencies that need it to protect critical infrastructure. but the circumstances under this bill and who it can be shared with are fuzzier and broader. under the approach taken by this bill, every cyberthreat indicator shared with a civilian agency of the federal government is immediately shared with the host of other government agencies including the n.s.a. this increases the threat to cybersecurity by having reposs tories of information represent pli -- reposs tories of information replicated across numerous agencies creating additional avenues for attack by malicious hackers.

that means that private sector companies will not be able to participate in the program and promise their users they will not share information with n.s.a. or other government agencies unless required by law. furthermore, it's true that the homeland security bill intrudes on troubling provision that is allow the government to use cybersecurity threat information for criminal investigations unrelated to cybersecurity. fortunately, the rules committee made in order an amendment by representive lofgren and eshoo that would address this problem in the homeland security bill. i hope my colleagues adopt this amendment. unfortunately, no such amendment is being considered to address this issue within the intelligence bill, h.r. 1560, where the problem actually runs much deeper. h.r. 1560 permits cyberthreat data, including americans' private information that's shared with the federal government, to be stored and used for a raft of unrelated purposes unconstrained by congressional directive, including investigations and potential prosecution of crimes,

completely unrelated to cybersecurity. obviously all of us want law enforcement agencies to be equipped to prevent and prosecute violent crime but the inclusion of these matters completely unrelated to cybersecurity broaden the scope of the measure far beyond what it's purported to be. a cybersecurity bill. in fact, it can remove the -- reduces the focus of our efforts on combating cybersecurity when you open it up to everything under the sun. by including a vast array of other reasons, the government can invoke, to store and share personal information. the authors of the bill essentially transform the information sharing initiative into a broad new surveillance program. yes, rather than a cybersecurity measure effectively these bills are a stalking horse for broad new surveillance authority by multiple agencies of the federal government. without warrants. without oversight.

h.r. 1560 empowers federal entities to hold on to any information about an individual that may be related to any of the many law enforcement purposes lumped into the bill. that gives the federal government enormous incentives to retain and scrutinize personal information, even if it's unrelated to a cybersecurity threat. the scope of the use authorizations also undermine due process protections that exist to protection americans against unwarranted search and desure. private information about a personal that was transmitted warrantlessly to the n.s.a. under a program purported to combat hackers should not be admissible or used in court against them on an unrelated offense, not relate -- related to cybersecurity or hacking. it would render all of our due process protections invalid simply because of the medium of the information that's used with regard to these matters in this

case internet and cyberrelated mediums and communications through them. i join representative zoe love bren and darrell issa and blake farenthold on an amendment to make sure that it can only be used to mitigate cyberthreats. if the proponents of this bill are serious about commenting -- combating cybersecurity, why did the rules committee deny members the opportunity to limit the provisions of this bill to cybersecurity? rather than a whole host of unrelated offenses. i also joined representative kevin yoder to sponsor an amendment on a long-standing issue that's plagued our nation's legal system and privacy rights. while the government is required to get a warrant it's not required to get a warrant to search through somebody's old emails provided emails are older than six months. that contradiction and loophole is based on a 1986 law written before most people knew what email was. representative yoder and i

sponsored a bipartisan bill that has 261 co-sponsors, yet when we offered a provision on this bill, we were not given a chance to vote on it and pass it in spite of the grave due process implications the underlying legislation has. in addition to these privacy and due process concerns, i'm alarmed by the prospect that h.r. 1560 will actually invite attempts by both private and public entities to deliberately weaken the integrity of software systems in the name of cybersecurity. h.r. 1516, for instance, authorizing companies to deploy counter measures, called defensive measures in the form of hack backs that would otherwise be illegal. counter measure operated on one network should never cause harm to another. that's prohibited by the federal anti-hacking statute computer fraud and abuse act. that's precisely what can happen when a company places malwear on its own net work if that data gets stolen, it could harm or lead to unauthorized or backdoor

access of other proprietary networks or information. now, representative connolly put forward two amendments to address this issue in vea thoughtful manner. regrettably either one will be allowed to be debated or receive a vote on the floor of the house unless we can defeat this rule. furthermore, both bills present the risk that federal entities would use the threat information they receive from private companies to kirkir couple vent the security companies safeguarding the those same company's system. effectively creating their own back doors which could later be exploited by malicious hackers. as a matter of routine, our intelligence apparatus include defects in their encryption system for the purported purpose of conducting backdoor surveillance. today's legislation makes it easier for the n.s.a. to find and explore more of these back doors and therefore easier, not harder, for hackers to find and exploit these very same security

weaknesses. once again representative put forward an amendment -- representative lofgren put forward an amendment that would actually improve cybersecurity by making it clear that federal entities could not use data obtained through information sharing to demand that private eptits create new encryption weaknesses to enable backdoor hacking. sadly, once again, her amendment will not be heard on the floor of the house and this -- will not be heard on the floor of the house and this - -- mr. speaker i don't doubt the intentions and goals of my colleagues on the intelligence of homeland security committees. but these bills simply present step backwards rather than forwards. present risks on too many fronts. from privacy to due process, to the threats that they add to the integrity of the very networks that these bills are designed to safeguard. in addition, the bill's focus on information sharing negates an

important conversation about more important america nisms congress should be looking at to protect cybersystems. mechanisms that are not as fraught with risk to our civil liberties and our more -- are more effective at protecting our networks. we should be more -- doing more for instance, to educate businesses and governments about basic network security. even here in congress we have seen evidence of how woefully lacking even elementary knowledge about cyberthreats is. helping businesses prevent cyberattacks doesn't have to mean that the government vacuums up endless amounts of personal data about how individual americans are using the internet and their personal communications. in fact, if we stopped allowing the n.s.a. to demand that u.s. businesses deliberately weaken their own networks for the purpose of government surveillance that in itself would be a big step forward to strengthening our national cybersecurity. sadly today's rule doesn't even allow debate or voting on the most significant concerns surrounding this legislation. denies members the opportunity

to consider changes that would address the issues that we have raised and improved cybersecurity under this bill. and for these reasons i hope my colleagues join me in opposing the rule and the underlying legislation. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 984 cited as the steve gleason act of 2015, which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. again i want to focus this debate. there are many things my friend from colorado brought up that will be debated, that are coming up i think as early as tomorrow in some committees and will be debated on this floor. this is about sharing this is about the information protection. with that i am pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york who is a member of the both homeland security and the intelligence committee he's

chairman of homeland subcommittee on counterterrorism, also former chairman of the full committee it was my honor to give three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. king. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. king: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in strong support of the rule and also the underlying bill h.r. 1731 and h.r. 1560. as was pointed out, i am the only member of congress who is on the homeland security committee. and the intelligence committee. i was able to both take part and also observe closely the exhe tent to which chairman mccaul and chairman nunes worked with members on both sides of the aisle, worked with privacy groups, worked with federal officials, government officials administration officials to try to make this as bipartisan a bill as possible. to ensure that privacy would be protected, but also to ensure that everything possible can be done to protect our nation against cyberintrusions. now, it's every day, every day there are attacks upon our

infrastructure. the critical infrastructure, mostly in private hands, is being targeted and federal networks databases vital to our national security are under assault every second of every day. cyberterrorism, whether carried out by nation states such as iran or russia or china or carried out by terrorist organizations such as isis, al qaeda, these are extremely damaging and threatening to our national security. it's essential that we, especially since so much of our critical infrastructure is in the hands of the private sector that we allow for sharing. we allow companies to share information with the government that it is mutual sharing the government of the private sector so that these companies can do it without fear of being sued, without fear of liability. they act in good faith. they do what has to be done. again every measure is put in there. i know the gentleman from colorado disagrees. every measure is in there to ensure that individual rights will not be violated. the privacy will not be

violated. again we have to look -- for instance, if the gentleman from colorado is wrong, what this can mean to our country, how this could devastate, devastate our infrastructure devastate our national security, devastate our financial systems. so again, this was not something that was rushed into. when you have both bills passing out of committee as far as i recall not one dissenting vote. not that everyone's in full agreement with bills, the fact is this is probably as close to a consensus as you can come in the halls of congress on such a crital and some ways a controversial issue to find that type of unanimity on the two committees that deal with this most significantly. on 1731 shall the homeland security committee bill, that allows the information to be shared. the department of homeland security and its -- that was done again working with privacy groups, working with those who are concerned with civil liberties, and at the same time working with those who realize how absolutely essential to our

security it is passage of this legislation is. and how we have to have this type of cooperation, this type of sharing, this information sharing being done with the government, with the private sector working together to combat these enemies which come at us from all directions. every second of every day these attacks are being carried out. these the crisis that faces us as a nation. it's not as obvious as a bomb going off in time's square. not as off as a bomb going off at the boston marathon it is just as critical --. . mr. collins: yield the gentleman another minute. mr. king: it's just as critical because the result would be devastating to our nation. i ask again passage of the rule but also passage of the underlying bills. again, our congress has been criticized with some validity for not being able to work together, for not being able to get things done, but to have such a vital, controversial

issue as this, to have both committees who deal with it most closely, to have them come together to have them come together to promote this package of legislation, it shows we take it seriously, we're going to combat terrorism in all its forms and right now probably the mosley that will is the cybersecurity threats -- attacks on us. i urge strong support of the rule of the underlying bills. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: demanding that private companies deliberately include defects for the purpose of allowing n.s.a. to conduct surveillance increases the risk of our security rather than decreases. the ranking member of the committee on homeland security, mr. too muchson. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. thompson: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from colorado for yielding the time. mr. speaker, though i support h.r. 1731, the national cybersecurity protection advancement act as approve by voice vote in my committee, i rise to express my disappointment with the rule. yesterday, the white house announced support for house passage of h.r. 1731 but said that improvements to the bill are needed to ensure that its liability protections are appropriately targeted to encourage responsible cybersecurity practices. the white house was referring to the language that was inskerted -- inserted at the direction of the judiciary majority instead of providing a targeted safe harbor for companies to share timely cyberthreat information, it established an unduly complicated legal framework that

runs the risk of providing liability relief to companies that act neg lidge -- negligently. moreover it specifically immunizes companies from not acting timely on cyberinformation. this runs counter to the fundamental goal of the legislation, get companies timely, actionable information to use to protect their networks. yet when h.r. 1731 is considered tomorrow members will not be allowed to vote on a single amendment to fix the liability provisions that the white house has called sweeping and said may weaken cybersecurity overall. remarkably, none of the seven amendments that were filed to fix it were being allowed. i'd also like to register my disappointment that the rule calls for h.r. 1731, upon passage, to be attached to the intelligence committee bill. from my conversations with members, i know there's a great

deal of support for authorizing cyberinformation sharing with the federal civilian lead, the department of homeland security as such, i argue that the rule should have called for h.r. 1560 to be folded into our bill. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: at this point i'm pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from california the chairman of the jew tishary committee, mr. isasm -- of the judiciary committee, mr. issa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: i will be supporting the rule but not without trepidation. i will be opposing the underlying bill, but not without regret. the underlying bill could have done what we wanted to do. it could have allowed for the exchange of information while protecting individuals' privacy. it could have limited that information to preventing a

cyberterrorist attack. but in fact amendments that were offered on a bipartisan basis, a number of them that could have limited this, would have in fact allowed us to have the confidence that this information would be used only for what it was intended. since 9/11, the government has begun to know more and more about what we are doing, who we are, where we live where we sleep, who we love, who we do business with, where we travel. and we have known less and less. just a few days ago, the ninth circuit in northern california had to rule that the government had to turn over information in a usable format. it took a federal court order to do so. this bill should mandate us knowing more and the government not knowing -- i thank the gentleman. it should have ensured the government only had what it needed, it should have protected private companies who wanted to

exchange appropriate information between each other, it should not have created a vast treasure-trove here in washington or somewhere in the hinterland where the government now and in the future can dig in for any purpose, criminal background investigations, or perhaps simply checking to see if you paid your taxes. the fact is, this is a data vault that is not narrowly construed and therefore, sadly, without the amendments that were not allowed, i am not in a position to vote for this bill. i thank the chairman and i thank mr. polis for his kind remarks also. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: if we defeat the previous question, we'll offer an amendment to the rule to allow the house to consider the department of veterans' affairs cybersecurity protection act. to discuss our proposal, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from arizona, mrs. kirkpatrick. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. mrs. kirkpatrick: i thank my

colleague for giving me a couple of minutes to talk about the importance of protecting veterans from cyberattack. i rise in support of h.r. 1128, the department of veterans' affairs cybersecurity protection act. my bill would protect veteran's personal and sensitive information from cyberattacks without compromising the v.a.'s ability to provide the health care benefits and services our veterans have earned. this legislation will do primarily three thing. first, it will require the v.a. to develop an information security strategic plan that protects current veteran's information and anticipates future cybersecurity threats. second, it mandates a report on v.a. actions to hold employees accountable for data breaches. third, it requires the v.a. to propose a reorganization of the v.a.'s information security

infrastructure to protect veterans and provide greater levels of accountability and responsibility in the v.a. my bill will also require the v.a. to report employee violations of its policy and report any incidents involving the compromise of veterans' personal information by the v.a. or from outside cyberattacks. this bill is one commonsense way that we can hold the v.a. accountable and protect veterans' private and personal information from cyberthreat. i urge all of my colleagues to support h.r. 1128 and i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: at this time i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia a member of homeland security and a colleague of mine from georgia, representative carter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five

minutes. mr. carter: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, national cybersecurity will be an issue this house will have to constantly address for the foreseeable future. to achieve a system that would protect our nation's citizens in this infrastructure, we must create a public-private partnership between federal agencies and american businesses. this partnership will allow federal agencies and american businesses to share cyberthreat information, vulnerabilities within our cybernetwork and the creation of new systems to protect consumer information. however, private businesses need to be provided protects and incentives to ensure they are protected from government abuse and private legal proceedings men -- meant to gain access to private company information. one of our top priorities with these two bills should be to clearly act nong protections given to companies that engage in penetration testing and clearly state that company proprietary information is protected from legal proceedings

and exempted from the freedom of information act requests. it is reasonable to think that individuals would pursue this proprietary information for the sole purpose of accessing the vulnerabilities of private cybernetworks if we do not clearly state that this information is protected and exempt from these actions. i believe we should consider these possibilities and ensure that protections are providing so our country and its citizens can fully benefit from these laws. i yield. mr. collins: i want to thank the gentleman for his passion and addressing this gap in the law. the legislation before us today is a good policy reflecting the hard work of the committee on which you sit, homeland security and of the intelligence committee as well as a vast influence from a vast array of stake holders. it's important to know that the legislation is supported by every sector of our economy.

as my friend so eloquently noted, the legislative process will rightly continue after these bills are considered by the full house this week and for years to come as we revisit and reassess the needs of the american's privacy and also the laws governing cybersecurity. i agree -- i agree with any friend that if there's a conference committee on this we should ask them to seek different language. i want to say personally that i appreciate all the hard work that you have done on this issue, bringing this forward and continuing to work for not only the companies in georgia but across this nation who depend on a safe and secure cybernetwork. with that, i yield back. mr. carter: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter, yields back, the gentleman from georgia mr. collins, reserves. mr. polis: i'd like to inquire of the gentleman from georgia how many speakers he has remaining. mr. collins: it looks like we

have no more speakers. mr. polis: ok, i'm prepared to close and yield myself the bans of -- balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker, it's ironic that on this very day, lead thornse judiciary committee will introduce legislation designed to reform and rein in the federal government's surveillance programs and i haven't had the opportunity to review those bills yet so i can't speak to their merits. but i hope that if it's a strong bill it will make its way through both chambers and become law. today this body is considering a rule that would take us the wrong direction. recent history has shown that this body shares the american people's concerns that we don't take the threat of unwarranted surveillance seriously enough. and that congress needs to pass full reform -- pass meaningful reforms that balance our liberties and freedoms and our privacy with the need to keep america safe. senate majority leader mitch

mcconnel introduced legislation to extend the surveillance program without reforms that many of us on both sides of the aisle have advocated to rein them in, despite the national outcry and indeed international embarrassment that has been counterproductive to the very american security goals that these provisions are designed to advance. this makes me fear that congress is not learning from the mistakes of the past mistakes of overly broad surveillance authority, but enstead is about to repeat them system of before we approve faster, broader easier sharing of vast amounts of personal information from innocent americans with the federal government, congress should be taking up legislation to prove that we have the ability to curb abuse. and the federal government's penchant for abusing access to this kind of data. so far congress has not shown its aptitude for preventing this

abuse. yet today we ask the american people to trust us and trust the president yet again by opening up more information to the n.s. lt a. and other agencies. our experience has shown us to protect the americans' civil liberties, the authority to review american's person information need to be con zrued as narrowly and unambiguously as possible. we need to limit to a specific set of circumstances under which sharing data and information is necessary for mitigating a security threat. we offered to do that through bipartisan amendments working with representative lofgren representative issa and others but none of those amendments are allowed to be discussed or debated under this rule. both the protecting cybersecurities network act and the national security protection advancement act fall well short of the standard. in the case of the protecting cybersecurity networks act can be counterproductive and fall woefully short.

they would enable federal agents -- agencies to store and share americans' private information, even the content of online communications base odden a vague or broad standard that doing so is not unrelated to a cybersecurity threat. not affirmatively they don't have to prove it's related to a cybersecurity threat. the burden of proof is to show that it's quote-unquote not unrelated to a cybersecurity threat. how can you demonstrably show that about anything. it would make it easier for government agencies to deliberately weaken software systems for the purpose of creating new surveillance back doors that foreign nation states and hackers can presumably also exploit. it would leave the door wide open to more n.s.a. surveillance by allowing the sharing of personal information for a raft of purposes unrelated to cybersecurity. we can do better. by rejecting this rule, members of congress will show that yes, we take cybersecurity seriously so seriously that we want to

take the time to get it right, whether that takes another week or two weeks or three weeks getting it right means allowing members of this body input into the formulation of the final bill meaningfully through the kinds of emmitt -- kinds of amendments that have been rejected outright in this rule without discussion, without debate, without a vote. . mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote no, defeat the previous question. i urge a no vote on this bizarre rule that combines two at times contradictory bills and rejects bipartisan amendments that would have addressed the concerns that many of us have with the underlying legislation. i urge a no vote on the previous question and the rule, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia.

mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. as we move forward the many things being discussed -- and i encourage members to vote for this rule. there will be a lot of discussion that talks about, you know what we're moving -- i want to bring forward that we are -- is it seemingly not discuss bringing forth -- there are amendments being brought forth on both of these bills. there also were 20-something amendments in homeland security and amendments in intelligence. these are vetted bills. are there times that some may want others? yes. that's why i'm voting for this rule and moving this forward is the proper thing to do. let's also -- before we also move back from this, i want to talk about this need and why we're here even to start with. you know, most americans recognize, understand that the growing attacks against our cybernetworks and critical

infrastructure that our laws fail to have proper legal authority of information to be shared. most people don't realize there is this barrier. especially everything that's going on, they don't understand why some of these impediments were put into place that keeps companies from protecting their own but also protecting their own personal information. one of the things that's missing in this debate is the discussion of what's actually happened and the personal information that is shared by these hackers that are getting into our systems. some of the acts perpetrated by north korea sony, blue cross blue shields targets the backbone of american business and the most sensitive data. as we look to constrain this, as we look to put in proper safeguards, we have to know doing nothing exposes our american citizens to personal information being shared. if you don't believe it just read the headlines from sony

and anthem and others that scrom out recently. according to the department of homeland security, in 2014 alone they received almost 100,000 cyberincident reports and detected 64,000 cybervulnerabilities and this is information given to d.h.s. and does not reflect the full scope of the attacks on our nation. you know, when we look at this and we talk about the personal information, the f.b.i. director said there are two kinds of big companies in the united states. there are those who have been hacked and those who have not been -- don't know they have been hacked. a recent survey by one institute shows the average cost of a cyber crime for u.s. retail stores more than doubled to the annual average of 6.4 million per company in 2014. the annual average of a company of a successful cyberattack in 2014 increased to 24.8 million in financial information. 12.7 million in the

communitycations industry. the scope of many attacks are not fully known. for example in july of 2014, the u.s. computer emergency readiness team said more than 5,000 businesses had been affected by the backup malware. these attacks targeted administrative and customer data and in many cases financial data. most companies encounter multiple cyberattacks every day. many unknown to the public and many unknown to the companies even themselves. again, as we look back over the attacks of just the past year, target announced that 70 million individual contact information was taken during the december, 2013 breach in which their credit and debit information was stolen. between may 2013 and may 2014 millions michaels' customers' information were

hacked. a specific number of accounts affected were not released. for two weeks at&t was hacked by those who got user information, including social security. foreign nationals from china prb indicted for computer espionage. we've seen attacks like this across the board. what comes to mind is if we sit back and not productive and proactive as the department of homeland security have been here we're putting in danger more personal information being exposed in ways that no american needs to have their personal information exposed and are being targeted in the process. this is good legislation that needs its day on the floor and that's why we are here today to support this rule and to look forward to that debate that has already happened and will continue to happen. you know, i appreciate the discussion we've had over the past hour. although we may have some differences, our unity should be clear in that cyberattacks and our resolve to prevent them

and show their success is strong. this rule employee vidse for ample de-- this rule provides for ample debate on the rule, 17 amendments and a smooth deliberative process of sending the bill to the senate. this will help consumers jobs and small businesses allowing companies, again to voluntarily share cyberthreat indicators with other companies and government agencies will help bring awareness to new threats and vulnerabilities. if businesses can learn about a new threat from another business or from the government before they are targeted themselves they can about -- better attack -- better help. i want to thank the rules judiciary, homeland security that have brought us to this point. i'd urge my colleagues to support the rule and these two cybersecurity bills. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: 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: on that 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 arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution. 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.]

[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 237 --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 237. the nays are 179. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. speaker. on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado requests a recorded vote. a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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.]

[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 238. the nays are 182. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the

table. pursuant to house resolution 200 and rule 18, the house declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1195. will the gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder kindly take 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. 1195 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the consumer financial protection

act of 2010, to establish advisory boards, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on tuesday, april 21, 2015, amendment number 2 printed in part d of house report 114-74 offered by the gentlewoman from new hampshire, ms. kuster, had been disposed of. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part d of house report 114-74 by the gentlewoman from new hampshire, ms. kuster, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part d of house report 114-74 offered by ms. kuster of new hampshire. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this will be a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 240. the nays are 174.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 244. the nays are 173. the amendment is adopted. there being no further amendments, under the rule the committee rises. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 1195, and pursuant to house resolution 200 i report the bill as amended by that resolution back to the house with sundry further

amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1195 and pursuant to house resolution 200 reports the bill as amended by that resolution back to the house with sundry further amounted -- amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from the committee of the whole? seeing none, if not, the chair will put them engross. the question is on the adoption of the amendments. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on the

engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: bill to amend the consumer financial protection act of 2010 to establish advisory board and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house are in order. -- the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new hampshire seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will read the bill. does the gentlewoman from oppose the bill? ms. kuster: i am opposed in its current form. the clerk: ms. kuster of new

hampshire moves to recommit the bill h.r. 1195 to the committee on financial services with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. add at the end the following section 4. prohibition against participation by persons employed by companies engaged in predatory practices related to service members. no person shall be he eligible to stay a member of the small business advisory board, credit union advisory council, or community bank advisory council who has in the last 10 years been employed by or acted as an agent of the company that has been subject to a state or federal enforcement action, including a consent order settlement, or deferred prosecution agreement for one -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will cease the reading. the house will be in order. the clerk will proceed. the clerk: one unfair abusive or deceptive acts or practices in relation to the provision of consumer credit products to veterans or service members. two, unfair, abusive --

ms. kuster: i move to dispense with the readling of the am. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? no objection -- >> no objection. but i reserve the point of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the reading is dispensed with. point of order is reserved. the house will be in order. the gentlelady from new hampshire is recognized. ms. kuster: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment on the bill which will not bill the bill or -- kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. mr. speaker, i would first like to commend congressman pittenger and congressman heck for their -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the house will be in order.

ms. kuster: mr. speaker. i would first like to commend congressman pittenger and congressman heck for their tireless work on this bill. the three of us arrived in congress at the same time, just over two years ago, as part of a very large freshman class. republicans and democrats alike we were all sent here by our constituents frustrated with the gridlock and the partisanship who wanted their representatives to work together to solve problems. in that spirit, i appreciate the bipartisan work that went into this bill which addresses a noble goal, ensuring that the voices of small businesses are heard by federal regulators making important decisions across our entire economy. and i share that goal. indeed, i have worked across the aisle to bring regulators like the f.d.a. and the s.b.a. to my district in new hampshire to

ensure -- the speaker pro tempore: the lady will suspend. the house is not in order. members, please take your conversations off the floor. the gentlelady will proceed. ms. kuster: i share the goal of bipartisanship. indeed, i have worked across the aisle to bring regulators like the f.d.a. and the s.b.a. to new hampshire to ensure that they listen to our small businesses and family farmers. unfortunately, this bill before us today falls short of what our constituents expect and deserved. and contains a last-minute, partisan amendment to undermine funding for consumer protection. regardless of one's position on the bill however i believe we should all work together to improve it.

thus, i offer this amendment to help protect veterans and military service members from unscrupulous business practices. this bill authorizes several advisory boards to ensure that the consumer financial protection bureau consult with small businesses and community financial institutions. my amendment is straightforward. simply stating that no person shall be eligible to serve on a cfpb advisory board if they or their company have committed unfair abusive, or deceptive business practices against veterans or military families. now, we can all agree that men and women in uniform should not have their homes foreclosed on, their cars repossessed, or their families evicted when they are fighting overseas to protect our freedom. likewise, military families

should not be targeted by predatory interest rates and other abusive lending practices. that's not just wrong, it's illegal. my amendment is straightforward. if a business violates protections for military families, they should not have a seat at the table when new rules are being written for the financial services industry. this amendment is pro-veteran. it supports our military families, and it makes sense. so i ask all of us, republicans and democrats support this amendment. send a message to our veterans, and thank you for your consideration. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i withdraw my point of order and i claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the motion? mr. hensarling: i am opposed to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the

reservation is withdrawn. the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: i thank you mr. speaker. i just want the house to again, focus upon what this underlying bill is all about. a most modest and bipartisan effort to simply ensure that the cfpb perhaps the single most powerful and unaccountable agency in the history of federal government, has some people to represent the voices of our small businesspeople. those that are being so harmed as we are losing a community financial institution a day in america, a community financial institution that helps fund our small mom and pop restaurants our automobile transmission repair shops, a farmer, a rancher, all of our small businesses all we are asking is that we have that counsel

available. . what started out of our committee 53-5 -- yet unfortunately, there were people on the other side of the aisle who were for it before they were against it, we will have very substantive debates on the issues dealing with the cfpb but this one is a very modest one to have small business counsel, one that congressional budget office will not cost trillions, will not cost billions, will not cost millions but actually a figure we rarely hear around here, mr. chairman, thousands on an annual basis, thousands. we should reject the motion to recommit. there is no reason to include it. we will already -- veterans' voices will be represented and if there's any group that needs representation in all the forms

of counsel of our government, it's the men and women who have served our nation honorably in uniform and our veterans are already assured. it's time to get on to the larger business of the house. i urge all of my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit and to approve the underlying bill from the gentleman from north carolina, mr. pittenger, and let's get small business counsel at the table of the cfpb. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new hampshire. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. ms. kuster: on that, mr. speaker, i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote

will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. and this is a -- pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill, if ordered. this is 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 184. and the nays are 234 with no one voting present. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. >> mr. speaker. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. 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 is 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 235. the nays are 183. the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives.

sir, this letter serves as my official resignation from the house committee on natural resources. it has been my pleasure serving on this committee since being elected to congress. thank you and i will continue working on important priorities relating to my new appointment on the house committee on small business. signed, sincerely, mark takai, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resignation is accepted. for what purpose does the gentleman fromnia rise? >> by direction of the democratic caucus, i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. becerra: -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the lution. the clerk: house resolution 219, resolution electing a member to searn standing committee of the house of representatives. resolved, that the following named member be and is hereby elected to the following standing committee of the house of representatives. one, committee on small business, mr. takai. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to.

the motion is laid upon the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does does the gentleman from the central virginia of california seek recognition is? >> i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 1560 the protecting cybernetworks act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection pursuant to house resolution 212 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. 1560.

the chair appoints the gentleman from texas, mr. marchant, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 1560, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to improve cybersecurity of the united states through enhanced sharing of information about cybersecurity threats, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from california, mr. nunes and the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. nunes: mr. chair, i ask unanimous consent that my full statement be entered into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nunes: i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's request will be covered by the general rules. mr. nunes: mr. chairman i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nunes: over the last several years, cyberattacks have become a pressing concern for the united states. home depot, sony target, j.p. morgan chase and other companies have been subject to major attacks, resulting in the compromise of personal information of employees and customers alike. cyberthieves whether hostile, foreign agents or money seeking criminals take stolen credit card numbers access medical records, leak proprietary information, and publish confidential emails. affecting tense of millions of americans. this situation cannot continue. the house has passed signer security information sharing legislation with strong majorities in the past two congresses. ranking member schiff congresses. nking member schiff and i have continued this bipartisan tradition working closely together to draft a bill that will increase the security of our networks while protecting

users' privacy. i want to thank, i see mr. ruppersberger is here, he sponsored this legislation last time. along with chairman rogers, who is now retired. i do want to give them a special thanks and gratitude and hope that we can get this bill across the floor this year. we have also worked closely with leadership, chairman mccaul, chairman goodlatte, and the senate intelligence committee to ensure that our bills complement each other. the protecting cybernetworks act address a core problem in our digital security infrastructure. because of legal ambiguities many companies are afraid to share information about cyberthreats with each other or with the government. if a company sees some threat or attack, this bill will allow the company to quickly report information about the problem without fearing a lawsuit so that other companies can take measures to protect themselves. the bill encourages three kinds of sharing, private to private, government to private, and private to government.

in that third scenario, the bill allows companies to share cyberthreat information with a variety of government agencies. if banks are comfortable sharing with the treasury department they can share with treasury. if utilities prefer sharing with the department of energy, they can share with energy. if companies want to share with the department of homeland security, the justice department, or the commerce department, they can share with them. the only sharing that this bill does not encourage is direct sharing to department of defense or the national security agencies. companies can still share with d.o.d. and n.s.a. but they will not receive any new liability protections. this bill does not provide the government with any new surveillance authorities. to the contrary, it includes robust privacy protections, it only authorizes the sharing of cyberthreat indicators and technical information like malware signatures and malicious code. before companies share with the federal government they must

remove all personal information. if companies don't follow those requirements, there is no liability protection. furthermore, a government agency that receives the information must scrub it a second time. this will ensure all personal information has been removed. only then can the information be forwarded to other federal agencies. finally, the bill provides for strong public and congressional oversight by requiring a detailed biennial inspector general's report relating to government's receipt, use, and dissemination of cyberthreat indicators. the privacy and civil liberties oversight board must also submit biannual report on the privacy and civil liberties' impact of the bill of the the increasing scope of cyberattacks cannot be ignored. this bill will strengthen our digital defenses so american consumers and businesses will not be put at the mercy of cybercriminals. i look forward to passing this legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is

recognized. mr. schiff: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in support of h.r. 1560, the protecting cybernetworks act. at some point, we need to stop just hearing about cyberattacks that steal our most valuable trade secrets and most private information, and actually do something to stop it. at some point, we need to stop talking about the next sony, the next anthem, the next target, the next j.p. morgan chase, and the next state department hack and actually pass a bill that will help ensure that there will be no next cyberattack. a few weeks back the house intelligence committee held an open hearing on the cyberthreat to america's private sector. we heard from witnesses that their businesses were cyberattacked billions of times a day. not thousands, not millions, but billions. the threat to our economy, our jobs, and our privacy from not acting is massive and it is certain. we see it happening all around

us. so we must act now. that's why i'm proud to support this bill the protecting cybernetworks act provides for voluntary information sharing of cyberthreats between and among private and public sectors. it does what no executive order can do. it incentivizes cyberthreat information sharing by providing limited liability protection. now companies can pool their resources and say to one another, i found this malicious code or this virus in my system. you need to protect yourself against it as well. and now the government can better warn companies of an impending cyberattack just as it can for an approaching hurricane or pending flu outbreak. let me be very clear about this. to get the liability protection a company that chooses to participate must remove any unrelated private information prior to sharing. this is something privacy advocates and i called for when previous information sharing bills came before the house.

unlike prior bills, this measure requires the private sector to strip out private information. in fact the bill has two not one privacy scrubs. the first happens when a company shares with another company or the federal government. and the second happens when the federal government shares the information further. this bill even holds the government directly libal if it doesn't do what it's required to do. second, to get the liability protection, a private company wishing to share with the federal government must go threw a civilian portal. to be clear a company can't go directly to the d.o.d. or n.s.a. and get the bills' liability protection. the lack of a civilian portal in previous bills was another key privacy group criticism and this bill has resolved that issue, too. in fact, of the five main criticisms of prior cyberbills, this bill has resolved each of them. it has private sector privacy stripping of information, it has a civilian portal.

it also has narrow restrictions on what the government can use that shared cyberthreat information for. gone is a national security use provision. gone is a vage terrorism use provision. what's left only the most narrow of uses to prevent cyberattacks. to prevent the loss of life. to prevent serious harm to a child. and to prevent other serious felonies. gone, too, is any question of whether offensive counter measures or hack back is authorized. this bill makes clear you cannot take anything but defensive actions to protect your networks' data. unless anyone be confused, this bill makes clear in black and white legislative text that nothing in the bill authorizes government surveillance in this act, nothing. what this bill does is authorize voluntary private sector sharing of cyberthreat information, and allows the government to be able to quickly share threat information with the private sector just as we need the

c.d.c. to put our timely warnings and advice on how to counteract this year's flu strain or how to prevent a local disease from becoming a epidemic. in addition the bill requires strong privacy and civil liberties guidelines and intense reporting requirements. . it strikes the right balance of addressing the privacy concerns that i had. and we need to further clarify that our a little bit protection only extends to those who act or fair to act reasonably. before closing, i want to thank chairman nunes for his leadership, for working so hard on this bill. it has been a great pleasure to work with you, mr. chairman. i'm grateful for all of the hours and energy and talent that you and your staff have put into making this bill successful. i want to thank all the members of judiciary committee and homeland security committee for

working together on this. we had many differences of opinion and we still have some but we kept our eyes firmly on what's best for the american people as a whole. with that we found ways to come together and produce a stronger bill. i hope we can continue to work together as well with the senate and with the white house and all stakeholders to produce an even stronger bill for the president to sign into law. i also want to acknowledge the leadership of our predecessors, dutch ruppersburger and former chairman mike rogers. we have come this far in part because of the good work that they did during the last couple sessions. and i also want to thank all of those that came to speak with us and provide their input in making this a better bill. every day we delay more privacy is stolen, more jobs are lost and more economic harm is done. let's stop by -- stop watching this happen. let's do something and pass this bill and let's do it now. thank you and i reserve the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california mr. nunes, is recognized. mr. nunes: thank you, madam chair. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia who also is the chairman of the subcommittee on cyber for the house intelligence committee mr. westmoreland. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. westmoreland: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, chairman neen us. i rise in -- nunes. i rise in support of h.r. 16 -- 1560, protecting cybernetworks act. the bill safeguards personally identifiable information from being exchanged during the process by requiring private companies and the government to both make sure that no private information is exchanged. my home state of georgia is home to many companies that deal with and secure sensitive

data on a daily basis and they are constantly looking for better ways to protect their networks. after the recent cyberattacks against american businesses, i have spoken to industry leaders from georgia and across the nation about how we can make information sharing between the industries and the government stronger and to better protect our nation. cyberterrorism is the new battlefield and adopting to this new warfare is crucial to eliminating these threats. by allowing american businesses to alert other companies and the government of specific threats and only the threats, the protecting cybernetworks act can help shut down the cybercriminals from stealing sensitive information or causing devastating damage to our networks. the protecting cybernetworks act is a bipartisan step forward in protecting businesses and citizens from being the next victim of a cyberattack. this bill helps devastating cyberattacks from going

unnoticed and -- are only shared months after the attack. i'd like to thank chairman nunes, ranking member schiff ranking member on the subcommittee mr. hines, mr. ruppersburger for all the work he's put into this as well as former chairman rogers. i ask for an aye vote on this and mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. schiff: madam chair, it's a pleasure to yield two minutes to mr. ruppersburger of maryland, former ranking member of the intelligence committee. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. ruppersberger: madam speaker, i rise in support of the bipartisan protecting cybernetworks act and want to thank the members of the house intelligence committee for continuing to prioritize our nation's security over partisan rhetoric.

i do want to thank chairman nunes and also ranking member schiff for acknowledging chairman rogers and i. i want to remind you that it was a team approach and you two were very active in helping bring this bill here today as we did before. so thank you for your leadership. it's well worth it and it's very refreshing to see this bipartisanship. this legislation is very -- mr. nunes: if the gentleman will yield? mr. ruppersberger: yes. mr. nunes: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thaad you in my opening statement, mr. ruppersberger. without your leadership and chairman -- former chairman rogers' leadership on this bill we would not be here today and i'm encouraged not only by your past support but then by you taking the time to come down here to speak on this bill, i think it says a lot about you and your commitment to national security and the security of our cybernetworks. so thank you and i yield back. mr. ruppersberger: i yield back my time and thank you for your leadership. now, this bill is similar to the bill that chairman rogers and i introduced to promote information sharing between the private and public sectors

which is the single most important thing we can do to combat increasingly aggressive cyberattacks. experts believe these attacks are costing american corporations billions of dollars each year. target, home depot are only the beginning. with sony we saw the first destructive attack in our country. it's only a matter of time before our critical infrastructure is targeted. what would happen if someone were to take out our electrical grid or 911 call centers or air traffic control? and it goes on and on. voluntary information sharing among companies helps our companies defend themselves. voluntary two-way information sharing with the federal government helps improve our ability to protect america against foreign cyberthreats by getting out more and better information faster. there are some concerns i have, as anyone has in any bill, between the bill chairman rogers and i introduced that passed the house. however, i think it's important to reach consensus and move

this forward now. can i have another 20 seconds? mr. schiff: madam chair, i'm happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. ruppersberger: our country continues to be cyberattacked. we're under attack as i speak. to do nothing is not an option. i want to thank the leadership of chairman nunes and ranking member schiff and their leadership and the entire committee for coming together on this bill. i ask members support it and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california, mr. nunes, is recognized. mr. nunes: thank you. at this time i yield five minutes to the gentleman from texas, who is the chairman of the homeland security committee, who without his strong leadership and support we wouldn't be at this juncture today getting a bill passed today and tomorrow that will help flee become law and with

that -- hopefully become law and with that i yield to the gentleman, mr. mccaul. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mccaul: i rise in support of h.r. 1560, the protecting cybernetworks act. i want to thank chairman nunes for his great leadership and collaboration with my committee and judiciary on this bill and also the ranking member adam schiff. a good friend as well. for his great work and the direction that this bill has gone. i think it's gone in the right direction. also i know the former ranking member, dutch ruppersberger, was here. want to thank him for his leadership over the many years on this important issue of cybersecurity. this legislation comes at a critical time of rising cyberthreats and attacks on our digital networks. cyber breaches and attacks are effecting privacy, security and prosperity. individuals are having their

most private information compromised. their networks are damaged and the government's sensitive information is being targeted. the country's critical infrastructure is being probed by foreign enemies. detecting and defending against these digital assaults requires timely and robust information sharing between the public and private secondors. this exchange of data is crucial to connecting the dots. identifying cyberattacks and -- protecting cybernetworks act will enable private companies to share cyberthreat information on a voluntary basis with the federal government. this bill provides simple liability protection for sharing cyberattack indicators through trusted civilian agency

portals. again, i commend chairman nunes for his important work on this bill and thank him for his great partnership, working together to have these two complementary bills as tomorrow i'll bring to the floor a national security private advancement act of 2015 which further reinforces the role of the department of homeland security's national cybersecurity and communication integration center as a hub for cyberthreat information sharing. chairman nunes and i worked in lockstep to remove obstacles preventing greater cyberthreat information sharing across the private and public sectors. and our staff -- and i commend the staff on both sides of the aisle -- have operated in tandem as we crafted these sign remember security bills. i'd also like to acknowledge chairman goodlatte for devising the house's standard liability exemption language for this

week's cybersecurity bill. these bills represent a unified front in the house for strengthening cybersecurity while ensuring america's privacy, and i urge my colleagues to support this measure. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, is recognized. mr. schiff: madam chair, it gives a great pleasure to yield three minutes to mr. himes, one of our subcommittee's ranking members, the gentleman from connecticut. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. himes: thank you. i thank my friend for yielding time. i'm thrilled to be standing here to urge support for the protecting cybernetworks act. i'd like to thank and congratulate chairman nunes ranking member schiff, the chairman of the subcommittee on which i serve as ranking member, mr. westmoreland, for coming together at a time when this congress is accused, often

rightly so, being difunctional, to take a very substantial steps to secure the networks on which so much of our lives today depend. as ranking member of the cybersecurity subcommittee, my daily travels every single day expose me to people who say the single most important thing we as a congress could do today to advance the security of our networks to protect americans, their financial records, their health records and of course even more ominously, to protect them against potential attack against our utilities and any sort of thing our antagonists around the world would seek to do to us the single most important thing to do is do what we're doing today is set up a rubric which the very good people can communicate threats to each other and communicate with the experiod of times within the united states government to work as a team -- expert within the united states government to work as a team to counter such steps.

this rubric has been set up with ample attention and good attention to the legitimate privacy claims and the liberties we all take so seriously. the stakes are high. we saw what happened at sony. we saw what happened at anthem. we know of attacks that have been leveled internationally that destroyed computers. this is the reality that we live with and this is a very big step an information sharing protocol that will counter those who wish you ill. i would note that privacy protections in this bill are considerably better, as the chairman and the ranking member have pointed out. than those that were in the bill of the last congress. the objections of those that were focused on privacy have been dealt with point by point, and while i won't say the bill is perfect this bill does what it needs to do to protect the privacy of the american people by obligating everyone to work hard, to scrub personally identifiable information from any code, any information that is exchanged.

i've learned in my six years here we don't produce perfection, and it's my hope as this bill proceeds through the legislative path that we will work even harder to make sure we're very clear about definitions and in fact are protecting the privacy rights of americans as best as we can. but in the meantime we've taken a very big step forward in a bipartisan fashion in a way that will make america, its people and its networks more secure. and for that i'm grateful to the leadership and urge support of the protecting cybernetworks act. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. nunes, is recognized. mr. nunes: at this time we're still awaiting speakers to come down, madam chair, so i'll continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. nunes, reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, is recognized. mr. schiff: madam speaker i'm -- madam chairman, i yield three minutes to mr. swalwell,

another of our ranking members on the intelligence committee and a colleague from california. mr. swalwell: thank you. i want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for bringing forth this necessary legislation. as we speak right now americans are under attack, and these attacks are not coming in the form of anything that we have been used to before. people are not kicking down front doors of homes and businesses. instead, they're attacking us through our networks. . our bank accounts, our cell phones are being hacked every day. cnn reported in 2014h half of the nation's adults were hacked. 70% -- 70 million target customers were hacked.