[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 16 (Wednesday, February 3, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H486-H492]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4061, CYBERSECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT
OF 2009
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1051 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1051
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4061) to advance cybersecurity research,
development, and technical standards, 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
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
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 Committee on Science and
Technology. 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 Committee on
Science and Technology now printed in the bill. The committee
amendment in 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 except those arising
under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of
rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed
in 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. All points of order
against such amendments are waived except those arising under
clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the
[[Page H487]]
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. 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.
Sec. 2. The Chair may entertain a motion that the
Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee
on Science and Technology or his designee. The Chair may not
entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the
bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
{time} 1115
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for purposes of
debate only.
General Leave
Mr. ARCURI. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on
House Resolution 1051.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. ARCURI. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1051 provides for consideration of H.R.
4061, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2009. The rule waives all
points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides 1 hour of general
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Science and Technology Committee. The rule provides that
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Science
and Technology Committee now printed in the bill shall be considered as
an original bill for purposes of amendment and shall be considered as
read.
The rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the
nature of a substitute except those arising under clause 10 of rule
XXI. The rule further makes in order only those amendments printed in
the report. The amendments made in order 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 be subject to amendment, and shall not
be subject to demand for division of the question. All points of order
against the amendment except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule
XXI are waived.
The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. The Chair may entertain a motion that the Committee rise
only if offered by the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee or
a designee. Finally, the rule provides that the Chair may not entertain
a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, the threat of cyberwarfare cannot be overstated.
Cyberattacks target everything from classified government information
to business and trade secrets to individual financial records. The
motivation for these attacks can range from immature harassment to
illicit financial gain. The scope can be similarly broad, from an
individual computer or Web site to an entire network.
Investing in cybersecurity is the Manhattan Project of our
generation. The only difference is that when we were doing the
Manhattan Project, we were the only power with the technology. This
time around, we are facing far more enemies that have the same level of
technology that we do. In fact, nearly every high school hacker has the
potential to threaten our unfettered use of the Internet. Just imagine
what a rogue state committed to disrupting our cyberinfrastructure
could do.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology is responsible for
setting cybersecurity standards for nonclassified Federal networks. The
bill tasks NIST with developing cybersecurity awareness programs to
educate individuals, small businesses, State and local governments, and
educational institutions on how to implement cyber best practices. It
is estimated that 80 to 90 percent of all cyberbreaches could have been
avoided with this type of cybersecurity training.
The legislation also directs NIST to conduct research related to
improving the security of information and network systems that support
so many aspects of our day-to-day life, which many of us take for
granted.
The most troubling cyberthreat may be the very real prospect of
state-sponsored cyberattacks against sensitive national security
information. Cyberexperts believe China is effectively targeting our
government networks and that these attacks have resulted in at least
one breach of Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter development
program.
It is estimated that the Federal Government alone needs to recruit
between 500 and 1,000 more cybersecurity professionals each year in
order to address these threats. The Upstate New York district that I
represent is on the frontline of defending our Nation in the cyberwar
in which we are engaged. Utica College offers a bachelor of science
degree in cybersecurities. Graduates of this program are employed
across the country, working to secure the networks of government and
private business alike. However, this program currently only graduates
about 50 students per year into the cybersecurity field.
Clearly, simply maintaining the status quo will not be enough. Media
reports of new attacks by cybercriminals are becoming more frequent and
alarming. Just last week, following the State of the Union address,
hackers, suspected to be from Brazil, defaced 49 House Member Web
sites. Each day, 400,000 new ``zombies'' are activated. These are
computers that are taken over by hackers and can be remotely controlled
without the owner knowing it, and 1.5 million new malicious Web sites
are identified each month. There are more than 1 billion new endpoints
added to the Internet; 50 percent of those will be in China and 35
percent will be in India.
We are locked in a technological arms race with our cybercompetitors.
In order to win that race, we must train individuals to look at warfare
from an entirely new perspective. This effort goes to the heart of our
national security because it requires us to create opportunities in our
colleges and universities to train this new type of warfighter to
defend our Nation from cyberthreats, a warfighter every bit as
important to our security as a traditional armed soldier in the field.
The training for this new generation of warfighters that defend us, not
from land, sea, or air attacks, but from cyberattacks, is every bit as
important as boot camp is for our soldiers. In fact, that is what this
bill does, creates a boot camp for our future cyberwarfighters.
H.R. 4061 sets that course by authorizing funding for a Scholarship
for Service program through the National Science Foundation that will
provide scholarships for students pursuing cybersecurity fields. The
scholarships would be provided for up to 1 to 2 years for students
pursuing a bachelor's or master's degree and up to 3 years for students
pursuing a doctoral degree in the cybersecurity field, provided that
the recipient serves as a cybersecurity professional in government
agencies for an equal amount of time. This investment in cybereducation
is necessary to meet our enemies on the cyberfrontlines and repel their
attacks.
Through increased workforce development and continued strengthening
of our public-private partnerships, we can and will ensure that the IT
systems, on which so much of our way of life depends, are safe from
cyberattack. The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act contains the strategic
plan necessary to focus our resources to meet these challenges.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for yielding time.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this structured rule that
restricts my colleagues from offering amendments to the bill. We
certainly are concerned about cybersecurity, but nothing is going to
matter if we don't get our fiscal house in order.
The Democrats are basically wasting the American people's time by
bringing this bill, which they know has widespread support, to the
floor today, as it could, instead, have been on the suspension calendar
for this week, leaving us more time to debate legislation that
[[Page H488]]
would address the major problems facing the American people and my
constituents in North Carolina, such as the status of our economy and
what are we going to do about dealing with the national security issues
that are facing us in this country. Instead of using the suspension
calendar productively, Democrats have consistently used the majority of
our time debating legislation that is not relevant to the challenges
that American families are facing on a daily basis.
Democrats have spent the majority of our time debating suspensions
such as H. Res. 784, which honors the 2560th anniversary of the birth
of Confucius. In doing so, the Democrats have set a higher priority on
the 2560th anniversary of the birth of Confucius over solving the
problems of the American people. I have nothing against Confucius, Mr.
Speaker, but this resolution is not helping American families get back
to work or put food on their kitchen tables.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, so far this year the Democrats have spent the
majority of our time debating resolutions such as H. Res. 1020, which
honors the 95th anniversary of the signing of the Rocky Mountain
National Park Act, and H. Res. 981, supporting development in Ukraine.
Mr. Speaker, again, I have nothing in particular against these
resolutions, but I would be remiss if I did not address the fact that
Democrats are making these resolutions higher priorities of these
topics than bringing forth commonsense solutions that will help
Americans who are suffering across the Nation.
While the bill before us today authorizes several important programs,
it also authorizes ``such sums as may be necessary for activities to
improve cybersecurity.'' When American families are facing tough
economic challenges, Congress should be tightening its own belt and
setting funding limits rather than authorizing blank checks on the
backs of the American taxpayers. We can do better than this, and we owe
it to the American people to do better than this.
This bill also provides for annual increases in authorization levels.
At a time of record budget deficits, it is crucial that we hold the
line on spending. The Obama administration likes to talk about fiscal
restraint, but we have yet to see those words put into action. In fact,
talk of fiscal restraint is nothing but talk.
This bill is a classic example of legislation that could be trimmed
back by keeping the authorization levels static rather than increasing
them each year. But the Democrats refuse to allow such restraint and
instead continue to govern as though they are not aware of the fact
that our Federal deficit is growing each day. Perhaps they are not
aware. So many have been in Washington for so long that they are out of
touch with average citizens and the common sense that our citizens
represent.
My colleague, Mr. Sessions, offered an amendment that would maintain
fiscal year 2011 authorization levels in the bill for 3 years instead
of increasing them annually, but the Democrats on the Rules Committee
rejected the amendment and did not allow for debate on it on the floor
today.
This bill is also being brought forth today under a structured rule,
adding to the record number of structured and closed rules the
Democrats have arbitrarily used since they have been in the majority.
Even though an open rule was requested for this bill, Democrats have
chosen to stifle and control the debate today, and so we have another
structured rule before us, eliminating both Republicans' and Democrats'
ability to offer important amendments affecting their constituents.
With this structured rule, the Democrats in charge have blocked at
least 13 amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee last
night. If we had an open rule today, I am certain we would be debating
many more.
After promising to have the most open and honest Congress in history,
why has the Speaker consistently gone back on her word? Why are the
Democrats, who are in charge and have a large majority, shutting off
debate and silencing their colleagues from both sides of the aisle? Are
they afraid of debate? Are they protecting their members from tough
votes?
Regardless of their motives, one thing is clear: The Democrats in
charge are doing the American people an injustice by refusing to allow
their representatives to offer amendments on the floor of the people's
House. The American people want to hear debate and are tired of the
backroom dealmaking of the Democrats.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to say that my colleague talks about bipartisanship. And
I want to say I can't understand how she can talk about a bipartisan
bill, a bill that came out of the Science and Technology Committee with
support from both sides of the aisle, and turn it into a partisan
political fight. She is right, that is what Americans are tired of. And
yet, during her statement she mentioned Democrats at least six times. I
lost count after the sixth.
This is not a partisan bill. This is a bipartisan bill that is
necessary for the security of our country. That is what people sent us
to Washington for. They send us to Washington to make sure that we take
steps to ensure that their way of life continues and that they are safe
and secure.
This bill strategically places money into education so that we can
educate the next generation of cyberwarfighters to protect the Internet
and to protect people to be able to use the Internet.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Lujan).
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Speaker, I speak today in support of H.R. 4061, the
Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2009. I am a proud cosponsor of this
bill, and I commend Congressman Lipinski for his work on this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, more and more Americans rely on the Internet every day.
Businesses depend on it for commerce. Consumers depend on it to be able
to engage in transactions to support small business all across this
country. People network in hopes of finding a job or connecting with
friends, exploring opportunities to find the financial means necessary
to go to college. This means that every day more people rely on secure
networks to keep their personal information safe to make sure that
people aren't taking advantage of their privacy and exploiting them,
exposing businesses to attacks, costing taxpayers thousands and
thousands of dollars, growing to millions and millions of dollars, with
attacks every day.
{time} 1130
We know that this costs the Federal Government money, Mr. Speaker, as
more and more countries are looking to engage and find vulnerabilities
in these networks just to do harm, to cost the American taxpayers more
and more money. We need to make sure that we are truly investing and
providing educational opportunities to young people, bringing in those
who have some skill sets to teach them how to defend our country and
defend business from all these cyber attacks that are costing us
millions and millions of dollars every day. Because of our increasing
dependence on technology, we must teach these students these important
skills.
One provision of this legislation we are debating today will help
train the force by establishing the Federal Cyber Scholarship for
Service program. During committee markup, I successfully included an
amendment to address any regional disparities that may exist to make
sure that we are truly looking across the country, in small communities
and rural America, to find these experts that can help us protect our
country to make sure that small businesses aren't subject to those
attacks.
My district in New Mexico is home to 17 different tribes, Mr.
Speaker. New Mexico has 22. We need to make sure as they are developing
their infrastructure that we provide them the opportunity to make sure
they have these skill sets as well. We need to make sure that we are
helping keep a vulnerable population engaged, that we are looking to
create educational opportunities. But more importantly, Mr. Speaker,
that we are standing up to those nations, to those people around the
world that continue to try to find ways to attack this Nation. They
found a way through cybersecurity. They are finding ways to be able to
cost commerce money, to prevent business from happening, to stifle
small business from growing.
We as a Congress need to make sure we stand with small businesses
across
[[Page H489]]
the country and provide educational opportunities and work with them. I
urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and urge my colleagues to
support this legislation.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I certainly agree with my colleague from New York that the bill
itself is not a partisan bill. I am not talking about the bill. I am
talking about the rule. This is a very partisan rule. It didn't need to
be a partisan rule. All the majority had to do was allow for amendments
on the floor and it wouldn't have been a partisan rule. So I need to
remind him that that is where the partisanship comes in. We are here
debating the rule.
Mr. Speaker, while debt limit increases have been passed under both
Republican and Democratic Presidents and Congresses, the acceleration
in the accumulation of the debt that brought us to this point merits
examination. In January of 2007, when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of
the House, the statutory debt limit stood at $8.965 trillion. In less
than 3 years, the debt limit has increased by more than 33 percent,
representing an additional $1 trillion of debt per year. By comparison,
the statutory debt limit, which stood at $40 billion in 1940, did not
cross the $1 trillion mark until 1981.
And it has been only 7 weeks since the Democrats voted to increase
the debt limit by $290 billion on December 16, 2009. In that time,
House Democrats have passed seven resolutions congratulating sports
figures or teams; passed 23 resolutions honoring individuals, entities,
or causes; passed five bills naming post offices; authorized $50
million to construct a new national park in the Virgin Islands, but
passed zero bills to reduce spending or lower the deficit. Clearly,
they are not serious about this serious issue facing this country.
Since taking office just 1 year ago, the President has increased the
public debt by $1.47 trillion, or 23 percent, from $6.3 trillion to
$7.78 trillion. Under the administration's budget, the public debt will
triple, jumping to $17.5 trillion by 2019. Before President Obama's
budget and stimulus were enacted, the CBO estimated that the public
debt in 2019 would be $9.34 trillion, or $8 trillion less than it is
now projected to be under President Obama.
While the President touts his commitment to fiscal responsibility, he
is encouraging Congress to pass a $1.9 trillion increase in the
national debt limit, allowing the government to keep borrowing in order
to keep on spending. The Senate has done it last week, and it is
probably going to be brought to us tomorrow, where the Democrats will
pass this. And I mention the Democrats being in charge and the
Democrats doing this because it is important for the American people to
know that the Democrats are doing this alone.
While the decline in Federal revenue as a result of the economic
slowdown has contributed to the increase in the debt, the significant
increases in Federal spending have also contributed to reaching the
debt limit faster than anticipated. Record government spending in the
form of both the first stimulus bill and increases in appropriations
bills has been a recurring theme of the majority, and it is their
responsibility alone because they have done it alone.
The record amounts of debt are a direct responsibility of a spending
binge in the Democrat-controlled Congress and White House. In 1 year of
controlling Washington, Democrats increased the annual deficit by 308
percent, from $458 billion to $1.4 trillion.
A quick review of Democrats' spending increases in 2009 shows why the
deficit exploded. In that year alone, House Democrats passed $787
billion in, quote, ``stimulus'' spending, in addition to paying $347
billion in interest on borrowing money we don't have, two omnibus
spending bills totaling more than $855 billion, and increased non-
defense spending by 12 percent. Again, totally alone.
Faced with declining revenues, Democrats have pushed forward with the
most irresponsible option by increasing spending and deficits rather
than by lowering Federal expenditures. According to the House
Appropriations Committee Republican staff, when all appropriations
spending increases are combined, the Democrat majority has pumped over
half a trillion dollars in additional spending into non-defense
discretionary programs in three short years. This is over $512 billion,
or 127 percent more money for non-defense discretionary programs than
they received in the last year of GOP control of the Congress.
In fact, the fiscal year deficit for just 2009 of $1.417 trillion is
the largest ever, and three times the size of the previous record-
setting deficit, last year's figure of $458 billion. It is no wonder
that we hear Democrats such as the House majority whip, who recently
proclaimed, ``We have got to spend our way out of this recession.''
Statements like this make clear that the Democrats in charge have
absolutely no concept of the value of money or how to meet a budget. It
really is stunning that despite the economic turmoil caused by
government spending too much, the ruling Democrats can't comprehend the
consequences of spending money we don't have.
Although some rigid partisans may choose to ignore the election of
Massachusetts Senator-elect Scott Brown and try blaming the current
spending largesse on George Bush, it is true that since President
Obama's inauguration, the U.S. has had an average monthly deficit of
$122.6 billion. By comparison, from the year 2000 until 2008, the
average annual deficit was $196 billion, and we were fighting a war. So
the Democrats' solution for a terrible problem is to make it much worse
and just blame it on the other guy.
To that sentiment, Charles Krauthammer responds, ``Let's just get
this straight: The antipathy to George Bush is so enduring and powerful
that it just elected a Republican Senator in Massachusetts. Why, the
man is omnipotent. And the Democrats are delusional: Scott Brown won by
running against Obama, not Bush. He won by brilliantly nationalizing
the race, running hard against the Obama agenda.''
Unfortunately, the trend of increased Federal deficits will not come
to an end under the President's new fiscal year 2011 budget. According
to the President's own estimates, his budget and spending plan will
cause deficits to average $905 billion for each of the next 10 years.
Budget shortfalls incurred by the government fuel the rise in the
Nation's debt because the government is forced to borrow money to meet
the shortfall. In 2009, the budget deficit was $1.4 trillion, the first
time in history the deficit exceeded $1 trillion, and the first time
the deficit exceeded 10 percent of gross domestic product since World
War II.
The consequences of this kind of reckless spending are worth
highlighting. Today the cost of the national debt is $39,870 for every
man, woman, and child in the United States. According to the December
2009 Monthly Treasury Report, the Federal Government is projected to
spend $465.444 billion paying interest alone on the national debt in
this fiscal year 2010. That amounts to $1.275 billion per day, or
$1,530.75 for every one of the 304 million people living in the United
States today. Just like paying interest on a credit card, these amounts
are recurring and do nothing to actually reduce the debt principal.
Ironically, in March of 2006, then-Senator Obama warned his
colleagues of the danger of raising the debt limit without addressing
the underlying cause, explaining that, quote, ``The fact that we are
here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of
leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its
own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial
assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless
fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and
internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead,
Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs
of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a
failure of leadership. America deserves better.'' President Obama was
against raising the debt limit before he was for it. We agree with
then-Senator Obama, but we disagree with President Obama.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is exactly what the American people are so tired of. My
colleague talks about what the race in Massachusetts meant. It meant
that people are tired with the partisan bickering. She
[[Page H490]]
just squandered all of the time that we could be here talking about
cybersecurity and the importance of passing this bill with talking
about politics. Of course she fails to point out the fact that much of
the debt was incurred under President Bush, fails to point out the fact
that now two wars are on the books.
But that is not what we are here to talk about. We are here to talk
about cybersecurity. And I want to read a quote for you. Just yesterday
Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, testified before
the Senate Intelligence Committee. And he said, ``Malicious cyber
activity is occurring on an unprecedented scale with extraordinary
sophistication.'' He went on to say, ``Sensitive information is stolen
daily from both government and private sector networks, undermining
confidence in our information systems, and in the very information
these systems were intended to convey.'' These statements make clear
that we cannot afford to maintain the status quo.
In order to meet our enemies on the cyber front lines and repel their
attacks, we must create a boot camp for our future cyber warfighters.
The investments contained in H.R. 4061 will increase our cyber
workforce development and continue to strengthen the public-private
partnerships to defend the IT systems on which so much of our daily
life relies. That is what the American people have sent us here to
Washington to ensure. Cybersecurity enhancement contains the strategic
plan necessary to focus our resources to meet the challenges which
Director Blair spoke of yesterday.
H.R. 4061 will also strengthen partnerships between the Federal
Government and the private sector to guarantee a secure and reliable
infrastructure. The benefit of existing public-private partnerships is
also on display in Upstate New York, in my very district. The Air Force
Research Laboratory Rome Research Site, the Rome Lab as we call it,
hosts the main offices of the Air Force Research Lab's Information
Directorate.
Located at the former Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, Rome Lab's
scientists and engineers use the latest electronic and computer
technology to demonstrate new ways to defend our information networks
against attacks. In concert with Rome Lab, the Mohawk Valley is home to
a number of companies that are engaged in cutting-edge cyber research,
companies that will use the graduates who come out of college with
degrees in cybersecurity. Large companies such as PAR Technology, BAE
Systems, Booz Allen Hamilton, ITT Industries, Northrop Grumman, and
smaller, home grown companies, such as Dolphin Technology, Black River
Systems, Assured Information Security, New York State Technology
Enterprises Corporation, Syracuse Research Corporation, and Research
Associates of Syracuse.
{time} 1145
Together, the AFRL and these companies account for thousands of jobs
in central New York; men and women doing critical research on our
Nation to help fend off cyberattacks. There is no doubt that these
companies and the critical public-private partnerships that they have
formed with the Air Force Research Laboratory will benefit from this
program. But, more importantly, it's the American people that will
benefit from this program.
The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act requires the White House Office of
Science and Technology policy to convene an industrywide
nongovernmental task force of businesses and universities to explore
potential public-private collaborations on cybersecurity research and
development. This will ensure that these collaborations continue to
strengthen our Nation's cyberdefenses. That is what we are here to
debate. That is what the American people sent us to Congress for. And
that is what we need to pass today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. It's time for our colleagues to accept accountability.
They've been in the majority for 3 years but they continue to blame
George Bush in the same breath that they accuse me of being partisan.
Since the Democrats regained the majority in the House, I have heard a
number of Members come down to the floor and quote Supreme Court
Justice Brandeis, saying, ``Sunlight is said to be the best
disinfectant.'' That quote is quite fitting today, considering that as
we speak the majority has been drafting, behind closed doors, no
sunshine in sight, health care legislation that will affect every
American. What is going on behind these closed doors? We really do not
know. We don't even know who is at the table. The American people
deserve to know what is going on behind closed doors. We need to bring
in the sunlight to a process that is shrouded with secrecy.
That's why I, along with a bipartisan group of 171 other Members,
have cosponsored H. Res. 847, a resolution by my friend and colleague
Representative Buchanan, that expresses the sense of the House of
Representatives that any meetings held to determine the final content
of sweeping health care legislation be held in public view and not
behind closed doors.
In order to help bring sunshine to a process that the majority
continues to hide from public view, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote
on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the
House to consider the Buchanan transparency resolution. This vote will
give Members of the majority the chance to live up to their promise, as
Speaker Pelosi said, ``to lead the most honest, most open, and most
ethical Congress in history.'' I know that Members are concerned that
this motion may jeopardize consideration of the bill under
consideration today, but I want to make clear: The motion I'm making
provides for separate consideration of the transparency resolution
within 3 days so we can vote on the bill before us today, and then,
once we are done, consider H. Res. 847.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the first rule that they
teach you in trial advocacy class, and that is when you're trying a
case and you don't have the facts on your side, talk about everything
but the facts. And I feel that's what my colleague from North Carolina
is doing today. Rather than say that we can work together in a
bipartisan way on a bill that is good for all Americans, she would
rather talk about everything else that there is. Well, we're not here
to talk about everything else today. We are here to talk about
cybersecurity and the importance of passing this bill for the American
people.
As I said earlier, investing in cybersecurity is the Manhattan
Project of our generation. Cyberthreats and attacks are real, and they
threaten our financial and defense networks every day. Nearly every
aspect of everyday life in our global society is dependent on the
security of our cyber networks. We rely on these systems to carry
virtually all our business transactions, control our electric grid,
emergency communication systems, and traffic lights.
The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act reauthorizes and expands the
programs aimed at strengthening the Nation's cybersecurity, including a
new scholarship program to train the thousands of cybersecurity
professionals that are needed to defend our Nation. In requiring a
cybersecurity workforce assessment, this bill will also give us a
clearer picture of our current cybercapabilities and identify what new
skills and educational advances are needed in both the Federal
Government and the private sector to combat future attacks.
H.R. 4061 requires NIST to undertake research and development
programs to improve identity management systems, which include health
information technology systems, in order to improve interoperability,
authentication methods, privacy protection, and usability of these
systems. These systems hold great potential for streamlining the
delivery of services and care to individuals, but they must be secure
in order to function properly and efficiently. This legislation will
ensure that they are.
From the perspective of my district in upstate New York, it plays a
critical
[[Page H491]]
role in our Nation's cybersecurity, and this research and development
work is often discussed publicly. Yet, the work done by contractors,
subcontractors, and universities, in conjunction with Federal agencies,
employs thousands across New York in cutting-edge R&D. But, more
importantly, they are essential to defending America from
cyberterrorist attacks and espionage. It is essential these public-
private partnerships continue to flourish and they have the necessary
manpower in place to protect our Nation from these threats.
The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act will make that happen not just for
New York, but across the Nation. This is not a program for which we can
afford to ask, How can we do this, but a program for which we must ask,
How can we afford not to do this?
H.R. 4061 is supported by numerous organizations, including the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, Business Software Alliance, Software and
Information Industry Association, National Cable and Telecommunications
Association, U.S. Telecom, TechAmerica, and Computing Research
Association. This legislation enjoyed bipartisan support in committee,
and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Foxx is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1051 Offered by Ms. Foxx
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 3. On the third legislative day after the adoption of
this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention
of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the
consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 847) expressing the
sense of the House of Representatives that any conference
committee or other meetings held to determine the content of
national health care legislation be conducted in public under
the watchful eye of the people of the United States. The
resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final
adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of
the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit which
may not contain instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall
not apply to the consideration of House Resolution 847.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. ARCURI. 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.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 1051, if ordered; and
suspending the rules with regard to H. Res. 1043, H. Res. 901, and H.
Res. 1044.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238,
nays 175, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 29]
YEAS--238
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--175
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
[[Page H492]]
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--20
Abercrombie
Barrett (SC)
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Deal (GA)
Garrett (NJ)
Gutierrez
Johnson, E. B.
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Massa
Murtha
Radanovich
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Serrano
Smith (WA)
Souder
Young (FL)
{time} 1218
Messrs. TERRY, SMITH of Texas, WHITFIELD, and SMITH of Nebraska
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. McCollum). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237,
noes 176, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 30]
AYES--237
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--176
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--20
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Deal (GA)
Gutierrez
Hoekstra
Johnson, E. B.
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Massa
Murtha
Radanovich
Reyes
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Smith (WA)
Souder
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1227
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________