Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2010

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of this bill. I want to thank Ranking Member Hall and I want to thank my good friends across the other side of the aisle, Chairman Gordon and Mr. Lipinski, for, as usual, working in a bipartisan way to get good things done for the country. I think the American people deserve that, and they want to see more of that, of us up here in Washington.

I was proud to be the lead Republican sponsor on this bill as well because this issue is so important. A lot of times when you talk about cybersecurity, people's eyes kind of glaze over, and yet when we talk about cybersecurity, we are really talking about national security. We held hearings both in the Science and Technology Committee and on the Homeland Security Committee where we examined the vulnerabilities and the threats presented by cyberattacks, and it is very frightening.

When you talk to the top military advisers to the President, they will tell

you one of the greatest threats we face as a Nation is a cyberattack and that we are vulnerable. And when we had hearings on the issue, we heard that just about every Federal agency, in fact every one, including the Pentagon, had been hacked into and this institution had been hacked into. And there have been major data dumps where information was stolen from countries that we cannot speak of in the well of the floor right now, but foreign countries stealing information from the United States Government.

There are really several areas. There are criminal enterprises who use cyberattacks to steal intellectual property, and then there is the realm of espionage, where we have countries that go in and steal information from the United States Government, intellectual property, secrets within the government, data dumps the size of the Library of Congress. We had a classified program that was subsequently declassified that showed that through the click of a mouse power grids could be blown up.

Every critical infrastructure is tied to cybernetworks. Whether it be our utilities, our power grids, our financial institutions, whether it be air traffic controllers, virtually every sector is tied to the networks, to the Internet, and, therefore, is vulnerable. This bill I think is a good step forward in helping to protect our networks, certainly in the Federal Government.

Last year, I joined with Congressman Jim Langevin from Rhode Island, working with CSIS, who had worked on the Iraq Study Group as well, to put together a team, a commission of experts across the Nation of cyberexperts to make recommendations to the next President of the United States. We made those recommendations to President Obama. I am pleased that this bill actually fulfills one of the main recommendations in that report, and that is to provide improving Federal cyberworkforces within the Federal Government. And this bill does a lot more than that.

Improving research and development, this bill establishes cybersecurity R&D grant programs that focus on technical and human behavioral aspects of cybersecurity. It improves our Federal cyberworkforce. It creates a scholarship program at NSF that can be repaid by Federal service. And, it improves coordination in the government. It gives NIST the authority to set security standards for Federal computer systems and develop checklists for agencies to follow. I think this is a very, very important point, because in our hearings, when we asked the Department of Homeland Security or representatives from the Department of Defense or NSA who is in charge of defending our networks, who is in charge, they couldn't answer that question, because there isn't one person in charge.

One of our recommendations was to have someone at the White House level be put in charge to coordinate the various agencies. And because there is no one in charge, there is the lack of coordination. So the very entities that have the offensive capability for cyberattack are not coordinating with the agencies that are tasked with defending the Nation from a cyberattack. I think that giving NIST the authority to set these standards for the first time is going to go a long way in protecting our networks inside the Federal Government.

It also reaches out to the private sector, which I particularly like about this bill. It emphasizes the implementation of checklists by Federal agencies that they should remain flexible and technology neutral in working with the private sector. It improves coordination outside the government by creating a task force of the Federal Government universities who know this issue very well and the private sector to coordinate the research and development.

I think the idea of a public-private partnership rather than having bureaucrats in Washington make all these decisions is vitally important, to bring in the expertise of the private sector and the technology sector who know this issue very well. And, as Chairman Gordon mentioned, this has broad-based support from business groups outside in the private sector and from the technology sector in particular.

So with that, I think this is a great first step towards protecting our Federal networks. I again want to commend the great leadership on both sides of the aisle for making this happen today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Just in closing, I co-chair the Cybersecurity Caucus with Congressman Langevin, and I want to commend him for his great work not only on the CSIS Commission but also on the caucus to try to raise awareness of this issue. It is a very, very important issue. I also want to thank Chairman Gordon, who I know is going to retire. We're going to miss him. But just the bipartisan spirit in which he has conducted himself on this committee to allow us to work together with the majority to get good legislation out of the Congress. As I said earlier, I think that's what the American people want. It's what they deserve. Certainly, there's no greater issue where Republicans and Democrats should come together than on issues impacting national security, which this bill does. We are Americans first. Again, this bill is a great step forward into furthering and protecting our Federal networks.

I hope, as with what happened with 9/11, we don't turn a blind eye and wait until there's a major denial of service attack before we start to pay attention to this issue. I think this bill, which I anticipate will pass the House overwhelmingly, is a great statement by the Congress that cybersecurity is important and that we can work together on this. I think, as Congressman Wu talked about the attacks on Google recently, last Fourth of July we had a denial of service attack emanating that hit Korea and the United States. The disturbing thing about that attack was it was not to phish or to steal information, or perhaps espionage. Rather, it was intended to do harm. That denial of service attack was intended to shut down our networks. It was relatively unsophisticated.

But as we examine the denial of service attacks that we saw in Estonia, the denial of service attack in Korea and the United States just last Fourth of July, to me, that is an eye opener. It's just like before 9/11 we saw signs that the Congress needed to pay attention to. I think we have seen signs of that in the cyber-realm, and I hope we can work together across the aisle to further enhance and strengthen our cybernetworks, and in the private sector as well, so that we can avoid a cyber-9/11 attack in the United States.

So this is, again, a very important issue that, when you talk to leaders in the military, they get it. They recognize it. They want to work with the Congress to better improve our cybersecurity. Again, let me just give my thanks to Chairman Gordon for allowing this to come out of the committee and come to the House floor. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I do not intend to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Hastings and my colleague from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) are making improvements to this bill to ensure that the strategic plan takes into consideration the talents of women and minority populations in the cybersecurity workforce and that the University-Industry Task Force includes representatives from minority-serving institutions. I therefore urge support for this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

As part of the Scholarship for Service program at NSF, scholarship awardees are to receive internships at Federal agencies. This amendment simply gives the director the discretion of allowing them to intern in the private sector. So, therefore, I support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment, and I also support the gentleman's position on earmarks. This amendment would prohibit the earmarking of the NSF and NIST cybersecurity activities authorized in this bill. It is well understood that awarding grants through merit-based competitive processes is the best way to fund science and technology, and cybersecurity is certainly no exception. This insulation from political influences is, in fact, an important reason why NSF and NIST have such a strong reputation overall both within and outside of the Federal Government.

Mr. Flake's amendment will help ensure that this model is being protected by incorporating it specifically into the statute. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to this amendment.

Madam Chair, NSF computer and network security research grants are intended to enhance computer security through basic hardware and software research in numerous areas, including the ability for law enforcement to detect, investigate, and prosecute cybercrimes.

This amendment merely highlights crimes against children and organized crime, such as cybercrimes, where these investments should be made. So I fully support this good amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I'm pleased to strongly support this amendment. Our Nation's community colleges have played a crucial role in our technology and educational workforce. This amendment makes sure they are able to make recommendations and give advice to the Federal Government on the strategic plan. It emphasizes their eligibility as a potential institutional partner under the Scholarship for Service Program and really puts them at the table of the University-Industry Task Force.

So, with that, I strongly urge support.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

This amendment directs NIST to work with Federal, State, and private-sector partners to develop a framework that States may use to improve their cybersecurity posture. Developing such a framework for use in assisting States is certainly consistent with NIST's expertise and capabilities, and there is clearly a need for this expertise at the State level.

I should note, in working with the States, that we should, of course, expect that the NIST role remains limited to the development of guidance that the States may use, if they choose, avoiding any activities that are mandatory or binding in nature.

I'd like to yield to the gentlelady from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) to say if that's a correct statement. That is my understanding of this amendment.

Reclaiming my time then, I'm comfortable with the language in this amendment as written and very much support its passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. The gentleman is absolutely correct. The Internet knows no boundaries. This is not just an issue for the United States; it's a global issue that we need to address. This amendment simply states that the interagency cybersecurity R&D plan required by the legislation outlines how the United States can work strategically with international partners on cybersecurity R&D.

Cybersecurity issues are certainly global in nature. Many of our closest allies face the same threats and vulnerabilities that we do. Thus, it makes sense that we should work to cooperate more closely with our international partners, and that is what this amendment will do. Therefore, I strongly urge support.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment, although I'm not opposed to it.

This amendment simply provides an establishing or enhancing cybersecurity collaboration between community colleges, universities, and NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership centers, and is among the most eligible activities that may be supported by NSF cybersecurity research grants.

This collaboration between researchers and those that provide technical support regarding cybersecurity best practices is benefiting and should be encouraged. And therefore, I support

the gentlelady from Pennsylvania's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment although I am not opposed to it.

This amendment specifies that as part of its outreach and education efforts NIST may host regional workshops on cybersecurity risks and best practices for businesses, State, and local governments and educational institutions.

I think that's a good thing, and while I do not oppose this amendment, I'd like to note that NIST has a very modest budget for cybersecurity activities, of which outreach and education is just a small fraction.

Accordingly, in carrying out the section of this bill is my expectation that this should work to leverage this funding to benefit the largest number of entities and individuals as it can. I recognize workshops can also serve as a useful outreach tool and should be an option.

So with that point in mind, I do not object to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment, but do not intend to oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply States that the NIST Cybersecurity Awareness and Education Program established in the bill helps makes the technical standards and best practices more usable for everyone, especially those new to computers: The elderly, those with low incomes, and those that may not have broadband quite yet, such as rural areas. Therefore, I do not oppose this amendment.

I would like to join Chairman Gordon at this point in time to offer my sincere condolences as well to the family of Judy Ruckel.

Judy served as a printer for the Science and Technology Committee since 2001 under both Republican and Democratic leadership. Day in and day out, Judy carried out her job with style and grace and never did she allow her struggle with diabetes to diminish her presence nor her performance.

Judy worked from home, but during her visits to our offices each week, she took time to look in on staff, inquiring about our families and challenges, always leaving a smile on the faces of those she came in contact with.

The job of managing countless hearing transcripts and markups and transforming them into permanent records is absolutely critical to the life of our committee, and Judy did it to perfection. She is irreplaceable. Judy's suffering has ended, and we will miss her very deeply, and God be with her.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I'm not opposed to this amendment.

This amendment would include some additional factors to be considered in the assessment of the cybersecurity workforce and barriers to entry into that workforce. Job security clearance and suitability requirements are important factors to consider in this assessment. I thank the gentlelady for a constructive amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Let me tell you it is a point of personal privilege to commend the gentleman from Rhode Island for all of his great work in this particular area and how much I have enjoyed working with the gentleman, co-chairing the CSIS commission and also co-chairing the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus. So thank you.

This amendment would modify the section of the bill requiring the President to transmit a cybersecurity workforce report to Congress, specifically by requiring that the President's review consider the potential for temporary assignment of private sector cybersecurity professionals as a means through which to meet Federal workforce needs.

These types of mechanisms, such intergovernmental personnel agreements, have long been used by Federal agencies in various capacities; and they provide a flexible means through which to address workforce needs expeditiously.

Accordingly, it makes sense for the President's workforce assessment to consider and report on these mechanisms. So therefore, I support the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Let me say first I commend the gentlelady from California for the emphasis on the private sector.

I think too often when we deal with this issue, we focus mainly on the government and not enough on the private sector where the majority of the critical infrastructures are in this country. So let me commend the gentlelady for bringing this forward.

This amendment makes two changes to the bill which I believe are good changes. First, it requires that the cybersecurity R&D strategic plan describe how interagency efforts will facilitate access to realistic threat and vulnerability data by academic researchers. Secondly, it tasks the university-industry R&D task force created by the bill to consider how best the public and private sectors can share ``lessons learned on the effectiveness of new technologies.''

Both of these provisions make changes to the underlying bill that I believe improve the bill, and therefore I fully support its passage.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment. However, the good news is, Mr. Cuellar, I do not intend to oppose it.

Let me first commend the gentleman from Texas, my dear friend and colleague, Mr. Cuellar, on the outstanding work he has done in this area and on the Homeland Security Committee, and also his work with the Center for Excellence, in San Antonio, for cybersecurity. It is great for our great State of Texas.

This amendment requires a strategic plan to describe how the program will strengthen cybersecurity education and training efforts in order to ensure an adequate, well-trained workforce. The bill already has in place a robust workforce assessment requirement, but the robustness of our future cybersecurity workforce I believe is important enough to reemphasize it.

With that, I do not oppose this amendment. In fact, I strongly support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentlelady from New Hampshire's amendment is one that our side favored during the drafting of this legislation and one that we think makes the Scholarship for Service program at NSF even stronger. So I thank the gentlelady for bringing this amendment.

The intent of the program is to educate the Federal Government's future cybersecurity workforce. This amendment increases the amount of employment service a graduate will owe the Federal Government upon the completion of her or his education, ensuring a greater return on our initial investment.

Therefore, I support this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do so.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Let me first commend Ms. Clarke for this amendment, but also her great work on the Homeland Security Committee as the chairwoman of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee.

This amendment simply requires the present Cybersecurity Workforce Assessment Report include an analysis of the capacity of the overall agency workforce to manage contractors providing cybersecurity support to Federal agencies. Contractors are a significant component of our cybersecurity efforts, and assessing their role and agencies' capacity to manage them is very, very appropriate. Therefore, I support this amendment.

With the time I do have remaining, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

This amendment would require a National Academy of Sciences study on the role of community colleges in cybersecurity education, with an aim toward identifying best practices related to improving cybersecurity education through better linkages between community colleges and 4-year colleges and universities. It is important not to overlook the contributions of community colleges, as the gentleman stated, to our overall technical workforce, including those involved in computer and network security. This amendment is intended to help address that issue, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

First let me say what a great amendment this is. As a Federal prosecutor, I encountered crimes against children and also as deputy attorney general for the State of Texas. While there, we formed an Internet crimes against children's task force. The threat to children, both from child pornography and online predators, as the gentleman knows, is very real. And while the Internet is a great tool for our youth, it also does present a vulnerability and a threat to them. That is why I am so glad to see this amendment.

It simply clarifies when we are promoting and educating people on the importance of cybersecurity, we must include children and young adults along with the other targeted audiences. So let me again thank the gentleman for bringing this. I strongly support it, and encourage my colleagues to do so.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Let me thank the gentlelady for bringing this amendment. My home State of Texas is the home to probably more active duty service and veterans than probably any other State in the country. I think this is a great idea, including Lackland Air Force Base, which provides a cybersecurity command.

It is very straightforward. It adds veteran status as an additional item for consideration by NSF when it selects individuals for scholarships under its Cybersecurity Scholarships for Service program. Therefore, I strongly support the gentlelady's amendment, and I urge its passage.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment, although I do not intend to oppose it.

I thank the gentlelady for this amendment. Certainly, our youth know the Internet and how to operate on it more effectively than anyone in this Chamber. This amendment adds an outreach to high schools and community colleges component to the characteristics of the Scholarship for Service program in an effort to attract more students to the program. I think it's a good idea. I support this amendment, and urge my colleagues to do so.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1051 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1051.

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.

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. 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

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.

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.

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

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.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

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. 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.

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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues, Dr. Lipinski, Dr. Ehlers, Mr. Wu, Mr. Smith and Mr. Hall for their contributions to the good bipartisan bill we are considering today. I would also like to take a moment to thank the various staffers who worked on this bill: Marcy Gallo, Travis Hite, Dahlia Sokolov and Mike Quear on the majority side; and Dan Byers and Mele Williams on the minority staff. We could not bring a good bill like this together without their help.

Last fall, the House passed a resolution recognizing National Cybersecurity Awareness Month. The resolution stated that we will need to build strong partnerships between Federal agencies, business and nongovernmental organizations and educational institutions in order to enhance the state of cybersecurity in the United States.

H.R. 4061 implements this principle of public-private partnerships in three areas: coordinating and prioritizing the Federal cybersecurity R&D portfolio, improving the transfer of cybersecurity technologies to the marketplace, and training an IT workforce that can meet the growing needs of both public and private sectors.

H.R. 4061 strengthens research and innovation partnerships through the requirement for a strategic plan for cybersecurity R&D that is based on an assessment of risk to our Nation and its population. In developing this plan, the Federal Government must solicit input from all stakeholders, including industry and colleges and universities. The plan must also describe how the agencies will support the transfer of promising technologies from our national labs and universities to the private sector.

Finally, the Federal agencies must convene a university-industry task force to explore collaborative models of cybersecurity. We need to get the best ideas of our scientists and engineers out of the lab and into the marketplace where they can contribute to our collective security and general economic growth.

H.R. 4061 builds educational partnerships to create a well-trained workforce and an informed public. Specifically, H.R. 4061 taps into our colleges and universities by providing scholarships to students pursuing degrees in cybersecurity in exchange for their service in the Federal IT workforce. The legislation also requires NIST to disseminate the cybersecurity best practices to individuals and small businesses in a more user-friendly format.

But the Internet doesn't stop at our borders, which means that improving cybersecurity also requires international partnerships. H.R. 4061 addresses this by requiring NIST to develop a comprehensive international cybersecurity strategy that defines what cybersecurity technical standards we need, where they are being developed, and ensures that the United States is represented.

Many organizations support this legislation, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Telecommunication Association, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the Business Software Alliance, the Association for Computing Machinery, the Computing Research Association, Sun Micro Systems, the University of Illinois at Urbana, the Georgia Institute of Technology, the Software and Information Industry Association, Applied Visions, Inc., Verisign, CA, Inc., Symantec Corporation, McAfee, Inc., and TechAmerica, among others.

But we have also had the support of our colleagues from New York and the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Mr. Towns. And at this point, I would like to insert an exchange of letters into the Record between myself and Mr. Towns.

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, February 2, 2010.

Hon. Bart Gordon,

Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Gordon: I write to you regarding H.R. 4061,

the ``Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2009''.

H.R. 4061 contains provisions that fall within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform, including provisions related to the federal

workforce. I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring

this legislation before the House in an expeditious manner

and, accordingly, I will not seek a sequential referral of

the bill.

However, agreeing to waive consideration of this bill

should not be construed as the Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform waiving its jurisdiction over H.R. 4061.

Further, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

reserves the right to seek the appointment of conferees

during any House-Senate conference convened on this

legislation on provisions of the bill that are within the

Committee's jurisdiction.

I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass

this important legislation.

Sincerely,

Edolphus Towns,

Chairman.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, the primary sponsor of this good bipartisan bill, Dr. Lipinski, who has just gotten back from home and a 78 percent victory in his primary last night. Congratulations.

First, I want to thank my friend from Texas for both his cosponsorship of this bill, but more importantly, his constructive, productive, bipartisan approach to bringing together this good bill.

I want to now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, primary sponsor of the bill, the chairman of our Technology and Innovation Subcommittee, Mr. Wu.

Madam Chairman, I want to thank my friend from Savannah for the history lesson there, and let him know that my 8- year-old daughter can be some help to him if he wants to download any of his music.

She can help me, too.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), a member of the important Intelligence Committee.

I yield the gentleman 20 additional seconds.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the co- chair of the House Cybersecurity Caucus, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

In closing, let me just suggest to my friend from Texas that bipartisanship goes both ways, and I want to thank him for his great input in this bill, as well as Dr. Ehlers, Mr. Hall, Mr. Wu, and Dr. Lipinski. It was a good team effort. And certainly our staffs were integral to having this be a successful bill. I agree with you--hopefully this will pass overwhelmingly and will send a message to the bad guys that we're on alert.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, first of all, let me thank my friend from Florida for his very kind words. But more importantly, I want to thank him for introducing this important legislation. We can have the best technology in the world, but if we don't have the workforce to go with it, then the bad guys win. This will go a long way to improving and expanding our workforce, and I thank the gentleman for this amendment.

Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from Colorado, I rise to offer his amendment.

Madam Chair, one of the best ways for cybersecurity professionals to improve their skills is through meaningful and diverse experiences. This amendment would allow scholarship recipients to seek out internship opportunities in the private sector and then bring those experiences to their service in the Federal Government.

I want to thank my friend Mr. Polis for this good amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I want to thank my friend for introducing this amendment. It certainly is accepted by the majority; and I want to assure him, as Mr. McCaul can also, that this particular bill is clean as a whistle. There are no earmarks, NSF, NIST, or anywhere else. Again, I thank him for making sure that we get that clarified.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

(Mr. POLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Maryland, and I want to thank her more importantly for introducing this commonsense constructive amendment that's going to provide additional tools for the States as they fight this issue, very well pointed out, this very difficult, day-to-day battle with cybersecurity.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I'm not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I concur with Mr. McCaul in saying that cyberthreats know no boundaries. This is, again, a good commonsense amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) for introducing it, and we support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my friend from Pennsylvania.

This is a very important amendment to our committee's work. The community colleges have so much potential to offer us, and I think by bringing this to the table we're going to bring a whole other sector to getting involved. And once again, this goes back to workforce issues. We can have the best technology in the world, but if we don't have the workforce to go with it, then we're not going to be successful.

So I thank the gentlelady for this excellent amendment.

First, let me thank my friend from California for an excellent amendment. It's an improvement to an already-good bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise now to offer my condolences to the family of Judy Ruckel. Judy was the printer for the Committee on Science and Technology, and she unexpectedly passed away earlier this week. Because she worked from home, I did not know Judy as well as I do other members of the staff. She was a quiet, often unseen stalwart of the committee. Most staff members never questioned how the documents that are the record of our work get produced, and it's a testament to Judy that they never had to. Judy just took care of it.

When I first became chairman, I had no idea what a committee printer did. I kept asking who the printer was, what did she do, where was her office. Universally I was told that Judy was the nicest, most caring person that you could ever have on your staff and that she was good at whatever she did and that I needed to have no concerns on that front. Everyone was right.

Judy's quiet presence and good work will be missed by all on our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would require that the cybersecurity strategic research and development plan to also include how we can work with international partners to make our technology infrastructure even safer.

Throughout most of our Nation's history, our security concerns have evolved around our national security of military security, intelligence, and protection of our borders. Now, over the past few decades, our technological advances and our ever-increasing reliance on that technology are increasingly important and have drastically expanded. This, naturally, makes our technology a likely target for attack by those that would like to harm the United States.

Furthermore, as Minnesota's Chief Information Officer, Gopal Khanna, says, ``Cybersecurity is not just a Federal issue; it is also a national policy issue with huge global ramifications.'' And he is absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman. We must view the issue of cybersecurity from both a domestic and a foreign perspective. His article, ``Mutually Assured Survival in Cyber Space,'' which I do intend to offer into the Record, outlines the critical importance of our Nation's cybersecurity infrastructure.

As Mr. Khanna states, a cybersecurity attack on our most vulnerable assets--that's the data and information that power our productivity and support the United States and global economies--will be utterly devastating. An attack would not only affect us here at home, but it would have a very adverse impact on our trading partners and the flow of commerce every day.

Today's technology-driven economy makes cybersecurity an essential national security issue, one with ramifications that stretch across our Nation and far beyond our borders. We must remember this as we look at ways to strengthen cybersecurity. We need to think about our alliances abroad in the general context of new geopolitical realities of the digital cyberworld in which we live and operate today, and this amendment recognizes those realities.

[From Governing, Sept. 8, 2009]

Mutually Assured Survival in Cyber Space

(By Gopal Khanna)

We must pool resources to focus on an all-encompassing

national approach to defending our information infrastructure

from attacks.

For the better part of the 20th century, America's greatest

threat came from the expansionist strategies of Communism,

with its values and aspirations so contradictory to our own

free and open democratic society. At the heart of the

conflict was the proliferation of nuclear arsenals and the

horrific potential to kill millions with one strike. Baby

boomers who were schoolchildren at the time remember the

drills when they were instructed to hide under their desks in

the event of an attack.

While nuclear proliferation is still a threat, America is

beginning to recognize a sleeper threat of a different kind:

the devastation that can result from the mass disruption of

business communications and the workings of government

through cyber attacks. As we reflect on the results of

President Obama's 60-day Cyberspace Policy Review, policy

makers and private-sector leaders need to come together to

apply great effort and creativity in crafting safeguards

against these vulnerabilities.

The series of apparently orchestrated attacks on U.S. Web

sites in July--directed at such critical entities as the

Treasury Department, Secret Service, Federal Trade Commission

and New York Stock Exchange--is precisely why the U.S. should

become a leader in thwarting cyber attacks on our national

and international information infrastructure. In his May 29

remarks on securing the nation's information infrastructure,

President Obama stated that ``the status quo is no longer

acceptable'' and called our attention to the critical work

ahead. To reiterate that point, last month Homeland Security

Secretary Janet Napolitano emphasized how important the role

of state and local governments will be in meeting today's

cyber security threats and that ``it is important to

recognize that there is no international structure'' where

cyber crime is concerned.

The Cyberspace Policy Review has validated our

understanding that it is not only corporate America that is

now under siege, but the federal, state and local

governments, private institutions and non-governmental

organizations as well. Capable of wreaking a different sort

of havoc, and easier to execute, today's menace comes from

cyber security attacks on our most valuable assets--the data

and information that power our productivity and support the

economy of the United States and the world.

That is why we must pool resources to focus on an all-

encompassing national approach to defending our assets within

the context of the new geopolitical realities of the digital

world we live in. We need to apply all of our tools and our

finest minds to harness our capabilities and competencies in

the interest of protecting an infrastructure that supports

our way of life. Just as ducking under desks would have done

little to protect schoolchildren in the 1950s from a nuclear

attack, simply hiding behind new software or the latest

firewall will not protect us from tomorrow's range of cyber

threats. We must do more.

To this end, the United States should take the lead in an

international endeavor to address these threats; not only the

risks to our own country but also the risks to our allies in

free economies and open governments around the world. Every

attack, regardless of its target, poses global dangers, due

to the interconnections of digital infrastructure and

networks as well as the interdependencies of national and

regional economies, and imperils commerce and communications

among all nations.

In the past, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction

acted as a deterrent to prevent a nuclear first-strike by

either side. Both the United States and the Soviet Union knew

that a strike would mean mutual annihilation. As a result,

although the doctrine has not contained the spread of nuclear

technology to rogue states, a nuclear weapon has not been

detonated in military conflict since World War II.

We need to develop an analogous approach against these new

dangers--one that fends off the cyber anarchy envisioned by

some nation-states and fringe borderless entities.

The G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh this month is an ideal forum

to establish America's leadership in cyber security. It's

important that the international community come together to

answer some basic, foundational questions about cyber attacks

as a tactic of warfare: Should attacks of a cyber-nature be

condemned in the same manner as chemical and biological

weapons? How should a country respond to a cyber attack from

another nation-state? How should the international community

respond to such an attack?

The potential for mass disruption to all aspects of social,

economic and political workings of nations requires that the

G-20 country CIOs who are responsible for policies, practices

and management of the digital infrastructure in their

respective jurisdictions be a part of this discussion.

By working together, perhaps it will be understood that a

cyber attack against one country is an attack against all

countries, justifying a response--maybe even an international

response. Time will tell if the international community will

embrace as bold a deterrent as ``Mutually Assured Survival in

Cyber Space.'' Still, now is the time to develop a doctrine

of accountability and consequences that will serve as a

deterrent to nation-states and rogue entities and prevent

levels of cyber warfare that could jeopardize international

trade, our government services, our security, our corporate

and business interests, and most important, our open,

democratic way of life.

I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, just in closing, I know that by working together on the commonsense approach--I thank the gentleman--I look forward to support of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.