Homeland Security Cybersecurity Boots-on-the-Ground Act

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3696) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to make certain improvements regarding cybersecurity

and critical infrastructure protection, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3696, the National Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2014. I have worked on this for a long time and introduced this bill with my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Congressman Pat Meehan. I would also like to thank Ranking Member Thompson, as well as Ranking Member Clarke of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee, for all their hard work in forging this bipartisan bill. These efforts once again prove that we can work together, despite our differences, to craft legislation that improves our national security and helps protect American critical infrastructure from devastating cyber attacks.

Just last week, the Homeland Security Committee heard testimony that we are at a pre-9/11 mindset when it comes to cybersecurity and that the government needs to do a better job at warning the public about the dangers of attacks on networks we rely upon. That was from the 9/11 Commission itself.

Cyber vulnerabilities in our Nation's critical infrastructure are an Achilles heel in our homeland security defenses. Let me be very clear. The cyber threat is real and it is happening right now. The Internet has become the next battlefield for warfare, but unlike land, sea, and air, cyber attacks occur at the speed of light, they are global, and they are more difficult to attribute.

Criminals, hacktivists, terrorists, and nation-state actors such as Russia, China, and Iran are increasingly using malicious malware to hack into U.S. companies for espionage purposes or financial gain, our defense systems to steal our sensitive military information, and our critical infrastructure to gain access to our gas lines, power grids, and water systems.

Iranian hackers, for example, continue to attack the American financial services sector to shut down Web sites and restrict America's access to their bank accounts. Additionally, Iran continues to build more sophisticated cyber weapons to target U.S. energy companies and has demonstrated these capabilities when they attacked Saudi Arabia's national oil company, Aramco, and erased critical files on 30,000 computers. We cannot allow rogue nations like Iran to be able to shut things down and have capabilities that match our defenses. That would be a game-changer for our national security.

The Chinese, in particular, are hacking into major U.S. companies to give their industries competitive economic advantages in our global economy. I applaud the recent efforts taken by the Justice Department for indicting five members of the Chinese government for conducting cyber espionage attacks against U.S. industry, but more needs to be done. Those indictments send a clear message to our adversaries that cyber espionage and theft of American intellectual property, trade secrets, military blueprints, and jobs will not be tolerated.

A recent McAfee and Center for Strategic and International Studies report on the economic impact of cyber crime found an annual effect of roughly $455 billion globally, with 200,000 jobs lost in the United States alone as a result. In fact, former Director of the NSA, General Keith Alexander, described cyber espionage and the loss of American intellectual property and innovation as ``the greatest transfer of wealth in history.''

A recent poll conducted by Defense News revealed that our top Nation's top security analysts see cyber attacks as the greatest threat to our Nation. In fact, Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, testified earlier this year that: ``Critical infrastructure, particularly the systems used in water management, oil, and gas pipelines, electrical power distribution, and mass transit, provides an enticing target to malicious actors.''

A cyber attack on U.S. critical infrastructure--such as gas pipelines, financial services, transportation, and communication networks--could result in catastrophic regional or national effects on public health or safety, economic security, and national security.

High-profile retail breaches like the ones at Target and Neiman Marcus that compromised the personal information of over 110 million American consumers resonate with Americans, but as bad as those breaches were, a successful cyber attack on our critical infrastructure could cause much more damage in terms of lives lost and monetary damage. We cannot and will not wait for a catastrophic 9/11-scaled cyber attack to occur before moving greatly needed cybersecurity legislation.

The National Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Protection Act ensures that DHS and not the military is responsible for domestic critical infrastructure protection.

Specifically, H.R. 3696 ensures that there is a ``civilian interface'' to the private sector to share real-time cyber threat information across the critical infrastructure sectors, particularly in light of the Snowden revelations.

Importantly, the bill protects civil liberties by putting a civilian agency with the Nation's most robust privacy and civil liberties office in charge of preventing personal information from being shared. While also prohibiting any new regulatory authority, this bill builds upon the groundwork already laid by industry and DHS to facilitate critical infrastructure protection and incidence response efforts.

This bipartisan bill, which is rare in this day and age, Mr. Speaker, is a product of 19 months of extensive outreach and great collaboration with all stakeholders, including more than 300 meetings with experts, industry, government agencies, academics, privacy advocates, and other committees of jurisdiction.

We went through several drafts and countless hours of negotiations to bring this commonsense legislation to the floor with support from all of the critical infrastructure sectors.

I will enter in the Record some of the letters of support, representing over 33 trade associations from across industry sectors, U.S. businesses, national security experts, and privacy and civil liberty advocates.

Specifically, we have received support letters from the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Chemistry Council, AT&T, Boeing, Con Edison, the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, GridWise Alliance, and multiple trade associations in the energy sector and the financial services sector, Information Technology Industry Council, the Internet Security Alliance, Rapid7, National Defense Industrial Association, Professional Services Council, Oracle, Entergy, Pepco, Verizon, and Symantec.

I believe that is a very impressive showing on behalf of the privacy advocates and also the private sector.

American Civil Liberties Union,

January 14, 2014.

Re H.R. 3696, the ``National Cybersecurity and Critical

Infrastructure Protection Act of 2013'' (NCCIP Act)

Hon. Michael McCaul, Chairman,

Hon. Bennie Thompson, Ranking Member,

Hon. Patrick Meehan, Subcommittee Chairman,

Hon. Yvette Clarke, Subcommittee Ranking Member,

House Homeland Security Committee,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members: On behalf of the

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), its over half a

million members, countless additional supporters and

activists, and 53 affiliates nationwide, we write in regard

to H.R. 3696, the National Cybersecurity and Critical

Infrastructure Protection Act of 2013 (NCCIP Act). We have

reviewed this legislation and have found that information

sharing provisions in this bill do not undermine current

privacy laws.

As we testified before the Committee last year, it is

crucial that civilian agencies like the Department of

Homeland Security lead domestic cybersecurity efforts and the

NCCIP Act makes strides towards that end. The bill directs

DHS to coordinate cybersecurity efforts among non-

intelligence government agencies and critical infrastructure

entities. The NCCIP Act smartly does that by focusing on

coordination and information sharing within current law and

leveraging existing structures that have proven successful in

the past. Unlike H.R. 624, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and

Protection Act (CISPA), your bill does not create broad

exceptions to the privacy laws for cybersecurity. Instead, it

strengthens private-public partnerships by supporting

existing Information Sharing and Analysis Centers and Sector

Coordinating Councils and reinforces voluntary sharing under

current statutes that already provide for many cybersecurity

scenarios.

We commend the Committee for advancing cyber legislation

that is both pro-security and pro-privacy and we look forward

to working with you further on this matter. Please contact

Michelle Richardson, Legislative Counsel, at 202-715-0825 or

[email protected] for more information.

Sincerely,

Laura W. Murphy,

Director,

Michelle Richardson,

Legislative Counsel.

I want to give a great deal of thanks not only to the Members involved, but to the staff on this committee on both sides of the aisle who have worked countless hours to bring this bill to its fruition on the floor of the House.

I also would like to bring special attention to the endorsement from the ACLU. They refer to H.R. 3696 as ``both pro-security and pro- privacy.'' When have we heard these two coming together?

Striking a balance between security and privacy, I believe, is one of the most difficult challenges in developing cybersecurity legislation, and I am so very proud that this committee and this bill achieves that goal.

I want to close with the threat that I see out there from cyber. People ask me: What keeps you up at night? We can talk about al Qaeda, Mr. Putin, or

ISIS in Iraq and Syria, we can talk about our border and the threats south of the border, but when I see our offensive capability and what we can do offensively, knowing at night that we don't have the defensive capability to stop attacks not only to steal things, not only criminal IP theft, not just espionage, but the power to shut things down and to bring this country to its knees with a cyber 9/11, Mr. Speaker, is really what keeps me up at night.

My father was a World War II bombardier on a B-17. He flew over 32 missions in Europe in support of the D-day invasion and the Battle of the Bulge. In his days, bombs won that war.

We have a new kind of warfare out there. It is a digital warfare, and the game has changed. It is done anonymously. There are no boundaries to this cyber threat any more. It can come from anywhere, at any time, without being able to attribute it back to the source from where the attack came from.

This bill will for the first time codify DHS' ability--and the NCCIC, which is their cyber command, to better defend and support critical infrastructure in the United States that we so heavily depend on, and it will ultimately protect not only our economy and our infrastructure, but ultimately protect the American people.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation to protect America, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan), chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies, who has spent, I must say, countless hours advancing this bill, meeting with the private sector and privacy groups to get to this point where we are today.

I want to commend you, sir, for a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I believe the gentlewoman from New York has a few additional speakers, so I am prepared to close once the gentlewoman does.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me echo the sentiments of the gentlewoman from New York.

I want to thank you and Mr. Meehan for your work on this bill. You are truly the workhorses--the engines--behind this bill, and I want to thank you for helping us get to this point where we are today.

Congressman Langevin, we were talking about cybersecurity before it was cool to talk about cybersecurity.

Forming the Cybersecurity Caucus, I think, raises awareness of Members of Congress about how important this issue really is, because, I think, when you talk about this issue, Mr. Speaker, people's eyes tend to glaze over. They don't understand how important this is in protecting the American people.

This is a national security bill. I don't believe partisan politics has a place in that. I was at The Aspen Institute with Jane Harman, who served on our committee and on the Intelligence Committee for many years, who also believes that our adversaries don't care whether we are Democrat or Republican. They care about the fact that we are Americans, and they want to hit us. We have adversaries who want to hit us--China, Russia, Iran, and countless others--in the cybersecurity space.

This is a pro-security and pro-privacy bill. I had a reporter ask me, How could you possibly get the ACLU to agree on any security bill? It protects Americans' privacy but also their security through the private civilian interface to the private sector, and that is how we do it. It is not through the military. The NSA has a foreign intelligence role, and the DHS has a domestic critical infrastructure role. Of course, Director Alexander called cybersecurity and what has happened in recent years the largest transfer of wealth in history.

So when the American people say: Why is this so important; the largest transfer of wealth in American history? Why is this so important? Because cyber can bring down things, can shut down things in a 9/11 style.

We have a historical moment in this Congress to pass the first cybersecurity bill through the House and Senate and be signed into law in the history of the Congress. As this bill passes--I hope, in a few minutes--and we send it over to the Senate, I hope our colleagues on the Senate side will respond to this.

They have made great progress on the Senate side in getting work done on cybersecurity. We have a unique opportunity and a great moment here to pass this bill out of the House, get it married with the Senate bill in a bipartisan way to protect the American people, and get it signed into law by the President, something that we very rarely have seen in this Congress. So I think it is a very historic moment.

To close, Mr. Speaker, when 9/11 happened, a lot of people did a lot of finger pointing around here and pointed to Members of Congress and to the executive branch and said: What did you do to stop this? What did you do to stop this?

We had a 9/11 Commission that pointed out all the vulnerabilities and the things that we didn't do as Members of Congress. I don't want that to happen again today. I want to be able to say, Mr. Speaker, if, God forbid, we get hit, and we get hit hard in a cyber attack against the United States of America, that we as Members of Congress and members of this committee did everything within our power to stop it.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the great work we have done together. I look forward to the passage of this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology,

Washington, DC, February 24, 2014.

Hon. Michael McCaul,

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman McCaul: I am writing to you concerning the

jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology in H.R. 3696, the ``National Cybersecurity and

Critical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2013.'' The bill

contains provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

I recognize and appreciate the desire to bring this

legislation before the House of Representatives in an

expeditious manner, and accordingly, I will waive further

consideration of this bill in Committee, notwithstanding any

provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee

on Science, Space, and Technology. This waiver, of course, is

conditional on our mutual understanding that agreeing to

waive consideration of this bill should not be construed as

waiving, reducing, or affecting the jurisdiction of the

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

This waiver is also given with the understanding that the

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology expressly

reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provision

within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference

that may be convened on this, or any similar legislation. I

ask for your commitment to support any request by the

Committee for conferees on H.R. 3696 as well as any similar

or related legislation.

I ask that a copy of this letter and your response be

included in the report on H.R. 3696 and also be placed in the

Congressional Record during consideration of this bill on the

House floor.

Sincerely,

Lamar Smith,

Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1691) to amend title 5, United States Code, to improve the security of the United States border and to provide for reforms and rates of pay for border patrol agents.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we love the Border Patrol and the men and women who serve on the Border Patrol. We cannot thank them enough for the hard and tough duties that they provide. It is difficult. It is hard.

I have been out there in Arizona as they do this out on ATVs, chasing drug runners. It is amazing what they do and how they do it. We love them, and the bill before us, Mr. Speaker, is a good bill to help them and their families, provide a better service to them and their families, but actually save some money for the Federal Government. This is truly a bill, Mr. Speaker, that is a win-win situation. I am honored to have that bill before us today, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

The Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act of 2014 would replace Border Patrol's current pay system and create a consistent and reliable pay system, enhance border security, and save taxpayers literally hundreds of millions of dollars.

Established in 1924, today's Border Patrol relies on roughly 21,000 agents to secure some 6,000 miles of international borders between Mexico and Canada and 2,000 miles of coastal waters surrounding Florida and Puerto Rico.

Properly paying Border Patrol agents and responsibly managing a payroll system are critical to the mission of the United States Customs and Border Patrol, often referred to as CBP.

Thirteen months ago, November 20, 2013, the Subcommittee on National Security held a hearing to examine the Border Patrol's compensation policies. The hearing focused on a report by the Office of Special Counsel documenting abuse of a type of overtime within the Border Patrol.

The OSC testified to longstanding abuse of overtime within the Border Patrol, including by headquarters employees who regularly extended their day by roughly 2 hours and padding their paychecks by an additional 25 percent.

Administratively uncontrollable overtime, AUO, was established more than 40 years ago to pay employees for ``irregular, unscheduled, but necessary overtime.'' The Department of Homeland Security is one of the largest users of AUO within the Federal Government, with Border Patrol accounting for more than 75 percent of the paid AUO.

Border Patrol agents receive between 10 and 25 percent of their basic pay through AUO, depending on the average number of irregular overtime performed per week. Generally, agents themselves are responsible for recognizing without supervision the circumstances which require them to remain on duty beyond regular hours.

They are down on the border; they are pursuing somebody who is coming across illegally. You can't just say, ``Well, time to go home.'' Oftentimes, they work for hours and hours in continued pursuit of these people that had come across illegally.

Under AUO, most agents earn up to 25 percent of their base salary for time worked in excess of 80 hours in a pay period. Agents may earn additional overtime compensation that is generally paid at 50 percent above the regular rate. Total overtime costs for Border Patrol agents, including pay and benefits, was $627 million in 2013 while total compensation costs for those agents was $3.1 billion in that same year.

During the hearing, it became clear that AUO is ill-suited to be meet the needs of today's Border Patrol. In response, I joined with Senators Tester and McCain in introducing legislation to provide Border Patrol a cost-effective and flexible overtime system called the Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act. DHS pledged to work with the committee to find a solution at an affordable cost, and that is why we are here today.

Mr. Speaker, under current law, Border Patrol agents who work beyond 85.5 hours to meet mission requirements are generally paid time and a half.

Under the bill, agents will annually elect one of three pay options: number one, work 100 hours per biweekly pay period and increase their base salary by 25 percent; work 90 hours and receive a 12.5 percent base salary increase; or work no overtime at all.

Unscheduled overtime will be treated as comp time with no monetary compensation. The bill eliminates Fair Labor Standards Act overtime which results in significant savings to the taxpayer.

The Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act generally requires 90 percent of Border Patrol agents to work 100 hours each per pay period while CBP expects that most remaining agents would work 90 hours per pay period. This staffing floor will allow supervisors to more effectively plan border security operations.

To help ensure accountability, the bill requires the Border Patrol to undertake a detailed assessment of its operational requirements and staffing needs at every Border Patrol station within 1 year of enactment and submit it to Congress for review.

The GAO will examine CBP's methodology and analysis and within 90 days submit a report to Congress indicating whether GAO concurs with CBP's assessments. Border Patrol has flexibility in the staffing floor based on the results of that assessment.

The bill grants CBP management authority to unilaterally assign agents to work additional hours if the security situation along the border necessitates it. The bill reflects months of negotiation and congressional review and is supported by the National Border Patrol Council.

I personally cannot thank the National Border Patrol Council enough for their good work, tenacity on this issue, and their deep desire to make the agents' lives better. They represent some 17,000 agents. CBO estimated that implementing the Senate bill, S. 1691, would save roughly $100 million per year. Costs would decline under Senate bill S. 1691 mostly because Border Patrol agents would no longer receive compensation required under the FLSA.

This is an important bill, Mr. Speaker. There is a lot of good, bipartisan support. If I am not mistaken, it passed unanimously in the Senate. We have held hearings in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. I want to personally thank Chairman Issa for his good work. I also want to thank Leader McCarthy and Speaker Boehner for allowing this bill to come to the floor. Homeland Security Chairman McCaul and Congresswoman Miller have been pivotal on this. Members from both sides of the aisle, like Dave Reichert, Mr. O'Rourke, and Ron Barber have worked hard on this issue and care about this as well. I, again, appreciate their bipartisan support. And bicameral support, there has been good work from Senator Tester and Senator McCain, who cares deeply about Border Patrol issues, and certainly Senator Carper for making this a reality. It is an honor to have this bill before us today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to continue to thank some other Members for making this possible.

Yvette Clarke has been very helpful. She worked diligently on H.R. 3107, which passed 395-8. It has been included in the Senate version, and I am glad to have her involvement in this.

I also want to thank Blake Farenthold for his good work on this. Coming from Texas, he cares deeply about these issues and was very helpful in supporting it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank Mr. O'Rourke for his passion on this issue. He is a fine gentleman to work with on these types of issues and others. I am happy to serve with him on both Homeland Security and in this body. I thank him for his good work.

There has been good bipartisan work on both sides of the aisle and in both bodies to get to this point today.

I also thank Eleanor Holmes Norton for her personal commitment to these issues, and Federal workers in general.

This truly is a win-win situation. We make life better for Border Patrol agents and their families. We give more certainty to them and their families to help them with their mortgages. We also happen to save money for the American taxpayer. I appreciate the creativity and good work to get to this point.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In conclusion, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington, D.C. I look forward to working with her on a host of issues as we serve on the same committee. I can only hope that as many of them can be as bipartisan as possible. We both have a tenacious nature to fight to represent the constituencies which we represent, and do so in the spirit of making this country better.

Really, that is the reason that this bill has come here today with good, broad bipartisan support. I cannot thank enough Brandon Judd from the National Border Patrol Council. He heads that group. He has been absolutely wonderful on this issue, good leadership from him.

It is my honor to recommend to my colleagues and urge all Members to support the passage of S. 1691.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas and my colleagues from both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3696, the National Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2014.

Before I really talk about the substance, I want to associate myself for a moment with the comments and very effective commentary of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), but his closing, I think, really summed it up. It is not just what we are doing; but why does this matter? Why does this matter now?

We have generated tremendous economic prosperity by virtue of the creation of a global Internet, but the fact of the matter is that while this has closed our world and enabled instantaneous communications and other kinds of benefits, it has also created a situation, for the first time in the history of our Nation, in which we aren't protected by two oceans and, effectively, two friendly countries on our borders. Now, we are able to be accessed from anywhere in the world at a moment's notice.

It was instructive to me that I often used to say, when we were handling a case, that you let the evidence be put in through the words of the witnesses. If you pay attention to the words of the witness, that is more powerful than what you can say.

It is instructive to me that the first thing former CIA Director and former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta did when he stepped down as Secretary of Defense was to travel to New York and warn not just New York, but this Nation about the potential impact of what he termed a ``cyber Pearl Harbor.''

As a result, this is a critically important and timely issue that we are working on. As importantly, it has been addressed in an effective bipartisan fashion.

In the wake of more aggressive and escalating cyber attacks on our Nation's critical infrastructure, including our financial systems, NASDAQ, and the recent Neiman Marcus and Target breaches of Americans' personal information, we bring H.R. 3696 to the House floor.

Cyber attacks and cyber hacks are now front and center in our homeland, and the media is reporting more now than ever on what cyber targets already know--that the threat is constant and evolving.

Americans expect Congress to act.

We who serve in Congress and government know all too well that the cyber threat is real and imminent and can do catastrophic damage and destruction to the critical infrastructure of our Nation--our bridges, tunnels, oil

and gas pipelines, water systems, financial systems and their markets, air traffic control systems, and more. Today, the U.S. House of Representatives takes a significant step forward in protecting and securing cyberspace through the cyber infrastructure act that we have put on the floor today.

I am very proud of this bill and of all of the good work and due diligence that went into it. Chairman McCaul and I and our staffs held over 300 stakeholder meetings to ensure we got this legislation right.

I want to thank as well my good friends on the other side of the aisle--Ranking Member Bennie Thompson and subcommittee Ranking Member Yvette Clarke--for their leadership and their work collectively on this.

This is bipartisan legislation but not just amongst those of us working together here within the House. As the chairman identified, it has also been supported by private sector stakeholders, by the ACLU. In fact, the ACLU has called it--and the chairman as well--pro-security and pro-privacy. That is because, very notably, this bill puts the Department of Homeland Security, a civilian agency with the Nation's first-created and most robust privacy office, in charge of preventing personal information from getting inadvertently caught in the net, which is a big, important part of the work that has been done here.

This bill builds upon the Department of Homeland Security's unique public-private partnership in securing the Nation's critical infrastructure, and it codifies the Department's critical cybersecurity mission. Public-private is important, as 90 percent of the assets in the cyber world are in the private sector. The Department of Homeland Security works with the other Federal Government partners in a collaborative effort to secure our Nation against cyber attacks, and this bill cements DHS' critical role.

Specifically, this bill requires the Department to collaborate with industry to facilitate both the protection of our infrastructure and our response to a cyber attack. The bill, very importantly, strengthens DHS' civilian, transparent interface to allow real-time cyber threat sharing across the critical infrastructure sectors. This legislation also strengthens the integrity of our Nation's information systems, and it makes it more difficult for online hackers to compromise consumer and personal information, like we saw in Target, and it prevents hackers from stealing Americans' business and intellectual property-- another point well driven home by the chairman in talking about jobs and of the hundreds of billions of dollars in research and development that are stolen from America by virtue of these cyber attacks.

The ability of these attacks to take place at the level of sophistication necessary to penetrate some of the world's most mature networks should come as no surprise. Foreign adversaries, including China, Iran, and Russian criminal enterprises, have spent years and have invested billions of dollars into crafting and securing the tools and intelligence necessary to target American citizens. Whether it is the theft of wealth or intelligence or that of launching a malicious attack on our Nation's energy, transportation, or chemical networks, American lives and livelihoods remain at risk without sufficient security.

Last year, President Obama issued an executive order on cybersecurity because Congress failed to act on this issue, but the threshold of securing our Nation in the 21st century cannot rely on executive orders and Presidential directives. As Members of Congress, we have the responsibility to act in a way that best protects the American citizens. Our enemies live and breathe to catch us asleep at the switch, and I am unwilling, as my colleagues are, to stand by, speechless, when they are asked, What did you do to prevent a cyber attack? Now is the time to show them what we have and what we can do.

This bill doesn't address every issue in cybersecurity, and it is not a comprehensive cybersecurity fix, but it is a giant and critical step forward. Together, we can unite our Nation against those who wish to do us harm, and I have no doubt that we can get it done. In fact, we have no other choice. I urge the support of H.R. 3696.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3696, the National Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2014, and I am pleased to be here today as an original cosponsor of this legislation.

This bipartisan legislation gives the Department of Homeland Security the legislative authority it needs to carry out its cyber mission and to help protect our Nation's critical infrastructure from cyber attacks and intrusions.

The approach taken in this bill is very much in line with DHS' approach since 2007, when President Bush designated the Department as the lead Federal civilian agency for cybersecurity.

This is a dual mission. DHS is responsible for working with Federal civilian agencies to protect Federal IT networks and the dot-gov domain. At the same time, DHS is responsible for effectively partnering with the private sector to raise its level of cyber hygiene and foster greater cybersecurity.

I am pleased that H.R. 3696 authorizes the 247 operations of the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, also referred to as NCCIC. The NCCIC has been the epicenter for information sharing about the activities of cyberterrorists and criminals and the reporting of cyber incidents by critical infrastructure owners and operators.

Additionally, the bill codifies ongoing efforts to raise the level of cybersecurity within critical infrastructure sectors. Specifically, it authorizes the development and implementation, in coordination with the private sector, of voluntary risk-based security standards.

This provision essentially codifies the process that the National Institute of Standards and Technology, also known as NIST, undertook pursuant to an executive order that President Obama issued in February of 2013.

Under the approach taken in this bill, we are asking business and government to come together to find an adaptable and cooperative cybersecurity framework, not an off-the-shelf or check-the-box solution, to raise the level of cybersecurity across the Nation.

I am pleased that the measured and targeted approach taken to working with the private sector was supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, which called our bill ``pro-security and pro-privacy.''

The President said it best:

It is the policy of the United States to enhance the

security and resilience of the Nation's critical

infrastructure and to maintain a cyber environment that

encourages efficiency, innovation, and economic prosperity

while promoting safety, security, business confidentiality,

privacy, and civil liberties.

While I am also pleased about all we do with respect to the Department's mission to work with the private sector on cybersecurity, I am a bit disappointed that key language that clarifies DHS' roles with respect to other Federal agencies and protection of the dot-gov domain is not in the bill before you today.

Unfortunately, the striking of these provisions appears to have been the price the Committee on Homeland Security had to pay to get this important legislation to the floor.

It seems that the provisions that would have given DHS specific authority to respond in a more timely manner to Federal network breaches were opposed by another committee chairman. Unfortunately, that chairman has willfully chosen to ignore reality.

The reality is that since 2008, DHS has assumed responsibility for working with agencies to protect the dot-gov domain, not the Office of Management and Budget.

It is my hope that, as this legislation moves through the legislative process, there will be progress on efforts to ensure that the law reflects this reality.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 3696, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the cochair of the House Cybersecurity Caucus.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers. If the gentleman from Texas has no more speakers, then, in closing, I urge the passage of H.R. 3696. It is legislation that will enhance DHS' ability to execute its cybersecurity mission. I am particularly pleased that it includes language that I authored to help ensure that DHS has the cyber workforce it needs to execute that mission.

I would like to thank Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson, as well as the subcommittee chair, Mr. Meehan, for their leadership and their vision, and for their understanding that this is something that keeps us up at night, that this is something that this body must move forward to address--that this is a 21st century threat for which we cannot sit idly by and do nothing about. Their leadership on H.R. 3696 and on the suite of cyber legislation on the floor today speaks volumes to moving us in the right direction.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 3696, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. Chaffetz, for not only coming forward to manage this bill, but I thank him because he is the sponsor of a bipartisan bill very similar to the bill before us today, H.R. 3463; and I rise in strong support of S. 1691, the Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act of 2014, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Senators Tester and McCain.

S. 1691 would enhance the Custom and Border Protection's ability to secure and patrol more than 6,000 miles of our Nation's borders between Mexico and Canada, and 2,000 miles of our coastal waters surrounding Florida and Puerto Rico. It would also respond to the growing threat of cyber attacks. This legislation, which is supported by the administration and the Border Patrol Council, would also save the American taxpayers about $100 million annually, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The bill would dramatically simplify the current pay system for our country's more than 21,000 courageous Border Patrol agents by eliminating compensation for overtime through what is called administratively uncontrollable overtime. Under a newly created pay system, Border Patrol agents would have three work schedule and compensation options. They could choose to, one, work 100 hours for each pay period and receive an increase in base salary by 25 percent; two, work 90 hours each pay period and receive an increase in base salary by 12.5 percent; or three, work 80 hours per pay period with no overtime. All unscheduled overtime worked beyond these hours would be treated as compensatory time off, with an annual maximum of 240 hours.

The legislation would also set a minimum staffing requirement requiring that at least 90 percent of Border Patrol agents in any given location work 100 hours every pay period to ensure that Customs and Border Protection has the man-hours it needs to respond to threats and to secure the border.

Under this new system, Border Patrol agents would work millions of hours longer than they do today, which equates to adding 1,500 agents to patrol the Nation's borders.

S. 1691 would require Customs and Border Protection to submit to Congress a staffing plan detailing the agency's operational and staffing requirements to ensure hours worked matched the agency's needs. The Government Accountability Office would also be required to review the plan as an independent check.

This bill would also address concerns regarding past abuses by prohibiting agents at headquarters and training academies and fitness instructors from working more than 80 hours per pay period unless the staffing plan shows a need for these employees to work additional hours.

The legislation would also provide Customs and Border Protection with flexibility to lower the staffing floor set by the bill if the staffing plan shows that the agency can meet its operational requirements in a given location with fewer man-hours.

S. 1691 would also require Customs and Border Protection, in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management, to develop a plan to prevent Border Patrol agents from artificially boosting their retirement annuities by selecting a higher rate of pay than they had historically within 3 years of being eligible to retire. The Government Accountability Office would be required to review this plan and to report to Congress on its effectiveness.

An amendment introduced by Senator Carper also would add provisions allowing the Department of Homeland Security to recruit and retain cyber professionals by granting authority to hire qualified experts on an expedited basis and to pay them competitive salaries, wages, and incentives. The legislation also would require the Department to report annually on the program's progress.

S. 1691 would provide much-needed reform to the compensation of Border Patrol agents and ensure that the Department of Homeland Security has the personnel it needs to deal with increasing cyber attacks.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke), an original cosponsor of H.R. 3463, the House companion version of S. 1691.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke), the ranking member of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee of the Committee on Homeland Security.

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

I want to say how much I appreciate the views of the two Members who have spoken, the bipartisan way in which this bill has been handled in the House and in the Senate, and look forward to more bipartisanship to come, Mr. Chaffetz.

I yield back the balance of my time.