Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. Pompeo.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pompeo amendment.

This amendment strongly reaffirms that in America, privacy and security must coexist together. This amendment states in no uncertain terms that the government cannot use section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, to intentionally target an American for surveillance.

This important amendment also reaffirms that phone conversations cannot be collected through section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. It makes the intentions of Congress very clear.

I believe the Pompeo amendment makes a powerful statement that NSA cannot target Americans for the collection or listen to their phone calls. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' However, I do understand the concerns of the American people and of Congress when it comes to these programs.

On the House Intelligence Committee, we are reviewing and evaluating potential ways to change the FISA Act that will provide the intelligence community with the tools it needs to keep our country safe while also protecting privacy and civil liberties. We are committed to having this important discussion. However, I do have concerns about the amendment we will debate next.

The Amash amendment is an on/off switch for section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. It will have an immediate operational impact and our country will be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. This authority has helped prevent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. A planned attack on the New York City subway system was stopped because of section 215.

But the Amash amendment passes this authority and it will end it. This amendment goes too far, too fast, on the wrong legislative vehicle. We need to debate the scope of this program, and we are, but this is an extreme knee-jerk reaction to the situation.

This program has been authorized and reauthorized by Congress. It receives extensive oversight by the Intelligence Committee and is a vital tool for our intelligence community to protect our Nation. Remember, 9/11 happened in part because we failed to connect the dots. One of the critical tools we now have and use to connect those dots is section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. Remember, this is just phone records-- just phone numbers--no conversations.

I respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on the Amash amendment and a ``yes'' vote on the Pompeo amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to recognize Mrs. Mary L. Harvey--who devoted her long career in Baltimore County government to preserving and improving communities--on the occasion of the posthumous dedication of the ``CenterPiece Family Arts Center'' in her name.

A lifelong resident of Perry Hall, Mrs. Harvey graduated from Perry Hall High School in 1976 and from the Community College of Baltimore County in Dundalk in 1986. She became active in eastern Baltimore County politics and worked as a legislative aide to the Baltimore County Council for eight years.

After witnessing first-hand her tireless drive and passion for helping people, I appointed Mrs. Harvey to the position of Eastern Sector Coordinator within the Office of Community Conservation during my tenure as Baltimore County Executive. Her excellent work twice earned her promotions: first, as manager of revitalization efforts and then director of the office. Mrs. Harvey was reappointed to the position and retained it until 2010.

Mrs. Harvey was a true visionary. Under her leadership, Baltimore County embraced the concept of the ``Urban Design Assistance Team,'' which encourages input from community members. She also oversaw the construction of three new community centers and developed partnerships with local businesses that lead to safer affordable living communities for thousands of county residents. Her constant goal was to create neighborhoods that were vibrant, attractive and family-friendly. She had a special compassion for the homeless and coordinated a 10-year plan to eradicate it in Baltimore County.

Mrs. Harvey's accolades were many. She was the Baltimore County Commission for Women's ``Woman of the Year'' in 1995 and received the ``Renaissance Milestone Award'' from the Dundalk Renaissance Corporation in 2010. She served on the boards of the Essex Community College Foundation, the Essex-Middle River-White Marsh Chamber of Commerce and the Family Crisis Center of Baltimore County.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join with me today to honor Mrs. Mary L. Harvey, whose legacy of service to the families of Baltimore County continues today. I have many happy memories of working with Mrs. Harvey and wish to thank her family for their support during her years in county government. I could not think of a more appropriate or well- deserved namesake for this beautiful new facility in one of Mrs. Harvey's favorite communities.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce and to welcome to Washington U.S. Army Chaplain Angel Berrios, who is currently stationed at Fort Meade, located in the Second Congressional District of Maryland.

Chaplain Berrios, a captain in the U.S. Army, has been an ordained minister with the Assemblies of God for 24 years. For nearly two decades, he served as a full-time evangelist ministering in 47 countries and 47 States. Chaplain Berrios then joined the Army and was assigned to the 3rd Squadron of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment at Fort Hood.

He was deployed to southern Iraq during operation New Dawn and provided a church in the desert for 850 fellow American soldiers. In addition to regular services and Bible study, Chaplain Berrios counsels soldiers struggling with day-to-day life in a war zone.

His ministry earned him a Bronze Star. His father, a Vietnam veteran, also served in the Army for 20 years.

We welcome Chaplain Berrios and his guests today. I wish to thank him for his many years of service to his community and his country.

I'm honored to call Chaplain Berrios a constituent, and I offer thanks on behalf of this entire body for his delivery of the opening prayer today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to honor Dr. John and Mrs. Gwen Sloop on the occasion of their retirement after 27 years of devoted service to First Presbyterian Church.

As senior pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Harrisonburg, Virginia, Dr. Sloop is a true spiritual leader dedicated to his flock. A powerful preacher, he is a man ``on fire'' for Jesus. He has been a champion for global missions and has lead dozens of others to follow him into the missionary field. He has been actively involved in Presbyterians for Renewal, the Presbyterian Coalition, the Confessing Church movement and has served on the board of the Presbyterian Outreach Foundation.

Mrs. Sloop has earned a reputation for her selflessness and kindness, routinely demonstrated by her outstanding work with children. Along with her husband, she attended Gordon-Conwell Seminary in Boston before transferring to Columbia Seminary in Atlanta, graduating in 1973. For 13 years they served the growing congregation of the Lithonia Presbyterian Church in the suburbs of Atlanta.

The Sloops are passionate about seeing the Presbyterian Church renewed and growing again. Under their stewardship, First Presbyterian has grown to more than 1,100 members and more than 500 attendees for Sunday services since they were called there in 1986. They are loving parents to three children and devoted grandparents to five grandchildren.

I have had the privilege of attending First Presbyterian Church under the direction of Dr. and Mrs. Sloop. I know them to be dearly beloved by the entire congregation. Though they will be truly missed, we know they will continue to inspire many more followers, just as they have inspired my family and me.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join with me today to recognize Dr. and Mrs. Sloop. Their generosity and commitment to leaving this world better than they found it is an inspiration to us all and deserving of the utmost gratitude. It is with great pride that I congratulate them on their retirement and wish them continued success and happiness in the next chapter of their lives together.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to recognize Ms. Judith L. Fitzgerald, who will be honored with the ``2013 Dream Keeper Award'' for her many contributions to the education of youth in Maryland over the past three decades.

A Baltimore native, Ms. Fitzgerald is a graduate of Western High School and Lincoln University. She earned her law degree from Boston College and practiced both privately and for various government agencies. She began her teaching career as an adjunct professor at the University Of Maryland College Park and Baltimore City Community College.

Ms. Fitzgerald was a distinguished lecturer at Bowie State University, serving as a pre-law advisor, faculty advisor to two clubs and as program director for a consortium of Historically Black Colleges and University's with National Intelligence Studies Programs. During her tenure at Bowie State, Ms. Fitzgerald was the recipient of numerous honors and awards including the ``Outstanding Service & Appreciation'' Award and the ``2012 Bowie Girls Rock Award'' for her tremendous work as a mentor and faculty member.

Ms. Fitzgerald is currently a contributing faculty member at Walden University, where she teaches in the PhD and Masters Programs for the School of Public Policy and Administration. In addition to her teaching responsibilities, she is the lead faculty for other courses and serves on several dissertation committees.

When she is not teaching, Ms. Fitzgerald serves as the Vice President and Executive Director for ReInvent Inc., a music and arts after-school and summer school program for at-risk youth. She has also volunteered as a mediator for the Maryland Commission for Human Relations and Community Mediation Maryland. She has served on advisory boards too many to name and is a member of All Saints Church in Baltimore.

Mr. Speaker, the ``Dream Keeper Award'' was established to recognize the contributions of educators in the State of New Jersey. This is the first time the award will be presented to a resident of another state. This fact reflects Ms. Fitzgerald's personal commitment to each student she encounters. She truly leads by example, providing guidance and mentoring to those aspiring to enter the legal profession

and other careers. I ask that you join with me today to honor Ms. Judith L. Fitzgerald. It is with great admiration and appreciation that I congratulate her on this well-deserved honor and wish her many more years of success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today on behalf of myself, Representative Conaway from Texas, Representative LoBiondo from New Jersey, Representative Nunes from California, Mr. Rogers from Michigan, and Representative Thornberry from Texas to honor Mr. George J. Pappas, Professional Staff Member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and retired United States Army Lieutenant Colonel.

During his time with the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Pappas traveled extensively on bi-partisan congressional delegations, leading world-wide congressional trips for individual Members of Congress and group delegations. He has specific knowledge and expertise in engaging partner allies and emerging democracies from Eastern Europe, East Asia, and Western Africa. He advised bipartisan Members of the House on issues related to national security, cyber security, nuclear non- proliferation, global conflict, military intelligence operations, and institutional organizations within the Department of Defense.

Before serving as an exceptional policy advisor, he dedicated 24 years to active military service, holding a number of command and staff assignments including Deputy Commander United States Special Operation Command--Korea and Chief of Civil Affairs, United States Forces Korea. He also served as Operations Officer, Company Commander and Special Forces Detachment Command, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne); and Battery Commander and Brigade Fire Support Office in the 82nd Airborne Division.

His awards and decorations include the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star Medal, two Defense Meritorious Service Medals, three Meritorious Service Medals, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Joint

Service Achievement Medal, Four Army Achievement Medals, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Korea Defense Service Medal, National Defense Service Ribbon, Army Service Ribbon, three Overseas Service Ribbons, two Joint Meritorious Unit Awards, two Army Superior Unit Awards, and the Master Parachutist Badge, Special Forces Tab.

Mr. Pappas received his Bachelor of Arts in History from Saint Bonaventure University and his Masters of Science in Resource Management from Troy University. His military education includes the Field Artillery Officer Basic and Advanced Courses, Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center, Special Forces Qualification Course, Air Command and Staff College, U.S. Army Force Management School, and the Armed Forces Staff College.

Mr. Speaker, George Pappas has dedicated his career in service of his country, and I ask that you join with me today to acknowledge Mr. George J. Pappas for his tremendous contributions to the security of the United States of America.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

First thing, to the Congresswoman from Arizona, I really appreciate all of your work on this bill. You came to Congress; you did your homework; you decided that it was important to protect our country; and you've done a lot of work. I just want to let you know that you've done a great job for your district and for America, generally, and I want to thank you for that.

Basically, this amendment really allows the Committee on Homeland Security and the Inspector General to oversee and to do reporting. It's important that we have oversight. I know the chairman and I have worked hard to make sure that we deal with all of the privacy issues, and this is just another example of how we're going to protect our privacy. You cannot have security if you don't have privacy.

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

Mr. Chair, while we never believe that any surveillance of Americans was permitted under our bill, we are taking any and all precautions to make it entirely clear that no element of the intelligence community--which, of course, includes the Department of Defense and the National Security Agency--is authorized to target any United States person for surveillance. The chairman's amendment solidifies the privacy and civil liberties protections that we always have intended to have as part of the bill. No American activities or communications will be targeted--period. We cannot have security without privacy.

Therefore, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaMALFA It is my pleasure to now yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Intel Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

I would like to yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Congressman Goodlatte, as much time as he may consume. And I would also like to thank him personally for working closely with us on this bill to have a bill that will protect the citizens of the United States of America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment even though I'm not opposed.

I thank Congressman Paulsen for his work on this bill. I support his amendment with the sense of Congress to encourage international cooperation with regard to cybersecurity whenever possible under this bill.

Given that cyber threats are global in nature, as are our networks and computer systems, international efforts must work together to protect against domestic and foreign actors who seek to destroy our industries, government, agencies, and utilities.

Therefore, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

First, I would like to thank Congressman Barton for his work on the bill.

You've made the bill stronger, and we want to make sure that there is no perception that people's privacies are being violated.

I support Congressman Barton's amendment, which ensures that nothing in our bill, CISPA, provides the authority for any entity to sell a consumer's personal information for marketing purposes.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I just want to thank the gentlelady from Texas for her hard work on this bill, and I support this amendment.

First thing, I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Thompson, and I want to thank Mr. McCaul and Mr. Rogers for coming together. That's what we're elected to do, to come together in a bipartisan way and to deal with difficult issues. And they were difficult issues. But we're here today to all support this amendment.

The White House and the privacy groups raised this as one of the main issues with the bill. These groups were concerned that there was an impression, wrongly, I believe, that the military would control the program. This was never the case, but we heard these concerns, and we are addressing them in this amendment.

It means that companies sharing information about cyber threats will go to the Department of Homeland Security, a civilian agency. If the information is related to cybersecurity crime, the companies will go to the Department of Justice, another civilian agency.

The amendment requires that the Department of Homeland Security share this information with other government agencies in real-time so they can use it to protect against future cyber threats and attacks.

This amendment ensures we protect the security of our Nation, but also protect the privacy and liberties of our country and our citizens. I strongly support this amendment and urge other Members to do the same.

I commend, again, Ranking Member Thompson, Chairman McCaul, Chairman Rogers for coming together at the last moment. I respectfully request a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

You can't have security if you don't have privacy and liberty.

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

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

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

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

Chairman Rogers and I are here today to discuss the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, known as CISPA. The bill simply allows the government to give cyber threat intelligence to the private sector to protect its networks from cyber attacks.

I don't want to repeat a lot of what the chairman has said, but the first

thing I want to do is to acknowledge the leadership of the chairman. Three years ago, the chairman and I, when we took over the leadership of the House Select Intelligence Committee, realized how serious the threat of cyber attacks were to our country, to our businesses, to our health, safety, and welfare.

We decided to pull together a group of representatives from different parts of this issue--we had the administration involved, we had the privacy groups involved, including the ACLU, we brought in the industry--because we knew that we had to put together a bill that would pass the House, the Senate and be signed by the President.

So, what we attempted to do was get input, and then we put together a bill. And, by the way, the bill is only 27 pages--it's probably a record in this Congress--and we did read the bill.

Now, what we attempted to do in this bill is to address a situation where now, the government cannot really communicate with the private sector to try to help protect our citizens, our businesses from cyber attacks. The reason for that is in 1947, there is a law that says that the intelligence community cannot communicate or pass information to another entity that does not have clearances. So, basically what our bill does is to allow the sharing of information, which we can't do now, to the private sector.

Now, why is this important? This is something that is very important because most people don't understand this. In the United States of America we have 10 companies, called the providers, that control 80 percent of our network--80 percent of our network. So in order for us to protect the United States of America from cyber attacks, we need to make sure that the government has a partnership with the private sector and that they can pass the threat information so that the government can help protect.

As an example, if your house is being robbed, you call 911 and the police department comes. That's the same scenario that we're looking at here, only it's a lot more sophisticated. Again, as the chairman said, passing information, mostly zeroes and ones, to the government so that we can work together to protect our network.

Now, why is this so important? And I think it's important that we get into some of the issues of threats. Just recently, we understand, and we know, that The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, were cyber-attacked. And basically, our understanding is that they did this, especially China, to intimidate the paper sources within China. We had our U.S. banks. It is very serious for U.S. banks to be attacked and hacked. Most of what our banks have are records and information. And to be able to shut down a bank or to be able to manipulate or get privacy information could be very destructive to our banks, and yet this is being done, and it's been done for a period of time.

Media reports have said that Iran, a rogue country that we know exports terrorism--we know what Iran's beliefs are, and yet reports have said that Iran attacked Saudi Arabia's oil company, one of the largest in the world, Aramco, and wiped out 30,000 computers in a weekend. And let me say this: Iran is not a very sophisticated company as it comes to cyber, but they have the sophistication to be able to knock out 30,000 computers and really shut their businesses down for a period of time. This is what's happening in the United States.

Cyber Command, whose job it is to protect our military networks, estimated that in the last couple of years that we have had, the United States of America has had $400 billion--not million, billion--worth of American trade secrets being stolen from U.S. companies every year, costing these companies market share and jobs. That's probably the biggest theft in the history of the world, and yet we still are not able to help government working with business.

You have Secretary Napolitano, the Director of the FBI, you have the Director of the NSA, Alexander, and all three have said one of the biggest fears they have now are these attacks, and that unless we have a sharing opportunity between government and between business, they feel that they cannot protect our country from these cyber attacks the way that they should. It's so important that we need to act now on this bill.

Now, we can pass bills in the House all day long, but if the Senate doesn't pass a bill and the President doesn't sign it, where are we? We were able to pass our bill last year in a bipartisan manner, and yet our bill went to the Senate and it stalled and the bill didn't go anywhere, so Chairman Rogers and I started again.

But, what we said to each other and we discussed was that we need to address the issue of privacy. Even though we felt strongly that our bill does protect privacy, we knew there were groups out there, especially the privacy groups, that felt that there was not enough protection in our bill. So we rolled up our sleeves, we listened to the issues raised by the privacy groups, the administration had issues with respect to privacy, and we changed the bill.

Now, I don't want to repeat what the chairman said, but basically we made some significant changes to our bill to deal with the issue of privacy. We provided that first, there's a privacy and civil liberties oversight board, and now that board must review our program. That's one area of oversight.

In the intelligence community, we have privacy officers in each department, in each area. And these privacy people have to look at the threat information. They must also conduct a classified and unclassified review. That's the second oversight that was changed in the bill.

An annual report must be sent to Congress. We also have what we call the ``inspector general,'' whose job it is to oversee the different agencies they represent. Those are four areas of oversight just in the bill.

Regarding the privacy agreements that we were concerned about, we only have five elements where this bill applies. That means if you're a tax cheat and we pick up some information, that can't be used against you. The privacy agreements were concerned about the issue of national security being one of those elements in this bill. They thought it was too broad. So Chairman Rogers and I got together, and we were able to get the votes from both sides of the aisle, and we were able to take a position that the national security issue is not in the bill anymore. We feel national security is being covered by one of the elements in the bill that says it deals with the issue of protecting people's lives or liberty. So we feel that we have covered national security.

One of the most important issues was the issue of minimization. What is minimization? Most people don't know what it is. Basically, minimization is if private information is passed, there needs to be an entity out there that will take that private information out so that it is not used.

We've now added to the bill that any of the zeroes and ones that are passed--and that's what's happening--if there was some reason why somebody's personal information is passed when those zeroes and ones are coming back and forth, now we have what we call 100 percent minimization, and the government will make sure that every single entity and all the information that is passed will be 100 percent minimized. If there is any personal information in there at all, it will be knocked out. That's very significant, and that gives a lot of coverage.

This is also important: you don't have security if you don't have privacy. That was one of the themes Chairman Rogers and I used in the beginning: if you don't have security, you don't have privacy. Even though we thought our first bill had it, we felt there was a certain perception, we heard what was said and we made these changes.

There is one other issue that is out there that's very important that I think is also extremely relevant. That's the issue of when the information is passed when we're attempting to protect our citizens and our businesses from these attacks and hopefully from a destructive attack like Iran did to Aramco in Saudi Arabia, there was a perception out there which, again, had to deal with perceptions. The perception was that if this information of zeroes and ones that are being passed back and forth, what is the point of entry. We did not want the perception to be that the military in any way would be in charge or would

be the entity that is overseeing this. We felt very strongly that it had to be civil.

So Chairman Rogers and I, along with Chairman McCaul of the Homeland Security Committee and Ranking Member Thompson, have an amendment here today which is very significant. I'm sure it will be very well received by the privacy groups in the White House. What the bill will now say is that when information is passed, it will be the Department of Homeland Security. That is very significant, and we would hope that that would truly deal with the majority of these privacy issues.

We know that we have to move and we have to move quickly. We're here today to debate this bill. And, again, Chairman Rogers--he's not listening, but I'll say it anyhow--has shown tremendous leadership. I say this and I say it sometimes in jest, that I was a former investigative prosecutor and he was a former FBI agent and all good FBI agents must listen to their prosecutors, even if we're in the minority. That was a joke. Not withstanding that, he has shown leadership. We threw partisanship out the window. We knew the stakes were high. We have been concerned that we have not been able to protect our country. I believe that Congress needs to act because we're standing in the way of protecting our country.

This reminds me of a situation. We know how serious Hurricane Sandy was. It's similar to if you are a meteorologist and Sandy is coming up the east coast and you can't warn your constituents that Sandy is coming. That's why we need to pass this bill tomorrow, and we need to do it for the benefit of our country.

And I do want to end with this: you do not have security if you don't have privacy. We feel that this bill, along with the amendments that will be introduced today, will effect that.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I now yield 2 minutes to a senior member of our committee who worked very hard on this bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson). He's been with us for the last 3 years attempting to pass a bill that will help our country and protect us.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield 2 minutes to a great Member from the State of Illinois (Mr. Enyart).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin); and I do want to say that we've been working together for years on this issue of cybersecurity, and I consider him to be one of the experts and one of my closest friends working on this issue.

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who is a senior member of our committee and has worked very hard on this issue.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a very active member of our caucus.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell). Is it ``Roll Tide''? She is an outstanding new member of the Intelligence Committee. She's smart. She works hard. She's very dynamic, and she is our closer today.

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

First thing, we've heard testimony today about how serious the cyber attacks are to our country. We know what has occurred already. We know that our banks have been attacked, our major banks. We know that our newspapers, New York Times, Washington Post, have been attacked.

We know that news reports have said that Iran attacked Aramco, Saudi Arabia's largest oil company. They took out 30,000 computers, which means we are subjected to those attacks also.

We also know that Cyber Command has said that we, in the United States,

have lost, from the attacks on our businesses, approximately $200 billion. Just think what that equates to in jobs, stealing information about trade secrets, about competing globally with a country like China where they have all of our information, where they're able to shut down banks.

This is a very serious issue, and we need to do a better job to educate the public on how serious it is. And we just hope that we can pass this bill today in the House, a bill in the Senate, and the President signs the bill, so that we can protect our citizens, we can protect our businesses from these attacks.

If we knew that Iran was sending over an airplane with a bomb we would take it out. And yet we have to make sure that we deal with the issue in the United States of America to protect ourselves.

Now, there was a major issue raised, and that issue was privacy. And believe me, I want to say this over and over again. You don't have security if you don't have privacy. And we feel very strongly that this bill provides privacy.

But we also know, Chairman Rogers and I know, that if we pass a bill here, we need to pass a bill in the Senate, and we need the President to sign it. So we got together, and even though we passed our bill in a bipartisan effort last year and it stalled in the Senate, we now have made the bill what we feel is a lot stronger as it deals with the perception of privacy.

And we've added oversight. We have four categories of oversight, privacy. We've made sure that minimization--taking out any privacy information that might pass--we made sure that that is 100 percent minimization so that no one's private information will pass.

But the most important thing is that we have to make sure that we pass a bill because of the fact that 80 percent of our network is controlled by 10 companies in the United States of America. And all of our experts in this area have said that if government and business can't share information about these attacks, zeros and ones, if they can't share information, they cannot protect our country from these ongoing attacks that are occurring as we speak right now.

So let's act. Let's not wait until we have another catastrophic attack like 9/11. Let's deal with this now. Let's pass the bill and make sure that we protect, again, our citizens. And I want to say it one more time. The issue that you can't have security if you don't have privacy.

I do want to also say, I want to thank all those individuals in our government, in the private sector. The privacy groups have all come together. This has been a good debate. It's been a debate about issues that the public needed to know.

And I also want to thank the chairman for his leadership, and the fact that he was willing, even though we had our bill passed a year ago, he was willing to deal with the issue of perception and to make sure we made privacy an element that we could deal with, and that we could change our bill to deal with certain perceptions. I feel that we've done that.

I also want to thank Chairman McCaul from Homeland Security and Ranking Member Bennie Thompson from Homeland Security, who've worked with us to get an amendment that was very important, as you heard from Jan Schakowsky.

That amendment basically says that the point of entry for any communication is on the civil side of our government, Homeland Security, and we hope to pass that amendment.

And I feel very strongly that if we do that, we will have addressed the majority of the issues that are so important to this bill and to our security and to our privacy.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I support Chairman Rogers' amendment to make a technical change to correct our personal records provision and retain the privacy protections that we had in our bill upon the introduction.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This amendment increases the privacy and civil liberties protections in our bill; therefore, I urge a ``yes'' on Congressman Connolly's amendment.

Madam Chair, our bill now enables companies and the government to have the option to hire independent contractors to handle cyber threat information. It helps bring talented people into our cybersecurity workforce; it provides jobs; it is good for our economy; and it is good for our national security. Therefore, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

I also want to acknowledge Congressman Schneider for his involvement in this issue.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, first, I want to agree with our chairman, and I said it before, that you have been one of the key players in developing legislation to protect our country. From the beginning, when those of us started working on this issue, probably 2006, you were there. You have a tremendous amount of expertise. You have been a great adviser to all of us, and also not only the Intelligence Committee, but the Armed Services Committee, and I appreciate all your work.

I also support your amendment to include political subdivisions within the information, use, and protection requirements in our bill. Your amendment ensures that utility districts are not unnecessarily and unintentionally limited from protecting their own information.

Therefore, I urge a ``yes'' vote on your amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice strong opposition to the sequester, which was designed to be so severe and so catastrophic that we would be compelled to make the necessary compromises to avoid it, and yet we have done nothing.

The Second District is the home to Fort Meade, NSA, Aberdeen Proving Ground, the Port of Baltimore, and hundreds of contractors reliant on these institutions. We're neighbors to the Social Security Administration, the National Institute for Health, and BWI Airport.

Nearly 140,000 workers at these facilities would be furloughed. Maryland will lose about $14.4 million in funding education, putting the jobs of 200 teachers at risk. We'll lose nearly $50 million in funding for medical research, which supports thousands of jobs in Maryland.

Maryland can't afford this approach to deficit reduction and neither can any of the other States in this Nation. We have to put forward serious alternatives to avert sequestration, and I encourage leadership to either allow a vote on one of these alternatives or to propose one for themselves.

We are in this most ridiculous situation and we must resolve this problem now.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 699, a balanced bill to replace the sequester with spending cuts and revenues.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the world champions of football, the Baltimore Ravens. On February 3, the Vince Lombardi Trophy returned home to ``Charm City.'' Like Coach Harbaugh said, the win wasn't pretty, it wasn't perfect, but it was Baltimore.

We overcame the doubts of a Nation. Baltimore was just an afterthought, playing against a 3\1/2\-point favorite.

We overcame injury. Bernard Pollard, our safety, played with not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, but six broken ribs throughout the season.

We overcame an agonizing 34-minute delay, when we seemed to lose not only power in the stadium but the wind in our sails.

We overcame a second-half surge that left us screaming at our televisions, from Dundalk to Havre de Grace.

I watched the game with my family and my 92-year-old mother, and even she was fired up. The team stuck together and got it done.

I want to congratulate the owner, Steve Bisciotti, a class act who does so much for our city on and off the field. Also, Ravens President Dick Cass and General Manager Ozzie Newsome, who has the greatest mind in football. And, of course, the players--especially No. 52, Ray Lewis, and No. 5, Joe Flacco, who won the MVP of the game.

Last Sunday, the lights were out in the Superdome for awhile, but at the end of the day, it was just lights out for the 49ers. Baltimore cannot be more proud to welcome our players and the Vince Lombardi Trophy back home.

I also want to say that our leader, Nancy Pelosi, who is homegrown Baltimore, now a 49ers fan, did accept the defeat with her regular class and dignity.

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

Before us today is the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013. It's a good, bipartisan bill that gives our intelligence professionals the resources, capabilities, and authorities they need to keep us safe. And I also want to acknowledge the leadership of Chairman Rogers. His bipartisan leadership has helped us make the Intelligence Committee a committee that provides oversight to our intelligence agencies and gives them the resources that they need to protect our country. I also want to acknowledge the staff on both sides of the aisle who worked very closely to put this bill together.

When Chairman Rogers and I took over leadership of the Intelligence Committee, we made a commitment to bipartisanship. We believe politics has no place in national security. The stakes are just too high. We also made a commitment to passing intelligence budgets that provide oversight to the intelligence community and give it important financial direction. Chairman Rogers and I also work closely with Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein and vice chair Saxby Chambliss of the Senate Intelligence Committee, our counterparts in the Senate, so we can get things done.

If this bill becomes law, it will be the third budget bill in a row passed since we took over leadership in January, 2011--a big change from the previous 6 years when we only passed one budget bill. This was an open, bipartisan process where we reached agreement on issues that will make this country safer and intelligence processes more efficient.

We know we are facing tough economic times. This budget is slightly below the enacted levels of FY 2012. We made cuts where appropriate, eliminated redundancies, and pushed programs to come in on time and on budget.

People ask me what keeps me up at night. Besides spicy food, I say weapons of mass destruction and a catastrophic cyberattack that shuts down our banking system, water supply, power grids or worse.

This bill continues a substantial investment in cybersecurity that must be made to keep up with the cyberthreats of today and tomorrow. We also believe we must protect privacy and civil liberties when it comes to cybersecurity.

Another priority is space. The bill promotes the commercial space industry by enhancing the government use of commercial imagery and commercial communications services. It requires the government to use commercial imagery to the maximum extent practicable.

I believe competition is important to ensure we get high quality products while keeping costs down. It drives innovation and provides a much-needed insurance policy in case there are problems with other programs. And it does create jobs.

The bill expanded our counterterrorism efforts to continue the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates around the world. The bill also makes counterintelligence the priority it is. It makes strategic additions across the intelligence community. This will pay for surveillance, better supply chain security, and the counterintelligence analysts we need.

The bill added resources to the intelligence community's global coverage initiatives to ensure the United States is capable and ready to address threats from any location around the world, especially in areas of strategic interest.

It authorizes the Department of Defense's new defense clandestine service to reorganize its human intelligence collection. It will be a part of the CIA's national clandestine service. The bill directed the Director of national intelligence to develop a centralized cloud for the entire intelligence community; advancing collaboration and further promoting efficiency; and it required the President to develop a strategy for security clearance, reciprocity, and a report on how to better protect our information technology across the global supply chain.

I urge my colleagues to support the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2012. When this bill was before the House in May, it passed by a bipartisan margin of 386-28. It's a good bipartisan bill that gives our intelligence professionals what they need to do their jobs and protect our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, we have one speaker. We're waiting for more; but if they don't come, we'll move on.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the Congressman from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I do want to acknowledge the work that has been done by Dennis Kucinich as a Member of Congress. Dennis and I don't always philosophically agree, but I respect that he has a good point of view. That's the whole process here in Congress--that we have different points of view, that we come together, that we debate, and that we can make decisions.

So, Dennis, we are going to miss you. Good luck to you and your family in the future, and I'm glad that one of the last things you're going to do is come here and talk about our bill today.

In just acknowledging what the chairman said, there is an aggressive legal process that is undertaken as far as drones are concerned that goes to the highest levels of our government before strikes are taken. In everything that I have reviewed, if there are children or innocent victims there, the strike does not take place. So there is a process. Unfortunately, there are some casualties--very minor. I would also agree with the chairman as far as this is concerned: in that what you read in the media is usually not what the facts are.

It is part of what we do. Why do we have the Intelligence Committee? We have it because there is classified information that if it got out would hurt the national security of our country. It's part of our role and our committee's role to take this classified information and work with the agencies to which we provide oversight so we will continue to work through that process.

Mr. Kucinich, I'm glad that you did raise that as an issue, as we all should.

Madam Speaker, for the third time in 3 years, Chairman Rogers and I have stood on the floor of the House encouraging our colleagues to support our intelligence budget bill. Today, we both rise in support of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. The bill gives our intelligence professionals the resources, capabilities, and authorities they need to protect America and American interests.

We crafted a bill that addresses our core needs, including space, cybersecurity, counterintelligence, and counterterrorism. We are also keeping an eye on the bottom line. The bill is slightly below last year's budget and holds personnel at last year's levels. In a very strong bipartisan way, the Intelligence Committee came together as Democrats and Republicans to do what is right for our country and for the intelligence community.

I thank the staff again for what it has done, and I thank the chairman for his leadership in helping to provide this bill in a very fair, bipartisan way.

I would also like to acknowledge two Democratic Members who will be leaving us at the end of this session--Congressman Dan Boren of Oklahoma and Congressman Ben Chandler of Kentucky. Both Members will be greatly missed, and I appreciate their service on the Intelligence Committee.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2013, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following.

A Work of Art

(By Albert Carey Caswell)

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

I rise today in favor of the FISA Amendments Act, which is due to expire at the end of this year.

When Chairman Rogers and I took over the leadership of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, we made a commitment to work together to ensure the intelligence community has the authorities it needs to effectively protect our country while also protecting the privacy of Americans. I believe we must reauthorize this critical piece of legislation to keep America and her citizens safe. The FISA Amendments Act allows the government to gain important intelligence about terrorists, cyberthreats, weapons of mass destruction, and nuclear weapons that threaten Americans and U.S. interests.

There is a misconception out there that this act permits the surveillance of Americans without a court order. The bill prohibits the targeting of American citizens without a court order, no matter where they're located in the world.

The FISA Amendments Act gives the U.S. Government the authority to collect intelligence information about foreigners located outside of the United States. The FISA Amendments Act is subject to aggressive oversight by Congress and the executive branch.

There was an issue in the hearing before the Judiciary Committee about the issue of oversight. In this Congress alone, the House Intelligence Committee has held multiple hearings, briefings, and more than a dozen meetings concerning FISA. In addition, every 60 days the Department of Justice and the Director of National Intelligence conduct detailed onsite reviews to ensure compliance with the provisions of the act.

This is a bipartisan bill that passed out of the House Intelligence Committee by a unanimous vote of 17-0. I understand some Democrats would like a 3-year extension of the FISA Amendments Act, some Republicans requested a 9-year extension. The administration asked for a 5-year extension to take Presidential-year politics out of the process while providing consistency to the intelligence community. I support the President's request for a 5-year extension.

Without reauthorization, this critical tool would be lost, putting our Nation at severe risk. We would not be able to obtain the foreign intelligence necessary to prevent terrorist plots and financial support. I believe the act is critical to protecting our Nation while protecting our Americans' constitutional rights and privacy. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there's been talk about the FISA Amendments Act as a backdoor collection on Americans and does not sufficiently protect civil liberties. This is not the case. We are all Americans. We are Members of Congress. We care about our country. We care about our Constitution, and we care about our privacy and our civil liberties.

Now, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 actually expands the protections of Americans' civil liberties and privacy interests. Before the FISA Amendments Act in 2008, which became law then, the government needed only the Attorney General's authorization to target an American. Because of the FISA Amendments Act, if the government allows for surveillance of an American, that American must be overseas and the government must have a FISA court order if they do target an American anywhere in the world. The civil liberties of Americans are better protected than before this act became law in 2008.

Also, as far as oversight, and there have been allegations of not proper oversight. I understand the argument, and I don't disagree with the argument about sunsets. Sunsets are good because they hold us accountable. We can see if there are any abuses, and we can deal with them when we have sunsets.

However, the Department of Justice and the Director of National Intelligence file semi-annual reports with Congress as it relates to the FISA Act. These reports include information about compliance, targeting, and minimization on collections involving the parties that we're focused on.

The Intelligence Committee staff has conducted dozens of meetings about the authorities under the FISA amendments. These meetings have addressed compliance, procedures, authorities, and specific collection.

On the Intelligence Committee, we review, investigate, and debate the FISA Amendments Act. We maintain an ongoing dialogue with the intelligence community to ensure the law is being implemented in how it was intended.

We, as Americans, need to know more about the threats that are out there. Our threats for cyberattacks are occurring as we speak right now. It's very dangerous. These attacks can affect our national security, our grid systems, our banking systems, our air traffic control systems. This bill, this amendment, is part of our protection in dealing with those major issues.

I advise my colleague that I am ready to close, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield, again, myself such time as I might consume.

The FISA Amendments Act is the result of decades of work to modify a law so we can adapt with changing technology and evolving national security threats. The bill demonstrates what Democrats and Republicans can do when we work together in a bipartisan way. It is uniquely important to put partisanship aside when America's national security is at stake.

We all have the same goal of keeping America safe from terrorist threats, whether on land or sea, in the air or with cyberspace. We also believe strongly, and this is very important, in the Constitution and the protections granted by our Founding Fathers.

The FISA Amendments Act is an important tool that has successfully prevented terrorist attacks on American soil. I know it is critical to our intelligence community.

I commend everyone who participated in this effort, especially the bipartisan leadership of Chairman Rogers and the other members of the Intelligence Committee on both sides of the aisle. I support this straight reauthorization which President Obama, our Commander in Chief, has said is ``vital to protect our Nation.''

I will vote for the FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to note a provision in H.R. 5972, the Transportation-HUD Appropriations legislation for FY2013 which appears to have been accepted with virtually no debate and contains even less merit.

H.R. 5972 contains a provision redirecting funds from the Maglev Deployment Program to other programs. Section 154 reads--

SEC. 154. The unobligated balance of funds provided under sections 1101(a)(18) and 1307 of Public Law 109-59 shall be used for the elimination of hazards at railway highway crossings described in section 104(d)(2) of title 23, United States Code, to remain available until expended.

In a statement in support of this amendment, the claim was made that these ``unobligated funds'' were somehow lying dormant on the projects they were intended to support. In my opinion, and weighing the available facts, that was not an accurate statement. While one may sympathize with the need for safe grade crossings, the United States already has a well funded program to meet these needs.

The Maglev Deployment Program (MDP) was authorized for far different purposes--to promote leading-edge high speed rail/technologies. And as is the case with all major multistate undertakings, the planning processes that precede construction take time and coordination to complete. Under the Federal Railroad Administration's program for the MDP, a feasibility study must have been completed, followed by detailed environmental review--either a full-scale Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a phased approach, requiring a Tier 1 EIS followed by a Tier 2 EIS.

Anyone who has observed the NEPA process knows that it sometimes proceeds in fits-and-starts. And even if it appears that at times not much is happening, these detailed planning phases sometimes take years to accomplish. The funds in question date to SAFETEA-LU, passed in 2005, and the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections, passed in 2008.

As the result of these two statutes, the Federal Railroad Administration issued a Notice of Funds Availability or NOFA, in 2008, inviting applications for a portion of these funds. Applications were due in early 2009. Several projects applied competitively, and the Administration deliberated carefully over the applications. Two projects which had applied were awarded funds; the Atlanta-Chattanooga and Pittsburgh projects.

The FRA advised a third project applicant, a route from Baltimore to Washington, DC, that there was a deficiency in Maryland state law that prevented FRA from awarding funds. Far from standing still, my State of Maryland worked to cure that deficiency, and last year repealed the offending section of its state law, with the Governor's support. Since then, various stakeholders have been working with the Congress to ensure that SAFETEA-LU provisions were carried over in the Surface Transportation reauthorization legislation, which was passed by a bipartisan vote in the House after a conference with the Senate. Thus, I am pleased to report my understanding that the Maglev Program was preserved, and, in fact, maglev was specifically advanced in various sections of H.R. 4348, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, or ``MAP-21''.

We can understand from this congressional action that there remains broad support for the program, its promise for the future, and the need for our nation to pursue, not curtail, next generation high speed rail technology. The remaining projects, I am told, have been striving in good faith to complete their required planning phases. Indeed, one project has been working with the FRA to obligate its funds even as Congress voted to approve the MAP-21 conference report.

Mr. Chair, the Congress as a whole authorized and funded the Maglev Deployment Program in 1998 and 2005 and 2008. My State of Maryland competed successfully to become one of the original seven maglev programs, and then on the basis of the merits of our Feasibility Study, one of two projects was down-selected for further work. We are pledged to continuing that work, and have acted in our state in the good-faith knowledge that those funds were secure.

For that reason, I would like to urge the sponsors of the relevant language to look elsewhere for funds for their initiatives, and I stand ready to work with the leadership of the House and of the Committee to return the MDP funds to their historic purpose, to help build infrastructure and to promote economic revitalization.