Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, my amendment would require the President to create a charter that codifies the formal establishment of an interagency body to coordinate and deconflict full-spectrum military cyber operations for the Federal Government. It supports and complements initiatives already included in the National Defense Authorization Act to improve the efficient use of military cyber operations that support military missions and objectives. At the same time, I want to be clear what this amendment does not do. I want to assure those who may have been confused by the language that it does not authorize the interagency body to manage spectrum resources, whether federal, state, or non-governmental. Nor does it authorize the interagency body to impose obligations or other regulations on the private sector. It is based on research the Government Accountability Office carried out for the committee, and it will improve the ability of the Department to integrate cyber effects into its operational planning.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, we're going to have ample opportunity to debate a number of the issues that the distinguished ranking member raised, but I don't think that we can be here on the floor and allow some of the arguments that have been made to go without some challenge.

For example, to say that a letter signed by two former Attorneys General, a former Secretary of Homeland Security, and a variety of other officials who have had positions of responsibility in previous administrations who believe that the Smith-Amash amendment would be detrimental to our effort against terrorists, to say that those arguments are somehow silly or foolish I think really demeans past administrations.

It is not actually fitting for this sort of debate. I understand that emotions can run high when we talk about these issues, and there are serious issues to be discussed, some difficult problems and some clear differences. But I hope that in the future the nature of the debate is elevated somewhat beyond calling former distinguished officials names.

And let me make one other point. One of the key problems that many of us have with the Smith-Amash amendment is that it would bestow upon illegal aliens who come to this country to carry out terrorist attacks, it would bestow upon them full constitutional rights. That means basically, as soon as a member of al Qaeda sets foot on American soil, the first thing he hears after ``you are under arrest'' is you have the right to remain silent. You have the right to be provided an attorney. And if you can't afford one, an attorney will be provided to you.

Now, there may be differences about how we should treat illegal aliens who come here as members of al Qaeda to conduct terrorist attacks. But I think the vast majority of people in this body and around the country do not think telling them they have the right to remain silent, as the first thing they hear, is a wise thing.

So as you go through the arguments, and I would encourage Members of the House to read the letter themselves. I would encourage Members of the House to look at today's Wall Street Journal editorial. I would encourage Members of the House to look at the Heritage Foundation entry today on their Web site, to look how significant these issues are, how the Smith-Amash amendment would undermine our ability to defend our people, and how it is unfair to characterize concerns expressed by a dozen or eight to 10 former national security officials as somehow foolish or silly.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that we can do better with that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate, again, the strong views of the distinguished ranking member. I would just say there is a real difference of opinion about to what extent U.S. constitutional rights, which each of us, as citizens, are privileged to have, are bestowed upon any illegal alien, as soon as they set foot in this country.

Now, there are places in the Constitution it says ``persons.'' There are other places it talks about ``accused.'' But I would point back to some of the very case law from the Supreme Court such as the Hamdan decision, which references the differences in procedure that due process requires for a citizen versus a noncitizen. It is not a clear- cut thing to say that as soon as you set foot on this soil, then you have the right to remain silent.

And the part that the gentleman--the other concern that many of us have is when you say you've got the right to remain silent, that prevents us from getting the intelligence, the information that prevents the attack of your buddy, the guy next to you. That's got to be factored in here too.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished ranking member, and I am glad to do so on an issue on which we agree.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

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

As a point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close on this amendment?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island, the ranking member of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee.

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

I yield the gentleman another 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment raises a number of concerns. It is a very strange thing, for example, to say in a war that you have to know the name, rank, and serial number of the person that you are about to shoot before you can even shoot him. And to put it a little more in this context, the gentleman from Ohio's amendment would say that if we see people making bombs down there that are going to be used against our servicepeople, that we can't do anything about it, that we've just got to watch them. And then even after the bomb explodes, unless we know the identity--which is the language in the amendment--unless we know the name of the person down there, we can't do anything about it, with all of the technology that's available to the United States.

And actually, it gets even worse. If we see al Qaeda members shooting at our troops down there, if we don't know the identity or the name of the people doing the shooting, then we can't do anything about it. Surely that carries things far too far.

We can't debate in the open House all of the allegations that are made in newspaper articles. What we can do is say what the National Security Adviser or the President has said, that these sorts of capabilities are only used pursuant to law, and they are only used where there is a significant threat to the U.S., where action could mitigate or prevent the threat, and that collateral damage or harm to civilians is absolutely minimal. That helps protect our soldiers and our country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I think all of us share many of the frustrations voiced by the gentleman from California, but his amendment goes too far.

I agree we should look for additional allies in the region. The problem is there's not another ally in the region through which our military can be supplied. So for the sake of our troops in Afghanistan, as well as a lot of the broader interests in the region, it is important for us to try to improve our relationship with Pakistan.

And as my colleague from Texas says, in the bill now we cut the funds from DOD in half and we require a certification that Pakistan is supporting our counterterrorism efforts, that they are supporting efforts to dismantle the IED networks, that they are preventing the proliferation of nuclear-related material, that they are issuing visas in a timely manner for U.S. Government personnel involved in counterterrorism efforts. We put severe restrictions on any assistance that they get. But that is a carrot to encourage them to work with us, rather than saying, No, you get nothing.

Mr. Chairman, essentially this amendment says get out now; leave Afghanistan regardless of the consequences.

I appreciate the honesty and the forthright nature of this amendment offered by the gentlelady from California. It is better to say up front what you're trying to do rather than put various conditions on it, or to tie our troops' hands in some way, or to not put enough troops in the field in order to accomplish the mission we're asking them to do. This is very clear. It says

leave now. And it is tempting for all of us because we have been there for awhile.

I want our troops to leave as soon as possible consistent with national security. As a matter of fact, the underlying bill says that the United States military should not maintain an indefinite combat presence in Afghanistan and should transition to a counterterrorism and advise-and-assist mission at the earliest possible date consistent with the conditions on the ground. And that's really the difference-- consistent with the conditions on the ground.

We believe, I believe, you have to take account of what the situation is there, and you cannot just abandon Afghanistan and ignore, stick your head in the sand and pretend it's not going to have consequences. I think it's important to remember why we're there to begin with. We're not there because of them. We're there because of us. We're there to make sure that Afghanistan is no longer used as a safe haven, as a base which will be used to launch attacks against us. That's the crux of the matter.

As soon as they are able to provide for their own security and prevent a return of the Taliban, a return of al Qaeda, then we can go and we'll have accomplished our mission, and they'll have to sort through their domestic issues on their own.

But if we leave too early and al Qaeda and the Taliban return and use it as a base to launch attacks against us, then I'm afraid more Americans will suffer and we could see repeats of past terrorist attacks.

So as tempting as it is, Mr. Chairman, we cannot ignore the consequences of our actions. Leaving too fast would be bad for our security.

Mr. Chairman, I have before me an article from defense.aol.com from just a few months ago which was written by Richard Whittle, who wrote a whole book on the V 22. And as the editor says, this is as close to ground truth on the V 22 as one can get.

What he says is the marines and the Air Force Special Operations Command have been flying it in combat zones for 4 years, and they love it. He goes on to talk about problems in the early years, but the critics went to sleep in the middle of the story. In other words, they have not recognized the significant improvements that several people have talked about.

Since October 1, 2001, the military has lost 405 helicopters, 99 percent of them have not been V 22s; and yet this amendment comes only against the V 22 when it turns out the redesigned, re-tested Osprey safety record is the safest rotorcraft the Marine Corps flies based on mishaps per 100,000 flight hours.

When it comes to cost, since 2008 they are under budget and are actually going to save the taxpayers over $200 million versus what was budgeted. This plane is working well. This amendment is behind the times.

I ask unanimous consent to control the time of the gentleman from California, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, at this point, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee of Strategic Forces, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. West), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Smith's earlier acknowledgment that last year's NDAA did not take away rights of Americans. The Gohmert amendment, which we debated, I think removes all doubt and actually adds some extra procedural safeguards to make sure that Americans' rights are absolutely protected.

To his credit, Mr. Smith's amendment, as he admits, does change the law from what it's been not only the past 11 years, but it changes the law from what it's been basically since World War II. And my suggestion is that we all ought to be very careful about changing the law.

With the exception of Fort Hood and the Little Rock shooting, we have gone 11 years without a successful terrorist attack here in the United States. There are a lot of reasons for that. But part of the reason is the legal framework that has given the tools to the military, the intelligence community, and law enforcement that have all made that possible.

Mr. Smith's amendment changes that, and the biggest way it changes it is that it automatically gives foreigners constitutional rights that we all have thought of as belonging to Americans. So the second that a foreign terrorist, a member of al Qaeda, sets foot on U.S. soil, he is told: You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney. If you can't afford one, one will be provided to you.

Now, that is a significant change.

The gentleman from Washington says, well, look, our criminal justice system works all the time. And it is true; we can prosecute people. But the key here, as Mr. Landry said, is not just prosecuting people after they have committed their acts or after their bomb has failed to blow up, if we're lucky. The point is to prevent those attacks. That means have you to get the information from them. And that means, if you say, You have the right to remain silent, it is going to be harder to get that information from them. And we're talking about foreigners here.

American citizens absolutely have the right to contest their detention. No American citizen will ever be tried in a military commission. Any American citizen has the right to contest his detention. To keep us safe, this amendment must be rejected.

May 9, 2012.

Hon. Howard P. McKeon,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman McKeon: As former government officials with

significant national security experience, we write to you in

support of provisions that were included in the National

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012

relating to the detention of enemy combatants. As the House

will soon begin consideration of the NDAA for Fiscal Year

2013, we also write to address misconceptions about the FY12

provisions and efforts by others to exploit those

misconceptions.

Importantly, the FY12 NDAA included an affirmation of the

detention authority provided by the 2001 Authorization for

Use of Military Force (AUMF). Given the President's plan to

withdraw U.S. combat forces from Afghanistan and the

continuing threat posed by groups like al Qaeda in the

Arabian Peninsula, this affirmation was a critical step in

reinforcing the military's legal authorities to combat

terror.

Some have argued that the FY 12 NDAA's affirmation of

detention authority altered the status quo, and is an

``expansion'' of the power of the federal government. This is

false.

The FY12 NDAA explicitly states that ``nothing in this

section shall be construed to affect existing law or

authorities relating to the detention of United States

citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any

persons who are captured or arrested in the Unites States.''

As the Heritage Foundation recently wrote, ``The NDAA has

not impacted the conditions under which a U.S. citizen may

(or may not) be detained . . . The law regarding how U.S.

citizens are handled, including the right to habeas corpus,

is the same today as it was the day before it [the NDAA] was

passed.'' The detainee provisions of the NDAA merely codified

existing case law related to detainees, period.

On September 18, 2001, Congress passed the AUMF, which

authorizes the President to ``use all necessary and

appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or

persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or

aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,

2001, or harbored such organizations or persons . . .''

As you are well aware, the law of armed conflict, also

called the law of war, allows for a country engaged in armed

conflict to detain the enemy for the duration of hostilities.

That age old principle existed well before September 11, 2011

and is a right that all countries must retain during a time

of war. Furthermore, the law of armed conflict does not

discriminate between enemy combatants who are citizens of the

United States and those that are not. Any citizen who joins

al Qaeda or its affiliates is properly classified as an

unlawful enemy combatant and may be treated as such. We find

the notion propagated by some, that a citizen who has nothing

to do with al Qaeda could be picked up off an American street

and detained by the military, to be ridiculous.

In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Hamdi v.

Rumsfeld that the United States had the legal authority to

detain a U.S. citizen captured fighting alongside the Taliban

in Afghanistan who was later detained in the United States

pursuant to the AUMF. However, the Supreme Court made it

clear that such detainees must have the right to challenge

the legality of their detention before a federal judge. The

Court noted that ``[a]bsent suspension, the writ of habeas

corpus remains available to every individual detained within

the United States.''

As you know, several members of Congress have introduced

legislation relating to the detainee provisions in the FY12

NDAA. Representative Scott Rigell recently introduced H.R.

4388, the ``Right to Habeas Corpus Act,'' which would affirm

the right of any person detained in the United States

pursuant to the AUMF to challenge the legality of their

detention in an Article III court. Representative Rigell's

bill is entirely consistent both with the FY12 NDAA and

existing case law.

Unfortunately, other members of Congress have introduced

proposed legislation that would instead erode the authorities

provided by the AUMF and limit the military's ability to

pursue terrorists. For instance, Representative Adam Smith

and Senator Mark Udall have introduced legislation that would

prevent the President from ever detaining anyone, including

foreign terrorists, in the United States pursuant to the

AUMF. Representative John Garamendi and Senator Dianne

Feinstein have introduced similar legislation that would

leave it up to Congress to decide when the President has the

authority to detain U.S. citizens who have joined the enemy.

It is highly questionable whether either of these proposed

pieces of legislation would be constitutional as they would

deprive any president of lawful options that he may need in

order to fulfill his constitutional duties as commander in

chief to defend the United States and protect American

citizens. Rewarding terrorists with greater rights for making

it to the United States would actually incentivize them to

come to our shores, or to recruit from within the United

States, where they pose the greatest risk to the American

people. Such a result is perverse.

Although we believe the FY12 NDAA detainee provisions, read

along with the AUMF

and pertinent case law is clear, we understand the urge to

affirm the availability of habeas corpus rights of any

terrorist captured in the United States. Should that

affirmation be necessary to erase doubts, we would

respectfully encourage you to consider incorporating the

language from Representative Rigell's ``Right to Habeas

Corpus Act'' in the FY13 NDAA to address misconceptions and

to defend against these other attempts to undermine the

critical wartime authorities provided by the AUMF.

As the House begins consideration of the NDAA for Fiscal

Year 2013, we urge you to ensure that attempts to exploit

misconceptions about the NDAA are not successful in harming

U.S. national security.

Sincerely,

Edwin Meese III, Former U.S. Attorney General; Michael B.

Mukasey, Former U.S. Attorney General and Former U.S.

District Judge; Michael Chertoff, Former Secretary of

Homeland Security; Steven G. Bradbury, Former Acting

Assistant Attorney General and Principal Deputy AAG,

Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice;

Daniel J. Dell'Orto, Former Principal Deputy General

Counsel, Department of Defense; David Rivkin, Former

Deputy Director, Office of Policy Development, U.S.

Department of Justice; Charles D. Stimson, Former

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense For Detainee

Affairs and Former Assistant US Attorney, District of

Columbia; Paul Butler, Former Principle Deputy

Assistant Secretary of Defense, SOLIC and Former

Assistant US Attorney, SDNY; Steven A. Engel, Former

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal

Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice; Paul Rosenzweig,

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Acting

Assistant Secretary for International Affairs,

Department of Homeland Security.

I commend Chairman McKeon for his leadership in developing this bill throughout the course of the year and appreciate the working relationship that he and the ranking member have, as evidenced by the fact that this bill was reported out of committee by a vote of 56 5. And I certainly agree with the comments of Mr. Andrews. One of the bipartisan goals of this committee is to make sure the taxpayers get every dollar of value possible for the money we spend for defense, and that is a goal that I think we are making good progress toward.

Mr. Chairman, I want to rise to express special appreciation to the members of the staff of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, especially Mr. Langevin, our ranking member.

To summarize that portion of the bill, I think one could do it in three parts. One is to support the people and missions of the U.S. Special Operations Command while also providing objective oversight of what they do. Special Operations Forces are at the forefront of protecting this country, but that also puts them at the forefront of a lot of legal and policy issues, and that makes communication between the Congress and the Special Operations Forces and their lawyers and other overseers especially important.

Secondly, our portion of the bill tries to sow and nurture the seeds of future capability, such as our science and technology programs. It's always tempting to cut research and development in tight budget times, but if you do that, then you are handicapping yourself from having the capability you need in the future.

And, thirdly, this mark tries to take several steps forward on oversight and policy in the critical new domain of warfare of cyber. Obviously, we have talked a lot about that in recent weeks on the floor of this House.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I just make the point that we have lots of problems around the world, but this bill comes to the floor in a time of war. So as we come with these various amendments that cut this, that, and the other thing, we all need to keep in mind that there are still people out there trying to kill as many Americans as they possibly can, as recent news reports reflect. We ought to be cautious about that.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to recognize the thirteen Medal of Honor

recipients who trained in Mineral Wells, Texas, at Camp Wolters during World War II and at Fort Wolters during the Vietnam War. On March 23, 2012, the Fort Wolters Gate Committee joined with the citizens of Mineral Wells to honor these brave men with two ceremonies on Medal of Honor Day.

These thirteen outstanding individuals are First Lieutenant Eli L. Whiteley, First Lieutenant James M. Sprayberry, First Lieutenant Charles L. Thomas, First Lieutenant Vernon Baker, First Lieutenant Jack L. Knight, Second Lieutenant Audie L. Murphy, Staff Sergeant Edward A. Carter, Jr., Chief Warrant Officer Michael J. Novosel, Chief Warrant Officer Frederick Edgar Ferguson, Captain Ed Freeman, Captain Jon E. Swanson, Major Patrick H. Brady, and Major William E. Adams.

The Medal of Honor is our nation's highest military honor that can be bestowed upon an individual service member by the United States government. It is given to men and women of the Armed Forces who set themselves apart through their uncommon courage, selflessness, and valor which goes above and beyond the call of duty. The recipients of this prestigious award are not only leaders among those with whom they serve, they are also the role models to whom future generations of Americans will always look. I am honored to be able to join in recognizing these heroes before Congress today.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the chairman of the Science Committee, Mr. Hall, and the ranking member, Ms. Johnson, for bringing this bill and the next bill to the floor. This will mean the House will have passed four bills this week related to cybersecurity, taking important steps in the right direction.

I particularly appreciate the work of the gentleman from Texas, Mr. McCaul, and Mr. Lipinski for bringing this bill to the floor. As they have said, they've been working on it for a while, and I appreciate their persistence and also the substance of the bill.

Of course, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. McCaul, as you've heard, has been working in this area for a number of years, and the study that he cochaired with Mr. Langevin with the CSIS Commission on Cybersecurity remains one of the leading studies in this field.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is important. You've heard about the education and awareness. It also helps make sure that the research and development is coordinated so that we don't duplicate within the Federal Government, but also that it is complementary to what the private sector is doing.

I think it's important to emphasize that the answer to cybersecurity is not a government program; it is our people and innovation. That is really the key. So others may steal information from us--they may even copy some of the things they steal--but what they can't do is produce the sort of innovation and new approaches that are absolutely essential to our future. That's part of the reason this bill is important. It's part of the reason we have to be careful about new regulations and other things that some people want to do because nurturing the innovation that comes from this country, from the private sector and the government, is absolutely essential to our future.

So I appreciate all of the work that the gentleman from Texas and others have done, not only on this bill but in the larger scheme of things, as it cuts across a number of committees, and it takes our country a few steps in the right direction. But it's important that we take those steps for our future security.

I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for yielding to me.

I rise in support of the rule and the cyber bill that it brings to the floor, as well as the other cyber bills which the House will consider today and tomorrow.

Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by acknowledging the leadership of the Speaker and majority leader for setting up a process for a thoughtful examination of the many issues related to cybersecurity. They recognize that not only is it a significant national security threat, it's a threat to our economy and to jobs. But at the same time, what we are trying to protect, at least 85 to 90 percent of it is owned and operated by the private sector. So one has to tread carefully in this area, and we have tried to do so with the limited legislation that is before the House today and tomorrow.

I also want to thank the members of the House Cybersecurity Task Force, who put in a great deal of time and expertise in sorting through these issues and making recommendations: Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Coffman, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Hurt, Mr. Latta, Mr. Lungren, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Stivers, and Mr. Terry. Of course, a number of Members have worked on these issues for several years, including a number of those I've just mentioned, as well as Mr. Langevin, Mr. Ruppersberger, people on both sides of the aisle.

Finally, I also want to take a second to thank the staffs of the various committees who have worked on this issue, as well as Josh Martin and Michael Seeds of my office, as well as Jen Stewart, the Speaker's national security adviser, whose guidance on substance and process was invaluable.

Mr. Speaker, we will have ample opportunity to debate the merits of the individual pieces of legislation, but I think it's important at the beginning just to step back and say: Why all this hubbub about computers? What does all that mean?

Well, I think we should start with the point that cyber--and that includes networks that are connected to the Internet and networks that are not connected to the Internet--but cyber is deeply ingrained in virtually every facet of our lives now, from the time we get up until the time we go to sleep and all the times in between. We very much depend on cyber, and anything you very much depend on can, and often does, become a vulnerability.

We know of at least three different kinds of vulnerabilities these days. People can reach through the Internet and steal information which businesses, large, medium, and small, have produced. It happens every day in this country. Intellectual property is ripped out of the possession of those who produce it. And every time people steal information, they cost us jobs; they are stealing jobs as well. So our economy is directly affected by the difficulty in protecting the information that we, as individuals and businesses, store on our computers.

In addition to that, though, information can be destroyed on our computers or it can be manipulated, or the computers themselves can be manipulated so that what we intend to do or what we want to do is not possible. If, for example, you have a lot of bank records that are destroyed or other such important records, then it can have a huge effect on our economy as well as our security.

But going beyond stealing information, destroying information, we now know it's possible to reach through the Internet and other networks to have physical consequences in the real world, to flip a switch, to open a valve. It's the sort of thing that happened with the Stuxnet virus in Iran. But there are physical consequences to doing so. So that's part of the reason

that people talk about the electricity grid going down, a whole city being poisoned by its water supply, chemical plants releasing emissions that they don't intend to release, physical consequences.

Real death, potentially, and destruction can occur all because of things going on the Internet. That's the reason a lot of people talk about a cyber 9/11 or a cyber Pearl Harbor.

I know it's tempting to think all that's hype, but the truth is that over the past decade--and especially over the past couple of years--the number and sophistication of threats has grown much more rapidly than our ability to respond. And it's especially our laws and policies that have not kept up with the growing sophistication of threats.

So the bills that we have before us this week, four of them, try to begin to take a step to close that gap between the growing threat and laws and policies. They don't solve all the problems, they don't try to, but they are a step in the right direction.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I would just point out two other things, briefly:

One is, again, one criticism one hears is that, well, you don't solve this problem or that problem, and that is absolutely true. These bills, all four of them, don't solve all the problems in cyberspace. But we shouldn't let the pursuit of the perfect answer prevent us from accomplishing some significant steps in the right direction, and that's what these bills do.

The second point I'd make, as the gentleman from Florida mentioned, is three of these bills were reported out of committee by voice vote. The information-sharing bill was reported out 17 1. I believe that it has been made better since then. New protections are there. A host of restrictions on how the information can be used and privacy protections have been added and will be added with the amendments to come.

So I think this deserves the support of all Members on both sides of the aisle, and Members on both sides of the aisle should take credit for taking a step to make our Nation more secure.

Madam Chair, I don't think we can say often enough how important it is that the chairman and ranking member have worked together, not only on the substance of this bill, but in the process of getting us here. They have, truly, put the country's interests first, and I think all Members should commend them for that.

This was a good bill when it was reported out of committee 17 1. I think it will be a better bill once the amendments are considered and adopted. And for any Member who has concerns about privacy or misuse of information, I think they should look at the amendments that are going to be adopted; and any reasonable concern, any semi-reasonable concern about privacy will be addressed with the limitations that those amendments add.

Madam Chair, this bill does not solve all the problems in cybersecurity. All four bills that we're considering today and tomorrow don't solve all the problems we have in cybersecurity. But it makes no sense to me, as some seem to have argued, that we should not solve this problem of information-sharing because we're not solving all the problems that somebody can see out there.

This problem of information-sharing has been central to cybersecurity concerns for some time. I happened across a report from December 2004 that was issued by a subcommittee I chaired of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, along with the gentlelady from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), where we wrote: Whether it is vulnerability assessments, threat warnings, best practices or emergency response, information- sharing with the private sector is critical to securing the United States from cyberattack. That was 8 years ago.

Why has it not occurred? Because all the legal obstacles, all the fear of being sued has prevented it from occurring. And that's what this bill does. It clears away the legal underbrush that has prevented the kind of information-sharing that people have been talking about for a decade.

This is a good, important step. It doesn't solve all the problems, but it puts more information at the disposal of critical infrastructure so that they can be protected. It should be adopted.

I thank Chairman Issa for yielding. Madam Speaker, I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for working together and bringing this important bill to the floor.

I also want to commend the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), who was a member of our task force and, as the chairman noted, has done so much work on this.

Madam Speaker, this is an important bill on cybersecurity. The FISMA law passed in 2002 needs to be updated. The growth in the number and sophistication of the threats has not been matched by our response, and so laws and policies are increasingly outdated and not able to keep up with the threats faced by Federal networks as well as private sector networks.

And this bill requires continuous monitoring, as you have heard. The threat is dynamic. It changes. It doesn't work anymore to just check a box and say, I've done this. You have to have that continuous monitoring of what's happening within your networks. That's important for defense of the Federal Government, but it's also important to be an example for the rest of the country. And in cybersecurity, it seems to me, it's particularly important for the Federal Government to lead by example.

I also want to just say that this is an example of an issue, a part of cybersecurity, on which everybody agrees needs to happen, and this committee

has brought a bipartisan answer. We cannot allow differences that may exist between this body and the other body on other cybersecurity issues prevent us from taking action, getting something accomplished on something that everybody agrees on.

This is one of the things everybody agrees needs to happen. Information-sharing, everybody agrees on. Research and development that we'll have tomorrow on the floor, everybody agrees needs to happen.

I appreciate the work of this committee. It's an important bill. It will help make the Nation more secure, as well as this government, and I hope all Members will support it.

I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, every person elected to the House believes that we're here to do important work on behalf of our district. Of course, the House is bigger than any one issue or any one person. Yet, there are a relatively small number of persons who are central to the functioning of this House. Too often, I'm afraid, Members get so wrapped up in what we're trying to do that maybe we take for granted the institution of the House. But it is the institution that is established in the Constitution. It's the institution that provides the continuity of government as political majorities come and go, and it's the institution that provides the legitimacy and the respect for what we do here.

I say all that to make the point that I think, in many ways, the Parliamentarian is the central figure for the institution of the House. Since 1927, there have only been four of them, and in my time here, we have been incredibly privileged to have had two outstanding public servants, Charles Johnson and John Sullivan, serve in that position.

It is with some regret, but even more with respect and gratitude, that we honor the service, but I'd say just as much the character and the intellectual integrity, of John Sullivan as he leaves the House to begin a new chapter in his life.

As one of those who has benefited from John's steady guidance while I was in the chair, I can testify to his even temper. He guides our proceedings with intellect and logic, based on the Constitution, the rules of the House, and our precedent. But at the same time, he is able to factor in the human dimension, taking into account the personality of the person in the chair as well as that of the persons at the microphone. And that means it's as much art as it is science to keep the House running smoothly.

Much of the work he does, of course, is done off the House floor, advising Members and staff as to how they can accomplish their goals within the rules and precedents of the House. I have tremendous respect, though, for John's abilities and for his professionalism. But I have even greater appreciation for his commitment to and his love for this institution, for that portion of his heart that he has given to the House for the past 25 years.

He has elevated each of us who have worked with him, but more importantly, he has elevated the institution of the House of Representatives through which government by the people's representatives is possible. He is among our best and brightest, and all of us here, and the institution, will miss him greatly.

Mr. Speaker, each Member of this body is assisted by those who serve on our staffs. The roles and responsibilities of a Member of Congress make it impossible for any one individual to do it all. It takes a team.

Today I wish to recognize and express appreciation to a key member of my team as he retires from official public service.

Bill Harris has served as my Chief of Staff and then Senior Counselor since 2004. But his service to the country began in 1968 as a member of U.S. Army Signal Corps and his service to the Congress began in 1972, when he took a job as a staff assistant to Congressman Mike McCormack of Washington State. Earning his law degree from Georgetown, he was Congressman McCormack's Counsel until 1976.

Between his stints with the Congress, Bill worked for the Atomic Industrial Forum, the Committee for Energy Awareness, the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness (which is now the Nuclear Energy Institute), and the University Research Alliance. In each of these positions, Bill's focus was energy and the tremendous possibilities that can come from nuclear research and development.

In 2004, I enticed Bill back into government service to serve as my Chief of Staff. He led my team by helping each staff member develop his or her talents and interests to grow and serve the people of the 13th district. His expertise in energy and in management, as well as his background in the law, were invaluable. But, perhaps most importantly has been his character and strong, steady leadership.

Too few individuals possess the modesty that puts the good of the organization and the mission ahead of any personal considerations. Yet some of the strongest leaders and those with the most to say are those persons of character whose soft-spoken demeanor quiets the noise with intellect, honesty, and sound judgment. Bill is just such a leader.

He has helped ensure that we made decisions based on the concerns of the people in Texas, not how policy in Washington should control the lives of people back home. No matter what the task, my staff and I counted on Bill's guidance and sense of duty to the people we represent.

Of course, Bill's commitment to service goes beyond his profession. He spends his free time engaging with all corners of the community. For example, he is currently a Mission Pilot with the Civil Air Patrol, a long-serving board member of the Harrington Cancer Center of Amarillo, and a member of the Amarillo Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee. But that is just a sampling. Over the years, Bill and wonderful wife Bev have become fixtures in the community when it comes to serving others and the community as a whole. Bill has been on more committees and organizational projects than anyone could count.

President Reagan put a premium on principle-based leadership. He kept a small plaque on his desk in the Oval Office with a quote that read, ``There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he does not

mind who gets the credit.'' Bill's example of servant leadership is one that has shaped the lives of many individuals and shown that a benevolent heart earns the respect of others.

It is for this spirit of service and dedication to the highest standards of excellence that I am honored to recognize the contributions and to acknowledge the retirement of a man who is a credit to my office, his family, and our country.

As he moves into the next phase of his life, I want to express my gratitude, not only for all of his help with my work in representing the 13th district, but for all he has done so far to make our community and our region a better place to live.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. It is a broad-ranging conference report that affects everything from personnel policies to weapons systems to research and development across the Department of Defense and the military. And I especially commend Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, and all the staff who have worked all year to make this possible, but have worked especially hard in the last few days to make this conference report possible before the Congress adjourns.

There are a number of good, important provisions in this bill that strengthen our country's national security. But in light of the comments we have recently heard, Mr. Speaker, let me talk just a moment about this issue of detention.

You know, one can put into law ``the sun comes up,'' and if somebody comes and says, no, it doesn't, you can present all the evidence and you can present words that have clear meaning, and if somebody just wants to say, no, it doesn't, you at some level reach an impasse.

The two provisions related to detention in this bill, the words that have been put into the law, are very clear. One says it does not apply to U.S. citizens. It does not. Nothing here affects U.S. citizens. The other provision says that nothing in this section can be construed to affect existing law or authorities related to the detention of U.S. citizens.

Now, it seems to me there may well be people who are uncomfortable with the current law, and I understand that. And the proper thing to do is to introduce a bill and try to get that amended in some way to get it more to your liking. But to argue that this bill changes in some way the current law when the words say nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities is just not credible.

The provisions in this bill, Mr. Speaker, are a small step towards having this Congress back involved in making those detention decisions. I think it is the right small step, and it should be supported.

Madam Speaker, it would be a mistake to believe that a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution will solve all of our fiscal woes. There are no magic answers to what ails us. Fiscal discipline and common sense applied day-by-day, year-by-year are required.

A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution would, however, help impose the discipline needed on the taxing and spending decisions of the federal government. It would be a very significant step--perhaps one of the most significant we could take--in repairing our fiscal house.

It forces Congress and the President to make choices. If new spending is proposed, other spending must be cut or some other way to finance the new program must be found.

A basic principle for individuals, businesses, and other organizations is that one should not spend more than one has to spend, except in extraordinary circumstances. That is common sense. Yet, for too long, that principle has been commonly absent from Washington. This vote on this Amendment is our opportunity to apply this basic idea to the federal government. We should do it now.

Mr. Speaker, this vote is a close call.

Like the vast majority of our colleagues, I do not want to see the federal government fail to meet its obligations. And if the government cannot borrow, the fact that President Obama would decide which bills to pay with the money that is available is not reassuring. He could well refuse to pay Social Security benefits in order to build the maximum amount of political pressure for his agenda.

But I am equally disturbed by the prospect of continuing to spend and borrow as usual. The United States simply cannot continue down this path of fiscal irresponsibility and meet our duty to our children and to future generations. We must cut some spending now, and we must change the system that allows or even encourages such fiscal recklessness.

This bill cuts some spending, although not nearly as much as I would like. The spending it cuts directly is discretionary spending, which is the easiest to cut because it is subject to the annual appropriations process. The bill does not touch mandatory spending, which is well over half of the budget. That is a lost opportunity.

The special congressional committee could recommend changes in mandatory spending and hopefully an overhaul of our tax code, which is a drag on our economy and a burden to all taxpayers. The recommendations of that committee will receive a vote in the House and Senate before the end of the year. That is a potential opportunity.

Significantly, the bill does cut a dollar of spending for every dollar of additional borrowing authority. No more money can be added to the debt without an equivalent or greater cut in spending. That is an important first for our country and an important precedent to set.

The bill also requires a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. It will be the first such vote in the Senate in 15 years. There is, of course, no guarantee that it will pass, but there is a real opportunity for the American people to let their Senators and Representatives know how they feel. If the polls are correct that over 70% of the people support a Balanced Budget Amendment and if they let Congress know of their support, it should pass.

I am concerned about the way this measure treats defense. The Department of Defense, like any large organization, can be more efficient. Our national security would be devastated, however, if the sequestration cuts were allowed to occur. Every member of the House and Senate, as well as the President, must ensure that they do not.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is always the question that must be asked when making a difficult decision on how to vote on a bill: If this bill does not pass, what happens then? There is much about this bill with which I am not satisfied, but I have absolutely no doubt that if this bill is rejected, the next one will be worse. The next bill may come after Social Security checks are not received or after the markets plummet, but there would be another bill, and it will not have the cuts or reforms that are in this one. And it would most likely make even greater cuts to defense.

The bottom line is that this bill is one step in the right direction. I would rather take two, or three, or five steps, but I cannot reject a bill that cuts spending as much as it increases borrowing and that provides the opportunity for greater cuts as well as for real reforms in budgeting and spending. There is much more work ahead, and I will keep pushing for more steps in the direction of fiscal responsibility in the weeks and months to come.