Jim Langevin

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Grimm Amendment to H.R. 5854, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act. This amendment strikes a provision in the underlying bill that would prevent Federal Government agencies, including the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs, from requiring the use of project labor agreements. A project labor agreement (PLA) is a pre-hire agreement that establishes the terms and conditions of employment during a construction project. Any contractor--union or non-union--can work on projects under a PLA, as long as they abide by the wages, benefits and other terms of employment negotiated in the agreement. They have been used in all 50 states and the District of Columbia on both private and public projects. In February 2009, President Obama signed an Executive Order that encourages Federal agencies to consider requiring the use of PLAs on large-scale construction projects of $25 million or more. The order states that agencies are not required to use PLAs. In its current form, H.R. 5854 would strike these regulations, and instead discourage commonsense labor agreements on large-scale construction projects. The Grimm Amendment would allow agencies to require project labor agreements when they determine that it is in their interest to do so, which would follow the path of private businesses. Successful corporations use PLAs to ensure high-quality, on-time work through good jobs with meaningful training programs for local workers. Boeing, Disney, Harvard University, and Toyota are among the large number of private entities that use PLAs. If the agreements make sense for these successful organizations, why would we compromise Federal agencies' ability to use them, especially when we are looking to reduce government spending? Mr. Chair, the priority of Congress should not only be to create jobs, but to raise the living standards of the middle class and working families across America. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Grimm Amendment.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank both Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger for their outstanding work on this very important legislation and so many aspects contained in it. Last September, I proudly spoke in support of the fiscal year 2012 Intelligence authorization bill because it addressed critical cybersecurity needs as well as many issues of great importance, not just to me but to our country and to the men and women of our intelligence services. I was pleased to be a part of a bipartisan effort within the Intelligence Committee to craft that legislation and gratified by the overwhelming bipartisan support that it garnered. Earlier this year, the House considered the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, which also received bipartisan support and, in my opinion, is a critical first step to confront the serious challenges our Nation faces in the realm of cybersecurity. Now, I continue to advocate for action on CISPA and on the comprehensive cybersecurity legislation that will ultimately be necessary to address this issue, but today I'm proud to support H.R. 5743, the fiscal year 2013 Intelligence authorization bill because it builds on these earlier efforts to give the U.S. intelligence community the tools and funding it needs to meet the challenges of the future. Just as importantly, it supports the men and women of the intelligence community who enable those investments and keep our Nation secure. The National Counterintelligence Executive recently warned that China and Russia are conducting sophisticated cyberespionage against the U.S., in addition to more traditional espionage operations. They and other countries seek to undermine our military, technological, and innovative edge by exploiting our vulnerabilities in the cyber realm, in particular, our critical infrastructure. This situation presents a pervasive threat to U.S. economic security, and I'm very sad to say that they're having success. The estimates on the losses to U.S. industry and government from economic espionage range from $2 billion to over $400 billion a year. Now, this massive spread only emphasizes that we don't yet have the information we need to fully understand and combat this threat.

Mr. LANGEVIN. The National Counterintelligence Executive cautions that the intelligence community can't entirely prevent cybertheft of national and industrial secrets, but the community can minimize the hostile activity and mitigate the effects. Those efforts will be more successful if the agencies collaborate, build public-private partnerships, and improve intelligence collection and analysis of the cyberthreat to our country. The FY 2013 bill responds by giving the intelligence agencies the resources they need to develop a strong, unified effort to counter China, Russia, and other actors that might threaten our economic security or technological edge. The bill also does a lot to protect our supply chain, which is another area of vulnerability. This is a good bill, it's an important bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote Nos. 294 and 295, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both votes.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to remember and support the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. It is first worth highlighting the history at work in this tragic situation. Historically, the majority of the population in Nagorno- Karabakh has been Armenian, and the people have always had close ethnic, religious, and familial ties with Armenia. However, in 1921, Joseph Stalin, then the commissar for nationality affairs in the Transcaucasia Bureau of the Communist Party, declared Nagorno-Karabakh to be an autonomous region controlled by Azerbaijan as part of his strategy to divide and rule. In 1987, as the Soviet Union teetered on the edge of dissolution, the Karabakh Armenians petitioned for the inclusion of Nagorno-Karabakh in the state of Armenia. In 1991, they petitioned for independent state status. Sadly, the situation remains unresolved. After the Soviet Union dissolved, Armenians in Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh endured great hardship, including horrific violence in Sumgait (February 1998), in Kirovabad (November 1988) and in Baku (January 1990). These pogroms were only part of a pattern of anti- Armenian activities occurring throughout Azerbaijan, and thousands of people lost their lives and hundreds of thousands of Armenians were displaced as a result. Such targeted violence is as deplorable today as it was two decades ago--yet, tragically, the region is no closer to peace. A cease-fire agreement, brokered in 1994, remains in place, but continued incendiary actions and statements threaten to destabilize peace talks. In January 2008, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev warned Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh, ``We are reinforcing our army because we must be ready to free our lands . . . at any moment and by any means.'' Such rhetoric can only be poison to the peace process. U.S. policy toward the South Caucasus states has included promoting the resolution of the conflict surrounding the independent Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh. It is more important than ever that the United States maintain a principled stand for peace in this region, show that democracy can be born from conflict, and support Nagorno-Karabakh. It is my sincerest hope that Nagorno-Karabakh's right to self- determination can be affirmed without further loss of life.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Michigan for offering this amendment; but unfortunately I must rise in opposition. I certainly share their concerns, and I know of their good intentions; and I certainly share the authors' concerns over civilian casualties, and certainly even one civilian death is too many. Mr. Chair, we should not jeopardize our men and women in uniform by hamstringing their ability to engage when threatened or returning fire. Certainly the Predators are incredibly powerful tools, and they need to be used judiciously and appropriately. I believe that they are only when necessary. The language here as it is written would threaten many of the most urgent uses of remotely powered aircraft. For example, if our troops are under fire from an unknown assailant or if an insurgent is placing a bomb, this language, as I read it, would prohibit targeting that individual. Mr. Chairman, patterns of behavior are certainly appropriate indicators and are vetted strenuously. John Brennan at the White House has indicated and stated publicly that the drone-strike policy was rooted in adherence to law, and indeed the authorization for use of military force provides the President with the authority to ``use all necessary and appropriate force.''

Mr. LANGEVIN. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. There are strict policies for how these tools can be used: there has to be a significant threat to the United States; action could mitigate or prevent an actual threat from materializing; capture is not feasible or could put U.S. servicemen and -women in undue harm; and collateral damage and harm to civilians is minimal. This strict criteria is what can be used, and I think they are the tools that we need to preserve.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to thank Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, Chairman Thornberry, and the members of the committee, as well as the staff, for their efforts in crafting this year's bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act, which affirms our commitment to the dedicated men and women of our military, the infrastructure that enables their efforts, and the research and development required to maintain our technological edge. I am particularly pleased that H.R. 4310 includes provisions I advocated to prevent the proposed cut in the production of the peerless Virginia-class submarines. These electric boats--which are critical to our national security and built in my district through Quonset/ Davisville by the hardworking men and women that work there--are being built ahead of schedule and under budget. This bill preserves the two- boat-per-year model that has enabled such great efficiencies. I would also like to note the inclusion of my amendment to accelerate the deployment of the most promising directed-energy initiatives. Just recently, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments issued a report that clearly showed that many directed energy technologies have matured to the point that ``cultural factors and the lack of resources, not technological maturity'' are the most significant barriers to operational deployment. These technologies have the potential to fundamentally shift how our military operates in the complex environments of the future and enables DOD's objectives of a ``smaller, lighter, more agile, flexible joint force that can conduct a full range of military activities.'' Additionally, this legislation prioritizes and supports the Department's cybersecurity and IT efforts. Cyber has long been a chief focus of mine; and while I'm encouraged that this legislation continues to address this critical issue, much remains to be done. FBI Director Mueller has said that cybersecurity could soon be more of a threat than terrorism, yet our Federal Government still lacks a single point of accountability for cybersecurity, and our critical infrastructure lacks many basic protections. I am hopeful that the Rules Committee will allow floor consideration of two amendments I offered that would enable a comprehensive approach to cybersecurity across the government and secure the infrastructure on which our military and our Nation depend. On balance, this is a good bill. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work, as well as the staff.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 250, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today's debate is about priorities. The Republican reconciliation bill provides a stark contrast between the measures Democrats know are necessary to get our fiscal house in order--creating jobs and encouraging investments, and those that Republicans covet--tax cuts for special interests and giveaways for millionaires. It is high time we get serious about our fiscal situation, and I, like most Americans, am prepared to make sacrifices to put us on a sustainable path. But this reconciliation bill sends our country in the wrong direction--reducing benefits for our children, elderly, and most vulnerable to pay for tax cuts to millionaires and subsidies for oil and gas companies. Under the Republican plan, 22 million families could see their food and nutrition assistance cut, and up to 300,000 children could lose both their health coverage and their school lunch program. Jeopardizing struggling families is not the way to get your country back on track. I see the importance of these programs to my constituents every day. There are thousands of hard working Rhode Islanders who still can't make ends meet, who need a little help so their kids don't go to bed hungry or sleep in a cold house. The economic downturn has been a trying time for everyone, and all of us have a family member or a friend who has been forced to ask for help at one time or another. yet Republicans are trying to pull away the helping hand the government offers to those who are living on the edge. At a time when we ought to be investing in our future, the Republican budget offers shortsighted measures that will irreparably shortchange our most critical national investments. With unemployment at 11.1 percent in my home state of Rhode Island, my number one priority is spurring job growth and development. Unfortunately, this Republican budget, which gives away $3 trillion in tax breaks to corporations and the super-wealthy, will do just the opposite. Democrats are offering a fair and balanced approach that keeps the promises made to our seniors, preserves our social safety net, and maintains investments in our economic security. With key recommendations of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles and Domenici-Rivlin budget commissions as a guide, it addresses both sides of the ledger-- through strategic spending cuts and revenues. There is simply no other way to equitably address our fiscal challenges. Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget is not what the American public wants, it is not what Rhode Islanders need, and it is not what our future generations deserve. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, Democrats are committed to reducing the deficit in a balanced way. In contrast, Republicans will bring up a bill this week that breaks our bipartisan agreement, erasing the hard work on both sides to reach compromise. This was the agreement that resulted in us allowing to raise the debt ceiling and put in place the supercommittee that could have reached a more balanced approach to budgeting, with both revenues and budget cuts. But my Republican colleagues rejected increased revenues that were needed. This wasn't simply a gentleman's agreement that was arrived at that will put in place sequester. This compromise was signed into law as our pledge to each other and to the Nation to work together to solve our most challenging issues. Republicans are reneging on that agreement. They've decided that cutting the programs which would help heat my constituents' homes, put food on their tables, and send their children to college is the right approach to rebuilding a strong economy. They've decided that denying health coverage to thousands of Americans is better than repealing tax cuts to millionaires. They've decided that going it alone is more important than working with Democrats. Democrats have a plan to put our fiscal house back in order. It's been 500 days since the GOP took over and we're still waiting for theirs. We can do better, and I urge them to work with us.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to language included in the FY13 Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill that strips the Justice Department's authority to implement accessibility standards for swimming pools under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was an amendment offered and discussed earlier this evening. As cochair of the bipartisan Disabilities Caucus and as a person who has lived with a disability for over 30 years, I am very troubled by any attempt to weaken the ADA. However, I am even more surprised to see such language included in an appropriations bill used to fund the Federal Government. In 2010, the Department of Justice issued regulations requiring that public and commercial pools be made accessible by either a ramp or a fixed pool lift. This rule was intended to break down one of many barriers to recreational activities that people with disabilities face. I understand that some businesses, such as hotels and motels, believe that meeting these requirements would impose an undue cost burden, so I would like to take a moment to dispel some of the misunderstandings that have formed around this issue. The Justice Department's regulation only requires existing pool facilities to satisfy the accessibility standards if it is ``readily achievable,'' which simply means that it is ``easily accomplished and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.'' This has been the governing legal principle of the ADA since its passage 22 years ago. It ensures that businesses are given the flexibility to determine whether they have the resources to make accessibility improvements rather than requiring a one-size-fits-all approach; and contrary to some misconceptions, individual parties cannot sue to get money damages as a result of noncompliance. It is also worth pointing out that this is not a last-minute regulation rushed through by any one administration. The United States Access Board first adopted pool access standards in 2002 and incorporated those standards into its ADA Accessibility Guidelines in 2004. This rule applies those same standards to the 2010 regulation at issue, and businesses have had 18 months to prepare and give feedback on this rule. In fact, they were recently granted another 2-month extension to delay implementation until May 21, 2012. I recognize the challenges facing many small businesses, so I feel it is important that regulations do not impose an undue burden on them. However, if this language to strip the DOJ's authority is approved, a burden will be borne by people with disabilities everywhere--whether they are trying to access commercial pools or public pools like those run at State and local recreation facilities. Swimming is a recreational activity that provides numerous social, physical, and medically therapeutic benefits; and it has played a crucial role in the rehabilitation, overall health and increased quality of life for millions of people with disabilities, including our injured military servicemembers and disabled veterans who participate in adaptive sports and recreational swimming as a means of fitness, inclusion, and empowerment. Many veterans service organizations and disability rights groups have expressed as much in letters opposing this language, including Disabled American Veterans, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Jewish War Veterans, VetsFirst, in addition to the National Council on Independent Living, American University Centers on Disabilities, and the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, which encompasses many additional disability, health and veterans groups. Mr. Chairman, this language sets a dangerous precedent for civil rights enforcement, and it would mark the first time that Congress has weakened the enforcement of the ADA. So I ask my colleagues to oppose this language in any final bill that is conferred with the Senate. Once you pull that thread, you risk unraveling the protections of the most important civil rights bill for people with disabilities as well as that which binds us all together in a higher calling of equal rights for all. I yield back the balance of my time. Association of University Centers on Disabilities, Silver Spring, MD, May 7, 2012. Dear Representative: On behalf of the Association of University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD), I am writing to urge you to oppose Representative Carter's amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Bill that would prevent the Justice Department from using its funds to enforce the ADA regulations to increase access for people with disabilities to swimming pools. On March 15, the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design went into effect, setting accessibility requirements for built-in facilities including swimming pools. These standards were adopted as part of the revised regulations for Title II and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Unfortunately, the regulations were met with strong opposition by the hotel industry due to a misunderstanding as to what they require and the ``readily achievable'' standard the ADA applies to ensure reasonable enforcement. The readily achievable standard has been supported and recognized by the business community since the passage of the ADA in 1990. The standard, since its inception twenty-two years ago, provides the Justice Department with flexibility to determine what is achievable based on a covered entity's particular circumstances, and to prevent the Department from applying a rigid one-size-fits-all standard. In the case of the accessibility regulations for pool lifts, therefore, if it is too costly or burdensome for a small, family-owned business to install a fixed pool lift at their facility, the new regulations do not require that they do so. Furthermore, pool owners that fail to comply with the regulations are not subject to large damage awards largely in part to the fact that individuals cannot obtain money damages against hotels for violations of ADA's accessibility requirements. The hotel industry has known about this issue for a decade, and has participated in every step of the way. They were given 18 additional months (past the publication of the finalized rules in September 2010) to prepare before the standards went into effect. As a result of the forgoing built in protections in the ADA, this amendment is not needed to protect small hotel owners. Additionally, it is crucial to understand, that access to swimming pools is important for people with disabilities--it helps them participate in their communities, spend time with their families and, for many, is a critical means of exercise and maintaining good health. If Congress intercedes by passing this amendment, we fear a dangerous precedent will have been set that could chip away at other provisions of the ADA. The final rule was the result of an extensive regulatory process that provided ample opportunity for participation. Accordingly, AUCD urges you to protect the ADA by opposing amendments that will take away the right of the Department to enforce such critical regulations. Sincerely, A. Anthony Antosh, President.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today in strong support of the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act offered by my good friend and colleague, the cochair of the Cybersecurity Caucus, Mr. McCaul. The gentleman and I have been at this issue for several years now; and when we first began the effort back in '06 or '07, I think for the most part most people, when we talked about cybersecurity, it was, cyber what? Oh, how things have changed. I think we certainly, collectively, between him and I and many others, have raised the awareness of this issue, its importance, and the challenges that we face in securing our Nation in cyberspace, and I deeply am grateful for his efforts. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the cyberdomain to our national security, our infrastructure, and our economic competitiveness. Clearly, we all recognize how much we use the Internet every day in our daily lives, whether it's for commerce or communication, social networking, or national security issues. It really has become a part of our daily lives. But in securing the cyberdomain, we also face immense challenges. Cyberthreats are clearly growing more numerous, sophisticated, and successful. We all know of someone who perhaps has had their bank accounts hacked and had money stolen or their identity stolen or their credit card number or Social Security number stolen because of a cyberattack on a company or government institution. We also have heard of numerous attacks, and we see them daily in the area of cyber- espionage, and the gentleman from Texas did a great job in outlining some of the specific challenges. The F 35 is one case in particular that comes to mind. There are billions of dollars in R&D that is stolen on a daily or weekly basis by our adversaries; and, of course, we have heard and have documented numerous issues of cyberattacks. Thankfully, nothing major yet in this country. But as General Alexander, the Director of the NSA, has outlined, these days perhaps would come and we need to do all we can to avoid them. Well-intentioned technological changes that create great efficiencies through automation and advanced management techniques, of course, can leave us even more vulnerable to cyber-exploitation. Clearly, these efficiencies that have been brought through automation have helped us to be much more efficient; but as the test from Idaho National Labs, which showed how easy it would be to conduct a ``skater attack'' that penetrated systems that are government safety systems. Pumps and valves and generators could easily be penetrated and cause that generator to blow itself up. So these things can happen, and we need to do all we can to avoid them. Make sure that that day never comes. Now, obviously, we have to tap into our creative and innovative spirit to address today's challenges and position ourselves to be agile in the face of tomorrow's threats. I'm pleased that this bill helps us to make this need a reality by strengthening the coordination and cooperation among the various cyber- research and development efforts across the Federal Government. The fruits of that research will be critical to our Nation's future defense and the cyberdomain. Additionally, I'm pleased to highlight that this bill enhances programs that increase the size and skills of our Nation's cybersecurity workforce. Now, we have obviously a critical shortage of qualified cyber-experts, and we need to address that need. The director of the CIA's Clandestine Information Technology Office estimates that we only have about a thousand people that can operate in the country at world-class levels in cyberspace, and what he says is we need somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 people. We all heard about the skills gap that we face in this country where, in particular, high-tech companies are having a real difficult time finding qualified workers to fill those jobs of the 21st century. We need to do better in closing our skills gap. To this end, last year the National Defense Authorization Act commissioned a study that the Pentagon had to conduct to determine its cyberworkforce needs and give them a better situation awareness about who they have with those capabilities and what their needs will be both now and in the future. It was a successful study, and the Pentagon is putting that plan and that information into action to close that gap. And at the high school level in Rhode Island and in several of the other States, we, working with the Sands Institute, created the cyberchallenge. We need to focus on our young people and get them focused on a potential career in cybersecurity, and that program has been incredibly successful. So in closing that gap and developing a cyberworkforce, this legislation is an important step in that effort. So I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership on this issue, and I'm pleased to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. I'd like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding, and for his outstanding leadership on this issue and so many other issues in education. Mr. Speaker, we obviously absolutely cannot allow the interest rate on student loans to more than double. I rise in opposition to H.R. 4628. While Congress must prevent the Stafford loan interest rate from doubling to 6.8 percent, it is unconscionable that the Republican leadership is forcing us to choose between education and health care. Too many students face unnecessary barriers to pursuing a college degree, and it is our responsibility to empower them by investing in their education and health. Republicans are putting us in the untenable position of paying for this measure by gutting the prevention and public health fund, the sole purpose of which is to reduce chronic conditions that are driving up the cost of health care in the first place. Now, instead of sacrificing our public health to score political points, we need to work together to ensure our students can pursue their dreams without the burdens of unnecessary costs and debt. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I was terribly saddened by the recent passing of a Rhode Island resident and a dedicated, 15-year veteran of the Providence Police Department, Sergeant Maxwell Dorley. I join his family, his colleagues and the people of Rhode Island in mourning this great loss. Though he was always mindful of the dangers of his profession, Sergeant Dorley lived to serve and protect his family and his community. He emigrated from Liberia to the United States as a child. Throughout his life, he regularly gave back to his native country by donating supplies, law enforcement uniforms, and equipment to improve Liberian public safety and wellbeing. As a law enforcement officer and a beloved member of the Rhode Island community, Sergeant Dorley epitomized a dedicated public servant. One of my own staff members was fortunate enough to serve with Sergeant Dorley and has spoken with great admiration and affection of his kind, generous and courageous spirit. On Thursday, April 19th, Sergeant Dorley died tragically in the line of duty. While responding to a call to assist fellow officers, he tried to avoid a car that had turned in front of him, resulting in his cruiser crashing into a pole. I share the shock and sadness of the Providence Police Department and so many Rhode Islanders with his untimely passing. Sergeant Dorley is survived by his wife, Lou, a daughter, Amanda, and son, Robert. I offer them my deepest condolences at this time of tremendous loss, and I hope they will take great comfort in knowing how fondly Max will be remembered by those whose lives he touched.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my colleague and friend, the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Mr. Issa. I'd first like to thank the chairman for his hard work. His efforts to update the Federal Information Security Management Act have been commendably inclusive and bipartisan, and I want to thank him and his staff, as well as Mr. Cummings and Mr. Connolly and their staff, for all the outreach and good faith negotiation that's occurred during the crafting of this legislation. There can be no question that the FISMA reform language before the House today is both sorely needed and long overdue. To this end, together with my good friend and our former colleague, Ms. Watson, I introduced an amendment that passed the House overwhelmingly last Congress during consideration of the FY 2011 National Defense Authorization Act. That amendment, which was, unfortunately, stripped out during conference with the Senate, would have made important updates to FISMA, in addition to establishing a National Office for Cyberspace in the Executive Office of the President. Such an office has been recommended by the Obama administration's 60 Day Cyberspace Policy Review, public-private sector working groups such as the CSIS Commission on Cybersecurity for the 44th Presidency, which I cochaired with my good friend, Mr. McCaul, and the GAO, as a response to security deficiencies throughout the Federal Government. While I applaud my friend for delivering on the need for FISMA reform, I'd like to ask the chairman if he gave thought to such organizational changes within the executive branch and, in particular, an organization like a National Office for Cyberspace during the drafting of this legislation. I yield to my friend.

Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for that. In that spirit, I'd like to encourage the gentleman to continue in this open and bipartisan fashion. I'd like to ask if you would be interested in working together on such subsequent legislation, along with Mr. Cummings and Mr. Connolly, who have been so involved and thoughtful on this issue. I believe that such legislation should include strong, centralized oversight to protect our Nation's critical infrastructure, including budgetary oversight powers, while remaining accountable to Congress.

Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for that, and I look forward to working with my good friend to ensure that our Federal Government is properly addressing this critically important issue.

Mr. LANGEVIN

Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for the additional time. I have long maintained that we must also move forward on legislation that establishes minimum standards for the cybersystems that govern our critical infrastructure, particularly the electric grid and our water systems. With that, I again want to thank Chairman Rogers and Mr. Ruppersberger for their outstanding efforts, and I ask my colleagues to support this important cybersecurity information-sharing legislation.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Again, I thank the chairman of the Intelligence Committee for his thoughts. I want to be very clear that this term substituting ``critical infrastructure'' for ``utilities'' does not lend to regulating critical infrastructure. It just allows for the broadest possible definition of information-sharing among those entities that are deemed to be critical infrastructure. With that, I thank Chairman Lungren for his support of this bipartisan amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LANGEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. LANGEVIN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chairman on the Department of Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. LANGEVIN. I have an amendment at the desk.