Mike Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce to all Members of the House that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has ordered the bill, H.R. 3381, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, reported favorably to the House with amendments. The committee's report will be filed next Monday. Mr. Speaker, the classified Schedule of Authorizations and the classified Annex accompanying the bill will be available for review by Members at the offices of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in room HVC-304 of the Capitol Visitors Center beginning any time after this report is filed. The committee office will be open during regular business hours for the convenience of any Member who wishes to review this material prior to its consideration of the House. I anticipate that H.R. 3381 will be considered in the House in the near future. I recommend that Members wishing to review the classified Annex contact the committee's Director of Security to arrange a time and date for that viewing. This will ensure the availability of committee staff to assist Members who desire assistance during their review of these classified materials. I urge interested Members to review these materials in order to better understand the committee's recommendations. The classified Annex to the committee's report contains the committee's recommendations on the intelligence budget for the fiscal year 2014 and related classified information that cannot be disclosed publicly. It is important that Members keep in mind the requirements of clause 13 of House rule XXIII, which permits access to classified information by only those Members of the House who have signed the oath provided for in the rule. If a Member has not yet signed the oath but wishes to review the classified Annex and Schedule of Authorizations, the committee staff can administer the oath and see that the executed form is sent to the Clerk's office. In addition, the committee's rules require that Members agree in writing to a nondisclosure agreement. The agreement indicates that Members have been granted access to the classified Annex and that they are familiar with the rules of the House and the committee with respect to the classified nature of the information and the limitations on the disclosure of that information.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the issue of our veterans as it relates to H.R. 3102. I commend you for working to include important reforms of the SNAP program in this bill. However, some concerns have been raised regarding the bill's impact on veterans who rely on SNAP benefits. While the eligibility and work requirement reforms included in this legislation are important, I believe they will have unintended consequences on our veterans. Some of our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan live in a world that is somewhere between battle fatigue and PTSD. That means they may need a little extra time to transition from service to employment than their fellow citizens. And, unfortunately, veterans have been hit hard during the recession. They are unemployed at higher rates than the rest of the country. In Michigan alone, there are 25,000 unemployed veterans staring down at a north of 9 percent unemployment rate. I ask the chairman if he would commit to work with me in conference to include language ensuring veterans remain protected in the future the way they are protected today. While this would not impact a large number of soldiers, sailors, and marines, it would have a huge impact on the confidence our servicemembers have in their government to keep our promise to them. And that promise is that when you put your life on the line for the United States of America, you will have the support, especially in these difficult economic times, of the people of the United States. Our Nation's veterans have sacrificed for this country, and it is especially important that in difficult times they have this support. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I think the American people and, certainly, some well- intentioned Members in this Chamber have legitimate concerns. They should be addressed. We should have time and education on what actually happens in the particular program of which we speak. I will pledge to each one of you today and give you my word that this fall, when we do the Intel authorization bill, that we will work to find additional privacy protections with this program which have no email, no phone calls, no names, and no addresses. Fourteen Federal judges have said, yes, this comports with the Constitution; 800 cases around the 1979 case have affirmed the underpinnings of the legality of this case--800. So 14 judges are wrong, and 800 different cases are wrong. The legislators on both Intelligence committees--Republicans and Democrats--are all wrong. Why is it that people of both parties came together and looked at this program at a time when our Nation was under siege by those individuals who wanted to bring violence to the shores of the United States? It is that those who know it best support the program because we spend as much time on this to get it right, to make sure the oversight is right. No other program has the legislative branch, the judicial branch, and the executive branch doing the oversight of a program like this. If we had this in the other agencies, we would not have problems. Think about who we are in this body. Have 12 years gone by and our memories faded so badly that we've forgotten what happened on September 11? This bill turns off a very specific program. It doesn't stop so- called ``spying'' and other things that this has been alleged to do. That's not what's happening. It's not a surveillance bill. It's not monitoring. It doesn't do any of those things. What happened after September 11 that we didn't know on September 10--again, passing this amendment takes us back to September 10, and afterwards we said, wow, there is a seam, a gap--was somebody leading up to the September 11 attacks who was a terrorist overseas, called a ``terrorist,'' living amongst us in the United States, and we missed it because we didn't have this capability. What if we'd have caught it? The good news is we don't have to what-if. It's not theoretical. Fifty-four times this and the other program stopped and thwarted terrorist attacks both here and in Europe--saving real lives. This isn't a game. This is real. It will have a real consequence. This is hard. Think about the people who came here before us in this great body-- Madison, Lincoln, Kennedy served here--and about the issues they dealt with and about the politics of ``big'' and of moving America forward while upholding the article I mandate to this House in that we must provide for the general defense of the United States. Think of those challenges. Think of those challenges that they met. Are we so small that we can only look at our Facebook ``likes'' today in this Chamber, or are we going to stand up and find out how many lives we can save? Let us get back to the big politics of protecting America and of moving America forward. Soundly reject this amendment. Let's do this right in the Intel authorization bill.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, twenty-nine exceptionally bright students from Howell High School in Michigan won a competition on their knowledge of the Constitution. As the winners of this competition, they came to Washington D.C. the last weekend in April to participate in the national finals of the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' program. The ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' program, administered by the Center for Civic Education, helps elementary and secondary students build a strong foundation of knowledge of the history and philosophical influences of the Constitution. The knowledge gained from this experience teaches the students about civic responsibility and how to enhance and uphold the democracy of this nation. The final activity in this program, which took place April 27-29, gave students the opportunity to ``testify'' in a simulated congressional hearing. This experience allows them to utilize and demonstrate their understanding and teaches them how to evaluate, take, and defend positions on issues based on constitutional principles. I am happy to announce that the Howell High team won the Outstanding Unit Six award. Overall the team finished 16th in the nation with Unit One also placing in the top ten and Unit Two finishing 14th overall. I am honored and proud to recognize the achievements of these students, they are Unit One: Heather Buja, Brody Kutt, Aaron Osborne; Unit Two: David Grusendorf, Lauren Lomasney, Nicole Trudeau, Jason Wisby; Unit Three: Ashley Carignan, Megan Isom, Jeremy Johnson, Sarah Kenney, Francesca Mettetal, Benjamin Schultz; Unit Four: Katherine Beard, Dillon Higgins, Adam Hukkala, Samantha Rineman, Christina Szkrybalo, Jake Tholen; Unit Five: Michael Beard, Grant Bowman, Jarrid Rector-Brooks, Erika Seneca!, Karsyn Textor; and Unit Six: Breanne Casper, Nadja Grauer, Abigail Harrington, Andreja Petrulis, Jonathon Reck. I also recognize Linda Start, the Michigan state coordinator for the ``We the People . . .'' program. I would also like to applaud Mark Oglesby, the teacher who has led the Howell High School class to this national competition after eleven years of competing in the state of Michigan. It was a pleasure to meet these students while they were here and I wish them the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Doctor Ken Elmassian on his new position as President of the Michigan State Medical Society. Doctor Elmassian is truly one of the great medical professionals and a leader in his community. After graduating from the Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine in 1976, Doctor Elmassian completed a residency program in anesthesiology. His impressive career then began in Flint as an attending anesthesiologist at Flint Osteopathic Hospital. After returning to Lansing, he served as the Director of Cardiac Anesthesiology at McLaren Greater Lansing where he held many leadership positions including the chair of the Credentials Committee, member of the Critical Care Committee, vice-chair of the Department of Anesthesia, Medical Staff Secretary, and Chief of Staff as well as a member of the Board of Trustees. These prestigious positions and titles do not take away Doctor Elmassian's focus and understanding of how patient health and professional development interact within the broader context of our state and local communities. He has held numerous leadership positions in the Ingham County Medical Society (ICMS) as delegate to the Michigan State Medical Society, chair of the Legislative Committee, past treasurer, and past president and continues to serve the ICMS as a member of its Board of Directors. As an active member of the Michigan State Medical Society, Doctor Elmassian has served on the Board of Directors and on both the Legislative and Financial Committees of the Board. He also enthusiastically participated for many years on the Committee on State Legislation and Regulations, as well as the MDPAC Board, the Committee on Federal Legislation, as well as other committees and task forces. Doctor Elmassian's philosophy of engagement puts patients before politics. He believes that organizational relationships, ongoing interaction with state and federal policymakers, and coalition building are integral to developing sound health policy. It is Doctor Elmassian's philosophy that together we will achieve better outcomes for patients and providers. As a licensed commercial pilot, Doctor Elmassian enjoys vacationing in Glen Arbor in the summer, reading biographies, the opera, mountain treks in New Hampshire, and exercising, all of which he enjoys most with his family, which includes his wife, Georgina and their sons, Joshua and Zachary. I ask that the House of Representatives join me in thanking Doctor Elmassian for his exemplary service to his community and congratulating him on his installation as President of the Michigan State Medical Society.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 624.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, while I do not oppose the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I will support this amendment, and I want to thank the gentlelady from Arizona for her diligence and work in coming down to the briefings and getting well educated on the threat and familiarizing herself with the classified material. Thank you for your extra work on this issue, and thank you for being a strong voice in advocating our solution. This amendment is important. It adds the inspector general at the Department of Homeland Security to the list of entities responsible for creating an annual report reviewing the use of information shared with the Federal Government. The amendment also adds the congressional Homeland Security Committee to the recipients of the report. This adds one more layer of oversight to make sure our civil liberties and privacy are protected in the bill. I stand in support and appreciate all the efforts of the gentlelady from Arizona, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

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

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, while I do not oppose the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I will support this amendment; and I want to thank the gentlelady for her work and interest on this very, very important issue and her taking the time to be involved in the process of making this a better bill and protecting privacy and civil liberties. What this bill does is add a Privacy Officer and Officer of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department of Homeland Security to the list of entities responsible for producing an annual report assessing the privacy and civil liberties impact of activities conducted by the Federal Government under this bill. Because the bill requires the Senior Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer of each department or agency receiving information under the bill to participate in the report, I will not oppose this effort to specifically include these officials from the Department of Homeland Security. I think this is, again, making more clarification, making our privacy and civil liberties protection that much more robust in the bill, and I want to thank the gentlelady for her efforts. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I would thank the gentlelady again and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I support this amendment, which makes very, very clear that nothing in this bill authorizes the government to target an American citizen for surveillance. It's incredibly important. Though the underlying bill would not allow the surveillance of an American citizen under CISPA, I will support this amendment as a further clarification that settles some Members' concerns and ensures the scope of the bill stays as narrow as we intended it to be. The amendment is an important myth buster about the intentions of CISPA. I commend Mr. LaMalfa for his leadership on this issue and urge strong support for the LaMalfa amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and agree that we must employ international cooperation to combat the scourge of economic cyber espionage and leverage our official state relationships and alliances to help stop the bleeding. China's economic espionage has reached an intolerable level, and I believe U.S. officials should demand that it stop at every meeting and engagement we have with Chinese officials. Moreover, the United States and our allies in Europe and Asia have an obligation to confront Beijing and demand they put a stop to this piracy. Beijing is waging a massive trade war on us all, and we should band together to pressure them to stop. Combined, the United States and our allies in Europe and Asia have significant diplomatic and economic leverage over China, and we should use this to our advantage to put an end to this activity. I commend the gentleman from Minnesota for offering this amendment, and I urge my colleagues' strong support for it.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Barton, for your work on this. Last year, you expressed strong reservations about certain privacy protections, and you were willing to sit down and work with us to try to find and make sure that we sent that very clear message about protecting privacy in this bill. I thought the language was excellent, and it added to that purpose. It really does prevent any information in the bill from being misused by a company for anything other than the bill's strictly defined cybersecurity purpose. But his amendment adds an important clarification to make Congress' intent absolutely clear, to try again to reassure the American public that this is about protecting privacy and civil liberties while protecting the country. I want to thank Mr. Barton for working with me and my ranking member on this important issue, and I urge my colleagues to strongly support this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, while I do not oppose this amendment, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I want to thank the gentlelady for working with us. It is her concern and a genuine concern, and we've had discussions on this bill about the protection of privacy. It's an important element of the way we move forward to try to protect those companies that you talk about in the networks that protect the jobs of every American and the privacy of every American. Every piece of this bill is voluntary. No one is pressured or compelled to give anything to the government under this bill. In fact, the bill contains two important protections to drive this point home: First, the bill prohibits the government from requiring a private sector entity to share information with the government. It is completely, 100 percent voluntary; Second, the bill prohibits the government from conditioning the sharing of classified cyber threat intelligence with a private sector entity on the provision of cyber threat information back to the government in return. In other words, no quid pro quo, and this is a good protection that I know the gentlelady supports. I believe that these important provisions make it very clear that every molecule of this bill is 100 percent voluntary, and this amendment, I think, reaffirms the strong language that is in the bill in order to give that next level of confidence on all the privacy amendments we've adopted today and to make it very clear that it is paramount that we protect individuals' privacy in the conduct of sharing cyber threat information. I, therefore, support the amendment, and would urge the body to do the same. Again, I thank the gentlelady for her work on this issue and for working with the committee to come to a better place. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Mr. Thompson and Mr. McCaul for working so hard on this particular amendment to try and get it right. An agreement was agreed to and then undone, and then agreed to by some involvement who are filled with self-importance beyond this Chamber. We were able to work out those differences and get to a place where we all agreed. This is an important amendment. This is that civilian face that so many talked about for so long on this bill. And I want to thank both the chair and the ranking member of Homeland Security for working through all of the difficulties to get us to this place where we could present that civilian face and add yet one more reassurance about privacy, civilian liberty protection, and that this is not a surveillance bill. And I want to thank again Mr. Thompson for your graciousness, your patience for working with us, and Mr. McCaul for your leadership on this issue as well. I urge strong support for the McCaul-Thompson- Ruppersberger-Rogers amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I submit the following letters. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, April 10, 2013. Hon. Mike Rogers, Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Rogers: I am writing concerning H.R. 624, the ``Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act,'' which is scheduled for consideration in your Committee today. This bill contains provisions that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. As a result of your having made mutually agreed-upon changes to the provisions in question, and in order to expedite the House's consideration of H.R. 624, the Committee on the Judiciary will not assert its jurisdictional claim over this bill by seeking a sequential referral. The Committee takes this action with our mutual understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 624 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation, and requests your support for any such request. I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 624, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included during floor consideration. Sincerely, Bob Goodlatte, Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. You know, it's the time-honored tradition of this House that we allow the minority of whomever is in the majority to have a motion to recommit, and it's a legislative instrument designed to draw that very bright line down the center of this Chamber. It tends to be music to your ears on the oral presentation and poison to the paper when you get to the details. I appreciate the gentleman's efforts. Well done, sir; I tell you that. Clearly, this belongs in employer-employee law. I'm sure the Labor Committee, Mr. Kline, would be delighted to deal with this very serious issue. It doesn't comport to our language, has nothing to do with our bill. But I'll take this opportunity again to say thank you for that very bright line in the center of the aisle, to commend all of the folks on both sides of this aisle who have come together on a bill that is so important to our national security. I'm going to give you a couple of quick examples. American Semiconductor, a company that lost its intellectual property to China, theft of China. The President one time called American Semiconductor a model of cooperation with China. Their partner in China stole their intellectual property, canceled their contracts, and almost put them out of business. They were worth $1.8 billion. Now they're worth $170 million. Their stock price is down 90 percent, from a $44 high to just $2 today. They had to lay off 70 percent of their staff. That's real. Those are real people losing real jobs to intellectual property theft as we speak. The credit cards in your pockets will get hit 300,000 times by people trying to steal that information today, alone. Each and every one of them. There's an unnamed large manufacturing company here in the United States. Through cyber espionage, they lost a particular product. They stole the blueprints, took it back to China, and repurposed it to compete in the global market against this particular company. Their estimate: 20,000 manufacturing jobs lost. This is as serious an issue as we are not prepared to handle as Americans, and it is happening every minute of every single day. When you look at the weight of those issues of the people before us in this Chamber and what they had to deal with--people like Adams and Henry and Madison--it was the size of their politics that tipped the scale for making really hard, difficult decisions and moving on. I'm going to challenge everybody in this Chamber today to not have those small, petty politics about what gets done and doesn't get done, about what I wanted in there and didn't get in there, about how my feelings got hurt or didn't get hurt. There are Americans suffering under the weight of loss of opportunity. And those are middle class jobs. That's one rung on the ladder that's taken out for any hope for moving up and prosperity in this country. We have a constitutional obligation to defend this Nation. We have done it in a way that doesn't allow the government to meddle with the Internet. It protects privacy, it protects civil liberties, and it has the government not even touching the Internet. This is the answer to empower cyber information sharing, to protect this Nation, to allow those companies to protect themselves, and move on to economic prosperity. If you want to take a shot across China's bow, this is the answer. Reject this motion to recommit and let's pass this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 624, the Clerk be authorized to make such technical and conforming changes as necessary to reflect the actions of the House.