Mike Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I would just remind the gentleman that the definition does not go back anywhere in this bill to that. It leaves it open, and when you start, again, crossing that valley between the government and the private sector, it causes serious issues--as you can see, the people who are very concerned that the government is going to get into regulating anything on the Internet. I would say this is no pride of authorship. I don't know if Mr. Ruppersberger and I could have any more authors participate in our bill than we have. The problem here is very real and very substantive. And that's why I think both the gentlemen, who have as much passion and care and commitment to this issue as I've seen, need to work that issue on the Homeland Security Committee so you can do it in a way that won't rise to the level of the objections that we have seen when just the suggestion of regulating outside of the purview of national security comes into discussion. That's why I would hope the gentleman would exercise extreme caution when taking that walk. It is perilous for the government to get into regulating the Internet, and I oppose that completely. That's why we have these problems, I think, arise from it. I think, if these are issues that they can get over, that this should have substantive debate. Remember, this very narrow bill took 1 year--1 year--of work and negotiation and discussions to get it to where we are today. So, I would encourage that maybe more thought ought to be put in it, and I would look forward to working with both gentleman as they introduce and work their bills through the Homeland Security Committee, as I think would be appropriate. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I want to thank Mr. Pompeo for working with us. This was an amendment negotiated with Mr. Ruppersberger and myself and Mr. Pompeo to clearly define the intention of the bill, and I think it offers protections. I think we should all strongly support Mr. Pompeo's amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I have an amendment at the desk, Madam Chair.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I strongly encourage the support of this amendment. It's a simple amendment we negotiated. It is clarifying language again on FOIA. With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

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

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Quayle. Again, this is an amendment worked out with Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Quayle, and myself. Ms. Eshoo is also on the amendment. This is in consultation with all of the privacy groups and the civil liberty groups. We wanted to make sure that the intent matched the language. And we think this is a limiting amendment on what it can be used for, which is very narrow, is very specific; and we think this enhances already good privacy protections in the bill, and I strongly support it and would encourage the House to strongly support the bipartisan amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I just want to rise in strong support of this amendment. I appreciate Mr. Mulvaney's working with the committee. This is a limiting amendment, and I think it, again, is in response to making sure that the intent of the bill meets the language of the bill, and this is well done to continue to protect privacy and civil liberties of all Americans and still allow for the government to share malicious source code with the private sector.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona for working with us. This, again, was a negotiated amendment. The gentleman approached us with concerns to make sure that the IG report adequately reflected and allowed us to perform the adequate oversight. This amendment does that. I appreciate his work and effort, and I think this strengthens the bill and continues to provide the oversight and protection of civil liberties and privacy for all Americans.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. This is an important amendment, and again, I think it alleviates some of the concerns. They were misguided, but this locks it down, makes it very tight and makes it very clear on the limiting of this information, which is the intent of this bill. So I think this amendment addresses the privacy and civil liberties advocates' claims that the liability protection in the bill with respect to the use of cybersecurity systems could be read to be broader than the activities authorized by the legislation. As I said, that was not true, certainly not the intent. This amendment makes that very clear in the bill that that would not be its purpose, and it is a limiting amendment. I strongly support this amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment as well.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I want to thank the distinguished former chairman and member, Mr. Goodlatte, for his commonsense amendment. Again, this is working to make sure that this bill is restricted for both information use, privacy, and civil liberties, and why the coalition, I argue, continues to grow because of the good work of folks like Mr. Goodlatte. It's bipartisan in nature, and I would strongly urge the body's support for the Goodlatte amendment.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 3523, pursuant to House Resolution 631, amendments No. 10 and No. 5 in House Report 112 454 may be considered out of sequence.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I want to, again, thank Mr. Turner for this important clarification amendment and working with us to improve the status of the bill to make sure that we are able to protect America's networks and increases the ability for us to protect privacy and civil liberties. I appreciate the gentleman's good effort, and I would encourage the House to support the Turner amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. If you thought it was good for the businesses to require Facebook to give them your passwords, you'll love this. If not, you should go apoplectic. I think that's an awful practice on Facebook. This is worse. I want to read just from the law. Notwithstanding any other provision, it allows them to: acquire, intercept, retain, use, and disclose communications and other system traffic that are transiting to and from or are stored on the Federal systems and to deploy countermeasures with regard to such communications and system traffic for cybersecurity purposes. This is dangerous. It's dangerous. For the very narrow bill that has been misrepresented from what we do, this is Big Brother on steroids. We cannot allow this to happen. This would be the government tracking communications or your medical records from the veterans' association. It would track your IRS forms coming in and out of the Federal Government. This is exactly what scares people about trying to get into the business of making sure we protect our networks, but we can't do it by trampling on privacy and civil liberties. This is awful. I am just shocked, after all of this debate and all of this discussion on our very narrow bill, that my friends would come up with something that wholesale monitors the Internet and gets all of the information which we've fought so hard to protect on behalf of average Americans. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I thank the gentlelady, and I look forward to that opportunity. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I appreciate the gentlelady's effort. Again, we were pretty careful in this year-long process of trying to find a very narrow solution because of all of the challenges that come with trying to get a piece of legislation across the House to the Senate to the President's desk. I argue that the Homeland Security Committee should engage in a critical infrastructure debate. Here's the problem: it's not defined for the purposes of this bill. So we don't know what that means. We've been very careful to separate the government from the private sector. There is no government involvement in the private sector networks. It is just information, malicious source code-sharing. That's it. This, we're not sure where it goes. Many in industry believe that they're talking about the backbone of the Internet. Are they talking about the backbone of the Internet? We don't know. It's not well defined. That would mean, then, that the government for the first time gets into the backbone of the Internet. I think that's a horrible, terrible idea. So I don't think that's what the gentlelady intends, but the problem is that's not what the language says. I look forward to working with the gentlelady as she works through those issues on Homeland Security because these are hard. They are tricky. Sometimes a word will get you in trouble, as we have found along the path here, and as it should. We should be really careful about how we're doing this. So I would encourage the gentlelady to work with us. I know Mr. Ruppersberger, since we've been through this, we can provide some help along the way, and we look forward to the product that you all work on that is geared toward the infrastructure piece. Again, this was never intended to solve all the problems. It was intended to be a very narrow first step to say, Hey, if your house is being robbed, we want to tell you before the robber gets there. That's all this bill does. It tells if your computer is going to get hacked and your personal information stolen, we want you to have the malicious code so you can protect yourself. That's all this bill does. So we get a little nervous when it starts crossing that divide that we've established between the government and the private sector. You start crossing that divide, we think you can get into some serious trouble in a hurry without very clearly defined language and definition. Unfortunately, I have to oppose the amendment, but I look forward to working with the gentlelady on a very important issue, infrastructure protection, as the Homeland Security does its work.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Today, 300,000 times somebody will be trying to get into our credit card companies--300,000 times, one company. In just the last few years, just in defense contractors, foreign nation- states have stolen more intellectual property, which will end up protecting this country, equivalent to 50 times the print collection of our U.S. Library of Congress. Anonymous is attacking businesses, and today attacked Wall Street because they're anti-capitalists. There are people out there today who are literally robbing the future of America for our jobs, our prosperity, and our economic prowess in the world; and they're doing it by design. A year ago, we set out to try to do something small. If we have some bad software--some bad, malicious virus information--shouldn't we be obligated to share that with the private sector so they can protect themselves? Absolutely. If we don't do this, a nation-state like China has geared up its military and intelligence services for the very purpose of economically wounding the United States--by draining our intellectual property dry. They have done it by stealing pesticide formulas. They have done it by stealing pharmaceutical formulas. They have done it by stealing intellectual property when it relates to military hardware and then have copied it, and it has cost us a tremendous amount of more money to have had to go back and redesign it. So we can play games. We can do silly things. This amendment actually does nothing to protect a person's private password at home. Nothing. Not one thing. But it is serving to try to obfuscate and maybe send it back to committee and come back. This has been a bipartisan bill, and I can't tell you how disappointing this amendment is to me. I have worked with Mr. Ruppersberger and the members of this committee. I have worked with the privacy groups. We've worked with civil libertarians. They threw everything but the kitchen sink at us. By the way, this does nothing, or this would have been thrown at us, too. You know why? Because it doesn't do anything. I get it. Sounds great. You're going to run out and do some bad things with it. But this is our Nation's defense. This is the last bastion of things we need to do to protect this country. We've done it since 9/11. We did Homeland Security. We've done the Patriot Act. We've done other things that this body and the other body and the President of the United States signed to protect this country, as our Constitution tells us to do for the common defense of this great Nation. I will tell you something. We can have this debate. We can talk about a bill that does absolutely nothing to protect someone's private password at home, or we can get about the business of trying to give the private sector just a little bit of information to protect people's private information in the comfort of their homes, so that we can protect this Nation from a catastrophic attack. The director of the national security didn't say ``maybe,'' didn't say, ``could happen.'' They said it will happen. This is the one small thing we get to do to prepare for a whole bunch of folks out there that want to bring this Nation down. We ought to stand together today in a bipartisan way. We ought to reject all of the confusion and obfuscation and all of the things that they're saying about this bill that just are not true. We ought to stand here and say, We respected the fact that you kept the government stuff government, and the private stuff private, and you're not mixing it up, and you're not surveilling. You're doing none of those things. You're just sharing some pretty bad information so that they can apply it to their patches that happen on your computer every single day, thousands of times a day, to try to keep viruses off your computer, and that's it. We've spent a lot of time today trying to go in a different direction. People are upset that there aren't things in the bill. Okay. I mean, the Buffett rule isn't in the bill. I don't think that ought to get a veto threat either. This is where we are. This is that first small threat. I'm going to ask all of you to join us today. Reject this red herring, this obfuscation, and stand with America. They need it. There are 3 million businesses with all of the associations telling us, Please, give us that classified secret malware information that your government has so we can protect the people we have as customers and clients. They're begging for it because they're getting killed every single day. It's happening right this second. This is our chance to stand up. This was a bipartisan effort. If you really believe in bipartisanship, if you believe that's the future of this Chamber, and that's the dignity of the very Founding Fathers that gave it to us, then today is the day to prove it. Reject this amendment, stand for America. Support this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of Command Sergeant Major Ricky Yates. His service to our Nation is the standard by which all U.S. Army Aviation Command Sergeant Major careers are measured. His ability to develop solutions to complex and inter-related problems coupled with his unequalled leadership, technical expertise and devotion to duty set him apart from his peers. From his time as a helicopter repairman in an Aviation Battalion serving in peacetime and in combat, to his capstone assignment as the Command Sergeant Major of the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, Command Sergeant Major Yates was recognized with the same superlative by every Commander--the best maintenance Non- Commissioned Officer with whom they have ever served. Command Sergeant Major Yates served our Nation for over 3 decades, at all levels of leadership which allowed him to capitalize on his talents and abilities to serve Soldiers, his unit, the Army and his country at every opportunity. He is truly a selfless servant, caring only about the welfare of others and never seeking accolades for himself. He demonstrated the capacity to be a transformative leader in an organization even when he was new to the unit and the mission. In the execution of his duties, he was recognized for his unequalled ability to diagnose maintenance problems and determine repair requirements. Command Sergeant Major Yates first demonstrated his ability to lead an organization in combat while assigned as First Sergeant in Task Force 118, a ground-breaking special operations aviation unit, during Operation Prime Chance. Operation Prime Chance was a United States Special Operations Command operation intended to protect U.S. flagged oil tankers from Iranian attack during the Iran-Iraq War. This operation pioneered the first use of 0H58D Helicopters in ship board based combat operations. During his Divisional assignments, he was noted by all levels within his chain of command as the single best Aviation Maintenance NCO with whom they had ever worked and as the ``epitome of commitment to maintenance excellence.'' One outstanding feature of CSM Yates' career is his constant service in the toughest units in the Army. During his career, CSM Yates served in the 1st Armored Division, 1st Cavalry Division, 24th Infantry Division, 25th Infantry Division, and the 82d Airborne Division. He served for 21 total years at Fort Bragg, earning Jumpmaster Wings and the Combat Action Badge while deploying in support of Operations Prime Chance, Desert Shield & Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. Because of his proven record in solving strategic level problems and his unparalleled expertise in Aviation Maintenance, Command Sergeant Major Yates was selected by the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM) to be the AMCOM Command Sergeant Major, the senior Aviation Maintenance NCO in the Army. He immediately became an invaluable member of the AMCOM team, and his leadership in Aviation Maintenance was crucial in the organization's support to Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operations over the Horizon (OTH). During his tenure as AMCOM CSM, he personally worked multiple initiatives that proved crucial to supporting Warfighters. When AMCOM was tasked to assume the supply and maintenance management mission at Fort Rucker, CSM Yates assisted in identifying the necessary green suit structure needed to properly supervise the large force of contractor personnel. Stated simply, if any portion of AMCOM required senior leadership attention, CSM Yates provided it, and always provided sound, timely, and well researched advice to the three Commanding Generals he served. In support to the Global War on Terrorism, Command Sergeant Major Yates made multiple visits to the CENTCOM Area of Operations to assist the Combat Aviation Brigades and the Aviation Logistics hubs. He spent months in Iraq and Afghanistan, operating independently and by his own initiative to provide direct support from AMCOM to the Aviation Brigades. He was the eyes and ears of the commander to the field, gathering information on how best AMCOM could support units in the fight. Likewise, he was the voice of the Commanding General, ensuring standardization to maintenance and logistics practices across the Army, focused on the areas that most significantly affected the Aviation Soldier. From the individual Soldier to the highest echelons of Army Aviation, Command Sergeant Major Ricky Yates demonstrated a technical prowess, unyielding devotion to the Army's mission, transformational leadership, and unwavering support to the Soldier. He reached the pinnacle of his profession, and was truly the best Command Sergeant Major to have ever done his job. Therefore Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join me in honoring Command Sergeant Major Ricky Yates' exceptional service, dedication and devotion to duty, leadership, and professional competency. He exemplifies the fine tradition of military service and reflects great credit upon himself, the Department of the Army, and the United States of America. May he know that his Nation is greatly appreciative of his dedication, and wishes him the best in all his future endeavors.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of Mrs. Reba Rogers who has been an Army spouse for over 26 years. She was an integral partner in her spouse's successful career which included commanding formations from the company level to Army Service Component. Throughout her spouse's service, she remained steadfastly dedicated to serving soldiers and their families in many capacities, particularly as a volunteer leading Family Readiness Groups (FRG), the Army Officer Wife's Clubs and at community thrift shops. During times of peace and conflict, she was a source of strength and inspiration to those whom she served. Reba's caring spirit, genuine concern and constant willingness to assist soldiers and their families no matter how small or great the need, at all hours of the day and night contributed greatly to the combat readiness and mission focus of each unit she served with. Soldiers always knew the needs of their families would be met. Reba has actively volunteered thousands of hours to the military community through her invaluable work at community gift and thrift shops. Of special note, she was the chairperson of the Redstone Arsenal thrift shop sponsored by the Redstone Arsenal's Women's Club where soldiers and their families benefit from a variety of needed items. Furthermore, she also held a special seat with Huntsville, Alabama's Crestwood Hospital helping to serve the local community as well as a key member of the Huntsville Botanical Gardens. Over 26 years of devoted service to soldiers and families, Reba Rogers' substantial contributions greatly enhanced the preparedness and readiness of every unit she served. Reba's dedication and spirit of volunteerism are in keeping with the highest tradition of selfless service and reflect great credit upon herself, the Army Materiel Command, and the Department of the Army. Therefore Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join me in honoring Mrs. Reba Rogers for her dedicated service of 26 years. She serves as an inspiration to many and a guiding light to all. Mrs. Rogers' dedication and spirit of volunteerism are in keeping with the highest tradition of selfless service and reflect great credit upon herself, the Department of the Army and the United States of America. May she know that her nation is greatly appreciative of her dedication, and wishes her the best in all here future endeavors.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1892) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for intelligence and intelligence- related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a good day for the United States, certainly a good day for the men and women who serve so proudly in our intelligence services that work tirelessly to keep America safe. This is a good day to bring the fiscal year 2012 intelligence authorization bill to the floor today. This will be our second intelligence authorization bill since January of this year, when I became chairman and my ranking member took his position as well for the House Intelligence Committee, and it will be the 29th bill in our committee's history. This bill is a vital tool for congressional oversight of the intelligence community's classified activities and is critical to ensuring that our intelligence agencies have the resources and authorities they need to do their important work. Passing an annual intelligence authorization bill is vital to keeping the laws governing our intelligence operations up to date. The FY12 bill sustains our current intelligence capabilities and provides for the development of future capabilities, all while achieving significant savings. The U.S. intelligence community plays a critical role in the war on terrorism and securing the country from many threats that we face today. Effective and aggressive congressional oversight is essential to ensuring continued success in the intelligence community. The intelligence authorization bill funds U.S. intelligence activities spanning 17 separate agencies. This funding totaled roughly $80 billion in fiscal year 2010. The current challenging fiscal environment demands the accountability and financial oversight of our classified intelligence programs that can only come with an intelligence authorization bill. The bill's comprehensive classified annex provides detailed guidance on intelligence spending, including adjustments to costly programs. This bill funds the requirements of the men and women of the intelligence community, both military and civilian, many of whom directly support the war zones or are engaged in other dangerous operations to keep America and Americans safe. It provides oversight and authorization for critical intelligence activities, including the global counterterrorism operations, such as the one that took out Osama bin Laden; cyberdefense by the National Security Agency; countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; global monitoring of foreign militaries and weapons tests; research and development of new technology to maintain our intelligence agencies' technological edge, including work on code breaking and spy satellites. This has been a strategy for a tough fiscal climate. After passage of the Budget Control Act, the committee revamped the bill it reported out of committee back in May to double its budget savings. As a result, the bill is significantly below the President's budget request for fiscal year 2012 and further still below the levels authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2011. These savings--and this is important, Mr. Speaker--were achieved without impacting the intelligence community's important mission, as the cuts of the 1990s did. The bottom line is that this bipartisan bill preserves and advances national security and is also fiscally responsible. The secrecy that is a necessary part of our country's intelligence work requires that the congressional intelligence committees conduct strong and effective oversight on behalf of the American people. That strong and effective oversight is impossible, however, without an annual intelligence authorization bill. And I want to thank both of the staffs for the Republicans and the Democrats, and the members from both the Republicans and Democrats on this committee for coming together in a bipartisan way on the important issue of national security. And I thank my friend, Dutch Ruppersberger, the ranking member, for his leadership in getting us not to one, but to two authorization bills within just 10 months. And that's no small accomplishment, as you might know, Mr. Speaker. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.