Home > D.C. > Research > Congress > CRW > Page

1A) Letter Regarding Control of Nuclear Explosives

5284. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Law, Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final rule--Control Of Nuclear Explosives During Pantex Plant Operations--received January 14, 2002, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed Services.

1B) Periodic Report on the National Emergency with Respect to Iraq

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying report; which was referred to the Committee on Banking. Housing, and Urban Affairs.

To the Congress of the United States:

As required by section 401(c) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1641(c), and section 204(c) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1703(c), I am providing a 6-month periodic report prepared by my Administration on the national emergency with respect to Iraq that was declared in Executive Order 12722 of August 2, 1990.

George W. Bush.

THE WHITE HOUSE, February 4, 2002.

1C) Criticisms over Yucca Mountain

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, last week the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board joined an ever-expanding list of independent experts who are criticizing the science being touted by the Department of Energy regarding the Yucca Mountain Project. In its report the board called the DOE's science ``weak to moderate.'' Board member and hydrologist Paul Craig added that ``many of the DOE's assumptions regarding Yucca Mountain are extreme and unrealistic.''

John Bartlett, former Director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, stated that ``the documentation does not provide a sound foundation for the basis of a site recommendation.'' Moreover, the GAO has raised its own concerns with the Yucca Mountain Project, stating that ``making a site recommendation at this time would not be prudent or practical.''

Mr. Speaker, when will the DOE begin to answer the serious questions being raised about its failed science? Hopefully they will do that before going any further into the site recommendation process and before the lives of millions of Americans are jeopardized.

1D) Kazakhstan and the US: A Growing Partnership in Need of Support

Mr. Speaker. The terror that struck our country on September 11 brought anguish to the hearts of all caring people. Events that followed have focused the world's attention on Central Asia and the war against the terrorists. Kazakhstan, the largest nation in that region, has offered cooperation in every area of the war effort. Kazakhstan has stood with us, and we, as Americans, must join hands with them, helping Kazakhstan and our other new allies in the area as they work to stabilize this critical region.

``Kazakhstan plays a crucial role for the international community as a bulwark against regional instability and conflict,'' President Bush said in a recent letter to President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan. ``America especially appreciates Kazakhstan's strong support in fighting the international scourge of terrorism,'' the President added.

As we are nearing the end of the military phase of the Afghan campaign and turning our attention to rebuilding that country, Kazakhstan, lying 200 miles to the north of Afghanistan, can play a crucial role in the success of these efforts. There are many reasons for this: most important are Kazakhstan's strong economic record, enormous potential, political stability and success in providing equal opportunities for all of its 130 ethnic groups, and, last, but not least, its willingness to participate fully in rehabilitation efforts in Afghanistan. Kazakhstan's largely Muslim community, although secular, has a special appreciation for the suffering and the hopes of the Afghan peoples. Already 25,000 tons of grain from the fertile lands of Kazakhstan have reached the hungry in that war-torn region. More will be coming.

For Kazakhstan to be able to realize its potential to help to the rebuilding of Afghanistan and restore regional stability, the country needs firm and long-term support from the United States. There are many reasons we should become more involved with this strategically important country. Not the least are the vast oil reserves of Kazakhstan that could potentially rival those of Saudi Arabia and will help guarantee our future energy needs. Kazakhstan's cooperation in the war on terrorism coupled with our energy concerns mean that now is the time for us to support Kazakhstan and their bright future.

President Nazarbayev's recent visit to Washington strengthened the Administration's recognition of the need to develop closer ties with Kazakhstan. The Government in Astana obviously wants closer ties, and America can only benefit from working more closely.

In the Joint Statement Presidents Bush and Nazarbayev adopted after their meeting, they confirmed a ``commitment to strengthen the long term strategic partnership and cooperation''. I particularly welcome the Energy Partnership Declaration, which identified ``a long-term energy partnership'' as ``one of the key elements of the strategic interaction'' between Kazakhstan and the USA. I fully support those intentions, and I ask unanimous consent to put the joint statement of these world leaders in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

I believe that the decade of growing friendship and cooperation, and particularly the strong support shown to us by Kazakhstan in fighting terrorists, has proved Kazakhstan to be our true friend and worthy of all help we can provide. Friends help friends.

There are a number of very real steps Congress must take:
First, we should work to graduate Kazakhstan from an outdated Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974 and grant Kazakhstan permanent normal trade relations status. I welcome the U.S. administration's stated intention to work with Congress on this issue and I call on my colleagues to support H.R. 1318 which I proudly cosponsored. It will repeal Jackson-Vanik in relation to Kazakhstan. This step needs to be taken during the current session. It will provide a much-needed boost for the expansion of the U.S. trade ties with Kazakhstan and will directly benefit hundreds of American businesses there. I remind my fellow members of Congress, and the American nation, that American investment in Kazakhstan over the past decade totals 5 billion dollars. That makes the U.S. the largest single foreign investor in the country, and makes Kazakhstan the clear focus of American investment in Central Asia.

Second, Congress should consider earmarking assistance to Kazakhstan in the next year's budget. The assistance should go to further solidifying Kazakhstan's successes in reforming its economy and society, as well as to strengthening its military and border protection. This move will send a clear message to the people of this important ally that the U.S. is serious about its intentions to stand by Kazakhstan as they move to become the main driving force behind the development of Central Asian stability and prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, we are truly committed to seeing the whole of Central Asia develop into a truly stable and prosperous region. Only then will it cease to be a breeding ground for terrorism and a source of threats to our homeland and other peaceful nations. The time to act is now.

JOINT STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AND PRESIDENT NURSULTAN NAZARBAYEV ON THE NEW KAZAKHSTAN-AMERICAN RELATIONSHIP [The White House, December 21, 2001]

We declare our commitment to strengthen the long-term, strategic partnership and cooperation between our nations, seeking to advance a shared vision of a peaceful, prosperous and sovereign Kazakhstan in the 21st Century that is increasingly integrated into the global economy and the community of democratic nations. To this end, we will advance our cooperation on counterterrorism and non-proliferation, democratic political and free-market economic reform, and market-based investment and development of energy resources.

These goals further reflect our recognition that the threats of terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction endanger the security not only of the United States and Kazakhstan, but of the world at large. We therefore seek to develop our security cooperation to address these challenges and foster cooperation among Kazakhstan, its Central Asian neighbors, the United States, and our European friends, partners, and allies. In pursuit of these objectives, we are determined to deepen cooperation bilaterally and within NATO's Partnership for Peace.

We reiterate our intent to cooperate in the war against terrorism to its conclusion and within the framework of the international coalition. We underscore our support for a broad-based Afghan government at peace internally and with its neighbors. We also pledge our readiness to cooperate in Afghanistan's reconstruction.

Recognizing that Kazakhstan was the first country to renounce its nuclear -weapons status voluntarily, we reaffirm our mutual commitment to the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Both sides agree on the need for urgent attention to improving the physical protection and accounting of all nuclear , chemical, and biological weapons materials in all possessor states, and to preventing illicit trafficking in these materials. We pledge to expand our cooperation on these matters under the United States-Kazakhstan Cooperative Threat Reduction Agreement.

In the spirit of partnership, Kazakhstan and the United States intend to strengthen joint activity in ensuring security and stability in Central Asia. We agree that the expansion of trade and economic ties among the states of Central Asia, and deepening of regional integration in important areas, such as the environment, water resources, and transportation systems are a basis for regional security. The United States will consider enhancing assistance programs to Kazakhstan to strengthen border security and to increase the defensive capabilities of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

We recognize that free market economies and the rule of law provide the most effective means to advance the welfare of our citizens and the stability of our societies. The United States and Kazakhstan pledge to advance our bilateral economic, trade, and investment relations, including through expanded contacts between the business communities of our countries. We will strive to further develop an attractive, transparent and predictable investment climate. Achieving this goal requires removal of legislative and administrative barriers to investment, strengthening respect for contracts and the rule of law, reducing corruption, and enhancing Kazakhstan's strong record on economic reform.

We also intend to cooperate to advance Kazakhstan's integration in the global economy by supporting Kazakhstan's accession to the World Trade Organization on the basis of standard and agreed criteria, and its graduation from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment.

We affirm our desire to strengthen our energy partnership to diversify export options for Kazakhstan's oil and gas and to diversify global energy supplies. We share the view that a key element of this effort is development of multiple pipelines that will ensure delivery of Caspian energy to world markets, unfettered by monopolies or constrained by geographic chokepoints. We welcome the recent opening of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) Pipeline and underscore our support for development of the Aktau-Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil export route on commercial terms. We will also work together to protect the rights of foreign investors and to abide by decisions of courts, particularly of international courts of arbitration.

Recognizing that democracy is a cornerstone of long-term stability, we reaffirm our desire to strengthen democratic institutions and processes, such as independent media, local government, pluralism, and free and fair elections. We also reiterate our mutual commitments to advance the rule of law and promote freedom of religion and other universal human rights as promoted by the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, of which we are both members. Finally, we pledge to enhance understanding between the citizens of our two countries by promoting people-to-people exchanges, initiatives of nongovernmental organizations, and contacts between business people.

3A) President Reports Budget for FY 2003

REPORT OF THE BUDGET MESSAGE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003--MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT--PM 68 -- (Senate - February 04, 2002)

   The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying report; referred jointly, pursuant to the order of January 30, 1975 as modified by the order of April 11, 1986, to the Committees on Appropriations; and the Budget.

To the Congress of the United States:

   Americans will never forget the murderous events of September 11, 2001. They are for us what Pearl Harbor was to an earlier generation of Americans: a terrible wrong and a call to action.

   With courage, unity, and purpose, we met the challenges of 2001. The budget for 2003 recognizes the new realities confronting our nation, and funds the war against terrorism and the defense of our homeland.

   The budget for 2003 is much more than a tabulation of numbers. It is a plan to fight a war we did not seek--but a war we are determined to win.

   In this war, our first priority must be the security of our homeland. My budget provides the resources to combat terrorism at home, to protect our people, and preserve our constitutional freedoms. Our new Office of Homeland Security will coordinate the efforts of the federal government, the 50 states, the territories, the District of Columbia, and hundreds of local governments: all to produce a comprehensive and far-reaching plan for securing America against terrorist attack.

   Next, America's military--which has fought so boldly and decisively in Afghanistan--must be strengthened still

[Page: S284]  GPO's PDF

   We have priorities at home as well--restoring health to our economy above all. Our economy had begun to weaken over a year before September 11th, but the terrorist attack dealt it another severe blow. This budget advances a bipartisan economic recovery plan that provides much more than greater unemployment benefits: it is a plan to speed the return of strong economic growth, to generate jobs, and to give unemployed Americans the dignity and security of a paycheck instead of an unemployment check.

   The plan also calls for maintaining low tax rates, freer trade, restraint in government spending, regulatory and tort reform, promoting a sound energy policy, and funding key priorities in education, health, and compassionate social programs.

   It is a bold plan--and it is matched by a bold agenda for government reform. From the beginning of my Administration, I have called for better management of the federal government. Now, with all the new demands on our resources, better management is needed more sorely than ever. Just as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 asks each local school to measure the education of our children, we must measure performance and demand results in federal government programs.

   Where government programs are succeeding, their efforts should be reinforced--and the 2003 Budget provides resources to do that. And when objective measures reveal that government programs are not succeeding, those programs should be reinvented, redirected, or retired.

   By curtailing unsuccessful programs and moderating the growth of spending in the rest of government, we can well afford to fight terrorism , take action to restore economic growth, and offer substantial increases in spending for improved performance at low-income schools, key environmental programs, health care, science and technology research, and many other areas.

   We live in extraordinary times--but America is an extraordinary country. Americans have risen to every challenge they have faced in the past. Americans are rising again to the challenges of today. And once again, we will prevail.

   George W. Bush.

   February 4, 2002.

3B) Voice of Inquiry into September 11

   Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the President of the United States has challenged the Nation to commit an additional $120 billion in resources for our Armed Forces. Indeed, when the Nation is attacked, that is as it should be. The President has asked us to commit $40 billion to deal with internal security in our country. With the loss of life we have suffered and all of our apprehension about terrorism , that is as it should be. It is, however, an extraordinary request.

   While our willingness to commit resources is endless to guarantee the security of our country, our national curiosity about these circumstances and how our country was so vulnerable seems to be very limited indeed.

   It has been 5 months since the lives of our people were taken in the most devastating attack on America in history. There have been words of rage and revenge, vows to strengthen our security and to commit endless resources. There has been everything except a voice of inquiry.

   On September 10, this Nation was not without resources, with a $320 billion defense establishment larger than a dozen other industrial nations combined; a massive internal law enforcement apparatus; and, by press accounts, a $30 billion intelligence establishment.

   The terrorist attack on September 11 apparently was waged with the combined financial resources of $250,000. It was implemented by 19 people. Why is it I believe that probably financial resources were not determinative in the success of this evil attack? Why is it that I suspect it was probably not the numbers of personnel available? The country was not without resources on September 10. But something went terribly wrong. The allocation of resources, quality of leadership, strategy--I don't know. The real point is neither does anybody else, including the President of the United States and Members of the Senate.

   At some point, 260 million Americans, with all the rage they feel against our enemy, with all the anger they feel, and with all the sympathy they feel for the victims, are going to want to know what happened and why.

   There is no limit to the resources that I will vote to make available to the Commander in Chief to defend this Nation. But there is no limit to the efforts I will make to get accountability in this Government for our people.

   In my State, there are hundreds--indeed, there are several thousands--of widows and orphans. As much as any American, as much as history itself, these people are going to demand answers in the course of their lives.

   The President has suggested his preference is that we hold private hearings in the intelligence community. That is not how we conduct this Government. There was not an attack on the intelligence committee, nor is it their responsibility alone. Our accountability is to the people of the country. Yet the administration claims that such hearings or inquiries would be a distraction from the war on terrorism . That is not our history or how we conduct our Government.

   Ten days after Pearl Harbor, with half of the American fleet in ruins and with fears of an attack on California by the Imperial Japanese Navy, FDR ordered an inquiry into how indeed we were so undefended. The Challenger lay in ruins with all of our ambitions for a space program, and Ronald Reagan did the same for NASA.

   This instance deserves no less. Accountability is at the core of any representative government.

   On behalf of the people of my State and the victims--their wives, husbands, parents, and children--I demand it now. This Nation needs a board of inquiry to determine the events of September 11--how it occurred and why; where we succeeded and why we failed--not for the sake of revenge, not to cast blame, but to ensure that it never happens again. Armed only with that knowledge--more than any funding or any new weapon--can we genuinely assure our people that those events will not be repeated.

   Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   ORDER OF PROCEDURE

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, during the conferences we have had, it has been determined we could have a voice vote on the Bunning amendment. So I ask unanimous consent that after the Chair reports the bill, we move to the Bunning amendment, followed by the Reid for Baucus amendment. It is not a Reid amendment; I just offered it for Senator Baucus.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

   Without objection, it is so ordered.

3C) Cyber Security Research and Development Act

[Page: H206]
---

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SHIMKUS). Pursuant to House Resolution 343 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3394.

[Time: 10:48]

   IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

   Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3394) to authorize funding for computer and network security research and development and research fellowship programs, and for other purposes, with Mr. SUNUNU in the chair.

   The Clerk read the title of the bill.

   The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time.

   Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. BOEHLERT) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. HALL) each will control 30 minutes.

   The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. BOEHLERT).

   GENERAL LEAVE

   Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3394.

   The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

   There was no objection.

   Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   Mr. Chairman, I am honored to bring H.R. 3349, The Cyber Security Research and Development Act, before the House. Like other congressional responses to terrorism, this is a bipartisan bill. I want especially to thank our ranking minority member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. HALL), who joined me in introducing this bill; the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), whose own legislation is incorporated in H.R. 3394; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. SMITH) and the gentleman from Michigan (Dr. EHLERS) who chair the subcommittee with jurisdiction over this bill, and their ranking members, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. JOHNSON) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. BARCIA).

   Also, I would be remiss if I did not thank Dr. Bill Wulf, the president of the National Academy of Engineering and one of the Nation's leading computer scientists, whose ideas were the inspiration for so much of this legislation.

   I am convinced that over time H.R. 3394 will come to be seen as a fundamental turning point in the Nation's approach to cybersecurity. This bill is the equivalent of legislation the Congress passed in the wake of the Sputnik launch in the late 1950s.

   We will recall that the unexpected Soviet launch of the Sputnik forced us to focus on the Nation's deficiencies in science and led us to pass breathtaking, and, it turned out, overwhelmingly effective legislation to improve

[Page: H207]

   Similarly, the attacks of September 11 have turned our attention to the Nation's weaknesses, and, again, we find our capacity to conduct research and to educate will have to be enhanced if we are to counter our foes over the long run. No less than the Cold War, the war against terrorism will have to be waged in the laboratory as well as on the battlefield.

   And I would add that I am pleased that the Committee on Science, which was created in response to the Sputnik launch, will help lead the effort to ensure our Nation's laboratories are up to the challenge.

   One of the most critical problems our Nation's researchers need to focus on is how to protect our Nation's computers systems and networks from attack. For a while, most Americans have been focused exclusively on the hijackings and the bombings and bioterrorism. The experts tell us that the Nation is also profoundly at risk from cyber terrorism. That is a new word that has entered our vocabulary, unfortunately, but it is one we have to be constantly aware of, and we have to prepare.

   In an era when virtually all the tools of our daily lives are connected to and rely upon computer networks, a cyberattack could knock out electricity, drinking water and sewage systems, financial institutions, assembly lines and communications, and that is just naming a few. We must improve our ability to respond to these threats, and our response must go beyond immediate defensive measures. That is not good enough.

   We need to conduct the research and development necessary to make computers and networks much harder to break into and much less subject to damage when they are violated. That will require a focused, well-funded research and development effort in cybersecurity, something we are sorely lacking now.

   In fact, expert witnesses at our Committee on Science hearings have described the current state of cyber security research as woefully underfunded, understaffed, timid, unimaginative and leaderless. That is not good enough. H.R. 3394 will change all of that.

   Our bill capitalizes on the expertise of two well-run Federal agencies with historic links to both

   academia and industry necessary to jump-start our cybersecurity efforts.

   Under the bill the National Science Foundation will fund the creation of new cybersecurity research centers, undergraduate and master's degree programs and graduate fellowships. The National Institute of Standards and Technology will create new program grant for partnerships between academia and industry, new postdoctoral fellowships and a new program to encourage senior researchers in other fields to work on computer security.

   The result over the next several years will be to promote new research that produces innovative, creative approaches to computer security, to draw more researchers into the field, and to develop a cadre of students who will become the next generation of cybersecurity researchers.

   This approach is measured and targeted, and it will be successful. As with the programs that were created in response to Sputnik, the programs in H.R. 3394 will ensure that we make the long-term investment in research and students needed to develop the tools that will protect us from cyberattacks.

   I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that this bill will provide funding for a wide range of research, a range far larger even than the illustrative list that is even in the legislation. For example, research would include work on firewall and antivirus technology, vulnerability assessment, operations and control systems management, and management of the interoperable digital certificates.

   I also want to note that in addition to providing funding and programming, this bill provides Federal leadership. The National Science Foundation will have the responsibility of making sure that the Nation's overall research and education enterprise is producing the knowledge in students we need to combat cyberterrorism.

   I have been asked by some, ``Cannot the private sector just take care of this?'' Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding no. Even after September 11, the private sector has little incentive to invest heavily in cybersecurity because the market is more concerned with speed and convenience. That is not my personal conclusion, that is what the industry leaders in cybersecurity have said in testimony before our committee.

   In addition, we need to invest in our universities which will work with private industry to do the basic research needed to come up with radically new approaches to protecting our computer systems and to attract the students who will keep the field healthy in the future.

   That is why H.R. 3394 is endorsed by leading industry groups including the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Information Technology Association of America, as well as a wide range of groups representing educational institutions.

   The bill, I am pleased to report, is also supported by the administration, which provided much guidance as H.R. 3394 moved through our committee.

   So I urge my colleagues to follow the lead of the Committee on Science, which approved this bill without dissent. Years from now we will see H.R. 3394 as the measure that galvanized the Federal Government, industry and academia into eliminating the cybersecurity weaknesses that today threaten our economy and our basic public services. I urge support for this important bill.

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

   Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Cyber Security Research and Development Act. It is a bill that committee has worked in a bipartisan manner, and I think it fills a very important gap in current information technology research programs, namely the need for improved security for our computers and digital communication networks.

   I, of course, congratulate and thank the Committee on Science chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. BOEHLERT). He has done a very good job of laying out the thrust of the bill, and I also thank him for his leadership and thank him for working so closely with me and with others on our side of the dock to bring this bill to this stage.

   I also want to acknowledge the work of my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. BAIRD), a clinical psychologist before he came to the Congress, a man that has unusual ability and is knowledgeable about research and development. Actually, it was a provision pertaining to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, his provisions that originated in his bill, that we have used in this bill.

   Many systems that are vital to the Nation such as electric power grids, transportation and financial services, all of these rely on the transfer of information through computer networks.

[Time: 11:00]

   The trend in recent years of interconnecting computer networks has had some unintended consequences, one of them being making access of these very critical systems easier for criminals and actually potentially easier for terrorists, and that is something that we are very aware of today.

   As a result, there have been an increased number of assaults on network systems. Computer viruses, attacks by computer hackers, and electronic identification theft have become more common. The events of last fall, as the chairman stated, have made us all realize just how vulnerable we are to attack, and we now understand that we have to enhance the protection of the Nation's physical and electronic infrastructure.

   Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3394 establishes substantial new research programs also at the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The goal of both of these multiyear programs is not only to advance computer security research but also to expand the community of computer security researchers.

   These programs will support graduate students. They will support post-doctoral researchers and senior researchers while encouraging stronger ties between universities and industry.

   The key to ensure information security for the long term is to establish a

[Page: H208]

   Mr. Chairman, I commend this measure to my colleagues and ask for their support and ask for its passage by this House.

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

   Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. SMITH), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Research of the Committee on Science and has been a leader in this overall effort.

   Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, we learned from the September 11 attack and from the information gathered in Afghanistan to expect the unexpected.

   Part of the new commitment to homeland security is improving the security of our Nation's computer and networking infrastructure. In the past decade this networking has been firmly embedded in our economy, and we have become more dependent on these technologies. Whether it is delivering agricultural products or supporting banking and financial markets, moving electricity along interconnected grids, providing government services or maintaining our national defense, we have become dependent on computer networks for our economic and national security.

   The networks I think also are a potent symbol of our open society and free markets which thrive on the uninhibited flow of information. However, the technological advancement in computers and software and the networking and information technology which is a bill, H.R. 3400, which is coming before this body in the next several weeks, the potential threat of cyberattack is real and growing. Terrorists will always probe for our weakest points, so we must remain vigilant and confront these new realities.

   As we become even more dependent on computer networks and as terrorists become more technologically sophisticated, we should anticipate the possibility of attacks launched on cyberspace.

   Computer viruses, computer hackers, electronic identification theft are just a few of the new challenges we face. What is needed is this bill, which moves us into a comprehensive plan to address the growing linkages between national security and cybersecurity. We need to engage the best minds in America to make us immune from these kinds of attacks.

   H.R. 3394 does just that. It authorizes research programs at the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology to decrease the vulnerability of our computer systems and address emergency problems related to computer networking and infrastructure.

   Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that we have coordination among all government agencies in this effort, especially the military complex, if we are to be efficient, effective and if we are to succeed.

   We need this kind of legislation to move ahead; and I just want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. HALL), and certainly our chairman, for the inspiration to timely move this bill forward; and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

   Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. BAIRD), for purposes of control.

   The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. BAIRD) will control the time.

   There was no objection.

   Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   I would like to begin by commending and thanking the gentleman from New York (Mr. BOEHLERT) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. HALL) for their leadership on this matter. I am tremendously honored that they have chosen to include my computer security bill, which establishes a research and development program on computer and network security grants to the National Institute of Standards and Technology in today's bill.

   The chairman's legislation will address long-term needs in securing the Nation's information infrastructure as well as securing or strengthening the security of the nonclassified computer systems of Federal agencies.

   Because of September 11, focus and attention has been focused in an unprecedented way on increasing our security against terrorism. Today, security has to mean more than locking doors and installing metal detectors. In addition to physical security, virtual systems that are vital to the Nation's economy must be protected. Telecommunications and computer technologies are vulnerable to attack from far away by enemies who can remain anonymous, hidden in the vast maze of the Internet. Examples of systems that rely on computer networks include the electric power grid, rail networks, and financial transaction networks.

   I should commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. BOEHLERT), particularly, and former chair of the committee, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. MORELLA), for their foresight in this because prior to September 11 they had both had the foresight to conduct numerous hearings on the issue of computer security. It is that kind of forward thinking that we need and now in the post-September 11 time have the opportunity to implement some of these measures that came forward in those hearings.

   The vulnerability of the Internet computer viruses, denial of service attacks and defaced Web sites is well-known to the general public. Such widely reported and indeed widely experienced events have increased in frequency over time. These attacks disrupt business and government activities, sometimes resulting in significant recovery costs. We have yet to face a catastrophic cyberattack thus far; but Richard Clarke, the President's new terrorism czar, has said that the government must make cybersecurity a priority or we face the possibility of what he termed a ``digital Pearl Harbor.''

   Potentially vulnerable computer systems are largely owned and operated by the private sector, but the government has an important role in supporting the research and development activities that will provide the tools for protecting information systems. An essential component for ensuring improved information security is a vigorous and creative basic research effort focused on the security of networked information systems.

   Witnesses at our Committee on Science hearings last year noted the anemic level of funding for research on computer and network security. Such lack of funding has resulted in the lack of a critical mass of researchers in the field and has severely limited the focus of research. The witnesses at the hearings advocated increased and sustained research funding from the Federal Government to support both expanded training and research on a long-term basis.

   The chairman's bill will provide the resources necessary to ensure the security of business networks and the safety of America's computer infrastructure. I would like to thank the staff of the Committee on Science for their good work on this, as well as my own staff member, Brooke Jamison. I would urge all Members to support this important measure.

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

   Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. EHLERS), a scientist in his own right and a legislator of the first order. He is the chair of our key Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards; and I am pleased to yield the time to him.

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

   Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to rise in support of H.R. 3394, a piece of legislation that is badly needed.

   Most of the citizens of this land do not understand the broad dimensions of the problems of cybersecurity. I was privileged a few years ago to write a report for the cybersecurity of NATO parliamentary assembly but which was under the chairmanship of the gentleman from New York (Mr. BOEHLERT) at that time, and it was a real eye-opener to look into all of the dimensions of cybersecurity, both hardware and software.

   On the hardware end, we are extremely vulnerable as a Nation in many ways, particularly to a high-level nuclear explosion, which would probably have no direct casualties but

[Page: H209]

   This bill addresses primarily the other dimension of security and that is the software problem. We have been very fortunate as a Nation that most of the breaches of security that have taken place so far have been caused by hackers, pranksters and petty thieves; but we are extremely vulnerable in many other ways due to the proliferation of computers in our country, and I am not referring just to the proliferation of microprocessors which have essentially invaded our homes, our businesses in numerous quantities. They are vulnerable in different ways; but any time one attaches a computer to a network, they are vulnerable to activities that take place on that network.

   We have gained tremendously as a Nation through the use of computers and networks, but we have not taken account of the tremendous opportunities for breaches of security. It is essential that we train our people to deal with these; but above all, we must begin by doing more research in how we can deal with breaches of security. We know so little about it that we are at a disadvantage and we are at the mercy of the hackers, the pranksters, the thieves and, indeed, of other countries.

   It is essential that this bill pass; that we begin the process of developing a superstructure and an infrastructure to deal with cybersecurity. We need more research. We need more scholars. We need more researchers, and we need more people who are capable of dealing directly with problems that occur.

   We have heard mention of the electric grid and other such things as this; but it can appear in much more minor ways, simply denial of service which costs our economy billions of dollars each year. Recently, I had a call from someone who had received an e-mail sent by way of a government department's computer. A hacker had gotten into that computer and used this government's agency computer to send out millions of e-mails to prevent service from major entities in this country.

   So I urge that we join together and we pass this bill and also be sure to alert the American public of the nature of cyberterrorism, cyberinsecurity and that we deal with this problem.

   Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

   The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. MORELLA) will control the majority's time.

   There was no objection.

   Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. WELLER).

   Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor and first want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. BOEHLERT) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. HALL) for their bipartisan efforts to address an issue that is so very important to our Nation's economy and Nation's infrastructure.

   We are at war today. We are at war against terrorism, and one of the lessons of September 11 is no more complacency. Clearly our Nation's IT infrastructure is one area where we historically have been very, very complacent; and as we work to win this war on terrorism, we also must work to strengthen our homeland security, and clearly this legislation, the Cyber Security Research and Development Act, is part of our efforts to strengthen our Nation's homeland security.

   Our IT infrastructure is important. We use it in our everyday lives, whether it is our banking, insurance, our schools, our businesses, how we operate our utilities, and serve our Nation's infrastructure; and all of it is in jeopardy of a cyberattack.

   All of us have learned, I believe, over the last several years the creativity of those who hack into our computer systems, those who create computer viruses for malicious destruction, in many cases causing billions of dollars of damage and costs to our Nation as well as our global economy. Unfortunately, very little research and development has been conducted in this important area of homeland security, finding better ways to protect our Nation's information technology systems.

   The private sector historically has little incentive to invest because the market emphasizes speed and convenience. Yet the Federal Government historically has not filled the gap. This legislation is important legislation and deserves bipartisan support and enlists our Nation's universities as well as research institutions to find solutions to protect and secure our Nation's IT infrastructure.

   There is also more we need to do. I think we are all disappointed after the House passed an economic stimulus package that the accelerated depreciation component that this House passed was not included in action in the other body. My hope is that the accelerated depreciation which would help our businesses and private sector also acquire the hardware and software to protect their IT systems will eventually be included in a stimulus package that we send to the President and get this economy moving again.

[Time: 11:15]

   Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. MORELLA), who is one of the leaders of the Committee on Science in so many areas, but particularly interested in this important area.

   Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, it is with great pleasure that I rise as a cosponsor of H.R. 3394, and I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. BOEHLERT) not only for his laudatory words but for his leadership as chairman of the Science Committee in crafting this piece of legislation and bringing it to the floor.

   The ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. HALL), deserves to be commended also for working together. As is often the case with legislation from the Committee on Science, this bill is the outcome of a tremendous bipartisan effort, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

   Computer networks and infrastructure have become one of America's greatest assets. Our ingenuity in developing new and exciting technologies to increase our productivity and quality of life have made us the envy of the modern world. These devices have changed the way we interact socially, conduct business, and have ingrained themselves in every aspect of our lives. We have embraced them and will continue to find exciting new ways to utilize these modern marvels.

   Unfortunately, while these computer networks have given us great freedom and access, they have also created a new vulnerability. Our reliance on these networks creates a potential threat and the economic and social consequences to an attack in cyberspace cannot be ignored. In the past few months, we have been confronted with a number of threats to our physical well-being and have taken numerous steps to plug the many holes in our society's lax security practices. However, along with securing our borders and providing for defense of the homeland, we must also take steps to protect our virtual world.

   As numerous hearings conducted in the House Committee on Science have shown, it is clear that we have two major problems in cyberspace. The first is that we have few, if any, standards as to what constitutes a secured network, nor do we have generally accepted procedures to evaluate our current systems and upgrade them with the most current security protocols. The second is quite simply too little cybersecurity research is being conducted by too few researchers and too few students to lead to the breakthrough of advancements that we will need to secure our networks in the 21st century.

   To address our deficiencies in evaluation and implementation, last session the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1259, a bill I sponsored with the input of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. BAIRD) and others, to upgrade the Computer Security Act of 1987 and give the National Institute of Standards and Technology the authority to develop and promote computer security standards within the Federal Government. Located in my home district of Montgomery County, Maryland, NIST is our Nation's premier developer of standards and guidelines and is ideally suited to lead our efforts in the implementation of security practices throughout our cyberworld.

   Today, we take up the second issue. H.R. 3394 would provide critical funds to investigators to conduct ground-breaking research, anticipate future needs, and respond to new vulnerabilities. It supplies money to develop multidisciplinary centers between academia, business interests,

[Page: H210]

   H.R. 1259 and H.R. 3394 represent two sides of the same cybersecurity coin. Implementation of current technology without inquiries into the next generation of countermeasures and best practices is as useless as research and development without evaluation and use. Last session, the House overwhelmingly approved the first step toward protecting our virtual presence with the passage of 1259, and today I urge my colleagues to take the second. Research into cybersecurity is vital to the health of our Nation. This bill provides the necessary tools.

   I look forward to its passage and to working with Chairman BOEHLERT and Ranking Member HALL in getting both H.R. 1259 and 3394 through the Senate and into law.

   Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. GOODLATTE), the distinguished chair of the House Republican High Technology Working Group, and the cochair of the Congressional Internet Caucus, and a real leader in all aspects of information technology.

   Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his kind words, but I especially thank him for his leadership on this issue. I also thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. HALL), the ranking Democrat; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. SMITH), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, on which I serve; and the other cosponsors of this legislation for their leadership in getting this done.

   This is a serious problem in this country. We are vulnerable in many, many ways to cybercrime and cyberterrorism, and this legislation will help to cure that problem. We are not doing enough in the area of research in this area. We are most certainly not doing enough in the area of producing enough people to work in government and in the private sector to make sure that the computer infrastructure of this country is protected against hackers and criminals and terrorists. This legislation is going to provide more resources for those colleges and universities and other institutions that do this research and train the people.

   In this area, I have a university in my district, James Madison University, which has been identified by the National Security Agency as an institution of excellence in doing research and, more importantly, education in this area. But when they sit down to write the curriculum on how to prevent cybercrime, to teach people how to work for companies or the government in protecting the computer infrastructure, that curriculum does not even change on an annual basis, does not even change on a monthly basis. It changes on a weekly and daily basis as new information about viruses and other types of computer activity used by criminals and terrorists take place.

   So I am strongly supportive of this legislation. I look forward to developing more curricula around the country to educate people and provide the literally tens of thousands of new jobs we are going to need in this country in this field, and this legislation lays the groundwork. I commend the gentleman from New York and others for bringing this legislation forward, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.

   Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his comments, and I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. SMITH), Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, who helped to author this bill.

   Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Maryland and my colleague for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation that increases the cybersecurity networks at our universities, businesses, and national laboratories. The facts speak for themselves. Last month, the CERT Coordination Center operated by Carnegie Mellon University reported that breaches in security of computer systems more than doubled from the year 2000 to 2001: 52,000 incidents were reported in 2001, up from 22,000 the year before. By comparison, in 1995, the number of incidents reported was only 2,400.

   Last spring, the Subcommittee on Crime, of the Committee on the Judiciary, that I chair, held a series of hearings on cybercrime. We heard testimony from local, State, and Federal officials, as well as individuals from the private sector. A common theme emerged: the demand for highly-trained and skilled personnel to investigate computer crimes is tremendous. This problem is compounded by the rapid advances in technology which make continual training an absolute necessity.

   In this new age we must have training both for a new generation of cyberwarriors, whose most important weapon is not a gun but a laptop, and for private sector companies who must continually protect their Internet presence. This bill seeks to expand what many States and cities are already doing: investing in cybersecurity training initiatives.

   Mr. Chairman, in my hometown, the University of Texas at San Antonio has established the Center for Information Assurance and Security, CIAS. The CIAS will be the hub of a city initiative to research, develop, and address computer protection mechanisms to prevent and detect intrusions of computer networks.

   This collaborative effort of CIAS brings together the best and brightest from the public sector, such as the Air Force Information Warfare Center, Air Intelligence Agency, and the FBI. The private sector, with such cybersecurity companies as Ball Aerospace, Digital Defense, SecureLogix, SecureInfo, and Symantec, also are contributing to this effort.

   With funding provided in this bill, UTSA and dozens of other universities will be able to train the next generation of cyberwarriors, cyberdefenders, and what we call ``white hat netizens.'' This legislation supports the work at UTSA and other universities for students who want to pursue computer security studies.

   While the benefits of the digital age are obvious, the Internet also has fostered an environment where hackers retrieve private data for amusement, individuals distribute software illegally, and viruses circulate with the sole purpose of debilitating computers. Mr. Chairman, a well-trained and highly skilled force of cyberprotectors is urgently needed, and I hope my colleagues will support this bill.

   Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   Mr. Chairman, as we wrap up this debate, I know a lot of people are wondering what is the big deal about cybersecurity; and my own wife, Marianne, who is frequently at the computer when I am home, says that we have to do a better job of explaining the importance of this, and she is absolutely right.

   So much of what we do in this Nation is dependent upon the security of our computer systems. Everything is dependent upon computer technology today: our financial networks, our communication systems, our electric power grid, our water supply. The list goes on and on. If we have a clever 15-year-old hacker penetrate that system, that is mischief. But when we have a terrorist with a potential to penetrate that system and misuse it, that is serious business.

   What we are about is very serious business: to train skilled people and to place the emphasis that needs to be placed on protecting our cybersystem in every way, shape, or manner. That is why I am so pleased that the administration has worked so well with us; that this Committee on Science has done what it does traditionally on a bipartisan basis, with people like the gentleman from Washington (Mr. BAIRD), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. HALL), and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON) working with our side.

   We are all in this together. We want to produce a product that is best for this Congress and best for America; and we have done so, and I am proud to be identified with it.

   Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

   Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   Mr. Chairman, I would just like to close as well by reiterating my thanks to Chairman BOEHLERT, Chairwoman MORELLA, Ranking Member HALL, as well as the committee staff.

[Page: H211]

   Chairman BOEHLERT has stated it perfectly well: the American public often takes for granted our information infrastructure; but a coordinated attack on, for example, air traffic control, electrical power systems, or other major vital links in our information infrastructure, particularly if timed with a more conventional or even a more unconventional attack, could wreak havoc on our society and would clearly cost lives.

   The importance of this bill cannot be overstated, and I commend the Chair and the ranking member for their leadership and appreciate the opportunity to work with them.

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

   The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.

   The bill shall be considered by sections as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, and pursuant to the rule, each section is considered read.

   During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has printed in the designated place in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Those amendments will be considered read.

   The Clerk will designate section 1.

   The text of section 1 is as follows:

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

   SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Cyber Security Research and Development Act''.

   SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds the following:

    (1) Revolutionary advancements in computing and communications technology have interconnected government, commercial, scientific, and educational infrastructures--including critical infrastructures for electric power, natural gas and petroleum production and distribution, telecommunications, transportation, water supply, banking and finance, and emergency and government services--in a vast, interdependent physical and electronic network.

    (2) Exponential increases in interconnectivity have facilitated enhanced communications, economic growth, and the delivery of services critical to the public welfare, but have also increased the consequences of temporary or prolonged failure.

    (3) A Department of Defense Joint Task Force concluded after a 1997 United States information warfare exercise that the results ``clearly demonstrated our lack of preparation for a coordinated cyber and physical attack on our critical military and civilian infrastructure''.

    (4) Computer security technology and systems implementation lack--

    (A) sufficient long term research funding;

    (B) adequate coordination across Federal and State government agencies and among government, academia, and industry;

    (C) sufficient numbers of outstanding researchers in the field; and

    (D) market incentives for the design of commercial and consumer security solutions.

    (5) Accordingly, Federal investment in computer and network security research and development must be significantly increased to--

    (A) improve vulnerability assessment and technological and systems solutions;

    (B) expand and improve the pool of information security professionals, including researchers, in the United States workforce; and

    (C) better coordinate information sharing and collaboration among industry, government, and academic research projects.

   SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    For purposes of this Act--

    (1) the term ``Director'' means the Director of the National Science Foundation; and

    (2) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given that term in section 101 ofthe Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001).

   SEC. 4. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION RESEARCH.

    (a) COMPUTER AND NETWORK SECURITY RESEARCH GRANTS.--

    (1) IN GENERAL.--The Director shall award grants for basic research on innovative approaches to the structure of computer and network hardware and software that are aimed at enhancing computer security. Research areas may include--

    (A) authentication and cryptography;

    (B) computer forensics and intrusion detection;

    (C) reliability of computer and network applications, middleware, operating systems, and communications infrastructure; and

    (D) privacy and confidentiality.

    (2) MERIT REVIEW; COMPETITION.--Grants shall be awarded under this section on a merit-reviewed competitive basis.

    (3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation to carry out this subsection--

    (A) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;

    (B) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;

    (C) $46,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;

    (D) $52,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and

    (E) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.

    (b) COMPUTER AND NETWORK SECURITY RESEARCH CENTERS.--

    (1) IN GENERAL.--The Director shall award multiyear grants, subject to the availability of appropriations, to institutions of higher education (or consortia thereof) to establish multidisciplinary Centers for Computer and Network Security Research. Institutions of higher education (or consortia thereof) receiving such grants may partner with one or more government laboratories or for-profit institutions.

    (2) MERIT REVIEW; COMPETITION.--Grants shall be awarded under this subsection on a merit-reviewed competitive basis.

    (3) PURPOSE.--The purpose of the Centers shall be to generate innovative approaches to computer and network security by conducting cutting-edge, multidisciplinary research in computer and network security, including the research areas described in subsection (a)(1).

    (4) APPLICATIONS.--An institution of higher education (or a consortium of such institutions) seeking funding under this subsection shall submit an application to the Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Director may require. The application shall include, at a minimum, a description of--

    (A) the research projects that will be undertaken by the Center and the contributions of each of the participating entities;

    (B) how the Center will promote active collaboration among scientists and engineers from different disciplines, such as computer scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and social science researchers; and

    (C) how the Center will contribute to increasing the number of computer and network security researchers and other professionals.

    (5) CRITERIA.--In evaluating the applications submitted under paragraph (4), the Director shall consider, at a minimum--

    (A) the ability of the applicant to generate innovative approaches to computer and network security and effectively carry out the research program;

    (B) the experience of the applicant in conducting research on computer and network security and the capacity of the applicant to foster new multidisciplinary collaborations;

    (C) the capacity of the applicant to attract and provide adequate support for undergraduate and graduate students and postdoctoral fellows to pursue computer and network security research; and

    (D) the extent to which the applicant will partner with government laboratories or for-profit entities, and the role the government laboratories or for-profit entities will play in the research undertaken by the Center.

    (6) ANNUAL MEETING.--The Director shall convene an annual meeting of the Centers in order to foster collaboration and communication between Center participants.

    (7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated for the National Science Foundation to carry out this subsection--

    (A) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;

    (B) $24,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;

    (C) $36,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;

    (D) $36,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and

    (E) $36,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.

   SEC. 5. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION COMPUTER AND NETWORK SECURITY PROGRAMS.

    (a) COMPUTER AND NETWORK SECURITY CAPACITY BUILDING GRANTS.--

    (1) IN GENERAL.--The Director shall establish a program to award grants to institutions of higher education (or consortia thereof) to establish or improve undergraduate and master's degree programs in computer and network security, to increase the number of students who pursue undergraduate or master's degrees in fields related to computer and network security, and to provide students with experience in government or industry related to their computer and network security studies.

    (2) MERIT REVIEW.--Grants shall be awarded under this subsection on a merit-reviewed competitive basis.

    (3) USE OF FUNDS.--Grants awarded under this subsection shall be used for activities that enhance the ability of an institution of higher education (or consortium thereof) to provide high-quality undergraduate and master's degree programs in computer and network security and to recruit and retain increased numbers of students to such programs. Activities may include--

    (A) revising curriculum to better prepare undergraduate and master's degree students for careers in computer and network security;

    (B) establishing degree and certificate programs in computer and network security;

    (C) creating opportunities for undergraduate students to participate in computer and network security research projects;

    (D) acquiring equipment necessary for student instruction in computer and network security, including the installation of testbed networks for student use;

    (E) providing opportunities for faculty to work with local or Federal Government agencies, private industry, or other academic institutions to develop new expertise or to formulate new research directions in computer and network security;

    (F) establishing collaborations with other academic institutions or departments that seek to establish, expand, or enhance programs in computer and network security;

[Page: H212]

    (G) establishing student internships in computer and network security at government agencies or in private industry;

    (H) establishing or enhancing bridge programs in computer and network security between community colleges and universities; and

    (I) any other activities the Director determines will accomplish the goals of this subsection.

    (4) SELECTION PROCESS.--

    (A) APPLICATION.--An institution of higher education (or a consortium thereof) seeking funding under this subsection shall submit an application to the Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Director may require. The application shall include, at a minimum--

    (i) a description of the applicant's computer and network security research and instructional capacity, and in the case of an application from a consortium of institutions of higher education, a description of the role that each member will play in implementing the proposal;

    (ii) a comprehensive plan by which the institution or consortium will build instructional capacity in computer and information security;

    (iii) a description of relevant collaborations with government agencies or private industry that inform the instructional program in computer and network security;

    (iv) a survey of the applicant's historic student enrollment and placement data in fields related to computer and network security and a study of potential enrollment and placement for students enrolled in the proposed computer and network security program; and

    (v) a plan to evaluate the success of the proposed computer and network security program, including post-graduation assessment of graduate school and job placement and retention rates as well as the relevance of the instructional program to graduate study and to the workplace.

    (B) AWARDS.--(i) The Director shall ensure, to the extent practicable, that grants are awarded under this subsection in a wide range of geographic areas and categories of institutions of higher education.

    (ii) The Director shall award grants under this subsection for a period not to exceed 5 years.

    (5) ASSESSMENT REQUIRED.--The Director shall evaluate the program established under this subsection no later than 6 years after the establishment of the program. At a minimum, the Director shall evaluate the extent to which the grants achieved their objectives of increasing the quality and quantity of students pursuing undergraduate or master's degrees in computer and network security.

    (6) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation to carry out this subsection--

    (A) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;

    (B) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;

    (C) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;

    (D) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and

    (E) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.

    (b) Scientific and Advanced Technology Act of 1992.--

    (1) GRANTS.--The Director shall provide grants under the Scientific and Advanced Technology Act of 1992 for the purposes of section 3(a) and (b) of that Act, except that the activities supported pursuant to this subsection shall be limited to improving education in fields related to computer and network security.

    (2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation to carry out this subsection--

    (A) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;

    (B) $1,250,000 for fiscal year 2004;

    (C) $1,250,000 for fiscal year 2005;

    (D) $1,250,000 for fiscal year 2006; and

    (E) $1,250,000 for fiscal year 2007.

    (c) GRADUATE TRAINEESHIPS IN COMPUTER AND NETWORK SECURITY RESEARCH.--

    (1) IN GENERAL.--The Director shall establish a program to award grants to institutions of higher education to establish traineeship programs for graduate students who pursue computer and network security research leading to a doctorate degree by providing funding and other assistance, and by providing graduate students with research experience in government or industry related to the students' computer and network security studies.

    (2) MERIT REVIEW.--Grants shall be provided under this subsection on a merit-reviewed competitive basis.

    (3) USE OF FUNDS.--An institution of higher education shall use grant funds for the purposes of--

    (A) providing fellowships to students who are citizens, nationals, or lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens of the United States and are pursuing research in computer or network security leading to a doctorate degree;

    (B) paying tuition and fees for students receiving fellowships under subparagraph (A);

    (C) establishing scientific internship programs for students receiving fellowships under subparagraph (A) in computer and network security at for-profit institutions or government laboratories; and

    (D) other costs associated with the administration of the program.

    (4) FELLOWSHIP AMOUNT.--Fellowships provided under paragraph (3)(A) shall be in the amount of $25,000 per year, or the level of the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowships, whichever is greater, for up to 3 years.

    (5) SELECTION PROCESS.--An institution of higher education seeking funding under this subsection shall submit an application to the Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Director may require. The application shall include, at a minimum, a description of--

    (A) the instructional program and research opportunities in computer and network security available to graduate students at the applicant's institution; and

    (B) the internship program to be established, including the opportunities that will be made available to students for internships at for-profit institutions and government laboratories.

    (6) REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS.--In evaluating the applications submitted under paragraph (5), the Director shall consider--

    (A) the ability of the applicant to effectively carry out the proposed program;

    (B) the quality of the applicant's existing research and education programs;

    (C) the likelihood that the program will recruit increased numbers of students to pursue and earn doctorate degrees in computer and network security;

    (D) the nature and quality of the internship program established through collaborations with government laboratories and for-profit institutions;

    (E) the integration of internship opportunities into graduate students' research; and

    (F) the relevance of the proposed program to current and future computer and network security needs.

    (7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation to carry our this subsection--

    (A) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;

    (B) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;

    (C) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;

    (D) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and

    (E) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.

    (d) GRADUATE RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS PROGRAM SUPPORT.--Computer and network security shall be included among the fields of specialization supported by the National Science Foundation's Graduate Research Fellowships program under section 10 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1869).

   SEC. 6. CONSULTATION.

    In carrying out sections 4 and 5, the Director shall consult with other Federal agencies.

   SEC. 7. FOSTERING RESEARCH AND EDUCATION IN COMPUTER AND NETWORK SECURITY.

    Section 3(a) of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1862(a)) is amended--

    (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);

    (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and inserting ``; and''; and

    (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

    ``(8) to take a leading role in fostering and supporting research and education activities to improve the security of networked information systems.''.

   SEC. 8. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH PROGRAM.

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology Act is amended--

    (1) by moving section 22 to the end of the Act and redesignating it as section 32;

    (2) by inserting after section 21 the following new section:

   ``RESEARCH PROGRAM ON SECURITY OF COMPUTER SYSTEMS

    ``SEC. 22. (a) ESTABLISHMENT.--The Director shall establish a program of assistance to institutions of higher education that enter into partnerships with for-profit entities to support research to improve the security of computer systems. The partnerships may also include government laboratories. The program shall--

    ``(1) include multidisciplinary, long-term, high-risk research;

    ``(2) include research directed toward addressing needs identified through the activities of the Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Board under section 20(f); and

    ``(3) promote the development of a robust research community working at the leading edge of knowledge in subject areas relevant to the security of computer systems by providing support for graduate students, post-doctoral researchers, and senior researchers.

    ``(b) FELLOWSHIPS.--(1) The Director is authorized to establish a program to award post-doctoral research fellowships to individuals who are citizens, nationals, or lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens of the United States and are seeking research positions at institutions, including the Institute, engaged in research activities related to the security of computer systems, including the research areas described in section 4(a)(1) of the Cyber Security Research and Development Act.

    ``(2) The Director is authorized to establish a program to award senior research fellowships to individuals seeking research positions at institutions, including the Institute, engaged in research activities related to the security of computer systems, including the research areas described in section 4(a)(1) of the Cyber Security Research and Development Act. Senior research fellowships shall be made available for established researchers at institutions of higher education who seek to change research fields and pursue studies related to the security of computer systems.

    ``(3)(A) To be eligible for an award under this subsection, an individual shall submit

[Page: H213]

    ``(B) Under this subsection, the Director is authorized to provide stipends for post-doctoral research fellowships at the level of the Institute's Post Doctoral Research Fellowship Program and senior research fellowships at levels consistent with support for a faculty member in a sabbatical position.

    ``(c) AWARDS; APPLICATIONS.--The Director is authorized to award grants or cooperative agreements to institutions of higher education to carry out the program established under subsection (a). To be eligible for an award under this section, an institution of higher education shall submit an application to the Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Director may require. The application shall include, at a minimum, a description of--

    ``(1) the number of graduate students anticipated to participate in the research project and the level of support to be provided to each;

    ``(2) the number of post-doctoral research positions included under the research project and the level of support to be provided to each;

    ``(3) the number of individuals, if any, intending to change research fields and pursue studies related to the security of computer systems to be included under the research project and the level of support to be provided to each; and

    ``(4) how the for-profit entities and any other partners will participate in developing and carrying out the research and education agenda of the partnership.

    ``(d) PROGRAM OPERATION.--(1) The program established under subsection (a) shall be managed by individuals who shall have both expertise in research related to the security of computer systems and knowledge of the vulnerabilities of existing computer systems. The Director shall designate such individuals as program managers.

    ``(2) Program managers designated under paragraph (1) may be new or existing employees of the Institute or individuals on assignment at the Institute under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970.

    ``(3) Program managers designated under paragraph (1) shall be responsible for--

    ``(A) establishing and publicizing the broad research goals for the program;

    ``(B) soliciting applications for specific research projects to address the goals developed under subparagraph (A);

    ``(C) selecting research projects for support under the program from among applications submitted to the Institute, following consideration of--

    ``(i) the novelty and scientific and technical merit of the proposed projects;

    ``(ii) the demonstrated capabilities of the individual or individuals submitting the applications to successfully carry out the proposed research;

    ``(iii) the impact the proposed projects will have on increasing the number of computer security researchers;

    ``(iv) the nature of the participation by for-profit entities and the extent to which the proposed projects address the concerns of industry; and

    ``(v) other criteria determined by the Director, based on information specified for inclusion in applications under subsection (c); and

    ``(D) monitoring the progress of research projects supported under the program.

    ``(e) REVIEW OF PROGRAM.--(1) The Director shall periodically review the portfolio of research awards monitored by each program manager designated in accordance with subsection (d). In conducting those reviews, the Director shall seek the advice of the Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Board, established under section 21, on the appropriateness of the research goals and on the quality and utility of research projects managed by program managers in accordance with subsection (d).

    ``(2) The Director shall also contract with the National Research Council for a comprehensive review of the program established under subsection (a) during the 5th year of the program. Such review shall include an assessment of the scientific quality of the research conducted, the relevance of the research results obtained to the goals of the program established under subsection (d)(3)(A), and the progress of the program in promoting the development of a substantial academic research community working at the leading edge of knowledge in the field. The Director shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the review under this paragraph no later than six years after the initiation of the program.

    ``(f) DEFINITIONS.--For purposes of this section--

    ``(1) the term `computer system' has the meaning given that term in section 20(d)(1); and

    ``(2) the term `institution of higher education' has the meaning given that term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001).''; and

    (3) in section 20(d)(1)(B)(i) (15 U.S.C. 278g-3(d)(1)(B)(i)), by inserting ``and computer networks'' after ``computers''.

   SEC. 9. COMPUTER SECURITY REVIEW, PUBLIC MEETINGS, AND INFORMATION.

    Section 20 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

    ``(f) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $1,060,000 for fiscal year 2003 and $1,090,000 for fiscal year 2004 to enable the Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Board, established by section 21, to identify emerging issues, including research needs, related to computer security, privacy, and cryptography and, as appropriate, to convene public meetings on those subjects, receive presentations, and publish reports, digests, and summaries for public distribution on those subjects.''.

   SEC. 10. INTRAMUTAL SECURITY RESEARCH.

    Section 20 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3) is further amended--

    (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and

    (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection:

    ``(d) As part of the research activities conducted in accordance with subsection (b)(4), the Institute shall--

    ``(1) conduct a research program to address emerging technologies associated with assembling a networked computer system from components while ensuring it maintains desired security properties;

    ``(2) carry out research and support standards development activities associated with improving the security of real-time computing and communications systems for use in process control; and

    ``(3) carry out multidisciplinary, long-term, high-risk research on ways to improve the security of computer systems.''.

   SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the National Institute of Standards and Technology--

    (1) for activities under section 22 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act, as added by section 8 of this Act--

    (A) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;

    (B) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;

    (C) $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;

    (D) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;

    (E) $85,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and

    (F) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2008 through 2012; and

    (2) for activities under section 20(d) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act, as added by section 10 of this Act--

    (A) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;

    (B) $6,200,000 for fiscal year 2004;

    (C) $6,400,000 for fiscal year 2005;

    (D) $6,600,000 for fiscal year 2006; and

    (E) $6,800,000 for fiscal year 2007.

   SEC. 12. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES STUDY ON COMPUTER AND NETWORK SECURITY IN CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURES.

    (a) STUDY.--Not later than 3 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall enter into an arrangement with the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the vulnerabilities of the Nation's network infrastructure and make recommendations for appropriate improvements. The National Research Council shall--

    (1) review existing studies and associated data on the architectural, hardware, and software vulnerabilities and interdependencies in United States critical infrastructure networks;

    (2) identify and assess gaps in technical capability for robust critical infrastructure network security, and make recommendations for research priorities and resource requirements; and

    (3) review any and all other essential elements of computer and network security, including security of industrial process controls, to be determined in the conduct of the study.

    (b) REPORT.--The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall transmit a report containing the results of the study and recommendations required by subsection (a) to the Congress not later than 21 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

    (c) SECURITY.--The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall ensure that no information that is classified is included in any publicly released version of the report required by this section.

    (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the National Institute of Standards and Technology for the purposes of carrying out this section, $700,000.

   Mr. BOEHLERT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be printed in the RECORD and open to amendment at any point.

   The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

   There was no objection.

   The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to the bill?

   If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Cyber Security Research and Development Act, which will help the United States reduce its vulnerability to cyberattacks by terrorists and common criminals alike.

   Cyber attacks may not bring the large scale death and destruction of attacks by biological or chemical agents or other weapons of mass destruction, but they are just as real a threat

[Page: H214]

   Computers have become increasingly ubiquitous. More than half of all American use the Internet, with more than 2 million people going online for the first time each month. Computer-based technology powers the way we bank, the way we shop, and the way we exchange information. And, this makes nearly every American vulnerable to cyber threats.

   The Cyber Security Research and Development Act will reduce that vulnerability in two ways. First, it will improve our research efforts so that we can stop cyber terrorists before they strike. Too few of our most gifted minds are working on this area of research. The funding available in this bill will power partnerships between the government and academia to remedy this Second, H.R. 3394 will improve our education programs so that average Americans can spot threats and react quickly.

   As a member of the Science Committee, I heard the testimony of research experts who indicated how great the threat is and how much could be achieved to defeat it if we dedicated ourselves to this goal. That is why I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it today.

   Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3394, the Cyber Security Research and Development Act. This bill would strengthen our nation's ability to protect the critical infrastructure that supplies our water, keeps the electricity on in our homes, and ensures that our law enforcement officials have communication capabilities at all times.

   San Antonio has been a leader in developing the type of technology and educational programs made possible under this bill. A growing partnership of educational, private enterprise and military expertise make San Antonio ``Cyber City'' USA.

   The University of Texas at San Antonio has developed the Center for Infrastructure Assurance and Security to educate and train world-class information technology professionals. With a faculty drawn from both the private sector and the Air Force, this outstanding program will produce skilled graduates ready to meet the growing shortage of information technology professionals in the federal government and private sector. It will also serve as a educational program for mid-level professionals to improve their information technology job skills needed for their current job, or help them retrain in the information technology field.

   San Antonio is also the home of the Information Technology and Assurance Academy, an innovative educational center devoted to talented 11th and 12th graders interested in information technology. The Academy will give these young minds an introduction to future career opportunities in the information and technology field. In addition to developing their interest in information technology, this program seeks to instill a sense of civic responsibility that will serve them and the community in which they live.

   San Antonio has 45 private companies that have developed state-of-the-art information assurance technology. These companies lead the field in developing intrusion detection technology and providing vulnerability assessments for both the private sector and the government.

   The military also has a world-class computer monitoring facility in San Antonio. The Air Force's computer emergency response team, located at Lackland Air Force Base, leads the DoD in intrusion technology, and helps protect Air Force computer systems, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, around the globe. This system helps ensure that the computer systems used by our Armed Forces to protect our nation are free from hackers, viruses and other forms of cyber terrorism.

   This bill would provide the nation with needed resources to fight the war on cyber terrorism. Homeland security starts at the local level and this bill would allow communities throughout the United States to educate and train qualified information professionals in their community and encourage research that would give the government and private industry the tools to protect our nation's critical infrastructure.

   Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3394, the Cyber Security Research and Development Act.

   H.R. 3394, seeks to address the vulnerability of the computer systems and networks that have become part of all our daily lives. It is all to clear to us, that we must be proactive and defend these systems from simple hackers to coordinated terrorist attacks.

   At hearings on cyber security last year in the Science Committee, we heard updates on research and development in that field. The news was sobering. The information we were provided was that too little research being conducted in this area, too few researchers were prepared to meet the needs of securing our systems, too few students going into fields relating to cyber security, and there was inadequate coordination between government, academia and industry. This must change and we have great resources in western Pennsylvania to help deliver these changes.

   Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), just outside of my district, has been a leader in the field of cyber security. In 2001, the National Security Council named them as a ``Center of Excellence in Security Education.'' Also, the CERT Coordination Center, a government-funded computer emergency-response team at CMU, helps to track the risks and frequencies of cyber crimes. According to the Center, there were 52,658 security breaches and attacks last year, up 50 percent from the previous year. The Center also got reports of 2,437 computer vulnerabilities, more than double the figures from the previous year. While having success with students in the field of cyber security, they, too, have expressed that deficiencies exist for cyber security. This includes the lack of undergraduates and graduates who can provide the necessary research.

   The ``Cyber Security Research and Development Act'' provides help for these areas by making grants available under National Science Foundation (NSF) for: research in innovative computer and network security; establishment of Centers for Computer and Network Security research in partnership with other universities; enabling universities to offer fellowships; and research in industry and other opportunities for doctoral degrees. H.R. 3394 also provides grants to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for: support for high-risk, cutting edge research by academics working with industry; and for the establishment of a fellowship to increase its number of researchers in computer and network security.

   This important legislation will provide us with the necessary investment in cyber security and needed support of existing resources, so that we are not with out the necessary experts to protect our critical computer infrastructure from terrorist attacks.

• [End Insert]

[Time: 11:30]

   Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. PICKERING) having assumed the chair, Mr. SUNUNU, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3394) to authorize funding for computer and network security research and development and research fellowship programs, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 343, he reported the bill back to the House.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.

   The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

   The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.

   The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

   Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.

   The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.

   Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on passage of H.R. 3394 will be followed by a 5-minute vote, if ordered, on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

   The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 400, nays 12, not voting 23, as follows:

   Abercrombie

   Ackerman

   Aderholt

   Allen

   Andrews

   Armey

   Baca

   Bachus

   Baird

   Baker

   Baldacci

   Baldwin

   Ballenger

   Barcia

   Barr

   Barrett

   Bartlett

   Barton

   Bass

   Becerra

   Bentsen

   Bereuter

   Berkley

   Berman

   Berry

   Biggert

   Bilirakis

   Bishop

   Blumenauer

   Blunt

   Boehlert

   Boehner

   Bonilla

   Bonior

   Boozman

   Borski

   Boswell

   Boucher

   Boyd

   Brady (PA)

   Brady (TX)

   Brown (FL)

   Brown (OH)

   Brown (SC)

   Bryant

   Burr

   Buyer

   Callahan

   Calvert

   Camp

   Cannon

   Cantor

   Capito

   Capps

   Cardin

   Carson (IN)

   Carson (OK)

   Castle

   Chabot

   Chambliss

   Clay

   Clayton

   Clement

   Clyburn

   Coble

   Combest

   Condit

   Conyers

   Cooksey

   Costello

   Cox

   Coyne

   Cramer

   Crane

   Crenshaw

   Crowley

   Culberson

   Cummings

   Cunningham

   Davis (CA)

   Davis (FL)

[Page: H215]

   Davis (IL)

   Davis, Jo Ann

   Davis, Tom

   Deal

   DeFazio

   DeGette

   Delahunt

   DeLauro

   DeLay

   DeMint

   Deutsch

   Diaz-Balart

   Dicks

   Dingell

   Doggett

   Dooley

   Doolittle

   Doyle

   Dreier

   Dunn

   Edwards

   Ehlers

   Ehrlich

   Emerson

   Engel

   English

   Eshoo

   Etheridge

   Evans

   Everett

   Farr

   Fattah

   Ferguson

   Filner

   Fletcher

   Foley

   Forbes

   Ford

   Fossella

   Frank

   Frost

   Gallegly

   Ganske

   Gekas

   Gephardt

   Gibbons

   Gilchrest

   Gillmor

   Gilman

   Gonzalez

   Goode

   Goodlatte

   Gordon

   Goss

   Graham

   Granger

   Graves

   Green (TX)

   Green (WI)

   Greenwood

   Grucci

   Gutierrez

   Gutknecht

   Hall (TX)

   Hansen

   Harman

   Hart

   Hastings (FL)

   Hastings (WA)

   Hayes

   Hayworth

   Herger

   Hill

   Hilliard

   Hinchey

   Hinojosa

   Hobson

   Hoeffel

   Hoekstra

   Holden

   Holt

   Honda

   Hooley

   Horn

   Hostettler

   Houghton

   Hoyer

   Hulshof

   Hunter

   Hyde

   Inslee

   Isakson

   Israel

   Issa

   Istook

   Jackson (IL)

   Jackson-Lee (TX)

   Jenkins

   John

   Johnson (CT)

   Johnson (IL)

   Johnson, E. B.

   Johnson, Sam

   Jones (OH)

   Kanjorski

   Kaptur

   Keller

   Kelly

   Kennedy (MN)

   Kennedy (RI)

   Kerns

   Kildee

   Kilpatrick

   Kind (WI)

   King (NY)

   Kirk

   Kleczka

   Knollenberg

   Kolbe

   Kucinich

   LaFalce

   LaHood

   Lampson

   Langevin

   Lantos

   Largent

   Larsen (WA)

   Larson (CT)

   Latham

   LaTourette

   Leach

   Lee

   Levin

   Lewis (CA)

   Lewis (GA)

   Lewis (KY)

   Linder

   Lipinski

   LoBiondo

   Lofgren

   Lowey

   Lucas (KY)

   Lucas (OK)

   Lynch

   Maloney (CT)

   Maloney (NY)

   Manzullo

   Markey

   Mascara

   Matheson

   Matsui

   McCarthy (MO)

   McCarthy (NY)

   McCollum

   McCrery

   McGovern

   McHugh

   McInnis

   McIntyre

   McKeon

   McKinney

   McNulty

   Meehan

   Meek (FL)

   Meeks (NY)

   Menendez

   Mica

   Millender-McDonald

   Miller, Dan

   Miller, Gary

   Miller, George

   Miller, Jeff

   Mink

   Mollohan

   Moore

   Moran (KS)

   Moran (VA)

   Morella

   Murtha

   Myrick

   Nadler

   Napolitano

   Neal

   Nethercutt

   Ney

   Northup

   Nussle

   Oberstar

   Olver

   Ortiz

   Osborne

   Ose

   Otter

   Owens

   Oxley

   Pallone

   Pascrell

   Pastor

   Payne

   Pelosi

   Pence

   Peterson (MN)

   Peterson (PA)

   Petri

   Phelps

   Pickering

   Platts

   Pombo

   Pomeroy

   Portman

   Price (NC)

   Pryce (OH)

   Putnam

   Quinn

   Radanovich

   Rahall

   Ramstad

   Rangel

   Regula

   Rehberg

   Reyes

   Reynolds

   Rivers

   Rodriguez

   Roemer

   Rogers (KY)

   Rogers (MI)

   Rohrabacher

   Ros-Lehtinen

   Ross

   Rothman

   Roybal-Allard

   Rush

   Ryun (KS)

   Sabo

   Sanchez

   Sanders

   Sandlin

   Sawyer

   Saxton

   Schakowsky

   Schiff

   Schrock

   Scott

   Sensenbrenner

   Serrano

   Sessions

   Shadegg

   Shays

   Sherman

   Sherwood

   Shimkus

   Shows

   Shuster

   Simmons

   Simpson

   Skeen

   Skelton

   Smith (MI)

   Smith (NJ)

   Smith (TX)

   Smith (WA)

   Snyder

   Souder

   Spratt

   Stark

   Stearns

   Stenholm

   Strickland

   Stump

   Stupak

   Sununu

   Sweeney

   Tanner

   Tauscher

   Tauzin

   Taylor (MS)

   Taylor (NC)

   Terry

   Thomas

   Thompson (CA)

   Thompson (MS)

   Thornberry

   Thune

   Thurman

   Tiahrt

   Tiberi

   Tierney

   Toomey

   Towns

   Turner

   Udall (CO)

   Udall (NM)

   Upton

   Velazquez

   Visclosky

   Vitter

   Walden

   Walsh

   Wamp

   Watkins (OK)

   Watson (CA)

   Watt (NC)

   Watts (OK)

   Waxman

   Weiner

   Weldon (FL)

   Weldon (PA)

   Weller

   Wexler

   Wicker

   Wilson (NM)

   Wilson (SC)

   Wolf

   Woolsey

   Wu

   Wynn

   Young (AK)

   Young (FL)

   Akin

   Collins

   Duncan

   Flake

   Hefley

   Jones (NC)

   Kingston

   Norwood

   Paul

   Royce

   Schaffer

   Tancredo

   Blagojevich

   Bono

   Burton

   Capuano

   Cubin

   Frelinghuysen

   Hall (OH)

   Hastert

   Hilleary

   Jefferson

   Luther

   McDermott

   Obey

   Pitts

   Riley

   Roukema

   Ryan (WI)

   Shaw

   Slaughter

   Solis

   Traficant

   Waters

   Whitfield

[Time: 11:52]

   Messrs. AKIN, HEFLEY and NORWOOD changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''

   So the bill was passed.

   The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

   A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

   Stated for:

• [Begin Insert]

   Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 13 on February 7, 2002, the voting machine malfunctioned and did not record my vote. Had it registered my vote, I would have voted ``yea.''

• [End Insert]

END
Introduction of H. Con. Res. 321

3D) By Mr. MEEKS of New York:

H. Con. Res. 321. Concurrent resolution supporting the efforts of the United Nations to formulate a comprehensive convention on international terrorism and urging the President to continue work in cooperation with all interested members of the United Nations to formulate such a convention; to the Committee on International Relations.

[Top]