H.R. 4061 is being considered under suspension of the rules, requiring a two-thirds vote for passage. The legislation was introduced by Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) on November 7, 2009. The bill was approved by the Science and Technology Committee by voice vote in November 2009.

H.R. 4061 reauthorizes several National Science Foundation (NSF) programs that aim to enhance cybersecurity.  The bill would require agencies participating in the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development program (NITRD) to develop, update, and implement a plan to guide the direction of federal cybersecurity and information assurance research and development.  The bill also reauthorizes cybersecurity workforce and traineeship programs at the NSF including the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program and the Graduate Research Fellowship program.
 
H.R. 4061 requires the President to conduct an assessment of cybersecurity workforce needs across the federal government and authorizes NSF to carry out the Scholarship for Service program (which has never been authorized but has been funded previously).  The bill reauthorizes cybersecurity research at NSF and also reauthorizes the Trustworthy Computing program.
 
H.R. 4061 requires the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to convene a university-industry task force to find ways to carry out collaborative research and development on cybersecurity technology.  The bill requires the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop and implement a plan to include U.S. representation in the development of international cybersecurity technical standards.
 
Finally, the bill would require NIST to develop and implement a cybersecurity awareness and education program for the dissemination of user-friendly cybersecurity best practices and technical standards.

BACKGROUND

According to information provided by the Committee, the bill seeks to improve cybersecurity in the federal, private, and public sectors through coordination of federal cybersecurity research and development activities; strengthening of the cybersecurity workforce; coordination of U.S. representation in international cybersecurity technical standards development; and reauthorization of cybersecurity related programs at the NSF and the NIST.
 
Supporters of the bill site reports of cyber criminals and possibly nation-states accessing sensitive information as a reason for heightened concerns over the adequacy of cybersecurity measures.  For instance, in 2008, Rep. Smith (R-NJ) and Rep. Wolf (R-VA) reported their House computers being compromised by Chinese officials (for more on these incidents, see this news report).
 
Funding for cybersecurity research and development is approximately $350 million each year.  However, GAO testified in June, 2009 that the U.S. information technology infrastructure is vulnerable to attack and the federal agencies tasked with its protection are not fulfilling their responsibilities.
 
The NITRD program is chiefly responsible for coordinating unclassified cybersecurity research and development.  NSF’s budget of $127 million for FY 2010 makes it the principal agency supporting unclassified cybersecurity research and development and education.  NIST protects the federal information technology network by developing cybersecurity standards for federal non-classified network systems.
 
Regarding the U.S. involvement in international cybersecurity technical standards, the U.S. is currently represented by numerous organizations internationally, including the Department of State, Department of Commerce, Federal Communications Commission, and the United States Trade Representative.  However between them, there is no collective strategy. 
 
The Cyber Security Research and Development Act (P.L. 107-305) became public law in the 107th Congress.  The bill created new programs and expanded existing programs at NSF and NIST for computer and network security.  The authorizations established under the Cyber Security Research and Development Act expired in FY 2007.  This bill reauthorizes and increases the authorizations of many of those programs.

COST

Based on information from NSF and NIST and assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 4061 would cost $639 million over the 2010-2014 period and $320 million after 2014.  Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

According to CBO, the bill will likely cost $1 billion beginning in 2010 and going through 2014.

AMENDMENTS

1)    Reps. Hastings, Alcee (D-FL) and Rodriguez D-TX):  The amendment addresses minority representation in the cybersecurity industry (including women, African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans).  The amendment would require that institutions "engage" minorities in cybersecurity (providing information on how they are doing so), and would require the Cybersecurity University-Industry Task Force to include minority-serving institutions.

2)    Rep. Polis (D-CO):  The amendment would allow participants in the Federal Cyber Scholarship for Service program to seek internships, or other appointments, in the private sector, with the discretion of the Director.

3)    Rep. Flake (R-AZ):  The amendment would prohibit the earmarking of funds authorized for grants in the bill.

4)    Rep. Matheson (D-UT):  The amendment would require the National Science Foundation (NSF) to study ways to improve detection, investigation, and prosecution of cyber crimes including piracy of intellectual property, crimes against children, and organized crime.

5)    Rep. Roskam (R-IL):  The amendment would strengthen the involvement of community colleges in the development of a national cybersecurity strategy.

6)    Rep. Edwards, Donna (D-MD):  The amendment would require the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) to work with other federal, State, and private sector partners to develop a framework that States may follow in order to achieve effective cybersecurity practices in a timely and cost effective manner.

7)    Rep. Paulsen (R-MN):  The amendment would require the Cybersecurity Strategic Research and Development Plan to outline how the U.S. can work strategically with international partners.

8)    Rep. Dahlkemper (D-PA):  The amendment would add to the uses for the Computer and Network Security Capacity Building Grants collaboration between community colleges, universities, and Manufacturing Extension Partnership Centers.

9)    Rep. Garamendi (D-CA):  The amendment requires the Cybersecurity Awareness and Education program to provide regional workshops.

10)  Reps. McCarthy, Carolyn (D-NY) and Kratovil (D-MD):  The amendment would emphasize that cybersecurity awareness and education efforts focus on novice computer users, young and elderly populations, low-income populations, and populations in areas of planned broadband expansion or deployment.

11)  Rep. Smith, Adam (D-WA):  The amendment would add "job security clearance and suitability requirements" to the issues that are considered in the cybersecurity workforce assessment.

12)  Rep. Langevin (D-RI):  The amendment would direct the Cybersecurity Workforce Assessment to examine expanding temporary assignments of private sector cybersecurity professionals to federal agencies.

13)  Rep. Sanchez, Loretta (D-CA):  The amendment would allow access to realistic threats and vulnerabilities to academic researchers during their strategic planning, and would propose guidelines for the sharing of "lessons learned" from the private sector to the public sector.

14)  Rep. Cuellar (D-TX):  The amendment would require the Cybersecurity Strategic Research and Development plan to determine how to strengthen all levels of cybersecurity education and training programs to secure an adequate, well-trained workforce.

15)  Rep. Shea-Porter (D-NH):  The amendment extends the service obligation for recipients of cybersecurity scholarships or fellowships on a sliding scale depending on the degree program.

16)  Rep. Clarke (D-NY):  The amendment would include contractors in the cybersecurity workforce assessment.

17)  Rep. Bright (D-AL):  The amendment would require a National Academy of Sciences study on the role of community colleges in cybersecurity education.  The study would be required to identify best practices related to cybersecurity education between community colleges and four-year educational institutions.

18)  Rep. Connolly (D-VA):  The amendment requires that the promotion of cybersecurity education include "children and young adults" along with the other targeted audiences.

19)  Reps. Halvorson (D-IL) and Shea-Porter (D-NH):  The amendment would include veteran status as an additional item for consideration when selecting for the Federal Cyber Scholarships for Service grant.

20)  Rep. Kilroy (D-OH):  The amendment would require the Federal Cyber Scholarship for Service program to include outreach activities to improve the recruitment of high school and community college students into cybersecurity-related fields.

21)  Rep. Kissell (D-NC):  The amendment would require the NSF Director to include language in its Computer and Network Security Capacity Building Grants mission statement highlighting importance of curriculum on the principles and techniques of designing secure software.

22)  Rep. Kratovil (D-MD):  The amendment would require the Director of the NSF to establish a National Center of Excellence for Cybersecurity as part of the Networking and Information Technology and Research Development Program.

23)  Rep. Nye (D-VA):  The amendment requires the Comptroller General to submit a report examining weaknesses within the current cybersecurity infrastructure.

24)  Rep. Owens (D-NY):  The amendment would require the Cybersecurity Strategic Research and Development plan to include a component on technologies to secure sensitive information shared among Federal agencies.

25)  Rep. Heinrich (D-NM):  The amendment would allow national laboratories to be included as stakeholders in the Cybersecurity Strategic Research and Development Plan.

The House is scheduled to consider H.J. Res. 45, on Thursday, February 4, 2010, under a rule.  The rule provides that the first title of the bill (the debt limit increase) would be considered adopted and agreed to by the House with passage of the rule.  If the rule is passed, an additional vote would be held on the second title of the bill (statutory PAYGO). The rule also provides that if the House does not agree to the second title, then the first title is considered to have failed as well.  H. J. Res. 45 was introduced on April 30, 2009.  On January 28, 2010, the legislation was passed in the Senate, with an amendment, by a vote of 60-39.

Debt Limit Increase Summary

H.J. Res. 45 would increase the current statutory debt limit by $1.9 trillion, from $12.394 trillion to $14.294 trillion.  The 15.3 percent increase would be the third raise since February, 2009, and the largest amount of a one-time debt limit increase in history.

The national debt subject to the statutory limit is currently at $12.36 trillion or 85 percent of Gross Domestic Product.  The current share of the debt is $40,053 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.  According to reports, the $1.9 trillion increase would allow Democrats to keep spending and borrowing until after November, avoiding another politically difficult vote on the debt until after the Election Day.

 

Statutory "PAYGO" Summary

The legislation also includes a Senate amendment that would institute new, permanent statutory pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting requirements for both the House and Senate, with a number of exceptions.  In general, the PAYGO rule would require that bills providing tax relief or new direct spending must be offset by tax increases or mandatory spending reductions.

PAYGO Estimates:  Under the bill, the Chairman of the appropriate House or Senate budget committees (depending on where the bill originates) would establish an estimate of the direct spending effects of a bill prior to its consideration.  The estimate would be requested by the Chairman from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the estimate must be prepared using the CBO baseline.  In the case of a conference report, the Chairmen of the House and Senate Budget Committees would jointly submit an estimate.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would also be required to maintain two PAYGO scorecards displaying the budgetary effects of PAYGO legislation.  If legislation affecting direct spending did not include an estimate from the appropriate Budget Committee chair, the OMB score would be used.

In determining the budgetary effects of legislation, OMB would be required to determine the total effect over five and ten year periods (including the current budget year) and divide the total cost by five or ten years, depending on the applicable scorecard.  The average cost per year would then be applied to each year on the scorecard.  Using this average cost scoring method, legislation that has high estimated costs in the early years with revenue increases in later years could be averaged to lower the apparent cost each year.

Sequestration:  H.J. Res. 45 would require OMB to publish a PAYGO report each year, within 14 days after Congress adjourns.  If the annual report shows a deficit on either PAYGO scorecard for the budget year, OMB and the President would be required to issue a sequestration order that would reduce nonexempt mandatory spending by an amount equal to that year's deficit.  If both scorecards show a different deficit, OMB would be required to offset the larger of the two deficits.

In carrying out a sequestration order, OMB would be required to reduce nonexempt mandatory spending by a uniform percentage.  However, over 150 mandatory programs are exempt from sequestration under the legislation.  According to CBO's analysis of similar legislation, "the threat of sequestration would apply only to relatively modest amounts of mandatory spending because the vast majority of such spending would be exempt from that enforcement (as was the case under the BEA's PAYGO framework).  As a result, any feasible sequestration would not generate enough reductions in spending to offset the costs of major new spending or revenue initiatives."

Baseline Adjustments for Current Policies:  The legislation exempts certain direct spending increases and tax relief from PAYGO rules as follows:

• Legislation to prevent cuts in physician payments under the Medicare's Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) trigger (the "doc fix").
• Provisions to extend the death tax at 2009 levels ($3.5 million exemption and a 45 percent tax rate) for two years, through December 31, 2011.
• Measures to extend the patch for the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) through December 31, 2011.
• Extensions of 2001 and 2003 tax relief for individuals making less than $200,000 or $250,000 for joint filers through December 31, 2011.  This includes 12 specific tax relief extensions, including the 10 percent tax bracket and marriage penalty relief.  This PAYGO exemption would only apply through December 31, 2011.  If these provisions were allowed to expire thereafter it would be another violation of the President's pledge not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000.

Exemptions:  In addition to the mandatory spending programs exempted from sequestration and the exceptions made for adjustments in current baseline, the bill would not affect the following spending:

Emergency Legislation:  Mandatory spending provisions designated as emergency legislation would not be scored as having a budgetary effect for the purpose of PAYGO enforcement.

Discretionary Spending:  The bill exempts discretionary spending-approximately 40 percent of federal spending-from being subject to PAYGO budget neutrality requirements.

BACKGROUND

Debt Limit Increase Background

The statutory national debt limit sets the legal ceiling for how much money the federal government may borrow.  The national debt combines both the total debt held by the public (money owed to U.S. debt holders) and intergovernmental holdings (debt held by the U.S. government in certain trust funds).  According to the Department of Treasury, the current national debt is $12.360 trillion, or approximately $34 billion away from reaching the existing debt ceiling.  According to press reports, the debt limit has to be raised again before March, 2010, in order to keep borrowing at the current rate.

On Thursday, January 28, 2009, the Senate passed a $1.9 trillion or 15.3 percent debt increase by a vote of 60-39, raising the statutory limit to $14.294 trillion without any Republican support.  Prior to that,  Democrats raised the debt limit from $11.315 trillion to $12.104 when they passed the so-called "stimulus" bill almost one year ago, then raised the debt limit again in December 2009 by $290 billion, from $12.104 trillion to $12.394 trillion.  When the Democrats enacted the debt increase in February 2009, they promised that borrowing another trillion dollars would create jobs "immediately" and unemployment would not rise above 8 percent.  However, there were still 85,000 job losses last month and unemployment reached 10 percent.  Over the next ten years, annual deficits average $917 billion every year under the President's budget.

 

Statutory "PAYGO" Background

Congress first instituted statutory pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) legislation in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (BEA).  The legislation instituted a statutory PAYGO requirement for new mandatory spending and set limits on certain discretionary spending.  Under the law, the President was required to enforce the PAYGO requirements through sequestration, reducing nonexempt mandatory spending.  The statutory PAYGO restrictions under the BEA expired in 2002.

In 2007, the newly elected Democrat Majority enacted their own version of PAYGO restrictions through House rules, which could be, and often were, waived.  At the time, Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that, "After years of historic deficits, this new Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new deficit spending.  Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."  However, since that time the Democrat Majority has presided over the most unprecedented spending spree in our nation's history.  Since the Democrat takeover, the national debt has risen by 42 percent from $8.67 trillion in January 2007, to $12.36 trillion in today.  Over the same period, the nation's deficit has exploded by more than ten-fold, from $162 billion in FY 2007 under the Republican's last budget, to an estimated $1.6 trillion in FY 2010.  Rather than reduce deficit spending, Democrats have raised taxes, used loopholes to get around their own PAYGO rules, or simply waived the rule to pass numerous bills.

On July 22, 2009, the House passed similar legislation (H.R. 2920) by a vote of 265-166.  That legislation, however, did not include an increase in the statutory debt limit and was never considered in the Senate.

COST

A CBO score for H.J. Res. 45 was not yet available as of press time. However, a CBO analysis of similar House legislation to establish a statutory PAYGO requirement (H.R. 2920) stated, "CBO estimates that enacting the July 21, 2009, substitute should not be scored with any effects on mandatory spending or revenues because it would not change baseline projections."

In addition, the legislation would increase the maximum amount of statutory debt by $1.9 trillion.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

While strongly supporting fiscal responsibility and reducing federal spending, many Members recognize that Democrat's PAYGO gimmicks have done nothing to curb runaway mandatory spending or reduce deficits and debt.  Rather, the Democrats' PAYGO has only been used as guise to increase taxes in the name of fiscal discipline.  Members have expressed various concerns since the Democrats took control in 2007 and promised "no more deficit spending."   Many Members believe that the Democrats' PAYGO standards have failed and done nothing to curb spending or control the deficit.  Concerns Members may have with the Democrats PAYGO include its numerous loopholes, inability to address increased appropriated spending, and tendency to encourage increased taxes.