Hat Tip to Boehner on Obama, Immigration

Posted on January 14, 2015January 14, 2015 by Denise Simon

‘Enough is enough!’: Boehner fills House chamber with high drama as he lashes out against Obama in high-stakes immigration battle – and throws his own words back in his face

John Boehner created the first live-action high drama on the House floor Wednesday, staking out a no-compromise position on blocking Barack Obama’s sweeping immigration plan and reading aloud 22 examples of the president’s past claims that he lacked the authority to put it into action.

Obama outlined the plan on Nov. 20, promising to mainstream 5 million or more illegal immigrants by guaranteeing – without input from Congress – that they won’t be deported during his time in office.

Angering Democrats, the House speaker spoke during a floor debate to defend an amendment to the Homeland Security Department’s budget bill that would forbid the cabinet agency from spending any money to implement it.

Boehner openly mocked Obama for what he said was an effort to evade the U.S. Constitution, throwing in his face his past claims that he wasn’t a ‘king’ or an ’emperor.’

The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to control America’s immigration policies.

IN YOUR FACE: Boehner took Obama to the woodshed on Wednesday over immigration, reading aloud nearly two dozen Obama quotations that indicate the White House can’t act unilaterally

NO COMPROMISE: Boehner didn’t buy what the president was selling on Tuesday during a high-stakes White House meeting with all of Congress’s top leaders

”To think that the president of the United States studied constitutional law!’ he boomed. ‘He didn’t just learn constitutional law. He taught it himself.’

‘Enough is enough!’

The move came less than 24 hours after Boehner and other Capitol Hill leaders met with Obama in the White House to air their differences over legislation that would likely make up the bulk of congressional business for in the coming months.

On Wednesday, Boehner was in no mood to compromise.

Obama’s unilateral move, he said, is an ‘executive overreach … an affront to the rule of law and to the Constitution itself.’

‘What we are dealing with here is a president who has ignored the people, ignored the Constitution, and even his own past statements,’ he said.

‘In fact, on at least 22 occasions he has said he does not have the authority to do what he did.’

And then Boehner read them. The video is here and don’t miss it.

Obama, he recalled, told an El Paso, Texas audience in May 2011 that immigrants’-rights activists ‘wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works.’

The president also insisted in an October 2010 interview with the Spanish-language Univision TV network that ‘I am president; I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. … I can’t just make the laws up by myself.’

In an online Q-and-A session held in September 2011, Obama told viewers: ‘We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.’

He doubled down in a February 2013 Google+ ‘hangout’ video livestream, saying he was limited in his authority because ‘I’m the president of the United States; I’m not the emperor of the United States.’

Democrats demanded a roll-call vote on the amendment following Boehner’s litany, after hammering Republicans for being ‘anti-immigrant’ and ‘heartless.’

The amendment passed by a vote of 237 to 190.

Another amendment aimed at ending the president’s ‘Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals’ (DACA) program also passed, 218-209.

DACA is a 2012 program that gives sanctuary to illegal immigrants who weer brought to the U.S> as children.

The overall DHS funding bill also passed, by a 236-191 margin.

Matt Wolking, a communications advisor to the speaker, told DailyMail.com that Obama has ‘said over and over that he did not have the authority to do what he eventually did. So his unilateral action sets a very troubling precedent, and not just on immigration. That’s what the Speaker wanted to drive home.’

But New York Democrat Carolyn Maloney insisted that the ‘Take Care clause’ in the Constitution – which demands that the president ‘shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ – gives Obama the power to decide which illegal immigrants are deported and which are allowed to stay.

She accused the GOP of ‘play[ing] politics with the security and safety of America.’

Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee went further, calling the Republican amendment ‘a full-force assault on immigrants’ and described it as ‘Homeland Security being held hostage.’

‘A FULL-FORCE ASSAULT ON IMMIGRANTS’: Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee slammed the GOP’s plan, arguing that they were trying to hold the Homeland Security budget ‘hostage

SHOWDOWN: Boehner and House Republicans aim to force Obama into a take-it-or-leave-it veto position on the Homeland Security Department’s budget for the rest of the year

The tension will reach its climax in coming weeks when a Homeland Security budget reaches Obama’s desk.

The White House has a veto of any plan that hamstrings him on immigration, and most Democrats will support him.

That sets up the possibility of a Homeland Security ‘shutdown’ after its funding runs out on February 27.

Democrats claim a shutdown would jeopardize national security in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in France, an attack for which al-Qaeda in Yemen claimed responsibility on Wednesday.

But if the last partial shutdown is any indication, critical agencies and services wouldn’t be affected.

The budget bill, including the amendment, still has to go through the U.S. Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has promised the new Democratic minority that they will be permitted to propose their own amendments.

Any differences between the resulting House and Senate bills will have to be ironed out in a conference committee – a uniquely American device that puts leaders from both parties and both houses in the same room to resolve them.

Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder’s Replacement?

Posted on January 13, 2015January 13, 2015 by Denise Simon

Nothing is needed more than to replace the activist U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. But be careful what you ask for. Loretta Lynch has been visiting the halls of Congress for the normal pre-confirmation hearing interviews and there are some in Congress that are already voicing concerns. Those concerns have cause.

On the heels of the death of Eric Garners in New York after his arrest by the New York Police Department, Lynch visited the Garner family to discuss the federal prosecution. Additionally of note, it was Lynch’s office that indicted Congressman Michael Grimm of Staten Island over an IRS matter, when other congressmen such as Charlie Rangel got a pass.

So when it comes to the hearing for her confirmation, the questions posed to Lynch will be carefully crafted to determine her approach to enforcing the law will be a departure from that of Eric Holder’s. Here is a clue as to the reasons for concern.

Eric Holder’s Replacement
A Senate Judiciary Committee member says she may be even worse.

By Ryan Lovelace

David Vitter believes that Loretta Lynch, President Obama’s attorney-general nominee, might be even more dangerous than Eric Holder, the man she will replace if confirmed. The Louisiana senator met privately with Lynch this week in his capacity as a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He tells NRO that Lynch, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, is quieter and more restrained than Holder, which he worries will deflect attention from some of the Justice Department’s more outrageous actions and policies.

Vitter’s warning about Lynch should not be taken lightly. While he previously said that Holder has directly attacked his state more than any other attorney general has, Vitter thinks Lynch may pose an even greater threat. In their extensive one-on-one meeting, Vitter says, Lynch would not answer several of his questions about her position on the president’s executive action on immigration. His Republican colleagues have refrained from raising questions about her nomination, which has puzzled him, given the intense debate the executive action is inspiring in the Capitol. “I mean, she would say nothing; if I asked her if the sky was blue, I don’t think she would have committed to it in the meeting,” Vitter says. “I found her responses in the conversation about executive amnesty not just frustrating . . . but sort of unbelievable.”

Vitter says that when he asked Lynch directly about her legal assessment of the president’s executive action, she made a vague statement suggesting that Obama was within his legal rights when he exercised prosecutorial discretion to defer or delay the deportation of millions of illegal immigrants. But when Vitter pressed her about the legality of producing new documents and work permits to satisfy the action, which he says has no basis in law, she clammed up.

Conservative watchdogs have also recognized Lynch’s potential to maintain or expand many of the most troubling policies begun under Holder. Peter Flaherty, president of the National Legal and Policy Center, says that while Republicans should be slow to confirm any of President Obama’s nominees so long as he persists with executive action on immigration, Lynch is a particularly ill-chosen candidate. “What’s not realized is that Lynch is kind of Eric Holder’s hand-picked successor,” Flaherty tells NRO. “I expect her to be an activist just like Holder.” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, agrees and says Lynch’s time as an adviser to Holder has shown that she does not think he has done anything wrong. “I think she will be an Eric Holder mini-me,” von Spakovsky says. “They don’t need another Eric Holder clone running the Justice Department.”

With that in mind, conservatives in the Senate will look to use Lynch’s confirmation hearing as leverage to fight the president’s executive action on immigration. But Vitter says he’s not sure how many Republicans on the Judiciary Committee will support his effort to block Lynch’s nomination. He gets the sense that opposition to the president’s executive action is waning among his Republican colleagues as a result of pressure from the party’s leaders, and he’s none too pleased about it. “I think it’s really stupid, quite frankly, and being particularly gutless when you look at the American people’s position on this,” Vitter says. “It’s an important place to take a stand because this is a key nomination in the middle of this issue.”

Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley is sympathetic to Vitter’s desire to quash the executive action on immigration, but he may not agree with his method. Grassley spokeswoman Beth Levine says the senator had a pleasant conversation with Lynch when the two met last month, and he’s reserving judgment until Lynch has the opportunity to come before the committee.

Republicans’ chances of blocking Lynch’s confirmation will depend upon her performance before the Judiciary Committee. “You’ve got to get her to say something absolutely outrageous during the hearings, because most people don’t follow this stuff that closely,” GOP strategist Ford O’Connell tells NRO. “You cannot just go in there and go, ‘I can’t stand you, the Obama administration stinks.’” O’Connell says that if Republicans appear to be picking on an African-American woman and using her confirmation hearing to voice their grievances with the Obama administration, then public opinion could quickly turn against them. He adds that he thinks Republicans will ultimately cut a deal with the White House and confirm her. Republicans should use Lynch’s confirmation hearing, he suggests, to fight the executive action, since they probably won’t be able to extract much from the White House in return for approving her nomination.

Vitter, who is running to replace Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal later this year, is champing at the bit to oppose Lynch’s nomination. He says he has proposed blocking the nomination partly as an alternative to fighting over whether to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security, which is largely responsible for the implementation of the president’s executive action. DHS funding is scheduled to run out at the end of February, after a deal cut in December excluded the department from longer-term appropriations that fund the rest of the federal government. Vitter says he still supports legislation to withhold funding for the president’s executive action, but he thinks many of his Republican colleagues are “scared to death” of even talking about defunding any portion of the federal government.

Alabama senator Jeff Sessions, another tireless opponent of the president’s executive action on the Judiciary Committee, is a likely ally in Vitter’s effort to block Lynch’s nomination. “No senator should vote to confirm anyone to this position who does not firmly reject the president’s planned executive amnesty — or any other scheme to circumvent our nation’s immigration laws — and who does not pledge to serve the laws and people of the United States,” Sessions told Breitbart in September. Republican Judiciary Committee members Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have pledged to give Lynch a fair hearing, but have also said she must answer questions about whether or not the president’s executive action was constitutional and legal.

Lynch did not answer requests for comment made to her U.S. Attorney’s office in New York. Grassley’s spokeswoman says the chairman is planning on scheduling the hearing for the end of this month or early February. Lynch’s confirmation will be the first key battleground over executive action for the Republican-led Senate, which rode to victory in November partly on the strength of their opposition to amnesty. Republican senators’ approach to Lynch’s hearing could determine whether they have any chance of slowing the president’s executive action, which makes their relative silence on her nomination all the more deafening.

More U.S. Paid Fraud and Collusion in Afghanistan

Posted on January 13, 2015January 13, 2015 by Denise Simon

If you still think the government does anything right, then read on and learn. What is worse, paying for something or rather in this issue paying for someone(s) that don’t even exist is actually worse. Don’t fret though it is all the way over there, Afghanistan. Just consider, well spent money being provided to wounded U.S. soliders in Afghanistan rather than for a staff that does not exist.

U.S. Official: America Paying Salaries of Afghan Cops That Don’t Exist

Scant oversight over payments to Afghan Police causes alarmThe United States continues to pay more than $300 million annually to the Afghan National Police (ANP), and some of that money is going to officers who do not actually exist, according to government officials who warn that fraud and a lack of oversight are causing U.S. taxpayer dollars to be wasted on the force.

The United States continues to pay the salaries of ANP officers despite a lack of supervision over the funds and the fact that fraud is rampant among the force, according to a new report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR).

A U.S. government official familiar with the issue further confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon that American tax dollars are in fact being paid to Afghan police officers who do not actually exist.

The ongoing payments have led SIGAR to warn that “despite 13 years and several billions of dollars in salary assistance to the Afghan government for the ANP, there is still no assurance that personnel and payroll data are accurate,” according to its audit.

U.S. officials have confirmed to SIGAR that despite evidence of fraud and mismanagement “they accepted, without question,” all personnel totals offered by Afghanistan’s Ministry of Interior (MOI), which is not subject to independent oversight by the United States.

Over the years, officials have discovered inflated police rosters listing more officers for payments than actually work for the force, payments being made to “more police personnel than are authorized,” and some officers receiving inflated salaries, according to SIGAR.

The problems have only grown in recent years and, if not fixed, could become more of an issue for the United States as it fully withdraws from Afghanistan, according to SIGAR’s report, which details widespread problems in the way the Afghan and U.S. governments track the ANP and assign salaries.

“There is a significant risk that a large portion of the more than $300 million in annual U.S. government funding for ANP salaries will be wasted or abused,” SIGAR warned.

“As U.S. and coalition forces continue to draw down and transfer security responsibility to the Afghan government by the end of 2014, the U.S. government will have increasingly limited visibility over ANP data collection processes,” SIGAR wrote. “As a result, the U.S. government will become even more reliant on the [Afghan Interior Ministry’s] ability to verify the accuracy of the personnel and payroll data it collects.”

ANP identification cards, which were created to avoid this exact type of fraud, are being abused, according to SIGAR, which reported that there are “almost twice as many” of these cards in circulation as there are active police officers.

Other mechanisms meant to track the number of ANP personnel also have failed. These include integrated computer systems that are supposed to accurately identify police officers.

“Although all entities involved—the U.S. and Afghan governments as well as the international community—have been working to develop effective ANP personnel and payroll processes, those processes continue to exhibit extensive internal control deficiencies,” the audit states.

“The ANP’s process for collecting attendance data, which forms the basis of all ANP personnel and payroll data, has weak controls and limited oversight,” SIGAR concluded. “Both systems contain thousands of personnel records with incorrect or missing identification numbers.”

Russia Increasing Destruction Capabilities

Posted on January 13, 2015January 13, 2015 by Denise Simon

Russia to step up combat capabilities in Crimea (Reuters) – Russia‘s top general said on Tuesday he would beef up combat capabilities this year in Crimea, the Arctic and the country’s westernmost Kaliningrad region that borders two NATO states.

The remarks by General Valery Gerasimov, chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, are likely to deepen concern in the West over what it sees as Russia increasingly flexing its muscles since the start of the crisis in Ukraine.

NATO’s top military commander, General Philip Breedlove, said the alliance was already looking at stepping up exercises in the Baltic Sea region in response to a rise in Russian military manoeuvres there late last year.

“In 2015, the Defence Ministry will focus its efforts on increasing the combat capabilities of its units and increasing combat strength in accordance with the military development plans,” Gerasimov told Russian journalists.

“Special attention will be given to the groups in Crimea, the Kaliningrad region and the Arctic,” he was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies but gave no further details.

His remarks follow the adoption of a new military doctrine signed by President Vladimir Putin in December which underlines the need to protect Russia’s interests in the Arctic and identifies NATO expansion as an external risk.

Any military build-up on NATO’s doorstep in Kaliningrad, an exclave bordering Poland and Lithuania, would worry the Western alliance, while the Arctic’s mineral riches and energy reserves ensure that territory there is contested by several nations.

Russia deployed 14 military jets to Crimea last November as part of a squadron of 30 that will be stationed there, making clear it intends to strengthen its presence on the peninsula since annexing it from Kiev last March.

Breedlove warned at the time that Russia’s “militarization” of Crimea could be used to exert control over the Black Sea.

He said on Tuesday NATO was considering adapting a programme of military exercises in the Baltic Sea region, where he said Russian activities had changed in character and showed capabilities not seen before.

“The first series of changes will not be an increase in number but they will be to group them together … to better prepare our forces and to allow nations to work together as a NATO force, but we are looking at increasing some exercises,” he said at a NATO base at Szczecin in northwest Poland.

NATO has boosted its military presence in eastern Europe, saying it has evidence Russia orchestrated and armed the rebellion in eastern Ukraine last year that followed the overthrow of a Kremlin-backed president in Kiev.

Putin says Russia poses no threat to anyone and denies Russia has sent troops or weapons to back the separatists. *** Beyond the usual sources of influence in Ukraine, George Soros continues to take an active role. Yet it gets much worse as civilians have died in shelling operations.

Pro-Russian separatists unleashed a series of bomb attacks Tuesday in eastern Ukraine, leveling a key airport in Donetsk, killing 12 in an attack on a passenger bus and almost certainly dooming a short-lived cease-fire, according to reports.

A senior State Department official confirmed to Fox News that the separatists destroyed the government-held airport in eastern Ukraine Tuesday afternoon.

The facility has been “flattened” and the air control tower was “decimated,” the official said. “They are now fighting over rubble.”

Maria Ivanovna, a local retiree, told The Associated Press she has become desensitized to the blasts and drew an arc with her arm to show how shells fly over her home toward the airport.

“We will survive the same way we did after World War II. Ration cards for bread; 11 ounces for children; 800 grams for factory workers and 1,200 grams for miners,” she said.

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said on Tuesday the bus attack was “egregious” and blamed Russia for helping to arm the separatists.

“We again call on Russia to fulfill its commitment under the Minsk Agreement, which includes ceasing its substantial military support to the separatists, restoring Ukrainian sovereignty over the international border between Ukraine and Russia, releasing all hostages, and working toward the peaceful resolution of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine,” Harf said.

Across Donetsk, the city that Russian-backed separatists call their capital, explosions and the sound of shells whistling overhead are again unnerving the local population. The holiday period was spent in relative tranquility after a new truce was called in December between government troops and Russian-backed militia. But by late last week, that uneasy calm was steadily unraveling.

In the single largest loss of life so far this year, civilians traveling on a commuter bus from Donetsk were killed Tuesday afternoon by what Ukrainians say were rockets fired from a Grad launcher in rebel territory. Regional authorities loyal to Kiev said the bus was passing a Ukrainian Army checkpoint at the time, putting it in the line of fire.

Leading rebel representative Denis Pushilin denied responsibility for the attack.

The warring sides are now trading accusations over who is responsible for the breakdown in the truce that led to Tuesday’s deaths.

Military spokesman Andriy Lysenko said that separatist attacks in recent days suggest an attempted onslaught to push back the frontline is under way. Separatist leader Alexander Zakharchenko says Ukraine’s armed forces unilaterally resumed hostilities and that his fighters would respond in kind.

An AP reporter over the weekend saw a convoy of around 30 military-style trucks without license plates heading for Donetsk, suggesting that new supplies were coming in for the rebels.

NATO’s top commander, Gen. Philip Breedlove, said Tuesday that there has been a continued resupply and training of rebel forces over the holiday period.

“Those continue to provide a concern and something that we have to be thinking about,” Breedlove said.

Ukraine and the West have routinely accused Russia of being behind such consignments. Moscow flatly rejects the charges, although rebel forces are so well-equipped with powerful arms that the denials have become increasingly hollow.

In the rebel-held Donetsk suburb of Makiivka, the thrash of outgoing mortars shakes still-inhabited neighborhoods on a daily basis. Separatists have consistently denied using residential areas for cover, but there are ample witness accounts undermining those claims.

Ukrainian responses to artillery lobbed out of Donetsk are woefully inaccurate and regularly hit houses and apartment blocks, often killing people inside. The separatist military headquarters in Donetsk said Tuesday that 12 people had been killed and another 30 injured in the preceding three-day period. It did not specify who had been killed.

There is little sign of life in Makiivka these days. People rush home from work or aid distribution points and occasionally come out of shelters to exchange information about where shells are landing.

A senior U.N. human rights official said this week that developments look poised to go in one of three directions — a frozen conflict, an escalation in violence or an evolution to sustainable peace.

“In case of frozen conflict, we will more or less continue to be seeing [the same] human rights violations that we have been facing so far,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. “But in case of escalation of hostilities, which is quite possible, we could also be seeing further internationalization of the conflict and far more human rights violations and suffering.”

The grimmest of outcomes appears most likely.

A hoped-for round of peace negotiations this week between the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France has been put on ice — possibly indefinitely.

Ukrainian military authorities talk like they are bracing for the long-haul and Tuesday laid out plans for a new round of mobilization.

Volodymyr Talalai, deputy head of the army’s mobilization planning, said recruits will be drawn from all regions of the country. He gave no figure for how many people will be mobilized, but said that the primary aim of the upcoming drive is to enable the rotation of forces.

Unremitting violence is radicalizing the mood. One resident of Donetsk’s Petrovsky neighborhood — one of the most intensely bombed — said she took up arms and joined the separatist army after a rocket hit a home in her neighborhood.

“A Grad landed … and people were killed and blown to bits,” she said, giving her name only as Vera. “How were we supposed to react? We are out here defending ourselves.”

Wearing a balaclava and cradling an automatic rifle, Vera said her 19-year-old son too wanted to sign up, but that she refused to let him.

“I told them I would rather go myself than let my child do it,” she said.

Obama’s Proposed Cyber Legislation

Posted on January 13, 2015January 13, 2015 by Denise Simon

Be careful where this proposed legislation may lead. In the recent hack attacks that have been broadcasted in the media including Staples, Target and Sony, most recently CENTCOM had two social media sites hit. The hackers of the CENTCOM sites were not Islamic State but rather, sympathizers of the terror group located in Maryland as determined by the IP addresses.

Additional items are likely to be part of the proposed legislation that included in the text below giving broader and more sweeping access to the FBI and the NSA.

In order to add protectional layers of security to key internet providers, it is likely users may be forced to give up certain protections most especially encryption. The White House posted the proposed legislation.

SECURING CYBERSPACE – President Obama Announces New Cybersecurity Legislative Proposal and Other Cybersecurity Efforts

“In this interconnected, digital world, there are going to be opportunities for hackers to engage in cyber assaults both in the private sector and the public sector. Now, our first order of business is making sure that we do everything to harden sites and prevent those kinds of attacks from taking place…But even as we get better, the hackers are going to get better, too. Some of them are going to be state actors; some of them are going to be non-state actors. All of them are going to be sophisticated and many of them can do some damage.

This is part of the reason why it’s going to be so important for Congress to work with us and get an actual bill passed that allows for the kind of information-sharing we need. Because if we don’t put in place the kind of architecture that can prevent these attacks from taking place, this is not just going to be affecting movies, this is going to be affecting our entire economy in ways that are extraordinarily significant.”

– President Obama, December 19, 2014.

Since the start of his Administration, when he issued the Cyberspace Policy Review — the first top-to-bottom, Administration-wide review of cybersecurity — President Obama has led efforts to better prepare our government, our economy, and our nation as a whole for the growing cyber threats we face.

That’s why in 2011 he issued his Cybersecurity Legislative Proposal, calling on Congress to take urgent action to give the private sector and government the tools they need to combat cyber threats at home and abroad. It’s why he issued the International Strategy for Cyberspace to make clear to nations abroad the foreign policy priority cybersecurity issues have become. And when Congress failed to pass comprehensive cybersecurity legislation, the Administration pressed forward, issuing an Executive Order to protect critical infrastructure by establishing baseline cybersecurity standards that we developed collaboratively with industry.

Today, at a time when public and private networks are facing an unprecedented threat from rogue hackers as well as organized crime and even state actors, the President is unveiling the next steps in his plan to defend the nation’s systems. These include a new legislative proposal, building on important work in Congress, to solve the challenges of information sharing that can cripple response to a cyberattack. They also include revisions to those provisions of our 2011 legislative proposal on which Congress has yet to take action, and along with them, the President is extending an invitation to work in a bipartisan, bicameral manner to advance this urgent priority for the American people.

Specifically, today’s announcements include:

Cybersecurity Legislative Proposal

Enabling Cybersecurity Information Sharing: The Administration’s updated proposal promotes better cybersecurity information sharing between the private sector and government, and it enhances collaboration and information sharing amongst the private sector. Specifically, the proposal encourages the private sector to share appropriate cyber threat information with the Department of Homeland Security’s National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), which will then share it in as close to real-time as practicable with relevant federal agencies and with private sector-developed and operated Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations (ISAOs) by providing targeted liability protection for companies that share information with these entities.

The legislation also encourages the formation of these private-sector led Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations. The Administration’s proposal would also safeguard Americans’ personal privacy by requiring private entities to comply with certain privacy restrictions such as removing unnecessary personal information and taking measures to protect any personal information that must be shared in order to qualify for liability protection. The proposal further requires the Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, in consultation with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and others, to develop receipt, retention, use, and disclosure guidelines for the federal government. Finally, the Administration intends this proposal to complement and not to limit existing effective relationships between government and the private sector. These existing relationships between law enforcement and other federal agencies are critical to the cybersecurity mission.

Modernizing Law Enforcement Authorities to Combat Cyber Crime: Law enforcement must have appropriate tools to investigate, disrupt and prosecute cyber crime. The Administration’s proposal contains provisions that would allow for the prosecution of the sale of botnets, would criminalize the overseas sale of stolen U.S. financial information like credit card and bank account numbers, would expand federal law enforcement authority to deter the sale of spyware used to stalk or commit ID theft, and would give courts the authority to shut down botnets engaged in distributed denial of service attacks and other criminal activity. It also reaffirms important components of 2011 proposals to update the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a key piece of law used to prosecute organized crime, so that it applies to cybercrimes, clarifies the penalties for computer crimes, and makes sure these penalties are in line with other similar non-cyber crimes. Finally, the proposal modernizes the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by ensuring that insignificant conduct does not fall within the scope of the statute, while making clear that it can be used to prosecute insiders who abuse their ability to access information to use it for their own purposes.

National Data Breach Reporting: As announced yesterday, the Administration has also updated its proposal on security breach reporting. State laws have helped consumers protect themselves against identity theft while also encouraging business to improve cybersecurity, helping to stem the tide of identity theft. These laws require businesses that have suffered an intrusion to notify consumers if consumers’ personal information has been compromised. The Administration’s updated proposal helps business and consumers by simplifying and standardizing the existing patchwork of 46 state laws (plus the District of Columbia and several territories) that contain these requirements into one federal statute, and puts in place a single clear and timely notice requirement to ensure that companies notify their employees and customers about security breaches.

White House Summit on Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection

On February 13, 2015, the White House will host a Summit on Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection at Stanford University, to help shape public and private sector efforts to protect American consumers and companies from growing threats to consumers and commercial networks.

The Summit will bring together major stakeholders on cybersecurity and consumer financial protection issues – including senior leaders from the White House and across the federal government; CEOs from a wide range of industries including the financial services industry, technology and communications companies; computer security companies and the retail industry; as well as law enforcement officials, consumer advocates, technical experts, and students. Topics at the Summit will include increasing public-private partnerships and cybersecurity information sharing, creating and promoting improved cybersecurity practices and technologies, and improving adoption and use of more secure payment technologies.

The Summit is also the next step in the President’s BuySecure Initiative, which was launched in November 2014, and will help advance national efforts the government has led over the last two years with executive orders on consumer financial protection and critical infrastructure cybersecurity. Through keynote speeches, panel discussions, and small group workshops, participants will build on efforts in the public and private sectors to further improve cybersecurity practices at a wide range of companies.

Grants to Historically Black Colleges for Cybersecurity Education

As the President stated in Executive Order 13532, “Promoting Excellence, Innovation, and Sustainability at Historically Black Colleges and Universities” in February 2010, historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) have made historic and ongoing contributions to the general welfare and prosperity of our country. Established by visionary leaders, America’s HBCUs, for over 150 years, have produced many of the Nation’s leaders in business, government, academia, and the military, and have provided generations of American men and women with hope and educational opportunity. Recognizing that HBCUs serve as engines of opportunity, innovation, and economic growth, Vice President Biden will travel to Norfolk, VA on Thursday to announce that the Department of Energy will provide $25 million in grants over the next five years to support a cybersecurity education consortium consisting of 13 HBCUs and two national labs.

This program, part of the President’s jobs-driven training initiative, will help to fill the growing demand for skilled cybersecurity professionals in the U.S. job market at the same time that it helps to grow the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curricula for HBCUs. The participating schools include two-year colleges, four-year colleges, and research institutions in seven states, plus the Virgin Islands.