Republicans are confident Democrat Dutch Ruppersberger can help ensure support. War over CISPA

The White House brandished the president's veto pen Wednesday in an escalating fight with House Republicans — and a leading Democrat — over how best to protect the nation from cyberattacks.

In a bid to tamp down Democratic support for a House Republican cybersecurity bill known as CISPA — and give cover to Democrats who vote against it — the president's top advisers said they would recommend he veto it if it came to his desk in its current form.


Sen. Joe Lieberman, author of a competing cyber bill, sided with the White House, saying along with other senators the House approach leaves out protection of the nation’s electric grids, water systems and transportation networks — and “ignores the advice of our intelligence community, our national and homeland security leaders, as well as a number of prominent Republicans.”

It all amounts to a high-stakes battle over national security and rising online threats that could easily spill into congressional elections and the race for the White House. Aides to Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney did not respond to requests for comment on where he stands on the issue, but House Republicans are confident they can win the spin war and some Democrats worry that they're right.

But Republicans believe they have an ace in the hole in Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.). The top Intelligence Committee member in the president's own party is working to whip up support on his side of the aisle. Ruppersberger gave a private presentation on the bill to fellow House Democrats on Wednesday morning, and he and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) put out a statement to counter the White House veto threat.

Speaker John Boehner raised the specter of government entrance into the largely unregulated world of Internet communications.

“The president wants the government to set the standards and to write the law for what cybersecurity’s going to look like,” Boehner said. “You want to get the American people a little exercised, put the government in charge of the Internet.”

Many tech industry players prefer the House’s approach rather than Lieberman’s Senate bill, which would impose new requirements on private companies and utilities.

House Republicans run the risk that their bill will be seen as a Band-Aid on a mortal wound if the nation’s critical infrastructure is attacked. Even National Security Agency Director Gen. Keith Alexander said there need to be "some set of standards" that operators of critical infrastructure must meet when he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year.

The White House, which had previously expressed concerns privately, released its statement Wednesday afternoon just as the House Rules Committee was meeting to decide which amendments to CISPA will get a vote on the floor.

“The administration looks forward to continuing to engage with the Congress in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion to enact cybersecurity legislation to address these critical issues," the statement from the Office of Management and Budget read. "However, for the reasons stated herein, if H.R. 3523 were presented to the president, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill."

The statement made clear the White House doesn’t plan to reverse its position unless there are significant changes to boost privacy protections, to add new protections on users' personal information and to alter the bill's liability protection language.

But the White House’s language — that senior advisers would recommend a veto — is less powerful than an outright threat from the president to veto the bill, which some supporters noted.

“It’s a lower level threat in my judgment,” said Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Texas). “It would be very difficult for the president to veto something like that.”

McCaul also alluded to the political concerns that some Democrats may have if they choose to oppose it.

“[W]hen the [National Security Agency] director says it's not a question of if — but when — we get hit and we don't pass this bill, whoever is responsible for putting it down is going to have to answer a lot of questions,” he said.

CISPA sponsors Rogers and Ruppersberger had said they would back some amendments to answer privacy concerns and other questions about the bill. Ruppersberger said part of the reason why the Obama administration issued a veto threat against the bill is because it favors the cybersecurity bill from Lieberman and Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). But that legislation is stalled amid partisan turf wars.

"What we’ve been told now from the Senate is the Lieberman bill isn’t moving — at this point the votes aren’t there,” Ruppersberger said. "We need to protect our country today. We’re being attacked as we speak. [CISPA] is the only mechanism to move forward."

Testifying before the Rules Committee earlier Wednesday, Rogers had appeared confident. "We think we can answer questions to get it to a place where the president will sign it," Rogers said.

In its statement, the administration expressed concern that CISPA, as written now, would allow "broad sharing of information with governmental entities without establishing requirements for both industry and the government to minimize and protect personally identifiable information."

"Moreover, such sharing should be accomplished in a way that permits appropriate sharing within the government without undue restrictions imposed by private sector companies that share information," the statement continues.

The House is expected to pass the bill on Friday, although the vote margin — particularly in terms of how many Democrats might vote aye — is unclear. The larger the margin, the greater the pressure on the Senate to act.

“Obviously, passing the information sharing bill is a major component to better protecting the nation's cyberspace, but that is not the be all end all. There's still more work that has to be done,” said Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), who is a co-sponsor of the legislation. “But this will put pressure on the Senate to do something. They've got to get their act together over there.”

Langevin acknowledged some of the concerns of his colleagues on the left, but said the bill should be moved along anyway.

“We can always make the privacy and civil liberties protections stronger, and I’m all for that, but this is the strongest we could get and have bipartisan support and actually get it passed,” he said.

Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), who is locked in a tough primary fight with Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), is taking a cautious approach that echoes that of many Democrats.

“I want to see what changes are made in the manager’s amendment,” he said.

Ruppersberger took the White House opposition in stride.

“We worked closely with the White House for the last year. We understand there are serious concerns about privacy. The other issue is that they are in favor of the Lieberman bill,” he said.

As for how many Democrats will back the bill, he declined to put a number on it.

"There's some," he said. "It just depends on what happens, even after a SAP."

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 7:19 p.m. on April 25, 2012.

This article tagged under: White House

Politics

CISPA