Energy Cybersecurity University Leadership Act of 2023

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy) for yielding the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, here we are, 6 weeks into a new Congress, and the Republican majority has yet to bring substantive, serious legislation to the floor that does anything to address the serious issues confronting our great Nation.

Instead, we have seen Republican leadership buckle under time and again to the demands of a rightwing minority that seems more interested in stoking controversy and conspiracy theories than crafting actual legislation or governing.

Instead of delivering for the American people, we have seen precious time and taxpayer dollars wasted in power struggles and political stunts, rather than doing the people's business.

True to that pattern, today's rule provides for the consideration of three deeply problematic measures, measures that further the objectives of that extremist minority, measures that stoke division, that undermine government institutions, and that threaten fundamental American freedoms when they don't align with the radical right's ideology.

By caving to these fringe forces, Republican leadership is squandering precious time and taxpayer dollars that would be better spent working together on the issues most Americans want us to address lowering prices; housing, healthcare, and education needs; making our communities safer; and protecting our planet.

The first two resolutions under consideration today would nullify legislation recently passed by the democratically elected D.C. Council and, in the process, would undermine the fundamental right of citizens of Washington, D.C., to political self-determination.

H.J. Res. 24 would overrule the Local Resident Voting Rights Act, which was recently passed by the D.C. Council.

With this measure, the citizens of D.C. decided to join other municipalities around the country in allowing noncitizen residents to vote in local D.C. elections.

H.J. Res. 26 would nullify the Revised Criminal Code Act, the RCCA, which reformed D.C.'s criminal code. That code has not been comprehensively revised since it was first enacted in 1901.

The American people expect their Members of Congress to prioritize their most pressing kitchen table issues, but instead of focusing on lowering costs or creating better-paying jobs, we are here today to interfere with legislation duly enacted by the citizens of D.C. and their government.

Not only is that not what our constituents sent us to do, it is distinctly antidemocratic to substitute our policy judgment for the local policy judgment of D.C.'s elected officials.

The nearly 700,000 residents of the District of Columbia, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, are worthy and capable of self-government.

Instead of seeking to undo the work of that democratically elected body, we should be holding hearings and considering whether it is finally time to address the issue of D.C. statehood.

As my colleague, Mr. Raskin, said in the Rules Committee yesterday, if my Republican colleagues insist on acting as a colonial overseer of the District of Columbia, the least they can do is hear from the people of D.C.

Those promoting these resolutions should have called a hearing or at least attempted to engage the D.C. Council and community leaders in some way.

If my colleagues think they have the best interests of the people of D.C. at heart, let's hear from the D.C. residents.

I believe they have made it quite clear they don't appreciate being made a pawn in national political battles.

We owe it to the people of D.C. to enact statehood, not this radical attempt to interfere with the district's Democratic process.

The subject of these disapproval resolutions, the Revised Criminal Code Act and Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, should be irrelevant.

But just so we are clear, let's look at the legislative history of those two acts that our colleagues across the aisle want to overturn.

Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, which is a Federal statute, the democratically elected 13-member D.C. Council is required to enact a new law twice, with at least 13 days intervening between each vote, in order to pass legislation.

Legislation passed by the council and affirmed by the Mayor or with a veto override is then transmitted to Congress for a review period.

The legislation takes effect at the expiration of the review period unless Congress intervenes by passing a resolution of disapproval.

Congress has only overturned duly elected D.C. laws three times before the misguided efforts that we are forced to consider today.

Now, the D.C. Council passed the Revised Criminal Code Act by votes of 12-0 and 13-0. While the Mayor vetoed it, the council voted to override that veto by a vote of 12-1.

The Revised Criminal Code Act is the culmination of a 5-year process to revise and update D.C.'s criminal code, which, as mentioned previously, has not happened since it was first created over a century ago.

Everyone in the D.C. legal system, from prosecutors to judges to defense attorneys to scholars, agrees that this revision is long overdue.

Our colleagues across the aisle object to the revised criminal code that has been crafted with so much care to meet local conditions because they don't like some sentencing provisions that seek to match up the law with current standards.

They posit that harsher penalties would be a greater deterrent to the criminal conduct that they want to target when, in fact, the data shows that harsher penalties in some of the States that they represent does not, in fact, deter that conduct.

So think about this: Republican politicians from Georgia and Kentucky and Texas, who haven't bothered to take the time to hold a hearing or study this issue, have decided to parachute in and dictate to the 700,000 residents of D.C. that they know better than those residents and their elected Representatives how to run their city.

Can you imagine how those politicians would react if the D.C. Council tried to tell them how to run the jails in Athens, Georgia; Lexington, Kentucky; or Buffalo, New York?

What is particularly infuriating is that our Republican colleagues claim that they want to block the D.C. law because they want to be tougher on crime. But, once again, this is empty rhetoric. Overturning the D.C. criminal code will do nothing to increase public safety in D.C. or anywhere else.

As I mentioned at the outset, we are 6 weeks into the new Congress, and the Republican majority has not brought forward any legislation to address crime in America.

They won't consider legislation to block the flood of unregulated guns into American communities, they won't ban the weapons of war that take innocent lives in horrifying and predictably regular mass shootings, and they haven't taken any action to address the societal issues that produce violence.

The second resolution under consideration would vacate the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, which the D.C. Council passed by votes of 12-1 and 12-0 after holding hearings and soliciting public comment.

This act would allow otherwise qualified D.C. residents who are not U.S. citizens to vote in local D.C. elections.

Qualified noncitizen residents could vote in races for Mayor, council, attorney general, neighborhood commissioners, school district, and local referenda.

Of course, this does not apply to Federal elections. Our colleagues are trying to paint this legislation as some radical new idea, but there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution--which I understand was read here on the floor today, so we could check--that prohibits noncitizens from voting in local, State, or Federal elections.

In fact, there is a long history in the U.S. of noncitizens being allowed to vote in those elections, and they have done so since at least 1704 in what would later become the U.S. At various points, 40 States have permitted noncitizens to vote. Congress only first prohibited noncitizens from voting in Federal elections in 1996.

Currently, there are at least 15 municipalities that permit noncitizens to vote in local elections. They do so in recognition of the fact that noncitizens, who are allowed to vote under such local laws, pay a variety of State, local, and Federal taxes, and they have an inherent interest in helping to shape policies in the communities where they live.

I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to oppose these profoundly undemocratic and paternalistic resolutions.

Now, today's rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 185, which would terminate the CDC requirement for proof of COVID-19 vaccination for foreign travelers to enter the U.S.

The CDC order was put in place to open the world back up and allow vaccinated foreign travelers to visit the U.S. while keeping our community safe.

Revising or revoking the COVID-19 public health guidance should be at the behest of public health experts with understanding and knowledge of global case trends, up-to-date data, and real-time safety information about emerging infections and COVID-19 epidemiology, not partisan politicians looking to settle political scores or curry favor with the disgraced former President and his base.

This bill would upend our current COVID-19 travel protocol, and worse, tie the hands of our public health experts by prohibiting any future order to require COVID-19 vaccinations as a condition of entering the United States.

As I said last week when the majority brought several bills to the floor attacking COVID-19 emergency declarations and vaccines, we shouldn't jeopardize our progress in fighting COVID with political stunts.

This is just the latest bill inspired by anti-vax conspiracy theories that has been rushed to the floor, uninformed by any hearings or any scientific evidence.

It is dangerous to repeatedly mislead the public about the efficacy of these vaccines that are proven to save lives.

This bill increases the risk of spreading new variants, just as hospitals and public health infrastructure are trying to rebuild.

Once again, an extremist fringe is putting politics over science and undermining public health experts at the expense of the American people, and Republican leadership is letting them get away with it.

We need Republican leaders to embrace science and promote the public

good, instead of undermining them to score political points.

I am disappointed that my colleagues continue to waste this body's time and taxpayer dollars on frivolous bills and resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, the resolutions and bill we are considering today do not address the issues we were elected to address for the American people.

We have now been in this Congress for over a month and have yet to take up any serious legislation. I hope my colleagues can work in a bipartisan manner to address the problems our constituents sent us here to solve.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from The Sentencing Project advocacy group, which is signed by over a dozen civil rights organizations opposing the Republican efforts to obstruct the enactment of the District of Columbia's Revised Criminal Code Act.

It states: ``Washingtonians know best how to address criminal justice policies in their community and deserve the right to determine their own laws. Local leaders are better positioned and retain more expertise to address safety and justice issues in the District than Congress.''

The Sentencing Project,

February 6, 2023.

Re Oppose efforts to obstruct the District of Columbia's

Revised Criminal Code Act.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Chairman Jim Jordan,

Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), our esteemed colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am afraid we have to dig into the weeds a little bit with Rules Committee process right now.

Earlier, the gentleman from New York said that with this rule, the new majority has tied the number of times that more minority amendments were made in order than majority amendments.

While I am certainly supportive of minority amendments, that sounded wrong, so we asked our staff to check. They haven't had much time while we have been speaking, but they have already found at least two times that the Democratic majority did this in the last Congress, H.R. 302 and H.R. 963. Perhaps our colleagues need to check their facts.

What I do know is that this rule contains the 18th and 19th closed rules of this new Congress. That is already over 30 percent of what we did during the first year of the Democratic majority. So it is more like a return to Republican habits, just like they ran the most-closed Congress in history last time they had control.

I am also astonished to learn that it was the possibility of family separation that inspired our colleagues to introduce H.R. 185, when the issue of family separation due to our outmoded, broken immigration system has not served to inspire any urgency to reform that system.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that H.R. 185 does not take effect unless it is certified that it won't decrease Social Security benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, Social Security is the bedrock of our Nation's social safety net. Since its inception, it has lifted millions of our seniors out of poverty. Protecting the benefits that Social Security provides should be a priority for this Congress, for everyone in this Congress, as my Republican colleagues demand reckless cuts in exchange for paying our Nation's bills.

Democrats are going to continue to push to ensure that these vital benefits are protected and will continue to give Republicans every opportunity to ease the American people's anxiety by demonstrating with their votes, including on this measure, that they do not intend to cut Social Security.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Speaker, these measures today do nothing to address the important issues facing American families. These resolutions are misguided and unserious at best and deeply undemocratic at their core. House Republicans continue to waste precious time and taxpayer dollars on power struggles and political stunts.

Republican leadership's acquiescence to the fringe forces in their party is a disservice to the American public. With all of the challenges this Congress should contend with, an extremist overreach to nullify democratically passed legislation and rolling back lifesaving COVID protections is a waste of precious time and resources.

My Democratic colleagues and I are here to work on behalf of the American people and are ready to do the serious work of delivering for them, fighting for better jobs and safer communities. We will oppose extremist attempts to stoke division, to undermine government institutions, and to threaten fundamental American freedoms.

I invite my colleagues to work across the aisle, to work together on the issues that matter to all of our constituents: lowering prices; addressing housing, healthcare, and education needs; making our communities safer; and protecting our environment.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 97 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 97 provides for consideration of three measures: H.R. 185, H.J. Res. 24, and H.J. Res. 26.

The rule provides for H.R. 185 to be considered under a structured rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I should point out that in only our second week after organizing, this Republican majority has already tied House Democrats in the number of times a structured rule makes in order more minority amendments than majority amendments. In the 117th Congress, House Democrats only reported one structured rule making in order more Republican amendments than Democratic amendments. Clearly, House Republicans are delivering a more open and transparent legislative process for the American people.

The rule further provides for consideration of two measures, H.J. Res. 24 and H.J. Res. 26, under closed rules with 1 hour of debate each equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the

Committee on Oversight and Accountability or their designees.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

H.R. 185 would finally end the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's proof of COVID-19 vaccination requirement for foreign travelers entering the United States.

This legislation should receive broad, bipartisan support. After all, it was President Biden in September 2022 who acknowledged that ``the pandemic is over.''

Life has returned to normal across the country. Yet, despite the world moving on from the pandemic, this administration persists in retaining an unnecessary vaccination requirement for those visiting the United States.

Maintaining this mandate has led to great hardship for many Americans, including those in my own district in western New York. People have been separated from their family, their friends, and loved ones for years. It is time that we acknowledge that these vaccine mandates do not definitively stop the spread of COVID. It is time for Congress to act where this administration refuses and finally end this mandate.

Additionally, the rule before us provides consideration of H.J. Res. 24, a resolution disapproving of the District of Columbia's Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022, a law which would allow noncitizens of the U.S. to vote in D.C.'s local elections.

Citizenship is at the core of our society. It represents an acceptance of duties and privileges, including the right to vote. The oath of allegiance for newly naturalized individuals includes the following: ``I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty.''

These aren't just words. This is a pledge of loyalty to this country and an assumption of responsibilities as a citizen.

With the enacting of the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, the District of Columbia has violated the core idea of what it means to be a citizen of this great country.

America is not a geographic expression where the concept of citizenship and sovereignty is meaningless or relative. We are a sovereign nation and a sovereign people. It is Congress' right and responsibility to step in and right a wrong that threatens one of the pillars of our democracy--the right of citizens to vote.

Finally, this rule provides before us the consideration of H.J. Res. 26, disapproving of the District of Columbia's Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022.

In the past few years, murders, rapes, carjackings, robberies, and theft have skyrocketed here in our Nation's Capital. The District of Columbia's law enforcement remains understaffed and overwhelmed by the soaring rates of violent crime. Residents have routinely registered this concern, as a recent poll showed 75 percent of D.C. residents sought more police officers and safer streets.

Yet, the D.C. Council, in their infinite wisdom, chose not to heed the concerns of D.C. residents or its many visitors and, instead, approved the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022, a bill patterned after the disastrous policies already implemented in Democratic-led cities across this country.

The Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 will drastically reduce sentences for violent offenders and make it easier than ever before for those offenders to obtain early release. To be clear, when I say ``violent offenders,'' I am referring to those convicted of murder, rape, and other seriously horrific crimes.

Additionally, D.C.'s revised criminal code provides a right to a jury trial for a slew of misdemeanors, forcing the court system, already strained, to take on a new workload. Not only does this deprive Americans of their right to a speedy trial, but it will also deny victims resolution and closure against perpetrators of serious offenses as they face an overwhelmed and understaffed justice system.

Democratic leadership in most major cities across this country are trading the safety of Americans for the lawlessness of their pie-in- the-sky policies that, in reality, let violent offenders go, reduce sentences, avoid prosecution, and deny victims justice.

Just downstate from my own district, New York City has seen its crime rate skyrocket by 22 percent since this time last year alone. Arrests linked to shootings and homicides jumped 12 percent in just 1 year.

In Chicago, Illinois, the homicide rate is up a whopping 34 percent from 2019.

In San Francisco, businesses from mom-and-pop shops to national retail chains have closed their doors. They have laid off workers because they can't afford to stay open in a city whose leadership refuses to prosecute basic offenses like theft and shoplifting.

Now, not to be outdone, the District of Columbia has chosen to import these dangerous and disastrous policies.

Just last week, only a mile or so away from this Capitol, a gunman went on a rampage at the Potomac Avenue Metro Station. A Metro employee, 64-year-old Robert Cunningham, was killed, and three people were injured.

This tragic event is just one more in a wave of violent crime that has swept across the District of Columbia in recent years. Yet, the D.C. Council seems unperturbed as it steamrolls ahead with a policy that will only make the District, its residents, and the many visitors to this city, our Nation's Capital, less safe.

Residents of D.C. have the same rights as other Americans to be secure in their homes and to be protected against crimes committed against their lives, their families, and their property. Putting violent offenders back on the streets and reducing sentences for violent crimes will only endanger the lives of D.C. residents.

It is our duty as Members of Congress, as laid out in the D.C. Home Rule Act, to disapprove of a policy like this that threatens the safety of this city's residents.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As we talk about following the science, I have to ask the question: France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, they don't have a vaccine mandate for their visitors.

Are they following the science?

Are they in great peril?

Back to the matter of public safety. I think it is very important to point out that in letters to the leadership of this great body, the National Fraternal Order of Police, a union representing the men and women of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, they are proudly standing against the wrongheaded policies in the District of Columbia that overrode their Democratic Mayor's veto on this very legislation, as well as the D.C. Police Union itself in a letter to Speaker McCarthy doing the same.

Are they wrong? I don't think so.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), my fellow Rules Committee member.

Mr. Speaker, as a reminder, the resolutions before us today, they are not about the question of D.C. statehood. These are based on current law and not what we would like the law to look like as it relates to the District of Columbia.

Under the Home Rule Act, Congress has the ability, the responsibility, to provide oversight and review of policies enacted by the D.C. Government.

Let's also remember that the District of Columbia isn't just another town or locality. It is a Federal district. It is our Nation's capital. We have an obligation to protect the residents of this country in our Nation's capital.

The criminal justice revisions, as well as weakening the protections for the elections in the District of Columbia by opening it up to foreign nationals, go and fly directly in the face of that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), my fellow Rules Committee member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) my fellow Rules Committee member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Speaker, if individuals would like the power to vote in our elections, they must go through the legal process to become U.S. citizens, like the millions before them did.

Ask yourself: Should we be extending the right to vote, no matter at any level, to the CCP members who work at the Chinese Embassy?

Should we extend the right to vote in elections in this country to members of the Russian Federation staff at their embassy?

That would happen under the D.C. voting rights legislation.

If individuals attack, kill, steal, and destroy property, they should be punished for those offenses, not let off the hook. These are basic tenets of our society, of our democracy, and of this great Nation.

The District of Columbia is the seat of the Federal Government, and as

such has a special place in American society. Congress has a clear responsibility under the Home Rule Act to block policies that jeopardize the democratic rights and the lives of American citizens.

We have an opportunity today not just to provide much-needed oversight to D.C.'s disastrous policies but to also finally end a draconian vaccine mandate that has kept families and friends apart.

Let's remember that around the world, other countries have ended their own COVID-19 vaccine mandates for air travelers. Europe, Canada, and elsewhere no longer require Americans to arrive with a proof of vaccination.

Why has the administration persisted in upholding this mandate?

With the proof about the vaccine's true efficacy and limitation in preventing the spread of COVID, why have they so obsessively upheld this mandate or any of the others, for that matter?

The time has come for Congress to step in and to remind the administration that the pandemic is over and allow families and friends and loved ones to reunite after years of forced separation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 302, ``To Direct the Secretary of Energy to Establish a Program to Provide Financial Assistance to Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Researchers Pursuing Certain Courses of Study Relating to Cybersecurity and Energy Infrastructure, and for Other Purposes.''

H.R. 302 is an important contribution to and necessary investment in future generations of scientists and researchers, critical for our new age of digitization and increased security threats nationally and internationally.

This effort will support the fundamental development of a robust and resilient cybersecurity workforce to help address the unique challenges of recruiting and retaining cybersecurity professionals for careers serving in local, state, federal or tribal governments.

As such, this bill is vital for the state of our future economies, safety, and sovereignty as a nation.

Specifically, H.R. 302 will put forth the necessary funding through the Secretary of Energy to strategically investment in our students pursuing advanced studies in the fields of cybersecurity and energy infrastructure.

For years, government officials and industry executives have run elaborate simulations of a targeted cyberattack on the power grid or gas pipelines in the United States, imagining how the country would respond.

However, on May 6, 2021, we were attacked through a ransomware attack by a criminal extortion ring that caused long lines of nervous motorists at gas stations--stemming not from a government response but from a unilateral decision by Colonial Pipeline, which controls nearly half the gasoline, jet fuel and diesel flowing along the East Coast, to turn off the spigot.

The lessons are clear and demonstrate how far the government and private industry must go in preventing and dealing with cyberattacks and in creating rapid backup systems for when critical infrastructure goes down.

Furthermore, Russian hackers have been probing Texas' energy infrastructure for weak points in digital systems that would allow them to steal sensitive information or disrupt operations, according to interviews with energy companies, state officials and cybersecurity experts.

We must invest in our educational institutions and our student's ability to hone the necessary skills to not only work in the digital age but to become the cybersecurity leaders of the future.

Texas is already deemed to be the hub of science and technology innovation and the center of cybersecurity development.

This bill will further support and uplift the potential of Texas and other states to not only prepare students for cybersecurity careers but also to raise awareness and protect against cyberthreats across our nation.

Additionally, in supporting our economy this investment recognizes the incredible value and revenue streams afforded through the cybersecurity market.

This market is projected to reach $64.86 billion this year alone, according to data provider Statista. And by 2027, that number is expected to climb to $116.3 billion.

In line with that projected revenue growth, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts the number of information security analysts in the U.S. will rise 35 percent between 2021 and 2031. And the bureau lists the median pay for an information security analyst as $102,600 per year.

We must continue to invest in the future of our cybersecurity education and careers to support and uphold our future economies, safety, and sovereignty as a nation.

Simply stated, this bill is smart policy moving us in that right direction, and its passage will certainly help to keep our Nation strong and competitive.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of H.R. 302.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 302) to direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a program to provide financial assistance to graduate students and postdoctoral researchers pursuing certain courses of study relating to cybersecurity and energy infrastructure, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 302, the bill now under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 302, the Energy Cybersecurity University Leadership Act of 2023 led by Representative Ross and Representative Carey.

Cyberattacks from foreign adversaries on the U.S. energy sector present a major and constantly evolving threat to our national security, energy independence, and global competitiveness.

Multiple attacks over the past few years have shown us that whether it is our liquefied natural gas industry, our electric grid, or even our national laboratories, all critical U.S. energy assets can be attractive targets for adversarial cyber campaigns.

Troublingly, many of these cyberattacks are just preparations for future operations. As the FBI, CISA, and other security agencies have warned, the CCP is using smaller attacks now to provide inroads so they can inflict major damage to our energy infrastructure in the future.

The threats to our energy cybersecurity have only increased recently due to several factors such as the war in Ukraine, increased aggression from the CCP, and the development of new energy technologies and grid modernization practices.

To protect our energy sector, we need to take a whole-of-government approach, and the Department of Energy plays a central role in planning for and countering these attacks.

H.R. 302 is one way to support the DOE's energy cybersecurity mission. This is important, bipartisan legislation that will help address expanding vulnerabilities in our energy sector by strengthening the next generation of our energy cybersecurity workforce.

I thank my colleague, Representative Ross, for reintroducing this timely bill and Representative Carey for joining her as the Republican lead of this bipartisan effort.

On the Science Committee, energy cybersecurity initiatives have long been a bipartisan priority. H.R. 302 is just the beginning of our work on this issue in the 118th Congress.

I pledge to continue working with all Members to pass legislation that will keep the U.S. energy sector safe, reliable, and competitive for years to come.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Carey).

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, there has never been a more critical issue than to ensure the cybersecurity of our Nation's energy sector. H.R. 302 will help develop the most important long-term weapon we have in our arsenal against cyberattacks: a highly skilled and informed American workforce.

It is bipartisan, forward-looking legislation, which is why it passed the House on suspension last year.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, once again, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

The U.S. should be leading the free world right now but, instead, we are falling behind. Hundreds of countries have a vaccine policy that is more liberal than the United States at the moment.

If you live in Japan, Italy, Spain, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, Israel, Germany, France, Australia, South Africa, Egypt, Brazil, Taiwan, Mexico, all of our neighbors to the north and to the south, to the east and to the west have gotten rid of their COVID vaccine mandates to enter their countries, but we have not. Why is that?

What is our policy right now?

To enter into the United States, if you are a foreigner, you have to have a COVID vaccine. Who can enter right now without a vaccine?

Well, if you are an illegal alien apprehended at the border and awaiting a trial or a hearing, you don't need a vaccine; just come on into the country, we will check it out later.

What if you are somebody who comes in and you have been vaccinated, but you have got a full-blown case of symptomatic COVID? Oh, you are vaccinated? No problem. Come on in. Bring your new variant, whatever it is. We will welcome you.

If you are a healthy tennis player who has not been vaccinated, then stay out of our country. That is the message that we have been sending.

Our policy is at least 2 years out of date. The U.S. Travel Association recognizes this. They said that every day this policy remains in place encourages some travelers to avoid the U.S., costing us valuable visitor spending and delaying our efforts to re-ignite inbound travel.

So our economy is suffering. But that is not really what compelled to me to offer this bill. I am concerned about the families who have been separated for 3 years; children who haven't seen their parents; spouses who haven't seen each other, separated for 3 years.

There is no religious exemption in the vaccine mandate policy that the United States has. In fact, there are dictatorships that have better policies than ours right now: Iran, Russia, China, Cuba, Syria; oh, not vaccinated? Not a problem because they recognize at least the science behind it.

Mr. Speaker, this is a structured rule. During the debate, we are going to allow three amendments from the Democrats on my bill, and we are going to allow two Republican amendments. I think that is very kind of us. We didn't see this kind of openness and legislative deliberative process when the other party was in the majority.

Think about this as I close: Today, later in this Chamber, there will be over 1,000 people, sharing the oxygen, the air in this room with the President and the Vice President of the United States, and none of those thousand people that will be in this room have been mandated to take the vaccine.

So when you think about casting your vote on this, just consider for a second: Are you being a hypocrite?

None of your staff and none of the Members of this legislative body, or the Supreme Court, or the Senate who are going to join us here later today with the President, none of them have been mandated to take the vaccine. We shouldn't do the same.

We should not project xenophobia from this country. We should allow visitors; we should reunite families; and we should re-ignite our economy by eliminating this policy.

Mr. Speaker, I support the rule.