Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding me this time.

H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act, is a short, commonsense bill. It requires the Environmental Protection Agency to base its regulations on public information. I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), the chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, for introducing this bill.

Costly environmental regulations should only be based upon data that is available to independent scientists and the public. However, the EPA does not adhere to this practice. In fact, nearly every major air- quality regulation from this administration has been justified by data that it has kept secret. This means the Agency's claims about the benefits of its rules cannot be verified by independent scientists.

This includes the recent plan to regulate our entire electric system. This proposal will kill thousands of jobs and increase electricity costs, all for no discernible effect on global temperatures.

This also includes upcoming ozone regulations, which even the administration admits will be the most expensive in history. Unachievable standards will result in economic hardship, stalled new road projects, and burdened local governments.

Unfortunately, EPA clearly sees transparency and accountability as a threat. Speaking before the National Academy of Sciences, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said that her agency needed to keep the science ``from those not qualified to analyze it.'' But the public deserves better, and this administration promised more. In 2012, the President's science adviser testified:

Absolutely, the data on which regulatory decisions are

based should be public.

The chair of EPA's own Science Advisory Board testified that EPA's advisers recommend ``that literature and data used by EPA be peer reviewed and made available to the public.''

Americans agree. A recent poll from the Institute for Energy Research found that 90 percent of Americans believe that studies and data used to make Federal Government decisions should in fact be made public.

Reforms to the EPA's regulatory process are consistent with the data access requirements of major scientific journals, the White House scientific integrity policy, and the recommendations of independent groups like the Administrative Conference of the U.S. and the Bipartisan Policy Center. Deans of major universities, former EPA scientists, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and dozens of experts and organizations all support this bill.

A letter from more than 80 scientists and academics stated that:

Complying with H.R. 4012 can be accomplished without

imposing unnecessary burdens, discouraging research, or

raising confidentiality concerns.

The signatories include professors, two former chairs of EPA science committees, medical doctors, statisticians, deans of major universities, and environmental scientists.

The Secret Science Reform Act prohibits the disclosure of confidential or proprietary information protected by the law. Instead, it stops EPA's use of unverifiable science.

For those who are concerned about the regulations already on the books, the act is not retroactive. It applies only to new future regulations issued by the Agency.

The act requires the EPA to base its decisions on information to which all scientists will have access. This will allow the EPA to focus its limited resources on quality science that all researchers can examine. This will promote sound science and confidence in the EPA decisionmaking process.

This bill ensures the transparency and accountability that the American people want and deserve.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Chris Stewart, former Chairman of the Science Committee's Environment Subcommittee, for his hard work on this important piece of legislation. H.R. 1422, The Science Advisory Board Reform Act, ensures balanced and transparent review of regulatory science.

Specifically, it strengthens the Board's independence so that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot further its regulatory ambitions under the guise of science.

Costly regulations often lead to a loss of jobs and higher electricity bills and gasoline prices for Americans.

The EPA has an extensive track record of twisting the science to justify their actions. Behind the scenes, however, there is a review process that was intended to provide a critical check on the Agency's conclusions.

The EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) was intended to provide a meaningful, balanced, and independent assessment of the science that supports the Agency's regulations. Unfortunately, this vision is not being realized.

The EPA undermines the Board's independence and prevents it from providing advice to Congress. As a result, the valuable advice these experts can provide is wasted.

At a time when the Agency is pursuing the most aggressive regulatory agenda in its 44 year history, it is critical that the Board function as intended.

Despite the existing requirement that EPA's advisory panels be ``fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented,'' the Science Committee has identified a number of problems that undermine the panel's credibility and work product. These include:

A majority of the members of EPA's key advisory panels have received money from the EPA. Often the research they are reviewing is directly related to the money they received. This creates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Many of the panelists have taken very public and even political positions on issues they are advising about. For example, a lead reviewer of EPA's hydraulic fracturing study plan published an anti- fracking article entitled ``Regulate, Baby, Regulate.'' This is clearly not an objective viewpoint.

Public participation is limited during most Board meetings; interested parties have almost no ability to comment on the scope of the work--and meeting records are often kept secret.

The EPA routinely excludes private sector experts while stacking the review panels with individuals who will give the EPA the answer it wants.

H.R. 1422 expands transparency requirements, improves the process for selecting expert advisors, and strengthens public participation requirements.

The bill requires that uncertainties in the Agency's scientific conclusions be communicated and limits the SAB from providing partisan policy advice.

This legislation is pro-science. It restores the SAB as an important defender of scientific integrity. These common sense reforms will make EPA's decisions more credible and balanced.

I thank the gentleman froth Utah, Mr. Stewart for his leadership on this bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5544, the Low-Dose Radiation Research Act of 2014, will increase our understanding of low-dose radiation. This research is critical for physicians and decision makers to more accurately assess potential health risks in this area.

I thank my friend, Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee, Dr. Paul Broun, for introducing this legislation.

Many Americans are exposed to a broad range of low doses of ionizing radiation. These range from cosmic background radiation to medically based procedures, which include X-rays and CT scans.

However, our current approach to radiation safety relies on an outdated assumption that because high doses of radiation are harmful that much lower radiation doses are also harmful.

This assumption is not based on a reliable scientific foundation and prevents patients from making informed decisions about diagnostic exams and can lead to overly restrictive regulations.

The Department of Energy's (DOE) Low Dose Radiation Research Program within the Office of Science focuses on the health effects of ionizing radiation and resolving the uncertainties in this area that currently exist.

Unfortunately, this program has not been a priority at DOE over recent years and has seen systematic budget cuts.

H.R. 5544 ensures the continuance of this important research program.

This legislation also directs the National Academies to formulate a long-term strategy to resolve uncertainties of whether and to what extent low dose radiation may pose health risks to humans. The bill also stipulates that the Academies must consider the most up-to-date studies in this field of research.

And finally, the bill requires the Department of Energy to develop a five-year research plan that responds to the Academies' recommendations.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am absolutely privileged and honored to be here tonight to be able to talk about such a good friend, Howard Coble.

If I were to describe Howard in two words--and this is an ultimate compliment in my book--it would be that he is a gentleman and a scholar, and there aren't too many people who actually succeed in achieving both those kinds of distinctions.

So, Howard, it is nice to be with you tonight. You are here in the front row of the House Chamber, and we celebrate your contributions to public service, and we honor you for being the great person that you are.

I have often said--and I have mentioned this to Howard Coble in person--that if there were such a thing as a congressional class president, it would be Howard Coble. Now, we don't have such a thing as a class president, but if we did, I think Howard would be nominated and voted upon and approved by acclamation. He is that popular here. He is that dearly loved and respected by all of us.

I have had the privilege of sitting next to him on the Judiciary Committee for many, many years, and during that time, I have watched Howard work; I have watched him speak; and I have watched him think. He has been the chairman of three subcommittees on the Judiciary Committee--first, Crime; second, Administrative Law; and, third, Intellectual Property--that being the most recent subcommittee that he has chaired. He also chaired another subcommittee, early on, on the Transportation Committee, which means that he is probably one of those rare Members of Congress--perhaps even the only one--who has chaired four subcommittees in the House of Representatives.

Throughout all of that time and in all of my years of being with Howard, he has exhibited some wonderful attributes, and those qualities are graciousness, smarts, and politeness--again, a rare combination in any individual, but those are the qualities--those are the attributes-- that we see in Howard on a daily basis.

Howard Coble and I share something else in common, and that is that we often are half of a congressional doubles team that has been playing tennis for years and years and years.

Howard, I would like to say that we are the better half, and maybe that is true half the time--I am not sure--or something close to that. There have been a number of Members who have participated in these doubles matches, and two primary Members who are oftentimes on the other side of the net from Howard and me are Bob Goodlatte and Fred Upton. They have been joined on occasion by Shelley Moore Capito and also by Kevin Yoder.

I have to say, Howard, I do believe that whoever plays with Shelley Moore Capito probably wins more often than not, or maybe I should say that when Shelley was playing with, say, Bob or Fred that we had our hands full. That is not to say we were always on the losing side. We held our own. It has just been a real pleasure to enjoy those times together with you, and I will say, unequivocally, that I don't know of anybody else who is a better volleyer than you. If anyone got a tennis ball past you in the last 10 years, I did not see it, so we appreciate your tennis prowess as well.

Lastly, again, we are here tonight just to honor a great man--a gentleman and a scholar--both for his public service, for being an example to all of us in the House, and also, to so many of us, for being just an exceptionally good friend.

Howard, thank you for being with us for these wonderful years that you have been in Congress. You have done so much for your constituents and have done so much for us as well--your colleagues and friends in the House. It is a privilege to be here tonight.

If the gentleman will yield briefly, I will just say that I purposely stayed on the House floor just because I respect and admire the gentleman and what he has to say. And I happen to have agreed with everything he mentioned tonight about ObamaCare.

And let me say also that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) oftentimes speaks on the House floor. And he is speaking to an audience that is listening to us on C-SPAN. And we do appreciate his speaking the truth. We appreciate his bringing out the facts, and we hope that those who are in a position to make changes or to even repeal ObamaCare will do so. And if that occurs, it will be in large part a tribute to Louie Gohmert's persistence in pointing out the flaws in ObamaCare.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today we consider H.R. 2, ``the American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act.'' I thank the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, for his initiative on this bill.

Title III of this bill includes H.R. 2850, ``the Hydraulic Fracturing Study Improvement Act'' that was reported out of the Science Committee last year.

The EPA has been conducting a ``Study of the Potential Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources'' since 2010.

Unfortunately, the EPA's track record of sloppy and secret science and rushed conclusions suggest this study will be yet another attempt to justify new regulations to derail our shale gas revolution and the manufacturing renaissance.

The Science Committee language in Title III of this bill addresses a fundamental flaw in EPA's hydraulic fracturing study design. Specifically, the current study is focused on a search for possible problems with hydraulic fracturing instead of identifying what is likely or probable.

EPA's own Science Advisory Board has repeatedly recommended that the Agency focus on probabilities and uncertainties in its work.

The Science Committee provision addresses those concerns, and requires EPA to follow basic, objective scientific processes in carrying out its study. It also requires peer review of any final or interim report before its release.

Problems with this study underscore EPA's lack of transparency and serious flaws in its peer review process. EPA's conclusions are used to justify billions of dollars in regulations. Science that supports public regulations should be public, not secret.

The Science Advisory Board was created to provide independent scientific advice to Congress and the EPA. However, EPA has hijacked this process.

EPA cherry-picked the reviewers. Among the 22 member Advisory Board panel that the EPA created to look at EPA's hydraulic fracturing research, no member had experience in hydraulic fracturing or had an understanding of current industry practices.

The scientific panel that reviews EPA studies should be balanced and unbiased. And the data behind EPA regulations should be available for independent scientific review. These principles cannot be compromised.

I hope to bring H.R. 4012, ``the Secret Science Reform Act,'' and H.R. 1422, ``the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013,'' to the floor this fall to address these systemic problems.

The provisions in H.R. 2 are an important first step in ensuring the EPA adheres to these principles in their report on hydraulic fracturing.

More comprehensive EPA scientific reform is the next step we must take in the public's interest. We cannot afford to wait.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed) and to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) that I appreciate all their time, effort, and work that has gone into this piece of legislation. It is because of their patience and diligence and persistence that we arrived at this particularly important place tonight and are considering this legislation.

I also wanted to point out that this bill will, with every expectation that we have, create thousands of manufacturing jobs in the United States. The fact that New York and Massachusetts will benefit from these jobs is an important consideration, but the jobs that are created are going to be across the country. And so the gentlemen from New York and Massachusetts are doing an immense favor to our economy and to our economic growth in America.

Mr. Speaker, advanced manufacturing is fundamental to future U.S. economic success and national security. America has led the world since World War II, but our global leadership is not guaranteed. Competing nations have increased their investments in advanced manufacturing to surpass the United States. The World Bank reports, for example, that China now leads the U.S. in high-tech exports with 28 percent of the global market versus 18 percent for the United States.

In order to be competitive, our advanced manufacturers, large, medium, and small, must accelerate R&D, develop next generation products, develop new manufacturing processes, retrain their workforce, and introduce new technology to supply chains.

This legislation, the Revitalize American Innovation Act of 2014, by Representatives Reed and Kennedy authorizes up to $300 million for fiscal years 2015 through 2024 for the Commerce Department, NIST, to develop the Network for Manufacturing Innovation, or NMI.

The NMI will not increase spending because $250 million will come from annual appropriations from the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and $50 million from annual appropriations for Industrial Technical Services. NMI will accelerate private investment, commercialization of technology, and cooperation among multiple industrial entities, research universities, and other stakeholders to increase competitiveness and innovation in U.S. advanced manufacturing.

Also included in the legislation is a bill developed by Mr. Lipinski which requires the President to submit a quadrennial advanced manufacturing strategic plan to Congress, a comprehensive assessment of the global competitive situation, and recommendations for strengthening the competitiveness of U.S. advanced manufacturing.

In the latter category, for instance, three obvious steps stand out right now. Two of these steps are highlighted by the just-released 2014 International Tax Competitiveness Index, which ranks the overall U.S. tax system as 32nd worst among the 34 developed nations. We would go a long way toward reinvigorating our economy and putting Americans back to work if we first reduce the U.S. corporate tax rate from highest in the developed world, and second, encourage more business investment in new technology by making the R&D tax credit permanent.

The third crucial step to bolster U.S. manufacturing is to recognize the importance and take advantage of abundant, affordable domestic natural gas. Shale gas is a major revolution contributing to the manufacturing renaissance taking place in America.

Manufacturing accounts for 30 percent of natural gas consumption in the U.S. and represents more than one-third of some manufacturers' costs. Not only does affordable, abundant natural gas benefit our entire manufacturing sector, the coproducts of natural gas are primary feedstocks for the production of chemicals, fertilizers, and plastics.

An industry expert recently reported that U.S. chemical manufacturers have surpassed $100 billion in investments related to shale gas, with an anticipated $81 billion in new annual chemical industry output and more than 600,000 permanent new jobs in the U.S. In Texas alone, there have been nearly 30 projects announced in the petrochemical manufacturing sector.

Finally, included in the bill before us is a provision authored by Mr. Hultgren and cosponsored by Mr. Kilmer to support regional innovation efforts to make U.S. manufacturers and businesses more competitive. Funding for this 5-year program will come from annual appropriations for the Commerce Department's economic development programs.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the bipartisan cooperation that has gone into moving this legislation through the Science Committee and to the House floor. To all of my colleagues on the committee, to the Research and Technology Subcommittee chair and ranking member, Mr. Bucshon and Mr. Lipinski, and to the ranking member of the Science Committee, Ms. Johnson, the gentlewoman from Texas, thank you for your good work that has brought us to the point of passage of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, before we conclude debate on this bill, I just wanted to thank senior staff who have worked long months in developing this legislation and in refining it and getting it to the point where it is bipartisan, and we believe that the prospects for passage in the Senate are good as well.

Now, the senior staff on our side, the majority side, include Chris Wydler, Cliff Shannon, and Katy Crooks; and, if I may be presumptuous to do so, on the minority side, they include Dahlia Sokolov and John Piazza. We appreciate their support and many other members of the staff who have contributed to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the President should listen to the voters and not grant amnesty to illegal immigrants by executive order. A recent survey by the polling company found that three-quarters of voters want the President to work with Congress to change immigration policies, not act on his own.

This overwhelming opposition to unilateral executive action is bipartisan--93 percent of Republicans, 81 percent of Independents, and 56 percent of Democrats want the President to follow the legislative process.

Voters also support immigration policies that put American workers first. Supermajorities from all demographic groups say that Americans who need work should have the opportunity to do the jobs now held by illegal immigrants. They believe that government has a responsibility to protect American workers from competition with illegal workers.

The President should listen to the voters and put the interests of Americans first.

First of all, let me thank the chairman of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, Science Committee investigations revealed that the EPA prepared State maps that show the widespread impact of their proposed regulations. As you can see by the colored areas on this map, the EPA plans to regulate nearly every square inch on the map. More detailed maps of every State can be found on our Science Committee's Web site, science.house.gov.

The EPA's rewriting of the law is an unprecedented expansion of Federal control over Americans' private property, and these maps make that clear. The Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Acts stops the EPA and protects Americans from the President's drive to regulate private property.

I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland) for taking the initiative on this bill, and I thank the chairman again for yielding me time. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, for the 31st year, the National Association of Town Watch is sponsoring an annual, nationwide crime, drug, and violence prevention program on October 7, 2014, entitled, ``National Night Out''. The City of Bulverde, which is located in the 21st Congressional District in Texas, will participate in this event for the ninth consecutive year.

National Night Out provides a unique opportunity for Bulverde, Texas, to join forces with thousands of other communities across the country in promoting cooperative, police-community crime prevention efforts. Police-community partnerships, and neighborhood safety awareness and cooperation are important themes of National Night Out.

Congratulations to the City of Bulverde for participating in this important event and for assisting the Bulverde Police Department by promoting joint crime, drug, and violence prevention efforts. These efforts keep our communities, and our citizens, more safe and secure.

Credit goes to the citizens of Bulverde, Texas as they join the Bulverde Police Department and the National Association of Town Watch in supporting the 31st Annual National Night Out on October 7, 2014.

Madam Speaker, the President continues to claim that if Congress won't act on immigration issues, he will, but the House has acted and recently passed legislation to address the border crisis.

The President still threatens to grant amnesty by executive order, but such actions run counter to his own statements about the illegality of enacting such immigration policies on his own.

In 2011, the President stated:

I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books. Now, I

know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the

immigration laws on my own. That is not how our Constitution

is written.

He stated as recently as last fall that, ``If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we're also a nation of laws.''

The President should listen to his own words and abide by his oath of office and the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2495) to amend the Department of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004 to improve the high-end computing research and development program of the Department of Energy, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2495, the bill now under consideration.

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

H.R. 2495, the American Super Computing Leadership Act, requires the Department of Energy to develop a plan to bring the United States into the next generation of supercomputing, also known as exascale computing.

The Advanced Scientific Computing Research program at the Department of Energy is the primary Federal research and development program for these computing technology breakthroughs.

High-performance computing has enabled researchers to push beyond our previously understood scientific boundaries. This capability has solved major engineering challenges, ranging from the in-depth modeling of our nuclear weapons stockpile to increasing the fuel efficiency of cars. High-performance computing keeps the United States globally competitive.

The country with the strongest computing capability will host the world's next scientific breakthroughs. Unfortunately, China currently hosts the world's fastest computer, not the United States. This bill is a step in the right direction to reverse this trend and to help keep America on the forefront of supercomputing.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks), the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) for their initiative on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), who is a member of the Science Committee and also a member of the Science Committee's Energy Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann), who is a member of the Appropriations Committee and a member of that committee's Energy Subcommittee. He is also a former member of the Science Committee, so we appreciate his participation today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5309) to authorize and strengthen the tsunami detection, forecast, warning, research, and mitigation program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5309, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5309, the Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research Act of 2014, amends and strengthens the Tsunami Warning and Education Act of 2006. It reauthorizes an important program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and sharpens its focus on tsunami detection, forecasts, and warnings.

The recent absence of tsunami disasters here in the U.S. does not mean we should stand by as spectators. The threat is very real. The tsunami resulting from the 2011 earthquake in Japan caused massive destruction and is a vivid reminder of the need for enhanced early warning capabilities.

Tsunamis pose a similar threat to America's coastline. They have the ability to injure Americans, damage property, and harm the economy.

This bill updates the tsunami forecasting and warning program operated by NOAA. It modernizes and enhances the accuracy of forecasts, improves standards and guidelines for mapping and modeling tsunamis, and supports research efforts related to tsunami science.

H.R. 5309 expands outreach responsibilities of the NOAA administrator to coordinate with State and local emergency managers to improve tsunami education and awareness. This will help develop resilient communities in the face of tsunamis and other coastal hazards.

This bill strengthens scientific research on these phenomena, fosters outreach programs, and advances technological forecasts to better understand and respond to disasters when they occur.

I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the vice chairman of the Science Committee; our Environment Subcommittee ranking member, Ms. Bonamici of Oregon; and the ranking member of the full committee, Ms. Johnson of Texas, for their initiative on this bipartisan legislation.

I really want to single out the gentlewoman from Oregon for her efforts on this particular subject. She has engaged this subject for the last several months, has been instrumental in our getting here to the floor today, and it is her initiative that is going to benefit the country.

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

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

I rise in support of H.R. 5309, the Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research Act of 2014.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for yielding me time, and I also want to thank him for bringing this bill to the House floor today.

H.R. 744, the STOP Identity Theft Act, is a bicameral, bipartisan solution that curbs the rapidly increasing problem of tax return identity theft. I am the original cosponsor of this bill, with Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who has long taken the initiative on this pressing subject.

The STOP Identity Theft Act increases criminal penalties for tax return ID theft. The bill also broadens the definition of identity theft victims to include businesses and nonprofit organizations.

In recent years, tax thieves have received billions of dollars in fraudulent tax returns. These criminals have become proficient in stealing identity information and Social Security numbers to file false tax returns with the IRS, oftentimes before the legitimate taxpayer files a return themselves. It is only after a tax return is rejected that the victim learns that their identity has been stolen and their tax return wrongfully pocketed.

H.R. 744 is crucial to deter the number of individuals and families who are victimized by ID tax thieves. Identity theft costs victims both money and time to restore their identities.

The House previously adopted this bill by voice vote in the last Congress. This past February, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a companion bill to the STOP Identity Theft Act by Senators Klobuchar and Sessions. So I urge my colleagues again to join me in support of H.R. 744 to protect American taxpayers.

I thank the Judiciary Committee chairman again, Mr. Goodlatte, for bringing this legislation to the House floor and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) for her efforts to stop tax identity theft.

Mr. Speaker, this year the Job Corps program celebrates its 50th anniversary. It does much good by helping young people earn a high school diploma, develop a career, and obtain a good job.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work with the individuals at the Gary Job Corps Center in San Marcos, Texas. Gary Job Corps opened its doors in 1965 and has provided a wide range of career technical training opportunities to students in San Marcos ever since.

Gary Job Corps has a long, distinguished history in our community that began in a deactivated air field. The former Gary Air Field was transformed from an air base to a career technical training facility. Barracks and buildings were converted to dormitories, classrooms, training shops, and offices.

Today, Gary is the largest Job Corps Center in the United States with more than 1,600 students. Gary Job Corps has more than 20 career technical training opportunities that range from health occupations and business technology to computer related professions. Other opportunities include construction, manufacturing, human services, and correctional and security officer training. Additionally, Gary Job Corps offers the largest GED program in the state of Texas. Students can obtain their high school diploma via the Internet and acquire an accredited Texas high school diploma.

There is overwhelming support for the Center among local civic and community groups. Teachers, mentors, friends and advisors selflessly invest themselves on a daily basis in the futures of Gary's students.

But it is the students themselves who make the greatest investment and they are to be commended for their dedication to success. The tireless efforts of the bright, young men and women of Gary Job Corps have enabled them to enter a competitive marketplace equipped with the skills and education necessary to succeed; and succeed they do.

The motto on the entrance to Gary Job Corps says, ``Not your last chance, your best chance.'' I commend Gary Job Corps for providing these students an opportunity to discover their learning potential and providing them with the ability to succeed. I also commend these students for recognizing that this ``best chance'' required hard work and dedication on their part, and for rising to meet this challenge.

Congratulations to Gary Job Corps and the Job Corps Program on 50 years of ``best chances.'' May you continue to prepare America's young people with the skills needed to succeed in a career and in life.