Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2413) to prioritize and redirect NOAA resources to a focused program of investment on near-term, affordable, and attainable advances in observational, computing, and modeling capabilities to deliver substantial improvement in weather forecasting and prediction of high impact weather events, such as tornadoes and hurricanes, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2413, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2413, the Weather Forecasting Improvement Act of 2014, will greatly improve our severe weather forecasting capabilities. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine) for his work on this bill.

Severe weather routinely affects large portions of the United States. This past year has been no different. The United States needs a world- class weather prediction system that helps protect American lives and property.

Our leadership has slipped in severe weather forecasting. European weather models routinely predict America's weather better than we can. We need to make up for lost ground. H.R. 2413 improves weather observation systems

and advances computing and next generation modeling capabilities. The enhanced prediction of major storms is of great importance to protecting the public from injury and loss of property.

This legislation is the result of multiple hearings, a subcommittee markup, and Member negotiations. Again, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for taking the lead on this issue. I also want to thank the former chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart), and the Environment Subcommittee ranking member, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), for their contributions to this bipartisan bill.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine), who is a member of the Science Committee and is the author of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), who is also chairman of the Environment Subcommittee of the Science Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine), Ms. Bonamici, and David Schweikert for their hard work on this bill. I appreciate all of the effort they have put into it. It is a wonderful product. It is going to save lives. It is going to save property, and it is going to benefit many, many Americans.

I yield back the balance of my time.

First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for yielding me time, and I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy) for introducing this bill.

Mr. Chairman, very quickly in order to respond to what the gentleman from Illinois just said, quite frankly, he is smarter than that. He knows that the letter had to do with individual prosecutorial discretion, and he knows the President basically exempted broad categories of individuals and went far beyond individual discretionary prosecution.

H.R. 4138 authorizes either Chamber of Congress to challenge, as an institution, the administration's failure to faithfully execute the laws, and in accordance with the constitutional ``separation of powers'' doctrine, it protects the legislative branch of government from an overreaching Executive.

The Obama administration has ignored laws, failed to enforce laws, undermined laws, and changed laws by executive orders and administrative actions. These include laws covering health care, immigration, marriage, drugs, and welfare requirements. Other Presidents have issued more executive orders, but no President has issued so many broad and expansive executive orders that have stretched the Constitution to its breaking point.

As for not enforcing laws, in 2011, the President instructed the Attorney General of the United States not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. Recently, the Attorney General declared that State attorneys general are not obligated to defend laws they believe are discriminatory. At other times, the President has decided not to enforce immigration laws as they apply to entire categories of individuals, as I just mentioned, and the President has decreed a dozen changes to the Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare.

But neither the President nor the Attorney General, himself, has the constitutional right to make or change laws.

The President and the Attorney General have a constitutional obligation to enforce existing laws. If they think a law is unconstitutional, they should wait for the courts to rule. Their opinions are no substitutes for due process and judicial review. It is their job to enforce existing laws, whether they personally like them or not.

Ours is a nation of laws, not a nation of random enforcement. All true reform starts with the voice of the people. If American voters rise up and speak loudly enough, they will be heard. Today, the United States House of Representatives is listening to them by bringing the ENFORCE the Law Act to the floor. I urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, the American people continue to oppose amnesty, and they are putting their Member of Congress on notice.

A Washington Post-ABC national survey released last week shows that 39 percent of registered voters are less likely, and only 27 percent more likely, to vote for a congressional candidate who supports a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally.

There is even less support for amnesty among self-described Independents. Forty-one percent are less likely, and only 28 percent more likely, to back a candidate for Congress who favors a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Considering the media bias in favor of amnesty, these are astounding figures. According to the poll, a supermajority of Republicans, 60 percent, claim that they are less likely to support a candidate who favors amnesty. This stands in stark contrast to the meager 14 percent of GOP voters who want their candidate to confer citizenship on those here illegally.

We should listen to the voters, not amnesty proponents.

Mr. Speaker, I support the Equitable Access to Care and Health (EACH) Act. This bill provides a modest expansion of the religious conscience exemption in the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

This bipartisan legislation has 218 cosponsors. The ACA currently provides for a religious conscience exemption; however, the exemption gives preference to only a few faiths. This exemption should be expanded to accommodate other religions whose ``sincerely-held religious beliefs'' would cause them not to purchase insurance.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of immigration continues to simmer, but it is not because of any substantive news in Congress. It is driven by the media and the coverage is slanted.

In the last 3 months, the three Capitol Hill publications have run over 30 stories about immigration. By a 10 to 1 ratio, they promoted amnesty for illegal immigrants over the need for border security.

Articles in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal reflect the same media agenda. These publications also published over 30 pro- amnesty articles, but not a single pro-enforcement article.

The national media should give the American people the facts, not tell them what to think. We need more objective news stories and fewer opinion pieces masquerading as news reports.

Mr Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Chairman, we should not stand by and let the EPA tear down America one regulation at a time, so I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) for his work on H.R. 3826, the Electricity Security and Affordability Act.

Economic growth depends on job creators, not Federal regulators. We need to increase access to affordable energy, not take energy options off the table.

Now is the time to ensure a robust ``all-of-the-above'' energy strategy that includes our abundant fossil energies, as well as nuclear and renewables.

But by requiring carbon capture and storage technology that doesn't even exist, the EPA's new power proposal effectively bans new coal power. There is no coal power plant anywhere in the world that can meet the EPA's radical proposal.

What is equally troubling is that the EPA is planning to require this same unproven technology for new natural gas power.

This amendment stops the EPA's attack on natural gas. It prevents the

EPA from using make-believe technologies when setting standards.

I am interested in protecting all forms of affordable energy from EPA overreach, including coal, natural gas, and renewables, and that is what this amendment does.

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to rely on a technology that has been ``adequately demonstrated'' in the words of the law, but once again, the EPA is trying to twist the law to suit its extremist agenda.

The EPA does this by using an old legal trick: if you can't win the argument as it stands, start arguing about definition of words. By redefining what the term ``adequately demonstrated'' means, the agency is requiring the use of an unproven technology. In so doing, the EPA is making a tremendous power grab, one that reaches well beyond coal.

Only in Washington can you call something ``adequately demonstrated'' that doesn't even exist.

Over the past few months, it has become increasingly clear that the EPA isn't just going after coal. The administration has no intention of stopping there. Coal may be taking the hardest hit today, but the EPA is gearing up to take down natural gas.

This administration has tried to demonize hydraulic fracturing and prevent the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would create thousands of jobs and provide many Americans with affordable energy.

As America is finding hope in an energy renaissance, the EPA plans to impose harsh power plant requirements on all forms of fossil energy. The EPA and the Department of Energy have already begun to tout these plans around the world.

This amendment requires the EPA to rely on proven technologies when it sets rules for any power plant. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 3826, and help prevent the EPA from implementing reckless regulations that disregard the facts.

This amendment promotes an all-of-the-above-energy strategy, supports good-paying jobs, American manufacturing, and helps us secure energy independence. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on either side?

Mr. Chairman, let me say to my friend from California, we have one more speaker on this side, and if he is prepared to close, then we will go to our last speaker.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), who is the chairman of the Environment Subcommittee of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for yielding me time this afternoon.

Madam Chairman, I support H.R. 2804, the Achieving Less Excess in Regulation and Requiring Transparency Act, known as the ALERTT Act.

One of the biggest concerns that I hear from Texas employers is the avalanche of unnecessary Federal regulatory costs. Regulation redirects scarce capital from investment and job creation to compliance with the Federal Government. In fact, the Small Business Administration has determined that Federal regulations cost the economy $1.75 trillion each year.

This commonsense legislation is an omnibus package of regulatory relief bills that the Judiciary Committee has worked on in recent years to protect businesses. I previously authored two of the bills that are included in H.R. 2804, and appreciate their being considered again this Congress.

The ALERTT Act adds transparency to the regulatory process. It strengthens existing laws in order to prevent Federal agencies from bypassing cost-benefit analyses designed to protect small businesses, and the bill requires Federal agencies to pick the least costly alternative rule to achieve that statutory goal.

H.R. 2804 limits organizations' ability to bring sue-and-settle lawsuits against Federal agencies. These lawsuits result in one-sided regulations that shut stakeholders out of the process. The ALERTT Act restores the proper balance to regulatory consent decrees and settlements.

Madam Chairman, I thank Chairman Goodlatte and my colleagues for their efforts to provide much-needed regulatory relief to American businesses, and I urge adoption of H.R. 2804.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the former chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee for yielding me time.

H.R. 2431, the National Integrated Drought Information System Reauthorization Act of 2013, makes minor improvements to the NIDIS program and helps establish better drought forecasting and coordination.

I am glad that the Science, Space, and Technology Committee's chairman emeritus, Congressman Ralph Hall of Texas, is the lead sponsor of this bill and the original author of the NIDIS authorization in 2006. I thank the gentleman for his persistent leadership over the years on this issue.

Recent droughts in Texas and around the country have been severe. The NIDIS program has helped State and local governments, farmers, ranchers, and others both monitor and predict drought conditions.

More than one-third of the United States is currently experiencing moderate to severe drought conditions. By some estimates, the historic drought in 2012 cost our national economy as much as $70 billion.

NIDIS is a good program that has a history of bipartisan support. It represents the kind of interagency and intergovernmental cooperation that we need to reauthorize in this difficult fiscal environment.

As a success story, the NIDIS program currently operates the U.S. Drought Portal, a Web site that features a range of services related to drought. This includes historical data on past droughts, current data from climate observations, early warnings about emerging and potential droughts, decision support services for managing droughts, and a forum for stakeholders to discuss drought-related issues.

These services have been vital to our efforts to better forecast as well as understand the conditions that lead to drought. This bill reauthorizes an important program that provides early warnings about potential droughts. It also supports services for local and State decisionmakers to better manage and prepare for drought conditions.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, recently, President Obama said that marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol; however, the White House's own Web site gives numerous examples to the contrary:

First, marijuana use, particularly chronic use that begins at a young age, can lead to negative health consequences, such as dependence, addiction, respiratory illnesses, and cognitive impairment;

Second, marijuana is not a benign drug, and it is the second-leading substance for which people receive drug treatment;

Third, in the past 20 years, marijuana potency has tripled, leading to serious public health concerns;

Fourth, long-term use, particularly in adolescents, may be linked with lower IQ later in life.

Mr. Speaker, comparing marijuana to alcohol, as the President did, will only encourage its use and endanger the health of many Americans.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me this time.

For more than 20 years, the American commercial space industry has benefited from the assurance of the U.S. Government through Federal Aviation Administration launch indemnification authority.

Under this arrangement, commercial launch providers are required to purchase insurance up to the maximum probable loss. Beyond that, the government will cover up to $1.5 billion, plus inflation, and any amount above that is the responsibility of the original commercial launch provider.

The 3-year extension of the risk-sharing system in the bill today will help the commercial space industry and our economy. For the next 3 years, space launch providers will have the stability and assurance they need to compete in the international market.

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

Mr. Speaker, since 2002 over $362 million in government grants have gone to fund a liberal news organization by the name of Internews.

The Business and Media Institute describes Internews as a liberal journalism nonprofit, and states that not only does it push a liberal agenda, but it also has helped create three other liberal organizations.

Why are taxpayers' dollars subsidizing a liberal news outlet? This is a misuse of the public's money. People need unbiased information so they can form their own opinions and make educated decisions.

One of the greatest challenges that democratic America faces today is a biased media. It is inexcusable and irresponsible for the Federal Government to give any of the American taxpayers' dollars to a liberal media organization.

Mr. Speaker, when the Obama Administration launched Healthcare.gov, Americans were led to believe that the website was safe and secure. As the Science, Space, and Technology Committee learned at our hearing in November, this was not the case.

Healthcare.gov comprises one of the largest collections of personal information ever assembled.

The Administration has a responsibility to ensure that Americans' personal and financial data is secure. And individuals should be notified when their personal information has been compromised.

Instead, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services chose not to notify individuals when a security breach occurs.

This bill makes sure that individuals get the information they need to protect themselves.

By alerting users when a security breach occurs on the ObamaCare website, they can take action to limit the consequences.

If the Administration won't protect the privacy and security of Americans, then Congress should.

Mr. Speaker, today we honor Sergeant Jorge DeLeon, a brave soldier who resides in my congressional district, for his exceptional service to his country, community and fellow veterans.

Sergeant DeLeon joined the U.S. Army in 2001. During his fourth deployment to Afghanistan in April 2004, the Humvee he was driving ran over an anti-tank mine. Sergeant DeLeon lost his right leg and had his left leg severely injured as a result of the blast. He underwent a long recovery at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and now wears a computer- controlled prosthetic leg.

But Sergeant DeLeon's commitment to service did not end as a result of his battlefield injuries. Currently, he is employed by the Coalition to Salute America's Heroes (CSAH) as Director of the Family Support Network and CSAH Liaison to Brooke Army Medical Center. In addition, he serves as the National Spokesperson for CSAH to help to raise awareness for the organization. CSAH is committed to providing wounded veterans and their families support services to help them recover and rebuild their lives.

Sergeant DeLeon's personal bravery and ongoing efforts on behalf of his fellow veterans are commendable. I thank him for his dedicated service to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3309, the Innovation Act, and the rule we are debating now. This bipartisan legislation brings much-needed reforms to our patent litigation process, which continues to be plagued by patent trolls.

Patent trolls use weak patents to extort millions of dollars from innocent business owners through demand letters and frivolous patent infringement lawsuits. Businesses are forced to decide between years of costly litigation or a settlement.

The number of patent infringement claims has almost doubled in the past 3 years, and The New York Times reported that one lawyer filed patent lawsuits against 1,638 companies in the past 5 years. These lawsuits soak up capital that is better spent on investment, innovation, and job creation.

In fact, a 2012 study by the Boston University School of Law found that patent trolls cost the American economy $80 billion annually. The study also found that defendants paid $29 billion to patent trolls in 2011 alone.

The Innovation Act targets abusive patent litigation while protecting legitimate patent infringement claims. It provides accountability on the front end of litigation by requiring parties to state exactly why they are filing suit. H.R. 3309 also requires parties who file meritless patent claims to pay the attorneys' fees of their victims as a disincentive to pursue their baseless claims.

These reforms are vital to restore accountability and rein in abusive, frivolous, and costly patent lawsuits. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I thank Chairman Goodlatte for introducing this bipartisan bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3547) to extend the application of certain space launch liability provisions through 2014.

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. 3547, the bill now under consideration.

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

The bill we consider today provides stability for our Nation's commercial launch providers so that they can remain competitive in the international market.

The bill extends the existing system, which requires commercial launch providers to purchase insurance up to the maximum probable loss. It then provides that the government will compensate up to $1.5 billion, plus inflation, and any amount above that is the responsibility of the original commercial launch provider.

Two weeks ago, the Space Subcommittee heard testimony from industry experts about the need to extend the Commercial Space Launch Act's risk-sharing system. Two of the witnesses who testified deal with this law on a regular basis.

Mr. Stuart Witt, president of the Mojave Air and Space Port, is developing new launch systems and technologies that could revolutionize space by making it more accessible. He told the subcommittee that this law allows companies to continue to innovate and grow.

Another witness, Ms. Patricia Cooper, president of the Satellite Industry Association, represents companies that add billions of dollars to the U.S. economy as a result of the current risk-sharing system. Ms. Cooper testified that the system's continuation is ``absolutely essential'' and that her association ``strongly recommends that it be renewed before it expires.''

The committee also recently received a letter signed by DigitalGlobe, Boeing, Virgin Galactic, Lockheed Martin, American Pacific Corporation, Aerojet Rocketdyne, ATK, Ball, Honeywell, AMT II, and Orbital Sciences which advocated the renewal of the risk-sharing system in order to keep the U.S. competitive in the global market.

Last year, the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee held a separate hearing on indemnification and heard from the Federal Aviation Administration, the Government Accountability Office, DigitalGlobe, and the Aerospace Industries Association. At this hearing, Frank Slazer, with the Aerospace Industries Association, summed up his trade association's position by stating:

Many foreign launch providers competing against U.S.

companies already benefit from generous indemnification rules

. . . We cannot afford to drive away highly skilled technical

jobs to foreign countries, where the regulatory frameworks

provide better critical risk management tools. Lastly, a

nonrenewal could impede new U.S. entrants to the commercial

launch market, discourage future space launch innovation and

entrepreneurial investment. Without a level playing field for

competition, new U.S. entrants could find it highly

undesirable to begin their business ventures in the United

States.

The FAA launch indemnification authority has been in place for over 20 years, and the American commercial space industry has benefited significantly over this time. Thankfully, the provision has never been triggered by a serious accident, but the stability it provides allows the U.S. to remain competitive in the global market and to push the boundaries of space technology.

The bill before us would extend indemnification for 1 more year with the hope that we can address a longer-term legislative solution. I would have preferred a longer extension. For instance, the NASA Authorization Act that the Science, Space, and Technology Committee passed last summer extended indemnification for 5 years, but we now have a bipartisan bill before us that provides stability to our commercial space industry by protecting companies against third-party liability claims.

This provision expires on December 31, so time is short. This bill buys us time to work on a long-term extension as part of the larger Commercial Space Launch Act renewal that we will take up next year. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who is the vice chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we have no other speakers at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time if the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Johnson) is prepared to yield back her time.

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

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