Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, a new study by The Heritage Foundation warns that the Senate immigration bill would cost $6.3 trillion. That's because over their lifetime, illegal immigrants given amnesty would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits while paying only $3.1 trillion in taxes. Government benefits include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and health care. That means each taxpayer would be forced to pay $40,000 just to cover some of the costs of the immigration bill.

The immigration bill costs too much, has no deadline to secure the border, and hurts American workers. We should put the interests of American taxpayers and American workers first.

Mr. Speaker, National Review and The Heritage Foundation both oppose the Senate immigration bill for many good reasons.

There is no deadline for secure borders, yet millions of illegal immigrants would be given amnesty 6 months after the bill is enacted. This would only encourage more illegal immigration.

The Senate immigration bill would double the already record 1 million legal immigrants admitted every year. Most Americans oppose this and instead want to make sure that current immigrants are assimilated.

The bill puts foreign workers ahead of the interests of American workers and the economic needs of our country.

Mr. Speaker, it is inconceivable that an immigration bill with these huge flaws would be approved.

Mr. Speaker, last night, a random telephone poll of my constituents was conducted in five Hill Country counties in the 21st District of Texas.

Here are the results:

Eighty-eight percent feel that the border should be secured before other immigration reforms take effect; 84 percent favor a system that would require employers to hire legal workers; 96 percent think that the Federal Government should balance its budget; and 85 percent believe the American people are taxed too much.

These are sincerely held views by hardworking, law-abiding, tax- paying good Americans. Congress would do well to heed their advice.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate immigration bill provides cover for suspected terrorists and others who would do us harm. After 6 months, it legalizes millions of people in the country illegally. They can then get work permits, Social Security cards, and driver's licenses. This gives them a legitimate cover to travel and plot attacks.

And mass legalization will encourage others to enter the country illegally so they too can obtain cover documents.

Any immigration bill should put the safety of Americans first. We should go slowly before giving amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants long before we have secure borders.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate immigration bill never secures the border. It plans to mostly secure the ``high-risk sectors,'' which are less than half the border. And there is no guarantee that this will happen since there are no deadlines.

In fact, if the high-risk sectors are not secured after 5 years, a commission is established to make recommendations. ``Make recommendations'' sure doesn't sound like a secure border to me.

And there is the entry-exit system to deter those who overstay their visas--about 40 percent of all illegal immigrants. But it only applies to airports and seaports, not land checkpoints where most of the crossings occur. Again, there are no deadlines.

So it's amnesty for millions in 6 months and border security later, if ever.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me time.

As chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I would like to focus my remarks on the role of science and technology in Republicans' all-of-the-above energy strategy.

The Science Committee has oversight responsibility in two relevant areas. The committee oversees $8.5 billion of the Department of Energy's research and development funding.

If we want to ensure that Americans have access to the affordable and reliable energy they need, we must strengthen DOE scientific research programs and EPA scientific integrity principles. And that is what we intend to do this Congress.

As part of this process, the Science Committee expects to reauthorize the America COMPETES Act. A central component of that legislation is $5 billion to the Department of Energy Office of Science, which maintains world-class research facilities through the National Laboratories. The office also supports innovative research that will help transform how we produce and consume energy.

We will also pursue energy legislation that improves prioritization and management of specific programs, from energy efficiency and renewable energy to nuclear, coal, oil, and natural gas.

The Science Committee recently received testimony that highlighted the massive costs and duplication of Federal subsidies for alternate forms of energy. The administration should not pick winners and give subsidies to favored companies that promote uncompetitive technologies. This too often leads to waste and bankruptcy, as we witnessed with Solyndra and other companies. Instead, we should focus our resources on research and development that will produce technologies that will enable alternative energy sources to become economically competitive without the need for subsidies.

Finally, we need to fix the EPA, which continues to levy numerous regulations that burden employers. Under the Obama administration, the EPA has aggressively sought to regulate nearly every aspect of the energy industry. It implements rules that burden employers and kill jobs. Insulting the taxpayers who fund the EPA, the administration refuses to release the scientific data upon which these burdensome regulations are based. This is entirely inconsistent with the President's stated commitment to lead the most open and transparent administration in history. The committee will continue to work to ensure that the EPA lives up to the President's transparency standard. The American people deserve to know all the facts, particularly since EPA regulations on the energy sector have a direct impact on their daily lives.

For example, the EPA has opposed a technological innovation that provides good-paying jobs for many Americans. The fracking revolution is changing the nature of American energy production. Hundreds of communities directly benefit from the economic turnaround due to energy production made possible by the fracking technology. These locations range from North Dakota to Pennsylvania to Texas. These States' household income growth and low unemployment is a direct result of revolutionary technology developments combined with sound energy policy and oversight at the State level.

Madam Speaker, on the Science Committee, we aim to ensure that Americans reap the benefits of this current energy technology revolution, and the Science Committee will do its part.

Mr. Speaker, our hearts are heavy because of the Boston bombings that killed and maimed so many.

We need to wait for all the facts before deciding how the terrorist attack impacts immigration policy. But this much I hope we can agree on: the safety of the American people must come first.

At the least, we should secure our border and bolster interior enforcement before we legalize millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S. To give amnesty to millions without knowing whether some of them want to do us harm is to jeopardize American lives.

We should go slow before making any changes to immigration policy that don't put the interests of Americans first. We owe that to both the victims and the survivors.

Mr. Speaker, there is much discussion these days about immigration and what amnesty means. But the definition is clear.

In Black's Law Dictionary, ``A pardon extended by the government to a group or class of persons. The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already present in the country.''

That's exactly what the Senate immigration bill does.

And from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, amnesty is ``The act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.''

Again, that's exactly what the Senate immigration bill does.

You could say that the Senate immigration bill amounts to amnesty- plus, since illegal immigrants are pardoned, plus are allowed to become citizens.

Mr. Speaker, it's hard to believe, but the Senate immigration bill is worse than we thought.

Despite assurances, the border is not secured before almost everyone in the country illegally is given amnesty. So the bill guarantees there will be a rush across the border to take advantage of massive amnesty.

And the bill offers amnesty to far more illegal immigrants than we thought. In addition to most of the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country, it offers to legalize their relatives outside the country and even others who have already been deported home. So current immigration laws are shredded.

The good news is that the House Judiciary Committee will come up with a better plan.

Mr. Speaker, it is three strikes and you're out for the Senate's immigration proposal.

First, it legalizes almost everyone in the country illegally before the border is secured. This of course will encourage even more illegal immigration.

Second, it puts the interests of foreign workers ahead of the interests of American workers. The immigration plan allows millions of illegal immigrants to compete with American workers, driving down their wages.

And third, it treats illegal immigrants better than those who have played by the rules and waited their turn in line to come into the United States. Illegal immigrants get legal status immediately. The law abiding, well, they just have to continue waiting.

I don't think the American people are going to give the Senate another turn at bat.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 756) to advance cybersecurity research, development, and technical standards, 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 to include extraneous material on H.R. 756, the bill now under consideration.

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

I thank Representative McCaul and Representative Lipinski for introducing this commonsense, bipartisan legislation. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 756, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2013.

As our reliance on information technology expands, so do our vulnerabilities. Cyber attacks against U.S. Government and private sector networks are on the rise. Protecting America's cyber systems is critical to our economic and national security. Keeping our cyber infrastructure secure is a responsibility shared by different Federal agencies, including the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act coordinates research and development activities to better address evolving cyber threats. The legislation promotes much-needed research and development to help create new technologies and standards that better protect America's information technology systems. To improve America's cybersecurity abilities, this bill strengthens activities in four areas:

One, strategic planning for cybersecurity research and development needs across the Federal Government;

Two, basic research at the National Science Foundation, which we know is important to increasing security over the long term;

Three, National Science Foundation scholarships to improve the quality of the cybersecurity workforce;

Four, improved research, development, and public outreach organized by NIST related to cybersecurity.

These are modest but important changes that will help us better protect our cyber networks.

Cyber attacks threaten our national and economic security. To solve this problem, America needs a solution that involves the cooperation of many public and private sector entities. We must develop a rigorous scientific foundation for cybersecurity. This legislation helps foster such an effort, which will make our computer systems more secure.

The bill was recently approved by the Science, Space, and Technology Committee with strong bipartisan support. I again thank my Science Committee colleagues, Representatives McCaul and Lipinski, for their initiative on this issue, and look forward to this bill becoming law.

Mr. Speaker, the following groups have written letters of support for H.R. 756, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act: TechAmerica, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, USTelecom, the Information Technology Industry Council, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Financial Services Roundtable, the Computing Research Association, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, and the U.S. Public Policy Council of the Association for Computing Machinery.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), a member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, and the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) who is the vice chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we have no more requests for time on this side, so we'll be prepared to yield back at the right time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 967) to amend the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 to authorize activities for support of networking and information technology research, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 967, the bill now under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis) for her work on this bill. And I'm pleased to join the Science Committee's ranking member, Ms. Johnson, as a cosponsor of H.R. 967, the Advancing America's Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act of 2013. This bill had broad bipartisan support in the last Congress, and I hope it will receive that same level of support today.

In the digital age, protecting our Nation's computer networking systems is more important than ever. This bill provides the coordinated research and development efforts necessary to improve cyber and data security nationwide. And better network security promotes U.S. competitiveness, enhances national security, and creates high-tech jobs.

The NITRD program is an extension of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991. It represents the Federal Government's main R&D investment portfolio for unclassified networking, computing, software, cybersecurity, and related information technologies. Currently, 15 Federal agencies are contributing members of NITRD, with an additional 20 or so participating in the program.

This bill serves as the mechanism for interagency coordination of R&D to ensure no duplication of research efforts among Federal agencies or the private sector. It rebalances R&D portfolios to focus less on short-term goals and more on large-scale, long-term interdisciplinary research.

While this bill does not authorize specific funding amounts, NITRD spending totals over $3.7 billion annually. Over $1.1 billion of this is from the National Science Foundation and over $550 million is from the Department of Energy. The bill updates the underlying High- Performance Computing statute and codifies work undertaken by the National Coordination Office, housed within NSF, to oversee the 15 different agencies.

The NITRD program has eight strategic priorities for its research: cybersecurity; autonomous, robotic systems; high-end computing and applications; exascale computing; human-computer interaction; large- scale networking, workforce development; and software design and productivity.

Technologies that come from these research priorities are applied by the commercial sector and the government to protect and enhance emergency communications, the power grid, air traffic control networks, and national defense systems. Networking and information technology support and boost American competitiveness, enhance national security, and help strengthen the economy.

American job creators also recognize the importance of networking and information technology research and development. Many industry partners and stakeholders have written letters in support of this bill. They include the National Association of Manufacturers, TechAmerica, Computing Research Association, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers-USA, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, and the U.S. Public Policy Council of the Association for Computing Machinery.

Cybersecurity provisions in the bill include research necessary to detect, prevent, and recover from actions that can compromise or threaten computer-based systems.

I again thank my Science Committee colleague, Representative Lummis, the chairwoman of the Energy Subcommittee, for her initiative on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), who is the sponsor of this legislation and who also chairs the Energy Subcommittee, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Senate's immigration proposal contains a fatal flaw. It legalizes almost everyone in the country illegally, amnesty, before it secures the border.

As a result, the Senate proposal issues an open invitation to enter the country illegally. Millions more will do so before the border is secure. The Senate proposal would dramatically increase illegal immigration.

The non-partisan Government Accountability Office found that only 6 percent of the U.S.-Mexico border is under full control of the Border Patrol. And 40 percent of all illegal immigrants are visa overstayers. Yet, the Senate proposal legalizes almost everyone in the country before a system is set up to identify the visa overstayers.

The Senate proposal amounts to amnesty first, border security later, if ever. It is fatally flawed.

Mr. Speaker, the call to serve one's country comes to people in many different forms. Some protect our nation in the Armed Forces. Some are elected to public office. Others serve officials in the three branches of our government. But all work together to protect, preserve and uphold the founding principles of this great nation.

Richard Herding has spent the last 27 years serving his country in both the legislative and executive branches. A graduate of the University of Chicago Law School, he began his career at the U.S. Department of Justice. Since then he has worked for Senators, Congressional committees and a presidential campaign.

During the Bush Administration, he oversaw major policy decisions by the Justice Department as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy.

He also managed the Justice Department's communication with Capitol Hill as the Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legislative Affairs.

Most recently, he served as the Staff Director and Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, which I chaired in the last Congress. With Richard's help, the House Judiciary Committee passed more substantive bills than any other committee in the last Congress. His strategic thinking was instrumental in achieving this goal.

Today, Richard Hertling is retiring, and we in the House are losing a smart attorney and good friend. But the Senators, members of the House and staff who worked with him will also miss his tutorials in ancient history and his use of Latin in everyday conversations.

We thank him for his service to his country, and wish him the best on his well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 667) to redesignate the Dryden Flight Research Center as the Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center and the Western Aeronautical Test Range as the Hugh L. Dryden Aeronautical Test Range.

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. 667, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California, Kevin McCarthy, the majority whip and, I might add, the originator and author of this bill.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, for honoring Neil Armstrong and NASA Deputy Administrator Hugh Dryden with this bill. Not many people know the relationship between these two men. Hugh Dryden was the visionary behind NASA's X-15 rocket plane and the Apollo program. Neil Armstrong was the one who flew the spacecraft that Dryden envisioned.

The X-15 rocket plane set many speed and altitude records in the early 1960s. Hugh Dryden was the engineer

and program manager for that spacecraft which Neil Armstrong flew seven times.

While everyone knows that Neil Armstrong was the first man to set foot on the Moon, not many people know Hugh Dryden's role. The Soviets had launched the first satellite Sputnik in 1957, and cosmonaut Yuri Gargarin became the first man in space in April 1961.

President John F. Kennedy wanted to demonstrate American ingenuity and technical superiority over the Soviet Union, so he convened the National Space Council. President Kennedy asked for their advice on the best way for America to respond to the Soviet's string of firsts in space exploration. In that meeting, Hugh Dryden recommended to the President that the goal of putting a man on the Moon within 10 years was achievable and something the American people could rally behind.

The rest is history. President Kennedy grabbed Hugh Dryden's idea and addressed a joint session of Congress the very next month. The Apollo program was the brainchild of Hugh Dryden. Neal Armstrong turned that dream into reality by making that ``one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind'' on another world almost 240,000 miles away. Hugh Dryden was not able to see his dream become reality, as he died in 1965. And, unfortunately, Neil Armstrong passed away last August.

It is important for us to honor both men's legacies by naming the Flight Research Center after Neil Armstrong and the surrounding Test Range after Hugh Dryden. With this bill, we reaffirm that America is filled with dreamers like Hugh Dryden, and doers like Neil Armstrong, who--working together--can ``shoot for the Moon.'' Thanks to Mr. McCarthy, we honor their legacy, and that reminds us that America always needs to think about new frontiers.

I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), former chairman of this committee.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), who has long been an able spokesman on the issues related to space.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we have one additional speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will recognize the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for as much time as he may consume, and I also note that he is the vice chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close. We have no other speakers, and I'm prepared to yield back the balance of my time after the gentlewoman from Maryland.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from Maryland--who is also the ranking member of the Space Subcommittee--for her comments, particularly for her personal comments, and I certainly share her concerns about the severe cuts that NASA and our space exploration programs might take if the sequestration goes into effect, but I also feel compelled to point out that there is a way to avoid that sequestration.

The House of Representatives, under the Republican leadership, has already passed two bills that would take the place of the sequestration, and the Senate has yet to act. After all, the sequestration was the President's idea to start with, so I hope we will hear from the President and the Senate various suggestions as to how the sequestration can be avoided, but the House has certainly done its job to avoid those heavy-handed cuts.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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