Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I thank Chairman Young, Ranking Member Visclosky, and Chairman Rogers for working across the aisle on the bill before us today in keeping with the Defense Subcommittee's long bipartisan tradition. I also want to recognize and thank the Defense Subcommittee staff for working tirelessly on the nuts and bolts of this bill.

Sadly, however, the appropriations process has become a quandary that could easily have been avoided with good old-fashioned compromise. Instead, we have disparate House and Senate allocations. House bills follow the Ryan budget, which endorses sequestration and is unrealistic, unworkable, and economically misguided, while the Senate and White House budgets are based on the higher level agreed upon in the Budget Control Act. With only 18 days of session left in the House before the end of the fiscal year, we are racing toward a government shutdown that is irresponsible.

Assuming the sequester is turned off, this is a good bill. It includes additional funding and tougher penalties to address the epidemic of sexual assault plaguing our military, an increase for Active Duty pay by 1.8 percent, enhancements to embassy security by increasing the presence of Marine Corps security guards, substantial investments in health services and suicide prevention, maintenance of all the National Guard weapons of mass destruction/civil support teams, and continued support for the Israeli Cooperative Program.

However, the bill also contains serious shortcomings. On July 8, I was at Camp Smith in my district in New York where 48 of the more than 600,000 Defense civilian employees nationwide are being furloughed. Each will lose $2,706, a 20 percent reduction to their fourth-quarter earnings, on top of 3 years without a pay increase. Yet this bill does nothing to fix the pay freeze or furloughs resulting from the sequester.

In fact, the majority simply ignores sequestration when it suits their purpose, including in the spending allocations for MilCon-VA, Homeland Security, and Defense bills. While the Republicans are steadfast in sticking to the post-sequester overall discretionary allocation they included in the

Ryan budget, they are comfortable breaking the Budget Control Act's cap on Defense spending by $47.7 billion.

Of course, they may not tell you that, unless we end the sequester, on January 15 those funds will be lost, creating a gaping hole in the Defense budget. They don't have the courage of their convictions to admit that breaking the Defense cap further shortchanges vital domestic priorities like medical research, Head Start, teachers for military families, energy efficiency, disaster preparedness, and other vital investments, all of which create jobs.

We have already achieved $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction since 2011, including $1.5 trillion in discretionary cuts. It is time for Congress to buckle down to reach a bipartisan agreement to replace sequestration with a balanced approach that protects critical services and investments.

As I did for MilCon-VA and Homeland Security, I support the overall funding level in Defense because it was written as though Congress will turn off sequestration, as we should.

But on the remaining bills, as with the Energy and Water bill, I will not support slashing investments in our families and workforce. If we are to remain a global leader, we need a strong national defense and a strong economy.

I thank you again to the chairman and the ranking member, who have worked so hard in a bipartisan way, maintaining the tradition of this committee. As we move forward, I do hope that we can go to conference and work together with the Senate to come up with a bill that can really pass and sequestration be eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it hurts the working poor and takes food and nutrition from hardworking families.

Well, I first want to thank the chair, and I appreciate your important work on this bill. And I would like to thank the chairman of the full committee, and the ranking member, for your leadership and for your eloquent statement on this bill. It has been a pleasure for me to work with you, and I thank you so very much.

I rise in strong opposition to this woefully inadequate bill. With an allocation of $30.4 billion, $2.8 billion less than the FY 2013 enacted level, when adjusted for Sandy reconstruction, and a little more than $4 billion below the request, the consequences of following the majority's budget are crystal clear: the erosion of America's high-tech and scientific workforce, the loss of clean and renewable energy breakthroughs to countries like China, the abandonment of communities along our Nation's coastlines and waterways.

And with an 81 percent reduction in ARPA-E and a 60 percent, or $700 million, reduction to energy efficiency, renewable energy and energy delivery and reliability programs compared to last year, this bill will leave our scientific and technological workforce ill-equipped to tackle the great challenges of our time. Such drastic cuts will force the Federal Government to withdraw critical support for clean energy and renewable investments on the cusp of their maturity.

These funding levels will inflict great pain on the American people, who will be left jobless with the exportation of America's clean energy and innovation economy to China and other foreign competitors.

The consequence of allowing our competitors to gain ground is already evident. Last month, China's newest supercomputer, which was built almost entirely from Chinese parts, was deemed the fastest in the world, clocking in about twice as fast as the best American machine. If supercomputing is a measure of our scientific innovation, we are losing badly.

This bill also dramatically underinvests by $300 million below last year in our Nation's water resource infrastructure, leaving homes, businesses, and communities vulnerable to damage from natural disasters like Superstorm Sandy. This decrease would compound prior cuts in 2011, 2012, and 2013, totaling $769 million, of which $688 million was cut from the Army Corps' construction account for projects we all know need to be done. Over 300 projects were suspended between 2011 and 2012. Are we going to abandon these projects forever? As a Member whose district was affected by Hurricane Sandy, I can attest that prevention is cheaper and smarter than paying for reconstruction later.

Additionally, decreasing investments in water infrastructure inhibits construction job creation, and local businesses and individuals will not reap the indirect economic benefits that encourages critical investments in their communities.

It is my firm hope that the majority will recognize that this bill does not provide a workable path forward and return to the spending levels agreed to under the Budget Control Act. To do otherwise is to purposely undermine efforts to support American job creation and economic growth.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Royce/Engel amendment to make U.S. International food aid programs more efficient. The United States is a generous nation and since the 1950s has fed billions of people around the world through the Food for Peace program. However, nearly sixty years later, the world has changed and the program needs to change with it. The status quo is no longer an option. We must act now to change with the times.

The United States does not have the surpluses it did decades ago and it is now forced to purchase food on the commercial markets. Near record-high farm prices have meant our food aid dollars do not go as far. According to independent analyses, the number of direct recipients of our food aid has dropped from 74 million in 2006 to an average of 30 million more recently. Research has shown that famine and hunger are not necessarily caused by the lack of food, but frequently by the lack of access to available food, and quite often driven by conflict. According to a 2009 report by GAO, this locally-available food is a quarter to a third less expensive than in-kind food aid.

Another important benefit of the increased flexibility this amendment provides is that U.S. assistance could be used to purchase the nutrient dense foods that are critical to pregnant mothers and their young children. By providing the right inputs at the right time, our assistance will not just alleviate hunger, but ensure that recipients have healthy and productive futures.

Our constituents demand that we take a critical and judicious look at each and every government program to determine whether it is efficient and effective in reaching its objective. With the lack of agricultural surpluses in our country, the sole remaining objective of our food aid programs should be to serve the maximum number of people in need in the most cost effective way possible. While this amendment is a good start, I think we need to do more. I wish we could adopt the Administration's proposal--reforms that could feed an additional 10 million people.

The crisis in the Horn of Africa, the current devastation of the communities in Syria, and the fragile nature of chronically hungry places like the Sahel region of Africa call us to be responsible stewards of resources, both for United States taxpayers and the people around the world who depend on our assistance. These reforms are proven. For example, monetization programs in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are only earning $0.51 for every dollar of commodities provided. The only responsible action is to find a better way to serve the mothers and young children that depend on these programs.

Reducing the enormous suffering associated with hunger and famine is a goal rooted in the fundamental generosity of the American people and is the right thing to do.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the sexual assault epidemic plaguing our military has taken hold at the academies, which reported 80 cases of sexual assault last year--a 23 percent increase--and these are just the cases that were reported. My amendment would require the service academies to incorporate sexual assault prevention into their ethics curricula.

Cadets and midshipmen enter academies at an impressionable age. Using ethics as an avenue to teach sexual assault prevention can strengthen the core messages of honor and respect in character development. It would also put discussion of this essential policy at the center of the service's culture, which must be changed to stop sexual assault in the military.

I thank the chair and the ranking member for including my amendment in the en bloc.

Mr. Speaker, military cohesion is eroding and trust is disintegrating throughout the ranks as sexual assault infests the services. An Air Force officer charged with sexual assault prevention efforts here in Washington was arrested for sexual battery last month.

West Point and the Naval Academy have made recent headlines about assaults involving athletes. Alarmingly, the military academies reported 80 cases of sexual assault last year, a 23 percent increase; and too many cases go unreported.

We trust the service academies to mold our sons and daughters for service to our country. Cadets and midshipmen are of an impressionable and often vulnerable age, requiring stronger protections against sexual assault and better support for victims.

The culture that is propelling this epidemic must change. I urge support for the sexual assault provisions in the NDAA.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Isabel E. Villar for her dedication to her community, most notably to the Hispanic Community in Westchester County, New York.

A Cuban native and immigrant, Ms. Villar experienced first-hand the problems presented by language barriers and cultural differences for newcomers to this country. In response, she has dedicated herself to improving the lives of Hispanic immigrants throughout Westchester.

As an advocate for education, Ms. Villar founded the Brien McMahon Hispanic Alumni Association. The Association provides role models and mentors to Hispanic students at Brien McMahon High School and scholarships to graduating seniors.

Ms. Villar founded El Centro Hispano in White Plains, New York, which is a comprehensive resource for Hispanic residents in Westchester. It offers numerous community programs, including parenting classes, tutorial programs at local schools, and housing and employment information.

Since its founding in 1974, El Centro Hispano has continued to expand, now including the Mi Hermana Mayor Mentoring Program. This program offers college scholarships for Hispanic high school graduates, a social service internship program, and housing and employment information services. It also has a Technology Center, which offers computer classes for children, adults, and seniors.

Ms. Villar has been honored with numerous awards for her commitment to the Hispanic community and education in Westchester and beyond. One of the first inductees into the White Plains Hall of Fame, she was also inducted into the Westchester Senior Citizens Hall of Fame and was featured in Who is Who in America. She received the Westchester Community Foundation Leadership Award and will be honored with the dedication of Isabel Elsa Villar Boulevard in White Plains, New York, on June 16 of this year.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize my friend Isabel E. Villar for her remarkable service and lifelong commitment to enriching the lives of others. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring her tremendous accomplishments.

Mr. Chairman, I want to share the very gracious remarks on the part of the chair of the full committee, the chair of the subcommittee, the outstanding ranking member, and all the staff for the important work you did on this bill.

Over the past year, we have experienced the devastation of Hurricane Sandy, heartbreak in Moore, Oklahoma, tragic acts of terror in Boston. Disasters, natural or manmade, pose risks to our communities, which must be matched with the resources of the Federal Government and, in particular, the Department of Homeland Security.

The bill before us, which is approximately $35 million below the administration's request, does a good job of meeting these tasks, yet inadequately funds other programs such as operational accounts, which face cuts so severe that they cannot realistically be implemented.

I do thank the chairman and ranking member for including several priorities, providing $1.5 billion for FEMA State and local grants which were underfunded in the request, prioritizing high-risk areas in our grant programs, continuing the Securing the Cities program to prevent radiological or nuclear attacks, making needed investments in cybersecurity, and including language to help stem sexual assault in the Coast Guard, which has become a significant and outrageous problem in the military.

However, the bill before us ignores the dangerous impact of sequestration, putting off difficult choices that must be made if we are to enact responsible spending bills for FY14.

With the majority's unworkable 302(a) allocation, which is $92 billion below the President's request, and less than the amounts agreed to under the Budget Control Act, this is one of the few bills that will have sufficient funding to garner bipartisan support.

The budget resolution and appropriations process under way harm our ability to invest in education, medical research, transportation infrastructure, energy development, all of which we need to grow our economy and build a competitive workforce for the future.

I was very proud to serve on the Homeland Security Subcommittee and appreciate, again, the chairman and ranking member's efforts, as well as the professional staff, in writing this bill. This subcommittee has a history of working across the aisle; and if we avoid poison pill riders during this debate, we will likely pass a bipartisan bill to provide responsible funding levels for the agencies tasked with vital security functions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, which would deem the discretionary spending levels in the Ryan budget as law.

The Ryan budget endorses sequestration, is unrealistic, unworkable, economically misguided. The Senate and the White House are using a different set of numbers.

By adopting the rule and the Ryan budget and breaking caps in the Budget Control Act which passed this body, we guarantee gridlock. The House majority will pass a small number of bills at roughly the President's requested levels, but will be unable to get bipartisan support for the remaining bills.

It would also jeopardize our economic recovery. Europeans are experiencing the limits of austerity in the midst of a fragile recovery. We should invest more in education, biomedical research, transportation infrastructure, clean energy and other initiatives that grow our economy and create jobs. Instead, the deeming resolution would take a step back, all but ensuring significant reductions.

To turn off the sequester, ensure the House's relevance in the process, and pass reasonable bills, Democrats offered in committee a motion to postpone consideration of subcommittee allocations until a budget resolution could be conferenced.

And I do want to say this, and I would like to say this to my friend, the distinguished Chair on the other side of the House, there has been a call for a budget resolution on the Senate. They did a budget resolution on the Senate that has been requested by my good friends on the other side of the aisle. That budget resolution passed.

However, I know the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, Chris Van Hollen, has called for a conference, went to the Rules Committee five times and said, Let's have a conference so we can move forward. That was denied.

So, my colleagues, with a balanced deficit reduction plan, we could establish an alternative allocation that would sufficiently fund our priorities and allow us to follow regular order for the appropriations process.

Instead of my friends engaging today in a futile process--it's just a futile exercise--the House should abide by the discretionary caps in the Budget Control Act. Turn off the sequester before we consider spending bills.

My friends, vote ``no'' on the rule.

I would be delighted to yield to the gentleman.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to make a point to my friend on the other side of the aisle: the bill before us today is a bipartisan bill. There was strong support on both sides of the aisle. The chair and the ranking member worked together in a collegial way because this bill is so important for our country.

The problem here is, after this bill and Homeland Security, there's nothing left. Education, National Institutes of Health are in a bill that's going to be cut 22 percent.

So, my friend, the issue is not these bills today; it's the process and the fact there isn't a complete plan in place.

I would like to thank distinguished Ranking Member Bishop. I would like to thank Chairman Culberson. I would like to thank Chairman Rogers. I would like to thank all of the outstanding staffs for putting together a really good bipartisan bill. It's an important bill, and I know how hard you worked together to produce a really good product, and we thank you.

This bill does represent a reasonable approach and continues a long commitment to our veterans and our military facilities. It continues the bipartisan tradition of providing funding levels that Members on both sides of the aisle could agree are appropriate while avoiding contentious legislative riders that complicate passage.

However, the Republican majority's refusal to go to conference to forge a bipartisan agreement on the budget resolution is really unacceptable. This imperils this year's appropriations process, making it nearly impossible to move all 12 bills. Instead, it is likely that we will consider in the full House only a few bills with reasonable allocations, including MilCon-VA, while others are left in limbo indefinitely until we pass a continuing resolution.

I am optimistic that this bill has a good chance of enactment as long as we don't attach any controversial riders, but other important priorities will assuredly suffer. While veterans programs are exempt from sequestration, $73.3 billion provided in the bill largely mirrors the administration's request and does not reflect sequestration even for the portions of the bill that were not exempted. In fact, the differences between this bill and the administration's request are relatively small: an adjustment of $1.05 billion, due to bid savings and other project adjustments, and the misguided decision not to provide $185 million for the requested 2014 civilian pay raise.

If the MilCon-VA bill assumes the sequester cuts have been replaced, why

can't we join with the administration and the Senate and assume it will be addressed for the other bills?

On a positive note, this bill would better support our female veterans who are struggling with the trauma of sexual assault and would support those in need of prosthetics. It also continues to focus on the mental health needs of our Nation's veterans.

The bill, which takes several steps related to the shameful veterans claims backlog, would hire 94 additional claims processors; provide $155 million for the Veterans Benefit Management System and $136 million for the Veterans Claims Intake Program in order to significantly speed up claims by converting old paper files into digital files; restrict funds to force DOD and the VA to use a seamless electronic health records system; and require the VA to provide monthly reports.

We cannot accept any further excuses. The VA must make progress. This is a good bill. I hope we can avoid adding contentious and unnecessary legislative riders today, and I hope that the chairman from Kentucky's optimism about sequestration reflected in the allocation for the first bill is proven true.

I commend the chairman and ranking member once again on their good work, and I urge your support.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the MilCon-VA bill should be one of the least controversial measures this committee considers. I am deeply disappointed that instead of seeking to pass the most bipartisan bill possible, some would prefer to weigh down the bill that funds veterans and military construction with divisive riders.

Not only is this procedurally problematic, but it's completely wrong on substance. Repealing Davis-Bacon has consistently, as my colleague has shown, been shown to increase costs. Poor construction results in repairs, revisions, project delays, and cost overruns. Let's not add an unnecessary policy rider that will not be included in the final version.

Again, this is probably one of the most bipartisan bills that we have considered. I have applauded the chair and the ranking member for working so closely together to produce a really important bill that helps our veterans. Why weigh this down with this divisive rider? Let's vote against this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, approximately 15 million Americans have a food allergy, a life-altering and potentially life-threatening disease that affects one in every 13 children in the U.S. That's roughly two in every classroom. Food allergies among children increased by 50 percent from 1997-99 to 2009-11, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, and every three minutes, a food allergy reaction sends someone to the emergency room. The numbers are growing and becoming more serious--but there is no clear answer as to why.

The increased impact of food allergies is being felt in schools, playgrounds, restaurants, workplaces and emergency care facilities, and constitutes a growing public health issue with substantial financial, educational and medical implications. That is why I am speaking today to alert you that this week is Food Allergy Awareness Week.

Unfortunately, resources dedicated to identifying the source and a cure for food allergies has not kept pace with the increasing incidence and its impact. Total governmental support, including the National Institutes of Health, amounts to less than $30 million in food allergy research. Private sources, like Food Allergy Research and Education--a patient-centered advocacy and support organization--provide limited additional research support. That is less than $2.00 in annual research funding for every American living with a potentially life-threatening food allergy.

Mr. Speaker, beyond government research support, the risk to individuals, especially children, of severe, life-threatening reactions also needs to be addressed and prepared for. While many children with known food allergies are permitted to bring their epinephrine auto- injectors to school, studies have shown that 25 percent of epinephrine administrations in schools involve individuals without a previously known allergy. Consequently, the availability of stock epinephrine-- undesignated devices that are not prescribed to a particular student and that may be used in anaphylactic emergencies--is critical. Many students who will need epinephrine may have no known history of allergy to food, bee stings, latex and other allergens, and therefore would not have a prescription of their own.

As this health crisis continues to grow, other responses are becoming increasingly necessary. In addition to school personnel, restaurants and their staff need to be made aware of the risks, know how to properly prepare food to avoid allergic reactions, and how to respond in an emergency. Emergency responders need to be properly authorized, trained and equipped to recognize and administer treatment. And ultimately, epinephrine needs to become a standard of emergency first aid in public spaces, nationwide.

Mr. Speaker, 19 states have now passed legislation that would allow schools to stock emergency epinephrine auto-injectors for those instances. Congress has had before it legislation that would provide an incentive for states to require the stocking of this emergency medication for the children and staff who may be faced with this life- threatening situation, and I hope that that legislation will be revisited during this session.

It is critical for the public to appreciate the extent of the problem and, importantly, the severity of the disease. It is a health crisis that affects every race, age, income group and geographic area, and is growing dramatically. And what the public increasingly needs to understand is that this is not simply an inconvenient condition. As the recent tragic deaths of children in Utah, New Jersey and Massachusetts show, it is frequently a life-threatening disease. We hope that public understanding and appreciation is enhanced during Food Allergy Awareness Week.

I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the Record opposing the GOP's dubious Mother's Day gift--more work and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Honorable Richard Ottinger, Esq. for his lifetime of public service. His indefatigable dedication to his community and his students is an inspiration to us all.

As a Member of Congress for 16 years, Mr. Ottinger proudly represented the people of New York's 25th, 24th, and 20th districts. As one of the earliest environmentalists in Congress in 1965, Mr. Ottinger authored a substantial number of energy and environmental laws. He served as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Energy Conservation and Power Subcommittee, where he was instrumental in adopting critical energy and environmental legislation. Notably, Mr. Ottinger was the chief cosponsor of the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 and the Conservation Service Reform Act of 1984.

Prior to his service in Congress, Mr. Ottinger served in the United States Air Force for two years. He was discharged as a Captain in 1957 and was admitted to the New York bar, where he practiced international and corporate law. He then became one of the founders and second staff member of the Peace Corps, where he served as director of programs for the west coast of South America from 1961 to 1964.

Upon retiring from Congress in 1984, Mr. Ottinger joined Pace Law School as a Professor in the Environmental Law Program. As co-director of the Center for Environmental Legal Studies, he founded the Pace Energy Project in 1987, later renamed the Pace Energy and Climate Center. The Center, which raises $900,000 per year, advocates for utility investment in conservation and renewable energy resources. In December 1994, Mr. Ottinger was appointed Dean of the Law School, where he served until 1999. Mr. Ottinger currently serves as Dean Emeritus of the Law School.

Throughout his illustrious career, Mr. Ottinger has been honored with a number of awards, including the 2009 EPA Environmental Quality Award. Pace Law School will also be honoring Mr. Ottinger with the dedication of the Richard L. Ottinger Hall on April 30.

I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the Honorable Richard Ottinger's tremendous accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 98th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. This yearly commemoration is a testament to the lives and legacy of the 1.5 million Armenians who lost their lives, and is emblematic of our commitment to keeping the Armenian nation and culture alive.

Today, as we revisit this dark period in world history, we must be mindful of the lessons learned from this tragedy. We have witnessed that blind hatred and senseless prejudice tear at the very fabric of our society, even today. The victims of the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust, ethnic cleansings in Kosovo, Rwanda, and Sudan, and acts of vicious terrorism remind us of the human cost of hate. We must do everything in our power to prevent these kinds of senseless tragedies from happening again.

We remember the past and pledge our support for ensuring a positive and secure future for the Armenian nation and its people. Armenians now live all around the world, including many in my District and throughout the United States. As the Ranking Member of the House State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, I support our yearly package of assistance to Armenia, including funds available for activities that further a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. I have also cosponsored legislation calling on the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights violations and the ethnic cleansing during the Armenian Genocide. Finally, as an active member of the Armenian Caucus, it is my pleasure to continue working on behalf of the U.S.-Armenia relationship in Congress.

In honoring the memory of the victims of the Armenian Genocide, we must commit to building a strong, prosperous, and stable Armenia. I am proud to be a partner in this effort and thank my colleagues who have also pledged their support.

Madam Chair, I rise in reluctant opposition to the bill. It is imperative that Congress take substantial action to bolster cybersecurity. The last major cyber bill to become law was the Federal Information Security Management Act in 2002, which was generations ago in the technology realm.

I would very much like to support legislation that would bolster our defenses and improve information sharing. But CISPA falls short of taking the necessary steps to protect our computer and communications networks.

Public and private sector networks are constantly bombarded by cyber attacks. Instead of compelling those administering critical infrastructure to share information that would mitigate the consequences of those attacks, the bill sets up a voluntary framework that provides liability protections regardless of whether or not a business or operator of critical infrastructure provides the government with any information. I cannot support a bill that provides immunity to those who fail to take reasonable measures to protect networks.

Additionally, the bill does not require the private sector to remove irrelevant personal information before sharing information with the government and between private businesses. Government agencies receiving information from the private sector should not be given personally identifiable information that is of no security value. Yet, amendments to prevent this practice, which raises serious privacy concerns, were defeated in committee and prevented from being offered on the House floor.

In February, President Obama issued an executive order expanding information-sharing from the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice to private sector operators of critical infrastructure. It is important that Congress take action to expand upon the executive order to better protect our networks. Unfortunately, CISPA would not adequately protect our cyber networks, and privacy concerns remain in this legislation.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance improved cybersecurity legislation.