Suzanne Bonamici

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of an amendment to H.R. 10, but I want to start by thanking Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller for collaborating on this bipartisan legislation. I also want to thank my colleagues today who have offered amendments that will further strengthen the transparency and oversight of charter schools. We have heard a lot of remarks about charter schools expanding opportunity for students and transforming education in cities and towns across the country. But we need to remember that charter schools enroll about 5 percent of public school students. Charter schools are not the only schools leading in innovation. When I am in my district in Oregon visiting schools, I am always impressed by the great things that they are doing. I visited a public middle school in Forest Grove, Oregon, recently, where every student has a tablet, and the educators are trained in the technology to improve instruction and track students' understanding in real time. I have visited a public elementary school in Hillsboro, Oregon, that created a school-wide STEM curriculum that integrates the arts and creative exploration, where the students are engaged. And just recently, Lincoln High School, a traditional public high school from Portland, Oregon, won the national ``We the People'' competition here in Washington, D.C., by displaying their phenomenal knowledge of the U.S. Constitution. So I am a strong supporter of traditional schools. Sometimes they are the community center in the town, the place where generations of family members have gone. Mr. Chairman, I am going to support this bill today--and we will pass it--but Congress needs to redouble our focus on the other 95 percent of the students in traditional public schools who need relief from the punitive provisions of No Child Left Behind. I hope, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Miller, that we can come back and find a bipartisan ESEA reauthorization. My amendment today recognizes that charter schools are meant to also benefit traditional public schools. One way the charter schools support traditional schools is by sharing practices that are evidence-driven and replicable. H.R. 10 asks the State entities overseeing charter schools to disseminate best practices from charter schools to traditional public schools. The bill already asks States to report on these efforts. But H.R. 10 does not ask States to measure if the sharing of best practices is benefiting traditional public schools. There are some positive examples of traditional schools and charter schools collaborating to create curricula or rethink instruction, and the Department of Education and some States are capturing this work. But we should also be focused on the sharing of best practices. And we should be especially focused on what we are getting out of it. My amendment has States include in their reports on charter school programs the extent to which best practices in instruction and professional development and curricular programs are being adopted and implemented by traditional public schools. Remember, we spend taxpayer money on charter schools, and we grant them autonomy and flexibility in exchange for them testing new models of teaching and learning. The goal has been for these educational laboratories to benefit other students in traditional schools as well. My amendment emphasizes the original intent of charter schools. It simply asks the States to consider whether best practices are transferable and adoptable. Are the efforts to share best practices benefiting educators and the millions of students in traditional public schools? The amendment is a small measure. It doesn't create a new requirement for States. The report is already required. But it is an important reminder that innovation in charter schools can also benefit all students as well. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, May is Older Americans Month, and today I rise to call attention to historic legislation that has for decades served as a lifeline to our country's seniors. The Older Americans Act is responsible for critical services, like housing, nutrition, and employment assistance. For many seniors, the Older Americans Act is responsible for the delivery of their only warm meal of the day and their only social interaction. The legislation expired in 2011; and today I am speaking in support of H.R. 4122, the bill I introduced with the gentleman from Texas, Congressman Rubeen Hinojosa, to reauthorize the Older Americans Act. Congress first passed the Older Americans Act in 1965 as one of President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs. Its goal is to ensure that our seniors age with dignity, maintain independence for as long as possible, and do not grow old in poverty. Over the years, the OAA has been reauthorized and improved upon to meet the needs of the changing population. As Americans live longer, our policy needs to keep pace. Our legislation includes stronger elder abuse protections, modernized senior centers, improved transportation services, and other programs that promote seniors' independence. One of the titles in the Older Americans Act provides important employment support to the country's seniors, something they need now more than ever. The Senior Community Service Employment Program provides job training and job placement for low-income seniors. Many of the people who use this important program were laid off during the recession, only to see their position disappear altogether during the recovery. Now they find that they lack the necessary skills to fill the new jobs that have been created, and they must compete with a younger, inexperienced workforce willing to accept wages lower than their earning potential. This important program, known as SCSEP, provides specialized training for these mature workers. By partnering with local nonprofits and State agencies, SCSEP helps older Americans develop new skills and then pairs them with employers. I recently met with several SCSEP participants at the Forest Grove, Oregon, senior center in my district, and I heard firsthand how the program helps people get back on their feet. Programs like this are exactly what many of the long-term unemployed need. And while we continue to debate extending the emergency unemployment program, SCSEP is addressing the problem head-on for many of our constituents by offering a solution that is good for employees, businesses, and the economy as a whole. Mr. Speaker, the Older Americans Act was developed so our country's seniors could age with dignity. Today it continues to provide support to older Americans who are eager to work and live independent lives as they age. The Senate has advanced its own bipartisan Older Americans Act bill, and I am hopeful my colleagues will follow suit and support H.R. 4122.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 2015 Ryan budget, a budget that will hurt middle class Americans while, at the same time, giving breaks to some of the wealthiest people in this country. Early childhood education is important, but the Ryan budget cuts Head Start. Millions of Americans are still struggling to find work in a changing economy. Instead of investing in programs to prepare the unemployed for new careers, this budget cuts job training. Nearly 16 million children are food-insecure, and we know that growing up hungry is directly correlated to a child's academic success. This budget guts the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and for millions of young people with dreams of attending college, this budget offers them no hope; instead, it cuts Pell grant aid. We must do more to invest in this great Nation if we want to continue our economic recovery and create a brighter future, and instead of robust investments in infrastructure and transportation, the Ryan budget takes us backward. Mr. Speaker, we can and we should and we must do better.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2413, the Weather Forecasting Improvement Act. This bill represents a bipartisan agreement by members of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. I am pleased to join my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the bill's sponsor, Mr. Bridenstine, subcommittee Chair Schweikert, the former subcommittee Chair Stewart, and Chair Smith, in support of this bill. I want to thank them, as well as Ranking Member Johnson, for their work on this important bill. Members on both sides of the aisle can be assured that this bill represents a truly bipartisan effort, and is built on extensive discussions with, and advice from, the weather community. After the devastating tornados in his district, Mr. Bridenstine introduced a well-intended bill that went a long way toward improving the tools available to NOAA for evaluating emerging forecast technologies. His emphasis on tornado research was appropriate and helpful. At the Subcommittee markup, Mr. Grayson added a valuable amendment for a focused hurricane research program. Mr. Stewart, then the Chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, worked with my staff and me on an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to add to the tools and programs in the original bill. We drew on expert advice from the weather enterprise and from extensive reports from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Public Administration. Experts told us that to improve weather forecasting, the research at the Office of Oceans and Atmospheric Research (OAR) and the forecasting at the National Weather Service had to be better coordinated; this legislation contains provisions to improve that coordination. This bill encourages NOAA to integrate research and operations in a way that models the successful innovation structure used by the Department of Defense. The bill we are considering today also creates numerous opportunities for the broader weather community to provide insights to NOAA. At every opportunity, we charge the agency to consult with the American weather industry and researchers as they develop research plans and undertake new initiatives. We also press NOAA to get serious about exploring private sector solutions to their data needs. The bill makes clear that we expect the historical support for extramural research to continue. The engine of weather forecasting innovation has not always been found within NOAA, but often is found in the external research community and labs that work with NOAA. That collaboration must and will continue under this legislation. In addition, the bill includes an explicit focus on tapping the expertise of social scientists in how to best communicate risks and warnings to the public. Witnesses who came before the Science Committee emphasized the importance of this work. The best forecasting skill and technology in the world won't be as effective unless the messages to the public result in the right safety- response. The bill before us today is designed to improve public safety, enhance the American economy, and transform the innovation culture at NOAA. I am confident that its passage will improve weather forecasting and tangibly benefit our constituents. I can assure all Members that weather research is strengthened in this bill, but not at the expense of other important work at NOAA. During the committee process we heard from witness after witness who stressed that weather forecasting involves many different scientific disciplines, and this integrated, multi-disciplinary approach reflects an understanding that we cannot choose to strengthen one area of research at OAR without endangering the progress in the other areas because they are all interconnected. Physical and chemical laws do not respect OAR's budgeting boundaries of climate, weather, and oceans and this bill does not step beyond addressing organizational issues in weather at NOAA. I want to be clear about what this bill does and does not do, because there seems to be some confusion on the Hill and elsewhere. There is no question that the bill as introduced threatened NOAA's ability to make expert judgments about how to distribute research support among climate, weather, and oceans work. The original language of H.R. 2413 would have required that weather-related activities be the ``top priority'' across all NOAA offices. This clearly would have put weather at the front of the line in budget and planning efforts compared to oceans or climate. That language raised significant concerns for Members on my side of the aisle, in part because there was no hearing record to support such a reordering of programs. On the contrary, the testimony we received reflected consensus that such direction would be counter-productive, and would not substantively improve weather forecasting. In light of that record, and the real goal of the bill's original sponsors to have a bipartisan bill, Chairman Stewart and Mr. Bridenstine agreed to accept a change in that language to simply direct NOAA to ``prioritize'' weather-related work. Instead of a value statement that puts weather in front of all other initiatives, we adopted a neutral process statement. This language was discussed with NOAA, and my staff and my Democratic colleagues on the committee were satisfied with their response. In other words, setting priorities is what the agency does in its strategic plans, annual performance plans, and budgets. The language in the bill before us today instructs NOAA to prioritize, a process that is already in place. The legislative record is clear on this subject. The Committee abandoned a value direction to the agency and instead adopted a simple process direction. My willingness to support the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute and the underlying bill, and to recommend that colleagues on my side of the aisle do the same, was based in part on conversations with NOAA reflecting their understanding that the shift away from ``Top Priority'' represented a significant improvement to the legislation. I would not support legislation that sought to make weather forecasting superior to other areas of work at OAR, and the weather community would not support that either. Witnesses from across that community were very articulate on the interconnected nature of work in these three budgeting areas at NOAA. Proof that the minority would not support language that placed weather research in front of climate or oceans research can easily be found in our unanimous opposition to the original version of this bill, which moved through the subcommittee on a partisan vote. Only after the prioritization issue was addressed were minority committee members willing to support the bill. Although H.R. 2413 does not reprioritize funding from climate or oceans research to weather research, the bill does include some reprioritization across weather programs at NOAA. The most significant financial move is shifting the technology transfer program and account from the National Weather Service to NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. There is reprioritization within OAR, it can all be found in how the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research lays out its own weather research effort. For example, the bill puts in place a clear process that ties the needs of forecasters at the National Weather Service to the research initiatives at OAR. On the question of funding for weather research, I remind my colleagues that the total amount requested for weather and forecasting research at NOAA in the FY2015 budget is $207 million. In addition to the $84 million requested for OAR weather research, another $123 million was requested for science and technology at the National Weather Service. This exceeds the amount requested for climate research by $19 million. As I have stated previously, expert witnesses testifying on this matter emphasized that improving weather forecasting accuracy requires prioritizing into oceans and climate. The physics and chemistry of these three areas makes them interconnected in a way that budgeting obscures. Weather is defined as what happens in the atmosphere in any 14-day period. Droughts and tropical storm seasons are driven by longer-term processes, well beyond 14 days. The severe weather phenomena that have been ravaging our country in recent years are climatic events that are the result of processes that can be measured in seasons and even years. Ocean and climate research undoubtedly support weather forecasting improvement. Similarly, understanding short-term phenomena--weather-- has implications for oceans and climate. The bill as amended reflects this understanding. Thank you, again, to Chair Smith and Ranking Member Johnson for giving us the support to work out a compromise. And I want reiterate my thanks to Mr. Bridenstine for his willingness to work with us and accept changes to the original bill. Mr. Speaker, weather is not a partisan issue. The American public needs and deserves the best weather forecasting system we can provide. This bill has broad support in the weather community among research institutions, established businesses, and emerging companies. Supporters include: The American Commercial Space Weather Association, University Consortium for Atmospheric Research, GeoOptics, Planet IQ, and The Weather Coalition. I particularly want to thank Mr. Stewart, the former Chair of the Environment Subcommittee, whose attitude throughout the process was collaborative and constructive, allowing us to arrive at the bipartisan bill we have before us today. Chair Schweikert, who took on the Chairmanship of the Subcommittee when Mr. Stewart went to the Committee on Appropriations, has brought with him that same collaborative spirit. And finally, thank you to all of the very hardworking staff on both sides of the aisle. In summary, this bill does not reallocate money from oceans or climate to weather research, I would not support a bill that did that. What the bill does do is to launch some new management processes designed to give taxpayers a better return on their investment while opening the door to exploring commercial opportunities that could reduce costs at NOAA. This bill can drive meaningful cultural change at NOAA, harvest the benefits of research tied to operational needs, and accomplish that without significant spending increases. This legislation will make real and measurable improvements in weather research and weather forecasting. I urge my colleagues to support this effort, and to vote yes on this bill.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dave Haugeberg, community stalwart, citizen activist, Newberg-Dundee Bypass champion--and today, 2013 Chehalem Valley Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year. Former Oregon Governor Tom McCall once said, ``Heroes are not giant statues framed against a red sky. They are people who say, `This is my community, and it is my responsibility to make it better.' '' Dave Haugeberg epitomizes this spirit--combining great determination with a hero's tendency toward humility. In addition to a lengthy and distinguished legal career, Dave has a remarkable track record of community service. He is currently Chair of the Board of Trustees at Linfield College and serves as President of the Board at Mid-Valley Rehabilitation, which provides employment, community inclusion services, residential support, and transportation services to adults with disabilities in order to maximize their potential. His imprint on Yamhill County is enormous, and soon to be very visible along a several mile section of Highway 99W. Nearly three decades ago, Dave began his legendary volunteer efforts for the Newberg-Dundee Bypass, hoping to summon enough community, regional, and State resolve to construct a new highway, circumventing traffic around the historic and traffic-plagued cities of Newberg and Dundee. This effort, forged through decades of teamwork, frustration, partnership, and dogged persistence in the face of doubt, has now paid off. On August 29, 2012, Dave dug his ceremonial shovel into the ground, kicking off construction of the Newberg-Dundee Bypass. To be sure, he had partners along the way, but it is no accident that Dave Haugeberg is affectionately known as the `Grandfather of the Bypass.' With Phase I construction well underway, I'm hopeful he took a brief victory lap before, undoubtedly, redoubling his efforts to complete the entire corridor. Dave Haugeberg is a remarkable citizen, the kind of person who willingly, even eagerly, gives more to his community than he anticipates receiving in return. His contributions to Yamhill County will always be remembered fondly by those he worked with--and for, including the hundreds of thousands of people who will eventually traverse the Newberg-Dundee Bypass, and the local citizens who will live in transformed communities where it is safe to work, live, and play. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to congratulate Dave on this eminently deserved award, and wish him and his wife Kathy, and his children and grandchildren of whom he is so proud, continued health, happiness, and prosperity.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues today in support of H.R. 4005, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act. I know that the chairmen and ranking members have worked diligently on the underlying bill, and I commend them for their efforts. Importantly, I am grateful for the opportunity to work with them to add language from two bills I introduced to help coastal communities dealing with increasing marine debris. Since the devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan in 2011, residents of the Pacific Northwest have faced an increase in the volume of marine debris reaching our coast. This debris is a hazard to navigators, a threat to the marine environment, and a potential drag on coastal tourism. Following the arrival of a 66-foot dock on an Oregon beach in June 2012, I worked with a bipartisan coalition on two bills to improve the Federal response to marine debris. The first proposal, which I introduced with the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler), was introduced to expedite NOAA's grant process for debris cleanup by allowing NOAA to prioritize grant applications from communities affected by a severe marine debris event. I partnered with Congressman Don Young on the second proposal to allow NOAA to reimburse States for debris cleanup costs with a generous $5 million gift from the Government of Japan. I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee for their support, with special thanks to my Oregon colleague, Ranking Member DeFazio. I would also like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for including these proposals in the underlying bill. I am pleased to have worked with so many Members on the passage of these bipartisan marine provisions, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the underlying bill.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2413, the Weather Forecasting Improvement Act. This bill is a bipartisan agreement by members of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. I am pleased to join my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the bill's sponsor, Mr. Bridenstine, Subcommittee Chair Schweikert, former subcommittee chair, Mr. Stewart, and Chairman Smith in support of this bill. I want to thank them, as well as Ranking Member Johnson, for their work on this important bill. Members on both sides of the aisle can be assured that this bill represents a truly bipartisan effort and is built on extensive discussions with and advice from the weather community. After devastating tornadoes in his district, Mr. Bridenstine introduced a well-intentioned bill that went a long way toward improving the tools available to NOAA for evaluating emerging forecast technologies. His emphasis on tornado research was appropriate and helpful. At the subcommittee markup, Mr. Grayson added a valuable amendment for a focused hurricane research program. Representative Stewart, then the chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, worked with my staff and me on a manager's amendment to add to the tools and programs in the original bill. We drew on expert advice from the weather enterprise and from extensive reports from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Public Administration. Experts told us that, to improve weather forecasting, the research at the Office of Oceans and Atmospheric Research, or OAR, and the forecasting at the National Weather Service had to be better coordinated. This legislation contains important provisions to improve that coordination. This bill encourages NOAA to integrate research and operations in a way that models the successful innovation structure used by the Department of Defense. The bill we are considering today also creates numerous opportunities for the broader weather community to provide input to NOAA, and their insights as well. At every opportunity, we charge the agency to consult with the American weather industry and researchers as they develop research plans and undertake new initiatives. We also press NOAA to get serious about exploring private sector solutions to their data needs. The bill makes clear that we expect the historical support for extramural research to continue. The engine of weather forecasting innovation has not always been found within NOAA, but is often found in the external research community and labs that work with NOAA. That collaboration must continue and will continue under this legislation. In addition, the bill includes an explicit focus on tapping the expertise of social scientists on how to best communicate risks and warnings to the public. Witnesses who came before the Science Committee emphasized the importance of this work. The best forecasting skill and technology in the world won't be as effective unless the messages to the public result in the right safety response. The bill before us today is designed to improve public safety, enhance the American economy, and transform the innovation culture at NOAA. I am confident that its passage will improve weather forecasting and tangibly benefit our constituents. I can assure Members on both sides of the aisle that weather research is strengthened in this bill but not at the expense of other important work at NOAA. During the committee process, we heard from witness after witness who stressed that weather forecasting involves many different scientific disciplines. This integrated multidisciplinary approach reflects an understanding that we cannot choose to strengthen one area of research at OAR without endangering the progress in the other areas because they are all interconnected. Physical and chemical laws do not respect OAR's budgetary boundaries of climate, weather, and oceans, and this bill only addresses organizational issues in weather at NOAA. Thank you, again, to Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson for giving us the support to work out a compromise. I want to reiterate my thanks to Mr. Bridenstine for his willingness to work with us and accept changes to the original bill. I particularly want to thank Representative Chris Stewart, the former chair of the Environment Subcommittee, whose attitude throughout the process was collaborative and constructive, allowing us to arrive at the bipartisan bill we have before us today. Chairman Schweikert, who took on the chairmanship of the subcommittee when Mr. Stewart went to the Committee on Appropriations, has brought with him that same collaborative spirit. Finally, I want to thank the very hardworking staff on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, weather is not a partisan issue. The American public needs and deserves the best weather forecasting service we can provide. This bill has broad support in the weather community among research institutions, established businesses, and emerging companies. Supporters include the American Commercial Space Weather Association, University Consortium for Atmospheric Research, GeoOptics, PlanetiQ, and the Weather Coalition.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on the committee. I really appreciate working with them. I want to make clear that when we worked on this--this is a reprioritization of how the Office of Oceanic and Atmosphere Research lays out its own weather research efforts. The key reprioritization is to put in place a clear process that ties the needs of forecasters at the National Weather Service to the research initiatives at OAR. I am glad that my colleagues have worked on this important bill. This legislation will make real and measurable improvements in weather research and weather forecasting, and I urge my colleagues to support this effort. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Congressman Pocan. Thank you for leading this discussion. The discussion about extending the emergency unemployment compensation program is such an important topic. Last week, the country marked a troubling milestone. The number of Americans who lost their emergency unemployment insurance hit 2 million. Thousands more will lose this lifeline every week if we do not extend this critical benefit. The impact of losing unemployment benefits is immediate and devastating to our constituents. I recently spoke to a constituent in Oregon who was laid off from a large employer in my district. His unemployment benefits ended early this year when the program was cut off. Since then, unfortunately, things have gone from bad to worse. He has been in his home for about 10 years, and now he is in default because he cannot pay his mortgage. I want to thank our colleague, Congressman Matt Cartwright, for leading the effort to provide my constituents and yours the opportunity to get a bit of relief. He is sponsoring the Stop Foreclosures Due to Congressional Dysfunction Act. That would put a 6-month moratorium on foreclosures of Federally-backed mortgages for individuals who have exhausted their unemployment benefits. I have to say this is the least that we can do for our constituents who are still suffering because this House refuses to allow an ``up-or- down'' vote on extending unemployment compensation. My constituent is actively looking for work. He continues to look for work. But he keeps getting passed over for jobs. They are being filled by employers who seem to be looking for younger, maybe less expensive workers. He is one of many constituents across the country. What he and other constituents like him tell me is that it is particularly difficult for the more mature job seekers to find work, even though they have decades of productive experience. His efforts to find work haven't stopped. And I have to emphasize this: the unemployment benefits that he was getting weren't making him lazy. They were allowing him to survive. But instead of giving him the resources he needs to help lift him up and out of this situation, we are abandoning him and constituents across the country when they really need that lifeline. We need to extend this lifeline while we are tackling the problems of long-term unemployment in this country. The long-term unemployed need better access to job training; workforce development programs; resources; programs to engage employers and help connect the long-term unemployed, particularly older workers, with suitable employment. All Americans must realize that being among the long-term unemployed does not diminish one's abilities, value, or potential contribution to the workforce and the economy. I want to emphasize that point, because when I had a roundtable discussion in my district, there were several constituents there who were unemployed. They get down and concerned that they aren't worthy. We wanted to emphasize to them, You are worthy. Keep looking. You can find work. We should be extending this lifeline. My home State of Oregon has been a bright spot in the midst of the recovery. In January, Oregon recorded its lowest unemployment rate since 2008. There is a recent report that shows that Oregon added more than 43,000 jobs last year--that is great news--adding to the unemployment base by 2.6 percent. Unfortunately, the economic improvement provides little relief for the still about 30,000 long-term unemployed Oregonians who have lost these benefits over the last 2 months and are still struggling to reenter the workforce. They need these resources to have a car to get to job interviews, to have a cell phone. As the economy continues to recover, we must stimulate it, not stifle it. The Emergency Unemployment Compensation program doesn't just help the millions of Americans who are struggling to get by every day, it provides an economic boost. When people get these benefits, they aren't saving this money. They put the benefits right back into the economy. While they look for work they use the unemployment benefits to pay their mortgages, to buy groceries, to keep the lights on. We shouldn't be arguing over extending this lifeline to millions of hardworking Americans. I was glad to hear the news that the Senate has a bipartisan proposal. I hope they pass that and get it over to us right away. Yesterday, I joined many other of our colleagues in signing the discharge petition calling for a vote to extend emergency unemployment. There is no better cause than helping the hardworking members of our country who desperately want to go back to work. Thank you again, Representative Pocan, for organizing this hour. I hope that we can draw the attention of the Nation, but especially of our colleagues, about the effects of ending the benefit. I urge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and in leadership to reconsider this and put it up for a vote so we can help our constituents who are looking for work, trying to get back to work, and need that lifeline. Thank you again, Representative Pocan, for leading this important discussion

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my reluctant support to the Conference Report on H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act, also known as the Farm Bill. This conference report presents us with a difficult choice. On the one hand, it contains numerous provisions that benefit our agriculture communities and it represents another bipartisan accomplishment from both chambers. On the other hand, it makes ill-advised changes in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that, had they been presented in a separate bill, I would have strongly opposed. The agricultural policy contained in this conference report is a positive step forward for our nation's farmers and rural communities, including those I represent in Northwest Oregon. Strong funding authorizations for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative and Specialty Crop Block Grant Program will help a wide variety of food producers in my district, from blueberry and hazelnut farms to vineyards in the world-renowned Willamette Valley wine region. The commitment to pest and disease research in the bill is key to a healthy nursery industry in Oregon, and the conference report includes language that will allow organic producers and Christmas tree farmers to establish check off programs that are critical to their long-term success. For Oregon's struggling counties, this bill includes an essential extension of the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program. PILT helps the budgets of counties with large expanses of un-taxable federal land, and its reauthorization in this bill is welcome news to the cash- strapped rural areas of Oregon. For the environmental community, the conference report represents an important commitment to responsible farming practices, with crop insurance premium assistance tied to conservation compliance measures that will help protect soil quality and fragile wetlands. Unfortunately this bill comes up short in one vital area: nutrition policy. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is a pillar of this nation's social safety net, providing food assistance to those in need, including many seniors and children. I do not support the changes to SNAP in this conference report, but they are preferable to the previous Farm Bill proposal considered by this chamber, which I voted against. Although I am pleased that the bill provides additional funds for food banks under the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), I am troubled by the impact that the SNAP cuts will have on Oregon families. I will reluctantly support this conference report because the investments in our rural communities included in this bill will help many of our constituents continue the long climb back from the lingering effects of the economic down-turn. We must invest in these communities to ensure that still more of our constituents don't come to rely on federal assistance programs like SNAP. And despite unfortunate cuts to the SNAP program, this bill is a vast improvement on the devastating SNAP cuts that the House bill originally contained. Congress must now commit to assisting those individuals who rely on federal nutrition programs in other ways, and I will continue to work with my colleagues on this issue. The Farm Bill conference report is far from perfect, but it contains several provisions that will benefit Oregonians. I urge its adoption.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2014. Like the budget compromise Congress approved last month, this bill takes an important step toward rolling back the devastating sequestration cuts that continue to hurt our constituents and have kept our economy from fully recovering. I applaud the House and Senate Appropriations Committees for their hard work in reaching a compromise on a spending bill that reinvests in some very important priorities that have recently been squeezed too tightly. This bill fixes the ill-advised provision of the budget resolution that reduced cost of living adjustments for medically-retired military personnel. That's a positive step and upholds our solemn commitment to those veterans, who have sacrificed for our security. I am also pleased that Federal Public Defenders will see a significant increase over last year's budget. I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that these essential public servants have the resources they need to uphold the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel in a criminal trial. This bill also reinvests in Head Start, some nutrition assistance programs, the safety of our food and drug supply, and transportation infrastructure--all very important to building and supporting strong families and strong local economies. As with any compromise legislation, there are also provisions in this bill that I do not support. Among other things, this bill seriously underfunds medical research by the NIH, environmental protection by the EPA, and legal aid programs, and it does not include reimbursements to rural counties under the PILT program. The bill also continues to infringe on the rights of women to control their own health care, and undermines public education through a voucher program. Despite these shortcomings, this bill is the result of good-faith, bipartisan negotiations and it moves our economy forward. This collaborative process must become the norm in Congress, not the exception. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this compromise legislation.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, it has been more than 3 weeks since Congress left for a December recess, leaving far too many Americans, including thousands of Oregonians, without access to emergency unemployment benefits. That is a long time for our constituents who are trying to pay their rent, purchase groceries, care for their families, and fill their cars with gas so they can get to job interviews. Now we are planning to leave town again tomorrow for 10 days without addressing this urgent need. My constituents are contacting me, pleading with Congress to understand the challenges they face in this recovering economy. I heard from a college graduate. She previously owned her own business but lost her job in May. Since then, she has been retraining to get the skills she will need. She is ready and willing to work in a new industry. Unemployment benefits, which she is now without, were helping. She is one of too many. Madam Speaker, we must extend emergency unemployment benefits, and we need to do it now. Our constituents can't wait any longer.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the Innovation Act, H.R. 3309, but also to note my concerns about provisions of the bill that could undermine patent holders or make it more difficult for them to assert their rights. I hope a conference committee or the Senate will address and resolve these issues before the bill reaches the President's desk. Patent litigation reform is important and necessary. Over the last few decades we have seen the rise of entities that are created to make profits by extracting payments from small businesses through the assertion of vague allegations of patent infringement. These so-called ``patent trolls,'' also known as ``patent assertion entities'' (PAEs) buy patents on products they didn't invent and don't manufacture and then threaten and sue innovators who are actually contributing to our economy and creating jobs. This scheme preys on the unwillingness or inability of small businesses to fight expensive lawsuits in court. PAEs know they can simply send a demand letter including a threat to sue, and regardless of the validity of the claim, a small business more often than not will pay the PAE to make the lawsuit or potential lawsuit go away. Often there is no examination of the validity of the patent or the claim. In fact, in many cases, the business never knows who is threatening or the nature of the alleged infringement. By some estimates this practice is costing American companies $29 billion each year. Something needs to be done. This bill takes important steps to protect the rights of entrepreneurs and small businesses if litigation is filed or threatened. The Innovation Act introduces a heightened pleading standard that requires patent holders to identify specifically the patent claims they are asserting and the product or process they allege infringes upon it. They also must identify those who have financial interests in the asserted patent. Importantly, the bill also limits expensive discovery before the court determines the scope of a disputed patent claim. And where the claim is against an end user of the technology, the bill would stay those proceedings in most instances where there is an ongoing action against the customer's supplier. I am quite concerned, however, that other provisions of this bill have the potential to impede legitimate patent holders from enforcing their rights and expose nonprofit organizations and research universities to unnecessary risk. First, the fee-shifting provisions make it significantly less likely that an individual inventor or a small business would be able to assert a legitimate patent against an infringer. Patent suits are expensive, and in our American system parties are responsible for their own costs. In recognition of this, attorneys often take cases on a contingency fee basis and get paid a portion of the recovery only if they win. If plaintiffs and their attorneys now have to factor in the risk that they may need to pay not only their own costs and fees but also the costs and fees of the other party, they will be much less likely to assert legitimate enforcement claims. This provision is purported to stop frivolous lawsuits, but it does more than that--it equates a loss with a lack of merit. There are many reasons why a party may have a genuine dispute regarding law and fact and still lose the case; that does not mean that the case was frivolous. This bill creates a presumption of fee shifting, limits judicial discretion, and sets litigation reform on the wrong path. Second, the joinder provisions in the Innovation Act could allow nonprofit organizations and research universities to be forcibly joined into a case against a downstream user. The purpose of the joinder provision is laudable--to ensure that a troll that loses a patent case cannot hide behind shell companies or other complicated corporate structures to avoid paying a judgment. In such a case it would allow the prevailing party to join another entity that has an economic interest in the patent. But the provision is overbroad. Nonprofit organizations and research universities often spend a great deal of time and effort on research and development; as a result, they frequently hold patents and license them for commercial use. Under this bill, a research university like Oregon State or Portland State could be joined in a lawsuit and forced to pay the judgment of a losing party if that party can't or won't pay. That isn't fair and it could potentially nullify state law. This provision must be narrowed before it goes to the President's desk. Finally, there are a handful of amendments that would make this bill stronger and I regret that the House has not adopted them. The automatic stay provisions would be stronger if limited to small businesses only, as the Jackson-Lee amendment would do. Likewise, the Watt amendment would mitigate some of the concerns with the fee- shifting provisions by allowing judges to consider whether a prevailing party acted in bad faith or unnecessarily delayed the proceedings when making a fee award. And the Conyers-Watt substitute amendment represents a far better path overall for reducing patent troll litigation without advancing reforms hostile to legitimate plaintiffs. Mr. Chairman, patent trolls are a problem for small businesses and tech startups in my district and across the country. Their business model is to sue the job creators and innovators who drive our economy forward. I am glad that the House has taken concrete steps to address this problem, and I expect improvements will be made to this bill as it continues through the legislative process.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, in this holiday season of compassion and giving, we must not forget those who are still suffering from the effects of the worst recession to hit our country since the Great Depression. Although the recent news about job creation is cause for optimism and the budget negotiations look promising, there are still too many trying every day to find work to allow them to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. We must pass an extension of unemployment insurance. Unless we take action, millions of Americans, thousands of them Oregonians, will see unemployment benefits end in a few short weeks. Remember, benefits are contingent on continued job search. Our constituents are searching, but if they are still out of work, they are about to lose a lifeline. We can't let that happen. I encourage House leadership to bring a resolution to the floor that will continue unemployment insurance for another year. We must act now. This is no time to end assistance to millions of Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To clarify, there was opposition to the legislation in the Science Committee; however, there is no recorded vote. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 2728, the Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act. Title II of this act is a bill passed by the Science Committee, the EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Improvement Act. This is a piece of legislation that should not have been passed out of the committee. First, title II contains provisions that designate the fracking study is a highly influential scientific assessment and requires EPA to follow its standard peer review protocols for such assessments. This language is unnecessary because EPA already considers the fracking study to be a highly influential scientific assessment. Second, and importantly, unfortunately, this bill will obstruct EPA's ability to carry out its important work. The requirements of this bill may force the EPA to delay production of their final report on the effects of hydraulic fracturing on water quality. This bill could delay an important report that is based on a study that the EPA initiated more than 3 years ago. The study was reviewed and approved by the EPA's independent Science Advisory Board. The Science Advisory Board found the study to be both appropriate and comprehensive. The American public should not have to wait any longer before they receive a scientific analysis of whether their water has been affected by hydraulic fracturing. What I found troubling is that the Science Committee never got information from the Science Advisory Board, which validated the study, regarding its opinion about the bill, nor did we get comments from the EPA or any other experts. In fact, the bill never had a hearing. This bill effectively attempts to micromanage the EPA without a factual basis for doing so. The bill requires the EPA to do an ad hoc risk analysis by requiring them to quantitatively estimate the probabilities, uncertainties, and consequences of impacts to drinking water from hydraulic fracturing; however, this was never a study that was set up to determine the risk effects of hydraulic fracturing. The study was meant to examine the science to determine if hydraulic fracturing operations have any effect on groundwater. By requiring an ad hoc risk analysis on a study that was not designed to acquire the data necessary to do a risk analysis, the EPA would be forced to try to fit a round peg in a square hole. What remains truly unclear is why this language is included when it is so unnecessary. If the current study were to find a link between fracking and groundwater contamination, then a full risk assessment will be required before the Agency can establish any regulations to address the issue. What this bill is doing here is requiring a risk analysis simultaneously, and as part of, the very study that is meant to determine if there is a need for a risk analysis. These efforts to become involved in directing the specific details of scientific process are very troubling. It appears that this bill is setting up the EPA to fail. If the EPA doesn't complete the study by the deadline, they have failed; and if the EPA completes the study but the ad hoc risk analysis is not as detailed as the bill's proponents expect, then they would have also failed. More importantly, their ad hoc risk analysis may taint the very accurate scientific data behind that analysis. It is not in the public interest to have this study delayed any longer. Let the EPA complete their study. If the science shows the effects connecting hydraulic fracturing with contaminated groundwater, then we will let the EPA's long-established process of doing a risk assessment after such a study to be followed completely with all the I's dotted and T's crossed. It is also difficult to understand how the proponents of the bill reconcile title II with title I. Title I clearly attempts to prevent the Federal Government from having oversight inspection or enforcement responsibility for hydraulic fracturing regulations. However, if the States are supposed to regulate, don't they need the science to support those regulations? This study is designed to be the science that provides the Federal Government and the States with the information they will need to make policy choices about the effects of hydraulic fracturing on groundwater. By possibly delaying this study, we delay the ability of the States or the Federal Government to make prudent choices to protect the American public. If you support hydraulic fracturing, delaying the study will not speed up the process of opening new areas of the country to hydraulic fracturing. Title II of H.R. 2728 will only delay an important scientific study and, ironically, may delay the development of new shale fields throughout the United States. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. May I inquire whether there are other speakers?

Ms. BONAMICI. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, Mr. Smith from Texas, for his offer to reclaim. I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the balance of my time.