Suzanne Bonamici

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member for yielding. I rise today in support of H.R. 4412, the NASA Authorization Act of 2014, and to applaud the commitment made by my colleagues, Ranking Member Edwards and Chairman Palazzo, to work so hard to find common ground on these complex issues. The process of reauthorizing NASA's important research and exploration has historically been bipartisan, with space and the wonder it instills in our constituents unifying both sides of the aisle. Now, as budgets become tighter and we are evaluating Federal investments to find places to cut back, authorizing significant resources for NASA research and the operations that research supports has become more challenging. When the markup process of the original NASA authorization bill began about a year ago, I joined several of my colleagues on the Science Committee to raise concerns about proposed cuts to important programs like NASA's Earth science research. I am pleased to see that important programs like Earth science, space technology, education, and environmental compliance are authorized in this legislation at levels that mirror their appropriation for fiscal year 2014. As I have learned through my work on the Environment Subcommittee, bipartisan solutions are possible as long as both sides are committed to achieving an outcome and mindful of the impact that our efforts have on our constituents. Chairman Palazzo and Ranking Member Edwards have embraced this spirit when drafting the NASA Authorization Act of 2014, and though the bill before us today might not be perfect, it is a positive step forward and worthy of our support. I would also like to acknowledge the role of Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson for supporting the subcommittee leadership in their efforts to arrive at a bipartisan consensus. I know that Ms. Edwards and I both appreciate this approach to leadership, as do our constituents. I encourage support for this important legislation.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I rise to support the Cohen amendment. Legal aid programs are Federal, State, and private partnerships. In Oregon and around the country, legal aid offices work hard to diversify funding, but cuts from a number of sources, including Federal cuts in recent years, have severely impacted their ability to serve low-income families. Legal Services Corporation funds legal aid around the country, and they make a real difference for low-income and elderly Oregonians and Americans. Legal aid serves people with the most critical legal needs: food, shelter, medical care, income maintenance, and physical safety. In my State of Oregon, about 40 percent of the cases handled by legal aid attorneys involve helping victims of domestic violence and their families, protecting them from abuse. About 80 percent of legal aid's clients are women, most with children to support. Under current levels, legal aid is able to assist only a fraction of the eligible population. In Oregon, legal aid serves only about 20 percent of the civil legal needs of eligible Oregonians. I was proud to work at legal aid. Early in my career I spent many years there, and I will never forget the people we were able to help. They desperately need legal assistance at a time in their lives when they can least afford it. Not low-income by choice--and that was the most poignant message about helping low-income people--most had unexpected medical bills, had lost a job, or lost a spouse. Legal aid helps real people. Today, I am here for people like Beth, who thought she had escaped her son's abusive father, only to have him turn up, kick in the door, and threaten her, all while she was pregnant. Legal aid was able to help her get a restraining order and custody of her son, who has asthma and only one kidney. Now Beth and her son are building safe and stable lives free from abuse. I am here for people like Jennifer, a stage IV cancer survivor and Oregon Health Plan member, who got a bill from a medical center for a procedure performed years earlier. They threatened to shut her off from seeing her doctor, and took actions clearly illegal under Oregon law. Legal aid stepped in, and she was able to continue her followup visits with her doctor without collection agency harassment. I am here for people like Natalie and her son, Zach, who has severe gastrointestinal disorder. When he was 3 years old, he was finally able to take food orally, but then Social Security cut off his disability benefits. Natalie tried to hire a lawyer but she couldn't afford the fees. Legal aid stepped in and got those benefits restored, giving Zach a better chance at a normal, active life. And today, I am here for people like Michael. He and his family lost everything in Hurricane Katrina and they came to Oregon to start over. Then the IRS penalized him for unpaid taxes. Legal aid helped him amend his tax return to fully account for his losses from Katrina, and instead of penalties, he was able to receive a refund. These are the faces of legal aid. They are real people who have real needs who need real help. They need access to justice. Low-income people can't just open up a phone book and pick out an attorney to take a case. These are not cases that lawyers take on a contingency fee basis. Lawyers don't help tenants who are wrongfully evicted on a contingency fee. The President has asked for $80 million more than what this bill provides for. This amendment asks for just $15 million in addition. It is the least we can do. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Cohen amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, may I please inquire as to the remaining time?

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

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the bipartisan amendment I am proud to cosponsor with Mr. Massie of Kentucky. This amendment simply says that none of the funds in the CJS bill can be used by the Department of Justice or the DEA in contravention of the section of the farm bill--the duly-enacted farm bill, which I supported for many reasons, one of which was that it had an industrial hemp research program, that authorizes industrial hemp research. This is very simple. We passed a bipartisan farm bill. Its provisions are law. In Kentucky, one of the States conducting research, the DEA intervened. Only when Kentucky sued did the DEA get out of the way. The amendment restates a law that is already on the books, but maybe the DEA needs to hear it twice. Remember, it is rope, not dope. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure the record is clear. There are two amendments. It appears that the gentleman is talking about the other amendment.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. BONAMICI. It is a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. BONAMICI. Parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), my cosponsor.

Ms. BONAMICI. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, my bipartisan amendment is very simple. It would move our country in line with industrialized countries around the world that long ago recognized the importance of industrial hemp as a natural resource, an agricultural commodity, and a versatile component in thousands of commercial products. In fact, not only does this amendment bring America in line with much of the rest of the industrialized world, it brings America back in line with its own history. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew it. The first drafts of our Constitution and many of our first laws were written on paper made from it. In fact, during World War II, the USDA encouraged patriotic American farmers to raise it for the war effort. They even produced a promotional film entitled ``Hemp for Victory,'' and now at least 16 States have passed laws that will allow their farmers to grow it. Unfortunately, the Federal Government stands in the way of family farmers who want to be able to grow industrial hemp. The senseless classification of hemp as a Schedule I drug does not further public safety, but it does rob our farm economies of a potentially multibillion dollar crop that can be used to make everything from rope to soap. In fact, it seems like the only thing you can't make out of hemp is dope. Despite the fact that American farmers can't grow industrial hemp, hemp products here in this country account for nearly $500 million in annual sales. Now, that is a sizable industry, but nothing compared to the economic impact that full-scale cultivation and commercialization would have if States were permitted to implement their laws and our hemp did not have to get imported from other countries. This amendment would only allow farmers to grow hemp in accordance with their State's laws. It simply divests the Department of Justice and the DEA of their ability to treat industrial hemp like marijuana because it is not like marijuana. So far, 16 States have seen the value that hemp provides, and have passed laws to allow farmers to grow hemp and to closely regulate it. Farmers in those States across the country are waiting for the Federal Government to get out of their way. But because the Department of Justice refuses to acknowledge what Washington and Jefferson knew-- that hemp is an important agricultural commodity, it is not marijuana-- these State laws must take a back seat to Federal overreach. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and the American Farm Bureau Federation agree that we should allow our farmers to grow industrial hemp. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I rise in support of increasing funding to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to support its Integrated Ocean Acidification research line and fulfill the administration's requested funding level of $15 million in fiscal year 2015. The administration's requested increase of funds for ocean acidification research reflects a growing consensus in both the scientific community and the coastal and fishing communities that I and so many of our colleagues represent that ocean acidification is already affecting marine organisms and could irreversibly alter the marine environment and harm our coastal ecosystems and economies. On the west coast alone, a $270 million shellfish industry has experienced disastrous oyster production failures and near collapse in recent years because of changes in water conditions that have been attributed to ocean acidification. This change in chemistry is caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dissolving into the ocean, and the increased acidity of the ocean is harming the basic building blocks for life in the ocean, making it more difficult for marine organisms to build their skeletons and shells, and slowing the formation of important ecosystem features such as coral reefs. In the Pacific Northwest, for example, the combination of seasonal upwelling of acidic waters, low alkalinity, and increased anthropogenic CO2 create some of the most corrosive ocean conditions in the world. In just the last few years, the scientific community has been increasingly raising concerns about ocean acidification with policymakers. Researchers at Oregon State University have been working with the fishing community in Oregon to determine the impacts of acidification. They have been helping the shellfish industry, especially the hatcheries, assess the causes of oyster die-off and how to mitigate the harmful upwelling events through monitoring the water entering their facility. This exemplifies the kind of academic and industry partnerships that become possible when the Federal Government supports the academic research enterprise. Funds provided by NOAA's Integrated Ocean Acidification research program will support extramural research awards that will fund studies on the impact of acidification in coastal, estuarine, coral reef, and shell environments. Not only will NOAA support studies on the impact of acidification, the agency runs the observing system that helps monitor areas experiencing increased acidity, and it also helps coastal communities and impacted industries develop adaptation strategies. Now, my examples thus far have focused on the impact in Oregon and on the west coast, but, colleagues, this is important to everyone because it affects the whole shellfish industry. I know from working with my colleagues in the Pacific coast States that this is a problem that their constituents raise with them more frequently, and they point to it as an immediate threat to coastal economies. In conversations I've had with many constituents, the threat is made more immediate by how little is known about how these changes could impact the marine organisms and the people who depend on ocean resources for their livelihoods. This is why we need more information, and this is why we need NOAA's Integrated Ocean Acidification research program and why it needs more robust funding. The science community at large is still grappling with the extent and impact of changing ocean conditions. The bill before us today is full of important priorities and accounts that could use more funding if we in Congress were able to provide it. Researchers at NOAA have indicated that even increasing the funding to $15 million does not provide them with enough resources to fully address a problem of this magnitude. But even a modest increase will go a long way to supporting our hard-hit coastal communities and industries and would better prepare communities to address the creeping threat of changing ocean chemistry. Now, Madam Chair, at the appropriate time, I plan to withdraw my amendment, but I do hope that the chairman, the ranking member, and the committee will work with me on this important issue going forward, and I know there is at least one additional Member who wishes to speak on this issue. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3361, the USA FREEDOM Act, as amended. Although I was a cosponsor of the USA Freedom Act as originally written, the bill we voted on today was changed substantially before being brought to the floor. I am very concerned with the short time frame members had to consider this sweeping legislation, which was negotiated behind closed doors and would not do enough to protect Americans from government surveillance. I support ending the bulk collection of Americans' communications, secret interpretations of law by the FISA Court, and ``reverse targeting'' of Americans by the intelligence agencies. Although H.R. 3361 is an improvement over current law, the House should negotiate a stronger bill in a transparent process through regular order that will do more to protect Americans' privacy. I encourage the Senate to make much needed changes to this bill and send back a real reform package that does a better job of protecting privacy and is consistent with the expectations of our constituents.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the conference report to H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act, and to urge its passage. Across the country, my colleagues and I hear consistently across all sectors: invest in infrastructure. The federal investment in infrastructure has fallen to a paltry level, and our communities are feeling the tangible impacts of this every day. There are few issues we discuss here in D.C. that have such an immediate and positive economic effect in our districts. Not only does investing in infrastructure put people to work, it allows for the efficient movement of people and goods, an essential aspect of commerce, economic growth, and public safety. The failure to invest in infrastructure will threaten our global competitiveness and the safety and quality of life of our constituents. The nation's waterways are integral to the movement of goods. This is especially true in my home state of Oregon, where wheat and other goods speed down the Columbia River bound for export markets in Asia, and imports are loaded from ocean-going container ships to barges and sent up the river toward domestic markets. This waterway network must be supported for our economy to thrive, and the bill before us today will allow the Army Corps of Engineers to continue the important work of maintaining and protecting these waterways. The conference report also takes an important step toward full allocation of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which has for too long seen its dedicated funds diverted for uses beyond its intended purpose. In addition, the conference report includes a set-aside for small ports and emerging harbors, which will include many ports in Oregon that are located in areas where the economy has taken the toughest hit over the last five years. These ports can't compete for Harbor Maintenance funding alongside the large, deep-draft ports, but the legislation before us today gives them a chance to access vital Army Corps maintenance funding. This was a priority for the Oregon delegation, and we are grateful that Representative DeFazio was able to include it in the House-passed WRRDA bill and succeed in having it be part of the conference report. Another important provision included in the conference report allows non-federal public entities to provide funds to the Army Corps to expedite the permitting process, preventing the lapses in project approval and the massive backlogs that can result when Congress delays reauthorization of the program. This will allow local governments to move forward with important infrastructure and ecosystem restoration projects, and reduces wait times for all applicants waiting on permit approval from the Army Corps. Maintaining healthy waterways includes protecting the coastal and riparian ecosystem. This conference report makes a strong investment in ecosystem restoration in the Columbia River and Tillamook Bay estuaries in Oregon and our neighboring state of Washington. By increasing the authorization for ecosystem projects under Section 536, this bill will expand the scope of the work underway to preserve and restore vital fish and wildlife habitat. We must do more to bring back the stability and biodiversity that makes the Columbia River basin one of the lushest fish and wildlife habitats in the world, and this legislation is an important step. One specific ecosystem restoration program included in the bill is the Willamette Floodplain Restoration Study, which seeks to restore natural floodplain function to the region and improve flood storage along the river. In addition, the bill includes an investment in invasive species monitoring and prevention through provisions that allow the Army Corps to establish watercraft inspection stations and other preventive measures. This is an investment worth making. Invasive species threaten ecosystems as well as infrastructure, including the Pacific Northwest's hydropower system. One provision in this bill is especially important to a hard-hit community in my district, and I would like to thank the conferees for including it. In Warrenton, Oregon, the Hammond Marina has long been operated by the City of Warrenton, but the land on which it sits is owned by the Army Corps of Engineers. House and Senate conferees agreed to include language conveying ownership of this land to the city. This has been a priority for the City of Warrenton, which is prepared to improve the marina at Hammond Basin, a project that will benefit the economy of Oregon's North Coast. It will come at no cost to the federal government, and represents another provision of this bill that will help my constituents and, importantly, support economic growth in coastal Oregon. Another key provision of this conference report, authored by my Oregon colleague Senator Jeff Merkley, is the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Authority (WIFIA) pilot project. This program will provide low-cost financing to state and local governments--along with tribes, corporations, and others--to undertake low-cost water infrastructure improvement projects. This proposal is widely supported by my constituents and groups across Oregon, from the Building Trades to the utility districts, and I applaud the conference committee for including it in this report. I still have concerns about environmental review provisions in the conference report, and I will continue to advocate for improvements that my colleagues and I tried to make by amendment when this bill was considered on the House floor. Attributing permitting backlogs to the environmental review process ignores the funding challenges that have beset the Army Corps in recent years, as Congress has repeatedly failed to provide adequate funding for the review of all necessary projects. Though more can be done to improve that section, the conference report includes compromise environmental review language from the bill that is preferable to the House version, and I am glad to see that change. The conference report before us today is a positive step toward robust, bipartisan investment in infrastructure development. This must be done to keep our country competitive and keep our goods moving efficiently on our waterways, and to protect habitat from the impacts of increased trade and transport. I thank the Committee Chairmen and Ranking Members for their hard work to pass a strong bipartisan bill and urge my colleagues to support final passage.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I rise in support of the en bloc amendment, which includes the amendment I offered with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), to call attention to an important issue facing the Army National Guard. Soldiers join the National Guard to serve their country. Often, they choose the National Guard because they want to balance service with civilian careers or postsecondary education. The Army's tuition assistance program is a valuable benefit for soldiers who want to pursue opportunities for professional growth or attend college while off duty. In January of 2014, the Army changed its tuition assistance program, and now, all soldiers must wait one full year after initial training before becoming eligible for tuition assistance. This change affects all soldiers, but it may disproportionately harm those in the National Guard. Nonprior service soldiers in the National Guard, some of whom attend college full time, will have to wait at least a year, and perhaps much longer, depending on the availability of training courses before they get help paying for their education. The Bonamici-Walden amendment asks the Secretary of the Army to evaluate how this one-size-fits-all change to tuition assistance could affect citizens-soldiers enrolled in education programs. I would like to thank Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, and their staffs for their willingness to accept this important amendment to help protect education benefits and ensure a strong citizen-soldier force.

Ms. BONAMICI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, I rise today to express support for strong Buy American provisions within the Department of Defense procurement policy. I would like to thank Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, and Ranking Member Swalwell for engaging in this colloquy to discuss our shared goal to promote increased procurement of domestically manufactured solar devices for use by the Department of Defense. The Buy American Act is especially important when it comes to supporting nascent American industries, and strong Buy American policies can assist development of domestic manufacturing capability with regard to renewable energy. Currently, the Department of Defense is required to comply with Buy American Act provisions for procurement of energy produced from solar panels if those panels are located on government property and the electricity produced by the panels is reserved exclusively for use by the Department. Recently, we have witnessed the development of large-scale solar installations that are not located on government property, though the electricity produced is still exclusively used by the Department of Defense. I support a minor language change that would require DOD's procurement process to comply with the Buy American Act for electricity that is exclusively used by the Department of Defense or is generated from solar devices located on government property. This small change is worthy of support. The Congressional Budget Office has scored this proposal as costing $2 million over a 10-year budget window, and my amendment was not made in order because of this score. I understand CBO rules, but I strongly submit that this investment in domestic manufacturing not only strengthens our energy independence, but also strengthens our industrial base. I hope the chairman and ranking member will work with me to advance this important issue.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 4438, a bill to extend permanently the research and development tax credit. This is not an issue that I take lightly because this tax provision enjoys broad support in my district. But once again, a policy that has long enjoyed bipartisan support and has real economic impact in districts across the country has fallen victim to politics. Rather than advancing a package of tax extenders that places the priorities of working families and underwater homeowners alongside those of our business community, we are considering legislation that singles out the interests of one group over another. Following the expiration of numerous important tax provisions at the end of last year, many constituents have contacted me to express their concerns about our inaction. From families who rely on the Earned Income Tax Credit to make ends meet, to renewable energy companies that will drastically scale back operations without the Production Tax Credit, to municipalities who use the New Markets Tax Credit to revitalize low-income areas, the scope of people and businesses that will suffer the consequences of inaction on a tax extenders package are too numerous to list here. To those who are looking to Congress for some indication that we are moving past political maneuvering, past the dysfunction that has characterized this body for too long, this bill is a step in the wrong direction. Beyond the frustration that is felt at elevating this tax provision over the others I have previously mentioned, my constituents will wonder why we can pass this legislation and add about $150 billion to the deficit, but we can't add a dime to extend emergency unemployment insurance benefits to millions of Americans. To advance this bill is an affront to the long-term unemployed who have been falling deeper into debt as Congress debates how it should pay for an extension of the vital benefits that could help keep them afloat while they continue to search for work. I support extending the tax credit for research and development. It is vital to promoting American manufacturing and supporting our country's innovative technology sector, which is exemplified by the work done by companies like Intel in my district. But I support extending this credit alongside a package of others that also benefit my State, and every State in the country. Congress should consider a comprehensive tax extenders package, and should do so without delay.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, this does improve the bill. Collaboration between charter schools and traditional schools is a good thing. Sharing of practices will be beneficial. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.