Suzan DelBene

Ms. DelBENE

Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ranger Thomas E. Cowper, who recently retired from the Snohomish County Department of Parks and Recreation after 25 years of service. In 1989, Thomas began his career in Snohomish County as the first Off-Road Vehicle Coordinator and then became a Park Ranger in 1991. Working at Flowing Lake Park for many years, he ensured quality camping, boating, fishing and picnicking for Washington families and enhanced the recreational opportunities in many parks for the entire community. Throughout his career, Ranger Cowper spread his passion for nature to those around him. As a park ranger, he guided children in nature interpretation through live birds of prey programs and he mentored hundreds of Boy Scouts in their Eagle Scout service projects. Through his commitment to educational programs in the community, Ranger Cowper has encouraged good stewardship of our public lands and the creatures that inhabit them. His enthusiasm and dedication to protecting, improving and sharing the nature of Snohomish County has enriched the lives of its residents. I want to thank Ranger Thomas Cowper for his commitment to serving the people of Snohomish County and offer my congratulations on his retirement. I wish him the best on his next endeavors in the community and beyond.

Ms. DelBENE

Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson, as well as Subcommittee Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member Scott, for their work on this very important bill. I would also like to thank Congressmen Gibson and Vargas for cosponsoring this amendment. This amendment is the only bipartisan amendment we are considering today. It is straightforward and will provide needed clarity. This amendment simply states that a court shall affirm the CFTC's assessment of the costs and benefits of a rule. This would have the practical impact of limiting the ability of individuals and firms to challenge the CFTC in court, in an attempt to stop a rule from being implemented based on the cost-benefit analysis. The amendment also provides for an exception in the case of an abuse of discretion by the Commission. If no such abuse occurs, a court must uphold the CFTC's assessment. At a time when the CFTC is still implementing a litany of rules, including a number of crucial rules required by the passage of Dodd- Frank, we should not be inhibiting the CFTC's progress and adding to their workload, especially when the agency is already struggling with insufficient resources for the task at hand. To be clear, the CFTC is already required to consider the costs and benefits of its actions and regulations. It just does not provide a formal analysis of the costs and benefits. If we are going to mandate that the CFTC provide a formal cost- benefit analysis when developing regulations, which can be time consuming, we should trust their analysis and not let the rules get tied up in costly and time-consuming litigation. Why go through such a rigorous process, like a cost-benefit analysis, and expend all of the time and energy that goes with it, if the end result can be easily derailed by a lawsuit filed at the eleventh hour. I firmly believe that this amendment improves this bill to reauthorize a critical Federal regulator, and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), the subcommittee ranking member.

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

Ms. DelBENE

Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today during Capitol Hill Ocean Week to highlight the critical role our oceans play in our lives, our economy, and for so many marine species. In 2012, the Pacific Region's seafood industry generated $7.5 billion in sales for Washington state while seafood processors and dealers accounted for 16,000 jobs. The Magnuson Stevens Act, the law which governs sound stewardship and management of our fisheries is due for reauthorization. Unfortunately, the reauthorization bill moving through the House would take us backwards at a critical time. The bill would roll back a number of conservation provisions at the expense of numerous efforts to increase fish populations. In fact, the bill would allow overfishing on already depleted populations. In my district, a commercial fishery disaster declaration was made for the Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery this year. Our tribes have been good stewards of the fishery, but due to a changing climate beyond their control, fish populations are decreasing. This bill does not address our changing climate, such as the increasing acidification of our oceans. I urge my colleagues to instead pursue policies that will preserve our oceans for generations to come.

Ms. DelBENE

Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Trooper Sean O'Connell, who was tragically killed one year ago on May 31, 2013. Trooper O'Connell, a 16-year veteran of the Washington State Patrol, lost his life in an on-duty motorcycle collision while working traffic control in the aftermath of the Skagit River Bridge collapse. Trooper O'Connell was a highly respected police officer who valued the importance of law enforcement. He strongly believed in bringing the community together to help promote safety among families. He was an endearing man; dedicated to his work and to strengthening communities in Washington state. Trooper O'Connell was a strong leader, highly respected, and loved by his fellow officers. He exemplified what it means to be a Washington State trooper, and his community continues to honor his commitment, courage, and dependability as an officer. In remembering his life one year after his passing, I ask that thoughts and prayers go out to his wife, children, family and others who continue to miss him every day. He will be remembered as a hero for helping many after the devastating collapse of a bridge which now holds his name, Trooper Sean. M. O'Connell, Jr.

Ms. DelBENE

Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Gustavo Ramos, Jr., who will be retiring this month from his position as Executive Director for the Housing Authority of Skagit County. Mr. Gustavo Ramos, Jr., has dedicated a lifetime of hard work in the field of affordable housing and community development. With more than 40 years of combined service within six different housing authorities since 1972, Gustavo has helped numerous families in Skagit County and throughout Washington State. Gustavo's hard work and dedication to the communities, families, and housing authority of Skagit County earns him a well-deserved and honorable retirement celebration. Upon retirement, Gustavo will be returning to Nevada to be near his family and begin a new chapter in his career in economic and community development. I would personally like to thank Gustavo for his many years of service and commitment to helping families. He has been a tremendous contributor to the Housing Authority in the Skagit County area and will be missed dearly.

Ms. DelBENE

Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the USA Freedom Act, I am disappointed that I cannot support this bill as it is considered on the floor today. Like many Americans, I was shocked to learn about the National Security Agency's domestic spying program that was sweeping up the private communications records of millions of innocent Americans. It goes against American values and our Constitution. That's why two weeks ago I was pleased to join my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee in unanimously supporting the USA Freedom Act as it passed out of the committee. I believed that the compromise, while far from perfect, would help rebuild the public trust in government by ending bulk collection, assuring that government surveillance authorities are rule-bound, narrowly tailored, transparent and subject to oversight, all while ensuring that the nation's intelligence community can protect national security. Unfortunately, since then, negotiations with the Administration have resulted in this bill moving in the wrong direction. While I believe that the intent of this bill is to end bulk collection and I am glad that there is widespread agreement that Congress must act to end bulk collection, I am not convinced the bill effectively achieves this. The weakened definition of ``specific selection term'' must be addressed as this bill moves forward in order to provide absolute certainty that the legislative language achieves this intent, and that the bill's ban on bulk collection is air-tight. Today's bill simply fall short of what is needed to provide a clear guarantee to the public that the massive data collection by the NSA will be put to a full stop. I appreciate the efforts of the Committees and Leadership to support greater transparency in the bill. The transparency reporting amendment that I offered in the Judiciary Committee that is included in the bill will allow companies to disclose information regarding the number and nature of government demands for user information. However, the new manager's amendment that we are considering on the House floor today has weakened this provision by, for example, adding a two-year delay that prohibits companies from issuing transparency reports for new products or services. I offered several amendments to the Rules Committee to address my concerns with the weakened language in the manager's amendment, but none of these amendments were given an opportunity for debate or a vote on the House floor. I thank the Committees and the Leadership for their work to move this important conversation forward, but I simply cannot support the bill in its current form.

Ms. DelBENE

Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Claire Thomas. Claire Thomas established The Root Connection in 1987 as the first Community Supported Agriculture farm in Washington State. She started with a quarter acre of rented land in the Sammamish Valley between Woodinville and Redmond, just 18 miles from downtown Seattle. She improved soil, purchased land, and increased acreage until she now farms 20 acres. Claire's farm is organic, and applies the same intensive growing techniques used by many home gardeners. The result is enough for about 600 families, a production rate six times that of farms using normal commercial agricultural practices. The Root Connection provides its members a close connection to the land that grows their produce. Families pick up their produce at the farm, and can go out into the fields to harvest herbs and flowers. In 2012, King County Executive Dow Constantine and Councilmember Kathy Lambert awarded Claire the King County Rural Small Business of the Year Award. In addition to The Root Connection, Claire manages 47 acres of farmland and water rights, advocates for farmland preservation, and helps run a non-profit that obtains fresh produce weekly from four local farms and distributes it through local food banks. I want to honor Claire's commitment and drive to overcoming food insecurity by creating a means to get healthful food directly from farms to the homes that need it most.

Ms. DelBENE

Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their help in considering the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Protection Act today, a bill close to the hearts of many of my constituents who have been struck by a terrible tragedy. As many in this Chamber know, on Saturday, March 22, on a mountainside in my district near the towns of Oso and Darrington, an enormous landslide occurred, almost unthinkable in size and scope, wiping out an entire neighborhood and destroying an important stretch of State Route 530, the primary transportation artery between Arlington and Darrington, and other communities to the east. At least 33 people have lost their lives, and more are still missing. The damage and loss caused by this disaster are heartbreaking, but the community response has been equally inspiring. People throughout the region have come together to support each other and do their part to aid in the search and recovery. In the days after the tragedy occurred, members of the community and the mayor of Darrington asked for support on issues important to the region. One of their requests to our congressional delegation, to Senators Murray and Cantwell and Congressman Larsen and myself, was for our help to pass this bill. Last year, I introduced the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Protection Act in the House, and, with unanimous Senate passage last week, we are one step closer to providing this community with a piece of good news about a treasured local landmark. The Green Mountain Lookout, located in the Glacier Peak Wilderness, was built in 1933 as a Civilian Conservation Corps project to detect fires and spot enemy aircraft during World War II. The lookout is a popular destination for hikers near and far, and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is also an important, historic, and unique part of community of Darrington. Unfortunately, severe weather caused the Green Mountain Lookout to fall into disrepair in 2001, and the U.S. Forest Service began taking steps to preserve the historic structure for future generations. However, an out-of-state group filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service for using machinery to conduct repairs and, unfortunately, a U.S. District Court ordered the Forest Service to remove the lookout. If Congress does not act soon, the lookout will be removed for good. This lookout is a local landmark for the Darrington community and the Pacific Northwest, and is also a critical tourist attraction and economic driver in the region. At a time when this community is faced with a long, difficult road to recovery, we must do everything we can to help, including supporting the region's economy, and, in this case, protecting the Green Mountain Lookout saves a cherished landmark and supports outdoor recreation and tourism, both critically important to the local economy. This bill is simple. It would allow routine maintenance while keeping this iconic structure where it is meant to be, and always has been, on Green Mountain near Darrington. Local governments in the area, my constituents, as well as a number of environmental and historic preservation groups, support saving the lookout. This bill also saves money because it would cost more money to remove the lookout than to keep it where it is. The Green Mountain Lookout represents a significant piece of the Pacific Northwest's history. It deserves to be protected for outdoor enthusiasts to enjoy for many years to come. This bill can't undo what has been done. But, as the mayor of Darrington told me, it can be a piece of good news and a victory for an inspiring community that has gone through so much. Today, I ask all Members of the House to vote for this bill and do their part to support this remarkable community and this historic landmark.

Ms. DelBENE

Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 2014 Lynden Christian High School girls basketball team. On March 8, the Lynden Lyncs won the 1A state championship, culminating their impressive season with a record of 25-2. I congratulate them on this impressive achievement. This title is Lynden's 10th and their first since 2008. The Lyncs had one focus all year, ``Team is greater than I.'' Their motto was evident in the championship game as the Lyncs built an early lead that they never relinquished. In the final quarter, King's High School made a late push to bring the game within 4 points, 44-40. But the Lyncs stepped up, determined not to lose this one. After consecutive scoring drives and solid defense, the Lyncs secured their spot as state champions by a score of 55-40. I would like to give special recognition to Kara Bajema, the tournament MVP. Senior guard Courtney Hollander also played a pivotal role in the final game, finishing with 11 points and 13 rebounds. The Lyncs' impressive record this season is a testament to their incredible work ethic and the impressive coaching of Curt De Haan. Coach De Haan provided the girls with the training and encouragement necessary to achieve this notable feat. Again, I congratulate the Lynden Christian High School girls basketball team on all of their success. Their victory was hard-earned and well-deserved.

Ms. DelBENE

Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 and Thursday, March 27th, 2014 I was unable to be in Washington, DC and vote on the legislative business during these two days. Unfortunately, the tragic mudslide in Snohomish County, Washington required me to return to my district to help my constituents in the aftermath of this disaster. I would now like to submit how I would have voted had I been present. I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 142: On Ordering the Previous Question for consideration of H. Res. 524, a resolution providing for consideration of H.R. 1459, the Ensuring Public Involvement in the Creation of National Monuments Act. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 143: On Adoption of H. Res. 524, a resolution providing for consideration of H.R. 1459, a resolution providing for consideration of H.R. 1459, the Ensuring Public Involvement in the Creation of National Monuments Act. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 144: On motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1228, Corporal Justin D. Ross Post Office Building in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 145: On Agreeing to the Tsongas Amendment No. 3 to H.R. 1459, the Ensuring Public Involvement in the Creation of National Monuments Act. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 146: On the Motion to Recommit with Instructions H.R. 1459, the Ensuring Public Involvement in the Creation of National Monuments Act. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 147: On Passage of H.R. 1459, the Ensuring Public Involvement in the Creation of National Monuments Act. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 148: On motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4278, Ukraine Support Act. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Ms. DelBENE

Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday morning, a devastating natural disaster struck near the towns of Oso and Darrington in Washington State, where a hillside collapsed in a massive landslide, wiping out an entire neighborhood. At least eight lives have been lost already, with dozens and dozens more reported missing. The scale of damage and loss caused by this disaster is truly heartbreaking. After spending time in the affected communities and in local emergency command centers over the weekend, I am inspired by the spirit, courage, and cooperation of everyone in these communities. I have seen the bravery of all of our first responders who have risked their own lives to save others and continue to do so selflessly. As search and rescue efforts continue, tonight I ask my colleagues and those around the country to keep the victims, their families, and all those affected by this tragedy in your thoughts and prayers. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues from the Washington delegation and I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in honor of all those that we have lost.

Ms. DelBENE

Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. DelBENE. I am opposed in its current form.

Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. Infrastructure improvements and construction projects are crucial not only for safety, but also for a robust and strong economy. Unfortunately, many of our roads and bridges are in a state of disrepair. This isn't the result of environmental review processes, but, unfortunately, a shortsighted failure to invest in our crumbling infrastructure. We need to invest in safety improvements for our bridges and renovations along major highways, so that we don't experience tragedies like the Skagit Valley I-5 bridge collapse in my district last year. For Washington State, moving forward on construction and infrastructure projects that efficiently move people and goods will improve connections to Washington's ports, support trade, help connect people to their jobs, and spur economic growth. I understand that these projects are a valuable driver of job growth and can put people back to work; and I agree with supporters of this legislation, that Congress must do everything possible to remove barriers to our economic recovery and to job creation. But we simply don't have data to suggest that regulatory red tape and overregulation through the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, are hampering construction projects or impeding job growth. In fact, a 2012 Congressional Research Service report called into question the idea that NEPA compliance is a source of delay in Federal highway projects and found that delays in permitting for construction projects are more often tied to, among other things, a lack of project funding, whether from State, local, or Federal sources. This is a real problem and one that Congress can help solve by making targeted investments in our Nation's infrastructure, whether by passing a final Water Resources Development Act reauthorization bill or by reforming the highway trust fund to provide more adequate funding for roads and bridge construction. Instead, the RAPID Act, in its current form, is based on the flawed premise that our current laws--not only NEPA, but laws like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act--impede economic growth. In fact, these laws serve important purposes, such as protecting private property owners, local communities, and tribal governments that may be impacted by Federal actions. While this bill has a worthy goal--to prevent delays in the approval of proposed construction projects--this cannot come at the expense of our public health and safety, our environment, or the rights of private property owners. My amendment would ensure that this bill does not override the current regulatory protections governing certain construction projects. Just weeks after a hazardous chemical spill harmed the water supply for residents of West Virginia, we cannot afford to undermine regulatory protections that have been in place for decades as a result of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. So my amendment excludes construction projects affecting our drinking water or air quality from the weaker regulatory procedures established by this legislation. This amendment will help ensure that Americans continue to have access to clean air and water. My amendment also makes clear that, when a Federal construction project would condemn or infringe on the private property rights of any American, it could not sidestep the review process, as provided under this legislation. Additionally, gutting the NEPA requirements under current law for construction projects could pose unique challenges for Indian country, which is why my amendment would continue the current NEPA process for construction projects that would impact health, safety, or tribal sovereignty of Native American tribes. The RAPID Act, as currently drafted, fails to ensure meaningful tribal consultation on these types of projects. Finally, my amendment ensures that we are prioritizing our investments effectively. There are too many Americans who continue to look for work, and my amendment would require that every construction project assess whether we will help long-term unemployed Americans, including veterans, get back to work. This amendment is an opportunity for us to reduce unemployment and assist our veterans struggling to find civilian job opportunities. The approval process should consider whether the project will utilize equipment and materials manufactured in the United States and whether it will result in the hiring of unemployed workers who are actively seeking work. We should always do our best to support American jobs and American products when spending taxpayer dollars. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. DelBENE

Ms. DelBENE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with great frustration, and must oppose the Public Access and Lands Improvement Act in its current form. This bill is a merger of 10 public lands and natural resource bills, all of which are unrelated to each other and many of which would ignore the best available science, would compromise the stewardship of our public lands and would completely disregard the bedrock environmental laws that have served to protect our environment and cherished open space for decades. That being said, there is one part of this bill that I do support. Buried in title VI of this bill is the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Protection Act, which I introduced with Congressman Larsen and Senators Murray and Cantwell. Green Mountain Lookout, located in the Glacier Peak Wilderness, was built in 1933 as a Civilian Conservation Corps project to detect fires and spot enemy aircraft during World War II. The lookout is an important, historic and unique part of the Pacific Northwest. It is a popular destination for hikers, and it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Unfortunately, severe weather caused the Green Mountain Lookout to fall into disrepair in 2001, and the U.S. Forest Service began taking steps to preserve the historic structure for future generations. However, an out-of-State group filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service for using machinery to conduct these repairs, and a U.S. District Court ordered the Forest Service to remove the lookout. My bill would allow critical and routine maintenance while keeping this iconic structure where it is meant to be--in its original home. Local governments in the area, my constituents, as well as a number of environmental and historic preservation groups support my bill to keep the Green Mountain Lookout where it is. The Natural Resources Committee agrees. They passed this bill unanimously last year, and why wouldn't they? This bill is common sense. It saves us money because it would actually cost more to remove the lookout than to keep it where it is. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that, if this bill had been brought up on its own, by its own merits, it would have passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening here today. Instead, this bill has gotten wrapped up in a series of very controversial and divisive bills. The Green Mountain Lookout represents a significant piece of the Pacific Northwest's history, and it deserves to be protected for outdoor enthusiasts to enjoy for years to come. It does not deserve to be wrapped up in a package of bills that we all know will be dead on arrival in the Senate. The administration has also voiced its support for keeping the Green Mountain Lookout where it is while strongly opposing the rest of this bill. Green Mountain deserves a vote on its own, and I am extremely disappointed that my amendment to separate my bill from the rest of this package was denied a chance to be considered today. The way this piece of legislation was handled is emblematic of the dysfunction that is so prevalent and so unnecessary in Congress today. The people of Washington State expect Congress to make progress, and they expect compromise, not partisan exercises that won't make it to the President's desk or achieve a meaningful result. I am deeply disappointed that that is where this bill is today, and I know that many of my constituents are as well. It is my hope that I will be able to work with my colleagues from across the aisle to consider the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Protection Act before it is too late. The need for immediate action is great because, if the lookout is moved once, there is no moving it back. It is simple. Taking care of our environment is critical to protecting the quality of life we cherish. I cannot in good conscience support this overall bill due to the many other harmful measures that are included in this package.

Ms. DelBENE

Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, this farm bill is bipartisan legislation that is good for our farmers and families. It is an accomplishment that will create jobs, help our farmers, and preserve access to healthy food. This bill includes unprecedented funding for specialty crops and organic farms. It is no understatement to say that this is the best farm bill yet for specialty crop farmers. I am proud the farm bill includes $200 million to fund my proposal to expand job training programs for SNAP recipients to find self- sustaining jobs. Make no mistake: no one got everything they wanted. I am disappointed that nutrition assistance is reduced at a time when the need is high. However, this bill will not eliminate SNAP eligibility for anyone still in need. In addition, the removal of the dairy stabilization program is disappointing. This reform would have helped farmers and protected consumers. This bill is an improvement but falls short of solving the entire problem. Overall, this bill provides the certainty needed to grow our economy and bolster America's agriculture industry. I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote.

Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, the 2014 farm bill is an important example of how Congress can produce meaningful bipartisan compromise. Overall, this Farm Bill represents years of hard work from a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, farmers and stakeholders from across the country to put together a bill that is good for our farmers and families. It's a major accomplishment that will create jobs, help our farmers and preserves Americans access to quality, healthy food. As in all compromises, no one got everything they wanted. I'm disappointed that the bill includes reforms that will reduce nutrition assistance funding at a time when hunger and poverty remain too high in our country. However, unlike the original House Republican proposal, which was a $40 billion cut and would have removed nearly 4 million people from SNAP, the compromise agreed to today will not eliminate SNAP eligibility for anyone still in need. This outcome will garner bipartisan support not just because of what it excluded but also for the important reforms and program improvements that it includes. I would like to discuss the SNAP provisions in the nutrition title in greater depth to ensure my colleagues have a richer understanding of the outcome of the Conference Committee agreement and what it will mean for the program and its participants. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP here in Washington, DC and as Basic Food in Washington State, is the backbone of our federal nutrition assistance safety net. The program has more than proven itself during the economic down-turn of the last several years. With its help, millions of struggling families and seniors are able to put food on the table each day. The program efficiently and accurately delivers benefits that have a significant impact on low- income Americans. Nevertheless, I saw it as my role as a member of the Agriculture Committee and as a conferee to search for ways in which the program could continue to improve. This farm bill represents the conferees' shared vision for ways to improve several aspects of SNAP's basic operations. One of the changes that we are making, of which I am most proud, is the plan to test promising strategies to connect more SNAP participants to employment. This legislation includes pilot programs to test innovative means of supporting SNAP recipients' efforts to improve their lives. This was an aspect of the original House bill that I worked on with Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson. Unfortunately, the House passed nutrition title also included work pilot provisions that had elements that were of serious concern to me. As a result, I did not support that bill's final package. As conferees, however, we worked to overcome those differences. Many of us worked long hours to help craft these pilots, and I think the final provision shows the impact of those efforts. The farm bill provides $200 million to pilot and evaluate innovative and promising state employment and training programs. States can test activities that are currently allowed under SNAP's employment and training program, activities that are allowed under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant and supportive services that SNAP offers to enrollees in SNAP employment and training programs such as child care and help with transportation costs. We wanted to be sure that states were able to create innovative programs for volunteers such as the Job Training Initiative in Seattle which focused on skills building or education programs that might improve an individual's employability. Moreover, it was very important to us to ensure that states could try interventions that have not been permitted in SNAP in the past--such as offering child care assistance to an underemployed or unemployed parent whose primary barrier to work may simply be safe affordable child care. The same approach could be taken with transitional housing or other innovative strategies to support individuals' ability to increase their earnings. By including TANF activities, we were able to ensure that states could test strategies around subsidized and unsubsidized employment. We were inspired by the effective subsidized employment programs states ran through the TANF program during the economic downturn with federal funds made available through the Recovery Act. States like Florida and Mississippi were major champions of these efforts and we wanted to be sure the pilots would support further efforts. One of the changes that is potentially most important is the inclusion of unsubsidized employment, including private-sector employment, as a component to which states could assign individuals. Obviously, unsubsidized employment is the goal to which almost all workers aspire. On the other hand, because state agencies will not have full control over, or even full information about, how these workplaces operate, we felt the need to include significant safeguards. Longstanding protections against the displacement of other workers remain, as do workplace protection laws such as those for health and safety, wage and hour standards, family leave, workers' compensation, and the like. We expect the Department will promulgate extensive standards in this regard and will supplement those standards as experience shows necessary. In addition, the agreement ensures that individuals who participate in employment activities in the work pilots should not be subject to sanctions unless clear evidence shows that that the individual wilfully refused to take actions that she or he could safely and properly take. If the employer does not give the individual as many hours as expected, or if the employer finds the individual's skills lacking, or if the employer asks the individual to work at a time when the individual lacks child care or transportation, no sanction should apply. Where the state is uncertain what happened or has no clear evidence of wilful refusal to comply, no sanction is appropriate. Often, states just will not be entirely sure what happened because they do not have the oversight over private employers in the way that the usually do over work programs the states themselves operate. The inclusion of private-sector employment as a component to which workers could be assigned does not in any way disparage states' existing authority to treat jobs that SNAP applicants and recipients have found for themselves as allowable work activities, obviating the need for other placements and allowing the state to provide supportive services the way it would to applicants and recipients in activities to which the state had assigned them. We have no reason to value, or support, a job that an enterprising recipient has found for her or himself any less than we do a work assignment or training program to which the state has assigned her or him. In each case, SNAP E&T's single-minded goal should be for the applicant or recipient to succeed. While the pilot projects are the work-related aspects of the title that have gotten the most attention, the conferees included other important reforms to SNAP employment and training. Consistent with the original House bill, we felt it is very important for states and USDA to do a better job of tracking outcomes for the services that they offer SNAP participants. For their part, USDA must use this information to assess whether SNAP employment and training can do better and achieve more lasting long-term outcomes. That information will be crucial to us when we reauthorize the program in another five years. Of course, we understand that SNAP participants are often poor and low skilled. We were very clear that expectations and outcomes for these services need to be appropriate. Not everyone will find employment immediately, especially in this economy. We expect that these measures will consider that some employment and training services--such as career and technical education or GED programs--may yield more gains over the long haul but participants would not immediately find those jobs because they are gaining the credentials needed to get them. To that end, USDA's study needs to recognize that getting better jobs may require getting skills first, so delayed but enduring improvements are important to monitor. We also believe, informed by the great work of the Basic Food Employment and Training Program in my home state of Washington, that connecting individuals to the right activity to help them move forward is half the battle. We have called for USDA to increase their monitoring of states' employment and training programs and we expect them to make individual assessment of SNAP work registrants, which is already a requirement, a key feature of their state reviews. Another key provision of the package is the effort to address the relationship between SNAP and the Low-Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program or LIHEAP. Of course, I am disappointed that the final legislation includes any benefit reductions at all. Washington is one of the states that had been using this option to leverage additional benefits to our low-income households. I am satisfied that the conferees did the best they could in narrowly targeting those reductions to impact only those households who are claiming a standard utility allowance by virtue of their receipt of a very small LIHEAP benefit and, as a result, receiving a larger SNAP benefit. I wanted to be sure that we would not impact households who receive more traditional LIHEAP benefits. USDA assured us that individuals who currently claim the SUA as a result of their participation in or expected participation in LIHEAP will continue to be able to do so. This change is meant to have its desired effect by states dropping their nominal LIHEAP programs and informing USDA that they no longer provide token payments. In that way, no one in the 34 states that have not adopted this practice will see additional verification requirements or barriers to claiming the SUA. At the same time, in my own state, households that participate in our regular LIHEAP program should not experience any change in their certification process as a result of this change. Moreover, nothing in this legislation will have any negative effect on those households that have energy costs. We understand that, across the country, a wide range of billing arrangements exist between landlords and tenants. Even if a tenant does not pay utility bills directly, if the landlord imposes a surcharge for utilities, the tenant should be entitled to the standard utility allowance. States have the capacity to look into and understand the various arrangements that exist, and we should honor their determinations. A token one dollar LIHEAP payment will not trigger eligibility for the SUA, but if the state commits real money to energy assistance for a household because it believes that household is vulnerable to utility costs, we should continue to honor that judgment. The final legislation appropriately honors that principle, unlike some earlier drafts. Although on a much smaller scale, the bill includes several other provisions where our intent was to tighten up or to clarify program rules in a way that addresses concerns, but that does not increase application burdens on the millions of law abiding low income individuals who participate in this program. Our goal wherever possible, was for state SNAP agencies to bear the burden of implementing these changes so that we would maintain the same level of access for SNAP households. Take for example the provision to require that all states verify immigrant eligibility through the Citizenship and Immigration Service. That requirement ensures that all states are taking advantage of this high quality third party information to verify immigration status. Nothing about this change, however, will change the way that immigrants provide information about their immigration status. The same is true of the prohibition on households with individuals who win significant lottery or gambling winnings from participating in the program. The conferees agreed that this prohibition should not be implemented by requiring all 47 million individuals on SNAP to report whether they had or had not recently won the lottery. To ask extremely poor individuals that question would border on offensive. Instead, states will have to work with their state level lotteries to obtain a list of lottery winners against which they can match to the SNAP caseload. We also took the same approach on the reiteration of the current law restriction on fleeing felons. Some of the conferees felt strongly that we reiterate that individuals convicted of particularly heinous crimes who fall out of line with the terms of their parole are not eligible for SNAP. As that is the current policy, there is no need to make changes to states' application or verification systems to implement this provision. We also included several provisions that are consistent with current USDA rules and guidance governing SNAP. Our goal was to codify these rules into federal law. As such, we banned household expenditures on medical marijuana as an allowable expense under the medical expense deduction. We codified the rules regarding students participate in employment and training. Similarly, our efforts to clarify that SNAP outreach workers may not earn a bounty for each application they help an individual complete or may not pressure someone who doesn't wish to apply to do so are consistent with current USDA guidelines and rules governing outreach. None of these provisions should have any impact on current clients our state outreach programs. Finally, we included several provisions that will help to improve access to healthy food options by requiring stores to stock more perishable foods, allowing community supported agriculture programs to participate as authorized SNAP retailers, and testing new ways for clients to make purchases with their SNAP benefit card (for example, by swiping SNAP cards on mobile devices at farmers' markets) that could open up the program to more retailers with healthy options. In testing these new technologies, we have urged USDA to take every precaution to ensure that these advances do not compromise program integrity. We anticipate they can overcome any challenges on this front and successfully implement these options. The bill includes many other provisions that affect other nutrition programs. I am very pleased that we are increasing funding for food banks and emergency food providers. These organizations are on the front lines of hunger and merit all the support we can provide. We've also included support for community food program grants and created a new national healthy food incentive program modeled after private and foundation efforts to incentivize health food purchases for SNAP participants by providing participants with vouchers to purchase foods at local farmers markets. These efforts will complement our efforts to address hunger through the major federal nutrition programs. As I said before, this bill is not perfect. However, the farm bill conference report successfully addresses the most important food and agricultural issues facing our country today while contributing to deficit reduction. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. DelBENE

Ms. DelBENE. Madam Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose this sweeping anti-choice bill which would deny premium tax credits to income-eligible women and their families if the insurance they obtain under the Affordable Care Act covers abortion--except in cases of rape, incest and when a woman's life is in danger. What experts in the health care industry predict, and as one of the witnesses at this month's Judiciary hearing testified, is that the burdensome regulatory requirements contained in this bill would have a chilling effect and lead to insurers dropping abortion coverage from their plans. While this bill provides a narrow exception if a woman's life is in danger, unfortunately, it would not allow any exceptions to protect a woman's health, even in circumstances where she needs an abortion to prevent severe, permanent damage to her health. Each patient is different, and legislators cannot know the circumstances of every pregnancy. They should not interfere in personal, private medical decisions that should be made between a woman, her family and her doctor. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 7.

Ms. DelBENE

Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mayor Joan McBride of Kirkland. Joan has served her community for decades in many capacities. Active in her PTA and local neighborhood council, she joined the Kirkland City Council in 1998 and served as Mayor from 2010 until her retirement last year. Joan is a collaborative leader as evidenced throughout her tenure on council, earning her the respect of her colleagues and constituents. The City of Kirkland emerged from the recession on sound financial footing, passed stronger code of conduct and ethics rules, and set aside BNSF land for the Cross Kirkland Corridor all thanks to Joan's hard work and service. Joan's passion and joy for serving Kirkland is infectious to those around her and has created a positive atmosphere for city government to deliver efficient results. She is a model for responsive, civil, and effective government. I want to thank Mayor McBride for her commitment to working for the people of Kirkland and offer my congratulations on her retirement. I wish Joan the best on her next endeavors in the community and beyond.

Ms. DelBENE

Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Barber Shoppe in Kirkland on fifty years of successful business. Since it opened in 1964, the Barber Shoppe has been providing the community with quality service and customer care. Their commitment to excellence has ensured that business stays steady in rough economic times and remains a local favorite. I would like to give special recognition to Bill Bitz, the man who first started the business in the 1960's. Although Bill died last year at the age of 86, his legacy lives on at the Barber Shoppe. Bill instilled a special charm in the family-owned business that is behind its popularity. Bill's daughter, Brenda Gordon, proudly took over the shop from her father when he retired. Gordon's training at Folks Barber College in Renton has helped her to continually enhance and improve the shop. Although the shop now has a new building and a new name, it continues its legacy of classic comfort and high quality care. The Barber Shoppe serves as a role model for many other local businesses that hope to achieve a similar record of success. I congratulate the Barber Shoppe on all of its accomplishments, and thank it for its contribution to the Kirkland community.

Ms. DelBENE

Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 2013 Glacier Peak High School girls cross country team. On November 9, the Grizzlies repeated as 3A cross country state champions, and I would like to congratulate them on their impressive achievement. The Grizzlies' championship title is the result of the hard work and strong effort of the entire team. I would like to give special recognition to senior Megan Davis, the team's top finisher at the state competition this year. Megan finished 12th overall with a time of 19:00.13. Beyond Davis, the team's success came from the efforts of freshmen Heidi Smith and Natalie Church, sophomore Charlie Sevenants, juniors Katherine Dittmann and Haley Longstreth, and senior Samantha Northrop. The Glacier Peak girls cross country team has a legacy of success. Since it was established in 2007, the team has never finished any lower than seventh at the state competition, including three state championships in the past four years. The Grizzlies' impressive record of success is a testament to their incredible work ethic and the impressive coaching of Dan Parker. Coach Parker has provided the Grizzlies with the encouragement and training necessary for the team to continuously perform at such a high level of competition. Again, I congratulate the Glacier Peak Girls Cross Country Team on all of their success. Their accomplishments and awards from this season are hard-earned and well-deserved.