Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act. I thank my colleagues, Mr. Smith and Mr. Schweikert, for their intention to improve the EPA's Science Advisory Board, and I thank them for working with me on other legislation that passed the Science Committee in the House on a bipartisan basis. It is unfortunate that we could not be repeating that bipartisan collaboration today.

My colleagues who support H.R. 1422 may describe this bill as an attempt to strengthen public participation in EPA's scientific review process, improve the process for selecting expert advisers, expand transparency requirements, and limit nonscientific policy advice within EPA's Science Advisory Board. All of these are good government principles that I agree with.

If this bill achieved those goals, I would be here today supporting it. However, on close examination of its provisions, H.R. 1422 would not achieve these good government goals. Instead of improving the Science Advisory Board structure or operation, the bill before us today will likely limit the quality of scientific advice the EPA receives and further delay EPA's regulatory process.

H.R. 1422 would make it easier for industry representatives to serve on a board, even if they have a financial conflict of interest. To be clear, and this is something with which I trust my Republican colleagues would agree, I am not opposed to industry experts participating on the Science Advisory Board or in the peer-review process at the EPA. In fact, their insight into processes and industry can provide valuable guidance to an advisory body.

That being said, Congress should not be endorsing legislation that undermines longstanding ethics requirements and practices with the end result being an overrepresentation of industry voices on EPA's Science Advisory Board, and that is likely to be the result of this bill today.

At the same time this bill eases the way for more industry members, the act also makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the best and brightest from academia to serve because it would exclude from the board anyone who has participated in activities that were even indirectly reviewed by the EPA.

This provision would disqualify some of the most qualified scientists because academic researchers frequently need to compete for research funds from the Federal Government, and that includes the EPA.

Additionally, it appears H.R. 1422 would also significantly delay the work of the Science Advisory Board with new provisions that would require written responses to significant public comments following new public information-gathering sessions, a requirement that is duplicative because the board meetings are already open to the public and have time set aside for public comment. These provisions would simply result in more work without more resources and unlimited time to halt, derail, or slow EPA actions.

Finally, this bill sets a quota for membership on the Scientific Advisory Board from State, local, or tribal governments, which could very well mean that more qualified experts would not be able to serve.

EPA's science is tied to its mission, to protect public health and the environment through rational regulation. Scientific research, knowledge, and technical expertise are fundamental to EPA's mission and inform its regulatory functions.

The need for that expertise is why Congress created advisory bodies such as the Science Advisory Board in the first place, to provide independent advice on the science underpinning regulation, which in turn allows the EPA Administrator to make sound regulatory decisions.

Instead of undermining the scientific advice EPA receives, we should be giving the Agency the tools they need to strengthen and improve the regulatory process with sound science.

In closing, I want to again thank my colleagues, Mr. Stewart and Mr. Schweikert, for their efforts.

This bill does not do what it needs to do. I want to quote from a letter I received from a coalition of organizations, including Physicians for Social Responsibility, Clean Water Action, and more. The letter states:

The bill shifts the current presumption against including

people with financial conflicts on SAB panels . . . The

bill's provisions are inconsistent with a set of nearly

universally accepted scientific principles to eliminate or

limit financial conflicts.

I agree with this assessment of H.R. 1422, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.

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

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

Before I yield, I will place into the Record letters from various groups opposed to this bill, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Physicians for Social Responsibility, among many others.

In addition, I will place into the Record the Administration's Statement of Administration Policy on the bill threatening a veto if the bill were to pass.

Union of Concerned Scientists,

Cambridge, MA, November 17, 2014.

Dear Representative: The Union of Concerned Scientists

strongly opposes the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of

2013, H.R. 1422, set to be voted on by the House as early as

November 18. This bill will cripple the Environmental

Protection Agency's ability to protect public health informed

by the best available science.

When he discussed his proposal last year, Rep. Chris

Stewart (UT) revealed the real purpose of his bill. He

attacked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for

``promulgating air quality regulations that could shut down

large swaths of the West, undertaking thinly veiled attacks

on the safety of hydraulic fracturing, or pursuing job-

killing climate regulations. . . .''

This proposal will make it nearly impossible for the Board

to do the crucial independent evaluations of EPA scientific

analyses that enable the agency to protect public health.

This bill opens the door for more corporate influence on the

Board, because the bill directly stipulates that experts with

financial ties to corporations affected by SAB assessments

are ``not excluded.'' This signal likely will increase the

number of conflicted SAB panelists empowering companies to

delay the SAB's work for years, if not decades. It strikes at

the heart of the whole concept of independent reviews, and at

a time when the ability of corporations to influence policy

is already high.

At the same time this bill encourages corporate experts to

join the SAB, it creates roadblocks for academic experts to

meaningfully participate by banning experts' participation in

``advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve

review and evaluation of their own work.'' This effectively

turns the idea of conflict of interest on its head, with the

bizarre presumption that corporate experts with direct

financial interests are not conflicted while academics who

work on these issues are.

The notion that a member of the SAB cannot participate in a

discussion that cites the member's own work is

counterproductive and goes far beyond the common-sense limits

imposed by the National Academies. Of course, a scientist

with expertise on topics the Science Advisory Board addresses

likely will have done peer-reviewed studies on that topic.

That makes the scientist's evaluation more valuable, not

less.

The bill offers almost limitless opportunities for public

comment, opportunities that only benefit moneyed special

interests. For example, for each major advisory activity, the

Board must convene a public information-gathering session

``to discuss the state of the science'' related to that

activity.

It is possible, under this requirement, that the Board may

find itself repeatedly reexamining ``the state of the

science'' on climate change or the harmful effects of certain

toxins--each time it made an assessment that touched on

either climate change impacts or reducing air pollution.

In addition, both the EPA, before it asks for the Board's

advice, and the Board itself, would be required to ``accept,

consider, and address'' public comments on the agency's

questions to the Board. As the SAB deliberates, it must also

encourage public comments ``that shall not be limited by an

insufficient or arbitrary time restriction.'' In effect,

these provisions turn a scientific evaluation into a public

hearing, even though EPA must already accept public input on

all its regulations.

The Board is required to respond in writing to each

``significant'' comment. In practice, it is difficult to see

how the Board could impose any deadlines on accepting

comment. Nor is it a reasonable expectation on the Board's

membership of pro bono experts.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that

implementing the law's mandates will cost the EPA about $2

million over a four-year period. These are funds that could

be put to much better use by a cash-strapped agency.

This bill would not improve the work of the Board, and

would make it more difficult for the EPA to receive the

independent science advice it needs to do its work. We

strongly urge your opposition.

Sincerely,

Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.,

Director, Center for Science and Democracy, Union of

Concerned Scientists.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of the Science Committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from California, I just want to respond that, certainly, we on this side of the aisle agree with

the goal of transparency. However, transparency does not mean letting industry, people with a financial interest, serve by disclosing it. That is not what transparency means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera), who is not only a physician but a great member of the Science Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this point in time I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). I also want to mention that not only is Mr. Holt a scientist and a great Member of Congress but also has been named, starting in February of 2015, the new CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

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

I just want to respond, with all due respect, to my colleagues who are promoting this bill and asking for balance.

On the contrary, what this bill achieves is not balance because, as explained, under this bill, people who are employed by the industry with a financial conflict of interest can serve as long as they disclose their conflict.

That is in contrast to current practice, which is biased, which is balanced by membership, but people with financial conflicts of interest do not currently serve on this Science Advisory Board.

Just to clarify, it isn't just that people who are employed by industry with a financial conflict of interest will be able to serve; under this bill, people who receive some type of grant cannot participate.

Now, just to clarify, these are not government employees. These are employees of research institutions, universities, who may have received some government grant funding. They are not employed by the government. They are not government employees, and that is a big distinction. They are not beholden to any particular government agency, so that is the big difference.

I agree that we should have balance and transparency, but unfortunately, this bill takes us in the wrong direction.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The bill before us today does undertake the laudable goal of improving transparency at the EPA.

However, as I stated previously and as my colleagues mentioned, this bill, as written, does not accomplish that goal; instead, H.R. 1422 will increase the influence of industry on EPA decisionmaking, including industry members with a financial conflict of interest, while reducing the role of qualified academic researchers in helping to guide regulatory action that is based on sound science.

The Union of Concerned Scientists said:

At the same time, this bill encourages corporate experts to

join the SAB. It creates roadblocks for academic experts

to meaningfully participate by banning experts'

participation and advising activities that directly or

indirectly involve review and evaluation of their own

work.

This effectively turns the idea of conflict of interest on

its head with the bizarre presumption that corporate experts

with direct financial interests are not affected, while

academics who work on these issues are.

Breast Cancer Action wrote:

This bill's overly broad restriction, that a member of the

SAB cannot participate in a discussion that cites the

member's own work, is counterproductive and goes far beyond

the commonsense limits imposed by the National Academies.

Of course, a scientist with expertise on topics that SAB

addresses likely will have done peer-reviewed studies and

other work on that topic. That makes the scientist's

evaluation more valuable, not less.

Mr. Speaker, we can and should work together to improve EPA's approach to reviewing the science underpinning regulations, but this legislation will only damage and delay the process and not bring us the transparency my colleagues seek.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend from Utah (Mr. Stewart).

I want to state again that I have appreciated Mr. Stewart's collaboration on bills that have come through the Science Committee in the past, and I definitely appreciate his intent to strengthen and bring more transparency to the Science Advisory Board. However, as explained previously and as I will explain, this bill and this amendment do not accomplish what needs to be done.

Although my friend's amendment seems to make mostly minor and technical corrections, there are a few

changes that raise concern. One consequence of this bill is the expansion of the scope of the Science Advisory Board's work to include risk or hazard assessments proposed by the Agency. Unfortunately, the amendment offered exacerbates this burden and potential delay by adding draft work being done by the Agency to the board's workload.

A letter from several leading environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund, note that the inclusion of risk and hazard assessments already represents a ``dramatic and unnecessary expansion.''

It would ``increase the burden on the Science Advisory Board and slow the board's ability to complete its tasked objectives.'' Asking the board to constantly peer over the shoulder of the Agency at this stage is an inefficient and ineffective use of the board.

I am also concerned about another part of the amendment that requires the board ``be fully and timely responsive to Congress.'' This seems inconsistent with language in the underlying bill that requires the board to ``avoid making policy determinations or recommendations.''

The amendment appears to put the board in a precarious position, making it vulnerable to political interference and placing a shadow over the independence that we all agree the board should have. The Science Advisory Board can provide Congress and the EPA with important scientific advice, but it should not be beholden to Congress or the EPA Administrator.

Finally, it is clear that this bill would have a serious impact on the membership of the Science Advisory Board in a way that will prohibit qualified scientists from providing their advice to the EPA. Unfortunately, this amendment only deepens that impact by increasing the number of prohibited activities.

If this amendment is adopted, the bill would read:

Board members may not participate in advisory activities

that directly or indirectly involve review or evaluation of

their own work.

I want to clearly illustrate what that means. If the EPA were to consider a rule involving gravity, for example, and if Albert Einstein were alive, this bill would prohibit him from offering expert advice, as that is a subject with which he has had ``direct'' involvement.

That is obviously an absurd result that would result in fewer qualified people serving. We should want the smartest and most knowledgeable scientists advising the EPA; instead, this bill prohibits them from doing so.

Again, I have great respect for my friend from Utah. I am proud that we have worked together in the past and hope we can find areas where we agree going forward, both with the remainder of the 113th and in the 114th Congress.

Unfortunately, regardless of what happens with this amendment, I will have to oppose the bill, but I look forward to continuing to work on this issue.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 5682, a bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline by circumventing the ongoing regulatory process. Rather than building infrastructure to transport dirty fossil fuels, we should be creating new jobs for our constituents by modernizing our transportation system and upgrading failing infrastructure.

Despite some recent gains, our economic recovery is not yet reaching all of our constituents. I agree with supporters of this bill from both sides of the aisle that we must not delay consideration of legislation putting our constituents back to work. House leadership

should allow us to vote on and pass a long-term transportation bill, for example. The proposal before us will result in short term job gains in some areas, but the tradeoff is a continued reliance on an outdated, dirty energy source.

There is a long list of important legislation awaiting consideration by this Congress that will support new jobs, including the National Infrastructure Development Bank Act, the Bring Jobs Home Act, the Make it in America Manufacturing Act, and legislation to extend tax provisions that lead to the construction of clean energy projects. I have no doubt we can find consensus on these and other policies that will increase American competitiveness and put our constituents back to work, but the bill I opposed today is not the approach we should be taking.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill so we can work together to create new economic opportunities for our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1086, the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014. I would like to thank Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller for their work on this important legislation.

The Child Care and Development Block Grant program is an investment in our future. We know that quality care can set children up for academic success, and helping families cover the costs of child care enables parents to keep working or train for new careers.

S. 1086 sets new requirements to strengthen child care quality. These requirements, which include background checks for federally- funded providers and yearly safety inspections for non-licensed providers, represent commonsense measures to protect children.

The bill also takes several steps to improve access to child care services. It will give families certainty that their children can receive care for a full year, even if their income--and thus their eligibility--changes. And the bill will help providers budget for their businesses by making sure unpredictable child absences don't affect their funding.

Although I am pleased that the bill authorizes increased appropriations for the Child Care and Development Block Grant program, far too many eligible families will continue to go unserved. Supporting safe, high quality child care requires resources, and I hope my colleagues will join me in continuing to call for increased funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant program.

Madam Speaker, as we prepare to debate and vote on the continuing resolution to fund the government through December, I rise to urge that the House stay in session until we can also take up several issues that are not resolved in the legislation we will be voting on, things our constituents are struggling with every day: unemployment, adequate support for our seniors, college affordability, and climate change.

These issues deserve our attention, and the toll they take on Americans is

very real, both in Oregon and in districts across the country.

For the millions of men and women who are still struggling to find a job, emergency unemployment insurance was their lifeline. After numerous pleas to call for a vote went unanswered, millions of Americans are now unable to fill up their gas tank or pay their rent. For some on the precipice of homelessness, this is the tipping point. These people can't move on without the support provided by unemployment insurance. So let's send a signal that we haven't abandoned them and take up a bill to extend these critical benefits.

And let's not forget how many people could get back to work if we would set aside our differences and pass a long-term transportation bill and a comprehensive overhaul of our Tax Code. Enough of these policies that incentivize businesses to go overseas; we need policies that keep them bringing jobs back home.

We should also think of our seniors. The Older Americans Act changed the way our seniors age in this country. It contains social and nutritional programs that help them live full, independent lives, but the act expired more than 3 years ago. Meanwhile, the number of Americans turning 60 continues to grow.

I introduced a bill to reauthorize and update the Older Americans Act so seniors can age with dignity and not in poverty. However, the House has yet to consider this important bill to renew critical safety net programs like Meals on Wheels, home health care, and protection from elder abuse. My bill is closely aligned with a bipartisan compromise introduced in the Senate, and it deserves consideration.

And let's not forget the millions of students who are returning to college campuses across the country this fall. The cost of college is leaving too many of them with massive debt and decades-long repayment plans. That is a drag on our economy. We need legislation that allows students to refinance their current loans--just like people can refinance a mortgage to get lower rates--and, ultimately, we must address the rising cost of college. Higher education needs to be accessible for everyone. We should not create barriers by maintaining a system in which higher education involves exorbitant student loan debt.

Finally, the threat of climate change continues to loom. This too is a concern across the country and around the world, but it is particularly alarming to my coastal and agricultural portions of my district. Greenhouse gas emissions are at record highs, leading to a warming planet, melting glaciers, and rising sea levels. Farmers, fishers, and others who rely on our natural resources are already feeling the stress.

We must have a serious discussion about how we can curb increasing carbon emissions. Let's make this an opportunity to develop new and innovative technologies that can reduce carbon emissions while growing and advancing our economy through the creation of clean energy jobs. Let's do it for our children and our grandchildren. Let's not wait.

Yes, this continuing resolution will continue to fund the government for a short time. It will prevent another disastrous government shutdown. But it is a short-term fix that leaves numerous immediate problems unaddressed. We must do better for our constituents. They will bear the ramifications of our inaction.

I urge my colleagues to set aside our differences. Let's work together to find the solutions our constituents deserve.

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

I rise in strong support of H.R. 2495, the American Super Computing Leadership Act.

This bipartisan bill would authorize an exascale computing program to promote the development of the next generation of the fastest computers in the world right here in the United States. The bill would also help ensure that we develop the software and algorithms that help us to make the best use of these computers.

Exascale is often used interchangeably with ``extreme scale'' to refer to the next generation of supercomputers in general. It also refers to the computing systems that would be able to carry out a million trillion operations--that is a million trillion operations per second.

That is a 1 with 18 zeros after it. Now, that is about 500 times faster than the world's fastest computers today. Developing these capabilities is vital to maintaining our leadership in a wide range of research areas.

This legislation would authorize the Secretary of Energy to support research to significantly increase the computing power available to scientists from the Department of Energy, industry, universities, and other Federal agencies.

I would also like to note that there is no new money being authorized here. We are simply ensuring that we are making the best use of our resources when it comes to the money that we are already investing.

The capabilities made possible by these investments would enable our best and our brightest scientists to gain new insights into societal concerns, ranging from Alzheimer's disease to climate change.

Other examples of both industrial and academic research that would benefit from advancing high-end computing capabilities include high- temperature superconductivity to significantly reduce energy losses in the transmission of electricity, aerodynamic modeling for aircraft and vehicle design, pharmaceutical development, and fusion plasma modeling.

Finally, this legislation would also require that the Department of Energy submit a management plan, as well as regular reports to Congress that detail how the Department of Energy expects to implement this program, as well as its progress to date.

With this bipartisan legislation, we will be establishing a transparent program that will allow the United States to remain a leader in high-end computing. I expect that we may well reap benefits from this effort, even beyond what I have spoken about today and beyond the advances that any of us can now imagine.

I would like to take a moment to compliment the sponsors of this legislation, Mr. Hultgren from Illinois and Mr. Swalwell from California, for their efforts to craft this bipartisan bill we have before us today. I also thank Ms. Lofgren from California and, of course, Science Committee Chairman Smith for his support.

I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support the passage of this important legislation.

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

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

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

I rise in support of H.R. 5309, the Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research Act of 2014.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for cosponsoring this bipartisan legislation with me. I also want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Mr. Smith and Ms. Johnson of Texas, for their support in moving this bill forward.

I also would like to thank the hardworking staff, my personal staff, Mr. Rohrabacher's staff, and the dedicated committee staff on both sides of the aisle for their help with this bill.

Finally, I would like to thank the State and local emergency management officials, coastal zone managers, and the many scientists and other experts who have contributed their ideas to the development of this bill.

I have met with coastal community groups and emergency planners in my district who are working on a number of fronts to prepare their communities for earthquake and tsunami events.

So much of our ability to prepare, respond, and recover from a tsunami will depend on awareness, planning, and mobilization at the local level. From the Federal agencies all the way down to local emergency managers, we all agree that adequately preparing communities across the country for the threat of natural disasters is of vital importance to the future of this country.

The Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research Act of 2014 is an important step toward making sure that our coastal communities are ready to face the dangers posed by tsunami threats.

In 2004, the Sumatra-Andaman earthquake in Southeast Asia triggered a deadly tsunami event that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people from Indonesia to the coast of Madagascar, prompting Congress to enact the Tsunami Warning and Education Act of 2006.

We were reminded of the significant threat that a tsunami poses to U.S. coastal communities 3 years ago when the Tohoku earthquake near Japan created a devastating tsunami event. That tsunami resulted in the tragic loss of human life and billions of dollars of economic damage, which made it one of the costliest natural disasters we have ever seen, and its damage reached as far as the west coast of the United States-- California and Oregon, to be specific.

The events in Indonesia and Japan underscore the importance of this legislation and why we must prepare and protect our coastal communities from similar events.

Maritime commercial activities, vibrant tourist industries, and more than 120 million Americans are all part of the rich coastal U.S. economy, an economy that contributed close to half of the entire U.S. GDP in 2011.

The commercial fishing industry alone supports about 1 million jobs, and the international trade associated with coastal and marine fisheries contributes close to $70 billion annually to the U.S. economy. Likewise, more than 13 million Americans work at our commercial ports. They help to move the more than $1 trillion worth of goods and products to the shelves of our local stores.

These examples show that investing in the resiliency of coastal communities is important to the economic health of not just these regions, but to the Nation. Ensuring that these coastal communities, big and small, have the resources and knowledge necessary to protect these critical aspects from the threat of a tsunami and be prepared, should one occur, is simply good and prudent policy.

Because this body collectively provides assistance when there is a natural disaster, like Superstorm Sandy, for example, planning and preparation to avoid or minimize damage and destruction is important for all of us, whether or not we represent a coastal district.

Oregonians are aware of the threat that a tsunami would pose to their communities, and cities up and down the coast have responded by installing warning sirens and developing evacuation routes, but as newer warning technologies develop and more is understood about the areas that will be hit the hardest, a coordinated effort is required to update preparation and response.

In Tillamook County, Oregon, for example, they recently decided that warning sirens were not the way of the future, favoring the use of warning residents through social media and by phone instead.

Seaside, a small coastal town in my district, has been identified as the most vulnerable community to tsunami on the Oregon coast. In Seaside, local leaders and organizations are proactively educating residents and visitors about tsunami evacuation routes, storage supply locations, and emergency communication systems.

At the Federal level, we can help these communities understand the risks and seriousness of the threats they face and work with them to be prepared, which is why I sponsored this bill, along with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

H.R. 5309 will update and reauthorize the Tsunami Warning and Education Act and will help to ensure that local and regional decisionmakers have the tools and information they need to develop mitigation and response plans to this ever-present threat and to communicate these plans to the public in an effective and efficient manner.

For distant tsunami events, this legislation will advance research efforts related to improving tsunami forecasting, protection, and notification which could mean extra minutes for emergency responders on the ground and translate into lives saved and tragedies avoided, and it adds ports and harbor operations as entities to be safeguarded by tsunami forecasting capabilities.

This bill will also support research needed to improve our understanding of local tsunami events. A local tsunami, one that is generated just off the coast, has a travel time of about 30 minutes or less.

That is the kind of tsunami most likely to have widespread and devastating impacts on the U.S. coast and on the Caribbean. In Oregon, we know that a catastrophic Cascadia earthquake and tsunami will occur someday. Although no one can predict the next time the Cascadia fault will rupture, we can and must prepare.

At a recent Coastal Caucus event in Florence, Oregon, State-elected officials, tribal governments, community leaders, and business owners attended a panel discussion that focused on the threat posed by tsunami and how we are updating our response plans to reflect new understandings of subduction zone tsunami events. One thing everyone on the panel agreed on: it is not a matter of if, but when.

We have already learned a lot about how to prepare for, mitigate, and respond to tsunamis. I have no doubt that the progress we have made through NOAA's efforts under the Tsunami Warning and Education Act has enhanced the safety of our communities and will save lives, and this good work must be continued.

The coastlines of the United States already play an integral role in the economic prosperity of this country, and we must strengthen their preparedness and resiliency, so they can continue to play that role going forward. In this bipartisan bill, we recognize the need for continued protection of our coastal communities from the impacts of tsunami.

In closing, I want to say that September is National Preparedness Month. It is a reminder to everyone to make disaster preparedness a priority.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I hope we can further this discussion and continue to find ways to build America's resiliency to tsunami and other natural disasters.

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

Mr. Speaker, the economy is rebounding, but many of our constituents are still feeling the effects of the recession. Millions of people are still unemployed after losing jobs that never came back during the recovery.

The recently passed Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act is a step that will help prepare Americans for in-demand jobs based on the needs of local businesses, resulting in a more skilled workforce and greater business productivity. But our failure to fully embrace and address this challenge is unacceptable. So today I rise to highlight the importance of investing in the true engine of our economy, the American worker.

We have a great opportunity to build the middle class with a jump- start agenda that focuses on American workers. This agenda incentivizes U.S. job creation, increases infrastructure investments, and raises the minimum wage, all of which will help workers find quality, stable employment. We still have a lot of work to do to rebuild our economy, but investing in American workers is the right path forward.

Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago today President Nixon signed the law creating the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) as a private, nonprofit corporation to support civil legal aid organizations all across the country. Since that time LSC has become a critical and integral vehicle through which federal funds are distributed to 134 local legal aid programs, with nearly 800 offices serving every congressional district.

LSC is tasked by Congress to ensure equal access to justice for those Americans who otherwise would be unable to afford to enforce their rights through our legal system. It serves people with the most critical legal needs--food, shelter, medical care, income maintenance, and physical safety. It makes a real difference for low-income and elderly Oregonians and Americans.

I was proud to work at legal aid early in my career and I'll never forget the people I was able to help. They desperately needed an attorney when they could little afford one. I want to emphasize that they were not low income by choice--most had unexpected medical bills, had lost a job, or lost a spouse.

Unfortunately, Congress is not living up to its obligation. LSC- funded attorneys still turn away more than 50 percent of eligible clients because of a lack of resources. It is unacceptable to leave people out on their own to navigate a complicated and already strained legal system, or else suffer continued injustice. We must do better.

I congratulate LSC on its 40th anniversary, and commend all the hard working legal aid attorneys and staff who get so little recognition for such important work.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise today in support of the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act.

I would like to start by thanking Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and Congressman Guthrie for their leadership on this bill, which will improve the financial counseling that millions of student loan borrowers receive. I am pleased that Members are coming together to take a meaningful step toward protecting student loan borrowers. I also want to thank the Committee on Education and Workforce staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work to include Members' shared priorities in a bill that has earned tremendous bipartisan support.

The need for enhanced financial counseling for students is clear. More than 40 million Americans are carrying more than $1.2 trillion in student loan debt, and default rates are climbing. At the same time there is evidence that student loan debt is a drag on the broader economy. Borrowers struggling with debt may delay purchasing a new car, a home, or new appliances. They may be unable to access capital to start a business, or they may put off saving for retirement.

Of course, the solution to the mounting burden of student loan debt will require a number of changes. We will need to address rising tuition, and we will need to do a better job of granting existing borrowers access to affordable repayment plans. But we also must help current and future students understand their rights and obligations as borrowers. And we need to help them forecast their obligations in the years after college so they can make informed decisions now and for the future.

One of the frustrations I hear frequently from former students is that they didn't understand the jumble of terms and products in the student loan market when they were borrowing. Many didn't ask questions until after they left college. What kind of loans did they borrow? When will they need to begin repayment? What will their monthly payments be, and what repayment plans will be available?

That is why I am especially pleased that H.R. 4984 goes beyond entrance counseling for new borrowers and requires annual counseling for all student loan borrowers.

Under this bill, students, whether they are sophomores or seniors, will have information about how much they have borrowed, what they are expected to borrow to complete their education, how their loans will accrue interest, and what they can expect their monthly payments to be when they leave college. They will be better able to see their road to repayment.

Importantly, providing annual counseling means that borrowers who don't graduate will still receive information about what to expect when they leave school and enter repayment. Borrowers will have more clarity on their monthly payments under two repayment plans: income-based repayment and the standard 10-year option. Streamlining this information will simplify the repayment process.

Borrowers will be reminded each year that they don't have to borrow the full amount made available, and they should consider grants, work study, and Federal loans before turning to private lenders. Unlike current practice, borrowers will receive financial counseling before signing their master promissory note, and they will be reminded that they can repay interest before it capitalizes.

H.R. 4984 will provide for the first time important disclosures to parents who borrow for their children. Parent borrowers of student loans will be given virtually the same information about their loans as students receive. And the bill will extend counseling to Pell grant recipients so that they understand the limits on eligibility for Pell grants, and the circumstances in which they would be asked to repay their grants.

Finally, this bill delivers enhanced student loan information in consumer-tested formats to check for student understanding. It will ensure that we provide personalized borrower information that the borrowers understand.

Madam Chair, there is another reason why this bill is so important right now. Recent consumer complaints suggest that some debt settlement companies are using predatory practices to target student loan borrowers. These firms target low-income and minority borrowers, but also Americans giving back through public service careers, like firefighting, teaching, and law enforcement. These firms are reportedly charging thousands of dollars to enroll borrowers in Federal income- based repayment programs, a program that borrowers can enroll in for free.

Until we can address these predatory practices directly, this bill will go a long way to ensuring that students fully understand their eligibility for income-based repayment. In short, the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act will help Pell grant recipients and student loan borrowers. It will help the borrowers anticipate their monthly payments and plan their road to repayment. This will make a real positive difference, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4984.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), a champion for access to higher education.

Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), a colleague from the Education and the Workforce Committee.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Chair, H.R. 4984, the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act, will give student loan borrowers a much better understanding of their road to repayment. It does this by helping students track the amount they borrowed, predict monthly payments, and access affordable repayment plans.

As I mentioned, this bill is not a cure-all for the problems student loan borrowers face, which include rising tuition and opaque servicing contracts, but the bill serves a very important purpose, and it is especially important because of the cost of college and the challenges of managing student debt.

Greater transparency about what it means to borrow student loans will help students anticipate their obligations and advocate for their rights as borrowers, and perhaps greater transparency will elevate the conversation about the underlying need to address college costs.

Again, I want to thank Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and Representative Guthrie for their bipartisan effort on this important bill. It has been delightful to work with them. I look forward to more bipartisanship in the Education and the Workforce Committee.

I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4984, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, but I do not oppose the amendment.

Madam Chair, the manager's amendment, which I support and encourage my colleagues to support, helps bolster counseling for first-time borrowers, so that they are fully aware of the financing they may be required to use over their entire college education.

The manager's amendment also ensures that students needing to borrow a student loan receive counseling before they sign the master promissory note.

I am also pleased that this manager's amendment includes my proposal for the Department of Education to do a comprehensive, longitudinal study on the impact and effectiveness of current student loan counseling practices, so we know what actually works.

We owe it to student loan borrowers and higher education institutions to find out if the counseling requirements affect borrowers' understanding and their decisions.

In particular, we need to know if the programs we create in Congress improve outcomes for students. Will enhanced financial counseling help more students earn degrees, borrow less, and successfully enter repayment? We need to know if these outcomes benefit equally students of different races, ethnicities, genders, and income levels.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bipartisan manager's amendment, so that students can have more and better and high-quality information about their student loans.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Kilmer for yielding.

I rise in support of the Kilmer-Hinojosa-Bachus-Petri-Tsongas amendment. This amendment will ensure that students are aware of important consumer information tools of the Financial Literacy and Education Commission created by the Treasury.

We know that students often lack basic financial literacy, which makes it hard for them to make thoughtful decisions on complex financial products. Financial institutions may be providing information that is designed to steer young people into accounts that may not be best for them.

Providing important consumer information in an unbiased way can increase financial literacy of students and may help reduce college costs. That is exactly what this amendment accomplishes.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment so students can be equipped with better and more comprehensive financial literacy tools.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Highway and Transportation Funding Act. There are few issues that have united such a diverse group of constituents as the need to maintain funding for federal transportation programs. Construction projects serve as a strong form of economic stimulus not just in Oregon, but across the country. From the workers who build our roads to the companies who use them to transport their goods, many of our constituents have emphasized their concern about the pending depletion of the Highway Trust Fund. Those constituents are frustrated and don't understand why Congress can't act to support such a clear national priority as the need for safe and reliable transportation infrastructure.

Although I do plan to support the Highway and Transportation Funding Act, this 8-month fix is far too short. We must develop a long-term solution to the fund's insolvency. I, and many like me in Congress, voted to support today's short-term legislation because it protects funding for current construction projects and current jobs. But we do so knowing that more comprehensive, substantive action is needed to ensure that projects in 2015 and beyond are not in jeopardy. In Oregon, we recently received notice from the state's Department of Transportation that eliminating funding in 2015 would cost our state roughly $470 million in transportation funding and would reduce the construction workforce by an estimated 4,700 jobs.

Passing a temporary fix to the Highway Trust Fund creates uncertainty among states, local governments, and contractors, all of whom may be less likely to take on new projects and in turn less likely to hire workers. Not only does the uncertainty hurt our constituents who work in the industry and the long-term transportation planning undertaken by state and local governments, it also hurts our economic competitiveness. When groups like the America Society of Civil Engineers give our infrastructure a near failing grade of D+, as they did in their 2013 scorecard, companies considering relocating their business operations to the United States may think twice. This is an unacceptable situation.

With an economy still working to regain its full strength, another short-term fix is an economic risk we should not take. Millions of people rely on our roads, bridges, and ground transportation to get to work and transport goods. Businesses in Oregon increasingly raise concerns about the ability of our freight infrastructure to support the high volume of goods they are transporting to market. This legislation represents the bare minimum we can do. Our constituents deserve a more comprehensive, long-term solution so that our infrastructure can support a growing and thriving economy.

Therefore, I will vote yes on this legislation with caution, and I urge my colleagues to take a long-term look at the need to stabilize our transportation funding source.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4719.

The bill before us today includes policies that enjoy broad bipartisan support, and have been passed by this body before with Members from both sides speaking out in favor. Unfortunately, the manner in which they are being presented to us today leads me to oppose this bill.

As we debate this legislation, many of our constituents cannot climb out of long-term unemployment. Our inaction on extending the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program means they will not have access to benefits that support their efforts to search for a new job. The Senate has passed legislation to extend the EUC program, but in the House we have been told that the cost of the legislation must be offset. Today, however, we are being asked to support a bill that will add $16.2 billion to the federal deficit over the next ten years that is not offset. This is a double standard that is unfair to our constituents and does a disservice to the policies we are considering extending here today.

In January 2013, I voted to support a legislative package that extended these three expired provisions: the conservation tax incentive, the IRA contribution provision, and the food inventory donation incentive. The American Taxpayer Relief Act extended these provisions for two years, as did the motion to recommit this bill, which was offered by our colleague from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen. I was glad to support these provisions in 2013, and in the motion to recommit this bill, because policies to promote charitable giving can help bolster the social safety net that has remained stretched by the lingering effects of the recession. But to attempt to reinforce the safety net in this one area by undermining it in another and refusing to extend EUC is a choice that I am not willing to make.

I look forward to considering these provisions under different circumstances, and for standing up for the importance of charitable giving. This is, unfortunately, not a bill that I can support, and I urge my colleagues to oppose.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the bipartisan Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. This bill shows that we can work together to adopt policies that will put our constituents back to work, give them opportunity, and keep our economy on the road to recovery.

One of the first bills I introduced in Congress was the WISE Investment Act that was designed to address the skills gap challenge by matching local businesses with workforce boards and community colleges to train our out-of-work constituents for in-demand occupations.

Although I was disappointed that that act was not included within this bill, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, the bill does take steps to ensure that local businesses have a role in job training by including an important focus on sector partnerships.

Madam Speaker, this bill represents a strong step forward for our Nation's unemployed and for our economy. I commend Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and my colleagues on the committee for their work to bring this bill to the floor, and I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today because of the power and potential of water and in support of an amendment that I am pleased to offer with my two colleagues from Maine, Congressman Michaud and Congresswoman Pingree.

Mr. Chairman, our amendment would increase funding to the Department of Energy's Water Power Program by just $9 million, a small price tag that will yield a huge return on investment. This increase is offset by an equal amount from the Departmental administration account.

The modest increase that we are proposing will support hydropower and also the development of innovative hydropower technologies, along with marine and hydrokinetic energy technologies.

Development of these new technologies can offer the United States a chance to lead the world in an emerging area of abundant renewable energy. Marine and hydrokinetic energy--in particular, energy from waves, currents, and tides which, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania just recognized, unlike the Sun and wind, do not stop--is an exciting frontier in the renewable energy sector.

Currently, Oregon State University and the University of Washington are using Federal funding from the Water Power Program to develop the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center, a center that will provide visionary entrepreneurs a domestic location to test wave energy devices, along with other technology, rather than traveling to Scotland to use the European test center. Without continued Federal investment, Europe will remain the leader.

When fully developed, wave and tidal energy systems could generate a significant amount of total energy used in the United States. As Congress promotes technologies that can help lower our constituents' energy bills, we must embrace new and innovative solutions, like marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy.

With this modest increase, the Water Power Program can do that while continuing to support a Federal investment in conventional hydropower technology.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), my friend and cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Ms. Bonamici

Amendment No. 21: Page 19, line 12, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by $9,000,000)''.

Page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $9,000,000)''.