Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor from H.R. 809.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the process that has brought the bills under consideration before us today. Once again, my colleagues and I find ourselves in the difficult position of opposing the extension of tax provisions that are worthy of support, and long overdue for consideration. The Section 179 provisions that allow for businesses to expense the cost of certain asset purchases, and the tax treatment of S corporations that allows them to pay a reduced ``built-in gains'' tax, have long helped our small businesses thrive. I was pleased to vote for them as part of a bill to avert the fiscal cliff in January 2013. But because of inaction by the House on tax reform, these provisions were allowed to expire at the end of last year. Now, we are being given a choice: extend these provisions permanently without paying for them, and without also extending the many other important provisions that have expired, or don't extend them at all.

More than three million Americans have lost access to emergency unemployment insurance. Despite the Senate passing legislation to extend unemployment benefits, the House has refused to join in this important, bipartisan effort to help our hardest-hit constituents. Our colleagues in the majority insist that an extension of the emergency unemployment insurance program be fully paid for, but now are putting forward costly permanent legislation that will add $75 billion to the deficit. Of course small businesses are worthy of support from this Congress, but not at the expense of

those who are still unable to find work. I fully support the motion to recommit, which extends these important provisions for another two years. This will give our businesses the tax relief they deserve, while allowing us to engage in a broader conversation on tax reform that our constituents have demanded.

In May, we considered a similarly misguided effort to extend the Research and Development Tax Credit permanently and without an offset. I expressed frustration that by extending this tax credit while not acting on others, we appear more concerned with the needs of the business community than with those of working families when we should be concerned about both. The credits we are considering today should be extended, yes, but so should important provisions such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, and the Production Tax Credit for renewable energy projects.

The House must be mindful of its commitment to help all Americans, and we should consider a slate of tax extenders that will benefit all of our constituents. For this reason, I oppose the bills before us today, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member for yielding.

I rise today in support of H.R. 4412, the NASA Authorization Act of 2014, and to applaud the commitment made by my colleagues, Ranking Member Edwards and Chairman Palazzo, to work so hard to find common ground on these complex issues.

The process of reauthorizing NASA's important research and exploration has historically been bipartisan, with space and the wonder it instills in our constituents unifying both sides of the aisle. Now, as budgets become tighter and we are evaluating Federal investments to find places to cut back, authorizing significant resources for NASA research and the operations that research supports has become more challenging.

When the markup process of the original NASA authorization bill began about a year ago, I joined several of my colleagues on the Science Committee to raise concerns about proposed cuts to important programs like NASA's Earth science research. I am pleased to see that important programs like Earth science, space technology, education, and environmental compliance are authorized in this legislation at levels that mirror their appropriation for fiscal year 2014.

As I have learned through my work on the Environment Subcommittee, bipartisan solutions are possible as long as both sides are committed to achieving an outcome and mindful of the impact that our efforts have on our constituents. Chairman Palazzo and Ranking Member Edwards have embraced this spirit when drafting the NASA Authorization Act of 2014, and though the bill before us today might not be perfect, it is a positive step forward and worthy of our support.

I would also like to acknowledge the role of Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson for supporting the subcommittee leadership in their efforts to arrive at a bipartisan consensus. I know that Ms. Edwards and I both appreciate this approach to leadership, as do our constituents.

I encourage support for this important legislation.

I thank the ranking member of the Science Committee for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation, and I am glad the House is considering it today. I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey), for his willingness to work with me on an amendment to S. 1254 that was adopted in committee and made some modifications to the legislation we are considering today.

I would also like to thank the full committee chairman, Mr. Smith, and our ranking member, Ms. Johnson, for supporting us as we developed the amendment and moved the bill forward. This was truly a team effort, and our constituents are well served by this collaboration. I want to join Mr. Posey, also, in thanking our staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this bill.

Authorization for the programs under the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Act expired in 2012, so this reauthorization is long overdue. The rapid overproduction of algae can have devastating effects on aquatic plants and animals, as well as on human health.

For coastal and Great Lakes ecosystems and communities that depend on fishing and tourism to sustain their economies, the effect of algae blooms is a threat to their livelihood. The cost of these blooms has been estimated to be close to $82 million each year, a significant hit to the economy in areas that are still struggling to recover.

This issue was first brought to my attention by Oregon State University scientists and the crab industry in Oregon, where business was struggling when Dungeness crabs were dying because of low oxygen levels in the water, a hypoxic event caused by algal blooms.

I do want to stress, however, that the effect of these blooms is not only felt in coastal communities. Last year, in my home State of Oregon, lakes, ponds, and reservoirs experiencing hypoxic events were closed to protect public health for a combined total of more than 700 days.

Research has helped advance our understanding of and response to harmful algal blooms, but we need to continue to invest in this research. The frequency and duration of these events and subsequent hypoxic conditions are on the rise, and our constituents need us to act.

In order to equip ourselves with the tools we need to manage these events and reduce the environmental and economic damage they cause, we need to better understand how and why algal blooms occur and how they respond to a changing environment.

The bill before us today directs NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to develop and implement a national strategy that takes a regional approach to helping communities understand, predict, and mitigate harmful algal bloom and hypoxic events.

It will not only improve coordination, but also assess the program's activities to ensure that we are prepared for these events and are able to respond in an effective and efficient manner.

This will become increasingly important as coastal populations increase and changes in the environment, such as warmer water temperatures, have the potential to alter the growth, toxicity, and geographic distribution of algal blooms.

The stakeholder community has been calling for the reauthorization of this critical program, and they are eager to see NOAA continue its work on this important issue.

The amendment that Mr. Posey and I included responds to a number of suggestions offered by our colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee, which has joint jurisdiction over these programs; and the amendment clarifies that the bill does not establish any new programs or regulatory authority.

The amendment also ensures that State and local governments, along with other stakeholder groups, are involved in efforts to reduce harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.

Because freshwater ecosystems are also susceptible to HABs, the amendment makes certain that the plan also addresses harmful algal blooms and hypoxia events in the Great Lakes in a cost-effective and technically feasible manner.

NOAA researchers and the academic community have established a strong partnership to lead this effort, and I applaud their work. Now, Congress needs to reauthorize these important programs, so that work can continue; and this bill accomplishes that goal.

I urge our colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to support the Cohen amendment. Legal aid programs are Federal, State, and private partnerships.

In Oregon and around the country, legal aid offices work hard to diversify funding, but cuts from a number of sources, including Federal cuts in recent years, have severely impacted their ability to serve low-income families.

Legal Services Corporation funds legal aid around the country, and they make a real difference for low-income and elderly Oregonians and Americans. Legal aid serves people with the most critical legal needs: food, shelter, medical care, income maintenance, and physical safety.

In my State of Oregon, about 40 percent of the cases handled by legal aid attorneys involve helping victims of domestic violence and their families, protecting them from abuse. About 80 percent of legal aid's clients are women, most with children to support.

Under current levels, legal aid is able to assist only a fraction of the eligible population. In Oregon, legal aid serves only about 20 percent of the civil legal needs of eligible Oregonians.

I was proud to work at legal aid. Early in my career I spent many years there, and I will never forget the people we were able to help. They desperately need legal assistance at a time in their lives when they can least afford it.

Not low-income by choice--and that was the most poignant message about helping low-income people--most had unexpected medical bills, had lost a job, or lost a spouse. Legal aid helps real people.

Today, I am here for people like Beth, who thought she had escaped her son's abusive father, only to have him turn up, kick in the door, and threaten her, all while she was pregnant. Legal aid was able to help her get a restraining order and custody of her son, who has asthma and only one kidney. Now Beth and her son are building safe and stable lives free from abuse.

I am here for people like Jennifer, a stage IV cancer survivor and Oregon Health Plan member, who got a bill from a medical center for a procedure performed years earlier. They threatened to shut her off from seeing her doctor, and took actions clearly illegal under Oregon law. Legal aid stepped in, and she was able to continue her followup visits with her doctor without collection agency harassment.

I am here for people like Natalie and her son, Zach, who has severe gastrointestinal disorder. When he was 3 years old, he was finally able to take food orally, but then Social Security cut off his disability benefits. Natalie tried to hire a lawyer but she couldn't afford the fees. Legal aid stepped in

and got those benefits restored, giving Zach a better chance at a normal, active life.

And today, I am here for people like Michael. He and his family lost everything in Hurricane Katrina and they came to Oregon to start over. Then the IRS penalized him for unpaid taxes. Legal aid helped him amend his tax return to fully account for his losses from Katrina, and instead of penalties, he was able to receive a refund.

These are the faces of legal aid. They are real people who have real needs who need real help. They need access to justice.

Low-income people can't just open up a phone book and pick out an attorney to take a case. These are not cases that lawyers take on a contingency fee basis. Lawyers don't help tenants who are wrongfully evicted on a contingency fee.

The President has asked for $80 million more than what this bill provides for. This amendment asks for just $15 million in addition. It is the least we can do.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Cohen amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, my bipartisan amendment is very simple. It would move our country in line with industrialized countries around the world that long ago recognized the importance of industrial hemp as a natural resource, an agricultural commodity, and a versatile component in thousands of commercial products.

In fact, not only does this amendment bring America in line with much of the rest of the industrialized world, it brings America back in line with its own history. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew it. The first drafts of our Constitution and many of our first laws were written on paper made from it. In fact, during World War II, the USDA encouraged patriotic American farmers to raise it for the war effort. They even produced a promotional film entitled ``Hemp for Victory,'' and now at least 16 States have passed laws that will allow their farmers to grow it.

Unfortunately, the Federal Government stands in the way of family farmers who want to be able to grow industrial hemp. The senseless classification of hemp as a Schedule I drug does not further public safety, but it does rob our farm economies of a potentially multibillion dollar crop that can be used to make everything from rope to soap. In fact, it seems like the only thing you can't make out of hemp is dope.

Despite the fact that American farmers can't grow industrial hemp, hemp products here in this country account

for nearly $500 million in annual sales. Now, that is a sizable industry, but nothing compared to the economic impact that full-scale cultivation and commercialization would have if States were permitted to implement their laws and our hemp did not have to get imported from other countries.

This amendment would only allow farmers to grow hemp in accordance with their State's laws. It simply divests the Department of Justice and the DEA of their ability to treat industrial hemp like marijuana because it is not like marijuana. So far, 16 States have seen the value that hemp provides, and have passed laws to allow farmers to grow hemp and to closely regulate it.

Farmers in those States across the country are waiting for the Federal Government to get out of their way. But because the Department of Justice refuses to acknowledge what Washington and Jefferson knew-- that hemp is an important agricultural commodity, it is not marijuana-- these State laws must take a back seat to Federal overreach.

The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and the American Farm Bureau Federation agree that we should allow our farmers to grow industrial hemp.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

It is a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the bipartisan amendment I am proud to cosponsor with Mr. Massie of Kentucky.

This amendment simply says that none of the funds in the CJS bill can be used by the Department of Justice or the DEA in contravention of the section of the farm bill--the duly-enacted farm bill, which I supported for many reasons, one of which was that it had an industrial hemp research program, that authorizes industrial hemp research.

This is very simple. We passed a bipartisan farm bill. Its provisions are law. In Kentucky, one of the States conducting research, the DEA intervened. Only when Kentucky sued did the DEA get out of the way.

The amendment restates a law that is already on the books, but maybe the DEA needs to hear it twice. Remember, it is rope, not dope.

I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Offered By: Ms. Bonamici

Amendment No. 30: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the conference report to H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act, and to urge its passage. Across the country, my colleagues and I hear consistently across all sectors: invest in infrastructure. The federal investment in infrastructure has fallen to a paltry level, and our communities are feeling the tangible impacts of this every day. There are few issues we discuss here in D.C. that have such an immediate and positive economic effect in our districts. Not only does investing in infrastructure put people to work, it allows for the efficient movement of people and goods, an essential aspect of commerce, economic growth, and public safety. The failure to invest in infrastructure will threaten our global competitiveness and the safety and quality of life of our constituents.

The nation's waterways are integral to the movement of goods. This is especially true in my home state of Oregon, where wheat and other goods speed down the Columbia River bound for export markets in Asia, and imports are loaded from ocean-going container ships to barges and sent up the river toward domestic markets. This waterway network must be supported for our economy to thrive, and the bill before us today will allow the Army Corps of Engineers to continue the important work of maintaining and protecting these waterways.

The conference report also takes an important step toward full allocation of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which has for too long seen its dedicated funds diverted for uses beyond its intended purpose. In addition, the conference report includes a set-aside for small ports and emerging harbors, which will include many ports in Oregon that are located in areas where the economy has taken the toughest hit over the last five years. These ports can't compete for Harbor Maintenance funding alongside the large, deep-draft ports, but the legislation before us today gives them a chance to access vital Army Corps maintenance funding. This was a priority for the Oregon delegation, and we are grateful that Representative DeFazio was able to include it in the House-passed WRRDA bill and succeed in having it be part of the conference report.

Another important provision included in the conference report allows non-federal public entities to provide funds to the Army Corps to expedite the permitting process, preventing the lapses in project approval and the massive backlogs that can result when Congress delays reauthorization of the program. This will allow local governments to move forward with important infrastructure and ecosystem restoration projects, and reduces wait times for all applicants waiting on permit approval from the Army Corps.

Maintaining healthy waterways includes protecting the coastal and riparian ecosystem. This conference report makes a strong investment in ecosystem restoration in the Columbia River and Tillamook Bay estuaries in Oregon and our neighboring state of Washington. By increasing the authorization for ecosystem

projects under Section 536, this bill will expand the scope of the work underway to preserve and restore vital fish and wildlife habitat. We must do more to bring back the stability and biodiversity that makes the Columbia River basin one of the lushest fish and wildlife habitats in the world, and this legislation is an important step.

One specific ecosystem restoration program included in the bill is the Willamette Floodplain Restoration Study, which seeks to restore natural floodplain function to the region and improve flood storage along the river. In addition, the bill includes an investment in invasive species monitoring and prevention through provisions that allow the Army Corps to establish watercraft inspection stations and other preventive measures. This is an investment worth making. Invasive species threaten ecosystems as well as infrastructure, including the Pacific Northwest's hydropower system.

One provision in this bill is especially important to a hard-hit community in my district, and I would like to thank the conferees for including it. In Warrenton, Oregon, the Hammond Marina has long been operated by the City of Warrenton, but the land on which it sits is owned by the Army Corps of Engineers. House and Senate conferees agreed to include language conveying ownership of this land to the city. This has been a priority for the City of Warrenton, which is prepared to improve the marina at Hammond Basin, a project that will benefit the economy of Oregon's North Coast. It will come at no cost to the federal government, and represents another provision of this bill that will help my constituents and, importantly, support economic growth in coastal Oregon.

Another key provision of this conference report, authored by my Oregon colleague Senator Jeff Merkley, is the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Authority (WIFIA) pilot project. This program will provide low-cost financing to state and local governments--along with tribes, corporations, and others--to undertake low-cost water infrastructure improvement projects. This proposal is widely supported by my constituents and groups across Oregon, from the Building Trades to the utility districts, and I applaud the conference committee for including it in this report.

I still have concerns about environmental review provisions in the conference report, and I will continue to advocate for improvements that my colleagues and I tried to make by amendment when this bill was considered on the House floor. Attributing permitting backlogs to the environmental review process ignores the funding challenges that have beset the Army Corps in recent years, as Congress has repeatedly failed to provide adequate funding for the review of all necessary projects. Though more can be done to improve that section, the conference report includes compromise environmental review language from the bill that is preferable to the House version, and I am glad to see that change.

The conference report before us today is a positive step toward robust, bipartisan investment in infrastructure development. This must be done to keep our country competitive and keep our goods moving efficiently on our waterways, and to protect habitat from the impacts of increased trade and transport. I thank the Committee Chairmen and Ranking Members for their hard work to pass a strong bipartisan bill and urge my colleagues to support final passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3361, the USA FREEDOM Act, as amended. Although I was a cosponsor of the USA Freedom Act as originally written, the bill we voted on today was changed substantially before being brought to the floor. I am very concerned with the short time frame members had to consider this sweeping legislation, which was negotiated behind closed doors and would not do enough to protect Americans from government surveillance.

I support ending the bulk collection of Americans' communications, secret interpretations of law by the FISA Court, and ``reverse targeting'' of Americans by the intelligence agencies. Although H.R. 3361 is an improvement over current law, the House should negotiate a stronger bill in a transparent process through regular order that will do more to protect Americans' privacy.

I encourage the Senate to make much needed changes to this bill and send back a real reform package that does a better job of protecting privacy and is consistent with the expectations of our constituents.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of increasing funding to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to support its Integrated Ocean Acidification research line and fulfill the administration's requested funding level of $15 million in fiscal year 2015.

The administration's requested increase of funds for ocean acidification research reflects a growing consensus in both the scientific community and the coastal and fishing communities that I and so many of our colleagues represent that ocean acidification is already affecting marine organisms and could irreversibly alter the marine environment and harm our coastal ecosystems and economies.

On the west coast alone, a $270 million shellfish industry has experienced disastrous oyster production failures and near collapse in recent years because of changes in water conditions that have been attributed to ocean acidification. This change in chemistry is caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dissolving into the ocean, and the increased acidity of the ocean is harming the basic building blocks for life in the ocean, making it more difficult for marine organisms to build their skeletons and shells, and slowing the formation of important ecosystem features such as coral reefs.

In the Pacific Northwest, for example, the combination of seasonal upwelling of acidic waters, low alkalinity, and increased anthropogenic CO2 create some of the most corrosive ocean conditions in the world.

In just the last few years, the scientific community has been increasingly raising concerns about ocean acidification with policymakers. Researchers at Oregon State University have been working with the fishing community in Oregon to determine the impacts of acidification. They have been helping the shellfish industry, especially the hatcheries, assess the causes of oyster die-off and how to mitigate the harmful upwelling events through monitoring the water entering their facility. This exemplifies the kind of academic and industry partnerships that become possible when the Federal Government supports the academic research enterprise.

Funds provided by NOAA's Integrated Ocean Acidification research program will support extramural research awards that will fund studies on the impact of acidification in coastal, estuarine, coral reef, and shell environments. Not only will NOAA support studies on the impact of acidification, the agency runs the observing system that helps monitor areas experiencing increased acidity, and it also helps coastal communities and impacted industries develop adaptation strategies.

Now, my examples thus far have focused on the impact in Oregon and on the west coast, but, colleagues, this is important to everyone because it affects the whole shellfish industry. I know from working with my colleagues in the Pacific coast States that this is a problem that their constituents raise with them more frequently, and they point to it as an immediate threat to coastal economies. In conversations I've had with many constituents, the threat is made more immediate by how little is known about how these changes could impact the marine organisms and the people who depend on ocean resources for their livelihoods. This is why we need more information, and this is why we need NOAA's Integrated Ocean Acidification research program and why it needs more robust funding. The science community at large is still grappling with the extent and impact of changing ocean conditions.

The bill before us today is full of important priorities and accounts that could use more funding if we in Congress were able to provide it. Researchers at NOAA have indicated that even increasing the funding to $15 million does not provide them with enough resources to fully address a problem of this magnitude. But even a modest increase will go a long way to supporting our hard-hit coastal communities and industries and would better prepare communities to address the creeping threat of changing ocean chemistry.

Now, Madam Chair, at the appropriate time, I plan to withdraw my amendment, but I do hope that the chairman, the ranking member, and the committee will work with me on this important issue going forward, and I know there is at least one additional Member who wishes to speak on this issue.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to express support for strong Buy American provisions within the Department of Defense procurement policy. I would like to thank Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, and Ranking Member Swalwell for engaging in this colloquy to discuss our shared goal to promote increased procurement of domestically manufactured solar devices for use by the Department of Defense.

The Buy American Act is especially important when it comes to supporting nascent American industries, and strong Buy American policies can assist development of domestic manufacturing capability with regard to renewable energy. Currently, the Department of Defense is required to comply with Buy American Act provisions for procurement of energy produced from solar panels if those panels are located on government property and the electricity produced by the panels is reserved exclusively for use by the Department.

Recently, we have witnessed the development of large-scale solar installations that are not located on government property, though the electricity produced is still exclusively used by the Department of Defense. I support a minor language change that would require DOD's procurement process to comply with the Buy American Act for electricity that is exclusively used by the Department of Defense or is generated from solar devices located on government property.

This small change is worthy of support. The Congressional Budget Office has scored this proposal as costing $2 million over a 10-year budget window, and my amendment was not made in order because of this score. I understand CBO rules, but I strongly submit that this investment in domestic manufacturing not only strengthens our energy independence, but also strengthens our industrial base. I hope the chairman and ranking member will work with me to advance this important issue.

Madam Chair, I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I rise in support of the en bloc amendment, which includes the amendment I offered with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), to call attention to an important issue facing the Army National Guard.

Soldiers join the National Guard to serve their country. Often, they choose the National Guard because they want to balance service with civilian careers or postsecondary education. The Army's tuition assistance program is a valuable benefit for soldiers who want to pursue opportunities for professional growth or attend college while off duty.

In January of 2014, the Army changed its tuition assistance program, and now, all soldiers must wait one full year after initial training before becoming eligible for tuition assistance. This change affects all soldiers, but it may disproportionately harm those in the National Guard.

Nonprior service soldiers in the National Guard, some of whom attend college full time, will have to wait at least a year, and perhaps much longer, depending on the availability of training courses before they get help paying for their education.

The Bonamici-Walden amendment asks the Secretary of the Army to evaluate how this one-size-fits-all change to tuition assistance could affect citizens-soldiers enrolled in education programs.

I would like to thank Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, and their staffs for their willingness to accept this important amendment to help protect education benefits and ensure a strong citizen-soldier force.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 4438, a bill to extend permanently the research and development tax credit. This is not an issue that I take lightly because this tax provision enjoys broad support in my district. But once again, a policy that has long enjoyed bipartisan support and has real economic impact in districts across the country has fallen victim to politics. Rather than advancing a package of tax extenders that places the priorities of working families and underwater homeowners alongside those of our business community, we are considering legislation that singles out the interests of one group over another.

Following the expiration of numerous important tax provisions at the end of last year, many constituents have contacted me to express their concerns about our inaction. From families who rely on the Earned Income Tax Credit to make ends meet, to renewable energy companies that will drastically scale back operations without the Production Tax Credit, to municipalities who use the New Markets Tax Credit to revitalize low-income areas, the scope of people and businesses that will suffer the consequences of inaction on a tax extenders package are too numerous to list here. To those who are looking to Congress for some indication that we are moving past political maneuvering, past the dysfunction that has characterized this body for too long, this bill is a step in the wrong direction.

Beyond the frustration that is felt at elevating this tax provision over the others I have previously mentioned, my constituents will wonder why we can pass this legislation and add about $150 billion to the deficit, but we can't add a dime to extend emergency unemployment insurance benefits to millions of Americans. To advance this bill is an affront to the long-term unemployed who have been falling deeper into debt as Congress debates how it should pay for an extension of the vital benefits that could help keep them afloat while they continue to search for work.

I support extending the tax credit for research and development. It is vital to promoting American manufacturing and supporting our country's innovative technology sector, which is exemplified by the work done by companies like Intel in my district. But I support extending this credit alongside a package of others that also benefit my State, and every State in the country. Congress should consider a comprehensive tax extenders package, and should do so without delay.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of an amendment to H.R. 10, but I want to start by thanking Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller for collaborating on this bipartisan legislation.

I also want to thank my colleagues today who have offered amendments that will further strengthen the transparency and oversight of charter schools.

We have heard a lot of remarks about charter schools expanding opportunity for students and transforming education in cities and towns across the country. But we need to remember that charter schools enroll about 5 percent of public school students.

Charter schools are not the only schools leading in innovation. When I am in my district in Oregon visiting schools, I am always impressed by the great things that they are doing.

I visited a public middle school in Forest Grove, Oregon, recently, where every student has a tablet, and the educators are trained in the technology to improve instruction and track students' understanding in real time.

I have visited a public elementary school in Hillsboro, Oregon, that created a school-wide STEM curriculum that integrates the arts and creative exploration, where the students are engaged.

And just recently, Lincoln High School, a traditional public high school from Portland, Oregon, won the national ``We the People'' competition here in Washington, D.C., by displaying their phenomenal knowledge of the U.S. Constitution.

So I am a strong supporter of traditional schools. Sometimes they are the community center in the town, the place where generations of family members have gone.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to support this bill today--and we will pass it--but Congress needs to redouble our focus on the other 95 percent of the students in traditional public schools who need relief from the punitive provisions of No Child Left Behind. I hope, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Miller, that we can come back and find a bipartisan ESEA reauthorization.

My amendment today recognizes that charter schools are meant to also benefit traditional public schools. One way the charter schools support traditional schools is by sharing practices that are evidence-driven and replicable.

H.R. 10 asks the State entities overseeing charter schools to disseminate best practices from charter schools to traditional public schools. The bill already asks States to report on these efforts. But H.R. 10 does not ask States to measure if the sharing of best practices is benefiting traditional public schools.

There are some positive examples of traditional schools and charter schools collaborating to create curricula or rethink instruction, and the Department of Education and some States are capturing this work. But we should also be focused on the sharing of best practices. And we should be especially focused on what we are getting out of it.

My amendment has States include in their reports on charter school programs the extent to which best practices in instruction and professional development and curricular programs are being adopted and implemented by traditional public schools.

Remember, we spend taxpayer money on charter schools, and we grant them autonomy and flexibility in exchange for them testing new models of teaching and learning. The goal has been for these educational laboratories to benefit other students in traditional schools as well.

My amendment emphasizes the original intent of charter schools. It simply asks the States to consider whether best practices are transferable and adoptable. Are the efforts to share best practices benefiting educators and the millions of students in traditional public schools?

The amendment is a small measure. It doesn't create a new requirement for States. The report is already required. But it is an important reminder that innovation in charter schools can also benefit all students as well.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this does improve the bill. Collaboration between charter schools and traditional schools is a good thing. Sharing of practices will be beneficial.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, May is Older Americans Month, and today I rise to call attention to historic legislation that has for decades served as a lifeline to our country's seniors.

The Older Americans Act is responsible for critical services, like housing, nutrition, and employment assistance. For many seniors, the Older Americans Act is responsible for the delivery of their only warm meal of the day and their only social interaction.

The legislation expired in 2011; and today I am speaking in support of H.R. 4122, the bill I introduced with the gentleman from Texas, Congressman Rubeen Hinojosa, to reauthorize the Older Americans Act.

Congress first passed the Older Americans Act in 1965 as one of President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs. Its goal is to ensure that our seniors age with dignity, maintain independence for as long as possible, and do not grow old in poverty.

Over the years, the OAA has been reauthorized and improved upon to meet the needs of the changing population. As Americans live longer, our policy needs to keep pace.

Our legislation includes stronger elder abuse protections, modernized senior centers, improved transportation services, and other programs that promote seniors' independence.

One of the titles in the Older Americans Act provides important employment support to the country's seniors, something they need now more than ever. The Senior Community Service Employment Program provides job training and job placement for low-income seniors. Many of the people who use this important program were laid off during the recession, only to see their position disappear altogether during the recovery. Now they find that they lack the necessary skills to fill the new jobs that have been created, and they must compete with a younger, inexperienced workforce willing to accept wages lower than their earning potential.

This important program, known as SCSEP, provides specialized training for these mature workers. By partnering with local nonprofits and State agencies, SCSEP helps older Americans develop new skills and then pairs them with employers.

I recently met with several SCSEP participants at the Forest Grove, Oregon, senior center in my district, and I heard firsthand how the program

helps people get back on their feet. Programs like this are exactly what many of the long-term unemployed need. And while we continue to debate extending the emergency unemployment program, SCSEP is addressing the problem head-on for many of our constituents by offering a solution that is good for employees, businesses, and the economy as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, the Older Americans Act was developed so our country's seniors could age with dignity. Today it continues to provide support to older Americans who are eager to work and live independent lives as they age. The Senate has advanced its own bipartisan Older Americans Act bill, and I am hopeful my colleagues will follow suit and support

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 2015 Ryan budget, a budget that will hurt middle class Americans while, at the same time, giving breaks to some of the wealthiest people in this country.

Early childhood education is important, but the Ryan budget cuts Head Start. Millions of Americans are still struggling to find work in a changing economy. Instead of investing in programs to prepare the unemployed for new careers, this budget cuts job training.

Nearly 16 million children are food-insecure, and we know that growing up hungry is directly correlated to a child's academic success. This budget guts the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and for millions of young people with dreams of attending college, this budget offers them no hope; instead, it cuts Pell grant aid.

We must do more to invest in this great Nation if we want to continue our economic recovery and create a brighter future, and instead of robust investments in infrastructure and transportation, the Ryan budget takes us backward. Mr. Speaker, we can and we should and we must do better.