Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2413, the Weather Forecasting Improvement Act. This bill represents a bipartisan agreement by members of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. I am pleased to join my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the bill's sponsor, Mr. Bridenstine, subcommittee Chair Schweikert, the former subcommittee Chair Stewart, and Chair Smith, in support of this bill. I want to thank them, as well as Ranking Member Johnson, for their work on this important bill.

Members on both sides of the aisle can be assured that this bill represents a truly bipartisan effort, and is built on extensive discussions with, and advice from, the weather community.

After the devastating tornados in his district, Mr. Bridenstine introduced a well-intended bill that went a long way toward improving the tools available to NOAA for evaluating emerging forecast technologies. His emphasis on tornado research was appropriate and helpful. At the Subcommittee markup, Mr. Grayson added a valuable amendment for a focused hurricane research program.

Mr. Stewart, then the Chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, worked with my staff and me on an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to add to the tools and programs in the original bill.

We drew on expert advice from the weather enterprise and from extensive reports from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Public Administration. Experts told us that to improve weather forecasting, the research at the Office of Oceans and Atmospheric Research (OAR) and the forecasting at the National Weather Service had to be better coordinated; this legislation contains provisions to improve that coordination.

This bill encourages NOAA to integrate research and operations in a way that models the successful innovation structure used by the Department of Defense.

The bill we are considering today also creates numerous opportunities for the broader weather community to provide insights to

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dave Haugeberg, community stalwart, citizen activist, Newberg-Dundee Bypass champion--and today, 2013 Chehalem Valley Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year.

Former Oregon Governor Tom McCall once said, ``Heroes are not giant statues framed against a red sky. They are people who say, `This is my community, and it is my responsibility to make it better.' '' Dave Haugeberg epitomizes this spirit--combining great determination with a hero's tendency toward humility.

In addition to a lengthy and distinguished legal career, Dave has a remarkable track record of community service. He is currently Chair of the Board of Trustees at Linfield College and serves as President of the Board at Mid-Valley Rehabilitation, which provides employment, community inclusion services, residential support, and transportation services to adults with disabilities in order to maximize their potential.

His imprint on Yamhill County is enormous, and soon to be very visible along a several mile section of Highway 99W. Nearly three decades ago, Dave began his legendary volunteer efforts for the Newberg-Dundee Bypass, hoping to summon enough community, regional, and State resolve to construct a new highway, circumventing traffic around the historic and traffic-plagued cities of Newberg and Dundee. This effort, forged through decades of teamwork, frustration, partnership, and dogged persistence in the face of doubt, has now paid off. On August 29, 2012, Dave dug his ceremonial shovel into the ground, kicking off construction of the Newberg-Dundee Bypass.

To be sure, he had partners along the way, but it is no accident that Dave Haugeberg is affectionately known as the `Grandfather of the Bypass.' With Phase I construction well underway, I'm hopeful he took a brief victory lap before, undoubtedly, redoubling his efforts to complete the entire corridor.

Dave Haugeberg is a remarkable citizen, the kind of person who willingly, even eagerly, gives more to his community than he anticipates receiving in return. His contributions to Yamhill County will always be remembered fondly by those he worked with--and for, including the hundreds of thousands of people who will eventually traverse the Newberg-Dundee Bypass, and the local citizens who will live in transformed communities where it is safe to work, live, and play.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to congratulate Dave on this eminently deserved award, and wish him and his wife Kathy, and his children and grandchildren of whom he is so proud, continued health, happiness, and prosperity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2413, the Weather Forecasting Improvement Act. This bill is a bipartisan agreement by members of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

I am pleased to join my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the bill's sponsor, Mr. Bridenstine, Subcommittee Chair Schweikert, former subcommittee chair, Mr. Stewart, and Chairman Smith in support of this bill. I want to thank them, as well as Ranking Member Johnson, for their work on this important bill. Members on both sides of the aisle can be assured that this bill represents a truly bipartisan effort and is built on extensive discussions with and advice from the weather community.

After devastating tornadoes in his district, Mr. Bridenstine introduced a well-intentioned bill that went a long way toward improving the tools available to NOAA for evaluating emerging forecast technologies. His emphasis on tornado research was appropriate and helpful. At the subcommittee markup, Mr. Grayson added a valuable amendment for a focused hurricane research program.

Representative Stewart, then the chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, worked with my staff and me on a manager's amendment to add to the tools and programs in the original bill. We drew on expert advice from the weather enterprise and from extensive reports from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Public Administration.

Experts told us that, to improve weather forecasting, the research at the Office of Oceans and Atmospheric Research, or OAR, and the forecasting at the National Weather Service had to be better coordinated. This legislation contains important provisions to improve that coordination. This bill encourages NOAA to integrate research and operations in a way that models the successful innovation structure used by the Department of Defense.

The bill we are considering today also creates numerous opportunities for the broader weather community to provide input to NOAA, and their insights as well. At every opportunity, we charge the agency to consult with the American weather industry and researchers as they develop research plans and undertake new initiatives. We also press NOAA to get serious about exploring private sector solutions to their data needs.

The bill makes clear that we expect the historical support for extramural research to continue. The engine of weather forecasting innovation has not always been found within NOAA, but is often found in the external research community and labs that work with NOAA. That collaboration must continue and will continue under this legislation.

In addition, the bill includes an explicit focus on tapping the expertise of social scientists on how to best communicate risks and warnings to the public. Witnesses who came before the Science Committee emphasized the importance of this work. The best forecasting skill and technology in the world won't be as effective unless the messages to the public result in the right safety response.

The bill before us today is designed to improve public safety, enhance the American economy, and transform the innovation culture at NOAA. I am confident that its passage will improve weather forecasting and tangibly benefit our constituents.

I can assure Members on both sides of the aisle that weather research is strengthened in this bill but not at the expense of other important work at NOAA.

During the committee process, we heard from witness after witness who stressed that weather forecasting involves many different scientific disciplines. This integrated multidisciplinary approach reflects an understanding that we cannot choose to strengthen one area of research at OAR without endangering the progress in the other areas because they are all interconnected. Physical and chemical laws do not respect OAR's budgetary boundaries of climate, weather, and oceans, and this bill only addresses organizational issues in weather at NOAA.

Thank you, again, to Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson for giving us the support to work out a compromise. I want to reiterate my thanks to Mr. Bridenstine for his willingness to work with us and accept changes to the original bill. I particularly want to thank Representative Chris Stewart, the former chair of the Environment Subcommittee, whose attitude throughout the process was collaborative and constructive, allowing us to arrive at the bipartisan bill we have before us today. Chairman Schweikert, who took on the chairmanship of the subcommittee when Mr. Stewart went to the Committee on Appropriations, has brought with him that same collaborative spirit. Finally, I want to thank the very hardworking staff on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, weather is not a partisan issue. The American public needs and deserves the best weather forecasting service we can provide. This bill has broad support in the weather community among research institutions, established businesses, and emerging companies. Supporters include the American Commercial Space Weather Association, University Consortium for Atmospheric Research, GeoOptics, PlanetiQ, and the Weather Coalition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on the committee. I really appreciate working with them.

I want to make clear that when we worked on this--this is a reprioritization of how the Office of Oceanic and Atmosphere Research lays out its own weather research efforts. The key reprioritization is to put in place a clear process that ties the needs of forecasters at the National Weather Service to the research initiatives at OAR.

I am glad that my colleagues have worked on this important bill. This legislation will make real and measurable improvements in weather research and weather forecasting, and I urge my colleagues to support this effort.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues today in support of H.R. 4005, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act. I know that the chairmen and ranking members have

worked diligently on the underlying bill, and I commend them for their efforts.

Importantly, I am grateful for the opportunity to work with them to add language from two bills I introduced to help coastal communities dealing with increasing marine debris.

Since the devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan in 2011, residents of the Pacific Northwest have faced an increase in the volume of marine debris reaching our coast. This debris is a hazard to navigators, a threat to the marine environment, and a potential drag on coastal tourism.

Following the arrival of a 66-foot dock on an Oregon beach in June 2012, I worked with a bipartisan coalition on two bills to improve the Federal response to marine debris.

The first proposal, which I introduced with the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler), was introduced to expedite NOAA's grant process for debris cleanup by allowing NOAA to prioritize grant applications from communities affected by a severe marine debris event.

I partnered with Congressman Don Young on the second proposal to allow NOAA to reimburse States for debris cleanup costs with a generous $5 million gift from the Government of Japan.

I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee for their support, with special thanks to my Oregon colleague, Ranking Member DeFazio.

I would also like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for including these proposals in the underlying bill.

I am pleased to have worked with so many Members on the passage of these bipartisan marine provisions, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the underlying bill.

Thank you very much, Congressman Pocan. Thank you for leading this discussion. The discussion about extending the emergency unemployment compensation program is such an important topic.

Last week, the country marked a troubling milestone. The number of Americans who lost their emergency unemployment insurance hit 2 million. Thousands more will lose this lifeline every week if we do not extend this critical benefit.

The impact of losing unemployment benefits is immediate and devastating to our constituents. I recently spoke to a constituent in Oregon who was laid off from a large employer in my district. His unemployment benefits ended early this year when the program was cut off. Since then, unfortunately, things have gone from bad to worse. He has been in his home for about 10 years, and now he is in default because he cannot pay his mortgage.

I want to thank our colleague, Congressman Matt Cartwright, for leading the effort to provide my constituents and yours the opportunity to get a bit of relief. He is sponsoring the Stop Foreclosures Due to Congressional Dysfunction Act. That would put a 6-month moratorium on foreclosures of Federally-backed mortgages for individuals who have exhausted their unemployment benefits.

I have to say this is the least that we can do for our constituents who are still suffering because this House refuses to allow an ``up-or- down'' vote on extending unemployment compensation.

My constituent is actively looking for work. He continues to look for work. But he keeps getting passed over for jobs. They are being filled by employers who seem to be looking for younger, maybe less expensive workers.

He is one of many constituents across the country. What he and other constituents like him tell me is that it is particularly difficult for the more mature job seekers to find work, even though they have decades of productive experience.

His efforts to find work haven't stopped. And I have to emphasize this: the unemployment benefits that he was getting weren't making him lazy. They were allowing him to survive. But instead of giving him the resources he needs to help lift him up and out of this situation, we are abandoning him and constituents across the country when they really need that lifeline.

We need to extend this lifeline while we are tackling the problems of long-term unemployment in this country. The long-term unemployed need better access to job training; workforce development programs; resources; programs to engage employers and help connect the long-term unemployed, particularly older workers, with suitable employment.

All Americans must realize that being among the long-term unemployed does not diminish one's abilities, value, or potential contribution to the workforce and the economy. I want to emphasize that point, because when I had a roundtable discussion in my district, there were several constituents there who were unemployed. They get down and concerned that they aren't worthy. We wanted to emphasize to them, You are worthy. Keep looking. You can find work.

We should be extending this lifeline.

My home State of Oregon has been a bright spot in the midst of the recovery. In January, Oregon recorded its lowest unemployment rate since 2008. There is a recent report that shows that Oregon added more than 43,000 jobs last year--that is great news--adding to the unemployment base by 2.6 percent.

Unfortunately, the economic improvement provides little relief for the still about 30,000 long-term unemployed Oregonians who have lost these benefits over the last 2 months and are still struggling to reenter the workforce.

They need these resources to have a car to get to job interviews, to have a cell phone.

As the economy continues to recover, we must stimulate it, not stifle it. The Emergency Unemployment Compensation program doesn't just help the millions of Americans who are struggling to get by every day, it provides an economic boost.

When people get these benefits, they aren't saving this money. They put the benefits right back into the economy. While they look for work they use the unemployment benefits to pay their mortgages, to buy groceries, to keep the lights on.

We shouldn't be arguing over extending this lifeline to millions of hardworking Americans. I was glad to hear the news that the Senate has a bipartisan proposal. I hope they pass that and get it over to us right away.

Yesterday, I joined many other of our colleagues in signing the discharge petition calling for a vote to extend emergency unemployment. There is no better cause than helping the hardworking members of our country who desperately want to go back to work.

Thank you again, Representative Pocan, for organizing this hour. I hope that we can draw the attention of the Nation, but especially of our colleagues, about the effects of ending the benefit.

I urge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and in leadership to reconsider this and put it up for a vote so we can help our constituents who are looking for work, trying to get back to work, and need that lifeline.

Thank you again, Representative Pocan, for leading this important discussion

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my reluctant support to the Conference Report on H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act, also known as the Farm Bill. This conference report presents us with a difficult choice. On the one hand, it contains numerous provisions that benefit our agriculture communities and it represents another bipartisan accomplishment from both chambers. On the other hand, it makes ill-advised changes in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that, had they been presented in a separate bill, I would have strongly opposed.

The agricultural policy contained in this conference report is a positive step forward for our nation's farmers and rural communities, including those I represent in Northwest Oregon. Strong funding authorizations for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative and Specialty Crop Block Grant Program will help a wide variety of food producers in my district, from blueberry and hazelnut farms to vineyards in the world-renowned Willamette Valley wine region. The commitment to pest and disease research in the bill is key to a healthy nursery industry in Oregon, and the conference report includes language that will allow organic producers and Christmas tree farmers to establish check off programs that are critical to their long-term success.

For Oregon's struggling counties, this bill includes an essential extension of the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program. PILT helps the budgets of counties with large expanses of un-taxable federal land, and its reauthorization in this bill is welcome news to the cash- strapped rural areas of Oregon. For the environmental community, the conference report represents an important commitment to responsible farming practices, with crop insurance premium assistance tied to conservation compliance measures that will help protect soil quality and fragile wetlands.

Unfortunately this bill comes up short in one vital area: nutrition policy. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is a pillar of this nation's social safety net, providing food assistance to those in need, including many seniors and children. I do not support the changes to SNAP in this conference report, but they are preferable to the previous Farm Bill proposal considered by this chamber, which I voted against. Although I am pleased that the bill provides additional funds for food banks under the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), I am troubled by the impact that the SNAP cuts will have on Oregon families.

I will reluctantly support this conference report because the investments in our rural communities included in this bill will help many of our constituents continue the long climb back from the lingering effects of the economic down-turn. We must invest in these communities to ensure that still more of our constituents don't come to rely on federal assistance programs like SNAP. And despite unfortunate cuts to the SNAP program, this bill is a vast improvement on the devastating SNAP cuts that the House bill originally contained. Congress must now commit to assisting those individuals who rely on federal nutrition programs in other ways, and I will continue to work with my colleagues on this issue.

The Farm Bill conference report is far from perfect, but it contains several provisions that will benefit Oregonians. I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2014. Like the budget compromise Congress approved last month, this bill takes an important step toward rolling back the devastating sequestration cuts that continue to hurt our constituents and have kept our economy from fully recovering. I applaud the House and Senate Appropriations Committees for their hard work in reaching a compromise on a spending bill that reinvests in some very important priorities that have recently been squeezed too tightly.

This bill fixes the ill-advised provision of the budget resolution that reduced cost of living adjustments for medically-retired military personnel. That's a positive step and upholds our solemn commitment to those veterans, who have sacrificed for our security. I am also pleased that Federal Public Defenders will see a significant increase over last year's budget. I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that these essential public servants have the resources they need to uphold the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel in a criminal trial. This bill also reinvests in Head Start, some nutrition assistance programs, the safety of our food and drug supply, and transportation infrastructure--all very important to building and supporting strong families and strong local economies.

As with any compromise legislation, there are also provisions in this bill that I do not support. Among other things, this bill seriously underfunds medical research by the NIH, environmental protection by the EPA, and legal aid programs, and it does not include reimbursements to rural counties under the PILT program. The bill also continues to infringe on the rights of women to control their own health care, and undermines public education through a voucher program.

Despite these shortcomings, this bill is the result of good-faith, bipartisan negotiations and it moves our economy forward. This collaborative process must become the norm in Congress, not the exception. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this compromise legislation.

Madam Speaker, it has been more than 3 weeks since Congress left for a December recess, leaving far too many Americans, including thousands of Oregonians, without access to emergency unemployment benefits.

That is a long time for our constituents who are trying to pay their rent, purchase groceries, care for their families, and fill their cars with gas so they can get to job interviews. Now we are planning to leave town again tomorrow for 10 days without addressing this urgent need.

My constituents are contacting me, pleading with Congress to understand the challenges they face in this recovering economy. I heard from a college graduate. She previously owned her own business but lost her job in May. Since then, she has been retraining to get the skills she will need. She is ready and willing to work in a new industry. Unemployment benefits, which she is now without, were helping. She is one of too many.

Madam Speaker, we must extend emergency unemployment benefits, and we need to do it now. Our constituents can't wait any longer.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the Innovation Act, H.R. 3309, but also to note my concerns about provisions of the bill that could undermine patent holders or make it more difficult for them to assert their rights. I hope a conference committee or the Senate will address and resolve these issues before the bill reaches the President's desk.

Patent litigation reform is important and necessary. Over the last few decades we have seen the rise of entities that are created to make profits by extracting payments from small businesses through the assertion of vague allegations of patent infringement. These so-called ``patent trolls,'' also known as ``patent assertion entities'' (PAEs) buy patents on products they didn't invent and don't manufacture and then threaten and sue innovators who are actually contributing to our economy and creating jobs.

This scheme preys on the unwillingness or inability of small businesses to fight expensive lawsuits in court. PAEs know they can simply send a demand letter including a threat to sue, and regardless of the validity of the claim, a small business more often than not will pay the PAE to make the lawsuit or potential lawsuit go away. Often there is no examination of the validity of the patent or the claim. In fact, in many cases, the business never knows who is threatening or the nature of the alleged infringement. By some estimates this practice is costing American companies $29 billion each year. Something needs to be done.

This bill takes important steps to protect the rights of entrepreneurs and small businesses if litigation is filed or threatened. The Innovation Act introduces a heightened pleading standard that requires patent holders to identify specifically the patent claims they are asserting and the product or process they allege infringes upon it. They also must identify those who have financial interests in the asserted patent. Importantly, the bill also limits expensive discovery before the court determines the scope of a disputed patent claim. And where the claim is against an end user of the technology, the bill would stay those proceedings in most instances where there is an ongoing action against the customer's supplier. I am quite concerned, however, that other provisions of this bill have the potential to impede legitimate patent holders from enforcing their rights and expose nonprofit organizations and research universities to unnecessary risk.

First, the fee-shifting provisions make it significantly less likely that an individual inventor or a small business would be able to assert a legitimate patent against an infringer. Patent suits are expensive, and in our American system parties are responsible for their own costs. In recognition of this, attorneys often take cases on a contingency fee basis and get paid a portion of the recovery only if they win. If plaintiffs and their attorneys now have to factor in the risk that they may need to pay not only their own costs and fees but also the costs and fees of the other party, they will be much less likely to assert legitimate enforcement claims. This provision is purported to stop frivolous lawsuits, but it does more than that--it equates a loss with a lack of merit. There are many reasons why a party may have a genuine dispute regarding law and fact and still lose the case; that does not mean that the case was frivolous. This bill creates a presumption of fee shifting, limits judicial discretion, and sets litigation reform on the wrong path.

Second, the joinder provisions in the Innovation Act could allow nonprofit organizations and research universities to be forcibly joined into a case against a downstream user. The purpose of the joinder provision is laudable--to ensure that a troll that loses a patent case cannot hide behind shell companies or other complicated corporate structures to avoid paying a judgment. In such a case it would allow the prevailing party to join another entity that has an economic interest in the patent. But the provision is overbroad. Nonprofit organizations and research universities often spend a great deal of time and effort on research and development; as a result, they frequently hold patents and license them for commercial use. Under this bill, a research university like Oregon State or Portland State could be joined in a lawsuit and forced to pay the judgment of a losing party if that party can't or won't pay. That isn't fair and it could potentially nullify state law. This provision must be narrowed before it goes to the President's desk.

Finally, there are a handful of amendments that would make this bill stronger and I regret that the House has not adopted them. The automatic stay provisions would be stronger if limited to small businesses only, as the Jackson-Lee amendment would do. Likewise, the Watt amendment would mitigate some of the concerns with the fee- shifting provisions by allowing judges to consider whether a prevailing party acted in bad faith or unnecessarily delayed the proceedings when making a fee award. And the Conyers-Watt substitute amendment represents a far better path overall for reducing patent troll litigation without advancing reforms hostile to legitimate plaintiffs.

Mr. Chairman, patent trolls are a problem for small businesses and tech startups in my district and across the country. Their business model is to sue the job creators and

innovators who drive our economy forward. I am glad that the House has taken concrete steps to address this problem, and I expect improvements will be made to this bill as it continues through the legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, in this holiday season of compassion and giving, we must not forget those who are still suffering from the effects of the worst recession to hit our country since the Great Depression.

Although the recent news about job creation is cause for optimism and the budget negotiations look promising, there are still too many trying every day to find work to allow them to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads.

We must pass an extension of unemployment insurance. Unless we take action, millions of Americans, thousands of them Oregonians, will see unemployment benefits end in a few short weeks. Remember, benefits are contingent on continued job search. Our constituents are searching, but if they are still out of work, they are about to lose a lifeline. We can't let that happen.

I encourage House leadership to bring a resolution to the floor that will continue unemployment insurance for another year. We must act now. This is no time to end assistance to millions of Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own.

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 2728, the Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act.

Title II of this act is a bill passed by the Science Committee, the EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Improvement Act. This is a piece of legislation that should not have been passed out of the committee.

First, title II contains provisions that designate the fracking study is a highly influential scientific assessment and requires EPA to follow its standard peer review protocols for such assessments. This language is unnecessary because EPA already considers the fracking study to be a highly influential scientific assessment.

Second, and importantly, unfortunately, this bill will obstruct EPA's ability to carry out its important work. The requirements of this bill may force the EPA to delay production of their final report on the effects of hydraulic fracturing on water quality. This bill could delay an important report that is based on a study that the EPA initiated more than 3 years ago. The study was reviewed and approved by the EPA's independent Science Advisory Board. The Science Advisory Board found the study to be both appropriate and comprehensive. The American public should not have to wait any longer before they receive a scientific analysis of whether their water has been affected by hydraulic fracturing.

What I found troubling is that the Science Committee never got information from the Science Advisory Board, which validated the study, regarding its opinion about the bill, nor did we get comments from the EPA or any other experts. In fact, the bill never had a hearing. This bill effectively attempts to micromanage the EPA without a factual basis for doing so.

The bill requires the EPA to do an ad hoc risk analysis by requiring them to quantitatively estimate the probabilities, uncertainties, and consequences of impacts to drinking water from hydraulic fracturing; however, this was never a study that was set up to determine the risk effects of hydraulic fracturing. The study was meant to examine the science to determine if hydraulic fracturing operations have any effect on groundwater. By requiring an ad hoc risk analysis on a study that was not designed to acquire the data necessary to do a risk analysis, the EPA would be forced to try to fit a round peg in a square hole.

What remains truly unclear is why this language is included when it is so unnecessary. If the current study were to find a link between fracking and groundwater contamination, then a full risk assessment will be required before the Agency can establish any regulations to address the issue.

What this bill is doing here is requiring a risk analysis simultaneously, and as part of, the very study that is meant to determine if there is a need for a risk analysis. These efforts to become involved in directing the specific details of scientific process are very troubling.

It appears that this bill is setting up the EPA to fail. If the EPA doesn't complete the study by the deadline, they have failed; and if the EPA completes the study but the ad hoc risk analysis is not as detailed as the bill's proponents expect, then they would have also failed. More importantly, their ad hoc risk analysis may taint the very accurate scientific data behind that analysis.

It is not in the public interest to have this study delayed any longer. Let the EPA complete their study. If the science shows the effects connecting hydraulic fracturing with contaminated groundwater, then we will let the EPA's long-established process of doing a risk assessment after such a study to be followed completely with all the I's dotted and T's crossed.

It is also difficult to understand how the proponents of the bill reconcile title II with title I. Title I clearly attempts to prevent the Federal Government from having oversight inspection or enforcement responsibility for hydraulic fracturing regulations. However, if the States are supposed to regulate, don't they need the science to support those regulations?

This study is designed to be the science that provides the Federal Government and the States with the information they will need to make policy choices about the effects of hydraulic fracturing on groundwater. By possibly delaying this study, we delay the ability of the States or the Federal Government to make prudent choices to protect the American public.

If you support hydraulic fracturing, delaying the study will not speed up the process of opening new areas of the country to hydraulic fracturing. Title II of H.R. 2728 will only delay an important scientific study and, ironically, may delay the development of new shale fields throughout the United States.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

To clarify, there was opposition to the legislation in the Science Committee; however, there is no recorded vote.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in 2010, the Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act required the EPA to perform a study on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contamination. The final report is currently expected to be released in 2016.

EPA's proposed study plan was reviewed by the EPA Science Advisory Board. The Science Advisory Board determined that EPA's approach was generally appropriate and comprehensive. Further, the Science Advisory Board recommended that some analysis of risks be considered in the study, but a full risk assessment could add another 5 to 7 years to the expected release date.

The proponents of this legislation mischaracterize the EPA's study plan as flawed for failing to include a comprehensive risk assessment. That position is not consistent with the conclusions of the highly qualified scientists, researchers, and industry representatives who are members of the EPA's independent Science Advisory Board, and importantly, title II could delay the release of this very important study. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire whether there are other speakers?

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 196. Since the founding of the Republic, the right to an attorney in a federal criminal prosecution has been enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and fifty years ago the Supreme Court reiterated that commitment and applied it to the states in Gideon v. Wainwright. But though the Constitution, the Court, and the Criminal Justice Act establish this right, Congress still must provide adequate resources before it can be a reality.

Public defenders serve as the backbone of this constitutional promise. Federal public defenders ensure access to counsel and other necessary criminal defense services for those who are indigent. Public defenders not only help to maintain confidence in the nation's commitment to equal justice under the law, but also ensure the successful operation of the constitutionally based adversary system of justice through which Federal criminal laws and federally guaranteed rights are enforced. In addition, adequately funded federal public defenders save money for the federal treasury by reducing pre- and post-trial incarceration costs.

At the federal level, 81 public defender organizations nationwide represent 60 percent of all criminal defendants in the federal court system. In the judicial branch, where costs are heavily concentrated in personnel, the sequester cuts have led to furloughs, staff reduction through attrition, and as a last resort, layoffs. As a result, trials have been delayed and attorneys have been forced to take on even larger caseloads. This has an effect on the entire federal criminal justice system, delaying justice for everyone, whether innocent or guilty.

Although many federal agencies can choose to do less when fewer resources are available, the federal judiciary does not have the option to reduce its own workload when budget cuts threaten. In criminal matters, when the U.S. Attorney decides to prosecute an indigent defendant, the Constitution requires the government to provide assistance of counsel. As pointed out by Justice Anthony Kennedy before the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government on March 14, 2013, because the Constitution requires the court to appoint counsel for an indigent criminal defendant, if there are fewer public defenders available the court must employ private attorneys, often at a higher cost.

This resolution will pass the House overwhelmingly, as well it should. But today I challenge my colleagues to put real force behind their words and expressions of support for the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. I implore them to support full funding for the Federal Defender Services. I urge support for this resolution.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the DeFazio/ Blumenauer/Jackson Lee/Pingree/Edwards/Bonamici amendment to H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act. Our amendment would delay the so-called environmental streamlining provisions of the bill until the backlog of approved projects is meaningfully reduced. Environmental reviews are essential to the construction of better designed, more cost effective projects that meet important federal priorities like protecting public health and the environment. Unfortunately, the bill as written offers a false promise of expediting projects and reducing the backlog by paring back environmental reviews. The reality is that this will only lead to projects that damage the environment and ultimately cost more in the long run.

This WRRDA bill contains essential authorizations that will invest in our ports, waterways, and flood protection systems. The changes it makes to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund will benefit our nation's small ports and I am cautiously optimistic that we will soon be able to leverage all of the HMTF funds to the benefit of our ports both large and small. It also begins to reduce the project backlog by deauthorizing some older projects that have not yet begun. And even though I am disappointed in the environmental streamlining provisions of the underlying bill, it represents a bipartisan agreement that will keep us moving forward and allow House and Senate negotiators to bring this matter to a speedy resolution.

I urge my colleagues to support the DeFazio/Blumenauer/Jackson Lee/ Pingree/Edwards/Bonamici amendment to improve this bill, and to support passage of H.R. 3080.

Mr. Speaker, Congress must act without delay to provide certainty to employers, keep families together, and ensure that all children raised here in America have access to affordable higher education.

Less than a decade ago, it might have been impossible to imagine that so many businesses, farmworkers, labor leaders, educators, and even politicians would come together to support comprehensive reform of our broken immigration system, a system that no longer reflects our values or national interests.

The American public has reached consensus, as has the United States Senate. It is time for Members of the House to put aside their differences and pass a bill that grows the economy, creates a modernized immigration system, enhances our security, and creates an achievable path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

I encourage the leadership to bring comprehensive, commonsense, and compassionate immigration reform legislation to the House floor this fall. Mr. Speaker, the time to act is now.

I want to thank my colleague from Hawaii for yielding some time and for this opportunity to talk about the harmful effects and the hidden injuries of this unnecessary government shutdown.

My colleague from Illinois was just talking about the human consequences. We also have to talk about the economic consequences to our constituents and to this country on day 12 of a completely unnecessary government shutdown.

I really appreciate this opportunity because our constituents want to hear and we need to get the message out there about the harm that is being caused by this. And like my colleague from Illinois, I spent a good part of this week on the telephone talking with constituents out in the great State of Oregon. I have to tell you people are concerned, they are anxious, and they are frustrated.

I spoke with our National Guard. There is so much uncertainty out there among the National Guard members about when they'll be paid. Many of them are unable to work. They are anxious.

Our community action organization that is designed to help low-income people, they are worried. They are already struggling, some of these families. They don't know if they will be able to continue getting the assistance they need.

Our Head Start organization--if you really want to make a difference in a child's life, early childhood education makes that difference. Our Head Start programs are being threatened.

Just a while ago here in this discussion, somebody mentioned health care research. I talked to one of our supervisors of health care research at the Oregon Health & Science University. It is clear and obvious that health care research is not something that can be put on hold and picked up again when the government figures things out. So much is at stake here with the researchers who have dedicated so much time on their research projects and are at a halt because they might need something like NIH approval that they can't get. They are extremely concerned, and here we are on day 12.

I have to say that the government shutdown is not just affecting Federal employees and their families, or even those directly connected, like government contractors. It is also hurting private sector businesses, and that is what I wanted to highlight in the next couple of minutes.

There is a business in my district, Leupold. It is in Beaverton, Oregon. They have about 700 employees, and they manufacture specialized optics. That is 700 employees in Beaverton, Oregon. Right now they have $10 million in orders that they can't ship. They can't ship them because they need export licenses because they sell their scopes and their binoculars and other products overseas, and they get that approval from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security. So if we can't resolve this government shutdown, they are soon going to lose those sales to foreign competitors. That hurts our economy, it hurts the employees who work there, and it hurts the business.

Here is another example. Oregon, you might know, is well-known for craft beer. There are a lot of great small businesses, and those people work really hard to brew a great product. In Hillsboro, Oregon, in the district I am honored to represent, Three Mugs Brewing Company is all set to open. They are paying their rent, they are paying their utilities, their business expenses, but they can't start brewing because they need approval from the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. They approve the labels and recipes for brewers. So here is this great small business, an entrepreneur ready to start, and they have their store, they are paying their rent and expenses, and they can't start brewing their beer because of this unnecessary government shutdown. It is time to end this right now, and we could end it today.

I, along with my colleagues here, we signed a petition to open government today. We could end this shutdown now, because across the State of Oregon, as well as across this country, our constituents are more than ready for this government to be back open.

I try, I struggle to understand how they must view this from across the country. We are here in Washington, D.C. We have been here day after day after day ready to open up the government and get the employees back to work, but what must we look like? I thought of an analogy. So there is an accident about to happen, and those nearby can prevent the accident, but they don't because they can't agree how to prevent the accident. So the accident happens, and now the victim is bleeding. The victim has been bleeding for 12 days. Guess what? There is a disagreement about what kind of bandage to put on the victim. That is how absurd this must look to the United States of America. This is an unnecessary government shutdown. It has been 12 days now. Let's get the government open. We can do it today.

I hope the Speaker calls us back today for a vote. The votes are there. We can pass a continuing resolution. Let's pass that resolution, open up the government, and continue the conversation about how to build our economy, get our budget conference committee going. We can do that today, and I hope we do.

I want to thank again the gentlelady from Hawaii for giving us the opportunity to really highlight how this unnecessary government shutdown is hurting our constituents and our economy.