Timothy Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield whatever time I have remaining to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would address one of the fundamental flaws I see in this legislation. The enactment of H.R. 5078 would almost certainly block current and future efforts to clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act. Unfortunately, this would lock in place the interpretive guidance of the Bush administration, which took the narrowest and most cumbersome and confusing interpretation of the two recent Supreme Court decisions, and it has been uniformly criticized by the stakeholder community as well as by the conservation and environmental community. I think it is important to remember that, under the current Bush administration's guidance, traditional Clean Water Act protections over a significant percentage of waters has been called into question or have simply been lost. These are Clean Water Act protections that existed for over 30 years prior to the issuance of the first Bush-era guidance in 2003 and are now all but lost, making it harder and more costly for individual States to protect their own waters should their upstream neighbors be unwilling or unable to fill in the gap in protecting water quality. As we all know, if pollution is allowed to increase due to the competing financial and political interests of States, that pollution needs to go somewhere, and since pollution does not respect State boundaries when it travels downstream, it will have an adverse impact on the quality of life and the quality of the environment of those downstream States. As highlighted in my amendment, the end result of this will be that downstream States will become responsible for treating the pollution of their upstream neighbors, which, at a minimum, will increase the compliance costs of downstream States and, at a maximum, may destroy the ecological or economic health of these States. As I have noted before, my district in New York is separated from Connecticut by the Long Island Sound. Over time, the number of polluters in the area has increased exponentially, killing fish, lobsters, and imperiling the $5 billion of economic output that the region depends upon. Fortunately, the State has decided that the Sound was impaired, and it proposed a more restrictive water quality standard for nitrogen. A $5 billion crisis has been averted. However, under the current Bush-era guidance, questions have arisen as to whether the Clean Water Act protection continues to apply to the upper reaches of watersheds, streams, and wetlands which feed the rivers that eventually flow into the Sound. Under H.R. 5078, the EPA would be prohibited from ensuring that polluters in Connecticut continue to reduce excessive amounts of nitrogen in the Sound, leaving my constituents in the State of New York without any recourse under the Clean Water Act to stop them. If this bill were to pass, individual States would decide that collective efforts to address the water quality impairments of the Chesapeake Bay, the Puget Sound, the Great Lakes, or the Gulf of Mexico were unnecessarily restrictive or burdensome, and they would refuse to participate in a meaningful way towards the restoration of these regional water bodies. This go-it-alone approach flies in the face of science, of common sense, and of decades of experience in implementing the Clean Water Act. My amendment would limit the impact of this legislation if the administration determines that this bill were likely to, one, increase the interstate movement of pollutants through surface waters; two, increase the costs incurred by a downstream State to maintain or achieve approved water quality standards for that State; or three, to cause or contribute to the impairment of the surface or coastal waters of another State. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure created the Clean Water Act over 40 years ago as a response to burning rivers, to Great Lakes that were pronounced dead, and to an understanding that a State- by-State approach to protecting water simply didn't work. Let's not repeat the sins of the past but commit to moving forward in our efforts to protect the Nation's waters. Support my amendment, and allow the Agency to put back in place reasonable, comprehensive protections of our Nation's waters. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, my amendment gets to the heart of the debate on this proposed rule. For months, opponents of the proposed rule have made numerous claims about its impacts. Yet, despite numerous efforts by representatives of the administration's to answer these claims and to point out how many of these claims are simply false, we seem to go around and around, again and again, on these allegations. My amendment simply addresses these concerns and claims, saying that, if any of them prove to be true, then the Secretary and the Administrator are prohibited from issuing any final rule that would bring about these occurrences. For example, opponents of the proposed rule have claimed that this rule expands the scope of the Clean Water Act authority. When asked this direct question during our subcommittee hearing, the administration's witness stated clearly that the proposed rule ``would not assert jurisdiction over any type of waters not previously protected over the past 40 years.'' Under my amendment, if the administration is proven incorrect, the final rule could not be implemented. Similarly, opponents have suggested that the rule is inconsistent with the rulings and jurisdictional tests outlined by the Supreme Court. The administration's witness has testified that this rule is consistent with the tests outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court. If my amendment is adopted and if the administration is wrong about this assertion, then the final rule could not be implemented. Opponents of the proposed rule have claimed that the proposed rule increases the regulation of ditches. The administration has testified that, in fact, it would reduce the scope of jurisdictional ditches that are covered by the Bush administration guidance. If my amendment is adopted and if the administration is incorrect in this assertion, the rule cannot be implemented. Opponents contend that, under this rule, individuals would be required to have Federal Clean Water Act permits for draining farm ponds or for activities in the water on your driveways or your birdbaths or puddles in your backyard. The administration has asserted, obviously, that these types of waters have never been subject to the Clean Water Act, nor would they be under this rulemaking. If somehow the administration is wrong about this, under my amendment, the final rule could not be implemented. Lastly, opponents contend that the rule would eliminate existing statutory and regulatory exemptions for agriculture or increase the regulation of groundwater or require Federal Clean Water Act permits for land-use activities. Yet the administration has time and time again testified that these assertions are simply inaccurate. Again, if my amendment is adopted and if the administration is incorrect, the final rule cannot go forward. In my view, this administration has put forward a good faith effort to provide additional clarity on the scope of Clean Water Act protections for our Nation's waters that are consistent with current scientific information as well as the precedent of the Supreme Court. While it is not perfect, this rule is far better than the current regulatory process that has led to numerous delays, significant increases in compliance costs, and greater difficulty in protecting our Nation's water resources. I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 935. This debate is not one about the usefulness of pesticide use in modern society--which, clearly, pesticides have found such a role. Whether to control nuisance species, such as mosquitoes or aquatic invasive species, or to assist in the production of reliable agricultural harvests, pesticides have proven useful in sustaining the American livelihood. At the same time, we must remember that modern pesticides can be highly toxic chemicals that need to be thoroughly studied and used with great care to limit the potential impacts to human health and the environment. It was only a few decades ago that we learned the lessons of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, and the devastation to the natural environment caused by the use of DDT. Yet, even today, the U.S. Geological Survey has consistently found the presence of pesticides and pesticide residues in our nation's lakes, rivers, and streams, including many that serve as drinking water sources for local communities. Contrary to statements made on Monday, these are not simply the legacy contaminants of decades-old pesticides, but also modern pesticides, such as those linked to bee-colony collapse. So, common-sense should dictate that we approach the issue of pesticide use in or near our rivers, lakes, and streams with great caution, and with an even greater understanding of the cumulative and lasting impacts of pesticides on human health and water quality. Unfortunately, H.R. 935 would abandon any caution related to pesticide use in or near our nation's waters, and allow potential polluters to return to the regulatory shadows. Mr. Speaker, proponents of H.R. 935 argue that the protections of the Clean Water Act are simply duplicative of the requirements of FIFRA, and are unnecessary to protect local waters from pesticide contamination. These statements are simply not supported by the facts. As many of my colleagues noted during Monday's debate on this bill, these two statutes, although complimentary with one another, have entirely different focuses. FIFRA is intended to address the safety and effectiveness of pesticides on a national scale, preventing unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment through uniform labels indicating approved uses and restrictions. However, the Clean Water Act is focused on restoring and maintaining the integrity of the nation's waters, with a primary focus on the protection of local water quality. It is simply incorrect to say that applying a FIFRA-approved pesticide in accordance with its labeling requirement is a surrogate for protecting local water quality. Similarly, contrary to statements made during Monday's debate, FIFRA's risk assessment process for individual pesticides is no substitute for the Clean Water Act's focus on local water quality. First, the FIFRA labeling process for a vast majority of pesticides do not address off-site, non-target, and sub-lethal effects of pesticide drift that can grow stronger over time. Second, the EPA risk registration process only considers the effect of the active ingredients in a pesticide, and does not consider the synergy of multiple ingredients in a pesticide formulation, or between multiple pesticides in the environment. Yet, many of the unregulated, inactive ingredients in pesticides have significant toxic effects in their own right. Third, the FIFRA re-registration process is a lengthy and ongoing process with outstanding and missing health and environmental data associated with pesticide reviews. As a result, EPA's assessment process has been routinely criticized as failing to fully assess the short- and long-term impacts of pesticides on human health, particularly on children, and on the environment. Fourth, under FIFRA, EPA does not track pesticide poisonings, including short-term and long-term adverse effects, as pointed out recently by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Finally, EPA presumes, under FIFRA, that if a pesticide is applied according to its label, there will not be any unintentional pesticide exposure to water--therefore, the risk assessment process does not evaluate the impact of terrestrial pesticides on water quality, despite the fact that these pesticides often are detected in waters--presumably through drift or contaminated runoff. Mr. Speaker, proponents of H.R. 935 also argue that the costs of implementing the Clean Water Act permitting requirements have been excessive. However, I have yet to see one documented case where a state, a mosquito control district, or a pesticide applicator has incurred significant increased costs from complying with the Clean Water Act for pesticide applications. This administration worked hand-in-hand with these groups to ensure that implementation of the Clean Water Act was consistent with current practices, and was not going to be costly or burdensome. If we are going to have a debate on the merits of this issue, it is incumbent upon the proponents of H.R. 935 to show proof of any perceived burden-- but as of yet, no such proof has been provided. As noted by my colleagues on Monday, there is no substantive reason why this legislation is necessary, other than to limit the scope of Clean Water Act protections over a source of known pollutants that are causing water quality impairment in this nation. There is no evidence of an emergency. There is no evidence of any significant regulatory burden. And there is no evidence of any substantial increase in compliance costs. In my view, the proponents have made no argument why this legislation is necessary, other than that the groups who want to restore their regulatory anonymity have asked for it. We need to ensure that potential sources of water pollution continue to be brought out of the shadows, which would be accomplished by defeating H.R. 935. Mr Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 935.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Brookhaven National Laboratory, located in my congressional district and recognized by R&D Magazine for developing a novel radiation detection technology. Often referred to as the ``Oscars of Innovation,'' the annual R&D 100 Awards are given to the top 100 most technologically significant products each year from around the world. I am proud that this prestigious honor has been bestowed upon Long Island's own Brookhaven National Laboratory, which is jointly managed by Stony Brook University and Battelle for the Department of Energy (DOE). A team of scientists led by Dr. Aleksey Bolotnikov and Dr. Ralph James at Brookhaven developed GammaScout, a compact hand-held high- resolution radiation detector, as well as the electronics and software to make it functional. This project was funded by the National Nuclear Security Administration's Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation research and development program. The GammaScout technology will be especially useful in tracking the movement of radioactive materials and the imaging of radiopharmaceuticals in oncology and cardiology. Its application could also be used in real-time dosimeters, x-ray radiography, mineral exploration, and materials sorting and recycling. As a result, this new technology has the potential to improve our homeland and national security, protect first responders and the environment, and even make it easier to diagnose disease and save lives. This detector technology works at room temperature, making it particularly unique and useful in the field. Previous technologies had to be cryogenically cooled for the same high-resolution radiation detection, thus confining critical work to a laboratory setting. I am very proud to recognize Dr. Bolotnikov, Dr. James and their team of scientists, which also included colleagues from Korea University for winning one of only 32 R&D 100 Awards given to DOE laboratories. This speaks volumes about the value of these labs and the importance of their contributions to the nation, economy, and national security. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of New York's First Congressional District, I congratulate the scientists and laboratory leadership for this well- deserved award. It is a timely reminder that Brookhaven National Laboratory remains a valuable asset to Long Island, New York, and our nation.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to urge the United States to advocate for a resolution to the ongoing conflict in Cyprus. July 20, 2014 marked the 40th anniversary of the division of Cyprus, and it is in the best interest of the United States to foster a state in which Greek and Turkish Cypriots may peacefully coexist. In Congress, I have supported legislation that promotes a comprehensive peace agreement between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. I support discussions resuming to finally identify a settlement to this protracted conflict. It is my hope that a peaceful resolution to the territorial dispute will soon become reality and I am pleased with the progress that Cyprus continues to make with the United Nations and the United States. It is encouraging that the President of Cyprus has established several confidence-building measures that could lead to productive negotiations, measures that the United States has endorsed. Mr. Speaker, I urge the State Department to work with the government of Cyprus for the advancement of democracy, human rights, and the interests of the United States.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for yielding. I rise in support of H.R. 4984, and I want to commend Congressman Guthrie and Congresswoman Bonamici for their efforts in bringing this bill first to our committee and now to the floor, and I particularly want to commend the bipartisan nature with which this legislation has been developed. Hopefully it will pass today with the same support that it passed out of the Education Committee. My other hope is that we can take this same bipartisan spirit that attends this legislation and apply it to the really, really important work that we have before us with respect to higher education and reauthorizing the Higher Ed Act, and that is specifically seeing to it that collectively we work together to see to it that the student financial aid programs embodied in title IV of the Higher Ed Act are reauthorized and, in fact, strengthened, and that they remain as robust as they need to be to ensure that students continue to have access to the educational institutions of their choice. Frankly, title IV is in peril. I hope we can work on that. And let me be specific about at least one program in title IV, and that is the Perkins Loan Program. We have had the Perkins Loan Program since 1958. It was passed in the wake of America's shock that we were beaten into space by the Russians, and so there was an effort to make it easier for the young men and women of this country to pursue higher education. That goal, by the way, and that need that existed in 1958 still exists today. And yet under current law, if we do not act, the 2015-2016 academic year will be the last year that the Perkins loan will be in existence. Our students across the country borrow $1.4 billion a year.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. So $1.4 billion a year will be taken out of the student aid portfolio at a time when students can least afford for that to happen. Given declining incomes and rising colleges costs, students are caught in a squeeze where they are unable to meet the expenses that a higher education demands. We simply cannot let this happen, and I very much hope that again on a bipartisan basis we can renew not just this program, but we can also overcome what appears to be a policy directive of our friends on the other side to squeeze the student financial aid programs. The budget resolution that passed the House of Representatives freezes Pell grants at $5,700 for the next 10 years. That means, 10 years from now, if that were to ever take on the force of law, the buying power of the Pell grant will be severely diminished. That same budget resolution essentially eliminates the SEOG program and puts enormous restrictions on the college workstudy program. These are programs that are absolutely essential to a student's ability to finance their education. I very much hope we can work together to see to it that they remain as robust as they need to be.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I am in its present form.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a motion to recommit. This is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately be amended and proceed to final passage. The bill before us does not represent a substantive effort to empower America's middle class to move up the ladder of success or put Americans back to work. Though creatively titled, it instead represents another effort by the majority to look out for special interests already doing well from a Tax Code stacked against millions of our hardworking constituents. Under the guise of attempting to lower gasoline prices, Republicans are using this bill as a vehicle to steer control of our Nation's precious natural resources to companies that accounted for nearly $100 billion in profits in 2013. It is a textbook example of corporate welfare run amok. My final amendment will add two critical components to the underlying bill. First, none of the big five oil companies will be granted a new lease to drill on Federal lands without first foregoing the massive subsidies that they receive from American taxpayers. This would result in nearly $10 billion of savings that could be put towards the pressing national priorities that need our attention, but are being ignored by this House--education, the highway trust fund, unemployment insurance, or a permanent Medicare reimbursement fix. Second, oil companies will not be permitted to export U.S. oil or natural gas, if doing so will increase domestic prices of gasoline or home heating oil. In other words, if the government is going to make drilling easier for the big oil companies, let's make sure the benefits are passed on to the American people, rather than the corporate bottom line or foreign consumers. We all want lower gas prices. In my district on Long Island, gas prices just went over $4 a gallon. That is almost a half a buck increase in the last 4 months. Democrat or Republican, all of us recognize that lower gas prices are desirable for American families. Let us also remember that the price of oil results from a combination of both supply and demand. As more and more Chinese nationals purchase cars, increased demand on the global gasoline marketplace will lead to higher gas prices, regardless of U.S. or international oil production. In fact, since 2010, China alone has consumed about half of the extra oil that has been produced during this current oil production boom. This bill will do nothing to actually lower prices at the pump. Claiming this bill is a panacea to fix the problem of sky-high prices is just plain wrong. Without the protections contained within this motion to recommit, the underlying bill could very well result in lower prices at the pump in China and higher prices here at home. This is unacceptable and--I am sure--not what my friends across the aisle have in mind. American energy independence is more achievable than ever. In fact, domestic oil production is at a 25-year high, while net imports are at a 29-year low. Let's support the American middle class by adding these vital consumer protections to the underlying bill. I urge passage of this motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I rise to urge defeat of the previous question to allow consideration of my legislation, the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act, which would finally end middle class subsidies to big oil companies. For too long, this Congress has perpetuated corporate welfare, saying job creators need incentives to continue growing this country, but last year, the largest oil companies reported a bottom-line profit of $93 billion--let me say that again, $93 billion--and yet, this Republican- led Congress continues to lavish subsidies and tax breaks on these highly-profitable companies. We can not overlook that cuts to good programs continue during this second year of sequestration and, as we face the ever-present imperative to cut the deficit, Congress should rethink preferential treatment for Big Oil that burdens millions of hardworking Americans and small businesses which foot the bill for these subsidies. For instance, we can save $9.2 billion over 10 years by repealing the outdated section 199 tax break, which designates oil production as a manufacturing activity, and gives Big Oil a 6 percent deduction from their income. This could be much better spent on real efforts to create jobs, increase revenue, and support local economies. We could direct that funding towards infrastructure construction or education or keep it in the energy sector, to further incentivize renewable energy technology development, rather than perpetuate our reliance on fossil fuels. These are real job creation efforts that Congress has supported in the past and are still needed to ignite economic growth; or we could use the savings from the bill to help fill the immediate need to pay for the shortfall in the highway trust fund, which will run out of money only weeks from now. This means the House could leave this week without a solution to this impending crisis threatening to freeze construction projects and lay off workers, further imperiling our Nation's economic recovery. There is no shortage of solutions Congress needs to reach this year, and many of them have steep price tags. By supporting the previous question, my colleagues can use a source of funds that oil companies won't miss to offset our to-do list. With no signs from the majority about whether the House will ever move to consider tax reform, it remains unclear, when--if ever--the opportunity will arise again to reform the Tax Code, so that it reflects the needs and aspirations of working families and small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me in better prioritizing taxpayers' funds by defeating the previous question.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee. As many of our colleagues know, thousands of men and women from our Armed Forces have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan with a variety of service-connected illnesses and complications caused by exposure to the noxious fumes of open-air burn pits and other airborne hazards. There is a growing body of research about the disabling effects of burn pit exposure that confirms that such exposure is the cause of serious illnesses, including various cancers that have killed veterans and have left countless others seriously ill. Leading researchers in this area, including Dr. Anthony Szema of Stony Brook University's School of Medicine in my district, are discovering clear evidence that fumes from burn pits have sickened the personnel deployed in their vicinity. While their precise numbers remain unknown, it is estimated that up to 30,000 Active Duty servicemembers and veterans might be suffering as a result of their exposure to burn pits. We must learn from past mistakes to stop open-air burn pit exposure before such exposure becomes the agent orange for this generation of veterans.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentleman for his response and his leadership. I also thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his leadership, and I look forward to working with them on this issue.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Fred Wilford on his retirement after thirty-six years of service to his community as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Sagaponack Common School District in Sagaponack, New York, located in my district. Mr. Wilford has served his community and his country with dedication and distinction, and I am proud to call him a resident of New York's first congressional district. In addition to his long-time work on the school board, he is also a fifty-year veteran of the local volunteer fire department and a veteran of the United States Navy. First elected to the Sagaponack school board in 1978, Mr. Wilford has served twelve consecutive terms on the board. He is known as a dedicated and caring person who always works for what is best for the school, its students and its teachers. His connection to the school district stretches back to his grandmother, Maebelle Clarke, who taught at the school at the beginning of the Twentieth Century and where she met her future husband, Fred Topping. With its historic little red schoolhouse and one teacher, the Sagaponack school district has one of the few remaining one-room schoolhouses in the country. Mr. Wilford, who has lived all of his life in Sagaponack except for the four years he served in the Navy, attended the Sagaponack schoolhouse as did his mother, Elmira, his six siblings and his four children. During his tenure on the board, he served as board president, vice president and trustee. His wife Ellen served as a member of the school maintenance support staff, the scholarship committee and the shared decision making committee throughout his tenure on the board. ``I love the job, I love the school, and I love what I do,'' Mr. Wilford, said recently about his plan to retire this month. ``It's been part of my life for so many years that you hate to give it up.'' In addition to his service to the school, Wilford also served for fifty years as a member, past chief and commissioner of the Bridgehampton Fire Department. He worked for the Long Island Lighting Company for over thirty years and currently operates an estate care business. Mr. Speaker, I know that the school district will miss Fred Wilford's expertise and commitment after he retires. On behalf of New York's first congressional district, I would like to wish him well and thank him for all he has done for our community.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. In its current form, I am.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. Mr. Speaker, my amendment responds to the increasing threat of Chinese and other state-sponsored computer hacking of our national infrastructure of computer networks. These cyber attacks have severely undermined our national security and continue to threaten our economy. Not only are the Chinese hacking into our state secrets, but they are stealing our trade secrets, which costs us jobs, and especially jobs of the future. China's conduct is reprehensible and unacceptable for a major trading partner. In response, my amendment requires the heads of the intelligence agencies to prioritize efforts to uncover, stop, and prevent future attempts to steal U.S. military technology and intellectual property. The intelligence agencies are also required to notify businesses and Internet providers when network breaches occur, collaborate with Federal agencies to protect critical infrastructure, and assist law enforcement, as well as our international partners in apprehending, halting, and punishing those who infiltrate our systems. The need for this amendment is clear. Growing evidence reveals extensive activity on the part of the People's Liberation Army to conduct cyber, economic, and industrial espionage. Their hacking knows no bounds in the pursuit of state and trade secrets alike. We have uncovered the traces and telltale signs of hacking into Federal systems and U.S. corporations, like Alcoa, U.S. Steel, energy companies like SolarPowerAG, and even nuclear power providers like Westinghouse Electric Company. This month, the Justice Department indicted five members of the Chinese military for stealing trade secrets in order to prosper from American ingenuity and innovation to undercut our global competitiveness. These are not isolated incidents. The frequency of these attacks has increased over time, costing our economy thousands of jobs and up to $100 billion annually. Not only are the Chinese and their partners in cyber crime refusing to acknowledge evidence we have uncovered, but they refuse to negotiate steps both of our nations could pursue to end this threat. No one single action will stop the Chinese from trying to infiltrate American computer networks, but collaboration between our intelligence agencies, law enforcement, and the private sector can strengthen our defenses, deter cyber espionage from being launched on foreign shores, and protect our jobs. My amendment is not the only step we can take, but it is an important addition to this bill. The United States deserves better for supporting the rights of nations like China to trade in the global marketplace, to be treated with respect, and to participate in the community of nations. We must send the message to China and our rivals that this Congress stands ready to defend our national security and our economy, and we must send a message assuring future generations of Americans that protecting jobs here at home will always be our priority and that our economic might is more important than our military might. Our national security and position as a global leader in innovation and competitiveness depends on it. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.