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, my amendment would increase the Clear Water State Revolving Fund by $1.41 billion, from $689 million to $2.1 billion, the amount that was appropriated in fiscal year 2010. All of us recognize the gravity of the financial situation facing this Nation today, and we are struggling to emerge from the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. Clearly, with the national unemployment rate hovering still around 9 percent and the unemployment rate for the construction sector at over 20 percent, we are far from completing our work. Christine Todd Whitman, the Republican EPA administrator under President George W. Bush, estimated that the needs of our Nation's aging water infrastructure topped $660 billion. Yet within the FY 2012 Interior appropriations bill, the Republican majority cuts the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, the primary source of investment in our wastewater infrastructure, by $1.4 billion compared to FY 2010. Coupled with the severe cuts to the Clean Water SRF in H.R. 1, the FY 2011 continuing resolution, and the attacks on clean water in the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act passed earlier this month, the Republican majority has made it clear that they place no priority-- none--on preserving clean water or creating jobs. In terms of job losses, the cuts in the FY 2012 Interior appropriations bill when compared to FY 2010 funding levels would eliminate over 39,000 direct construction jobs throughout the country and countless additional jobs in the industries and small businesses that support the wastewater construction industry at a time when many small businesses and the construction sector are struggling to recover. Furthermore, this cut undermines longstanding Federal efforts to address our Nation's aging infrastructure systems. Mr. Chairman, addressing the Nation's debt and deficit should absolutely be a priority; however, we should focus our efforts on finding a balanced approach that focuses on job creation rather than slashing budgets that are proven job creators. We hear repeatedly from our Republican colleagues that we should not tax our job creators. I agree. However, in my district and in districts across the Nation, the environment is the job creator. The economy of my district depends on clean water, clean air, and safe, swimmable beaches. The cuts in this bill place all of these in jeopardy. If the Republican priorities in this bill prevail, we could put an effective tax rate of zero on small businesses in my district, and it wouldn't help because they would have no income. And no income means no jobs. Mr. Chairman, the extension of the Bush tax cuts give the average millionaire a $139,100 tax break in 2011. That's a tax break of $2,700 per week or $380 per day. Let me be clear: I'm talking only about tax breaks for millionaires--not tax breaks for the middle class--and only for millionaires, using not the $250,000, but the million. If our Republican colleagues were to set aside ideology and agree to eliminate the tax breaks for just those millionaires, we could reestablish our commitment to clean water and economic development within 12 days. The Bush tax cuts give millionaires across the Nation such a deal that we could completely shore up the $1.4 billion deficit in the Clean Water SRF and begin to address the needs outlined by Administrator Whitman in less than 2 weeks. Even if Congress gave the Bill Gates and the Warren Buffetts of this world the Bush tax breaks for the remaining 353 days of the year, we could put tens of thousands of men and women back to work, protect clean water, and protect the economies that depend on clean water and pristine beaches. Finally, the Republican majority has included in this bill several special interest policy earmarks to pull back on EPA's compliance and enforcement capabilities, making it far more difficult for the agency to identify and pursue serious violations impacting public health and the environment in communities across the Nation. In my view, this proposal stands in stark contrast to the EPA's efforts to increase compliance in critical areas within a limited budget and suggests that a weakened compliance and enforcement presence is somehow better for our Nation. I strongly disagree with that suggestion. Combine the lackluster funding for the Clean Water SRF and the dozens of special interest policy earmarks, it's quite clear that Republicans have abandoned the decades-long national, bipartisan commitment to creating jobs, protecting public health, and preserving the ability of local communities to grow their economies through clean water projects. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I fully expected that my friend from Idaho would insist on his point of order. I fully expect the Chair to sustain the point of order. But let's be clear: The underlying bill violates House rules. There are 39, at least by my count, special interest policy riders in the underlying bill, every one of which is protected by a rule that waives all points of order. Each of these policy riders are in violation of clause 2(b) of rule XXI. We all know that. I understand that the point of order will be sustained, but I do wish we would adhere to what we were promised. We were promised an open, transparent House in which regular order would prevail and in which the House would work its will. This rule does not allow that to take place. I will accept the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank my friend from New York for yielding. I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill. As every member of the Rules Committee knows, the Interior and Environment appropriations bill that we will debate today simply violates the rules of the House. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee has waived all points of order against the bill, preventing Members from striking provisions that are clearly in violation of House rules. In particular, title V of the bill includes the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011, H.R. 872, a bill that amends the Clean Water Act, which is solely within the jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, of which I am the ranking member. Furthermore, the provision amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, better known as FIFRA, that is under the jurisdiction of the House Agriculture Committee. As we all know, advancing authorizing legislation within an appropriations vehicle is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations, and it stands in stark contrast to clause 2(b) of rule XXI of the House rules, which states, in part, ``A provision changing existing law may not be reported in a general appropriation bill''; and yet that is precisely what title V is: a change in existing law. Not only is the inclusion of title V in the underlying bill a violation of House rules, but it is also legislatively redundant. The House has already passed H.R. 872 earlier this year under suspension of the rules. The bill is now being considered in the Senate, where it has been reported out of the Senate Agriculture Committee. In my opinion, including H.R. 872 in the Interior appropriations bill will hamper negotiations between Senators and between the House and the Senate to get a final bill that everyone can be disappointed with-- frankly, that's what's at stake here--but that can pass both Chambers and be enacted into law before the court-ordered deadline of October 31, 2011. Let me say that again: There is a court-ordered deadline of October 31, 2011, to resolve this issue. Mr. Speaker, I will be offering an amendment to strike title V when it comes up during debate this week. However, I am deeply disappointed that the Rules Committee has blatantly ignored the rules of the House by eliminating the ability of Members to raise a point of order against provisions of an appropriations bill that changes existing law. There are approximately 39 policy riders included in the Interior appropriations bill. And let's be clear: These are policy earmarks, and these earmarks undermine the jurisdiction of authorizing committees and undermine the ability of the House and the Senate to work its will. It is unfortunate that the Rules Committee is protecting these new earmarks from the rules of the House. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the FY 2012 Interior appropriations bill in its current form. Not only am I deeply troubled by the bill's lack of infrastructure investment that would create jobs, grow the economy, and protect public health, but it is unfortunate that the Appropriations Committee has included several dozen egregious special interest policy earmarks in the bill that will undermine our Nation's commitment to clean water, clean air, and the environment, which are fundamental to local economies like the one I represent. We've heard from our friends on the Appropriations Committee that we must make difficult decisions in these trying economic times. I couldn't agree more. Furthermore, we've heard from the chairman of the subcommittee that he believes that many of the programs that are cut are good programs, but that we must be willing to make cuts to reduce our growing debt. Consider this: The bill cuts $2.1 billion from 2011 levels for the Department of the Interior, EPA, and other agencies. However, if we were to eliminate the Bush tax cuts only for those households earning more than a million dollars per year, we could save the revenues necessary to preserve these critical agencies in less than 18 days. The bill provides $1.4 billion less for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, a fund that is critical to both environmental protection and economic development. If we were to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, we could reestablish our commitment to clean water within 12 days, affecting only those tax cuts from people who make a million dollars a year or more. That's a reasonable price to pay for the economic development that would result. Over the past several months we have heard repeatedly that we must do all that we can to prevent taxing our Nation's job creators, a sentiment with which I agree in principle. However, in my district and districts all across this country, it is the environment that is the job creator. The economy of my district depends on clean water, clean air, and safe, swimmable beaches. The cuts in this bill place all of these in jeopardy. If the Republican priorities in this bill prevail, we could put an effective tax rate of zero on the small businesses in my district and it wouldn't help at all because they would have no income--and no income means no jobs.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, due to previously scheduled official commitments in my district, I was unavoidably detained and not present in the House Chamber on Thursday, July 21 to vote on rollcalls 612, 613 and 614. I would have voted ``no'' on each rollcall had I been present.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, due to previously scheduled official commitments in my district, I was unavoidably detained and not present in the House chamber on Monday, July 18 to vote on rollcalls 601 and 602. I would have voted ``yea'' on both rollcalls had I been present.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chair, pursuant to the terms for debate on H.R. 2354, the Energy & Water Development Appropriations bill; I submit the following. 2010 FORTUNE 100 source: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2010/full_list/ [Note: Revenue figures for all companies include consolidated subsidiaries and exclude excise taxes.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Revenues ($ Profits ($ Rank Company millions) millions) Industry descriptor ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2................................ Exxon Mobil........ 284,650.00 19,280.00 Energy development and production 3................................ Chevron............ 163,527.00 10,483.00 Energy development and production 4................................ General Electric... 156,779.00 11,025.00 High-value durable goods manufacturing 8................................ Ford Motor......... 118,308.00 2,717.00 High-value durable goods manufacturing 10............................... Hewelett-Packard... 114,552.00 7,660.00 IT equipment development and production 15............................... General Motors..... 104,589.00 N.A. High-value durable goods manufacturing 20............................... International 95,758.00 13,425.00 IT equipment development Business Machines. and production 22............................... Procter & Gamble... 79,697.00 13,436.00 Household product manufacturing 28............................... Boeing............. 68,281.00 1,312.00 Defense/Aerospace 33............................... Johnson & Johnson.. 61,897.00 12,266.00 Pharamaceutical development and production 37............................... United Technologies 52,920.00 3,829.00 Defense/Aerospace 40............................... Pfizer............. 50,009.00 8,635.00 Pharamaceutical development and production 44............................... Lockheed Martin.... 45,189.00 3,024.00 Defense/Aerospace 46............................... Dow Chemical....... 44,945.00 648 Chemical development and production 61............................... Northrop Grumman... 35,291.00 1,686.00 Defense/Aerospace 62............................... Intel.............. 35,127.00 4,369.00 Semiconductor development and production 66............................... Caterpillar........ 32,396.00 895 High-value durable goods manufacturing 74............................... Honeywell 30,908.00 2,153.00 Defense/Aerospace International. 75............................... Abbott Laboratories 30,764.70 5,745.80 Pharamaceutical development and production 85............................... Merck.............. 27,428.30 12,901.30 Pharamaceutical development and production 86............................... DuPont............. 27,328.00 1,755.00 Chemical development and production 95............................... Raytheon........... 24,881.00 1,935.00 Defense/Aerospace ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I claim time in opposition.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the ranking member for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011. Despite some of the arguments I have heard in favor of this legislation, H.R. 2018 has not been narrowly crafted to address issues related to nutrient criteria and surface coal mining. I echo the administration's opposition to this bill when I say that H.R. 2018 would significantly undermine the Clean Water Act and could adversely affect public health, the economy, and the environment. While proponents of this legislation argue that the changes to the clean water permitting structure are targeted to address the development of nutrient criteria, such as in the State of Florida, the fact that this legislation is drafted to include any pollutant means that its reach extends to any discharge from any point source in any water body in the United States. Under this legislation, EPA would also be prohibited from recommending stricter discharge standards for toxic pollutants such as lead or mercury, even if the protection of human health is at stake, unless the State consents to such changes. In my view, this policy does not move our Nation forward, but rather reverses our direction and moves our Nation back 40 years to before the enactment of the Clean Water Act. Some of my friends would like to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach to regulating clean water. I would too. Luckily for us, the basic structure of the Clean Water Act already provides States enormous flexibility in setting water quality standards. Current law allows States to assume authority over day to day implementation of State permitting programs, and allows States to implement more stringent controls on pollution within their borders. The Clean Water Act merely sets the baseline minimum standard for water quality. Prior to the Clean Water Act establishing a baseline, 70 percent of the Nation's waters were unsafe for fishing, swimming, or drinking. We are now at 30 percent of our waters in such a condition. And I very much doubt that any reasonable person would want to return to the days of 70 percent. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have argued that this legislation is necessary because State authority to implement clean water programs is much improved since 1972, and States will do the right thing in protecting water quality. I agree that individual States have increased their capacity to protect the water quality within their States. However, I think it is also fair to suggest that the Clean Water Act has been essential to this Nation's efforts to double the number of waters meeting the fishable and swimmable standard since enactment of this statute in 1972. In my view, elimination of the EPA's oversight and authority for minimum standards would allow a potential race to the bottom for the establishment of pollution discharge limits within a State border. We have seen disputes between States such as Arkansas and Oklahoma, or North Carolina and Tennessee. Among States like Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, the potential opportunities for one State to send its pollution downstream to another State are real and needs to be prevented. Mr. Chairman, the role that Congress established for the EPA in the Clean Water Act has served our Nation well for almost 40 years. It has protected public health, and it has been an effective mechanism to protect the many businesses and industries that rely on clean water. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, July 12, 2011. Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 2018--Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act (Rep. Mica, R-FL, and 39 Cosponsors) The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2018 because it would significantly undermine the Clean Water Act (CWA) and could adversely affect public health, the economy, and the environment. Under the CWA, one of the Nation's most successful and effective environmental laws, the Federal Government acts to ensure safe levels of water quality across the country through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Since the enactment of the CWA in 1972, the Federal Government has protected the waterways our citizens depend on by using its checks and balances authority to review and adjust key State water pollution control decisions, where necessary, to assure that they reflect up to date science, comply with the law, and protect downstream water users in other States. H.R. 2018 would roll back the key provisions of the CWA that have been the underpinning of 40 years of progress in making the Nation's waters fishable, swimmable, and drinkable. H.R. 2018 could limit efforts to safeguard communities by removing the Federal Government's authority to take action when State water quality standards are not protective of public health. In addition, it would restrict EPA's authority to take action when it finds that a State's CWA permit or permit program is inadequate and would shorten EPA's review and collaboration with the Army Corps of Engineers on permits for dredged or fill material. All of these changes could result in adverse impacts to human health, the economy, and the environment through increased pollution and degradation of water bodies that serve as venues for recreation and tourism, and that provide drinking water sources and habitat for fish and wildlife. H.R. 2018 would disrupt the carefully constructed complementary CWA roles for EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and States in protecting water quality. It also could eliminate EPA's ability to protect water quality and public health in downstream States from actions in upstream States, and could increase the number of lawsuits challenging State permits. In sum, H.R. 2018 would upset the CWA's balanced approach to improve water quality across the Nation, risking the public health and economic benefits of cleaner waters. If the President is presented with this legislation, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding, and I also thank her for offering this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The amendment would strike the provisions of the underlying bill that threaten existing Clean Water Act authority related to the discharge of pollutants under the act. I oppose these provisions in the underlying bill, and I view this amendment as an effort to improve an otherwise very bad bill. On that basis I support the amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. We have heard a great deal of how reversals on the part of the EPA have caused uncertainty in the business community--uncertainty that leads to job loss, uncertainty that leads to a lack of interest in investing. Here are the numbers: In 40 years, the EPA has reversed 13 permits--13--out of over 2 million issued. That is a veto rate of .00065 percent. I fail to see how a reversal rate of significantly less than 1 percent can create the kind of uncertainty that we hear about from our colleagues. In fact, that kind of reversal rate encourages a reliance on the legitimacy and the validity of a permit granted, not the questioning of it. I would also point out that, of these 13 reversals, seven took place under the administration of President Reagan; four took place under the Presidency of the first George Bush; one under George W. Bush; and one under President Obama. I think we are hard-pressed to develop a fact- based argument that there is an assault or that there is an overreach on the part of the EPA. Now, with respect to the subject of the amendment, itself, the EPA has testified before the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee that it already considers the implications of its actions on jobs and on the economy. In fact, many of the requirements that bring the EPA to do that were enacted by the Republican majority when they last controlled the House. I would suggest that the enactment of this amendment will only duplicate the analysis that the EPA is already undertaking. As a result, I fear that this amendment will only increase the opportunity for litigation relating to actions on the part of the EPA, causing a new cause of action in the Clean Water Act for third-party lawsuits. If anything, I fear that the effect of this amendment will be to tie up efforts by the EPA to protect public health and the environment in a bureaucratic morass. On that basis, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I have cited, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and 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. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I thank her for offering this amendment. I just want to simply say, as I've made clear, I do not support the underlying legislation, but this is a very prudent amendment that allows us to assess as we go forward whether or not this proposed law is in the best interests of our Nation's clean water and in the interests of our Nation's health. So I commend the gentlelady for offering the amendment, and I am very happy to hear that this may be accepted.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding, and I thank the gentleman for offering this, I think, very well thought-out and well-conceived amendment. I support the amendment offered by the gentleman because it suggests that the most appropriate place for retaining Federal oversight is against polluters who have a track record on the most serious violations of the Clean Water Act, those found to be in significant noncompliance; and, thus, the retention of a Federal oversight role I think is very wise. And let me just amplify that. In September of 2009, The New York Times ran a front-page story highlighting that, from 2004 to 2008, 506,000 violations of the Clean Water Act were reported for both major and minor facilities; and during that time, the States only took 11,000 enforcement actions, or what is basically a 2 percent enforcement rate. We need to have the Federal Government retain its oversight role. This amendment would do that. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, along with Mr. Markey and Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chairman, if H.R. 2018 were enacted as drafted, it would restrict the EPA's ability to protect the Nation's waters from pollution. As we know, if pollution is allowed to increase due to the dueling interests of States, many sources of clean drinking water would be imperiled, valuable fish and wildlife habitat would be endangered and coastal recreational waters, like the shores of my Long Island, would be at risk, along with all the economic benefits these resources provide. The Markey-DeFazio-Blumenauer amendment simply restricts the provisions of this bill from endangering waters that provide flood protection for communities, our valuable fish and wildlife habitat or our coastal recreational waters that are the backbone of my district's economy. In fact, my district will face real economic danger if this bill is not amended, not to mention the environmental danger that my district and districts all over this country will face. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding. I rise in opposition to this rule and I also oppose the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I was heartened that my Republican colleagues accepted many of the amendments offered in the Rules Committee yesterday, and I commend them for their attempts to adhere to the open process that they promised. However, I was disappointed that an amendment offered by my good friend from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan) was not made in order because it would have addressed perhaps one of the most fundamental areas of concern for this bill that I and a great many others share, and that is that it undermines the Federal floor on water quality standards that has made the Clean Water Act such a success. This body should have had the opportunity to vote on such an important issue, and yet the rule denies that opportunity. I am a strong supporter of efforts to protect the Long Island Sound, which borders the northern shore of my district and also the southern shore of Connecticut. In my view, the investment of Federal, State, and local resources to clean up and protect the sound significantly benefits communities in my district and in our region generally in terms of increased economic productivity, increased revenues from commercial and recreational uses of the sound, and increased quality of life for local residents. As a New Yorker, I take great pride in the efforts my State has made in improving the water quality of the sound, and I appreciate the collective efforts of our neighboring States in cleaning up the sound. However, under H.R. 2018, we revert back to the State-by-State, go- it-alone approach that was the hallmark of water pollution prevention before the enactment of the Clean Water Act. Under H.R. 2018, if the EPA proposes a revised water quality standard that science dictates is needed to clean up the sound and Connecticut decides that they don't want to implement that standard, the EPA would no longer have the authority to compel them to do so nor would New York have any recourse under the Clean Water Act to ensure that Connecticut or other upstream States are doing what is needed; in other words, a recipe for the kind of pollution that we dealt with prior to the implementation of the Clean Water Act. For this and a great many other reasons, H.R. 2018 flies in the face of decades of experience in implementing the Clean Water Act and risks all the gains in water quality that we have made over the past 40 years. For that I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

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

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. The Holt-Bishop amendment would increase the Office of Science budget by $42.7 million, reducing the National Nuclear Security Administration's weapons activities program by the same amount, putting the Office of Science in line with the FY 2011- enacted levels, protecting jobs and supporting American innovation through scientific discovery. The Office of Science is crucial to scientific innovation, which is a key component of American job creation and a cornerstone of our Nation's long-term strategy for economic growth. How many times have we heard Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle come to this floor and espouse the benefits of innovation on job creation? How many times have we heard from both the current President and past Presidents talk about moving our Nation forward into the 21st century where technology and scientific advancement will fortify our Nation's economic growth? The Office of Science within the Department of Energy, including our national laboratories, is one of the most powerful tools the Federal Government has at its disposal to promote scientific innovation, to support private industry advancements, to foster medical breakthroughs, and to gain a better understanding of the world around us. I am proud to represent Brookhaven National Laboratory, a Department of Energy lab and one of the largest employers in my district. BNL is also ground zero for many of the scientific discoveries and innovations that have expanded our understanding of physics and nature, many of which have a direct link to developing new materials for industry, more effective drugs, and better fuels, the intellectual capital that private industry thrives upon. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the Republican policies embodied within H.R. 1 would have slashed $1.1 billion from the Office of Science, choking off Federal investment in basic research that is key to our Nation's long-term competitiveness. These draconian cuts would have impacted each DOE national lab with a 30 percent cut to every science facility and program from the FY 2011 request level. The number of jobs that would have been eliminated as a result of H.R. 1 is estimated to be close to 10,000 in the Office of Science. How can any reasonable person argue that laying off thousands of the most highly trained, highly skilled scientists the world has to offer moves this Nation forward? The Holt-Bishop amendment would hold the Office of Science spending at FY 2011 levels. This is the minimum level of appropriation required for this Nation to remain at the cutting edge of scientific innovation, which is essential to our economic competitiveness which, in turn, is directly linked to what ought to be our number one priority in this Congress--job creation. I encourage my colleagues to support the Holt- Bishop amendment. I will also be including in the Record a list of the 2010 Fortune 100 companies which delineates those companies relying upon Office of Science facilities to deliver their products. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases the operations and maintenance account by $35 million in line with the O&M budget for FY2010. My amendment offsets this amendment in the Fossil Energy R&D account by the same amount consistent with the President's FY2012 budget request. Mr. Chairman, as our Nation continues to climb out of the hole left behind from the Great Recession, Congress must focus on funding programs that create jobs and encourage economic growth. As the ranking member on the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, it is clear to me just how important it is to ensure that our water infrastructure assets remain safe, reliable and efficient to address our goals of encouraging economic prosperity. Over the past few years, my subcommittee has held hearing after hearing on the declining condition of our Nation's water transportation corridors, our levees and flood walls, and our Nation's wastewater infrastructure. Countless witnesses have told us that our water-related infrastructure is on the brink of failure, and they have specifically warned how the effects of such a failure would devastate our health, safety, prosperity and quality of life. In just the past decade, the Corps has had multiple emergency closures of navigation locks on almost every major river system to address infrastructure deterioration. These unscheduled closures result in significant impacts to the movement of goods and services, as well as impact shippers and customers alike in terms of higher costs. Similarly, the lack of available maintenance dredging funding has resulted in reduced depths at many major port facilities and has all but passed over the dredging needs of smaller ports such as Lake Montauk Harbor and Shinnecock Inlet in my district of eastern Long Island. Our Nation's ports handle 2.5 billion tons of domestic and international cargo annually. They move imports and exports worth more than $5.5 billion per day. In 2007, ports employed over 13.3 million Americans, 9 percent of the total workforce, and those jobs paid $649 billion in wages. One billion dollars in exports creates 15,000 new jobs. Our ports and the maritime industry keep America open for business. It would seem apparent, then, that underfunding the missions of the Corps of Engineers is shortsighted for many reasons. First, it has a substantial negative impact on local economies and the bottom lines of big industries and small businesses alike. Second, it puts our families and communities at an increased risk of flooding and damage from coastal storms. Third, it delays the potential public and environmental health benefits that come from environmental restoration projects. Finally, it places this Nation on an unsustainable path where it is forced to rely on an outdated and failing infrastructure to keep the Nation going. In light of this, or in spite of this, in the first 6 months of the 112th Congress, the new House majority has put forward several legislative proposals to cut the funding for the core to levels not seen since 2004. The most aggressive proposal, included as part of H.R. 1, would have cut over $500 million, about 10 percent, from an already strained Corps budget; and it could only result in increased delay in carrying out vital Corps projects and increased reliance on using Band-Aids to remedy critical infrastructure maintenance issues. Similarly, this appropriations bill further reduces the level of funding for the Corps by 11.5 percent, including a remarkable cut of 20.5 percent from the Corps' construction account and an additional 38.2 percent reduction for Corps work along the Mississippi River. Collectively, for the hundreds of Corps projects around the country, these reductions in funding will result in a growing deficiency in maintenance that will continue to expand until it becomes an emergency or fails at a critical moment. Given the lack of viable offsets in this bill, my amendment focuses on the Corps' Operation and Maintenance account that provides funding to the Corps to dredge existing harbors to their congressionally authorized width and depth. Mr. Chairman, eliminating the funds for operation and maintenance is both penny-wise and pound-foolish. Businesses large and small depend greatly on their ability to move their goods to market by using our Nation's waterways. From California importers to Minnesota miners to Ohio steelworkers to Michigan manufacturers to New York fishermen to Louisiana exporters to Illinois farmers to Pennsylvania producers, they and a great many others depend on efficient waterborne transportation to receive goods, move products to market, create jobs, and grow economically. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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