Timothy Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report for H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. Today is a monumental occasion for our nation's economy, for the creation of good-paying jobs, and for the health of our natural environment. Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall, we present this Chamber with a thoughtful, reasonable, and optimistic bill that renews this Congress' commitment to our Nation's water-related infrastructure. In that light, I would like to personally thank our Chairman, our Ranking Member, and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources, Mr. Gibbs, for the open and inclusive process with which our Committee conducted negotiations with the other body on WRRDA, and for their leadership in returning our Committee to its long- standing traditions of bipartisanship and collaboration--as exemplified in the Chairmanships of the gentleman from Pennsylvania's father, the former Chairman Shuster, as well as the late-Chairman of this Committee, Chairman Oberstar. These former Committee leaders knew that a successful outcome can only come from the valuable input from Members on both sides of the aisle, from constructive negotiation, and from mutual respect. That is what we have seen return to this Committee under our current Chairman, and if the final vote tally for this Conference report is as I expect, then this bill ought to serve as a model for how this Congress conducts the American people's business. Today is also a monumental day, because while this bill is about many things, most importantly, it is about job creation--not only those good construction jobs that will come with the authorization of 34 Chiefs Reports contained in the bill, but also the jobs that rely on a robust network of large and small ports and inland waterways to move goods throughout the United States. I am especially pleased that this Conference report provides a reasonable path forward to the challenges facing the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. This legislation provides that, within 10 years, 100 percent of the fund proceeds are used for their intended purposes--harbor maintenance--while ensuring that any increase in harbor maintenance does not come at the expense of other critical Corps' programs. I am also thankful that this conference report recognizes the critical importance of our Nation's small ports to our regional and local economies in establishing future funding priorities. Unfortunately, we could not solve all of the financial challenges facing the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, or the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. That will have to come from continued Congressional attention and future legislative efforts. However, today is a good first step in addressing the most pressing challenges facing each of these funds, and should be supported. Mr. Speaker, today is also a monumental day because this new WRRDA creates a reasonable and workable process, developed by this chamber, to address the ongoing navigation, flood damage reduction, and environmental restoration challenges facing each of our Congressional districts. For the past few years, this Congress has, unfortunately, ceded our constitutional and representative duties to the Executive branch in deciding what is in the best interests of our Congressional districts. This Conference report rightly restores our Congressional discretion in establishing these priorities, as well as the balance between the Congress and the Executive branch in meeting the local challenges of our districts. Finally, Mr. Speaker, today is a monumental day because, at long last, this WRRDA restores the Federal commitment to our other remaining water infrastructure challenges--our failing sewage and drinking water infrastructure. First, this Conference Report includes legislation that has eluded this Congress for almost three decades--the reauthorization of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. For decades, this critical, and widely-popular program has been the leading source of Federal funding to States and communities to address their ongoing water quality challenges. Today, we recommit to this program, and provide additional tools to our States and to our communities to address local water quality challenges in a flexible, cost-effective, and environmentally sustainable manner. I am pleased that much of this language is modeled after legislation (H.R. 1877) that I have introduced over the last few Congresses, and thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for their willingness to include this language in the Conference Report. Finally, this Conference report adopts a modified version of the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (or WIFIA) that was approved by the other body. Many of the modifications made to this authority were to address a concern that I had raised about the potential impact of this new authority on the existing Clean Water SRF program. I am confident that these modifications send a clear message of Congressional support for both the existing SRF program, as well as for testing this new WIFIA pilot program, and commit that our Committee will need to revisit this issue in the near future. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at the progress we have made together on improving water infrastructure in the United States. Again, I thank the leadership of our Chairman and our Ranking Member for getting us to this point today. I urge my colleagues to support the Conference Report to H.R. 3080.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member for his very kind words, and I rise today in strong support of the conference report for H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. Today is a monumental occasion for our Nation's economy, for the creation of good-paying jobs, and for the health of our natural environment. Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall, we present this Chamber with a thoughtful, reasonable bill that renews this Congress' commitment to our Nation's water-related infrastructure. In that light, I would like to personally thank our chairman, our ranking member, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources, Mr. Gibbs, for the open and inclusive process with which our committee conducted negotiations with the other body on WRRDA and for their leadership in returning our committee to its long-standing traditions of bipartisanship and collaboration. Today is also a monumental day because, while this bill is about many things, most importantly, it is about job creation, not only those good construction jobs that will come with the authorization of 34 Chief's Reports contained in the bill, but also the jobs that rely on a robust network of large and small ports and inland waterways to move goods throughout the United States. I am especially pleased that this conference report provides a reasonable path forward to the challenges facing the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. This legislation provides that, within 10 years, 100 percent of the fund proceeds are used for their intended purposes-- harbor maintenance--while ensuring that any increase in harbor maintenance does not come at the expense of other critical corps programs. I am also thankful that this conference report recognizes the critical importance of our Nation's small ports to our regional and local economies in establishing future funding priorities. Finally, Mr. Speaker, today is a monumental day because, at long last, this WRRDA restores the Federal commitment to our other remaining water infrastructure challenges--our failing sewage and drinking water infrastructure. This conference report includes legislation that has eluded this Congress for almost three decades, the reauthorization of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. For decades, this critical and widely popular program has been the leading source of Federal funding to States and communities to address their ongoing water quality challenges. I am pleased that much of this language is modeled after legislation that I have introduced over the last few Congresses, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their willingness to include this language in the conference report. I am pleased at the process we have made together on improving water infrastructure in the United States. Again, I want to thank the leadership of our chairman and our ranking member for getting us to this point today, and I also want to thank the staff on both the majority and minority side who worked tirelessly and cooperatively to bring us to this point. I urge support of the conference report.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the members and leaders of the Coram Fire Department on the department's 85th anniversary. The Coram Fire Department exemplifies bravery, selflessness, and a strong sense of community. For 85 years, its members have been willing to leave their homes and their families at any hour of the day or night, running toward danger to save their neighbors. The department has grown with the community, expanding its services and its facilities to ensure the safety of Coram residents. It has opened its fire house to more than just fire-or department-related activities. Two civic groups meet regularly at the auxiliary fire house. And any time my office is in need of a meeting space, whether to honor our nation's veterans, to bring in banks to help homeowners with mortgage issues, or to celebrate our military academy nominees, the Coram Fire Department has welcomed us and provided the space with support for our events. The Coram Fire Department is also proactive in its advocacy for the fire and emergency services. Whenever there is something that can be done to make the jobs of volunteer emergency service personnel easier, or the need to call our attention to something they feel makes it harder, the membership works hard to find ways to resolve the issue. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of the residents of the First Congressional District, and in particular the residents of Coram, I offer my thanks and best wishes to the Coram Fire Department. Here's to 85 more years of dedicated service to the community.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Joseph A. Cognitore, Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Fischer-Hewins Post 6249 in Rocky Point, New York. Joe is a humble man of quiet leadership and vision who inspires many to recognize veterans and their invaluable service to our country. On April 9, Joe will be honored as Rocky Point Lions Club ``Man of the Year'', an accolade that recognizes his military service and his tireless home front efforts in assisting his fellow veterans, as well as his commitment to the needs of the Rocky Point community. Joe was a U.S. Army Platoon Sergeant who served with honor in Vietnam from 1969 to 1971. His service earned him a Bronze Star and the Combat Infantry Badge for his valor on the battlefield. After his discharge from the Army, Joe worked at the Coca Cola bottling plant in Suffolk County for 38 years, where he eventually became branch manager. Following a legacy of military service and VFW membership, Joe joined the Farmingdale Post where his father served as Chaplain and his uncle as Commander. However, it was upon joining the Rocky Point Post in 1991 that he truly found his calling. In 1994, Joe became Commander of the Post, the position he currently holds. His leadership has resulted in increased membership, extensive outreach, and assistance to those in need, especially Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. For more than a decade, the Rocky Point VFW Post has raised funds to send weekly care packages to troops overseas. Joe was also instrumental to the Diamond in the Pines 9/11 memorial project in Coram, raising more than $40,000. Together with the hard work of the Post and the Town of Brookhaven, the memorial was completed in six months and dedicated on September 4, 2011. Recently, Joe and other veteran leaders joined forces with Long Island Home Builders Care in their ``Building New Homes for Returning Veterans'' program, an affordable housing initiative that provides new homes to returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and their families. Together with municipalities, private companies, volunteers, and many others, this collaborative effort resulted in the building of a new six-home subdivision named Veterans' Way. Just before Christmas Day 2013, a proud community watched six veterans, their wives, and their young children receive the keys to their new homes. In order to support this worthy cause, the Rocky Point VFW Post sponsors an annual Wounded Warrior Golf Outing. The proceeds benefit Long Island Home Builders Care, the Wounded Warrior Project, and honors the death of U.S. Army Sgt. Jonathan Keller, a 1998 Shoreham-Wading River High School graduate who died in 2009 of injuries he received while serving in Afghanistan. Joe also coordinates the VFW Post's Youth Council events, which connect young people with veterans to teach the importance of service and good citizenship. He is also an active member of the Rocky Point Senior Center, where he co-founded a program for senior citizen veterans. On behalf of the First Congressional District, I rise today to recognize a man who has spent his life recognizing others; a respected leader whose commitment to service is unyielding. I am proud to call Joe Cognitore my constituent and prouder to call him my friend.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank my colleague from California for yielding. Madam Speaker, the Baseline Reform Act does nothing to address the economic challenges facing American families. It does not create a single job. It does not renew expired unemployment compensation for the millions of workers and their families who are struggling right now. It does not raise the minimum wage to a living wage. What it would do is essentially impose sequestration on steroids in our budgetary baseline, and we all pretty much agree that sequestration was a terrible idea that was holding the country back. The bill in front of us today simply establishes an unrealistic and misleading benchmark against which to measure changes in government spending. Requiring the CBO and the OMB to construct budget baselines without adjusting for inflation will serve only to weaken fiscal discipline and result in wildly inaccurate long-term spending projections. Madam Speaker, inflation is an accepted part of a growing economy. In fact, the United States has seen year-to-year increases in the prices of goods and services over every calendar year but one since 1956, the notable exception being 2009 when our economy was mired in the Great Recession. On average, inflation has hovered near 4 percent annually over that nearly six-decade window. It is simply inevitable that goods and services become more expensive over time and the purchasing power of the dollar will be weaker in 10 years than it is today. Although 2 to 3 percent annual inflation may not appear to be significant at first blush, rest assured that even such a modest inflationary rate will produce considerable price differences over the long term. Using the Federal Reserve's targeted 2 percent annual rate of inflation, an item that costs $100 today will cost $122 just 10 years from now. At 3 percent annual inflation, that same $100 good will cost almost $135 10 years from now. In total, the price of goods and services in the United States have increased by more than 1000 percent since World War II. Under longstanding budget rules, CBO and OMB assume that future discretionary appropriations at the account level will be at the same dollar levels but adjusted for inflation. Why do they do this? They do it because it represents a more accurate analysis of our Nation's actual spending habits. The aggregate total of defense and nondefense appropriations are then adjusted down to the spending cap levels set in law, but even those spending caps are higher than the freeze mandated by this bill. The CBO's current projections for the next 10 years assume that discretionary spending will be at the caps imposed by the Budget Control Act through 2021, rather than the inflation-adjusted levels. But changing the definition of the budget baseline will have an outsized impact on future budget projections.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Discretionary appropriations are responsible for many of the programs that Americans hold sacred, including education, veterans' benefits, defense, disease research and control, food safety, transportation projects, and the list goes on. By eliminating inflation adjustments and freezing discretionary spending over 10 years, the baseline would be a benchmark that builds in real-- and deep--cuts in Federal programs. The so-called ``reforms'' contained within this bill are nothing more than efforts at constraining future Federal spending through budget trickery. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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 is straightforward but one that I think is important to consider. Simply put, my amendment requires the Congressional Budget Office to review and report on the accuracy of dynamic scoring estimates 5 fiscal years after any dynamically scored bill is enacted. Under H.R. 1874, very few pieces of legislation are likely to meet the threshold for requiring this type of macroeconomic analysis. However, as we have heard during this debate, the use of these estimates is controversial. There is a body of opinion that says that this type of scoring is legitimate, and there is a body of opinion that asserts that this type of scoring undermines the budget process and produces highly uncertain projections. My amendment would provide a way to follow up on estimates performed under H.R. 1874 and help shed light on whether those estimates, in fact, offered accurate data. I will confess that I, for one, remain skeptical of dynamic scoring; but if we proceed in this vein and enact dynamic scoring, I think having the accountability put in place by having the CBO come back to Congress with information on whether the actual economic impact of certain legislation turns out to be, in fact, accurate would be very helpful in helping us assess whether or not this particular form of scoring is, in fact, legitimate and fact-based. So, Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chair, I thank the majority for accepting the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time, as well.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak with respect to the previous question. I would urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we could vote on H.R. 1010, a bill that would raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour over a 3-year period. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don't get it. I don't understand what the problem is. We are the people's House. More than 70 percent of the American people have indicated that they support an increase in the minimum wage. This isn't a partisan issue. Majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliateds all support an increase in the minimum wage by overwhelming numbers. There are studies that indicate that if we increase the minimum wage, we will pump $35 billion into the economy over a 3-year span of phasing it in. That is $35 billion worth of economic activity without spending a dime of Federal money. That economic activity, it is estimated, would create 85,000 jobs. Again, I will say, I don't get it. This Congress ought to be about creating jobs. Here is an opportunity to do that without spending a dime of Federal money, and yet we can't even get a vote. While we're here in this Chamber, the so-called Ryan budget, the Republican budget resolution, is being marked up. That budget resolution seeks to cut $135 billion out of the SNAP program over the next 10 years. In order for that cut to be effective, if it were to ever take on the force of law, millions of people would lose their SNAP eligibility. But get this, if we raise the minimum wage, it has been estimated that we would save $4.6 billion a year, in other words, roughly $50 billion over 10 years in SNAP costs because people would be making more money and, thus, have their eligibility for SNAP reduced. Isn't it preferable to help people earn more money and reduce their dependence on Federal programs?

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, wouldn't it be vastly preferable to reduce Federal expenditures for a safety net program by virtue of lifting the economic status of the people that received them? Isn't that what we should be doing, trying to lift people up and give them opportunity as opposed to taking away from them benefits that they very badly need and benefits that they need because the jobs they have are such low-wage jobs? All we are asking for is a vote. We simply want a vote. The previous speaker said that we were sent here to vote. That is right. We were sent here to vote. This is a very simple, straightforward provision. It used to get passed with bipartisan support. All we are asking for is a vote. If Members don't support the measure, vote against it. Let the American people know where they stand. But if Members do support it, they should have the opportunity to vote for it; and hopefully, giving us that opportunity, we will pass it so that we can help lift people up without spending a dime of Federal money.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to congratulate Stony Brook University and its faculty for an unprecedented achievement. Three of the six finalists for the prestigious Indianapolis Prize, the world's leading award for animal conservation, are members of Stony Brook's faculty. This is the first time that one university has had three finalists for the award given by the Indianapolis Zoo for ``extraordinary contributions to conservation efforts.'' All three professors, Russell A. Mittermeier, Carl Safina, and Patricia C. Wright, hold Ph.D.s and have made major contributions to science. Their selection as finalists for this coveted award reflects the excellence and dedication of Stony Brook's faculty and brings honor to all of Long Island. Dr. Mittermeier is president of Conservation International and has worked to preserve primates and turtles in South America, Madagascar and other places. He has used the concept of biodiversity ``hotspots'' to focus conservation efforts and raise $1 billion for endangered habitats. He has an adjunct research appointment in the Department of Anatomical Sciences. Dr. Safina co-founded Blue Ocean Institute to raise awareness of threats to the world's oceans and inspire solutions to these dangers. He is a research professor in Stony Brook's School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences. Episodes of his show ``Saving the Ocean with Carl Safina'' aired nationwide on PBS in 2012. Dr. Wright discovered a new species of lemur, the golden bamboo lemur, while working in Madagascar in 1986. She also rediscovered another species which had been considered extinct. Her efforts helped establish the Ranomafana National Park in Madagascar which she believes has saved three species of lemur from extinction. She is a professor of anthropology at Stony Brook. It is not surprising that these three eminent conservation pioneers have been tapped for international recognition. Their ongoing efforts have helped save our planet and its species from degradation. They are committed and passionate about their research. It is through the efforts of people like these who are able to inspire others to see the importance of conservation that our oceans, our endangered species and biodiversity of our plant will be preserved. Indeed, these three professors and their tremendous achievements are most worthy of our recognition and of the Indianapolis Prize. They are representative of the pursuit of excellence and world-class research capabilities that define Stony Brook's reputation as a global leader in innovation and scientific breakthroughs. With this achievement, the professors take their place with Stony Brook University as the pride of Long Island and an example for aspiring scientists to follow. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of New York's first congressional district, I would like to thank Professors Mittermeier, Safina, and Wright for the vital work they are doing. The fact that they are all members of Stony Brook faculty is yet another measure of the quality of this fine university.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition on the motion to move the previous question so that this body may consider H.R. 1010, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013. This crucial piece of legislation will positively impact the lives of nearly 30 million American workers and their families by gradually raising the Federal minimum wage from its current $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour by 2016. Beyond 2016, the bill ties the Federal minimum wage to annual inflation, ensuring that hardworking men and women will never again see their wages stagnate due to congressional obstruction or inaction. Let's first discuss who benefits from this legislation. I am sure that many watching at home and some in this very room may have a skewed perception of the contemporary minimum wage worker. I will try my best to clear up a few of these fallacies so that this debate can be framed by fact and not by stereotype. The average age of the minimum wage worker is 35 years old: 54 percent of them are full-time workers, and 55 percent of them are women. The average affected worker earns half of his or her family's total income, and more than one-fourth of the minimum wage workers have children. Of the Nation's, roughly, 75 million children, nearly one- fifth of them have at least one parent who would receive a raise if the minimum wage were increased to $10.10 an hour. An employee working 40 hours per week for the entire 52-week calendar--no time off--at the Federal minimum wage will earn just $15,080 in 2014. Now, who can live on $15,000 a year? I just heard the gentleman from Georgia speak passionately about his concern for the American worker. I would ask that gentleman and others who are concerned about the American worker: Are you concerned about all of the American workers, or are you just concerned with those who earn at higher brackets than $15,080 a year? A worker who works full time and is still below the Federal poverty level will qualify for Medicaid, for CHIP, for SNAP, and for other public assistance programs that will cost taxpayers approximately $7 billion this year alone. Let's raise the minimum wage, and let's lift people out of poverty without spending a dime of additional Federal money. Let's save on those programs that the Federal Government has put in place to help those maintain a standard of living who need a helping hand. A recent poll conducted by Quinnipiac University found that 71 percent of American workers support raising the minimum wage. That same poll found that Democrats, Republicans and Independents are all in agreement that raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I refer back to the words of Speaker Boehner in his first speech to this Chamber upon being sworn in as Speaker on January 5, 2011. He said: This is the people's House. This is their Congress--it is not about us; it is about them--and what they want is a government that is honest, accountable, and responsive to their needs. Seventy-one percent of the American people are asking us to do this. If the Speaker's words mean more than just words on a page, I would urge him to bring this bill to the floor so that we can respond to the 71 percent of the American people who think that raising the minimum wage is good economic policy and that it is good personnel policy.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Gary D. Bixhorn on his retirement after 35 years of educational leadership and service. As Chief Operating Officer of Eastern Suffolk BOCES, Gary oversaw New York State's largest BOCES, serving more than 50 school districts across an area of 1,000 square miles. Under his guidance, Eastern Suffolk BOCES became a leader in exploring cost-saving opportunities for school districts, and Gary became one of the region's top advocates for Long Island schools. Gary did an outstanding job during exceptionally challenging economic times for education, testifying frequently before commissions and forums where he shared his vast knowledge and understanding of school finance. He was a key spokesperson in the fight to urge New York State lawmakers to end the Gap Elimination Adjustment, a formula in the state budget that reduces the amount of aid to school districts, and he fought New York's first property tax cap, one of the most stringent in the nation. Newsday called him, ``the region's leading analyst of financial trends in education.'' Gary understood the unique qualities of Long Island's schools and was a master at forming coalitions to advocate for their most pressing needs and to find creative solutions to save money and provide services. As national economic conditions declined, he advocated for shared services as a means of reducing costs, arguing that BOCES was well positioned to provide these shared services. He embraced and promoted the idea of cost sharing as an alternative to school district consolidation, and he championed the concept known as ``functional consolidation,'' or the pooling of resources to provide such services as business management, food service, software purchases and transportation. Gary's vision for BOCES went well beyond its traditional role to provide regional educational services such as special education and career and technical education. He saw BOCES as a vehicle for helping school districts join together to meet their collective needs. He once said, ``BOCES doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists as the collective will of our component school districts and our stakeholders in the region.'' He demonstrated the kind of strategic, regional thinking that could provide effective solutions. Gary also served as president of the Suffolk County School Superintendents Association, SCSSA, and then as chair of its Legislative Committee. He was well versed in the particular needs and characteristics of the region's school districts and saw it as his responsibility to communicate those needs to legislators in Albany and Washington, particularly in pushing for fair distribution of state aid. I was proud to stand with him and others last June for the unveiling of Long Island's first P-TECH program, a cutting-edge educational partnership with Longwood School District to train Long Island students for high skill technology jobs. Gary also served as a member of my Education Advisory Board and was always looked to for his ability to synthesize information and analyse educational data. Mr. Speaker, it has been an honor to work with Gary Bixhorn. He embodies the spirit of the BOCES mission to enable school districts to operate more efficiently by working together. His ability to see the broad picture while analyzing the small details made him a valuable educational resource for our region and a widely-respected leader. On behalf of New York's first congressional district, I would like to thank him for his lasting impact on education and wish him well in retirement.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to former Congressman Otis Grey Pike, who represented New York's First Congressional District for eighteen years and passed away on January 20, 2014. Born on August 31, 1921, in Riverhead, New York, Otis was orphaned at a young age and was subsequently raised by two sisters and an aunt. Overcoming his early losses, he finished his primary and secondary education in the Riverhead public schools and enrolled at Princeton University. In 1942, Otis put his studies on hold to serve our country as a United States Marine. During World War Two he was a fighter pilot who flew 120 missions and won five air medals. After the war Otis returned to his studies, ultimately graduating from Columbia Law School in 1948. Upon completing law school, Otis returned to Riverhead, where he began practicing law and became a Justice of the Peace in his home town in 1954. Otis decided to run for Congress in 1958, having become fascinated with politics as a teenager. Although his first bid was unsuccessful, he was elected to the House in 1960. When voters send someone to Congress, they expect that person to be their advocate. And an advocate is exactly what the residents of New York's First Congressional District got when they sent Otis Pike to Washington. Otis first gained national attention for his advocacy in 1967, when he spoke out about the military spending too much for small parts that he believed could be purchased at greatly reduced rates. The awareness he raised helped lead to changes in the Pentagon's purchasing procedures. In 1969, Otis led a subcommittee investigation into North Korea's seizure of the Pueblo, a United States intelligence ship. In 1975, Otis became the Chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. While serving in this role, he took on the intelligence community in a way Congress had not previously attempted. He led the first Congressional investigation into the Central Intelligence Agency, which resulted in a report calling for greater Congressional oversight of intelligence operations. After being blocked from public disclosure by the full House of Representatives, the report was leaked by the media. During his tenure in Congress, which ended in 1979, Otis was also instrumental in the passage of legislation that helped shape the Long Island we know today. Among his most important legacies was securing enactment of the law creating the Fire Island National Seashore. Otis was well-liked, admired and respected in Congress, and he was also known for his love of bowties. While on the campaign trail, he had often carried a banjo and ukulele to create songs about opponents public policy issues. Upon his retirement from the House, he devoted greater time to writing and became a syndicated columnist for Newhouse Newspapers, a post he held for twenty years. On a personal note, I will never forget the kindness Otis extended to me when I first ran for his former seat and every subsequent occasion I had the pleasure of speaking with him. Otis was predeceased by his first wife, Doris Orth, and a son, Robert Pike. He is survived by his second wife, Barbe Bonjour Pike, his daughter, Lois Pike Eyre, his son, Douglas Pike, and two grandchildren. I would like to express condolences to the Pike family on behalf of the residents of New York's First Congressional District, both past and present, Mr. Speaker, Congressman Pike was a dedicated and highly effective public servant who made an indelible impression on Congress and on New York's first district. He enjoyed an impeccable reputation as one of Long Island's longest serving representatives in Congress and will always be remembered as one whose career should serve as a model for all who engage in public service.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013. This critical, bipartisan legislation allows Congress to renew its commitment to our Nation's water infrastructure for the first time since 2007. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Shuster and Chairman Gibbs for the open and inclusive process with which the committee drafted WRRDA. I would also like to express my gratitude to the chairman and to Ranking Member Rahall for their leadership in returning the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to its long-standing traditions of bipartisanship and collaboration. H.R. 3080 is not a perfect bill. It is not the bill that either side of the aisle would have drafted on its own. However, it represents a bipartisan effort based on valuable input from Members and stakeholders, constructive negotiation, and mutual respect. This ought to serve as a model for how this Congress conducts the American people's business. This bill is about many things, but most importantly, it is about job creation, not just good construction jobs that will come with the authorization of Chief's Reports contained in the bill, but also the jobs that rely on a robust network of large and small ports and inland waterways to move goods throughout the United States. H.R. 3080 also provides some relief from the challenges facing the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund by setting targets so that a greater amount of fund proceeds are used for their intended purposes--harbor maintenance. The bill also provides for the maintenance of our Nation's small ports. However, we Members must be vigilant that the changes proposed in this bill do not further erode the ability of the Corps to carry out construction projects, such as those necessary to meet the post-Panamax vessels that will come once the Panama Canal expansion is complete. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at the progress we have made together on improving water infrastructure in the United States. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3080.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank Mr. Rahall for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I, too, am in support of this amendment. I particularly want to thank the chairman for the inclusion of language in this amendment that addresses two issues of concern. One is the inclusion of consideration of nonstructural alternatives in preventing future storm damage. I think that is very important, particularly in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, for those of us that live in the Northeast; also, the language that allows the non-Federal cost-share partner to begin work on issues that are of importance to their locality. I think these are very important issues to Members on our side, and I thank the chairman for including them.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, throughout the development of H.R. 3080, the chairman has taken a measured approached to balancing the desire to encourage additional private sector involvement in the development and execution of Corps projects with maintaining the internal technical capability of the Corps to carry out its vital military and civil works missions. For decades, this committee has held the belief that maintaining the technical capability of the Corps is critical not only to address the water resources needs of the Nation, but also to maintain the ability of the Corps to serve its other role as critical support our Nation's military. To maintain this capability, we have strived to maintain critical technical expertise within the Corps, while at the same time recognizing those areas where outside commercial interests can provide a useful role. In my view, this amendment seeks to push the lever too far towards outsourcing the internal capabilities of the Corps. My understanding is that currently the Corps contracts extensively with the private sector for surveying and mapping services. However, the decision as to when it is appropriate to use their own staff, a public agency, or a private contractor for this work should remain within the Corps' leadership, who understand the needs of specific projects. For these reasons, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I include letters from the AFGE, the transportation trade, and the IFPTE in opposition to the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Washington, DC, October 23, 2013. Re Don't bail out bad contractors: oppose the Young-Petri amendment to give all surveying and mapping work to contractors, regardless of high costs or bad performance Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, which represents more than 650,000 federal employees, including in the Corps of Engineers (CoE), I urge you to oppose an amendment to be offered to the Water Resources Development Act (H.R. 3080) by Representatives Don Young (R-AK) and Tom Petri (R-WI) that would prevent the CoE from using lower-cost, higher- performing alternatives to contractors for the performance of surveying and mapping functions. The Department of Defense (DOD), which spends 60% of all service contract dollars, including a large amount on behalf of CoE, has determined that contractors usually cost more than in-house performance, often by significant amounts. In 2010, then DoD Secretary Robert Gates told The Washington Post ``that federal workers cost the government 25 percent less than contractors''. Comptroller Robert Hale acknowledged to a Senate Subcommittee in June that contractors are two to three times more expensive than civilians. In a September House hearing, the Army Chief of Staff echoed Hale's remark. The Young-Petri amendment would direct the CoE, in carrying out water resources projects, to use contractors for surveying and mapping functions whenever possible and forbid the CoE from starting or performing surveying and mapping functions if they happen to be performed by contractors. At a time when taxpayer dollars are precious, it makes no sense to force CoE to give work to contractors that can better be performed by federal employees. There has been no determination by the agency, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, let alone any independent third party, that the agency is failing to adequately use contractors for these functions or that its federal sector surveyors and mappers are costly or inadequate. The Young-Petri amendment is simply an attempt by a group of contractors to use political pressure to force the CoE to give them more taxpayer dollars--the worst kind of earmark. The impartial experts at CoE should be responsible for determining how the agency meets its mission, not a self- interested band of contractors. Of course, surveying and mapping contractors want more money, but that doesn't mean they should take it from taxpayers. Enactment of the Young- Petri amendment would be a terrible public policy precedent. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact John Threlkeld (threlj@afge.org) of my staff if you have any questions. Sincerely, Beth Moten, Legislative and Political Director.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster).

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I join Chairman Shuster in opposing this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me pick up on something that Chairman Shuster just said. He said that if we were to take the approach that is advocated by this amendment of the gentleman from Michigan, we would run the risk of deauthorizing projects that are very vital. Let me give you an example of one that would be in that category. The Fire Island to Montauk Point Reformulation Study, a study that comprises the 83 easternmost miles of coastline of Long Island, 70 miles of which is in my district, which was first authorized in the 1960s, it has crept along primarily because it has not had adequate funding either for studies and certainly not for construction. Hurricane Sandy proved just how valuable and just how important the work that has been contemplated by the Fire Island to Montauk Point Reformulation Study has been and would have been. If it were not for the Sandy supplemental funding, we still wouldn't be in a position to fund the vitally important construction projects associated with FIMP; but FIMP is the kind of project that would fall victim to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan were it to be approved. So I join the ranking member and the chairman in urging opposition to the amendment

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a concurrent resolution calling upon the government of Serbia to bring to justice those responsible for the murders of Ylli, Agron and Mehmet Bytyqi in July 1999. The resolution also calls on our government to do what it can to encourage and assist a successful prosecution of the case. I want to thank my fellow colleague from New York, Mr. Grimm, for co-sponsoring this resolution. The three Bytyqi brothers were American citizens. Their ethnic Albanian family emigrated to the United States from Kosovo, and some family members reside in my district on Long Island. During the Kosovo conflict which prompted the NATO air campaign against Serbia, the brothers traveled to the region to fight. Remaining in Kosovo after a cease fire agreement ended the conflict, the three young men escorted an ethnic Romani neighbor and his family from Kosovo to Serbian controlled territory, where they would be safer. Accidently straying across the border, they were detained by police in southern Serbia and then sentenced for illegally entering the country. When released from prison, they were not set free but taken to a Ministry of Interior special forces training camp where they were executed and buried in a mass grave with the bodies of dozens of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo. To be clear, the Bytyqi brothers were not sentenced for any crime other than illegal entry. They were not afforded an opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law. They were not given a fair and public trial. They were shot, in cold blood, by a paramilitary unit working under the Ministry of Interior. In 1999, Serbia was under the rule of Slobodan Milosevic, whose regime fomented ethnic hatred and was responsible for some of the worst atrocities in Europe since World War II. Today, Serbia is a very different place, moving forward in its democratic development, improving relations with its neighbors and advancing on its path toward European integration. In doing so, it has worked to prosecute many of the crimes committed in the Milosevic era. It is unfortunate, however, that those responsible for the murders of the Bytyqi brothers continue to elude justice. Our government should do everything it can to ensure the successful prosecution of those responsible for the murders of U.S. citizens abroad. It should provide resources as needed, and it should make it clear to the authorities in Belgrade that inaction does have repercussions on bilateral relations. This resolution encourages just that. The resolution will also hopefully convey to the Serbian authorities the concerns of the U.S. Congress, and it is my hope they will respond by removing any protection given to the perpetrators of this crime and prosecuting them in a court of law. Hopefully, Serbia's political leaders will not only recognize the seriousness which we attach to this case but also understand that it is in Serbia's interest to let justice work to sever the ties with the Milosevic past that have held the country back from a Europe where it otherwise belongs. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this resolution and its passage in this Congress.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

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