Timothy Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and honor Jonathan M. Schneider, my departing Deputy Chief of Staff who was recently appointed the Deputy County Executive for Intergovernmental Affairs for Suffolk County, New York. Since he became one of my original staffers in 2003, Jon has distinguished himself as a public servant through hard work and dedication to the people of Eastern Long Island. His policy expertise in transportation and environment issues, skill in crafting effective public communications, and perceptive political insights have been invaluable to me over the past nine years. As district director, Jon led a first-class constituent service program that has assisted thousands of veterans, senior citizens, and others in need of a helping hand. My constituents have also benefited from his skilled advocacy of infrastructure projects including the dredging of Lake Montauk and Shinnecock Inlets and environmental initiatives such as the federal Forge River Study and the Fire Island to Montauk Point Reformulation Study. Guiding these projects through from conception to completion required close collaboration with officials at all levels of government as well as civic groups and community advocacy organizations. Over the years, Jon has built a sterling reputation for professionalism and collegiality that has aided my efforts to deliver federal solutions for local problems. Given my first-hand knowledge of Jon's skill as an intergovernmental liaison, I am confident that the people of Suffolk County will benefit tremendously from his service as Deputy County Executive. I am also pleased that his new role will allow us to continue working together, as my Congressional district is contained entirely within Suffolk County. I am also pleased that Jon will continue to reside in Port Jefferson Station with his wife, Mary Ellen, precocious daughter Ellie, his son future New York Giants linebacker Benjamin, and Boris, the famous tortoise. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my staff and the people of the First Congressional District of New York, I sincerely thank Jonathan M. Schneider for his efforts to improve the quality of life on Eastern Long Island and his continuing commitment to public service. I wish him and his family continued success, good health and the best of luck for years to come.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to ensure that future expenditures for the maintenance of commercial harbors are equitably distributed, so that all communities-- large and small--may optimize the economic benefits of their inland and coastal ports. Over the past few administrations, far more funds have been collected by the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund than have been expended on an annual basis--and unfortunately, the adverse signs of underfunding are becoming apparent. Year after year of insufficient maintenance dredging resources for coastal and inland ports has resulted in reduced depths at countless port facilities, and has all but passed over the dredging needs of moderately sized or smaller ports, such as Lake Montauk, in the New York's First Congressional District. In recent years, there has been a concerted effort in Congress to fully utilize harbor maintenance funds in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for the purpose they were collected. I am a strong supporter of these efforts because I have seen, firsthand, the adverse impacts of shoaled harbors on local and regional economies. When local harbors become filled with sediment, the corresponding reduction of commercial shipping can have a significant adverse impact on the national, regional, and local economies, as well as on the jobs that are directly and indirectly related to ports and shipping. It is essential that Congress find a way to ensure that funds collected in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund be fully allocated--not only to ensure the viability of commercial shipping, but also to realize the jobs that can be created for port workers and dredgers, as well as through businesses that rely on local harbors for their livelihoods. However, even if annual collections to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund were fully utilized, there is reason to believe that, under the status quo decision process for where funds are expended, the needs of many of the moderate-to-small harbors would remain unmet. According to information from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), there is a significant backlog of maintenance dredging activities necessary to restore fully authorized project dimensions of existing commercial navigation projects. According to the Corps, the estimated annual maintenance cost to restore authorized projects to their full widths and depths is $2.3 billion during the first five years. Once this backlog is addressed, the Corps estimates that annual maintenance costs (for year 6 and beyond) would average around $1.8 billion per year. Based on the Corps' projection on maintenance dredging needs, it appears that the annual operation and maintenance needs identified by the Corps exceed the amounts that have been collected, annually, by the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. This means that, even if annual collections to the Trust Fund are fully allocated, there will be an unmet annual maintenance dredging need far into the future. It is that unmet annual maintenance dredging need that makes the Harbor Fairness Act of 2011 critical to mid-size and small commercial harbors, so that these harbors are not continually left behind. Over the past few years, I have heard numerous examples of commercial harbors that were passed over for critical maintenance dredging funds from the Corps, in essence, because insufficient funds were made available for maintenance dredging needs. However, in my view, it has been the mid-size and small commercial harbors that have been disproportionally impacted by the lack of annual maintenance dredging funds. For example, according to the Corps, the agency is currently responsible for maintenance dredging at 1,067 harbors, nationwide. Of this number, only 59 harbors (or 5 percent) are characterized as ``high-use'' harbors--on those that use at least 10 million tons of commerce annually. The remaining 1,008 harbors that fall under the Corps' maintenance dredging responsibility are characterized as ``moderate'' or ``low-use'' harbors. However, when you look at the President's budget request for the past two fiscal years, it is easy to see the disparity in funding allocations among these categories of harbors. For example, in the fiscal year 2012 budget request, ``high-use'' harbors received 66 percent of available funds, while ``low-use'' harbors received only 6 percent of the funds. This would mean that, under the status quo process for allocating maintenance dredging funding--which has been followed by both Democratic and Republican Presidential administrations--approximately 5 percent of eligible harbors received over 66 percent of the funds made available from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Mr. Speaker, as the Representative of a Congressional district with small commercial harbors, the status quo must change. To my community, the benefit of small and mid-size commercial harbors to the local economy is not proportional to their size. As a witness from New York's First Congressional District, Ms. Bonnie Brady, testified before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, the small commercial fishing ports on Long Island are responsible for 99 percent of New York's landed seafood catch--worth over $49 million dollars at the dock. That is why I am introducing the Harbor Fairness Act of 2011. This legislation attempts to balance the operation and maintenance needs of all commercial harbors, regardless of size, and to ensure that funding is equitably distributed between high-, moderate-, and low-use facilities. First, the Harbor Fairness Act of 2011 would require the Corps to assess, on a biennial basis, the overall dredging needs of those commercial harbors that it is responsible for, including harbors used for commercial navigation, fishing, subsistence, domestic energy production, recreation, the transport of persons, and navigation safety. This legislation would require the Corps to report its findings on operation and maintenance needs to the authorizing Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate, as part of the President's budget submission to Congress. This information would be critical for Congress to comprehensively understand the overall operation and maintenance needs of all commercial harbors, as well as that portion of the national dredging need that would be deferred to future years due to lack of available funding. In addition, the Harbor Fairness Act of 2011 would require the Administration to identify future allocations of operation and maintenance funds, on a harbor-by-harbor basis. This information will allow commercial harbors to more accurately plan future operation and maintenance expenditures, both short-term and long-term, and more efficiently make critical decisions on the most efficient way to maintain safe commercial shipping at local harbors. The central focus of the Harbor Fairness Act of 2011 is the requirement that expenditures for maintenance dredging is equitably allocated among all eligible commercial harbors. To accomplish this, the legislation requires the Secretary of the Army: (1) to utilize the information obtained from the assessment of dredging needs; (2) to consider the national and regional significance of harbor operation and maintenance; and (3) to make allocation decisions on factors beyond simply the amount of cargo tonnage transiting through a commercial harbor. While the Corps is completing its assessment of national maintenance dredging needs, this legislation establishes a short-term, minimum allocation for maintenance dredging at midsize and small commercial harbors. The 40 percent guaranteed allocation for mid-size and small commercial harbors for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 represents only a modest increase in the allocation for these harbors over the previous two fiscal years (33.7 percent in fiscal year 2012 and 33.4 percent for fiscal year 2011), in part to address the disproportionate backlog faced by mid-size and small commercial harbors. In addition, this mandatory allocation of 40 percent is temporary, and will be replaced in fiscal year 2014 by an allocation based on the actual maintenance dredging needs of all harbors, as identified by the Corps. Mr. Speaker, the Harbor Fairness Act of 2011 recognizes the fundamental importance of all commercial harbors to the national, regional, and local economies. It calls for fairness in the allocation of critical maintenance dredging funds among large-, moderate-, and small-commercial harbors. But, most of all, it recognizes the importance of the nation's ports to America and to American workers. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this very important legislation.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I will only say in my 15 seconds that rule 11 gives the person who files a frivolous motion or the entity that files a frivolous motion 20 days to withdraw that filing, which would defeat the purpose of what we're trying to accomplish here, which is to see to it that we ultimately do get elections. And I would repeat what the minority whip said, which is I think is lot of us would feel differently about this underlying bill if there were not just a minimum time for which there was an election to take place, but a maximum time in which the election had to take place. This is one means for us to try to get that. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment is very simple. If a party makes a frivolous or vexatious filing during a preelection representation hearing, the NLRB or an administrative law judge will have the authority to impose sanctions. Potential sanctions include reimbursement of attorney fees and costs. Further, if the Board determines that a party has presented a frivolous filing and further finds that such filing is for purposes of delaying an election, an election will be ordered to take place not less than 7 days after the determination. My amendment is rooted in well-established law--Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11, which sanctions frivolous filings in Federal court, is a longstanding and tested standard that has been in practice for nearly 70 years, but it is currently inapplicable to representation proceedings at the NLRB. Why should we continue to allow the filing of frivolous litigation at the NLRB but defer it in the courts? The short answer: We shouldn't. There is no good reason. This amendment simply harmonizes NLRB practice with the national standards used in our court system. While I urge the adoption of this amendment, the underlying bill before us today is nothing more than another attempt by the majority to distract the public from the most important issue facing our country-- job creation. Because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle apparently lack any plan to get unemployed Americans working again, they are relying on the false specter of powerful unions and burdensome regulations as the bogeymen in the American labor market. However, a recent national poll by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that only 0.2 percent of employers cite ``government regulations and interference'' as their reason for laying off employees. That's 0.2 percent. The main reason cited for layoffs is lack of demand. We need real solutions to create American jobs, not phony distractions that attempt to steer the conversation to problems that don't exist. While current law allows union elections to proceed while requests for full Board review are considered, H.R. 3094 mandates that elections be delayed until the full Board decides whether or not to grant a request for review by the full NLRB, no matter how frivolous the arguments. In doing so, this bill incentivizes parties opposed to unionization to file frivolous lawsuits to delay union elections. Not only is this unfair to hardworking Americans, but it adds tremendous cost to taxpayers. This built-in incentive for delaying tactics makes my amendment all the more important. In the past, many of my Republican colleagues have argued passionately about the evils of frivolous lawsuits; therefore, I am confounded to hear opposition to my amendment that seeks to discourage frivolous litigation. Why is it that litigation that thwarts the ambitions of working families, no matter how frivolous or misguided, is now suddenly okay? Don't construction workers matter? Unfortunately, such frivolous litigation is too often used by unscrupulous employers to oppose unionization. In my own district, 14 T-Mobile technicians attempted to organize a local chapter of the Communications Workers of America, only to discover that their employer had undertaken several subversive measures aimed at derailing the path to union organization. One such legal challenge included a dispute over the definition of whether or not the CWA is a legitimate labor organization. Let me say that again: a dispute over whether or not the CWA is a legitimate labor organization. The CWA, we should all know, represents over half a million American workers. Under H.R. 3094, T-Mobile's frivolous challenge would have to be completely adjudicated by the NLRB before the union election could occur, giving T-Mobile the ability to legally hammer employees with anti-union messaging for weeks, months, or even years. A constituent of mine wrote to me regarding the T-Mobile incident, and I quote: ``It is abundantly clear to us that the company is only engaged in this effort in order to buy enough time to continue with an intimidation campaign as an effort to prevent us from exercising our right to organize and bargain collectively. We want to exercise our legal right in a timely and efficient manner, to decide for ourselves through the established election process whether or not to join the CWA. This process of delay and intimidation being exercised by T-Mobile management is wrong and should not be allowed to happen in the future. After several months of this verbal and emotional assault, I will stand firm in my commitment to gaining a voice at work. What I am asking for is a fair chance to vote.'' A fair chance to vote. What can be more American than that? This is a fundamental matter of standing up for the American worker. This bill is an affront to one of our most principled values. The ability of workers to collectively bargain has been one of the basic pathways for workers to gain the protections and pay necessary to access the American Dream. We should not undermine this shared principle, and yet this is precisely what the underlying bill does. My amendment would provide at least some protections for employees who seek to organize their workplace. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the important role played by the artists of the Hudson River School in the development of the conservation movement and the creation of America's National Park System. In particular, I rise to honor the painter Thomas Moran, who came to prominence in the United States in the 1870's for the landscapes he painted while accompanying the geological and geographic survey of America's West headed by Ferdinand V. Hayden. During that era, the promotion of settlement and commerce in America's West was a centerpiece of federal domestic policy, with a special focus on exploiting the area's vast natural resources. However, watercolors by Moran sent back to Washington with Hayden's scientific data helped convince Congress that certain areas of exceptional beauty in the West should be preserved in their natural state. Shortly after Congress established the first National Park at Yellowstone, Moran's 7 by 11 foot canvas ``The Grand Canyon of The Yellowstone'' was unveiled to the public at the U.S. Capitol. If any pictorial representation could do justice to the West's natural treasures, it was the large-scale landscape style of Moran and his contemporaries. These massive paintings captured the popular imagination, compelling Congress to expand federal land holdings in the West and establish Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks in California and Mount Rainier National Park in Washington before the close of the 19th Century. Moran later accompanied John Wesley Powell's survey of the Utah and Arizona Territories, documenting the natural formations of what are now Zion and Arches National Parks. On this expedition, Moran encountered the natural wonder that would fascinate him for the rest of his life: the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River. In 1874, Congress purchased Moran's massive canvas: ``The Chasm of the Colorado,'' which he produced along with two dozen wood engravings for a widely read account of the Powell expedition published in Scribner's Monthly magazine. Moran wrote of the Grand Canyon, which joined the ranks of the National Parks in 1912: ``Of all places on Earth the great canyon of Arizona is the most inspiring in its pictorial possibilities.'' Mr. Speaker, later in life, Moran spent many years living and working in East Hampton, in New York's First Congressional District, where the unique quality of light has attracted some of our Nation's finest painters. However, we are truly fortunate that his prodigious talent found a fitting subject in the incomparable majesty of the American West. Along with his contemporary Albert Bierstadt and the other members of the Hudson River School, Moran introduced millions of Americans to our western lands and played a vital role in encouraging his generation to preserve America's Crown Jewels--our National Parks-- for the enjoyment of generations to come.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor a constituent, Bernard Epstein, for a lifetime dedicated to serving his community and his county. Bernie's service began when he attended Columbia University on a Navy Reserve Officers Training Corps scholarship; adding military training to his demanding workload as a Chemistry major. Each summer during his time at Columbia, Bernie participated in a summer cruise with the Navy as a midshipman, learning valuable military and leadership skills in preparation for active duty service. Upon his graduation with a Bachelor of Sciences degree in Chemistry, Bernie was commissioned as a lieutenant in the United States Navy. He saw action in the Korean War with the Navy's 7th Fleet, whose units served in every major operation of that conflict. After being honorably discharged from the Navy, Bernie continued his education at Columbia, eventually earning a Master's Degree in Engineering. Equipped with advanced skills and military experience, Bernie returned to service in the Defense Department as a civilian, developing ballistic missile programs with a special focus on inertial navigation. The early defense research and development programs Bernie participated in were the genesis of America's Space Program, and laid the foundation for manned space flight and countless scientific breakthroughs. In 1996, after a long career with the Department of Defense, Bernie and his wife Naomi retired to East Hampton, where they have become deeply involved with the Jewish Center of the Hamptons. For over a decade, Bernie has volunteered as the Baal Koreh, or Master of Reading, the officiant who reads the Torah from scroll in the synagogue on the Sabbath. Mr. Speaker, I honor Bernie Epstein for his invaluable and continuing contributions to our community. It is my great hope that he will serve as an inspiration for other through his good works and devotion to his country.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

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

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the ranking member for yielding. I also thank both the ranking member and the chairman for their work on this important bill. I have some concerns about the bill, but I'm going to focus my remarks on title VII, which deals with commercial vessel discharge reform and deals, more specifically, with ballast water discharge and the concern about nonindigenous invasive species. These nonindigenous species cost taxpayers and businesses hundreds of millions of dollars every year. In the Great Lakes alone, approximately $500 million is spent every year in dealing with invasive species that clog municipal water systems and that damage infrastructure, such as electric power plants, levees, and aqueducts. In California, over $7 million was spent to eradicate the Mediterranean green seaweed from two small embayments in southern California, and $12 million had to be spent in San Francisco Bay to control the Atlantic cordgrass. Most of these invasive species arrive in our waters via the ballast water of commercial vehicles. Unfortunately, in my view--and, I believe, in the view of a great many of my colleagues--the bill before us does not do enough to protect our communities and businesses from the avoidable costs of dealing with invasive species. This week the State of California sent Members of Congress a letter saying that title VII of the underlying bill ``will set a Federal ballast water discharge standard that does not provide a significant improvement over existing management strategies and would eliminate the ability of States to regulate vessel discharges in their own waters.'' I would like to enter into the Record the letter from the California State Lands Commission to which I am referring. In my home State of New York we've been working with Michigan and other States to develop standards that are achievable with the technology that is available today but that would still protect sensitive State waters more than would today's underlying bill. Unfortunately, this bill does not incorporate these science-based suggestions nor the jurisdictional concerns of the States. I also want to enter into the Record, Mr. Chairman, a letter from the Environmental Council of the States which urges that the States be able to maintain a role in making determinations with respect to their water quality. While I think that most parties--and I'm one of them--agree that a uniform national standard is necessary to protect our water resources, one of my largest concerns is that this bill completely erases any role for States to protect waters within their jurisdictions. So, as the gentleman from West Virginia said, I will be offering an amendment later today that will allow States to petition the Federal Government under a set of criteria that protects international and domestic commerce to identify and protect highly sensitive water resources within a State's existing jurisdiction. My amendment does not add or change any technological requirements in the bill. This is an issue of extreme importance for the industry, understandably so, and for that reason my amendment simply does not affect in any way the technological requirements. It also does not give States carte blanche to prevent ships from releasing ballast water, which is another important issue for the industry. There is ample precedent for the amendment that I am offering and for the policy that my amendment would embody. In 1996 the then-Republican-controlled Congress amended the Clean Water Act, requiring the Department of Defense to work with the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate ballast water from military vessels through the Uniform National Discharge Standards program. Through this program, the Republican Congress acknowledged a deep respect for the rights of States, including a residual authority for States to establish ``no discharge zones,'' which is similar to what my amendment would establish. Another precedent is that section 312 of the Clean Water Act, which is the closest analogy to ballast water discharges from commercial vessels, establishes uniform standards for discharges of marine sanitation devices. Section 312 specifically reserves a role for States to create ``no discharge zones'' for important State waters, provided that these zones will not adversely impact vessels from operating within the States. In the past, ballast water legislation has included a role for the States, and industry was on board with those provisions. There's an irony to what we're doing here today, and that is, during this Congress, much of the debate has centered on how States should be allowed to take the lead on managing different programs within their jurisdiction, be they educational programs or environmental protection programs or eliminating regulations and so on; and yet, in this instance, we are saying the exact opposite. We are saying that the Federal Government knows best how to protect local waters, and States are not given any say in protecting their waters. Just a few months ago, this Congress passed H.R. 2018, the Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011, which eliminates any Federal role in setting baseline water quality standards, giving full discretion for the setting of those standards to the States. Title VII of today's bill says that States should have no say in what happens in their waters whatsoever, the exact opposite of what this Congress passed with pretty broad support several months ago. We also have heard a great deal from our friends in the Tea Party about the 10th Amendment and how rights need to be reserved to the States under that amendment. Well, I would contend that the ability to protect waters of the State and to set standards for waters of the State would fall within at least the spirit of the 10th Amendment, and I would hope that my colleagues would agree with that. So I just want to say that I believe my amendment, as the gentleman from West Virginia referred to it, is a surgical attempt to fix what I believe is a significant problem for States. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and I worked very hard to try to come up with a sweet spot where we could agree. We were unable to get there. It was not for a lack of trying. I am very grateful to the gentleman from New Jersey for his willingness to work with me on this; but later we will be offering this amendment, and I hope my colleagues will support it. California State Lands Commission, Sacramento, CA, November 2, 2011. Rep. John Mica, Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washingtion, DC. Rep. Nick Rahall, Ranking Member, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC. Rep. David Dreier, Chairman, House Committee on Rules, Washington, DC. Rep. Louise Slaughter, Ranking Member, House Committee on Rules, Washington, DC. Dear Representatives: The staff of the California State Lands Commission (Commission) is writing to express our concern with bill H.R. 2840, the Commercial Vessel Discharges Reform Act of 2011. We have recently learned that this bill may be considered as an amendment to the U.S. Coast Guard Reauthorization bill. Staff has strong concerns that provisions of the H.R. 2840 would cripple California's ongoing efforts to prevent the release of nonindigenous species to state waters, and urge that members consider these concerns before addressing this bill. In addition to the ecological and human health impacts that nonindigenous species have had, they can also represent a significant and ongoing economic burden once established in a new region. For example, the European zebra mussel attaches to hard surfaces so thickly in the Great Lakes and Lake Mead (AZ), that they clog municipal water systems and electric generating plants, costing over a billion dollars a year to control. In 2008, the mussel arrived in California. Should it spread to areas such as Lake Tahoe or the California Aqueduct, the resultant economic impact could be significant. Between 2000 and 2006, over $7 million was spent to eradicate the Mediterranean green seaweed from two small embayments in southern California. At the end of 2010, over $12 million had been spent in San Francisco Bay to control the Atlantic cordgrass. If left uncontrolled, the buildup of cordgrass can have a substantial impact on shoreline land values. Since 1999, when California passed the Ballast Water for Control of Nonindigenous Species Act (Chapter 849, Statutes of 1999; Public Resources Code Sec. Sec. 71200, et seq.), it has been and remains a national and world leader in the development of effective science-based management strategies for preventing species introductions through vessel vectors. The Commission's Marine Invasive Species Program (MISP) pursues aggressive strategies to limit the introduction and spread of nonindigenous species (NIS) via vessels, including establishing strict performance standards for the discharge of ballast water in 2007. The Commission's staff works cooperatively with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the United States Coast Guard (USCG), and other states in order to advance a strong, enforceable, funded, national effort that pushes technology development and the science of invasive species management forward, while ensuring that the state's existing, world-leading program be allowed to continue. Additionally, Commission staff has long worked closely with scientific, government, nonprofit and shipping industry representatives through technical advisory groups during the development of its requirements. This is to ensure a well-rounded, diverse array of perspectives are taken into account during the evolution of initiatives to prevent species introductions to the state. We appreciate the House's attention to the challenge of NIS introductions in U.S. waters as a result of vessel discharges, but as drafted, H.R. 2840 will set a federal ballast water discharge standard that does not provide a significant improvement over existing management strategies and would eliminate the ability of states to regulate vessel discharges in their own waters. Staff specifically object to the provisions in the bill that: Would set the International Maritime Organization (IMO) ballast discharge standard as the U.S. federal standard. There is clear scientific evidence that the IMO ballast water discharge standard is not a significant improvement over ballast water exchange (the current management practice). Studies have shown that some vessels could meet the IMO standards by simply conducting ballast water exchange, and some could meet it without conducting exchange at all. Therefore, adoption of the IMO standard does little to advance the protection of U.S. waters from NIS introductions. Preempts states from adopting ballast water discharge standards, including standards that are more stringent than those established in H.R. 2840. A central tenant of the Clean Water Act is that States have the ability to set water quality standards above and beyond those set by the Federal government in order to ensure proper environmental protection of state waters. H.R. 2840, as currently drafted, removes ballast water discharges from Clean Water Act jurisdiction and will cripple state efforts to prevent species introductions from vessel discharges. San Francisco Bay is the most highly invaded estuary in North America, and perhaps the world, and invasive species cost the state millions of dollars each year to control. In addition, recent research shows that California serves as a first entry point ``hotspot'' of invasion on the west coast, and NIS subsequently spread north to Oregon up to Alaska. Thus, California must retain the ability to implement stringent, protective ballast water discharge standards in order to protect its own waters as well as the waters of the rest of the western North America. Preempts states from adopting any standards or management practices related to any discharge incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels. H.R. 2840 not only preempts states from developing ballast water discharge standards, but also preempts states' ability to address any of the 26 discharges included in the Vessel General Permit. The California State Lands Commission is a world leader in the development of strategies to combat species introductions due to vessel biofouling (i.e. the attachment or association of organisms to the underwater surfaces of vessels). There are currently no federal programs in place to manage this important vector of species introductions. Should H.R. 2840 pass as currently drafted, California would be hobbled in its efforts to prevent biofouling introductions within its waters. Due to the aforementioned Commission staff concerns, please oppose the legislation in its present form. Thank you for consideration of these comments. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (916) 574-1800. Sincerely, Curtis L. Fossum, Executive Officer.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, my amendment amends title VII of the Coast Guard reauthorization bill to recognize the importance of both Federal and State efforts to protect the waters of individual States by retaining a limited, surgical role for States to provide additional operational limitations to protect important State resource waters from the introduction of invasive species and other pollutants. In concept, I agree with Chairman LoBiondo that we should enact a stringent uniform national standard for ballast water treatment technologies for commercial vessels. It makes sense to set a high standard that is technologically achievable and reduces the likelihood of introducing invasive species into our native waters. My amendment does not add or change any technological requirements in the bill. Let me say that again. My amendment does not add or change any technological requirements in the bill. This is an issue of extreme importance to industry for understandable reasons. Nor does it give States carte blanche to prevent ships from releasing ballast water. It simply provides for the ability of States to petition the Federal Government, under a set of criteria that protects international and domestic commerce, to identify and protect highly sensitive water resources within a State's existing jurisdiction. My amendment is not without precedent. In 1996, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to require the Department of Defense to work with the EPA to regulate ballast water from military vessels through the Uniform National Discharge Standards program. In providing for these uniform national standards, the then-Republican-led Congress acknowledged a deep respect for the rights of States, including a residual authority for States to establish ``no discharge zones'' similar to those that would be allowed under my amendment if it were to pass. Section 312 of the Clean Water Act, which is probably the closest analogy to the issue of ballast water discharges from commercial vessels, establishes uniform standards for discharges of marine sanitation devices. Section 312 specifically reserves a role for States to create ``no discharge zones'' for important State waters, provided that those zones will not adversely impact vessels from operating within the States. The issue really boils down to this: If you believe that States have a role to play, however limited, in determining if some of their State waters deserve additional protections while maintaining a uniform national standard, then you should vote for the Bishop amendment. If, on the other hand, you believe that States should have absolutely no say whatsoever in protecting particularly sensitive waters within their jurisdictions, then you should oppose the Bishop amendment. Given what we've done thus far in this Congress, I would hope that Members would continue to assert that States have a role. Earlier this year, we passed H.R. 2018, the Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011. This bill would eliminate any Federal role in setting baseline water quality standards, giving full discretion to the States. The bill that is before us flips that precisely. It would provide no role for the States and give 100 percent of the role to the Federal Government. I would ask that the House continue to recognize the role of States in setting standards for water quality in waters that they control, so I would urge the adoption of my amendment. Before I close, I do, though, want to thank Chairman LoBiondo. We worked very hard over the last several weeks in trying to come to a resolution of this matter. We were unable to get there, but it was not for lack of trying. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their efforts to bring this matter to a bipartisan resolution. I'm sorry we couldn't get there, but as I say, it was not for lack of trying. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. May I inquire as to how much time I have left?

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Respectfully, I believe that my colleague and friend from New Jersey has mischaracterized pieces of the amendment. Let me be clear. I quote: The amendment would not allow States to require the installation of ballast water treatment technology that differs from that required by the standards specified under subsection (c)--in other words, what the underlying bill provides--and they could not impose standards until they had applied to the administrator and the Secretary, and they would have to determine that the waters of the State required greater environmental protection. So this would be a State request to the EPA. Finally, the administrator and the Secretary, by the language of this amendment, could not approve a State operational requirement if that requirement, A, would have an unreasonable impact on the use of traditional shipping lanes or, B, would prohibit the discharge of ballast waters in all waters of the State. This is a very narrowly crafted effort to provide at least some role for the States, subject to the approval of the Federal Government. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BISHOP of New York. I appreciate my friend from Ohio for yielding. I want to be clear. What the gentleman from Ohio is describing is the current state of affairs. The underlying bill would change the current state of affairs. And the amendment that I'm seeking to the underlying bill would render the New York State standards moot because it would accept the technological standards imposed in the underlying bill. So the New York standards, as ambitious as they are, would go away. What this would simply say is that New York and other States that are interested--such as California, such as Michigan--could establish certain operational requirements subject to the approval of the EPA that would allow for the protection of certain waters in the State.

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

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the objectives of Financial Aid Day (FAD). FAD reserves the third Wednesday in October to honor the role financial aid professionals across the United States play in helping students realize their dream of attaining a college education. Today, student aid is under attack, despite that the fact that millions of students rely on and benefit from federal student aid each year. In fact, the number of students applying for federal financial assistance increased to approximately 19.5 million in 2010-2011, up by nearly seven million students since 2006- 2007. From school years 1999-2000 to 2009-2010, the total amount of Title IV federal financial aid awarded to students jumped from $62.1 billion to an estimated $146.5 billion, an increase of 136 percent. FAD recognizes that assisting citizens of all ages to attain a higher education puts aid administrators among the forefront of this nation's efforts to compete in the global economy and contribute to the common good. Without such dedicated administrators, an untold number of students from diverse financial backgrounds would not be able to continue their pursuit of higher education due to a lack of necessary information and counseling. Mr. Speaker, a post-secondary education would be unachievable for many of our nation's students without federal student aid. As such, I welcome the opportunity to honor those who serve these students on a daily basis. I support the goals of Financial Aid Day and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize the important role played by financial aid professionals in helping students realize their college dreams.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, today we are introducing legislation to make long overdue investments in our nation's water infrastructure systems that will benefit both our communities and our economy. The American economy needs jobs, and this Congress has a responsibility to support programs that create jobs. This is precisely what spending on water infrastructure systems will do: plain and simple, it will create jobs. For every $1 billion we spend on wastewater infrastructure we can create as many as 33,000 jobs in communities across America while improving our public health and protecting our environment. It is a win-win proposition. The importance of investment in wastewater infrastructure is clear and the need is great. In EPA's 2008 Clean Water Needs Survey, states documented nearly $300 billion in wastewater treatment, pipe replacement and repair, and stormwater management projects that need to be fulfilled over the next 20 years. While Congress appropriated $2.1 billion for wastewater infrastructure projects in 2010, this year allocations to the Clean Water State Revolving Funds were reduced to $690 million. This is a far cry from the $15 billion a year we would need to spend to address the needs identified by the States to modernize and repair our aging systems. The ``Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2011'' is intended to close that gap. For decades, the SRFs have been the traditional mechanism for Federal wastewater infrastructure assistance. The bill renews the Federal commitment to addressing our Nation's substantial needs for wastewater infrastructure by investing $13.8 billion in the State Revolving Funds over the next five years. Recognizing that significant additional resources will be necessary, the bill also establishes two complimentary new initiatives for the long-term, sustainable financing of wastewater infrastructure. The first is a direct loan and loan guarantee program and the second, a Clean Water Infrastructure Trust Fund. These proposals, when implemented in concert, would leverage billions of additional dollars to meet local wastewater infrastructure needs, create jobs, and protect our public health and environmental quality. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that some may express concern with the overall cost of this legislation; however, when compared to the estimated $300 to $400 billion in documented wastewater infrastructure needs for our communities over the next 20 years, I would suggest that this authorization will help meet, but not entirely close, the water infrastructure gap. In addition, based on a preliminary estimate by the Congressional Budget Office, this legislation would have no negative impact on direct spending and revenues over the next ten years under pay-as-you-go rules. Meeting the critical water infrastructure investment needs of our local communities should not be a partisan issue. As my colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure often say, ``There is no such thing as Republican or Democratic infrastructure projects.'' These are investments that benefit our local constituents, the economies of our towns, cities, and States, and provide the added benefit of protecting public health and the overall condition of the environment. I am pleased that this legislation has garnered bipartisan support for introduction, and I plan to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see this Congress move on providing long-term, sustained investment in our nation's wastewater infrastructure. Again, this is a win-win proposal and as such, it has broad support from the Associated General Contractors of America, the National Assoc of Clean Water Agencies, Food and Water Watch, the Water Environment Federation, the National League of Cities, the Water Infrastructure Network, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Construction Alliance II, the American Public Works Association and many others. In short, Mr. Speaker, this bill is good for America, for American workers and for the environment, and thus I urge my colleagues to join me and my fellow cosponsors in supporting this very important legislation that will help our economy recover.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, the American people can breathe easier--well, perhaps that's the wrong choice of words--the American people should be thankful to the leadership of the House for pursuing the pro-pollution agenda they have clamored for these many months. After legislative successes that have included begrudgingly passing Continuing Resolutions to fund government operations, the House turned this week to the top national priority of relaxing pollution controls for cement kilns and hamstringing the EPA's ability to crack down on harmful emissions from industrial boilers. I wonder why it has taken so long to get these critical bills to the floor. In my district on Long Island, I'm often mobbed by constituents demanding more mercury in our air. And clearly economists agree it's the silver bullet we need to jumpstart the economic recovery. Perhaps the majority believes that clean air is choking our recovery and the economy is drowning in drinkable water. But, in all seriousness, we are pursuing this pollution agenda while failing to deal with the real issues stifling job growth, things like a shortage of credit for small businesses, unfair currency manipulation by China and stagnant consumer demand. So, Mr. Speaker, how about instead of passing a bill to make it easier for cement kilns to pollute, let's do something real, like put construction workers to work using cement to rebuild our nation's infrastructure.

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, the bill before us today would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstance. Any circumstance? What about jobs that are illegally outsourced to foreign countries like China, India, and the Philippines? Under the Republican bill, if a company sends an American job overseas illegally, the NLRB is stripped of its authority to do anything about it. Why would any Member of this House intentionally want to allow corporations to ship American jobs to China in violation of the law amid the largest American jobs crisis in a generation? Mr. Speaker, my amendment is very simple, and it does not kill the underlying bill. This final amendment simply maintains the National Labor Relations Board's ability to go after corporations that illegally outsource jobs overseas. This is just good old-fashioned common sense. Again I ask, why would we say to corporations, ``Go ahead. Violate the law. Ship good jobs to India and China. We'll just turn our heads the other way''? That doesn't make any sense, and it would certainly kill jobs here in America. Yet section 2 of the bill clearly states that the board shall have no power to order an employer to restore or reinstate any work product, production line, or equipment to rescind any relocation, transfer, subcontracting, or outsourcing. Let me say that again, ``or outsourcing.'' The bill makes no exception for violations of the law. Why would we want to undermine enforcement of the law rather than address violations of the law? Chairman Kline just said that we have some fundamental differences. He's right. We do. But if we can agree on nothing else, we should be able to agree that outsourcing American jobs to foreign countries like China and India is a scourge on our current efforts to create jobs here at home and that we should do everything in our power to stop outsourcing. Mr. Speaker, outsourcing is a real problem for our economy. The relentless pursuit of a less expensive workforce to the detriment of the American worker is deplorable. Corporations all over the country are moving the jobs of hardworking Americans overseas. Estimates indicate that American jobs are being sent overseas at a rate of 12,000 to 15,000 jobs per month. According to a study by Duke University, more than 50 percent of companies have offshoring strategies in place, up from 22 percent in 2005. Furthermore, 60 percent of companies currently offshoring say they have plans to aggressively expand outsourcing activities. Finally, the Commerce Department tells us that the American companies cut their workforces in the U.S. by 2.9 million workers over the last decade while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million. Mr. Speaker, this final amendment does not kill the bill. It simply allows the cops to go after the robbers. It allows the NLRB to enforce the law when someone violates the law. The amendment does nothing to prevent private businesses from making decisions about where their operations are best located as long as that activity is not in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. Again, this is just common sense. A vote for this final amendment is a vote to protect American jobs from outsourcing. I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting American jobs. I yield back the balance of my time.

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. Mr. Speaker, every American old enough to remember September 11th, 2001 will never forget where they were when the Twin Towers fell. Ten years have passed since the most devastating attack America has ever sustained, yet the events of that terrible day defy the very nature of time and history. As a nation, they will always be with us. They will be with us in the stories of the Twin Towers, where firefighters and office workers alike knowingly gave their own lives so others might live. Of the passengers on Flight 93 who faced certain death with steely courage and foiled the attack on the Capitol. Of the first responders who jeopardized their own physical and mental health to rescue those who could be rescued, and recover the final remains of those who could not. Of the brave men and women who volunteered to serve our nation in its hour of need, and the families that have sacrificed along with them. These stories must be the legacy of September 11th, told in stone and steel in memorials across this great Nation and in so many Long Island communities. I will be honored to attend remembrances in our area in the coming days where Americans of all ages, and all religious and ethnic heritages, join together to commemorate what drew us together in the aftermath of September 11th and what binds us still. Mr. Speaker, may the passage of time continue to heal the wounds of that painful day, but may we remember that our nation's darkest hour also stands among our finest. 9/11, We Will Never Forget.

Mr. BISHOP of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a staple of summer life on the East End of Long Island for nearly four decades--the Hampton Classic Horse Show. Taking place from August 28 to September 4, the Hampton Classic celebrates its 36th anniversary in 2011 as one of the nation's premier hunter/jumper horse shows and Long Island's prime summer social event. The Hampton Classic traces its roots to the earliest years of the twentieth century, when local equestrian enthusiasts gathered in the fields overlooking Lake Agawam in Southampton for the inaugural ``Horse Show.'' The Horse Show quickly gathered a large following among the East End's residents through its tenure as the Hamptons' preeminent celebration. Eventually interrupted by World War II, the energy behind the Horse Show waned during the forties and fifties, and the exhibition ceased operations. In the late 1960s, momentum gathered for a revival of the Horse Show to fulfill the growing interest in one of the Hamptons' favorite pastimes. In the early years of the revitalized Southampton Horse Show, the social activities surrounding the event became as popular as the horse jumping itself. However, in 1976, Marie-Christophe de Menil proposed to expand the Southampton Horse Show from a local event to five-day ``A'' rated event that would draw top riders and horses from around the country. In 1977, the Hampton Classic formally incorporated the Southampton Horse Show. This merger resulted in the Hampton Classic as it has been commonly known ever since. The Hampton Classic is a boon to local charities and philanthropic organizations across Long Island, including the Southampton Hospital, ASPCA, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Sag Harbor Food Pantry, and Bridgehampton Fire Department to name just a few. Notably, the Hampton Classic also hosts the finals of the Long Island Horse Show Series for Riders with Disabilities. This year, the Hampton Classic will feature approximately 1,600 horses from around the world and will award roughly $700,000 in prizes. Expecting close to 50,000 over the course of the Classic, the show will result in millions of dollars stimulating our local economy. While it takes scores of dedicated staff members and sponsors to organize an event of this magnitude, I would be remiss if I did not specifically point out the contributions of Betty Knight Scripps. I would like to thank Ms. Scripps for her continued support of not only the Hampton Classic, but also for the other numerous philanthropic endeavors in which she participates. As co-founder of the Edward W. and Betty Knight Scripps Foundation with her late husband, Edward, Ms. Scripps is exalted on Long Island for her support of groups such as the American Red Cross, the Mayo Clinic, and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation for nearly 30 years. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the Hampton Classic for its contributions to eastern Long Island. I am proud to represent and recognize this celebrated institution in my district, and I wish good luck to all organizers, riders, spectators, and sponsors as they enjoy this wonderful event.