Bob Gibbs

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. I think it is very important that we do have a safety net. But the safety net can't be at a level where prices are set at or close or even above the cost of production. That distorts markets. But we need a safety net to protect our American farmers and our rural communities and continue to ensure that we have the safest and most affordable food supply in the world.

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that commitment, I will respectfully withdraw my amendment from consideration, and I look forward to working with you and the rest of the committee, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate Zackery Wallick of Dundee, Ohio, who is the recipient of the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with the V, the fifth-highest award for his service. Zackery received this medal for putting himself in great danger in order to protect a fellow wounded marine in Afghanistan in August of 2010. He was serving as a first team leader of a regimental combat team when a grenade was thrown at him and a fellow marine by Taliban forces. Without hesitation, Zackery threw himself on the marine closest to the explosion, shielding him from the blast. Thankfully, neither of the marines were injured. Zackery's display of heroism deserves the utmost respect, and I'm proud to honor him today. Zackery has been honorably discharged from the Marine Corps and is now considering attending college. He hopes to pursue a career in law enforcement as a parole officer.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, it is becoming clearer by the day that ObamaCare is detrimental to all Americans. The Unaffordable Lack of Care Act will cost almost $2 trillion, raise taxes by $1.1 trillion, and cut Medicare by $716 billion. Despite the President's statement that premiums would decrease by $2,500 under ObamaCare, the average family premium has grown over $3,000 and climbing. Over 30 studies have concluded that the law will make health care premiums more unaffordable for Americans. Furthermore, young adults could see their premiums increase on an average between 145 and 189 percent next year. Even Democrats are beginning to jump off the ObamaCare bandwagon. The architect of the bill recently referred to the law as a ``train wreck,'' and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius stated she did not anticipate how complicated it would be to implement the bill. In light of the recent news that the IRS was deliberately targeting Americans, can we really trust them to be in charge of our health care? The bottom line is the President's health care law is a bad one. Our job creators are citing the unknowns surrounding it as reasons for planned layoffs and why they cannot expand their businesses. If the Senate really wants to pass a jobs bill, then they should listen to the American people and support repeal and replace.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as I am outraged by the actions that this White House is putting on the American public, unnecessary hardship in their furloughing of air traffic controllers. This is not necessary. Out of a $10 billion operating budget, they have almost $3 billion of nonpersonnel operation costs that they can make cuts there first. It would include $500 million for consultants, $325 million for supplies and travel, and $143 million to address their 46 fleet of aircraft. Aircraft travel in this time period is down 27 percent. This is unnecessary. Today we hear reports of air traffic controllers reporting that they've been instructed by management to make it as tough as possible on the traveling public. This is nothing but political rhetoric to gain and put pressure on the Congress to pass more tax increases. I think it's a despicable attitude for this White House, and we should address it with the American public. It's despicable and it's outrageous.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the Ashland University women's basketball team for winning the NCAA Division II Championship. The Ashland Eagles earned Ashland University's first basketball national championship with a 71-56 victory over New York's Dowling College on Friday, March 29, 2013. I would like to congratulate the Eagles MVP, AU senior Kari Daugherty, for contributing 26 points to the win. Ms. Daugherty was also honored with the Player of the Year title for the division. I would also like to congratulate Coach Sue Ramsey for leading her team to victory. This sportsmanship, determination, and hard work displayed by the Ashland Eagles throughout the season has been unparalleled. This momentous accomplishment deserves the most sincere congratulations, and we're very proud of Ashland University and the Ashland Eagles. Go Eagles.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, currently we are experiencing one of the worst economic recoveries in the history of our Nation. It's a stagnant economy, and this should not be the new normal. Our budget is a blueprint for economic growth and job creation. I can't stress the differences between our budget and the Senate Democrat budget. Their budget raises taxes by over $1 trillion and never balances. This is totally irresponsible. We cannot continue to borrow nearly $4 billion every day. Current policies and the Senate Democrats' plan is suffocating our economy and job growth. Our budget brings us to a balanced budget using tax dollars in a fiscally responsible manner, commonsense regulatory tax reforms, and an energy policy that results in economic growth and job creation.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Article IV, section 3: ``New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. ``The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State.'' Article IV, section 4: ``The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.''

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. Larry Lang of Big Prairie, OH who has spent over twenty years of his life serving the Holmes County community through the Red Cross, local school boards, Farm Bureau and other programs with outstanding dedication, honor and merit. Mr. Lang is a model citizen and his efforts are truly inspiring. He has been an excellent example and partner in working with the Amish community and his amazing efforts in recruiting platelet donors have saved countless lives. Mr. Lang's strong relationship with the Amish community in Holmes County has resulted in an Amish representative being present on the Holmes County Chapter board and has led to thousands of hours of volunteer service from the Amish community. Mr. Lang has served as assistant director of the Holmes County Chapter of the American Red Cross and is the recipient of this year's prestigious Biomedical Partnership Award from the American Red Cross for his tremendous efforts resulting in 490 donors, 3600 platelet units and approximately 6100 single donor platelet units. Mr. Lang personally made over 300 trips to support, donate and bring donors to the Cleveland apheresis center. Mr. Speaker, I am proud and honored to represent a man who has worked tirelessly on behalf of others and who has made such a positive and lasting impact on my community. I ask all of our colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Larry Lang for receiving the Biomedical Partnership Award from the American Red Cross.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I object to the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment because it strikes an important provision in the bill that streamlines the section 404 permit process, not just for coal operations, but also for billions of dollars of economic activity in this Nation. One of the loudest complaints we hear in Congress is how long it takes the Federal Government to reach determination on permit requests. The Army Corps of Engineers is the lead Agency responsible for concluding the section 404 permit determinations. But the Clean Water Act requires the Corps to seek consultation with other Agencies like the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Sadly, all too often, this consultation is where the needless delays occur, not because of the Corps' inaction, but because of the failure of the other agencies to provide timely information. This section, title V, simply sets a more reasonable timeframe for Federal agencies to get information to the Corps so a permit decision can be made in a timely manner. To many of us, it is strange to see this amendment from those who purport to extol the virtues of Big Government since this amendment makes it clear they don't believe Big Government is competent enough to reach a decision in a reasonable amount of time. This section of title V, the language which has already passed the House in a resounding bipartisan majority, will streamline the time for the consuming permit application process and ensure that $220 billion in annual economic activity associated with section 404 activities does not grind to a halt. Time is money, and this is about jobs. The slower the time it takes to get these permits done, it holds up economic job activity and the creation of jobs all across America in all sectors. I urge all Members to oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. I rise in strong support of the amendment. I chair the committee. We had the hearings on this issue. And let's get straight what this issue is. His amendment stops a revocation of a permit after it's been issued. And what the gentleman just referred to is a permit. During the application process the law allows the EPA to veto a permit. But after it's been approved, this amendment takes care of not being able to revoke it years later, in the instance that it was done. Keep in mind, the revocation that occurred was not because they were in violation of the permit. It was nothing but political theater. There was no violation of the permit. The State of West Virginia EPA stated that and the Army Corps said there was no violation of permit. This is revocation that sets a bad dangerous, precedent to economic growth in our country.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3409, the Coal Miner Employment and Domestic Infrastructure Protection Act. Almost four decades ago, when Congress enacted the Clean Water Act, Congress established a system of cooperative federalism by making the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, and the States partners in regulating the Nation's water quality and allocated the primary responsibilities for dealing with the day-to-day water pollution control matters to the States. For most of these almost-four decades, this system of cooperative federalism between the EPA and the States has worked quite well. However, in recent years, the EPA has begun to use questionable tactics to usurp the States' role under the Clean Water Act in setting water quality standards and to invalidate legally issued permits by the States. The EPA has decided to get involved in the implementation of State standards, second-guessing States with respect to how standards are to be implemented and even second-guessing EPA's own prior determinations that a State standard meets the minimum requirements of the Clean Water Act. The EPA also has inserted itself into the States' and the Army Corps of Engineers' permit issuance decision and is second-guessing States' and other agencies' permitting decisions. EPA's actions increasingly are amounting to bullying the States and are unprecedented. Title V of H.R. 3409 is the text of H.R. 2018, a bill that has already been approved by the House of Representatives overwhelmingly in a bipartisan vote. Title V of H.R. 3409 will clarify and restore the long-standing balance that has existed between the States and the EPA as co-regulators under the Clean Water Act and preserve the authority of the States to make determinations relating to their water quality standards and permitting. The language in title V was carefully and narrowly crafted to preserve the authority of States to make decisions about their own water quality standards and permits without undue interference or second-guessing from the EPA bureaucrats in Washington with little or no knowledge of local water quality conditions. Title V reins in EPA from unilaterally issuing a revised or new water quality standard for a pollutant whenever a State has adopted, and EPA already approved, a water quality standard for that pollutant. Title V restricts the EPA from withdrawing its previous approval of a State's NPDES water quality permitting program, or from limiting Federal financial assistance for a State water quality permitting program on the basis that the EPA disagrees with that State. Further, title V restricts the EPA from objecting to NPDES permits issued by a State. Moreover, title V clarifies that the EPA can veto an Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act section 404 permitting decision when the State concurs with the veto. These limitations apply only in situations where the EPA is attempting to contradict and unilaterally force its own one-size-fits- all Federal policies on a State's water quality program. By limiting such overreaching by the EPA, title V in no way affects EPA's proper role in reviewing States' permits and standards and coordinating pollution control efforts between the States. The EPA just has to return to a more collaborative role it has long played as the overseer of the State's implementation of the Clean Water Act. Detractors of this legislation claim that the bill only intends to disrupt the complementary roles of EPA and the States under the Clean Water Act, and eliminate EPA's ability to protect water quality and public health in downstream States from actions in upstream States. In reality, these detractors want to centralize power in the Federal Government so it can dominate water quality regulation in the States. Implicit in their message is that they do not trust the States in protecting the quality of their waters and the health of their citizens. Title V of H.R. 3409 returns the balance, certainty, and cooperation between States and the Federal Government in regard to the environment that our economy, job creators, and permit holders have been begging for. I urge passage of H.R. 3409 and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I will conclude and yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank my colleague from West Virginia, who is understanding of what's happening in the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the revocation of the permits. As a freshman here in Congress, I've been here not quite 2 years, and I have witnessed one of the most egregious things I have ever seen--I call it un-American. I think maybe I will just talk for a couple of minutes here and give the example of what happened with that, which just blew me away when I learned what happened. We had an operation in the State Mr. Rahall represents that went through 10 years of an environmental impact study--did everything they did, went beyond what they needed to do. In 2007, they were granted their permits and they started the operation up, the mining operation. In 2010, when this administration came into power, they revoked their permits. And I was arguing then that they didn't have the authority under the Clean Water Act to revoke the permit 3 years later, especially when there was no due reason, no cause. We held hearings on this in my committee. What we discovered is that the State of West Virginia EPA did not support those actions, and the Army Corps of Engineers stated that there were no problems at the operation, there were no permit violations. So this is the first time in American history, I believe, that a permit to be in business was revoked when there were no permit violations. Now, this sets a very dangerous precedent because lots of entities, not just in the coal industry, but lots of entities have to have a permit from the government to be in business. And if the government can come in and take your permit for no true cause, real cause, not in violation of the permit, who's going to invest? How are we going to grow this economy? This is all about jobs and growing the economy. And so this is why it's so important that title V of this bill needs to be passed. I want to applaud Mr. Rahall and his support of that because he understands what the workers in his State are going through, and as we saw this week, all the thousands of layoffs of coal miners because there is a war on coal, and it's a war on our economy and it lessens our opportunity and, in essence, our freedoms. So I urge Members to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GIBBS. I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment. My friends on the other side of the aisle are absolutely right in that, currently, there is an assault going on with regard to the Clean Water Act; but it is not by us, rather by this administration. We are not trying to roll back the Clean Water Act but, instead, allow it to work as it was written. This administration is currently trying to circumvent congressional intent and expand the scope of the law beyond its drafted words. This guidance would substantially change the Agency's policy on waters subject to the jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, undermine the regulatory community's rights and obligations under the Clean Water Act, and erode the Federal-State partnership that has long existed between the States and the Federal Government in implementing the Clean Water Act. By developing this guidance, the Agencies have ignored calls from State agencies and environmental groups, among others, to proceed through the normal rulemaking procedures; and they have avoided consulting with the States, which are supposed to be the agencies partnering in and implementing the Clean Water Act. The agencies cannot circumvent the Administrative Procedure Act through this guidance or change the scope and meaning of the Clean Water Act or the statute's implementing regulations. If the administration and the Members on the other side of the aisle seek statutory changes in the Clean Water Act, then a proposal must be submitted here in Congress for legislative action, and we should have a healthy debate. Until that time, we must stop this current process. Also, I would like to add to the gentleman's earlier comments in that I think the intent of the Clean Water Act passed constitutional muster because of the word ``navigable'' in the Interstate Commerce Clause. This guidance put out essentially circumvents the word ``navigable,'' so I have to raise a question of the constitutionality of this type of amendment. I urge strong opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, today marks the 150th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln signing into law an act of Congress establishing the United States Department of Agriculture. Since May 15, 1862, the USDA's work on agriculture, economic development, science, natural resource conservation and many other important issues has impacted the lives of generations of Americans. As the first Member of Congress who has also served as President of a state farm bureau and a farmer of 30 years, I know firsthand the valuable programs the USDA provides to rural America. Whether you need help with growing, grazing, or international trade, the USDA works to ensure that Ohio's number one industry remains a viable part of American society. The USDA has taken historic steps to improve the lives of rural Americans and build thriving economies in rural communities, a fact that does not go unnoticed in our state with over 26,207,000 acres of farmland. I am proud to submit to the Congressional Record this column by American Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman, which highlights the story of the USDA and the important role science and technology played in the American farming industry. [From the AgAgenda, May 2012.] USDA: Celebrating 150 Years of Innovation (By Bob Stallman) President Abraham Lincoln is known for many achievements during his lifetime, but a little known triumph of his--that affects farmers and ranchers greatly--was the establishment of the United States Department of Agriculture 150 years ago. On May 15, 1862, President Lincoln signed into law a bill establishing a new Department of Agriculture, which was specifically directed to acquire information through ``practical and scientific experiments'' and to collect and propagate ``new and valuable seeds and plants'' and distribute these to the nation's agriculturists. It is clear, Lincoln was a man beyond his time. A Man with a Vision Lincoln understood the importance of agriculture to America, and, as importantly, he realized science and technology played a major role in the farming industry. Without a doubt, I believe Lincoln today would embrace the many technological advancements farmers use on their farms, including biotechnology. Lincoln once wrote: ``Every blade of grass is a study, and to produce two, where there was but one, is both a profit and a pleasure. And not grass alone, but soils, seeds and seasons--hedges, ditches and fences, draining, droughts and irrigation--plowing, hoeing and harrowing--reaping, mowing and threshing--saving crops, pests of crops, diseases of crops and what will prevent or cure them . . . the thousand things of which these are specimens--each a world of study within itself.'' The federal government was, from the beginning of its involvement in agriculture, dedicated to scientific progress in farming. This commitment continues today and is shared by farmers and ranchers across the country, regardless of the methods of food and fiber production they use--organic, conventional or biotechnology. They all need science. Full Speed Ahead The importance of science and innovation--biotechnology in particular--to agriculture will be significant as we face several challenges in the years ahead. The world's population just passed the 7 billion mark. According to the World Food Program, the best estimate is that 1 billion people (one in seven) are hungry and food insecure. By 2050 the world's population will rise to 9 billion people. This means we must double world food production by 2050 in order to meet this challenge. Further, we must accomplish this hefty goal while realizing that our Earth is fragile. To take care of our environment, we must embrace agriculture research, science, innovation and biotechnology. When it comes to medical care, communication and transportation we accept the importance of innovation. We need to do the same when it comes to the production of food. Earlier this year, the United Nations issued a special report recognizing that ``new `green' biotechnologies can . . . improve resistance to pests, restore soil fertility and contribute to the diversification of the rural economy.'' Sound familiar? Seems a lot like what Lincoln described as a goal 150 years ago. Scientists have developed new seeds that can improve yields while resisting disease and requiring less water. That is critical as 70 percent of all fresh water is used by agriculture. American consumers and consumers all over the world can feel safe with this technology and confident it will improve our environment. While meeting these quantitative challenges and meeting our environmental goals, we will strive to focus even greater attention on the qualitative side, to also meet the needs of consumers who express a preference for foods grown ``their way.'' Science is the answer for all these missions, and today's USDA is helping to blaze that trail. So, Happy Birthday USDA and best wishes as we continue down the road for another 150 years. America's farmers, ranchers and research scientists can lead the way to a new 21st century Green Revolution if we follow the vision of Abraham Lincoln. As Honest Abe said, ``Leave nothing for tomorrow which can be done today.''

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time to discuss this important amendment. Congress has been neglecting our Nation's dredging needs for far too long. Ninety-five percent of the Nation's commerce goes through our Nation's ports. Despite the fact that the harbor maintenance fund, as was said, raises about $1.3 billion a year, Congress has only been appropriating about $800 million of that annually. This isn't right. I'm a firm believer that trust funds should be used for the intended purpose--to dredge the harbors. In response, Congressman Boustany introduced H.R. 104, the Realize America's Maritime Promise, RAMP Act. This legislation, of which I was proud to be the 100th cosponsor, simply ties the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund revenue to expenditures. While this amendment is slightly modified from H.R. 104, it would require the total budget resources for expenditures for the trust fund for harbor maintenance programs to equal the level of receipts plus interest credited to the trust fund for that fiscal year. At a time where the President proposes to double our exports and we look to grow our Nation's economy, we cannot sit back and continue to watch our Nation's waterborne infrastructure system deteriorate. I urge support of this amendment.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, the President has said it would be inexcusable not to extend the payroll tax cut for a year. However, the Senate's plan merely extends the plan for just 60 days, instead of a full year extension, creating uncertainty for our job creators at a time when millions of Americans are out of work. It also creates more uncertainty about implementing the plans, as we just learned today from the National Payroll Reporting Consortium. American families deserve better than tax policy in 2-month increments. Last week, the House passed bipartisan legislation that extends the payroll tax cut for a full year, which would save American households an average of $1,000 a year. It also extends unemployment benefits and ensures senior citizens have access to their doctor by preventing a cut in Medicare reimbursement rates. The worst part of the Senate plan is it puts new permanent fees on home mortgages to pay for 60 days of spending. This is an irresponsible and outrageous plan. Our bill is offset by reasonable spending cuts, not new taxes on hardworking middle class home borrowers. A full-year plan with no new taxes is better than a 2-month spending spree which is nothing more than a political sideshow. I guess the Senators were anxious to leave town and not finish their work. So I think we ought to call the Senate plan ``I'll be home for Christmas.''

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, in about 3 weeks I will mark the anniversary of my first year in Congress. I ran for Congress because I thought I could make a difference. I was concerned about the direction this country was headed and, like many of my colleagues, we thought we could make a difference, and we are making a difference. But we are frustrated because still, almost a year later, the economy is still in stagnation and many American families are suffering. The way we fix the economy, in my opinion, is we've got to restore confidence; and the way we do that is we energize the American people. We reinsert American innovation, entrepreneurship, and the American spirit. There's four key areas I think to restore that confidence. One is we've got to cut this deficit spending. We've got to get our spending under control. We passed a budget here in the House that cut almost $6 trillion over 10 years. Unfortunately, the United States Senate hasn't passed a budget in over 900-plus days. That's not the way to get our fiscal house in order. Additionally, when we passed our budget, we also put Medicare on a firm reform plan so it's here for the future. Number two, we need to have commonsense regulatory reform. Right now, in our $15 trillion economy, it's been reported that regulations are costing our economy $1.75 trillion annually. The Obama administration, by their own admission, has over 200 new regulations in the pipeline that will cost over $100 billion annually, and that's by their own admission, so I hate to think how much more it could be. This week, hopefully, we're going to pass a regulatory reform bill called the REINS Act, whereby any new proposal that's going to cost our economy over $100 million by a Federal agency would have to come back for an up-down vote by the United States Congress. I think that puts accountability on our Federal agencies. Number three, we need to pass some tax reform. Unfortunately, in 12\1/2\ months we're going to see the largest--under current law--the largest tax increase in American history. That is not the proper way to go. That puts a cloud over the certainty and providing confidence for our businesses to want to grow their businesses knowing that they're looking at the largest tax increase in American history. Fourth, we need an energy policy that encourages the development of resources here in our country. We're exporting almost $1 trillion a year and many, many jobs overseas for energy. We don't need to be doing that. We've passed, on a bipartisan basis, our jobs plan. We currently have 25 bills that we've passed on a bipartisan basis that would restore confidence and get this economy moving in the regulatory reform areas and the budget. I want to highlight the one at the top of the list, H.R. 872. That's a bill that I brought to this floor in March that passed by a bipartisan supermajority, nearly 300 votes. The thing that I don't understand that's very frustrating to me, that bill, as with the other 24 bills, have gone over to the United States Senate and they're stacking up like cord wood. They haven't been acted on. I think the American people deserve to have a full, open debate on the floor of the United States Senate on these bills and vote on them. They deserve that. And that's our jobs plan. And it's a jobs plan that moves us forward. I cannot implore enough that we need to have action on these bills that will restore confidence and grow our economy. The future of our kids, the future of our country, our national security is at stake; and we must pass the jobs plan. Spending more money and growing government is not the answer. The answer is commonsense regulatory reform, tax reform, balanced budget, and an energy policy that develops and creates jobs here in America and moves us towards national security and prosperity.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Balanced Budget Caucus, I rise in strong support of the balanced budget amendment we are going to take up on the House floor today. I've heard many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say this is not the time to take this up, but now is exactly the time we should be taking this up. In 1995, a balanced budget amendment passed the House with bipartisan support, only to lose by one vote in the United States Senate. Then, the national debt was $4.8 trillion. This week, the national debt hit $15 trillion. We have added $10 trillion to our debt in 16 years. That is $10 trillion in debt that threatens our job growth, our national security and our sovereignty, and our Nation's children. And that's $10 trillion in debt that could have been avoided had the balanced budget amendment passed. We simply must stop spending money we don't have if we are going to give our economy a chance to grow and create jobs. Past attempts like Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, the Balanced Budget Enforcement Act, and Pay-As- You-Go requirements have failed to bring Federal spending under control. America needs a permanent, long-term solution. We must hold Congress' feet to the fire and pass a constitutional balanced budget amendment today.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2838, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011 and, in particular, title VII of the bill, the Commercial Vessels Discharge Reform Act of 2011. Ballast water, while a necessity to maintain the stability of large vessels during water-borne navigation, has always been recognized as one of the ways invasive aquatic nuisance species are transported globally and introduced into coastal waters where they did not live before. Numerous invasive species have been introduced in U.S. waters through ballast water discharges. One of the most well-known is the zebra mussel in the Great Lakes, which has caused millions of dollars in damage in infrastructure. Current efforts to reduce the risk of invasive species being introduced through ballast water discharges are haphazard, contradictory, and ineffective. The management of ballast water currently is governed differently by the Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as an assortment of international, State, and territorial regulations. As a result, vessels engaged in interstate and international commerce are required to meet several different standards for the management of ballast water, some of which are not technologically achievable or verifiable. Complying with this patchwork of regulations is burdensome and unacceptable. Commercial shippers are at the heart of our Nation's interstate and foreign commerce. As we all know, interstate and foreign commerce involving navigation is the heart of the Federal jurisdiction under the commerce clause of the Constitution. If we subject vessels visiting ports in more than one State to different permit requirements in each State that they visit, they will be forced to either violate State laws or cease making port calls in those States with requirements that are inconsistent with the technology that the vessel has installed in response to an earlier enacted regulation from another State. Vessels involved in interstate and foreign commerce are mobile and cannot be expected to comply with potentially scores of inconsistent State requirements as they navigate from one jurisdiction to the next. These inconsistent State requirements will impose serious economic burdens on interstate and foreign commerce. There simply is no reason to interfere with interstate and foreign commerce in such ways, particularly in more sensible, uniform, and environmentally protective approaches available under this bill. Title VII of H.R. 2838 aims to address both the needs for standards to reduce the risk of introducing invasive species in our Nation's waters through discharges of ballast water, and the need for vessels that navigate from one jurisdiction to another to have a uniform set of requirements to comply with. The bill establishes a commonsense approach for regulating ballast water, which will protect the environment, grow maritime jobs, and promote the flow of maritime commerce. I urge passage of H.R. 2838.