Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Joe Gergela, who will retire at the end of this year from his position as the Long Island Farm Bureau's Executive Director, a position he has held for 26 years.

Joe's highly effective advocacy for Long Island agriculture was first cultivated early in his life, harvesting potatoes and other vegetables with his father and grandfather. He came to know the satisfaction of a hard day's work and the vital role family plays in a working farm, which form the backbone of the economy and tradition of Long Island's East End. In doing so, Joe celebrated the rich agricultural heritage that has been the pride of eastern Long Island since the 1600s. But he also learned the struggles farming families face, which strengthened his resolve to fight for our farming communities as the leader and chief advocate of the Long Island Farm Bureau.

At the helm of the Farm Bureau, Joe has worked tirelessly for the over 600 farms covering nearly 36,000 acres of land in Suffolk County, in which my district lies, and the thousands of acres of farmland in adjacent Nassau County. During my tenure in Congress, Joe has been a trusted and valued counsel upon whom I have relied for expert knowledge of agricultural and environmental policy. I enjoyed my regular visits that Joe coordinated for me with board members of the Long Island Farm Bureau that became known as ``coffee with the congressman,'' which I found to be invaluable forums. These annual coffee meetings gave me the opportunity to hear directly from East End farmers who imparted first- hand accounts of their success and challenges with issues relating to water quality, open space preservation, the Farm Bill, immigration reform and access to affordable labor, and how we could work together to maintain Long Island's robust agricultural footprint.

Joe has been an invaluable resource to my staff and me, providing real life knowledge about working farms but also helpful insight on public policy. He has helped my office build meaningful relationships with the agriculture community and has always been ready to assist when there were opportunities to work together. Most recently, Joe helped coordinate a visit to Long Island for the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, to focus USDA's attention on our land, wineries, farm stands, related small businesses, and the hard-working Long Islanders behind these successful, growing ventures.

Mr. Speaker, I have been proud to call Joe a friend and colleague for many years now. I know there will be many farmers, small businesses, and Suffolk County residents who will miss his tenacious dedication to farming and farmers on Long Island. On behalf of New York's First Congressional District, I congratulate Joe on his years of outstanding service and his many accomplishments with the Long Island Farm Bureau, and I wish him well in retirement and his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5764, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Act of 2014.

Let me start by recognizing the hard work of the bipartisan cosponsors of this legislation, including the retiring dean of the House, Mr. Dingell, and commend their efforts to move this legislation.

H.R. 5764 would authorize Federal appropriations for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, a program initiated by this administration to coordinate the Federal restoration efforts of the Great Lakes.

For the decades leading up to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, many Federal agencies were involved in the cleanup and protection of the Great Lakes. However, their efforts were far from coordinated, resulting in inefficient cleanup activities that made little progress in the overall health of the Great Lakes.

In 2010, this administration launched the initiative to accelerate efforts to protect and restore the largest fresh surface water system in the world, the Great Lakes. Under the leadership of the former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, this initiative prioritized five focus areas: cleaning up toxics and the Great Lakes areas of concern; combating invasive species; promoting the near-shore health by protecting watersheds from polluted runoff; restoring wetlands and other habitats; and tracking the progress made, as well as educating and working with strategic partners.

As of August 2013, the initiative has funded more than 1,500 projects and programs of the highest priority to meet immediate cleanup and restoration and protection needs. As a result of these efforts, there is tangible proof that the health of the Great Lakes is improving--from the delisting of two additional U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern to a list of over 30 success stories recently documented by the Healing Our Waters Coalition. Yet additional progress is needed, and the authorization of appropriations contained in H.R. 5764 is a good step forward to continuing this effort.

However, I would note that most of the successes of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative can all be traced back to one factor that I have highlighted over and over again in this Congress: the critical need for robust Federal funding.

As I noted during floor consideration of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013, as well as during numerous other authorization and appropriation bills this Congress, to see real progress in the programs we establish, we need also to provide the critical funding to our Federal agencies that implement these programs.

Too often these days we seem driven to cut Federal spending for programs that provide a real benefit to our Nation without an awareness of the consequences of these actions. This Chamber will recognize that there are places where the Federal Government can help and should be making increased investments, such as to repair our crumbling infrastructure or to protect our fragile natural environment. Yet later this week, I fear that we will again be asked to vote on an appropriations package for the Federal Government that woefully underfunds critical investments in our Nation's future, from building the transportation infrastructure that will keep our country competitive into the next century, to investing in the water-related infrastructure that protects communities, families, and businesses, to making targeted improvements to our natural environment to ensure the protection of human, economic, and environmental health for generations to come.

We need to do better. We need to recognize that the expenditure of Federal money to invest in our Nation is not inherently a bad thing. We need to understand that the Federal Government needs to be an active partner in addressing many of the complex challenges facing our States, our communities, and our everyday lives. And we need to support the missions of those Federal agencies we have charged with ensuring the long-term economic and environmental health of this Nation. These are only some of the ongoing challenges that face this Nation, and we need a Congress that is serious about taking on the hard questions and making the right investments, not only for our own lives and livelihoods, but for those generations of Americans to come.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the bipartisan sponsors of this legislation for ensuring that the new authorization shows some willingness to provide robust funding for these restoration efforts rather than simply and mindlessly cutting these programs. I urge support of H.R. 5764.

I reserve the balance of my time.

December 8, 2014.

Dear Members of the Great Lakes House Delegation: We are

writing to convey our support for H.R. 5764, the Great Lakes

Restoration Initiative Act of 2014, bipartisan legislation

recently introduced by Representatives David Joyce, Louise

Slaughter, Sander Levin, and John Dingell. We understand the

bill may be considered this week under suspension of the

rules and urge you to support it. This is a top regional

priority for the Great Lakes states, local communities,

tribes, conservation organizations, and business and

industry.

This legislation provides formal authorization for the

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), an ambitious

regional restoration program for the Great Lakes that is

cleaning up degraded ``toxic hotspots,'' halting Asian carp

and other invasive species, and preventing polluted runoff

that closes beaches and causes harmful algal blooms. It

provides a solid legislative platform to ensure our region

continues to work together successfully to implement a

science-based and outcomes-focused plan of action for

restoring and protecting the Great Lakes.

The bill directs U.S. EPA to collaborate with the Great

Lakes Interagency Task Force and state and local partners to

select the best combination of projects to protect and

restore the Great Lakes. It focuses on restoration projects

that can be implemented quickly, will achieve environmental

outcomes outlined in the new Great Lakes

Action Plan and Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and that

leverage other funding.

Passing this legislation now will clarify the focus and

accountability of our restoration efforts and ensure the

program continues to achieve effective results. We recently

worked with federal agencies to rewrite the GL RI Action

Plan, which lays out our region's restoration goals and

objectives, and revises how we measure progress. The new plan

addresses the Government Accountability Office's review,

which found no major deficiencies in the GLRI program.

Restoring the Great Lakes creates jobs, stimulates economic

development, and protects fresh drinking water for 30 million

people. The lakes currently generate over 1.5 million jobs

and $60 billion in wages annually, and provide the foundation

for a $30 billion tourism economy. Clearly, the Great Lakes

are an invaluable resource worth restoring and protecting,

and this legislation is critical to our collective efforts

toward this end. We urge you to support this bill.

Sincerely,

Tim Eder,

Executive Director, Great Lakes Commission.

Todd Ambs,

Director, Healing Our Waters--Great Lakes Coalition.

William Taylor,

Chair, U.S. Section, Great Lakes Fishery Commission.

David A. Ullrich,

Executive Director, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities

Initiative.

Jane A. TenEyck,

Executive Director, Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority.

Kathryn A. Buckner,

President, Council of Great Lakes Industries.

Ed Wolking, Jr.,

Executive Director, Great Lakes Metro Chambers Coalition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who is a cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman another 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan), who is a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and a cosponsor of the bill.

(Mr. NOLAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this legislation. I think it is good, solid bipartisan legislation that is necessary, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I, too, want to add a word of both thanks and congratulations to John Anderson for his service in the Congress over a great many years. I came to see firsthand his skill and dedication when we were working so cooperatively together on passing the Water Resources Development Act of 2013. His involvement was essential.

That bill stands as one of the few substantive pieces of bipartisan legislation that this Congress has passed, and we were able to get it in done in part because of John's efforts.

I thank you, and I wish you a well-earned retirement.

I appreciate that very much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I wish my Republican colleagues were not rushing to consider this bill without more deliberation. The other body just passed this bill last week. We have had no hearings on the bill, no committee meetings, no markups.

I understand that several general aviation groups have expressed concerns about the bill, and I would have liked the opportunity to hear from them and study their specific reservations.

Each of the Nation's federally-assisted airports is part of a system--a national system--that is greater than the sum of its parts. The Federal Government invests $3.35 billion a year in airport improvements because each airport in the system not only drives economic growth, but also is a safe harbor for a pilot in distress.

For those reasons, the general rule is that we invest in airports, not close them; nevertheless, I understand that the airport in St. Clair, Missouri, which this bill would allow to close, presents some unique circumstances.

Although the Federal Government has invested almost $1.1 million in the

airport since 1963, the airport has not received a Federal grant since 2006 when it received $300,000. There are now only about eight aircraft movements at the airport a day. Community leaders believe that there are simply higher and better uses for the airport land.

Based on these extraordinary circumstances, this bill would allow the city of St. Clair to close the airport and would release the city from its obligations as a recipient of Federal airport improvement funds, provided the city transfers remaining grant funds and the market value of the land to the Missouri Department of Transportation.

While I have serious reservations about the precedent that this bill could set, I recognize the unique situation in this particular case. Going forward, I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about what it means for our national system of airports when we start permitting airports to shut down without working through the Federal Aviation Administration's administrative process.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, and I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters) who is the author of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, so I urge adoption of this bill and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 5266 to reauthorize appropriations for the National Estuary Program.

First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize my committee colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), for introducing this legislation.

Our Nation's coasts and oceans provide a wealth of resources for the entire country, and among these areas, nowhere is more valuable than estuaries. Estuaries are bodies of water that receive both water from rivers and saltwater from the sea. This mix makes a unique environment that is extremely productive in terms of its ecosystem values.

Government studies have found that estuaries provide habitat for 75 percent of the U.S. commercial and 80 to 90 percent of the recreational fishing catches.

Perhaps the central problem in the protection and restoration of estuaries is that they ultimately lie downstream. Everything that enters the smallest stream, tributary, or headwater in a watershed eventually runs into a single outlet, impacting in some way all the biological elements of that ecosystem and all of the commerce that revolves around the estuary.

The First Congressional District of New York, which I have had the honor to represent, abuts two priority estuaries with the Environmental Protection Agency's National Estuary Program, the Peconic Bay and the Long Island Sound.

These unique waters are precious to the residents of Long Island, and their continued health and vitality provide multiple benefits to the residents of Long Island and to the economic and environmental health of the region.

I am pleased that this legislation demonstrates the willingness of this Congress to move legislation that protects our water-related environment. The Federal seed money that comes from the EPA's National Estuary Program, when combined with other State and local resources, helps to implement locally-driven solutions to local water quality challenges.

In my view, if there are limits in the success of these programs, they are closely related to the availability of adequate restoration funds.

In the 111th Congress, I was the lead sponsor of another bill, H.R. 4715, the Clean Estuaries Act of 2010, that would have also authorized the National Estuary Program, however, at higher levels than contained in the current bill.

That legislation passed the House on a bipartisan basis and by an overwhelming margin; however, the Senate failed to ever act on that bill.

While H.R. 5266 does represent a significant reduction in the authorization of appropriations for this important program, I commend the bipartisan sponsors of this legislation for ensuring that the new authorization shows some room to increase the funding of these locally- driven restoration efforts, rather than simply cutting those efforts.

Too often these days, we seem driven to cut Federal spending for programs that provide real benefit to our Nation without an awareness of the consequences of these actions.

I can only hope that in the years to come this Chamber will recognize that there are places where the Federal Government can help and should be making increased investments, such as to repair our crumbling infrastructure or to protect our fragile natural environment.

These are only some of the ongoing challenges that face this Nation, and we need a Congress that is serious about taking on the hard questions and about making the right investments, not only for our lives and livelihoods, but for those generations of Americans to come.

Mr. Speaker, again, I support the passage of H.R. 5266, and I urge my colleagues to also support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thought I had one more speaker, but he is not here, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its current form, I am.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage.

Mr. Speaker, my straightforward amendment adds three important provisions to the underlying bill that, unfortunately, continue to be ignored by the majority.

First, this amendment declares that any company engaged in the offshoring of American jobs will be ineligible for Federal tax breaks.

I think that every Member of Congress can agree that if a company wants to ship domestic jobs overseas, U.S. taxpayers should not be expected to pick up the tab; yet H.R. 4, as currently written, does nothing to prevent outsourcers from receiving Federal tax breaks. My amendment addresses this egregious omission.

Second, the amendment prevents hardworking American families from subsidizing so-called inverted domestic corporations. It is important to remember that an inverted domestic corporation is a business that used to be incorporated in the United States but whose leaders have chosen to incorporate overseas.

These businesses typically reincorporate on foreign soil in order to avoid domestic taxes by finding tax shelters on unregulated shores of places like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.

Since 2012, these corporate bad actors have been banned from contracting with many agencies of the Federal Government, including the Department of Defense, NASA, and the GSA; still, American taxpayers are subsidizing this corporate tax evasion to the tune of billions of dollars per year.

I commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), for their leadership in introducing legislation responding to the rapidly increasing frequency of inversions by limiting tax breaks to corporations carrying them out by tightening section 7874 of the IRS Code.

This Congress has the opportunity to make clear that it will not tolerate Tax Code manipulators taking advantage of tax breaks and sticking the middle class with the bill.

Finally, my amendment allows the House to move the economy forward by bringing up for consideration components of the Democratic jump-start agenda: pay equity, an increased minimum wage, student loan refinancing, paid family sick leave, and early childhood education.

These policies have the overwhelming support of the American people and are needed if we are to take seriously the goal of strengthening the middle class and making it possible for families to get their slice of the American Dream. Unsurprisingly, the House has taken no action on addressing any of these pressing issues, but we can today, by passing this amendment.

Rather than take up these important issues, the Republican majority instead prepares to adjourn the House for a 54-day recess. This impending recess is in addition to the 38-day recess from August 1 to September 8 from which the House just returned.

In fact, the U.S. House of Representatives will have been in session for a grand total of 8 days in the 101-day span between August 1 and November 12. The American people sent us here to work and find solutions facing their family each and every day. This is simply unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, more work needs to be done. Let's pass this amendment and actually get to work on addressing the mounting and diverse needs of our constituents. The time for political games is over, and the time for action is now.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th Anniversary of the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District. Since 1964, the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District has actively developed and implemented specialized projects and educational programs to improve, protect, and preserve Suffolk County's most treasured natural resources.

Suffolk County's thriving agriculture has been assisted by the conservation efforts of the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District in partnership with the local communities and landowners, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Long Island Farm Bureau, the Cornell Cooperative Extension and Research Lab, the New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee, the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the New York Association of Conservation Districts.

As a result of this collaboration, Suffolk County leads the rest of our great state in market value of crop production, including sod, grapes, nursery stock, aquaculture, and specialty crops. The County can also be proud of flourishing agricultural tourism, known for attracting thousands of visitors to wineries, greenhouses, and seasonal pumpkin picking.

Consisting of over 600 farms spanning 35,000 acres, Suffolk County farms form the pillar of the East End economy and contribute millions of dollars to the Long Island and New York state economies, supporting local jobs and igniting economic growth across the region. This success is sustainable with the help of the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District and can help further propel Long Island's continuing economic recovery.

Mr. Speaker, helping local farmers secure federal aid and educating them about building green infrastructure are just some of the many critically important functions of the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District, which remains dedicated to the success of Long Island farmers and small businesses, and why it is an honor to offer my congratulations on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding.

I rise in support of the McKeon amendment to grant the President the authority needed to fund and train Syrian opposition forces and counter the threat posed by ISIS.

Since the September 11 attacks, our Nation has taken the fight to terrorists. Our brave men and women in uniform supported by the defense and intelligence agencies have kept us safe from another attack on American soil. Now, our allies on the ground in the Middle East must take the fight to

ISIS, supported by our air power, arms, and expertise.

I agree with the administration that the most effective way for the United States to realize this goal is providing training and equipment to our allies in Iraq and select groups among the Syrian opposition. This is not a situation that can be solved by the introduction of U.S. troops into combat. In fact, such a response would jeopardize the gains made recently following the air campaign over Iraq.

It is vital, however, that the Syrian opposition groups selected to receive support be fully vetted by the administration to ensure to the greatest extent possible that no weapons or expertise will end up in the hands of our enemies, whether they be the Islamic State or another bad actor involved in the conflict.

We must only provide support to those groups that both the Department of Defense and State have determined to have the greatest chance of success. While there are no guarantees in this situation, the administration must take appropriate steps to minimize the risk and avoid repeating history.

It must also be made clear that these efforts are not the first step of an ever-escalating conflict ending with widespread U.S. involvement in a combat role. Our allies in the Arab world, both Sunni and Shi'a, must be the leaders of the international alliance to combat ISIS.

Only through a coalition and widespread involvement of Arab nations will these efforts succeed and not be seen as yet another chapter of Sunni on Shi'a violence or another chapter in a war between the Christian West and the Muslim Middle East. Our allies must make significant military commitments to support moderate groups in opposition to ISIS.

Finally, the administration must be able to give a clear view of their long-term strategy and goals going forward. Entering a conflict without clear objectives and an exit strategy is not a situation that any Member of the House wishes to repeat.

I urge my colleagues to support the McKeon amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and our ranking member from West Virginia for yielding and for his leadership on the T&I Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5078. Last session, the Republican majority pushed through a rider to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill to block this administration from using Agency guidance to clarify how they would interpret two confusing decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court that called into question the protections of the Clean Water Act over our Nation's waters.

At that time, the Republican majority claimed that this use of administration guidance was unprecedented and in violation of the law, notwithstanding the fact that the previous administration followed the exact same process in issuing two guidance documents which, coincidentally, remain in force today. In fact, it is these two Bush- era guidance documents that have compounded the confusion, uncertainty, and increased compliance costs faced by our constituents today.

But don't take my word on this. Let me quote from some of the comments made in opposition to the Bush-era guidance. According to the American Farm Bureau Federation and others:

With no clear regulatory definitions to guide their

determinations, what has emerged is a hodgepodge of ad hoc

and inconsistent jurisdictional theories.

Again, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation and others:

The Bush administration guidance is causing confusion and

added delays in an already burdened and strained permit

decisionmaking process, which ultimately will result, and is

resulting, in increased delays and costs to the public at

large.

Finally, according to the Waters Advocacy Coalition:

Until a comprehensive set of rules regarding which water

bodies the agencies will regulate is promulgated, the public

and Agency field staff will be beleaguered by partial

answers, confusing standards, and ad hoc, overbroad, and

arbitrary decisions pertaining to the scope of Federal

jurisdiction.

In April of 2011, over 150 Members of this House wrote to the Environmental Protection Agency and to the Corps requesting that a proposed guidance document of the Obama administration be reconsidered. In that letter, these Members suggested:

If the administration seeks to make regulatory changes to

the Clean Water Act, a notice-and-comment rulemaking is

required.

In the intervening months, this is exactly what the administration has done. In 2012, the administration chose to withdraw the proposed 2011 guidance document and instead pursued a notice-and-comment rulemaking to address much of the confusion, uncertainty, and increased costs surrounding the scope of the Clean Water Act protections.

However, many of these same Members who asked for a formal rulemaking are now vehemently opposed to this rulemaking going forward. I have to ask why? Are these Members opposed to providing greater clarity on the scope of Federal Clean Water Act protections? Are they opposed to trying to reduce the confusion and uncertainty facing our regulated communities while at the same time trying to ensure that our network of waters and wetlands are protected from pollution or destruction?

Opponents of this rulemaking are trying to portray this as a Federal attempt to regulate birdbaths, puddles, and driveways, but both common sense and the testimony of representatives of the EPA and the Corps before our committee would confirm that these were never subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction, nor would they be subject to the act under the administration's proposed rule.

In short, this is not a debate about the Federal Government trying to regulate someone's backyard birdbath, but it is about ensuring that those waters and wetlands that provide hundreds of millions of Americans with their drinking water, provide vital protection to our towns and communities, and provide valuable habitat to our native fish and wildlife are protected.

Mr. Chairman, to be fair, several of my own constituents have expressed concern with the substance of the proposed rule. I have listened to their concerns, and I have pressed the Agency witnesses who have appeared before our subcommittee on several critical areas. I have questioned the agencies to ensure that the scope of the proposed rule lives solely within the confines of the two Supreme Court decisions on this matter; otherwise, such changes would require an act of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I have asked for Agency assurance that this proposed rule does not expand the scope of the Clean Water Act jurisdiction over what was covered by prior rulings of the Supreme Court. Again, I have been assured that this is the case.

I have asked the Agency staff to clarify that these proposed rules do not eliminate any existing statutory or regulatory exemptions for agriculture, including activities on prior converted cropland. Again, we have been assured by the Agency that all of the existing exemptions for farming, silviculture, and ranching in the current Clean Water Act and regulations remain in place.

In my view, this is not a perfect proposed rule--few are--but it does establish a reasonable process for providing additional clarity on Clean Water Act protections that we desire. To suggest that the solution is to simply throw out this proposed rule and to forever leave the regulated community with the current regulatory morass simply makes no sense.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 5078. I thank the ranking member for his indulgence.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment gets to the heart of the debate on this proposed rule.

For months, opponents of the proposed rule have made numerous claims about its impacts. Yet, despite numerous efforts by representatives of the administration's to answer these claims and to point out how many of these claims are simply false, we seem to go around and around, again and again, on these allegations. My amendment simply addresses these concerns and claims, saying that, if any of them prove to be true, then the Secretary and the Administrator are prohibited from issuing any final rule that would bring about these occurrences.

For example, opponents of the proposed rule have claimed that this rule expands the scope of the Clean Water Act authority. When asked this direct question during our subcommittee hearing, the administration's witness stated clearly that the proposed rule ``would not assert jurisdiction over any type of waters not previously protected over the past 40 years.'' Under my

amendment, if the administration is proven incorrect, the final rule could not be implemented.

Similarly, opponents have suggested that the rule is inconsistent with the rulings and jurisdictional tests outlined by the Supreme Court. The administration's witness has testified that this rule is consistent with the tests outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court. If my amendment is adopted and if the administration is wrong about this assertion, then the final rule could not be implemented.

Opponents of the proposed rule have claimed that the proposed rule increases the regulation of ditches. The administration has testified that, in fact, it would reduce the scope of jurisdictional ditches that are covered by the Bush administration guidance. If my amendment is adopted and if the administration is incorrect in this assertion, the rule cannot be implemented.

Opponents contend that, under this rule, individuals would be required to have Federal Clean Water Act permits for draining farm ponds or for activities in the water on your driveways or your birdbaths or puddles in your backyard. The administration has asserted, obviously, that these types of waters have never been subject to the Clean Water Act, nor would they be under this rulemaking. If somehow the administration is wrong about this, under my amendment, the final rule could not be implemented.

Lastly, opponents contend that the rule would eliminate existing statutory and regulatory exemptions for agriculture or increase the regulation of groundwater or require Federal Clean Water Act permits for land-use activities. Yet the administration has time and time again testified that these assertions are simply inaccurate. Again, if my amendment is adopted and if the administration is incorrect, the final rule cannot go forward.

In my view, this administration has put forward a good faith effort to provide additional clarity on the scope of Clean Water Act protections for our Nation's waters that are consistent with current scientific information as well as the precedent of the Supreme Court. While it is not perfect, this rule is far better than the current regulatory process that has led to numerous delays, significant increases in compliance costs, and greater difficulty in protecting our Nation's water resources.

I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would address one of the fundamental flaws I see in this legislation. The enactment of H.R. 5078 would almost certainly block current and future efforts to clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act.

Unfortunately, this would lock in place the interpretive guidance of the Bush administration, which took the narrowest and most cumbersome and confusing interpretation of the two recent Supreme Court decisions, and it has been uniformly criticized by the stakeholder community as well as by the conservation and environmental community.

I think it is important to remember that, under the current Bush administration's guidance, traditional Clean Water Act protections over a significant percentage of waters has been called into question or have simply been lost. These are Clean Water Act protections that existed for over 30 years prior to the issuance of the first Bush-era guidance in 2003 and are now all but lost, making it harder and more costly for individual States to protect their own waters should their upstream neighbors be unwilling or unable to fill in the gap in protecting water quality.

As we all know, if pollution is allowed to increase due to the competing financial and political interests of States, that pollution needs to go somewhere, and since pollution does not respect State boundaries when it travels downstream, it will have an adverse impact on the quality of life and the quality of the environment of those downstream States. As highlighted in my amendment, the end result of this will be that downstream States will become responsible for treating the pollution of their upstream neighbors, which, at a minimum, will increase the compliance costs of downstream States and, at a maximum, may destroy the ecological or economic health of these States.

As I have noted before, my district in New York is separated from Connecticut by the Long Island Sound. Over time, the number of polluters in the area has increased exponentially, killing fish, lobsters, and imperiling the $5 billion of economic output that the region depends upon. Fortunately, the State has decided that the Sound was impaired, and it proposed a more restrictive water quality standard for nitrogen. A $5 billion crisis has been averted. However, under the current Bush-era guidance, questions have arisen as to whether the Clean Water Act protection continues to apply to the upper reaches of watersheds, streams, and wetlands which feed the rivers that eventually flow into the Sound.

Under H.R. 5078, the EPA would be prohibited from ensuring that polluters in Connecticut continue to reduce excessive amounts of nitrogen in the Sound, leaving my constituents in the State of New York without any recourse under the Clean Water Act to stop them.

If this bill were to pass, individual States would decide that collective efforts to address the water quality impairments of the Chesapeake Bay, the Puget Sound, the Great Lakes, or the Gulf of Mexico were unnecessarily restrictive or burdensome, and they would refuse to participate in a meaningful way towards the restoration of these regional water bodies. This go-it-alone approach flies in the face of science, of common sense, and of decades of experience in implementing the Clean Water Act.

My amendment would limit the impact of this legislation if the administration determines that this bill were likely to, one, increase the interstate movement of pollutants through surface waters; two, increase the costs incurred by a downstream State to maintain or achieve approved water quality standards for that State; or three, to cause or contribute to the impairment of the surface or coastal waters of another State.

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure created the Clean Water Act over 40 years ago as a response to burning rivers, to Great Lakes that were pronounced dead, and to an understanding that a State- by-State approach to protecting water simply didn't work.

Let's not repeat the sins of the past but commit to moving forward in our efforts to protect the Nation's waters. Support my amendment, and allow the Agency to put back in place reasonable, comprehensive protections of our Nation's waters.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Brookhaven National Laboratory, located in my congressional district and recognized by R&D Magazine for developing a novel radiation detection technology.

Often referred to as the ``Oscars of Innovation,'' the annual R&D 100 Awards are given to the top 100 most technologically significant products each year from around the world. I am proud that this prestigious honor has been bestowed upon Long Island's own Brookhaven National Laboratory, which is jointly managed by Stony Brook University and Battelle for the Department of Energy (DOE).

A team of scientists led by Dr. Aleksey Bolotnikov and Dr. Ralph James at Brookhaven developed GammaScout, a compact hand-held high- resolution radiation detector, as well as the electronics and software to make it functional. This project was funded by the National Nuclear Security Administration's Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation research and development program.

The GammaScout technology will be especially useful in tracking the movement of radioactive materials and the imaging of radiopharmaceuticals in oncology and cardiology. Its application could also be used in real-time dosimeters, x-ray radiography, mineral exploration, and materials sorting and recycling. As a result, this new technology has the potential to improve our homeland and national security, protect first responders and the environment, and even make it easier to diagnose disease and save lives.

This detector technology works at room temperature, making it particularly unique and useful in the field. Previous technologies had to be cryogenically cooled for the same high-resolution radiation detection, thus confining critical work to a laboratory setting.

I am very proud to recognize Dr. Bolotnikov, Dr. James and their team of scientists, which also included colleagues from Korea University for winning one of only 32 R&D 100 Awards given to DOE laboratories. This speaks volumes about the value of these labs and the importance of their contributions to the nation, economy, and national security.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of New York's First Congressional District, I congratulate the scientists and laboratory leadership for this well- deserved award. It is a timely reminder that Brookhaven National Laboratory remains a valuable asset to Long Island, New York, and our nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to urge the United States to advocate for a resolution to the ongoing conflict in Cyprus. July 20, 2014 marked the 40th anniversary of the division of Cyprus, and it is in the best interest of the United States to foster a state in which Greek and Turkish Cypriots may peacefully coexist.

In Congress, I have supported legislation that promotes a comprehensive peace agreement between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. I support discussions resuming to finally identify a settlement to this protracted conflict. It is my hope that a peaceful resolution to the territorial dispute will soon become reality and I am pleased with the progress that Cyprus continues to make with the United Nations and the United States. It is encouraging that the President of Cyprus has established several confidence-building measures that could lead to productive negotiations, measures that the United States has endorsed.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the State Department to work with the government of Cyprus for the advancement of democracy, human rights, and the interests of the United States.

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for yielding.

I rise in support of H.R. 4984, and I want to commend Congressman Guthrie and Congresswoman Bonamici for their efforts in bringing this bill first to our committee and now to the floor, and I particularly want to commend the bipartisan nature with which this legislation has been developed. Hopefully it will pass today with the same support that it passed out of the Education Committee.

My other hope is that we can take this same bipartisan spirit that attends this legislation and apply it to the really, really important work that we have before us with respect to higher education and reauthorizing the Higher Ed Act, and that is specifically seeing to it that collectively we work together to see to it that the student financial aid programs embodied in title IV of the Higher Ed Act are reauthorized and, in fact, strengthened, and that they remain as robust as they need to be to ensure that students continue to have access to the educational institutions of their choice.

Frankly, title IV is in peril. I hope we can work on that. And let me be specific about at least one program in title IV, and that is the Perkins Loan Program. We have had the Perkins Loan Program since 1958. It was passed in the wake of America's shock that we were beaten into space by the Russians, and so there was an effort to make it easier for the young men and women of this country to pursue higher education. That goal, by the way, and that need that existed in 1958 still exists today. And yet under current law, if we do not act, the 2015-2016 academic year will be the last year that the Perkins loan will be in existence.

Our students across the country borrow $1.4 billion a year.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

So $1.4 billion a year will be taken out of the student aid portfolio at a time when students can least afford for that to happen. Given declining incomes and rising colleges costs, students are caught in a squeeze where they are unable to meet the expenses that a higher education demands. We simply cannot let this happen, and I very much hope that again on a bipartisan basis we can renew not just this program, but we can also overcome what appears to be a policy directive of our friends on the other side to squeeze the student financial aid programs.

The budget resolution that passed the House of Representatives freezes

Pell grants at $5,700 for the next 10 years. That means, 10 years from now, if that were to ever take on the force of law, the buying power of the Pell grant will be severely diminished.

That same budget resolution essentially eliminates the SEOG program and puts enormous restrictions on the college workstudy program. These are programs that are absolutely essential to a student's ability to finance their education. I very much hope we can work together to see to it that they remain as robust as they need to be.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a motion to recommit. This is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately be amended and proceed to final passage.

The bill before us does not represent a substantive effort to empower America's middle class to move up the ladder of success or put Americans back to work. Though creatively titled, it instead represents another effort by the majority to look out for special interests already doing well from a Tax Code stacked against millions of our hardworking constituents.

Under the guise of attempting to lower gasoline prices, Republicans are using this bill as a vehicle to steer control of our Nation's precious natural resources to companies that accounted for nearly $100 billion in profits in 2013. It is a textbook example of corporate welfare run amok.

My final amendment will add two critical components to the underlying bill. First, none of the big five oil companies will be granted a new lease to drill on Federal lands without first foregoing the massive subsidies that they receive from American taxpayers.

This would result in nearly $10 billion of savings that could be put towards the pressing national priorities that need our attention, but are being ignored by this House--education, the highway trust fund, unemployment insurance, or a permanent Medicare reimbursement fix.

Second, oil companies will not be permitted to export U.S. oil or natural gas, if doing so will increase domestic prices of gasoline or home heating oil. In other words, if the government is going to make drilling easier for the big oil companies, let's make sure the benefits are passed on to the American people, rather than the corporate bottom line or foreign consumers.

We all want lower gas prices. In my district on Long Island, gas prices just went over $4 a gallon. That is almost a half a buck increase in the last 4 months. Democrat or Republican, all of us recognize that lower gas prices are desirable for American families.

Let us also remember that the price of oil results from a combination of both supply and demand. As more and more Chinese nationals purchase cars, increased demand on the global gasoline marketplace will lead to higher gas prices, regardless of U.S. or international oil production.

In fact, since 2010, China alone has consumed about half of the extra oil that has been produced during this current oil production boom. This bill will do nothing to actually lower prices at the pump.

Claiming this bill is a panacea to fix the problem of sky-high prices is just plain wrong. Without the protections contained within this motion to recommit, the underlying bill could very well result in lower prices at the pump in China and higher prices here at home. This is unacceptable and--I am sure--not what my friends across the aisle have in mind.

American energy independence is more achievable than ever. In fact, domestic oil production is at a 25-year high, while net imports are at a 29-year low. Let's support the American middle class by adding these vital consumer protections to the underlying bill. I urge passage of this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.