Floor Statements

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

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.

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.

I demand a recorded vote.

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. 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.

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. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

May I inquire as to how much time I have left?

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

In its current form, I am.

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

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. 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.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase the Clear Water State Revolving Fund by $1.41 billion, from $689 million to $2.1 billion, the amount that was appropriated in fiscal year 2010.

All of us recognize the gravity of the financial situation facing this Nation today, and we are struggling to emerge from the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. Clearly, with the national unemployment rate hovering still around 9 percent and the unemployment rate for the construction sector at over 20 percent, we are far from completing our work.

Christine Todd Whitman, the Republican EPA administrator under President George W. Bush, estimated that the needs of our Nation's aging water infrastructure topped $660 billion. Yet within the FY 2012 Interior appropriations bill, the Republican majority cuts the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, the primary source of investment in our wastewater infrastructure, by $1.4 billion compared to FY 2010. Coupled with the severe cuts to the Clean Water SRF in H.R. 1, the FY 2011 continuing resolution, and the attacks on clean water in the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act passed earlier this month, the Republican majority has made it clear that they place no priority-- none--on preserving clean water or creating jobs.

In terms of job losses, the cuts in the FY 2012 Interior appropriations bill when compared to FY 2010 funding levels would eliminate over 39,000 direct construction jobs throughout the country and countless additional jobs in the industries and small businesses that support the wastewater construction industry at a time when many small businesses and the construction sector are struggling to recover. Furthermore, this cut undermines longstanding Federal efforts to address our Nation's aging infrastructure systems.

Mr. Chairman, addressing the Nation's debt and deficit should absolutely be a priority; however, we should focus our efforts on finding a balanced approach that focuses on job creation rather than slashing budgets that are proven job creators. We hear repeatedly from our Republican colleagues that we should not tax our job creators. I agree. However, in my district and in districts across the Nation, the environment is the job creator.

The economy of my district depends on clean water, clean air, and safe, swimmable beaches. The cuts in this bill place all of these in jeopardy. If the Republican priorities in this bill prevail, we could put an effective tax rate of zero on small businesses in my district, and it wouldn't help because they would have no income. And no income means no jobs.

Mr. Chairman, the extension of the Bush tax cuts give the average millionaire a $139,100 tax break in 2011. That's a tax break of $2,700 per week or $380 per day. Let me be clear: I'm talking only about tax breaks for millionaires--not tax breaks for the middle class--and only for millionaires, using not the $250,000, but the million.

If our Republican colleagues were to set aside ideology and agree to eliminate the tax breaks for just those millionaires, we could reestablish our commitment to clean water and economic development within 12 days. The Bush tax cuts give millionaires across the Nation such a deal that we could completely shore up the $1.4 billion deficit in the Clean Water SRF and begin to address the needs outlined by Administrator Whitman in less than 2 weeks.

Even if Congress gave the Bill Gates and the Warren Buffetts of this world the Bush tax breaks for the remaining 353 days of the year, we could put tens of thousands of men and women back to work, protect clean water, and protect the economies that depend on clean water and pristine beaches.

Finally, the Republican majority has included in this bill several special interest policy earmarks to pull back on EPA's compliance and enforcement capabilities, making it far more difficult for the agency to identify and pursue serious violations impacting public health and the environment in communities across the Nation. In my view, this proposal stands in stark contrast to the EPA's efforts to increase compliance in critical areas within a limited budget and suggests that a weakened compliance and enforcement presence is somehow better for our Nation. I strongly disagree with that suggestion.

Combine the lackluster funding for the Clean Water SRF and the dozens of special interest policy earmarks, it's quite clear that Republicans have abandoned the decades-long national, bipartisan commitment to creating jobs, protecting public health, and preserving the ability of local communities to grow their economies through clean water projects.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I fully expected that my friend from Idaho would insist on his point of order. I fully expect the Chair to sustain the point of order. But let's be clear: The underlying bill violates House rules. There are 39, at least by my count, special interest policy riders in the underlying bill, every one of which is protected by a rule that waives all points of order. Each of these policy riders are in violation of clause 2(b) of rule XXI. We all know that.

I understand that the point of order will be sustained, but I do wish we would adhere to what we were promised. We were promised an open, transparent House in which regular order would prevail and in which the House would work its will. This rule does not allow that to take place.

I will accept the ruling of the Chair.

I thank my friend from New York for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill. As every member of the Rules Committee knows, the Interior and Environment appropriations bill that we will debate today simply violates the rules of the House. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee has waived all points of order against the bill, preventing Members from striking provisions that are clearly in violation of House rules.

In particular, title V of the bill includes the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011, H.R. 872, a bill that amends the Clean Water Act, which is solely within the jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, of which I am the ranking member.

Furthermore, the provision amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, better known as FIFRA, that is under the jurisdiction of the House Agriculture Committee.

As we all know, advancing authorizing legislation within an appropriations vehicle is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations, and it stands in stark contrast to clause 2(b) of rule XXI of the House rules, which states, in part, ``A provision changing existing law may not be reported in a general appropriation bill''; and yet that is precisely what title V is: a change in existing law.

Not only is the inclusion of title V in the underlying bill a violation of House rules, but it is also legislatively redundant. The House has already passed H.R. 872 earlier this year under suspension of the rules. The bill is now being considered in the Senate, where it has been reported out of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

In my opinion, including H.R. 872 in the Interior appropriations bill will hamper negotiations between Senators and between the House and the Senate to get a final bill that everyone can be disappointed with-- frankly, that's what's at stake here--but that can pass both Chambers and be enacted into law before the court-ordered deadline of October 31, 2011. Let me say that again: There is a court-ordered deadline of October 31, 2011, to resolve this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I will be offering an amendment to strike title V when it comes up during debate this week. However, I am deeply disappointed that the Rules Committee has blatantly ignored the rules of the House by eliminating the ability of Members to raise a point of order against provisions of an appropriations bill that changes existing law.

There are approximately 39 policy riders included in the Interior appropriations bill. And let's be clear: These are policy earmarks, and these earmarks undermine the jurisdiction of authorizing committees and undermine the ability of the House and the Senate to work its will. It is unfortunate that the Rules Committee is protecting these new earmarks from the rules of the House.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the FY 2012 Interior appropriations bill in its current form. Not only am I deeply troubled by the bill's lack of infrastructure investment that would create jobs, grow the economy, and protect public health, but it is unfortunate that the Appropriations Committee has included several dozen egregious special interest policy earmarks in the bill that will undermine our Nation's commitment to clean water, clean air, and the environment, which are fundamental to local economies like the one I represent.

We've heard from our friends on the Appropriations Committee that we must make difficult decisions in these trying economic times. I couldn't agree more. Furthermore, we've heard from the chairman of the subcommittee that he believes that many of the programs that are cut are good programs, but that we must be willing to make cuts to reduce our growing debt.

Consider this: The bill cuts $2.1 billion from 2011 levels for the Department of the Interior, EPA, and other agencies. However, if we were to eliminate the Bush tax cuts only for those households earning more than a million dollars per year, we could save the revenues necessary to preserve these critical agencies in less than 18 days. The bill provides $1.4 billion less for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, a fund that is critical to both environmental protection and economic development. If we were to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, we could reestablish our commitment to clean water within 12 days, affecting only those tax cuts from people who make a million dollars a year or more. That's a reasonable price to pay for the economic development that would result.

Over the past several months we have heard repeatedly that we must do all that we can to prevent taxing our Nation's job creators, a sentiment with which I agree in principle. However, in my district and districts all across this country, it is the environment that is the job creator. The economy of my district depends on clean water, clean air, and safe, swimmable beaches. The cuts in this bill place all of these in jeopardy. If the Republican priorities in this bill prevail, we could put an effective tax rate of zero on the small businesses in my district and it wouldn't help at all because they would have no income--and no income means no jobs.

Mr. Speaker, due to previously scheduled official commitments in my district, I was unavoidably detained and not present in the House Chamber on Thursday, July 21 to vote on rollcalls 612, 613 and 614.

I would have voted ``no'' on each rollcall had I been present.

Mr. Speaker, due to previously scheduled official commitments in my district, I was unavoidably detained and not present in the House chamber on Monday, July 18 to vote on rollcalls 601 and 602.

I would have voted ``yea'' on both rollcalls had I been present.