Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, pursuant to the terms for debate on H.R. 2354, the Energy & Water Development Appropriations bill; I submit the following.

2010 FORTUNE 100

source: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2010/full_list/

[Note: Revenue figures for all companies include consolidated subsidiaries and exclude excise taxes.] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revenues ($ Profits ($

Rank Company millions) millions) Industry descriptor ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2................................ Exxon Mobil........ 284,650.00 19,280.00 Energy development and

production 3................................ Chevron............ 163,527.00 10,483.00 Energy development and

production 4................................ General Electric... 156,779.00 11,025.00 High-value durable goods

manufacturing 8................................ Ford Motor......... 118,308.00 2,717.00 High-value durable goods

manufacturing 10............................... Hewelett-Packard... 114,552.00 7,660.00 IT equipment development

and production 15............................... General Motors..... 104,589.00 N.A. High-value durable goods

manufacturing 20............................... International 95,758.00 13,425.00 IT equipment development

Business Machines. and production 22............................... Procter & Gamble... 79,697.00 13,436.00 Household product

manufacturing 28............................... Boeing............. 68,281.00 1,312.00 Defense/Aerospace 33............................... Johnson & Johnson.. 61,897.00 12,266.00 Pharamaceutical

development and

production 37............................... United Technologies 52,920.00 3,829.00 Defense/Aerospace 40............................... Pfizer............. 50,009.00 8,635.00 Pharamaceutical

development and

production 44............................... Lockheed Martin.... 45,189.00 3,024.00 Defense/Aerospace 46............................... Dow Chemical....... 44,945.00 648 Chemical development and

production 61............................... Northrop Grumman... 35,291.00 1,686.00 Defense/Aerospace 62............................... Intel.............. 35,127.00 4,369.00 Semiconductor

development and

production 66............................... Caterpillar........ 32,396.00 895 High-value durable goods

manufacturing 74............................... Honeywell 30,908.00 2,153.00 Defense/Aerospace

International. 75............................... Abbott Laboratories 30,764.70 5,745.80 Pharamaceutical

development and

production 85............................... Merck.............. 27,428.30 12,901.30 Pharamaceutical

development and

production 86............................... DuPont............. 27,328.00 1,755.00 Chemical development and

production 95............................... Raytheon........... 24,881.00 1,935.00 Defense/Aerospace ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this rule and I also oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was heartened that my Republican colleagues accepted many of the amendments offered in the Rules Committee yesterday, and I commend them for their attempts to adhere to the open process that they promised.

However, I was disappointed that an amendment offered by my good friend from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan) was not made in order because it would have addressed perhaps one of the most fundamental areas of concern for this bill that I and a great many others share, and that is that it undermines the Federal floor on water quality standards that has made the Clean Water Act such a success. This body should have had the opportunity to vote on such an important issue, and yet the rule denies that opportunity.

I am a strong supporter of efforts to protect the Long Island Sound, which borders the northern shore of my district and also the southern shore of Connecticut. In my view, the investment of Federal, State, and local resources to clean up and protect the sound significantly benefits communities in my district and in our region generally in terms of increased economic productivity, increased revenues from commercial and recreational uses of the sound, and increased quality of life for local residents. As a New Yorker, I take great pride in the efforts my State has made in improving the water quality of the sound, and I appreciate the collective efforts of our neighboring States in cleaning up the sound.

However, under H.R. 2018, we revert back to the State-by-State, go- it-alone approach that was the hallmark of water pollution prevention before the enactment of the Clean Water Act. Under H.R. 2018, if the EPA proposes a revised water quality standard that science dictates is needed to clean up the sound and Connecticut decides that they don't want to implement that standard, the EPA would no longer have the authority to compel them to do so nor would New York have any recourse under the Clean Water Act to ensure that Connecticut or other upstream States are doing what is needed; in other words, a recipe for the kind of pollution that we dealt with prior to the implementation of the Clean Water Act.

For this and a great many other reasons, H.R. 2018 flies in the face of decades of experience in implementing the Clean Water Act and risks all the gains in water quality that we have made over the past 40 years. For that I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying bill.

I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011. Despite some of the arguments I have heard in favor of this legislation, H.R. 2018 has not been narrowly crafted to address issues related to nutrient criteria and surface coal mining. I echo the administration's opposition to this bill when I say that H.R. 2018 would significantly undermine the Clean Water Act and could adversely affect public health, the economy, and the environment.

While proponents of this legislation argue that the changes to the clean water permitting structure are targeted to address the development of nutrient criteria, such as in the State of Florida, the fact that this legislation is drafted to include any pollutant means that its reach extends to any discharge from any point source in any water body in the United States.

Under this legislation, EPA would also be prohibited from recommending stricter discharge standards for toxic pollutants such as lead or mercury, even if the protection of human health is at stake, unless the State consents to such changes. In my view, this policy does not move our Nation forward, but rather reverses our direction and moves our Nation back 40 years to before the enactment of the Clean Water Act.

Some of my friends would like to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach to regulating clean water. I would too. Luckily for us, the basic structure of the Clean Water Act already provides States enormous flexibility in setting water quality standards. Current law allows States to assume authority over day to day implementation of State permitting programs, and allows States to implement more stringent controls on pollution within their borders. The Clean Water Act merely sets the baseline minimum standard for water quality.

Prior to the Clean Water Act establishing a baseline, 70 percent of the Nation's waters were unsafe for fishing, swimming, or drinking. We are now at 30 percent of our waters in such a condition. And I very much doubt that any reasonable person would want to return to the days of 70 percent.

Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have argued that this legislation is necessary because State authority to implement clean water programs is much improved since 1972, and States will do the right thing in protecting water quality. I agree that individual States have increased their capacity to protect the water quality within their States. However, I think it is also fair to suggest that the Clean Water Act has been essential to this Nation's efforts to double the number of waters meeting the fishable and swimmable standard since enactment of this statute in 1972.

In my view, elimination of the EPA's oversight and authority for minimum standards would allow a potential race to the bottom for the establishment of pollution discharge limits within a State border. We have seen disputes between States such as Arkansas and Oklahoma, or North Carolina and Tennessee. Among States like Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, the potential opportunities for one State to send its pollution downstream to another State are real and needs to be prevented.

Mr. Chairman, the role that Congress established for the EPA in the Clean Water Act has served our Nation well for almost 40 years. It has protected public health, and it has been an effective mechanism to protect the many businesses and industries that rely on clean water.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, July 12, 2011.

Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 2018--Clean Water Cooperative

Federalism Act (Rep. Mica, R-FL, and 39 Cosponsors)

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2018 because it

would significantly undermine the Clean Water Act (CWA) and

could adversely affect public health, the economy, and the

environment.

Under the CWA, one of the Nation's most successful and

effective environmental laws, the Federal Government acts to

ensure safe levels of water quality across the country

through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Since the

enactment of the CWA in 1972, the Federal Government has

protected the waterways our citizens depend on by using its

checks and balances authority to review and adjust key State

water pollution control decisions, where necessary, to assure

that they reflect up to date science, comply with the law,

and protect downstream water users in other States. H.R. 2018

would roll back the key provisions of the CWA that have been

the underpinning of 40 years of progress in making the

Nation's waters fishable, swimmable, and drinkable.

H.R. 2018 could limit efforts to safeguard communities by

removing the Federal Government's authority to take action

when State water quality standards are not protective of

public health. In addition, it would restrict EPA's authority

to take action when it finds that a State's CWA permit or

permit program is inadequate and would shorten EPA's review

and collaboration with the Army Corps of Engineers on permits

for dredged or fill material. All of these changes could

result in adverse impacts to human health, the economy, and

the environment through increased pollution and degradation

of water bodies that serve as venues for recreation and

tourism, and that provide drinking water sources and habitat

for fish and wildlife.

H.R. 2018 would disrupt the carefully constructed

complementary CWA roles for EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers,

and States in protecting water quality. It also could

eliminate EPA's ability to protect water quality and public

health in downstream States from actions in upstream States,

and could increase the number of lawsuits challenging State

permits. In sum, H.R. 2018 would upset the CWA's balanced

approach to improve water quality across the Nation, risking

the public health and economic benefits of cleaner waters.

If the President is presented with this legislation, his

senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding, and I also thank her for offering this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

The amendment would strike the provisions of the underlying bill that threaten existing Clean Water Act authority related to the discharge of pollutants under the act.

I oppose these provisions in the underlying bill, and I view this amendment as an effort to improve an otherwise very bad bill. On that basis I support the amendment.

I claim time in opposition.

We have heard a great deal of how reversals on the part of the EPA have caused uncertainty in the business community--uncertainty that leads to job loss, uncertainty that leads to a lack of interest in investing. Here are the numbers:

In 40 years, the EPA has reversed 13 permits--13--out of over 2 million issued. That is a veto rate of .00065 percent.

I fail to see how a reversal rate of significantly less than 1 percent can create the kind of uncertainty that we hear about from our colleagues. In fact, that kind of reversal rate encourages a reliance on the legitimacy and the validity of a permit granted, not the questioning of it.

I would also point out that, of these 13 reversals, seven took place under the administration of President Reagan; four took place under the Presidency of the first George Bush; one under George W. Bush; and one under President Obama. I think we are hard-pressed to develop a fact- based argument that there is an assault or that there is an overreach on the part of the EPA.

Now, with respect to the subject of the amendment, itself, the EPA has testified before the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee that it already considers the implications of its actions on jobs and on the economy. In fact, many of the requirements that bring the EPA to do that were enacted by the Republican majority when they last controlled the House. I would suggest that the enactment of this amendment will only duplicate the analysis that the EPA is already undertaking.

As a result, I fear that this amendment will only increase the opportunity for litigation relating to actions on the part of the EPA, causing a new cause of action in the Clean Water Act for third-party lawsuits. If anything, I fear that the effect of this amendment will be to tie up efforts by the EPA to protect public health and the environment in a bureaucratic morass.

On that basis, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I have cited, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I thank her for offering this amendment.

I just want to simply say, as I've made clear, I do not support the underlying legislation, but this is a very prudent amendment that allows us to assess as we go forward whether or not this proposed law is in the best interests of our Nation's clean water and in the interests of our Nation's health. So I commend the gentlelady for offering the amendment, and I am very happy to hear that this may be accepted.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding, and I thank the gentleman for offering this, I think, very well thought-out and well-conceived amendment.

I support the amendment offered by the gentleman because it suggests that the most appropriate place for retaining Federal oversight is against polluters who have a track record on the most serious violations of the Clean Water Act, those found to be in significant noncompliance; and, thus, the retention of a Federal oversight role I think is very wise.

And let me just amplify that. In September of 2009, The New York Times ran a front-page story highlighting that, from 2004 to 2008, 506,000 violations of the Clean Water Act were reported for both major and minor facilities; and during that time, the States only took 11,000 enforcement actions, or what is basically a 2 percent enforcement rate. We need to have the Federal Government retain its oversight role. This amendment would do that.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, along with Mr. Markey and Mr. DeFazio.

Mr. Chairman, if H.R. 2018 were enacted as drafted, it would restrict the EPA's ability to protect the Nation's waters from pollution. As we know, if pollution is allowed to increase due to the dueling interests of States, many sources of clean drinking water would be imperiled, valuable fish and wildlife habitat would be endangered and coastal recreational waters, like the shores of my Long Island, would be at risk, along with all the economic benefits these resources provide.

The Markey-DeFazio-Blumenauer amendment simply restricts the provisions of this bill from endangering waters that provide flood protection for communities, our valuable fish and wildlife habitat or our coastal recreational waters that are the backbone of my district's economy. In fact, my district will face real economic danger if this bill is not amended, not to mention the environmental danger that my district and districts all over this country will face.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The Holt-Bishop amendment would increase the Office of Science budget by $42.7 million, reducing the National Nuclear Security Administration's weapons activities program by the same amount, putting the Office of Science in line with the FY 2011- enacted levels, protecting jobs and supporting American innovation through scientific discovery.

The Office of Science is crucial to scientific innovation, which is a key component of American job creation and a cornerstone of our Nation's long-term strategy for economic growth.

How many times have we heard Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle come to this floor and espouse the benefits of innovation on job creation? How many times have we heard from both the current President and past Presidents talk about moving our Nation forward into the 21st century where technology and scientific advancement will fortify our Nation's economic growth?

The Office of Science within the Department of Energy, including our national laboratories, is one of the most powerful tools the Federal Government has at its disposal to promote scientific innovation, to support private industry advancements, to foster medical breakthroughs, and to gain a better understanding of the world around us.

I am proud to represent Brookhaven National Laboratory, a Department of Energy lab and one of the largest employers in my district. BNL is also ground zero for many of the scientific discoveries and innovations that have expanded our understanding of physics and nature, many of which have a direct link to developing new materials for industry, more effective drugs, and better fuels, the intellectual capital that private industry thrives upon.

Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the Republican policies embodied within H.R. 1 would have slashed $1.1 billion from the Office of Science, choking off Federal investment in basic research that is key to our Nation's long-term competitiveness. These draconian cuts would have impacted each DOE national lab with a 30 percent cut to every science facility and program from the FY 2011 request level. The number of jobs that would have been eliminated as a result of H.R. 1 is estimated to be close to 10,000 in the Office of Science. How can any reasonable person argue that laying off thousands of the most highly trained, highly skilled scientists the world has to offer moves this Nation forward?

The Holt-Bishop amendment would hold the Office of Science spending at FY 2011 levels. This is the minimum level of appropriation required for this Nation to remain at the cutting edge of scientific innovation, which is essential to our economic competitiveness which, in turn, is directly linked to what ought to be our number one priority in this Congress--job creation. I encourage my colleagues to support the Holt- Bishop amendment.

I will also be including in the Record a list of the 2010 Fortune 100 companies which delineates those companies relying upon Office of Science facilities to deliver their products.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases the operations and maintenance account by $35 million in line with the O&M budget for FY2010. My amendment offsets this amendment in the Fossil Energy R&D account by the same amount consistent with the President's FY2012 budget request.

Mr. Chairman, as our Nation continues to climb out of the hole left behind from the Great Recession, Congress must focus on funding programs that create jobs and encourage economic growth. As the ranking member on the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, it is clear to me just how important it is to ensure that our water infrastructure assets remain safe, reliable and efficient to address our goals of encouraging economic prosperity.

Over the past few years, my subcommittee has held hearing after hearing on the declining condition of our Nation's water transportation corridors, our levees and flood walls, and our Nation's wastewater infrastructure.

Countless witnesses have told us that our water-related infrastructure is on the brink of failure, and they have specifically warned how the effects of such a failure would devastate our health, safety, prosperity and quality of life.

In just the past decade, the Corps has had multiple emergency closures of navigation locks on almost every major river system to address infrastructure deterioration. These unscheduled closures result in significant impacts to the movement of goods and services, as well as impact shippers and customers alike in terms of higher costs.

Similarly, the lack of available maintenance dredging funding has resulted in reduced depths at many major port facilities and has all but passed over the dredging needs of smaller ports such as Lake Montauk Harbor and Shinnecock Inlet in my district of eastern Long Island.

Our Nation's ports handle 2.5 billion tons of domestic and international cargo annually. They move imports and exports worth more than $5.5 billion per day. In 2007, ports employed over 13.3 million Americans, 9 percent of the total workforce, and those jobs paid $649 billion in wages. One billion dollars in exports creates 15,000 new jobs. Our ports and the maritime industry keep America open for business.

It would seem apparent, then, that underfunding the missions of the Corps of Engineers is shortsighted for many reasons. First, it has a substantial negative impact on local economies and the bottom lines of big industries and small businesses alike.

Second, it puts our families and communities at an increased risk of flooding and damage from coastal storms.

Third, it delays the potential public and environmental health benefits that come from environmental restoration projects.

Finally, it places this Nation on an unsustainable path where it is forced to rely on an outdated and failing infrastructure to keep the Nation going.

In light of this, or in spite of this, in the first 6 months of the 112th Congress, the new House majority has put forward several legislative proposals to cut the funding for the core to levels not seen since 2004.

The most aggressive proposal, included as part of H.R. 1, would have cut over $500 million, about 10 percent, from an already strained Corps budget; and it could only result in increased delay in carrying out vital Corps projects and increased reliance on using Band-Aids to remedy critical infrastructure maintenance issues.

Similarly, this appropriations bill further reduces the level of funding for the Corps by 11.5 percent, including a remarkable cut of 20.5 percent from the Corps' construction account and an additional 38.2 percent reduction for Corps work along the Mississippi River.

Collectively, for the hundreds of Corps projects around the country, these reductions in funding will result in a growing deficiency in maintenance that will continue to expand until it becomes an emergency or fails at a critical moment.

Given the lack of viable offsets in this bill, my amendment focuses on the Corps' Operation and Maintenance account that provides funding to the Corps to dredge existing harbors to their congressionally authorized width and depth.

Mr. Chairman, eliminating the funds for operation and maintenance is both penny-wise and pound-foolish. Businesses large and small depend greatly on their ability to move their goods to market by using our Nation's waterways.

From California importers to Minnesota miners to Ohio steelworkers to Michigan manufacturers to New York fishermen to Louisiana exporters to Illinois farmers to Pennsylvania producers, they and a great many others depend on efficient waterborne transportation to receive goods, move products to market, create jobs, and grow economically.

I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Bishop of New York

Amendment No. 35: Page 6, line 6, after the dollar amount

insert ``(increased by $33,535,000)''.

Page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced

by $33,535,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, family-run businesses are the cornerstone of Long Island's economy. I rise today to honor one such business, Clare Rose, Inc., as it celebrates its 75th anniversary this year.

The success of Clare Rose, Inc. is a testament to the perseverance of the American entrepreneurial spirit. Clare F. Rose founded Clare Rose, Inc. on November 30, 1936 in the quiet hamlet of Patchogue, New York, as a soft drink distribution business and then shifted to beer distribution in 1948.

The company distributed just one brand, Piels, and eventually added Anheuser-Busch and Heineken brands to its menu of brewed selections. Today, Clare Rose proudly distributes AB InBev, Heineken, Blue Point Craft Beers, and Great South Bay, along with other quality non- alcoholic products. It has grown to be the largest beverage wholesaler on Long Island and the second largest in New York State.

Its initial market territory encompassed only Eastern Suffolk County, later expanding business operations to all of Suffolk in the 1960s and Nassau County in the 1990s. Today, Clare Rose sells more than 11 million cases of beer annually to all of Long Island.

Rose started with just two employees, growing over time to a family of over 300 employees. The Rose family has led the company through seven decades of serving Long Island. Clare's sons Mark and Ric assumed management responsibilities in the 1960s and today, Sean, a third- generation Rose, serves as CEO and Chairman. It is a family business in the truest sense--welcoming fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, and many other family combinations.

Mr. Speaker, businesses are not just measured in profits or clientele, but by the role they play in their community. Clare Rose continues to support local educational and medical institutions, as well as local land and wildlife conservation initiatives across Long Island. The company has also participated in efforts to educate the public regarding responsible alcohol consumption, with a special focus on high school students and the dangers of underage drinking and drunk driving.

Mr. Speaker, local businesses with long histories are treasures for any community. On behalf of New York's first congressional district, I congratulate Clare Rose, Inc. and its employees on its 75th anniversary and wish them decades of success to come.

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of his retirement from the Southampton School Board, I rise to commend the Reverend Marvin Dozier for a life spent in service to others.

As a board member and past president of the board, Reverend Dozier devoted eleven-and-a-half years to the children and families of our community. Never concerned with recognition or accolades, he made the students his first priority. He was the first African-American to serve as president of the school board, and he worked tirelessly, with dignity and wisdom, to encourage collaboration and forge a common understanding among those with different backgrounds.

Reverend Dozier's community activism began when he was a student at Southampton High School during the 1960s. He worked with several teachers to organize diversity training workshops for students, advocated for the hiring of black teachers and served as a voice for the minority in student government. Although he considered himself an activist, his goal was never to be divisive, but to work to bring people together.

In 1980, Reverend Dozier was ordained a minister by the First Baptist Church of Southampton and is now pastor of the Unity Baptist Church of Mattituck. He also served as chair of the Southold Town Anti-Bias Task Force. Among many other contributions, Reverend Dozer is Director of the Southampton Youth Association, an organization that coordinates sports programs and summer camps for the school district and seeks to build character through sports. He has insisted that SYA remain true to its mission to give every child an opportunity whether or not the family has money or resources to pay for it.

Furthermore, Reverend Dozier serves as the voice for those who cannot stand up for themselves, making sure they have a chance to participate and become involved. A man who always seems to have a smile and a warm welcome for everyone he encounters, Reverend Dozier makes sure his work is guided by his desire to put the children of the community first--not himself, not his own children, but all the children.

Additionally, Reverend Dozier has held positions of leadership with great responsibility and dedication, always striving to raise social consciousness and create awareness. His purpose has never been to blame, but to hold people accountable for their actions.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure on behalf of New York's first congressional district to thank Reverend Martin Dozier for making our community a better place and to wish him well as he continues a life of service and contribution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the lives of two American heroes, Sergeant Peter P. Krupski and Private Russell M. Penny. Sgt. Krupski and Pvt. Penny personified American patriotism and selflessness in making the ultimate sacrifice to protect our freedoms for future generations.

Peter P. Krupski enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in 1941, reaching the rank of Master Technical Sergeant. Sgt. Krupski reenlisted in the Marines in March 1943, earning prominent distinctions such as the American Defense Service Medal, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal, and World War II Victory Medal. In 1943, as the American forces began their offensive through the South Pacific islands occupied by the Japanese, Sgt. Krupski died of wounds sustained during the Battle of Guadalcanal aboard a U.S. Navy mobile hospital. Though just 22 years old when he was killed, Sgt. Krupski has been fondly remembered on the East End of Long Island ever since his passing.

Russell Penny enlisted as a member of the United States Army on January 5, 1940, answering ours country's call to service following the advances of the Nazi Third Reich through Europe. Stationed at the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Pvt. Penny was killed during the surprise attack against the base by the Japanese on December 7, 1941. A lifelong resident of Mattituck, New York, Pvt. Penny holds the tragic distinction as the first casualty of Suffolk County and as one of the first of the over 400,000 Americans killed during World War II.

In honor of the sacrifices made by Sgt. Krupski and Pvt. Penny, a new community room at the Veterans Memorial Park in Mattituck, New York was named in their honor on May 28, 2011. It is my great hope that our community will continue to remember and support our veterans, forever recognizing them for their essential role in defense of our nation.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Sgt. Peter P. Krupski and Pvt. Russell M. Penny for their valor and service, and I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring their memory and sacrifice on the occasion of the dedication of the community room at the Veterans Memorial Park in my district.

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

In its current form, I am.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this final amendment, the Bishop-Holt motion to recommit, in order to increase funding for grants for transportation security and counterterrorism.

Intelligence seized from Osama bin Laden's compound indicates that al Qaeda was targeting America's railroads on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Earlier, in 2009, the FBI disrupted a plot to blow up trains in New York City and in Washington, D.C.

The 9/11 Commission placed some of the blame for the intelligence breakdown before the 9/11 attacks on a failure of imagination; but today, we don't have to imagine the damage a terrorist could do on a rush-hour commuter train. That is evident from the tragedies in Madrid, London, and Mumbai. An even more deadly attack could occur on a train carrying hazardous chemicals through a major city, including trains that pass regularly only a stone's throw from the U.S. Capitol.

While airline security upgrades over the past 10 years can help prevent another 9/11, we still face an evolving threat to multiple modes of transportation. In fact, trips by rail exceed air travel by 18 times. Yet air travel receives over 200 times more Federal security funding per passenger than rail.

Still, the bill before us today makes deep cuts to rail security. It provides no specific funding for transit, rail, or bus security grants in 2012. Instead, it rolls nine grant programs together to compete for funding that has already been cut 55 percent. That's not a failure of imagination; that's a dereliction of duty.

In response, the Bishop-Holt amendment would increase funding for grants for transportation security and counterterrorism by $75 million, fully offset with a reduction in funding for the National Bio and Agro- defense facility, otherwise known as NBAF.

While DHS insists that a new billion-dollar animal disease research lab in the heart both of cattle country and tornado alley is completely safe, both the GAO and the National Academy of Sciences have found many faults in safety and in cost overruns. In fact, most of us agree with the National Academy of Sciences that the risk of a release of foot- and-mouth disease in America's heartland must be better addressed before DHS proceeds with construction. We have much higher homeland security priorities than beginning a new billion-dollar facility that will replicate many of the existing functions already conducted at our Federal labs.

Fourteen million Americans ride mass transit every day in our Nation's urban areas, with millions more riding commuter or passenger rail each year. If we understand the clear threat to these passengers and accepted efforts to protect them are underfunded, we must do more to keep them safe.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to make the right choice and support this final amendment to increase funding for grants for transportation security and terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to mourn the passing of an outstanding young woman in my congressional district whose life was cut short in a tragic car accident on May 28th. Laura Kavazanjian of East Setauket, New York, was only 27 years old but already she was committed to making a difference in the lives of others.

Laura had recently completed a master's degree in international education policy at the Harvard Graduate School of Education that focused on access to education for marginalized girls. She valued her own education and was passionate about creating opportunities for young women in the developing world to have the same access to learning.

After earning her undergraduate degree from Brown University, Laura worked as a program officer for the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative in Mumbai, India designing and implementing a care and support program for more than 4,000 children living with HIV. She also conducted research in Malawi and worked for Save the Children and CARE for the Power to Lead Alliance, a program aimed at developing leadership among adolescent girls in six countries. Laura was on her way home from her five-year reunion at Brown with her fiance, David Reidy, when the car accident occurred.

In addition to her academic prowess, Laura was also a leader on the athletic fields, and played field hockey at Ward Melville High School and at Brown. I had the pleasure of meeting her when she worked in my district office as an intern and later on my campaign for re-election to Congress in New York's first district.

Indeed, Laura was a young woman of great promise with the motivation and the ability to realize her laudable goals. She had accomplished much in her short life, and I am sure she would have realized many other achievements.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of New York's first congressional district, I express my heartfelt sorrow to Laura's family, fiance and friends following this tragic loss. We will always remember Laura Kavazanjian with love and appreciation, and her memory will live on in our hearts.

Offered By: Mr. Bishop of New York

Amendment No. 3: Page 50, line 13, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(increased by $75,000,000)''.

Page 50, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $37,500,000)''.

Page 50, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $37,500,000)''.

Page 64, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $75,000,000)''.

Page 64, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $75,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Bishop of New York

Amendment No. 4: Page 64, line 2, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $75,000,000)''.

Page 64, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $75,000,000)''.

Page 92, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $75,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and support the gentleman's motion to move the previous question. This motion demonstrates we are serious about creating jobs, growing the economy, and lowering gas prices.

My Republican colleagues are instead relitigating an issue that was debated exhaustively over the past year. As I traveled all across my district last week, not surprisingly, not a single one

of my constituents said the health reform should be altered to fund graduate medical education in qualified teaching health centers through direct appropriations. Rather, my constituents want to hear what Congress is doing now to lower the price of a gallon of gas. They want to know how we are responding to turmoil in the Middle East and speculation by Wall Street, which are causing this price spike.

In Montauk Point, the eastern most point of my district, regular unleaded gas cost $4.89 a gallon yesterday. Recreational and commercial fishermen, small businesses and the whole local economy are all being squeezed by gas prices.

My constituents want to know what Congress is doing in response and how we plan to create jobs and expand our economy. But since the new Republican majority took over this year, we haven't debated a single jobs initiative or any meaningful proposal to reduce the price of gas for consumers--not one. In the 140 days since the 112th Congress began, we have debated zero job bills and only a handful of bills related to energy, most of which focus on reducing the price of gas 10 years from now, maybe.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that we can focus on our priorities: Reducing gas prices, creating jobs and helping middle class American keep up in today's economy.