Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013. This critical, bipartisan legislation allows Congress to renew its commitment to our Nation's water infrastructure for the first time since 2007.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Shuster and Chairman Gibbs for the open and inclusive process with which the committee drafted WRRDA. I would also like to express my gratitude to the chairman and to Ranking Member Rahall for their leadership in returning the

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to its long-standing traditions of bipartisanship and collaboration.

H.R. 3080 is not a perfect bill. It is not the bill that either side of the aisle would have drafted on its own. However, it represents a bipartisan effort based on valuable input from Members and stakeholders, constructive negotiation, and mutual respect. This ought to serve as a model for how this Congress conducts the American people's business.

This bill is about many things, but most importantly, it is about job creation, not just good construction jobs that will come with the authorization of Chief's Reports contained in the bill, but also the jobs that rely on a robust network of large and small ports and inland waterways to move goods throughout the United States.

H.R. 3080 also provides some relief from the challenges facing the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund by setting targets so that a greater amount of fund proceeds are used for their intended purposes--harbor maintenance. The bill also provides for the maintenance of our Nation's small ports.

However, we Members must be vigilant that the changes proposed in this bill do not further erode the ability of the Corps to carry out construction projects, such as those necessary to meet the post-Panamax vessels that will come once the Panama Canal expansion is complete.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at the progress we have made together on improving water infrastructure in the United States.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3080.

I thank Mr. Rahall for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, am in support of this amendment. I particularly want to thank the chairman for the inclusion of language in this amendment that addresses two issues of concern. One is the inclusion of consideration of nonstructural alternatives in preventing future storm damage. I think that is very important, particularly in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, for those of us that live in the Northeast; also, the language that allows the non-Federal cost-share partner to begin work on issues that are of importance to their locality.

I think these are very important issues to Members on our side, and I thank the chairman for including them.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, throughout the development of H.R. 3080, the chairman has taken a measured approached to balancing the desire to encourage additional private sector involvement in the development and execution of Corps projects with maintaining the internal technical capability of the Corps to carry out its vital military and civil works missions.

For decades, this committee has held the belief that maintaining the technical capability of the Corps is critical not only to address the water resources needs of the Nation, but also to maintain the ability of the Corps to serve its other role as critical support our Nation's military.

To maintain this capability, we have strived to maintain critical technical expertise within the Corps, while at the same time recognizing those areas where outside commercial interests can provide a useful role.

In my view, this amendment seeks to push the lever too far towards outsourcing the internal capabilities of the Corps. My understanding is that currently the Corps contracts extensively with the private sector for surveying and mapping services. However, the decision as to when it is appropriate to use their own staff, a public agency, or a private contractor for this work should remain within the Corps' leadership, who understand the needs of specific projects.

For these reasons, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I include letters from the AFGE, the transportation trade, and the IFPTE in opposition to the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

American Federation of

Government Employees, AFL-CIO,

Washington, DC, October 23, 2013.

Re Don't bail out bad contractors: oppose the Young-Petri

amendment to give all surveying and mapping work to

contractors, regardless of high costs or bad performance

Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Federation

of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, which represents more than

650,000 federal employees, including in the Corps of

Engineers (CoE), I urge you to oppose an amendment to be

offered to the Water Resources Development Act (H.R. 3080) by

Representatives Don Young (R-AK) and Tom Petri (R-WI) that

would prevent the CoE from using lower-cost, higher-

performing alternatives to contractors for the performance of

surveying and mapping functions.

The Department of Defense (DOD), which spends 60% of all

service contract dollars, including a large amount on behalf

of CoE, has determined that contractors usually cost more

than in-house performance, often by significant amounts. In

2010, then DoD Secretary Robert Gates told The Washington

Post ``that federal workers cost the government 25 percent

less than contractors''. Comptroller Robert Hale acknowledged

to a Senate Subcommittee in June that contractors are two to

three times more expensive than civilians. In a September

House hearing, the Army Chief of Staff echoed Hale's remark.

The Young-Petri amendment would direct the CoE, in carrying

out water resources projects, to use contractors for

surveying and mapping functions whenever possible and forbid

the CoE from starting or performing surveying and mapping

functions if they happen to be performed by contractors. At a

time when taxpayer dollars are precious, it makes no sense to

force CoE to give work to contractors that can better be

performed by federal employees.

There has been no determination by the agency, the House

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, let alone any

independent third party, that the agency is failing to

adequately use contractors for these functions or that its

federal sector surveyors and mappers are costly or

inadequate. The Young-Petri amendment is simply an attempt by

a group of contractors to use political pressure to force the

CoE to give them more taxpayer dollars--the worst kind of

earmark. The impartial experts at CoE should be responsible

for determining how the agency meets its mission, not a self-

interested band of contractors. Of course, surveying and

mapping contractors want more money, but that doesn't mean

they should take it from taxpayers. Enactment of the Young-

Petri amendment would be a terrible public policy precedent.

Thank you for your consideration. Please contact John

Threlkeld ([email protected]) of my staff if you have any

questions.

Sincerely,

Beth Moten,

Legislative and Political Director.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster).

Mr. Chairman, I join Chairman Shuster in opposing this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me pick up on something that Chairman Shuster just said. He said that if we were to take the approach that is advocated by this amendment of the gentleman from Michigan, we would run the risk of deauthorizing projects that are very vital. Let me give you an example of one that would be in that category.

The Fire Island to Montauk Point Reformulation Study, a study that comprises the 83 easternmost miles of coastline of Long Island, 70 miles of which is in my district, which was first authorized in the 1960s, it has crept along primarily because it has not had adequate funding either for studies and certainly not for construction.

Hurricane Sandy proved just how valuable and just how important the work that has been contemplated by the Fire Island to Montauk Point Reformulation Study has been and would have been. If it were not for the Sandy supplemental funding, we still wouldn't be in a position to fund the vitally important construction projects associated with FIMP; but FIMP is the kind of project that would fall victim to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan were it to be approved.

So I join the ranking member and the chairman in urging opposition to the amendment

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a concurrent resolution calling upon the government of Serbia to bring to justice those responsible for the murders of Ylli, Agron and Mehmet Bytyqi in July 1999. The resolution also calls on our government to do what it can to encourage and assist a successful prosecution of the case. I want to thank my fellow colleague from New York, Mr. Grimm, for co-sponsoring this resolution.

The three Bytyqi brothers were American citizens. Their ethnic Albanian family emigrated to the United States from Kosovo, and some family members reside in my district on Long Island. During the Kosovo conflict which prompted the NATO air campaign against Serbia, the brothers traveled to the region to fight. Remaining in Kosovo after a cease fire agreement ended the conflict, the three young men escorted an ethnic Romani neighbor and his family from Kosovo to Serbian controlled territory, where they would be safer. Accidently straying across the border, they were detained by police in southern Serbia and then sentenced for illegally entering the country. When released from prison, they were not set free but taken to a Ministry of Interior special forces training camp where they were executed and buried in a mass grave with the bodies of dozens of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo.

To be clear, the Bytyqi brothers were not sentenced for any crime other than illegal entry. They were not afforded an opportunity

to defend themselves in a court of law. They were not given a fair and public trial. They were shot, in cold blood, by a paramilitary unit working under the Ministry of Interior.

In 1999, Serbia was under the rule of Slobodan Milosevic, whose regime fomented ethnic hatred and was responsible for some of the worst atrocities in Europe since World War II. Today, Serbia is a very different place, moving forward in its democratic development, improving relations with its neighbors and advancing on its path toward European integration. In doing so, it has worked to prosecute many of the crimes committed in the Milosevic era. It is unfortunate, however, that those responsible for the murders of the Bytyqi brothers continue to elude justice.

Our government should do everything it can to ensure the successful prosecution of those responsible for the murders of U.S. citizens abroad. It should provide resources as needed, and it should make it clear to the authorities in Belgrade that inaction does have repercussions on bilateral relations. This resolution encourages just that. The resolution will also hopefully convey to the Serbian authorities the concerns of the U.S. Congress, and it is my hope they will respond by removing any protection given to the perpetrators of this crime and prosecuting them in a court of law. Hopefully, Serbia's political leaders will not only recognize the seriousness which we attach to this case but also understand that it is in Serbia's interest to let justice work to sever the ties with the Milosevic past that have held the country back from a Europe where it otherwise belongs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this resolution and its passage in this Congress.

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

In its current form I am, yes.

Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit would allow a vote on H.J. Res. 59, the Senate continuing resolution. If we were to pass the continuing resolution, the entire Federal Government would reopen, not just an isolated slice of it. All we're asking for is a vote on the Senate resolution.

I would ask: Is not taking a vote on issues of great importance to our country the very essence of our democracy? And I would further ask what it is that our friends on the majority are afraid of in terms of allowing such a vote to happen on the floor of this House?

Mr. Speaker, Tropical Storm Karen is bearing down on the gulf as we speak. It is expected to be upgraded to at least a category 1 hurricane and could reach my district along the east coast as soon as Tuesday of next week.

We're still picking up the pieces from Sandy, and we can't afford to be hit by another storm. Have we forgotten the lessons of Katrina? of Sandy, which clobbered the shores of New York and New Jersey?

If we are funding FEMA, why aren't we providing funds for every single agency so that human lives can be protected and storm damage taken care of immediately? These storms require all hands on deck, and yet 800,000 employees are currently furloughed.

After Sandy took eight lives, destroyed thousands of homes, and shut down dozens of businesses in my district, my district needed much more than just FEMA. We needed the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Interior, not to mention the Army Corps of Engineers and the Small Business Administration, to name just a few of the agencies that joined together in the coordinated recovery effort to deliver emergency relief and to begin the rebuilding process.

Why are the Republicans in favor of closing down the Federal Government

and denying taxpayers the protections from natural disasters that they've already paid for? This makes absolutely no sense to people who have to work hard every day to make a living and are now concerned that they are in the path of an oncoming storm.

I just want to raise one point about how destructive this government shutdown has been. I have just come from a meeting of the Board of Visitors of the United States Merchant Marines Academy--one of the four service academies that each Member of this Congress has the honor to nominate outstanding young men and women to be able to attend. That service academy right now is closed, it is shut down. No classes are being offered. So we have nominated the cream of the crop that this country has to offer to this academy, and they are attending a school which cannot schedule and hold classes. This is madness. This is madness. And the capacity to change that is right here within our grasp. It's called H.J. Res. 59.

Let's schedule a vote on that and let's see what happens. I'll bet that if we do have a vote on H.J. Res. 59 it will pass, we'll be able to send it to the President, and he will sign it. And we'll be able to reopen the government within hours.

So I would urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

I do, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

I would just raise a couple of questions.

The first is, the bill before us funds a slice of the Federal Government. What I am struggling to understand is why funding the entire Federal Government would be out of order and not germane, when it is germane to schedule or to fund a piece of the Federal Government? It strikes me as illogical in the extreme that it is in order to fund a piece of the Federal Government, but not in order to fund the entire Federal Government. I would ask the Chair to explain why it is that the motion to recommit would not be germane.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate James Castellane, one of Long Island's most formidable leaders and a dynamic advocate for working families, on this occasion of his retirement.

I am proud to call Jimmy a good friend and partner in expanding opportunity and raising the standard of living for working men and women across Long Island. Jimmy has dedicated his life to improving workplace conditions and ensuring that every worker has a chance to work at a quality, good paying job.

Jim joined his local insulator union, the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers, upon returning from the war in Vietnam. For the next forty years, Jim devoted his time working as an enthusiastic laborer, organizer and union leader.

In 2007, Jimmy became President of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island. As President, Jimmy represented 36 local construction unions and over 55,000 workers.

As President of the council during one of the worst economic crises in our country's history, Jim understood the importance of construction trades and the hardships faced by workers and fought tirelessly to create and save good paying construction jobs on Long Island.

As a veteran, Jim is familiar with the hardships that can come with returning home from war. He often partnered the Building and Construction Trades Council with local government agencies and businesses to ensure that every returning service man and woman had the opportunity to find quality employment.

Jim extended his passion for protecting workers' rights well beyond that of the construction trades as a member of the Executive Committee of the Long Island Federation of Labor. No matter what the industry, you could rest assured you would find Jim on the front line in defense of his fellow Long Islanders whenever workers' rights were threatened.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the First Congressional District of New York, I thank Jim Castellane for his service to our country and the many decades he has spent advancing the rights of workers on Long Island. On behalf of the people of the first congressional district of New York, I wish him the very best retirement and all the best in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate WLNG 92.1 FM as the station celebrates its 50th anniversary on the air. Broadcasting from its studio in Sag Harbor New York, WLNG is known and loved throughout eastern Long Island for its oldies format, local news and sports, and personality disc jockeys like Gary Sapiane, Rusty Potz and the late Paul Sydney. WLNG may well be a one-of-a-kind radio station. Since 1963 the station has stuck to its popular oldies format playing hits from the 1950's, 60's, 70's and 80's, mixed with lots of old-style jingles, birthday announcements and live remote broadcasts from local events.

Perhaps more importantly, WLNG has served as the pulse of the community connecting friends and neighbors in good times and in bad. The station can be found doing a remote broadcast from a local fundraiser for cancer or providing life-saving information during an emergency. The station served as a reliable resource for the latest on Hurricane Irene in 2011, and during Hurricane Sandy in 2012 WLNG continued broadcasting and streaming online using generator power and flashlights as the storm surge rose to ``ankle deep'' in the studio. One of its mainstay programs is the ever-popular ``Swap and Shop,'' a kind of on-air ebay in which residents can sell used or unwanted items to their neighbors. Listeners also rely on WLNG for the latest in school closings during a snow storm or the scores of local high schools sports events--even for finding a lost dog.

Radio junkies love WLNG for the retro jingles and reverb--the sound of radio the way it used to be. Its DJs are happy to dedicate songs in honor of listeners. Independently-owned, WLNG has remained steadfastly the same in times of huge and sometimes overwhelming changes in communication technology and format, and maybe that is the key to its success. It can be relied upon like a good neighbor. Perhaps Paul Sydney summed it up best when he was quoted in an interview with the Sag Harbor Express saying, ``WLNG is like a person. You're with it. It's your friend. We're talking to one person at a time. I know there is no other station in the world like it. Even if you want to avoid it, you always come back. Whether it's Sag Harbor or Norman, Oklahoma, Main Street is Main Street.''

It gives me great pleasure to congratulate WLNG radio on its 50th anniversary and wish the station many more years of successful broadcasting.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise today in support of the underlying legislation. Although this compromise is far from perfect, it is a step that must be taken in order to provide financial relief to American students and their families.

This legislation will bring undergraduate interest rates back under 4 percent for the upcoming academic year--a far more sustainable and appropriate level than the current 6.8 percent rates. Graduate students and parents will also benefit from lowered interest rates within this bill. Importantly, and in contrast to the bill that previously passed the House, the legislation also locks in those interest rates for the lifetime of each annually disbursed loan, providing student borrowers with critical consumer protections and a measure of predictability. Finally, this compromise provides interest rate caps for all student loans, offering an essential safety net to protect students and their families from the whims of market-based rates.

While this isn't a bill that I would have written, we must all recognize the urgency of our current situation and pass it today. Classes are starting at many institutions within just a few weeks. Students around the country are signing master promissory notes even as we speak, committing themselves to years of debt and loan repayments in order to make an investment in their future. At the very least, this Congress has the responsibility to momentarily end the political gridlock that paralyzes our Nation and notify these hardworking student what their interest rates will be.

However, let's not think for one second that our work on college access and affordability is now complete. With the Congressional Budget Office projecting interest rates of 10-year Treasury notes--the baseline that determines student interest rates--to rise significantly over the next 5 years, we must work proactively and cooperatively to assure affordable student interest rates not only for present students but future students as well.

American student loan debt stands at $1.1 trillion. And it continues to rise. The Federal Government continues to make a huge profit on student loan repayment, even as students are forced to shoulder more of the burden than ever before. Balancing our deficit on the backs of student is simply not right, especially when considering the broader economic impact of saddling students with untenable amounts of debt.

When borrowers are forced to devote huge chunks of their paychecks to student loan repayment, it means they will have less income to spend on major purchases like homes or vehicles. They are less likely to start a business. They are less likely to invest in retirement accounts or the stock market--all negative indicators that will affect our economic prosperity now and into the future.

Mr. Speaker, a college education has represented a path to the middle class for millions of American families. Taking direct action to bring down the cost of a college degree by lowering student loan interest rates is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to the rule, and urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that the House can consider pro-consumer, job- protecting legislation, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act, which would deter the sale of gasoline at excessive prices.

I introduced this legislation so that my constituents and Long Island businesses are not harmed by unscrupulous business practices designed solely to increase profit margins.

My constituents are facing rising prices at nearly every turn, on top of stagnated wage growth. They're worried about paying for college, paying the mortgage, saving for retirement, or just paying for groceries. They're also wondering what Congress is doing for them to create jobs and to raise their standard of living.

AAA estimates gas prices are expected to increase as the summer continues. In fact, AAA reports that the average price per gallon is up to $4 on Long Island from $3.87 a week ago. This comes as Americans are heading to Long Island's beaches, historic villages, and open spaces. Excessive gas

prices will cost Long Island businesses and jobs, and that's something that we cannot let happen on Long Island or anywhere else in this country.

The east coast is also in the midst of hurricane season, which can bring out the unscrupulous who would take advantage of hardworking families, as we witnessed in the aftermath of Sandy. In fact, just this week a New York State judge fined one Long Island gas station, and two others have reached settlements with the New York Attorney General's Office for price gouging.

This Congress should protect those harmed by natural disasters so they don't have to worry about price gouging while they rebuild their homes, communities, businesses, and livelihoods. Let's do it now before the next crisis erupts.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, support consumers and jobs, and support the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act.

Thank you very much. I appreciate my friend for yielding, although I must point out I don't remember Coach Doyle gloating like that when we won the baseball game.

We had a great night, and I was pleased to play with my fellow Members: Jim Costa, Mike McIntyre, and Cheri Bustos. We had two members of the press from Fox News: Ed Henry and Bret Baier. We had two people from the White House: Gene Sperling and Alan Krueger. We had Ben Olsen from D.C. United. We had Ambassador Dino Djalal, and we were joined by three members of the Kastles: Murphy Jensen, Martina Hingis, and Anastasia Rodionova.

Mr. Speaker, we did indeed get great news in New York today with respect to how the exchanges in the Affordable Care Act will affect premiums.

I rise to oppose the rule and urge Members to defeat the previous question so that the House may consider the Invest in American Jobs Act introduced by my friend and colleague, Mr. Rahall, the distinguished ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This critically important legislation will support domestic manufacturing and create American jobs by strengthening Buy America requirements for investment in our Nation's infrastructure. I strongly support the provisions of this legislation that will permanently codify Buy America requirements for our Nation's preeminent Federal clean water infrastructure program, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.

When Congress first enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972, it required that any grant funding for wastewater infrastructure--then funded through the Construction Grants program--be used to support ``articles, materials or supplies mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States.'' Unfortunately, in 1987, when then-President Ronald Reagan urged Congress to abolish the Construction Grants program in favor of the current Clean Water SRF, these initial Buy America requirements expired. It was not until 2009, when Congress enacted the Recovery Act, that Buy America provisions were restored for Federal investment in wastewater infrastructure through the Clean Water SRF.

What was remarkable was both how adept the Nation's wastewater industry and the States were at implementing these commonsense domestic preference reforms and how important these were to breathing life back into a faltering domestic supply chain for wastewater infrastructure. As the Recovery Act demonstrated, Buy America requirements for wastewater infrastructure can work, can be implemented with relative efficiency, and most importantly, create jobs--both in the casting of raw materials as well as in the finishing work.

I strongly support reinstatement of the Buy America requirements for the Clean Water SRF program that are contained in this bill. I urge Members to support American jobs by defeating the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Dr. David J. Steinberg for a long and very distinguished career in higher education. It is my honor to recognize my former employer and one of Long Island's most respected leaders on the occasion of his retirement as president of Long Island University.

Over the course of his life and career, David has possessed all the attributes of a strong leader and set a shining example for all those he has taught and guided. He is a brilliant and gifted administrator who has achieved tremendous success and enjoys an impeccable reputation in the higher education community and across New York.

David began to make his mark when he started teaching in the history department of the University of Michigan, where he soon became a full professor. Before coming to LIU, he served as vice president and university secretary of Brandeis University.

An accomplished scholar, David has written several books and articles about Southeast Asia. He became an expert in the history of the Philippines and was a member of the international observer team that monitored the presidential elections in which Corazon Aquino defeated Ferdinand Marcos.

David spent a year at Columbia University on a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship, and he holds three degrees from Harvard University, where he earned his undergraduate degree, and completed his M.A. in East Asian studies and a Ph.D. in history.

In 1985, David was chosen to lead LIU. I was fortunate to be the provost and chief executive officer of the university's Southampton Campus while he was president. It was my privilege to work under him and learn to appreciate that at the core of David's vision was the goal of expanding access and affordability for students in the pursuit of a quality private education.

Since 2009, David has increased institutional student financial aid from $65 million to more than $100 million, and he expanded LIU into one of the largest and most comprehensive private universities in the United States, with six campuses and three overseas centers. In addition, LIU's endowment increased from $4.8 million to nearly $80 million, and enrollment expanded from 19,000 to 24,000 students.

David's vision has also enabled LIU maintain its competitive edge as a leader in the use of technology in education through LIU Online and LIU Global; the launch of programs in emerging fields like forensic science, genetic counseling, mobile GIS, homeland security management and environmental sustainability; and the realization of a groundbreaking cloud computing initiative, which included the largest iPad deployment in American higher education.

Perhaps most important is David's emphasis on the value of community service as an integral component of LIU's commitment to enhancing the quality of life for the university's neighbors on Long Island. Students attending LIU Post alone volunteer 27,500 hours devoted to the community each year through local initiatives involving health and wellness; providing resources for individuals and families dealing with autism, aphasia, and post-traumatic stress syndrome; and offering instruction in literacy and life skills. In fact, both of LIU's residential campuses were named to President Obama's Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll.

Additionally, David's leadership forged LIU's long tradition of complementing its educational mission with cultural and artistic endeavors by offering world-class performances and arts programs at the Tilles Center for the Performing Arts, which is located at LIU Post in Brookville. He has indeed nurtured a culture of access and excellence that has transformed the lives of countless students and in the process made an indelible impression on the educational and cultural landscape of New York for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that David will embrace his retirement with his usual enthusiasm and energy. On behalf of New York's first congressional district, I wish him all the health and happiness throughout a long retirement with his wife, Joan, his two sons, Noah and Jonah, and his grandchildren.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment is very simple. It strikes the $404 million included for the National Bio- and Agro- Defense Facility, known as NBAF, planned for Manhattan, Kansas, and uses those funds to reduce the deficit.

I continue to voice two vitally important concerns with NBAF: safety and cost. As many have noted in the past, putting a laboratory that will study the most virulent and harmful animal diseases known in the heart of cattle country, and in an area that is the frequent victim of violent tornados, is a needless risk to an $80 billion a year industry, especially when the safety of that lab is still in question.

While supporters of this project will testify to NBAF's safety, this claim is not supported by the two risk evaluations conducted by the National Academy of Science's research arm, the National Research Council. These risk evaluations studied site-specific assessments conducted by the Department of Homeland Security.

In its review of DHS' first study, the NRC found that the risk of foot-and-mouth disease released in the Nation's heartland was 70 percent, 70 percent over a 50-year period. Furthermore, the cost of a release of foot-and-mouth disease is estimated at between $9 billion and $50 billion.

In June 2012, the NRC found that the Department's second risk assessment relied on ``questionable and inappropriate assumptions'' in calculating risk to determine that NBAF posed near non-existent safety risks to surrounding areas. The same report could not verify DHS' results due to the ``methods and data being unevenly or poorly presented.''

If the Department's own safety assessments throw into question the safety and security of this new facility, how can we be certain that a billion-dollar project will not pose significant security threats to Americans living nearby? The NRC findings are not a resounding endorsement, by any stretch.

In addition to these significant safety concerns, NBAF's cost is alarming. Initially, $451 million was budgeted for its construction. Today the pricetag is a staggering $1 billion.

It can hardly be considered fiscally responsible to spend more than double the initial amount to build a massive research facility only to duplicate research activities currently performed by other existing facilities. More cost-effective solutions must be considered to meet the Nation's agro-defense research needs, including the expansion of existing facilities around the country.

Alternative options to NBAF do exist. A July 2012 NRC study looked at three separate futures for the Nation's biosecurity needs and clearly demonstrates that, even without NBAF as currently designed, those needs can be adequately filled by existing facilities.

Specifically, one option includes continuing the exemplary work already being conducted at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, while leveraging out the BSL-4 functions to other existing facilities.

This option would represent a significant savings, while ensuring that current research needs are met. The NRC's studies reaffirmed my concerns, as well as the concerns of many in the agricultural community, that the unknowns are too many, the risks are too great, and the pricetag too high to justify going forward with construction at this time.

Let me close with this. This NBAF project is a boondoggle. We don't even have a shovel in the ground yet and already the cost has gone up by 250 percent. It is not needed. A very reputable organization, that is to say, the NRC, has asserted a perfectly reasonable and vastly less expensive alternative exists. We have scores and scores of infrastructure needs much, much more urgent that we are not addressing.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, support my amendment, and reduce our deficit by $404 million.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered by: Mr. Bishop of New York

Amendment No. 18: Page 54, line 3, after the dollar amount

insert ``(reduced by $404,000,000)''.

Page 54, line 9, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced

by $404,000,000)''.

Page 93, line 9, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $404,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the passing of Almerindo ``Al'' Carvalheira, a Vietnam veteran who lived an extraordinary life of service to his country and to his fellow veterans. Al succumbed to cancer on January 21, 2013, at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Northport, New York.

Al was born on October 21, 1947, in Portugal. His family immigrated to the United States when he was 10 years old and settled in Nesconset, New York. Al proudly served his country in the United States Army during the Vietnam War and received numerous awards and decorations, including two Purple Hearts, the Bronze Star Medal, and the Air Medal.

Honorably discharged with the rank of sergeant in December of 1969, Al returned to his home on Long Island where he pursued a career in nursing and was hired by the Northport VA Medical Center in 1977. There he dedicated himself to the care and treatment of his fellow veterans as a VA registered nurse and nurse leader for nearly four decades.

Al was known as a highly effective and empathetic caregiver who was never too busy to spend time with his patients, especially the most challenging among them. His own experience gave him a unique understanding of what his patients had endured in combat. In discussions with them, he often cited his favorite book, ``The Things They Carried,'' written by fellow Vietnam veteran Tim O'Brien.

Soon after the start of his career at the VA medical center, Al was promoted to nurse manager, which gave him the supervision of all inpatient psychiatric units and the outpatient treatment program. In addition to these significant responsibilities, Al trained and developed staff in crisis intervention and implemented a crisis response team for the safety of VA patients and staff. In order to provide veterans the best care possible, Al found the time to earn a master's degree in nursing from Stony Brook University.

Dear to Al's heart was the Suffolk County, New York, chapter of the Vietnam Veterans of America, to which he devoted 38 years of service, working day in and day out taking care of ``his boys,'' advocating for the needs of all veterans and raising awareness of the contributions and sacrifices made by our Nation's veterans and their families.

In May of 2009, I had the great pleasure of working with Al and his friends and fellow Vietnam veterans Richie Kitson and Clarence Simpson to rename the Riverhead, New York, Post Office in honor of Suffolk County's only Vietnam War Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, PFC Garfield M. Langhorn.

That same year, Al took the lead in the construction and dedication of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Garden on the grounds of the Northport VA Medical Center, which recognizes and honors the sacrifices of our Nation's servicemen and -women. The memorial garden's dedication ceremony was held in October 2010 and was attended by more than 300 people.

In 2011, Al and members of the VVA were inspired by Dignity Memorial's replica of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall to expand the Northport VA Medical Center's Vietnam Veterans Memorial Garden for the inclusion of a permanent war memorial known as The Wall of Wars.

It was during this time that Al was diagnosed with cancer. Although Al will not be present at the VA's Veterans Day dedication of the The Wall of Wars, his legacy as a war hero, a VA nurse, and a veterans advocate is and will be forever present on the grounds of the Northport VA Medical Center and throughout Suffolk County's veteran community.

On January 25, 2013, Vietnam veteran and U.S. Army Sergeant Al Carvalheira was laid to rest with military honors at Long Island's Calverton National Cemetery. Al is survived by his beloved wife of 40 years, Geraldine, and their two sons, Almerindo and John, as well as six grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of New York's First Congressional District and a grateful Nation, it is my honor and privilege to recognize Almerindo ``Al'' Carvalheira for his distinguished service and many contributions to our Nation and his fellow veterans. He will always be remembered with our love and appreciation.

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

In its current form, I am.

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

Our amendment, which is similar to amendments offered during our committee markups of H.R. 3, corrects a massive loophole in current law that exempts Keystone XL pipeline tar sands from paying millions of dollars into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

Unlike U.S. crude oil companies, tar sands importers will not pay into the Oil Spill Trust Fund, even though the Trust Fund will be used to pay for any cleanup costs from an oil spill on the Keystone XL pipeline.

That's right. The Keystone XL pipeline, and all other tar sands importers, get all of the protections of the fund if they have an oil spill, but they do not have to pay a dime into it up front.

As we have seen during the Keystone debate on this floor, we can argue over the merits of tar sands oil and we can argue over the merits of granting special permit waivers to TransCanada to build the Keystone pipeline.

However, I would hope that we could all agree that this Congress should not allow the importers of Keystone pipeline tar sands to avoid the per barrel charge that all other oil companies pay to finance the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

In 2011, the Internal Revenue Service concluded that the definitions of ``crude oil'' and ``petroleum product'' in the Tax Code do not clearly include tar sands. This interpretation, if allowed to stand, exempts the Keystone XL pipeline tar sands from the excise tax that finances the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. In short, this is a $66,000 per day tax break.

I am sure that some of my Republican colleagues will argue that H.R. 3 is not the appropriate vehicle for making this change to the law, that we should not single out Keystone XL pipeline, and that Congress should consider this change as a part of comprehensive tax reform.

To my colleagues across the aisle, I would argue that this entire bill is about singling out the Keystone XL pipeline, providing special rules and deeming permits approved for everything anyone can think of.

Our amendment will ensure that TransCanada certifies to the President that Keystone XL pipeline tar sands will be subject to the per barrel excise tax that funds the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, ensuring that they pay their fair share.

I yield the remaining time to this amendment's cosponsor, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, I join with 27 of my colleagues in introducing bipartisan legislation to make long,

overdue investments in our nation's water infrastructure systems that will benefit both our communities and our economy.

When it comes to America's infrastructure, the role of the Federal government is both critical and clear. Never has the need for Federal investment been greater, and in my district, perhaps more urgent both in the short term and long term.

As the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure heard at its Water Resources and Development Act hearing last month, America's waterways related infrastructure projects are in drastic need of Federal investment that will create jobs and benefit our economy. So too, will federal investment in our wastewater infrastructure systems provide economic benefits and create jobs while rebuilding and expanding our treatment systems. For every $1 billion this nation spends on wastewater infrastructure it can create as many as 33,000 jobs in communities across America while improving our public health and the environment. It is a win-win proposition.

Around the country, states report a need of close to $300 billion in wastewater treatment, pipe replacement and repair, and stormwater management projects over the next twenty years. This need is especially pressing in many cities and communities where pipes and sewage treatment facilities are reaching the end of their expected useful life.

Without a greater Federal investment, communities that cannot upgrade and expand their wastewater systems will find it harder to attract new business and build new homes. Existing businesses and homes will see treatment costs rise as short term fixes are sought. Current Federal appropriations that equal a small fraction of the identified need to modernize and repair these systems are clearly not sufficient. The time for a new approach to Federal investment and financing of these efforts is now.

The ``Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2013'' we are introducing today is intended to provide the ``all of the above'' approach to water infrastructure investment and financing that will be needed to close our current funding gaps. 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. For decades, the SRFs have been the traditional mechanism for Federal wastewater infrastructure assistance.

Yet, also recognizing that significant additional resources will be necessary, the bill establishes two complementary 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.

Meeting the critical water infrastructure investment needs of our local communities is a bipartisan issue, and indeed, this bill has bipartisan support. Members from both sides of the aisle recognize that the investments that we make will 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 am also pleased that Republican and Democratic staff on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee have had several productive meetings to discuss this issue and explore a collaborative path forward. I look forward to working with Chairmen Shuster and Gibbs and Ranking Member Rahall to advance long-term, sustained investment in our nation's wastewater infrastructure that has broad support from cities and communities around the country, industry, utilities, environmental groups, unions, equipment suppliers, and engineers.

In short, Mr. Speaker, this bill is good for America and American workers, and I urge my colleagues to join myself and my fellow cosponsors in supporting this very important legislation.