Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, more than 30,000 families in New York's capital region rely on SNAP benefits to put dinner on the table every night. Nationally, about 87 percent of families on food stamps include a child, a senior citizen, or a disabled person. These members of the American family are hungry. They are not criminals.

Yet House Republicans are trying to cut $40 billion from this critical program, 10 times the amount the Senate has proposed, without first looking at closing tax loopholes for major corporations or cutting subsidies to profit rich oil companies.

These benefits are not luxuries, Mr. Speaker. These are basic, sustainable meals that will keep our unemployed and underemployed nourished until they find a job that lets them support themselves and their families on their own.

If House Republicans truly want to reduce food stamp rolls and decrease how much our Nation spends on the SNAP program, then they need to join the Democrats and get serious about creating quality, well- paying jobs instead of trying to balance the budget on the backs of our country's most vulnerable.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois and the gentlewoman from Hawaii for bringing us together in a bipartisan, spirited way to recognize the living Medal of Honor winners, who are much applauded and much recognized and deeply loved by this Nation.

I rise this evening to honor the heroic efforts of Sergeant First Class Francis Sherman Currey of the United States Army.

Sergeant Currey served with the 30th Infantry Division and was awarded the Medal of Honor for acts of conspicuous gallantry on December 21, 1944, near Malmedy, Belgium.

While defending a strong point, Sergeant Currey's platoon was overrun by German tanks, leading to the withdrawal of his platoon. Sergeant Currey was able to obtain a bazooka despite taking heavy fire from enemy tanks and infantrymen just a short distance away. Pushing forward, Sergeant Currey eliminated one tank and cleared three German soldiers from a house. In discovering five trapped American soldiers, Sergeant Currey acquired several anti-tank grenades. In driving the tank men from their vehicles, he provided enough cover fire to free the five soldiers.

It is for his indomitable heroism and consummate devotion to duty that I am proud to honor and remember the actions of Sergeant First Class Sherman Currey. I thank you for the opportunity to share with you this evening on behalf of this wonderful gentleman.

Thank you, Representative Garamendi, and thank you for bringing us together on what will be thoughtful discussion in how to invest in America and grow the economy and grow job opportunities, create that climate that best cultivates job action and job growth in our society.

Just moments ago on the House floor, we held a moment of silence in recognition, in commemoration and respect for those who gave it their all, as many were Federal employees in that situation. I also want to attach my comments to those of yours in extending my condolences to the many family members and friends who are so impacted by this tragedy, this horrific act that wiped out their lives prematurely. May they rest in peace.

Representative Garamendi, you have highlighted in very stark contrast the difference in the thought process and the philosophy of what was then under President Franklin Roosevelt and what is now, and certainly what had happened during the Clinton years, which proved much more progressive in its nature.

If we think of that quote of President Roosevelt where society needed to be tested as to whether or not they were going to add more, add to the abundance of those who have much, that was a tremendous litmus test. It was a challenge to this country to search deep into its moral compass. What you're highlighting here, Representative Garamendi, is that it's an ebb and flow. It's looking for ways to pay for tax breaks for those who are perched way on the top.

Where you talk of that 95 percent, 98 percent of the growth of the economy going to the top 1 percent, that's unsustainable. When you think of the gimmickry that is going on, to be able to provide for the cost of such spending--because these tax breaks for those perched on the top is an order of spending--it's done through cuts to programs that speak to hunger, cuts that will impact seniors, cuts that will impact our very young, cuts that will impact our struggling families.

There is no mistake between the correlation of tough times and those who are dependent on a number of Federal programs. Throughout history, you can suggest through data that are compiled that those charts go upward when you have tough times and the reliance on some of these programs grows, and it's not unusual that has happened during the recession. So some struggling families required assistance.

You also have the elderly population that have nutrition inserted as part of their health care formula and is part of their wellness agenda. If a diabetic does not get their nutritional needs met, there are problems. If there are situations where people are doing without food, it can be the difference between quality of life and sometimes survival because of the absolute need to have a well-balanced nutritional program.

The same is true of our very young. We cannot ask our young children to go without the nutritional values they require or ask them to study at their best level in a classroom on an empty belly.

The moral compass is very direct here. It points our way and challenges us to take those words uttered decades ago by President Roosevelt. They speak with greater resonance, a deeper more profound resonance than they had when they were perhaps first uttered by the late former President. We need to take that to mind. We need to have history speak to us. We need to look at what happened when we invested in America, in her working families in the toughest of times.

When we think of the progress made during those Roosevelt years, that was a gentleman who was challenged in his own right and who led this Nation, lifted this Nation's economy while serving in a wheelchair. That is a powerful statement, one that had progressive outcomes written all over it. We need to go forward and look at these orders of investment that will grow the economy, a tax policy that draws fundamental fairness so that there isn't this gross disparity between growth for some and denial for others.

It's absolutely statistically tracked now from as far along as the mid to late seventies to today. You can chart what has happened with some of these efforts to reduce assistance to working families in middle-income communities. It is unsustainable. We cannot grow an economy with these sorts of policies in play.

So tonight, let's look at those investments, from education, higher education, to infrastructure, to advanced manufacturing that is required so as to allow us to compete effectively in a global economy where our manufacturing base can survive if we do it smarter, not necessarily cheaper. If we do it smarter, we will land contracts, grow jobs with the productivity factor that is developed by inserting our policies into the transformation into an advanced manufacturing economy and by providing the investments that will draw policies that are progressive and more resources that will provide a lucrative dividend, make them an investment rather than outright spending, as we saw with some of these tax relief measures which did not produce a growth in the economy and just made life very comfortable for a very relative few.

So I think the challenge is before us to go forward and put a sound budget together--none of this kicking the can down the road with a continuing resolution. Let's name the designees to the conference table from each House, from each party. The President has outlined the budget with his administration. The United States Senate passed its version of a budget. The House has passed its version of a budget. Let's name the participants at the conference table. Let's do it in daylight. Let's flood the lights on the process. Let's show the sharp contrast between the various solutions and recommended approaches that will allow the public to be best engaged in the process and to understand the wisdom or lack thereof of some of the moves that are required or requested of us here in the House.

There again, it's policy or lack thereof that's impacting us heavily. Witnessing some of the unusual 100-year storms, 500-year storms as they're designated in a rapid succession over the last several years, dating back to the late 1980s, but then in rapid succession 2006, 2011 and 2012 in upstate New York in an area that I represent, or just south of me in the area that borders my district, tells me that even the nomenclature is ludicrous. It is not a 100 or 500-year storm; it's happening frequently. And it is because we don't embrace some of the science out there that, through data compilation, is begging our attention. If we're going to continue to ignore those impacts of Mother Nature, if we're going to ignore the global warming and impacts of Mother Nature on our infrastructure, we are going to have more and more bills for cleanup.

And is it just replacement, or are we talking about reevaluating situations? For instance, some of the electrical utility efforts that stayed most abundantly strong were distributed energy projects along the coast in metro New York with Superstorm Sandy. I saw infrastructure, bridges displaced by the powerful force of water, in some places equated to the cfs, the cubic feet per second, flow of Niagara Falls. So the data are telling you that these storms are more and more frequent, you're going to get this extra volume of water, precipitation, do you just replace, or do you take a longer span, greater height to that bridge design? These are things that need to be discussed. Again, it is going to be money coming out of the pocket because we're not dealing with the fundamental science that is telling us we should anticipate more and more of these storms.

The infrastructure along these efforts, the coastal erosion, is requiring all sorts of improvements of ports. This affects our economy. This requires a master plan. This requires a Make It In America agenda that puts into play investments into our infrastructure, to replace what has been damaged with a sound investment, reinvestment here, that improves upon a situation rather than just replaces when we know that it will probably not withstand the forces of Mother Nature into the future. So infrastructure is critical, and the millions that we can put to work with that kind of legislation. The President has called for improvement in our infrastructure that will put millions to work. The best way to resolve a deficit in this country is to have people going to work. The dignity that comes with that investment in work opportunity is good for working class families across this country. So we know what to do. Let's get on with the business.

It speaks also to the order of investments, rather than the order of spending, as some might label it. As we improve our infrastructure, for every dollar invested, according to Mark Zandi, chief economist with Moody's and former economic adviser to Senator John McCain, $1.57 is realized for every $1 that's invested. To me, that is a lucrative dividend. That is an opportunity for us to grow the economy by investing dollars, with the anticipation that there will be a good return on that investment. That's how it works. That's the beauty of building. I think it's what President Roosevelt saw in the 1930s and 1940s. He saw this opportunity to respond to the needs of America, public works projects that were absolutely essential, building water treatment centers, building schools and infrastructure, roads and the like.

President Eisenhower saw the beauty of an interstate highway system, putting people to work and making strong opportunities available for commerce. These are the fundamental needs of a sophisticated society. It's the needs of certainly America in a modern age, innovation economy. So the roads and bridges as traditional sources, water treatment facilities, utility grid upgrades, telecommunications, this goes well into the new technology spheres of today where you wire communities and neighborhoods for business. There is a dire need for that sort of activity. That puts people to work. That's an investment that will draw a rate of return on the dollars invested in those projects, and that's what makes the wisdom of that approach very remarkably sound and comprehensible.

I think history has taught us well, and for us to ignore history at a moment when we are still struggling with this comeback. And yes, there has been a steady growth in private sector jobs, but many propositions sent to the House and to the United States Senate by the Chief Executive, by the President, have been denied simply because of the source from whom they are coming. Let's be frank about this. This is not the time to play personality warfare. It's time to do sound, progressive policies that provide for then good politics, bipartisan politics for this Nation and her people and her working families. It's as simple as that. Let's go forward, invest in our manufacturing base. Innovation economy, clean energy economy, which requires the tools of a modern-day economy so we can build it cheaper and smarter perhaps, but definitely cheaper. That's how you land those contracts in the international marketplace.

So I am hopeful that our best days, Representative Garamendi, lie ahead if we have the tenacity, if we have the integrity to go forward with what are the soundest of policies and the boldness of investments that are done, that are placed on the table with the full anticipation and expectation that there is a reasonable rate of return on that investment.

Don't forget our ports, our rail, our airports.

Well, you know, it does go back to our humble beginnings. And again, history instructs us. History, if we allow it, will guide us. In some of our toughest times we realize some of our greatest, most monumental success stories.

And you did mention the canal, which for my area, I see the 20th Congressional District that I represent, is a donor area for that canal.

But I just want to make this factoid available. In those times, people look back, and they think, well, what a wonderful project, and it probably sailed through. No, it met with great controversy, and it was proposed because of economic difficult times.

And here was a vision. That's leadership. Give us the vision of how you can grow the economy, what can we do that is strong and forceful and will change the outcomes out there. And it was this connection of a port, in a little town called New York, that gave birth to a necklace of communities called mill towns in upstate New York that became epicenters of invention and innovation.

That all came about with a struggle, a struggle to find the investment available to build this canal. So the struggle will always be there.

The Erie Canal, barge canal history, which is wonderful.

But my point here is that there will always be struggle. For issues, there will be a counterforce to every force of perceived good that can happen, but that doesn't mean we should walk away because the climate or the environment is difficult.

We go forward. We know what has to be done. History has been instructing us here. Science, through data compilation, is reminding us of some very tortuous outcomes that have been part of very atypical storms. Superstorm Sandy, which gripped the entire Northeast, was atypical. Tropical storms and hurricanes in upstate New York, unheard of, that produced all sorts of damage, including loss of life, loss of farm land, valuable farm land, loss of businesses, loss of homes in some ways, totally swept away by the forces of water.

That is a difficult situation that needs to be addressed with infrastructure improvements. If not, if we do not take this to heart and mind, we will be, I believe, a lesser society for not having paid strict attention to both science and history which ought to guide us.

Yes. In fact, I will offer my closing comments here, Representative Garamendi.

You know, I think what you talk about in choices are exactly what a budget is about. It's the priorities we establish, in a bipartisan fashion and a bicameral way, that enable us to go forward with the best blueprint that grows the most hope and promise for this Nation. If we can deliver that hope, we've done our job.

This is about investing in the American Dream. It's about responding to that old, old adage within this Nation that you tether that American Dream here in this wonderful Nation, where people rightfully anticipate that if they play by the rules, they roll up their sleeves, they invest their talents and their skills and their intellect and their passions into work, they rightfully anticipate to taste success; and that allows them to have an equal shot at opportunity in this Nation.

That has not been the guiding course. We have had an unlevel playing field. We have made choices that have penalized the great percentage of Americans; 95 to 98 percent of Americans have been impacted by some of these choices and priorities to the negative.

And so it's important for us, I believe, to offer that dream, that American Dream, the underpinnings of support that it rightfully requires.

The cost of a college education ought to be addressed by Washington. We need to forcefully come up with a plan that reduces that cost, because that higher ed opportunity, those apprenticeship programs are training the workforce of tomorrow. And without that workforce, without that human infrastructure, we are less robust in our competitive force.

What about the investment, as Representative Garamendi mentioned, in infrastructure?

What about that infrastructure bill that has worked well in sections of the globe?

Why not go forward with that opportunity so that small business can prosper in that outcome?

The great engine of this economy, of this comeback, has been small business growth; jobs provided by those business citizens who are tethered to their community, who have enabled women and men in all sections of this country to draw a paycheck through some sort of commitment that they make as a small business person, giving that work opportunity to their neighbors and to the communities that they call home.

That's the strength that we need for small business so that we can continue to be that engine of comeback. That comeback scenario is incredibly valuable to this Nation.

And what about going forward with the commitment?

There's a soundness of that moral compass that should guide us. Forever there will be those who require justice in our society, economic and social justice.

We're reminded by our Founding Parents that we are in search of a more perfect Union. Well, the imperfections need to be addressed by those priorities that are established, established by us, the people's representatives in this House and in the Senate and in the White House, all of us working in a bicameral, bipartisan way to put aside petty partisan differences, to put aside personality warfare, and make certain we go forward with an agenda that is truly all-American, driven, ignited, and lifted by the American Dream.

Our days, Representative Garamendi, that lie ahead hold great promise,

great hope. I'm convinced that our best days lie ahead if we allow history and science to instruct us and to reach our hearts, our souls, and our minds as we go forward with the development of a budget that will be sound and reflective of all of America, with every one of her daughters and sons reflected in those decisions.

So I thank you for bringing us together this evening.

Madam Speaker, recent superstorms like Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Irene, and Tropical Storm Lee have tested the resiliency of our infrastructure. During these severe weather events, bridges failed, blackouts occurred, and communities were devastated by flooding at the same time that our water supply systems failed. It took weeks to restore these vital services. Our electricity, potable

water, and transportation networks must be reliable even in the face of severe storms.

The American people need and deserve a Congress that will work together to address the present and growing threat of climate change and do what is necessary to ensure the resiliency of our roads, bridges, electrical grid, dams, and water systems. Accomplishing this would create jobs and support our communities and our economy.

This week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that Sandy-like flooding is now twice as likely due to the sea level rise associated with climate change. One need look no further to understand that the time is now to act on climate.

Mr. Speaker, it has been more than 5 weeks since the House recessed for a district work period and all of our problems that we put on hold remain right here in front of us. This long list of challenges includes repealing the sequester.

According to the nonpartisan CBO, sequestration will cost us about 750,000 jobs this year alone. Now is the time to act. Instead of messaging bills or playing procedural games in an attempt to repeal or defund the Affordable Care Act, we should be addressing unfinished business.

Americans have sent us here to do a job: help put people back to work and grow our economy. I encourage House Republicans to work with Democrats to roll back these mindless, thoughtless sequester cuts. They are the worst way to save a bad program and the most foolish way to cut a good and vibrant one.

Thank you, Ranking Member Waxman, for the opportunity to share some thoughts on this legislation.

Madam Chair, H.R. 1582 is yet another attempt to block the Environmental Protection Agency from fulfilling its mission, which is to protect public health and our environment.

The bill is premised on the false notion that the protection of public health and the environment comes at the price of jobs. Simply, it does not. H.R. 1582 is not about transparency or fairness. The bill creates a burdensome and duplicative requirement for analysis by the Department of Energy, designed to block EPA from moving forward to address climate change.

The people standing in the way of policy to address climate change are willing to subject us to ever-increasing costs of natural disasters, damaged infrastructure, and the loss of lives and livelihoods.

Why? To preserve our dependence on a fossil fuel-only energy economy.

Proposed regulations are analyzed and reviewed now under multiple laws and multiple executive orders. Rules in the Federal Register consume more page numbers now due to the requirements for additional analyses and documentation under the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and multiple executive orders. These additional analyses, studies, and peer reviews have repeatedly shown that EPA's rules are justified and deliver many more benefits to people's health and our environment than costs to business. If and when they do not, either the rule does not go forward or opponents can have their day in court.

H.R. 1582 pits one department against another. The Secretary of the Department of Energy should not have veto power over regulations that EPA is empowered by law to issue. There are ample opportunities for interagency consultation during the rulemaking process. Regulations to improve our air quality and to address other pollution problems have been opposed over the years with the threat that controlling pollution would bankrupt our industries and our economy. That has not happened. We have managed to create a cleaner, healthier environment for our people and have a robust, dynamic recovery. H.R. 1582 is designed to hamstring the EPA and continue to delay action on the looming, serious challenge of climate change.

We can and must do better. We have the innovative capacity to meet these challenges. The only thing lacking is political will--political will to move forward. This Nation did not become great by denying and avoiding challenges. Avoiding this problem will only increase costs and risks across the Nation. I oppose H.R. 1582, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chair, once again, the House will consider a bill that will provide the States with what they already have--the authority to regulate the disposal of coal ash.

H.R. 2218 also virtually eliminates any regulatory role for the Environmental Protection Agency. Although the bill's title suggests that it is about the beneficial reuse of coal combustion residuals, it has little, if anything, to do with promulgating that worthy goal.

No one has disputed that it is preferable to reduce the amount of coal ash that ends up in disposal facilities. It saves money and lengthens the productive life of that disposal facility, and it means that a waste product is put to productive use in cement, in wallboard and in other products. All of those things happen now, and they will happen whether this bill passes or not. Actually, if the bill encouraged stronger standards for disposal, it would likely spur increased recycling--another opportunity squandered, in my opinion.

So, if it is not about recycling, what is this bill about?

It is about maintaining the status quo. The bill virtually ensures that deficient facilities will, indeed, remain deficient.

What does that mean?

It means that communities in States with weak programs and lax enforcement remain at risk.

This bill does not set credible standards to ensure that public health and the environment are protected. Communities whose groundwater sources are known today to be contaminated by toxins leaching from unlined disposal ponds will have to wait at least 10 years before a State would have to act, and even then there are provisions for granting additional time for an operator to upgrade or repair a leaking facility. We know from recent experience that some of these facilities are structurally unsound. A breach in the dam in Kingston, Tennessee, in 2008, in eastern Wisconsin in 2011, and in Martins Creek, Pennsylvania, in 2005 all sent coal ash spilling out into waterways and onto the land.

H.R. 2218 is not going to help us avoid adding accidents to this list. Very similar bills to this one passed the House several times in the last Congress. They failed to become law, and H.R. 2218, in my opinion, is going to follow that same path.

Communities living in the shadows of these facilities deserve to be protected. There is no reason to allow deficient facilities to pollute our water and our air and to jeopardize the health of people in communities across this great Nation. We can do better. We should do better. My colleagues and I will offer several amendments this morning that, if adopted, would improve this bill. A better legislative effort could resolve the uncertainty surrounding this issue and, more importantly, could ensure that our citizens' health and safety are protected.

We cannot afford more Kingstons. We do not have to. Without improvements, this legislation will proceed no further in the legislative process. Without improvements, it should not proceed any further. I oppose H.R. 2218 in its present form, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Chairman, we are a Nation of 50 States, but we are bound together by common history, purpose, and laws.

Prior to the passage of national environmental laws, States had individual regulatory programs that offered a patchwork of protection. We tried this system for air, for water, for toxic waste, and for many other things. That is the system we have today for the disposal of coal combustion residuals that cannot be recycled. It did not work; it does not work.

H.R. 2218 will not correct the problems with coal ash disposal. We have a State-by-State program for coal ash disposal now. H.R. 2218 codifies that situation and goes further to prevent the EPA from exercising its authority to require that State programs provide a basic standard to ensure that all citizens are indeed protected.

My amendment authorizes a proper Federal role, a role of oversight for the EPA to ensure the actions of one State do not result in negative impacts on a State with which it shares an important resource.

In addition, my amendment would enable a State to request that EPA review the permitting program of another State to ensure that the program offered sufficient protection of its citizens and its resources.

We do not allow northern States along the Mississippi River to dump toxic substances into the river for downstream States to clean up. We do not allow individual States to pollute the air and send the pollution well beyond their borders.

We need a better system for dealing with coal combustion waste, a system that applies fairly across our great country.

You might wonder how often the location of a coal ash facility is near enough to a shared resource or a State's border to cause a potential problem. Well, it turns out it is common.

The failure of a coal ash facility associated with the Martins Creek Power

Plant in Pennsylvania affected communities in New Jersey when coal ash spilled into the Delaware River.

Residents of the State of Michigan were upset when the failure of an old coal ash impoundment in Wisconsin sent coal ash, mud, and machinery into Lake Michigan.

And several of the coal combustion disposal facilities on the high- hazard list in Ohio and West Virginia are located along the Ohio River, a shared border and resource of these two States.

Well, I could go on. It turns out that because these facilities are often located in close proximity to coal-fired utilities where the waste is generated, they are also close to water required for cooling and steam generation. A number are located near sizable water sources that serve multiple communities and often multiple States.

So, in order to ensure good relations between neighboring States, and to ensure that all our citizens are protected from exposure to the toxic substances contained in coal ash, I believe the EPA should have the authority to step in when necessary.

The system we have used successfully, based upon common standards that ensure the protection of human health and the environment, should be applied to this situation. We cannot afford another episode like the one in Kingston, Tennessee.

The choice is not about whether we can have a clean, healthy environment or a robust economy. We can have both. Part of the formula for ensuring a robust economy includes having a clean environment.

Pollution is not cost-free. It costs us lost work days, illness, and premature deaths. It devalues property and results in expensive, unnecessary cleanup costs. We can do better.

My amendment will improve this bill and protect all our citizens and their shared resources. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I respect the work done by my colleague from Illinois, but respectfully disagree with his assessment. There's ample evidence that States have poorly regulated, in some cases, this waste stream, and it puts at risk innocent bystanders who are impacted by their actions.

And so I stand by the worthiness of this amendment, and again, encourage my colleagues to support it.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, ``and they're off.'' That traditional refrain as horses come out of the gate ushered in yet another Saratoga season just days ago--this time a very special season.

I recognize Saratoga Race Course as it celebrates 150 years of thoroughbred racing in Saratoga Springs, New York.

On August 3, 1863, a son of Irish immigrants, John Morrissey, who served two terms in this body, staged the first horse race at what is now known as the Oklahoma Track, giving birth to the oldest continually active sporting venue in the United States.

Notable sportswriter Red Smith once said of the Saratoga Race Course, ``From New York City you drive north for about 175 miles, turn left on Union Avenue and go back 100 years.''

Racing in Saratoga produces over 2,000 jobs, nearly $15 million in tax revenue and an economic boost of $200 million to the surrounding region each year.

I am honored to recognize 150 years of tradition and community spirit that come to life in a most unique and exciting way, that have a special place in our American story.

Let me close, Mr. Speaker, the following way: ``And down the stretch they come.'' Happy 150th, Saratoga.

Mr. Speaker, although the House continues to ignore climate change, others are busy assessing the problems and options to address the new situations that this Nation and our world will face in a warmer world. The United States Global Change Research Program's draft assessment suggests that we have work to do if we are to maintain a reliable, modern transportation system.

The committee's draft states that sea level rise, storm surge, extreme weather events, heat waves, and other manifestations of climate change are reducing the reliability and the capacity of our transportation system in many ways. The good news is the negative impacts can be reduced to rerouting, mode change, and other adaptive actions if we invest in our transportation network.

The States should not have to do this exercise alone. The Federal Government should lead the effort to deal and resolve climate change. We can improve our infrastructure, reduce the cost of natural disasters, and ensure that our transportation network serves our Nation's needs well into the future, all while creating jobs.

Let's stop denying reality. Let's address climate change. Let's move our Nation and the world forward.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the committee for the opportunity to have time to explain my amendment.

I was planning to offer an amendment today to strengthen the Federal commitment to STEM education, but I intend to withdraw my amendment and offer my robust support for the Democratic substitute which addresses many of my concerns and contains dedicated funding streams for STEM programs.

That being said, many schools already face shortages of science, technology, engineering, and math teachers; and these teachers often have inadequate opportunities for subject-specific professional development. Further, there is rarely an extensive curriculum available to support the teaching of these subjects, especially engineering education.

My amendment would have addressed these issues by committing existing funds under ESEA to support professional development of STEM education. I know firsthand the importance and value of a STEM education, having graduated from Clarkson University with a degree in mechanical and industrial engineering. I'm proud to represent New York's capital region, which serves as a shining example of what a robust investment in STEM education can produce.

In my district, companies like GE and GlobalFoundries, in addition to research centers like the Center for Nano Science and Engineering and RPI, lead the way in STEM jobs and education. These are well-paying, growth-oriented, cutting-edge occupations that ensure America remains competitive in the global marketplace.

As we work to speed up our economic recovery, we know that jobs in the future are going to rely heavily on professionals with a STEM education background. STEM education opportunities for students will spur American innovation through research and development. America has a proven track record of leading in new, innovative technologies, from the implementation of the car assembly line to the creation of the Internet. In order to remain a competitive global economic power of the 21st century, we must preserve a robust national commitment to STEM education.

The United States will have more than 1.75 million job openings in STEM-related occupations by 2018. Yet without a robust investment in the type of education and training these jobs require, there will be a significant shortage of qualified college graduates to fill these careers. The time to invest is now.

With that, Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), a very strong leader in promoting this issue.

Mr. Chair, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mrs. Brooks of Indiana

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Watervliet Arsenal, which celebrated its 200th anniversary on July 14.

Watervliet is the Nation's oldest, continuously operated arsenal, having begun its manufacturing of military hardware during the War of 1812.

For 200 years, the arsenal has produced critical weapons, parts and material that have been indispensable to our Nation's defense. Earlier this year, the Secretary of the Army recognized the arsenal's high quality and essential work by designating it as a Center of Industrial and Technological Excellence.

The Army's Benet Laboratories, renowned for its research and development and work with advanced materials and composites, is also located at the facility. Let me offer a special congratulations to the arsenal's employees, who, despite senseless sequestration-related furloughs, continue to provide manufacturing, engineering, and quality assurance for our Nation's cannons and mortars. They have developed skills and expertise over the course of decades, many coming from families that have worked at the arsenal for generations, pouring their talents into this powerful success story. They are truly the lifeblood of the Watervliet community and the Greater Capital Region of upstate New York.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 348 I was unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

First, I would like to thank Representative Welch and Representative Sablan for working with me on this amendment, and I thank the gentlelady from Ohio for the opportunity to chair the amendment in the House.

Madam Chair, this bill would be fine if we were still living in the 1950s, in a world where we had few energy limitations, no knowledge of the fact that burning fossil fuels would alter the chemistry of our atmosphere and the trajectory of our Earth's climate. We lived in a world where energy was much more affordable and a world where the United States was the dominant economic and manufacturing power. It was also a time when there were two nuclear powers, and we believed that nuclear weapons were a guarantee of security.

Well, it is not the 1950s, and this bill does not meet our present or future needs. The overall funding level is too small, and the funding distribution reflects the wrong priorities. Our amendment addresses just two of the important programs that are grossly underfunded in this bill: the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program.

Energy is a significant part of families' budgets, and its cost is especially burdensome for low-income families and the elderly who live on fixed incomes. Burning fossil fuels generates emissions that are leading us into a much warmer future and one with unstable, unusual weather patterns. We cannot afford to reduce our support of energy efficiency.

Our amendment provides additional funds in the Energy Efficiency account to raise the funding for the State Energy Program from the $12 million in the bill to $50 million. In addition, it provides an increase of $107 million for the Weatherization Assistance Program to restore this program to $184 million, a level that will provide benefits to homeowners across this country.

The Weatherization Assistance Program is the largest residential efficiency program in the Nation. The sequestration and low allocation for fiscal year 2013 have put this important program at risk in many of our States.

The demand has not gone away. Individual consumers are still faced with significant energy bills, and those who are elderly or disabled or whose income is not sufficient to make investments in weatherization themselves rely heavily on this program for assistance.

The amendment also restores funds for the State Energy Program. SEP is a cost-shared program, a partnership between the Federal Government and the States. The State Energy Program enables States to assist with the development of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, such as improving the efficiency at our hospitals and our schools, working with utilities and energy service companies to install clean energy and energy efficiency projects, and supporting private sector energy innovations through business incubators and job training.

Each dollar of SEP funding produces significant returns. A study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that every dollar of SEP Federal funds are leveraged by $10.71 of State and private funds and results in $7.22 in energy cost savings.

The modest investments we have made in these two programs have paid

for themselves many times over throughout the country. They have produced benefits in the form of better insulated, more comfortable homes, jobs, savings on energy bills, product improvements, and greater energy security.

We continue to ignore problems, neglect our infrastructure, and disinvest in our communities at our peril. These programs make a modest but important contribution to job creation and energy security. I urge you to support this amendment and keep the important work done through these programs moving forward.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Thank you to the gentleman from the great State of Georgia.

It's an honor to lend my voice to that of several of my colleagues as we pay tribute to Representative John Dingell from the great State of Michigan. I am only in my third term in the House of Representatives so I can't profess to have known John Dingell as long as most of my colleagues who have known this great gentleman for quite some time. But as anyone serving in this House soon learns, it doesn't take very much time to know John Dingell and to assess the greatness of this individual, one who carries himself with great humility, which I believe is his hallmark of representation.

His identity with common folks through our many conversations about the richness of the Polish culture and the embarking upon the American Dream of immigrants of that persuasion and of all persuasions who have tethered that dream for the betterment of individual and family opportunities is, I think, what drives this individual. His motivation to be a public servant is obvious. It's well-documented by his many years of service--57 years in this House and dating back to 1938 as a page.

His service to this Nation through the military, all of that driven, I believe, by the great, deep-rooted sense of opportunity that is borne by this Nation to many of those immigrants who traveled here and then developed that dream through generations to follow.

John Dingell is a person of greatness and a person whose institutional memory of so many issues in this House is called upon time and time again.

As a recently appointed member to the Energy and Commerce Committee, I marvel at the sense of involvement that he has had and his recall on the development of so many bills, bills that speak to the protection of our environment, making certain that the air we breathe, the water we drink, the soil that we cultivate is there for us for a better future. That resulted from John Dingell's passion.

His involvement in making certain that the auto industry was not only saved, but made stronger, a great commitment by John Dingell. His incorporation of the many acts of concern and compassion for those who require access and affordability to quality health care, well documented again; driven by the roots established by his dad that enabled him to bang that gavel when we were passing the Affordable Care Act in 2010.

So many, many stories in just a short time that I learned from this gentleman that empower me. His direction, his instruction, his concern, his guidance, his encouragement and his praise of any of us, routinely done by this very, very generous man, strengthens us and gives us that motivation to go forward. And what he has always taught us, what he has said to me repeatedly: your word is your honor in this business.

I can't help but think what the House would be like if it were filled with John Dingells, where there was respect for your colleagues, where there was drive and passion to make a difference for America's great many working families, where there was a sense of honor and respect for this work, and where there was this attachment to the

American Dream that ennobles and empowers this arena. He has taught us the nobility--with a small ``n''--of the art and science of politics. He will forever be the measuring stick of quality service and representation, the consummate Representative, John Dingell.

John, it's an honor to serve with you. I wish you well as you continue to build upon your legacy. And thank you and Debbie for being such a well-respected, much-loved couple in this town, our Nation's Capital, Washington, D.C. God bless you, my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Freihofer's Baking Company as it celebrates 100 years in business in New York's capital region.

After a century of contributing to the local economy, Freihofer's plans to mark this milestone by continuing to give back to our community. Over the next year, the Albany-based baking company will give away up to 40,000 loaves of bread to consumers and charitable organizations.

What makes Freihofer's a remarkable company is quite simple: its people. At every level, the good work done by the Freihofer's team makes us all proud, and that is why I am on this floor speaking today.

Freihofer's has always focused on how best to serve our community. On June 1, the organization celebrated its 35th anniversary of the Freihofer's Run for Women, one of the largest and most prestigious all- female 5K road races, which stresses community health and involvement.

In New York, we are proud to count Freihofer's among our many successful businesses that boost our community pride just as much as local economic development. I congratulate Freihofer's Baking Company on its first century of success and wish them many, many more years of fine baking to come.