Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz).

I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I simply would associate myself with the chairman's remarks, Mr. Critz's remarks and Mr. Doyle's remarks and would simply conclude my portion by thanking both gentlemen for raising this vital issue. We engage in investing in infrastructure in Afghanistan. We create infrastructure investment in Iraq and elsewhere. It is time that we

repair and invest in the infrastructure, the waterway infrastructure in the United States of America, to create jobs in the short term and to create jobs in the future.

Again, I really, from the bottom of my heart, thank the gentlemen for raising this issue and look forward to working with them.

I move to strike the last word.

I also want to add my voice to the chair's in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. We just had a colloquy on the House floor with several Members from the State of Pennsylvania relative to the fate of 230 lock chambers on our inland waterways that carry hundreds of millions of tons of cargo. If they fail, we would need, as has already been mentioned this morning, 24 million additional trucks, which would cost billions more in fuel and generate millions of tons of pollution. These locks that are the backbone of this Nation's inland waterway system were built with a 50-year design life. Many of those that exist in western Pennsylvania are now over a hundred years old.

Relative to cuts, I want to emphasize to our colleagues that there was a lot of work that the chairman, the members of this subcommittee, and the staffs put into this bill to make very discreet, discerning decisions, and in many instances, to make cuts. I would take simply one program as an example: environmental cleanup.

We have, again, a national responsibility to clean up these legacies of the Cold War for the health and safety of 300 million people. But we made discreet decisions. For defense environmental site-by-site decisions, for example, on the Office of River Protection in the State of Washington, we are $30 million below last year's level. For the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the State of Tennessee, we're $20 million below last year's level. For the Savannah River site in South Carolina, we are $43 million below in the current year level. For the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant we are $12 million below last year's level. And for technology development, to do a better job on this, we're $1 million below. We made discreet decisions.

I would simply close by saying that the gentleman at the close of his remarks said that he wants this cut to take us back to where we were. Those locks were built a hundred years ago. I don't want to go back there. We are here to take this Nation forward and to invest in the future of this Nation so that the young people of this Nation have a future. I do not want to go back to where we were.

I am adamantly opposed to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I would simply note that what the gentleman from Oregon proposes is a commonsense approach to ensuring the highest ethical standards for companies that receive a contract with the DOE's Office of Fossil Energy. We should not be rewarding companies that have a history of predatory economic practices with Federal contractors.

If his amendment is allowed in order, I would certainly urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I also rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. We need to move away from our dependency on fuel imported by unfriendly nations. I have in past debates on this floor, and I would do it again, referenced the senior Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar, who has long characterized our energy crisis paramount, as one of national security, given where those petroleum purchases take place. The fact is, if we can get more miles per gallon, we have solved part of that national security crisis.

None of us today standing here or sitting here are going to be able to do much about the price of a barrel of oil. But if each one of those individual drivers can get some relief by getting an extra mile per gallon for their vehicle, we have also helped ameliorate their economic pressure and the costs that they have.

I think it is shortsighted to eliminate this program which has the potential to address a major issue in the viability and practicality of electric vehicles, and that is the battery. We need to be looking at the cost, performance, life, and abuse tolerance of batteries, and I do support the Department's efforts on this front and have been active for a number of years in seeking additional funds for it because I think it does a great value to this country's future.

I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I believe that there is a proper role for government where there is no private organization willing or able to fill an information need, and information is vital if we are going to improve our energy policy.

This program provides a venue at a very modest cost to the taxpayers to disseminate valuable information that supports the diversification of the Nation's energy supply.

While I do appreciate the gentleman from Arizona's efforts to search out sources of wasteful and inappropriate spending, I disagree that this program is one of those instances and join my colleague from Washington in opposition to the amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding very much. And I think the only other thank-you I would add, and I would very sincerely join the chair in all of the recognitions that he has enumerated, is the Chair, herself, as well as all of those others who have served us over the last 4 days and done a very expeditious job.

I cannot thank the chairman enough for all he has done for us and for this country and for being the consummate gentleman. It is a privilege and a delight to work with you, as well as the other members of the subcommittee.

I would point out that, while we agree very substantively on this bill, there are degrees of differences. We did not, in the intervening last 4 days, agree on every amendment, but we had reasoned and thoughtful debate. We had votes, and decisions were made.

It is a profound privilege that people like Chairman Frelinghuysen, Mr. Dicks, and I have serving this country in this Congress. I am an institutionalist, and this is a perfect example of how that institution should work: to meet collectively, to resolve our differences, and to work as hard as we can to hopefully, in fiscal year 2013, leave this country a little bit better.

Again, thank all of the people, and particularly the staff and the Chair for all their good work.

I appreciate the chairman for yielding.

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

I appreciate the recognition, Mr. Chairman, and I also rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Our country really does need a diversified energy portfolio. Nuclear is part of that. Almost a quarter of all of our electrical power today is generated through nuclear power. It is carbon free, and I do not think this is the time to withdraw research support.

In light of, particularly, the tragedy in Japan, the safety of our existing fleet and progress as far as improved technologies is vital.

And, again, I would add my voice to that in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very reluctant opposition to the gentlelady's amendment, as well as remarks issued by the gentleman from Virginia. I certainly appreciate their desire relative to the good work being done at ARPA E.

The two points I would make in opposition is that, first of all, the gentlewoman was absolutely correct on the top-line figures for fossil fuel, but I do think they are somewhat misleading because there is a rescission contained within the bill for $187 million. The true reflection, as far as the relationship between current year spending and the proposal in the House bill, is for fiscal year 2012. Fossil fuel is at $534 million. The proposal in the subcommittee mark and the committee-reported bill is $554 million.

Again, appreciating deeply the very good work and cultural change that is

taking place within the Department of Energy because of ARPA E, I would also point out that energy consumption today by fossil fuel is represented by about 83 percent of our utilization. We do need to continue to be focused on that huge segment of current use to be more efficient and to reduce our carbon footprint.

Again, I would add my remarks to the chairman's, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment for the very reasons I espoused briefly before relative to the gentlewoman from Hawaii's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment.

Developing oil shale into a fuel source is very energy intensive. Both strip mining and in situ oil mining requires huge amounts of energy. In fact, more energy may go into developing the process than would be produced in the oil secured.

Oil shale development is projected to have a dramatic effect also, as was mentioned during the debate, on water supplies. This water would further stress already overallocated water in the West. Oil shale development also poses a potentially serious threat to water quality. The process of transforming the kerogen in shale into oil leaves behind salts and numerous toxins, water-soluble chemicals that could leach into the groundwater that is the source of much of the region's surface water during the critical time when flow is lowest. Flushing these chemicals from the oil shale production zone, as several companies have proposed, would also create huge volumes of highly saline water that will require further treatment. The technical feasibility of isolating and treating contaminated groundwater has not been demonstrated.

The proposed development of this resource will recreate major new demands on the energy grid as well. By some estimates, the new power plants needed to support a 1 million-barrel-per-day oil shale industry--and we believe that is the low end of DOE's projections-- could emit 105 million tons of carbon dioxide every year. That's about 80 percent more than was released by all existing electric utility generating units in the States of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah in the year 2005.

The spent shale that remains after processing is also not an easy problem, and it will not go away. It potentially represents between 90 and 95 percent of the material that is mined. The Nation already has a legacy of sites that we cannot afford to adequately clean up today. We should not add to this legacy.

While I have indicated during debate on this bill that I support a balanced approach to solving the Nation's energy issues, given the costs and environmental impacts of this particular source at this particular time, with our constrained resources, this is one alternative that should be foregone.

Again, I strongly support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition and rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. I certainly appreciate the concerns he has expressed about cleanup nationally, as well as the site illustrated in Utah, and share his concerns that we are not adequately investing in cleaning up contaminated communities where we have a national obligation.

This amendment would make a cut of $9.6 million to the weapons program,

but I would point out to my colleagues that while I support the weapons complex and its modernization, this is a very slight change in funding, an account that has a $7.5 billion allocation and sees a $275 million increase for 2013 under the bill. And, therefore, I do think the gentleman has taken a very reasoned approach and strongly support his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the recognition and rise in strong support of the gentleman from Illinois' amendment. I believe the debate on this has been very fruitful and will simply add my voice to theirs.

I believe the administration and the Senate's ongoing attempts to shut this activity down are without scientific merit and are contrary, as has been said on the floor, to existing law and congressional direction.

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Federal Government has a responsibility to demonstrate its capability to meet its contractual obligation by addressing the spent fuel and other high- level nuclear waste at permanently shutdown reactors.

We need to ensure that the administration does not unilaterally dictate policy for nuclear waste disposal, and I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the recognition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman's amendment and commend her for crafting it.

As I pointed out in earlier remarks, I do appreciate the chairman's efforts, as well as the members of the subcommittee and full committee, to increase money set aside for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. In fact, the chairman was responsible for adding $17 million above the administration's current request.

However, I do believe that more can be done and that the Sanchez amendment, by adding $16 million to the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, would get us very close to our current year appropriated level.

I believe, as a Nation, our greatest security threat is not a launched attack by another nation-state, but the use of nuclear weapons or materials in an act of terror. And given that particular threat, I do believe every dollar counts and every dollar of these $16 million count. I would ask my colleagues to support the gentlewoman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlemen from Colorado and Massachusetts.

I do believe, given the work of the subcommittee, that the dollars that are contained in it represent an attempt to ensure that, looking down the road with the hopeful ratification of the New START Treaty, we will be consistent with those funding levels that will be required.

While a world without nuclear weapons would be my preference and while the U.S. must maintain its deterrent capability today, we should also maintain the capabilities necessary to ensure that they are safe and effective.

The gentleman from Massachusetts rightfully asked are there any savings that we can see under the defense accounts, whether at the Department of Defense or the Department of Energy. And I would point out one of the eliminations in this year's budget are moneys for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility.

So I would again emphasize to my colleagues that the subcommittee try to look at this account with great specificity to remove those items that were not necessary and to spend our tax dollars wisely.

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

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

I appreciate the recognition, and, to be honest with you, I don't know about conservatives from Texas or liberals from Massachusetts. I'm from Gary, Indiana, and I am here simply to ask my colleagues to not flush $100 million down a drain. That would be my technical argument. And I want to thank the gentleman from Texas and I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for offering this amendment.

I also want to thank the subcommittee chair for reducing the administration's original request that was $150 million for USEC, which is the United States Enrichment Corporation, to $100 million that is contained in this bill.

I must tell you, I have serious disagreement with the committee mark on this and do believe this amendment needs to be adopted. The people of this country work too hard for the tax dollars they send to us to flush this $100 million down a drain.

In 2008, when this company applied for a loan guarantee, DOE required USEC to produce a track record of running these centrifuges for a time sufficient to prove that they could be commercialized. This, we were told, would be sufficient to prove the technology. It was not.

Further, I would point out that in 2010, $45 million in accounting exchange, an exchange for liability for enrichment services, was provided to the company, essentially forgiving them $45 million of liability. This fiscal year 12, $44 million in additional dollars in exchange, relieving the company of liability that is now on the taxpayers' book, was put forward.

There is a proposal on the table, separate from this bill and separate from this amendment, to do that exchange of liability for enrichment services a third time for another $82 million because the company needs it. The question during subcommittee consideration of this issue that was addressed to the Department of Energy is: What happens to the taxpayers? What happens to this country if the cost of cleaning up those tailings exceeds the liability that was given a company. That is what happens if it's not $44 million. What if it's not $45 million? What if it's not $82 million? What if it's $100 million? We eat it. We eat it, and that's wrong. That is wrong, and people ought to adopt this amendment.

Several months ago, the claim was that just in another 2 years, just another 2 years and just another $300 million would prove the technology. Now, now today, the Department is saying this program would make progress, not prove the technology. They would make progress towards proving the technology.

It was mentioned that on May 15 the company was downgraded by Standard & Poor's. Last month USEC was warned that it was in danger of being delisted by the New York Stock Exchange. Delisting would mean that the company stock would essentially be reduced to speculative penny stock status, reducing the market for the company's shares.

Last month, the Department announced again this very complicated deal relative to the tailings. This deal takes the most compelling argument away from funding USEC's American Centrifuge Project, because last month USEC, the Department, Energy Northwest, and TVA agreed to keep the enrichment plant USEC operates, the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, in operation for another year by re-enriching uranium tailings.

The point I would make is that the transfer of these tailings results in enough U.S. origin low-enriched uranium for 15 years. In addition, the National Nuclear Security Administration can access the mixed oxide facilities for backup low-enrichment uranium for an additional 4\1/2\ years.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), talked about the long term. That is the long term. That's two decades from now. And the technology that USEC is using today is 20 years old, and the National Nuclear Security Administration has not evaluated alternatives, but it has the time to do so.

Again, we need to make a decision here. The decision ought to be to adopt this amendment and to save the taxpayers $100 million.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico.

I deeply respect his concern with the oversight of the programs under NNSA, and I agree that there are some areas of oversight that need to be strengthened. I cannot support any further cuts, however, to the Office of the Administrator.

As written, the bill already reduces funding for the Administrator's Office by $10 million from this year's enacted level. This amendment would compound that cut by $89 million. At the same time, NNSA has already received an increase of $275 million when compared to current year spending. I'm concerned that any further reductions to the Administrator's Office would hamper the ability of NNSA to plan and oversee its core mission areas.

I would like to work with the chairman and the gentleman from New Mexico to address the concerns expressed, and to ensure that NNSA properly maintains and cleans up its sites in New Mexico and throughout the country.

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

I appreciate the chairman yielding and would add my words to his and would want to work with the gentleman, as well as the former speaker from New Mexico. They have a very serious problem they're trying to address.

My concern is with problems we have with management at the Department, and this would, I think, complicate that problem, given the increase that NNSA has. But, again, I understand what the gentleman is trying to do and would like to work with him and the chair.

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

I appreciate the recognition, and would yield, at this point in time, to my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

I appreciate the gentleman's illuminating comments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I do rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from Alaska on behalf of the gentleman from California.

In 2009, the Congress ratified the San Joaquin Settlement Act, which ended 18 years of litigation in the Central Valley of California over water. The agreement was supported by the Bush administration and California's then-Republican Governor Schwarzenegger. The Federal authorizing legislation was initially cosponsored by Congressman Pombo in the House and Senator Feinstein in the Senate.

If the amendment that has been offered were adopted, I believe we would be undermining the San Joaquin River agreement, which, if it were to stand, would land this case back in court. If the court is forced to take over river restoration, the Friant water users would be at risk of losing the 20 years of water supply certainty provided by the settlement.

By blocking funding for efforts to restore salmon, the Denham amendment offered by Mr. Young would potentially end the broadly supported and bipartisan effort to restore the San Joaquin River while also improving water supply management, flood protections, and water quality. Therefore, I do insist on objecting to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would simply also state my objection to the gentleman's amendment.

I appreciate the concerns he expressed, especially for those projects that may not make economic sense. If in those cases the gentleman is correct, there should be no loan guarantee offered. Having said that, for those programs that are in the queue that are under consideration that make sense and move our energy policy forward, we ought not to prohibit them from doing so by passing this amendment this evening.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I want to add my voice to the chairman's in opposition.

The gentlewoman talked about a 1 percent cut. I would point out that several years ago this Nation spent more money on water projects in one city than we did on every water project in the United States of America. The city was New Orleans, because we didn't make the proper investment up front.

I don't think we should risk losing one life. And I would acknowledge that we have already reduced the Corps' budget from existing year level by $216 million.

We have at least a third of the harbors in this Nation that are not dredged to depth. Every time a ship comes in or leaves that is not fully loaded, there is a job that is lost, one job or more. There is $1 of profit for that shipper, for that company, or more that is lost. Those are the numbers I'm worried about.

I strongly oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the WRDA bill 2007, which was passed with much bipartisan support, so much so that it overcame a Presidential veto, authorized the Corps to undertake the Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan and to develop the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee to consult on the study. This authority provided a venue for collaboration between the 70 stakeholder groups of tribes, States, public interest groups, and Federal agencies to develop a shared vision and comprehensive plan for the restoration of the Missouri River ecosystem.

At this time, by prohibiting the Corps from expending any 2013 funds on the study and the committee, we would continue to delay that start. I believe this would be very shortsighted and would lead to a further erosion of trust in the delicate partnership in the basin. While the Corps will continue to comply with Endangered Species' requirements through other activities, I believe there is a role for a long-term plan for this basin. Again, I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I simply would voice my support for her amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, my understanding is there is no money in the bill for this project, so I do not know why the gentleman is offering it. But I have no objection to it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe that the issues that inspire Congress to enact energy efficiency standards in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2007 have not changed and, if anything, they have gotten worse. Families continue to struggle every day to meet rising energy bills, and there are real savings to be had by moving to more efficient illumination.

However, if this bill is going to carry a provision prohibiting the Department of Energy from implementing and enforcing the light bulb efficiency standards, then it does not make much sense to hold DOE grant recipients to the standard.

I surmise that most recipients of DOE grants who tend to be pretty energy savvy have already made the transition to light bulbs and are enjoying their energy savings as we in the House rehash and debate the exaggerated doubt of the incandescent light bulb. However, I do not oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota.

I yield back the balance of my time

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

Mr. Chairman, while I agree with the gentleman from Minnesota that the moneys from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund should not be diverted from their intended purpose of dredging, I do think it is an overreach for the legislative branch to prohibit the executive branch from even discussing the topic. I do think we are in a position where looking forward we ought to let other branches of government talk about ideas and concepts so that they can be debated by this body.

Additionally, though, we all know that any proposal put together by the executive branch to expand eligible activities under the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund without first addressing the surplus and addressing backlog issues would not be considered in either House of Congress.

Again, I do not believe particularly that the amendment is necessary. That being said, I do not oppose its inclusion in the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from Maryland. The amendment would essentially create an energy renewable program for the U.S.-Israel program by restricting the EERE international program from dealing with any other country.

I certainly am a supporter of the country of Israel, and Israel has a vibrant and cutting-edge clean energy industry, but I do not believe that we ought to limit this program to one country out of many, and think that it would be a mistake to put all of our international program eggs into a single basket.

This program, which directly supports the mission of the Department to advance the development and deployment of clean energy technologies, needs to be able to establish relationships with multiple partner countries in order to be effective.

The program's technical assistance activities help to prime markets for us for clean technologies in major emerging economies. The program can bring home lessons learned from others' experiences to share with national, State, and local authorities. The program can also promote U.S. national security and potentially reduce price volatility of fossil energy resources by decreasing the influence of oil-exporting countries and mitigating world demand for oil.

Again, this is an excellent program. I do not believe it ought to be simply limited to one country. I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I would point out to my colleagues that this debate is not about choice--or energy efficiency, for that matter. It is about, from my perspective, endangering American jobs and, specifically, American manufacturing jobs.

We have a significant trade imbalance in this country. Given that American manufacturers have committed to following the law regardless of whether or not it is enforced, the only benefit to this amendment is to allow foreign manufacturers who may not feel a similar obligation to export noncompliant light bulbs that will not only harm the investments made by U.S. companies but place at risk U.S. manufacturing jobs associated with making compliant bulbs.

Further, I believe they represent a tax increase. It represents an equivalent of a $100 tax on every American family--$16 billion across the Nation--through increased energy costs.

The performance standards for light bulbs were established in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. At that time, the bill, as I pointed out in an earlier portion of this debate, enjoyed such strong bipartisan support that we were able to override a Presidential veto of that act. As far as I'm aware, the issues that inspire this standard have not changed, and I would argue have gotten worse.

It is a common misunderstanding that the Energy Independence and Security Act bans the incandescent light bulb and requires people to have the limited choice of only a compact florescent bulb. This is not true. It simply requires that they be more efficient. And I do not see what the harm is in that.

Further, while claiming that the incandescent bulb is dead makes for a great sound bite, it does not reflect reality.

I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I am happy to accept the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition and rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The gentleman, during his debate, mentioned a penny of savings out of a significant sum of monies. I would point out in conjunction with the chairman's remark that the non-security programs in this bill for fiscal year 2013 are $188 million below current year level spending because the subcommittee and the full committee made discreet decisions account by account.

Dependent upon nomenclature--and I don't want to get into a semantic argument--there may be some of these cuts that the gentleman proposes that touch what nominally would be considered defense accounts, but he also makes a point that he is going after non-defense discretionary spending. I assume because he has left defense harmless that he has never read an inspector general's report relative to any defense program in the United States. And he mentioned a penny in his remarks, and I find it curious that he could not find 1 cent of savings out of 1 dollar spent in a defense account.

For that reason among many, I am strongly opposed to the gentleman's amendment. If we are going to, in fact, make an investment in this country and if we are, in fact, going to address our budgetary problems, everybody has got to be on the table with no exceptions.

The gentleman's amendment, from my perspective, is a mistake, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would note at the beginning of my remarks that Davis-Bacon is a very simple concept and is a very fair one.

The law requires that workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the wages in the community in which the work is being performed for similar work.

Large Federal projects can disrupt local markets if cheap imported labor is used. Davis-Bacon requirements ensure that local workers, citizens, Americans, have a fair chance at bidding for Federal contracts in their own individual communities.

Additionally, prevailing wage protections are not the reason we have deficits. Doing away with them will not result in savings to the Federal Government. Davis-Bacon does not add to a project's total cost. A 2011 study of highway construction projects in the State of Colorado proved this point as it found no statistical significance between the cost of highway projects in the States which were subject to Davis- Bacon and the cost of State highway projects which were not subject to Davis-Bacon.

Davis-Bacon has not led to extravagant wages for affected workers. I would point out at this date, 2012, from 2000 and 2008, the real hourly wage rate for construction workers, carpenters, electricians, iron workers, plumbers, steelworkers, declined--declined--despite a small increase in the hourly wage rate.

I would point out when my mentor, Congressman Adam Benjamin, Jr., walked into this room in 1977, the real hourly wage for 1 hour's worth of a human being's work in the United States of America--it could have been laying brick, it could be pushing papers in Congress, it could be waiting on tables at a diner in the middle of the night--was more for 1 hour's worth of a human being's labor in the United States of America than it was in 2010, and we're here trying to slam down that wage.

You want to save money on contracts, why don't we look at the executive compensation for these construction firms? Why don't we look there for some as opposed to going to the lowest common denominators.

Opponents claim that Davis-Bacon requirements are a union giveaway. However, more than 75 percent, three-quarters of Davis-Bacon wage determinations, are not based solely on union wages. There are issues about the quality of work. Get it done efficiently, get it done right, do not do it a second time. That is crucial to these communities depending upon them.

When local workers are hired, they are duly accountable to their employers and to the communities in which they reside. If the work is shoddy and therefore is delayed or needs to be redone, their families, their friends, their communities, have to live with the consequences. This is a throwback, and I am strongly opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would simply mention that if the gentleman from Iowa is suggesting that labor organizations in this country today are discriminating on a racial basis, he has not attended many union meetings lately.

I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I move to strike the last word.

At this time I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

I would simply say this is not a Davis-Bacon attempt to increase wages. It is protecting those who labor in this country from having their wages undercut.

I am adamantly opposed to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The title 17 loan program has had its share of publicized problems, but I do believe that the Department of Energy has implemented changes to the program that will strengthen the management of it going forward. And while it is impossible to ensure the success of a loan guarantee, these reforms, I believe, will significantly reduce the risk borne by the Department.

This amendment is specifically targeted at renewable energy projects pending approval under the 1705 Innovative Loan Guarantee program. Some of these projects are eligible to have their credit subsidy costs covered by the Department. Generally, given the current capital markets and project structure, it is difficult for renewable projects to raise sufficient revenue to use loan authority. Because we have several promising projects that remain in the pipeline and the companies behind these applications have invested a significant amount of time and financial resources to advance them, I do not believe that this amendment is fruitful.

The amendment would make these efforts multiyear for naught and further exacerbate the uncertain business environment facing innovative energy companies at this time. Therefore, I would be opposed to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri. I would certainly agree with him that we are not making sufficient investments in our infrastructure, but this amendment would do nothing to resolve that problem. But it would introduce a host of other detrimental impacts to the basin and will lead to a failure to comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act.

The $90 million which was in the President's budget is the Corps' best assessment of the minimum required to maintain long term biological opinion compliance. There is in the bill a $18.6 million cut already which reduces the Corps' ability to maintain required progress on emergent sandbar habitat construction, shallow water habitat, Yellowstone intake, and real estate acquisition.

While the gentleman indicates he does not want to gut the program, the fact is he would add another $21.4 million worth of cuts, essentially representing a 44 percent cut of the President's budget. If that's not gutting, it is certainly a significant hindrance.

Given the extent of existing cuts, the Corps would need to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the potential for reduced progress on biological opinion compliance and on potential operational adjustments, opening the possibility of a jeopardy determination.

Further, reducing the amount would have a significant and negative impact with regards to maintaining biological opinion compliance for the Missouri River, and the Corps may not be in a position to serve all eight congressionally authorized purposes.

Additionally, operational changes may have to be made to avoid impacts to listed species that could result in a split navigation season, impacts on hydropower production, and impacts on water supply and recreation. A split navigation season will further erode the ability of farmers and manufacturers to get their products to market or to the consumer.

And given that the power produced by the Missouri River projects provides base power loads for the region, reduced production would further jeopardize peak power needs in the area.

The impacts to water supply also potentially could be great. Many communities are already having difficulty with the intake infrastructure to local water supplies. Without the regulation river flow provided by the projects, these communities will have a monumental task to extend the intakes for the low flow periods, increasing the burden on already cash-strapped local governments.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. While I have some sympathy for the issue that the gentleman has raised, I believe that more consistency should be brought to the way we evaluate wetland impacts, not less, as this amendment would ensure.

The Charleston Method has been utilized for two decades in various Corps districts. The Charleston Method is a quick, inexpensive, and consistent methodology--I think that's very important to note, a consistent methodology--for use by the regulated public and the Corps.

The gentleman suggests that it doesn't work. If it doesn't work, I do not know why in 2006 and 2007 the New Orleans District worked with its Federal and State partners to modify the Charleston Method so that it better reflected the unique conditions found in southern Louisiana resulting in the Modified Charleston Method.

The use of the Modified Charleston Method is longstanding in many Corps districts. Many regulatory customers use the tool to assess their potential mitigation requirements for their impact site as well as credits required at mitigation banks. This transparency in Corps mitigation requirements has helped the applicant prepare a complete application package and determine mitigation costs up front.

Suspension of the use of the Modified Charleston Method in Corps districts would require that any pending permit applications--section 404 of the Clean Water Act--and pending mitigation banks would need to be reevaluated using a different assessment tool/methodology or, in the absence of such, use best professional judgment to determine appropriate mitigation requirements for impacts and for available credits in mitigation banks, obviously encompassing a great deal of delay.

All approved mitigation banks with available credits that were determined by the Charleston Method would be temporarily closed until a new methodology could be developed and the bank credits converted to the credit system of a new methodology. These banks were established utilizing the credit system of the Modified Charleston Method, and until a similar credit system can be determined for these projects, it would not be possible to correlate the new requirements with the old system. We would not have transparency; we would not have consistency. We would have delay.

For these reasons, I do oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I appreciate the recognition and do rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

The standards the gentleman is very exercised about were contained in the EPA Act of 1992 and have been in effect for more than a decade. And they, in fact, do save energy and they do save water. A number of States are starting to adopt tighter standards on these products, including the State of Georgia, because they do save energy.

There is no part of the country, including mine that borders the Great Lakes, the largest body of fresh water on the planet, that does not have water supply concerns. In California, there has been a tremendous public investment to encourage and incentivize homeowners to replace their utilities with models that require less water.

I really do not know why we are discussing this issue again. We talked about it in the nineties. We talked about it in the last decade, and here we are this evening talking about it again. Manufacturers have been complying with this provision for, again, a decade. The question is: Why are we talking about it today? I am aware of an enforcement action recently, but against plumbing manufacturers who have put multiple compliant showerheads onto one fixture, obviously trying to sidestep the law when you have three efficient showerheads attached to one.

With water shortages across the country, with an energy crisis in most of the Mountain and Western States, I would ask my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I do not live in a desert. I mentioned in my earlier remarks that my congressional district, in fact, borders the largest body of freshwater on the planet Earth. I find water very precious myself, and I try to explain to my constituents every day we should not take it for granted.

I find the debates that we have engaged in here very interesting tonight. A bit earlier today, we had an amendment to suppress the wage rates in this country. We have about 13 million people who don't work today, but the gentleman suggests the way that we solve our water crisis in this country is pricing. His solution is: Let's increase the price of water. Let's increase the price of water for those 13 million people who aren't working. Let's increase the price of water. Let's use pricing for water to conserve it for those people who may not be making a living wage because people want to destroy Davis-Bacon in this country.

Maybe we ought to think about the people who are just getting by, just grubbing to get the money to pay their water bills. Pricing means something to them. In this case, if regulation that had been in place for more than a decade will help those people of least means pay their water bills, I say that's a good thing and a very sound reason to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I will not oppose the gentleman's amendment, but I do have some concerns.

First, I would like to say that I hope that we will not begin to legislate every rule coming out of the Department of Energy on this particular bill, though I understand the frustration that the Department of Energy is capable of causing from time to time. However, in this instance, I do understand that the Department is responding to the concerns expressed by the gentleman from Nebraska, and it is anticipated that a resolution is expected soon.

On that basis, I do not oppose the amendment as a gentle reminder for the Department to address this issue expeditiously.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Section 526 is, I believe, a commonsense provision that stops Federal agencies from wasting taxpayer dollars on new alternative fuels that are dirtier and more polluting than fuels we use today.

Section 526 simply bars agencies from entering into contracts to purchase alternative and unconventional fuels that emit more carbon pollution than conventional fuels on a life-cycle basis. Section 526 doesn't prevent the sale of dirty fuels, nor does it prevent the Federal agencies from buying these fuels if they need to.

Instead, it simply prevents the Federal Government from propping up the makers of dirty fuels with long-term contracts. Government policy, given the problems we face as far as our energy policy, should help drive the development of alternative fuels that cut pollution in carbon emission, not increase it.

The effect of this provision has been that it has spurred development of advanced biofuels. These fuels are being successfully tested and proven today on U.S. Navy planes at supersonic speeds. It is a testament to this country's ingenuity.

Opponents of this section claim that it creates problems for Federal agencies, and that is simply not the case. For example, the Department of Defense supports section 526, recognizing that tomorrow's soldiers, sailors, air personnel, and marines are going to need a greater range of energy sources.

Last July, the Department of Defense stated very clearly, and I quote:

The provision has not hindered the Department from

purchasing the fuel we need today, worldwide, to support

military missions. But it also sets an important baseline in

developing the fuels we need for the future.

DOD has also said that repealing section 526 could ``complicate the Department's efforts to provide better energy options to our warfighters and take advantage of the promising developments in home- grown biofuels.''

If DOD, the government's largest fuel purchaser, believes that section 526 is workable and helpful, that should be true for other agencies as well. In fact, the agencies we're addressing today have not expressed any concerns that I am aware of about section 526 nor have they asked for this provision.

I believe this amendment could also damage the developing biofuels sector at the worst possible time for our economy. It can send a very negative signal to America's advanced biofuel industry and could result in adverse impacts to U.S. job creation, world development efforts, and the export of world-leading technology.

Developing and bringing advanced low-carbon biofuels to scale is a critical step in reducing the Nation's dependence on oil. In this section, section 526, is a key part of this process. For these reasons, I would certainly be opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would be happy to yield the gentleman some time, if he needs it, to close.

I would simply reiterate my objection to the gentleman's amendment so that is clear for the record, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the recognition and rise to express, first of all, to my colleague and friend from Louisiana my appreciation for his argument today, and particularly the football analogy that he used. I say that as a Notre Dame graduate, and I would congratulate him on his victory the last time our two teams played on the field.

Having said that, however, both he and my colleague on the Democratic side, I join with the chairman in reluctant opposition to the amendment. The chairman has opted for a policy of no new starts, a policy that I strongly support and have opted for during these times of budgetary constraints.

I would point out that while there is only $10 million in the amendment before the House today, the fact is this project will cost several billion dollars by the time we are done, and starting it now is a cost that we cannot afford to adequately fund because we do not have the resources in the bill.

Over the last several years, we have, in fact, terminated hundreds of ongoing projects, to our great dismay and to the weakening of the infrastructure of our economy in this country. But until we as an institution, the Congress, have the intestinal fortitude to adequately fund our infrastructure in these types of very necessary investment-- that is not the argument before us--I cannot support adding to the inventory of projects that we must start but cannot.

If the allocation for the bill were different, I might be able to support the gentleman's amendment. Again, as it now stands, we are short of cash. The fact is the amount in the bill today--and the chairman and I and every member of the subcommittee fought to add $82 million to the President's request. We are $631 million today, in this bill, below what we were spending as a Nation on these projects 2 years ago. We don't have the money, unfortunately, to fund the gentleman's amendment, and therefore, again, I express my sincere appreciation for what he wants to do but my reluctant opposition to his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I would join the chairman in supporting the amendment.

I would mention that the Corps' investment in 2010 alone protected infrastructure in this country and prevented over $28 billion worth of damages. The amendment is a modest one and it is spread across all of the accounts for a 0.14 percent increase. As the chairman noted, he worked very vigorously to increase the amounts over the President's request by $6 million. We remain $217 million below last year's level.

So, again, I would join the chair in supporting the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

While I regret that we just received a copy of the gentleman's amendment while he was speaking, I have no objection to it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The Acting Chair. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.

I rise in support of the amendment, and join with the comments made by the chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to express my strong opposition to the amendment. Some would suggest outrage; I will simply say opposition.

The fact is, across-the-board cuts to administrative accounts when we have significant problems as far as the administration of some of these programs in the Department of Energy is a profound mistake.

What I really want to emphasize at this point to all of our colleagues in the House is that members of this subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee--which approved this bill, the people of this committee approved this bill--have made value judgments account by account.

The fact is, for renewable energy--and we will have amendments on this issue--there is a $428,345,000 reduction in this bill. In the Office of Science, there is a $72,203,000 reduction. For environmental clean-up for defense sites, for example, there is an $88,872,000 cut. These were all discrete decisions made and value judgments.

So I would emphasize to my colleagues that there are significant cuts and savings in this bill. I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Moran's amendment and would point out that I think the gentleman from Michigan in his earlier remarks hit the nail on the head. This is an issue of clarity versus confusion.

The fact is we have become the ``Congress of Confusion.'' We are charged with running a Nation of 300 million people with domestic and international responsibilities. We have now confused the physician community of the United States more than 17 times--sometimes at a 2- week interval--as to what the reimbursements are going to be under the Medicare program. We have people who have suffered loss of life, significant property damage, and dislocation through floods in our Nation. We are unable as an institution to resolve our differences on flood insurance and have continued it--if I am correct--at least 11 times. The fact is we have an infrastructure, as far as our highways and bridges, that is crumbling. We have now eight or nine times continued that because we cannot make a decision, and we continue to confuse the States, contractors, and our communities as to what the policy of the United States Government is going to be. And depending on what year you died, the last four years--including 2012--this Nation has had three different estate-tax laws, and the current one expires at the end of this year, leading to confusion and the hiring of numerous accountants, insurance agents, and attorneys, all of whom I love.

Why confuse this Nation more by not adopting the clarity of the Moran amendment? There is no question that the two Supreme Court decisions have significantly confused this issue and created uncertainty as to the scope of the Clean Water Act. During multiple hearings before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, witness after witness spoke of how these cases have blurred the lines on what the waters subject to Federal protection are.

The reason in short is because in neither case could the majority of Supreme Court justices agree on what was the appropriate test for determining the scope of Federal protections based on their reading of the term ``navigable.'' No majority or the court could agree what navigable means. In fact, in one of the cases the level of confusion on the court is reflected in that there are five separate opinions filed in the case with no opinion having more than four supporters on the Supreme Court of the United States.

The resulting confusion in interpreting the Clean Water Act is apparent to both the regulated community and regulators. The fact is, the industry has asked for clarification of this confusion through agency rulemaking. The gentlewoman mentioned that we need a rule in this. We do need a clarified rule. However, this legislative rider that is in the bill proposes the status quo of confusion and that that is acceptable. It will only result in increased implementation costs to the Federal Government, to the States, and to the regulated community. It will increase delays in the implementation of important public works projects and protracted litigation on the disparity of this language.

We need to adopt Mr. Moran's amendment to ensure that we have clarity. We should be taking actions to address the legitimate concerns that have been expressed. But the fact is this is an issue that Congress and the administration needs to address in the authorizing process to clarify it. This is not an issue that should be continued in confusion and perpetuity through the appropriations process.

Again, I strongly support the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman's amendment. There is $10 million contained in her amendment. That is a significant sum of money. When compared, however, to current year level spending for the renewable accounts of $1.825 billion, and as the chairman rightfully pointed out, a reduction of $428 million from that account, the gentlewoman's amendment is as much a statement of Congress as it is a monetary initiative. That is, we need to make an investment in our energy future as well as our economic future.

Renewable energy must be a part of that future, and the vast majority of industries in our country throughout our history have received substantial support from the government to become established and to be part of this great Nation.

This amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio takes a very small, but very positive, step towards making that investment, and I do urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment; and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I also would rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's amendment. As a resident of the neighboring State, I realize all of the great scientific research that is done in the State of Illinois alone at some of our wonderful Federal facilities. There is no question that we need to invest in the science account, as evidenced by the fact it is in this bill. Again, we had a very difficult allocation. Science is cut by $72,203,000.

But, unfortunately, I do think the gentleman's amendment is counterproductive in that he, because of the

budget rules, needs a $30 million cut from renewable research to gain a $15 million add for scientific research. Given the constraints we face, I think that's a bad bargain and we ought to leave the $30 million right where it is and have that aptly applied.

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

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I appreciate the recommendation and also rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and will simply state that my objection is based on national security concerns.

The fact is, as the senior Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar has characterized our energy crisis for years, and I absolutely agree with him. The fact is the importation of petroleum products in our use of carbon, because of where we buy them, has created a significant national security issue for the United States of America.

One of the accounts in the renewable accounts that will be eliminated under the gentleman's amendment is vehicle technology. There is no question American citizens are suffering today because of high gas prices. I myself--and I only speak for myself--can't do anything about that particular price at the pump today. But if through the vehicle technology program and the wise investment of the Federal taxpayers dollars we can get every American another mile per gallon, we have removed some of their economic discomfort and burden. We have also helped to begin to ensure our national security by reducing our dependency on foreign oil. Therefore, I do strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I would join the chair in opposition to the amendment.

I would point out one of the fallacies of the gentleman's argument that he

used on the floor in his language of the committee's report, that being our very serious concern that in the past we have applied moneys to research that has essentially been siphoned off overseas.

During general debate yesterday on this floor, in my opening remarks, I commended the members of the subcommittee and particularly Chairman Frelinghuysen for making sure we don't do that in this bill this year, and that there is throughout this bill and that report language directives to the Department of Energy to be focused on using this money wisely so that we maintain and begin to grow our industrial base and our manufacturing base and keep these jobs here.

This would be a mistake, and I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment for the very reasons that I mentioned earlier in debate when the gentleman from Illinois had an amendment to cut EERE--the renewable accounts--to add $15 million to science. Again, in this case, I don't think it is wise for us to make a choice of cutting fossil energy research by $100 million to increase the energy efficiency account by one-half that amount, $50 million.

The fact is I understand that some people have a significant concern about the use of fossil fuels. I certainly do myself. But the fact remains that 83 percent of all energy consumption in the United States today is generated by fossil fuel, and we need to apply ourselves to the wise and efficient use of that fuel as well.

Again, I would reluctantly be opposed to the gentlewoman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I simply would add my agreement to the chairman's opposition to the amendment.

I had already remarked earlier in the day relative to my support for vehicle technology and am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to stand before you today to recognize and commend the members of the Gary, Indiana, branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). On Saturday, June 2, 2012, the Gary NAACP will hold its 47th Annual Life Membership Banquet at the Genesis Convention Center in Gary, Indiana.

This annual event is a major fundraiser for the Gary NAACP. The funds generated through this event directly support the organization's many outstanding programs and advocacy efforts. Through its membership and the support of the community, the Gary NAACP is able to serve the people of Northwest Indiana and continue the mission started by the national organization in 1909 by working diligently to combat injustice, discrimination, and unfair treatment for all people in today's society. In addition, the banquet serves to update and keep the community aware of the NAACP's activities and formally honor its new life members.

The keynote speaker at this year's event will be Reverend Dr. Michael Eric Dyson. Dr. Dyson is a Georgetown University professor of sociology and a political analyst for MSNBC. Dr. Dyson has been able to positively influence the lives of numerous individuals through his remarkable career and his noteworthy dedication to charitable endeavors. In addition to his outstanding professional career, Dr. Dyson is well-known as a social activist, renowned orator, and prophetic preacher.

This year, the Gary NAACP will honor twelve outstanding individuals from Northwest Indiana who will join the hundreds of other outstanding civil, community, and religious leaders that have previously been recognized as life members. For 2012, the distinguished individuals who will be inducted as life members of the Gary NAACP are: Indiana Supreme Court Justice Robert Rucker, Dr. Judy Ball, Shontrai Irving, Esq., Gage Brown, Kamden Brown, Shante Brown, Zachery Brown, Stephen Mays, Dr. Linda Peterson, Renee Ceaser-Patterson, Kennedy Winfrey, and Kya Winfrey.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the newest life members of the Gary branch of the NAACP, as well as Attorney Karen Pulliam, the current Gary NAACP president, and all members of the organization for their extraordinary efforts and for their tremendous leadership. These outstanding men and women have worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life for all residents of Indiana's First Congressional District, and for that they are to be commended.

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

I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to Chairman Frelinghuysen for his efforts to be inclusive and transparent in drafting this legislation. The process has been collegial, and the chairman has ensured that the Energy and Water Subcommittee continues its tradition of bipartisanship and cooperation. I would like to join the chairman in thanking the other members of the subcommittee and also all of their staffs for their exceptionally good and dedicated work. Finally, this bill could not have been written without the dedication, hard work, and sound judgment of our committee staff. The chairman has kindly enumerated them by name.

Given the constrained allocation that the subcommittee was dealt, I believe that Chairman Frelinghuysen has crafted a good bill. While I hope that we can modify some elements of the bill going forward, I would observe that our differences are marginal.

As the chairman mentioned in his remarks, the allocation for the Energy and Water bill is $31.2 billion, which is $964 million below the administration's budget request and $88 billion above last year's level. As a result, the bill makes dramatic reductions to vital energy programs to stay within the allocation.

While I recognize that difficult choices must be made to address the Nation's serious financial situation, and I believe that Chairman Frelinghuysen has made a considerable effort to craft a balanced bill, this legislation is severely hampered by the shortsighted nature of the spending cap set by the House-approved budget resolution. The allocation for Energy and Water is simply insufficient to meet the challenges posed by our energy crisis, the need to maintain our water infrastructure, and our national security requirements.

That being said, I would like to point out some of the very positive aspects of the bill. I am grateful that additional funds for core Nonproliferation activities and Vehicle Technologies were included. These are very smart investments. The first is vital to our national security as securing, removing, and curbing the spread of nuclear materials is one of the great international challenges our country faces. I would argue the increased funding for Vehicle Technology is also a smart national security investment. Specifically, the program researches the development of lightweight materials, high-powered batteries, and hybrid electric drive motors. As the cars and trucks of our citizens and the ships, planes, and tanks of our military rely heavily on petroleum fuels, technology breakthroughs and fuel efficiency are crucial to reducing our dependency on carbon fuels and crucial to improving our national security since so much of our current fuel mix is imported from unfriendly nations.

Additionally, I truly appreciate the chairman's commitment to American manufacturing. This was a theme of many of our subcommittee hearings this year and he has included strong language in this regard. I believe we need to pull out all the stops to support domestic manufacturing, which remains one of the most important drivers of our economy.

Further, I see very little merit to using Federal dollars to foster breakthroughs for products that are not ultimately manufactured domestically. The bill upholds and continues many of the efforts to improve program and projects management at all of the agencies under its jurisdiction. I strongly support the committee in this effort and all the provisions, old and new, aimed at increased oversight and improved project management at the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Energy. I am grievously disappointed that the bill has to carry these commonsense provisions year after year after year, and I hope that the agencies begin to incorporate these policies into their management structure.

That being said, with the recent Inspector General report detailing egregious overpayments to lab employees by DOE, including an example of one worker receiving a taxpayer-funded per diem for more than a decade, I am not optimistic that the message is yet engrained in Energy's culture. Where were the auditors? Where was the Inspector General for the last decade?

The bill includes continued funding for the Office of Health, Safety and Security and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. These Agencies play important roles in oversight of DOE and NNSA projects. Their independent assessment and enforcement are crucial to worker health and safety at these facilities.

With regard to the Army Corps of Engineers, I am pleased that the bill provides $83 million above the President's woefully inadequate request, ensuring that some ongoing projects will not be terminated. However, the bill provides $188 million less than current-year funding. We must invest in our infrastructure by making preventive and proactive investments. Just last year, this bill carried more than $2 billion in emergency funding to respond to natural disasters. I believe this again proves that it makes more fiscal sense to prevent a disaster than to respond to one.

Specific to the applied energy programs at the Department of Energy, the bill provides appropriate funding for fossil and nuclear energy, which continue to provide the bulk of our energy needs. However, I am disappointed that renewable energy programs in this bill are reduced by over $400 million from 2012 and nearly $900 million from the President's request. This disinvestment is a serious setback to our energy future. We know energy can achieve cost competitiveness, but at this time a continued and sustained research and development program is necessary and appropriate.

Lastly, I would like to express my support for the chairman's inclusion of funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal project and for including the provision to prohibit the use of funding to abandon the project. I agree with him and the other subcommittee members that the administration's actions to close the project run counter to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

In closing, I am pleased that we are considering this bill under an open rule and that the Appropriations Committee continues to function amidst the turmoil that has stagnated so many other legislative efforts. Much of this credit is due to Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks. I commend them for their efforts in this regard. I would also like to reiterate my sentiments at the beginning of my statement that Chairman Frelinghuysen has done an excellent job, and I support the bill we are considering today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

I thank the gentlelady from California for bringing this important matter to our attention.

The committee has heard from a number of our colleagues on the Corps' vegetation-on-levees policy. While we commend the Corps for its continued efforts to improve its policies and thereby improve public safety for everyone, we also understand and appreciate that occasionally new policies have unintended consequences. As we move forward with this bill, we intend to have further discussion on this subject.

I commend, again, the gentlewoman from California for her leadership on this issue.

It is my privilege to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Chairman, I want to add my remarks, along with the chairman, to thank the gentlewoman for her vision of our energy future, for her doggedness, and for her commitment to basic scientific research in this country, as well as the issue of fusion.

Too often people lose sight that we have to be consistent, we have to be persistent and dogged, and some day we are going to achieve success and primarily because of the gentlelady from California. I appreciate her remarks very much.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Chairman, I would also be happy to work with the gentleman from California to ensure that Reclamation is executing its mission in the best interests of the taxpayer. I expect the Bureau of Reclamation to take immediate actions to right these wrongs and to take steps to prevent a similar situation in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I would only add that I hope to avoid any further confusion in addressing this issue. And I do appreciate the gentleman's very serious concern here.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, if I could ask how much time each side has, please, remaining in general debate?

I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chair.

My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that we have one more speaker on this side and that the other side does not have any more speakers.

With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I would note that we have no further requests for time and would conclude by simply, again, thanking the chair, all of the subcommittee members and staff for their very good work that has brought us to this point.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness and profound respect that I take this time to remember one of Northwest Indiana's most valued citizens, and a true champion of workers' rights, Mr. Leon Lynch. Mr. Lynch dedicated his life to serving the needs of the United Steelworkers (USW), and he was tremendously successful in his efforts to improve the quality of life for workers in Northwest Indiana and across the nation. Mr. Lynch passed away on Friday, May 4, 2012, but his legacy will forever be remembered in the hearts and minds of the many people whose lives he touched.

Throughout his extraordinary career, Leon Lynch accomplished many visionary goals. In 1956, he joined USW Local 1011 while working at the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company mill in East Chicago, Indiana. Over the years, Mr. Lynch served in many capacities, and because of his strong leadership skills and willingness to take initiative, his career continued to flourish. In 1968, he was named a USW staff representative and later became an international representative. In 1976, Leon was appointed the International Vice President of Human Affairs for the USW, making him the first African American to serve as a vice president for a major labor union, and he was re-elected to this position a remarkable six times. Recognizing the impact he had on behalf of his union membership, Leon was appointed by President Bill Clinton to the Advisory Council on Unemployment Compensation in 1994 and to the Air Traffic Service Board of the Federal Aviation Administration in 2000. In 1995, Mr. Lynch was elected to serve as a member of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL CIO) Executive Council.

Mr. Lynch retired from his position as the International Vice President of Human Affairs for the USW in 2006. He is remembered as a great leader who will leave a lasting impact on generations of union workers to come. In 2005, having recognized the tremendous contributions he made to its members, USW Local 1011 dedicated its career development facility, the Leon Lynch Learning Center, in his honor. This outstanding facility offers guidance for steelworkers to prepare for employment opportunities.

Mr. Lynch also gave much of his time to many organizations and committees throughout his life. Leon was a member of the Democratic National Committee, the Labor Roundtable of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators, the A. Philip Randolph Institute, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the Workers Defense League.

Leon leaves behind a loving family. He is survived by his wife, Doris Tindal-Lynch; his adoring daughters: Tina, Tammy, Sheila, and Maxine; and five beloved grandchildren. He also leaves to cherish his memory many dear friends and family members, as well as a saddened but grateful community and nation.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in remembering the great life of Mr. Leon Lynch. His remarkable contributions to the Labor Movement, both locally and across the nation,

are most worthy of our admiration. His life of service is to be commended, and his legacy serves as an inspiration to us all.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand before you today to congratulate Saint Luke United Lutheran Church on its 100th anniversary. In honor of this momentous milestone, a celebratory reception will be held on May 19, 2012, at The Senior Center in Michigan City, Indiana. For 100 years, Saint Luke United Lutheran Church has been committed to providing spiritual guidance as well as charitable contributions to numerous organizations and individuals.

In 1912, Saint Luke English Lutheran Church was founded in Michigan City, Indiana, under Reverend Dobberstein. At the time, the people living in the area saw the need for an English-speaking Lutheran Church, so Saint Luke's began holding services at the local YMCA, as well as in one of the Sunday school classrooms at Saint Paul's Church. In 1915, the congregation, consisting of twenty families, witnessed the construction of their first church building. Later, in 1969, to accommodate the needs of the growing congregation, the current church building was erected on Coolspring Avenue in Michigan City. In 2002, Lutheran Church of the Dunes joined parishes with Saint Luke, and the church became the Saint Luke United Lutheran Church. Today, the church has an impressive membership of 112 families.

Saint Luke United Lutheran Church, under the leadership of Reverend John Mikenas, provides much support to charity organizations and has built an outstanding community outreach program. The congregation has been dedicated to serving those in need and has focused its charitable efforts in many ways including: assisting soup kitchens throughout the Michigan City area, organizing a food and warm clothing drive for the Salvation Army, and supporting the men's homeless shelter in Michigan City. Saint Luke's has also created a program for families in need of assistance with utility and medical bills, as well as another program that provides homemade soup and fruit baskets to the homebound. In addition, Saint Luke's is dedicated to the youth of the community and runs a vacation bible school during the summer months. The Saint Luke Youth Group also participates in mission trips and assists the elderly in the community.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in honoring the congregation at Saint Luke United Lutheran Church for its exceptional community service ministry and in congratulating the parish on its 100th anniversary. The great work of this truly admirable congregation continues to touch the lives of countless individuals, and for their selfless service, the leadership and members at Saint Luke's are worthy of the highest praise.

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

I rise to express my concern that an amendment offered by Mr. Turner that is contained in the en bloc amendments does not cure provisions in the underlying bill that weaken the enforcement of worker health and safety and that create a self-regulation regime for contractors at the National Nuclear Security Administration, which, I believe, will place profit above safety. Section 3115 would move the enforcement of worker health and safety from DOE's Office of Health, Safety and Security to the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Additionally, the legislation restricts the oversight authority of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, which is a board that has played a vital role in independently addressing worker safety and whistleblower issues at large DOE projects.

To support my position, I would quote from this year's House Committee on Appropriations report accompanying the fiscal year 2013 energy and water bill:

The committee believes that having an independent

assessment capability at the Department is important and

supports the role of HSS.

Mr. Chair, I rise to express my concerns with an amendment offered by Mr. Turner contained in the en bloc amendment. I do not believe the Turner Amendment cures provisions of the underlying bill that weaken enforcement of worker health and safety, and create a self regulation regime for contractors at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). I believe these provisions place profit above safety.

Specifically, Section 3115 of H.R. 4310 would move enforcement of worker health and safety from Department of Energy's Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) to NNSA. Taking away the independent oversight that HSS provides at NNSA facilities is a mistake.

The House Committee on Appropriations in its report for the Fiscal Year 2013 Energy and Water bill was very clear on the value of HHS. It states, ``The Committee believes that having an independent assessment capability at the Department is important and supports the role of HSS in the areas of nuclear safety, worker safety and health, safeguards and security, cyber security and emergency management. The Committee agrees that the responsibility for protecting workers, the public, the environment, and national security assets rests with the Department's line management organizations. However, it is critical that the Department preserve the HSS authority to independently assess Departmental compliance and performance and to have access to and cooperation from all Departmental programs.''

Additionally, the legislation restricts the oversight authority of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), a board that has played a vital role in independently addressing worker safety and whistle blower issues at large DOE projects. Again, the Fiscal Year 2013 Energy and Water report was unambiguous in expressing its support for DNFSB. It states, ``The Committee expects the DNFSB to continue to play a significant role in scrutinizing the Department's safety and security activities, including the reform initiatives underway in the Department that may impact projects under its jurisdiction.''

Further, the requirement that NNSA move towards ``performance-based oversight'' is misguided and will create a dangerous contractor self- regulation regime. While I do not believe that contractors will not take worker safety seriously, I do stand by the old adage that independent oversight is always more honest and rigid than self- evaluation.

Mr. Speaker, it is with immense sadness and great respect that I rise to remember Staff Sergeant David P. Nowaczyk for his bravery and willingness to fight for his country. Sergeant Nowaczyk was assigned to A Company, 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, out of Fort Carson, Colorado. While serving on his third tour in Afghanistan, Sergeant Nowaczyk was killed when his vehicle struck an enemy improvised explosive device in Kunar Province, Afghanistan.

David Nowaczyk, from Dyer, Indiana, graduated from Lake Central High School in 1997, where he was a member of the wrestling and football teams. Later, in September 2005, he enlisted in the Army. Throughout his career, Sergeant Nowaczyk earned several medals, honors, and commendations for his service, including: a National Defense Service Medal, a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, an Army Service Ribbon, two Army Commendation Medals, two Bronze Stars, and the Purple Heart, awarded posthumously.

Friends describe David as a loyal, kind man who would be willing to do anything for the people in his life. His family describes him as a good son and a great father who was willing to drop anything to be there for his family. Residents in the community are remembering Sergeant Nowaczyk as a dedicated warrior and a true American hero. Sergeant Nowaczyk leaves behind a beloved host of family and friends. He is survived by his devoted wife, Rachel, his adoring daughter, Kiley, and his loving stepson, Conner. David also leaves to cherish his memory his dear mother, Patti, and proud father, Andrew. He will also be greatly missed by his sister, Megan, with whom he was very close. Sergeant Nowaczyk also leaves behind many other friends and family members, as well as a grateful, yet deeply saddened community.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in honoring a fallen hero, United States Army Staff Sergeant David Nowaczyk. Sergeant Nowaczyk sacrificed his life in service to his country, and his death comes as a great loss to our nation, which has once again been shaken by the realities of war. Sergeant Nowaczyk will forever remain a hero in the eyes of his family, his community, and his country. Thus, let us never forget the sacrifice he made to preserve the ideals of freedom and democracy.

Mr. Speaker, it is with profound respect and sincere appreciation that I rise once again to recognize two of Northwest Indiana's most charitable citizens, and two dear friends, Dr. Howard Cohen and his wife, Patricia. Throughout the years, Howard and Patti have been recognized many times for their contributions to the Northwest Indiana community. On Tuesday, May 15, 2012, Dr. and Mrs. Cohen will be honored by the Rotary Club of Hammond, Indiana as the 2012 recipients of the Heinze Vocational Service Award, a recognition bestowed annually upon individuals exhibiting outstanding leadership qualities and a commitment to community service.

It would be impossible to speak of the great contributions of Patti and Howard to Northwest Indiana without boasting of the immense impact both have had at Purdue University Calumet (PUC) in Hammond. Fittingly, the event at which they will be lauded for their outstanding leadership will take place at the university, where Howard served as Chancellor from 2001 until his retirement in 2011. Under Howard's leadership, PUC's expansion was remarkable, and his commitment to the university continues today. During his tenure, students at PUC witnessed the construction of the Academic Learning Center, as well as the establishment of nine centers and institutes focused on applied research. Student housing, which had previously not existed at PUC, was also added to the campus during that time. While these visible additions to the school are quite impressive, it is Howard's commitment to raising academic standards, expanding the educational curriculum, and exposing students to a system of instruction that translates far beyond the walls of a classroom that are the true testament to his leadership.

Without question, Patti Cohen shares responsibility for these achievements and the progress that was made over the last decade. Patti has represented PUC on trips to universities in countries throughout the world including: China, Poland, Spain, Oman, and Costa Rica. She was also instrumental in promoting the university and creating a welcoming atmosphere for students, parents, and visitors. Patti also served on numerous committees and was active in the planning and hosting of many campus and community events.

In addition to their outstanding contributions to Purdue University Calumet, Patti and Howard Cohen are also to be commended for their dedication to the entire Northwest Indiana community. With the same dedication, they have served the people of Northwest Indiana through their involvement in local organizations and their service on various boards. Although their efforts encompass many different aspects of society, all contribute to one central goal: the improvement of the quality of life for the people of Northwest Indiana and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in congratulating Howard and Patti Cohen on being named the 2012 recipients of the Heinze Vocational Service Award by the Rotary Club of Hammond, Indiana. Leaders in the truest sense of the word, their selfless commitment to their community is to be commended, and they are most deserving of this prestigious honor.

Mr. Speaker, it is with immense respect that I rise today in remembrance of the many men and women who have lost their lives in the workplace and to honor those who have fought tirelessly to improve conditions for workers throughout the United States. On April 28, 2012, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL CIO) and union members nationwide will once again gather in various locations in observance of Workers Memorial Day. The great men and women of America's unions will pause to pay tribute to the many workers whose lives have been lost, and the millions who have become ill, due to accidents and unsafe conditions in the workplace. They will also reinforce their commitment to improving conditions for future generations to come.

In the United States today, an average of twelve men and women per day go to work and never make it home to their families, having lost their lives due to an accident in the workplace. Unfortunately, many of these accidents could have been prevented. Under outstanding leaders such as AFL CIO President Richard Trumka, Indiana AFL CIO President Nancy Guyott, and Northwest Indiana Federation of Labor President Dan Murchek, AFL CIO union members have continued the flight of their predecessors to ensure that the lives lost were not in vain.

Since the passage of the landmark Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the unions of the AFL CIO have been instrumental in a movement toward the Act's goal that all American workers would have the right to a safe workplace. The AFL CIO and its unions are to be commended for their contributions to the passage of OSHA and many of the subsequent laws and regulations involving workplace safety. It is because of the organization and demands of labor unions that employers and the government have acted to improve the quality of life of the American workforce.

In Northwest Indiana, the steel industry has played a vital role in supporting our local communities and stimulating the economy. On April 26, 2012, in accordance with Workers Memorial Day, United Steelworkers members will pay a special tribute to their fallen comrades whose lives have been cut short in the workplace. These fine men and women will forever be remembered by their devoted colleagues and a grateful community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my distinguished colleagues join me in observance of Workers Memorial Day, and in remembering the many workers who have lost their lives on the job, while honoring the hardworking, loyal men and women of America's unions who have taken up the struggle to improve safety conditions in the workplace. The great men and women of our unions are the finest representation of America's workforce, and I am proud to represent the many dedicated men and women of labor unions throughout Northwest Indiana. Their unwavering commitment to their fellow workers is to be admired.

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep respect and admiration that I rise to commend five exceptional business leaders from Northwest Indiana who were recently honored as the Northwest Indiana Business and Industry Hall of Fame's Class of 2012. Created by The Times and BusINess magazine, induction into the Indiana Business and Industry Hall of Fame is determined by a panel of local civic and business leaders. While there were many deserving nominees, the individuals selected as the 2012 Indiana Business and Industry Hall of Fame inductees are: Milford Christenson, Wil Davis, Linda Woloshansky, Tom Gryzbek, and Steve Pangere. For their many contributions to the enhancement of Northwest Indiana, these honorees were recognized at a ceremony that took place at the Radisson Hotel at Star Plaza in Merrillville, Indiana, on Friday, March 9, 2012.

Milford Christenson, of Highland, is the president of Christenson Chevrolet. For decades he has been a leader in the philanthropic community of Northwest Indiana. Milford served in the United States Army during World War II as a member of General Patton's Third Army and earned a Bronze Star for his service. A 1947 graduate of Indiana University, he is a proud member of the Indiana University Alumni Association. In 1951, Mr. Christenson and his family purchased a Chevrolet dealership in Griffith and, twelve years later, moved to their current location on Indianapolis Boulevard in Highland. Christenson Chevrolet was named Indiana Dealer of the Year by Time magazine in 2001. Milford Christenson's story is proof that with hard work and determination, anything is possible.

Wil Davis, of Gary, is the owner/operator of the Gary Jet Center, located at the Gary/Chicago International Airport. A Brooklyn native, Wil graduated from Cornell University and later entered the United States Navy. After serving on active duty during the Vietnam War, Mr. Davis joined the Navy Reserve and served until 1987. In 1989, he visited the Gary Airport, and one year later, Wil and his wife, Jean, along with two partners, purchased a small regional airline and moved its base of operations to Gary. Since then, he has developed the Gary Jet Center into a growing and thriving business, which is a tremendous benefit to the citizens of Northwest Indiana.

Linda Woloshansky, of Ogden Dunes, is the president and chief executive officer of The Center of Workforce Innovations in Valparaiso. An East Chicago native, Ms. Woloshansky graduated from Andrean High School and Indiana University. Linda learned early on that good employment opportunities allow people

to obtain a better quality of life. Her career has been dedicated to the service of others by improving the educational attainment, workforce viability, and economic development of Northwest Indiana.

Tom Gryzbek, of Dyer, is the president of Franciscan Saint Margaret Health in Hammond and Dyer. Mr. Gryzbek earned a degree from the University of Illinois in 1974. Mr. Gryzbek has also earned a master's degree in business administration from Indiana University Northwest and a law degree from DePaul University College of Law. Soon after graduating, he joined the former Saint Margaret Hospital as a suggestion plan manager. Tom has since made his way up the ranks of the organization, serving in numerous capacities, including executive vice president and chief operating officer of Saint Margaret Mercy. In 2004, Tom was deservedly appointed to his current position. He also serves the religious community of Northwest Indiana as a Gary Diocese deacon at Saint Andrew the Apostle Parish in Merrillville.

Steve Pangere, of Crown Point, is the president and chief executive officer of The Pangere Corporation and Culver Roofing Incorporated, both located in Gary. The Pangere Corporation was founded by Steve's grandfather, John Pangere, who opened the company in Gary after arriving to the Calumet Region from Greece in 1905. Steve Pangere hopes his sons, Nick and Tony, will someday take over the company, making it a fourth generation family business. Steve Pangere has managed to lead a successful corporation while battling the effects of progressive vision loss due to Rod-Cone Dystrophy. He is an advocate and an inspiration to the visually impaired and has contributed to many worthy causes around the Chicagoland and Northwest Indiana region.

Mr. Speaker, the lives of every citizen living in Northwest Indiana has been enriched because of the selfless good work of these five extraordinary individuals. I ask you and my distinguished colleagues to join me in commending these outstanding leaders on their induction into the Indiana Business and Industry Hall of Fame. These individuals are most deserving of being named the Class of 2012, and for their leadership and commitment to the Northwest Indiana community, each of them is worthy of our respect and admiration.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and honor that I congratulate Mrs. Edna Ecklund on a momentous milestone, her 100th birthday, which was on April 14, 2012. Edna celebrated with family and friends on Friday, April 13, 2012, at the Kindred Healthcare facility in Dyer, Indiana.

Mrs. Ecklund was born on April 14, 1912, in Crete, Illinois. She is the oldest of three children born to Henry and Clara Reichert. Her family later moved to Indiana and lived on a farm between Crown Point and Lowell. On June 5, 1931, Edna married Clarence Ecklund, and they lived in various locations throughout the region over the years. In 1962, Clarence and Edna moved to Schererville, Indiana, where Edna remained until relocating to her current residence. Edna worked most of her life as a millinery salesperson for the Edward C. Minas department store in downtown Hammond, Indiana, before moving to the store's River Oaks location in nearby Calumet City, Illinois. Edna, who retired in 1974, has always been known as an outstanding saleswoman with an exquisite fashion sense.

In addition to her successful career, Mrs. Ecklund was a member of the Order of the Eastern Star for many years. She is also a member of Immanuel United Church of Christ in Highland, Indiana. Edna has many friends and family who share a common respect for her commendable qualities, including her vigor, sense of humor, and kindness. Edna, an avid musician, has played both the organ and the piano for many years. A truly remarkable woman, Edna's dedication to her career and her involvement in her community is exceeded only by her devotion to her amazing family and friends.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in honoring Edna Ecklund on this special day and in wishing her a very happy 100th birthday!

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to announce that the Indian American Cultural Center of NWIHRC will celebrating its 10th Anniversary by hosting a gala dinner and banquet on Saturday, April 21, 2012, at the Halls of Saint George in Schererville, Indiana.

The Indian American Cultural Center, which opened on March 9, 2002, was established with the following goal in mind: to foster peace and harmony amongst the people of Northwest Indiana by showcasing their cultural heritage and creating spiritual awareness in both young people and adults, as well as to engage in various charitable events, both nationally and locally. Since its inception, the Indian American Cultural Center has been instrumental in educating Northwest Indiana's citizens on the traditions and customs of the Indian heritage.

The members of the Indian American Cultural Center of NWIHRC are to be commended, not only for their commitment to preserving tradition, but also for their commitment to making improvements that benefit all mankind. Proceeds from this year's gala will go to support The Arc of Northwest Indiana, located in Hobart, Indiana. The Arc of Northwest Indiana

works diligently to improve the lives of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families. In the past, proceeds from the gala have gone to such noble causes as cancer research, educational scholarships, the American Red Cross, tsunami relief, and to aid victims of Hurricane Katrina and the earthquake in Kashmir, India, and most recently, the Carmelite Home for Girls.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in commending the board and members of the Indian American Cultural Center of NWIHRC for their outstanding contributions to society. Their commitment to improving the quality of life for the people of Northwest Indiana and throughout the world is truly inspirational and should be recognized and commended.