Floor Statements

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

I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment and join with my colleagues from California and New Jersey in their opposition.

The amendment is a legislative attempt to circumvent a draft Executive order which would provide for increased disclosure of the political contributions of government contractors, especially contributions given to third-party entities.

The argument is made that companies should not disclose more information because people in power would misuse that information to retaliate against them. Using that logic, all campaign disclosures are bad. Government contractors already disclose contributions and expenditures by their PACs and those who contribute to them. By extension, we ought to take that law and ensure that the voters of this country are protected so that they also know what those corporations are doing with their money as far as involvement in the electoral process.

The provisions, as drafted, are, I think, very good. The information is required to be provided, and the Executive order that the amendment would circumvent enhances the quality of information that people and citizens ought to have before they go to the polls. Disclosure is good. And for that reason I rise, again, in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I would take a different tact on the issue of common sense and security. I would like to talk about the security of our Nation and about our economic infrastructure and about these Corps regions.

I understand that the intent of the gentleman's amendment is to prohibit the Corps from preventing individuals from having handguns on projects administered by the Corps. I understand it's aimed at those who obviously support the Second Amendment. I do, myself. The fact is, I believe the gentleman's amendment is injurious to our national security. I do not think it is a good idea to allow individuals to walk around with guns over dams and water treatment plants that are administered by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Now, I assume that some of my colleagues disagree with me. However, this amendment also prohibits the Corps from implementing or enforcing rules on explosives and fireworks and other weapons. I don't believe there are

other Members in this body who believe the Corps should not be able to stringently enforce rules on explosives at dams and water projects and treatment facilities that they have jurisdiction over. Further, what if there's danger of fire on the Corps land? Unless there is some other law that supersedes the regulations that your amendment is aimed at, Corps employees would not be able to prevent people from launching fireworks, despite the dangers of wildfires.

I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and would hope that he would consider withdrawing his overly broad and misguided amendments.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I will reiterate my strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

We are talking about allowing people with weapons in areas where we have dams and water treatment plants, and the Army Corps of Engineers ought to be able to exercise control over those for the protection of those major economic infrastructures. I would respectfully disagree with the gentleman, that he would also reduce their ability as far as the regulation of people with explosives. And I think that, again, is very detrimental relative to our national security. For these reasons, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, Davis-Bacon is a fairly simple concept, and it is a very fair one.

What it does is to protect the government and the taxpayers, as well as the workers, in carrying out the policy of paying a decent wage on government contracts.

The Davis-Bacon Act requires that workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the community for similar work. The fact is that opponents claim Davis- Bacon requires union wage jobs. However, more than 75 percent of Davis- Bacon wage determinations are not based solely on union wages.

The quality of work on energy and water projects, for example, is crucial to the communities depending on them, and we do need individuals who are trained, who are more efficient, and who are going to do the job right the first time. One of the things that tends not to be noted when we have a discussion and debate about Davis-Bacon is the money it saves to the taxpayers that are hidden costs by those who do not use union labor and do not pay union scale wages.

By including fringe benefits in wage calculations, the Davis-Bacon act delivers health care and pensions for workers on Federal projects, ensuring that they aren't part of the many uninsured Americans who rely on Medicaid and cost the American taxpayers. The Department of Labor survey methods also incorporate hourly investments in training and apprenticeship, where appropriate, to ensure the skilled, productive, future workforce.

I would also point out that in the past the House has taken two votes on this issue, the first vote taken included a limitation on Davis- Bacon and was considered in H.R. 1, and it failed by a vote of 189-233. The second vote was a limitation taken during consideration of the FAA bill, and it failed 183-238.

But, most importantly, and the gentleman indicated that he is spurred on to action here because of the recession, is because of the money involved relative to those who work in the United States of America. Since 1977, we have fortunately had great growth in this general economy.

But I would point out to all of the Members that according to the Department of Labor in 1977, the real hourly wage that a human being in the United States of America earned for 1 hour's worth of labor was $19.57. In 2010 the Department of Labor reported that a human being in the United States of America for their human labor for 1 hour now earns $19.04.

People today, for an hour's worth of work, make less than they did in 1977, despite the growth of our economy. The last thing we need to do here today is to put more downward pressure on the ability of an American citizen to work at a good-paying job that guarantees them a decent living, and I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition. I would close by indicating that there has been discussion about the burden that this act imposes upon small businesses. And I would, again, wish to contradict that.

I also believe that the administrative requirements of the act are critical to prevent a fraud against government agencies. First, to comply with the IRS and overtime regulations, all law-abiding contractors must retain records on hours worked, wages, and benefits. Second, electronic transmission of data has streamlined reporting. Third, the integrity of the whole program relies on this reporting to avoid kickbacks, misclassification of workers, and cheating under the Davis-Bacon Act. It is important to remember that Federal overtime law, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, requires all employers--not just those that must comply with Davis-Bacon--to keep records.

So, again, I would ask that my colleagues oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would make the point that this past Friday, the Department of Energy said that the Office of Environmental Management has made unparalleled progress in cleaning up our Nation's Cold War nuclear legacy at sites across the country, and then they announced restructuring. This subcommittee held a hearing on the issue of cleanup in April of 2006. We find ourselves here in 2011 still talking about it, let alone the cost.

I appreciate the gentleman's concern. My point would be I have some ambivalence, as I'd mentioned to the gentleman earlier, simply because I had a conversation with the Secretary relative to the change. My observation to the Secretary is I appreciate he knows he has a problem, and I also appreciate he has done something about the problem.

I certainly appreciate the attentiveness of the gentleman, of your involvement and your good work on this, and I certainly do not object to what you're trying to accomplish here, because I do think, the stronger the message, the more diligent the department will be on this matter. I thank the gentleman for raising the issue.

I appreciate the chairman yielding and would join him in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

We just had a vote earlier in the Chamber adding $79 million to this program. But setting that particular vote

aside, as I have mentioned several times, while I have great trepidation about people at the Department of Energy talking to each other and the Department not having the same vigor, if you would, that they have for ARPA-E, instilling that in other research centers, it does appear that this is a successful program in its infancy. We certainly ought to make sure that it has a chance to show that it can be successful over a limited number of years--they are talking about 3. My emphasis with them is to distill that same effort across the Department of Energy.

So I would join my chairman in opposing the gentleman's amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I reluctantly join him in his opposition. Again, I understand what the gentlewoman from California is attempting to do. I appreciate her endeavors here and certainly would commit to working with her to ensure that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is moving forward in a considered and responsible manner on this license application.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to join the chairman in his opposition.

Recognizing that 70 percent of our energy consumption comes from carbon fuels, it's very important for this government and for this Nation to learn how to, as efficiently and as effectively, use them. And again I think, for that reason alone, we should oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I appreciate the chairman yielding.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from California. In 2009, 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 previous 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. The underlying bill zeroes the $9 million request for the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund and rescinds $66 million in mandatory funds for these activities.

As we stand on the House floor today, we are undermining this agreement, which, if it were to stand, that is the amendment, will land this case simply back into court. If the court is forced to take over river restoration, the Friant water users would be at risk of losing over 20 years of water supply certainty provided by the settlement. The amendment, I believe, is an attempt to end the broadly supported and bipartisan effort to restore the river, while also improving water supply management, flood protection, and water quality.

The amendment is piling on, if you would, given that the vast majority of funding for the settlement has been cut. There is no need to eliminate all funding just to ensure water attorneys can make a few more boat payments.

As I said at the outset, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In closing, I would again point out that in 2009, Congress ratified this settlement to end 18 years of litigation. I do not think we should adopt the amendment and potentially begin another 18 years of litigation and would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I also would use the word ``reluctantly'' because I understand the need that the gentleman has in his region in this country. I appreciate his efforts in this regard.

But, again, I do support the Chair's policies as far as no new starts, given the fact that over the last several years we have terminated hundreds of ongoing projects. This is going to be a significant cost.

Until we can have the intestinal fortitude with the administration to provide the necessary funds for ongoing funds alone, it is difficult to begin a new endeavor. The gentleman indicated his efforts to increase a request made by the President, despite his best efforts to add money to the bill. We are now $677 million below what we are spending on water projects in this country in fiscal year 2010.

So, again, with all reluctance I am constrained to join with my chairman in opposition.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would point out to my colleagues that the amendment, as stated by the gentleman, would eliminate all funding for the Office of Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

The bill already includes a reduction of $491 million from the current year level, which is a 25 percent cut.

The debate, relative to energy policy in this House--and not necessarily restricted to this amendment--talks about subsidies. But there are two parts to a Federal budget: There are spending-side issues and there are revenue- and tax-side issues.

I would hazard a guess as we stand here that there is not an energy source in the United States of America, be it coal, be it nuclear, be it gas, be it solar, be it wind, that does not somehow receive some benefit either by loss revenue or direct spending of the Federal Government in its endeavors.

What we do have to do is necessary research to make sure that we do expand the mix of energy utilization in this country, and certainly that is the purpose of the Renewable Energy Program Research at the national level. With 70 percent of our energy now generated through coal or natural gas, this cannot continue.

As I have said in earlier debates during the week, my senior Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar, has always described our energy problem as a national security issue given where petroleum products tend to be bought in the United States of America. Without this type of very serious research, we are not going to solve that national security problem, and we are not going to assiduously create job opportunities and economic opportunities.

I would respectfully object and oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, section 526, I believe, is a commonsense provision that stops Federal agencies from wasting taxpayer dollars on new, alternative fuels that are dirtier and more polluting than the fuels we use today. The section simply bars agencies from entering into contracts to purchase alternative and unconventional fuels that emit more carbon pollution than conventional fuels on a lifecycle basis. I think that is just a rational, commonsense requirement.

The effect of this provision that has been in place is to spur development of advanced biofuels. These fuels are being successfully tested and proven today on U.S. Navy planes at supersonic speeds. And I believe it is a testament to American ingenuity.

I think the path that the gentleman wants to pursue is the wrong one. It is unsustainable in the longer term, and it will not lead us to energy security. Therefore, I am opposed to his amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

If I could ask the author of the amendment just one question.

On the letter, was that a letter from Senator Inhofe to the Department of Energy or from the Department of Energy to the Senator?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I appreciate the clarification.

I remain opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

We accept the amendment.

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

These are legal appointments made by the President of the United States--by this President, the last President, the President before that, the President back to George Washington. It is the administration's priority to make these appointments.

While each of us, or collectively, disagree with some of the individuals put into particular positions, until we change the law, the House should not pick and choose the staff for the executive branch any more than it should be picking ours.

If the gentleman wants a say in the President's hires and appointments, I suggest he work to change the Constitution. Article II, section 2 gives the Senate say over Presidential appointments and gives the President power to make recess appointments.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is a constitutional issue, and we have no business in it. I would urge my colleagues to vote against the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the chairman for yielding and join with him in opposition. I think he has stated the case very well.

I would also add the expenditures in this legislation on nonproliferation. I think one of the greatest threats our country faces is the issue of nuclear terrorism. Again, we have to be very thoughtful. The chairman has had to make some very serious and profound choices. I think he has done an excellent job doing so, and we ought to stop where we are.

I am opposed to the woman's amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

I think you have stated the case well and do want to join with you in my strong opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding and would join him in his opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Again, I think the chairman has stated the proposition very well, but I would point out that the program's technical assistance activities really do help prime markets for clean technologies in major emerging economies to support and encourage U.S. exports.

So again, I am opposed to the amendment and appreciate the gentleman yielding.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri. The WRDA 2007 Act, which was passed with such bipartisan support that it overcame a Presidential veto, authorized the Corps to undertake the Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan and develop the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee to consult on the study. This authority provided a venue for collaboration between the 70-member stakeholder group of tribes, States, affected groups, and Federal agencies to develop a shared vision and comprehensive plan for the restoration of the Missouri River ecosystem.

By prohibiting the Corps from expending any fiscal year 2012 funding on the study, this amendment will result in a scheduled delay of the study, potentially additional start-up expenses and schedule impacts, and potential erosion of trust of the delicate partnership in this basin. There also could be legal implications associated with the National Environmental Policy Act if funding were prohibited for this study in the longer term. A 1-year prohibition would not allow work described above to be done and could push the entire schedule of the report out.

I also do believe that it places the Army Corps in jeopardy of not being in compliance with the act, which could also adversely affect their operation of the dams on the waterways. In the long term, the study represents the required programmatic NEPA coverage for the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery Project; and 13 Federal agencies, eight States, and 15 tribes have formally agreed to cooperate with the agency under the act. The fact that this was authorized in 2007 in an overwhelming fashion, that you have had this collaboration, and there are risks

involved in adopting the gentleman's amendment, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that my colleague's relief stands with the authorizing committees. We have a law in place since 2007. Perhaps he might want it amended through the authorization process. At this point in time, I think it is unwise policy to slow this study down and would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

As the gentleman pointed out, we had this debate earlier this week on the House floor. I would point out that the performance standards for light bulbs were established in an act in 2007. It's the law of the land.

At that time the bill enjoyed strong bipartisan support, with 95 House Republicans voting for final passage and the bill being signed into law by President George Bush.

As far as I am aware, the issues that inspired this standard have not changed and, if anything, 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.

It is estimated that efficient lighting will save the average American family around $100 every year. Further, while claiming that the incandescent bulb is dead makes for a good sound bite, it doesn't affect reality. As a result of the 2007 law, manufacturers are already making a variety right of new energy-saving bulbs for homes, including more efficient incandescent bulbs.

These bulbs look, light and turn on like those we have used for decades, but are 28 to 33 percent more efficient. What we are talking about here is a standard, not the definition of a discrete bulb.

This progress has been made because of the standard and goals that were set in that bill. I do not think it is time to turn the clock back. I do think we ought to enjoy these energy savings, and I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply say again we are talking about a standard that was adopted under law in 2007. We ought to try to achieve that standard to save energy in this country.

I remain opposed to the gentleman's amendment. I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I associate myself with your support of the amendment.

I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there is a Web page that has been described by the proponent of the amendment at the Energy Information Agency. Over the past 12 months, the Web site has had over 26 million visitors. There are 224 million pages of information. It is not an underutilized site. The fact is that young people access the kids' page more than any other one on this Web site, visiting 16 million pages. ``Energy Kids'' gets nearly 10 times as many hits, if you will, as the adult version.

The gentlelady talks about puzzles and other very elementary approaches as far as education. I think education, not being an educator myself, ought to be age appropriate. I would also point out that there have not been significant changes as far as the update for this site in that they're trying to hold down the cost. To the extent that work has taken place, $10,000 has been spent in fiscal year 2011, not necessarily in the coming year. There is no anticipated incremental cost for the ``Energy Kids'' Web site in the fiscal year 2012 President's budget.

But the reason I really rise in opposition is not necessarily over the details but with respect to the idea that we should not look for ways to educate young people in this country. We are having a tax on science; we are having a tax on scientific knowledge; we are having a tax on education. What is wrong at this late date with educating young people and having the Federal Government reach out and provide information on conserving energy, on using it wisely, recycling, so that we can reduce our dependency on energy?

We have programs--and have had them for years--on drugs. Maybe for those under 18 we shouldn't have any Federal expenditures to educate young people about drugs because, well, we've got to save money. We're at a spot where we just can't spend any more Federal funds on education. We have an obesity problem in this country. Youth obesity is at a crisis level, but maybe what we should do is say, If you're under 18, we don't want to spend any money educating you because we can talk to you when you're 19. We have a problem as far as people not getting enough exercise. Too many people use elevators. They park their cars close to the door. So maybe we shouldn't spend any Federal resources educating young people about, you know, you should walk once in a while. You shouldn't sit on that couch all day. You shouldn't watch that TV all day.

So let's stop educating. Let's stop using any Federal money because we've got a debt crisis here--and I acknowledge that. So let's just stop educating young people. Let's just stop, and we'll wait until they're all 18 and they have type 2 diabetes. Then we'll stop because they've got a drug problem, and maybe we can convince them to get off of drugs when they're 18. Maybe we'll convince them they ought to get on a treadmill when they're 18. In this case, when are we going to start?

As a parent myself and not an educator, my sense is the damage is done for young people. That's why we have a Head Start program by the time they start school. Children have that impression. They gain that knowledge. They have values that are transferred to them by their parents. I certainly think there is an absolute role by the Federal Government to help young people know what are the values and what are things to do that will improve our society for them and their generation. So I am strongly opposed to this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The gentlewoman talked about getting people away from their computers, and I would agree that we need a balance in life. That's why we should educate people--children--that there is a value of sitting in front of that computer, in gaining knowledge through that computer and in using it for their homework--but then getting out and exercising, making sure they know they shouldn't do drugs, making sure they should eat appropriately.

Not being a terribly compliant person as far as technology, I understand that you could take a walk and still access that site. So why don't we do both. I would ask the gentlewoman to consider withdrawing her amendment, but I will state my opposition to it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my good friend's amendment.

Since we have been debating this bill, we have heard time and again that we must make tough decisions on what we choose to fund. My colleagues across the aisle, in particular, have made a point repeatedly that we should not be funding activities where industry can and should.

This program deals with research and development to maximize the production capabilities of marginal wells and reservoirs. Certainly we can't argue about the merit of that; but it seems that as we talk about subsidies, particularly to a very profitable industry--oil and gas--we should be consistent. Compiling and maintaining a database on oil and gas wells at this level of detail I do not believe is the proper role of the Federal Government and is likely to be duplicative of what is currently being done in the industry.

Further, it is my understanding that States and private industry have had a great deal of success fostering the recovery of oil and natural gas from marginal wells with similar initiatives. These State and industry initiatives have been successfully driven by an economic need to have pertinent information on hand when evaluating the economic viability or filing permit applications.

Given that that process is working on a local and State level, I do not believe that we should rush for Federal Government involvement. It seems to me that we should be looking for smaller government wherever possible; and this gives us a chance today, in opposition to this amendment, to do it right.

The gentleman makes the assertion that this system has resulted in public disclosure of all chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids. Texas has arguably one of the strongest--if not the strongest-- disclosure laws and is still far from a requirement to disclose ``all'' chemicals; and the database in question is also significantly weaker than Wyoming's regulation on public disclosure.

Mr. Chairman, I do reluctantly, because of my friendship with the gentleman, strongly oppose his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I also appreciate my colleague raising this important issue. I agree that the committee understands the importance of this program. The CBECS data is essential not just for Federal programs to reduce energy use like EPA's Energy Star for buildings and DOE's building technologies program, but for private sector efforts like the U.S. Green Building Council's lead rating system as well.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the chairman's yielding, and would join in his opposition to the amendment, reluctantly, as the chairman indicated.

I certainly do understand the concern of the two gentlemen who have offered the amendment, the concern regarding cleanup in the State of New York and elsewhere; and do share their concerns that we are not adequately investing and cleaning up contaminated communities where we do as the Federal Government have an obligation.

I also do point out that, given the constraints faced by the subcommittee, I believe that the chairman has made wise choices, the best that he could, relative to the spreading of resources; and join in his opposition to the amendment. Obviously, we would like to continue to work together to see that adequate funding at some point is provided for these and other programs.

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

I rise in support of the gentlemen's amendment.

While I have stated many times in committee as well as on floor debate that I applaud the chairman's bringing funding into the science account almost to where we were in fiscal year 2011 and have described it as a not insignificant achievement, adding these $43 million to bring it into parity with current year spending is not asking too much and, as the previous speakers have indicated, is very important to making an economic investment in knowledge and jobs that we so desperately need in the United States.

In the committee report we indicate that, relative to the Office of Science, understanding that harnessing a scientific and technological ingenuity has long been at the core of the Nation's prosperity. We talk about that national prosperity linkage to scientific research and curiosity. I also, relative to the concerns the chairman expressed about the weapons account, think that that important priority will not be adversely impacted by the shift of funding called for in the amendment.

I rise in strong support of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the chairman yielding, and would join him in his opposition to the amendment.

I would make a general observation. The gentleman's amendment would cut $10 million from the Office of Science. When you look at a $4 billion budget, your first impression might be it is of little consequence as far as the overall scientific research in this country. But I would point out that in fiscal year 2010 the account was for $4.904 billion. In fiscal year 2011 it was reduced to $4.842 billion. For, prospectively, 2012 it's reduced another 43. The gentleman's amendment would increase that reduction by almost 25 percent for the coming fiscal year. And I do think it is time to say ``no,'' and let us apply ourselves to serious scientific research.

I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and appreciate the chairman yielding.

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

The Department of Energy owns world-class facilities and researchers, and we should be taking full advantage of these facilities and not cut this account to where we are not able to use the capital fixed assets we have for this significant request in a reduction in funding.

I would point out to my colleagues, in 2006 President Bush made a commitment to double the budget for the Office of Science over a decade. The commitment to double funding for research and development by President Bush in science and technology was a response to stark warnings from a group of government experts and business leaders that warned in their report, known as ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' that the scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength.

I would certainly share the gentleman's concern about some of the myriad programs and ensuring that they do communicate with one another. He had mentioned the hubs. I had been critical of hubs in my past comments.

He has talked about management. I have been very critical of the Department of Energy as far as their project management.

But I would also point out that in relative terms, I believe that the Office of Science, and particularly given the leadership under President Bush by Dr. Orbach, who is now at the University of Texas, has done a very good job in getting a handle on the Department, improving its management skills and trying to do their very best as far as the expenditure of these funds.

For those reasons I do, again, strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment. I have spoken on a number of occasions this evening about the need to invest in research. In this instance, there is a school of thought that I would not argue, that ARPA-E has shown some promise as a new organizational model at the Department of Energy. But as I have stated, debating this point in the past, I am troubled that the vigor at the Department that has led to ARPA and this new idea, singular, has largely been absent when it

comes to addressing the systemic management and communication problems in other existing applied programs.

The Department had a great idea that I support in creating energy frontier research centers. That began in 2009, and we now have 46 energy frontier research centers doing good work. We now have energy innovation hubs. We have a hub for energy-efficient building systems. We have a hub for fuels; a sunlight hub. We have a hub for modeling and simulation. There is a request approved in this bill for a hub for batteries and storage. A hub for critical materials.

The Department of Energy in 2007 had an idea that we should have a bioenergy research center system, and we now have three. We have the Joint Bioenergy Institute in Berkeley, California. We have the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center in Madison, Wisconsin. We have the Bioenergy Science Center in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

In 1997, the Department of Energy had an idea. We should have a Joint Genome Institute. It was established, and now we have one in Walnut Creek, California.

We have what has been described to me as the gems of the intellectual power of the United States of America in the various laboratories that I have not even enumerated in my remarks.

Again, given the allocation we have had, there have been cuts to the underlying accounts in science and EERE that provide funding for many of these research centers. I think before we proceed along the lines established in this amendment, we need to make sure that the Department understands what their allocation of resources are for what they have and what they historically have had to make sure that there is good communication, and to make sure that the promise of ARPA is met as we proceed down this road before again we start making additional significant investments.

So I do understand and appreciate what the gentleman wants to do here. I do support this research to create this knowledge, but it is time to ensure that the Department is managing properly and having proper communication between all of these other centers first. For that reason, I object to the gentleman's amendment.

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 Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program supports the development of innovation and advanced technologies that create energy jobs and reduce our Nation's dependence on oil.

I believe that this is an energy issue in its truest form as far as reducing our dependency on foreign oil. Another observation I would make: If the amendment is adopted, it would ensure that we would have no oversight, no oversight of the loans that the Department has already issued, ensuring that both Congress and the administration would, therefore, abdicate their responsibility to protect and ensure that taxpayer dollars are used in the manner they were intended and that the recipients follow through on the conditions of those loans.

For these reasons and reasons espoused by my chairman, I again am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the chairman for yielding and supporting the amendment.

I certainly appreciate the gentleman offering this amendment. I think it's very, very important. Certainly I think the most serious threat confronting this Nation is that of nuclear terrorism.

Again, I appreciate the gentleman's work on the issue day in and day out, offering the amendment, as well as those who support it. I rise in support of it.

I appreciate the chairman's yielding. I would just add two brief comments in support of the amendment and of the chairman's remarks.

The administration's attempts to shut this activity down, I believe, are without scientific merit, and are contrary to existing law and congressional direction.

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

So, again, I will join in support of the amendment.

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

I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The Southeast Crescent Regional Commission includes all of the counties from Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida that are not already served by the ARC or the DRA. Though relatively new, this regional commission is intended to address planning and coordination on regional investments and targeting resources to those communities with the greatest needs.

Many of these areas covered by this commission suffer from high unemployment--10 percent in South Carolina, one of the highest in the Nation. Marion County in South Carolina has 19 percent unemployment. The county has seen both textile and manufacturing jobs disappear, and this economic predicament is similar in much of the area covered by the commission.

As we have seen with ARC investments, investment in regional commissions can go toward area development and technical assistance goals such as increasing job opportunities, improving employability, and strengthening basic infrastructure.

The conventional wisdom among economists has long been that regional approaches can be valuable in addressing developmental situations that cannot be addressed simply through local policies. For example, to help people in one jurisdiction to find jobs, one may have to create jobs for them in a neighboring growth center.

In recent years regional approaches have gained greater support, hence the relative newness of the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, in part because of increased global competition that rural communities face.

When people think of the First Congressional District that I represent, because we produce more steel in one congressional district than any State in the United States of America, they also miss the fact that one of the counties I have the privilege of representing has 9,000 people in it, another has 14,000 people, another has 23,000. There are

very rural areas that are also economically stressed and do not have those centers of gravity and need that type of tension to try to generate some new economic opportunity and jobs, which is why, just from my practical experience with the rural counties I have, I do believe it is important to continue to work with the commission; and that is why I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Well, if I could reclaim my time, relative to the gentleman's congressional district, I can't speak specifically, except to note, again, the commission is relatively new; the dollar amounts, relative to the Federal budget, are modest; and we're talking about seven States. Perhaps the real value here is that they are spread a bit thin and obviously do not have at this point in time a program in the gentleman's district.

But I don't think that that was warranted, given the breadth of their responsibilities over seven States, to argue against their demise. So, again, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield for a moment?

I would be happy to work with the chairman, but I would note, we are on page 3 of the bill and would hope that as we proceed today and into the future, that we have advance notice of amendments. So I would direct my comment in this case to the gentleman from Iowa and those who may be thinking about offering additional amendments. But I would be happy to work with the chairman on this issue.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do not know if a point or order will be insisted upon, I do not know if it will be prevailed upon, but I would want to make a comment relative to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I agree with everything that Mr. Tierney has said--and more--during committee and during the general debate on this floor. I mentioned that in the 2009 report card on America's infrastructure, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated an investment shortfall of $2.2 trillion that is necessary to bring our Nation's infrastructure up to good condition.

Additionally, the engineering society gave our Nation's dams, levees and inland waterways grades of D or D minus.

I want to use my time because we have had a lot of discussion--and I have joined in that discussion--about the inadequate allocation that the subcommittee has been given.

I would also point out that there is another failure, and that is the budget request itself. And the subcommittee has taken note of that on page 13 of their report by stating that the budget request by the President represents a level of investment, as with previous budget requests, that is not reflective of the Corps' importance to the national economy, jobs, or our international competitiveness. And further, the committee urges the administration to take into account while developing a special request the extraordinary economic benefits of the projects historically funded in the Corps accounts, which, again, jibes with exactly the points that the gentleman from Massachusetts has said.

So I am in agreement with the gentleman. This is woefully inadequate. The administration bears a blame here as well. But I also must add my voice to the chairman's and respectfully oppose the amendment simply because we are in a very tight situation with this bill and we prefer that the amendment not be adopted, despite the relevance of it and the correctness of the gentleman's position from Massachusetts.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would join in the chairman's remarks, and emphasize the word ``reluctantly,'' because I do understand the devastation that has been suffered. I would emphasize for the record that the chairman recognized the tragedies that have occurred, and had an amendment in committee to have a billion dollars set aside.

Earlier in the process, we had essentially about a billion dollars also transferred from the Energy and Water appropriation bill to the Homeland Security bill for various similar purposes. There is no denying the emergency. But as I have said on more than one occasion during the debate of this issue, it is time we as an institution have the intestinal fortitude to understand we have natural disasters. We have people who have lost their lives. We have people who are suffering and have lost property. We need, in a deliberate, thoughtful fashion, to set those moneys aside as opposed to, if you would, moving moneys from accounts to take care of these emergencies.

So I do understand also looking ahead that the ultimate cost of the tragedy the gentleman's constituents and others have suffered is probably going to exceed the moneys that have been set aside in this bill, and do hope, again, institutionally, that we address that problem. So I understand the motive, agree with the principle that is espoused, but again would have to reluctantly join in opposition to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding and would join in his remarks.

I appreciate the position of the gentleman. As, again, I have pointed out in the past, if we look at the need that the gentleman so eloquently stated, it is overwhelming. Currently for the top 59 ports in the U.S., the Corps is only able to maintain authorized depths within the middle of the channel 33 percent of the time.

I might also add, though, that the chairman noted that the actual moneys contained in this bill, inadequate as they are, are more than the President of the United States asked for. So I do want to remind my colleagues about that fact. It doesn't solve our problem, but there were also points that administrations, past and present, they have got to wake up and recognize we've got to make an investment.

I also do believe at this point in time that there is a purpose for the moneys the committee has set aside as far as fossil research. We do need to learn how to use carbon fuels more cleanly. We have to learn how to use them more efficiently, as we also look for a broader mix of energy policy in this country.

So, very reluctantly, I would have to oppose the gentleman's amendment, but I agree with every word he has said about the need in this country.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, we do not have a copy of the gentleman's amendment.

I regret that the gentleman did not share it with us earlier.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding and would join in his objection to the amendment that is offered. I happen to believe that we have climate change. Others will debate that, and I would set aside that debate for the moment and simply recognize the obvious, and that is we have had significant variations in weather patterns in the United States of America. We have had horrific flooding in the Midwest during this past year, and that flooding has huge impacts on the reservoirs that are managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. I think it is not correct public policy to not proceed with the study as to how climate and weather patterns affect those very important Corps projects and appreciate the chairman rising in objection.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and just want to make one observation.

The gentleman is absolutely correct as far as the maintenance fund. After fiscal year 2012, there will be $6.928 billion in the fund. Today there is $5.474 billion in the fund. That discrepancy is $1.454 billion. Apparently, it will make the deficit look a bit better, but at $1 trillion, who are we fooling? Certainly no one in the United States of America. The chairman of the committee rightfully pointed out that it is unfair to those who are paying the tax, it is unfair to those companies who want to make a fair profit, as well as to those who might be able to work, if we could resolve this problem.

I move to strike the last word.

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

The gentleman's amendment would strike section 102 of the bill, a provision that prohibits the use of the Circular A-76 privatization process and high-performing organization process for the Army Corps of Engineers. This is a debate that we have had before. This provision enjoys support from both sides of the aisle, and has been included in this bill every year since fiscal year 2008. This provision was originally included to stop an effort to privatize the operation, maintenance and repair of locks and dams.

The importance of locks and dams to our Nation's economy cannot be understated, and any failure to ensure that the Nation's waterways remain safe and navigable would cripple the economy. These operators and mechanics make vital decisions affecting the lives, liberty and property of private persons, thus rendering the workload inappropriate for contractor performance. Further, no reasonable argument has been made that the locks and dams are overstaffed. Additionally, the Corps undertook a privatization study for their IT personnel in 2004. After an expensive 3-year study, the results came back as an in-house win.

In general, the circular is profoundly flawed. Both the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Defense Inspector General have reported that agencies are constantly unable to demonstrate that A-76 studies result in savings and that agencies fail to consider the significant costs of conducting such studies. There is nothing wrong with attempts to look for efficiencies in the Federal workforce--that certainly is clear--but when describing A-76 processes, I think of a phrase often uttered by other colleagues: ``That dog won't hunt.''

We need to stop wasting millions of dollars on these expensive competitions that time and again show government employees are a less expensive alternative, and I would urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. Without this amendment, the bill would result in increased implementation costs to both the Federal and State resource agencies, as well as to the regulated community, increase delays in the implementation of important public works projects and protracted litigation on the disparity between existing Federal regulations and the two court decisions.

Clearly, the Army Corps of Engineers cannot exceed its congressional authority. But it's certainly necessary that the law and regulations be clarified, given the Supreme Court decision. There is a purpose to the Clean Water Act. It is to protect the Nation's waterways. And all of the environmental and economic benefits these aquatic ecosystems provide are at risk if some elements are protected and others are not.

We certainly need to make sure that the definitions are predictable and manageable. The definition of waters protected by the Clean Water Act should be clear, understandable, well-supported, and transparent to the public. I am concerned if the language currently in the bill is not removed that that will not be the case. It is certainly needed to promote consistency between the Clean Water Act and agricultural wetland programs. We need the identification of waters covered by the Clean Water Act and the Food Security Act. And operational elements of implementing programs should reflect consistent, predictable, and straightforward decision guidelines. We ought to be precise on exemptions as well.

My further concern is that the provision now contained in the bill does not apply simply to the coming fiscal year; it applies to any subsequent energy and water development act, ensuring uncertainty continues indefinitely.

So I am in strong support of the gentleman's amendment and would be willing to yield time to him.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I do rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. It would cut over 10 percent of the total funding in the bill. Specifically, it would eliminate or significantly reduce funding for 14 different accounts. I have several concerns.

One, the gentleman said that it is time to get out of subsidizing energy research. Notice that he did zero out many accounts, and certainly would not argue that point. Yet, as a proponent myself of nuclear energy, I would point out that he did not throw out that account, and approximately $444 million would be left in the nuclear research account. So there was some selectivity that was engaged in here as far as the construction of the amendment.

Then my concern here as far as the research, as far as the whole broad range of energy research in this country, is that we do need to make that investment to move ahead economically, to move ahead in reducing our dependency upon oil imports and the use of carbon in this society, so I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise in opposition to the amendment as well.

I would point out to my colleagues that while the pending legislation is $141 million below fiscal year 2011 levels, the fact is we do have approximately $1.5 billion that essentially has been forwarded to the States. And the chairman just mentioned the issue of jobs. Those moneys are available as they are allocated and distributed for weatherization programs to put people to work. We have had complaints in this Chamber over the last week about the last unemployment report.

These moneys have already been budgeted. These moneys have been obligated to the States, and these moneys can put people to work doing useful things such as helping those who need to weatherize their house and reduce their utility bills so they can have enough money to buy gasoline and put it in their cars, as well as to begin to reduce the use of energy in this country. These are very necessary moneys to create jobs, to help those in need, and to reduce our energy dependence. I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I will be brief.

The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris) and I are pretty close, but I will respectfully oppose his amendment for a couple of reasons.

One is that the program that is subject to his amendment is coordinating programs with other countries. We're not, by definition, sending jobs overseas to other countries. The theory of the program is to provide technical assistance for activities to help prime markets for clean technologies in major emerging economies, and the theory of the program is also that it can bring home lessons learned from other experiences and share them at the national, State and local levels.

I say I reluctantly oppose his amendment and that we are very close because I have great concerns over any number of these types of programs at the Department of Energy. I have expressed my displeasure to the Secretary, among others, that if we are going to invest our taxpayers' money--our money--in these endeavors, we ought to be very discreet as to how those moneys are spent to develop markets in the United States of America and, God bless, the rest of the world.

So I will in this instance take the Department of Energy at its word, and that's why I would respectfully oppose the amendment. I would be happy to stay in close communication with the gentleman, and I would be happy to stay in very close touch with the Department of Energy relative to the management of this program and, assuming the moneys are in the fiscal year 2012 budget, to pursue this program to make sure that your point is heard and that their expenditures are not violative of what you want to do today.

I yield to the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey.

But I think, again, it draws attention to the fact that we should be very closely monitoring the department as far as the expenditures of these funds.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and it would appear there will be others differing in amounts but very similar in intent. And I think that they do not represent a wise energy policy for this country.

The first point I would make is that the bill includes a reduction of $491 million for the overall renewable program from fiscal year 2011, an even more significant reduction compared to fiscal year 2010. So the committee, I believe, fully recognizes their responsibilities to be careful fiscally.

But I also must indicate that someone who I have a great deal of respect for, my senior Senator in the State of Indiana, Senator Lugar, has always characterized our energy problem as a national security problem. I think we all recognize it is an economic problem. We can debate the environmental aspects. I happen to think it is an environmental problem myself. But I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that it is a national security issue, relative to where we are buying so many of our petroleum products. And to gain energy independence, we are going to need a different and more diverse matrix of energy sources.

Seventy percent of our energy today is created through coal and natural gas, and that cannot continue. That is not healthy for our Nation. It is not healthy for our economy. It is not healthy for our national security. We need to diversify. In this instance, the committee has recognized our fiscal responsibility but continues to make an investment in our economic, our job, and our energy futures. And I do oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I also have to rise, with great respect to my colleague, in opposition to the amendment.

I certainly appreciate, having just talked about needing to invest in a mix of energy sources in the future, what the intent of the amendment is. He obviously wants to return us to where we are in fiscal year 2011. I would certainly point out for the record that at that level, $1.795 billion, we would still be significantly below where we were last year, fiscal year 2010, when our level of spending in this account was $2.24 billion.

The problem I have here is particularly where the money has come from, and that is the weapons account. Too often, and we saw it again last week, we do tend, I think unnecessarily, to hold the defense accounts harmless. In this case the committee has recommended, and it was very carefully considered, an increase in the weapons account. If the amendment was adopted, the fact is we would be $269 million below current year level, for a cut of 4.3 percent.

I have on numerous occasions in my district, in conversations with colleagues on the floor and elsewhere, suggested it is time, if we are going to solve our budget crisis in the United States of America, for everybody to belly up on both sides of the equation. And I don't care where you're getting you're paycheck or how you're earning your contract money; I cannot believe if you are a defense function of the Government of the United States you can't find one penny, one cent of savings out of every dollar we spend. Having said that, that comes out to 1 percent. I think at this point the 4.3 percent in the weapons programs, that is very important as far as their safety, their security and surety, is a step beyond that 1 percent I have so often talked about the last months. So with great respect to my colleague, I would also oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I would point out that we have a vote pending in the House for a reduction of about $26.5 million from this account. This would be an additional reduction of another $45 million from this account.

The gentleman noted that what his intent is is to get the Vehicle Technologies Program, if I understand him correctly, back to where we were in 2008. If I did understand him correctly, I would suggest that that is why we are where we are today, because the levels for vehicle technology research were inadequate, totally inadequate in 2008.

You drive by a gas station today and gas is $4 a gallon. All of us repeatedly are asked what are we going to do about gas prices. If we are not going to act as far as price fixing, collusion, cartels, monopolies, speculation, and we can't do anything about the laws of supply and demand, I have indicated to my constituents the thing that Congress can do most effectively for the price of gasoline is help our constituents buy less of it.

If we can, through vehicle technology research, help everyone in this country get an extra mile per gallon, we have helped them with the price of gasoline. If we begin to cut back to prior year levels as far as the investment in making sure people can move in this country as efficiently as possible and reduce our dependency on imported oil, we are not going to make economic progress in this country and are going to continue to be held hostage to those overseas who send that oil to us for our dollars that they then use for other nefarious purposes.

Again, I think this is an ill-advised amendment. I think it takes us in the wrong direction. We should be looking for ways to ensure that we do good research to get more miles per gallon and to make sure that the Department of Energy also, as they do this research, ensures that it is applied not for more power in cars but for more miles per gallon, because, again, these are our taxpayers dollars.

So for those reasons, again, I would be opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I rise also to join my chairman in opposition to the gentleman's amendment relative to, again, cutting back on what I think are very necessary investments in our economy as far as research, both as far as renewables, as far as fossil energy, as far as the science account.

The gentleman mentioned advanced solid-state lighting. It is my understanding that Philips has indicated that a small investment in manufacturing technology to improve the mechanisms as far as the construction and manufacturing of these lightbulbs would allow them to bring back jobs that are currently outsourced overseas. If we make that investment, and I hope we do, I certainly would want to join with other colleagues to see if, in fact, Philips Electronics is good to their word. But at this point I would state my objection.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia for providing us with a copy of the amendment ahead of time and join with the chairman in accepting the amendment.

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

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment for reasons I have stated on other very similar amendments relative to energy research into renewable accounts.

I would point out there has been reference about the care that the subcommittee has taken as far as drafting this legislation. Stated in the committee report is language relative to solar, that the committee encourages the Department to include in its efforts disruptive solar energy utilization technologies, fabrication methods that yield ultra- low-cost solar cells, technology for ultrahigh efficiency solar cells, and technologies designed to simulate the operation of solar cells and other methods to yield advance sciences.

The committee also recommended no funding for solar demonstration zone projects, as the Department has adequate facilities at its existing laboratories. So they certainly recognized that they did not want money expended in that area.

The committee also indicated in its report that it is aware of the significant cost and efficiency advantages that solar films can provide to thin film and crystalline silicon modules, and we encouraged the Department to expand the funding of solar film research and development.

So, again, the moneys that are provided, which are very tight, are also very thoughtfully put forth with very directive language by the committee.

For that reason, I do oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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.

I certainly appreciate, again, the gentleman's seriousness in offering it. I appreciate what he wants to accomplish, but the history of this issue has been discussed by a number of speakers.

The fact is there have been Presidents of both parties who have made this recommendation over the last 3 years, and there has been directive language by this committee under the direction of both political parties over the last 3 years. The point is there is a benefit to another agency in the government outside the Department of Energy picking up a reasonable cost, and there ought to be an agreement. Until that is done, I would, with all due respect, rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

With all respect, I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I appreciate his comments about ARPA-E. I appreciate the purpose behind its creation. And I will certainly acknowledge that it would appear at ARPA-E there is a new culture, if you would, at that element of the Department of Energy to move projects along and to have a conclusion to research.

As I indicated in my opening remarks in general debate on this bill, I wish the Department of Energy had brought the same vigor and that same commitment that they had to ARPA-E to existing programs at the Department of Energy because my concern is that at some point in time we have too many programs that are going to solve the problem and we're tripping over each other.

At this point, we have 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers, and there is a request to add three to eight more. We have a new administration, and it is not unique to the Obama administration that at the Department of Energy we need, as I would characterize it, a new silver ball to chase around. We need new hubs so that people can talk to each other about critical research. At this point in time, there are three hubs in place, as I understand, for about 18 months. There are two more called for in this bill, totaling five.

We need a bioenergy research center. There are now three in the United States: one in Berkeley, California; one in Madison, Wisconsin; and one in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. We also need defined research being done at the Joint Genome Institute that was established in 1997 under President Clinton.

I, at this point in time, would like to make sure that ARPA-E works over a longer term, as advertised, and that as advertised the Department takes that culture that is being developed at ARPA-E and to infuse it into these other programs and to show the Congress of the United States there is communication between these numerous programs before we provide any additional monies over and above those called for in the bill.

So again, very respectfully, I would oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman Frelinghuysen and his staff for their efforts to be inclusive and transparent in drafting this legislation. The chairman has ensured that the Energy and Water Subcommittee continues its tradition of bipartisanship and, within the constraints of the allocation, he has done wonderful work. While I hope that we can modify some elements of the bill, I would observe that our differences are marginal and our agreement is fundamental. Also, I would like to join the chairman in thanking the other members of the subcommittee and also all of our staff for their exceptionally good and dedicated work.

As the chairman mentioned, the allocation for Energy and Water is more than $1 billion below fiscal year 2011. This allocation has necessitated severe cuts to crucial programs. While I appreciate the chairman's considerable efforts and recognize difficult choices must be made to address the Nation's serious financial situation, this bill starkly illustrates the shortsighted nature of the spending cap set by the House budget. The allocation for Energy and Water is simply insufficient to meet the challenges posed by the economic downturn and to guarantee our national security.

Importantly, the chairman continues efforts to improve program and project management at all of the agencies under the bill's jurisdiction. He has honed provisions carried in the past and instituted others aimed at increased oversight. To point out one example, the bill includes a requirement that the Department of Energy complete independent cost estimates at major milestones for projects with a total cost in excess of $100 million. A recent review of the department's cleanup-related construction projects by the Army Corps of Engineers paints a bleak picture of the management system for such projects and casts doubt on recent reforms intended to remove the department off the Government Accountability Office's list for high risk, a list that the department has been on for the last 21 years running. I am pleased the chairman has included a number of reporting requirements and statutory limitations that will contribute to increased transparency and improved management, and I strongly support his actions.

The science account, critical to the competitiveness of our Nation, is essentially the same as in 2011, not an insignificant achievement in light of the challenge the allocation provided. The bill also provides funds for the continuation of a promising new program called ARPA-E, which can drive innovations to support our scientific competitiveness. While ARPA-E has shown some promise as a new organizational model, I am troubled that the same vigor that led to its creation has been largely absent when it comes to addressing the systemic management and communication problems in other existing applied programs.

I support and appreciate the inclusion of emergency funding to respond to the historic flooding in the Mississippi and Missouri River basins. Communities devastated by natural disasters deserve our full support. I am, however, disappointed that the bill offsets this funding by withdrawing critical investment dollars from economic infrastructure in the United States. I would note that this is the second time this year that the committee has transferred funds between bills, the first time from Energy and Water Development to Homeland Security, and now from Transportation to Energy and Water. We need to reconsider this practice and not strip investments in one area to pay for emergency needs in another.

I disagree with the notion that all funding for domestic emergency response should be offset immediately from domestic investment. In every year except two since 1997, the Congress has recognized the need for emergency funds to respond to the impacts of natural disasters on the Nation's water resource infrastructure. Since 2001, the Congress has provided more than $24 billion to the Corps for this purpose. While I grant that this figure is inflated by the enormous cost of reconstructing New Orleans and the surrounding areas, perhaps New Orleans would not have flooded in 2005 had we invested in critical infrastructure in the prior years.

As we debate the long-term trajectory of taxes and spending, we cannot forgo actions necessary for the security and safety of our citizens. Yes, we must make difficult choices that will impact the future of this Nation, but we cannot allow those decisions to fall on the backs of those who have already suffered. Our country has provided billions in infrastructure funding on an emergency basis for dams, schools and roads in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet we don't have the fortitude to acknowledge that it costs money to protect our citizens at home. We must stop disinvesting in the United States economy. In its 2009 report card on America's infrastructure, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated an investment of $2.2 trillion is necessary to bring our Nation's infrastructure up to a good condition. Moving forward, we must have the strength to budget for emergencies on an annual basis. We know they happen every year, and it is time to begin to responsibly budget for them.

I appreciate the chairman increasing Corps funding by $195 million above the President's woefully inadequate request, ensuring that some ongoing projects will not be terminated.

Even with this additional funding, the bill provides $677 million less than it did in 2010.

Our ports, harbors, navigational channels and locks continue to provide the foundation for long-term economic growth. At this funding level, we are not close to addressing the dredging backlog that plagues waterborne commerce in the United States.

Currently, for the top 59 ports in the United States, the Corps is only able to maintain authorized steps within the middle of the channel 33 percent of the time. Every day, this costs companies that rely on these ports money and serves as a major impediment to expanding their workforce. This is merely one of the reasons why in 2009 the American Society of Civil Engineers gave our Nation's dams, levees and inland waterways grades of D or D minus.

Renewable energy programs in this bill are reduced. We can debate whether our dependency on imported oil and other carbon fuels is an environmental problem or an economic problem. Either way, it is clearly a national security problem. We must expand the mix of our energy supply, and we must use the energy supply we have more efficiently, and we must also transport it more effectively. We have to make an investment to do that, and I do not believe that the allocation allows for the support necessary.

I would note that the bill adds two hubs to the Department of Energy while cutting both the Science and Renewable Energy accounts that fund them, giving the Department a total of five. This organizational model has not yet been proven, and I have serious reservations about starting two new hubs in light of the cuts to the underlying accounts.

Nonproliferation accounts are reduced significantly, and while I appreciate the chairman's efforts to preserve some of the most critical activities, the bill reduces our ability to counter the most serious threat confronting our national security and that is the threat of nuclear terrorism.

The bill cuts the defense nuclear nonproliferation account by more than $460 million from the request. This comes on top of more than $360 million cut from the request that was provided in final fiscal year bill 2011. These cuts reduce our ability to secure vulnerable nuclear materials around the world, delaying the removal of bomb-grade uranium, and limiting our capacity to detect illegal and illicit trafficking of nuclear materials.

And, finally, I am troubled that the bill includes a misguided prohibition on funds to develop, adopt, implement, administer or enforce a change or supplement to rules related to the Clean Water Act regulatory guidelines. This provision applies not only to this fiscal year but to any subsequent energy and water act. We should be taking actions that address legitimate concerns while providing some clarity and certainty to the regulatory process, not prolonging the confusion, as this provision ensures.

In closing, I am truly appreciative that we are again doing the work of

this committee, and I commend Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks for their efforts to this end. And as I said at the beginning of my remarks, Chairman Frelinghuysen has done a superb job. While marginal differences exist, our agreement on the overall bill is fundamental.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member on the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair and the members of the committee and the exceptional staff that we have for their good work.

I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and sincerity that I take this time to congratulate the individuals who took their oath of citizenship on July 4, 2011. In true patriotic fashion, on the day of our great Nation's celebration of independence, a naturalization ceremony took place, welcoming new citizens of the United States of America. This memorable occasion, coordinated by the Hammond Public Library and presided over by Magistrate Judge Andrew Rodovich, was held at The Pavilion at Wolf Lake in Hammond, Indiana.

America is a country founded by immigrants. From its beginning, settlers have come from countries around the globe to the United States in search of better lives for their families. The upcoming oath ceremony was a shining example of what is so great about the United States of America--that people from all over the world can come together and unite as members of a free, democratic nation. These individuals realize that nowhere else in the world offers a better opportunity for success than here in America.

On July 4, 2011, the following people, representing many nations throughout the world, took their oath of citizenship in Hammond, Indiana: Karen Seballos Dela Cruz, Shimei Yan, Suryaprasad Veeravenka Padala, Juan Pablo Diaz Avila, Luis Eduardo Rivera Ramirez, Blagoja Jofceski, Kulvinder Singh, Horacio Garcia Leon, Samip Rabindra Fozdar, Radhika Ragamanjar Chillarige, Annaji Rao Venkata Chillarige, Tin-Chun Lin, Magdaleno Nevarez Sanchez, Ciprian Daniel Bargoz, Leonel Alonso Cancino Ortiz, Mouna Youssef Mikhael, Maroun Elias Elias, Jasmina Salkovski, Pedro Flores Rodriguez, Agnes Joh Smith, Francisco Javier Jimenez, Xiao Yan Wang, Mui Hiong Nykaza, Michael Franco Calonia, Alira Mae Navarro Calonia, Zbigniew Jasek, Claudia Jeanette Darak, James Tan Geulen, Gay Karen Geulen, Dung Thi Lux, Naumka Prentoska, Carlos Bayron Martinez Valencia, Chaudhry Ahtsham Sarwar, Mohammed Yahya Moha Atef, Gabriel Eduardo Orta Gonzalez, Varalakshmi Vaddi, Emmanuelle Renee Fran Davallet Fortney, Daisy Ngina

Bakary, Juan Carlos Nielo Uy, Stojanco Krstevski, Sandy Yuliana Meza De La Torre, Joan John Dordea, Rocio Galvan, Jose De Jesus Hernandez, Javier Julian, Mahnoush Nikki Malekan, Olama Ziyad Mohammed, Oliberio Ortiz, Jorge Ortiz, and Bernardino Perea.

Though each individual has sought to become a citizen of the United States for his or her own reasons, be it for education, occupation, or to offer their loved ones better lives, each is inspired by the fact that the United States of America is, as Abraham Lincoln described it, a country ``. . . of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' They realize that the United States is truly a free nation. By seeking American citizenship, they have made the decision to live in a place where, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, they can practice religion as they choose, speak their minds without fear of punishment, and assemble in peaceful protest should they choose to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to join me in congratulating these individuals who became citizens of the United States of America on July 4, 2011, the day of our Nation's independence. They, too, are American citizens, and they, too, are guaranteed the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We, as a free and democratic nation, congratulate and welcome them.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand before you today to congratulate An Open Door Church on its 25th anniversary. In honor of this momentous milestone, a celebratory reception will be held on Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at An Open Door Church in Hammond, Indiana. For 25 years, An Open Door Church has been committed to the spiritual and social conditions of residents living in the Hammond area as well as in the greater Northwest Indiana community.

Founded on July 6, 1986 in South Holland, Illinois, by Doctors and Pastors Meredith and Marilyn Shackelford, An Open Door Church began as a small congregation in the basement of the pastors' home. Quickly outgrowing this small space, the church began to rent space, and, after eight years, it was able to purchase its first building in Hammond. The church's congregation continued to grow and the church moved to its current location on Hohman Avenue in Hammond, Indiana six years ago. Currently, the church has an impressive membership of more than 350 congregants.

The church and its parishioners follow a visionary motto, ``reaching people to reach the world,'' which is carried out through the church's various ministries and programs that work to support change in the lives of others. An Open Door Church places a strong emphasis on the family unit, and has built its organization around the belief that strong families build strong communities. The church's dedication to the welfare of residents in Northwest Indiana is demonstrated through its many outreach projects which include: a summer concert series at Harrison Park where school supplies are distributed to children in need; Wee Care, a child development ministry; a food pantry ministry that feeds over 75 families per month; Give God a Chance, a marriage ministry; a prison outreach ministry; various children and teen ministries; and the Christian Academy, which provides education for grades kindergarten through grade eight. In addition, the church has partnered with numerous community organizations in order to improve the quality of life for countless individuals. These organizations include Calumet Project, Interfaith Worker Justice, and Northwest Indiana Reinvestment Alliance. An Open Door Church, its founders, and its ministry directors show uncompromising loyalty to the community of Northwest Indiana and they are worthy of the highest praise.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in

honoring An Open Door Church for its exceptional community service ministry and to congratulate the organization on its 25th anniversary. The founders and congregation of this truly admirable organization continue to touch the lives of numerous people, and for this selfless, lifelong service they are to be commended.

Mr. Speaker, it is with the deepest admiration that I take this opportunity to honor Colonel Vincent Quarles. Colonel Quarles has spent the last three years as the District Commander for the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District. At this post, Colonel Quarles has undertaken immense responsibility, overseeing water resources development in the Chicago metropolitan area, an area of about 5,000 square miles with a population nearing 8 million. Since his arrival at the Chicago District on July 1, 2008, Colonel Quarles has served all who live in his District of responsibility with unwavering devotion. He has deeply touched many lives and is deserving of our sincerest gratitude. On behalf of both myself and my constituents, I take this opportunity to thank Colonel Quarles who will be relinquishing his command to Colonel Fred Drummond on June 30, 2011, at the Harold Washington Library Center in Chicago, Illinois.

Colonel Vincent Quarles began his impressive military career as a Cannon Fire Direction Specialist, Charlie Battery, 113th Field Artillery Battalion. Upon graduating from college, Colonel Quarles was granted a federal commission in the Corps of Engineers and entered active service in 1987. He was assigned to 8th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas, where he served as a Sapper Platoon Leader, an Assault and Obstacle Platoon Leader, and a Company Executive Officer. From this post, Colonel Quarles deployed to Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm as the Battalion Maintenance Officer. In 2000, Colonel Quarles reported to Engineer Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Georgia. From there, he deployed to Bosnia Herzegovina as the Brigade Operations Officer in support of stabilization operations. Upon his return from Bosnia in 2001, Colonel Quarles was reassigned as Executive Officer, 10th Engineer Battalion until 2002. Colonel Quarles deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. While overseas, his battalion managed more than 300 construction contracts at a cost exceeding $326 million as well as emplacing and maintaining the brigade's communication network, operating the brigade's internment facility, and providing brigade organic military intelligence capabilities. Post battalion command, Colonel Quarles served as the Mobility Team Chief, Dominant Maneuver Division of Force Development, Army G-8 from 2006-2008.

Colonel Quarles' educational background is very impressive in its own right. As a member of the United States Army, Colonel Quarles completed both the United States Army Engineer Basic and Advanced Courses. From 1997-1999, Colonel Quarles taught Civil and Mechanical Engineering at the United States Military Academy where he also acted as the Department's Executive Officer. Next, he went on to graduate from the Command and General Staff College in 2000. His civilian educational accomplishments are noteworthy as

well. He earned both an undergraduate degree from Norfolk State University and a Master's Degree in Mechanical Engineering from North Carolina State University.

Colonel Quarles' outstanding military career is exceeded only by his devotion to his amazing family. It has been a pleasure to become acquainted with the Quarles family. I would also like to congratulate Colonel Quarles and his wonderful wife, Auratha, on their upcoming 25th wedding anniversary on July 5, 2011. They have two beloved children, Vincent and Alisha, who I also have the pleasure of knowing.

Mr. Speaker, from a very young age, Colonel Quarles has selflessly served his country and his fellow Americans. Thus far, his life has truly been a model of self-sacrifice and dedication to others. Since joining the Army Corps of Engineers Chicago District, Colonel Quarles has overseen numerous projects aimed at improving the quality of life for all those he serves. He has had an especially profound impact in Indiana's First Congressional District. Colonel Quarles has exhibited utmost concern for its residents and deserves our sincerest gratitude. I respectfully ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in honoring Colonel Vincent Quarles for his outstanding contributions and constant dedication to Indiana's First Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sincerity that I take this opportunity to honor and congratulate Ronald E. Powell, who is celebrating fifty years of service with the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) Local 881. For nearly five decades, Ron has dedicated his life's work to the American Labor Movement and has been able to touch the lives of countless workers, families, and communities across the nation. In honor of Ron's fifty years of service, a celebratory reception will be held on June 16, 2011, at Gibson's Steakhouse in Chicago, Illinois.

Ronald Powell began his career with the UFCW in 1961 when he was hired on as a Field Representative for Local 881. Because of his true dedication and strong leadership skills, he was promoted in 1968 to Field Staff Supervisor, and was then appointed Vice President/Director of Field Operations in 1973. In 1983, Ron's hard work and success led him to become President of Local 881. Under Ron's leadership, Local 881 has become an exemplary organization, providing exceptional service in the areas of work-site representation, membership services, benefits, communications, and activities.

In addition to his impressive career with Local 881, Ron serves as a Vice President on the UFCW International Executive Board, and is a Vice President for the Illinois State AFL-CIO. Ron also currently serves as a Trustee for the UFCW Midwest Pension Benefits Fund. In 2010, he was appointed by Governor Pat Quinn to serve on the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority Board. Ron is also a past member of the Board of Directors for the International Employee Benefits Foundation and is the former Chairman of the Illinois State Investment Board. Ron's passion and unwavering devotion to the UFCW and its members is unmatched and he is to be commended.

Ron selflessly gives of his time to many charitable organizations and has been a dynamic force in promoting the union's involvement in numerous civic endeavors. He has been a tremendous asset to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society and has helped to raise funds to facilitate research toward fmding a cure. He also initiated fundraising campaigns for the Jackson Park Hospital and the Little City Foundation and is a former board member for the United Way of Illinois and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois. Although Ron has served the UFCW and his community with complete dedication, it is his commitment to his family that is most impressive. Ron and his wonderful wife, Lois, have four beloved children and twelve grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in commending Mr. Ronald Powell as he is honored for his lifetime of service and dedication to the UFCW, as well as the state of Illinois, Northwest Indiana, and communities nationwide. Ron's complete dedication and uncompromising loyalty are to be admired and he is worthy of the highest praise.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate Mr. Paul M. Maday on his retirement from his position as Business Manager/Secretary-Treasurer for the Boilermakers Local 374, as well as his position as Recording Secretary-Treasurer for the Northwestern Indiana Building and Construction Trades Council. Paul, a member of the Boilermakers Local 374 for many years, has dedicated his life to the interests of his fellow tradespeople and the entire community in Northwest Indiana. For his lifetime of service to the Boilermakers, Paul was honored at a retirement dinner that took place at Avalon Manor in Merrillville, Indiana, on Friday, June 10, 2011.

Paul Maday has been a member of the Boilermakers Local 374 for 34 years. During his tenure, he has held numerous positions. After four years as an apprentice, Paul became a journeyman, a general foreman, and a union steward. Paul's career continued to advance, and he was named Assistant Business Manager in 1995, a position he held for ten years. Because of his hard work and tremendous leadership skills, Paul went on to become Business Manager/Secretary-Treasurer in 2005 and was reelected to this position in 2008. Paul also has served as Recording Secretary-Treasurer for the Northwestern Indiana Building Trades Council since 2005. For his noteworthy level of skill and commitment, Paul was appointed to the Indiana State Pressure Vessel Board in 2002, 2005, and 2008. Additionally, he has served as chairman of the Boilermakers National Pension Trust and the National Annuity Trust and also served as chairman of the Tripartite Committee for U.S. Steel, ArcelorMittal Indiana Harbor and Burns Harbor, representing the Northwestern Indiana Building Trades Council. Paul's passion, devotion, and continuous support to the Building Trades is truly remarkable, and for this he is worthy of the highest praise.

Northwest Indiana has a rich history of excellence in the craftsmanship and loyalty of tradespeople. For many years, Paul Maday has displayed unwavering dedication to the members of the Building Trades, and his various positions have allowed him the opportunity to touch the lives of countless individuals. Not only has Paul selflessly served his local members, but through his work with the Building Trades, he has been a remarkable example of just how much good a dedicated individual can do for a community. When it comes to serving those in need, Paul Maday has been a leader of his members and the Northwestern Indiana Building and Construction Trades Council to ensure that innumerable good works are done. Paul also selflessly gives of his time to many charitable organizations. He has been involved in the Alzheimer's Association walk-a-thon fundraiser and has served on the executive board for the American Heart Association of Northwest Indiana, as well as the Northwest Indiana Workforce Investment board. Although Paul has served the Building Trades and his community with complete dedication, it is his commitment to his family that is most impressive. Paul and his wonderful wife, Terry, have two beloved children and one grandchild.

Mr. Speaker, Paul Maday has given his time and efforts selflessly to the union members he has worked so tirelessly with and represented so well. He has given to the people of Northwest Indiana personally and through his work with the Building Trades Council. He has been a true role model to his peers and a true friend to Northwest Indiana. I respectfully ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in commending Paul for his outstanding contributions and in wishing him well upon his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sincerity and respect that I offer congratulations to several of Northwest Indiana's most talented, dedicated, and hardworking individuals. On Friday, June 3, 2011, the Plumbers Local Union 210 will honor the graduating class of 2011 at the Annual Apprentice Graduation Banquet, which will be held at Tiebel's Restaurant in Schererville, Indiana.

At this year's banquet, the Plumbers Local Union 210 will recognize and honor the 2011 Apprentice Graduates. The individuals who have completed their apprentice training in 2011 are: Bruce Bigbie, Christopher Dodrill, Jacob Fredericks, Derek Gatlin, Robert Gorka, Travis Hamilton, Mario Hodalj, Joseph Hull, Brian Juris, Robert Piekarczyk, William Schuitema, Eric J. Smith, Jacob Wellsand, and Daniel Wydro, Jr.

Northwest Indiana has a rich history of excellence in its craftsmanship and loyalty by its tradesmen. These graduates are outstanding examples of each. They have mastered their trade and have demonstrated their loyalty to both the union and the community through their hard work and selfless dedication.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in congratulating these dedicated and hardworking individuals. Along with the other men and women of Northwest Indiana's unions, these individuals have committed themselves to making a significant contribution to the growth and development of the economy of the First Congressional District, and I am very proud to represent them in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and admiration that I stand before you today to honor and congratulate Reverend Pharis D. Evans on his 50th Anniversary as Pastor of Clark Road Missionary Baptist Church in Gary, Indiana. I can truly say that throughout his many years of service, Pastor Evans has been one of the most dedicated, distinguished, and committed citizens of Indiana's First Congressional District. He will be honored at a lifetime achievement celebration hosted by Clark Road Missionary Baptist Church on June 10, 2011.

Reverend Pharis Evans graduated from Haywood High School in Brownsville, Tennessee. His passion and interest in theology grew from the church services he attended as a child, and he knew from a very young age that he was destined to be a preacher. He

studied theology at Chicago Baptist Institute and continued his studies at Calumet College of Saint Joseph in Whiting. The first Sunday in April 1961, Pharis D. Evans became Pastor of Clark Road Missionary Baptist Church. For 50 years, Pastor Evans has administered spiritual guidance to his congregation that today includes more than 800 parishioners. He has positively impacted the lives of countless individuals through his spiritual teaching and generous nature. During his tenure, he has assisted the church and the community in numerous capacities. From 1963 to 2011, Reverend Evans has coordinated and maintained Radio Broadcast Outreach Ministry. From 2009 to 2011, he was appointed and has served as ``Spiritual Advisor'' for the Baptist Ministers Conference of Gary and Vicinity; and in 2008, Pastor Evans was awarded the prestigious community service Drum Major Award by the Gary Frontiers Organization. Additionally, he has served as President and Vice President of the Progressive National Baptist Convention for the state of Indiana. He also served as chaplain for the Gary Police Department. Because of his passion and remarkable leadership, Pastor Evans is a mentor for many young ministers and a counselor for pastors in search of guidance and direction. For his complete devotion to helping others in need of spiritual guidance, he is to be commended.

Personally, I am humbled to consider Pastor Evans a friend. My life and the lives of all those he has touched have been inestimably enriched by the wisdom of his words, his innumerable selfless acts of kindness, and his absolute devotion to Our Lord.

Equally important is Reverend Evans's beloved family. He has been married to Ann Evans for 60 years this October. They have five wonderful children (one deceased), nine grandchildren (one deceased), and two great-grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in commending Reverend Pharis Evans for his lifetime of leadership and selfless service to others. Northwest Indiana and Clark Road Ministry Baptist Church have certainly been rewarded by the uncompromising loyalty he has displayed over the past 50 years. Throughout his tenure he has been the truest example of morality and wisdom, and he is worthy of the highest praise.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and admiration that I stand before you today to honor Dr. Dennis C. Rittenmeyer and to wish him well upon his upcoming retirement from his position as President of Calumet College of Saint Joseph in Whiting, Indiana. Dr. Rittenmeyer's many years of service in the field of education have had a positive impact on numerous students and educators within the community of Northwest Indiana and across the nation. In honor of Dennis, a retirement reception will be held on Tuesday, June 7, 2011, at The Center for Visual and Performing Arts in Munster, Indiana.

Dr. Dennis Rittenmeyer's true passion for education is reflected in his impressive 40 year career in higher education. Dr. Rittenmeyer received his bachelor's and master's degrees from Western Michigan University. He went on to earn his doctoral degree in Higher Education Administration from Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan. In 1987, Dr. Rittenmeyer became President of Calumet College of Saint Joseph. At the time, the institution was in serious financial crisis. Dennis successfully restored the college's financial stability, utilizing the leadership skills for which he is well-known. Throughout his tenure, his perseverance to see the right thing done sustained his efforts to overcome obstacles in order to establish Calumet College of Saint Joseph as the exceptional resource it is today. Under Dr. Rittenmeyer's direction, the enrollment at Calumet College of Saint Joseph increased from 870 in 1987 to nearly 1,300 in 2010; educational programs were expanded to include not only associate's degree programs but also bachelor's and master's degree programs. Additionally, an athletic program was introduced; currently, more than 270 participate in intercollegiate sports. The physical development of the campus included extensive renovations to the main building and a new Student Activity/Community Center was completed in 2009. My good friend also established an endowment fund for the continuously growing institution. For his truly impressive commitment to Calumet College of Saint Joseph, Dr. Rittenmeyer is to be commended.

Perhaps more remarkable is Dr. Rittenmeyer selflessly giving of his time, intellectual skills, and power of persuasion to move the community of Northwest Indiana ahead. In 2009, he was honored by Governor Mitch Daniels with the Distinguished Hoosier Award for his efforts on behalf of public transportation in Northwest Indiana. Much needs to be done before we have a true regional transit system in our region, but it will occur because of Dennis Rittenmeyer's lone sojourn in the wilderness preaching the human value of developing such a system long before it became a fashionable topic of debate. There would be no debate and no hope of much an improvement for future generations if Dennis had not stepped forth before all others.

Dr. Rittenmeyer's commitment to education and the community of Northwest Indiana is exceeded only by his devotion to his amazing family. He and his wonderful wife Leslie have five beloved children.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in commending Dr. Dennis C. Rittenmeyer for his lifetime of leadership, service, and dedication. He has touched the lives of countless students and educators, as well as every one of us in Northwest Indiana. For his service and uncompromising dedication, Dr. Rittenmeyer is worthy of the highest praise, and I ask that you join me in wishing him well upon his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect and admiration that I stand before you today to honor Mr. John Loxas. John

has been recognized by the Hammond Rotary Club as an outstanding citizen who has demonstrated entrepreneurial success and vision in the community of Hammond and throughout northwest Indiana. His devotion to professional and ethical business leadership is to be commended. For his outstanding efforts, John will be presented the Robert V. Heinze Vocational Service Award by the Hammond Rotary Club on Tuesday, May 24, 2011.

The Hammond Rotary Club was established in 1920 adhering to the principles of Rotary International: ``World Peace through Understanding'' and ``Service above Self.'' These values are vigorously upheld by the Hammond Rotary Club members who passionately serve their community. Each year, the club recognizes an organization or an individual who is a praiseworthy local business or community leader by honoring the recipient with the Robert V. Heinze Vocational Service Award, and this year's recipient is John Loxas.

John Loxas was born on the island of Zakynthos, Greece. He immigrated to the United States in 1955 and settled in Hammond, Indiana. John found employment at Republic Steel in south Chicago and worked there for a few years. After being laid off from the mill, John found inspiration and opportunity at a small Hammond grocery store where he volunteered to work for no pay. During that time, he educated himself in the grocery business, and in 1958, he purchased the store that gave him his inspiration, which he ran for many years. In 1975, John's dream for a more modern grocery store came true, and he opened a second, larger location. In the years to follow, new locations would open under the name J&M Foods, and later, Reliable Supermarket. John's success and entrepreneurial spirit continued, and in 1985, he opened Olympia Lanes bowling center in Hammond, which included a high-tech scoring system, deli, lounge, and pro-shop. Olympia Lanes recently celebrated its 25th anniversary. Seeing the need for an elegant banquet hall in Hammond, John opened Dynasty Banquets in 1993. Capitalizing on his business, he opened the recently renovated Ramada Inn and Johnel's Restaurant, which are located in the same locale as Dynasty Banquets. For his remarkable business success and complete dedication to the community of Hammond, John Loxas is truly inspiring, and it is because of his efforts that he is the recipient of the 2011 Robert V. Heinze Vocational Service Award.

John's commitment to the community and his career is exceeded only by his devotion to his amazing family. John and his wonderful wife, Margaret, have five beloved children and four grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in congratulating John Loxas on being honored with the Robert V. Heinze Vocational Service Award, and in honoring the Hammond Rotary for their outstanding contributions to the community of Hammond and all of northwest Indiana. Their constant commitment to improving the quality of life for countless individuals in northwest Indiana is truly encouraging, and they are worthy of the highest praise.