Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride and sincerity that I wish to honor Ms. Virginia Guffey, who on August 12, 2007, will be honored at the U.S. Steel Yard by the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Old- Timers Club for her 58 years of service at U.S. Steel.

Virginia Guffey was born in the town of Seymour, Indiana. Until 1949, she worked at the National Veneer and Lumber Company in Seymour. At that time, she was told that her services were no longer needed. Not to be discouraged, Virginia traveled north to seek one of the many employment opportunities in Gary, IN. That same year she was hired at U.S. Steel, and as they say, the rest is history. In the beginning she lived with relatives in order to send her earnings back home to Seymour to support her parents and siblings. Virginia eventually settled in Merrillville, IN.

It is important to understand that Virginia was one of only 300 women working in a workplace dominated by males at U.S. Steel. The small group of 300 women is epitomized by Virginia, who demonstrated strength of character and devotion to her career, and over time she persevered to gain acceptance and make great strides to ensure women's equality in the workplace. Fifty-eight years later, her loyalty to U.S. Steel and passion for her job still burns strong. Virginia is now an inventory clerk in the tin division's coating-packaging warehouse. At 82 years old, she does not intend to retire any time soon.

Virginia has overcome a life of hardships and discrimination with courage and determination. She is a dedicated employee who loves her work and who greets each workday with enthusiasm. Her optimism and tenacity are an example to us all. Her strong work ethic and positive attitude have earned her the respect and admiration of not only her co- workers, but of every person who has the pleasure of knowing her.

One such person is Chester Lobodzinski, founder of the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Old-Timers Club, an organization for retired and current employees in the steel industry. Mr. Lobodzinski accurately painted a portrait of Virginia when he stated, ``Virginia's work ethic of pride, dedication, concern, and 150 percent effort takes a back seat to no one. She is not just an employee at U.S. Steel, but is a living legend whose survival in life can be credited to her very positive attitude, combined with her many true class of friendships.''

Madam Speaker, at this time I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in congratulating Ms. Virginia Guffey as she is honored for her longevity and unmatched commitment to her job. Her unselfish and lifelong dedication to U.S. Steel is worthy of the highest commendation, and I am proud to represent her in Congress.

Madam Speaker, it is with great honor and gratitude that I stand before you today to recognize the many accomplishments of Mr. Leon West. I can truly say that Leon is one of northwest Indiana's most dedicated, distinguished, and honorable citizens. I have known Leon for many years, and he is one of the most passionate and involved citizens that I have ever known, especially when it comes to his service to the Democratic Party and the people of the First Congressional District. For the past 14 years, Leon has been a constant fixture in Porter County, serving as chairman for the Porter County Democratic Party, and more recently, as First District chairman. At the age of 72, Leon has decided to retire from these posts to spend more time with his family, but his efforts over the course of his tenure and the impact he has had on transforming the government in Porter County will forever be remembered. To honor Leon, a farewell reception will be held at the Woodland Park Community Center in Portage, Indiana, on Monday, August 6, 2007.

Leon West was born in Osceola, Arkansas, on September 17, 1934. He was one of six children. Known for his passion and unwavering devotion to the betterment of his community, it is no surprise to learn that Leon, as a young man, served in the U.S. Army from 1957 to 1959 and again from 1961 to 1962. While serving his community in various capacities throughout his lifetime, Leon came to be known for his strong work ethic, a trait he undoubtedly developed during his 42 year career at United States Steel.

Early on, Leon knew that the best way to improve his community and to help the people of Porter County was to get involved in public service. In each of his roles, Leon focused on the same goal, to make a difference in society, starting with his own community. Some highlights of Leon's career include his service on the Portage Board of Zoning Appeals, his 18 years on the Portage City Council, and his service on the Porter County Council. In addition, Leon further demonstrated his commitment to the people of northwest Indiana through his membership with the Portage Jaycees, the Exchange Club, Dunes Lodge #741, and the Shriners, to name a few. It was through his work with the Jaycees that Portage, Indiana, received its status as a city in 1968. He has also served on various councils and boards. From issues ranging from taxes and transportation to caring for the elderly, Leon West has always been an active participant in seeking to improve his community in every way possible. For his efforts, he was awarded the prestigious Sagamore of the Wabash in 1997 by the late Governor Frank O'Bannon.

While his everyday presence will be missed in northwest Indiana, Leon will now have a chance to fully commit his time to those closest to him, his family. A loving husband, father, and grandfather, Leon's commitment to his community is surpassed only by his love for his family. Leon and his loving wife, Beverly, will soon be moving to Texas, and they plan to spend as much time as possible with their three children: Kathy, Kerri, and Ken, and their adoring grandchildren: Blake, Paige, Andrew, Claire, Duncan, and Lou.

Madam Speaker, Leon West has selflessly given his time and efforts to the people of the First Congressional District and to the Democratic Party in northwest Indiana throughout his years of service. At this time, I ask that you and all of my distinguished colleagues join me in commending him for his lifetime of service and dedication, and I ask that you join me in wishing him the best of health and happiness in the years to come.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition, and I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment to strike funds in this bill for the meteorological equipment for Valparaiso University.

I first want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee Mr. Mollohan, as well as the ranking member Mr. Frelinghuysen, for their consideration of this important project.

Mr. Chairman, this earmark is relative to two issues. The first is the safety of people who live throughout the Upper Midwest.

A key element to strengthening Valparaiso's meteorology program, as the gentleman from Arizona is correct that Valparaiso is an exceptional university, is the acquisition of Doppler radar. Doppler radar at VU will be very beneficial to the millions of people living along the southern shore of Lake Michigan because that area is currently underserved by pinpoint weather forecasting. In addition to Doppler radar, VU will begin daily weather balloon launches. As the only balloon site in Indiana, Valparaiso University will supply critical data to the meteorological community.

The notoriously unpredictable weather conditions in this area, lake- effect snow in the winter and severe thunderstorms and tornados in the spring and summer months, make the presence of Doppler radar and data gathered from the balloon station critically important to the region.

The amendment also deals with the issue of strengthening our future by investing in science and the young people in our Nation. The global economy is nothing if not competitive, and in order for the United States to remain at the forefront of scientific innovation, we must work with our universities to develop and maintain world-class scientific programs.

Valparaiso is currently home to a nationally ranked meteorological program, and we must leverage this resource to advance our national scientific interests, and I believe the university is well positioned to use the funds to continue to be a national and global leader in this field.

The procurement of the latest industry standard equipment by VU's meteorological program is also vital to helping students become familiar with the technology they will encounter after graduation as they go on to pursue careers that include the Air Force, NASA and the National Science Foundation. The purchase of new equipment will enable Valparaiso students to conduct more undergraduate research, as they will have access to a greater variety of data and the ability to archive it.

I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment, and again thank the Chair and ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my time.

Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor to congratulate the Croatian Sons Lodge Number 170 of the Croatian Fraternal Union for reaching a momentous milestone, its 100th Anniversary. As is their annual tradition, the lodge will take this opportunity to celebrate with a Golden Member banquet, which will take place on Sunday, August 12, 2007.

This year, the Croatian Fraternal Union will hold this gala event at the Croatian Center in Merrillville, Indiana. Traditionally, the anniversary celebration includes a ceremonial appreciation of the Union's Golden Members, those individuals who have achieved 50 years of membership. This year's Golden Members include: Judith Marie Brefeld, Geraldine Brklevich, Shirley Bronikowski, Esther M. Fadell, Antone J. Giorgi, Joseph L. Haralovich, Madelin Kazmier, Juliana H. King, George Kirincic, Michael Kuchaes, Jr., Judith Kathleen Lavery, Frank Joseph Mosca, Sr., William Pulford, Elizabeth J. Sedey, Stevan J. Trtan, Phyllis M. Vician, Dean J. Wantland, Joseph Winkler, and Angela A. Yelusich.

These faithful and devoted individuals share this esteemed tribute with over 400 other Golden Members who have previously attained this prestigious designation.

This memorable day will begin with a morning mass at the Croatian Center's gazebo with the Reverend Father Stephen Loncar officiating. The Saint George Tamburitzans from Cokeburg, Pennsylvania will perform at the mass, which will be followed by a gala event and formal dinner featuring the DUNAV Orchestra.

Madam Speaker, I urge you and my other distinguished colleagues to join me in commending Lodge President Betty Morgavan and all the other members of the Croatian Fraternal Union Lodge Number 170 for their loyalty and radiant display of passion for their ethnicity. The Cmatian community has played a key role in elevating the quality of life and culture of Northwest Indiana. It is my hope that this year will bring happiness, good health, and success for all members of the Croatian community and their families.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of the resolution.

Ever since the author Rachel Carson ushered in the advent of environmental awareness with her book ``The Silent Spring,'' Americans have understood that we owe it to future generations to be good stewards of the planet and the environment. As in the case with every problem, we should work toward a solution not by asking how little must be done, but rather by asking what is the right thing to do?

As the chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, I feel I have a unique perspective on the issues contained in this resolution.

As chairman of the Energy Subcommittee on Appropriations, I respect BP's foresight. Their investment of a half billion dollars, in collaboration with the University of California-Berkeley and the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana to increase energy production through renewable biofuels is a worthwhile goal. These fuels have the potential to increase our domestic fuel capabilities and strengthen our national security by reducing our dependency on foreign oil.

As chairman of the Water Subcommittee on Appropriations, I also fully appreciate the treasure that is the Great Lakes system, including the potable, clean fresh drinking water, and its venues for recreation and refreshment. I also appreciate that the Federal Government has made a commitment to the Great Lakes States over several generations to improve water quality and reduce pollution.

It is my hope that, while it appears BP has the legal authority to potentially increase discharged materials into Lake Michigan, they will act responsibly, refrain from doing so, and reconsider their permit.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name

be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2750, the NASA and JPL 50th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 2641 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 481, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except:

Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate;

An amendment by Mr. Rothman limiting funds for the Green Maintenance Building in North Bergen, New Jersey;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting Army Corps of Engineers construction funding for the South Central Pennsylvania project;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Coastal Wind Ohio project;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Green Maintenance Building in North Bergen, New Jersey;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the National Center for Manufacturing Science in Michigan;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the University of North Alabama Green Campus Initiative;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure in Pennsylvania;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Alliance for NanoHealth in Texas;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Notre Dame Innovation Park in Indiana;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the ACE Program at Maricopa Community Colleges in Arizona;

An amendment by Mr. Hensarling limiting funds for the South Carolina HBCU Science and Technology initiative in South Carolina;

An amendment by Mr. Hensarling limiting funds for the Environmental Science Center, University of Dubuque, Iowa;

An amendment by Mr. Hensarling limiting funds for the Emmanuel College Center for Science Partnership in Massachusetts;

An amendment by Mr. Hensarling limiting funds for Roosevelt University Biology Laboratory Equipment in Illinois;

An amendment by Mr. Hensarling limiting funds for Nanosys, Inc.;

An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California limiting funds for projects requested by Members of Congress and disclosed pursuant to the rules of the House, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; and

An amendment or amendments by Mr. Visclosky regarding funding levels.

Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment, except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and its Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material during further consideration of H.R. 2641.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to claim the 5 minutes in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, even though I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to accept the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to set the stage for what is occurring on the House floor at this point in time because it is my privilege to submit to the House for final passage H.R. 2641, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008, with its supplemental report.

On July 10, the Appropriations Committee approved the supplemental report unanimously by voice vote. As I have said before, this is a good bill and it merits the support of the entire House.

I would emphasize that the money spent in this bill, whether enumerated originally by the administration or by the Congress, are investments, investments in our national security, investments in our energy security, and investments in the health and safety of our citizens. They are investments to

create a climate and to build the infrastructure that encourages the development of new, good-paying jobs in our country.

To the extent we have made changes in the administration's priority, the changes have been to enhance the effectiveness of the programs in this bill and to complement them.

I would like to give two examples. All one needs to do is look at the West Sacramento Flood Control Project as proof that we are dealing with fundamental issues, like ensuring people and their families' lives are secure and their homes and their businesses are protected from devastating floods. In Tennessee, the Center Hill Dam is another project that Congress has funded to control flood waters and generate clean, safe and efficient hydroelectric power.

There are also examples of administration funding requests that originated in Congress years ago. For fiscal year 2006, Congress designated funds to support activities at the supervisory control and data acquisition test facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory. This system has proven itself so useful in helping to improve the reliability and robustness of the electric power grid that for fiscal year 2008 the administration has included the project as part of its project request. If nothing else, this shows how the executive and legislative branches can work together to fund important projects for the Nation, regardless of who initiated support for the idea.

Mr. Chairman, as we consider today's supplemental report to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, I urge my colleagues to keep these factors in mind. The specific projects enumerated in this report serve a purpose: To improve the quality of life for our citizenry and to make advances on key priorities facing our Nation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), a member of the subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I'm sorry, I did not hear the gentleman's question.

It is my understanding that it will go to the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure.

At this time, I do not know, but if it does not exist, the moneys could not go to it.

I would continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

I would be happy to yield time to my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply make the observation that for collectively the decisions made for congressional changes in the administration's request represent about 1 percent of the total funding for the Department of Energy in this bill, and they were very thoughtfully made. And whether they be, in this instance, in Dubuque, Iowa, or any other community around the United States, it is certainly the committee's position and belief that those investments are urged for the greater good of everyone living in this country, and that is certainly to the advantage of every taxpayer in the United States of America.

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

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

At this point I would yield time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

At this point I would like to recognize my colleague from the State of Illinois, Mr. Davis.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I would be happy to recognize my friend and ranking member, Mr. Hobson from Ohio, for such time as he may consume.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would reserve the balance of my time, understanding I have the right to close, and I will be the final speaker on our side.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time and will begin my remarks in opposition, first of all, by again thanking my friend and colleague from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), all of the members of the subcommittee, and the staff, who have done a very good job on this bill and improved the circumstances for people's safety, health, security and employment opportunities.

I would like to make a couple of points. The first is, we've heard a lot about the expenditures that are enumerated in this legislation, and that certainly is worthy of debate. What has been lost today, but was covered earlier this year when the bill originally was on the floor, is the fact that there are significant cuts that have been made in this bill to programs that we felt could be either eliminated or reduced because they did not have the same value and merit as those contained in the legislation we're considering today.

And I would note that there were 37 different DOE weapons programs that were cut. There were an additional 20 programs, two in the Army Corps of Engineers, two in the Bureau of Reclamation, three within the independent agencies, and 13 others in the Department of Energy that were reduced because we did not feel that they cut mustard and did not make the same significant contribution to our country.

As far as our infrastructure, and I would want to focus on that for a few minutes, the investment in our water infrastructure, for example, in this legislation represents a little bit less than 20 percent of the overall spending. But I would note that in 2005, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that nearly 50 percent of the Corps of Engineers-maintained locks are functionally obsolete using a design life of 50 years. Many of our communities do not enjoy the benefit of adequate flood protection.

We think of moving the commerce of this country. We think of people's safety. We are woefully behind. There are numerous channels and harbors throughout our Nation, across this country, that are not maintained at usable depths, much less at the authorized levels. Again, for every ship that uses a channel or a harbor not at depth, they are coming in and they are leaving lighter. That is less efficient as far as the economy of our country.

The Corps of Engineers' backlog is $50 billion. One thing that I would note for the membership here is that during the last several years under Mr. Hobson's leadership as chairman, one of the things that we have tried to do is, if you would, to focus funds on some programs to meet that backlog, to make sure that some projects ultimately are completed.

I would also point out that the committee is mindful of the responsibility that we all have in Congress regarding ensuring that Federal funds are spent in a responsible manner. This committee has been at the forefront of changes to the fiscal management of the Corps of Engineers.

In light of the challenges involved in modernizing this Nation's water resources infrastructure, we have required, again, over the last several years, a more disciplined and rigorous approach to fiscal and contract management by the corps. This bill continues financial management contracting reforms to ensure that the corps manages its budget in the best interests of the taxpayers. The recommendations include directing that the corps continue to take action in considering additional factors as they proceed in the planning of projects.

Outside of water infrastructure, we do have the Department of Energy that encompasses obviously more than three-quarters of the spending in this bill. As was noted when we brought the bill to the House floor, regrettably, as a citizen, as a public official, I would note that since 1990, the Department of Energy has been on the high-risk list of the GAO for project management.

That is all of our money. One of the things that we have, again, attempted to do in this bill is to begin to force the issue with the Department so these major construction projects are brought in on time and on budget.

As I mentioned, and I will close on this note, in my remarks at the beginning of the debate, we started today, the money spent in this bill, whether they were enumerated originally by the administration or by the Congress, are investments, investments in our national security and in the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons. They are investments in our energy security, which is now in economic crisis, a national security crisis and an environmental crisis. We have increased funding for biofuels. We have increased funding for vehicle technology. We have increased funding for renewable energy research. I am proud of the subcommittee's work in those areas.

We have made investments in the health of our people, in that if you have clean water to drink, you are going to enjoy good health. If you do not, you are going to become very sick. We have also looked at the health of those citizens around our country who live in and around former weapons sites and the nuclear cleanup that is going to unfortunately still take decades to accomplish. These are investments in the safety of our citizens. Think about those dams in this country. Think about one of those locks failing. Think about the gentleman in Highland, Indiana, who lost his life when the Little Calumet River flooded.

They are investments to create a climate and to build the infrastructure of our Nation that encourages the development of new, well-paying jobs. To the extent we have made changes in the administration's priorities, whether they be by earmarks or changes in programs, those changes have been to enhance the effectiveness of the programs in this bill and to complement them.

Mr. Chairman, for all of these reasons, I certainly am opposed to the gentleman's amendment, I would ask my colleagues to oppose it, and I would ask for my colleagues' support of the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, if my colleague would yield for a moment, I certainly appreciate the gentleman striking and yielding the time.

Again, I understand and appreciate the gentleman's concern and his passion about this. Obviously, I cannot make any representations, other than I would want to stay in touch with both gentlemen and see what can be done and to work closely with you.

But I appreciate again the circumstances you find yourself in and would be happy to try to work with you.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Madam Speaker, it is with great respect and deep sadness that I take this time to remember one of Northwest Indiana's most distinguished citizens, Reverend Dr. Robert E. Lowery, pastor of Saint Timothy Community Church in Gary, IN. On Tuesday, July 10, 2007, Reverend Lowery passed away at the University of Chicago Medical Center at the age of 82. A constant fixture in the community, Reverend Lowery understood how to communicate with all people. For this, Reverend Lowery appropriately earned the nickname, ``Everyman's Preacher.''

Robert E. Lowery was born on the west side of Chicago. An accomplished scholar, he obtained degrees in theology from the Chicago Theological Seminary, the Garrett Theological Seminary in Evanston, IL, and a Bachelor of Science degree from George Williams College in Chicago. Though Chicago was his home, he eventually relocated to Gary, Indiana and took over as pastor of Saint Timothy Community Church in 1957. For the past 50 years, Reverend Lowery has called Gary his home, and the impact he has had on his congregation and the entire community will forever be remembered. Under his leadership, Saint Timothy has grown to become one of the city's largest congregations with over 1,600 members.

Reverend Lowery's lifetime of service to his community goes far beyond his pastoral duties. Knowing that preaching was only a small part of the impact he could have on people's lives, Reverend Lowery became actively involved in many local organizations. Realizing the need to reach people at an early age, he dedicated himself to programs aimed at improving the lives of the youth in the community and enhancing their opportunities to lead successful lives. Reverend Lowery felt a tremendous responsibility to reach out to the youth, and it was for this reason that he became active in the Boy Scouts of America. Fully dedicated to the mission of the Boy Scouts, Reverend Lowery served as Scoutmaster for Troop 53 at Saint Timothy, and he also served as an executive board member of the Calumet Council of the Boy Scouts of America. Reverend Lowery's generosity and commitment to the children of Northwest Indiana will forever be remembered by the children he mentored.

Recognized for his work in his community, Reverend Lowery was the recipient of many awards, both local and national. While it would be impossible to name them all, Reverend Lowery's efforts led to him being honored with the prestigious Drum Major Award, presented by the Gary Frontiers Service Club in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and his most worthy induction into Gary's Steel City Hall of Fame in 1990.

Reverend Lowery leaves to cherish his memory three daughters: Gay Marlene Lowery, Jan Avis Lowery, and Lynn Michele Lowery-Darby, as well as an entire community whose lives have been improved by such a caring and benevolent friend and mentor.

Madam Speaker, I respectfully ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in honoring Reverend Dr. Robert E. Lowery for his outstanding devotion to his congregation and to all of Northwest Indiana. His unselfish and lifelong dedication to the people he served is worthy of the highest commendation. Reverend Lowery's selflessness was an inspiration to us all. While the entire community is saddened by his passing, his message will live on through the many lives he has touched.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure and sincerity that I take this time to congratulate the individuals who will take their oath of citizenship on July 4, 2007. In true patriotic fashion, on the day of our great Nation's celebration of independence, a naturalization ceremony will take 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, will be held at Harrison Park 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 themselves and their families. The upcoming oath ceremony will be 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 the great things America has to offer. They realize that there is nowhere else in the world that offers a better opportunity for success and a good life than here in America.

On July 4, 2007, the following individuals, representing many countries throughout the world, will take their oath of citizenship in Hammond, Indiana: Daniela Gomez Alba, Vanhvilay Thongsawath, Fayez Ghaly Samaan, Sean David Sternfeldt, Maria Del Carmen Garcia, Khaled Abdullah Mohamed Alkadhi, Jovica Georgiev, Evica Jankovic, Khadija Nasreen, Muhammad Munawar Uddin, Ljubica Andonova, Yasser Yousof Hussein Alsalahi, Reina Ahmad Elabed, Heidemarie Nealon, Nidal Khaleel Bader, Rosa Navarro, Irma Guadalupe Gallegos, Victor Manuel Salas, Hildeberta Ignacio, Ivan Ignacio Esquival, Edgar Ignacio, Maria Gonzalez, Vassilka Ivanova Sokolova, Jose Ernesto Munoz Munoz, Margarita Lomeli, Rosalia Aguilar De Hernandez, Ramona Garcia, Hector Miguel Rivera Gallegos, Rafael Negrete Gentil, Stan Krzysztofiak, Juan Carlos Bustos, Angelina Rico De Becerra, Maria Teresa Paredes De Sanchez, Thomas William Fridel, Mirko Koceski, Zivka Koceski, Phuoc Hong Tran, Ramachandra Mukkamala, Cristina Chavez Melesio, Maureen Allyson Fridel, Omar Mehidi, Priya Venkata Vishnu Mukkamala, Kameswari Kalluri, Carlos Alberto Garcia Morales, Sonja Sabo-Djuric, Maria De Jesus Galvan Briseno, Paul Derek MacGregor, Layda Eunice Salazar, Mary Ortiz, and Nancy Takla.

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 that they want 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.

Madam Speaker, I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to join me in congratulating these individuals, who will become citizens of the United States of America on July 4, 2007, the day of our Nation's independence. They, too, will be American citizens, and they, too, will be guaranteed the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We, as a free and democratic society, congratulate them and welcome them.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition, and I rise in strong and adamant opposition to the gentleman's amendment. During my remarks, I would like to make three points and also indicate that this project is in the City of Rensselaer, Indiana, at St. Joseph's College. It is for the restoration of a historic theater that continues to be used by the faculty and students of the school, as well as the constituents and citizens of Rensselaer and Jasper County, Indiana.

The total cost for the renovation of this project is about $965,000. The request and approval by the subcommittee was for $100,000. I would want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Dicks, as well as the ranking member, my good friend, Mr. Tiahrt, for their consideration of this very important project.

The first point I do want to make is that this has great value to the community in which it is situated. While the gentleman who offered the amendment enumerated a whole series of other possible projects in another State, that is not the subject of this amendment. It is the restoration of a historic theater at St. Joseph's College in Rensselaer.

It was built in 1914 and designed in revival style, referred to as Collegiate Gothic. It is located in the college's historic district, and the goal of the project is to restore the theater as an attractive, useful centerpiece for the college and the City of Rensselaer while retaining its notable contribution among historic sites and structures in the great State of Indiana.

The second point I would want to make, and I would take off on the remarks made by the chairman, is he suggested that we have a right to spend this money. I agree with that assertion. I would take it a step further and say, we have a responsibility to make an investment in this country. We need to invest to preserve the past so we can continue to learn its lessons. We need to invest in this country for our present and for those who live here today. We need to invest in this country and its infrastructure for the future of this Nation and for the children of this generation and those yet to come. We have a responsibility as well as a right.

The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Dicks, also mentioned we are here to help each other out. I would conclude by stressing that point.

While I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from the Fifth District of Texas, I happen to represent the First District in Indiana, and the last time I looked, society and the purpose of us joining together in a free government is to help each other out and to look out for each others' interests.

It is not the government that is paying this money, as the gentleman indicated; it is the people of this country who are paying for this project in Rensselaer, Indiana, that has value, which is the same reason why I think it is absolutely appropriate that taxpayers in places like east Chicago, Indiana, and Hobart, Indiana, expend some of their tax moneys as individuals to help the City of Dallas, for example, with their floodway to ensure that there is not property damage in the future, that there is not loss of life, that there is not injury to others in this country.

It is why I think there is a noble reason to ask people who live in Lowell, Indiana, and Chesterton, Indiana, and Gary, Indiana, to help fund research taking place at Oak Ridge in Tennessee. At first blush, why should we have an interest in making that investment? Because it inures to the benefit of not only everyone who lives in the United States, but everyone worldwide.

We should get over this concept that we have to be parochial in what we do and get over this concept that we should be selfish about what we are about. We are here to make an investment, and, as the gentleman from Washington rightfully pointed out, to help each other out.

So I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. I absolutely think it is bad policy, and I would ask my colleagues' support.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness and deep respect that I wish to commend Army SSG Michael A. Bechert for his bravery and his willingness to fight for his country. Staff Sergeant Bechert was assigned to C Company, 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division in Schweinfurt, Germany. Tragically, Staff Sergeant Bechert passed away on June 14, 2007, due to injuries sustained on May 30, 2007, when his vehicle encountered an improvised explosive device in Baghdad, Iraq. His sacrifice for his country will forever be remembered by a community that has been devastated by the loss of one of its own.

Staff Sergeant Bechert felt tremendous pride for his country, and it will never be forgotten that he was willing to endanger his own life to protect the lives of his fellow citizens. His courage and heroism will always be remembered, and his sacrifice will forever live in the hearts and minds of those for whom he battled. Staff Sergeant Bechert enlisted in the United States Army, fully aware that danger could arise in any situation. He accepted this so that the freedoms and values he treasured could be enjoyed by men, women, and children around the world.

For his efforts, Staff Sergeant Bechert was awarded several military medals and honors, including: the Expert Infantryman Badge, the Combat Infantryman Badge, and the Army Commendation Medal for heroism, as well as a Purple Heart for previous injuries sustained in battle. In addition, he will be posthumously awarded an additional Purple Heart and a Bronze Star medal.

Although he loved his unit and his country, Michael treasured his family above all else. He is survived by his wife, Daniela, and his son, Branden Andrew, as well as many other friends and family members whose lives he has touched. My condolences go out to all who knew and loved Michael. His eagerness to serve and his willingness to sacrifice himself is worthy of the highest admiration.

Madam Speaker, at this time I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in honoring a fallen hero, United States Army SSG Michael Bechert. He will forever remain a hero in the eyes of his family, his community, and his country. Let us never forget the sacrifice he made to preserve the ideals of freedom and democracy.

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

I would like to use my time and recognize the gentleman from South Carolina for a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman and Mr. Lipinski's request for funding for this very worthwhile program, and certainly look forward to working with him as well as the gentleman from Illinois as we go to conference.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman, Mr. Space, to express my appreciation for the concern he has for his constituency, as well as the gentlelady from West Virginia, and my colleague on the committee, Mr. Aderholt, who also raised an amendment in the full committee.

Again, I appreciate their work and their concern for the people in economic development of not only their individual constituencies, but their region, and certainly would pledge to continue to work with them to address their concerns.

Having said that, I would ask my colleague from Ohio to withdraw his amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce DOE's Office of Administration by over $27 million. The bill provides $304 million, a decreased amount under the President's request.

The Departmental Administration account funds the guts of the Department; the chief financial officer, human resources, the general counsel, the chief information officer, all are integral to the functioning of the $25 billion operation of the Department of Energy.

What I am particularly concerned about relative to the gentlewoman's amendment is that the bill has initiatives that would not be funded as a result of the reductions.

There are funds provided in this bill for additional legal counsel to expedite energy efficiency standards for appliances. There has been a significant accumulation of backlog for this work. We can expedite this work and save energy in this country.

The bill also funds a review by the National Academy of Public Administration for the contracting in human resources process. Mentioned yesterday during debate, the Department of Energy has been on a high-risk list with the GAO for 17 years. The purpose of the subcommittee of having the National Academy of Public Administration come in is to get DOE off so that they stop wasting and mismanaging money. And I would hate to see that function not occur because of the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge rejection of it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would yield back my time and urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment. I understand his concern, as I and Mr. Hobson have grave concerns about the department's record on contracting and project management as well.

This bill requires the department to develop an action plan due to Congress that will get DOE off the GAO high-risk list for their contract management performance as soon as possible, as I indicated in the previous debate, where they have been since 1990; follow its own guidelines in Management Order 413.3 for project management; and contract with the National Academy of Public Administration for a review of the departmental contracting processes, which have been a choke point of getting work done.

Again, I would be pleased to accept the gentleman's amendment and the record that is established for the department to follow through on GAO's recommendation to examine the root causes of poor contract management.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and would hope that at the end of this debate he consider the withdrawal of his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Udall and also appreciate the fact that he has made a significant contribution to the full Appropriations Committee and also understand the circumstances that he is presented with.

Contrary to what I think the belief of some Members are, we have made cuts in this bill, but they were thoughtful cuts, given a number of considerations. I would point out that the means by which the gentleman is trying to secure additional weapons money would cut the Administrator's office and potentially terminate most of the Nation's nonproliferation programs.

The nuclear nonproliferation programs are one of the few activities at the Department of Energy that are staffed, managed and run by Federal employees. In the end, Federal employees tend to be generally younger professionals with fewer years of public service and would bear the brunt of any Federal reduction in force.

Secondly, I wish that our national labs, which are treasures and do great work, would also be as adamant and as concerned about their security as they are about their budget line. I would ask to submit additional materials in the Record, but would point out we had serious security breaches at Los Alamos in December of 1999, June of 2000, November of 2003, May of 2004, July of 2004, in 2005, in 2006. There was an incident in January of 2007 that made Time Magazine. This has got to stop.

But the breach that causes me and should cause every Member here the most heartburn is what happened to a gentleman by the name of Shawn Carpenter. Mr. Carpenter worked at Los Alamos, Mr. Carpenter was concerned about security at Los Alamos, and Mr. Carpenter went to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to express his concern. He did not go to a local newspaper. He went to the FBI, and he was terminated. There was a trial relative to that wrongful termination. And I would point out that the gentleman who fired Mr. Carpenter, and he subsequently won a judgment of $4.6 million for wrongful termination, got a bonus.

He got a bonus after he fired Mr. Carpenter, and Mr. Carpenter went to the FBI to protect the secrets of this Nation as far as our nuclear security.

The third concern I have is some of these moneys would find their way back into the proposal made by the administration that we have eliminated in this bill for a new nuclear weapon. As we have extensively pointed out in the committee report language, since the termination of the Cold War, since regional conflicts such as Kosovo, since 9/11, we have not developed a new nuclear strategy. This is not a time to build a new nuclear weapon.

We have significant cost overruns and time overruns on three buildings we were told were needed for stockpile stewardship. None of them are done. All of them are over budget. Now let's take a turn in the road. I am adamantly opposed.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Committee of Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, as a Notre Dame grad, I would like to interject myself into this colloquy. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his interest in this area.

The gentleman is correct. The subcommittee's objection was to praise the nuclear physics communities adaptiveness in adjusting its facilities plan to our current budgetary realities. It was not meant in any way to define or alter the scope of the proposed facility or limit Michigan State's ability to compete. The subcommittee remains steadfastly committed to ensuring that DOE user facilities are subject to full and open competition and will monitor the process very closely to make sure that all potential competitors are treated fairly by DOE. Again, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding and bringing this matter up.

Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, there is a role and a need for the ARC to assist distressed counties in Appalachia with local economic development and to provide infrastructure requirements.

Of the original 223 distressed counties, 74 remain in that category; and clearly the mission of the ARC has not yet been fully realized. The fact is the committee did reduce the administration's request for this account by $30 million and has targeted all of the funds in this bill for those distressed counties. So I would be in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, despite the eloquence and persuasiveness of my ranking member and good friend, Mr. Hobson, I remain opposed and would ask the membership to vote against the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

I would simply indicate that I would be happy to accept the gentlewoman's amendment and if my colleague the ranking member would have an observation, I would invite him to.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I appreciate the recognition. I understand the gentlelady's concern and, with the observation that she is going to withdraw her amendment, have a number of points to make but will simply enter those into the Record.

Proceeding with construction of nuclear spent fuel recycling facilities at this time is premature.

Geologic capacity exists at Yucca Mountain to accommodate much more high level waste than currently permitted by legislation

Spent fuel recycling is not economically viable given affordable fresh supplies of uranium fuel

On-site storage of nuclear spent fuel is safe for 50 to 100 years, so there is no rush, but there could be cost savings from removing spent fuel from the nine decommissioned nuclear reactor sites.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong objection to the gentlelady's amendment and would point out a couple of things. One, as we stated in opening debate, we very carefully looked at all the accounts in this bill and, among other things, made cuts in over 57 programs to make sure that funds were available for positive programs that make a difference in people's lives. One of those areas is in the area of energy and specifically the high cost of gasoline for consumers across the country.

One of the things that we did do is to add money in this legislation, $130 million above the President's request, to provide $503 million for new vehicle technologies and for biofuels. Another area as far as the energy crisis was the change in the overall request relative to climate change and, again, funds were made available for such things as research, development and demonstration of new energy technologies in solar, geothermal, wind, hydropower, fossil and nuclear energy as well as research, development and demonstration of conservation technologies for buildings and industries as well as the deployment of energy conservation through weatherization in Federal buildings.

There are a lot of very positive things that we have done in this legislation to advance a positive energy agenda. The gentlewoman's amendment would be hurtful to those efforts and I am opposed to her amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding very much and certainly appreciate his passion and concern about the health and safety of his constituents and this important issue to him.

The problem we have incurred on the committee, and this is not the only regulatory issue regarding FERC that has been brought to our attention, is we are not a regulatory body and obviously have jurisdictional issues that are set aside over and above the issues of substance relative to the gentleman's amendment.

But we do appreciate his concern. Certainly we would be happy to stay in touch with him, without making a commitment, that this issue will be resolved through the appropriations process. We do believe that the higher this issue could be raised as far as the public and the regulatory commission, the better off all the citizens of his community are going to be.

Again, I thank the gentleman for raising the issue and appreciate the fact that he apparently will be withdrawing his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, but let me first begin my discussion by expressing my sincere respect for the gentleman who has offered the amendment, Mr. Bishop, as well as the two speakers who have followed him in support of it, particularly my colleague on the Appropriations Committee, the chairwoman, Ms. DeLauro.

I would point out to the body that this is the second FERC issue that has been brought up on a regulatory matter before the subcommittee on the floor. We have had other inquiries from Members that have not reached this level that are very similar in substance in other areas of the country. I would not pretend to deny that there is a problem, but I am not competent to sort through that fact as I am not a regulator myself, to make a determination, and do not believe that this is a venue to make those particular determinations.

The amendment before us undoes the Natural Gas Act for the orderly review and decision making process for energy infrastructure and limits energy development efforts. FERC's consideration of applications to site energy facilities does not imply that the applications will be granted, or if granted, will not require appropriate environmental protection measures. Moreover, all FERC authorizations are subject to judicial review.

I do believe that FERC's application process ought to be able to run its course. And again, I regret that I have to stand in objection to the amendment but trust that my colleagues understand the impetus for that.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I reserve my time at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, we may only have one speaker on our side, so I would still reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

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

Again, I stand in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and apologize to the gentleman for having his State of origin incorrect, especially because he is from the great State of Ohio. But I would emphasize that this is the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for the coming year, and we are in an energy crisis and it transcends the cost of the price of gasoline at the pump. It is a true economic situation and crisis that we face. It is a national security issue that we face. My good friend, the senior Senator from the State of Indiana, Senator Lugar, has characterized the energy crisis we face as the albatross around our national security neck. It is also an environmental issue as far as a potential catastrophic climate change that will occur if we do not deal with the issue of CO2.

This bill makes an investment in solving that crisis we face. It will not solve all the problems tomorrow morning, but it will put us on firm footing to do so in the future.

Let's talk about vehicle technology. The bill recommends $93 million for hybrid electric systems, an increase of $13 million over the President's request. Of the increase, $10 million is for energy storage research and development for advanced batteries for electric, hybrid electric, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and $3 million is for independent test and evaluation of all vehicles developed in the upcoming demonstration phase.

This bill also includes $49 million for advanced combustion engine research and development, an increase of $15 million over the President's request to restore funding for heavy truck engine research that was eliminated in the administration's request.

It does include $48 million, $15 million over the budget, for materials technology research, to accelerate the development of cost- effective materials and manufacturing processes that contribute to fuel-efficient passenger and commercial vehicles.

It includes $10 million more than the administration's request for nonpetroleum-based fuels and lubricants evaluation to expand and accelerate research and development for the optimum ethanol fuel.

And we also have an increase for technology integration of $6 million in this bill for vehicle technologies and deployment, formerly the Clean Cities Program. We have moneys in here to advance geothermal technology, to demonstrate cost-share industry that will allow accelerated research into new geothermal technologies.

We have moneys in here for hydropower; for research, development, and demonstration of ocean, tidal, and in-stream hydropower energy systems. We have made an investment in this bill for electricity supply and delivery research, for applied research on semi-conductor material, device and processing issues, technology acceptance and technology evaluation.

We have investment moneys in this bill for solar energy research, and the gentleman from the State of Massachusetts talked about that briefly, to develop cost-neutral designs and technologies to better integrate solar heating and lighting into building designs. We have made an investment in this bill for facilities to research, test, and demonstrate the new renewable technologies.

It would be a mistake to change these funding levels and turn the clock back as far as trying to make progress to solve the energy problems we face in this Nation.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

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

Mr. Chairman, I stress my opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to indicate that I am happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate, I truly do, the gentleman's concerns regarding the breaching of hydropower dams. Certainly, this country and the government should proceed very carefully before any such decision is made.

I would point out, however, Mr. Chairman, that there are no funds in this bill for that purpose. Indeed, I would remind my colleagues that authorization and direct appropriations for this purpose would also be needed. So I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. But I would also point out in a positive fashion that there is $95 million in this bill for the rehabilitation of existing hydroelectric facilities on our waterways.

I certainly do think they make a significant, and can make even a greater, contribution to the energy demands of this country. But again, Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).

Mr. Chairman, I would certainly be happy to cooperate with my colleague and ranking member, Mr. Hobson, in that regard.

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

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would indicate to the gentleman that I am happy to accept his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. I have one remaining speaker, and it is my understanding it is my prerogative to close.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to a member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).

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

I appreciate the gentleman's comments very much.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

I simply have two speakers and would prefer to reserve at this moment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend and colleague from New York, a member of the subcommittee, Mr. Israel.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of debate and discussion about this legislation over the last 2 days. I certainly have tried to emphasize that it represents an investment in this country. Some of that investment is represented by cuts we made, over 50 cuts in programs we did not feel were commensurate with the value of the monies that the taxpayers have sent to the United States Government.

Many of those other dollars have been invested in programs we believe inure to the benefit of people's health and safety, to the movement of commerce and to the growth of our economy.

I am going to be the last speaker on our side on this amendment and would conclude in another vein, and that is the national security of our country. I think most people, when they look at the Department of Energy, believe that you have a Department that spends all of its money on energy and energy research.

As our colleagues know, this simply is not true. Only $1 out of about every $10 inure to that purpose. Most of it deals with cleaning up nuclear waste. Much of it is keeping our nuclear arsenal secure, as well as making sure that it is safe and reliable.

Our national security is at stake when we consider many of the elements in this bill. We are charged in this subcommittee to try to make wise decisions as to what pertains to people and this country's security and what does not.

I would draw attention to a fundamental issue that affects every one of us, and that is the possibility of the nuclear conflict. There is a proposal pending by the administration to build a new nuclear weapon.

We had to make what I think is a very profound decision on behalf of the people of this country as to what course of action should we take. We decided, in a bipartisan fashion on this subcommittee, to not proceed for a number of reasons. One is essentially what the perspective of our allies and those who do not have our interests at heart internationally would be if we proceed.

In testimony before the subcommittee, former chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, Sam Nunn, who is only one of two people I have ever met in my 57 years who has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, the other being my senior Senator in Indiana, Senator Lugar, said that on the RRW itself, the new nuclear weapon, if Congress gives a green light to this in our current world environment, I believe this will be misunderstood by our allies, exploited by our adversaries, complicate our work to prevent the spread and the use of nuclear weapons. I will not fund additional work on RRW at this time.

Another concern we had on the subcommittee is what is our strategy for the use or, hopefully not the use, of those weapons, as well as our strategy as far as eliminating weapons internationally. We have not developed as a Nation and as a government a new strategy subsequent to the end of the Cold War. We have had regional conflicts thereafter in policies like Kosovo. We have had the events of 9/11, and we find ourselves in conflict the most today.

We should have a broad national policy, not the policy of the Bush administration or any administration, but a national policy that stands the test of time through various administrations, as our last one did for half a century, and a strategy that also lasts through Congresses controlled by Republicans, Congresses controlled by Democrats over a generation; and that strategy does not exist.

I am very heartened that the Armed Services Committee, under the leadership, particularly, of Subcommittee Chairman Tauscher, as well as her ranking member, Mr. Everett, on your side of the aisle, has asked for a commission to study that very issue.

I am also very concerned that in the past, beginning in the late 1990s, the taxpayers of this country have been asked to invest billions of dollars in the so-called Stockpile Stewardship Program that I support. It is to ensure this we do not have to perform nuclear tests, but to ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons.

But we were also told, by several administrations of both parties and by the Department of Energy for over a decade, that we need the National Ignition Facility built. Well, it's 6 years behind schedule, and it's 226 percent over budget by a factor of $2.428 billion.

We were told by several administrations and the Department of Energy, both parties, that we need the Microsystems Science Engineering and Applications Lab at Sandia National Laboratory. That is currently 29.5 percent over budget.

We were told by administrations of both parties that we need a dual- axis radiographic hydrotest facility. That is now 6 years behind. That is 35 percent over budget. None of them have been completed. None of them are going to come in on time.

I would grant that the Advanced Simulation and Computational Initiative has taken hold and has produced results and has been a valuable investment.

To now, after more than a decade of investment that has not come to total fruition, to make a hard turn in the road and start spending new money on new construction without a strategy would be a mistake. And this subcommittee has made a determination not to waste the American taxpayers' dollars on that project.

We have asked, and it began 2 years ago under the leadership of then- Chairman Hobson, that we have an arsenal of 10,000 nuclear warheads, we have a Cold War complex. We need to rationalize and, in effect, downsize that to meet the new threats to make sure that we are nimble, that we are safe, and that we save the taxpayers as much money as possible.

The administration has come back in and said, well, let us build a new nuclear weapon by 2012. And you know what? We're going to take care of the rationalization of the complex, and we're going to downsize and we're going to do that in 2030.

My point is, I wish the administration and, in this case particularly, the Department of Energy, had as much aggression and commitment to downsizing the complex as they do on developing a weapon.

And what they also would suggest that we do, before we downsize is, well, let's begin construction of this new nuclear weapon in the existing complex. So now we will have the old and we will have the new. And I think everyone, Mr. Chairman, knows the end of that story. Nothing will ever change.

It's hard to attach an exact dollar and figure on that critical issue of our national security. But many of the dollars we have saved and not spent, and we have cut in this bill, is to make sure that we take the right approach as far as our nuclear strategy and our nuclear safety, and I am very proud of that.

I see the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) on his feet. And if he would want time, I would be happy to yield to him.

And Mr. Chairman, I want people to truly appreciate Mr. Hobson's dedication as a member of not only this subcommittee, and as chairman for 4 years, but as a member of the Defense Subcommittee when there was a similar proposal several years ago and he thought it was the incorrect proposal. He stopped what I think was incorrect public policy from taking place. He saved the taxpayers of this country money.

And the only reason today I believe we have even a 20-30 proposition from the administration as far as downsizing the complex, that I find totally unsatisfactory but at least it is a proposal, is because of the work that Mr. Hobson did. And I thank him for that very much, and do ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, Mr. Peterson.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

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

Mr. Chairman, I have 3\1/2\ minutes left and understand I have the right to close. What I would like to do is to yield that 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York before he seeks recognition, and would simply emphasize to the membership that I am doing this as a courtesy. I am in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. But I would yield my remaining time to the gentleman from New York.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.