Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the ordering of the yeas and nays be vacated with respect to the motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 1352 to the end that the Chair put the question de novo.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 2641 pursuant to House Resolution 481, the Chair may reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule XVIII.

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 on H.R. 2641, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to submit to the House for its consideration H.R. 2641, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008.

I want to first thank all the members of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee for their help in bringing this bill to the floor today. I particularly want to thank my partner and ranking member, Mr. Hobson of Ohio, for his extraordinary friendship and cooperation this year.

I would parenthetically point out that for the last 8 years, Mr. Hobson has come to this floor as chairman of an appropriations subcommittee to manage a bill. I am wiser and richer because of the advice and counsel of Mr. Hobson throughout the development of this bill, and I thank my friend deeply.

This is a truly bipartisan bill that represents a fair and balanced compromise. I believe this is the way our constituents expect Representatives to work together, and I am proud of our bipartisan process. I also want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, and the ranking minority member, Mr. Lewis, for their support.

And I deeply want to thank all of the staff of the subcommittee, Dixon Butler, Scott Burnison, Terry Tyborowski, Taunja Berquam, Lori Maes, Kevin Cook, Rob Blair, and Ben Nicholson, for their very hard work on this bill. I want to also thank both Shari Davenport of my office and Kenny Kraft of Mr. Hobson's office. And I would also acknowledge our agency detailee, Chris Frabotta from the Corps of Engineers, for his assistance in putting this bill and report together. These people form a great team and their work has been invaluable. I would also note for the membership that Chris has served two tours of duty in Iraq as part of the Army Corps of Engineers and Taunja has also served our country in Iraq on one tour also with the Army Corps of Engineers.

Total funding for the Energy and Water Development in fiscal year 2008 is $31.603 billion. This bill cuts lower priority programs. These spending cuts include 37 programs in weapons under the Department of Energy, totaling $632 million below the President's request, and 20 other programs, totaling $280 million below the President's request.

On the other hand, this bill funds the most worthwhile projects and programs at or above the requested level. It reduces some programs that are less valuable or less urgent and redirects funding from previous years that has not been obligated or spent.

All our constituents are in shock at the high price of gas. There is nearly half a billion dollars provided in this bill for research, development, and demonstration efforts in biofuels and vehicle technologies. I would also note that this subcommittee has been working to provide additional funding for this critical area for 3 years, first of all, under the leadership of Mr. Hobson and, more recently, myself. We are today funding above the President's request for biofuels and vehicle technologies over fiscal year 2006. Together we again increase funding in 2007, and this subcommittee this year made additional investments in vehicle technologies and biofuels for fiscal year 2008. Compared to the President's 2006 request, the subcommittee has worked in a bipartisan fashion to address the energy crisis by increasing funding for these areas by over 100 percent.

These efforts will not bring down the price of gas immediately, but they will help put us on a path to decrease dependence on imported oil and greater fuel efficiency. These are critical steps we must take today.

One of the reasons for our current energy price crisis is the past lack of investment in energy. In fiscal year 2006, adjusted for inflation, government funding for energy research, development, and demonstration had fallen to less than one-quarter of its 1980 levels. In the fiscal year 2007 year-long continuing resolution, Congress began to address this by increasing funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy activities at the Department of Energy by $300 million. For example, in fiscal year 2006, adjusted for inflation, government funding for conservation R&D

was 49.2 percent of where it was in 1980. This year it will be 68.7 percent. The bill provides increased funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy that is $400 million above 2007 levels.

Energy consumption can be cut in the near term through increased funding for weatherization assistance. This bill provides $245 million in weatherization grants and is an increase of $100 million from the President's request. In addition, the bill redirects fossil energy funding to emphasize carbon capture and sequestration.

Increased funding is included for nuclear energy as well, balancing support for licensing new light water nuclear reactors, the kind that currently provide 20 percent of our electricity, for demonstrating the safer Gen IV helium-cooled nuclear reactor technology and for research and development, particularly on the nuclear fuel cycle.

Nuclear weapons or weapons material in the hands of terrorists is acknowledged by the President and others to be the number one terrorist threat to the United States. The Department of Energy takes the lead in combating this threat by advancing international efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation with an $878 million, or 74 percent, increase to the President's proposed operating level for legitimate nuclear nonproliferation programs.

Testimony before our committee has made clear that there are significant opportunities for protecting such nuclear material where it exists, enhancing monitoring systems that detect it should it be moved illegitimately, and transferring it to safer locations. This bill also redirects funding provided in 1999 but never spent to initiate a nuclear fuel bank under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. This fuel bank, conceived originally by former Senator Nunn and others, is intended to remove the motivation for countries that wish to rely on nuclear energy to develop their own uranium enrichment capabilities. This is the precise concern that the U.S. and many other nations have today with the country of Iran.

Nuclear nonproliferation activities have included parallel efforts for the United States and Russia to dispose of surplus weapons-origin plutonium. The U.S. has pursued fabrication of mixed oxide fuels, so- called MOX, for use in commercial nuclear reactors followed by disposal in Yucca Mountain as its strategy. It is assumed that Russia will eventually agree to follow a similar path. Russia prefers a different path to dispose of its weapons-origin plutonium by using it to fuel breeder reactors. This approach would result in more plutonium, not less. The administration and the defense authorizers ended a direct linkage between the U.S. and Russian programs last year. Therefore, with no expectation of any Russian plutonium disposition occurring under this program, the U.S. MOX facility is no longer a nuclear nonproliferation activity. And very importantly, and I would emphasize this, the subcommittee transfers the project to the nuclear energy program along with enough funding to allow construction to proceed. This funding for MOX will be accompanied by continuous oversight. This subcommittee will closely monitor the progress of the MOX facility. If mistakes continue to be made, the Department of Energy will find it very difficult to make a successful case for any further support.

Without question, Mr. Chairman, there is a need for a comprehensive nuclear defense strategy and stockpile plan to guide transformation and downsizing of the stockpile nuclear weapons complex; and until progress is made on this crucial issue, there will be no new facilities or Reliable Replacement Warhead. Only when a future nuclear weapons strategy is established can the Department of Energy determine the requirements for the future of nuclear weapons stockpile and nuclear weapons complex.

Further, testimony before this subcommittee has pointed to the potential for the international community to misunderstand development by the United States of a new nuclear weapon. Moreover, for the last decade, the administration has said that stockpile stewardship was a path to maintain the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear stockpile. Now, with three major facilities that we were told were needed for stockpile stewardship all overbudget, all over their deadlines, and all not completed, we are told ``let's do something else.''

Given the serious international and domestic consequences of the U.S. initiating a new nuclear weapons production activity, it is critical that the administration lay out a comprehensive course of action before funding is appropriated. Major transformation of the weapons complex can only be produced with significant bipartisan support, lasting over multiple sections of Congress and multiple administrations. Given the track record of mismanagement at the agency for projects that have a plan, I don't think it is asking too much for a comprehensive nuclear strategy before we build a new nuclear weapon.

People work hard for their money before they pay their Federal taxes. The Department of Energy has squandered vast sums of this money. Project management at the Department of Energy must be reformed. The Department of Energy is the largest civilian contracting agency of the Federal Government and spends over 90 percent of its annual budget on contracts. In 1990 the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, began an annual assessment resulting in a list of programs that are at high risk for waste, abuse, and mismanagement. DOE contract management has been on that list year in and year out for 17-long miserable years. GAO has found that since October 2002, alone, DOE has achieved its performance goal of implementing projects within 10 percent of cost and schedule baselines only about one-third of the time.

One of the management failures is the waste treatment plant at Hanford, Washington, where the construction cost overrun now exceeds $8 billion. This is just one example of inexcusable, ineffective, and wasteful project management at the Department of Energy. DOE's inability to effectively manage critical projects has real consequences for our Nation and calls into question their ability to ensure that we are prepared to meet important challenges.

In the bill, DOE is directed to work with the GAO to develop a concrete plan to get off the GAO high-risk list.

There are also elements in this bill, important ones, dedicated to the environmental cleanup responsibilities of the Department and for the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as the Bureau of Reclamation.

I do believe, Mr. Chairman, this is a very good bill and would recommend it to my colleagues' attention and would request their support.

Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just make a few comments. One is, I do not believe that Mr. Hobson was on the floor when I thanked him for his sage advice.

As he mentioned in his opening remarks, as I did in mine, he has chaired eight times and has brought bills to the floor eight times on appropriation subcommittees. He has been a great friend and a great teacher. I would suggest that the mistakes I make are my own and not a failure of Mr. Hobson or the ably trained staff on the committee.

I would also simply point out in all seriousness that the differences, so to speak, between Mr. Hobson and myself on MOX are marginal and at a matter of degrees. We are agreed as far as the failure of the Department of Energy and their management practices. We are agreed that they are forewarned that they had better not make one mistake in South Carolina on this project. And I would very strongly emphasize that the moneys for MOX are where they should be and where I certainly want them to remain, and that is within the energy programs of the Department of Energy because MOX no longer has anything to do with proliferation, and if left in that account, would have eaten half of that very important program alive from a monetary standpoint.

I would emphasize this is not simply an issue of money, but keeping that money in its appropriate account, and that is in the energy account at the Department of Energy. Again I would thank the gentleman for his words on this project on this House floor.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I thank the gentleman for his concern about this important topic.

I agree with him that advanced battery research and development is essential in our goals to increase energy efficiency and reduce emissions. That is why we have included an additional $10 million over the President's request in this bill for advanced battery R&D.

I thank the gentleman for his passionate support of the domestic automotive industry and appreciate the industry's effect on the national economy because I have a strong manufacturing presence in my district. Technology development is vital to the success of the manufacturing sector, and Congress should continue its support of R&D.

I also thank the gentleman for his acknowledgment of our budget constraints. The subcommittee will be happy to work with him and the rest of our colleagues as we work our way through conference.

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

I will assure the gentlewoman that I do, and I will.

How much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I recognize the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, I would recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for 1\1/2\ minutes.

I assume the majority has the right to close general debate?

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

Mr. Chairman, I only have one more speaker and I would close with that speaker, Mr. Spratt from South Carolina, if there are no further speakers on Mr. Hobson's side.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, to both Mr. Shimkus, as well as my friend Mr. Costello, I can assure the gentlemen from Illinois that it is the intention of the committee not to delay FutureGen.

And I would add parenthetically that the changes made by the committee are to ensure that this project does proceed.

It is the committee's intention not to change or alter the focus of the project as described by the gentleman. The committee is concerned with the ability of the Department of Energy to complete construction projects of all kinds on time and within budget, and that's why the actions were taken.

For both yourself and Mr. Costello, as I tell people, I grew up in Gary, Indiana, with about four integrated steel facilities. I'm a carbon guy. We have a significant issue as far as the use of carbon in this country, and one of the ways to solve it is to proceed with FutureGen. So I do look forward to working with both of you as we proceed.

I can assure the gentlemen from both Washington and New Jersey that the committee is aware of this sustainable energy source and will continue to work with and provide oversight of the Department of Energy to ensure that renewable marine and hydroenergy development, both from the oceans, waves, tides and streams, as well as for energy from hydroelectric dams is a priority of the agency. It is the committees's intention to fund these new technologies for $6 million for research, development, and demonstration for new waterpower technologies.

Part of our approach to the energy crisis is the support of a broad range of energy and conservation technologies so that we have the best chance of meeting the challenge before us. A diverse energy supply for portfolio is key to providing reliable electricity for all of America's homes and businesses.

And I deeply appreciate the gentleman raising this important issue.

I would rise in opposition, Mr. Chairman.

Then I would move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, can I ask a parliamentary inquiry, please.

It would be my understanding that on this particular amendment, because I have moved to strike the last word per the Chair's suggestion, that I can only speak once on the amendment?

As opposed to rising in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Westmoreland.

First of all, he did indicate that he was concerned about reinvestigations. I would simply indicate to my colleagues that the world changes every day, and there are times when we need to reassess the circumstances so that we can spend the taxpayers' dollars as wisely as possible.

The fact is that the Nation's investment in our water resources infrastructure has declined over the last three decades, from $6 billion per year to less than $4 billion in constant dollars.

If the tragedy in New Orleans has taught us anything, I hope it is that we have neglected our infrastructure. If the suffering of the residents in the gulf doesn't illustrate the point, simple fiscal prudence should. The cost of recovery in New Orleans will far exceed what it would have cost to provide additional flood and storm protection.

There are large cities that face high and increasing risk of catastrophic flooding. Sacramento is just one example.

We have high-hazard dams with safety issues. There are countless communities that do not have flood protection commensurate with the risk to those communities.

Much of our infrastructure is reaching its design life. Over 50 percent of the locks and dams owned by the Corps of Engineers are in this category. Aging infrastructure brings increasing costs, yet the funding for accounts at the Army Corps for this particular function have been flat over the last 30 years.

Circumstances have changed from the time much of our infrastructure has been designed, development patterns have changed, transportation networks and requirements have evolved. Yet we are not investing enough today to maintain what we already own or complete projects that are in progress today, much less plan for the future needs for the safety of our citizens and economic viability of our transportation system.

Due to insufficient funding, schedules are slipping and costs are growing, as we piecemeal these projects, if we do not act in a timely fashion.

There is a significant and growing backlog of civil works projects. Current estimates are as high as $60 billion. Funding for studies and investigations must be adequately funded so that we can proceed with these very important projects. And given the backlog in construction projects, the funding for investigations account is less than the current year.

The bill focuses funding on completing ongoing projects and maintaining existing infrastructure. However, it is very important, obviously, to plan for the future.

I would ask that my colleagues oppose the amendment.

I want to thank the distinguished gentleman for bringing this to the attention of the committee. He is correct, it has been a subject of our hearing process as well. For some time now the committee has been concerned that the Corps' regulatory process is not being undertaken in an expeditious manner.

I want to assure the gentleman and all of my colleagues that we on the subcommittee have every intention of helping him bring greater transparency and efficiency to the Army Corps' regulatory process, both in terms of your particular concerns, as well as those nationwide.

I appreciate the gentleman raising the issue. There is a theme in the last two colloquies, and it's a regulatory process. I certainly agree with the gentleman that the Corps' regulatory program needs to do a better job meeting its deadlines, especially with regard to section 404 permits under the newly issued guidance.

The gentleman's concerns are very timely, and they are warranted. I assure him that the subcommittee will work hard to address this issue as the bill moves to conference.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, but I don't disagree with everything he has enunciated in his defense of his position.

The two previous speakers before the gentleman talked about red tape and delay in the regulatory process with Army Corps. I would assume that every member of this subcommittee has had those meetings with the Corps, and we are certainly trying to rectify that problem on the theory that the sooner projects can be completed, the more benefit will enure to the taxpayers of this country and its citizens.

The gentleman's also right to enumerate the large backlog that we have on construction and other Corps facilities in this country, and that is one of the things that we are trying to address in this bill.

I would point out that the approach that we have taken, not just for the fiscal year 2008 bill, but in the last several years under the leadership of then-Chairman Hobson, was to make sure that we face the challenges of the future in a very disciplined and rigorous approach that encompasses a broader context.

The bill continues the financial management contractor reforms to ensure that the Corps manages its budget to the best interest of the taxpayers. The recommendations include direction that the Corps continues to take action in considering additional factors as they proceed in the planning process.

And again, it has been the custom of this subcommittee in designing and structuring bills for the last several years to look at projects and marshal our resources so that some are completed, as opposed to bumbling on forever. And I wouldn't argue with the gentleman about that concern.

We have, again, done that in this bill to make sure that those additional construction dollars that the gentleman seeks to remove from the bill are put to good and rigorous use. And I would point out that this is not an abstraction. This goes to the core of people's health and safety.

Two floods ago, on the little Calumet River in Northwest Indiana, we had a gentleman in Highland, Indiana, lose his life. He was only one life in one flood. But for that man, and for his family, and for that community, it was a tragedy. We are constructing a flood control project that insures that that never happens again.

That's why we have flood control programs in the city of Dallas and its vicinities, to make sure that when you have significant events, as we have had this week in the State of Texas, that you do not have loss of life and, hopefully, you can diminish the loss of property.

We have huge commercial centers, ports like Long Beach, ports like the city of New York, ports like Baltimore, up and down our coast. We want to make sure that the commerce of this country moves as efficiently as possible, so that our economy grows and we can provide good paying jobs for all of our residents.

We have a State capitol in the most populous State in this country, Sacramento, California, one dike a way from a catastrophic event as far as the loss of human life and the destruction of properties.

Those are the types of projects, and those are the types of priorities that we are attempting to get at in this bill. And that's why these moneys are set aside, and would be opposed to their removal from this bill.

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

I again would reference some of his words where he indicated that $18 million is no small sum of money. It is a very significant sum of money, and I

would agree with him. It is a significant sum of money, and it is very important to the programs that comprise the Mississippi River and Tributaries Program. And my concern is, if you would, carving out a particular geographic region for this particular cut and would emphasize that while it is but one geographic region and water system within our country, there are consequences of the amendments because channel improvement programs in Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee would be affected. There are levees for the Mississippi River in States like Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. There is a flood waste system in the State of Louisiana, and there are operation and maintenance costs.

These are all significant and important programs dealing, again, with the priority of people's health and safety, the movement of commerce, and the protection of property.

I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to thank Mr. Green for bringing to the committees's attention and my attention the need for adequate funding of these invaluable technologies.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman for bringing the work of this lab to the attention of the House and to the committee. I certainly will want to work with the gentleman on his concerns.

I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania who serves as my partner on the Congressional Steel Caucus, we have other things in common, including my district abutting the Great Lakes, in my case Lake Michigan, for rising on this issue on the floor today. It is an important one.

The gentleman has my commitment that, especially knowing the challenges facing the Great Lakes region firsthand, that the subcommittee will make every effort to provide adequate resources to the Army Corps of Engineers for construction projects and also help the gentleman provide sufficient resources to the beach nourishment at Presque Isle.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and would note that the gentleman from Wisconsin in his earlier remarks used the term ``slush fund.'' I would note that a slush fund connotes a fund raised by a group for corrupt practices as bribery or graft. I'm certain that the gentleman didn't mean to imply that.

Slush fund can also mean money once raised by the sale of garbage from a warship to buy small items of luxury for the crew. I'm sure the gentleman didn't mean that, either.

A slush fund can also mean a fund used by a group of office workers for entertainment, but I don't think the gentleman meant that.

A slush fund could also be a fund raised for undesignated purposes. I would not be so presumptuous as to speak for the gentleman from Wisconsin, but I assume that was the import of his remarks, and in this case that would also be an incorrect assertion.

The subcommittee worked very hard for the first 6 months of this year to assess what the investment needs are for the United States of America, its citizens and its economic future. As I have mentioned earlier, and we had graphics to support the assertion, we have an aging infrastructure in the United States of America. Anyone who is on the roads, anyone who travels by air, anyone who travels by rail, anyone who travels on water understands that. And today we are particularly concerned about the aging water infrastructure.

I for one, and I believe all of the members of the subcommittee, am very concerned that much of the infrastructure in place as far as operation and maintenance is past its designed life. That pertains to almost half of the locks and dams in this country. We have not dredged many of our harbors, whether they be for recreation, which is an economic purpose as well, or for commerce to their authorized depths, let alone to the depths needed to ensure that they can operate effectively and cost efficiently, and this work must be done.

What we have created here is an investment fund for operation and maintenance, and I for one am proud that we have increased in that account more moneys to invest in the economic prosperity of our country, whether it pertain to navigation channels, locks and dams, or other water infrastructure.

I would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

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

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment because I believe the actions we have taken in the subcommittee will save the American taxpayers' money.

I would first note that all A-76 studies performed by the Corps of Engineers have been won by Corps employees. So the first question is: Why do it?

The Corps is working under also an arbitrary numerical quota to review certain numbers of jobs in certain time periods without research and analysis. It would suggest that this is an arbitrary requirement put into place by the Office of Management and Budget, and there is a doubt, at least in this Member's mind, that it has been subjected to analysis at OMB.

I also believe that historically there has been opposition in this body to privatization. That has been bipartisan. I would point out that from a monetary standpoint, that the cost of these studies often exceeds the benefits; and of those functions that are easily contracted out, the remainder are difficult to separate into contractible and governmental function groups.

The fact is that the committee recommendation allows the Corps to continue with high-performing organization studies which follow the same study process, with similar results,

without incurring the additional time and costs associated with contracting competitions.

So what we would want to do is to use those high-performing organization studies, apply less cost to the taxpayers and to move this process along. I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

Would the gentleman yield? I have an inquiry of the Chair.

Is it correct to reference people watching House proceedings on television, or are we not supposed to do that?

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

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, the water and related resources account funds Reclamation's core missions of delivering water to citizens of this country, to those who till the soil in our country, and for generating hydropower.

Given the growing need for water supplies in the 17 Western States of this country, I certainly believe it is critical that the Nation invest now in water reclamation and reuse projects for the future.

This account also provides very important funds for rural water supply projects for tribal and rural communities, contributing to meeting the United States' trust responsibilities to Indian reservations through the delivery of safe drinking water.

I share the gentleman's concern about health programs in the United States, and I can't think of anything more important than ensuring that people in 17 different States of this country have clean water to drink. And how shortsighted it would be to cut programs that provide clean drinking water for human health, so that we can spend untold sums of money on their health care after they get sick. If you want to talk about something that is penny-wise and pound-foolish, we have found it this afternoon.

This is a health amendment. If we take these moneys away, we will do a disservice to the health of the people who live in these regions. As with the Corps of Engineers, Reclamation's infrastructure is aging, and it has increasing requirements for proper and adequate maintenance of its infrastructure.

But 17 States cover a large area and swath of the continent. But I'm just wondering which citizens in which communities are we going to tell we just can't help you this year because we might have accepted the gentleman's amendment. Are we going to tell people in Wichita, Kansas, the Wichita Cheney program that maybe they're not going to get all of their money?

Are we going to tell people at Lakehead, Nevada that well, we had to make a cut of $55 million, and you're just not going to have the resources you need?

Or people in Oregon for the Crooked River project, are we going to tell them well, there's just not enough money now?

Are we going to, in the State of Colorado, tell people in Pine River that we had to make a cut?

In Texas, are we going to tell people for the Canadian River project that there just wasn't enough money to go around, or at Moon Lake in the State of Utah that we're sorry, Congress dropped the ball? Or for the Colombia River Basin project, that somehow there was a shortfall in us meeting our responsibilities?

The gentleman's correct. This is a health amendment. This is clean drinking water for people who live in 17 States in the United States of America provided through infrastructure that is aging. We have a responsibility to invest in that, and that is why I'm strongly opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman from New York yielding, and would simply reference the last speaker's assertion about pet projects and referencing those to the projects that I enumerated in my remarks.

The fact is, I was enumerating projects on page 42 of the committee report, and 43 on the committee report, and page 44 on the committee report, and page 45 on the committee report that were submitted by the President of the United States.

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

I would like to actually talk about the bill, and I would like to talk about the underlying merits of what Mr. Hobson and I and the members of the subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee have tried to do.

In this particular title, we are talking about the Bureau of Reclamation, and we are talking about people's health and well-being. Part of that does include the wise stewardship of the moneys that are provided. From the debate that has taken place today, you would think that the only thing we are worried about is spending money and worried about the quantity of the money that we are spending as opposed to the quality of the underlying act and the work that the agencies do. And I would draw, Mr. Chairman, my colleague's attention to page 48 of the report that goes into great detail, and I am going to read it.

The gentleman has an amendment before us to cut $1.236 million from the bill. And the fact is, over the last several years our subcommittee, under the leadership of then-Chairman Hobson, as well as myself, have done everything possible to make sure that the moneys being spent by the Bureau of Reclamation are being spent wisely.

And I read from the report. ``In fiscal year 2006, the Committee directed the Department of Interior to submit, with its fiscal year 2007 budget request, a detailed 5-year budget plan for each of the major budget components, including water and related resources, California Bay Delta Restoration program,

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, and Central Utah Project Completion.''

Because the concern of the subcommittee then, and as it is as of this moment, is that the public's moneys are being spent with quality as well.

``The Department subsequently informed the Committee that it would be unable to provide a 5-year plan for fiscal year 2007 and intended to make the initial submission with the fiscal year 2008 request. The Bureau failed to make that submission either, and now informs the Committee that the 5-year plan will be submitted at some undefined time in the future.''

The patience of the subcommittee, the patience of the Appropriations Committee is not without limit. And as a result, in the report language we note the Committee's extreme frustration with the Bureau's inability to provide a 5-year budget plan, the act contains a provision that transfers $10 million, not $1.236 million, but $10 million from policy and administration to water and related resources if the 5-year plan is not submitted within 60 days of date of enactment. We are certainly not afraid to move moneys around, and in this case, to the tune of $10 million, if the good judgment of this committee is not abided by.

So I would emphasize that this is not just a matter of quantity of money, it is quality of money. And that is what we are about. That is why I am adamantly opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

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

I appreciate what the gentleman wants to do. We certainly share a concern about global warming. We also share a desire to ensure that we have a viable nuclear industry in the near term as well as the long term. Where there would be a difference of opinion is the balance that needs to be struck in this legislation to accomplish both of those goals.

I would point out that the legislation that has been reported to the House has done everything possible to ensure that the nuclear industry can move forward. For example, we have fully funded the President's request for $494 million for Yucca Mountain to make sure that they can meet their deadline for the submission of a license for the waste repository in June of 2008. The industry clearly needs the repository.

The House bill includes $167.8 million for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, something that I think the gentleman would agree is critically necessary as far as the licensing procedures in the shorter term. This is a $17.1 million increase over the administration's request, more than 10 percent more. And I would point out that in the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2007, this was one of the few accounts that this subcommittee specifically also increased. We also include $15 million within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for nuclear engineering scholarships that were proposed for termination by the administration, because if we do not have new, bright talent in those educational facilities under scholarship, we are not going to have a future.

And we did include moneys for Nuclear Power 2010. It is the same level as the current fiscal year. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that this is a direct payment to utilities undergoing the NRC license process and no other sector of the energy portion of this country receives this type of Federal assistance.

The gentleman would take the money from Generation IV nuclear energy systems by having the moneys reduced. I would point out that the subcommittee went to great lengths to increase moneys for Generation IV. We are supportive of the light water reactors that are going to be coming online in the near term. We want to make sure we have that next generation of reactors online as well for the future, one that can not only provide electrical industry to our Nation that is needed but also potentially produce the hydrogen for the new economy we are looking for. We have provided those moneys and would not want to see them cut.

Additionally, we had a debate and conversation earlier today about the mixed oxide program that previously had been designated a nonproliferation item. We have correctly moved it into the Energy Department as far as their accounts and would point out that $689 million between unobligated balances, between the spending for '07 and between what is included in this bill, is included for MOX.

So we have been more than generous, and I also think we have struck the right balance to ensure that we do have an industry starting up in the near term and one that has a long-term, safe future for the generation of energy in this country.

I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to the question raised. First of all I would point out that the funds that are provided are at this year's fiscal level. It is not a cut. It is a cut from the President's request.

The other observation I would make is I believe that the Department should be in the business of science research and development and not exclusively be paying for companies to license new reactors, so that would certainly do justification.

And if the gentleman from Ohio would yield, I would be happy to respond.

I would point out that there was a $70 million increase, and I would not want to engage in quibbling as to whether it is a second, third or fourth generation, but do believe there is a strong public purpose for demonstrating the commercial viability of the thermal-neutron gas reactor for the very purposes that the gentleman is concerned about and that I share his concern, that is, climate change and global warming and energy sources, where we can generate the electricity in this country as well as potentially produce hydrogen. We ought to start down that road sooner rather than later, and again in a balanced fashion along with 2010.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlelady's concern about research for nuclear energy in the future. I also appreciate the courtesy as far as her willingness to withdraw the amendment.

The concern that the committee had is that the administration came in originally with a $405 million request. During hearings, the administration also suggested that all $405 million was for just research. The concern we have, and I mentioned it in my opening remarks during general debate, is contract management at the Department of Energy. And certainly it's not the fault of the gentlelady's, and I know she shares our concern, but there is a very bad track record at the Department of Energy; and the fact is they have been on a high-risk watch list for the General Accountability Office since the year 1990.

I would point out that the committee learned that the Department of Energy's use of technology readiness levels in the global nuclear energy partnership technology development plan does not apply readiness in the manner consistent with the recommendations in the General Accountability Office report of March of this year.

So, looking ahead as far as potentially incurring huge long-term costs on behalf of the taxpayers, we have suggested that the administration take a step back, continue to do very necessary and very vital research, but let us take all deliberate speed as opposed to a rush to judgment and oppose her amendment, and I appreciate her consideration in withdrawing it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and would observe for the House that, again, I am not in total disagreement with some of the assertions and points that he has made.

The fact is, there is no silver bullet as far as solving the energy problems we face today and in the future. He is absolutely correct. That is why the subcommittee has significantly increased funding for biofuels. That's why the subcommittee significantly increased funding for vehicle technology. That's why the subcommittee increased funding for other types of renewables. The gentleman references solar and wind, for example. That's why there's an increase in the hydrogen account. That's why there's an increase as far as maximization of power produced with hydroelectric facilities.

And so what we're trying to do is to strike a balance, and again getting back to my earlier comments about quantity and quality, we are concerned and spoke about it in the bill language, as well as the report language, about the fossil fuel program. I certainly, for one, absolutely believe that we need to do more on the issue of capturing CO2, and we have done that in this bill. We need to do more as far as in sequestration of that particular gas, but we have to do it intelligently.

The fact is, a FutureGen program that has been initiated under the Department of Energy, from my perspective, took a very bad turn in the road as people continue to look at adding bells and whistles, and we had a colloquy on that particular issue earlier in the day as well.

I would point out that FutureGen, according to the committee report, needs to be refocused as an integrated gasification combined cycle plant with carbon capture and sequestration and drop the ambiguity of other, less critical research components. The committee believes that by streamlining the design to demonstrate these factors, critical goals can be reached in a more timely and fiscally prudent fashion.

So what we're trying to do in the bill is to have a broad range of new energy sources accelerated through increased funding. We have done that with fossil but have not done so blindly. We want to make sure that that money is spent wisely, given the fact that nearly 50 percent of this country's electricity is generated today by coal-powered plants. I absolutely believe that we should pursue this research and would reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

Madam 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 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. Forbes regarding a study of certain river basins;

An amendment by Mr. Wynn regarding hydrogen research;

An amendment by Mr. Hensarling regarding funding for DOE Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability;

An amendment by Mr. Shadegg regarding funding for hydropower incentives;

An amendment by Mr. Porter regarding Yucca Mountain;

An amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia regarding funding for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative;

An amendment by Mr. Burgess regarding funding for fossil energy;

An amendment by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico regarding funding for medical imaging;

An amendment by Mr. Upton or Mr. Towns regarding funding for nuclear energy loan guarantees;

An amendment by Mr. Hensarling regarding funding for DOE Departmental Administration;

An amendment by Mr. Matheson regarding funding for contract oversight;

An amendment by Mrs. Tauscher regarding weapons dismantlement activities;

An amendment by Mr. Udall of New Mexico regarding funding for weapons activities;

An amendment by Mrs. Schmidt regarding a prohibition on Global Nuclear Energy Partnership funds for certain nuclear waste storage;

An amendment by Mr. Space regarding funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission;

An amendment by Mr. Neugebauer regarding funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission;

An amendment by Mr. Hensarling regarding funding for the Denali Commission;

An amendment by Ms. Berkley limiting use of funds for the Yucca Mountain Youth Website educational campaign;

An amendment by Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Courtney, or Ms. DeLauro limiting use of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission funds to review a particular application;

An amendment by Mr. Conaway regarding use of reductions made through amendments for deficit reduction;

An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding actions to mitigate global warming;

An amendment by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut limiting use of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission funds for certain permit actions;

An amendment by Mrs. Musgrave regarding an across-the-board reduction in funding;

An amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia regarding an across-the-board reduction in funding, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Upton or Ms. Harman regarding use of Energy Star certified light bulbs;

An amendment by Mr. Shadegg limiting use of funds to breach or remove hydropower dams;

An amendment by Mr. Hinchey or Mr. Wolf limiting use of funds for designation of transmission corridors, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Gohmert limiting use of funds for a certain settlement regarding the National Resources Defense Council;

An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California reducing funds in the bill, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California reducing funds in the bill, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Obey regarding earmarks;

An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey limiting the use of funds for international conferences;

An amendment by Mr. Hobson limiting use of funds for the Mental Illness and Neuroscience Discovery Institute in New Mexico; 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 the 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.

My understanding is there would be an additional UC, a unanimous consent request, or a new rule for the supplemental report that would come up.

My understanding is that we would agree to a UC.

That's fine. Yes, sir.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would eliminate all nondefense funding for Yucca Mountain. High-level radioactive waste exists in over 38 States. I believe it is irresponsible to leave it where it is forever, and it is essential to have a repository where it can be safely left for up to a million years while the radioactivity decays away.

This waste comes from maintaining our nuclear weapons stockpile and from spent fuel from civilian nuclear reactors that generate 20 percent of all electricity in the United States.

Yucca was chosen by Congress in 1982 as a permanent geological repository for high-level waste and billions have been spent to characterize the site and prepare for licensing and construction.

Failure to open Yucca Mountain and take custody of commercial spent nuclear fuel will cost the taxpayers over $7 billion by 2017 when the repository could open. Cutting funding and delaying the filing of a license application by only a year will simply exacerbate the problem and increase this cost by more than a half billion dollars.

Failure to proceed with a reasonable approach to disposing of spent nuclear fuel will cause the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to stop licensing new nuclear reactors and extending the licenses of existing plants. Every new and extended license must satisfy the waste confidence clause. So this amendment will constrain our ability to grow our economy without emitting any more greenhouse gasses. In the coming years, it will choke off nearly 20 percent of U.S. electricity generated by nuclear power plants.

And, again, we have tried to strike a very reasoned balance in this bill as far as funding for the repository and other programs to initiate a sound nuclear industry in the short term, and I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member, Mr. Hobson, in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.

And I want to acknowledge that we in Congress authorized the loan guarantee program for advanced technology that addresses clean air and climate concerns. The Federal Credit Reform Act explicitly states that loan obligations can only be made to the extent there is an affirmative action on the part of the Appropriations Committee.

The Federal Credit Reform Act provides that new direct loan obligations may be incurred and new loan guarantee commitments may be made for fiscal year 1992 and thereafter only to the extent that, one, new budget authority is provided in an appropriations act; and, two, a limitation on the use of funds for the cost of a loan guarantee has been ``provided in an appropriations act''; or, three, ``authority is otherwise provided in appropriations acts.''

However, it is the implementation of this program that has raised the concerns of the committee. Our fiscal year 2008 bill does not provide loan guarantees for the nuclear industry. The request for guaranteed loans from the Nuclear Energy Association, subsidized by the Federal Government, is very large. It overwhelms what the bill provides for the entire energy community. The administration had asked for a total of $4 billion for the nuclear energy industry and the coal industry. This does not come close to what the Nuclear Energy Association has indicated they need. The Nuclear Energy Association indicates a need for $25 billion in Federal guaranteed loans for fiscal year 2008 and more than that in fiscal year 2009. The ``system,'' meaning the DOE loan guarantee infrastructure, cannot accommodate a request of this size at this time.

I would also point out that the fiscal year 2006 joint continuing resolution included $4 billion in Incentives For Innovative Technology loan guarantees for the Department of Energy to execute, without defining which technologies to target. The Congress did not limit the use of this initial $4 billion for nuclear projects. The administration chose not to make these loans available to the nuclear community.

I believe in the ``go slow approach.'' We should take all deliberate speed for the new DOE programs. I recommend this approach to the Congress on this one based on my continuing concerns about how DOE has managed it to date. I am, however, open to new information about the industry's plan for innovative technology deployment and discussion about how DOE can implement the program. I pledge to work with the gentleman to see if we can come to an agreeable solution.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) be allowed to offer her amendment at this time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition, and simply rise to accept the gentlelady's amendment.

This has been a collaborative effort. And I would want to also congratulate the gentlewoman from California and all of her subcommittee members for their very good and strong leadership in rationalizing the nuclear weapons complex and bolstering the nuclear nonproliferation programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration.

The fact is, the gentlelady in particular has exercised great leadership in the issues of nonproliferation, making sure we have an appropriate and rationalized weapons complex, and that again, we are very deliberative as far as what the long-term nuclear policy of this country is. And again, I also appreciate her very early interjection into the work of this subcommittee, and her cooperation as well as her staff's cooperation. And again, it is my pleasure, on behalf of the subcommittee, to accept her amendment.

Madam Speaker, it is with great sincerity that I take this time to recognize the 50th wedding anniversary of two of Northwest Indiana's finest public servants, Mr. and Mrs. Bill and Sue Landske of Cedar Lake, Indiana. For years, Bill and Sue have been fully committed to the citizens they serve, with Bill serving on the Cedar Lake Town Council and Sue serving as a State Senator for over 23 years. At this time, I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their lifelong service and also congratulate them on their 50 years of devotion to each other.

Sue's service to her community extends far beyond her elected position. A veteran of the National Guard Reserve, Sue was elected to the Indiana State Senate in 1984. Senator Landske has remained fully committed to her constituents, and she has even remained an active member of several community organizations. For her efforts, Sue has received many accolades, including the prestigious Sagamore of the Wabash in 1980 and 1983. She has also been named Outstanding Republican Senator, Business and Professional Woman of the Year, Lake County Republican of the Year, and Jaycees' Citizen of the Year.

Not to be outdone, Bill Landske has been a constant fixture in his community for many years. In recent years, Bill has extended his service to the people of Cedar Lake as an elected official, where he has taken on the role of Cedar Lake Town Council member. His resolve to improve the quality of life for his constituents has been apparent since he took office, and he has served his constituents with complete dedication and professionalism.

Bill and Sue have shared many wonderful years together. They have epitomized true devotion and unwavering commitment. However, while they have remained fully dedicated to the people they serve, Bill and Sue's greatest source of pride is their family, which includes four daughters, Cathy (Don) Jones, Jackie (Jeffrey) Basilotta, Pam (Charles) Snyder, and Cheryl (Pete) Boisson, and one son, Eric. Bill and Sue have also been blessed with eight grandchildren: Matthew Jones; Leslie Stoops; Jeff Basilotta; Caitlin, Jenny, and Kim Snyder; and Patrick and Daniel Boisson. Bill and Sue's commitment to improving the future for their community and all of Northwest Indiana is surely an extension of their commitment to their grandchildren, whom they truly adore.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in congratulating Councilman Bill Landske and State Senator Sue Landske as they celebrate a remarkable milestone, their 50th wedding anniversary. While their years of service to the citizens of Northwest Indiana are to be commended, it is their unselfish and lifelong devotion to each other that is worthy of our deepest admiration.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride and enthusiasm that I take this time to recognize Valparaiso High School and Thomas Jefferson Middle School for their involvement in the 23rd Annual Science Olympiad National Tournament. Both schools took 11th place in their divisions at the National Science Olympiad competition held in Wichita, KS. Valparaiso High School won medals in four events by finishing among the top six for that event while finishing in the top 10 in 10 of the tournament's 23 events.

The Science Olympiad began when Dr. Gerard J. Putz, Regional Science Consultant for Macomb County Intermediate School District in Michigan, decided to share the Science Olympiad program with Macomb County educators on March 29, 1982. The invitation was prompted by an article published in The Science Teacher in December 1977. After a few successful tournaments, Dr. Putz was convinced to share the program with the rest of the Nation, so the Science Olympiad program was presented to the Council of State Science Supervisors at the National Science Teachers Conference in Boston in 1984.

The mission of the Science Olympiad is ``to promote and improve student interest in science while improving the quality of K-12 science education throughout the nation.'' The purpose is to bring science to life and show how it works, to emphasize problem solving aspects, and to understand all of its concepts. The Science Olympiad teaches teamwork and cooperative learning strategies and promotes high levels of achievement and a commitment to excellence.

The 2007 Science Olympiad team from Valparaiso High School consists of: Lani Rush, Laurel Peterson, Sonia Phadke, Kristin Engerer, Katie Mika, Kate Sanders, Ruth Sanders, Rocio Rodea, Melissa Barrie Lehman, Ajay Major, Pat Skelton, Jon Gold, Mak Hozo, Schuyler DeArmond, Jeff Rinkenberger, Joe Kaminski, Ethan Kruse, Evan Gootee, and Gianni Galbiati. This team was under the outstanding guidance of coaches: Jim Young, Kristen Philipchuck and Kelly Woods. Several of these students received medals for their outstanding achievement. In Ecology, Jon Gold and Laurel Peterson received fourth place medals. Evan Gootee and Ruth Sanders received fourth place in Robot Ramble. The fifth place medal awarded for Entomology was given to Jon Gold and Lani Rush. Also taking fifth place medals in the subject of Write It, Do It were Ethan Kruse and Kate Sanders.

The Thomas Jefferson Middle School Science Olympiad team of 2007 consists of: Kati Manning, Jon Sherrick, Joe Galbiati, Julia Young, Matt Kerner, Kathryn Dalzotto, Josh Bartusch, Chris Haller, Karl Rinkenberger, Katalin Hartman, Alex Robinson-Norris, Maddie Woods, Katelyn Neis, Christian Briggs, and Jesse Bunchek, as well as student alternates: Brian Kingsbury, Adam Alamillo, Roshni Dhoot, Bennet Sanders, Cam Haskett, Nick Hartmann, and Daniel Karr. Guiding these exceptional students were coaches: Richard Bender, Carol Haller, Bill Dalzotto, Gwenn Rinkenberger, Mary Faith Dalzotto, Becky Juergens, Paul Huang, Lynda Galbiati, Diane Bernhardt, Molly JolI, Linda Cronk, and Mike Haller.

Several members of the Thomas Jefferson Middle School team were awarded medals for superior achievement. Kathryn Dalzotto and Katelyn Neis won third place in Anatomy. Kati Manning and Kathryn Dalzotto also took a third place medal for Wheeled Vehicle. A fourth place medal was awarded to Chris Haller and Karl Rinkenberger for their Balloon Launch Glider. For Mission Possible, Chris Haller, Kati Manning, and Katalin Hartman all took fifth place medals. Roads Scholar brought Jon Sherrick and Christian Briggs sixth place medals.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I congratulate Valparaiso High School and Thomas Jefferson Middle School on their great achievement at the 23rd Annual Science Olympiad Tournament. I wish them continued success. These intelligent young students possess the work ethic and dedication that will make them successful leaders throughout their bright futures. I hope the rest of my colleagues will join with me in applauding the Science Olympiad teams for their commendable efforts.

Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor to commend nine exceptional individuals from Northwest Indiana who have been recognized as outstanding volunteers by the Valparaiso, Indiana Noon Kiwanis Club. These individuals are: Judy Back, Elizabeth ``Bette'' Brown, Bob Buhle, Chelsey Dunleavy, Michele Hale, Sandy Jenkins, Beverly Overmyer, Pat Puffer, and Rob Thorgren. These honorees will be recognized at the Sixth Annual Valparaiso Kiwanis Club Foundation Volunteer Recognition Program, which will be held on Wednesday, May 30, 2007, at the Strongbow Inn in Valparaiso. This annual event recognizes the efforts of outstanding community volunteers and celebrates the spirit of volunteerism in Valparaiso.

Judy Back, of the Salvation Army, has been a constant role model and a true inspiration to her community through her many volunteer efforts. Having served on and chaired many boards throughout the years, Judy has been extremely active in her efforts with the Porter County Angel Tree Program, a program that provides children with gifts and families with food for the holidays. Judy has also been active in many other facets of the Salvation Army, as well as the Purdue North Central Women's Association, of which she was the founding president.

Bette Brown, a retired teacher with the Valparaiso Community Schools, has enriched the lives of countless students over the years. Since her retirement, she has continued to volunteer at Valparaiso High School, serving as front desk person. In this capacity, Bette is in charge of greeting visitors and guiding them on their visits. In addition, she plays an important role in the safety of the students by making sure that all visitors are authorized and accounted for. Furthermore, Bette has been active in the Valparaiso Organization for Learning and Teaching Seniors (VOLTS) program, as well as the Lyric Opera Lecture Corps, a program aimed at introducing children to classical music.

Bob Buhle has served in many capacities for the Hilltop Neighborhood House for several years, including Board President and Vice President. In addition, he has been instrumental in the construction of the Hilltop Community Health Center, as well as a dedicated member of the organization's Board Development Committee and Finance and Audit Committee. Not only has Bob dedicated himself to Hilltop, he has also donated much of his time and efforts to Habitat for Humanity.

Chelsey Dunleavy, a peer tutor in the Life Skills Program at Valparaiso High School, has served as President of the HOPE Club for the past two years. As a volunteer in the Life Skills Program, Chelsey devotes her spare time to helping students with special needs. As President of the HOPE Club, she plans and supervises activities and events and does so in a manner that allows everyone to participate. Chelsey is also very active in her church, where she teaches Sunday school, as well as in various other programs at Valparaiso High School. In performing any tasks, Chelsea is known for her ability to excel far beyond any expectations, and more impressively, to do so without expecting anything in return.

An avid runner, Michele Hale, has been a volunteer with Opportunity Enterprises for the past seven years. Pairing her love for long- distance running with her commitment to serve her community, Michele leads the Opportunity Enterprises' Lake County Marathon Training Team and also serves as the organizer for an annual charity bike run. Michele also serves as President of the Calumet Region Striders and contributes much of her efforts to the Cancer Foundation, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, and Saint Jude's Children's Hospital.

Sandy Jenkins, a volunteer for the Porter Auxiliary, has contributed countless hours to the organization and the people it serves. While her primary duty is to provide information for visitors at the front desk, Sandy has always welcomed additional responsibilities with the Auxiliary and has served in a secretarial capacity and in public relations as well. For her efforts and her unwavering dedication to the Porter Auxiliary, Sandy has even been featured in the Stay Healthy magazine.

A volunteer with the Independent Cat Society, Beverly Overmyer has fully dedicated herself to the organization. Among other roles, Beverly has served on the Board of Directors, as Corresponding Secretary, writer for the Mewsletter, room parent, co-chair of the public relations committee, and in many fundraising capacities. Though extremely committed to the Independent Cat Society, Beverly also finds time to volunteer for the Taltree Arboretum, where she serves as an instructor and prepares materials for field trips, and is very active in the Kankakee Valley Historical Society.

Pat Puffer is being honored for her many efforts in the community, most notably, her work with the Porter-Starke Services Foundation.

Pat has served the foundation in various capacities, such as board member and sponsorship and silent auction committee member for the Art of Healing Gala. Passionate about her service to the community, Pat has been involved not only with Porter-Starke, but with numerous other organizations and fundraising efforts, including: the Valparaiso Ethics Committee, Parkinson Style Show, American Heart Association, Valparaiso YMCA, Children's Museum of Valparaiso, United Way of Porter County, Crisis Center, Boys and Girls Club, American Cancer Society, and Special Kids Special Needs, to name a few.

Rob Thorgren has been a volunteer with the Valparaiso YMCA for the past five years. A leader within the organization and his community, Rob has served in many capacities with the YMCA. He has served on the Board of Directors, as a Strong Kids Campaigner, and as a special events volunteer. Additionally, he has served as a member of the Capital Campaign Development Committee and the Building Committee for the new Valparaiso Family YMCA.

Madam Speaker, I ask you and my distinguished colleagues to join me in commending these outstanding individuals on their recognition as honored volunteers by the Valparaiso Kiwanis Club Foundation. Their years of service and dedication have played a major role in shaping the future of Northwest Indiana, and each of the honorees is truly an inspiration to us all.

Madam Speaker, it is with great sincerity and admiration that I offer congratulations to several of Northwest Indiana's most talented, dedicated, and hardworking individuals. On Friday, June 1, 2007, the Lake County Electricians Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (JATC) will honor the class of 2007 at their annual Apprentice Completion Banquet, which will be held at the Avalon Manor Banquet Hall in Merrillville, Indiana.

This year, the Lake County Electricians JATC will be recognizing and honoring the following graduates, who have completed the apprentice training: Angel Alvarez, Gregory Breitzke, Ryan Cleveringa, Justin Copak, Christopher Curatolo, Matthew Deering, Sr., Steven Dodd, Brandon Fritzsche, Ryan Gregory, Brion Grooms, Dustin Hall, Daniel Kanelopoulos II, Michael Keilman, Antonio Kendrick, Christopher Levenson, Christopher Nighbert, Carlos Reices, Raymond Rodriguez, Jose Sanchez, Micah Schantz, Matthew Summers, Billy Thomas, Dave Waffler, Ryan Williams, and Robert Willis, Jr.

Northwest Indiana has a rich history of excellence in its craftsmanship and loyalty by its tradesmen. These outstanding graduates all exemplify these traits. They have mastered their trade and have demonstrated their loyalty to both the union and the community through their commitment, hard work, and selfless sacrifice.

Madam Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in congratulating these committed, hardworking individuals. Along with the other extraordinary men and women of Northwest Indiana's unions, these individuals have contributed in many ways to the growth and development of the economy in Indiana's First Congressional District, and I am very proud to represent them in Washington, DC.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride and sincerity that I wish to honor Reverend Dr. J.C. Wade, Jr. on the 50th anniversary of his ministry, as well as his 42 years of service at Zion Missionary Baptist Church in East Chicago, Indiana. Zion Missionary Baptist Church will be honoring Reverend Wade on Friday, May 25, 2007, at the Pastor's Anniversary Banquet, which will take place at the Genesis Convention Center in Gary, Indiana. There will also be an anniversary service at Zion Missionary Baptist Church on Sunday, May 27, 2007.

Reverend Wade was born in Memphis, Tennessee and raised in Omaha, Nebraska. As a young child, Reverend Wade accepted Jesus Christ as his Savior. He was licensed in 1957 and ordained in 1961 at the Salem Missionary Baptist Church in Omaha, Nebraska. In 1961, he pastored at Samaria Baptist Church in Van Alstyne, Texas; then from 1964 to March 1965, he served the congregation at Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church in Van Buren, Arkansas. In 1965, Reverend Wade relocated to the Zion Missionary Baptist Church in East Chicago, where he has been serving as Pastor and leader for 42 years.

Reverend Wade has held many prominent positions within the community. He is the former President of the General Missionary Baptist State Convention of Indiana and the State Vice President of the National Baptist Convention, for which he also serves on the Board of Directors. In addition, Reverend Wade serves as a Devotional Leader for the National Sunday School and is involved with the B.T.U. Congress-- Pastors Division. He is a current member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and Operation Push, and he is active with the Northwest Indiana Food Bank and the Twin City Ministerial Alliance. As if this were not impressive enough, Reverend Wade has also

found time to travel on a Foreign Mission's Preaching team to Africa. Further, he was Vice President of the East Chicago Board of Safety for 6 years, consultant to the Mayor of East Chicago from 2002-2004, and coordinator for ``Operation Too Great to Wait'' Hurricane Katrina Survivors, which took place at the Genesis Convention Center in Gary on September 11, 2005.

A true scholar, Reverend Wade has had a wide range of academic training. His degrees include a Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Theology, Doctorate of Bible Theology, Master of Religious Education, and an Honorary Doctorate of Divinity, and he has had extensive International Studies in Oxford, England.

Reverend Wade has also received many accolades throughout his lifetime. To name a few, Reverend Wade has received a proclamation from the City of East Chicago. In May 2000, the City of East Chicago dedicated and renamed Drummond Street to Reverend Dr. J.C. Wade Street for his many years of service and dedication to the community. On March 22, 2007, the Indiana State Senate also issued a proclamation in his honor for his dedicated service. Reverend Wade has also been recognized nationally as he was selected to travel on 3 pilgrimages to the Holy Land as a Nationwide Evangelist, and he has conducted a workshop at the District Association Board Meeting in Germany.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in congratulating Reverend Dr. J.C. Wade, Jr. as he is honored for his service and ministry. His 50 years of service have touched and improved the lives of all whom he has served. His unselfish and lifelong dedication is worthy of the highest commendation, and I am proud to represent him in Congress.

Madam Speaker, it is with great respect and sincerity that I take this time to honor Mr. and Mrs. Joseph and Sandra Morrow of Schererville, Indiana. On Wednesday, May 23, 2007, Joe and Sandy will be honored by the Calumet Council, Boy Scouts of America for their many years of service and many contributions to their community. The Calumet Council will be honoring Joe and Sandra at the 2007 Distinguished Citizens Dinner, which will be held at the Center for Visual and Performing Arts in Munster, Indiana.

Joseph Morrow, originally from Huntington, Indiana, has always proven himself to be a dedicated member of the Northwest Indiana community. From a very young age, Joe realized the need for community participation and joined the Boy Scouts, where he would eventually attain the rank of Life Scout. After graduating from Huntington High School in 1949, Joe continued his commitment to his community and country as he enlisted and served in the United States Air Force from 1950-1954. From there, Joe went on to further his education and decided to pursue a career in the legal profession. Upon graduating from law school in 1958, Joe entered the practice of law. From there, the law firm of Schroer, Eichhorn, and Morrow emerged, where Joe remained until 1979. At that time, Joe left the firm and was named Chairman of Mercantile National Bank of Indiana, First National Bank of Illinois, and Home State Bank of Crystal Lake, Illinois, as well as President of the Lake Commercial Group.

Throughout the years, Joe has been a constant fixture in his community. He serves or has served in various capacities on the boards for many organizations, including: Indiana Bond Bank, Hoosier Boys Town, Northern Indiana Arts Association, Trade Winds Rehabilitation Center, Calumet Council--Boy Scouts of America, Indiana University Northwest-Chancellor's Advisory Board, Indiana University-Purdue University Calumet Region Campus Advisory Board, Purdue University Calumet-Chancellor's Council, Northwest Indiana Urban League, Gary Accord, Campaign America, Hammond Bar Association, Community Foundation of Northwest Indiana, Munster Medical Research Foundation, Indiana University Foundation, Indiana University Varsity Club, First National Bank of Illinois, Home State Bank, and the Audubon Country Club Foundation.

Sandra (Murray) Morrow, a native of Hammond, Indiana, has always shared the same compassion and willingness to serve her community. As a child, Sandy was always involved in community-oriented activities, such as the Brownies and Girl Scouts, and she attended Camp Paxton for summer camp. Upon her graduation from Hammond High School, Sandy went on to Indiana University, where she earned her Bachelor of Science degree in speech and hearing therapy. In 1956, she and Joe were married, and she continued to teach, traveling between Indianapolis, Bloomington, and Hammond.

Sandy's lifelong commitment to her community is an inspiring testament to her character. Sandy, like her husband, has served in many capacities with many organizations in the Northwest Indiana community, including: President of the Service League of Hammond, the Women's Board of the Bethany Home for Girls, the Women's Board of Hoosier Boys' Town, and she served on the boards for the Northwest Indiana Symphony, Beta Gamma Upsilon Sorority, Audubon Country Club, and the South Shore Arts Board.

While they remain truly committed to the Northwest Indiana community, Joe and Sandy's greatest enjoyment is the time spent with their beautiful family. The couple has one son, Chris, and one daughter, Gale Morrow Crabtree, as well as four adoring grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in congratulating Mr. and Mrs. Joseph and Sandra Morrow as they are honored for their service and dedication to the Northwest Indiana community. Their years of service have touched and improved the lives of countless individuals. Their unselfish and lifelong dedication is worthy of the highest commendation, and I am proud to represent them in Congress.

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness and deep respect that I wish to commend Army Corporal Jeremy R. Greene for his bravery and his willingness to fight for his country. Corporal Greene was assigned to A Company 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division out of Fort Drum, New York. In an unfortunate accident, Corporal Greene lost his life on Saturday, April 28, 2007, at Forward Operating Base Tillman in Afghanistan. His sacrifice for his country will forever be remembered by a community that has been struck hard by the devastating loss of one of its own.

A native of Springfield, Ohio, Jeremy graduated in 2001 from Shawnee High School in

Springfield, Ohio. Jeremy is remembered as being the adventurous type, always enjoying activities like rock climbing and rapelling. Based on his desire to participate in exciting activities, even as a child, it came as no surprise that he would eventually choose to join the military. In 2004, Jeremy enlisted in the United States Army and began his next adventure.

Corporal Greene 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. Corporal Greene enlisted in the United States Army being fully aware that danger could arise in any situation. He accepted this so the freedoms and values he treasured could be enjoyed by men, women, and children around the world.

For his efforts, Corporal Greene was awarded several military medals and honors, including: the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, to name a few. In addition, to further exemplify his dedication and patriotism, Corporal Greene was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star Medal.

Although he loved his unit and his country, Jeremy treasured his family above all else. He is survived by his father, Richard Greene, of Springfield, Ohio, his mother, Cindy Greene (Mike White), of Oxford, Indiana, and two brothers, Mickey and Christopher Webster, as well as his loving nieces, Zoe, Sierra, and Jordan, whom Jeremy adored. Jeremy also leaves to cherish his memory many other friends and family members whose lives he has touched.

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