Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and salute a remarkable Hoosier, Eugene ``Gene'' B. Glick, who passed away on October 2, 2013. I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for his leadership and service to our community, state, and country.

Mr. Glick was born in Indianapolis and had an early foray into business as both advertising salesman for the Daily Echo at Shortridge High School and as the operator of a charter bus service at Indiana University. He went on to earn his bachelor's degree in business from Indiana University.

Mr. Glick served his country in the Army during World War II. After returning to Indianapolis, his Gene B. Glick Co. became one of the largest privately held real-estate development firms in the country. He also went on to launch many philanthropic efforts in our community. To many in Indianapolis, Mr. Glick was a smart businessman and generous philanthropist. To his peers, he was a thorough boss who taught them about responsibility and accountability.

Mr. Glick, and his late wife Marilyn, were deeply committed to the greater Indianapolis community. Signs of their extensive philanthropy efforts are spread generously throughout Central Indiana. Among them, the Glick Eye Institute at the Indiana University School of Medicine, the Indianapolis Cultural Trail, the Arthur M. Glick Jewish Community Center, the Eugene and Marilyn Glick Indiana History Center, the Indianapolis Museum of Art, and more. The couple also supported several charitable organizations such as the Indiana Authors Award, Eugene & Marilyn Glick Family Foundation, Gene B. Glick Family Housing Foundations, the Glick Fund of the Central Indiana Community Foundation, and more.

Mr. Glick was devout in the Jewish faith, a wonderful family man, leaving four daughters and many grandchildren and great-grandchildren. His legacy is more than I am able to fit into this memorial. Indianapolis, Indiana, and our nation is a better place because of the imprint of Mr. Glick.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a truly exceptional Hoosier company and a great friend in Langham Logistics and its president, Cathy Langham.

Today, Langham Logistics will be celebrating their 25th anniversary. Langham Logistics was founded by two sisters, Cathy and Margaret Langham, who took the risk of starting a transportation business. Cathy and Margaret literally built Langham from the ground up, starting in a small office space and now operating a 300,000-square-foot state-of- the-art warehouse that operates and advises supply chains from the smallest of companies to multibillion-dollar corporations throughout the world. Their story is not unlike so many people in this country who dared to dream and then succeeded beyond even their own wildest dreams.

Their customers aren't the only ones who have noticed their hard work. In 2003, then-President George W. Bush visited Langham Logistics to highlight them as a model start-up business that succeeded and was continuing to expand at an amazing rate. It was at that event that I first met Cathy Langham.

Not only has Cathy and her family built this amazing operation, but they did it the right way--through hard work. They gave back and continue to give back every chance they can. I could list all the numerous charities and causes that Cathy, her team, and her family contribute to, but that will go well beyond the 1 minute, Madam Speaker, that I asked for.

On behalf of Hoosiers, I say congratulations to Cathy and Langham Logistics. May you have another 25 years like the last 25.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a truly exceptional Hoosier company and a great friend in Langham Logistics and its President, Cathy Langham.

Today, Langham Logistics will be celebrating their 25th anniversary. Langham Logistics was founded by two sisters, Cathy and Margaret Langham who took the risk of starting a transportation company. Cathy and Margaret literally built Langham from the ground up--starting in a small office space and now operating a 300,000 square foot state-of- the-art warehouse that operates and advises supply chains from the smallest of companies to multibillion dollar corporations throughout the world. Their story is not unlike so many people in this country who dared to dream and then succeeded beyond, even their own, wildest dreams.

Their customers are not the only ones who have noticed their hard work and success. In 2003, then President George W. Bush visited Langham Logistics to highlight them as a model startup business that succeeded and was continuing to expand at an amazing rate. It was at that event that I first met Cathy Langham.

Not only has Cathy and her family built this amazing operation, but they did it the right way. They gave back and continue to give back every chance they can along the way. I could list all of the numerous charities and causes that Cathy, her team, and her family support, but it is not in Cathy's nature to promote her good work.

But one story, that I find remarkable and worth noting here today is that of Cathy's role in the Indianapolis 2012 Super Bowl Host Committee.

While most of us would jump at the chance to highlight Indiana and plan the Super Bowl, Cathy did something quite different with the opportunity. She, along with her friends, launched Indy's Super Cure to benefit the Komen for the Cure Tissue Bank at the Indiana University Simon Cancer Center and to help women who are facing breast cancer.

While many of us would have been distracted, focusing on the Super Bowl, Cathy and her friends made sure to use the event to give back to the community. And Mr. Speaker, honestly, I cannot think of any better example to describe who Cathy is to a stranger, to my colleagues, or to the friends that will gather later today to celebrate this occasion.

On behalf of 4th District Hoosiers, I say congratulations to Cathy and Langham Logistics. May you have another 25 years like the last 25.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and salute a remarkable Hoosier, Father Michael O'Mara. Father O'Mara is a true leader in his community and the Hoosier state. I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for his leadership and service to his country, his community, and the State of Indiana.

Father O'Mara grew up in Greensburg, Indiana and was ordained on June 18, 1988 in the Cathedral of SS. Peter and Paul in Indianapolis. Father O'Mara has served dutifully to the church for many years and presided over many congregations over the years. He was appointed as pastor of St. Pius X in Indianapolis in 1990. From 1993 to 1999, he was appointed as pastor and/or co-pastor for the parishes of St. Philip, St. Bernadette, St. Patrick, and St. Mary all in Indianapolis as well as the St. Paul Catholic Center in Bloomington, Indiana. Since then, Father O'Mara has been reappointed as pastor to St. Mary in 2004 and 2011. On July 3, 2013, he was appointed as pastor to the St. Gabriel Parish in Indianapolis.

The commitment that Father O'Mara has made has not stopped at serving the church, but to the community as well. He has also been greatly involved with the Hispanic community in Indianapolis. He immersed himself in the Spanish language and took classes through Indiana University in order to become bilingual so that he could preach to all members of the congregation.

He has committed his life to the church and has served the church for 25 years now. That kind of commitment is not made lightly. Committing your life to the church is one of the greatest sacrifices a person can make and Father O'Mara had to have put in a lot of time, thought, and prayer before deciding to commit himself fully to the church.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of a remarkable individual, Donald E. Hartman, Sr., who passed away on August 15, 2013. I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for his leadership and service to the state of Indiana.

Throughout his life Mr. Hartman served our country and Indiana with honor. He joined the U.S. Army in 1965 as a member of the military police and served overseas in Heidelberg, Germany. He then gave 26 years to the Indiana State Police. During his career he was recognized numerous times for his dedication to public safety and in 1996 was awarded the Indiana State Police's highest honor, the Gold Star Award for Valor, after saving a woman from a burning vehicle on I-65.

Upon retirement from the police force, Mr. Hartman continued to offer his time and energy to the people of Indiana. He was elected as Sheriff of Newton County and began his first term in 2007, a position he still held at the time of his passing. He was a selfless, respectful, and gracious leader, always putting the people and department before himself and working to provide the best service and safety possible to Newton County residents.

On and off the job, Mr. Hartman was invested in Indiana. He was the Vice-President of the Newton County Fair Board and the President of the Newton County 4-H Council. In his youth, he was an active member of 4-H as well as Future Farmers of America.

Mr. Hartman was a true family man who is survived by Teri, his loving wife of 41 years, three children, his mother, and his brother. Mr. Donald E. Hartman, Sr. was a man committed to his family, his community, and his country. America is a better nation because of Mr. Hartman. He will be truly missed. Thank you for all you have given to this country and the state of Indiana. Rest in peace, Mr. Hartman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and salute a remarkable Hoosier, Jerry Kivett. Jerry is a true leader in his community and the Hoosier state. I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for his leadership and service to his country, his community, and the State of Indiana.

Jerry grew up on the family farm owned by his parents, Hugh C. and Martha Kivett, in Hall, Indiana. Jerry attended Martinsville High School and graduated in 1948. He participated in sports and today is still a sports enthusiast. Jerry worked the family farm with his brother, Jack, and father, Hugh, during much of his younger years and was a natural farmer as many generations of Kivetts were farmers.

It was during a youth event in the basement of the Mt. Pleasant Christian Church in Hall that his eyes met those of Mary Ward of Monrovia. It was love at first sight and today this love has lasted 65 years. Jerry and Mary bought a farm of their own in Hall and have resided over it for over sixty years. They still attend Mt. Pleasant Church and are the fifth or sixth generation of Kivetts to do so.

To this union were born Steve, who is a vicar for the Church of England, and has resided in England with his wife, Ann, for nearly 40 years. Jerry's son, Rick, resides in Martinsville with his wife, Vickie, and they both work in their county government. Jerry's daughter, Jill Kivett, resides in Rensselaer and is a teacher at North Newton High School. Jerry's son, Monte, resides in Camby with his wife, Lisa, and was Chief Deputy Prosecutor for Morgan County. Life has continued to bless Jerry and Mary Kivett with seven grandchildren and four great grandchildren.

Jerry worked at the IBM in Greencastle and worked nights in order to either coach or attend his children's sporting events, rarely missing any of them. Mary spent over twenty years in the Morgan County Clerk's Office. They have done some traveling to England and stateside over the years and still enjoy vacationing. They are members of the Hall Civic Association and are lifelong Republicans. As parents and grandparents they have been excellent role models in family values. They have shared years of watching sports on all levels together and can quote you names, teams, statistics, and eve have long ago forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and salute a remarkable individual, James Kendrick Baker, whom passed away on July 24, 2013. I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for his leadership and service to our county.

Mr. Baker, a born and bred Hoosier, graduated cum laude from DePauw University where he served as president of Sigma Chi fraternity. He also served our nation in the U.S. Army before earning his Masters from Harvard Business School. Mr. Baker spent his entire career at Arvin Industries where he rose to President and CEO and eventually Chairman of the Board. Under his leadership, Arvin transferred from a domestic conglomeration of separate businesses into a global leader in the automobile parts industry.

Mr. Baker loved Indiana and the community of Columbus. He was active on many boards including, but not limited to: Indiana National Bank, PSI Resources, NBD First Chicago, Cinergy Company, and DePauw University. He was elected Chairman of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and donated his time to improving the U.S. educational system. Mr. Baker earned the Trailblazer Award from The Tindley Accelerated School in Indianapolis, and jointly received the Simms Leadership Award from IUPUC with his wife, Beverly. He also received 4 Sagamores of the Wabash for the Indiana Governor's Office. Sigma Chi honored him by naming him a Significant Sig and later to the Order of the Constantine.

Mr. Baker is a fraternity brother of mine, one who I consider a mentor and friend. I would often seek his counsel while serving as Indiana Secretary of State and as a Member of Congress. He has helped me tremendously in my service to Indiana, and for that I will be forever grateful. He was a captain of industry, a Hoosier whom Indiana was lucky to have.

Mr. Baker always bestowed his wife of 54 years, their three children and seven grandchildren with love and respect. This is James Kendrick Baker: a man truly committed to his family, his community, his faith, and his country. Thank you, and rest in peace Mr. Baker.

I thank the chair for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the REINS Act, and I rise in support of the man who introduced it, my friend and colleague from Indiana, Mr. Young.

I want to start out by addressing something the gentleman from Tennessee debated and talked about just a little bit earlier. He said that ``we don't get anything done here.'' I would like to take some opposition to that.

Just this week, we solved in a permanent fashion, Mr. Chairman, the student loan situation. We didn't do it with Democratic-inspired price fixing; we tied it to the market. Now, it's true it was very much a Republican bill when it left this House, then it was wisely adopted by the Senate in agreement last week, and it came back over here for a final vote 99 percent the same as it left. That's getting something done. That is real.

But let's take the gentleman's point a little bit further. Let's say sometimes we don't get something done; let's say sometimes we don't agree. The gentleman's solution is to let the unelected, unaccountable, nameless, faceless bureaucrats handle it, who aren't directly elected by anybody.

That is an abdication of the constitutional duty of this House, of this branch of government. It is our duty to make the laws; it is our duty to make the rules. And not only is it our duty to debate and pass legislation--hopefully not every time with our names on it--but it's also our constitutional duty to oversight the executive branch. That's exactly what the REINS Act acts to do.

How dare we decide we don't want to address, we don't want to tackle the big issues, Mr. Chairman, because they're too controversial; let the bureaucrats do it. That's not the way to run a government, that's not a way to run this branch of government, and that's not the way to run this House.

It's time this body starts doing its second and equally important constitutional duty, and that is oversight of the executive branch. The REINS Act, again, helps us do that in large measure. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I thank the chairman of Education and Workforce for yielding me time.

Well, here we are again, with perhaps the culmination of this debate that started yesterday afternoon here on the floor and what's been going on in committee now for several weeks and in this Nation for 12 years.

Mr. Chairman, it's been 12 years since we've been on the floor debating these issues. I'm encouraged by that fact alone--that some of us had the leadership, responsibility, and the courage to bring some of these issues to the floor for the betterment of our teachers, our parents, and most of all, our students.

I rise now in strong opposition to the substitute amendment offered by my colleague from California. I oppose this amendment for a number of reasons. It's more of the same ``Washington knows best'' that's brought us here today. It turns out, as we hear from parents in our districts, Washington doesn't know best. A bureaucrat sitting in an office in Washington, by definition, Mr. Chairman, doesn't know our children and can't possibly know what is best for a student in Indiana or anywhere else in this Nation.

Who do you believe, Mr. Chairman, knows a child best? Is it the bureaucrats in this 10- or 11-story rectangle-like building known as the Lyndon B. Johnson Department of Education? Or is it this mother or this father who knows their child? Who do you trust, Mr. Chairman, with your children? Do you trust the bureaucrats in this building a thousand miles away from where

you live or do you trust you and your wife? Who do the parents of America trust more to educate their children? Their local teacher or these bureaucrats?

Throughout the amendment and debate process for the Student Success Act and the remarks offered now in support of this amendment, we've heard time and time again how the Student Success Act is an attack on children, teachers, and all other sorts of demagoguery and doom and gloom. Don't believe it. Because if you listen closely and certainly if you read the plain meaning of the text of this amendment and everything else that's been written and said about these reforms that we're going to make here on the House floor today, you would find that at the very essence of all of them we find that the other side and those that talk against the Student Success Act inherently trust these bureaucrats more than parents or teachers. They continuously say, We know best. We are smarter than those of us who raise our own children.

The truth of the matter is that this amendment offered by my colleague is the real attack on children, parents, and teachers. It attacks teachers by holding them to Washington-based standards, not local ones, when we know in fact that every school is different. It attacks parents by robbing them of the hopes and dreams that they have for their children and takes away so many decisions that these parents can make to guide their children's future. They know best. Worst of all, this is an attack on children. Washington-based education policy attacks children by endangering their chance at success and a brighter future by hamstringing them with teaching to test results as opposed to teaching to success in life.

The Student Success Act ensures parents can be in direct contact with those who are setting education policy for their children and their teachers and holds them accountable.

There's a reason why this bill has received so much support from groups like the American Association of School Administrators, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the National School Boards Association, and the School Superintendents Association. They all support this bill. The Student Success Act will give States and schools the flexibility and incentive to administer their policies effectively. The Student Success Act encourages teachers to be innovative while also responsibly measuring success.

It's been said here just recently and time and time again that tenure and credentialism should be what we measure teachers against. I say no. It doesn't matter how long, Mr. Chairman, a teacher has taught or how many classes they've taken. What matters is how well their kids are learning, what their success is. And that's what the Student Success Act does. It will give parents the authority and choice that they deserve as they make decisions about their child's future, and it will give the students themselves the best opportunity to succeed. That's the best thing we can do here on the floor of the House today.

Mr. Chairman, I stand today in support of parents, teachers, and our communities. I stand in support of local government versus Federal Government. And most importantly, I stand in support of our children and urge my colleagues to pass the Student Success Act.

I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota for his leadership and the members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for their efforts in writing this legislation.

The Student Success Act is a huge step forward that empowers parents and teachers to make decisions regarding the education of our children while maintaining high expectations and measuring teacher effectiveness. For far too long, Federal education bureaucrats have sucked up needed education dollars and hamstrung our teachers, but they've done little to improve education in our Nation. And now they want what really amounts to a national curriculum. But is there any doubt bureaucratic red tape and a one-size-fits-all approach have left far too many of our children behind?

We wrote this legislation because we believe that parents and teachers care for our children more than career bureaucrats at the Department of Education. We trust parents. We trust ourselves. We trust the States and our communities to determine what success is and how best to achieve it.

Recently, I had the opportunity to visit the SENSE Charter School in my home State of Indiana. What I saw in the students there was nothing short of young people who were reaching and even exceeding their potential. What that visit also showed--and I've seen it in other schools and read it in letters I've received and saw it again as recently as this week at the Two Rivers Charter School in Washington, D.C.--was that, when given a choice, Mr. Chairman, parents will put their children in the schools that best fit their education needs and not the bureaucrats. Choice works. And funding shouldn't be tied to cookie-cutter Washington standards. It should be about what works and what doesn't work.

SENSE Charter School was just one more example of the fact that the best ideas don't come from the top down, don't come from Congress, or even from the executive branch. They come from those who know and care the most about our children--and that's parents and communities. It's time to step back and truly ask what's best for our children and families.

I came to Washington as part of a new crew who came here to change how Washington does business. The Student Success Act is certainly different by Washington standards, as we've just heard. Those on the other side of the aisle always advocate education policy that tells us as parents and as teachers that Washington knows best and that problems can only be solved with a new program and a bigger bureaucracy. This is nothing short of arrogant, Mr. Chairman. Frankly, it's pessimistic. It's pessimistic because it says that, when given the opportunity to make decisions in the best interest of children, parents will fail and that Washington is smarter.

I'm an optimist, and I'm also a realist. We are optimistic that parents know what is best for their children. They need us to cut the Washington red tape blocking their way. And for our optimism we are likely to be the subject of demagoguery during this debate. Critics will say we want to harm children by cutting funding from a massive bureaucracy in Washington. We just heard some of that. Of course, they ignore the track record of a bureaucracy that treats our children as nothing more than nameless, faceless statistics; a bureaucracy that demands we continue throwing good money after bad because these false arguments have been around for far too long.

If we are to truly be a society that prioritizes education and the success of our children, we must no longer blindly throw money away. We must trust in parents and teachers to know what is best for students, not the President and not the Secretary of Education. This bill does that.

The Student Success Act empowers parents and teachers, maintains high standards and measures

of teacher effectiveness, reduces the enormous footprint of the Federal education bureaucracy, and finally gives parents, teachers, and States the flexibility they need, Mr. Chairman, in setting curriculum and educating our children.

I urge, again, all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, but I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, as one of the authors of the underlying legislation, I'll be the first to admit that going through the progress that we have laid out in this House has the potential to only make the legislation better.

In that vein, this amendment, as I understand the gentlelady to propose it, supports the tutoring and public school choice options in the Direct Student Services program. Tutoring services and public school choice are key programs to ensure students have the opportunity to access critical educational help or to find a school that better fits their needs.

We know, through study after study, through letter after letter, through parent interview after parent interview, that students who have access to tutoring services do better in school, those who are in a school that fits their learning style better.

This is a minor amendment to the important program that I think already exists in the underlying law, and it says that if there is not enough funding in the State to support all of the applications for direct student services, that it should prioritize the vulnerable populations, rather than look at supporting the lowest-performing schools. So, either way, the important thing is to help students have access to high-quality tutoring and school choice.

For that reason, I reserve the balance of my time.

I'd ask the Chair how much time I have remaining.

In closing, I'd like to urge my colleagues, as well, to support this amendment and the Student Success Act in its entirety.

And in response to the debate we've seen here on the floor this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, so far, I'd like to say that there are many organizations in support of the Student Success Act, including the American Association of School Administrators, the National School Boards Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the Council for American Private Education, the Association of Christian Schools International, Concerned Women for America, National Association of Independent Schools, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, and many more.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, but I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as I read the gentlewoman's amendment, I see that it will protect title II funding to high poverty school districts.

Now, although the Student Success Act, which we are debating here on the House floor right now, funds school districts on an equal playing field--basing the formula on a 50 percent poverty and a 50 percent population ratio--it is important to protect funding to high poverty school districts. The amendment will not allow the new title II formula to go into effect until the Secretary certifies that funding to these school districts is protected at fiscal year 2013 levels and that new money allotted will be allocated on a 65 percent poverty and a 35 percent population formula.

The bottom line is that, in using these funds, the Student Success Act gives States and school districts the flexibility to decide how they want to spend their money. This is not our money. This is the property of the States and the States' residents. Funds flow over to the State and local levels so they can set their own priorities for programs that they want to fund to meet the needs of their students. This ensures superintendents, principals and teachers are the ones making funding decisions--not Washington bureaucrats or even the Secretary of Education--that benefit students. Public and private entities can also apply to the State, in partnership with school districts, for funds to run innovative programs focused on teacher and school leader preparation and development.

Although I disagree with the gentlewoman that the Student Success Act is a retreat--in fact, I think there is a very progressive set of reforms found in the Student Success Act--I do support her amendment, which protects funding for high poverty districts, and the Student Success Act, which gives districts the flexibility to use teacher funds in the way they think is best.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, again, I rise in support of this amendment.

I would say to the gentlelady from Florida, who just spoke, that this is not experimenting with our children. We are empowering parents, and we are empowering teachers so that the students can have better success. In my opinion, this is an evolution of our education policy.

In that same vein, the gentlewoman said that teachers matter. In that respect, I want to reiterate for this House those who have shown in writing their strong support for the Student Success Act, including: the American Association of School Administrators, the National School Boards Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the Council for American Private Education, the Association of Christian Schools International, Concerned Women for America, the National Association of Independent Schools, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, and the National Association of Charter School Authorizers.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, but I certainly do not intend to oppose.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for offering this amendment, along with Mr. Petri for his work on this amendment. It's another example of the fact that as we work through this process in committee and here on the House floor, there's a lot of opportunity for the bill to get better and for the language to get better. And I say that as just one of the authors.

I rise in support of this amendment, which clarifies some of the uses for charter school startup grants and ensures charter schools are reaching out to underserved populations so they may have an opportunity to attend a charter school.

Recently, I had the opportunity to visit the SENSE Charter School in my home State of Indiana. What I saw in the students there was, again, nothing short of young people who are reaching and exceeding their potential.

What that visit also showed--and I have seen it in other schools as well, including one right here in Washington, D.C. this week--is that when given the choice, parents will put their children in the school that best fits their educational needs. Choice works, and funding shouldn't be tied to any kind of cookie-cutter standards or programs. It should be about what works and what doesn't.

Parents know their children. As we've heard on the House floor all afternoon and into the evening, I dare anyone here in Washington to say, Mr. Chairman, that they know our children better than we do. They are the best to make the evaluation, not bureaucrats.

Charter schools level the playing field for children of all different socioeconomic backgrounds. They allow parents, regardless of their means, to get their children out of a school not meeting their needs and find an educational environment that fits their unique learning style.

The charter school startup grants are a critical resource to help open more charter schools to provide greater choice for students. So instead of throwing good money after bad on failed education bureaucracy, let's devote these funds to good programs to help prepare charter school teachers and classrooms to make a lasting difference in the lives of our children.

So once again, I appreciate both gentlemen's support for charter schools. I would urge the House to support the amendment and also to support the Student Success Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, but I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I am supportive of this amendment, which merely adds a requirement for grantees under the Family Engagement Centers to conduct outreach to low-income families, as I understand the gentlelady's presentation.

The intent of this program is to help parents better engage with their students to increase their academic achievement. I certainly support these centers reaching out to low-income families to help them.

I appreciate my colleague's effort on this provision, and I urge support of the amendment, as well as the entire Student Success Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his language. I think this is a good amendment and was pleased to incorporate it into the manager's amendment.

Too often we hear concerns that States have to participate in these programs or have to comply with unfair rules. This amendment will clearly establish the rights of States to opt out of the programs and further clarify that States cannot be forced to participate in any program.

I thank the gentleman for his amendment, and I rise in strong support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is an authorizing bill. This is the appropriate place to have this language and this discussion. In fact, it builds on language that is already in the bill. Of course, during the appropriations process, it is also a good time to have this discussion.

It strikes me that, if those entrusted to manage our Federal Government had effectively managed their resources, maybe something like sequestration, itself, wouldn't have alarmed so many of them. This amendment certainly wouldn't be necessary if there were responsible management of the bureaucracy. Manage your resources responsibly or Congress will have to. That's simply what this amendment does.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 9 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, July 19, 2013, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and salute a remarkable individual, William Francis Hartnett, Jr., who passed away on July 15, 2013. I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for his leadership and service to our county.

Mr. Hartnett attended St. Michael's College, Middlebury College, and Cornell University. He was also a graduate of Fordham University School of Law. After earning his J.D., he practiced law in both New York City and Port Washington, New York.

Mr. Hartnett had a servant's heart. For four years he served our nation as an officer in the United States Navy and continued to serve Americans as a Special Agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Hartnett also served his community as Assistant to the Vice Chairman of the New York Housing Authority, Counsel to the Board of the New York City Board of Higher Education, and as East Meadow School Board President. Mr. Hartnett served on numerous boards, including St. Francis Hospital, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, the Chicago Public Library, Chicago Catholic Charities, and many more. Mr. Hartnett also served on the Board of La Lumiere School in La Porte, Indiana.

Mr. Hartnett was the Founder of both William F. Hartnett and Associates and Hartnett-Shaw Development Corporation. He developed many commercial, residential and industrial real estate projects across the country, including Lake Point Tower in Chicago, United Nations Plaza in New York, Williams Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Century City in Los Angeles.

Mr. Hartnett was a family man who is survived by Lorranye, his loving wife of sixty-three years, four children, seventeen grandchildren, and six great-grandchildren. William Francis Hartnett, Jr. was a man truly committed to his family, his community, his faith, and his country. America is a better nation because of Bill Hartnett, and I am lucky to know his family--his best achievement. He will be truly missed. Thank you and rest in peace, Mr. Hartnett.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and salute a remarkable individual, William Francis Hartnett, Jr., who passed away on July 15. I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for his leadership and service to our country.

Mr. Hartnett had a servant's heart. He served our Nation as an officer in the U.S. Navy and as a special agent for the FBI. Mr. Hartnett sat on numerous boards, including St. Francis Hospital, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, the Chicago Public Library, Chicago Catholic Charities, and my alma mater, La Lumiere School in La Porte, Indiana.

Mr. Hartnett also developed real estate projects across the country, including Lake Point Tower in Chicago, United Nations Plaza in New York, Williams Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and the Century City in Los Angeles.

Mr. Hartnett was a family man, who is survived by his loving wife of 63 years, Lorrayne, in addition to 4 children, 17 grandchildren, and 6 great-grandchildren.

William Francis Hartnett, Jr., was a man truly committed to his family, his community, his Catholic faith, and his country. America is a better Nation because of Bill Hartnett, and I am lucky to know his family--his best achievement. He will be truly missed, Madam Speaker. Thank you and rest in peace, Mr. Hartnett.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by my friend, the gentlelady from Tennessee. Like her, I also want to thank the appropriators.

As a member of the Budget Committee, our responsibility is to issue top-line numbers that we stay within in order to bring down the deficit and ultimately address the towering debt that we're facing as a country not only today, but the even worse debt we're going to be facing given the current trend that we're on in the future.

Mr. Chair, remember when we were told to keep our tires properly inflated and to get a regular tune-up to save fuel? Some people snickered and commented, ``Is this an energy policy?'' At least those ideas actually saved energy and actually saved cost, albeit a drop in the bucket. But now, in one of its latest efforts, along comes the Department of Energy and proposes a regulation to impose destructive and unnecessary energy-efficiency standards for ceiling fans. And like much of their agenda, it is completely counterproductive. It's another example of Big Government run amok. It's an example of the complete disregard bureaucrats have for the practical implications of the regulations that they issue.

The Department of Energy contends that a certain amount of energy would be saved by requiring greater efficiency from ceiling fans, as the gentlelady mentioned and explained. Of course, that ignores the fact that ceiling fans are already far more energy efficient than other cooling devices like air-conditioners. Recently, General Electric published an article stating that an average electric central air- conditioner consumes 5,000 watts of electricity during operation. By contrast, a ceiling fan consumes as little as just 30 watts when operating under similar conditions. That's over 165 times less electricity than consumed by your typical central air-conditioning system.

The proposed ceiling fan regulations would increase the cost of ceiling fans and reduce the manufacturer's ability to produce aesthetically pleasing devices marketable to people like us, the consumers. As a result, energy savings from these efficiency standards would not outweigh the increased costs of energy consumption brought about by the consumers foregoing ceiling fans and shifting to high- energy consumption devices and increased usage of existing devices.

The Department of Energy's proposed regulations on ceiling fans are absolutely counterproductive. They will encourage more energy consumption, they will reduce consumer choice and they have the potential to destroy jobs, including in Indiana.

Americans need an energy policy to unleash our economy, not economically destructive dictates from Washington bureaucrats. This is yet another example of this administration double-dipping in the pockets of Americans, using taxpayer dollars to raise prices on consumers.

As such, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Joseph S. Francisco, the William E. Moore Distinguished Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and Chemistry at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana.

Dr. Francisco, who also is the associate dean of research and graduate education for the College of Science at Purdue, will be inducted into the National Academy of Science next April in recognition of his distinguished and continuing achievements in original, pioneering research. His research has revolutionized the understanding of chemical processes in the atmosphere and its ability to break down and remove pollutants. He solved a 40-year search for an unusual molecule essential to the atmosphere's ability to break down nitric acid, a compound that causes acid rain. He also mapped the atmospheric breakdown of chlorofluorocarbons, chemical compounds that destroy the Earth's ozone layer, and leads research into the design of environmentally benign materials to replace these compounds.

His recent work focuses on understanding the effect of water on fundamental chemical reactions in the atmosphere. Dr. Francisco discovered that clouds significantly affect levels of important atmospheric free radicals and identified a new type of chemical bonding, radical-hydrogen bonding.

Dr. Francisco is a past president of the American Chemical Society, the world's largest scientific society, and served as president of the National Organization for the Professional Advancement of Black Chemists and Chemical Engineers. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, one of the nation's oldest and most prestigious honorary societies, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Chemical Society. He has received four honorary doctorates from other universities.

President Barack Obama appointed Dr. Francisco as a member of the President's Committee on the National Medal of Science in 2010 and reappointed him this year. This committee is responsible for evaluating nominees and selecting recipients of the National Medal of Science, the highest honor awarded by the U.S. government to scientists, engineers and innovators. He also currently serves on the National Research Council Board of Science Education. Dr. Francisco co-authored the textbook ``Chemical Kinetics and Dynamics,'' published by Prentice- Hall, and has published more than 450 peer-reviewed publications in the fields of atmospheric chemistry, chemical kinetics, quantum chemistry, laser photochemistry and spectroscopy. He becomes only the second African-American inducted into the academy from the field of chemistry.

In light of this career accomplishment, I ask the 4th District and all Hoosiers to join me in congratulating Dr. Francisco for this great honor and achievement.

Mr. Speaker, we have a jobs crisis in this country. Millions of Americans are out of work, and yet many jobs go unfulfilled. This is especially true among young people.

Part of the problem is that young Americans are faced with uncertainty when investing in college education due to government price-fixing of student loan interest rates. While some in this Chamber think that's a good thing, others do not. We passed a bill on that just 2 weeks ago.

That is why House Republicans have passed the Smarter Solutions for Students Act. It stops student loan rates from doubling in July, fixes the student loan process long-term, and takes politicians out of the business of setting interest rates by moving to a market-based system. As a member of the Budget Committee, I'll note that these are many of the same--actually, the very same--principles the President called for in his own budget plan.

We are offering the President a perfect opportunity for a true bipartisan victory. Not only is it a bipartisan victory, it is a real solution to a real problem.