Dave Hobson

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. In closing, I would just say that I think this is an effective use of dollars to enhance these young people's education, give them the ability to improve the economy in this country, and I would urge everyone to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I didn't select that language used in that.

Mr. HOBSON. First of all, let me thank the chairman and the ranking member for putting together a good bill. I appreciate the hard work they have done on this bill and on approving this earmark. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike $500,000 in funding to support the expansion of the East Asian Studies and International Business Program at Wittenberg University in my hometown of Springfield, Ohio. This program will give Wittenberg business students the cultural background and hands-on experience they need to compete in the increasingly competitive global marketplace. It achieves this by providing college students a curriculum in which they can learn about Asian language, religion and cultures. This understanding is vital to establishing business relationships, especially abroad. This is an expansion of the program. In the past, this has been truly just a learning experience in an intellectual way, not focused on business. They will immerse themselves in these programs while working for overseas companies through internships and study-abroad programs. In fact, in 1999, James Scott of Yale University and Timothy Cheek of Colorado College wrote that Wittenberg is unique among liberal arts schools in the accomplishments and intellectual breadth of its East Asian Studies program. No other peer school can offer such a distinguished curriculum, covering language, religion, classical civilizations, philosophy, history and the culture of all the major East Asian civilizations. These business outreach programs are of enormous importance, as the global marketplace dramatically increases competition while rendering borders irrelevant. According to the United States Census Bureau foreign trade statistics, U.S. trade with China and Japan, the United States' second and fourth largest trading partners respectively, amounted to over $550 billion in 2006, representing approximately one- fifth of our total foreign trade. I am confused, Mr. Chairman, on this amendment, because there is no reason really to oppose this program at this time, because we owe it to our students to equip them with every advantage as they prepare to face the challenges and opportunities of the global job market of the 21st century. One of these tools we can offer our students is the opportunity to study abroad. The Institute For International Education of Students conducted the first large-scale survey exploring the lasting impact of study abroad programs on students' personal, professional and academic lives. The survey of IES alums found that experiences abroad positively affected their outlook and career choices and remained essential in their lives, even after graduation. One of the most compelling reasons to fund business study abroad programs is to train future global commercial leaders to be more effective in operating in an increasingly interconnected world, taking into account foreign and international political and economic systems. The IES survey found that 97 percent of the respondents said studying abroad increased their maturity; 96 percent reported improved self- confidence; 89 percent played a better role in their ability to handle uncertainty; and 95 percent stated their experience had lasting impacts on their worldwide view. Mr. Chairman, before I entered public service, I was a small businessman. I can tell you there have been numerous occasions where my understanding, or lack thereof, of the background and experience of the person sitting across the table would have helped me much better in negotiating some of the things that I negotiated. A number of those people were from around the world. A better understanding of that, a better intellectual capability. Expanding this program will help this small university in my district present a better challenge to the students that are there. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge everyone to be opposed to this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Madam Speaker, it is a distinct honor for the central Ohio delegation to rise today to commend the leadership and accomplishments of Karen Holbrook during her tenure as the president of the Ohio State University. Holbrook became Ohio State's 13th president in October, 2002, and has served the University and the greater university community nobly for 5 years by guiding Ohio State towards ever-increasing prominence in research initiatives and funding, higher academic standards, and enhanced community partnerships. Ohio State has steadily risen in national rankings of universities since 2002, climbing to 19th among the nation's public universities in U.S. News and World Report's 2007 edition of ``America's Best Colleges.'' Under Holbrook's watch, the quality of the student body has also increased dramatically. Fifty-two percent of Ohio State's incoming freshmen in the fall of 2007 are expected to be in the top 10 percent of their high school class and 90 percent will be in the top 25 percent. Average ACT scores have also increased. Thanks to better-prepared incoming students and a nationally recognized First-Year Experience program, freshman-sophomore retention has risen to 91.5 percent, well above the average among similar universities. The completion of the South Campus Gateway project, a mixed-use development of retail, entertainment, offices and housing, has revitalized the edge of campus through the Campus Partners initiative. These improvements have enhanced student life, revitalized an urban neighborhood and provided high-quality destinations for the campus community and visitors alike. With annual research expenditures now at $652 million a year, Ohio State is ranked 8th among public research universities in the nation by the National Science Foundation based on the amount of sponsored research. Also, the University has risen from 5th to 3rd among public universities in industry-sponsored research. Holbrook presided over the creation of the Undergraduate Research Office to encourage and enable undergraduate students to connect to research projects as part of their educational experience. As a result, more than 300 students now participate in the annual Denman Undergraduate Forum. Finally Holbrook has led the University into strong partnerships in the community, especially with renowned research institute Battelle, which includes the Metro High School for students interested in science, technology, engineering and math, the Urban Arts Center, WOSU@COSI (a collaboration of the university's public media stations and the Center for Science and Industry), and the Battelle Center for Mathematics and Science Education Policy at the John Glenn School of Public Affairs. These partnerships and initiatives are already bearing fruit, and their impact and importance will only increase down the road. It is truly a pleasure to have worked with President Holbrook over the last five years and to have joined her in efforts that increased the prominence and reputation of a great institution. The Ohio State University is a better place because of Holbrook's leadership, and for that, all Buckeyes are forever in her debt. Go Bucks. Beat Michigan.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Alaska. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOBSON. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). Mr. Chairman, I might say I am doing this out of courtesy to these gentlemen. I happen to oppose the amendment, but I think they have a right to be heard.

Mr. HOBSON. Might I inquire how much time I have left.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

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

Mr. HOBSON. I just wanted to take a moment to comment that I really appreciate the Chairman's very thoughtful comments, especially on all the issues that he talked about, but certainly, when it comes to NNSA and the lack of management of the weapons systems. The gentleman remarked to me over here, do we have 9,000 weapons, or 10,000 weapons? Well, the number we've been trying to get out for a long time, cause it's a good news story. But we can't tell you here how good news the story is, because it's still secure. And we've tried for a number of years to get out this issue of how many weapons we have and to get this complex sized appropriately. But we're very disturbed, in a bipartisan way, about the management of the entire Department of Energy. And I want to associate myself with the gentleman's comments and his opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I also am in support of the amendment.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. But I want to tell you I am very sympathetic to the gentleman's concerns. We should preserve hydropower wherever we can. We should advance hydropower. He is correct in those statements. However, I think the amendment is too broadly written and could lead to unintended negative consequences because there may be certain structures that because of environmental reasons or economic reasons we need to take some action on. So what I would like to suggest to everyone is that we oppose the amendment, but we work together to see, because I think the chairman shares the concern for hydropower and that we would try to work to see how we can get some language at some point that might address the problem in a more appropriate way. So I do reluctantly oppose the amendment, but I am certainly within the spirit of the amendment.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. HOBSON. I am also willing to accept the amendment for the minority. I think it's a good amendment.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept the amendment, also.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to associate myself with the gentleman's comments.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOBSON. I want to associate my comments with the chairman. I have the utmost regard for all the Members who spoke on this, but I do oppose the amendment and join with the chairman.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOBSON. I appreciate the gentlewoman's concerns, and we will work to try to address them in conference. I also appreciate her withdrawing the amendment.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlelady's withdrawing of the amendment. At the time this proposal came up, I was the chairman of the committee and we worked together on this with the current chairman. GNEP was a proposal that was put out for people to raise their hand if they were interested in the project. It was never intended that the project be a permanent disposition site. So I think your people should understand that it was only an interim site. I would recommend that the record show that it is only an interim site that is intended if they are successful in receiving a GNEP award.

Mr. HOBSON. I am also willing to accept the amendment.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to eliminate funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission. I have been against the Appalachian Regional Commission since I was on the Budget Committee in 1995. But I do appreciate the chairman's cutting the funding back because we always have a problem dealing with the Senate on this issue. But let me tell you, for all of the heartburn we have had over congressional earmarks and administration earmarks, I would point out that funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission basically provides earmarks designated by the Governors of 13 Appalachian States. If we are cutting our earmarks, then we should be reducing these as well. The one thing we should not do is delegate our decision-making to the authority of these Governors, no matter how well intended the purposes are. And I have to tell you, we have been throwing this money into these counties for all these years, and they are still at these levels. It doesn't do any good. It just goes down the tube. We should do programs that really help the quality of life in these regions and help them move out, rather than doing these little projects that keep them in the poverty level. So I support the gentleman's amendment.