Ed Whitfield

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, it is important that America's vital infrastructure be approved and constructed on a reasonable and predictable schedule. In that regard, I am concerned with some tactics that have emerged in some states to utilize federally delegated authority, most notably under the Clean Water Act, to stall and even deny the necessary permits or certifications for federally approved projects, frustrating federal licensing and permitting processes. It is my understanding that other states may try to use their authority under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to object to consistency approvals regarding federal projects, even though the facility has existed for years in the coastal zone and was previously found to be consistent with the state's Coastal Management Plan. Such an effort would appear to be an attempt to manufacture challenges to the federal proceedings. In the case of States using federal delegated authority under the Clean Water Act to frustrate federally approved projects, the Congress has previously legislated and may well need to do so again. I intend to work with my colleagues to assess that need presently. As to consistency determinations under the CZMA, it is my understanding that the law is clear that a State has very limited authority to review an existing project a second time, if it underwent a previous federal consistency review. The Act and its legislative history show that these requirements were meant to apply primarily to new facilities, not to existing facilities. Our federally permitted and licensed domestic infrastructure is the backbone for a vibrant economy, and Congress should work diligently to ensure that it is not jeopardized.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a beloved Kentuckian, Judge Edward Huggins Johnstone, who passed away on June 26th of this year. When people speak of ``The Greatest Generation,'' they speak of men like Judge Johnstone. During World War II, Judge Johnstone served with honor and distinction, seeing combat in the Battle of the Bulge and returning with a Bronze Star and a Silver Star for gallantry while an infantry sergeant in Europe. Following his return, Johnstone married, earned his law degree from the University of Kentucky College of Law, and raised four children in the small town of Princeton, Kentucky. After 27 years in private practice, he was appointed in 1976 as a state Circuit Judge, and 16 months later was nominated by President Jimmy Carter and confirmed to serve as a United States District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky. Having long been woefully underserved by the federal judiciary, Judge Johnstone brought a welcome change to the Western District of Kentucky by ending the long-accepted tradition of cases being heard in Louisville. Before him, federal judges preferred to live and hear cases far away from much of the Western District which stretched from just east of Louisville all the way to Tennessee. Judge Johnstone's dedication to public service perhaps is best exemplified by his landmark efforts to improve living conditions for inmates serving time in Kentucky prisons. In his book Voices from a Southern Prison, Lloyd Anderson quotes Judge Johnstone describing his philosophy, ``Even in the worst of people there is a good side. If we treat them with dignity and respect it brings out the good and suppresses the bad.'' As public servants we all strive to make our communities and our country a better place. Judge Johnstone certainly demonstrated that desire and managed to revitalize the Kentucky prison system along the way. ``Big Ed'' Johnstone's size 14 shoes will be hard to fill, but with a long line of people he has influenced both inside and outside of the legal profession, and with the example of a life lived well and with the highest integrity to guide many more, I am sure Judge Johnstone would agree that the goodness of Man will continue to shine through.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. We have no other speakers.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I might say, with all due respect to my friend from California, that he is exactly correct. I was not satisfied with Utility MACT, but primarily because EPA misled the American people. Publicly they were always talking about the mercury reductions and that the benefits would come from mercury reductions. Yet at the hearing, EPA's own analysis showed that the benefits were not there for mercury reductions; the benefits were there from particulate matter reduction. So I don't see why they deliberately misled the American people on that. I might just make one other brief comment. We were talking about the money involved by the Department of Energy in implementing this bill. At the end of fiscal year 2012, the Department of Energy had over $2.36 billion in excess carry-over balances. At this time, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy, the author of this bill.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Once again I want to thank Dr. Cassidy for authoring this bill and bringing it to the House floor. I would like to remind everyone that EPA has made great strides. We all recognize the improvements that have been made in our air quality, water quality, particulate matter, et cetera. As a matter of fact, carbon dioxide emissions are the lowest that they've been in 20 years here in America. Yet I would say that EPA is not the Holy Grail. The EPA does make mistakes. I would like to just read a couple of comments from some witnesses who testified over the last year at the Energy and Commerce Committee's Energy and Power Subcommittee. Dr. Peter Valberg, former member of the Harvard School of Public Health, testified that ``there are major questions about EPA's forecast of serious health effects caused by small increments in particulate matter levels. EPA's statistical approach is fraught with numerous assumptions and uncertainties.'' Dr. Tony Cox of the Colorado School of Public Health testified that ``the use of statistical associations to address causal questions about health effects of regulation is not only technically incorrect, but, as practiced by EPA and others, is also highly misleading to policymakers.'' Then Dr. Anne Smith, an economist with NERA Economic Consulting, talked about the uncertainties and the statistical models used by EPA having serious flaws. All we're saying is at a time when the economy is struggling-- particularly now--and when EPA is the most aggressive that it has been in recent memory--as a matter of fact, even though our CO2 emissions are down to the lowest level in 20 years, America is the only country in the world where you cannot build a new coal-powered plant. All this legislation does is it says if EPA comes up with a new regulation, energy related, that costs over a billion dollars, they've got to make a report to Congress. Then the Secretary of Energy, working with the Secretary of Commerce and the Small Business Administration and the Energy Information Agency, they will look and they will see what is the impact of this regulation upon the cost of energy, the cost of gasoline, the cost of electricity; what is the impact on causing jobs to be lost or a plant maybe not to be built and a job will be lost or a plant will close. So it's not dictating anything. It's the Cabinet members of the same administration simply reviewing all of the evidence, doing its own analysis, and then deciding that if it has significant impact on the economy, then they can rule that the regulation will not take effect, at which point the EPA can go back, make some adjustments, and redo it. I think it's a good piece of legislation that provides additional transparency and additional review of the regulation, the impact on the economy, the impact on jobs, the impact on prices. And what is wrong with that? What is wrong with the Congress getting a report back from the agency and letting the other Department heads in the government review it? That's all this legislation is about. I urge Members to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, may I ask how much time is remaining.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I would like to remind everyone once again that this legislation applies only to energy-related regulations that exceed $1 billion. That's all that it applies to. At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus). (Mr. ROTHFUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This evening, we will be debating H.R. 1582, the Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013, authored by the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Madam Chairman, one of the major issues that the American people face today is a slow growth in its economy. Our economy has been sluggish for some time. The last quarter of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013, gross domestic product grew by less than 2 percent. And in the last 15 quarters, the growth of our economy in America has been the slowest since World War II. So we need to do everything in this country to promote economic growth, and this bill looks at the impact of regulations as obstacles to economic growth. I want to just read a few of the regulations that have been adopted by EPA since January 2009: Greenhouse gas regulations for cars, and these are EPA numbers. It cost $52 billion. Greenhouse gas standards for cars 2017-2025, $144 billion; greenhouse gas standards for trucks, $8 billion; Utility MACT, $9.6 billion annually; Boiler MACT, $2.2 billion annually. Now, I could go on and on, but I think that that shows that the cost of some of these regulations present serious obstacles to economic growth. So the legislation that we consider tonight is simply a commonsense approach, a way to review the impact of energy-related regulations at the Environmental Protection Agency. All this legislation does is this: The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may not promulgate as final an energy-related rule that is estimated to cost more than $1 billion unless: One, they make a report to Congress setting out what the regulation does; and Two, the Secretary of Energy, working with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Small Business Administration will look at these regulations and look at the impact on consumer energy cost, the impact on employment, and the impact on economic growth. The Department of Energy certainly has the expertise to analyze these kinds of figures, and if the Secretary determines that it would be harmful to economic growth, then the Secretary can actually stop the regulation from taking effect. Now, the good news is, at that point, EPA could go back and redo the process. But I can tell you, from my personal experience of working with people in my district who are affected by regulations every day, most people genuinely believe that there's not anything wrong with having other government agencies review the impact of the cost of regulations on the economy, on jobs, on the price of fuel. That's precisely what Dr. Cassidy's bill does. I think it's a commonsense approach and something that the American people need as additional protections. With that, I reserve the balance of my time. Affordable and reliable energy is critical for our basic necessities, from heating or cooling homes, to transportation and obtaining healthcare. When energy prices rise, it threatens public health because it hurts the poor and disadvantaged disproportionately. Energy is also critical for a growing economy. When energy prices rise, it can cause job losses that can be devastating to public health. Given the prolonged weakness in the economy, high unemployment, and rising gasoline and other energy prices, the Nation can ill-afford to be further burdened by billion-dollar energy regulations that destroy jobs and significantly harm the economy. Today we have an opportunity to help protect families, consumers, and manufacturers from rising energy costs triggered by billion-dollar energy regulations imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency. We can do this by requiring greater transparency and more inter-agency scrutiny of EPA's most expensive energy regulations, and that is why I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1582, the ``Energy Consumers Relief Act.'' This additional scrutiny of EPA's costs and benefits analysis is warranted. For example, EPA estimated that only 4,700 MW of coal-fired generation would be lost as a result of its Utility MACT rule. Yet, with 2 years left until the 2015 compliance deadline, nearly 44,000 MW of coal-fired generation have already announced retirement. Further, we received testimony before the Energy and Power Subcommittee that under EPA's formula used to measure job impacts, the more costly the regulation, the greater the job increase EPA's formula will project. The use of such fuzzy math to calculate employment impacts led one economist to conclude, ``one cannot characterize the current formula favored by EPA as an economic methodology at all.'' It's exactly these types of skewed methodologies and flawed results that H.R. 1582 will help shine a light on. We owe it to the American people to ensure that our federal agencies are not overstating benefits or understating economic impacts to further political agendas. Such scrutiny will become increasingly critical as EPA and the Administration attempt to justify its forthcoming greenhouse gas regulations on coal-fired power plants with unsound and untested ``Social Cost of Carbon'' methodology. With more EPA billion-dollar energy-related rules on the horizon, it is imperative that we understand the impacts of these rules on jobs and the economy before they are implemented. By passing the ``Energy Consumers Relief Act'' we have the chance to protect American consumers and businesses from billion-dollar regulations that significantly harm the economy. And I might add that this Act does nothing to affect existing laws and regulations that protect public health and the environment. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1582.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I would say, first of all, with all due respect, we have no intent to pollute additionally the waterways that the gentleman referred to in Michigan, and I rise to oppose his amendment simply because he would say that this legislation would not apply to any rule that relates to air quality or water quality. So this amendment would exclude virtually all EPA rules from the transparency and inner-agency review requirements of the act. I would just summarize, once again, we are talking about energy- related rules that exceed $1 billion. We know that EPA looks closely at health benefits, health impacts; and we certainly favor that. But that's not the only thing that should be examined, and that's what this legislation is about. The Secretary of Energy, with other Cabinet officials in the Obama administration, would look at the impact of the regulation on the cost of electricity, the cost of gasoline, how many jobs might be lost, how many jobs might be created, would it have significant adverse impact to the economy as a whole. And I would think that everyone would say if it does, particularly with the slow economic growth we have today, the last 15 quarters have been the slowest since World War II, and the last quarter of 2012, the first quarter of 2013, the gross domestic product increased less than 2 percent. So we need to pay special attention to the impact that regulations may have on creating job loss and the impact on those families that lose those jobs, and that's what the gentleman's legislation is all about. I know the gentleman rose with the very best intentions, but I would respectfully oppose this amendment and ask Members to defeat his amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. As the gentleman said, his amendment would, in effect, strike the provisions preventing EPA from finalizing rules that the Energy Secretary determined will cause significant adverse effects to the economy, and that's precisely why I respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment. All of the debate this afternoon has focused on how EPA is focused totally on health benefits, and health benefits are vitally important. We recognize that. I think I also pointed out from experts that EPA makes mistakes in their benefit analysis, in their cost analysis when they look at costs. And so once again, what we're trying to do with the Cassidy bill is look at health, yes, but what is the impact on jobs. What is the impact on those families who lose a job because of the regulation? What is the impact on the children of the family who loses the job because of the regulation? What is the effect on their ability to provide the needs for their family, their health insurance, their food, and so forth? So all we're saying is that the Secretary of Energy in the same Cabinet as the administrator of the EPA would head up an analysis to review the EPA rule that exceeds $1 billion and affects energy alone. And if they decide that it will have significant adverse impact on the economy, then they can stop it. And by the way, under the legislation, EPA would also have to give a report to Congress on the impact on energy cost, how much will gasoline go up, electricity, how many jobs would be lost, how many jobs would be created. So when we have a struggling economy, the last thing we want to do is to create additional obstacles that really are not necessary at a time when you can do other things and protect health also. So with that, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment and ask that Members vote against the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, in mid-May, twenty-three of my colleagues joined me in sending a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations to encourage the newly elected Greek Cypriot leader and his Turkish Cypriot counterpart to resume talks aimed at expediently resolving the ongoing dispute over a divided Cyprus. A negotiated and mutually acceptable comprehensive settlement, based on a bi-zonal and bi-communal federation is vital to the region. I support international and domestic efforts to achieve such a resolution and urge the House of Representatives to encourage constructive dialogue between the two sides. In 2003, the House unanimously adopted H. Res. 165 in support of the Annan Plan, which would have approved the creation of a reunified Partnership State in Cyprus as a loose federation of two component states--the Greek Cypriot State and the Turkish Cypriot State. Unfortunately, this historic opportunity was rejected by Greek Cypriots through a referendum on the island. Although a majority of Turkish Cypriots approved the peace plan also by referendum, an opportunity of historic proportions was missed. Many would attribute the Greek Cypriots rejection of the Annan Plan and pro- division choice to becoming European Union (EU) members, which followed this move. At that time, it was believed that EU accession was predicated on solving this division after the fact. Subsequently, there has been no progress in this regard, further indicating a pro-division State. While the Greek Cypriots enjoy recognition as a sovereign state, there has been no imputes for them to solve the problem. Despite promises made to Turkish Cypriots over and over again, they still remain isolated. Over ten years have gone by without any progress on this issue. This year may once again be a year of opportunity to put an end to the status quo. We should be courageous enough to encourage a solution in Cyprus, and creative enough to promote a more secure, stable and prosperous Eastern Mediterranean where Greece, Turkey, a unified Cyprus, together with their allies and partners in the region, work together to build a better future. With the firm belief that such an outcome is not only achievable, but will also set an invaluable example of peace and cooperation in the region and beyond, I urge the Administration to encourage the United Nations Secretary General to enhance his efforts in reaching a comprehensive and just solution in Cyprus.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. I want to thank the gentleman very much. Yesterday, the President made a speech at Knox College in Illinois. And in that speech, he categorized Republican Members of Congress in three groups. He said there was a group of Republicans who agreed with him on his policy but were afraid to vote for it and did not have the courage to vote with him. He also said that another category of Republicans are those who, because it was his idea, are opposed to it. And then the third group of Republicans, he said, were those who have a view of the world that inequality and injustice is inevitable. I was a little bit offended by that categorization, and I wanted to take a few moments today to explain to the American people specifically why many in our Conference oppose the President on some of his economic and energy policies, particularly. I want to preface my remarks by saying, when the President was elected, the first thing that he focused on was transforming America's electricity policy. His number one goal was to produce more green energy through solar panels and wind energy. He spent billions of dollars on that through the stimulus package, much of the money going to venture capital friends of his, wealthy supporters of his, like Mr. Kaiser of Oklahoma, on the Solyndra project. And, in addition to that, the 1603 Treasury program that gives grants to certain green energy projects, the 1703 and 1705 programs at the Department of Energy. Now, that was the focus of the President. That was the part of his stimulus package that was going to get the economy back on track. Well, I would like to remind people that in June--just this past June--we lost, in America, 240,000 full-time jobs. The last quarter of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013, our growth in gross domestic product was not even 2 percent; it was below 2 percent. And for the last 15 quarters, our gross domestic product has increased only a little over 2 percent-- the weakest growth since World War II in America. Now, for this year, 2013, we've created 750,000 new jobs, but 557,000 of those were part-time jobs. Now, why is that happening and why are we losing full-time jobs? Well, under the President's Affordable Care Act--or as some people call it, ``ObamaCare''--any employer that has 50 or more employees and they work more than 30 hours a week, he is going to have to provide health coverage for them. If they do not do so, they will be penalized with a monetary penalty. So the reality is what's happening is that small business men and women in America are laying off their employees and making sure that they only work part-time. So the President, focusing on green energy, encouraging small business men and women to lay off workers, that's precisely why we have a sluggish economy today. Now, the President says that he is for an all-of-the-above energy policy. And I would say to you that everyone on our side of the aisle supports an all-of-the-above energy policy. But after spending billions of dollars for renewables, the President has only been successful to a very limited degree. As a matter of fact, today, renewables in America are creating only 500 million kilowatts a day; coal is producing 4.5 billion a day; gas, 3 billion a day; nuclear, 2 billion a day. So the President has jeopardized and created obstacles to economic growth because of his sole commitment to renewable energy. Now, like I said, we need renewable energy; but this President says one thing and does another. He says he is for an all-of-the-above energy policy; and yet because of his actions and his administration's regulations, America is the only country in the world where you cannot build a new coal power plant. As a result of that, we're losing jobs in that industry as well. So I would just say to the President his priorities are wrong. He is so focused on fulfilling his political goals of changing the way electricity is produced in America and creating obstacles for economic growth that he is self-defeating our abilities to stimulate the economy. And I would just emphasize once again, we do need an all-of-the-above energy policy. We need wind, we need solar, we need natural gas, nuclear and coal; and yet we cannot build a new coal power plant in America. If we're going to get this economy growing, we have to have electricity at a rate that we can afford in order to compete in the global marketplace, in order to get people to build plants in America, create jobs in America, and move this country forward. So I would just say to the President instead of focusing on categorizing Republicans and who they are and what they are, he needs to get his priorities right and start focusing on economic growth and stop using stimulus funds to reward his friends in the joint venture capital business and his wealthy supporters and start helping us build an energy policy that will work for America. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for giving me a few minutes to talk about that issue.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to explain, number one, why I am offering this amendment and then explain, number two, specifically what this amendment does. The reason it is in handwriting is that, after we submitted the printed amendment, we had a conversation with the Parliamentarian, and a suggestion was made to change it, so it was changed. This administration has made it very clear to the American people that it is trying to dictate the fuels used to produce electricity in America, and they've made it very clear that they are flagrantly discriminating and giving preferential treatment to the wind industry. Now, why do I say that? I don't say it because of the $12.1 billion production tax credit that the wind industry has received this year, and I don't say it because of the billions of dollars that the wind industry has received in past years. I say it because the administration has decided not to prosecute the wind industry for violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act or of the Endangered Species Act. According to an Associated Press investigation, in fact, the Obama administration has never fined or prosecuted a wind farm for killing eagles and other protected bird species--shielding the industry from liability and helping keep the scope of the deaths secret. As a matter of fact, to show you how the administration is being very discriminatory in the prosecution of these acts, British Petroleum was fined $100 million for killing migratory birds in the gulf oil spill. ExxonMobil was fined $600,000 for killing 85 birds. PacifiCorp was fined $10.5 million for killing birds. A utility in Wyoming was fined $100,000 for killing one eagle. I could go on and on and on. Yet more than 573,000 birds were killed by the country's wind farms last year, including 83,000 hunting birds, such as hawks, falcons and eagles, according to an estimate published in March in the peer-reviewed The Wildlife Society. We know that this administration is getting the reputation of deciding what Federal laws it's going to enforce and which ones it's not going to enforce. Now it is deciding that we are going to prosecute on the Endangered Species Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act if you happen to be in this sector of the economy, but if you're in the wind industry, we're not going to prosecute you. Do you know what is even worse than that? They are now deciding that they want to carve out a rule, which the Obama administration has proposed, that would give wind energy companies potentially decades of shelter from the prosecution of the killing of any birds. The regulation is currently under review at the White House. The proposal, which was made at the urging of the wind industry, would allow companies to apply for 30-year permits to kill bald eagles, golden eagles and other migratory birds. Previously, companies were only eligible for 5-year permits. It's basically guaranteeing a black box for 30 years, and they're saying, Trust us for oversight. ``This is not the path forward,'' said Katie Umekubo, a renewable energy attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. So why should the American people be giving billions of dollars to this industry and be allowing this administration not to prosecute them when they are obviously killing thousands of birds--in direct violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and of the Endangered Species Act? My amendment simply says, with regard to the $24 million set aside for research and development in the committee report, that it not be allowed to use that money simply because of the extraordinary protection this administration is going to provide to prevent them from being prosecuted under the existing Federal laws that this Congress passed many years ago. That is the purpose of the amendment, and I would respectfully urge Members to vote for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WHITFIELD

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Barrow of Georgia

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant for many years was the only plant operating in America in which uranium was enriched. This facility has met the national security needs of the United States since 1952, producing enriched uranium for nuclear weapons and commercial nuclear reactors. On May 24, 2013, it was announced that the facilities of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant would be transitioned back to the Department of Energy, resulting in 1,200 lost jobs and a vast need to start cleanup of the area. Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Secretary of Energy now has full responsibility for decontamination and decommissioning cleanup work at the Paducah site and for reindustrialization of the materials and facilities at that site. I was pleased that Secretary Moniz recently announced on July 3 Request for Offers to utilize the assets, land, and facilities at the Paducah Department of Energy site. As we move forward to finish the legacy cleanup of this plant and, most important, to reindustrialize that site to create new jobs, we are going to need to work with the chairman's committee on a very close basis. I hope that we can work with you in the coming years to ensure that we provide the Department the necessary support to accelerate reindustrialization through the Request for Offers process and also expedite the cleanup. I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey personally for his commitment in working with us on this, for the job that you have done on the 2014 Energy and Water appropriations bill, and I just hope that you will continue working with us.