that's been made to the previous during the past campaign this stablish mint which we were able to defeat in this past week of creation of slush funds to hide some of those dollars going forward and why is that all relevant to the amendment here before us for profit very practical purpose when a family were small business sets about to handle its daily budget how do they do so they do so from a logical perspective a deciding what is in the best interest of their family as far as their purchases are make or want to business sets out to create its budget for the year ahead and the purchases that it will be required to make how does it do so does so in a logical and regional basis it looks out all the purview is in all the parameters of the opportunities that are before them and then decide what is best for their family or for their families or their business you can say a family does a competitive bidding process although the average family probably doesn't think of it that way when they do their shopping from grocery store to grocery store or from wal mart to target to kmart or from wherever else they are in fact engaging in a competitive business process business nature if you will when a business does it a small business which is the backbone of the american economy and they engage in a competitive business that can put pet of business bidding process as well they know what they need in order for their business to survive in this year in this century in this quarter in the years ahead they know what the parameters are in order that they must meet and they will go out and about and engage in a competition if you will between the options that are out there for them and decide which one works best for them which is at the best price which is the most economical which is the most efficient it's a family budget can make these decisions it's a small business is of this country can make those decisions i think it's incumbent upon us here in this house this house of the people to make likewise those decisions in the same manner as well as the gentleman from texas often says the focus should be on the  and not on the federal budget likewise when it comes to the way we handle the taxpayers dollars the focus should be on the same way the family in the small business handled their budget and they are preparing meant instead of the role in the methods we've done in the past and that's why i come to the floor this afternoon in support of the gentleman from texas this other gentleman from texas mr sessions his amendment today because that's simply what this amendment will do will strike section one of five from the bill and that is section which prohibits funds from being used under o circular a seventy six which is basically the outsourcing proposed process to quote to process or approve a competition with regard to the army corps of engineers by striking this previous provision o m b would be allowed to use a competitive process in conducting private public competition to determine who the government agency or private business but would perform certain activities just think for a moment if we were to engage in such activities how much further the hard earned tax dollars of the american public could go in this house in this american economy that we have just think how many more of these necessary programs that we are called upon to support could be engaged in and provided now i come from the great state of new jersey a state that oftentimes has to look to the corps and to the federal government for various programs to provide for the health and safety of the citizens of not only my district but my state as well i think for a moment how much further  we would be able to go in providing these services in the state of my district and my county and through the state new jersey as well think about how much further we could go if we could be able to provide these services in a more economical and efficient basis the amendment that  is before us does such as it will allow for the operation of the federal government to engage itself the same way as a small business does the same way as the family budget does closing then bringing this all back to that my opening comments with regard to what we have seen at the beginning of this process with the democrat budget and what we've seen over the last several weeks with regard to the last largest tax increase for the american family in u s history what this amendment will do drive down the proper procedure on this government to raise taxes on the backs of american families and with that you'll damage time is expired for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise of strike the last word which i was recognized for five minutes thank you mr chairman you know i was not going to speak on this amendment i was somewhat encouraged by the silence on the other side of the aisle when it originally came out but then when the  majority party indicated they're going to pose oppose this amendment i have to stand up and say just at least one thing we are going to have some amendment debate later today about how much money to spend on various programs and how much to spend on various things and how much to spend overall on this bill whether we should be spending more of the taxpayers money on things or less on the taxpayers money on things and we're going to have that debate today and and tomorrow and the next day and there are certainly disagreements between the majority side a minority side on those issues as to whether we should tax people more and spend their money or tax people less and let them spend their own money but interestingly this m m it isn't about that this amendment doesn't change the funding in the bill it simply says we ought to have a mechanism to make the money that's there go farther i really don't understand why my democratic colleagues would have some ideological objection to that if we're going to spend a certain amount of money on a program regardless of what that program does couldn't we all agree that we'd like it to do as much as it can with that amount of money and certainly if we allow private contractors or contractors the opportunity to say hey we can do this thing for less money and we can do the same thing and the agency determines that it's the same thing for less money wouldn't we want them to do that this actually is not about spending less money we'll get to that later but this is about having the money we spend go farther i mean it's it's just like if for people mr chairman that are watching at home imagining that well i'm going to i'm going to go out and you know get dry cleaning today but i don't care how much it costs and i don't care if the place the next door does it cheaper and they're every bit as good or better i don't care and use the more expensive place because that's what we're just we're not going to we're not going to make competition the house proceedings on television or are we not supposed to do that mr chairman i believe mr chairman i believe that i clearly said mr chairman people who see this may wonder that gentleman shall address his remarks to the chair i did i believe thank you thank you mr chairman whether whether it's you mr chairman or anyone in this room or whoever we have money that we spend on things and we like to shop to see if we're getting the best price getting the same product or as good a product or a better product for the best price that's what this amendment says is that we're going to allow people to shop to get the same or better product for the best price mr chairman it is beyond me why the majority party would object to something so sensible so but pursue caustics of rule eighteen for the proceedings on the m m and offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed they will rise informally for purposes of receiving a message page ten line twenty title to department of the interior central utah project central utah project completion account forty one million three hundred eighty thousand dollars for necessary expenses in carrying out related responsibilities of the secretary one million six hundred twenty thousand dollars last year our recommendation water and related resources eight hundred seventy one million one hundred ninety seven thousand dollars was chairman  and again this amendment as some previous amendments have attempts to make a very very modest step towards saving the family budget from the single largest tax increase in american history specifically over the requested level or the level in the bill this would reduce funding for the interior's water and related resources account to the president's request from roughly eight hundred and seventy one million to eight hundred and sixteen million representing a fifty five million dollars savings to the american taxpayer this account has been a traditionally earmarked account for certain water restoration activities and seventeen western states the bill's current funding level represents a six point seven percent increase over the president's request and again i'm sure this account funs many worthy projects but we need i believe a number of us believe we need a roadmap to try to bring fiscal sanity to the house in an appropriate  that is already increasing spending twice the rate of inflation and so now we're having a debate over eight hundred sixteen million as proposed by the administration which i'm sure many in this body might think is an overly large number when we recognize that money is coming from hardworking american taxpayers but a difference of eight hundred sixteen versus eight hundred and seventy one again mr chairman as the majority in their budget resolution x is single largest tax increase in american history they're asking american families to somehow do more with less don't we believe that the federal government ought to try to do more with less and in this case which still have an increase six point seven percent increase over the president's request and as i've taken to the floor on other occasions during this debate we should never ever forget that although something good can be done with the federal taxpayer dollars in this account i have no doubt we have to remember the hard working american families back home and how the single largest tax increase in history which is funding this third appropriation bill still twice the rate of inflation we have to remember we have to remember how this bill impacts them and i've asked certain that sent out a letter to my constituents asking them how this tax increase of the democrat majority what impact them i heard from bruce and garland garlands of city in my district he said quote in my particular case an additional twenty two hundred dollars in taxes would cut into the finances i used to pay for my son's college education a control in reduction of spending is what is needed again mr chairman what we realize is as we plus up some federal account we are downsizing some family account in this case we're affecting a family's education again i heard from joy in the city of dallas i represent the eastern part of the city of dallas she writes quote i could not pay for a semester of college for my daughter if i had to send more money to the government so is this accounts getting plussed up by twice the rate of inflation here to individual family just two and a millions across america who are having their education accounts gutted by the plus up in this particular bill i heard from linda also from the city of garland quote if we had to pay an additional twenty two hundred dollars each year it would make us have to decide between food or medicine i've got a whole host of these letters mr chairman to remind every member in this body that is we talk about all the noble purposes we have for the american taxpayers money and they too have noble purposes they have health care programs in their family they have education programs in their family they have energy bills in programs in their family paying their heating bills or cooling bills filling up their automobile so certainly we could take one modest step in saving the taxpayer fifty five million dollars in plus up the water and related resources accounted traditionally earmarked to can't we had a very vigorous debate over earmarks here recently there transparency there accountability but surely we could agree to hold to the president's level and try to save the family budget from the onslaught of the federal budget and i yield back the balance of my time german time has expired uppers gentleman from india on a rise i'd moved to strike last words and was recognized for five minutes and i rise in opposition to the gentleman says amendment mr chairman the water in related resources account funds reclamation core missions of delivering water to citizens of this country to those who kill the soil in our country and for generating hydro powe given the growing need for water supplies into seventeen western states of this country i certainly believe it is critical that the nation invest now in water reclamation and reuse projects in 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 of trust responsibilities to indian reservations through the delivery of safe drinking water i share the gentleman's concern about the health programs in the united states and i can't think of anything more important than ensuring that people in seventeen different states to this country have clean water to drink and how shortsighted it would be to cut programs to provide clean drinking water for human health so that we can spend on told sums of money under 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 monies away we will do a disservice to the help of the people who live in these regions as what the corps of engineers reclamation simple struck sure is aging and it has increasing requirements for proper and adequate maintenance of that simple structure but seventeen states that cover a large area in swaths of  continent and 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 gentlemens amendment are we going to tell people in wichita kansas the wichita chaney program that maybe they not going to get all of their money are we going to tell people at lakehead in nevada that well we had to make a cut of fifty five million in you're just not going to have the resources you need for people in oregon for the crooked river project or we're going to tell them well they're 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 clean drinking water for people who live in seventeen states in the united states of america provided through infrastructure that is eighteen we have a responsibility to invest in that and that is why i am a rising support of the gentleman from texas for this amendment and when i let me begin with the gentleman from the other side of the aisle concluded when he asked the question but what if there is not enough money to go around that is a question that we ask here in congress in the house all the time what if there's not enough money for my pet project to go around what if there is not enough money for this earmark to go around what if there is not enough money for this brand new program to go around but let me suggest to you that there's a nother variation of that question that we need mindful of and that is the families back at home that we represent when the mom and dad sits at their dining room table at the end of each week with their checkbook out paying their bills be it for the electric bill some other utility or heating bill their rent or their mortgage their food bill their health their education bill for their children or any other vital bills that that family has and the husband looks over to the wife and they realize that they have all these stacks of bills in front of them and they have more says more bills than they have money in their checking account and the wife asked the husband but what now because there's not enough money to go around what does that family do who does that family turn to when there's not enough money to go around i can tell you where this congress turns to when we say there's not enough money to go around when we say there's not enough money to go around what this house has done or at least in the new budget that it was presented in the budget committee which i serve on by the other side of the aisle what the democrats propose to do is to simply raise taxes and as we have seen in the proposed budget from the other side of the aisle it is now the large this tax increase in u s history on the backs of america's families on the backs of that very same husband and wife who is sitting there saying to themselves there's not enough money to go around to pay our bills to pay our mortgage to pay our health care bills to pay or send our kids to go to school they can't raise taxes on anybody else they can't go out to their neighbors and say well worry we can't afford food this week we can't afford our rent this week we can't afford to send our kids to the high to the colleges that we want to so we're going to raise taxes on you they can't do that but somehow or other members of congress things when they get elected down here that we can do that by raising taxes the largest tax increase in u s history that somehow or other there were entrusted to do such things and create slush funds and the like why i stand before you and say that no that the american public has sent a message to us to both sides of the aisle to republicans and democrats alike yes the democrats are now in charge mr chairman of this house and they are so because the american public spoke this last november quite candidly because perhaps the republicans weren't listening well enough during that period time but i can tell you this and those who listen to us on the floor today know the republicans are listening very well right now and the democrats are not listening very well grissom republic that the voters sent a message in november and said enough is enough we have to be concerned about the family budget some time instead of the federal budget we have to put the focus on the moms and dads out there being able to pay their kid bills for their kids health care on the right instead of always worrying about ever increasing budgets on the federal level now the but the proposals that before us we're look at would simply look to save a few million dollars out of a several trillion dollar budget something that most americans myself included can't really get our arms around when you think about how large is budget is it always is the drop in the bud budget bucket when it comes to the budget back here but the budget the family is home that's still a lot of money the proposal that just good gentleman from texas proposes here right now simply try to rein in spending in such a smallest of ways but it would be a good step in the right direction it would be saying to the voters vote last november we heard you we had to put the focus on the family budget we're going to try to live within my means and even when we're dealing with important issues such as the gentleman from the other side of the aisle raise whether it's water resources or the like we're going to fund those programs we're going to take care of those programs but going to do it and efficient and  manageable manner we're going to do so that is not a burden on the american family's budget any longer because we have heard you and we realize that there will never be enough dollars for every single program that every single member of congress in the senate come up with but we're going to prioritize them but they i'm an order of importance but that is an order that most significant to the american family fund those programs to the level that are necessary and the rest we are going to do just as every family in america has to do set limits on what we're going to spend on set limits on how much we're going to spend and live within our means so that you good gentleman mr hanson from texas i commend you for your work and trying to have this house live within its means generous time expired  for what purposes gentleman from georgia arise germans recognized for five minutes thank chairman and i'm fine with the most recent comment of our good friends on the other side  rather amusing as the president is charged with executing the policies that this congress puts in place and heaven forbid that he or whoever might occupy that office might have certain priorities that they would want to bring about to to in fact execute the policies that have been passed by this congress but be that as it may i i want to commend my good friend from texas for bringing this amendment forward i think that the amendment itself highlights truly the fallacy of the process that we're under and that is as my good friend from new jersey just mentioned that we fail in this congress at least the majority party fails in this congress to prioritize spending in a way that passes that test that i believe the american people would be proud of or be pleased with the point isn't as my good friend from from indiana has stated the specifics of the project that he projects that he identify that's that is not the point of the debate that we would rise to engage in the point is that when is enough enough when is it that we as a federal government take hard earned tax payer money out of the pocketbooks and the back pockets of americans and say ok that's all we need clearly this new majority has said that we can't get enough we can't get enough and consequently they have adopted in this past six months a budget that includes the largest tax increase in the history of our nation the largest tax increase in the history of america and i have friends at home oh say well that wouldn't be so bad if in fact they were solving real problems but mr chairman as you well know the challenge of the federal spending the challenge of the budgetary process is the automatic programs the entitlement programs the mandatory programs social security medicare and medicaid which comprise fifty four fifty five percent of our federal budget and the budget that this new majority passed that included the largest tax increase in the history of our nation did nothing said nothing about how to reform those programs how to make certain that social security which is a program that is challenge to be charitable challenge from a process standpoint to be able to provide a safety net for those young citizens across our nation who are in their twenty's and thirty's it's a program that will not have that those kind of resources without structural change and so the majority party passes a budget with the largest tax increase in the history of our nation and says nothing it's mute as it relates to social security reform mr chairman i don't think that's what the american people sent us to washington to do i think they sent us to washington solve real problems as a as a physician prior to coming to congress one of the huge challenges that we face is the provision of health care and health insurance for our citizens and consequently the other two limbs of the the budgetary challenge that we have medicare medicaid huge problems huge challenges from a financial standpoint they require structural change however this majority passed in their budget again the largest tax increase in the history of our nation nearly four hundred billion dollars and said nothing nothing about struck carol reform so those programs that are imperative for the healthiness of our nation so when we talk about our concern regarding spending it's not necessarily the specifics of a given paragraph within a spending bill the specifics are the overall amount of money that we are spending as a federal government and the fact that we are ignoring this congress is ignoring the true financial challenges that face us as a nation and so i rise to commend my friend from texas for offering an amendment that i think brings focus to where the debate ought be and that is to challenge each and every member of this body and each and every member of the senate to make certain that before we end our time here this calendar year this fiscal year to make certain that the budget for fiscal year zero eight is as responsible as it can be that we had addressed appropriately those huge financial challenges that we have as a nation and be much more responsible with taxpayer money and make certain that we allow americans to keep their hard earned taxpayer money in their back pocket and in their pocketbooks and i yield back the balance a read page twelve line twenty central valley project restoration find fifty nine million one hundred twenty two thousand dollars california bay delta's restoration forty million seven hundred fifty thousand  policy in administration fifty eight million eight hundred eleven thousand dollars and ministry of provisions appropriations for the bureau for purchase of not to exceed fourteen passenger motor vehicles general provisions department of the interior section chairman as we continue to wade through these massive and costly expose spending bills my commitment to the american taxpayer remains strong i signed a pledge to vote to uphold a presidential veto of any spending bill that exceeds the president's requested level of funding hopefully we can contain some of this out of control spending and pass fiscally responsible legislation but if not i intend to honor that pledge this appropriations bill would increase spending for energy and water projects by one point one billion more than the president's budget request and seeks to increase spending by more than one point three billion over last year's fiscal zero seven energy and water appropriation bill we have an opportunity to demonstrate restraint by reducing the amount that the government spends not increasing it at a time when the federal government faces an eight point eight trillion dollar national debt we have a real opportunity to show the american people that we can be fiscally disciplined and that we will reduce this deficit increasing the size of government or bureaucracy will not help this reduction effort my commonsense amendment would simply maintain the policy and administration account under the bureau of reclamation at fiscal year two thousand and seven levels representing a one point two million dollars reduction from fifty eight point eight to fifty seven point six million dollars that's the same as last year's budget given that this funding level was appropriate for last year's budget and our nation needs to reduce federal spending this commonsense restraint should be acceptable this amendment is not critical of bureau of reclamation or its employees who actually help deliver water to parts of my district and are important to the state of colorado and to the entire west it simply requiring the federal government to operate the way any deficit laden business would a private sector company experiencing the same deficits the federal government is facing would not increase its deficit it would simply cut spending or go out of business a family on a tight budget finds ways to go without and we should explore every opportunity to be fiscally responsible as well this amendment is the first step of many necessary steps in forcing fiscal discipline and sanity upon the federal government and out of control federal deficit spending we must restore fiscal discipline and assure the american people that we are doing what i is necessary to reduce our national debt to do this we must find commonsense and innovative new ways to do more with less the american people have asked congress to rein in federal spending and tighten its belt this reasonable amendment does just that and i urge its adoption and mr chairman i reserve the balance of my time the gentleman may not reserve his time gentleman yield back thank you mr chairman and i come to the floor in support of yet another good and common sense amendment good and common sense because it ask of this congress do the very same thing that any family in america that any small business america would do under similar circumstances american public right now is looking at we have already seen the largest tax increase in u s history and let me just take a moment though before i go into the particulars on this amendment to explain how that impacts upon the average american family there is an article in the new york times several months ago after the democrats proposed their budget which is inclusive of what we have here before to say how would this the largest tax increase in u s history impact a family of four the average american family of four maybe in the fifth congressional district maybe in bergen county which is one of the great counties of new jersey that i represent average family of four for individuals making around seventy thousand dollars a year which by should point out by no means in the great state of new jersey would be considered by most people and affluent family that family would see their tax because of this underlying legislation combined with the overall budget go up by upwards to fifteen sixteen hundred dollars a year that would mean fifteen or sixteen hundred dollars more coming to the federal treasury into the federal checkbook as opposed being able to stay in the family checkbook that means fifteen or sixteen hundred dollars more coming down to the washington bureaucrats as opposed to being able to remain in the family checkbook on the kitchen table where mom and dad are able to decide should those dollars be spent on their son's college education on their daughter's health care expenses on their in laws necessary expenses that they must share with whatever else to washington as opposed to the family budget now the j good gentleman from colorado comes up with an amendment to try to address that if we're able to hold the line overall on spending just as an average family would have to do we would not see the need for this the largest tax increase in american history and what does a good gentleman from colorado colorado do mr lambourn well he simply says hold the line on spending for let's say the bureaucrats if you will all good men and women i'm sure the people in policy and ministration account under this bill under the bureau of reclamation hold the spending at two thousand and seven levels by doing so we will be saving some money that will represent a one point two million one point two three six altogether million dollar reduction from fifty eight point eight million to fifty seven point five seven million now some of you may say in this grand scheme of things when we're looking at a federal budget of upwards of three almost three trillion dollars saving one point two million dollars is not that much but you know the flip side of that argument if it really isn't that much of a cut and the flipside of that argument is that it really shouldn't be that much to bear for the federal government if we're really not cutting that much which then the bureaucrats in the rest who have such a huge budget as it is should not feel the squeeze that much but all we're asking them to do like any other family to do is live on their budget for this year i ask how many americans how many americans saw their income rise last year by two or two and by one by two two and a half times the rate of inflation i can tell you quite candidly most of the people that i talked to in my district unfortunately did not see their incomes rise that much but yet that's what we're asking them to do in the sense of higher taxes to pay for the increase in spending for the overall budget that we have here let me just conclude by in the same way that my gentleman from colorado mr la doesn't his letter he says and i think this is my most poignant words we must restore fiscal discipline and assure the american people that we are doing whatever is necessary to reduce our national debt and to do this we must find a common sense and innovative ways to do more with less the american people have asked congress to rein in federal spending and to tighten its belt this reasonable man meant does just that and he asked us all from both sides of the aisle republican and democrat alike to join with the gentleman from colorado to work to make sure that we do not have the largest tax increase in american history to work to make sure that we have a system that is common sense and efficient and appropriate on the federal level just as we have asked for the american family at home and with that mr chairman i yield back the balance of my time general neill's back was speaker you know it's amazing if it's the speaker with folks on the other psychics saying tax increase they're actually going to be lead that there's a tax increase what i notice is that they very rarely mention deficit because when they do they leave themselves open for a discussion on the deficit yes there is a deficit in the american people are quickly finding that out the deficit was not created in the last less than six months that democrat of had control of this house the deficit was created by taking us into a war that we should have been involved in where close to six hundred billion dollars have been spent not to mention the loss of life not to mention the fact that when our troops come home over the next ten fifteen twenty years we will be paying in deficit spending to make up for medical care and all the needs that i certainly will be supporting for them now it's interesting mr speaker how the other side mentions that this bill spends money well in a way that's redundant because that's what the constitution says the appropriations committee supposed to do was to come to the congress every year and spend dollars how much we spend that's a discussion but if there was ever a place where you can justify a modest increase it would be when you deal with the energy issues in our country there are dollars here no one is mentioning for research there are dollars here to deal with the energy issue now every american knows that probably at the center of issues in this country is the high cost of fuel in this country whether for driving for heating our homes so when you take some of those tax dollars and you spend them very modest amount on research to see if there's a way that in the future we could out out of pendency on foreign oil that is a great investment that is no different than investing in a college or an education for the children it is the same kind but again we're not going to hear that what we're going to hear is this repetition about how money is being spent and that there is a tax increase i don't remember a tax increase in the six months that we have been here as democrats when i do remember that cause the deficit was one the war and two that we did have a tax decrease in this country a tax cut we did but it wasn't for anybody that we know certainly no one i know it was for millionaires and billionaires including some of them who told us that they even won a tax cut those are the people so if indeed those tax cuts reach their sunset and die i guess you could play with words and say that taxes will go up year for somebody who has a hundred million dollars he or she might pay more taxes later on but the working class the people who are getting help for their education the folks that are getting a better deal on energy propositions in the future those are the facts the people that we're looking for now you want to cut the deficit down you want to create a situation where we will spend less money in this country stop the war now stop spending another dollar on the war in iraq but it's it has been forgotten it's all about  taxes spend them across my god when you hear this mr speaker you would think we were in control for the last fourteen years no it's fourteen twelve years twelve fourteen years against less than six months and in those six months we spoken to parents about their kids education in those six months we've made attempts to bring down the cost of gasoline in those six months yes we gave an increase a minimum wage increase to the lowest earnest in this country that's what we've done and we will be proud of that you want to cut the deficit that you created over twelve years stop the war now that's the best way to do it i yield back gentleman yield back for purposes gentleman from california arise and was recognized for five minutes thank you mr chairman just a couple couple of brief there were so many inaccuracies in that last speech but there's at least couple that i would like to correct relative to taxes one of them being that in the last six years the tax reductions that have been put into place actually reduce taxes for every single american who pays income taxes and actually took some people who weren't paying income taxes and took them off the tax rolls and that the democrats budget which is in fact been passed on like a minimum wage increase which is not actually in the law at this point but the democrats budget which has in fact been pas proposed potentially to roll back all of those tax increases and thereby increase taxes on every single taxpayer in america that would that i would like to yield to the gentleman from colorado i think this chairman and i think the gentleman from california and to put things in perspective to my colleague from new york it's true that the war in iraq has cost six hundred billion dollars that is seven percent of the eight point eight trillion dollar total national debt that we have so we have to also address the remaining ninety three percent of the debt because the war is seven percent out of that eight point eight trillion dollars so getting back to this amendment that's before us i would differ with my colleague from new york we are not cutting any research into energy development we are cutting the bureaucracy expense we're cutting the pol administration portion of the bureau of reclamation and we're just keeping it to last year's dollar amount so the bureaucracy the administration of the bureau of reclamation is what's being kept to last year's figures there's no going on for any research development program whatsoever so i just wanted to make that correction apparently i haven't won over my colleague from new york yet but i would urge everyone else here to adopt this amendment thank you mr chairman and i  to the gentleman from california california recognized thanks john from colorado and just like to amplify what you've said that if in fact what this amendment does is take spending to last year and it's not a cut at all it's not even a cut of the bureaucracy that you're thank you mr chairman i appreciate that and not and compelled to come down to just comment about some of the the the information that we've heard from from the other side were guarding issues not necessarily related this amendment because they broaden the debate significant les to talk about the deficit and mr chairman as you well know the deficit has been decreasing significantly for reasons that i'd like to touch on a little bit they also talked about the the issue of the work that they had accomplished that this majority had accomplished and they talk about decreasing gas prices well in fact what their gas bill did mr chairman as you'll recall is to increase taxes on united states all companies sounds good maybe in some districts i don't know mine's not terribly terribly interested in anybody paying more taxes but they increase taxes on united states oil companies and that bill sits in the senate thank goodness because hopefully the saddle be able to resolve it in correct that a so that the actual policy of this congress on gas prices will indeed be to bring them down takes greater responsibility to do that if in fact that were to become law then what we would do under the direction of this majority party is to decrease the ability for american oil companies to produce american oil and we would increase increase our reliance on our dependency on foreign oil not the greatest energy pla mr chairman i would suggest also talked about assisting kids education college education and we have that as a goal certainly we think it's appropriate to provide for greater resources for  american citizens to to attend higher education what is their bill do though mr chairman again it sits in the senate so hopefully we'll have the senate correct that but what their bill does is to ratchet down very gradually the interest rate that students pay on loans to go to college and keeps them at half their current rate for six months six months mr chairman and then boom right back up to where they work well as chairman that in leadership either now this chart right here mr chairman talks about the increasing federal revenue but this red line here could be jobs it could be increasing federal revenue could be economic development and there was a remarkable thing that occurred in two thousand and three that made it so that line goes up appropriately thank goodness the american people say appropriately federal revenues increase economic development increase the jobs increase and what happened in two thousand and three was the culmination of appropriate tax reductions for the american people and what is this majority want to do wants to take that line back down because what they've done is passed a budget that reverses every single tax reduction appropriate tax reduction for the american people mr chairman that's not the kind of leadership i don't think the american people deserve nor is it the type of leadership that they desire so when we broaden this debate it's appropriate because the american people mr chairman the american people are watching and what they see is a majority party that is terribly interested in making certain that the the american people are taxed to a greater degree so that they a stent sibly have more money to be able to spend on their pet programs my good friend says that it's only folks who make hundreds of millions of dollars who will be taxed have their taxes go up well mr chairman that's not the case as you well know taxes will increase for virtually every single american anybody who pays taxes now under this new majority if they get their way we'll have increased taxes that's not the kind of leadership i believe that the american people voted for in november not the kind of leadership that we would provide it's not the kind of leadership that the american people deserve so  i i'm pleased that my good friends on the other side of broad in the debate because it results in the opportunity to to bring into focus greater clarity to these budget bills greater part clarity to these appropriations bills and make certain that the american people are paying attention to the kind of leadership that this new majority is offering or not or the lack of leadership that their employees the old my friend from new jersey thank you and i think it's a significant point that you raise with regard to exactly what level of american taxpayers will be subjected to these taxes i come from the great state of new jersey where we had similar rhetoric if you will from the other side of the aisle on the state level and we actually heard the exact same arguments being made don't worry they are going to come up with what they call the millionaire's tax and if you're not a millionaire don't worry about it well truth be told after all the dust was scattered away from the bills after all the hearings were held after all the press conference and everything else was done by the democrats and say to new jersey we found that that level went from a million dollars to nine hundred thousand dollars eight hundred thousand dollars seven hundred thousand dollars to six hundred thousand dollars to five hundred thousand dollars four hundred thousand dollars three hundred for purposes gentlemen from the enterprise mr chairman i move to strike the last word jim is recognized for five minutes i would like to actually talk about the bill and i would like to talk of reclamation and we are talking about people's health and well being a part of that does include the wise the stewardship of the monies that are provide from the debate it has taken place today and you would think that the only thing we are worried about is spending money in worried about the quantity of the money that we're spending as opposed to the quality of the underlying act and to work at the agencies do and would draw mr chairman my colleagues attention to page forty eight of the report it goes into great detail and i'm going to read it the gentleman has been a member before us to cut one point two three six million dollars from the bill and the fact is over the last several years our subcommitte under the leadership of then chairman hobson as well as myself have done everything possible to make sure that the money's being spent by the bureau proclamation are being spent wisely and i read from the report fiscal year two thousand and six the committee directed the department of interior to smit with this fiscal year two thousand and seven budget request eighty tailed five year budget plan for each of the major budget components including water and related resources california based delta restoration program central valley project restoration fun in central utah project completion because of concern of the subcommittee then as it is as of this moment is that the public's monies are being spent with quality as well the department subsequently appoint a committee that would be able to provide a five year plan at this school year two thousand and seven and intended to make the initial submission with the fiscal year two thousand and eight budget request the bureau failed to make that submission either and now informs the committee that the five year plan will be submitted at some defined time in the future the patients of the subcommittee the patients of the appropriations committee is not without limit and as a result in the report language we know the committee's extreme frustration with the bureau's inability to provide a five year budget plan the act contains a provision that trance fors ten million not one point two three six million but ten not afraid to move monies around and in this case to the tune of ten million dollars 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 and that is why i am adamantly opposed to the general gentleman's amendment which it was time has expired rule eighteen for the proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postpone page fifteen line five administrative provisions appropriation for the bureau for purchase of not to exceed fourteen passenger motor vehicles general provisions department of the interior section two zero one one the funds may be used to determine the final point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the san louis unit for what purposes the gentleman from california writes i have them in number twenty one at the desk when we get there in the bill mr speaker the chair read into th page sixteen line eighteen title three department of energy energy program energy efficiency and renewable energy one billion eight hundred seventy three million eight hundred forty four thousand dollars i have in them a number twenty one of the you know the one of the last speakers on the other side of the aisle mentioned that wasn't quite sure why we kept talking about taxes and tax increases because inevitably if you head towards a balance budget that's what all spending turns into turns into taxes and in fact the democratic budget which to the majority party's credit is heading towards a balance d budget in five years as were i believe virtually all of the budgets that were presented this year but it does so by saying in its own terms that they will raise taxes as much as they need to at the end of that five years in order to achieve a balanced budget so when we're talking today about things that are increasing in spending this isn't something that's abstract this isn't twenty million here forty million here one hundred billion there of just sort of faceless nameless money that's money in figures that are so large that most people mr chairman have a hard time even comprehend ing how much that is and how it can relate to the things that we're doing but it makes it a little more down to earth brings a little more home when you look at each one of these which is the way we should look at the chairman each one of these spending increases on each program on each bill on each thing here and realize that every dollar of increase there is a dollar that the majority party wants to go get out of the pockets of taxpayers that own that is what we're really talking about and that's why mr chairman i propose this amendment now this amendment refers to just one of the many many projects and many many programs in this appropriations bill this one is something that deals with whether is a ssion assistance and the bill that is before us proposes to increase whether as a sion assistance spending by twenty percent over last year now what's interesting is that in the president's budget which this amendment proposes to reduce the spending to the president has actually proposed to reduce this by two almost half why is that because in something that's called energy efficiency and renewable energy this program is actually not at all efficient i actually had some personal experience with this program not personal in the sense that i was dealing with the with the program from a recipient standpoint but when i was in the state legislature there  this with this program in california and by the time that you deal with the federal bureaucracy and then you get the money the state in a state bureaucracy and then you put the money out very little of this money was actually going to anything towards the goal was accomplished and what's interesting is it's also creating a subsidy for something that already pays for itself the reason people weatherize their homes or seal leaks and so forth or cracks and windows and doors is because it saves you money on your energy bill over time so this is a bill to say that is this is a program that has been shown to be inefficient been shown to not be effective that subsidizes something that doesn't need subsidization and which in this bill is proposed to increase by twenty percent now the president's budget proposed to reduce this it's one of those things on that list of programs that a number of people have that are saying these are some of the most inefficient programs in the federal government today and this is one of them that certainly should be reduced or perhaps eliminated but instead this bill proposes to increase it by nearly forty billion dollars forty million dollars i'm sorry forty million dollars and again forty million dollars for a program that isn't what you know when it's i guess sometimes this is the difference between government and not government when things don't work in government it seems that there's always a group of people saying the reason they're not working is because they don't have enough money and we need to spend more money on them whereas normally in the real world mr chairman people when something isn't working that's when you take money from it make it become more efficient or not funded anymore if it's not working so mr chairman this amendment just this one area of this one department proposes to reduce this to the president's proposed budget the threat of nuclear terrorism it's hard to imagine but in one instance a nuclear bomb detonating in a major american city could kill more of our citizens and we have lost in combat in every war in our nation's history osama bin laden has told his followers that it is their religious duty to secure loose nuclear materials for a bomb to be set off in the united states it is our sacrosanct duty to ensure that that never happens visclosky for making homeland security against nuclear terrorism the highest priorities and this bill is right to do so this bill provides two point one billion dollars protect the american family from a nuclear holocaust a level that is nearly four hundred million dollars above the administration's budget request specifically it provides eight hundred thirty two million dollars for international nuclear materials protection and cooperation activities three hundred fifty nine million dollar increase to the budget request with these funds we will expand cooperative programs with russia and other nations with vast him in tory's of nuclear material and this bill the global threat reduction initiative is increased by one hundred thirty two million dollars for a total of two hundred fifty one million dollars this will assist us in a defiant securing removing disposing of nuclear material throughout the world the mega ports initiative is funded at two hundred fourteen point eight million dollars this program installed radiation detectors at major seaports around the world so nuclear weapons and materials can be intercepted before they are smuggled into a major american city this additional funding will allow the department of energy to install sensors at several key seaports this year rather than waiting for several years to do so i want to take a moment of my time to also compliment the hardworking dedicated citizens who work at the department of energy on these nuclear nonproliferation programs they work extraordinarily long hours many spending long periods of time away from their families in the harsh russian climate working to secure these materials and protect us and our families from the threat of nuclear terrorism let me point out some of the only successes because of that hard work and the work this subcommittee chaired formally by chairman hobson who also made homeland security against nuclear terrorism a top priority do in recent years has completed work securing nuclear materials at ninety one one hundred twenty five russian nuclear weapons material and warheads sites with remainder in progress we secured more than five hundred twenty vulnerable radiological sites overseas containing enough nuclear material to build approximately seven thousand seven hundred dirty bombs we recovered over fourteen thousand radiological sources domestically containing enough material for approximately fourteen hundred dirty bombs we've equipped eighty eight land border crossings in russia with radiation detection equipment with work complete are underway in eight other countries we've been spall installed mega ports radiation detection equipment eight ports with operational testing and evaluation underway one additional port if your chairman two years ago president bush said that protecting our nation from nuclear terror should be our nation's number one national security priority i agree with the strong leadership of chairman visclosky and now ranking member hobson this bill takes a significant step forward in protecting our communities our families and our nations and the threat of nuclear terrorism that's why i urge bipartisan support for this important legislation now you know back to balance my time  high rise too in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from california i note that this amendment is offered to the section of the bill well on energy efficiency and renewable energy and i know first that the president's request for this year is more than ten percent below on every one of the renewable energy accounts in  biomass accounts that would include biodiesel corn corn ethanol and and cellulosic ethanol which of course is the area that so many people believe is going to be a major saver in the future to include solar energy wind energy geothermal technology hydropower vehicle technologies where thirty percent of all of our energy is used building technologies where forty percent of all of our energies use industrial technologies where twenty percent of all our energy is used and and the president proposes in those areas ten percent reductions below the enacted whereas the subcommittee in its wisdom that apparently agreed certainly by me and certainly apparently agreed by the gentleman from california the committee has added moneys over the enacted number for zero seven so we apparently agree on that but then oddly enough the gentleman from california chooses to attack the one program the grid gives direct help to low income households in this country so one health health program the weather zation program where low income households can get assistance to install energy saving technologies and measures in their in their homes well to turns out there are something like fourteen million households in this country that have incomes of less than fifty percent of the median income in areas vary the various areas around the country half of them live in homes most of those homes are very inefficient users of energy so the low income weather is a sion program is a program that would help those homes be more efficient in the use of energy the president's request for this year is in fact below the low the enacted over seven number by twenty percent as the gentleman has actually by more than thirty percent below what the enacted zero seven number was then acted zero six number was even higher than the zero seven numbers so the committee in its wisdom has instead recommended raising the number to the zero six level to the level expended in o c in fiscal year zero six and the gentleman from california wants to take it back from the committee's number by by this time forty five percent or something like that the exact number i haven't quite calculated those moneys are well invested in those homes which low income households are using where energy is inefficiently use where we can save a substantial amount of energy every year thereby reducing greenhouse gases that are produced in the in the production of the energy that would otherwise be wasted in those homes and where when would say far beyond the cost of the energy of the energy saving measures that would be part of the whether is a sion program far beyond the cost in such that way sions you're saving the the amount of the cost within a three or four year period or five year period when the savings go on long into the future year after year after year saving energy and reducing greenhouse gases and saving dollars perhaps most important for those people it is the saving of the dollars that they otherwise would expand in those low income houses households where the amount of money spent on housing per se in a low income household tends to be up in the two thirds to three quarters of the total household income so i think the weather is a sion program is a very useful program a very effective program for saving money for people at the lowest levels of income and i hope that we will soundly defeat this amendment by the gentleman from california judge time has expired for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey strike the last word james recognized for five minutes and gives jim first of all before i begin let me just commend the prior speaker not the to this last one the gentleman from texas with is referenced as to homeland security in the efforts that need to be made in there and i completely i'm not sure he's in the room any more i completely concur with majority of the points that he makes this house as you know just dealt with those issues the other day other day homeland security and and how it relates to my contention district is that one of the forefront issues that i deal with and i commend the points that he was making here tied to homeland security of course is energy security as well we want to be a secure country if we are not secure with regard to our energy needs and much in this underlying legislation and what the administration is calling for is work towards that laudable goal and a g e efficiency and renewable energies as well and i concur with the previous speakers with the those remarks as well that we must move in that direction i guess the rub always is and how you get to some of these things you know when you talk to your local constituents back at home when we have the opportunity to go back to our districts and talk to them and they see just how washington spends their very hard earned dollars they most often think whether we're just literally burn burning their dollars down here and wasting them on certain any fission programs some of them of course are important others need to be prioritized down the line somewhat to put them in the proper sphere specht of and the legislation that we have before us emerges typically the amendment goes to that ultimate goal setting priorities now the gentleman who's proposing this amendment is from the great state of california a very warm state i've come from the great northeast where weather zation of course is a critical matter especially for the low income individuals who need who need to do something in order to make sure that their limited dollars go as far as they possibly can they are called upon in their own daily lives to be as efficient as they possibly can with their limited dollars whether spending on their food costs their rent costs or in this case their energy costs you know what they're asking us the very same thing in washington they're asking us to be efficient and effective with our dollars as well because they want to tell us that these dollars are limited as well because it comes out of the american taxpayers pocketbook we know what we're looking at here in the broader sense is the largest tax increase in u s history and that this is going to be a negative impact upon the average american family of a around fifteen hundred or two thousand dollars more that comes out of their dollar while it's and sent down here to washington they're just asking us to make sure that the dollars that they spend down here are done effective you know i'm a member of the hundred eight man session of congress i came in with a number of other members it was gemma from texas jeb hensarling i believe in a few others that started a group called w not what you're thinking of on t v it was the washington waste watchers and they would come to the floor each week and talk about areas of concern to them and to this entire congress as well if you're concerned about where your dollars go to to make sure that washington moves in the right direction to be stopping of this wasteful spending of dollars so before we take a program that's already in existence that we know as the testimony here earlier from the gentleman from california maybe a lot of the program in sun sense as far as providing assistance to those people who need it but is wasting the dollars in another sense because it's not really getting to those individuals who desperately need it and it's getting elsewhere and it be done in an inefficient manner before we simply up the dollars and not make sure that those dollars get to those low and moderate income people to get the job done as a gentleman in california pointed out let's make sure that we have something something at first to make sure that we do so and effective and efficient manner and that is what the w w w washing wastewater is trying to do that's what the republican side of the aisle right now is trying to do let's implement programs to say we will operate this house of representatives the same as a family's budget would that we will operate as stringently with our dollars here as if they were our very own we will make sure that there are systems in place accountability in place to make sure that the dollars really get to the places they need to get to and before we get those mechanisms set up in establish we are not going to waste any more taxpayer dollars by going to them by saying that we're going to raise tax dollars on them or raise your tax rates and simply up number up the spending on a program until we can can certify that that program is being run effectively and efficiently so i commend the gentleman from california for trying to move in the right direction to make sure that we don't have the largest tax increase in history and make sure programs like this are run efficiently and effectively without a you'll back   relative the comments made by john from massachusetts actually a lot of what the gentleman from massachusetts said i agree with i think that we differ in in three basic areas one is that the gentleman from massachusetts believes that this program has been affected my involvement with it in california and things that i have seen statistically here say otherwise and certainly the administration agrees that this program has not been a cost effective program second is talking about how this thing might save money here what but where does this money come from says two hundred forty five million dollars this money does not come from the sky it does not come from the air it comes from taxpayers and the question is not does it save anybody any money or anybody anything is it cost effective in what it does and i think the answer is no and the third comment that i would like to make is that the gentleman pointed out a number of programs in this bill which have all been increased in this proposed bill and that's fine but i guess i would ask this are there no programs here which are not effective are there are no programs that deserve some reduction in spending or some or perhaps the elimination you know ronald reagan said that the closest thing to eternal life was a government program and i believe that we are seeing with programs like this that those words that ron reagan made some time ago will ring true it's not mine to yield i yield back to the gentleman from texas i yield to the gentleman was just want to share  what programs have been cut or not been cut and i just want to share with you thirty seven cuts to department of energy weapons programs fifty seven programs have been cut overall twenty cuts other programs to one the corps of of reclamation three and independent agencies thirteen in the department of energy sixteen of thirty seven's weapons cuts that were requested by the administration i yield back to my friends reclaiming my time will read page sixteen line twenty electricity delivery and energy reliability hundred thirty four million one hundred sixty one thousand dollars nuclear energy seven hundred fifty nine million two hundred twenty offered by mr stern something are not page seventeen line fourteen after the dollar amount inserts reduced by twenty million dollars increased by twenty million dollars gentleman from california recognized repaired a gentleman from florida is recognized for a period of five minutes i think the chairman my colleague this is a very simple moment and perhaps the majority might want to just accept it and let me just explain the generation for nuclear energy systems program which is the next generation we've been working and waiting for the generation three program this is sort of the generation for after that which is twenty thirty there's a lot of money in this that is going to be used to develop energy far into the future and we yet we have in the present nuclear power program of two thousand and ten we have need for this money and i point out to my colleagues particularly on that side of the aisle that if we don't get enough money to the nuclear power two thousand and ten program power plants across this country will be forced to build gas and coal borne burning power  plants to meet the ever growing energy demands of this country and this nation and so if you really want to reduce greenhouse gases then i think you should support by minute because you're basically taking this money twenty million as pointed out from the generation for nuclear energy systems that can which again has been funded at almost eighty million above the president's budget request and you just simply transferring it to the nuclear power two thousand and ten account which is funded almost thirty four million below the president's budget request so with that introduction any time on the other side they want to accept my amendment i'm very willing to stop talking and we can just proceed so i think you should consider that because if you're concerned about global warning warming and your concern about coal and gas energy burning then this will move towards helping the nuclear power plants in the near near future instead of the far far future let me talk just briefly before i finish on the nuclear power two thousand and ten program it's intended my colleague says simply to encourage near term orders for advanced version of existing commercial nuclear plant and  of the goal of constructing new plants in the next decade approximately two thirds a new reactor announcements use a reactor technology that depends on nuclear power two thousand and ten nuclear power plants generate electricity without without producing or admitting any greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide nuclear power plants generate seventy three percent of all carbon free electricity in america and are an essential mitigation tool for reducing greenhouse gases if we are serious about addressing the issue of global climate change the nuclear power must be a critical component of any future energy and environmental strategy that we have in this country with these additional funds that i have in this amendment the program for twenty thousand and twenty ten we could focus more on reducing the technical regulatory institutional barriers to the deployment of new nuclear new nuclear power plants in the near term my colleagues while still allowing a generous increase in funds for generation for program so the money is already there for generation for so i'm just asking a very man to come out taking from the generation before moving into the near term so that we can build these nuclear power plants and i conclude by saying failure to meet the goals of the nuclear two thousand and ten program could result in delays one year two years possibly three years and create the possibility of an indefinite delay as companies attempt to meet demand with other types of generation including and natural gas is i conclude and i thank my colleagues for listening but i think when you realize it's not very complicated we're just taking twenty million dollars from a generation for nuclear research program that we've got no results from we don't know anything about and moving that to a current program and twenty two thousand and ten and saying let's let the nuclear industry had this special advantage so that we can combat global warming and we can make sure that we move global warming we also share 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 new could or industry can move forward for example we have fully funded the president's request for four hundred and ninety four million dollars for yucca mountain to make sure that they can meet their deadline for the submission of a license for the waste depository in june of two thousand and three the industry clearly needs the repository the house bill includes one hundred and sixty seven point eight million dollars for the neuter regulatory commission something that i think the gentleman would agree is critically necessary as far as of licensing procedures in the shorter term this is a seventeen point one million dollar increase over the administration's request more than ten percent more and i would point out that in the continuing resolution for fiscal year two thousand and seven this was one of the few accounts is that this is a subcommittee specifically also increased we also in clude fifteen million dollars within the nuclear regulatory commission for nuclear engineering scholarships that w charm nation by the administration because if we do not have that new bright talent in those educational facilities under scholarship we are not going to have a future and we did include monies for nuclear power twenty ten 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 n r c license process and no other no other no other sector of the energy portion of this country receives this type of federal assistance the general would take the money from generation for nuclear energy systems by having the monies to reduce i would point out that the subcommittee went to great pains to increase monies for generation for 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 cannot also provide electrical energy to our nation that is needed but also potentially produce the hydrogen for the new economy we are looking for we have provided those money to would not want to see them cut in additionally we had a debate  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 it would point out that six hundred eighty nine million dollars between on obligated balances between the spending for zero seven and between what is included in 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  a great for america we need a dramatic increase in reliable safe base load energy and i much rather see it come from nuclear energy than from coal plants and for cheap most of the funding that we have provided for new power twenty ten doesn't go to help industry figure out our untested regulatory process or i've done a fine new sites for plants much the funding in this account has been provided to support the work of reactor designers there's a little uncertainty about reactor zein doesn't need our support for this program and there's really no such thing as struggling mom and pop reactor design teams but i do know that we must incentives for design for the next generation reactors this bill does just that and increase our support for the gen four nuclear reactor design program by seventy nine million ten you provide about eighty billion dollars a decrease of thirty four billion dollars so the question i have for you if you support this program so much why would you cut it thirty four billion dollars which is basically a huge chair i would be happy to respond to the question president's request and 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 was certainly did justification and if the gentleman yield further to me then the other question is that in generation for the nuclear energy system in which you increased it eighty billion dollars eighty million dollars or eighty million dollars it seems to be that and you might want to answer this question here you have a program that is the fourth generation of nuclear research we don't even have the results from the second and third generation is there research yet you're increasing a huge amount of money for something well in the future when you have an a system the twenty ten energy system which could use this money today and would go towards improving global warming and put less demand all these nuclear energy companies because they certainly can't meet the demand in the next two years without burning coal and gas so i asked the gentleman why would he want to increase something it's a fourth generation when the second and third generation have not even been successful in providing anything forced you know of the gentleman from ohio would always be happy to respond when you know i would point out that there was a seventy million dollar increase and i would not want to engage in quibbling as to whether it is the second third or fourth generation but do believe there is a strong public purpose of for demonstrating the commercial viability of the thermal neutron gas reactor for the very purpose is a digital most concerned about and that i share his concern  that is climate change and global warming and energy sources where we can generate electricity in his country as well as potentially produce hydrogen we ought to start down that road as sooner rather than later and again memon offered by mrs schmidt of ohio page seventeen line fourteen after the dollar amount insert increased by eighty million dollars page twenty one line twenty one after the dollar amount insert the deuce by eighty million dollars recognized for five minutes i use as much time as i may consume mr speaker i have tremendous respect for our chairman and ranking member and realize the very difficult undertaking they have had in putting this bill together and balancing the number of important priorities within it unfortunately the bill before us would drastically cut the president's request to four hundred five million for the global nucular energy partnership called gene app initiative two hundred twenty million this amounts to a two hundred eighty five million reduction from the president's request for gene app at the same time this bill goes well above the president's request for the department of energy science account this president's request for the science account was already fifteen point eight percent above the fiscal two thousand and seven level on top of this the house bill provides another hundred sixteen million above the administration's request my amendment would provide an additional eighty million for the gene up an issue to be offset by an eighty million decrease in the science account if we are going to be serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions addressing climate change and reducing our dependence on foreign oil we need to allow g net to proceed in a meaningful capacity to accomplish these objectives we need to diversify our energy supply in increase energy efficiency and conservation nucular energy is  vital component to diversifying our energy supply and reducing greenhouse and grass emissions and in order for nucular to there the nucular renaissance to become a reality we must address the spent fuel issue which is what gene app is all about recycling spent nucular fuel is a way to reduce by about ninety five percent the ball human waste that would have to be disposed of at the young a mountain repository recycling would also enable us to reduce the radioactive life of this material for millions of years to thousands whether you support enter nucular energy or not these two points should be very positive if we're going to take better care of our environment since the one nine hundred seventy s the united states has been falling behind the world in nucular technology it is vital that we fund this program at a sufficient level that allows the united states to reestablish itself as a leader in the field i appreciate the chairman and ranking members work on this important issue and i would hope for some favorable comments from them by to i am going to at the end of this discussion ask for a unanimous consent to withdraw my and then at this time in hopes that we can work it out at a later date the amendment the concern that the committee had is that the administration came in originally with a four hundred five million dollar request and during hearings the administration also suggested that all four hundred five million purchased research the concern we have and that you did in my opening remarks that during general debate is contract management at the department of energy and certainly is not a fault of the gentle ladies and i know she twenty learned it at the department of energy's use of technology readiness levels in the global nuclear energy partnership technology development plan does not apply readiness in a manner consistent with the recommendations in the government 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's take a step back continue to do very necessary and very vital research but let us take all deliberate speed as opposed to rush to judgment and am opposed remember that appreciate your consideration of withdrawing to germany the gentleman from ohio arrives just to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment in to thank the chairman for his time on and consideration of this and hope that we can work together to make one nap a reality page seventeen line sixteen clean coal technology one hundred forty nine million dollars fossil energy research and development seven hundred and eight million eight hundred one thousand dollars  in this bill by one hundred forty two million dollars these funds appropriate his account go toward go towards research of oil gasoline coal and natural gas funding this account at seven hundred nine million dollars as in this bill would be a nineteen and a half percent increase over last year's appropriation amount and twenty percent twenty percent higher than what was requested by the administration this massive increase in spending is aimed at research of oil coal and natural gas with energy prices rising and our research dollars are better spent by going toward alternative and diversified energy sources like nuclear wind solar geothermal hydro power and others you may be on should know that some of the research projects funded by this account have included as submersible deployed micro drill for sampling of shallow gas deposits ultra lightweight cement and an oil and gas resource assessment of the russian arctic given the record profits being made by all gas and coal companies the research of oil and gas resources of the russian arctic should be done and paid for by those oil companies not by american taxpayers who have already paid for it at the p a half a billion dollars in federal funds appropriated this account as was the case last year should be more than enough for the government's share of this research any additional funding and my colleagues i'm talking about over the half a billion dollars plus it's already in last year's bill any additional funding should be borne by the private sector my men would save the taxpayers one hundred forty two million dollars and remove that twenty percent increase in spending on fossil fuel research solutions to our rising energy prices are not found in a massive increase in deficit spending and we've been talking a lot about deficit spending today not only does this bill have a twenty percent increase in spending for fossil fuel research it contains a one point three billion dollar increase over last year's energy and water appropriation it seems that this appropriation bill is another example of ballooning federal spending and increasing federal deficits to be paid for by ever higher taxes we know it's been discussed today that the federal that was passed by house democrats earlier this year doesn't it include the largest tax increase in american history it would raise taxes by at least two hundred seventeen billion dollars we're looking for ways to reduce spending modest ways what all of these appropriation bills allow us we can address the massive spending that comes from in title meant spending but we can get at sensible ways to control the spending in these discretionary funds my is a step in the right direction let's save the taxpayers one hundred forty two million dollars and remove this huge twenty percent increase in spending for fossil fuel research there are been proposals to to put price controls on oil companies i vehemently oppose those but i don't think it's unreasonable to ask them to put some of those profits back into this essential research and development take the burden off the taxpayers let's in a bipartisan way support this amendment i yield back general yells back for what purpose does a gentleman from indiana with some of the assertions and points that he has made the fact is so 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 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 brain newell was the gentleman referenced the solar and wind for example is why there's an increase in the hydrogen account that's why there's an increase is far as maximization of power produce with hydro electric facilities and so what we are trying to do is to strike a balance again getting back to my earlier comments about quantity and quality but we are concerned and spoke about it in the bill language as well as a report language about the fossil fuel program i certainly for one absolutely believe that we need to do more on the issue of capturing c o two  and we have done that in this bill we need to do more as far as in seaquest ration of that particular gas but we have to do it intelligently and the fact is a future gen program that has been initiated under the partment 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 applicator issue earlier in the day as well and w point out to that future gen according to the committee report needs to be refocused as an integrated gas station combined cycle plant with carbon capture and sequestration and drop the ambiguity of other less critical research components the committee new energy resources 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 but given the fact that nearly fifty percent of this electricity is generated today by coal powerplants absolutely believe but that we should pursue this research and i would reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment for what purposes gentleman from ohio arise move to strike us where a gentleman is recognized for five minutes two minutes the gentleman from pennsylvania the gentleman is recognized i think that gentleman i rise in in opposition to this amendment although i believe it is a value in making sure we question what is how we spend our money i'm concerned that coal provides over fifty percent of our energy source in america in hundred million dollars for future gen which is creating energy from coal without emissions seventy three million for the other clean coal power initiatives and some three hundred seventy six million has been recommended for the core research and development programs much of that done at the national energy technology research labs of some which are in my district others in west virginia in oregon around the country we have a two hundred and fifty year supply of coal in the under our nation soil conversely other parts the world that have oil will run out long before we are out of coal we have to crack the code in understanding how to create electrical energy out of coal without emissions it is a monumental and perhaps one of the greatest scientific challenges of our time if we're able to do this we'll be able to create the electrical energy the power we need to power our factories to light our homes and run our office buildings without this we will continue to be subject to the whims of countries involved with opec who manipulate the price of our energy every day i reports done this year through mit called the future of coal states stating that we need perhaps billions to deal with this issue of finding out how to create energy out of clean coal it is an important investment one that week cannot legan when we have to continue to work on and i certainly encourage all of us to look at ways that we can watch for any waste involved with how this money is spent on every level  appropriations however i ask this be one area where america has a blunt bunin supplies of coal that we make sure that we continue to mine our call because one of the few ways that we can do so and create energy without having to worry about the whims of terrorists and  one hundred forty two million proposes an increase in account which support research and development of carbon capture and sequence station technology no matter what energy future one believes in fossil fuels will play a significant who six recognition the gentleman from texas trucker last word gentleman is recognized for five minutes thank you mr chairman you know one of the things that we have to understand with the we're talking about today on this floor is we're talking about a lot of different kinds of security we're talking about energy security we're also talking about economic security but really what we're bottom line we're talking about is jobs in america no doubt that  energy is a major issue in our country our energy dependence becomes a problem is continuing to be a cop problem but what we have to do is go about this in a way that makes sense and when we look at yes we need to look at additional research in certain areas in additional expenditures in other areas nucular of the gentleman from florida brought that point forward the gentleman brings forth the fact that we are increasing things like twenty percent and that be really good  we were spending surpluses but in fact we're not spending from surpluses and what we're talking about is deficit spending and what we're talking about is economic future for our young men and women because you see what we're on the floor here today trying to do my colleagues in are trying to save the american taxpayers some money because we have a leadership on the other side of the aisle that's on a spending spree and they think they have surpluses that they're spending  fact we're not in fact we've got a twenty three billion dollar increase we've got these funny money accounts where we're going to come up with the money from some place and we all know where that money is coming from that money is going to come from the american taxpayers because they've already gone on record to say that we're going to pass the largest tax increase in american history and why they're going to do that is they're going to tax the rich people well let's talk about the tax structure in this country today for example who are the rich people well we got one percent of the top wage earners in this country already paying thirty three percent of the taxes now the next level up the top five percent they get to pay fifty four percent of the taxes and the top ten percent get to pay sixty eight percent of the taxes recently the tax foundation brought forth a point that i think most of us knew and that is that three out of every five that's sixty percent  of america's highest income brackets payers or small business people let me repeat that three out of every five of the people who are in the upper bracket which is the bracket that they want  are small business people and what do small business people do well they just do something that's extraordinarily great for america they create jobs in fact they're the largest creator of jobs in this country and what we did is in back in two thousand three we said you know what we want small businesses to create more jobs make more economic security for our young people and so we lowered the taxes and what happened well something wonderful we created seven point eight million new jobs in america and you know what creating seven point eight new million new jobs in america did for us well number one it it we have the highest home ownership rate in the history of this country more people own a home today than any other time in the history of this nation guess what more people are employed than any other time in the history of our nation what we have to do is the speaker of this house stood up on the day that she was sworn in said we listened to the people i don't think they were listening if they thought the american people were saying we want more spending and more taxes at think they miss under stood if the american people said anything is that i want a government that's less that takes less of their money spends less of their money lives spends in their money like the government spends their money lack that the american people have to they have to spend within their limits and yeah i'd like a twenty percent increase in this in a twenty percent increase in that but the truth of the matter is we can't afford it and if we continue on this trend of higher taxes bigger spending we're going to see these job numbers begin to drop and so when you talk about well we want more efficient energy efficient cars let me tell you if we don't have anybody that can afford cars in america because they don't have jobs then what do we need energy efficient cars for let's be sensible about our policy here we're making a sufficient amount of commitments to many of these initiatives but we have to do it in a common sense way we have to do it in a way that says you know what a two percent increase or three percent or maybe this is this one program should be eliminate i did because this program is not providing any dividends for the american taxpayers we measure around here what we're doing about our problem by how much money we spend on it and quite honestly that's the w house we got in the situation of these large deficits is because we keep throwing money at problems instead of standing up here on the floor of this house and debating these issues and talking about what is in the best interest of the taxpayers akam in the gentleman from minnesota and his amendment in urge passage gentleman's time is expired a sign most every day it's out there out and always all over blue dog coalition and as of today it says today's u s national debt eight trillion eight hundred seven billion dollars your share twenty nine thousand dollars there's some of us that for all the time we've been in the house i've been trying to do something about that we've been trying to bring down the deficit we've been trying to with our own party the republicans with democrats now in the majority get get spending reined in also in our natural resources committee as well as  other committees around we've been trying to find answers to our energy problem because let's face it we're funding our enemies it's people that want to see us have damage done to our way of life  destroyed so how do we get around this energy debacle where we keep using fossil fuels keep funding our enemies well i heard the chairman say a moment ago there is no silver bullet and i couldn't to do so it includes drilling the anwar the arctic national wildlife area in alaska and here we've got one hundred forty two million  a lot of money may not be to some of us up here in washington but as we've seen recently as recently as the last couple weeks in resources people keep want to study things let's study this you know we were ready to go on a bio mass program and in the energy bill marked up last week we're going to have a no we're going back up ten years and have another study on that we have these programs ready to go and we keep want to back up and have more studies done and what we really need to do is just move forward some of these studies when left to the private sector they're going to rate their money and their profits let them pay for these things they're making all these profits why should we use taxpayer dollars to do that so we have we have coal that if the bill becomes law that was passed out of resources go might get harder to utilize that coal we have all these different alternative energy sources are available and we keep want to use money to study them what what occurs to me when i hear there is no silver bullet is not only do i agree that there's no silver bullet solution but i keep feeling lack because we keep appointing studies and keep wanting to spend taxpayers hard our money to study things instead of just go ahead and produce and that the silver bullet might be in the chamber that's pointed to our  nation's collective head here it's time to quit study and it's time to move forward it's time to use money for it we'll let the use money for purposes that are not those that should be done by the private sector and then when give back the money and then lo and behold all those folks have been saying we really don't want to raise taxes even though it looks like it's going to be the largest tax increase in american history all those that say we don't want to raise taxes it's these one hundred forty two million here hundred forty two million there and for you know it we might be able to lower taxes even further so i would encourage mark colleagues let's quit study and let's quit spending  money that could be going back to taxpayers if we're not going to need it for something more pressing and which study and start producing and then that silver bullet won't be aimed at our head thank you you know back for what purposes gentleman from minnesota mr walz rise i move to strike last word mr chairman gentleman is recognized for five minutes thank you mr chairman thank you to that the chairman and the ranking member of of this committee as we debate a very important piece of legislation in the energy and water appropriations bill i'd like to talk specifically about an issue that's vitally important to literally hundreds of thousands of people in minnesota south dakota and iowa the lewis and clark rural water system is a unique water project that i'm hopeful will receive the appropriate funding as the energy in water procreation bill moves forward this louison product project when completed will provide safe reliable drinking water to over three hundred thousand people in roughly five thousand square miles of south dakota iowa and minnesota the project will move water from the missouri river into those areas to provide safe drinking water and the ability for them the ability of those communities to grow economically minnesota's called the land of ten thousand lakes unfortunately they're not equally distributed and for example in rock county there's not a single natural lake the lack of water availability has a profound impact on economic development businesses are reluctant to locate or expand because of the lack of reliable water i literally have communities that i represent that cannot permit a single new home to be built until someone moves out because their water shortages are that severe seventeen of the twenty local municipalities that participating in this project and i repeat on this and say it very carefully have pre paid eighty seven million dollars of their local share of the expenses in order to keep inflationary costs at a minimum additionally all three states involved minnesota south dakota iowa have committed to pre pay on the project as well unfortunately the federal governments the partner that's lacking my constituents the people of south dakota and iowa clearly understand expenditures of federal dollars for investments are not necessarily wasteful if the lewis and clark were a water system receives its full thirty five million in requests this year this project will be completed by twenty eighteen however if we are funded at the level of president bush is requested in his two thousand and eight budget we will not see completion till past twenty fifty one mr chairman the three hundred thousand people of minnesota south dakota and iowa can't wait that long previous congresses have created a significant budget crisis i hear my colleagues mentioning that and their absolute we write we spent at deficit records we've created a national debt that is staggering but we cannot be penny wise and pound and pound foolish the longer we take provide appropriate federal funds the more this project is going to cost and it is already being built it is already being prepaid and it will it will produce significant economic gains for us i look forward to working with the chairman and the ranking members to make sure this project is appropriately funded and mr chairman i yield back general mills back for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey a strike the last word john was recognized for five minutes before i begin let me just say i concur with the gentleman from minnesota on his priorities that he is setting forth and i can honestly say that i'm familiar with each and every aspect of the provisions that he's raising there but from his testimony before the house right now they seem to at least to rise to the level of significance especially when you go to the air concern of making sure that people who need to have adequate drinking supply so appreciated coming to the floor and making that point and i think the gentleman point coincides with the point that i wish to make right now in support of the gentleman and amendment that is on the floor before us right now and that is that it's incumbent upon this house and this body to set priorities the american public ask no less of us in as much as we are spending their hard earned tax dollars american public has seen the mis application of setting up priorities of this house and past administrations and past houses in the past the minister the american public has been outspoken when they saw with regard what happened with katrina and the infamous case of buying of fema trailers that were literally thousands of them that were then set on land and never used for their rightful and purposes and the american public was outraged when they said the priorities were not appropriate spent with their tax dollars in that instance likewise they were outraged when they heard about the situation of the proverbial bridge to nowhere and again they ask where priorities not set as to where their tax dollars goes when it comes to transportation purposes and then finally in the area of earmarks and the latter point raises the earmarks and when the american public hears about the litany of earmarks that come out of both this house and the senate as well the cowgirl hall of fame and other such things that again the american public as my priority is not set on these matters again with their hard earned tax dollars well americans but public spoke this past november and at least this side of the aisle heard them loud and clear we must set appropriate priorities when it comes to the american tax dollars unfortunately unfortunately the priorities that seem to be coming from the other side of the aisle in a majority of the cases are not the appropriate  priorities that the american public would set for themselves priority number one from the other side of the aisle is a budget which raises taxes the largest tax increase in u s history upon an american family priority number two from the other side of the aisle appears to be an increase in spending with him little or no regard to accountability or cutting spending in any areas we see that in this case when i hear the arguments made both pro and con on this bill i'm taken aback all this and amendment simply does is to say that the american taxpayer dollars should not be there to spend to subsidize big oil we had similar language legislation last year and i know i supported it saying that the american taxpayer in light of oil now being sold at over sixty dollars a barrel should not be for suppose a position situation anymore to support big oil and coal industries when it comes to these things through tax credits and tax cuts and i supported those saying the american public in that regard but now to when we have a member congressman kline saying that let's at least rein in let's at least set some priorities as to where our energy dollars should go let's go to those areas that the gentleman here said perhaps some who support carbon capture issues let's have some of those dollars as a member from the other side of the aisle say go to renewable energy resources whether be wind water or geothermal or etc let those dollars go to those areas but let's set the priorities that those dollars go specifically to those areas and not on extraneous purposes as we saw in this bill congressman klein gave a couple of examples that really threw me when i heard them once again american public must really scratch their head as i did and they said should we be giving as congressman klein said given the record properties being made by or oil gas and coal the research of oil and gas resources of the russian arctic should be done and paid for by those oil companies and not by american taxpayers this amendment simply goes to make sure that occurs likewise  again in the arctic area submersibles deployed micro drill of sampling ultra light cement oil and gas resources settlements in that area who should be paying for that american public what we already pay for that when we go to the pump each time shouldn't be the oil companies who should make the private investments and not the american taxpayer this amendment simply says let's let those priorities let's reduce spending on those areas and make sure that we have the dollars from the american public to spend on those other areas be the renewable the chairman of the committee of the whole house of the state of the union reports that get middy has had under consideration a charge twenty six forty one and it's come to no resolution there on for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise man speaker i send to the desk a previous report from the committee on rules of filing under the rule of the clerk were port the title report to accompany house resolution four ninety eight resolution providing for consideration  turn twenty seven sixty four making appropriations for the department of state foreign operations and related programs for the fiscal year ending september thirtieth two thousand and eight and for other purposes this is referred to the house calendar in order printed thank you for former members offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations for their designees for the purpose of debate and a member by mr force regarding a study of certain river basins in a minute by mr wynn regarding hydrogen research them in them by mr hensarling regarding funding for dealing electricity delivery and energy reliability an amendment by mr shadegg regarding funding for hydro power initiatives and a minute by mr porter regarding yucca mountain and then the by mr price of georgia regarding funding for the advanced fuel cycle initiative and  burgess regarding funding for fossil energy an amendment by mrs wilson of new mexico regarding funding for medical imaging and a member by mr upton or mr towns regarding funding for nuclear energy loan guarantees and amendment by mr hensarling regarding funding for d global nuclear energy partnership funds for certain nuclear waste storage and a memo by mr space regarding funding for the appalachian regional commission an amendment by mr northcote boller regarding funding for the appalachian regional commission in a memo by mr hensarling regarding funding for the denali commission an amendment by miss berkeley limiting use of funds for the yucca mountain youth web site educational campaign and m m a by mr bishop of new york mr courtney or mr laurel limiting use of federal energy regulatory commission funds to review a particular application an amendment by mr conaway regarding the use of reductions made through amendments for deficit reduction and member by mr king of iowa regarding actions to mitigate global warming in a memo by mr murphy of connecticut limiting use of federal energy regulatory commission funds for certain of funds for certain settlement regarding the national resources defense council and a member by mr campbell reducing funds in the bill which shall be debatable for thirty minutes and then vote by mr campbell reducing funds in the bill will shall be available for thirty minutes and  mr obi regarding earmarks and a member by mr garrett of new jersey limiting the use of funds for international conferences and women by mr hobson limiting use of funds for the mental illness in your own science discovery institute in new mexico in an amendment guarding funding levels is such an amendment may be offered only by the member named industry quest or a designee shall be considered as read shall not be subject to amendment except at 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 michele 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 member shall be debatable for ten minutes equally divided and controlled by the the gentleman from ohio is recognized on his reservation forward that will allow the additional supplemental to allow that to come into the bill at a later date and i correct on that my understanding is there would be an additional see a unanimous consent request for a new rule for the supplemental request that will come up i don't think they want to rule i think they just want the understanding that there will be the provision that c i don't think you want to go i think the point is that i want to go back to rules again to bring the supplemental material back into the bill at the later date as the understanding is in the energy and that is basically earmark provision of the gentleman from ohio gentleman from indiana if there is no objection the gentleman's request is granted without objection to house resolution four eighty one and rule eighteen the dear the chair declares the house and committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h r twenty six forty one will the gentleman from north dakota mr pomer kindly resume the chair to the bill may be offered except those specified in the previous order of the house today which is a page nineteen line eleven naval petroleum and oil shale reserves seventeen million three hundred thousand three hundred one thousand dollars strategic petroleum reserve one hundred sixty three million four hundred seventy two thousand dollars northeast home heating oil reserve five million three hundred twenty five thousand dollars and energy information administration one hundred five million ninety five thousand dollars seven hundred fifty nine thousand dollars science four billion five hundred fourteen million eighty two thousand dollars nuclear waste disposal two hundred two million four hundred fifty four thousand dollars mountain project probably the most studied piece of real estate on the planet as we know it today that is because the department of energy and members of this congress are trying to prove the american people that the aca mountain project is safe unfortunately in the last budget of last year sixty percent of that budget was spent redoing problems with a broken project that yucca mountain chairman it's broken study after study after study have proven that it's a broken project not only broken but it's a colossal waste of taxpayers dollars thousands if not millions of millions of dollars and have been spent on investigating the yucca mountain project to look at their their flaws  my committee last year alone we looked at thousands of e mails where the science had been falsified they spent over twenty million dollars fixing the project from the research that we had done in my committee mr chairman it was wall street that was looking at this project they would shut it down most every senior management personnel at yucca mountain and department of energy regarding the disposal nuclear waste as have either quit or left the project terrorism's another issue we're we're trying to put millions and millions of tons of nuclear waste in one spot it creates a dish and a terrorist target it's an unproven science but yet we're going to roll this nuclear waste through communities across our country  the bottom line even if i supported the project which i don't even if i was a nuclear industry which i'm not i would say it's the big this waste of taxpayers dollars it's literally a hole in the ground i would encourage that members of this congress visit yucca mountain it is a twelve billion dollar waste of money if i were the nuclear industry if i were this congress i would find another site i would store on site or find some other location the science is broken time and time again we have found that it's a flawed project it's a piss flawed science if it were another project if it was a school bus if it was a space shuttle with this many errors and this many problems we would stop the project i the gentleman from indiana the gentleman from indiana seek time i was simply going to object mr care the gentleman did not object to the lady talking as just for striking the last wor is irresponsible to leave it where it is forever and it is essential to have a repository where can be safely left to for up to a million years well the radioactivity to case away sways comes from maintaining our nuclear weapons stockpile than from spent fuel from civilian nuclear reactors that generate twenty percent of all electricity in the united states yucca mountain was chosen by congress in one thousand nine hundred eighty two 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 york amount and take custody of commercial spent nuclear fuel will cost the taxpayers over seven billion dollars by twenty seventeen when the repository could open cutting funding in delaying the filing of a license application by only a year will simply exacerbate the problem and increase this cost by more than one half a billion dollars failure to proceed with a reasonable approach to disposing of spent a nuclear fuel will cause the nuclear regulatory commission to stop licensing new nuclear reactors and extended the licenses of existing plants every new and extended license must satisfy the waste confidence clause so this memo will constrain our ability to grow our economy without emitting more greenhouse gases in coming years will choke off nearly twenty 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 am opposed to the is a failure twenty years after nevada was unfairly singled out as the proposed dump site for this nation's radioactive garbage the only wasted yucca mountain is the twelve million dollars that has now been wasted on this ridiculous proposal plan for yucca mountain threaten the safety of the families i represent and the lives of fifty million americans who will be at risk from shipments of toxic radioactive garbage headed to yucca mountain one spill involving this deadly nuclear waste could make people sick die shut down our roads and railways and cost millions of dollars to clean up nuclear waste shipments are also prime targets for terrorists looking to unleash radiation on unsuspecting communities or steal material needed to make a dirty bomb current plans call for thousands of nuke way shipments on america's roads and railroads each one vulnerable to a handheld missile or nine eleven styles to add to a suicide attack the result of which could be devastating decades of mobile chernobyl's passing by homes schools hospitals houses of worship each an accident waiting to happen and believe me mr chairman our first responders have no training and  no resources needed to deal with incidents involving these nuclear waste shipments we talk about money and saving money by putting more money into yucca mountain we have absolutely no idea how much yucca mountain is going to cost because there's no cost estimates we have no time estimate we have no radiation standards we don't have canisters that currently exist that can store this nuclear waste and not have the nuclear material eats into the groundwater that's going to pollute all of the south western united states oil water supplies now if we want to do something to the for the american people let us end this ridiculous folly before cost us any more money we had the power to do it at some point we have to go beyond procope politics and do the right thing for the entire nation this is a nimby approach not in my backyard under under any scenario you might imagine from the construction of a nuclear power plant and shutting down all existing plants tomorrow row positon the federal government has a statutory and contractual obligation already educated of course it's costing us money by not getting operated operation on yucca mountain but this is not  valley many sites are already have been forced to clean up agreements requiring these materials to be shipped off to the geological repast tory i would like think we don't need a repository but we do need a repository we need it now not a hundred years from now we need to move forward this and my my really desire is that we don't have to build a dam someplace and certainly not in the viaduct but we've got that he says when i hope it's a waste of taxpayers money not to do it i urged opposition in this amendment gentleman yield back and in the midst of that time we've created a project that is a colossal waste of taxpayers dollars we need to find a site that's safe i support nuclear energy i do not support the waste being in the nevada because it is absolutely broken in mr mr go for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada call recorded vote please the chair will first put the question by voice upon announcement that terminations that request would be in order so that once again that's for recording vote sewage cause eight of rule has pursued the cost six of rule eighteen for the proceedings of the amendment offered by the gentleman from nevada will be postpone clerk will read page twenty four line ten environment safety and health thirty one million six hundred twenty five thousand dollars title seventeen innovative technology the long hair and t loan program seven billion house today the gentleman from michigan mr upton and a member of opposed to the motion which control five minutes chair recognizes gentleman from michigan well then as chairman this amendment that i'm introducing will win and which i will subsequently withdraw expresses my concern about the committee's action to cap loan guarantees at seven billion dollars for new energy projects designed to reduce carbon emissions and before i ask unanimous consent to a draw the amendment i'm going to ask the policy act of zero five the congress authorized funding to provide loan guarantees for any technology which reduces carbon emissions and that was designed to help to a vast array of technologies such as wind solar a clean  nuclear your committee excluded new nuclear plants as one of the technologies eligible for loan guarantees under the old five energy policy act and as a supporter of nuclear power i expose that exclusion i'm concerned that this may delay new projects that are being planned and i'm hopeful that these concerns can be addressed when you reach a conference with the senate i would also note that this authorization that the authorization in the energy appropriation bill is just an authorization no appropriation is required it is a standard practice that federal loan guarantee programs have an annual loan loan volume authorization in an appropriations bill and that the program which is authorized in title seventeen of the energy policy is unique we must remember that it is self financing that requires no taxpayer funds utilities that are building these plants will pay all of the costs associated with the program including administrative costs  processing the loan guarantee obligations and the credit subsidy cost of issuing the loan guarantees itself so mr chairman i would like you to can help us if you can address these concerns and at this point i would put in the the unanimous i would ask  gentleman yielding and i want to acknowledge that we in congress authorized a 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 only to the extent that one new budget authority is provided in an appropriations act and to a limitation on the use of funds for the cost of a loan guarantee has been and i quote the act been provided in an appropriat or three authorize forty is otherwise provided in appropriations act however it is the implementation of this program that has raised the concerns of the committee our fiscal year two thousand and eight bill does not provide loan guarantees for the nuclear industry requests 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 interest ration had asked for a total of four billion dollars for nuclear energy industry  the coal industry this is not come close to what the nuclear energy association has indicated they need a nuclear energy association indicates a need for twenty five billion dollars in federal guaranteed loans in fiscal year two thousand and eight and more than that in fiscal year two thousand and nine the system meaning the deal we loan guarantee infrastructure cannot accommodate a request of this size at this time i would also point out that the fiscal year two thousand and six is joint continuing resolution included four billion dollars 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 four billion dollars for nuclear projects the administration chose 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 deal we programs and recommend this approach to the congress on this one based on my continuing concerns about how deal he has managed it to date i am however open to new information about the industry its plans for innovative technology to plant and discussion about how dealy can implement the program i pledge to work with the gentleman to see if we and mr chairman at this point i would ask unanimous consent to withdraw my memory without objection to members withdraw right