niall, you'll get there. you'll get there. [applause] >> with a performance like that, you'll get there, i promise you. >> number one, it's all very well for you to sing the praises. european union as an economic area, it's 19% of g.d.p. check the numbers. shrinking fast. why? because europe has inflicted on itself a completely man-made avoidable recession y is it doing that? because of the faulty design of the european monetary union. who designed it, people like you, peter. . people like you, peter, in the 1980's. you had your say. a design flaw was there from the outset. if you read the report from 1989, it says at the end that for all of this to work, there

has to be central control over national budgets and that didn't happen. it never happened. it was a growth instability pact, do you remember that? every member violated it. the greeks took the box but they weren't the only ones. even the germans violated their own rules. and the net result of this has been an economic disaster. do you know what youth unemployment in spain today 50%. it's not your problem. i tell the young spainards are fleeing europe. >> wait a minute. >> can i finish? >> you challenged me. >> do you think that the banking crisis might have had something to do with the fact that there's 25% unemployment in spain? >> oh, please. >> can i respond to that? >> i tell you where i've been. in february of 2009, i was actually in this city and i said the european banking crisis is going to be as bad as

the american banking crisis because the leverage is just as bad in the balance sheets. the hole in the balance sheets is bigger. i said that since early twune and what is being done in europe? nothing, nothing. do you know what your policy was? you and your fellow eurocrats, you kicked the can down the road. one more point. just one more point. [applause] >> i want to give everybody's voice. we'll have josef. we'll give you two minutes and then give danny two minutes because we'll move on to questions in a little bit, ok. [laughter] >> wait a second. why does he get two minutes? because he's german? >> lead by example. germany usually does. >> you accused us of having no arguments. let me turn this around. you said something which is typical of all failed experiments from socialism --

the concept is ok. it's the design and the execution. you remind me of this french nato officer who comes to nato for the first time and says, oh, this is very nice in practice but not good in theory. the theory of europe is wrong. it is wrong. do you remember me? it is wrong. and i can tell that it's wrong by the way you argue. you know what you use, us use about five minutes arguing about this wonderful economic space. nobody challenges this wonderful economic space. we are talking about whether europe can acquire the will and the wherewithal to go the next step. and if you like -- if you like an economic space, look at canada and nafta and mexico and the united states. almost as big as europe. they have free trade. but who wants to get together? the canadians might get together with the united states. or with mexico. [laughter] so you made a case for an economic free trade zone.

i grant you that case, but it's not what we are debating in this room. >> hear, hear. [applause] >> danny, commept on this because you are sitting in the european parliament every day. you are at the per verbial mountain space there. why do you think you can scale it to a greater level of integration when we are seeing a lot of political disunity out of europe? >> i give you two european law. the problem you talked. it's called european -- there are six, eight laws. the governance of the european economy, the banking system, the organization of the banking system, the need, how, the stability should be realized by all the country. it was decided by the european parliament and [inaudible]

and you'll see what will happen and you were right. josef, who wants to be ruled now? no, no, no, no. i could comment on something. i don't need a father. my father died when i was 17. and i don't need another father now, ya? >> i don't want to be your father. >> stop educating me. i am not educateable. it's lost, lost. >> i agree. i agree. [applause] >> so, i will tell you -- >> i agree. i agree with you, you are not educateable. half laugh >> but you know, i don't want to be like you and you don't want to be like me, ok? can we keep it like this? i will tell you something -- something, europe today, downtown want to dismantle it. what you want is for -- you say you don't want to be ruled by

brussels. ok, the united states, most of the countries that don't want to be ruled by washington. this is not the -- stop it, now, yes? but i will tell you something. england. england. go out of england? why -- [inaudible] dismantle england, you know, modernize is much more complicated that you understand than your tv show. this is the problem. this is the problem. >> we have 2 1/2 minutes on the clock before we get to more questions. [speaking at the same time] >> educating me. no, i want to continue. i want to finish one sentence. >> 45 seconds left and then we're going to mr. mendelson. continue the debate. >> ladies and gentlemen, who do

you want to hear? do you want to hear peter now? [applause] >> i said at the beginning, you know, i talk like a minister. you talk from the heart. i think he's been brilliant. i love it. [applause] >> what do you want me to say? >> well -- >> talk from the head for a change. >> sorry. [laughter] >> let's elevate the discussion a little bit. i am going to give you the remaining moments. >> i'd rather hear from the audience because i think their questions and issues they raise will be somewhat more interesting for me to address than some of those i had from the people up here. >> then i'll turn to you two. anything final? >> what you heard was the argument that in order to sort out the crisis, europe has to go to the next step. it has to take the next step, central control of fiscal decisions at the national

level. that's federalism. you would know from your own canadian experience. the problem is that's not what europeans want. indeed, when the question was posed in referendum in 2005, when a treaty for european federalism was presented, it was rejected by french and the dutch and then abandoned. so what you are calling for, which is the transition to a united states of europe or a federal republic of europe, whatever you want to call it, doesn't have political legitimacy which is why it hasn't happened. so it is a nonsolution. it isn't going to work. the germans are going to vote to make those transfers to the other countries. >> i am confused about something. i also read an article that you wrote in "the financial times" earlier this month in may. you were talking about the repairs that are needed to the

eurozone. nowhere did you write that they are impossible to implement. you talked about a new fiscal compact. you talked about direct help of banks from the u.c.b. you talked about the creation of euro bonds. you talked about joint and several liability for european sovereign debt. >> your only complaint was that europe was not going as fast as the united states did in creating a fiscal federalism. >> exactly. >> you finished your article. i don't know who your audience in "the financial times" was as opposed to tonight, you finished the article quoting the spanish philosophy saying europe is the solution, not the problem. now, who is the true niall ferguson, may i ask? [applause]

may 2, 2012. three weeks ago. three weeks ago. [applause] >> since that article has been published, have you heard anything from the german government to suggest any of those things -- >> not tonight. answer the question. arguing three weeks ago. >> do you want to hear from the audience? >> i do. >> come on. come on. >> not a single thing. not a single thing. >> applaud. let's move on to the questions. well done. [applause] >> certainly a lively debate. the first question is going to come from a good friend, she's well-known to a lot of us. she's cbc's senior business correspondent, reporter, onair personality, you're up.

>> tough act to follow. the question is for niall. i facing the summit. i think mountain climbers say more is dying on the way down as on the way up. is it more sensible to press on to closer monetary and political union rather than retreat with all of the losses that might -- that might entail? >> well, as peter has just pointed out, i have been arguing for sometime now that these steps need to be taken to avoid a major banking crisis, comparable in its magnitude with the crisis of 1931. [applause] >> i agree. we agree. we agree. >> let him finish, gentlemen. let him finish. >> the problem is since i wrote that article, from berlin there has come but a single word, no.

you can say no in 23 different languages, when it comes to saying no, the only one that matters and that's german. the single biggest problem right now -- the single biggest problem -- if i could answer amanda's question, is the proposition before the german government and people is, do you want to take the next step to a federal europe? and when the germans look at how much that's going to cost them, they say no. so although i would very much like to avoid the breakup, right now i see no sign, and i've just been to berlin, no sign that the german government sees this or is willing to take the massive political risk from a political point of view that would be involved in europe. it ain't going to happen. that's the significance of the peace you could have -- and you know it. >> danny. then we'll go to the next

question. >> talked about the german people. >> can i answer the question that was posed to me? >> we'll go to the -- >> i have to respond. >> go ahead. >> no, i just want to tell him that to take him out of germany about the question, do you want the -- yerm knee should make more debt to invest in europe and there was a big majority to say yes. yes, it was to take them out. >> >> no, no. >> france said we want to have more debt. can i ask a question? first of off, i want to say something. you don't understand how much you played with that quote

because ortega said europe is the solution more than 150 years ago. and that tells us -- >> two weeks ago he said that. >> ortega makes the point that it was 150 years ago. you said this wonderful thing you share in your dream-like approach to politicks does not work. otherwise something would have happened in 150 years. >> dream. >> i don't read enough. i only read what i write myself. >> lots of questions so let's go to the next one. we are going to go right now to athens, greece, the front lines of the europeozone crisis to speak live on skype of the managing editor of the leading english daily newspaper in greece, "athens news," can you hear us? >> yes, i can hear you. >> you have within watching live, watching the global

webstream. what have you heard tonight that you fundamentally disagree with? >> i am in a country that may find itself outside of the eurozone. it's a common question. i'd like to know that given there is 10 e.u. members that are not in the eurozone, part of the e.u., what life there would be for the european union without the euro or at least with more countries than just the 10 or 11 or how many there will be being outside the euro given that it's built on freedom of movements and trade? i know some of the other issues like immigration and environment that are going to affect all of us. >> ok. coming directly from athens, greece. peter, i think that's a question that's up your alley. >> i'm afraid it's not because

i don't understand the question. >> what he's saying, if we have these core eurozone members holding the currency right now, this group, and let's say -- >> 17. >> the 17. what is the potential to add to that now in the face of this existing crisis? is the future expansion and growth of europe stopped at this moment? >> i'm sorry. my understanding of the question was, can greece lead -- >> [inaudible] [applause] >> my understanding of the question is, can greece leave the euro and it -- [applause] >> let's deal with the first part of the question which is can greece exit? can you have aggressive and still have a euro hold those other countries together in a single unit? can it survive? >> 70%, 80% on the basis of every opinion poll is that greece wants to stay in the

euro. the reason is they know full well if they were to come out of the eurozone now and revert to their own national currency it would in all probability sink like a stone. inflation will soar. the sovereign default and the default on euro denominates its contracts, both within the country and externally, will create a lawyer's paradise. it will create the most extraordinary socioeconomic which is why we have to move heaven and earth to keep it within the euro. >> i want to tell you, if they go out out of the euro and i criticize the government because the austerity measure is too strong. this population is -- i think we should be clear on this. but if they go out, the new government will have no money to pay, and though there will be enough -- uprise, and what

happens is the military will take off. we know this by history. i think it's a big danger. i think we should really do more to keep greece. i know that it's difficult. we have to ease the difficulty, but it is very dangerous. i want to tell you something. of course there are countries out of the euro. take denmark. if the euro moved at 12:00, at 12:00 in one second, the crone moves in the same direction. so there are a lot of countries not in the euro -- they are economically linked to europe. and so the euro is a stability moment even in difficulties. the dollar was -- even when california has no money, when new york had no money. but the dollar was --

>> the euro is moving, i mean, the euro is tumbling. it's become the most -- the strongest force of instability in our lives. i don't want any brit to tell me about what the euro is and what it should do because it should otherwise would have been in the euro instead of britain instead of there gloating, thank god we never got into it. [applause] >> that's all i want to say. [laughter] >> let's not forget -- >> was that a question? >> it's important what danny and peter are saying. they are saying europe will do whatever it takes to keep greece in europe regardless of new government that will reject the austerity measures. so will germany sign on to that? >> i will do it. if you tell me we'll get the money from, will we get it from

the brits who are broke, from the french who are broke, the national debt has risen from 35% of g.d.p. in 20 years to 90%? will we get it from the great state of luxembourg or maybe from broke spain? where will we get the money from? if you tell me where the money is from we'll talk business. >> can i talk? >> i'll give you a second. >> that's a really good question. what's the answer? [laughter] >> where will the money come from, danny? >> the businesses of the country. the deficits started after the subprime crisis in 2008. spain as of 2007, 39% and now it's 90%. it's linked to the subprime crisis. also you have to say -- >> where does the money come

from that keeps greece in? >> the money will come from the europeans, from the euro bonds. >> the germans say no. >> this is very important. >> final and we'll go to another question. >> two weeks ago i was in the federal chancellory seeing the chancellor responsible for europe. i was visiting the president of the german bank in frankfurt. on not one -- prior to that i had been in the ministry finance in berlin. not one official, president, counselor did not say germany didn't want to become part of the solution, a, b. secondly, were you serious or not? >> second that. >> secondly, secondly -- >> what did they tell you? >> what did they tell you they were going to do because i was

at the financial bank and every statement that has come out of berlin has been negative about euro bond and negative about using -- >> you want the answer? >> why do you think it is, niall, keep saying no and they are not prepared to do anything an extra 500 billion euro exposure has come on the balance sheet of the german bank because they agreed to it. >> that's not how it works. that's not how it works and you know it. hundreds of billions of euros will automatically run up under the terms of the monetary union. the germans didn't have to say yes or no. it happened automatically and they are extremely worried about it. >> i thought you said the germans could always say no. they could say nien. they said ya. >> we are going to go to

another question. this crisis as niall mentioned is affecting 50% in both greece and spain. so we are going to go to melanie green, a masters student in international affairs at the munk school. melanie, thank you for agreeing to a question. >> i'd like to ask the debaters tonight what hope, if any, do young people in europe have for the future given the extremely high youth unemployment across the continent? >> great. danny, why don't you weigh in on that? you're -- your political career began in the streets of paris where unemployment was 50%. >> you want to go? you have two things. first, the last council they decided an extra problem for young people, the first decision is to take 25 billion

from the european budget to start some program in spain, in italy and in greece, first. second, the german chancellor agreed with -- they didn't with a lot of things but they agreed to put together a program and to propose for the summit at the end of june a special program for young people over europe exactly because of the young unemployment. and mrs. merkel said in this direction i will say that we, germany, will participate more in this program. they are really positive. i think the young unemployment is -- was a concern. and the european parliament has made a proposition and the european government, and i think this will go on the right track. so i think this is something that we can say nobody says no. whatever language you want to say it in. you can say it in russian.

it's niet. >> you are a historian. you looked at revolutions through history. is there a tipping point, 50% unemployment in that demographic, and does that suggest social instability is just now seething beneath the surface? >> when i arrived in barcelona a few days ago, it took me a few hours to get to the hotel because of the demonstrations by students. it's not only in montreal that this happens. [laughter] and the mood is very bleak. the mood is very bleak with good reason because when you look not only at the current unemployment rates for young people, but at the future prospects for european growth, it is hard to sew what kind of a future lies ahead. moreover, when young people look at the fiscal policies of the generation that screwed europe apart, what they see is a mountain of debt that is going to be in their inheritance. if you do any calculation about the future taxation, those who

are lucky enough to be employed, the taxes are going to be far higher than they were in the last generation. now, we see this almost all the time. with the talented young europeans to study in the united states. and it's really, really professable. it was happening before the crisis. that partly because of the bleak economic prospects. it's also because, and let's be absolutely candid, the continental european has been rubbish since your generation screwed them up in 1968. [laughter] >> let's take another question from the stage. this will be the final question tonight. and we spoke about it before, brittany, and i think it's a good one because it will take somewhat acrimonious and force them to think in a new way. >> which of your opponents' argument do you find the most compelling?

>> so repeat that. going to be a bit of a mental shift. which one of your opponents' arguments, josef, do you find most convincing? put yourself in their shoes. >> the most convincing part what danny said, i am not educateable. as the most -- the most convincing thing that peter said, which i am amazed because he's such a well-trained debater. you must have went to oxford. you defended something which was not the issue. you defended something which i totally agree with that you know it's much better to have free trade and open borders than closed -- and nonfree trade, but that was not the issue of this debate. i agreed perfectly with those things. open trade sbetter than closed trade. it was not the issue. the issue was whether europe

the experiment has failed and the failure, i think the basic failure that we have ground to halt, that we cannot continue and the reasons for that are deeply burdened our societies, our social contracts, our plit -- political cultures. we are not a nation state. we are 27 different nations and 27 history and 27 ways of doing things. these cultural differences can be overcome. just look at the four of us. the way we debate here. i mean -- [applause] >> mandelson, i will have you give your reflections on which of niall's and josef do you give credence to? >> i am trying to give credence to -- >> you have to have a good argument, correct? >> i'd like you to try.

[laughter] >> gentlemen, let's -- >> i don't agree with that argument. >> peter mandelson, you have the last word here. >> what i was trying to say, what i am trying to give credence to his argument that somehow we have achieved free trade across a 500 million strong market in the european union without anyone doing anything about it. i mean, how do you think we came to create this market? it didn't happen by accident. it happened by political design. it's been built up over 60 years and culminated, culminated in the creation finally of the single market in the late 1980's and early 1990's. by the way, the architect was the then british counselor in

brussels. the point i'm making of this is that the question really i want to put to you is, would you rather see this fall apart? would you rather dismantle it? would you rather see a single market cease to exist, because if you do, if you want to end what you call the european experiment, as you claim to do, i would then have to put it back to you. where do you think business is going to grow? where do you think the jobs are going to be created in the middle of a debt of an economic chaos that is going to plight europe not for years but for decades? and that's all i'm asking you to do. i am not denying there are problems in the single currency, in the single currency. i acknowledge those, and i think they are very serious and we have to put them right. i do think we can put them right. niall disagrees. he thinks it's impossible to do

so because he thinks the germans will always say no. i hope i tried to persuade him that the germans are in the middle of saying yes but they want certain things to be put in place beforehand and they want a little bit more discipline and they want a few more rules and they want a little bit more control over the eurozone before they start turning on the spending perhaps even more, and i don't blame the germans for asking for that. i go back to my point to josef. if you think it's so terrible, this european experiment, what affect do you think it will have on our economy, on our businesses and jobs if you just let the whole thing fall apart? i don't understand your point. >> i didn't argue for it falling apart. >> we are going to move to closing statements. i will change the order slightly. daniel, you are up first with your closing arguments. you have three minutes on the clock. >> well, i want to make it

simple. i agree totally that europe and the currency is in difficulty. i would cite "the financial times," we have to go on. now the problem is that germany will say no, no. they want to get the fiscal compact. she needs majority. she needs the votes of the social democrats and the green. and the green democrats say we have to make a step for more solidarity. redundant fund it's called. second, then you get europe's obligations. second, and germany is right to france. we need a common responsibility in the future. and i just want to say, it's going in this direction. and what i can't understand is knowing the european history,

of course it is very difficult, but we are in a situation in europe where really we see that the majority of the population wants to go forward even if they are afraid. and he's right. france and holland voted against the constitutional project. you're right because we made mistakes. i never said europe didn't make mistakes. i just say because the crisis is like this, the step out of the crisis is more europe and now we are debating. it's an interesting debate and complicated debate how to do it. and it takes time. it is difficult. but to say the european project is failing, is going bad, if you have scrambled eggs you don't have the eggs back. you have to try to organize it

so everybody can eat it. [laughter] and, you know, i really -- i want to say to everybody here, don't fool yourself or don't let you fool -- europe is a vision, a perspective. historically something completly new and i am proud that i could 20 years work in this project. i am proud that i could a little bit change the history of europe. that today we are european with big cultural differences, but with a feeling that together we can in the future be something because any single state in europe in the next 30 years will be nothing. we will be something together. we'll disappear as a political force and it's why i defend europe.

[applause] >> well done, sir, speaking in your third or fourth language, you just have three second left on the clock. so excellent duration. your closing remarks. >> let me just dispense once and for all the issue that europe is guarantees the peace. that is historically palls and conceptually false. the problem is that security and peace before we started integration. in fact, we couldn't have started integration unless there had been somebody in the game stronger than france, stronger than germany, stronger than all which happens to be the united states which protects it each and the other and guarantees security against each other. once the security problem is solved, we could go on to build

europe. i agree with -- second point, i agree with the fact that europe has to be part of the solution. but you know, what we've heard from the two other debaters is we've heard them restate and restate what's desirable. it should be. that's why i will defend europe. it should go on and climb. what it has not been said is how it should be done, we talk about 27 nation states. and so let me stick with a metaphor for a moment. yes, i could climb the cliff. but the problem is that we need somebody who leads and somebody who follows. and the problem with europe is most of us are much better of saying no, no and nein but

nobody wants to accept anybody as a leader to rule -- to rule the roost and to rule -- to rule the rest. and if you look at it that way, then you will be necessarily become more modest in what europe should and can do. there is no abraham lincoln. there is no one who can pummel and beat the rest. thank god for that. there are certain kind of french deputies i would not want to be led by. now, to the more prudent argument of peter. says, would you want to live in a europe that is not europe? that was not the issue of this debate. the issue of this debate was, has the experiment failed? and it seems to me that with some powers of observation, it

has failed but it does not mean we want to dismantle the whole thing. nobody has argued that. nobody in his right mind would argue this. what we see is that we should be less ambitious, preserve what we have while preserving at the same time the kind of realization that tells us, no, we are not going to be e plur bus e plruibus unum. >> it was a good closing. now, lord mandelson, your closing remarks. >> i don't expect people to show blind faith in the single currency or the european project. what i do -- what i ask people

is not to accept the view of those who proposed this notion, but everything that is wrong in the eurozone and the operation of the single currency will remain wrong. that every mistake that has been made is irreversible. in other words, that all politicks is hopeless. i'm asking you to accept the feud that you can actually repair things. you can actually reverse mistakes. you can change things for the better. it's not academic but it is politics, niall. i think so much of what we've heard from the other side is quite frankly, and sort of counsel of despair. now, i don't expect you to share my commitment, niall, and i don't expect you necessarily to agree with my pro-european views, although, as i pointed out, you did do so two weeks

ago in the "fble times" at the beginning of may. -- "the financial times" at the beginning of may. bear in mind what is at stake. this isn't actually a loft. we are talking about people's livelihoods. we are talking about people's jobs. we are talking about people's future. we are talking about a whole generation of young people who need this to succeed, not fail. so please stop praying for failure. stop arguing for failure. i am not saying that necessarily we will prevail or that necessarily we will win, but all of us have got to make a huge combined political effort to make this thing succeed and stay on the road for two reasons. one is that there is no such thing if this thing gets into worse trouble, there is no such thing as a velvet divorce in the euro -- in the eurozone. the fallout would be absolutely tremendous for all of us in

europe. but secondly and equally importantly, you know, we're talking about in the european union as a whole, we're talking about a single economic space which is the second largest and the importance of its kind in the world. it would not just be the europeans who would be hit if this thing fell apart. it would be people in advanced economies and developing economies, rich people and poor people, including many in canada, right across the world. that is why we have got to combine to make this thing sort itself out. and i believe that we can. and it will take leadership. there is germany. there is a very good president that's just been elected in france. and while it is true -- and while it is true -- and while it is true, the britain is not at the moment in the forefront

of europe's leadership. i wish it was. [applause] >> niall, you have the final word. >> in february of 2009, i have gave an interview in which i said there would be blood but in the fake of the financial crisis there would be such political upheaval and social dislocation that the result would be violence. i believe that that prophecy is being fulfilled, and it is being fulfilled in large measure because of the failed experiment of european's integration. the direction of causeation is all wrong on the opposite side. why is their depression levels of unemployment in countries like greece and spain? it wasn't an act of god.

it was a direct and predictable consequence of the failed experiment in monetary union, an experiment that was obviously doomed to fail that your government elected not to join the euro. if you are such a big believer in european integration, peter, why is it that year after year the labour government refused to join? you know the answer. the answer was at least some people in your party, including your old friend, gordon brown, saw this coming. the magnitude of the crisis that's been inflicted on the european priffry by the failed experiment can hardly be overstated here and the stakes are very high. we could be on the brink of a second depression. if it sweeps right through the mediterranean region, it could be 1931 all over again. what happens after that? what happens if the worst case scenario happens? what happens if the germans continue to say no to the kind

of federal measures that might possibly stench -- staunch the flow of money out of spanish banks? there are other experiments that are failing in europe right now. the experiment of excessively generous welfare states, the experiment of multiculturalism which has unintegrated immigrants which will be the focal point for the backlash that's in the pipeline. the experiment has been more dangerous than any of the eurocrats ever anticipated. and we have yet to see the full consequences whether the laboratory blow up, once described an empire as an experimental laboratory for world destruction. my feelings, gentlemen, is that is what the european union is poised to become.

this experiment has failed. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, let me reiterate something that we have said in past debates. it's somebody to get up, the quality and caliber of their speakers, they do it all the time and give a set piece speech. it's something quite different, though, to put your ideas forward, to have them contested in the way they have been tonight. and frankly to talk about an issue that is, again, hardly academic. this affects potentially the lives of hundreds of millions of people, possibly even the future of the global economy. so it's been a spirited debate undoubtedly but one i think we all come away from with a larger understanding in europe and in rich conversation. so please join me in a round of

appreciation for the debaters. [applause] so now the fun part of tonight's evening. we are going to have a second vote on the motion be it resolved the european experiment has failed. let's first remind us how public opinions started in this room tonight. let's have those numbers again up for the first audience vote. 41% of you were in favor of the motion. fully 22% undecided. 37% against. and then we went on to how many of you could change your vote, a whooping 90%. so, again, feel based on what we heard tonight, public opinion is in play. remember to pass your ballots on to the ushers as you leave the hall. i am going to announce the results shortly after 9:00 p.m.

in the south lobby where we're also selling books of all our previous munk debates. for those watching online, around the world, thank you for tuning in. we'll post the results on our website shortly after 9:00 p.m. ladies and gentlemen, to the reception. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> in under 15 minutes, the u.s. house will gavel in to take up 10 suspension bills all dealing with land conveyance in a number of states. they'll also resume work on amendments to the energy and water spending bill for fiscal year 2013.

we'll have live house coverage when they gavel back in about 2:00 eastern. wisconsin voters heading to the polls today deciding whether to keep their current republican governor scott walker or recall him. he's being challenged by the democrat walk mayor tom barrett. the polls close at 9:00 eastern and we will bring you live coverage, simulcast coverage from wisn tv milwaukee tv that will be on c-span2. well, witnesses at a senate hearing today urged congress to make changes to the 1996 anti-poverty program known as tanf or the temporary assistance for needy families. it exspires the 30th of september this year. a block grant to states that replace direct federal aid to those on welfare. we're going to show you a portion of that hearing from this morning beginning with the opening statement of ron haskins of the brookings institution who helped bring the program into existence as a house republican staff director. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman bachus, ranking member

hatch and members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to testify before this committee. an issue a minute. >> you got it. >> we are going to time you, too. [laughter] >> you are going to what? >> i am going to tease you. i said we are going to time you and hold you to that. don't worry. >> take it all back. i am going to talk about major causes of boston and then what we should do about poverty. issue one, the trends in poverty. i included a figure in my testimony that to me has two big surprises. one is we made virtually no progress in poverty since 1985 despite the fact we are spending a ton more money. the poverty among the elderly is lower than for children in our society. so those are two exceptionally important facts. we need to buckle down and figure out what to do about poverty and we ought to

especially concentrate on children. issue two. between the states and the federal government, we spend about $1 trillion on means tested programs. and this number has increased almost every year since 1965. so the idea that we're not spending enough money is probably incorrect. we should be spending it poorly. it might not be focused on the poor. some of the programs might be unsuccessful, but we're spending a lot of money. about $13,000 per poor person. now, a lot of that is on health care. critics always mention that. about 45% of it. but congress decided that's where they want to spend the money so unless you want to change that, 45% is on the poor. but the nation has made a great commitment to helping the poor. and it increases every year. third issue, the causes. i think four are especially important. the first is work rates. we're in a long-term decline in work among males in the united states. the work rate among young males, especially young black males, and i'm referring before the recession.

i don't want to confuse this with the recession. these are numbers before the recession. so we have a real problem for male unemployment in the united states. the reasons i don't think is very clear. females is opposite. females have worked more. everybody is aware that married women have joined the labor since world war ii and the numbers have gone down. but never married mothers. the poorest group of mothers have had a spectacular increase in employment. the likelihood they have a job is greater, about 20%, than it was before welfare reform. so that group is working a lot. still we need to boost work rates. second, these are astounding at the bottom of the distribution. our wages at the 10 percentile and below in the united states on average are where they were 30 years ago. it's hard to make progress against poverty because we are always going to have 10% of the people below 10%. it's an astounding mathematical fact as i point out in my

testimony. as long as wages don't change, as long as we don't do about the minimum wage, it's a real problem to help people get out of poverty. if they work full time at the minimum wage they won't be out of poverty. the biggest cause of poverty in my estimation, we've had a huge increase in fall added families. most disadvantage are never married. about 70%. even more than 70% about black children. about 42 percent of all american families are born without marriage. their probability of being in poverty will be very high. family composition is a huge issue. finally education is a very big issue. i would say our educational system, both at the preschool level, k-12 and postsecondary needs a lot of work. i wouldn't say necessarily it's the failure, and i think the most promising is preschool. so let me talk about a few strategies to fight poverty and

i want to preface my remarks by saying i think personal responsibility is an absolute key here. three of the four causes i mentioned to you have a substantial component of personal choices and if people don't make better choices no what matter what you do in this hearing or in congress, we are still going to have a big problem with poverty. we have to do something about people's decisions to drop out of school, about decisions to work and about decisions to get married before people have children. so first strategy that's worked forever and doesn't make -- it's not hard to understand is give them money. that's what we do with the elderly. we did it especially in the 1970's. we have a low elderly poverty rate primarily doing something with social security. that strategy will not work with young abled body americans because they don't think that abled bodied americans need welfare. we need to encourage and even force people to work and then subsidize their income. i would point out to the committee that this is a highly

bipartisan solution. on the one hand very tough work requirements. on the other hand, very generous work support. earned income tax credit, medicaid, programs, i would say we passed 40 pieces of legislation over the period started roughly in the early 1980's to make our systems a means tested benefit for friendly to working families. if you went to work you lost everything and that's no longer the case. the two other strategies -- so we need to emphasize work and we need to maintain the work support system, the eitc, earned income tax credit. it's not very controversial for the federal congress to be involved in preschool because it has been for so long. and i think our childcare that we spend a lot of federal dollars on is the heart of the problem because it's of average quality or worse and that's where we can make progress by increasing the average quality

of childcare. and we have lots of strategies. we can reduce teen pregnancy. we have reduced teen pregnancy since 1991 except for two years. so we have a lot of strategies there. even if the 20-somethings we have a numbers program including more coverage of comprehensive family planning services and mass advertising campaigns and plus the teen pregnancy programs. if we spent more money on these three programs we would reduce nonmarital birth rates and that would be a good start toward addressing poverty. >> thank you, doctor. that's good. >> thank you. i also want to thank chairman bacus and ranking member hatch and members of the -- senator baucus and ranking member hatch and members of the committee and i am a social anthropologist and social educator and i work with families. and today -- i don't want this to be a contest.

i will address six themes and illustrate -- the examples representative of the data i worked with. before welfare eligible -- both welfare eligible and welfare using populations are varied. researchers in washington state found five subgroups ranging from those who left tanf within a year to those who continued on tanf with barely a break and those have different needs. second, both welfare support and the income from low wage labor leaves families struggling. families cannot sustain themselves on welfare alone or low wage work alone and those relying on those low incomes will have a cascade effect. one texas woman i interviewed had moved off welfare into work and out of public housing into her own apartment. she still depended on subsidized childcare for her

two children, but when her 2-year-old bit another child at daycare, he was asked to leave care and her childcare subsidy lapsed when she could not find new childcare within the 10 days allowed. she couldn't work regularly. she lost her job and her eligibility for renewed childcare subsidy. she couldn't pay her rent and was ejected. eight weeks from the biting episode she was jobless, homeless and without childcare to allow her to hunt for a job or to work. third theme. tanf rates remain stable in a time of recession, but disconnected households with neither earned income nor welfare income have increased. estimates say between 13% and 20% of single parent poverty households are disconnected at any one time. one chicago woman in a study had worked all of her life and never been on welfare. as the recession deepened her hours were reduced.

then she was injured on the job. her employer contested her application for unemployment and she was not yet eligible to apply for tanf. her car was repossessed making doctor visits for her injury and her job search almost impossible. she cut back on her own eating. it was four months before she received unemployment benefits. theme number four, more families are living in extreme poverty, often leaving them debilitated by untreated medical conditions and extensive debt. an estimate that as of the beginning of 2011, about 1.46 million united states households with about 2.8 million children were surviving on $2 in cash or less in income per day per person in a given month. theme number five, the jobs available for low-skilled or low-educated workers leaves the

working poor particularly vulnerable. chicago researchers lambert and henley studied low-wage work in retail and hospitality. successful applicants provide lots of availability. i can work any time between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. i might be assigned, say, around 25 hours per week with the timing and number of hours varying each week. however, my employer expects that i can be available any hours between 8:00 and 8:00. needing more money, i take on a second job. however, when that job conflicts with hours assigned by my first job, i am punished with reduced hours in my first job. they found no time hours week. unemployment and underemployment also affects the men who father children in low-income single parent families leaving both them and the families impoverished. six, there are a number of policies that i think can work for families and in some ways this echos what we just heard.

while paid work is the core of family stability, enabled by work supported services including a robust eitc, tanf, particularly when used as a bridging program for families facing time limited periods of need, access to childcare and health care, a gradual -- >> all of this in our c-span video library at c-span.org. they'll take up resumed consideration of the energy and water bill. live coverage of the house here on c-span. let us pray. loving and gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we ask today that you bless the

members of this assembly to be their best and most faithful servants of the people they serve. purify their intentions that they will say what they believe and act consistent with their words. may they be filled with gratitude at the opportunity they have to serve in this place. we thank you for the abilities they have been given to do their work, to contribute to the common good. may they use their talents as good stewards of your many gifts and thereby be true servants of justice and partners in peace. as elections across our nation highlight the competition of ideas, grant that those who sit in the people's house will place the good of our nation and its citizens above political gain. it is a difficult task, all the more which is why we ask your grace during these days. may all that is done be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof.

pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. mr. wilson: everyone, including our guests in the gallery, please join in. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, the president's policies are failing our families and destroying jobs. since the president was swonch into office -- sworn into office on january, 2009, our citizens have lost a net of 740,000 jobs as was discovered

on friday. for the past 40 months the unemployment rate has remained above 8%. sadly during the month of may this rate increased from 8.1% in april to 8.2%. the biased liberal media can no longer conceal the truth of the president's failed policies, and to make matters worse, if the number of americans who want to work but have stopped looking for a job, and those who are forced to work part-time, were factored into the equation, the real unemployment rate would rise to 14.8%. house republicans have passed over 30 bipartisan bills which would promote job creation. i urge my colleagues in the senate to take immediate action on these pieces of legislation and help put american families back to work. in conclusion, god bless our troops, we will forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from ohio seek recognition? a good afternoon, mr. speaker, i request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: this year marks the diamond jubilee, the 60th year of queen elizabeth's second reign as monarch of the united kingdom. as our closest relation, it's only fitting we join the united kingdom in celebrating the queen's diamond jubilee. queen elizabeth's coronation as queek was on june 2, 1953, when she was 25. following the death of her father, king george iv. her majesty's the second longest serving monarch in history. she's conducted regular meet wgs every british prime minister since winston churchill. over the last 60 years she's conducted 261 official visits, to 116 different countries. she's received eight presidents of the united states and made five state visits to the u.s. last year she became the first

british monarch since 1911 to visit the republic of ireland, a significant and historic move for peace and reconciliation. throughout decades of change, her majesty, queen elizabeth ii, has served as a constant and steadfast presence in the united kingdom and world. i ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating and celebrating her majesty's diamond jubilee, thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. pitts: revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pitts: in today's "wall street journal" dr. stephen greer relates his disastrous experience trying to review grants for a program created by obamacare. the center for medicaid and medicare will hand out more than $10 billion in the coming decade. dr. greer was one of the chairmen overseeing panels of outside experts who were supposed to review grants for projects to train new types of health care workers. the team had only two weeks to review overwhelm cases that ran more than 100 pages. among other things, work was lost to poor computer systems, leading some panelists to quit

in disgust. dr. greer himself quit after his complaints went unanswered. despite the problems the money went out the door. $1.9 million to george washington university project that only saves $1.7 million. 4.5 million to a san antonio project that only saves $5 million. and $5.8 million for the university of chicago to create 80 jobs. all this poorly supervised spending while we rack up more than $1 trillion in debt every year. more evidence that our debt problem is a spending problem. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? -- connecticut seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> unless congress acts in the next 25 days, the stafford student loan interest rate will double from 3.4% to 6.8% adding millions of dollars of additional student loan debt to middle class families.

mr. courtney: unfortunately the do-nothing house is in session only two full days this week and six full days for the rest of this month. the republican whip announced yesterday there was no action planned on this issue this week. it is no wonder that president obama will once again this week reach out to college students all across america to demand action before july 1. not only that, he's announcing today an historic agreement with colleges and universities to establish a financial aid shopping sheet which will better inform families about the true cost of tuition as a way of avoiding debt and announce more repayment caps for the stafford loans to reduce the burden of high debt. one branch of government is doing its job to help with the cost of college. it is time for the republican leadership to do the same. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. now more than ever the

president and congress need to cut spending and pass legislation that promotes job growth. instead the government is just months away from enacting a job-killing tax on medical devices that will drastically harm our nation's medical industry. an estimated 43,000 jobs could be lost and could force these american factories to relocate overseas. president obama wants to implement this harmful tax as a way to pay for his nearly $2 trillion health care law. this is insane. the government has a spending problem. american taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for the disastrous law, and businesses shouldn't have to fork over more of their money to pay for washington's reckless spending spree. it's time to promote real solutions.

let's cut spending, repeal obamacare, and protect hardworking taxpayers from these destructive taxes. americans want, need, and deserve real solutions and we can take action now and vote this week to eliminate this tax. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i rise to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, the current health insurance system has essentially insulated people from the actual cost of medical care that they receive. but maybe by pulling back the curtains on these opaque areas of the health care market, over time we could lead to the development of a more rational pricing structure, at least from the consumer's perspective. once we understand the actual cost, then we can begin to make effective changes leading to fair physician reimbursement, appropriate patient billing,

and better medical services. to that end the transparency act of 2012, h.r. 5800, is bipartisan legislation that is a long-term solution to run away medical costs. the bill calls upon states to establish and maintain laws requiring the disclosure of information on hospital charges. this means state law will require health insurance providers to give patients an actual dollar estimate of what the patient must pay for health care items and services within a specified period of time. it's commonsense legislation, it's far past time for us to do t i encourage members to join me in co-sponsoring h.r. 5800, let's get it done. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: mr. speaker, last month 43 catholic institutions across america joined together to defend the first amendment and filed a total of 12

lawsuits against the administration in order to protect the right to freedom of religion on behalf of all americans. this is the most significant religious lawsuit in u.s. history and christian leaders all across america have joined in support of these catholic institutions. despite the unprecedented and historic nature of this event, the national media, largely ignored it. the catholic institutions filed a lawsuit due to new obamacare regulations that forced some religious institutions to pay for coverage of anti-abortion drugs, regardless of the employer's religious and moral objections. how can the liberal media ignore 12 different lawsuits being filed in federal courts that each charge the administration with violating the first amendment right of freedom of religion? the liberal national media continues to show their bias by their scanty coverage of this historical event. search the chair lays before the house a communication.

the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, this is to note you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a trial subpoena for testimony issued by the state of indiana, delaware county, circuit court number four. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i will determine whether compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. signed, sincerely, kerry predite, constituent services, congressman mike pence. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition?

mr. frelinghuysen: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of h.r. 5325, and that my -- i may include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 667 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5325. will the gentleman from nebraska, mr. smith, kindly take the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the house -- the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5325 which the clerk will report by title. boipcloip a bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2013, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on friday, june 1, 2012, an amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 22, line

-- for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman. on friday, i offered an amendment to eliminate taxpayer subsidies to these so-called renewable sector and this amendment eliminates them to the nuclear sector, saving another half billion dollars. it does not affect the surcharges that electricity consumers have already paid for waste disposal or for military applications or essential maintenance of our nation's radiological facilities, but it relieves taxpayers from funding research and development that rightly rests with the nuclear industry and requires that industry to compete with all other energy technologies to

attract capital base on its own merit. on friday i expressed my skepticism of companies like solyndra that peddle technologies that just don't pencil out. let me now declare my confidence in nuclear technology and in companies like general electric and westing house that have pie -- westinghouse that have pioneered these technologies. but that is not an argument for taxpayers to underright their research and development -- underwrite their research and development departments. whether congress is skeptical of the technology or confident in it, we are not intellectually equipped or actually authorized to choose winners and losers among various companies or technologies or to substitute our judgment for that of individual investors. . i realize these companies won't turn down free money extracted from taxpayers, but i don't believe they actually need it.

what's more, i believe they'll be better off when we stop telling them what designs to use by fiat and let them use whatever designs meet health and safety standards. this is the worst of both worlds. we force them to pay off the r&dambings of -- r&d of these companies and they use that. let them pay for their own research and take the risks. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> this would all but eliminate this critical program to our nation. our bill provides the same

funding level as last year, funding that's a critical part of our support for a balanced energy portfolio and reducing reliance on foreign energy sources. mr. frelinghuysen: nuclear power will continue to play a large role in the future as our constituents look for reliable, inexpensive, clean energy. american -- america invented nuclear power but now other neighs are mimicing our companies' designs and building them entirely in their own borders. we must dive the next generation of reactors and that's what this program does. in addition to rea improving the reliability of our current nuclear fleet. through simulations, cooperation with the industry and advance red search, the program develops next generation reactors such as small, modular reactors and high temperature gas designs that are inherently safe and

even more substantial safety margin than today's reactors. these new type types of reactors can be wholly built here and home, by american company, by american workers. the gentleman's amendment would halt these efforts, lose the innovation and manufacturing edge overseas and risk hundreds if not thousands of jobs. i therefore oppose his amendment and urge the members to do the same and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i also rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. our country does need a diversified energy portfolio. nuclear is part of that. almost a quarter of all our electrical power today is yen rated through nuclear power. mr. visclosky texas it is car

bob free -- mr. visclosky: it is carbon free and i don't think it's time to remove our support. progress as far as improved technologies is vital and i add my voice in -- to that in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: page 23, line 12, fossil energy research and development, $554 million.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendmentful the clerk: amendment offered by ms. hirono of haye. page 22, after line 23, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $133,400,000. page 26, line three, after the dollar amount, insert, increased i by $133,400,000. ms. hirono: this amendment will increase the resources for the advanced reserge -- for arpa-e. a report was released called rising above the fathering storm, it called for the establishment of an nrnl focused on energy, modeled after the famous defense

advanced research agent, car pa. -- darpa. that legislation passed the senate with strong bipartisan support. arpa-e's purpose is to support research to help americans lead a 21st century clean energy revolution. this is about yen rating new ideas and innovations that lead to new jobs, industries, and opportunities. ideas and innovations are the hallmarks of america's economic success. names like benjamin franklin, the wright brothers, thomas edison, bill gates, steve job and others are familiar taos all. they are familiar names across the globe. that's because their ideas led to cutting edge technologies that that were widely adopted and put to use, changing our lives and society for the better. some of these bold innovations

were far ahead of their time and often succeeded with government support. for example, few know that without government contracts for airmail, our commercial aviation industry would not have become so successful. it was research supported by both u.s. government labs and the private sector that gave us the internet. most famously, who can forget president john f. kennedy's call to put a man on the moon. while this effort was successful from a technological perspective, it also captivated a generation of americans, inspiring them to think big and think bold. it is vital to our nation's future success that we reinvigorate the spirit of innovation. if we do, we can harness the talent of our nation's people as we continue rebuilding our economy. and that's why supporting arpa-e is so important. arpa-e awardees are developing the kinds of breakthroughs that will help us break free from the grip of foreign oil and

fossil fuels. in the past year alone, arpa-e supported research into high tech electric car batteries and energy grid technology and algae-based biofuels. these are ideas that can change how the u.s. produces, uses, and transmits energy. unfortunately, the bill before us takes a different tack. it cuts funding for the research and innovation spop sort by arpa-e and instead gives us more resources for research into mature energy sources. last year, fossil fuel r&d received $346 million. the bill before us provides $554 million for fossil fuel r&d. that's a $207 million increase. arpa-e, on the other hand, gets a $75 million cut in this bill. my friend, thed of the hawaiian

renewable energy alliance once told me, quote, the path we need to take toward energy independence is one where we level the playing field for clean energy and coal. we all abrie that energy independence is a critical national priority. i think we can also agree we need to take a broad-based approach to getting there responsible fossil fuel development must be part of this mix but so should clean energy. and that's what this amendment does. to increase the resources for arpa-e, my amendment transfers some funds from the fossil fuel research and development programs my amendment does not eliminate fossil fuel r&d. it would merely bring the funding level for this research to the amount requested by the administration. that number was nearly $420 million. and that's still an increase of $73 million from last year. we know that innovation equals job creation. in fact, in states across the country, we are seing the advantages of investing in

clean energy research development and deployment. we need to keep this forward momentum. in hawaii, our clean energy economy is growing. private sector clean energy jobs in hawaii have grown to over 11,000 jobs with double digit growth expected in the coming year. these firms generate $1.2 billion for our state economy. these are jobs that keep money in our state and can't be outsourced. at this time of tight budgets, we need to plans our priorities and lay the groundwork for the future. my amendment moves us in that direction. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to this amendment. my colleague's amendment would increase funding for arpa-e to

levels beyond what the program needs. our bill focuses on energy security and research to address gas prices but we have continuing concerns with this program -- that this program must not intervene where private capital markets are already acting and must not fund work redundant with other programs at the department of energy. arpa-e is only three years old and is still proving itself. given given how we must spend tax dollars wisely, it would not be prudent to give this young program its highest funding. this amendment would unfortunately do just that and therefore i oppose it for that and many other reasons. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the skwlelt is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise to join my colleagues in support of this amendment to restore funding to the advanced research projects agency for

energy, arpa-e. mr. connolly: the committee's majority correctly notes that projects funded by arpa-e are capable of changing the energy sector to address our energy technology and security challenges. this agency is fund regular search to advance more efficient energy production and so much more. it's puzzling the committee would then recommend reducing funding for activities promoting american energy below the president's reasonable request. it's thanks to our strategic investments in r and d we have captured the full benefit of american innovation in the private sector. more than half of the nation's economic growth since world war ii can be traced to science-driven technology research and innovation that's stemmed from that partnership.

it was central to tour ability to capitalize on the space race in the 1960's and since then the magnitude of research supported by the federal government has grown and revolutionized health care, transportation, the digital economy and yes, energy delivery and efficientcism a federal energy grant at georgia tech evolved into a private company that manufactures solar cells that are cost competitive with fossil fuels. the technology was named the best technology in 2010. it's frustrating to see the pattern of disinvestment on research which yields a 2-1 return on investment. cuts like this cost our country in the long run. who is going to fill the gap if we start to retreat? the answer, our foreign come pet quors. it's already happening, mr. chairman. more than half of u.s. patents

were depnted to foreign companies in 2009. china is now the world's leading high tech export and we rank 27th in the number of garage watts with science or engineering degrees. on another note, i would highlight another point where the majority is paying lip service to science go the bill talks about the development of science education, yet they underfund the programs to have science teachers for the future generations. we need to to invest more, not less. i urming my colleagues to restore these vital funds so we can continue to fund these vital industries and allow american companies to be globally competitive and help american workers get jobs.

i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question -- for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise in reluctant opposition to the gentlelady's amendment as well as remarks issued by the gentleman from virginia. i certainly appreciate their desire relative to the good work being done at arpa-e but the two points i would make in opposition. first of all, the gentlewoman was absolutely correct on top line figures for fossil fuel. but do think they are somewhat misleading because there is a rescission contained within the bill for $187 billion. mr. visclosky: the true reflection as far as current year spending and the proposal in the house bill is for fiscal year 2012, fossil fuel sat $534 million, the proposal in the

subcommittee mark in the committee reported bill is $554 million. and again, appreciating deeply the very good work and cultural change taking place within the department of energy pause of of arpa-e, i would also point out that energy consumption today by fossil fuel is represented by about 8 % of our utilization. we do need to continue to be focused on that huge segment of current use to be more efficient and to reduce our carbon footprint. so again, i would add my remarks to the chairman's and yield back my time. . the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from hawaii. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. hirono: mr. chairman.

the chair: the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. hirono: i ask for a roll call. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from hawaii will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mcclintock: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4, printed in the across-the-board -- congressional record, offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: mr. chairman, i believe it's number 5. the chair: the clerk will designate amendment number 5. the clerk: amendment number 5, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman. this is the final amendment i'll offer to remove government from subsidizing energy

companies. this one pertains to fossil fuel industries. the coal, oil, and natural gas industries are profitable and proven and have never had any trouble finding investors to pay for legitimate research. once again i pose the question why are taxpayers, then, being forced to subsidize research and development for energy companies that have every incentive to pay for it themselves if they actually believe it will bear fruit? if it pans out these technologies have enormous economic value and will richly reward all those who invest in them. and if they don't, taxpayers shouldn't be left holding the bag. today the fossil fuels industry has opened a new chapter of clean, cheap, and abundant natural gas recovery through horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, a process developed almost entirely through private capital. our dismal energy situation today is not because of not

enough government, it is because of too much government. and the american people have finally figured that out. we have done enormous damage not only to our energy policy but to our entire economy by subsidizing inefficiencies, hiding true costs, and slanting the competitive deal. if left alone prices convey an entire world of data, embedded in the price of your local gas station is information on political conditions in the middle east, refinery capacity, bribery rates in venezuela, and what the guy down the street is selling it for to name just a few. accurate prices are essential for consumers and investors to make rational decisions about the highest and best use of their dollars. when government interferes in these decisions, it corrupts the data that's necessary to ensure that every dollar in the economy is spent to its highest

and best use. so it's not just the cost of these subsidies to taxpayers, it's the misallocation of resources that those subsidies cause, and that's perhaps the most serious drag of all on our economy. when government plays this game, risks are masked, inefficiencies go undetected and uncorrected, capital flows from productive to nonproductive use, and perhaps most dangerous of all in a free society, the government begins picking winners and losers. the productive sector becomes more and more beholden to government and less and less beholden to its own customers. now, i am told on generally reliable authority this is what republicans are supposed to believe in. this republican house needs to be true to those beliefs and true to the voters who elected us because of those beliefs. i yield back.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> in opposition, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> the owe bam administration has not been shy about its desire to wipe out our nation's use of fossil energy resources. mr. rogers: mining permits in kentucky and eastern america have ground to a halt. oil and gas leasing on federal wlands and outer continental shelf, stagnant. onerous regulations are shuttering power plants. and e.p.a. officials have gone on the record expressing a desire to crucify the fossil industries which have been the backbone of our energy security for decades and continues today. and how does this administration propose to fill the gaping hole they have left in our energy security? by throwing billions of taxpayer dollars down a black hole at pie in the sky renewable pet projects like

solyndra. i agree with my colleagues that we must balance the expansion of conventional fuels, goal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear to provide energy today with investment into renewable energies to power our future. and that's exactly what the underlying bill seeks to do, mr. chairman. the funding provided for fossil energy research and development will support investments in carbon capture, carbon storage, and other advanced energy systems so our country can more efficiently use centuries' worth of coal and natural gas already at our disposal. meanwhile, we continue to support reasonable levels in the eere account that have seen exponential increases in recent years. the president's energy strategy yields neither savvy investments for the taxpayer. nor does it strengthen our

energy security or our economy. seen in tandem with the e.p.a.'s onerous utility regulations and deliberate delay to energy production permits, any cuts to fossil energy research are part of a movement designed to drive fossil energy from the marketplace. the results will be spiking energy costs, greater reliance on foreign sources of energy, and lost jobs.

as a result, mr. chairman, i urge a no vote on this amendment. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields ack. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclinlon: mr. speaker, fossil energy research and development continues -- mr. mckinley: mr. speaker, fossil energy research and development continues to supply our security and environmental needs. the r&d takes place in our national energy technology laboratories throughout the country, including laboratories in morgantown, west virginia, and pittsburgh, pennsylvania. over the years these two labs alone have produced thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in investment into local and state economies, and an incredible working relationship among w.v.u., pitt, carnegie mellon, penn state, and virginia tech. just to point out the importance of fossil energy, r&d funding to the gentleman's home state of california, in 2011 over 200 projects were developing in california. this research provided $1.6 billion in funds being brought

in to that state, along with over 7,600 jobs. in hawaii there were over $36 million intelligent in research -- spent in research involving near liver 300 jobs. fossil energy r&d has led research to significantly reduce acid rain, as well as other advance pollution controls and mercury emission reductions, and has led and conducted research that create technology uses 75% of our nation's largest coal power plants. today fossil energy r&d continues to lead the nation's efforts in carbon capture, sequestration, and utilization, and has led efforts in conbuston and turbine r&d that led to substantial increases in power plant efficiencies and reductions. and power plant emissions. simply put, the research through this program focuses on

developing affordable, safe, and clean mechanisms to enhance and utilize our domestic fossil energy resources in the most efficient manner. if this amendment passes, congress will not be able to ensure our nation of job security, job retention, and growth. and the ability to meet our ever increasing energy needs. not only would this amendment destroy nearly 90,000 jobs, 2,100 research projects, and over $18 billion in investments, but would harm our educational institutions and the students, scientists, and professors who work in our national energy laboratories. i urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment and continue to support our domestic fossil energy initiatives. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. visclosky: to strike the last word. rise in opposition to the

gentleman's amendment for the very reasons i espoused briefly before relative to the the gentlewoman from hawaii's amendment and would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the apped offered by the gentleman from california mlb postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the chair: amendment offered by mr. connolly of virginia. page 22, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert reduce by $25 million. page 56, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert increase by $25 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. connolly: mr. chairman, at

a time when we should be working together to find ways to save taxpayer money and reduce the deficit, this bill proposes to waste millions of dollars on research into efish yishent and highly polluting energy extraction process known as oil shale. for 100 years, oil shale advocates and big energy companies have been selling us the promise of cheap energy through oil shale. despite those efforts, no company has been able to deliver on that promise. it's time to end the sham and stop wasting taxpayer dollars. that's why this amendment which i offer with my good friend, congressman jere red polis from california, would save $25 million and invest it in deficit reduction. despite what some in the industry might claim, oil shale development won't produce affordable american energy or jobs. mr. chairman, just a few weeks ago interior secretary salazar pointed out that the house majority continues to confuse shale oil with oil shale.

two completely different things. while they clearly sound similar, any undergraduate in geology can tell you that in fact one is a rock, the other a liquid. let me say that again so my colleagues understand, oil shale derives from a rock is not to be confused with shale oil. while shale oil is experiencing a boom in development, oil shale technology simply doesn't exist. in fact recently confirmed by the congressional budget office. the c.b.o. estimated that commercial leasing program for oil shale on federal lands under the pioneer act would not generate revenue for at least 10 years. the amendment i'm offering with my friend from colorado, mr. polis, will simply eliminate the research and funding dollars designated in this bill for oil shale production. this is a simple commonsense amendment. given the current budget

constraints we hear so much about, we cannot continue to throw good money after bad for nonexistent, uneconomical energy source. there is no sense in wasting $25 million in taxpayer dollars on oil shale research and development when there is no commercially viable technology to bake rock and turn it into synthetic oil. in addition, to the technological and economic hurdles facing oil shale, oil shale development threatens already scarce water supplies in the west. according to the bureau of land management, industrial scale oil shale development could actually require as much as 150% of the amount of water denver metro area consumes every year. . that would not only threaten denver and agriculture in eastern colorado but it would throw a wrench in the agreements that govern the colorado river and its use. every colorado river state from

colorado to california should be concerned by this use of money and water and support this amendment. mr. chairman, we need more affordable american energy. achieving that goal includes responsible oil and gas exploration, better use of technology to capitalize on all available resources and greater focus on the cleaner energy future from renewables such as solar and wind. some might call it an all-of-the-above approach but all of the above should not include things that science tells us aren't viable and represent and -- represent an unwise investment. i urge passage of the polis-connolly amendment and i ask that -- for consideration of this issue and that we in fact save $25 million and put it to deficit reduction. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yield back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's

amendment. our bill funds a truly all of--- -- all-of of this the-above approach by reducing oil imports, developing alternatives and reducing what americans pay at the pump. it would eliminate an important component of our comprehensive approach the united states has an estimated 2 trillion barrels of resources in oil shale deposits. that's more than 10 times larger than the united states estimated proven and unproven oil reserves and roughly as large as the entire world's proven oil reserves. but shale oil resources have been barely tapped worldwide because substantial environmental and technological hurdles prevent their extraction and the fluctuating world of oil prices prevent the sustain red search needed to bring this resource to market.

our bill provides $25 million for an oil shale research program to develop the technologies that can make our vast reserves competitive and environmentally sustainable. for decades and centuries. if successful, the program could change the game completely, prevent future high gas prices and substantially reduce our reliance on foreign oil. for these and many other reasons, i oppose the gentleman's amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: this amendment and i appreciate my colleague from virginia for helping to bring it forward here today, will help reduce the budget deficit by $25 million. at a time when we all know we immediate to make some of the hard cuts to balance our budget, why not make some of the easy cuts?

oil shale and the research that's reduced under this amendment does not exist in any economically viable fashion. in fact, many of the corporations and companies that would have the most self-interest in developing oil shale have given it not even a second priority or third priority but a distant, distant priority and cut back on much of the research because there simply is no economically viable way to produce oil shale. again, at a time when we need to re-examine our priorities and we know that we need to balance our budget, why not save $25 million from a technology that doesn't exist and that we've already plowed billions of dollars of taxpayer money into? we still contribute with our federal resources with regard to any future potential that

oil shale might have. there are several research leases in place. and private companies continue to invest, although in decreasing amounts, in this technology. what i think anybody opposed to this amendment would need to convince themselves is why is it a justifiable use of taxpayer funds to continue to pursue this boondoggle of a technology that we have already sunken billions of dollars into with zero return for taxpayers and zero return for energy dependence and zero return for reducing energy prices for our country. we in colorado and across the country have a lot of reasonable concerns with regard to any potential future technology in terms of where the water is coming from, how and where it will be used but fundamentally, for prospective technology that's locally problematic in affected areas, why does this bill continue to invest good money after bad to

continue to throw another $25 million down the billion of this dollar hole that's been pursued and talked about for over a century. the technology to economically -- in an economically viable way extract oil shale simply does not exist. my amendment would save $25 million, reduce the deficit, allow private research to continue, and make sure that we continue in all -- an all-of-the-above approach to

continued independence and reducing gas prices for our country. i urge strong support of the connolly-polis amendment and yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky texas developing oil shale into a fuel source is very energy dependent. it requires huge amounts of energy. in fact, more energy may go into developing the process than would be produced in the oil secured. oil shale development is projected to have a dramatic effect as was mentioned in the debate on water supplies. this water would further stress already overallocated water in the west and oil shale development also poses a potentially serious threat to water quality. the process of transforming the keer seen in shale into oil leaves behind salts and toxins, water soluble chemicals that could leech into ground water that is a major source of water when floy is lowest. flushing these chemicals as several -- from the zone as

companies proposed would create huge vol yupes of highly saline watter that would require further treatment. the technical feasibility of isolating and treating contaminated groundwater has not been demonstrated. the proposed development of this resource will create major new demands on the energy grid as well by some estimates, the new power plants needed to support a one million barrel per day oil shale industry, and we believe that is a low end of d.o.e.'s projections, could emit 105 million tons of carbon dioxide every year. 0% more than was released by all existing electric utility generating units in the states of colorado, wyoming and utah in the year 2005. the spent shale that remains after processing is also not an easy problem and it will not go away and potentially represents 90% to 95% of the material that

is mined. the nation already has a legacy of sites that we cannot afford to adequately clean up today. we should not add to this legacy. while i have indicated during debate on this bill that i support a balanced approach to solving the nation's energy issues, given the cost and environmental impacts of this particular source at this particular time with our constrained resources, this is one alternative that should be foregone and i strongly support the amendment and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. mr. connolly: mr. chairman. on that i -- the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: roll call

vote, please. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 23, line 6, naval petroleum and oil shale reserves, $14,904,000. elk hill fund, under the agreement entered into, $15,979,870 for payment to the state of california for the state teachers retirement fund which $15,579,815 shall be derived from the elk hill school land fund. strategic petroleum reserve. $195,609,000. northeast home heating oil reserve. $10,119,000. energy information administration, $100,000,000.

nondefense environmental clinic, $1,-- $198,560,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. amendment number 59. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. matheson of utah, page 25, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert, increased by $9,600,000. page 30, line five, insert reduced by $9,600,000. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. matheson: this amendment would add $9.6 million to the department of energy's nondefense environmental cleanup account, thereby restoring the amount that was cut in the previous year for the small sites associated with this program.

this will be offset by taking money from the national nuclear security administration weapons activity account which in this bill has an increase of just over $298 million relative to last year. the funding for the small sites in the nondefense environmental cleanup account supports activities across the country, to address the legacy rulling from civilian nuclear energy research and uranium mining and it is critical that the department of energy have the resources necessary to meet its obligation to clean contaminated sites across the country in a timely manner. now i know it's tough to come up with these appropriations bills, i think the committee has done a nice job trying to balance many things. i acknowledge and support the increase in funding for the nnsa weapons modernization efforts. i believe that directing a small portion of the $298 million increase over f.y. 2012 levels toward cleanup of small sites around the country is worth consideration here today. this is not an attack on the

work of the nnsa but an amendment to increase the efficiency of the small site cleanup effort. the $9.6 million represents a fraction of 1% of the total funding of nnsa's weapons activities that will be received in this bill. now, i think we want to do this funding and maintain this funding because it ensures the prodwress of these sites can continue. let's remember the small sites, shovel ready projects, employing people at various sites around the country. i'll talk about one location of which i'm familiar because it's in my congressional district near moab. it at one time had 16 million tons of radioactive material, on the bans of the colorado river and it was determined it was with an absolute terncy -- certainty if this pile is not move a flood event will flush this downstream. there are roughly 25 million users downstream of the colorado river in nevada, arizona, and southern california. now, what i find interesting is

if we're going to reduce funding for the small projects, we end up increasing the proportion of what's left for fixed cost, for administrative costs. in the case of the project in utah that was left by the department of energy, 25% of all money is just on administrative costs. that means that we're spending a significant portion not moving material. and the thing about the small projects is, there is an end in site. we can get this done. we can knock this project out if we aggressively fund it and i think, life cycle basis, you actually spend les taxpayer dollars if we adequately fund the small sites. my concern about funding small site remediation is not unique to me. the committee in its report on this bill mentions this issue about small sites. it says the committee remains concerned about the lack of remediation activity taking place around the country at various sites classified as under the responsibility of the department. i know we all care about this i know we do.

i'm trying to point out, at least in my state, we have one of these sites whereby -- where by shrinking the funding, we end up spending more taxpayer dollars and i would submit that it merits consideration to see if we can do this small plus up in the environmental cleanup account for small sites. with that, i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i appreciate my colleague's advocacy for removing uranium at the facility in his district in utah to protect the colorado river downstream water users. there has been, as i'm sure he would admit, tremendous progress at this site where work was accelerated with an influx of $100 million from the

stimulus bill or recovery act. our bill for the record fully funds the president's request for nondefense environmental cleanup, it provides $198 million of sustain -- to sustain ongoing cleanup projects. while this is a reduction from fiscal year 2012, it is a reasonable one considering the need to reduce overall federal spending in our bill. the amount for the project which my colleague is particularly concerned about is sustained at $31 million, the same amount as the fiscal year 2012. this amendment increases funding over the request and over last year's level for it. while many sites like moab is struggling to reduce cleanup work following the recovery act, we simply can't maintain these highly elevated funding levels. as an offset, this amendment proposes to take resources from important national security activities. it is unacceptably strikes

funding for priority investments and our -- in our nuclear security enterprise which is long overdue. thus i ask members to vote no on his amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. i certainly appreciate the concerns he has expressed about cleanup nationally as well as the site illustrated in utah and share his concerns that we are not adequately invested in cleaning up contaminated communities where we have a national obligation. mr. mr. visclosky:: this would make a cut of $9.6 million to the weapons program but would point out to my colleagues while i support the weapons complex and its modernization, this is a very slight change in funding. an account that has a $7.5

billion allocation and sees a $275 million increase for 2013 under the bill and therefore the gentleman has taken a reasonable approach and strongly support his amendment. i would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. matheson: mr. chairman, on that i request for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah will be postponed. the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: page 25, line 6, uranium enrichment. decommissioning fund. $425,493,000. science, $4,824,931,000. advanced research projects, agency, energy, $200 million. nuclear waste disposal, $25

million. title 17, innovative technology loan guarantee program, sums derived from amounts received from borrowers pursuant to the energy policy act of 2005 shall be collected in accordance of the congressional budget act of 1974. advanced technology, vehicles manufacturing, loan program, $6 million to remain available until september 30, 2014. departmental administration, $230,783,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois surprise >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. shimkus of illinois. page 28, line 16, after the dollar amount insert reduced by

$10 million. page 49, line 25, after the second dollar amount, insert increase by $10 million. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the nuclear regulatory commission, the n.r.c., has adequate funds to resume licensing activities for the yucca nuclear waste repository as called for in the nuclear waste policy act, but it refuses to do so. the n.r.c. claims it has the legal authority to ignore the law duly enacted by this congress if the agency is not given enough money to quote-unquote finish the job. under our constitution agencies are funded year to year. they are seldom if ever given enough money in one year to do what the law expects them to do, especially for long-term projects. in 1998 when the yuck awe proceedings happened, they gave them enough money to do it in one year. we didn't give them enough money to carry out the

three-year licensing. the n.r.c. didn't stop because it didn't have enough money to finish the job. in fact, n.r.c. only stopped the licensing and refused to spend money appropriated for licensing based upon the administration's policy decision that the site is no longer workable. now, after being hauled into federal court for ignoring a statutory duty to decide the license application in three years, the n.r.c. claims it doesn't have to follow the law because while it has plenty of money to resume the licensing process and move it forward, it doesn't have enough money to finish it. when we pass a law and tell an agency to do something and give it enough money to do the job during a given year, can the agency just thumb its nose and say, we are not going to do that job at all because congress didn't give us enough money to do the job the next year? no agency has ever successfully told a court not to make it

follow the law because in some future year it might not get enough money to do the job the law requires. allowing n.r.c. to cancel yucca would unconstitutionally shift the balance of powers to executive agencies to evade connelly mandated legal authorities. the federal apellate court has made the displeasure for the law known. we need to do the same. this is an outrageous unilateral decision to stop yucca and not spend funds specifically appropriated for licensing activities. no agency can ignore a statutory duty to proceed with a project based on a subjective determination that adequate funds may not be available to complete the project in the future. we need to send a clear message to every agency that this isn't how tower constitution works. so on -- isn't how our constitution works. so on top to the money they need to start the relicensing process, this provides an additional $10 million in new funds to continue the project.

it is offset by taking funds from the d.o.e.'s departmental administration account. we are asking d.o.e. to do more with a little less by making modest cuts to an account for salaries and expenses. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment to fund the legally required licensing process for yucca mountain so that the n.r.c. and independent government agency has funding necessary to finish their thorough objective and technical -- thorough, objective and technical review. it will determine whether yucca will make a safe repository. having spent 30 years and ratepayer money, they need to find out if yucca is safe. whether you favor nuclear power or yucca mountain isn't the only issue. the core issue is whether laws we passed may be completely ignored by agencies if they think that someday they may not get enough money to finish the job. allowing agencies to get away

would result in shifting powers to unelected bureaucrats. with that, mr. chairman, i ask my colleagues to support the shimkus amendment and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: i rise in support of the shimkus amendment which would ensure that the n.r.c. would carry out its responsibilities with regard to the high-level waste repository at yucca mountain. i redirect the position that the n.r.c. has taken on this issue. on the appropriations committee, it is our belief that the commission has adequate funds to resume licensing activities for the yucca mountain project, as called for in the nuclear waste policy act. but the commission simply has refused to act. the n.r.c. claims it has the legal authority to ignore the

law dully enacted by this congress if the -- duly enacted by this had congress if the agency is given enough money to finish the job. under our constitution agencies are funded year to year. they are seldom if ever given enough money in one year to do everything the law tells them to do, especially for long-term projects. in 2008, when the yucca mountain licensing proceedings started, congress appropriated sufficient funds to the n.r.c. to conduct the proceeding for that fiscal year. in 2009, we gave n.r.c. enough money to carry out those responsibilities for another year. the n.r.c. didn't stop because they didn't have the entire amount of money finish the job. they only stopped the licensing and refused to spend money appropriated for licensing based on a unilateral policy decision that the site is no longer workable. now, after being brought to federal court for ignoring its statutory duty to decide the

license application in three years, the n.r.c. claimed astoundingly that it does not have to follow the law because while it had plenty of money to resume the licensing process to move it forward, it doesn't have every dollar in hand that would be required to complete the process. when congress passes a law, appropriates money and directs an agency to carry out an important government function during any given fiscal year, that agency cannot just thumb its nose and say we're not going to do that job at all. because congress didn't give us the money to do the following year's work. no agency has ever successfully told a court not to make it follow the law because in some future year it might not get enough money to do the job the law requires. allowing the nuclear regulatory commission such power to effectively cancel yucca mountain after congress has enacted a law directing that it be accomplished would be an

affront to the constitution and it should shift the balance of power to executive agencies to evade connelly mandated legal obligations -- congressionally mandated legal obligations. we need to make the position known and the shimkus amendment would assume that the commission proceeds with the determination of whether yucca mountain is an appropriate location for a safe repository. the amendment is budget neutral, fully offset by redirecting funds from d.o.e.'s departmental administration account. i urge the adoption of the shimkus amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the sponsor of this amendment, mr. shimkus, for bringing this amendment forward, and i want to thank the ranking member from my home state of washington and the

chairman of the subcommittee for their support, also, of this amendment. this is very serious business when the administration is absolutely ignoring statutory law that was passed by this congress. and as a matter of fact, going way back to 1995, this house has acted 32 different times principally on these appropriation bills as they come forward to address this issue. generally the issue is to not fund yucca mountain. 32 times this house since 1995 has said we are going to fund yucca mountain. so i think that the congress has -- and certainly the house -- has well established what their position is in the seriousness of making sure that yucca mountain becomes our -- i'll be more than happy to yield to my friend. mr. dicks: we passed a law that

was signed by the president of the united states at that time. i can remember congressman udall was chair of the committee at that time. we passed the law, said do yucca mountain, and that law has not been repealed. that's still the law of the land, and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. hastings: reclaiming my time. that's precisely the point that you made and it needs to be repeated over and over. this is statutory law. and 32 different times it has attempted to be modified on the house floor and 32 times it has been rejected since 1995. let me put a personal note because i represent the hanford area. it was part of the manhattan project. we developed the atomic weapons. it created a tremendous amount of waste. in the state of washington -- and the state of washington has legal agreement with the federal government to clean up that waste. it's called the triparty agreement. but just to give you an idea of the scope of what needs to be cleaned up there, the waste in underground tanks at hanford

would fill this chamber over 21 times with radioactive and/or hazardous waste and that's the waste that goes to the -- eventually go to the repository after it is classified. so i thank the gentleman from illinois for bringing this amendment forward and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. it's very, very important. this will be the 33rd time i contend that this house will have reaffirmed that yucca should be the repository and with that i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to speak very briefly to associate my remarks with mr. dicks, dr. hastings and mr. shimkus. i want to thank them for bringing this amendment forward to increase funding for licensing for yucca. this is a bipartisan effort. it's not only bipartisan, the

-- there's support from authorizers and appropriators. i'm highly appreciative of their initiative. i think it ought to be supported by all members. i think we ought to move forward and send a message. we need to get yucca open and this is a way to reclaim the $15 billion that's been put into that effort by keeping the license process open and above board. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: i believe the debate on this has been fruitful and will simply add my voice to theirs. i believe the administration and senate's ongoing attempts to shut this down are without scientific merit and are contrary, as has been said on the floor, to existing law and congressional direction. under the nuclear waste policy act of 198 to, the federal government has a responsibility

to demonstrate its capability to meet its contractual obligation by addressing the spent fuel and other high level nuclear waste and permanently shut down reactors. we need to ensure that the administration does not unilaterally dictate policy for knew cleefer waste disposal and i strongly urge my colleagues to join my in supporting the gentleman's amendment and i yield back my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. chair, inion of the the ayes have it. >> mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman from illinois requests the recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be

postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offer pid ms. sanchez of california, page 28, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $16 million. page 30, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $16 million. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes on her amendment. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. chairman. i offer an amendment to increase funding for the national nuclear security administrations defense nonproliferation program by $16 million. this is a small restoration of funds and it would restore the demrobal threat reduction initiative to our fiscal year 2012 levels. it's really just a small increase in funds but it will go a long way in particular for the president's top national

security priorities. the $16 million would come from the department of -- from the department's administration account. specifically, this $16 million transfer would restore half of the funds that had been cut from the global threat reduction initiative to counter the risk of nuclear terrorism. the danger that nuclear weapons and materials might spread to countries that are hostile to us or to terrorists who want to use these against us is one of the gravest dangers that we have to the united states. and nonproliferation programs are one of the least expensive ways and they're critical for the u.s. national security and they must be a top priority. it's our line of first defense. it is the most cost effective way to i a chief the most urgent of goals which is securing and reducing the amount of vulnerable bomb grade material. the funding of the global threat reduction initiative specifically supports securing

vulnerable nuclear material around the world in four years. in four years. in order to prevent this deadly material from falling into the hands of terrorists who have intent on doing us harm. and let me give you a specific example of why this is so important. the increase in funds would help accelerate the conversion of research reactors and the removal -- removal of vulnerable, highly enriched uranium. the need to accelerate those important efforts can be seen, for example, in the example of belarus. which had enough h.e.u. for several nuclear weapons and agreed in 2010 to give up this material. now the nnsa cleaned out a portion of that material but in 2011, belarus reneged on its agreement because it was angry at the imposition of u.s. sanctions on that regime.

there are still -- there is still a significant amount of highly enriched uranium that sit there is in belarus. it could have been cleaned out by the nnsa if it had had five more months before belarus said no. this illustrates why it's so important for us to put the money in, to go and clean these places up before people decide or new regimes come in and all of a sudden we can't get to what is very dangerous materials for us. we can't squander the opportunities to move forward on this urgent priority. the 9/11 commission and the nuclear posture commission noted that the addressing of this issue is important, this is a grave danger, with the nuclear posture commission warning that the urgency arises from the imminent danger of nuclear terrorism if we pass a

tipping point in nuclear proliferation. i urge support for a very modest increase of $16 million that will significantly help us reduce the dangerous delays to these very important nonproliferation programs. i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the screalt yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to this amendment. though less than last year's level, the amount in the bill shows the strong support of our committee for nonproliferation. we fully fund the core nonproliferation programs to secure vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years. in fact, it goes further and provides an additional $28 million above the request for the international programs under what's called the global threat reduction initiative.

while i appreciate our colleague's support for these activities, there's simply no reason to provide even more funding. the international activities have been clearly laid out in the four-year plan which peaked in 2011. these activities are supported to ramp down as we accomplish more and more projects a i broad. the president's budget reflects that plan ramp down. this additional funding would likely sit there unexpended. the national nuclear security agency already has considerable problems getting other countries to follow through with agreements. the general accounting office has confirms that half of all the funding we provide each year is not spent. to use the words i heard a few minutes ago, the money is sitting there. this adecisional funding is simply not needed and i ask the members to reject this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields become. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> move to strike the last word.

the chair: the gentleman is reck nighed. mr. visclosky: i rise in strong support of the gentlewoman's amendment and commend her for crafting it. as i pointed out in earlier remarks, i do appreciate the chairman's efforts as well as the members of the subcommittee and full committee to increase money set aside for the global threat reduction initiative. in fact, the chairman was responsible for adding $17 million above the administration's current request. however, i do believe that more can be done and that the sanchez amendment, by adding $16 million to the global threat reduction initiative, would get us very close to our current year appropriated level. i believe as a nation our greatest security threat is not a launched attack by another nation state. -- nation state, but the use of nuclear weapons or materials in

an act of terror. given that particular threat, i do believe every dollar counts and every dollar of these $16 million count and would ask my colleagues to support the gentlewoman's amendment and i would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. sanchez: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlelady from california. ms. sanchez: i request a recorded vote, please. the chair: the gentlelady requests a vorded -- recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont rise? >> i have ap amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will dez igthate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. welch of vermont.

the chair: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. mr. welch: i thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, representative gardner of colorado and i offer this amendment, he's the lead sponsor but his plane is late and i'm standing in in his place as a co-sponsor. previous legislation by this congress required our governmental agencies to do an energy audit. and the reason behind that nverage audit was that it would lead to energy savings. there are firms that can do energy saving contracts at no expense to the taxpayer, no expense whatsoever to the federal government. the point of this amendment is to have the department of energy and other government agencies that have already been directed to do the energy audit to get on with it. and the reason we want to have it done yesterday is so that we can begin today achieving

savings for the american taxpayer. there's a lot of debate in congress among us as to what makes a sensible energy policy. but there is immense consensus that whatever energy policy you favor, saving energy, using less rather than more, saving taxpayer dollars, is a wise thing to do in every single policy that might be advanced by members on both sides of the aisle. so the point of the amendment that mr. gardner and i offer is basically to say to the federal government that, hey, let's audit the energy use in our buildings, let's take practical steps to save money, let's use a tool that costs taxpayers no money and guarantees that they'll save money and let's get on with it. so mr. speaker, we seek support for this amendment. before i yield, i do want to mention one aspect of the bill

to which i am opposed, and i'm speaking on my own here, not with my co-sponsor. that's a rider in the bill, section 433 lays out a road map for designing increasingly energy efficient new buildings and the provision has a clause in it that will drive advances in building energy efficiency deep retrofits and savings in taxpayer dollars while reducing carbon pollution and yielding -- leading by example. the d.o.e. is working to develop rules that implement this in a workable, flexible manner but the funding rider would block that. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: we have no objection to the amendment. we think it's a good way to enact it. it's a common sense approach and we have no objection. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from vermont. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it, the amendment is adopted. the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: page 29, line 11, office of the inspector general. $43,468,000 to remain available until september 30, 2014. atomic energy defense activities. national nuclear security administration. $7,577,341,000. the chair: for what purpose -- for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. polis: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: clerk will report the amendment.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. poless of colorado. line 30, line 5, insert reduced by $298, 221,000. page 56, line 24, after the dollar amount insert increased by $298,221,000. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. mr. polis: thank you, mr. chairman. the polis-markey amendment would reduce funding for unneeded nuclear weapons program by $298 million to reduce the budget deficit. at a time of decisions, at a time of choices, we need to ask ourselves, how much is enough with regard to nuclear defense? these programs, included in this amendment, have consistently been overbudget and ineffectual. we certainly don't need to be increasing funding for them. this amendment simply eliminates the increase at a time when we're focused on

deficit reduction. we all agree that we need to stop wasteful government spending. congress has to justify every penny it spends to the taxpayers to the american people, the global markets. there just isn't any justification for spending an additional $300 million on top of prior year appropriations on weapons programs that aren't needed and aren't suited to our current conflicts on the war on terror. it helps nuclear bombs which originally set to cost $225 million and be completed in 20 12. it won't be completed until 2022. at the time that this nuclear warhead is finished, if it's finished by 202, it may not have a delivery vehicle. then there is the w-78 life extension program which would create another nuclear warhead. this boondoggle was set to cost $26 million and now it's cost over $5 billion. why would this congress approve

yet another taxpayer bailout of failed nuclear weapons technology? finally, there is a uranium processing facility which was supposed to manufacture components for nuclear warheads. this project was supposed to cost $1.5 billion. now it's cost over $6.5 billion and four years behind schedule. frankly, the american taxpayers can't afford a congress that keeps throwing good money after bad on these unnecessary nuclear weapons programs. now, i'm sure the other side will talk about how we need to maintain our nuclear arsenal, and this amendment isn't about that. if this amendment passes, the bill still appropriates over $7 billion for nuclear weapon activities. in reality, it makes no sense to increase spending on nuclear weapons. we've agreed to responsibly reduce our nuclear stockpile. this is no longer the era of the cold war where we have another nation state gearing a large percentage of their g.n.p. towards competing with us on the nuclear weapons front. we are and will remain, even

with the passage of this amendment, the global leader on both developing and deploying nuclear weapons technology. this simply isn't a responsible way to govern and reduces our national security, to spend more money than we can afford on national security and to borrow it from countries like china, makes our nation less secure, not more secure. i would urge the house to listen to the experts who are telling us not to throw good money after bad. let's get our budget under control. let's get our budget on the right track by spending money on programs that are proven to protect our country, not on boondoggles that continue to toss taxpayers year after year after year without increasing our security. we need to make hard choices to get our country back on the path to fiscal sanity. well, this polis-markey amendment is an easy choice. vote for the polis-markey amendment and again spending hundreds of millions of

additional dollars on redundant and unneeded nuclear weapons technology on top of the $7 billion base included in this bill which already allows us to be the unchallenged global leader in developing and deploying nuclear weapons. i urge a yes vote on the polis-markey amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. assuring funding for the modernization of our nuclear weapons stockpile is our most national security issue in our energy and water bill. the secretary of energy must certify to the president that our nuclear stockpile is reliable. it's absolutely essential that these funds be put in the bill and kept in the bill. wet years of level funding that

-- with the years of level funding that we put on, that's why the 2010 nuclear posture review concluded that additional funding was essential to ensure that our infrastructure was adequately maintained and that our warheads receive the refurbishment it needs to remain reliable and effective. and there has been strong bipartisan support for carrying out the recommended increases in modernization funding. this amendment unacceptably strikes funding for these which are urgent and long overdue. i strongly urge my colleagues to make defense a pry are the and to vote no on -- priority and to vote no on this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. markey: move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman moves to strike the requisite number of words and is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: i rise in support of the polis amendment. he and i are making this amendment so that we can once again demonstrate the lack of compatibility of the priorities

of this budget to the overall well-being of our country. the cold war ended 20 years ago. we won and since that time, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of nouck weapons that both the united states and -- nuclear weapons that both the united states and the former soviet union deploy. that numbers continue to drop, and yet here in this budget there is additional profligate spending on new nuclear weapons programs, weapons modernization. well, let me just say this, ladies and gentlemen, each nuclear submarine that the united states has has 96 independently targetable nuclear warheads. that means that every single nuclear commander of a submarine in the united states can destroy the entire country of russia, can destroy the

entire country of china. each american nuclear submarine commander, and neither russia nor china knows where those submarines are. we should be proud of ourselves. we are 10 feet tall compared to the russians, compared to the chinese, and by the way, any problems that we have with iran or syria in terms of russian support for them or chinese support for them, they have nothing to do with our nuclear weapons capability. that's not influencing them one way or the other. and if we needed to ever drop a nuclear bomb on any one of our enemies, let's just say we had a war with iran, after the nuclear sub commander in the united states navy sent one nuclear weapon towards tehran, what would the next target be? what are we doing out here?

why are we talking about additional nuclear weapons in the 21st century? why are we talking about cutting medicare, cutting medicaid, cutting programs for poor children, cutting nutrition programs for poor children and at the same time saying that we need more nuclear weapons? machine, way back it's a cold wartime machine that basically says that -- war time machine that basically the extra capital made continues to drive the investments of the future, that we aren't going to step back and re-evaluate that we won the cold war, that we are not going to have a nuclear war with russia, that we are not going to have a nuclear war with russia, that we are 10 feet all. and even ifer country understands it's a -- if every country understands it's a total annihilation, vote aye on

the polis amendment. send a signal to the world, send a signal to our own people that at least we can find some expenditure in the defense budget which we can cut, which is not related to our national security. that's all that we ask from you, so please on one vote, on the nuclear weapons issue where we don't need new weapons, that there is a vote for sanity, that there is a vote that we send as you a signal to the rest of the world and to our own people that we understand that that nuclear arms race is over. vote aye on the polis amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. visclosky: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, i rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado and massachusetts. i do believe, given the work of the subcommittee, that the dollars that are contained in it represent an attempt to

ensure that looking down the road with the hopeful ratification of the new start treaty we will be consistent with those funding levels that will be required. while the world without nuclear weapons would be my prrch -- preference, while the united states must sustain its capability today, we should maintain the capabilities necessary to ensure that they are safe and effective. the gentleman from massachusetts rightfully asked, are there any savings that we can see under the defense accounts, whether at the department of defense or department of energy? i would point out one of the eliminations in this year's budget. our moneys for the chemical research replacement nuclear facility, and so i would again emphasize to my colleagues that the subcommittee tried to look

at this account with great specificity which would remove those items that were not necessary and to spend our tax dollars wisely and would yield back my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor of the amendment say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. chairman, on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: page 30, line 14, defense nuclear nonproliferation, $2,283,024,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. burgess of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. chairman. this is very straightforward.

this amendment would strike the $100 million from the nuclear nonproliferation account which has been earmarked by the committee for a bailout of a failing uranium enrichment company. this $100 million could then be put toward deficit reduction. this has nothing to do with taking away money from national security and everything to do with ending bailouts to a failed business model. 20 years ago, two decades ago this congress created by charter the united states enrichment cooperation, believing usec could better run than the government itself -- run the ue rain yum enrichment than the government itself. you realize this is not happening. congress was wrong. since the inception, usec has squandered billions of dollars

in federal bailouts, running the company into near insolvency because of poor decisions and dare i say corporate incompetency. they come to the congress hat in hand begging for millions of dollars to continue operation sites that are technologically out of date. it is time that the federal government ended the endless bailouts to this enterprise. moreover, usec has been a bad faith actor with the mining industry which has the raw materials that is enriched at these facilities. you always ask yourself, who is the winner and who is the loser? well, congress shouldn't pick winners and losers. the losers are the uranium miners that populate the western -- -- the western united states. it simply goes to the don't of energy, gets a handout and then time and time again they either get direct cash payments or they get spent uranium tails. so they have no reason to negotiate with our miners in

the western united states. the department of energy has a long-standing agreement with the uranium mining industry not to dump more than 10% of the worth of handouts to usec at any given time. yet, it becomes increasingly clear that the department of energy is willing to ignore that agreement and provide the bailout that usec desires. this betrayal of the mining industry threatens thousands of jobs across the western united states, texas, nevada, new mexico, illinois and wyoming, to name a few. moreover, arguments that usec is the only facility that can supply it to the department of defense ignores the plain language of the washington treaty and the u.s.-india nuclear agreement. the department of energy has in its possession enough highly enriched uranium to last at least 15 years, costing hundreds of millions of dollars less than the continued bailouts of usec that the country is currently obligated.

it is time for this congress to stand up and stop the continual bailouts of a failed business model. propping up one company at the expense of american workers is not how this body should be operating. within the bailout, pay back the treasury, pay down our deficit, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: respectfully, a mention was made of congressional earmarks. there are no congressional earmarks in the energy and water bill. this is a presidential priority. but this is not a congressional earmark. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> i rise in support of the burgess amendment. the chair: the gentleman moves to strike the requisite number of words? mr. markey: i move to strike

the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: after congress quit supporting them, relearned they couldn't survive in the private sector without bailouts. we've given it free centrifuge technology, we've given it ewe rain yum it cleans up ansels at below market value, undercutting its competitors. and what's happened? the entire company is worth less than the $100 million in this bill. that's the next gift this congress is giving to this country. adam smith is spinning in his grave so rapidly right now he would qualify as a new energy source. that's how violative of free market principles this is, knowing there are other

companies that can provide the same resource without the government subsidies. even after the department of nrnl' recent announcement of another gift of free uranium, standard and poors downgraded it to junk bond status. who invests in something that has already achieved junk bond status with the exception of the united states congress? that's what we're voting on here today. funding of a company that is now in junk bond status. and j.p. morgan, the creditor, controls every penny usec spends because it felt the company could not manage it. when i asked if it put taxpayers at risk they said yes and that extreme care should be taken before offering any exposure to the taxpayer. are we following the treasury department's advice in no.

the department of energy has approved hundreds of millions of -- worth of subsidies for this company and will approve another $100 million bailout in a few few days and congress has been convinced to include funding in three measures, including the $100 million contained in this bill. we've been told the bailout is only about getting the supplies we need for our nuclear weapons. but the treaty we have doesn't prevent other companies from doing this work. and even if it did, there are other options. they found that down blending highly enriched uranium it already has would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars less than obtaining the services from this company this amendment is supported by a coalition that spans the

political horizon that makes it possible for mr. burgess a very conservative member from texas, to join with a very liberal congressman from massachusetts in agreing that the pragmatic center here has lost its bearings. it has lost touch with the free market principles and at least if we are going to subsidize something that it's not already reached junk bond status and we're continuing to pour good money after bad. this is something that in my opinion is unacceptable, the department of energy has already given $44 million for this program this year and it is about to provide another $82 million as it prepares to buy the centrifuges that have yet to be demonstrated to work properly. that's right, $126 million that will buy centrifuges from a company whose total value is now less than $90 million. as part of the deal, the taxpayers also have to assume

liability for the company's nuclear waste. we should not be throwing good money after bad. this is a $100 million that should not be wasted. please support the burgess-markey amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mins. >> i rise today in strong opposition to the burgess-markey amendment. put simply, if this amendment passes, our national security is at risk. the appropriation that this amendment seeks to strike is vital to ensure that america has a domestic source of uranium enrichment. according to u.s. law and nonproliferation treaties the united states are signatories to, we must have a domestic source of uranium. mr. johnson: international agreements prohibit us from purchasing enriched uranium

from other countries for military purposes. we would no long ver a domestic source of uranium and instead would depend on a foreign company that has many red flags in its past for uranium enrichment. s that replay of our debate in the 2013 national defense authorization a few weeks ago to strip the authorization language for this program. that amendment failed by an overwhelming vote of 121-300. nothing, i repeat, nothing has changed in the last few weeks since that vote and today. mr. chairman, some of my colleagues are claiming that the rd&d program is a congressional earmark but this is not true. the president

administration determined it is necessary for our national security. now, i may still be a freshman but i know enough that in order to be a congressional earmark, that a member of congress would need to make the request for the program. that didn't happen. furthermore, in the ndaa legislation, chairman mckeon added a provision to ensure that taxpayers are protected by requiring any company that participates in the r dnd a dnd program to put up their intellectual property rights as collateral. the i.p. rights are worth billions of dollars and farout weigh any amount of money that the federal government might put toward this program. to call this an earmark or bailout is not true. the sponsors of the amendment have also tried to confuse members by saying that we can satisfy our national security needs by down blending existing uranium. while we may be able to do this in the near term this argument is shortsighted at best.

what happens when the government runs out of inventory to down blend and we no long ver a domestic capability to enrich uranium? the other side doesn't seem to have a good response for that question because they know the answer. and the answer is that we need to go forward with the rd&d program to ensure we have a domestic source in the future. it seems some would rather ignore the long-term national security implications of having a domestic source of uranium enrichment. the fact is, if this amendment pass, our nuclear national security could be at risk. i will once again remind my colleague this is this amendment attempts to achieve the same goal that the failed pearce-markey amendment did a few weeks ago and we already know that amendment failed by a very wide margin. i urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment to ensure that our national nuclear security is not outsourced to a foreign-owned company. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the skwlelt is -- the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the recognition. to be honest with you, i don't know about conservatives from texas or liberals from massachusetts, i'm from gary, indiana, and i am here simply to ask my colleagues to not flush $100 million down a drain. that would be my technical argument and i want to thank the gentleman from texas and i want to thank the gentleman from massachusetts for offering this amendment. i also want to thank the subcommittee chair for reducing the administration's original request, $150 million for usec, the united states enrichment corporation, to $100 million that is contained in this bill. but i must tell you, i have serious disagreement with the

committee mark on this and do believe this amendment needs to be adopted. the people of this country work too hard for the tax dollars they send to us to flush this $100 million down a drain. in 2008, when this company applied for a loan guarantee, d.o.e. required usec to produce a track record of running the centrifuges for a time sufficient to prove they could be commercialized. this, we were told, would be sufficient to prove the technology. it was not. further, i would point out, that in 2010, $45 million in accounting exchange new york exchange for liability, for enrichment services, was provided to the company, essentially for giving them $45

million of liability. this fiscal year, 2012, $44 million additional dollars in exchange, relieving the company of liability that is now on the taxpayers' book, was put forth. there is a proposal on the table, separate from this bill and separate from this amendment to do that exchange of liability for enrichment services a third time for another $82 million because the company needs it. and the question during subcommittee consideration of this issue that was addressed to the department of energy is, what happens to the taxpayers? what happens to this country if the cost of cleaning up those exceed the liability that was given to the company? that is, what happens if it's not $44 million or $45 million, what if it's not $82 million? what if it's $100 million?

we eat it. we eat it. and that's wrong. that is wrong. and people ought to adopt this amendment. several months ago, the claim was that just in another two years, just another two years, and just another $300 million, would prove the technology. now, now, today, the department is saying, this program would make progress, not prove the techling in -- tech knoll, they would make progress toward proving the technology. it was mentioned that on may 15, the company was downgrade by standard & poor. last month, usec was warned it was in danger of degree be-- of being delisted by the u.s. stock exchange. that means the company's stock would be reduced to speculative, penny-stock status, reducing their shares. last month, the department

athounsed again this very complicated deal relative to the tailings. this deal takes the most compelling argument away from funding usec's american centrifuge project. last month, usec, t.v.a. and others reached a deal to keep the paducah infusion plant by reenriching uranium tailings. the point i would make is that the transfer of these tailings results in enough u.s. or-in low enriched uranium for 15 years. in addition, the national nuclear security administration can ask mix oxide facilities for back yum low enriched uranium for 4.5 years. mr. johnson talked about the long-term, that's the long-term.

that's two decades from now. and the technology that usec is using today is 20 years old and the national nuclear security administration has not evaluated alternatives but it has the time to do so. again, we need to make a decision here and the decision ought to be to adopt this amendment and to save the taxpayers $100 million. i yield back my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in support of the burgess-markey amendment. with all due respect to my friend from ohio who says this is a national security issue, the department of the navy has said they have enough material to last them through 2050. we have plenty of time to start from scratch to bid the project out. mr. pearce: if the contention of our friend is that we must

have a u.s. company that produce this is material, then start the bid process today. we have until 2050. usec has attempted for over 30 years to develop a centrifuge and has yet to do it. they've had over $5 billion given to them. if they get this bailout, then they're going to continue operations with the request for another $2 billion at which point are -- at which point are we, the designated representatives of the people, going to stand and say, other people can do that. the department of energy is saying the only scientists we can fund are at usec. i sincerely disagree with them. i do not believe we should have foreign-owned corporations providing this material but we have plenty of time now if we start. we're told that we do not have the intellectual property if we somehow take the funds away if we don't give them. what intellectual property is available when the company has

spent $5 billion to create 38 machines, six of which have had catastrophic failures. one split the case, which stops the whole program because that would cause a leak of radioactive materialful it's time for the congress to simply say what they want to go to bid and allow the best bidder in the nation, the best dwhorninge best minds in the nation to come together and develop what we want. stop funding a failed corporation that was at risk a month ago of being pulled off the new york stock exchange that's been downgraded. usec has 90% of the world market. they have 90% of the u.s. market when they were given the company and privatized. they were given $1 billion worth of product, and 90%

market share an they've squandered that market share down to 10%. they crapsed the uranium market. who sells product -- what viable company sells it throughout the back door they were given and collapses the world market? that's the company i'm saying, the burgess-markey amendment simply doesn't bail out. the head of the company paid himself $5 million. taxpayer bailout dollars are going to pay the executives of this company elaborate salaries when they are not producing anything. if the company was good at producing centrifuges as it is getting government handouts, they would have long ago succeeded in developing the capacity to make centrifuges. other countries -- other companies, other nations have centrifuges by the hundreds of thousands operating, and this nation after $5 billion has 38 that don't operate. just stop the games, stop the bailouts. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the

amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor of the amendment will say aye. those opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. . the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- mr. frelinghuysen: roll call vote, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. markey: mr. chairman, i am waiting the arrival of mr. fortenberry, i think, to make his amendment.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question son the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. accordingly, the committee rises. mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 5325 directs me that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee had under consideration h.r. 5325 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of

h.r. 5325 of the committee of the whole pursuant to house resolution 667 no further amendment to the bill may be offered except pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chair or ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees for the purpose of debate, amendments printed in the congressional record numbered 1, 10, 17 and 18, amendment by mrs. blackburn regarding an across the board reduction, amendment by mrs. blackburn regarding section 1705 of the energy policy act of 2005, an amendment by mr. broun, eliminating funds for research project agency, amendment by mr. broun regarding advanced research projects agency energy awards with technology readiness levels. an amendment by mr. chabot regarding funding levels in title 4 of the bill. an amendment by mr. cleaver

limiting funds relating to the missouri river ecosystem restoration plan. an amendment by mr. craff etc. regarding the harbor maintenance trust fund. an amendment by mr. defazio section 9104-d of the title 48 code of federal regulations which shall be debatable for 20 minutes. an amendment by mr. denham regarding section 10011-b of public law 11-11. an amendment by mr. engel limiting funds for the new light duty vehicles which will be debatable for 20 minutes. an amendment by mr. flake regarding an across the board direction. an amendment by mr. flake regarding the wind power america initiative. an amendment for the batteries electric drive technology program. an amendment by mr. flores limiting funds to enforce section 526 of the energy independence and security act

of 2007. an amendment by mr. fortenberry regarding funding levels for defense nuclear nonproliferation. an amendment by mr. fortenberry for the proposed energy conservation program, energy conservation standard for battery charges and external power supplies. an amendment by mr. frelinghuysen regarding funding levels. an amendment en bloc by mr. frelinghuysen consisting of amendments specified in this order not disposed -- earlier disposed of. an amendment by mr. gardner regarding energy management requirements of the national energy conservation policy act. an amendment by mr. gohmert regarding energy -- energy construction, purchase, lease in the district of columbia. an amendment by ms. jackson lee of texas regarding funding for corps of engineers, operations and maintenance. two amendments by ms. jackson lee of texas regarding funding levels of energy efficiency and renewable energy. an amendment by ms. jackson lee

of texas regarding funding levels for corps of engineers construction. an amendment by ms. jackson lee of texas limiting funds for department of energy, energy programs, science. an amendment by mr. jordan limiting funds for title 17 loan guarantees. an amendment by mr. king of iowa regarding subchapter 4 of chapter 31 of title 40, united states code. an amendment by mr. kucinich regarding section 1703 of the energy policy act of 2005. an amendment by mr. landry limiting funds relating to litigation methodology known as the modified charleston method. an amendment by mr. landry in section 801 of the energy independence and security act of 2007. an amendment by mr. luetkemeyer limiting funds for the study of conducted pursuant to section 5018-a-1 of the water resources

development act of 2007. an amendment by mr. luetkemeyer regarding funds for the study authorized in section 108 of the energy and water development and related energies appropriations act, 2009. an amendment by mr. lujan regarding funding levels for defense environmental cleanup. an amendment by mrs. lummis regarding uranium. an amendment by mr. mcintyre, termination of periodic nourishment of water resource development projects. an amendment by mr. mulvaney regarding an across the board reduction. an amendment by mr. pearce regarding funding levels for defense environmental cleanup. an amendment by mr. polis regarding funding levels for weapons activities which shall be debatable for 20 minutes. an amendment by mr. reed regarding funding levels for nondefense environmental cleanup. an amendment by mr. rohrabacher limiting funds for china cleanup center. an amendment by ms. sanchez of

california regarding funding levels for defense nuclear nonproliferation by shall be debatable for 20 minutes. an amendment by mr. schock regarding prote hi bigs of planting rural crops. an amendment by mr. stearns regarding funding levels for advanced research energy -- research projects, agencies energy. an amendment by mr. stearns limiting funds to subordinate interest in any loan guarantees. an amendment by mr. stearns limiting funds for purchase of light duty vehicles. an amendment by mr. tipton regarding funds to conduct surveys. and further that each such amendment be offered only the member named in this qur or designee or by a member who cause it had to be printed in the congressional record or designee, shall not be subject for demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole, and shall not be subject of amendment except the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations

or their respected designees, each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate. and further that except as otherwise specified each amendment shall be debated for 10 minutes controlled by an opponent and proponent. and if it addresses in whole or in part the object described. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? >> i reserve the right to object, mr. speaker. mr. pearce: we have the discussion that needs to take place before we make a decision, and i see the gentlelady coming on to the floor. so if we could take just a moment to -- if we could take just a moment to discuss -- there is an amendment that we would like to be made in order, and i need to visit with the lady just a second, if we can.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico. mr. pearce: mr. speaker, i'll

withdraw my reservation. the speaker pro tempore: the reservation is withdrawn. without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 667 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 5325. will the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, kindly resume the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5325 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2013, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 9 offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, had been postponed and the bill had been read by page -- no further

amendment may be offered except those specified in the previous order which is at the desk. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: will the gentleman specify which amendment he's offering at this time? >> line 4 -- line 94, page 30, line 94. mr. chairman, amendment number 94. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. fortenberry of nebraska. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska. mr. fortenberry: thank you, mr. chairman. i would also like to thank both the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss an

important problem in our nation's nuclear security from as and for their support of this amendment. the amendment would reduce funding for the mixed oxidef fuel energy by $17 million and redirect it to the national nuclear security administration's global threat reduction initiative. such a redirection of funds would provide for greater security and be a wiser investment of taxpayer dollars. if there's one thing we can all agree on, mr. chairman, it's that dollars are scarce in washington, and with this in mind i'm concerned about the amount of money that has been spent on the mixed oxide fuel program. under the agreement signed by the united states and russia in the year 2000, both countries agreed to dispose of excess weapons grade plutonium by blending it with uranium to create mixed oxide fuel. it was used as a fuel in nuclear reactors.

the department of energy spent billions on the mixed oxide fuel project. it is intended for a market segment that has yet to emerge, and, according to a report from the government accountability office, the department of energy has had to consider offering subsidies to attract potential customers for the fuel. it's predicted that the mixed oxide production facility will begin operating six years behind schedule. another problem is that the mixed oxide fuel project poses a new nuclear nonproliferation risk as mocks fuel can be separated into weapons grade nuclear material. in addition, the russians have not lived up to their treaty obligations. they have fallen behind on their own mox production schedule. as a result the united states has had to step in and provide our own designs for the mox plant to jumpstart russia's. as a co-founder of the house nuclear security caucus, mr. chairman, i feel confident that the funding removed from the

mixed oxide fuel program will be put to much better use protecting our nation through the global threat reduction initiative. by the end of the current year, the global threat reduction initiative will have converted or shut down 81 research reactors, removed over 3,400 kilograms of vulnerable nuclear material and secured nearly 1,400 buildings containing radiological materials. there are other important global threat reduction initiatives as well that could use additional funding. we should be proud of our work, mr. chairman, as a country, in our nuclear security efforts. but it is abundantly clear that the mixed oxide fuel program is not the most productive use of our constituents' taxpayer dollars. the persistence of nuclear threats demands that we retain the highest sense of vigilance and agility when it comes to our own nuclear security and for that reason i urge the adoption of this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.

for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> move to strike the last word. i rise in support of the gentleman's amendment -- the chair: does the gentleman from new jersey rise in opposition to the amendment? mr. frelinghuysen: no. i rise in support of the amendment. the chair: under the previous order of the house, the time is controled by the member offering the amendment and a member opposed to the amendment. mr. frelinghuysen: would the gentleman yield to me? i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of the gentleman's amendment and recognize his advocacy for nonproliferation. i share my colleague's concerns about the national nuclear security administration's management of the mox fuel fab ration -- fabrication fuel facility project. the latest reports say the mox facility could take months if not years or longer to complete. it would exceed the current baseline costs as much as $1.4

billion due to the considered construction problems and creeping scope. so i'm pleased to support the the gentleman -- support the gentleman's amendment and i yield back my time to him. the chair: does any member seek to control time in opposition to the amendment? the gentleman from nebraska. mr. fortenberry: i'd like to yield time to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: may i inquire from the chair how much time is remaining? the chair: 1 1/2 minutes. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman. yes, the reason that mr. fortenberry and i are making this amendment is that it would address a wrongheaded plan by the department of energy to build a facility to produce dangerous, highly radioactive nuclear fuel that no one actually wants to buy. the department wants to take uranium and plutonium from dismantled nuclear bombs and

make fuel for commercial nuclear reactors. this plan will cost taxpayers $2 billion. it is a nuclear bomb budget buster. it is the most expensive way to boil water that has ever been proposed on the planet. it is also unnecessary. no electric utility in the united states wants to buy this fuel. and it's also a serious threat to human health, the mox, the mixed oxide plutonium fuel, is actually more dangerous than existing commercial nuclear fuel and in the event of a nuclear disaster the releases from a mox-fueled reactor will cause between 39% and 139% more fatalities than a traditional fueled nuclear reactor. mox is a reverse field of

dreams. if you build it, they will not come. the utility industry is not going to arrive. instead it is a nightmare that will leave future generations to safeguard a dangerous fuel with no buyers. i congratulate the gentleman and i urge an aye vote. the chair: the sque on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nebraska -- the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nebraska. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. fortenberry: given that there are competing amendments in this regard, i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings offered by the gentleman from nebraska will be postponed. the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: page 31, line 9, naval reactors, $1,086,635,000. office of the administrator,

$400 million, to remain available until september 30, 2014. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. pearce of new mexico. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house for today, mr. pearce and maybe opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico. mr. pearce: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, i offer this amendment today which transfers funds from the office of nnfa administrator and into the defense environmental management fund which -- program, which funds the cleanup of radioactive waste. this program is important to our defensive mission, our environment and public safety. the defense environmental management program has demonstrated success in waste disposition, soil and groundwater remediation,

facility decontamination and decommissioning and will continue to do so with sufficient funding. i would like to thank chairman frelinghuysen and ranking member visclosky for their hard work on this bill and for prioritizing this issue particularly. unfortunately the budget request from the white house did not accurately reflect the monetary needs to fully fund the project contained in the e.m. program. my amendment would simply put back $40 million into the environmental management program which will provide much-needed relief to the already constrained budgeted for -- budgets for these projects. as we accelerate the permanent disposal of radioactive wastes, we decrease downstream long-term costs for security, storage and then providing better, safer environment into the future. many of the storm sites that currently exist for radioactive waste sit above ground and are threatened by tornados, earthquakes and wildfires.

as i'm sure most of you have seen this week, new mexico is you is september to be wildfires that can be started at any moment, get out of control, extremely quickly, and rage out of control for days. los alamos is cloketted -- located in a forest area that is highly vulnerable. in fact, just a little less than one year ago the fire burned around 150,000 acres of thick pine woodlands in the santa fe national forest which surrounds the lab complex and adjacent town of los alamos. at one point the leading edge of the fire wases a close as 50 feet from the grounds which contain thousands of outdoor drums of plutonium-contaminated waste. until this week, the fire was the largest in new mexico's history. there is a similar story from 2000 from the year 2000, as a result just this january dauer and the new mexico environment department entered into a consent order agreement to expeditiously address the highest risk waste at los alamos national laboratory.

the waste amounts to 3,706 cubic meters of noncemented above-ground waste. the agreement calls for the removal of this waste by june 30, 2014. this agreement will allow requirements and ensure the heamentaled -- health and safety of the new mexico residents who live closest to the lab. while the overall bill dedicates funding to them for this project, it still falls short to who is needed. without full funding, removal of waste is in jeopardy dip. i'm transfering this fund out of the office of administrator for nnsa. these funds are needed more in the field and less in washington, which as we know could go on a strict diet. thank you, mr. chairman, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition, reluctantly. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the gentleman from new mexico's amendment. the bill before the committee provides a total of $4.9 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities at the department of energy. this funding sustains thousands of cleanup jobs and i thank my colleague for his deep concern about supporting these programs and meeting our cleanup commitments. our bill makes several difficult choices to achieve our deficit reduction goals. providing the necessary increases for our nuclear security programs while making targeted reductions to activities which can be deferred. this amendment seeks to partially reverse that priority setting that we put in place. it targets vital nuclear security programs and shifting funds to nonnuclear -- non-nuclear, nonsecurity environmental cleanup that should be ramped back. the cleanup programs received

$6 billion from the recovery act. a.k.a. the stimulus. accelerating the scope of work and pace of cleanup at those sites. and while i'd like to express my support for the cleanup, we cannot sustain that stimulus level funding that we saw in the past. and the funding for los alamos, which my colleague has particularly concerned about, is -- and is extremely knowledgeable about and is very concerned about, will actually increase by 45% or $30 million over last year's level. the $1.7 billion reduction to defense cleanup is a reasonable one in our bill. recently we've been informed by the department of energy that the department of energy may miss a number of its cleanup milestones because they had been relying on receiving large funding increases year after year, an assumption that was overly optimistic in any budget environment. we cannot continue to shovel

funding to make up for poor planning. instead the department needs to work constructively with its stakeholders, to establish reasonable and sustainable plans for remediating these sites which will still take another 20 to 30 years. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i rise reluctantly to oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico. mr. visclosky: i deeply respect his concern with the oversight of the programs under nnsa and i agree that there are some areas of oversight that need to be strengthened. i cannot support any further cuts however to the office of thed a minute straighter. as written, the bill -- administrator. as written, the bill reduces money to the administrator's office by $10 million. this would compound that cut by $89 million. at the same time nnsa has

already received an increase of $275 million when compared to current year spending. i'm concerned that any further reductions to the administrator's office would hamper the ability of nnsa to plan and oversee its core mission areas. i would like to work with the chairman and the gentleman from new mexico to address the concerns expressed and to ensure that nnsa properly maintains and cleans up its sites in new mexico and throughout the country and would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new mexico is recognized. mr. pearce: mr. chairman, i have no additional comments and would yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico rise? mr. pearce: -- >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lujan of new mexico. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from new mexico and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico for five minutes. mr. lujan: mr. chairman, thank you very much. my amendment is similar to that of my friend from new mexico. it would simply increase funding for defense of our environmental cleanup at specifically the nnsa labs by just under $22 million to bring it to the level of the president's request and decrease funding for the nn sambings office of the administrator by the same amount. i offer this amendment bay because to put it simply, it's a more effective use of taxpayer funds for nnsa to remove toxic waste from their labs' property than it is to maintain the current levels of redundant oversight

bureaucracy. last june the fire burned 150,000 acres in my district in new mexico and it circled los alamos national laboratory. had the fire burnt contaminated areas of the lab property, a plume of toxic smoke would have threatened the health of everyone in its path. the lab has promised to clean these areas many of which contain waste from, if can you believe this, mr. chairman, the manhattan project and cold war weapons programs. but congress must also fulfill its obligation to appropriate funds for the cleanup. while the nnsa labs have pressing environmental issues that demand our attention, there has been increasing evidence that paring back the nnsa's office and administrator to make the agency and its lab more cost effective and productive. a recent report by the national academies of nnsa's mappingment, of its laboratories, concluded that the nnsa's oversight had become overefficient and a distraction from the lab's vital mission. follow a series of hearings,

the house armed services committee added provisions to the f.y. 2013 national defense authorization act, that this body passed a few weeks ago, to change nnsa's approach and reduce its personnel. this amendment is consistent with these provisions. this will be added personnel and nnsa should reflect this. my amendment moves fund from the nnsa regulatory arm to a place where they puts boots on the ground and support cleanup. while i very much appreciate the work of the chairman and the ranking member of the entire committee in this area with their commitment to cleanup, it's my hope, mr. chairman, that i'd be able to emphasize through our distinguished leaders managing the floor of the dire situation that needs attention in new mexico and around the country. with that, mr. chairman, i urge adoption of this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr.

chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition to the bill. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's amendment. i want to thank the gentleman from new mexico, as i did to mr. pearce, for his continued advocacy for the cleanup at lows alamos. the -- at los alamos. the committee is aware of the increasingly auto active material at los alamos. as a result, our bill strongly supports accelerating the cleanup efforts there providing a total of $215 million for cleanup at the site. the bill increases funding $30 million or 45% above the fiscal year 2012 level. that makes the increase for los alamos the largest site expenditure increase across all the cleanups in our bill. but understandably, of course,

you'd like more we look forward to working with the member and see what we could do to be of additional assistance. i'd be happy to yield to the ranking member. mr. visclosky: i would add my words to his and would want to work with the gentleman as well as the former speaker from new mexico. they have a serious problem they are trying to address. my concern is the problem we have with management at the department and this would, i think, complicate that problem given the increase that nnsa has but, again, understand what the gentleman's trying to do, would like to work with him and the chair. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. lujan: mr. chairman, request a recorded vote, please. the chair: the gentleman has requested a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule

18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. -- from new mexico will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 32, line 1. environmental and other defense activities, defense environmental cleanup, $4,930078,000. other defense activities, $813,364,000. power marketing administration, bonneville power administration fund, expundturs from the bonneville power administration fund are approved for construction of a high voltage line from bonneville high voltage system. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. visclosky: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the recognition and would want to recognize at this point in time my colleague from massachusetts, mr. markey. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: i thank the

gentleman from indiana very much. and i just rise to briefly talk about light bulbs because i know it's a subject of great interest to all of the members, and i know there's going to be an effort by some republican members later on tonight to repeal the new light bulb efficiency laws, and i just rise just to do a little bit of an explanation of what has happened. five years ago a law passed here on the floor of the house, and it became law, and that law said that these old light bulbs, these light bulbs that thomas albert edson invented and people really -- edison invented and people really love, they have to be made 28% more efficient in order to be sold in the united states. they really haven't been made that more efficient. a lot of people, they really love old light bulbs. they don't want their automobiles to look the same way they did 50 years ago. they don't want their television sets the same way they did 50 years ago.

they don't want their cell phones they did 15 years ago. but they really want their light bulbs look the same. many people. and so here's what the american lighting industry did. sylvania and general electric, they make the same light bulb now. gives off the same color. looks the same. grandma had this light bulb in her house that gave off that warm glow that you remember from when you visited grandma. the new one gives off the same warm glow except over the life of this light bulb you save $5 over what grandma had to pay to the electric company to keep it on. you save $5 because it's so much more efficient. now, it seems to me that we shouldn't be trying to repeal a law like that that reduces the amount of electricity that every american needs to use in their homes. by the way, times every light bulb in your home over the course of the year you are going to save $100 to $160

every year. same light bulb. it's on the market today. you don't have to horde it. i know some people were hording the old light bulbs that are 28% less efficient, and that's their right. they can do that, but you can go to a department store and buy the same light bulb, same-looking light bulb and save $5 over the life of that light bulb giving off the same amount of light. now, i'm not saying that you have to go out and buy one of these little squiggley deals. now, if you do buy one of these squiggley deals, you have 78% more efficiency. and you save even more money if you buy one of these. but no one's saying you have to. you can use the same old light bulb that's in the store today. nothing got banned in terms of the old light bulb technology. still the same incandescent light bulb that grandma used except it's 28% more efficient. and i'm definitely not saying you have to buy one of these new jobs which is in the store

as well. this saves you $130 over the course -- course of the 20-year light bulb, this light bulb. increasingly, what's going to happen is when people move, in addition to packing up their television sets and their sofas, they will be packing up their light bulbs because these things save you money. $130 per light bulb over the course of the life of this light bulb. again, you don't have to buy this if you don't like the way it looks. you don't have to buy one of these squiggley deals because of the way it looks. you can go to the store and buy the light bulb that your grandma bought and your great grandma bought. this goes back to the 19th century. you have the same look and feel. i want to make this clear to all the members because in the course of the debate today,

we're going to have this discussion, but i have no idea where you want -- would want to ban something that's 28% more efficient. refrigerators are more efficient than they were 50 years ago. automobiles are. your cell phone has had a dramatic reduction in the cost of making a phone call on a cell phone. and now light bulbs are in the same category but they look exactly the same. i'm just again making the point so that later on in the day as we perhaps have a roll call on this once again that members can understand what they're voting for. i thank the gentleman from indiana very much for his yielding to me. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman's illuminating

comments and would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields ack. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 34, line 7. operation and maintenance, southeastern power administration, $8,732,000. operation and maintenance, southwestern power administration -- the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that the reminder of title 3 be considered as read, printed in the record and open to amendment at any point. the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. are there any amendments to that portion of the bill? the clerk will read. the clerk: page 47, line 12, title 4, independent agencies. appalachian regional commission, $75,317,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word, i have an amendment at the desk, yes. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. chabot of ohio. after the dollar amount insert reduced by $75,317,000.

page 48, line 14, after the dollar amount -- mr. chabot: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: is there objection with dispensing the reading? hearing none, without objection, so ordered. mr. chabot: i introduced this amendment because it's high time we take our debt and our deficit seriously. we no longer can afford to dep on with politics as usual and continue to subsidize wasteful spending programs and policies that redistribute wealth and really have zero economic impact. these supposed economic development programs referred to in my amendment are anything but that. instead, they're really wasteful programs that the government accountable office, the g.a.o., has found to be duplicative. in other words, they're in other bills. there are other programs that do exactly the same things. it's wasted tax dollars to do the same things over and over again, and really they have no track record of success.

in 2009, the congressional budget office and white house office of management and budget found that the denali commission, the appalachian regional commission and the delta regional authority had 29 duplicative programs. not one, not 10, not a dozen, 29 that do essentially the same thing. furthermore, citizens against government waste found that the denali commission duplicates several programs in the labor department. last year, the g.a.o. released a report dealing federal programs that overlap and provide similar services as a supplement to its report on and the title of it is "opportunities to reduce potential duplication in government programs, save tax dollars and enhance revenue." in this report, the g.a.o. revealed the names of 80 federal economic development programs administered by four different agencies. surely, my colleagues in the

house do not favor paying twice for the same program. yet, mr. chairman, the decision to continue funding for these regional commissions will do exactly that unless we eliminate them which is what i'm suggesting that we do by this amendment. the taxpayers are fed up with frivolous spending of our federal government. it's time that we identify wasteful programs, we identify them. that's wh -- what we're doing here. numerous organizations have plainly stated and repeatedly recommended the dismantling of these types of programs, and congress ought to listen and heed these requests and that's what i'm suggesting we do in this particular legislation. and i'm suggesting in here programs that affect my own area, so i'm not just saying we go in other areas around the country. the appalachian area is in the area of the country that i represent. in the same general area, and i'm saying, let's not just do

it in alaska or out west, we ought to do it in my own district as well. i'm suggesting we eliminate these programs. as i indicated, it's supports by citizens against government waste, and there are a number of other budget-cutting type of organizations that are in favor of this had. so i would recommend my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> in opposition, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i cha the chair. appalachia confronts a combination of challenges that few other parts of the country face. mountainous terrain and isolation, dispersed population, inadequate infrastructure, lack of financial and human resources and a weak track record in

applying for and receiving assistance from other federal programs. mr. rogers: for decades app labora has experienced an -- appalachia has experienced an economic lag, even during years of economic expansion, employment growth in this 13-state region was significantly lower than the nation as a whole. even with a.r.c.'s funding in fiscal 2009, appalachia received 33% less federal expenditures per capita than the nation. it's clear a.r.c. programs do not duplicate other federal programs but instead they extend the reach of those programs. in the last five years every dollar of a.r.c. investment yielded $10 of private sector investment. clearly a.r.c. is an effective and efficient steward of the taxpayer dollar. targeting these funds where they're needed the most. as a result 125,000 households

were served by infrastructure. nearly 140,000 jobs were created or retained. and 100,000 students received vital job training skills. in addition completing the appalachian development highway system is expected to generate some $5 billion in annual economic benefit for the entire country by 2035. but perhaps just as important as a.r.c.'s winning investment strategies is its working knowledge of the communities served. when storms ripped through rural kentucky last march, leveling entire towns, and particularly devastating the community of west liberty, a.r.c. was one of the first agencies on the ground to support and coordinate the state, local and federal response. larmly because of a.r.c., these communities have seavens hope

for a successful rebuild and restoration. the appalachian regional commission is uniquely qualified to administer these much-needed and targeted federal investments, to close the economic gap between appalachia and the rest of the nation. to bring the region's 20 counties and 25 -- 420 counties and 45 million people in the economic mainstream. we must uphold our commitment to the american people to reduce the size and scope of government while maintaining funding for proven, effective programs like a.r.c. that create jobs and keep the economy moving. i'm confident a.r.c. will continue its strong legacy of creating jobs and positive change in areas of the country

which have been bypassed by opportunity. i urge a no vote and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. chabot: i do. can i ask how much time i have left in my five minutes? the chair: the gentleman had two minutes but yielded back his time. mr. chabot: i think i reserved. but that's -- the chair: does the gentleman seek unanimous consent to reclaim his time? mr. chabot: i do. the chair: is there objection? hearing none, the gentleman is yielded two minutes. mr. chabot: thank you. i'll be brief. i have the utmost respect from our distinguished chairman and he speaks with great wisdom on many, many occasions and i'm sure he does on this occasion as well. however, i would just reiterate a couple of things. number one, that we did adopt a ban on earmarks which i think was the right thing to do. it was really a proclamation to

the american people that we're serious about stopping wasteful spending. however in essence when we have these types of things, they're really giant earmarks to certain areas of the country. now, they do go through scrutiny and so it's unlike an earmark in some areas, but nonetheless these are benefiting certain types -- certain parts of the country at the expense of other parts of the country, similarly to what an earmark does. so i just think they're really bad policies, as i indicated, duplicative in many instances. so we have different programs doing exactly the same thing. so we're really wasting dollars. in -- prudence says we must reduce spending and pay down our debt. we have to do it, if we're going to do it this is the type of thing we would have to cut and this would go toward deficit reduction. we have a $13 trillion deficit. we need to start working on it. i just think this is one way to

attempt to do that. and additionally, mr. speaker, or mr. chairman, i would note that it's the responsibility for providing aid and supporting local and regional development type things, it's the states and local governments, not knot the federal government that ought to be funding these types of things. they're closer to the people, they're closer to monitoring the situation. it tauth ought not to be the federal -- it ought not to be the federal government doing these types of things and so i would urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. chabot: on that i would demand a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 furdprotings -- proceed -- further proceedings on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from ohio will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. and i ask unanimous consent to consider the amendment out of order. the chair: is there objection to considering the amendment at this point? hearing none, the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. reid of new york. page 25 -- reed of new york. page 25, line 5, insert, increase by $36 million. page 28, line 16, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $18 million. page 3 1, line 23, after the second dollar amount, insert, reduced by $18 million. the chair: pursuant to the

order of the house of today, the gentleman from new york, mr. reed, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. reed: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise today to offer this amendment in a bipartisan fashion for my colleague from new york, mr. higgins. what we are looking toward here, mr. chairman, is amend the proposal before the committee, to restore $36 million in funding to nondefense environmental cleanup. a similar amendment, mr. chairman, last year passed the house with a total votes of 261 people voting in favor of the proposed amendment. mr. chairman, i understand the dire fiscal situation that we find ourselves in america today. but what i have proposed here is putting that $36 million out into the field to deal with nuclear waste and nuclear waste cleanup sites across america. i have one of those nuclear waste sites in my district, the west valley demonstration project in western new york, that abuts where mr. higgins'

district is located. and what we're trying to do is take that $36 million that is otherwise going to be used in the bureaucracy of washington for administrative purposes here and allocate that money out to the field, to the sites where it can be best utilized to clean up these nuclear waste facilities and make sure that the threat of nuclear waste to all of our citizens is completely remediated and taken care of so that we do not have to deal with this year after year after year. there are numerous reports out that show that by cleaning these facilities up sooner than later we could potentially save hundreds of millions of dollars. so to me at this point in time this amendment makes sense. it recognizes the fiscal situation we find ourselves in america and takes care of a true public safety threat to all citizens of our great country. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does any member seek time in

opposition? does any member seek time in opposition? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment. our bill fully funds the request for nondefense environmental cleanup at $198 million. i know my colleagues from new york state, mr. reed, and mr. higen -- higgins, are particularly concerned about the west valley site in new york and we respect their views and they know their districts and their state well. but this bill provides the full amount requested for the project in the president's budget. while below last year's level, it is reasonable -- it's a reasonable reduction given the need ro to reduce overall federal spending in our bill. but this amendment proposes to increase funding 18% over the amount of our request. this would be an unbalanced a

approach considering the reduction to other sites in the bill and there are many sites in different congressional districts, some of which -- many a number of which have much higher hazard activities taking place and that's not to minimize what's happening at this site. we prepared in a bipartisan way a balanced bill, one that prioritizes available funding to address the highest activities, risk activities first, while ensuring progress at lower risk sites, that that progress continues, albeit at a smaller pace. we simply cannot sustain the high levels of spending at every location and must make the hard choices to extend timelines where the risks are lower. as an offset, the amendment would eliminate the salaries of approximately 100 employees who are carrying out vital security activities as well as the

salaries of up to another 100 employees who are carrying out a variety of i think critically important energy and science programs at the department of energy. so i know their heart is in the right place, i know that they are -- want to do more things to clean up the site in their home state. but i reluctantly oppose their amendment for the reasons that i've outlined and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. reed: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield the balance of my time to my colleague, mr. higgins, from new york. the chair: the gentleman from new york voiced for the balance of the time. mr. higgins: mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of this bipartisan amendment, to provide adequate funding for the nondefense environmental cleanup program. one of the most important roles of government is to protect public health and safety. however, the amount of money appropriated in this bill is insufficient to do one of the most important areas. our amendment ensures that nuclear cleanup sites get the

funding they need to protect surrounding communities from radioactive contamination. in my community and that of mr. reed's, in western new york, the west valley nuclear waste reprocessing plant, the established in the 1960's in response to a federal call to commercialize the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel from power reactors. just a few years ago the site ceased operation and more than 600,000 gallons of high-level radioactive waste was left behind, posing a significant and enduring hazard. this site, prone to erosion, contains streams that drain into lake erie, located just 30 miles away. we have already seen a leak on the site developed into a plume of radioactive groundwater. if this radioactive waste makes its way into the great lakes, the largest source of surface freshwater in the world, the environmental and economic implications would be devastating. without question, this hazardous and radioactive waste and the contamination that remains is one of our nation's

largest environmental liabilities. mr. chairman, if these cleanup efforts, time is money. failing to adequately fund the nondefense environmental cleanup program decelerates cleanup efforts. for the past four decades progress and cleaning up west valley has been delayed by legal disputes and funding shortfalls. for west valley this means $30 million in added maintenance costs per year. in the current budgetary climate, it is more important than ever that the federal government use taxpayers' moneys most efficiency. mr. chairman, we cannot jeopardize the irreplaceable natural resource of the great lakes or the communities and resources near other nuclear sites across this nation by continuing to underfund this cleanup program. i'm proud to work with my friend and colleague, mr. reed, on this important issue and i urge support for this bipartisan amendment, to ensure we finish the job. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the sque on the amendment