I have an amendment at the desk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would eliminate funding for the Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study, also known as MRAPS. This $25 million study was originally earmarked under the guise of a…
I have an amendment at the desk.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My amendment would eliminate funding for the Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study, also known as MRAPS.
This $25 million study was originally earmarked under the guise of a review of the 1944 Flood Control Act and relevant court rulings to determine if current authorized project purposes are contemporary.
MRAPS comes on the heels of another comprehensive $35 million, 17- year study completed in 2004 that showed that the current authorized purposes are appropriate and do not need to be altered.
For river communities, few issues are as important as water supply, power, and navigation. This study puts in jeopardy the flow of the lower Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, which would have devastating consequences for navigation and transportation along those rivers and result in barriers for agriculture, waterways operations, and every product that depends on the Missouri and the Mississippi Rivers to get to market.
MRAPS is duplicative and wasteful of taxpayer dollars. We've already spent $35 million to examine the Missouri River Master Manual. After 17 years, hundreds of public meetings, and countless lawsuits, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concluded that the current uses of the river are appropriate.
It is careless and irresponsible to conduct another multiyear, multimillion dollar study at taxpayers' expense, particularly given the dire state of our Nation's economy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
With all due respect to the gentleman, I would appreciate some certainty, and I think that's what the purpose of this amendment is all about.
You indicate that it's still in existence; it's still being funded. We want it out. We don't want it funded any longer. The purpose of it is duplicative. The study has been done before. And I think it's time that we called a stop to it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the last study was done, completed in 2004 at a cost of $35 million. It took 17 years, and now we want to do it again. I don't believe it's appropriate for our taxpayer dollars to be used in this manner.
And with that, I ask for the support of the body.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit U.S. contributions to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an entity that is fraught with waste and engaged in dubious science. The IPCC advises governments around the world on climate change, and supporters of cap-and-trade legislation have used the questionable science, the findings of the IPCC, as reasons to support onerous legislation.
Criticism of this science intensified over the last 2 years when emails publicly released from a university in England showed that leading global scientists intentionally manipulated climate data and suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals. Researchers were asked to delete and destroy emails so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.
Since then, more than 700 acclaimed international scientists have challenged the claims made by the IPCC in this comprehensive, independent 740-page report. These 700 dissenting scientists represent some of the most respected scientific institutions at home and around the world, including U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense, U.S. Air Force and Navy, NASA, and even the Environmental Protection Agency.
Take, for example, famed Princeton University physicist Dr. Robert Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers and was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Austin told a Senate committee that ``unfortunately climate science has become political science. It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best.''
Mr. Chairman, if the families in my district have been able to tighten their belts, then surely the Federal Government can do the same and stop funding an organization that is fraught with waste and abuse. My amendment simply says that no funds in this bill can
go toward the IPCC. This would save taxpayers millions of dollars this year and millions of dollars in years to come. In fact, the President has requested an additional $13 million for the IPCC in his fiscal year 2012 budget request. Our constituents should not have to continue to foot the bill for an organization to keep producing corrupt findings that were used as justification to impose a massive new tax on every American. They deserve better.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
For the last year or two, the International Panel has been funded at the rate of about $12.5 million per year. The President has it in his FY12 budget at $13 million. This group has been in the headlines for their activities with regard to how they are trying to tinker with the data that they put out.
Why would we want to fund a group of folks who is nefarious and gives us incorrect information? It's beyond me.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.