Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Broun of Georgia

Amendment No. 22: Page 4, line 6, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(decreased by $4,880,000)''.

Page 10, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert

``(decreased by $15,047,000)''.

Page 15, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert

``(decreased by $18,294,000)''.

Page 78, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert

``(decreased by $12,500,000)''.

Page 158, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $50,721,000)''.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce funding for the Joint Economic Committee by 25 percent and transfer more than $1 million to the deficit reduction account.

The Joint Economic Committee is tasked with many of the duties of other congressional committees. Those other congressional committees already perform these duties, such as holding hearings, performing research, and studying the U.S. economy.

We here in America are facing a tremendous financial crisis. The legislative branch should not be excluded during budget cut debates.

The Joint Economic Committee performs overlapping duties that could easily be maintained by the Ways and Means Committee or the Budget Committee, or even the respective leadership policy committees. A 25 percent cut is very modest considering the gravity of the enormous debt that we are accumulating each and every day, and we must begin paying down that debt.

Our debt level is unsustainable, totally unsustainable. We are broke as a Nation. We have to start cutting in every aspect of the government's expenditures, and I believe the Joint Economic Committee can afford it, and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that this is a bicameral, bipartisan committee. But as I mentioned during my initial remarks, these functions could be very well performed by other committees. These are duplicative services, and so I urge adoption of my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply reduce funding for the Office of Compliance to the fiscal year 2008 level and would transfer almost half a million dollars into the spending reduction account.

At a time when we are facing such pressing fiscal crisis, we have a financial fiasco here in America because of

the outrageous spending Congress has been doing by both parties. Scaling back the spending for the Office of Compliance to the 2008 level is a modest and reasonable request. We have to continue to make cuts in every corner of the budget that we can, and we have to prioritize paying down our massive Federal debt that is totally unsustainable.

Again, if most offices within the Federal Government can reduce their spending back to 2008 levels, it is only logical for the Office of Compliance to do the very same. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend Mr. Honda's comments. I offered eight amendments in total. Only three were held to be in order. So I'm not looking at anything specifically, except for the whole bill, to try to cut spending. Because it's absolutely critical as we go forward that we put this country back on a good fiscal standing. I believe very firmly that we need to look at every single nook and corner, every dollar spent by the Federal Government, and cut wherever we can. I think this is a reasonable request.

I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My amendment would reasonably reduce funding for the Botanic Garden to the fiscal year 2008 level and transfer more than $3 million to the spending reduction account. This bill funds the garden at $12 million. I'm only asking that the Botanic Garden be funded at $9 million.

Our Nation is broke. We are broke. There's no question about that. We need to face the fact that we are broke. Yet we continue to add to our enormous debt by borrowing more than $4 billion each day.

I believe, and I think that the American people would agree, that it is more reasonable to ask the Botanic Garden to stop trimming their hedges and to start trimming their budgets, like many of the other offices have done within the Federal Government and like many families and businesses have done all across this Nation.

We cannot afford to continue down this same path of fiscal irresponsibility that we have been heading down. I urge my colleagues to help me put America back on a different course and to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I appreciate my good friend Ander Crenshaw's remarks about this. When families face hard economic times, they look at extraneous expenses. I love plants. My wife and I work in our yard. We have plants that we baby, and she waters every day, so we certainly have a great appreciation of botanic gardens, plants, and the things that plants bring in the way of enjoyment. But when faced with hard economic times, people don't go out to Home Depot and buy more plants when they can't pay their bills, and that's the situation we're in as a Nation. Though the Botanic Garden is a very beautiful place, with a lot of very beautiful plants in it, I think it's not the responsible thing to continue to try to grow more things that are going to continue to grow the debt and spend money we just simply do not have.

As we've gone through the authorization process in the three committees I'm in, and as we've gone through these appropriation bills, I'm reminded of a saying that was utilized during our founding periods, but with a new twist, and the new twist is this: Don't cut me, don't cut thee, cut that fellow behind the tree. I hear that in the authorization committees over and over again:

``We have to cut our spending but don't cut me. Cut somebody else.''

``We have to get our debt under control, but don't cut me. Cut somebody behind the tree.''

There's nobody behind the tree. America deserves better. This is a simple cut. The Botanic Garden, as lush and pretty as it is, is not a necessary expenditure of the Federal Government, and I think the American people, if they had a choice, would support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my good friend Ander Crenshaw's comments and the comments from the other side, but we just simply have to stop spending money that we do not have. It's irresponsible to do so, and so I urge the adoption of my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment eliminates funding to the Department of Energy's Office of Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

We should be developing the vast quantities of proven energy resources readily available in this country, but instead the government continues to subsidize green technologies that are not yet ready to be used wide scale. They are neither efficient nor affordable, and Federal agencies should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. If these technologies were viable, the Federal Government would not need to give them handouts and, instead, they would be able to succeed on their own.

Further, this legislation provides millions of dollars of foreign assistance to countries like China and India to implement renewable energy programs. At a time when our Nation is broke, and we are broke, why are we sending taxpayer money to our foreign competition?

I urge support of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman from Indiana's comments, and I submit that the best way to make sure that we have that national security that my colleague from Indiana was talking about is for us to open up all of our God-given resources of energy here in this country, and we are not doing that.

Mr. Chairman, we need to start doing everything we can to develop every energy source that we have, and I believe in an all-of-the-above energy policy.

The best way to determine what energy policy is going to be viable and is best for America is by letting the marketplace work. I believe in the brilliance of the marketplace. The marketplace, unencumbered by taxes and regulation as well as free from government meddling in the marketplace by picking winners or losers, is the best way to develop those drastically needed energy resources. And I believe in renewable energy. But is it viable economically? And is this country going to be viable economically if we continue spending like we have been spending?

And, in fact, many Members of Congress seem to have the idea that this country is going to totally dry up and blow away if the Federal Government doesn't supply everything to every entity's needs. I hear over and over again from colleagues that they want to continue this spending and that spending. In fact, in the committees--I serve on three committees--I hear my colleagues, particularly other side, talk about we have a tremendous debt that we need to deal with.

But it reminds me--as I hear them also talking about not cutting programs--it reminds me of an old saying back from our founding era when our Founding Fathers were talking about the discussion in taxes. Today's mantra is ``don't cut me, don't cut thee, cut the fellow behind the tree.'' Well there's nobody behind the tree.

I believe we are in an economic emergency as a Nation, and Congress needs to face the fact. We're headed towards an economic collapse as a Nation. We've got to stop picking winners and losers and let the marketplace do that. Let people vote with their dollars instead of our funding this and not funding that, subsidizing this and not subsidizing that. The best way to do these things, the best way to figure out who should be the winner or loser is let the marketplace do what it does best and let people vote with their dollars. Let people invest in things that make sense and not invest in those things that don't make sense.

And we've got a lot of renewables such as this corn-based ethanol that doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense economically, and it doesn't make sense even from an energy perspective. In fact, I'm a good Southern boy. I love my grits and cornbread. It makes absolutely no sense for me to be burning up my grits and cornbread driving down the road putting it in the gas tank of my GMC Yukon.

So we need to let the marketplace do its thing. We need to reel in the spending that Republicans and Democrats alike over the last several decades have been using to grow the size and scope of government. So I encourage my colleagues on both sides to support this amendment. It makes sense economically.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will try to be expeditious and comply with my friend from Washington's request to not delay this.

This amendment simply prohibits the Department of Energy from spending money to implement the Vehicle Technologies Deployment Subprogram within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's ``Clean Cities'' program.

Earlier, I offered an amendment to cut funding from this program and transfer it into the spending reduction account. As I mentioned before when I presented my previous amendment, it is not appropriate for the Federal Government to be spending dollars on programs that the private sector should be doing or that local and State government can do. This program, this Vehicle Technologies Deployment Subprogram, is corporate welfare. I remind my friends, this is corporate welfare. And, in fact, I have heard over and over from my friends on the Democrat side that we need to stop doing corporate welfare. And I hope that they will support this amendment because that's what this simply is.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the committee's cutting this program down to the $26 million. But, again, this is corporate welfare to Fortune 100 companies, many that get these funds. We do need to reduce this country's dependence upon foreign oil, but this is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to open up exploration of our own energy resources here in America.

This is a commonsense amendment to strike out about $26.5 million out of funding that we just simply don't have. It's money that we're borrowing from our foreign competitors as well as here in this country, and it's creating more and more debt. So I urge passage of my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, this debt ceiling is starting to feel like deja vu.

If you think back to 1990, President George Herbert Walker Bush agreed to $2 in spending cuts for every dollar in tax hikes. He agreed to this with the congressional Democrats, but that's not what ended up happening. All of the Democrats' tax hikes went into effect, but the promised spending cuts never materialized. We cannot fall for this trick again, and that's the same trick that we see from the people on the other side, my Democratic colleagues and the President.

Higher taxes do not lead to more government revenue. We have seen proof of this in years past. Instead of raising taxes, let's leave money in the hands of small businesses, the job creators, so that they can create jobs. More jobs means more revenue and less deficit.

Higher taxes means more people out of work and higher debt. In fact, President Obama admitted in 2009 that ``the last thing you want to do in the middle of a recession is raise taxes.''

And, in the past, liberals in Congress have adamantly spoken out in opposition to debt ceiling increases. Then-Senator Obama said in 2006 that a debt limit increase was ``a sign of leadership failure.''

I could not agree more. It's a time for lawmakers to stop talking out of both sides of their mouths and do what is best for the economy, for our Nation, and the American people.

Over the last 10 years we have raised the debt ceiling 16 times. It hasn't worked, and now we are at the end of that road.

We need to try something new so that we can get started actually paying down our enormous debt. We must get our country on an economically viable course and create jobs in the private sector. That's why I have introduced H.R. 2409, the Debt Ceiling Reduction Act, which would lower the debt ceiling to $13 trillion, and that would force politicians in Washington to make the cuts to our budget that our economy so desperately needs and start figuring out how to pay off this unsustainable debt that we have created.

Madam Speaker, I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will cosponsor and support this legislation. It's a great way to both create jobs and to create a stronger economy.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, when I was just listening to my colleague on the other side talking about this is a small amount of money, I just did a town hall meeting in Thomson, Georgia, just recently. A lady there got up and said to me, ``Dr. Broun, a million dollars is a lot of money.'' And we here in Congress talk as if a million dollars, or even a billion dollars, is not a lot of money, and it is to the citizens of this country.

We cannot continue down this road of, as Mr. Royce was saying, of borrowing 40 cents on every dollar that the Federal Government spends. It's creating tremendous uncertainty out there in the economic world. And this debt is going to be crushing to us.

I believe we are in an economic emergency. So cutting $10 million for a project, though it might be interesting--I am a scientist, I am a physician, I have a science background--there are a lot of things that would be interesting to research and interesting things to do. But just like a business when it gets overextended, what's it do? It lowers its borrowing limit. Then it starts trying to work out that debt. Then it starts looking at every expense that it has, every corner of its expenses, and tries to cut expenses. Besides that, then they start looking at revenue.

Now, my Democratic colleagues and the President want to raise taxes to increase the revenue, but that actually is a tax that will drive away jobs. In fact, I have got a lot of businesses, small as well as large, in my district that tell me the tax burden today is so high that they are not hiring new people. And increasing taxes on small business is going to further drive away jobs from this country.

So cutting $10 million may not sound like a lot to Members of Congress, but I am going to support this amendment. I urge its adoption.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I again want to say that Members of Congress should do what I am doing, and I believe it's very critical for us to do so. I have supported over $5 billion worth of cuts in the appropriations bills that we've seen thus far.

We are in an economic emergency as a Nation. Creating jobs in the private sector and putting our country back on good economic course and creating a stronger economy and creating more taxpayers by creating those jobs out in the private sector is what is absolutely critical for the future of this Nation. So even though this may sound like a meager amount of money to some Members of Congress, $10 million is still a lot of money, and I support the amendment. I applaud Mr. Royce for bringing it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment cuts funding within the Department of Energy's Office of Science, transferring more than $820 million to the spending reduction account. Contained within this $820 million reduction are some of the most egregious examples of government waste imaginable, such as $47 million for undetermined upgrades--undetermined upgrades--$20 million for the energy innovation hub for batteries, $4 million for energy efficient-enabling materials, and almost $9 million for the experimental program to stimulate competitive research.

In my extensions, I will list a whole lot of other egregious examples of government waste that this amendment will cut. These are just some of the many examples of duplicative, wasteful examples within the Department of Energy's Office of Science that are funded by taxpayer dollars that would be cut by this amendment.

While I believe the Federal Government does have a role in vital basic science research, I do not believe the Federal Government should be spending scarce taxpayers' dollars on every type of research imaginable or suggested here in Congress. Much of the research done in the agency should be done in the private sector.

Tough fiscal decisions have to be made, and they have to be made right now. We have put off bringing discipline to the budget and appropriations process far too long. Members of Congress need to look far and wide through every single nook, cranny, and corner of the Federal expenditures and cut wasteful, duplicative spending. And this is just an amendment that will cut over $820 million of those kinds of projects that we just cannot afford.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

My amendment cuts funding within the Department of Energy's Office of Science, transferring $820,488,000 dollars to the spending reduction account.

Contained within this $820,488,000 reduction are some of the most egregious examples of government waste: $20 million for Energy Innovation Hub for Batteries; $24.3 million for Fuels from sunlight Energy Hub; $547,075,000 for Biological and Environmental Research; $8 million for Solar Electricity from Photovoltaics; $16 million for Carbon capture and sequestration; $8 million for Advanced solid-state lighting; $4 million for Energy Efficient--Enabling Materials; $10 million for Methane hydrates; $47 million for Undetermined upgrades; $15 million for Energy systems simulation--internal combustion engine; $8.52 million for Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research; $4 million for Physical behaviors of materials-- Photovoltaics; 52,741,000 for Chemical sciences, biosciences and geo sciences--Solar Photochemistry; $43,003,000.00 for Chemical sciences, biosciences and geo sciences--Geosciences; and $12,849,000 for Workforce development.

While I believe the federal government does have a role in vital basic science research, I do not believe the federal government should be spending scarce taxpayer dollars on all types of research. Much of the research done in the agency should be done in the private sector.

Tough fiscal decisions have to be made now! We have put off for too long bringing discipline to the budget and appropriations process.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment eliminates funding for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, transferring $6 million to the spending reduction account.

Mr. Chairman, I am 100 percent supportive of the automobile industry producing more fuel-efficient automobiles. However, there is simply no good reason that the Federal Government should be subsidizing billion- dollar companies at a time when our Nation is broke.

Over the past few years, we have seen the automobile industry receive an unprecedented amount of government assistance. We have seen an industry bailout, the market distorting Cash for Clunkers program, and many more subsidies, all done with little regard for taxpayers' money. It is time that we begin to reverse this disturbing trend and let the automobile industry succeed or fail on its own merits. We have to stop these kinds of subsidies, particularly in these hard times when our Nation is in economic emergency. I urge support of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce the operating budget of the Office of the Energy Secretary by 50 percent, transferring $2.5 million to the spending reduction account.

I've spent a considerable amount of time on the floor of the House during the FY 2012 appropriations process working to find spending cuts across every level of the Federal Government and across nearly every agency. I understand the challenges that the Secretary of Energy faces and the enormity of the Department that he is tasked with overseeing. But even the Department of Energy must do its part to reduce the deficit.

We've got to cut wherever we can. The future of our Nation depends upon it. Our children and grandchildren's future depends upon it. We're broke as a Nation. We have to look into every nook, cranny, and corner of the Federal expenditures and find wherever we can reduce expenditures, and this is my attempt to continue to do so.

I urge support of my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Shimkus' and Mr. Inslee's amendment, and I congratulate them on bringing this very important amendment to the floor in this appropriations bill.

Just across the Savannah River from my district is the Savannah River site. I've been over there very many times, and I am very concerned about the storage of nuclear materials that are there on the site, and that's happening all over this country. We hear people talk about this as nuclear waste, but I don't view it that way. In fact, there is a tremendous amount of energy in the fuel rods and in the nuclear material that's being stored at facilities all over this country. We just don't know how to utilize it, and we're just beginning that process.

Some of these fast reactors, small modular reactors, would burn up a lot of this nuclear material and would provide energy that is drastically needed. Yet, Mr. Chairman, one man from Nevada--a staffer, who left from being on staff in the U.S. Senate and went to the administration--has, what I consider to be, illegally closed up Yucca Mountain. This administration has illegally closed up Yucca Mountain.

This facility has been studied at great lengths. I'm on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and am the Subcommittee chairman for Investigations and Oversight. We've looked at this. We've had hearings. In fact, I just recently had a group of people from our local area, the Augusta area--and North Augusta, in the South Carolina area of Aiken County, where SRS is--testify about what's going on and about Yucca Mountain.

It is critical that we as a Congress do what the law requires. We need a central repository. We need somewhere we can store this material, not as waste, but we need a repository so that this material can be set in a safe, scientifically studied area that won't harm anybody. Yucca fits all of those categories. It's the only place in this country that does. We can store this material until we can utilize it.

We need to be energy independent as a Nation. Nuclear energy is going to be one of the keys of an all-of-the-above energy policy. We, on our side, have been fighting for that, and I know some Democrats are very supportive of nuclear energy, as I am. I am an ardent supporter of nuclear energy, and I think it's absolutely critical in order for us to go forward. Yucca Mountain has to be a part of that formula, and we cannot close it up. We've spent billions of taxpayer dollars on this facility. One man, because he doesn't want it in his backyard, has prompted this administration to close it up. We've got to open it up.

So I congratulate Mr. Inslee and particularly my dear friend John Shimkus from Illinois for bringing this amendment to the floor. We need to support it. We need to have a vote on it so that we can show how important this is to Members of Congress. I congratulate them, and I wholeheartedly support it, and hope other Members of Congress will support it, too.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission is a Federal-State partnership intended to address the economic needs of the southeastern United States, and the Lord really knows that we have some economic needs in that area. In fact, in my district, we have counties that unemployment approaches or exceeds 25 percent. But contained within the FY12 Energy and Water appropriations bill is $250,000 in funding for this commission. My amendment eliminates funding for the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, transferring the $250,000 to the spending reduction account.

Some of you may ask: Why go after such a small amount as $250,000? Mr. Chairman, here we see a Federal commission conducting work that would be better managed by a State agency. This entity is so small that it's hard to even find information on how the commission spends hard- earned taxpayer dollars. In fact, we can't even find a Web site for this commission. We need to look for spending cuts across every level of the Federal Government, even if that means finding cuts in the smallest of Federal bureaucracies.

For generations, Americans have been told by Members across the aisle that more government, more bureaucracy, and more Federal spending are the answers to all of their problems. We're losing our liberty because of that kind of philosophy. This line of thinking has removed many of our liberties that our Founders intended for us to have. Congress must make every effort to roll back the Big Government mentality in Washington and allow States to manage their own affairs. Zeroing out funding for this commission would be a good step in sending government powers back to the States and the people.

I urge support of my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Please tell me what this commission does. We've looked and looked, and we can't find a Web site for them. We can't find anything for them. This is my district, what we are talking about. I represent the northeast corner of the State of Georgia. In fact, we worked very strongly, my staff and I, with the Appalachian Regional Commission, the ARC, that the gentleman just mentioned. But we can't find even a Web site for this commission. And just having a commission for the sake of a commission, even though this would be considered a small amount of money, $250,000, to me is a lot of money. And if we add little bits of money together, after a while, then we get into bigger and bigger funds.

So I think we need to start looking at getting rid of duplicative commissions, duplicative functions of the Federal Government. And this is just one--because my staff and I looked to try to find what this commission does, what this $250,000 is expended on. We couldn't find it.

I'm for economic development. In fact, in those counties in northeast Georgia that I represent, we do have a tremendous unemployment rate. In some of those counties, we have 20, 25 percent, maybe even higher, underemployment and unemployment rates. So I am extremely, extremely cognizant of the need for developing jobs for these areas. But I'm also very cognizant that we are in an economic emergency as a Nation; and wherever we can save money, I would like to do so.

I don't know what this commission does. I can't find anything about it. So if the gentleman would please tell me, I would be eager to know.

Offered By: Mr. Broun of Georgia

Amendment No. 81: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Broun of Georgia

Amendment No. 71: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Broun of Georgia

Amendment No. 72: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Broun of Georgia

Amendment No. 73: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Broun of Georgia

Amendment No. 62: Page 32, lines 4 and 23, insert after the

dollar amount ``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Broun of Georgia

Amendment No. 63: Page 62, after line 2, insert the

following new section:

Sec. 609. None of the funds made available by this Act

may be used to carry out the activities specified in section

505 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13255).

Offered By: Mr. Broun of Georgia

Amendment No. 64: Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount

insert ``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.

Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $2,500,000)''.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

In reclaiming my time, I am going to support Dr. Harris' amendment.

As we face this huge budget deficit as a Nation, we've got to look at every source of cuts that we can possibly accomplish. It's time not only to cut spending, but we've got to start paying back our debts, and we're not doing that here in this country. I think it is absolutely critical. The American people, the people who are looking for jobs today, want us to do the right thing. Programs like this and many others are killing our economy, and they're killing jobs in America.

So I'm going to support Dr. Harris' amendment. I hope at least enough of our colleagues here in the House will understand the financial crisis that we're in as a Nation and will support it also.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment cuts $26.51 million from the Vehicle Technologies Deployment Subprogram in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Clean Cities program and transfers those funds to the spending reduction account.

The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has identified many concerns with this program which it has shared with the Department of Energy. This program filters over $25 million to about 90 coalitions to buy electric charging stations, E85 pumps, alternative fuel vehicles, and other infrastructure.

Beyond concerns with how this program is run and how the dollars are being spent, this program should not be funded or run by the Federal Government. This type of program is best served by the private sector or local and State governments.

Despite the management concerns, the Department of Energy has recently announced its intention to broaden the scope of the Vehicle Technologies Deployment Subprogram to also include the National Clean Fleets program. One mission of this program is to assist Fortune 100 companies to upgrade their commercial fleet. Is this really an appropriate use of Federal dollars when we are facing a $1.6 trillion deficit? Is it really appropriate to be helping companies such as Enterprise, GE, and Ryder upgrade their fleets to electric or alternative fuel vehicles? The answer to these questions, in my opinion, is no. In fact, I think most of the American people believe the answer to those questions is no.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Broun of Georgia

Amendment No. 43: Page 28, line 13, after the dollar amount

insert ``(reduced by $820,488,000)''.

Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $820,488,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Broun of Georgia

Amendment No. 44: Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount

insert ``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.

Page 32, line 23, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced

by $2,500,000)''.

Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $2,500,000)''.