Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
I just want to respond very briefly to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), who is our ranking member. I appreciate your kind words. Certainly, as we head forward to 2010, I look forward to the continued bipartisanship that we…
I just want to respond very briefly to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), who is our ranking member.
I appreciate your kind words. Certainly, as we head forward to 2010, I look forward to the continued bipartisanship that we have enjoyed on the subcommittee both at a member and at a staff level.
I simply want to address Members of the House to share my concern with the ranking member about the final number relative to the Yucca Mountain depository as far as nuclear waste. I would point out that, in fiscal year 2008, $286 million was provided for that project. I would point out that the House mark for this project was $60 million higher. We were at $247 million. Unfortunately, a compromise was obviously involved here. The figure ultimately ended up at $145 million. I am not happy with it. The gentleman expressed his unhappiness.
Certainly, I want to continue to work--looking at all of these nuclear accounts and as a supporter of nuclear as part of the solution to our energy problem and climate problem--to make sure that this is not untoward as far as the continued progress of the industry. So I do appreciate and share the gentleman's concern.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the recognition, and because the energy and water portion of the omnibus package was mentioned, I would point out to my colleagues that we know how to say ``no,'' to say ``no'' for the right reason: for policy, as well as to save the taxpayers of this country money.
The previous administration asked for $205 million to expand the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That would essentially, at a time of high gas prices, put the Federal Government in competition with the consumer. That was a bad idea. The subcommittee and full committee said ``no,'' and we have saved the taxpayers $205 million in this bill.
The previous administration asked for moneys for the so-called Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Act. That was zeroed out in this bill. There were not huge, vast sums of money involved, but there were taxpayers' dollars that were saved and particularly in the out years because we did not go down that road.
The previous administration wanted to proceed as far as the examination of a reliable replacement warhead absent a new nuclear strategy post-Cold War. It was not a good idea. We eliminated that money, and we saved the taxpayers of this Nation a great sum of money.
I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and just a moment ago mentioned a number of programs that did not have merit, which we said no to. On the other hand, looking at the energy situation we face in the United States, it is an economic, a national security, and an environmental issue, and we do need to make an investment.
New technology drives new jobs, markets, and economic opportunity, which is why we set $4.8 billion aside for the sciences in the Office of Science.
It is a national security issue, energy is, given where we buy so much of our petroleum products from, which is why we decided to invest in new vehicle technology to the extent of $273 million so we can get more miles per gallon, setting aside the issue of Yucca, investing $792 million in nuclear energy, and doing extensive biomass research.
There is an environmental aspect to this as well, and that is why we set aside monies for advanced clean energy and technologies to reduce the impact of older fossil-based fuels.
And finally, I would point out, given national security, we have set aside $1.5 billion for nuclear nonproliferation programs.
Mr. Speaker, I too rise regarding a provision contained in this legislation to carry out the Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program at the U.S. Department of Energy.
I would like to thank Congresswoman Schmidt for raising a concern regarding the potential of the language implementing the Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program having a negative impact on a project already well along in its development. I would be pleased to work with Representative Schmidt and her colleagues in the Ohio delegation to address any unintended consequences.