Jeff Fortenberry

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you very much.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. First, let me thank the gentleman from New Jersey for conducting this very, very important discussion. Madam Speaker, over the past several years, I have received scores of letters from my constituents that reflect widespread national confusion about stem cell research. Let me take a few moments to cut through the fog on this important issue. There are two types of stem cell research often confused in our public debate. The first, which I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support, is the type of stem cell research which uses cells derived from sources such as cord blood, skin, and bone marrow, commonly known as adult stem cell research. This is good science, helping to save American lives and providing real treatment options now. The American people deserve to know that adult stem cell science is progressing at a staggering pace, showcasing over 70 successful clinical treatment models for conditions ranging from heart disease to Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injury, sickle cell anemia, stroke damage, leukemia, chronic liver disease, and many, many more. The empirical evidence is sound, and it really is eye opening, giving hope to those who suffer from these debilitating conditions. Madam Speaker, the American people also deserve to know that there is a clear distinction between adult stem cell science and embryonic stem cell science. Between hope and promise for cures on the one hand and misleading, misguided efforts to funnel their tax dollars to bail out research companies, research enterprises, that thrive on the destruction of nascent human beings, embryos, who are no less human than Members of this august legislative body. Widely touted and vigorously promoted nationwide as a potential cure for many of the same conditions that adult stem cell research may treat, embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of unborn human persons to derive stem cells for research. We know that embryonic human life is still human life. The marvels of modern science leave no room for confusion on this important point. Moreover, embryonic stem cell research has shown no clinical success to date. It represents a degradation of human life that is wrong. Science that harms human beings, no matter how small they are, no matter how vulnerable they are or easily disposable they are, is always wrong. With so many proven ethical alternatives, embryonic stem cell research presents an unnecessary moral dilemma for persons of goodwill. It siphons limited Federal funds away from adult stem cell research that is now saving lives. And American taxpayers, who have recently been asked to shoulder an unprecedented deficit that will burden generations to come, should not be forced to pay for it. Adult stem cell research works, saves lives, and avoids the ethically divisive issue of the destruction of innocent and unborn human life. So, again, with that I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for conducting this important dialogue.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on member requests, I am submitting the following information regarding an earmark I received as part of H.R. 1105, the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Bill: Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Fortenberry Bill Number: H.R. 1105, FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Bill Account: Corps of Engineers--Construction Project Name: Antelope Creek Flood Damage Reduction Project Amount: $4,620,000 Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Lower Platte South Natural Resources District located at 3125 Portia Street, Lincoln, Nebraska 68521. Description: The Antelope Creek Flood Damage Reduction Project is a critical element of a flood control, transportation and community revitalization project known as the Antelope Valley Project. The project is being constructed in central Lincoln adjacent to the University of Nebraska Lincoln main campus to improve flood control, transportation networks and community well-being in the city's downtown area.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on member requests, I am submitting the following information regarding the earmarks I received as part of H.R. 1105, the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Bill: Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Fortenberry Bill Number: H.R. 1105, FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Bill Account: Special Research Grants Project Name: Drought Mitigation Amount: $469,000 Name and Address of Requesting Entity: University of Nebraska-Lincoln located at 202 Agricultural Hall, Lincoln, Nebraska 68583 Description: This funding is for the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) which conducts research and educational programs on drought mitigation and planning for drought. The project has assisted numerous states and municipalities in developing drought plans and implementing drought response action teams. The Center has received national visibility for providing information on the severity of drought throughout the United States. Both print and electronic mass media routinely use Center produced materials in their news stories on the drought. The NDMC's program is directed at lessening societal vulnerability to drought through a risk-based management approach. The NDMC works with local, state, and tribal governments, federal agencies, and non- governmental organizations. The objectives of the NDMC are: (1) to develop and evaluate existing drought policies and plans in the United States and elsewhere with the goal of improving drought-coping capacity and (2) to develop and evaluate new techniques and methodologies for monitoring drought severity and its impacts, identifying and classifying users in the United States and elsewhere. Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Fortenberry Bill Number: H.R. 1105, FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Bill Account: Buildings and facilities Project Name: Systems Biology Research Facility Amount: $1,088,000 Name and Address of Requesting Entity: University of Nebraska-Lincoln located at 202 Agricultural Hall, Lincoln, Nebraska 68583 Description: This funding will be used toward construction of a University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL)/Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Research Facility. This facility would provide critically needed space for UNL and ARS research addressing two areas of national concern: renewable energy and water resource conservation and management. Agriculture is expected to provide almost 40 percent of the nation's liquid fuels within 30 years. This will further intensify demands on our soil and water resources. UNL and ARS scientists have been collaborating at UNL since the 1930s. Very strong collaborative programs continue today, including the ARS program at UNL that has been developing improved switchgrass varieties for 30 years and is the leading program in the world on the use of switchgrass for cellulosic ethanol. These scientists are scattered across the UNL campus and the proposed building will enable them to share collaborative, cutting-edge research space that will move this important research forward more rapidly. This project would advance major research focused on essential national efforts. Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Fortenberry Bill Number: H.R. 1105, FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Bill Account: COPS Law Enforcement Technology Project Name: Lincoln Police Department Security Upgrades Amount: $132,000 Name and Address of Requesting Entity: City of Lincoln located at 555 S. 10th Street, Lincoln, Nebraska 68508 Description: The Lincoln Police Department wants to take its first steps into the emerging technology of digital recording systems for police patrol cars. The proposal would equip 20 police patrol vehicles with digital video systems integrated with the Department's existing mobile data computers. These systems will capture video from car- mounted cameras onto flash memory media that can be downloaded for archiving. These systems will replace older analog video tape recorders and cameras. This would integrate digital content into our extensive Intranet resources, so digital video can be used by police and prosecutors. Although many departments are beginning to make the transition to digital recording equipment, this integration is the key component of this project that differentiates it from most. The equipment will allow for greater efficiencies within the Department and accelerate information-sharing with neighboring jurisdictions. Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Fortenberry Bill Number: H.R. 1105, FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Bill Account: Corps of Engineers--Construction Project Name: Antelope Creek Flood Damage Reduction Project: Amount: $400,000 Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Lower Platte North Natural Resources District located at 511 Commercial Park Road, Wahoo, Nebraska 68066. Description: The Antelope Creek Flood Damage Reduction Project is a critical element of a flood control, transportation and community revitalization project known as the Antelope Valley Project. The project is being constructed in central Lincoln adjacent to the University of Nebraska Lincoln main campus to improve flood control, transportation networks and community well-being in the city's down- town area. Essential to progress on the entire Antelope Valley Project is the completion of the flood damage reduction component. This multi-purpose project is a partnership of the City of Lincoln, the University of Nebraska Lincoln, and the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District, along with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the federal Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. The project reduces flooding threats to over 800 dwellings and businesses and 1,200 floodplain residents and removes 100-year floodplain restrictions on 400 acres. Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Fortenberry Bill Number: H.R. 1105, FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Bill Account: Corps of Engineers--Construction Project: Sand Creek Environmental Restoration Project Amount: $400,000 Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Lower Platte North Natural Resources District located at 511 Commercial Park Road, Wahoo, Nebraska 68066. Description: The Sand Creek Project will restore several types of historic wetlands and add to the national wetlands inventory in support of the Administration's ``net gain'' national wetlands policy. A quantitative analysis of all environmental outputs by the Corps of Engineers in addition to the Feasibility Study demonstrated a significant level of benefits for this wetland restoration project for the Lower Platte River watershed which serves the North American Central Flyway. The Sand Creek Project supports the national goal of a net gain in American wetlands. Active pursuit of this goal also provides for improvements in water quality and water supply to achieve watershed improvement. Flooding in Wahoo along the U.S. 77 Expressway corridor occurred twice during 2006. Completion of the wetlands restoration structure will also provide flood damage reduction benefits and the roadway allowing completion of this expressway between Lincoln and Sioux City. This is a key segment of the expressway. Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Fortenberry Bill Number: H.R. 1105, FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Bill Account: Corps of Engineers--Construction Project: Western Sarpy-Clear Creek Flood Damage Reduction Project Amount: $2,775,000 Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources District located at 8901 S. 154th Street, Omaha, NE 68138. Description: The Western Sarpy-Clear Creek Flood Damage Reduction Project is vital to the health and well-being of a large number of Nebraskans. It is planned to protect vital drinking water resources that supply up to 50% of Nebraska's population in the eastern part of the state from flooding due to potential ice jams on the Platte River. Elected officials at local, regional and state levels in Nebraska have been long committed to this project's construction because of risk to water supplies and other infrastructure. Significant construction progress towards completion is vital to Nebraska in the year ahead. The Congress has provided construction funding for the past four years in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. In 1993, flooding in the Lower Platte severed one-half of the City of Lincoln's water supply and catastrophe was again threatened in 1997 from ice-jam induced flooding. That portion of the new Omaha Metropolitan Utilities District well field on the western side of the Platte River now under development south of U.S. Highway 92 will also receive vital protection from this project. Treatment facilities for water from this well-field will be completed in the months ahead. Additionally, this project is needed to provide protection to: I-80 and U.S. Highway 6; The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, an Amtrak line; Military facilities at the National Guard Camp at Ashland; National telecommunication lines; and Other public infrastructure. Construction of a separate but companion levee at the Nebraska National Guard Camp at Ashland was fully funded by the Congress in the FY '04 Military Construction Appropriations Bill and is completed. Neither of these adjoining levees is effective without the other. Ice jams with the potential for flooding in the area around Camp Ashland and the 1-80 Bridge where it crosses the Lower Platte River occurred again as recently as 2001 and will continue to be a significant threat until both of these projects are completed. Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Fortenberry Bill Number: H.R. 1105, FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Bill Account: Corps of Engineers--Construction Project Name: Missouri National Recreational River Amount: $335,000 Name and Address of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers located at 106 S. 15th Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Description: This funding is for the Missouri National Recreational River (MNRR), located on the Missouri River from Gavins Point Dam downstream to Ponca, Nebraska. Federal activities pursued within the MNRR must protect and enhance the values for which it was designated-- scenic, recreational, fish and wildlife, historic, and cultural. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' FY09 capability of $9 million would be used for bank stabilization, easement acquisition, and fee title purchase. Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Fortenberry Bill Number: H.R. 1105, FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Bill Account: Section 205 Project Name: Fremont Section Sec. 205 Flood Control Study Amount: No specific dollar amount Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Lower Platte North Natural Resources District located at 511 Commercial Park Road, Wahoo, Nebraska 68066 Description: This funding is for the federal share to complete the Fremont South Section 205 Flood Control Study. Funding for this Section 205 project will continue urgent feasibility planning to strengthen an existing flood control levee in order to remove a portion of South Fremont from the threat of flooding in the 100 year flood plain. This Fremont South area will be soon identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (``FEMA'') as within the designated flood plain. The total cost of the project is $1,086,000 split equally between the Corps of Engineers and the nonfederal sponsor. Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Fortenberry Bill Number: H.R. 1105, FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Bill Account: Section 205 Project Name: Schuyler Section 205 Flood Control Study Amount: No specific dollar amount Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Lower Platte North Natural Resources District located at 511 Commercial Park Road, Wahoo, Nebraska 68066 Description: This funding under the Section 205 authority is for the federal share to continue the Schuyler, Nebraska Flood Control Study. The amount requested will continue the Schuyler, Nebraska Sec. 205 Flood Control Study. The purpose of the study is to plan for mitigation of flooding in 40% of the city which is anticipated to be placed in the flood plain for the first time when designated by FEMA. The total cost of the study is $772,000 split equally between the Corps of Engineers and the non-federal sponsor. Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Fortenberry Bill Number: H.R. 1105, FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Bill Account: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Project Name: Bioenergy Demonstration Project: Value-Added Products from Renewable Fuels Amount: $1,903,000 Name and Address of Requesting Entity: University of Nebraska-Lincoln located at 302 Canfield Administration Building, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588 Description: The funding will be used by the University of Nebraska- Lincoln to establish a pilot-scale corn-ethanol bioenergy facility and research program. Research will focus on developing new fractionation processes for removing value-added components from corn before and after fermentation to biofuel and on exploring new commercial uses for these products. Establishment of a research facility and program will help ensure the economic viability of the rapidly expanding biofuel industry during periods of commodity price uncertainty for grain and ethanol. The ability to test feed formulations with greater amounts of biofuel co-products will be critical to the livestock industry as corn and soybean prices rise in response to expanded biofuel production. This research facility's goals align with the U.S. Department of Energy's goal of displacing 30 percent of 2004 gasoline demand with biofuels, primarily ethanol, by 2030. Achieving this ambitious goal requires a rapid expansion of the fuel ethanol industry and research on the most efficient and cost-effective means of producing ethanol and of utilizing the byproducts of that process. Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Fortenberry Bill Number: H.R. 1105, FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Bill Account: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Project Name: Intelligent Controls for Net-Zero Energy Buildings Amount: $475,750 Name and Address of Requesting Entity: University of Nebraska-Lincoln located at 302 Canfield Administration Building, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588 Description: The funding will be used by the University of Nebraska- Lincoln to develop intelligent real-time controls for buildings using distributed electrical generation systems. The U.S. Department of Energy has set a goal of marketable net zero energy buildings buildings with annual net energy consumption of zero by 2025. Because residential and commercial buildings consume almost 70% of U.S. electricity, reducing energy use in existing and new buildings is critical to achieving zero energy buildings. Many large buildings needing an uninterrupted power supply, such as hospitals, schools, manufacturing facilities, hotels, and retail buildings, use distributed generation systems that include diesel generators and steam and gas turbines and could include solar, wind, and fuel cells. The intelligent controls developed by this project will decide in real time which energy source to employ and how much to charge and discharge storage systems to balance energy use and emissions over a year. These controls will enable operators to determine the optimal mix of on-site power generation and utility grid-supplied power needed for large buildings to maximize energy consumption and carbon emission credits. This research will lead to improved distributed generation applications in retrofit and new construction that reduce the energy use and carbon footprint of buildings. Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Fortenberry Bill Number: H.R. 1105, FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Bill Account: STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Project Name: City of Lincoln Wastewater Treatment Upgrades Amount: $550,000 Name and Address of Requesting Entity: City of Lincoln located at 555 S. 10th Street, Lincoln, Nebraska 68508 Description: New and stricter wastewater treatment NPDES effluent discharge permit limits were issued in January 2004 to the City of Lincoln for both the Theresa and Northeast Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Over the last five years, more than $61 million in improvements have been made to these facilities to meet the new NPDES permits. The last of these improvements is nearing completion. The City continues to make improvements to the treatment facilities and collection system pipelines and pumping systems to be more cost efficient; reduce overall energy use; control and reduce odor emissions; reduce greenhouse gas emissions by further utilizing biogas generated by the treatment processes, and minimize the overall carbon footprint of facility operations. The City's six-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) identifies $17.7 million in treatment facility improvement projects and $84.9 million for maintenance and improvement projects to the collection system. These improvement projects are essential for assuring air and water quality, protection of the environment, public health and safety of the community. The City expects to incur the majority of the costs to make improvements to the collection and treatment facilities through a capital construction program funded by user fees and federal assistance. Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Fortenberry Bill Number: H.R. 1105, FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Bill Account: Higher Education (includes FIPSE) Project Name: Northeast Community College Amount: $761,000 Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Northeast Community College located at 801 E. Benjamin Avenue, Norfolk, Nebraska 68702 Description: This funding is for a new collaborative education center in South Sioux City, Nebraska. Northeast Community College (a comprehensive community college), Wayne State College (a regional comprehensive public state college), and South Sioux City, Nebraska, are partnering in this project. The new College Center will serve the area by creating a ``one-stop'' consolidated service center offering community and economic development resources in addition to providing educational opportunity for area residents at an affordable price. The primary purposes of the joint center are: to improve access to higher education in an underserved area of Nebraska with special focus on the large number of minority and first- generation students in the region to offer comprehensive ``start-to-finish'' degree programs that will allow place-bound students to earn associate's, bachelor's, and master's degrees in focus areas without having to relocate to support economic and community development in the region through workforce training and consolidation of services The vision for the Center is to meet the educational demands of the region, provide a combination of classroom and lab instructional space adapted to the customized needs of regional employers, as well as to collaborate with area high schools to provide academic transfer, career and technical instruction for secondary students. This project will serve regional needs of Northeast Nebraska and the greater Siouxland area, including the southeast portion of South Dakota, and the west central to northwest portion of Iowa. The new College Center facility will be designed to serve 500 full- time students by providing space for general classrooms, specialized instructional spaces for distance learning, science labs, computer labs, nursing labs, and a multi-purpose conference area that can be used as training classrooms for business and industry and learning community activities. It will also include areas for support services and academic support spaces for testing, tutoring, library services, study commons, and conference spaces. The South Sioux City Community Development Agency has donated 57 acres of centrally located land to Northeast Community College. The College Center will be located at this site. Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Fortenberry Bill Number: H.R. 1105, FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Bill Account: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Project Name: Environmental Health Informatics Database Amount: $238,000 Name and Address of Requesting Entity: University of Nebraska Medical Center located at 986380 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska 68198 Description: This funding is for the University of Nebraska Medical Center to create a Midwest Health Informatics database to assess environmental influences on the development of diseases by collecting health information from 50,000 Midwesterners. Currently most information about the relationship between disease and the environment is generated by major databases located in large urban areas on the east and west coasts which tend to be regionally specific and generally not applicable to rural areas. This database would be the first research cohort in the Midwest to study the relationship between rural populations, the environment, and disease development. This project could reveal environmental factors responsible for birth defects or lymphoma, a cancer with high incidence in Nebraska. The data will provide valuable information on the factors influencing development of deadly diseases like cancer and position UNMC Eppley Cancer Institute to be designated a National Cancer Institute (NCI) Comprehensive Cancer Center. This high distinction will allow for the most advanced patient care and research to be available in Nebraska. UNMC is the ideal institution to spearhead this database with its numerous resources, well-established statewide hospital network to collect data, a state-of-the art cancer research team and facilities, and comprehensive database capabilities to collect and assess acquired data from this project. Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Fortenberry Bill Number: H.R. 1105, FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Bill Account: Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Project Name: Antelope Valley Transportation Improvements Amount: $570,000 Name and Address of Requesting Entity: City of Lincoln located at 555 S. 10th Street, Lincoln, Nebraska 68508 Description: The City of Lincoln is committing significant resources for road and pedestrian improvements associated with Antelope Valley. Some of the important projects that remain in the $125 million transportation component of Antelope Valley Project include: construction of 5 miles of roadway (including the Antelope Valley Parkway from 17th & Y Streets to Capital Parkway) to improve traffic in the City's central core and Northeast Lincoln; reducing through traffic congestion on the University campus and on downtown streets; eliminating two dangerous mainline at-grade rail crossings, and providing a new overpass (16th Street Overpass) to the State Fair Park, Devaney Sports Center, state military areas, and surrounding neighborhoods. The federal assistance would be used in FY 2009 on Construction of P and Q Street bridges and roadways that are over the flood control channel that is to be constructed concurrently by the Corps of Engineers. Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Fortenberry Bill Number: H.R. 1105, FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Bill Account: Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Project Name: Nebraska Highway 35 Amount: $380,000 Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Nebraska Department of Roads located at 1500 Highway 2, Lincoln, Nebraska 68502 Description: The intent of this project in northeast Nebraska is to develop the most efficient route from Norfolk to South Sioux City. Currently, the route is comprised of several short segments of highway winding its way to the northeast. This project has significant regional and national importance. It would provide substantial safety and economic development benefits. The Nebraska Department of Roads has classified the Highway 35 project as a planned expressway. Requesting Member: Congressman Jeff Fortenberry Bill Number: H.R. 1105, FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Bill Account: Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Project Name: Rulo Bridge Replacement Project Amount: $95,000 Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Nebraska Department of Roads located at 1500 Highway 2, Lincoln, Nebraska 68502 Description: This funding is for the Rulo Bridge project between Nebraska and Missouri. The funding would be used for the initial planning and design of a replacement bridge. The current Rulo Bridge was built in 1939 and is too narrow to handle modern-day traffic. It also has dangerous curves in both of its approaches, limiting visibility and making it difficult for safe passage of vehicles meeting each other.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, my district includes the largest city in the world named for Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln is the capital of Nebraska, a State that bore great significance to our President's legacy. On October 16, 1854, Abraham Lincoln delivered a speech that changed the world. One of the famed Lincoln-Douglass debates, this 3-hour speech challenged the Kansas-Nebraska Act and presented arguably the most thorough moral, legal, and political argument against slavery to that date. He deplored Stephen Douglass' invocations of the quote `` `sacred right' of taking slaves to Nebraska.'' He spoke passionately against the act, declaring: ``I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world--enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites--causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty.'' Were Abraham Lincoln to not have spoken these words, my State may have suffered a past of grave injustice. Nebraskans are thankful for his stand for the principle enshrined in the preamble to our Declaration of Independence: All men are created equal. Abraham Lincoln's legacy, 200 years after his birth, is now deeply rooted in our American tradition. He led our Nation through our greatest and most profound crisis and strengthened our country. Though Lincoln's work at healing a fractured Nation was tragically and reprehensibly cut short, countless Americans have carried the mantle set forth in his remarkable orations. We work, as Lincoln said, ``to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all Nations.'' Even today, and even while our Nation is under many pressures at the moment, it is a testament to Lincoln's legacy that the world still turns to us to lead on critical human rights issues. Madam Speaker, as a Representative of Nebraska, as a resident of Lincoln, as an American citizen, deeply moved by the grand yet simple ideal of equality, I am honored to stand here today and pay tribute to President Abraham Lincoln on the 200th anniversary of his birth.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Congressman Burgess, Dr. Burgess, for hosting the hour tonight. We all know the economy is in very difficult straits. Families are hurting; businesses are taking downturns, and people, in general, are suffering. I do not want to see any family face unemployment or foreclosure or see any business take a downturn, but I think the question before us is: What is the right thing to do? There is not a Member of this body nor a member of the administration who is not carrying that heavy burden in his heart--we understand that--but I do think that we should ask the right question: What is the responsible, appropriate response to maximize economic productivity and to create jobs in order to help families? Dr. Burgess, you might be interested in knowing that we have a long tradition as the Nebraska delegation. A group of Nebraskans--anybody who is in town during the week--meets for breakfast on Wednesday mornings. It has been going on for 66 years. One of the things that I like to do with constituents who are in town is to just give a basic overview of the Federal budget. I hope you can see this adequately, but this is basically the Federal budget. This is the projected budget for fiscal 2009. It is $3.5 trillion. Basically, this is where the expenditures go. The red part of the pie is what we call up here in Washington ``mandatory expenditures,'' including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, as well as other expenditures, which include food stamps, farm payments, the Earned Income Tax Credit, as well as unemployment insurance and Federal worker benefits. This plus net interest on the debt is well over 60 percent of the entire Federal budget. National defense is in an area of this purple sector of the pie. We call that up here in Washington ``discretionary'' because we tend to haggle over it, but it is about 18 percent of the overall Federal budget. This small sliver right here is called ``nondefense discretionary,'' and that is where other important programmatic elements lie. Many of the constituents who come up here come to talk to us about that very small area of the budget, whether that's parks or roads or programs to meet special education needs and a variety of governmental functions. This chart is very telling as well because it shows where our revenues come from. In fiscal 2009, the revenue estimates are $2.4 trillion. Now, you'll remember the expenditure chart, $3.5 trillion. To do a quick little bit of math, it says a $1.1 trillion budget deficit for this year for our ordinary budget. This is where the money comes from. Individual income tax is about 45 percent, which is in the purple area of the pie here. This maroon area is the corporate income. Corporate income tax is about 10 percent. Payroll taxes are about 40 percent. There are others--the excise, estate and gift taxes. But it's that figure that I want to talk about, the $1.1 trillion. Unfortunately, our process here, in order to create an opportunity to help their economy, has resulted in an unrestrained, unsustainable, massive, Washington-style spending bill that will be very, very difficult to reverse. Before the year 2000, by the way, the Federal budget was about $1.8 trillion. This year, it is almost going to be double that at $3.5 trillion. We have been on a massive spending spree, and it should have been stimulated, but here we find ourselves in serious economic straits. I was on the radio the other day, and the radio announcer said that it's very difficult to get your mind around $1 trillion--and it really is--but think about this. The very deficit that we're leaving, should this bill pass along with other expenditures at this time, is larger than the Federal Government's entire expenditures were just a few short years ago. The deficit this year will be larger than that of the entire Federal Government before the year 2000. That is a very serious problem because we are going to pass debt on to children or we are going to sell the wealth asset value of this country overseas. That is a shift of the wealth of this country into the hands of foreign debt holders or we are simply going to monetize it and are going to create inflation, which is a regressive form of taxation, particularly for the poor. These are very serious issues. So, if we are to do a stimulus that is appropriate, it needs to be targeted and temporary, moving tomorrow's decisions to today in order to maximize economic leverage and to create jobs. We should also have some basic outline of a plan to pay for it. So those are some of the real dilemmas here that I see that I wanted to come down and point out. Thank you for hashing this out, not only among Members but for anyone who might be watching. I thank you for the time.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, again, I'm grateful. We don't, again, want to see any family suffer any unemployment or suffer any situation like that. But I think this letter that I got today from a constituent back home from Gail in Fremont says quite a bit. She said, ``I'm writing to let you know I oppose the stimulus, Congressman. I'm opposed,'' she adds, ``to the overwhelming debt the government is all too willing to place on us with no long-range plan for getting us back on stable ground.'' She goes on, ``What is the Federal Government doing without during this emergency?'' She says, ``In my home when there's no money, we do without. We don't spend money we don't have. I'd rather tighten my belt for a time than to live the rest of my life under the burden of increased taxes for this bloated stimulus package.'' Unrestrained, unsustainable spending is the issue here, and we need to maximize economic productivity through smart thinking about what really is stimulus.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I want to thank the gentleman for having this very important discussion tonight on the House floor. My fear is what we've done here in the name of stimulus is actually create an unrestrained, unsustainable spending bill. And since the year 2000 or so, it's very important to note that the Federal Government has actually grown by about 60 percent. We've been on an 8-year stimulus run in the name of spending, if you will, and yet we remain in economic straits at the moment. I think this is very important to point out because the other problem here is the massive amounts of debt that we're going to compile if this bill should be passed. Debt that is unpaid for--the stimulus bill not being paid for--will be passed along to future generations, children and grandchildren, or it will be sold, the wealth asset value of this country sold overseas to foreign debt holders, or it will come out in other forms of taxation such as inflation.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Inflation is a very regressive form of taxation, particularly among the most vulnerable among us. With that, let me say, I don't want to see any family experience unemployment, any business take a downturn or any family experience a foreclosure. And with that said, I think it's very, very important that we work very hard to get this right, a plan that makes sense, that maximizes economic productivity through any type of new governmental policies that we set, but a plan that is also potentially paid for over time and that does have some new bold ideas in it. One of the problems here as well, though, is that much of the spending is targeted to States, and some States like Nebraska, we've been very fortunate to be insulated from these larger downward economic trends. We have a strong ag economy that is hitting some bumps at the moment, but nonetheless, we also have a set of values, if you will, where people work hard and take responsibility for themselves and care for their neighbor. Businesses, as well as our citizens, have made prudential decisions about buying and lending, and we haven't suffered like the rest of the country in this regard. But with that said, this bill effectively asks Nebraskans to subsidize other States that may have been poorly governing and want the Federal Government basically to make the tough decisions for them, not force them to make the tough decisions.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman for the time. I think we are. It's a very important point to be made that a lot of communities in a lot of places have had to make choices with limited budgets to set priorities and have not rushed up to Washington to say bail us out, help us out. They have made those tough choices responsibly, and it's places like those, like Nebraska and other places, that I fear are subsidizing other places that have not performed admirably in terms of governance. Another point here is I think there are some bold, new, innovative ideas in this overall package. I think they could be potentially considered as stand-alone measures. President Obama has a strong focus on, for instance, alternative energy development for a sustainable energy future. This economic crisis was precipitated by, you recall, a very high spike in energy costs which accelerated other difficulties in the economy. But we've almost forgotten that now. Can you imagine where we would be if gas were $4 a gallon right now? So we've dodged a bullet right there. But trying to get underneath the question as to what our real economic vulnerabilities are, including our overdependence on foreign oil and fossil fuel in general, is an important policy consideration. So there are some admirable components here that might ought to be considered as a part of a reasoned stimulus plan that has a payment schedule for it, or stand alone separately. So we don't want to stand here and simply oppose everything in that regard. But we are halfway.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chair, I do not want to see any family face unemployment or foreclosure, or any business experience a downturn, but I fear we are suffering from a tyranny of worn-out ideas here. This bill is called a stimulus bill, but I believe it is an unsustainable spending bill. Mr. Chairman, when did we decide that more Federal spending in itself is economic stimulus? Since 2000, we have increased spending by about 60 percent in this country and the national debt has nearly doubled. Despite these growing expenditures, our economy has worsened, and we are left with an $11 trillion debt. And now we have a proposal that is before us that would be the largest spending bill in the United States history, and no plan to pay for it. Will we continue to rely on foreign nations, such as China, already bankrolling our spending habits? Or just defer responsibility to our children and our grandchildren and future generations? We are delaying tough choices and we are pushing reality down the road here. Much of this assistance goes to subsidizing States. Some States, like Nebraska, have thus far managed their budgets responsibly, even in tough times. I won't ask Nebraskans to pay for poor governance elsewhere. Mr. Chair, I don't want to give a speech simply to oppose. There are some important, new bold ideas here, such as alternative energy for a sustainable energy future, a modern electrical grid and health information technology. But the entirety of the package puts us on a path of aggressive spending, in the name of stimulus, that will be nearly impossible to reverse.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding as well. I was watching the conversation back in the office and felt compelled to come down and speak as well. I wanted to commend my colleague, Congressman Smith, for all of his leadership through the years on this essential American issue. And Congressman Smith, I wanted to relay a story to you of something that happened to me a few years ago. I was at our State fair. And there is a group of people there who actually hand out little plastic replicas of unborn children just as a positive reminder to all of us about what an unborn child looks like. And I took one and brought it home. And somehow it ended up on the floor in one of my children's room or the toy room. And our youngest child actually picked that little replica of an unborn child up and was carrying it around. And before she could hardly speak a word, she was saying the word ``baby, baby.'' This little child herself recognized an immutable truth that the wisest of us on the Supreme Court and the legislatures here and throughout the land don't seem to be able to grasp. And I think this point is essential in the sense that I think we are entering a new phase in society where we have to confront this issue head on. The pain, the trauma, the personal conflict, the psychological damage, the tearing apart of hearts that has occurred because of abortion I think could potentially lead us to a new day because America is built on a fundamental premise namely that all persons have inherent dignity and therefore rights. We have lived that imperfectly as a country because we had to fight a civil war and have a 100-year civil rights struggle because we didn't believe that at first if you were black. We didn't believe that at first if you were a woman, because at the beginning of last century women didn't have the right to vote. And we have not matured yet I think to this point. But I certainly believe we have the capacity to, because our philosophical premise is to accept the fact that the new civil rights struggle is for the unborn because women deserve better than abortion. So Mr. Smith, thank you so much for your leadership on this issue. And I'm very grateful to be a partner and colleague with you as we build toward a new way forward, a new day for America, and we can celebrate the beautiful gift of life and confront circumstances no matter how hard and difficult they are with a loving community response that helps get people through it. Thank you so much.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, at the outset, let me say I believe that SCHIP is a very important program that provides quality health care coverage for millions of America's children. I support the program. I support its renewal, and I support its appropriate expansion. However, I do believe that this must be done responsibly, for instance, prioritizing America's most vulnerable children first. We must also guard against expanding the program to those who may not need it, or risk creating a program that encourages some families to unnecessarily drop their existing insurance coverage for the government program, a move that could jeopardize the program's intent for our neediest children. As we have learned, the State of Hawaii recently halted its universal child health care program, just 7 months after its inception, because high-income families were dropping private insurance so their children would be eligible for the government program. The amendment that I offered to the Rules Committee would give vulnerable families the same opportunities as others to purchase health insurance. It would offer eligible families the choice of retaining SCHIP coverage for their children or using SCHIP funds to obtain a health insurance plan for the entire family through premium assistance for their child. I believe families are in the best position to make health care choices for their children. They should be able to remain together under the same health care coverage if they so choose, and see the family doctor together. I am disappointed that I am hindered from offering this plan as an amendment, as I believe it would strengthen the current program by empowering family choices, simplifying the process of accessing quality care, making family plans more affordable, and saving taxpayer dollars. So, Madam Speaker, I will have to oppose this rule.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, the choice before us today is not between action and inaction. That is a false choice. Clearly there is a very serious economic challenge. The decision before us is whether to adopt a potential $700 billion taxpayer liability to nationalize bad corporate debt or an alternative that may be less costly, easier to implement, and fairer to most Americans who have no blame for this mess. Earlier in the week, many of us said no to this, and because we said no, many helpful changes were made such as FDIC increases and a change in accounting rules that may be artificially driving down asset values. I know every Member is making a tough judgment call according to their conscience. But I have not heard a single Member say: ``I really believe in this. This will work.'' Instead we hear: ``It stinks, it's the best we got, our problems will get worse, and we've got to get it done.'' Madam Speaker, we are the legislative body. We make the law. There are other reasonable options that could be unpacked--hopefully quickly--to address falling asset value, increase liquidity, and provide needed capital.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, undoubtedly America is facing a very serious financial challenge. There is a threat of systemic failure. Yet the central issue before us is twofold: First, is this situation as dire as predicted? And, second, is this construct, this bill, this type of government intervention, with its huge expenditure and taxpayer exposure, the correct approach? While I recognize the economic dangers this Nation faces, I deeply regret that we have accepted artificial deadlines in a rush to do something. The bill before us today, while much improved from the original administration proposal, relieves bad assets from the market which have no defined market value. But it overlooks more fundamental issues, such as accounting rules called mark to market, that are forcing banks to artificially write down assets, many of which have real economic value but technically no or little book value. This in turn erodes the ability to leverage these assets to meet capital requirements, resulting in shrinking credit and an inability to make loans. Simple measures to change this problem are not even being considered. Should we also increase the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation guarantees to restore depositor confidence? Could we give banks some breathing room to work out these problems, rather than a taxpayer assumption of these underlying assets? The taxpayer exposure of this bill started at $700 billion. It remains $700 billion. Nebraskans and most other Americans have made responsible financial decisions. Now we are forcing them to foot the bill for the financial industrialists of Wall Street who created this mess for Main Street, and perhaps we have not addressed the underlying fundamental problems. We are falling into a trap of sequential decisionmaking. Once we adopt this construct, we shut the door on alternatives that may be less costly, easier to implement, and may provide a way through this crisis. The choice between action or inaction today is a false one. In good conscience, I cannot support this legislation.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, given the enormous pressures this Congress is facing to solve urgent financial problems which threaten the stability and health of our economy, I must express my deep reservations about expediting approval of the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement at this time. While I fully favor strengthening economic, social, cultural, and political ties with our Indian friends, why this most desirable pursuit hinges upon the sale of sensitive nuclear technology--remains a mystery to me. The U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement sets a groundbreaking precedent that could open a floodgate for worldwide nuclear commerce that, absent rigorous conditions, safeguards, and oversight, could significantly damage the stability and integrity of U.S. and international nuclear nonproliferation efforts. Just this week, the Russian Prime Minister announced that Russia ``was ready to consider the possibility of cooperation in nuclear energy'' with Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez. As you know, in 2006 Congress passed the Hyde Act, which waives key provisions of the Atomic Energy Act to enable our consideration of the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement. Absent the Hyde Act, the agreement would violate the Atomic Energy Act, which has regulated U.S. nuclear commerce since 1954 to prevent the dangerous proliferation of nuclear technology and materials. Upon a preliminary review, the agreement does not address the Hyde Act's prohibition on nuclear cooperation in the event of nuclear testing. Also, I understand that the terms of this agreement and India's safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency would permit the removal of tritium from heavy water in safeguarded reactors, possibly enhancing nuclear weapons yields, in contravention of U.S. law and the NPT. Moreover, I am deeply concerned that international guidelines recently eased to pave the way for this agreement and exempt India from longstanding rules of nuclear commerce that have applied equally to all nations are insufficiently rigorous to prevent the potential erosion of decades of global nonproliferation gains. Let us remember that the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the NPT, which India has not signed, is the nonproliferation mainstream. This bill also waives the 30-day period provided in the Hyde Act for congressional consideration of the underlying agreement. As co-chair of the Nuclear Security Caucus and the author of a Hyde Act amendment that seeks to prevent potential diversion of fissile material for military purposes, I oppose waiving the 30-day requirement to permit thoughtful consideration of whether this agreement in fact complies with the law we passed to condition its implementation. Mr. Chairman, we should not rush this. We are accountable to the American people for conducting rigorous oversight on matters of nuclear security, and I am concerned that short-circuiting the review process for this agreement is not consistent with that obligation. The Hyde Act was the result of precise and painstaking negotiations. I urge my colleagues to allow for adequate ,due diligence of this complex matter.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding time. I also wish to thank the ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for her leadership on this complex issue and her consideration of my differing view. Mr. Speaker, given the enormous pressures this Congress is facing to solve urgent financial problems which threaten the stability and health of our economy, I must express my deep reservations about expediting approval of the U.S.-India civil Nuclear Agreement at this time. While I fully favor strengthening ties, economic, social, cultural, and political with our Indian friends, why this most desirable pursuit hinges upon the sale of sensitive nuclear technology remains a mystery to me. The U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement sets a groundbreaking precedent that could open a floodgate of nuclear commerce worldwide that, absent rigorous conditions, safeguards, and oversight, could significantly damage the stability and integrity of U.S. and international nuclear nonproliferation efforts. Just this week, the Russian prime minister announced that Russia was, ``ready to consider the possibility of cooperation in nuclear energy'' with Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez. We should not rush this.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on member requests, I am submitting the following information regarding four (4) member requests I received as part of H.R. 2638, The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009: 1. Southeast Nebraska Cancer Center Foundation/National Functional Genomics Center: $1.2 million. Account: 30 0603002A Medical Advanced Technology. Address of Requesting Entity: Southeast Nebraska Cancer Center Foundation, 201 South 68th Street Place, Lincoln, NE 68510-2496. Description: $1.2 million which will be used to support current genomics-based clinical trials involving the development of molecular signatures at the National Functional Genomics Center (NFGC), concurrently supporting the development of a strong bioinformatics program. These two components are critical to the mission of the NGFC. Each requires large numbers of qualifying patients, and corresponding tissues procurement to advance translational research. The Southeast Nebraska Cancer Center (SNCC) is comprised of a group of oncologists, health care professionals and informatics personnel who support the advancement of translational research, in conjunction with a desire to offer the best survival opportunities to patients now and in the future. As an affiliate member of the NFGC, SNCC provides clinical support for validation of ``molecular signatures'' and serves as the first clinical facility to provide patients for trials, and to establish research protocols for distance access to the NFGC. 2. Novel Coating Technologies for Military Equipment: $4.8 million. Account: 7 0602234N Materials, Electronics, and Computer Technology. Address of Requesting Entity: University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 301 Canfield, P.O. Box 880433, Lincoln, NE 68588-0433. Description: $4.8 million for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to further develop novel technologies that will enable high-performance surface coatings to be applied to airplanes, warships, tanks, and other large military equipment on site and in an open atmosphere, avoiding the current high costs in time and money of equipment disassembly and the use of vacuum chambers. Most military equipment, ranging from airplanes to warships and tanks, requires high-performance surface coatings for improved performance and reliability. Because military equipment is commonly used in harsh environments, the surface coatings quickly degrade and require periodic evaluation, repair, and often full replacement. Current coating technologies use chemical and physical vapor deposition, which requires high temperatures, the use of vacuum chambers, and disassembly of large equipment to fit in the vacuum chambers. This project will develop laser-based technologies that will deposit high performance surface coatings on site and in open atmosphere without requiring disassembly and reassembly of the equipment. These surface coatings will have improved hardness, wear resistance, anti-corrosion, and thermal barrier properties. 3. Advanced Magnetic Nanosensors for Defense Applications: $4.8 million. Account: 5 0602105A Materials Technology. Address of Requesting Entity: University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 301 Canfield, P.O. Box 880433, Lincoln, NE 68588-0433. Description: $4.8 million for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to develop and demonstrate nanosensors with unprecedented sensitivity, reduced noise, optimal capability with electronic systems, and the capability to detect explosives, chemicals, and motion. The project addresses the Department of Defense (DoD) priority research area of nanotechnology-based warfighting with an emphasis on new devices for defense and security. These highly sensitive, miniaturized devices would be extremely useful in the creation of the distributed sensor networks that DoD sees as next generation sensor technology. Research will focus on the development of two types of sensors: magnetic tunnel junctions (MTJs) to sense extremely small magnetic fields, enabling detection of explosive devices (such as IEDs) and motion; and micro- cantilever detectors (MCDs), highly sensitive devices to detect molecules attached to magnetic nanoparticles, creating an advanced biological sensor capable of detecting a single virus or bacterium. This research will provide clear pathways for applications developers to improve signal and reduce noise, two of the critical challenges to effective nanosensors. This research will continue to build the strong infrastructure of basic trained scientists with the expertise required for Nebraska's economic development in the area of sensors and electronic devices. 4. Novel Systems for Developing Therapeutics Against Botulism: $4 million. Account: 28 0602787A Medical Technology. Address of Requesting Entity: University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 301 Canfield, P.O. Box 880433, Lincoln, NE 68588-0433. Description: $4 million for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) to develop novel processes to produce therapeutic molecules against all seven serotypes of the botulinum neurotoxin and make these processes ready for Phase I clinical studies. Botulinum neurotoxin is a biowarfare agent, a Category A CDC select agent and the most potent known toxin to humans. No FDA licensed vaccines against botulinum neurotoxin exists and there are no therapeutic molecules that can counteract its deadly effects once it enters the nerve cell. Development of such a therapeutic is the U.S. Army's highest priority for botulism research. Scientists at UNL and USAMRIID have collaborated 12 years on the first generation botulism vaccine, which has been effective against some of the original toxin, but challenges in vaccine development may render the vaccine ineffective. USAMRIID has developed and demonstrated a proof-of-concept of a new molecule that will specifically target the nerve cell. This funding will enable UNL's Biological Process Development Facility to develop novel recombinant protein expression technology to produce therapeutic molecules and make these processes ready for Phase I clinical studies. The processes also will enable the development of other therapeutics of interest to the Department of Defense.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, America needs, and is demanding from this Congress, a bold, new energy vision. We, as a Congress, have been presented with the opportunity of a generation: to step into the breach and deliver to the American people a victory over the vexing problem of dependence on foreign oil. Left unaddressed for far too long, it has compromised our national security, our economic security, and our environmental security. And now is not the time to retreat into the familiar trenches of partisan politics. Now is the time to establish a broad, comprehensive, new energy direction, and yes, I believe we should adopt long-term investments in a sustainable future. I support them: research and incentives for wind, solar, biofuels and geothermal. But we must also address, Mr. Speaker, the immediate problem of our overwhelming dependence on foreign oil. Let's have an honest debate about the full range of energy options in our portfolio. Increased use of domestic resources in an environmentally responsible way will promote our energy independence while bridging to a sustainable and independent energy future, fully integrating conservation, innovative technologies and a variety of renewable resources. Mr. Speaker, today, I believe, could have been a day of celebration instead of the rancorous political pushing and shoving. I am sure that many Members on both sides are eager for a bill, reached in true bipartisan fashion, yes, with the appropriate trade-offs and compromises but one that lays a new energy vision. What a message we could have sent to our own people, the financial markets, to innovators and entrepreneurs, to the world oil markets, that America has chosen a new way and we will no longer be captive and vulnerable. Instead, we have a bill that is the product of dysfunction in this House, Mr. Speaker. I just believe we can do better.

Mr. FORTENBERRY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I really thank you for the opportunity to dialogue on this question and to focus, yes, on the urgency of the moment, while also creatively thinking about where we go. I mean, this is America. This is the land of innovation. We can get that done.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, my good friend. I am so sorry you have to leave quickly, but I understand. I hoped we could dialogue a little bit and perhaps broaden the discussion slightly. Mr. Conaway just gave a great segue by saying I think we can get this done, and I think that is what the American people are hungry for.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. You got to go.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. One of the issues regarding our very heavy dependence on foreign oil as well is that it does entangle foreign affairs considerations. That is a very significant issue. It greatly increases trade deficits, it entangles foreign affairs considerations. It leaves us vulnerable, not only economic, but in many other ways. So I think it is very important as you are saying to look at full range of options in this portfolio we have, potential portfolio, and have a ``both-and'' discussion about how we bridge to that sustainable energy future by looking at, first of all, the easiest and best thing we can do quickly obviously is to think through the issue of conservation, how we become and continue to be and expand our ability to be good stewards of the resources we have, integrate these new technologies, use the resources we have now to bridge to that sustainable future. Here is another example for you. I was visiting with a small-scale car manufacturer. They have some proprietary battery technology. I am not an expert in these areas, but apparently this vehicle can go 120 miles on a single charge. It takes 10 minutes to refuel it, so-to- speak, if you have the special equipment. If you don't, you can plug it into your 220 volt outlet, like your dryer plugs into, and that takes about six to eight hours. It goes zero to 60 in about 10 seconds, and it has a 5-star safety rating, crash rating. It is like a regular vehicle, except the engine is different. So let's be clear: This spike in gas prices is causing great duress for families and farmers and small business owners, particularly in an area like I represent that I think has some similarities to where you represent as well. And I think it compels all of us to begin to think boldly and innovatively about how we can get this done by looking at that full range of options that we have in our energy portfolio and bridge into that energy future.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. That is fine too, my good friend from Indiana. But I believe the American people are hungry for a bold new energy vision.

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, I think the American people are hungry for a bold new innovative vision for a sustainable energy future, and I think we have to have an honest conversation about the full range of options in our energy portfolio; looking at the opportunity to increase domestic resources, use of domestic resources in an environmentally responsible way, while also bridging to a sustainable energy future that looks at the full range of opportunities that are presented to us. And one of the things that I don't think is unpacked quite adequately, Mr. Burton and Madam Speaker, is the issue of how small-scale entrepreneurs can play an increasing role in meeting a sustainable energy policy. For many years now, by the way, I have powered my home by wind. Now, I don't have a wind turbine in my backyard. I live in the city. But, nonetheless, I used to be on the Lincoln City Council. Nebraska is a public power State. The Lincoln City Council basically has authority over the electric system. We greatly encouraged them a number of years ago to move forward on wind energy and they integrated wind turbines into their portfolio. Of course, it is a small portion of their portfolio, but nonetheless, I thought it was important to support that. I paid a little bit more than $4 a month extra on my energy bill to help underwrite that new development a number of years ago. Now they have integrated that cost and are sharing it with everyone. But, nonetheless, we have been in front of this trend for some time. There is a hog farmer in my district, for instance. A couple years ago, Danny Kulthe in Colfax County, he just decided he was going to do something different. He has 8,000 head of hog. He captures that manure in a methane digestion pit, takes that methane, puts into a generator and produces enough electricity to power 40 homes from 8,000 head of hog. And he did this a number of years ago by pulling together the capital through a variety of innovative sources, some grant sources as well. But a small scale entrepreneur like that is helping lead the way in a whole new energy vision that does several things: He solves an environmental problem, he wedded agriculture and energy policy, and he created additional income for his farm. Small scale entrepreneurs like that I think are yearning to be engaged in this bold, new energy vision to help write the various chapters we are going to need to help solve this. Mr. Conaway said it well. I think we can get this done, but it is going to take bold, new, creative thinking and public policies that I think underwrite this type of vision for a sustainable energy future.