Roy Blunt

I look forward to working with you and Senator Murkowski and others on this subcommittee.

All across Missouri and the country, Americans at home and at work are being expected to do more with less and now it is time for the Federal Government to do the same.

I am concerned with the fact that the DOI is using taxpayer dollars to hamper energy exploration.

Unfortunately, the DOI like the rest of the administration is avoiding the necessary cuts that we all need to be making to address our skyrocketing debt.

This one-two punch--a reliance on foreign oil and an administration with little concern for expanding exploration--puts us in an extremely vulnerable situation.

I agree with you that our conventional resources have to continue to be an important part of what we are doing for a long time.

A recent study showed that delays in offshore drilling could result in the loss of 125,000 jobs and billions of dollars in investment and government revenue.

I am concerned, as the discussion on the Senate floor has indicated this week that many are, that the EPA not use its regulating authority to do what I believe legislatively would never happen now with cap and trade.

I am concerned with the consequences of this administration's attempts to broadly penalize the use of coal in this country.

Last month the Federal Government added as much money to the debt as it did in 2007.

But I just would hope that you will make the case that if the elimination of duplication means that you have to have a different kind of staff serving an area that you do not have a presence in now, that is something that very much needs…

I am glad you are holding this hearing today.

I only have a couple of questions, Mr. Secretary.

Congestion is a real problem and it is taking an economic toll at a time when we simply cannot afford more burdens on our system.

If all we do by eliminating rural housing under USDA is require you to have significant monitoring responsibilities that you currently do not have any way to deal with, be sure that we understand that as part of why this duplication exists…

Taxpayers want and deserve leaner, more efficient government.

On all this discussion about duplicative programs and streamlining, there is some discussion that Section 538 rural housing might be better served as part of a bigger program.

Handing more money and empowering unelected unaccountable bureaucrats isn't going to solve our transportation problems.

What does that mean 'on a net basis'?

It is time we measured how much we cared by the results we got.

Transportation is clearly one of the critical keys to our ability to compete and create jobs and opportunity.

So that increase in FHA is part of the net reduction?

I think one of the things that the Federal Government has done over the last 60 years that has been the least complained about and most supported has been HTF.

Will adding the rail program to the new trust fund erode the protection that the drivers on highways and people that buy gasoline now think they have in that system?

Making such a large investment at a time when we face a very difficult fiscal situation especially when the benefits are still in question and DOT still hasn't produced a national rail plan just doesn't make much sense.