the bill does not have any mention of NIPER. It only mentions it during the report language. The report language has specific line items for the institutions in West Virginia and in Pennsylvania. The language is only reflective of what the Committee on Science has already established, what the Department of Energy has already established. It is not creating anything. Frankly, the amendment does not specify where any cut would be made. It is trying to attack oil funding in general to protect coal.
Ernest Istook: “the bill does not have any mention of NIPER. It only mentions it during the report language. The report language has…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a bill related to energy funding.
Share
More from Ernest Istook
The error rate we are discussing regarding the EITC is not an old number. This was something that a special task force was formed within the IRS and the Treasury Department, and their most recent comprehensive survey was January of last…
the provision the gentleman refers to, section 504 of the bill, is one that was crafted, I believe, prior to the recommendation for the Department of Homeland Security being formed. It is certainly my intent, and I will endeavor to make…
I will be brief on this because I do not think this amendment does any damage, and I will not oppose its adoption to our bill. However, I think it is a mistake to pretend that it accomplishes anything. I know of no serious effort to change…
the gentleman is certainly correct. Reclaiming my time, this Committee on Appropriations is doing its work, whether the rest of Congress is able to for whatever reason fulfill their work or not. I regret that this is going to be a messy…





