mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
with all due respect to the chairman , he claims that this section excludes new mexico . 
i have a memo here from the congressional research service that reads as follows : `` the proposed statutory language , section 631 , does not appear to prohibit precisely the same sorts of projects envisioned by section 631 from occurring within new mexico . 
this statute , section 631 , even appears to permit the department of energy to fund these types of programs in new mexico so long as there are alternative available sources of federal funding that can be utilized. '' also , i would point out funds are fungible . 
this $ 30 million could end up and free up funds committed elsewhere . 
a company can use the now freed-up money to mine in new mexico . 
thus , this subsidy would indirectly facilitate uranium mining in navajo communities . 
this has broader communications than just for my state . 
we should not be experimenting in communities ' water supply anywhere . 
my amendment protects all communities near uranium mines from potentially having their water supplies polluted . 
section 631 also has very serious fiscal concerns . 
this proposed subsidy would lead to even further unsound policy . 
at a time of skyrocketing federal deficits and in an uncertain economic future , we should not be giving away $ 30 million to the uranium industry . 
we have too many priorities that are not being met because of policies like this subsidy . 
taxpayers for common sense views this as an unfair corporate giveaway . 
we do not need more of this type of uranium development . 
promoting this type of development does not safely provide new energy sources ; instead , it increases the potential for drastically harming the environment and causing potential harm to thousands . 
the case , mr. chairman , for this amendment is strong . 
this is corporate welfare , pure and simple . 
it is unwise use of taxpayer dollars and dangerous to my constituents . 
my amendment can prevent the potential damage this provision can inflict on the health of thousands of native americans . 
but as i stated earlier , this provision has implications to far more communities than in my district . 
the potential long-term damage this section could inflict on the environment is also immeasurable . 
i ask my colleagues to take a close look at this and consider whether or not they would want this type of dangerous mining occurring in the neighborhoods of their constituents . 
i urge my colleagues to support my amendment , stop corporate welfare , help protect the health of native americans and help protect the environment . 
in closing , i ask to include for the record this list of organizations that are supporting my amendment to demonstrate the broad support we received from both new mexico and nationally . 
supporters of the udall amendment the navajo nation , washington , dc , april 20 , 2005 . 
dear congressman udall : as the executive director of the navajo nation washington office , representing the navajo nation in washington , dc , i wish to express strong opposition to any attempt to reopen the navajo nation to uranium mining . 
section 631 of h.r. 6 , the energy policy act of 2005 , would create a $ 30 million subsidy for the domestic uranium mining industry over three years to `` identify , test , and develop improved in situ leaching mining technologies. '' while proponents of in situ leach mining contend that this type of mining poses a low risk to groundwater contamination , the fact remains that the technology is unproven and the possibility of environmental restoration is inconclusive . 
the history of uranium mining on the navajo nation is painful . 
many navajo people have died or suffered the painful effects from uranium exposure through contaminated air , water , and livestock . 
to this day , the navajo nation continues to work with the united states government to address the harmful physical , emotional , and financial hardships navajo families continue to endure because of past uranium activity . 
the dine ' will not tolerate the risk of being exposed to uranium again . 
it is important to note that the proposed legislation would not only threaten the health of the navajo people , but also threatens the navajo aquifer , which provides the entire region with uncontaminated drinking water . 
the proposed sites for the uranium leaching would be church rock and crownpoint , new mexico , located 90 miles from albuquerque . 
this area is also home to approximately 15 , 000 people , and thousands more non-navajos who could soon be effected by possible uranium exposure . 
for the sake of the health and safety of the navajo people , and the non-navajo communities surrounding the navajo nation , i support your proposed amendment to remove section 631 from h.r. 6 . 
thank you for your attention to this urgent matter . 
sincerely , executive director , navajo nation against uranium mining , crownpoint , nm , april 20 , 2005 . 
dear representative : eastern navajo din against uranium mining ( endaum ) -- a navajo citizens group that has been trying to stop a uranium solution mining project in two din communities in new mexico for more than 10 years -- urges you to support the udall amendment to the energy policy act of 2005 ( h.r. 6 ) . 
the udall amendment strikes section 631 , which authorizes a $ 30 million dollar subsidy to companies using the in situ leach ( isl ) , or solution mining , method to extract uranium . 
this unnecessary act of corporate welfare could indirectly facilitate uranium mining in navajo communities that do n't want it and on a sovereign american indian nation that just this week enacted a statutory ban on uranium mining and processing . 
since 1995 , endaum and other groups have mounted a legal challenge to the nuclear regulatory commission 's licensing of hydro resources inc. 's crownpoint uranium project . 
endaum believes that solution mining at four sites in church rock and crownpoint , new mexico , will contaminate the regional aquifer that provides the only source of drinking water for an estimated 15 , 000 people . 
even though section 631 contains a limitation that bars the department of energy ( doe ) from awarding any of the $ 30 million in grants for `` restoration demonstration projects '' located in new mexico , endaum fears that the provision , if enacted , could fund hri 's parent company , uranium resources , inc . 
( uri ) . 
uri , which is based in texas and operates three isl mines there , qualifies for the doe grants under language in section 631 . 
endaum fears that should uri receive a doe grant to be used at its texas mines , it would free up cash to fund hri 's defense of its nrc license and eventually to construct the proposed isl mines in church rock and crownpoint . 
since the early 1950s , many navajo communities including church rock have dealt with the devastating impacts of uranium mining on the health of workers and community members and the environment . 
this 50-year legacy was one of the principal reasons cited by the navajo nation council when it voted 63-19 on april 19 to adopt the din natural resources protection act of 2005 , which created navajo nation law banning uranium mining and processing , including isl mining . 
congress has a responsibility to pass energy policy that promotes development of sustainable and renewable energy sources while protecting the environment and public health and respecting the sovereignty of native american tribes . 
isl mining in a currently used drinking water aquifer in navajo communities is inimical to these objectives and is opposed not only be the overwhelming majority of people in the area , but also by the navajo nation government . 
again , endaum urges you to support the udall amendment to strike from the energy policy act of 2005 the $ 30 million subsidy to the uranium mining industry . 
sincerely , lynnea smith , taxpayers for common sense action , stop uranium subsidies from fouling up the energy bill dear representative : we urge you to support representative tom udall 's amendment to strike section 631 from h.r. 6 , the energy policy act of 2005 . 
we are deeply concerned with this provision , which gives a $ 30 million handout to the uranium industry , and we will consider including your vote on the udall amendment on our annual scorecards . 
section 631 authorizes $ 30 million in federal spending to aid the uranium industry 's efforts to develop in situ leaching mining technology . 
this unnecessary act of corporate welfare subsidizes a mature industry that has existed in the united states for more than half a century , and does not need the government to hold its hand any longer . 
the u.s. already has an ample supply of uranium , and does not need to spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars to scour for new sources . 
the 50-year-old nuclear industry has benefited from cradle-to-grave subsidization for too long . 
these subsidies distort price signals and undermine the natural market forces of the energy industry . 
section 631 is yet another example of the government 's wasteful support of nuclear power , an industry that can not survive on its own . 
this $ 89 billion energy bill is ballooning in cost , and at a time of unprecedented deficits it is the taxpayers of the next generation that will foot the bill . 
we urge you to oppose the energy bill , and to demonstrate your commitment to fiscal responsibility by supporting the udall amendment . 
if you would like any more information , please contact evan berger at ( 202 ) 546-8500x111 . 
sincerely , jill lancelot , mr. chairman , i yield back the balance of my time . 
