other nation energy independent. every year we have spent untold billions on these programs and every year we become more dependent on foreign oil. we're now running a deficit that threatens to bankrupt our country and this requires us to cast a critical eye on every expenditure that's failed to meet its objectives, and none has failed so spectacularly as the department of energy's subsidy of energy and research which has left us billions of dollars poorer and left us stuck with mediocre technologies that only survive on a lifeline of public subsidies. i'm sure the other side will try to depict this amendment as a luddite reaction to green technology, but it is not. by stopping the government from picking winners and losers from among emerging technologies

competing for capital, we restore the natural flow of that capital to those that are most economically feasible. for example, cuts funding to the energy efficiency and renewable energy program which functions as an r&d department for every solar, biomass, geothermal and wind energy company in the country. we're not funding the most viable research in these technologies. private capital baetz a path to the door of viable technology. these expenditures are for research considered so dubious that no private investor in his right mind would risk his own capital, yet this congress has been more than willing to risk our constituents' capital in the form of their tax dollars and it shouldn't surprise us that those investments have not paid off. this misallocation of resources not only destroys jobs to

create jobs in subsidized ones, it weaken ours energy potential instofede expanding it. politicians love to appear at ribbon cuttings and issue self-congratulatory press release bus they fall strangely silent when asked to actually account for the billions of our dollars that they've wasted. the best thing we did for shale oil and gas technology was to have gotten the government out of the business of funding it and guess what happened? once we got the government out, it theek productive sector just a few years to develop remarkable new drilling techniques that have unleashed a cornucopia of american energy into the market. is there any question at all as to which of these models actually work? i'll give you another example. the appropriations act proposes

to spend billions for vehicle technology research. isn't that what exar companies are supposed to do? and nair not willing to risk their own capital, what right do we have to risk our constituents'. does not funding mean these research -- the research will stop on these technologies? on the cop trare it means that private capital can flow freely to those technologies that offer the greatest return at the lowest cost. 30 years of government energy subsidies promise to reduce our dependence on foreign oil yet our dependence has become ever greater. all we've done is squander billions of our nation's treasure and distorted and impeded the natural flow of investment dollars that could have produced far greater

returns in viable technology. we're left with a bankrupt and energy deficient nation while propping up a few politically well connected interests producing ethanol and solar panels at a staggering expense, an expense we have hiden from consumers with their own tax dollars. our energy policy over the last 30 years simply proves that testimony mas jefferson was right when he observed, were we directed from washington when to tsao and when to reap, we should soon want bread. for 30 years we have been directed from washington how to develop our energy. it should surprise no one that today we lack energy. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> madam chair, i rise in opposition to the amendment and move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

>> madam chair, i do rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. it would cut over 10% of funding in the bill. it would eliminate or significantly reduce funding for 14 different accounts. i have several concerns, one, the gentleman said it is time to get out of subsidizing energy research. mr. mccloseky: he did zero out many accounts and certainly would not argue that point. but as a proponent myself of nuclear -- mr. mccloseky: he did zero -- mr. visclosky: he did zero out many connecticuts, but as a proponent of nuclear energy, he did not zero out that account. my concern here, as far as the research, as far as a whole broad range of energy research in this country is we do need to make that investment to move

ahead economically, to move ahead in reducing our dependency on oil imports and the use of carbon in the society and strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and would yield time to the gentleman from massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> i thank the gentleman very much. this is a classic case of ancestor worship. they leave in money for nuclear but zero out money for wind. zero out the money for solar, zero out the money for energy efficiency. mr. markey: zero out the money for conservation. so here we are, it's two months after fukushima, the capital markets are saying, we're not going to touch new nuclear power plants but this amendment says, we're leaving in $476

million for research done by the federal government for nuclear power. but for wind and solar, all the new technologies coming down the line, that don't have -- don't melt down, no, that money is going to be zeroed out. zeroed. zeroed. zero for the future. but this rearview mirror budget which -- an amendment, being made by the gentleman from california, it continues to reflect this attitude, this fear, let's admit, there's a fear in the oil and gas industry and the nuclear industry have about wind and solar and geothermal and the ever increasing efficient soif technologies across the board system of the green generation, they look down here, young people they say, is that possible? is it possible that the congress could actually vote to zero out wind and solar and

keep in money for nuclear, two months after fukushima? isn't it time for us to invest in new technologies? you don't need an evacuation plan around solar plants or around a wind plant, around an energy efficiency facility. so again, i urge a no vote on this amendment. it's just basically another data point that indicates that the republicans are really committed to zeroing out this renewable energy future for our country, but just be knowledgeable here. there has not been a new nuclear power plant completed that has been ordered for 36 consecutive years, but there were 10,000 newing me watts of wind install -- new meg watts of wind install -- new mega watts of wind installed in our country last year. if that's what they want to zero out, it's only a refleck

of basically, again this technological ancestor worship. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. visclosky: i will yield. mr. mcclintock: this is for the regulatory, not for research in the nuclear sector. mr. visclosky feather -- mr. markey: that's federal taxpayer money, which is subsidizing the nuclear industry that is probably the wealthiest industry in the united states with the exception of the oil and gas industry. soy so why should the taxpayer be subsidizing that at the same time taking out the funding for the wind and solar industry? i aurge no vote and i yield back to the ranking member.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment and move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: our intudget already $2.6 billion below last year's amount, and $2.6 billion less than the 2010 amount. we have made keep cuts. the committee understands we're about to go off a fiscal cliff in our country but the cuts we made were developed after a hot of hearings a lot of discussion a lot of thought. and our bill -- the bill recommended by our committee, recognizing that the federal government has gotten too large and in many ways if philosophically i agree with a lot of what the gentleman from

california says, that we're too involved with the private sector, sometimes picking winners and losers in different technologies where the market should be choosing. but the committee is also mindful there are appropriate roles that the government should take because sometimes the private sector can't or will not take those risks. the cuts proposed in this amendment would eliminate, as the ranking member said, or cut, many worthwhile programs, put at risk, i think, in many instances our cupry's competitive intellectual advantage and put in doubt, perhaps, the ability of the private sector to make some substantial investments and those investments lead to jobs. jobs that we badly need. 10 for that and many other reasons, i oppose the gentleman's amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman's -- the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the

gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. morekey: i thank the gentlelady. for what? why would we zero out the wind and solar budget? why would we zero out the energy efficiency, the conservation budget for what? well, so that we can have larger tax breaks, they tell us. because in another room, not too far from here, there are a whole bunch of republican negotiators saying that the $4 billion a year which are the tax breaks for the oil industry, they're off the table. you can't touch those tax breaks for the oil industry. can't touch them. and over the next 10 years, that's $40 billion for the oil industry. so we're out here, kneecapping the wind and solar, kneecapping the ability of solar to become

equal with natch and -- natural gas and coal, and in another room, no more than 100 feet from here, they're meet, deciding what the big deal is going to be between president obama and the republicans here in the congress and in that room they're saying, no touching any tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, which is $4 billion a year. so see this whole story here. see the big picture. see what this agenda is. here it's kind of like the monsignor that go into the pulpit on sunday and he says on wednesday in the church hall, we will lecture on the evils of gambling. on thursday, in the church hall, bin go.

-- bingo. here on the house floor on monday, we're learning about the evils of giving any kind of subsidies to the wind and solar industry. and in another room, right around the corner, they're saying $4 billion a year to the oil industry in tax breaks. that's the agenda. have to see it in its totality. have to capture it for all that it is as a story of the future of our country system of ladies and gentlemen, i urge a very strong no vote on the amendment of the gentleman from california. this is a defining vote. this really goes to the heart of whether or not we are going to say to the young people in our country that we do have a renewable energy future for our country. the past is just a memory. but the future will be the hard reality for young people. in our country. if we do not put together an energy agenda dependent upon

the renewable resources in our country. this amendment zeros out that future. it makes it impossible for us to compete and send a signal overseas that we are going to have true energy independence in our country. i urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does any other member wish to speak to the amendment? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. >> madam chair, i request a vorded vote. the chair: the gentleman requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. markey: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. markey of massachusetts.

page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount insert increase by $100 million. page 24, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $50 million. page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $50 million. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes to speak to his amendment. mr. markey: thank you, madam chair, very much. my amendment deals with the heart of what's wrong with this entire bill. in this bill the republicans cut the budget for solar, for wind, for geothermal, for biomass. the clean vehicles, that's plug-in, hybrids and all electric vehicles. they cut the budget for science. they cut the budget for weatherization. they cut the budget for energy efficiency. but what do they do in the same bill? they increase the budget for

increase, for oil, for gas, for nuclear. they increase it. while they eviscerate, while they annihilate the clean energy budget, the future energy agenda for our country. so, ladies and gentlemen, this is a big moment here. where is america heading? are we going to compete against the saudi arabians, the venezuelans, the others in the generation of energy, or are we going to capitulate? are we going to just become a country where we're only importing oil, or are we going to move to a solar future, a wind future, an all-electric vehicle future over the next 20 and 30 and 40 years? you know, this budget that they

have put together is really one that gets approximate right to the heart of their -- that gets right to the heart of their argument that goes to all of the above. what this says is this is oil above all. it's still a fossil fuel agenda. it's not a technology oriented agenda. it's not an agenda that can help us turn the corner and to create new technologies that move us to a 21st century agenda. but see this in the larger picture. this is not compromise. the defense budget last week went up $17 billion. they're not going to cut defense. they're saying they're not going to actually take away the tax breaks for millionaires. they're saying they're not actually going to take the tax breaks for the oil and gas

industry. all of that is safe. don't worry, they say, to billion dollars. don't worry, they say, to big oil. don't worry, they say, to the defense department. we're not touching you in this big budget deal that we want. and then where do they turn? they turn over here to solar and wind. it's a geothermal and biomass, to plug-in hybrids, all the technology we should be investing in in the future, and they turn to grandma and say, your medicare benefit is too big. they turn to medicaid. they say, you poor child, you're taking too much of america's wealth. and you, green energy sector, we can't afford to invest in you. so, ladies and gentlemen, this is not compromise. this is the capitulation that they're looking for from the

democrats. this is the capitulation to an agenda that helps billionaires, helps big oil, helps big gas, helps us export jobs overseas by keeping those tax breaks in place. rather than fighting hard for what the green generation, the young people in our country expect us to do rather than allowing ourselves to be tipped upside down at the gasoline pump. so all i do is take $100 million, move it from the coal subsidies, the oil and the gas subsidies and move it over, move it over to solar and wind, to plug-in hybrids, to all-electric vehicles. and by that, ladies and gentlemen, they still haven't been cut this year in this budget. that's just taking away the increase that they get in this budget. and we still haven't made up for all of the cuts in the solar and wind and clean energy budget that they continue to

slash. so, ladies and gentlemen, it's $100 million. does oil and coal and gas deserve an increase this year? let's at least keep them level and give that extra $100 million over to the clean energy technology of the future. that is the least the green generation that the young people in our country expect us to do, because it's not only imported only, it's also our national security. it's also a global warming. it's also creating economic jobs here in the united states. i urge an aye vote. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: his amendment would increase funding for the energy efficiency and renewable energy accounts and reduce funding for fossil energy research and nuclear energy research. this would increase money for a

program that already receives sufficient funds and hamper further efforts to further technologies that produce most of our electricity. mr. chairman, the gentleman has asserted that fossil and nuclear energy are yesterday's sources of energy and that we're shortchanging tomorrow's energy sources. well, in fact, nuclear energy produces 0% of our nation's electricity, and on even the state of massachusetts depends on nuclear energy for about 10% of its energy. fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas generate 70% of our nation's electricity and we'll use these valuable energy sources for many generations. in fact, the commonwealth of massachusetts gets 80% of its electricity from fossil fuels. i understand his desire to move us forward, but realistically we'll be using fossil fuels for decades and nuclear ng perhaps

for centuries and we need to use these best as possible. his amendment increases funding for energy efficiency and renewable account, a program that's seen a record increase since 2007 and still has nearly $9 billion of unspent stimulus funds from 2009. imagine that. there's a proper role for core energy efficiency and renewable programs and our bill preserves funding for those activities while cutting out activities that's redundant for the private sector that interfere improperly with private market innovation. but his amendment would add back unnecessary funding for the administration's proposals that are poorly planned and lack jflings. for example, thed a -- lack justification. for example, the administration propoetses $200 million to employ electric vehicle infrastructure, but after

repeated requests, the department provided less than one page of explanation for this program. at best this funding would be poorly used and at worse it would hamper infrastructure under way in the private sector. the administration also proposes a new race to the green program, a state and city grant program. again, after repeated requests for justification to the department of energy, this new $100 million proposal is accompanied by barely more than a paragraph of explanation. when every tax dollar must be spent well, we can't throw money at poorly planned programs while cutting fossil energy and nuclear programs. i therefore oppose the amendment and urge all members to do likewise and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back the balance of his time. does any other member wish to speak to the gentleman's amendment? if not, the question is on the

amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. and those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. markey: on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- >> madam chair, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee do now rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee will rise. the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having

had under consideration h.r. 2354 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings -- the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has reported that it has come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on which to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or on which the yeas and nays are ordered and which it incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. any recorded vote will be taken after 6:30 p.m. today.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. chairman, i have a bill at the desk. the chair: the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 417, a bill to amend the energy conservation act and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. barton, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks in this legislation and insert extraneous material on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, ordered.

mr. barton: i yield myself -- first -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barton: i want to recognize my special assistant this week, junge jack kevin barton, my grandson, he's going to help with the congressional softball game this evening. we're glad to have him on the floor with us. we're here today because of something that happened back in 2007 when this body passed a bill that later became a law that effectively, beginning next year if not changed, would ban the traditional incandescent light bulb, the 00 watt bulbs, the 60 watt bulbs we've all grown up with. the bill doesn't truly ban them, it just sets an

efficiency standard that current light bulbs cannot meet. the problem with this -- with the de facto ban, madam speaker is that it has the effect of taking off the market one of the least expensive options for lighting in our constituents' homes. i went to a local grocery store last week and purchased one cfl 60 watt bulb for $5.99. i purchased four 60-watt incandescent light bulbs in a four-pack for $1.50 or 37.5 cents a pie apiece. obviously a $6 light bulb is a much bigger expense to a moderate or low 46 income family than a -- or low-income family than a 37 cent light bulb. it does claim it will last 10,000 hours and will save money. that's probably a true statement, madam speaker, but what is not so apparent is that

that $6 cost up front is real and the savings may or may not occur, depending on how long that bulb lasts, how often it's used and under what conditions it's used. if you assume that the average bulb is used four hours a day, which is what the american lighting association assumes, then it is quite possible, madam speaker, that that $6 cfl bulb won't last 10,000 hours if it's turned on and off 2,500 times. it might last half that long. so i'm not opposed to the squiggly tailed cfl's, i think they have their place in the market. but to take off the market something cheap, effective and an average use costs two or three cents a weak to use seems to me to be overkill by the federal government. when i talk about the light bulb bill in my town hall meetings and in my meetings in my district, i have had very

few people, madam speaker, say that they think that's a food piece of legislation, that they think the federal government should be telling us what kind of light bulbs we should and should not lose. i think we should let the marketplace operate, we should repeal this de facto ban and let people decide whether they want to pay $6 far light bulb or 37.5 cents. some people may decide that the life expectancy cost savings are worth it but i bet the majority, the overwhelming majority would choose the less expensive up front cost of the traditional light bulbs. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves the plans of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i claim the time and yield

myself five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i have i was on the committee back in 2007 when we first wrote the efficiency standards that republicans are trying to repeal here today. -- mr. doyle: our former house speaker dennis hastert supported it, along with many republicans and president george b. bush signed the standards into law. if you look at the history behind consensus efficiency standard, you'll see this used to be something we all agreed upon. beginning with president reagan in 1987, congress and the white house have enacted federal energy efficiency standards five times. each time with bipartisan support. the standards were developed as consensus agreements with manufacturers, energy efficiency advocates and states.

there's more than 50 products on the market today that are covered by a variety of these federal standards. everything from dish washers and refrigerators to traffic signals that become more efficient as a result of federal standards. saving the country energy and saving consumers money. these standards have been in effect since 1987, have saved americans 3.6 quads of energy. if we continue with enacting federal efficiency standards, we can save up to 6 ppt 1 quads of energy by if -- by 2030. that's more energy than was used in my state of pennsylvania in 2008. the light bulb efficiency standards alone will save pennsylvania 3.64 billion kilowatt hours of energy in a year. that means we'll save $465 million in pennsylvania in just one year from these standards.

in congress, we don't always agee on much. but for the last 25 years, we've been able to agree on energy efficiency. it's been good for the country and for american families and for the environment. so why would we wish to reverts this policy today? but you know, energy and cost savings respect the only benefits from these standards. having lived in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, my whole life, i've seen how efficient say can revolutionize an industry and revitalize a city. i worked two summers at a steel mill on pittsburgh's southside. the industry was doing well and pittsburgh was a company town. in a few year, that industry came to a halt as international competitors were making steel using new technologies and efficient processes, allowing them to undercut the price of u.s. steel but the steel industry didn't leave the united states and it didn't leave pittsburgh. it reinvented itself. it got smarter and leaner and more energy efficient.

u.s. steelmakers started using blast oxygen furnaces rather than old open hearth furnaces -- far nusses that -- furnaces that used more energy. they started monitoring and management technologies and reduced the amount of energy needed to produce a ton of steel by 33% since 1990. the lighting industry is already -- has already begun to revolutionize much like the steel industry did back in the 1990's. when the tri-agreed to these efficiency standards in 2007, it was because they knew they could innovate and still be profitable by making the incandescent bulb, yes, colleagues, the incandescent bulb more efficient and developing new technologies like compact fluorescents and l.e.d. light bulbs. even better, they began making the bulbs here in the united states of america.

even in pennsylvania. sill yain -- sylvania retooled a plant in st. mary's, pennsylvania to make these incandescent light bulbs that meet the nrnl efficiency standards we passed in 2007. they're being made in the united states by united states steelworkers in pennsylvania and you can find them on your shelf at the fwrosery store or the hardware store or you can get these phillips bulbs, all incandescent light bulbs, colleagues, they meet the energy standards set in 2007. steelworkers are making the filaments in these bulbs in bath, new york. in fact, u.s. steelwork verse a letter that i'd like to submit for the record opposing this bill and telling us at a time when americans con to experience downward financial pressures, energy efficient light bulbs present a solution to cost savings. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so entered.

mr. doyle: light bulbs that meet these standards are being made all over the united states of america. in 2011, t.c.p., one of the largest makers of c.f.l.'s is opening a new factory in ohio. i yield myself 30 seconds. is making a new factly to meet demand. 7,000 u.s. jobs have been created by these lighting companies to produce the next generation of energy efficient l.e.d. light bulbs. g.e. recently invested $60 million to create a global center of excellence for lamp manufacturing in ohio, an action that will double the number of jobs there. new innovation and energy efficiency has brought jobs to this country. this is not the time to repeal these standards. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: before i yield to the gentlelady from tennessee, i point out that the light

bulbs that my good friend mr. doyle just alluded to are five times to six times as expensive as the traditional incandescent light bulb and they're not manufactured, i think there's one facility in the united states, sylvania facility, that still makes light bulbs, the rest have moved overseas. with that, i yield three minutes to a member of the committee, mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognize for three minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate the time. you know, the champlee spoke to the cost of these bills an how incredibly expensive they are and indeed our constituents have talked about that and to my colleagues who are going to try to support this standard and this de facto ban on the incandescent light bulb, i would say, two wrongs do not make a right. i know you heard that as you

grew up and i would ask you to think about that in this chamber today. putting this ban, putting these higher efficiency standards in place, many people thought it was the right decision, i didn't think it was the right decision, i voted against it in committee, i voted against all of this on the floor, but i would ask you just to remember, the american people are telling us, this doesn't work. they don't like the restrictions that are there in the marketplace. they don't like the fact that the bulbs cost too much money. and i would also remind my colleagues that all of the c.f.l.'s, the compact fluorescent light bulbs, they're made in china. they are not made here. the c.f.l.'s don't work as well, it requires more bulbs to get the same amount of light in a given area. these things have proven to be vulnerable to power surges, we hear that from our constituents

in the rural areas. in essence, madam speaker they don't save any energy. and know -- and we know they are dangerous because they are fill with mercury. i know that congressman burgess is going to speak to that. and there is a provision in this that does address the mercury levels. also, our legislation says, and i think this is very important, that d.c. cannot mandate the standards on these bulbs. that your state government cannot mandate the standards on these bulbs, that we are going to leave that to the consumer to choose. and consumers want to have that choice. i think so many groups have come out in favor of our legislation and opposed to these light bulbs, even the afl-cio has an interesting little bit on the union website

about the light bulbs, pointing out there are many ways to save electricity without shift theegs jobs to china for a mercury-filled light bulb. we know the president thought this would help create 800,000 u.s. jobs. the only jobs we have found is that the winchester, virginia, plant shut down and those 200 jobs that -- employees that lost their jobs on september 24, 2010, they saw their jobs go to china. there have been unanticipated consequences of the 2007 act and it is time for us to say it was bad policy, it was a bad idea, and we need to get it off the books. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i rise to manage the time on this bill on behalf of the energy and commerce committee democrats and i yield five minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, and the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman. first, let's start with how much electricity this saves for our country. it saves the need to construct 30 coal-fired plants over the next 20 years in the united states. now, if you're a coal executive, you're a nuclear executive, you're going, oh, no, kill those more efficient light bulbs. people in america are going to consume less electricity. it will cut into our profits. people who buy these light bulbs who, by the way, here is a sylvainia that looks like those old bulbs, too, because it is an old bulb. they just made it more efficient. people who are nostalgic for the way bulbs looked the last 100 years, it cost $1.69 for this bulb but it will save you

-- it will save you over the next five years, over the next 10 years a lot of money but it will cost the coal industry and the nuclear energy industry who generate energy a lot of money. let's just think about other things -- and by the way, every other living descendent of thomas alva edson opposes this -- edison opposes this amendment as does every living descendent of alexander graham bell oppose moving from rotary dialed phones to blackberrys. i think alexander graham bell said, i think he would be happy you made the transition. we had to pass legislation on this house floor to wean that technology. i think people probably would

think twice if a xerox machine had to come with carbon paper at the same time just in case people were so nostalgic with carbon paper instead of xerox paper because that's what this debate is about. it's a debate of whether or not we are going to see an increase in the efficiency of technologies in our society, especially those that consume energy. in other words, there's a point to this, and the point is it reduces the amount of greenhouse gases that we have to send up into the atmosphere. it reduces the amount of energy that we have to think about importing from other countries, and it gives to the consumers something that over the life of the light bulb -- and we're talking here about philips and sylvainia and other companies who have already figured out in the last four years how to comply with the law.

you don't have to buy one of those funny looking new light bulbs. you can just buy one of those old light bulbs that looks like the ones that your mother and father used to go down to the store to buy. why? because finally they had to make them more efficient. and by the way, what is the analogy? well, back in 1987 i was able to author the appliance efficiency act of 1987, and what has happened since then? well, believe it or not, refrigerators are now three or four times more efficient. air-conditioning systems are now three or four times more efficient. and because of that there are hundreds of coal-fired plants that did not have to get built in this country because all of these lights in this room, all of the air conditioning in this room, well, for every building across the country piled up. that's why we need coal-fired and nuclear-fired plants.

and the fuel of them that there are is directly related to how efficient we make the things we plug into the wall. and so light bulbs are at the very top of the list because they are in every single room of the united states every day. so if you can double the efficiency then you reduce dramatically the number of nuclear power plants or coal -fired plants we have to build. we have to learn and be smarter. we have to not bring out legislation on the floor that prohibits the advance of technology, prohibits the advance of science, prohibits the advance of efficiency in our society. and just like the blackberry has transformed our society in the last 15 years, and no one would want to go back to that old era of 1996 before the

broadband revolution began, the same is true for these modern efficient light bulbs. they save people money, they give them just the same kind of light, they reduce the amount of pollution we send up in the atmosphere, and they make america the leader technologically on these technologies that will ultimately be sold in every part of the world. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. barton: i want to reply to my good friend from massachusetts, the light bulbs he just showed, the least expensive was about $1.60, $1.70. an incandescent light bulb anywhere from 25 cents to 45 cents a piece. it is still five or six times more than the classic incandescent bulb. i want to yield to a member of the committee of jurisdiction, the good dr. -- doctor from

denton county, texas, dr. michael burgess. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. burgess: four years ago, the summer of 2007, the then new democratic majority brought legislation to our committee that included a provision that i frankly did not understand what in the world they were trying to do, a provision that would regulate the type of light bulb that every american would have to use in their home. during the markup of this bill, i was outspoken in my opposition to the language. i introduced amendment after amendment to try to modify or prevent this from happening. over and over again i was struck down along party lines. i tries to amend the bill so we would not have to require the use of a mercury containing light bulb in areas where there were vulnerable areas, nurselyries, hospitals, where it would be hard to move people out of the way to how you deal with accidental breakage of one

of these blugs. the bottom line is i and every other american should be permitted, should be allowed to determine what type of light bulb we use at home. it seems so simple. whatever happened to a government with the consent of the governed? but now the government wants to tell consumers what type of light bulb they use to read, cook, watch television or light their garage. in fact, consumers should make that decision and they should make that based upon what is available in the marketplace. however, we have distorted what is available in the marketplace. proponents claim this bill does not ban incandescent bulbs. well, that's right. it bans the 100 watt bulb. let me repeat, the 2007 energy security act bans the 100 watt light bulb. it's just flat wrong. consumers should be making the decision whether they should use a 100 watt bulb in their home, not brauts in washington. the new bulbs -- door kratts in washington.

the new bulbs cost more. they should be able to decide. we should not be picking winners or losers in congress. i support energy efficiency. i do an energy efficiency summit in my district. i did one last weekend. i invite speakers to talk about what businesses and constituents can do to conserve energy. i drive a hybrid. i have taken steps to make my home more efficient. i did this because it's the right thing to do and i purchase those things in the open market because they made sense to me and my family. not because the federal government or even the gentleman from massachusetts told me this was what i should be doing. the american people should be able to choose what level, what type of light bulb they use in their home. they should not be constrained to all of the romance of a soviet stairwell when they go home in the evening. look, i work in a federal building. i understand in a federal building i am going to work under florescent light. i get that.

when i go home at night i should be able to read my paper in the light of an incandescent bulb. that's my choice. i am able to make the choice about adult things. i should be able to use what wave lengths of light i should choose. can i have 30 seconds in mr. barton: i yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. burgess: those of us at a certain age, we don't look as good as an incandescent bulb. and another man suffers spectrum fatigue on an incandescent bulb. we need to be able to have the type of bulb that america chooses, not what congress chooses. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. waxman: i am pleased to yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes.

mr. holt: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman and rise in opposition. you know, many have claimed that washington will ban the sale of conventional incandescent light bulbs. my colleague from texas just said he regrets that he would lose this soft glow of the incandescent light. in fact, he can use an incandescent light. it looks like this. it looks familiar. it's what you put in a comic strip saying, i have a good idea. well, not that i am going to keep doing the things the old way and get in a rut. no, i have a good new idea. that's what happened a few years ago when it became apparent that technology can come so far that we don't have to throw away 90% of the energy of an incandescent light bulb. scientists had shown us how you can make light bulbs that would produce, as these do, 72 -- 100

watts worth of light for 72 watts of electricity and electricity charge. and you can do it for $1.49 for a pair here. ok. well, in a bipartisan effort this legislation that has driven the country forward in lighting was passed, and now the majority on a partisan tear is coming and trying to repeal it just when it shows that it is working. about 15% of residential electricity goes into lighting. wouldn't you, wouldn't anyone like to save 30% of that which is just being thrown away? now, my colleagues say, you know, congress shouldn't be

doing this. why are they not also issuing calls for turn of the century model t's or iceboxes? they have sort of the yearning for the good old days. you know, technologies that is roughly as old as the incandescent light bulb. we are proud in new jersey of thomas edison, but we've improved the talking machines. we have done a little bit better with the moving pictures. now, model t's and iceboxes are technologies that actually happen to have been improved through federal standards. the companies are moving rapidly to make more efficient lighting that will give you all of the advantages you want, that you're used to of the incandescent bulb and save you

bundles. yes, this costs a few dimes more. but let me tell you, you start saving dimes the moment you screw these into the socket. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. holt: this is a bad idea to repeal. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. barton: could i inquire of the time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has nine minutes remaining and the gentleman from california has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: i want to yield three minutes to the gentleman from houston, texas, judge ted poe, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. energy efficiency is a good idea. mandated by the federal government under this legislation that we are currently serving under is preventing competition. the federal government is creating a monopoly. the model t ford is not outlawed. you can still buy one. the federal government didn't ban it because it's

inefficient. iceboxes, some of us knows what an icebox is. it's not banned by the federal government. you can still find one if you want to. because it's competition. even though they are inefficient. but the issue is, should the federal government come in and mandate a monopoly? and that what is what has occurred. the c.f.l. light bulbs is dangerous to their health. dr. burgess pointed out they have mercury. i thought for years we were trying to get rid of mercury in our environment but they are in these light bulbs. plus, now, french scientists have discovered that these new c.f.l. light bulbs may cause blindness in children. german scientists has found out, it's reported these light bulbs may cause cancer. now, isn't that lovely? the federal government mandating something that is hazardous to our health because you have no choice. and the whole issue is about choice, madam speaker, that we can have -- let the consumer decide. what's wrong with letting the

consumer decide? why are you opposed to the consumer making this choice? you want the federal government to mandate it. now, the federal government is in the business of forcing us to do something that is harmful. and finally, the e.p.a. even warns in their 1,000-word, three-page, single-page document about these c.f.l. light bulbs how dangerous they are and they tell us how to dispose of one of these light bulbs, and i ask unanimous consent to submit to the record this three-page, single-spaced report on the e.p.a. -- from the e.p.a. on how to dispose one of thighs light bulbs. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: thank you, madam speaker. so we are after the passage of this legislation years ago finding out that these aren't the greatest things in the world. we have found and shed a little light on the cfl light bulb. it is not a brighter idea, it is unhealthy for americans, doesn't allow for competition so if we don't pass this bill,

we might as well turn off the lights, the party is over for the traditional incandescent light bulb. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. >> i yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. altmire: i keep hearing my colleagues repeat the fantasy that government has banned the incandescent light bulb. they think if they say it enough it'll be true but it's not. manufacturers are not told what technology to use to produce light bulbs and consumers will be able to provide incandescent light bulbs for years to come. three american made brands of incandescent light bulbs that meet the standards are before

me. they last much longer and offer substantial energy efficiency savings for consumers. hopefully, symbolic light bulb will soon go on above the heads of my colleagues to enlighten them, to let them no their rhetoric bears no relation to reality and the incandescent light bulb is here to stay who they like it or not. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: i yield to mr. hultgren for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hultgren: i rise in strong support of the bulb act because simply put, the government has no business telling my constituent what is kind of light bulbs they can use in their homes. here's a novel idea. let's let the free market work this valuable bill would restore consumer choice and remove the teenage posed by

mandated mercury-filled compact fluorescent bulls in our homes. as a constituent of mine said recently, like we need a light bulb that needs a hazmat suit to clean up if you break it. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and restore consumer choice to their constituents. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. >> i yield myself five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> how much time is remaining? >> 5 1/2 minutes. and the other side has six. mr. waxman: you have to ask how they had the great idea to put this bill under suspension of the rules. this calendar is usually put in place for noncontroversial bills. but this is a controversial bill.

in fact, it's a pill that never had a single hearing in the energy and commerce committee which has jurisdiction. not only would it amend the national standards, it would bar having state standards, taking away long-standing state authority to improve efficiency in the absence of federal action. we should have cleaned up the drafting of this bill that eliminates all efficiency standard for fluorescent lighting. i opo these -- i oppose this bill on procedural grounds. we should not have this bill before us without a single hearing or markup to see what it was. and i oppose it on principle, it wastes $12 billion a year on unnecessary electricity bills and increased pollution. i don't think my colleagues on

the other side of the aisle would come to the floor and say, why are we requiring new cars to meet tighter emission standards or tighter pollution standards? let the public be able to choose the old ones that polluted more. i'd be amazed if my colleagues said, why should we have more efficient driers and washers and re-- drires and washers and re-- and refrigerators this bill is absolutely unnecessary. in 2007, the lighting industry and the efficiency advocates reached the consensus on national standards to make light bulbs more efficient and avoid a patchwork of conflicting state standards. an effective january -- and effective january 1 of next year, these national standards will go into effect. what we have is an atell to repeal a proposal that was offered by our current chairman of the energy and commerce

committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton and former congresswoman jane harman, that passed on a bipartisan voice vote with members on both sides of the aisle speaking in favor. this bill, which they want to repeal, was signed into law by president george w. bush as part of the 2007 energy independence and security act. since it was signed into law, manufacturers have made millions in investments to produce incandescent bulbs. not one manufacturer but a number of manufacturers can compete and are competing once they figure out how to meet the standards and they're doing it well. the new incandescent bulb looks and works like the old incandescent bulb. we know this to be the case. the only difference between this bill and the old one is it will last longer, cost less over the life of the bulb. american families will serve an

average $100 a year with the new standards. this is particularly welcome in today's tough economy and adds up to nationwide savings of $12 billion a year. these investments are creating new jobs in the united states. while most manufacturers move their production of the old incandescent bulbs overseas years ago, research and development and high technology manufacturing is now happening here. for example, there are l.e.d. facilities now in north carolina, california, and florida. this is a growth industry. phillips hired 100 more people at its l.e.d. facility last year. if the -- if we repeal this law and enact the bulb act, we will repeal standards that are driving this competition and switch back to a time when u.s. jobs would return to china and mexico.

on january 1, 2012, we'll be able to buy a better incandescent light bulb that looks and feels the same as the old ones. you don't have to buy compact fluorescents now. you don't have to buy them on january 1, 2012. you can buy the better incandescent bulbs or l.e.d.'s, neither of which contain mercury. that's more choice, not less. if this bill had moved under regular order, we might have heard at a hearing that the following groups are now opposing this legislation to repeal the law. the national electric manufacturers association. the consumersee union. the consumer federation of america, the american lighting association, the national association of state energy officials, the national association of nrnl service companies, pacific gas and electric company, seattle city light. johnson controls, phillip electronics, united technology

corporation, united steelworkers, alliance to save energy, national wildlife federation an the environmental defense fund. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and not repeal a law that's working as we intended it to. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. barton: how much time do i have left, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: six minutes. mr. barton: i'm going to yield myself the balance of my time. his time has expired, is that correct? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 30 seconds remaining. mr. waxman: i yield back the balance of my time and the gentleman is free to close. mr. barton: i thank the gentleman and yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barton: i've listened with interest to what my friends on the other side said about the bill.

i think in the interest of fairness, we ought to call a spade a spade. it is true that the law they are defending does not automatically ban incandescent light bulbs. that's a true statement. what it does is set efficiency strap dards that the existing 100 watt and 60 watt and 75-watt bulbs can't meet. so they're effectively band because -- banned because they can't meet the standard. as has been pointed out by mr. doyle and other speakers, it is also true that industry has developed new incandescent light bulbs that do meet the standard. what they haven't done is developed a new incandescent light bulb that meets the standard at existing cost. what gets left out of the equation on my friends on the democratic side of the aisle is the cost to purchase these new bulbs, whether they're the squiggly tailed c.f.l.'s or new more energy efficient

incandescents. we're not opposed, i'm not opposed to c.f.l. lighting or the new incandescents. but i am opposed to telling my constituents they have no choice at all, they've got to go and fork over $1.50 or $2.50 or $6 or in the case of the l.e.d.'s, that mr. waxman referred to, a minimum of $12 and the average price of l.e.d. lighting at home depot or host is $40 a bulb. i'm young enough to remember when i was renter and i would move into an apartment and when i went into the apartment, there were no light bulbs. the people that left took the light bulbs with them. so i'd have to go out and buy 20 or 30 or 40 light bulbs. well if light bulbs are 20 cents a apiece or 25 or 30 or even 40 cents apiece, that's an expense but it's not exorbitant. you replace 40 light bulbs at

$6 a pop, you're spending some money that to our constituency, to our voters, that's real money. now again, we're not opposed to new technology. we're not opposed to more energy efficient incandescents. but why take the low end of the market off the market? why not give our constituents, i.e., our consumers, our voters, the choice. if you're out -- al gore and want to spend $10 o-- on a light bulb, more power to you but if you're a young family just getting started, give us the option to go out and spend for a package of four or a package of six the equivalent of 25 cents apiece or 30 cents apiece or as i purchased at a food store here in virginia, 37.5 cents apiece for four 60-watt light bulb. we're saying let the market work. let people make their own choices.

why in the world does the federal government have to tell people what kind of lights to use in their home? that's not anywhere in the constitutional requirement of the federal government. and this bill that was passed 2007 had a lot of preemses. it preempted -- preemptions. it preempted state and local building codes, required buildings to meet standards by 2050. it had so many bad things in it that this one, while offensive, was the least of the evils. but it's also what the average voter, the average consumer understands. when i go to the grocery store or to wal-mart or to home depot, you know, let me decide what kind of lighting, let me se de-side what kind of energy efficiency i want. now, it is a true statement that these new bulbs are more energy efficient. but if it takes you 10 years to realize the efficiency and the only way you do it is by leaving it on all the time, you

know, it's spending money to save money that some people don't have. again, purchase a classic, 100-watt or 60-watt incandescent light bulb for less than 50 cents. you might use it, you might not, but if you use it all week it's going to cost you less than a nickel. if you use it like the average consumer, it's going to cost you a penny to two cents a week to use. do you save money, the c.f.l. i bought last week for $6 or $5.99 is guaranteed for 10,000 years and says it will save other $40. but you've got to use it for 10 years. you know. i don't think that's a very good deal with all due respect to my friends on the other side. so what we're saying is, let's get the federal government out of something they shouldn't have gotten in in the first place. let's go back and let the market operate. if these knew c.f.l.'s and

incandescents are as good as they claim to be, people will want to buy them forethey can't afford the upfront cost, don't force them to. don't take off the market the very thing paraprovides price competition in the market. even the new incandescents cost on average $.50 to $2 a pop and i haven't seen a c.f.l., i've seen them for $10 or $12, average price is around $6 or $7. i haven't seen them, even in the most energy efficient package for less than about $.50 or $3 apiece. . if you are buying a lot of light bulbs at the same time, that's a lot of money. let's repeal this part of the bill and the section mr. waxman is referring to, we aren't banning, we are simply saying you can't require mercury to be

used in the c.f.l.'s. i urge an aye vote on the pending legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2417. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative -- the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i demand a roll call vote. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. waxman: yes. the speaker pro tempore: all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. further proceedings on this vote will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1. the chair declares the house in recess until ap

journal." "washington journal" continues.

host: our guest is scott hodge, president of the tax foundation, to talk about debt negotiations and tax revenue issues that are out there. here is one of the headlines, "new york post." "before catastrophic damage, summit snags on tax fight." would you like to see happen? guest: we would like to see fundamental tax reform, and as a means of making the tax code simpler, more efficient, and more economically beneficial, but not as a means of raising more revenue to the government. we think taxes are as high as they need to be. spending is the problem right now, and we need to tackle the spending issue. tax reform is important because we have -- i think the tax code is dragging down the american economy. it is overly complicated, the rates are too high.

america has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, which makes the u.s. less competitive. we need to address our tax system for the competitive reasons. host: the president is holding a news conference at 11:00 eastern time today. and the talks continue, we hear, this afternoon. scott hodge is here to talk about it. so much has been made of the tax loopholes and subsidies, brakes, whatever you want to call them, for corporate jet owners, other companies. what is your perspective? guest: anecdotes do not always tell the whole tale, and we have to put a lot of this in perspective. the amount of tax preferences in the code are about $100 billion a year. that pales in comparison to the amount of preferences on the individual side of the tax code. that is $900 billion a year.

it surprises people often to know that there are nine times as many loopholes for individuals as there are for corporations. of what is available for corporations, it is a tiny share that is available for oil and gas companies or these so-called corporate jet the polls. that, interestingly enough, was part of the economic stimulus plan that president obama signed two years ago. he was for it then, but i guess he is against it now. host: you mentioned simplifying the tax code. is the idea not to raise revenue? what is the idea of a simplified tax code? guest: reducing the drag that the tax code has on the nation's economy. it surprises a lot of people to know that the u.s. has one of the most progressive individual income tax systems in the industrialized world. the top 10% of taxpayers pays a greater share of our burden than any other country in the oece

region, 30 of the largest economies. we have a progressive system, which surprises a lot of people. getting back to talking about corporate taxation, our corporate tax system is making united states less competitive than the global economy. in the last four years alone, 75 countries have cut their corporate taxes to make themselves more competitive. we have been standing still and losing ground, and that is hurting competitiveness, hurting the ability of u.s. companies to compete in the global economy. host: we go to new jersey, deborah, for scott hodge of the tax foundation. caller: i remember when president obama first came into the white house and there was a question about the helicopter, that we should have bought a new helicopter.

he for when that -- he forewent that. considering all of the other american presidents up to today, when president obama came in, now we are teetering on the side of the mountain to go over -- we should look at americans and the type of people we have in our government now who are being so selfish that they do not want to follow. he made the decision not to do hen he cut for the poor people. the rich people do not want to take it, but they want their corporate jet. thank you. guest: it is up to both congress

and the white house to keep their own budgets as efficient as possible. that is not where a lot of the money is. there is a misperception about the rich paying their fair share. there is a misperception about this point when we look at irs data about how much the irs collect with different income groups, the top 1% of taxpayers -- families earning above $350,000 a year -- they pay almost 40% of all the income taxes in america. that is a greater share than everybody who earns up to $100,000 a year combined. our top 1% of taxpayers pays a greater share of the income tax burden than the bottom 90% combined. that is quite a disparity. one of the problems we're having today is that millions of people have been knocked off the tax rolls as congress does more to help the middle class. they have created a lot of new tax credits that work to knock

people off the tax rolls. almost half of all americans now do not pay income taxes. that is a record share of the population that pays no income taxes. that is a problem for both our democracy, to have all these people that benefit from the government but pay nothing in to the cost, but it is also a problem for government finances. you cannot balance the budget on the backs of half the population. then the other half is benefiting from government paying nothing into the tax system. host: clearwater, kansas. art, republican, good morning. caller: my question is about something i heard a couple months back that the president was going to sign an executive order having to do with requiring companies to report what they were contributing to political campaigns.

i do not know if he ever signed that. i have not heard anything more about that. it was described by one of the radio talk shows as "political thuggery." did that happen? guest: i am afraid i do not know the into to that. i have heard similar kinds of reports, but i do not know what the eventual outcome is. certainly, political contributions, everyone should be free to do that. whether or not you should have to reveal your political contributions is a whole other story and is up to constitutional lawyers rather than me as an economist. host: our guest is scott hodge, president of the tax foundation. he helped found the heartland institute in 1984, was also director of citizens for a sound economy. this notion of of simplifying the tax code has been put out there as something they might

decide on down the road. guest: i doubt there is time to do a radical overhaul of the federal tax system within the few months -- the next few months, but it needs to be done soon. it is unlikely to happen next year, an election year. we're really looking at 2013 as the most logical time that congress and the white house could address the tax system. but it is an important thing that needs to happen. the last time we reformed the tax system was in 1986, so it we are a generation away from reforming the tax code. again, it is all about making the tax system more efficient, less of a drag on the economy, and getting rid of -- we talked about loopholes, and the president has made a big deal about that. it is important that as we streamline the tax code and get rid of the things that the congress and white house are doing to micromanage the

economy, by introducing these various kinds of deductions, credits, and exemptions. host: revenues or taxes have been on the table. is there anything your organization would support in that area right now? guest: we are very reluctant to support increasing tax rates. we think those are the most harmful types of tax increases for the economy. tax rates are already, i think, too high, especially corporate taxes. i think there are different ways you can approach this. one, simply reforming the tax system and improving the efficiency of the tax system, could lead to economic benefits which would raise more men -- more revenues for the government. if you could change certain things, eliminate some of the other fiscal drags, but in terms of raising taxes, i do not think this is the time to do that.

host: jack is on the line, it independent. caller: i have a couple comments. the first one, the democrats and republicans are both equally at fault due to all this overspending, and the republicans overspend when they were in power. the same as democrats. they need to cquit worrying about what is good for their party and do what is good for the american people. that is what they have to understand. i do not think they think of it that way, but they need to. my second comments -- the disabled and senior citizens have gotten a cost-of-living raise. if it ever fails, the house and the senate, they give themselves a $2,200 a year raise themselves.

that makes the disabled and the senior citizens -- they feel deprived because they are out here in the real world and they do not have a government paying for their bottled water and so on and so forth. those are the two comments i want you to speak on. host: anything you want to respond to there? guest: you have a right to be angry. watching the budget battle, as members of congress try to use the most sensitive taxpayers, most sensitive recipients of government benefits for their own political purposes. meanwhile, you have all these government programs full of waste and abuse. the general accounting office has issued a report saying there are over $75 billion a year in checks sent in a fraudulent manner even

2354. will the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford, kindly take the chair. the clerk: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2354 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, the bill had been read through page 23, line 10. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in the congressional record on

which further discussions were postponed. an amendment -- the chair will reduce to twoin miss the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. tierney, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. tierney of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 162, the nays are 246. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the

request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri, mr. gafse. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. graves of missouri. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. vote vote -- [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 216, the nays are 190. the amendment is adopted. -- the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 216, the nays are

190678 the amendment is adopted. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. scalise of louisiana. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be downed. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 241 the nays are 168. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. good awl of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested.

those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 218, the nays are 191. the amendment is adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment offered by the gentleman mr. mcclintock, on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 96, the nays are 313, the amendment is not adopted.

the chair: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk and the house is not in order. the chair: the committee will be in order. the committee will be in order. the committee will be in order.

the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. lamborn of colorado. the chair: the committee will be in order. the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. mr. lamborn: thank you, mr. chairman. my constituents in colorado, like all americans -- >> mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman will suspend. the committee will be in order. the gentleman deserves to be heard.

the gentleman may continue. mr. lamborn: thank you, mr. chairman. i also thank the gentleman from new jersey. my constituents in colorado, like all americans, are demanding that congress cut spending. we must look for every opportunity, large and small, to cut wasteful government programs. this amendment does just that. the weatherization assistance program, otherwise known as cash for caulkers, and part of the failed stimulus package, has been plagued by bureaucratic mismanagement. this program was supposed to create jobs but we all knee didn't work out so well. -- we all know that didn't work out so well. in fact, for unemployment ticking up two months in a row, we must reverse course and cut all unspent stimulus dollars. in the stimulus $5 billion was injected into cash for caulkers through the department of energy in an attempt to help lower the cost of energy and to increase sufficiently -- efficiency for people who qualified.

the goal was to make 5 3,000 homes more -- 593,000 homes more energy efficient. this program has been marked by mismanagement, fraud, waste and abuse. most notably it's a case of $where federal auditors found mismanagement issues and potential fraudulent activities. reportedly subsequent repairs and other inspections will cost the state a sizable amount of their remaining funds. issues have araisen in other states as well. when large sums of money are spent too quickly the opportunities for waste and abuse are rampant. the obama administration in its haste to create government jobs failed to thoughtfully and prudently assess how money was spent. in these tough fiscal times we must have accountability for every dollar spent by the federal government. states have until march of 2012 to use cash for caulkers funds or risk having them returned to the treasury. i am concerned that this could

leave a large slush fund of $1.5 billion in the handles of federal bureaucrats them. could spend that money with very little -- bureaucrats. they could spend that money with very little congressional oversight. my amendment will prevent the secretary of energy for reallocating funding remaining to funds remaining from one state to another. this will leave up to $1.5 billion that can be returned to the treasury next march, thus reducing our massive deficit. i urge support for this amendment and, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman may not refresh his time. does the gentleman yield back? does the gentleman from colorado yield back? mr. lamborn: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, this amendment strikes language in the bill that allows the secretary of

energy to redirect unspent stimulus funds from one state to another. what they're really saying is this, $1.5 billion is going to be taken from the states that decided not to use the money, given the -- give the states that have not only spent their allocations but want to spend more. if asop was writing this tail, it would include an ant and grasshopper. the principle stinks and so does the program. these funds are to finance weatherization and building he design programs. but the potential savings, if anywhere near as great as the administration claims, should be more than enough motivation for individuals to pursue this activity on their own without a government giveaway. after all, why should taxpayers pay to develop and subsidize building materials and technologies to be sold in the private sector to private consumers? in all matters of energy and energy conservation, we've got to get back to a simple doctrine that the beneficiary should pay.

if a product saves consumers money, in this case through energy savings, that's a benefit and it is incorporated into the price structure of that product. this elegant and simple process allows consumers to decide for themselves if the added energy savings are worth the added financial cost. if the answer is yes, the world will be the path to the door of those who manufacture and sell those products and if the answer is no taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to oppose the amendment. the weatherization program was provided $5 billion by the stimulus bill in 2009 but the program has been slow to act and approximately $1.4 billion will be unspent and available for use

in the fiscal year 2012. some states have spent all of their stimulus money while others will have plenty left for fiscal year 2012 -- plenty left for fiscal year 2012. but the department of energy by law must spread any new funding evenly across all states. the bill cuts this program by $141 million below the president's request. the language in the underlying bill gives the secretary of energy the flexibility to use limited appropriations provided in fiscal year 2012 to supplement states that have no stimulus funding. the bill does not allow, i'd like to add that emphasis, the bill does not allow the secretary to reallocate stimulus funds. all it does is to allow the secretary some flexibility in where he allocates it. there's $33 million left in the

bill. let me say, we can't afford in the department of energy with this program or any other program to have business as usually in terms of weatherization and i would agree with the gentleman from colorado that in many cases the money hasn't been spent, and in some cases there have been questions as to how well it's been spent. this waiver in our bill provides a solution allowing all states to continue this program under a tight federal budget and with direct oversight of our committee. the amendment that is suggested by the gentleman from colorado would undo the solution by striking language providing this flexibility, causing job losses and program stoppages in many states where in fact in those states these funds are obligated. so therefore i oppose the amendment and urge other members to do so as well and yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> i would move to strike the last word and rise in opposition to the amendment as well. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i would point out to my colleagues that while the pending legislation is $141 million below fiscal year 2011 levels, the fact is we do have approximately $1.5 billion that essentially has been forwarded to the states and the chairman just mentioned the issue of jobs . those moneys are available as they are allocated and distributed for weatherization programs to put people to work. we have had complaints in this chamber over the last week about the last unemployment report, these moneys have already been budgeted, these moneys have been obligated to the states and these moneys can put people to work doing useful things such as

helping those who need to weatherize their house, reduce their utility bills so that they can have enough money to buy gasoline and put it in their cars, as well as to begin to reduce the use of energy in this country. these are very necessary moneys to create jobs, to help those in need and to reduce our energy dependence and i strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: i ask for the yeas and nays. a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk and ask for its consideration. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. connolly of virginia, pages 23, line 4, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $46 million. page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $99 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. connolly: i thank the chair. mr. chairman, the fiscal 2012 energy and water appropriations act is an assault on any rational or scientific basis for public policy. it would decimate american manufacturing, impoverish american consumers and allow polluters to sully our water with unpeoplity -- impunity. at a time when the american country is stuck in neutral, while other countries are producing vehicles this bill would take america back to the 19th century standard of industrialization without public oversight or regulation. mr. peters of michigan and i

have drafted a simple amendment to fix one among many problems in this bill. mr. peters has been a leader of efforts to restore our auto industry and i appreciate his co-sponsorship of this amendment. it would simply restore some of the funding cuts from the vehicle's technologies program with a funding offset provided by eliminating an increase in corporate welfare for the fossil fuel industry. this amendment would maintain the same level of funding as provided in this fiscal year's energy and water appropriation bill. the vehicle and technologies program is a critical part of our effort to revive american manufacturing in the automobile industry. it's a job generator. five years ago our auto industry was on its death bed. with two major manufacturers facing bankruptcy. fortunately president obama intervened and provided temporary assistance both to general motors and chrysler, most of which has already been repaid.

today those manufacturers are growing again with positive domestic economic benefits for auto dealers and part suppliers all across america. unfortunately this energy and water appropriations bill would reverse this progress by gutting important vehicle research funding. the vehicle technologies program is a success story in boosting domestic manufacturing of cleaner cars that save consumers money at the pump. it is reducing the cost of advanced lithium eye on batteries which are -- ion batteries which are in all hybrid vehicles on the road in america. this program has helped to deploy 48 manufacturing projects all across the united states with a goal of reducing hybrid vehicle energy costs by 35%. they are an important part of ourl domestic manufacturing base and provide direct quality of life benefits to suburban regions with high levels of smog pollution such as here in the nation's capital. the advanced vehicle technologies program also was helping to deploy electric veem vehicles including the new chevy

volt. finally, mr. chairman, this program has accelerated deployment of diesel buses improving transit service and air quality in communities throughout the country like my own in fairfax county, virginia. we cannot allow a hemorrhaging of technology and manufacturing jobs to foreign competition while unemployment grows in america. the republicans seem to believe that corporate welfare for oil companies will help the economy but we tried that during the previous administration and it did not work. we need to refocus on building the technologies of the future right here in america and the vehicle and technologies program is a part of that effort. i ask for favorable consideration of this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise to oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. frelinghuysen: the gentleman's amendment would increase funding for the energy efficiency and renewable energy and reduce funding for fossil fuel research and development, this would increase -- result in an increase in a program that already receives sufficient funds and hamper those that produce most of our electricity. let's be frank, fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas generate 70% of our electricity and we'll use these sources for many generations. we must make sure we use those resources as efficiently and cleanly as possible. further, the amendment increases funding for renewable energy, a program that's seen record increases since 2007 and still has nearly $9 billion of unspent stimulus funds from 2009. there is a proper role for the core energy and efficiency

rethuble program and the bill preserves funding for those activities while cutting out activities which are redundant with the private sector or intervene improperly in market motivation. but the market would also back -- would also add back unnecessary funding for administration proposals that are poorly planned and lack justification. that in and of itself is bad enough. i oppose the amendment and urge others to do so as well and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise to support the connolly-peters amendment because times of fiscal restraint forces us to prioritize. i'm disappointed the republican bill prioritizes the needs of ex-teemly profitable private companies over the manufacturing and innovative jobs of the future.

exxonmobil corporation earned nearly $11 billion in the first three months of the year, shell earned $6.3 billion in the first quarter and b.p. made $7.1 billion. yet this includes $761 billion for fossil fuel r&dambings. clearly the company can conduct this -- have the resources to conduct this reserm on its own this program is actually seeing an increase in fuppeds. this amendment strikes a better balance by decreasing funding in the fossil fuels energy account and restoring the vehicle technologies program to fiscal year 2011 levels the vehicle technology program supports private sector growth and the development of innovative technologies to meet mileage and emissions standards for both cars and trucks. consider how much fuel is used in the transport of consumer goods across our nation on medium and heavy duty trucks.

small gains in efficiency can have huge gains in cost savings. the program is investing heavily in new truck technologies with the greatest ability to reduce our petroleum use and dependence on foreign oil. there's no doubt in the years ahead more americans will be driving hybrids, plug-in hybrids, battery electric vehicles and cars and trucks powered by hydrogen fuel cells or natural gas. the only question is whether these new technologies will be researched, developed and manufactured here in the united states or overseas. the vehicle technologies program is critical to ensure that the american automobile industry and manufacturing base will continue to be globally competitive and that we as a nation will not trade our dependence on foreign oil for dependence on foreign batteries and other emefrpbling technologies. i'd like to thank my colleague, mr. connolly, for offering this amendment and i urge my

colleagues to support american innovation and manufacturing and support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: on this matter, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. the gentleman from maryland has a preprinted amendment. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number four.

the chair: the clerk will dez igthate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. harris of pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. harris: my amendment will reduce fund big cutting $6 million out of their $8 million budget and transferring it to the spending reduction account to reduce our deficit. first, mr. chairman, i want to commend the committee for doing excellent work in cutting the e.e.r.e. budget by an overall total of 27% but this program was cut less than that. it was cut by 20%. mr. chairman, as i go through the district, the number one air cra i i hear people say let's cut back to cut our deficit is foreign aid. basically, this program is foreign aid. it takes scarce american jobs and sends them overseas. now mr. chairman, as you know,

our unemployment rate here jumped to 9.2% last week. we created 18,000 jobs. here in front of us, we have a program, this international program that creates jobs, it sure does, the problem is, they're all in foreign countries. so it takes those scarce american jobs and sends them overseas. i agree with the ranking member. our actions today should have jobs as our focus, american jobs. that's why this amendment is essential. the united states government has $1.5 trillion in debt, we borrow 40 cents of every dollar spent. we borrow money from china to finance our federal spending and national debt and through this program, we spend that money in china to make chinese manufacturers more energy efficient. yeah, that's hard to believe, but we do that. we take a million dollars and spend it in china to make their factly -- factories more efficient so they can compete with us so we can lose jobs, lose our revenues and borrow

more money from china to do it all over again. we've got to end this vicious cycle and we have to end it with this amendment. as chairman of the energy and environment subcommittee, we held hearings on this specific subject. let me tell you about some of the programs this international program funds. it assists manufacturing facilities in china and india become more efficient. that's great, but why are we helping them with money we borrow from them to make their industries more efficient. then we improve energy efficiency in the chinese building secor. let's strengthen our economic opponents with money we borrowed from them. in fact, the t.o.e. announced a $25 million project over the next five years to support the u.s.-india joint clean energy research and development center. why isn't it a u.s. research and development cent her why

are we spending hard-earned, hard-borrowed daughters overseas? even more programs, one to promote energy efficiency in indian software companies. unbelievable. why promote -- why aren't we promoting nrnl efficiency in american companies? partnering with kazakhstan to increase their vehicle efficiency productive iity. i like the automobile business, why don't we work on it here. energy centers in peru and costa rica. windmills in mexico. we're building windmills in mexico. renewable energy strategy developed in the caribbean and windmills in the dominican republic. ladies and gentlemen, i've gone throughout my district. they are begging for us to cut the deficit. the president promised he would

go line by line through that budget and find items to cut. ladies and gentlemen, this program is ripe for that cutting. we shouldn't be sending this money overseas. this doesn't eliminate the program, it cults 75% of the funding. it goes farther than the committee. we have to allocate our resources to higher priorities. i commend the the committee for making a start in cutting here but we've got to go further. when we're spending money on making chinese factories more efficient to compete with us and building windmills in mexico with our money, we've gone too far. that's why citizens for government waste endorse this is amendment. it hardly gets more wasteful than borrowing money from overseas, creating jobs overseas when eff a 9.2 unemployment rate here. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mins. >> mr. chairman, i'll be brief. the gentleman from maryland, mr. harris, and i are pretty close but i would respectfully oppose his amendment. for a couple of reasons. one is the program that is subject to his amendment is coordinating programs with other countries. we're not by definition sending jobs overseas to other countries. the theory of the program is to provide technical assistance for activities to help prime markets for clean technologies in major emerging economies and the theory of the program is also that it can bring home

lessons learned from other experiences and share them at the national, state, and local level. mr. visclosky: i reluctantly oppose his amendment and -- i tell you i reluctantly oppose this amendment because i have great concerns over these programs at the department of energy, expressed my disappointment to the sex retear and others, that if we are going to invest in these endeavors, we ought to be very discreet about how those moneys are developed to -- used to develop markets in the united states of america and god bless the rest of the world. i will in this instance take the department of energy at their word and that's why i would respectfully oppose the amendment but i would be happy to stay in close communication with the gentleman, i would be happy to stay in close touch with the department of energy relative to the management of

this program and assuming moneys are in the fiscal year 2012 budget to pursue this budget to make sure that your point is heard and that their expenditures are not violative of what you want to do today. with that, i yield back my time. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. vis costcally: i would be happy to yield. >> i have mixed views as well. israel is a strong ally. were it not for kazakhstan, we would not be able to do things militarily to support our troops in afghanistan and iraq. i view this, i think it bears close watching, but there is a perception that somehow we're giving our china, india, brazil and other countries an advantage. i view this program as a two-way street. it does provide a degree of access to american companies and so i would be also

reluctant -- i reluctantly oppose your amendment but i can assure you that both of us feel very strongly that it bears watching. it has borne some fruit. mr. frelinghuysen: it's not money wasted, it's not money given away to competitors. thank you for yielding. mr. visclosky: but again, i think it draws attention that we should be closely monitoring these funds. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from fey rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. broun: i'd like to yield to dr. harris from maryland. mr. harris: let me briefly address this so we can move on. we only cut $6 million out of the $8 million. there's budget language further on that protects, it's a cooperative agreement between the u.s. and israeli government, it does not eliminate all the funding, it

protects that program and there'll be another amendment offered later to make that quite specific but i understand that there is some possibility of actually getting a benefit from partnering and i thank the ranking member for offering assistance but hovepbsly, i'm not sure what we're going to learn from kazakhstan by sending money over there to provide trainingen industrial efficiency. i thought that we should the -- we were the power house of the world in industry. i thought we were the leader of the world. and it's fine when we have a lot of money, but the fact of the matter is we borrow 40 cents of every dollar and the largest program expenditure outside of the joint program with israel is that expenditure in china. now this is still money and want everyone to understand, there is still money available, it's in the department of state budget. this doesn't eliminate these programs, this just removes the department of energy's contribution. i'll remind the body why the department of energy was formed

years and years ago, was to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. it has failed to do so. it has existed for decades, failing to do the mission it was established for. in my district people in private industry tell me if they had a division or department that failed to do its job for decades they wouldn't be cutting it back , they'd be eliminating it. so again i thank the chairman, i thank the ranking member and i urge the body to support the amendment. i yield back. >> reclaiming my time. i'm going to support dr. harris' amendment. mr. broun: as we face this huge budget deficit as a nation we've got to look at every source of cuts that we can possibly accomplish. it's time not only to cut spending but we've got to start

paying back our debts. and we're not doing that here in this country. i think it's absolutely critical the american people, the people who are looking for jobs today want us to do the right thing. the programs like this and many others are kilting our economy and they're killing jobs -- killing our economy and they're killing jobs in america. i'm going to support dr. harris' amendment. i hope the rest of you -- at least enough of our colleagues here in the house will ppeds the financial crisis -- will understand the financial crisis we're in as a nation and support it also. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. miller of north carolina, page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $24,018,000. page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $60 million. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: thank you, mr. chair. this amendment is similar to others we have heard today. this amendment would reduce the fossil energy research account by $24,018,000 and put as much of that money as i will allow into the energy efficiency and renewable energy research, development, demonstration and deployment. the bill now is $5.9 billion less than the administration's request and more than $1 billion

less than last year's funding but fossil energy is a demraring exception to the austerity visited upon every other kind of energy research. the fossil energy program gets an increase at $24 million above what the administration requested and $32 million more than last year's levels. this amendment would reduce that account, fossil energy, to the level the administration's account request and put as much money back into energy efficiency and renewable energy research. which now gets a $31 billion -- million cut or more than 25%. more than 1/4. mr. chairman, i agree that we need to be doing fossil energy research, it is more than 70% of our energy now, it will be the bulk of our energy supply for the foreseeable future and we do need an abundant and clean supply of fossil energy.

but it's hard to look at the spending levels in this bill and not see some hypocrisy at work. i am the ranking democrat on the energy and environment subcommittee and i have heard again and again in committee hearing after committee hearing and subcommittee hearing after subcommittee hearing the same stale talking point that it's not the place for the federal government to pick energy winners and losers, that taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize the development of alternative fuels. just last week in hearing in the committee, one of my republican colleagues on the committee said we should promote an all-of-the-above approach. oil, nuclear, coal, natural gas, heck, i'm ok with wind, solar, water, biofuels and everything else you can think of as long as it isn't subsidized by the american taxpayer. and we've heard that same talking point again and again today. the subsidy, the help with funding for research that the

alternative energy now gets it tiny in comparison to what traditional energy sources, fossil fuel and fuke leer, have gotten for a long -- nuclear have got foreign a long time. if republicans are -- have gotten for a long time. if republicans are now pushing energy efficiency technologies away from the public cloth, it is so they can make more room for fossil fuels and nuclear. of course those industries, those traditional industries have been subsidized a right along and they continue to be subsidized in this bill today. taxpayers subsidize it, in addition to this little bit of research funding with very significant tax increases, rather incentive, tax incentives, the subject of discussions over at blair house the last few weeks and weave heard -- we've heard there's no budging on that and we know that those industries fully expect if disaster strikes, if there's a massive oil spill or god forbid a nuclear accident, they won't have to pay the cost. they will get help with that,

they will get bailed out. we are not talking about basic early stage research here, that's somewhere else in the bill. this is all late stage applied research. but in the case of alternative energies we have pledgeling -- fledgling industries, economically vulnerable industries that have some ways to go to get to the marketplace before they can turn a profit and on the other hand we've got an industry that is 70% of our current energy supply that are up and running, they're in good shape, they're fabulously profitable. the top five oil and gas companies made $32 billion in profits informant first quarter. the first quarter -- profits in the first quarter. in the first quarter. three months to. that industry republicans say, belly on up to the public trough, boys, we'll make room for you. the energy research that we're

talking about in the eer&e is wind, solar, biomass, water on and on. you know what they are. we need to make some of those technologies work. or we are not going to have enough energy in the future. and in the shorter term, they promised healthy competition for the fossil fuel industry, to bring down the cost of energy for americans. it's hard in fact to look at the hostility of republicans to those industries, to those emerging energy technologies and think a big part of their hostility is not at the bidding of the fossil ilfuel industry to smogget that are competition in the crib. i urge the adoption of this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise to oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: the gentleman

from north carolina's amendment increases funding for the energy and efficiency and renewable account, a program that i said earlier has seen record increases since 2007 and still has $9 billion nun spent stimulus funds -- unspent stimulus -- in unspent stimulus funds. i oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont rise? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not -- mr. miller: on that i demand a recorded vote.

the chair: a recorded vote is being requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. mr. broun: it's number 48. the chair: the clerk will read the amendment. the chair: the gentleman can send his amendment to the desk. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. page 23, line 4rks after the dollar amount insert, reduce by

$26,510,000. page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $26,510,000. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. broun: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment cuts $26.51 million from the vehicle technologies deployment subprogram in the energy efficientsy and renewable energies clean cities program. and transfers those funds to the spending reduction account. the house committee on science, space and technology has identified many concerns with this program which is shared with the department of energy. this program filters over $25 million to about 90 coalitions to buy electric charging stations, e-85 pumps, alternative fuel vehicles and other infrastructure. beyond concerns with how this program is run and how the dollars are being spent, this

program should not be funded or run by the federal government. this program -- type of program is best served by the private sector or local and state governments. despite the management concerns, the department of energy has recently announced its intention to broaden the scope of the vehicle technologies deployment subprogram to also include the national clean fleets program. one mission of this program is to assist fortune 100 companies to upgrade their commercial fleet. is this really an appropriate use of federal dollars when we are facing a $1.6 trillion deficit? is it really appropriate to be helping companies such as enterprise, g.e. and ryder upgrade their fleets to electric or alternative fuel vehicles? the answer to these questions in my opinion is no. in fact, i think most of the

american people believe the answer to those questions are no. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment, mr. chairman, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. you know, the doctor from georgia is absolutely right. we held a hearing in my subcommittee on this very topic and it was very instructive. because for the last several weeks we have heard a lot about, oh, my gosh, these giveaways to corporations and how we have to look at them critically. mr. harris: here's a program where we can put $25.5 million back toward deficit reduction by reducing corporate subsidies. the doctor's right. g.e. doesn't need a subsidy. but they get it through this program. u.p.s. doesn't need this subsidy, they get it through this program.

they all make money, millions and billions of dollars but this program gives them another subsidy. verizon doesn't need a subsidy but they get it through this program. they make a lot of money. they make a lot of money. this program subsidized it. and the gentleman's right, e-85 is probably a bad choice. why are we spending money, money that we have to borrow from the chinese every day, in order to put e-85 pumps around? or to convert vehicles to e-85 as part of this program. mr. chairman, it makes no sense. this is another little contribution we can make. our constituents have sent us here to deal with the federal deficit. the doctor makes a contribution, $25.5 million, we held a hearing on this, you know, they advertised -- their press release on one of thwa