what is really being debated is whether we are going to trade off the science of the future, which is so essential to america's competitiveness in the global economy, to take care of necessary past cleanup. who can make that choice? they are both essential. are we going to sacrifice the future for the past? that's really what this debate is about. $4 we know that this bill is billion under the administration's request and over $2 billion under what we spent in this fiscal year of 2013. so so we really have an argument that nobody really wins. if we fund the past cleanup, we sacrifice the future.

if we sacrifice the future, do we really take care of all the past cleanup? we hardly do what's necessary, even with current funding. and so i think it's a perfect example of where the sequestration process is so counterproductive and moves america backwards. we have very imperfect choices here, and actually very dangerous choices that we are being forced to make. i think the majority would be much better suited to come back to us with a budget that allows us to do the job that the energy and water subcommittee is charged with doing. we simply can't try to solve the problem internal through the resources we've been given. it's an impossibility, and so somebody's going to be -- going to lose. i'm sure those that came up

washington.ies in the people who are getting water assistance, they just lost money. they got no lobby here. they got none of those people from the various nuclear sites to come in here and lobby for them, and yet they just lost out in a prior amendment. they have a right to an existence in this country, but we're seeing inside the restricters of the set of choices we've been given that somebody's always a loser. and actually the country's a loser because of sequestration and the fact that our subcommittee has been given a mark so far below what is reasonable. and frankly what we could do if we had a budget that allowed us to move the country forward rather than creating a can't-do nation. we can't do science, we can't do cleanup because of what we

were handed by, what, a budget committee, whose members don't even appear on the floor to argue their positions during this debate? i feel sorry for our country, and i feel sorry for those who have to come down here and take from one another during this debate and hurt people across this country because our allocation is simply too insufficient to meet the nation of the nation. so i want to thank the gentlelady for rising on this very important point of science of the future versus cleanup of the past, but we simply don't have the funds in this bill to do both and it puts us in a very, very destructive position for the interests of our nation. i yield back my remaining time. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. takano of california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. takano: mr. chairman, i rise today to offer an amendment to the fiscal year 014 energy and water appropriations bill -- 2014 energy and water appropriations bill. my amendment increases funding for the renewable energy, energy reliability and efficiency account by $248 million to meet the president's budget request for advanced manufacturing. if we are to remain competitive in the global marketplace, we must fully invest in, develop and commercializing the

emerging technologies that will create high-quality manufacturing jobs in the united states. these investments are crucial to accelerate the advancement of ideas and allow american manufacturers to continue to innovate and compete. by matching the president's request, the department of energy will be able -- will be able to move forward with plans to develop interagency manufacturing innovation institutes that will develop best practices and help manufacturers meet common challenges. these institutes will enable innovation, create a dependable talent pipeline and improve the overall business climate. it requires the diverse array of partners if advanced manufacturing is to accelerate and thrive in the united states. a federal commitment to these emerging and efficient things will help educators and businesses as well as local and state partners to the table. federal investments in advanced manufacturing will help create more jobs, increase our competitiveness and allow the

united states to continue to be a leader in advancing energy efficient technologies. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve his time. does the gentleman yield back? mr. takano: the gentleman yields. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i seek recognition in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. i may understand he may offer some amendments similar related later on the floor. suffice it to say, my remarks here will also pertain to those amendments. this amendment would unacceptably strike funding for the national nuclear security administration's weapon activity by $245 million in order to increase funding for renewable energy, energy reliability and efficiency activities. assuring funding to maintain our nuclear stockpile is our

highest priority in our energy and water development bill. historically, it always has been and will continue to be. we have to put off -- we have put off for too long the investments that are needed to ensure we maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile into the future. because of this historical underfunding, it has been strong -- there has been strong bipartisan support for increasing funding for weapons activities. our bill takes a responsible approach to meeting those needs, reducing funding $193 million below the request for nonessential activities within the weapons activities account that are not required to maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile. but there are no further savings available. reduction of this magnitude would severely impact the national nuclear security administration's ability to ensure the continued reliability of our weapons. something which the secretary of energy has to do to our commander in chief each and

every year. -- port the program's program championed by my colleague. that's why we increased the advanced manufacturing program by $5 million over fiscal year 2013 within an account that is cut by $971 million. i oppose the amendment and urge members to do likewise. i 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 -- the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: let me say to the gentleman from california that i am sympathetic toward his efforts on the renewable energy activities at the department of energy as they are critical for america's energy future. and i'm torn as i listen to his arguments, and i just wanted to

demonstrate a chart here that shows the relative superiority of the united states in the nuclear weapons field. the largest total inventory in the world with russia right behind. we have a significant capacity, much greater than nations that follow, france, china, the united kingdom, pakistan, north korea. the united states has quite significant nuclear complexes, and we must maintain them and we must provide security for them. i think that the president's negotiations with russia provide us with a very important opportunity to cut these systems, and to do so in a responsible way that continues our superiority and our security while bringing down the possibility of reducing these weapons globally. the gentleman's amendment would

actually move funds, $335 million from our weapons accounts and move them to energy efficiency and renewable energy which is a move that i would like to support at a future date. the sooner the better. and i appreciate him offering the amendment. and though i agree with his intent, as i said many times before, the allocation for this simply insufficient, and we're robbing one account to try to put funds in another account. i must reluctantly, very reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment, but i think he's moving in the right direction and i think that this helps our nation move in a more constructive direction for the future. we have a responsibility on the nuclear security front, and hopefully with ongoing negotiations we'll be able to make this move in the very near future.

i want to thank him for his leadership in moving the country forward and showing us a new path and let's hope that with the administration's engagement that we can move to that path sooner rather than later. i yield back my remaining time. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. chairman. this is the core of the u.s. nuclear modernization efforts. magnitude of this $245 million will delay or canceling key warhead life extension programs and facility modernization programs. these cuts will also cost taxpayers more in the future because the modernization programs that the administration has requested must be done and will only get more expensive with time. president obama committed the request robust funding for

nuclear modernization to win senate ratification of his new start treaty program. to date he's $1.6 billion behind in that commitment for f.y. 2012-2014. without these robust funding levels, our ability to safely reduce the new start levels is in question. the president's 2010 nuclear posture review says, quote, these investments are essential to facilitating reductions while sustaining deterrence under the new start and beyond, closed quote. with this tight budget, we must provide every dollar we can to nuclear modernization to efforts and prevention of the draconian -- further reductions required by this amendment. nnsa is the only national security spending in this bill. taking money from n.s.a. to pay for renewable energy directly undermines our national security to subsidize energy technologies that can't withstand on its own.

with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. 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. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will e postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i've got an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will eport. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. perry of pennsylvania. page 22, line 8, after the dollar amount insert increased million. -- $31 million. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. mr. perry: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, we've had a continuing debate about

american energy independence. one way for america to achieve real energy independence is to utilize our own renewable and clean energy resources. currently there are over 800 dams across the nation waiting to generate power. the dams are already sitting ere, sitting on our nation's rivers. all across the country waiting to generate power. just waiting. now, from sacramento to savannah and right on the river where i live, the power and the consistency of the water flow on these rivers is truly impressive and, as i said, consistent. the energy created from this immense water flow is something that america should harness for the use of individual and commercial power. in that vain, this amendment would increase the water power emergency -- correction, the water energy power program to $31 million, or by $31 million. again, this applies only to the water power energy program. now, the water power program is a vitally important program to

reducing our dependence on middle eastern oil or fossil fuels for many folks on the other side of the aisle and the administration who seem desperately opposed to it. it allows to become a more energy independent nation and do so in an environmentally sound manner. i mean, while you sleep, while you work, while you drive, while you talk to your family and watch tv, the rivers are flowing. the tides are moving in and out. power can be generated. without any more than that. i mean, doesn't take us digging anything up, dredging anything up. it just happens. the water power program is designed to develop water technologies and address barriers for hydropowers. barriers like the permitting process that we currently undergo in this nation which takes companies that want to do this 10 years, minimum 10 to 15 years to receive a permit. who invests in something that takes that long, takes that kind of money? increasingly no one does. so what's right under our feet,

what's going right past us in our homes and our towns, our rivers is not being utilized and it's right there. 800 dams currently in this nation could be generating power at this moment. hydropower is available in every region of the country and is america's largest source of clean renewable electricity. it accounts for 67% of domestic renewable generation and 7% of total electricity generation. it creates good-paying jobs. hydropower creates work for people. it is reliable, proven and domestic technology that can expand in environmentally responsible ways. it can be put to work in rivers, harbors to capture energy from current and tides. harvesting energy will create a green source of energy. i would like to thank the chair and the committee for the work they have done to bring this bill to the floor and i ask my colleagues to support this

amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i reluctantly rise to oppose the gentleman from pennsylvania's amendment. he is a strong advocate for water power. those of us on the committee are as well. his amendment would increase as we are aware, funding for the newable reliable and efficiency by $31 million using the departmental administration account as an offset to restore the water power program to the requested level. our allocation as i said on a number of times was made for some really tough choices. our bill cuts supply to energy and research programs to allow more funding for federal responsibilities. while i support the program championed by my colleague, we

cannot afford to increase energy reliable activities so significantly by diverting activity from other activities in the department of energy. one of the issues with the department of energy is they have had management issues. they need money to obviously better manage a lot of the activities. they have a new secretary of energy. he needs the resources to do it. and if we keep tapping from this account, there will be no money to pay for the management, operation and accountability we expect from the chief executive of this department. i reluctantly oppose his amendment and i urge members to do likewise and i yield back. ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i rise to oppose the gentleman's well-intentioned amendment and again reiterate simply budget is

-- not sufficient. d he is shifting them to renewable energy systems relating to dams and small dam construction. that is not a worthy objective. however, if you know anything about the department of energy, one of the challenges we face in the administrative accounts is getting them to manage their contracts in a way that properly oversees taxpayer dollar expenditures. and that department has had some of the worst cost overruns i have ever seen in my years in congress. on the nuclear side and on the nonnuclear side. when the gentleman wants to cut

administrative costs, my worry is that we will not have the kind of rigor that the chairman and i have been trying to re-infuse in the department to better manage the dollars that we allow them to spend. and so i think the gentleman's amendment runs a real risk of creating mismanagement there simply because they don't have the personnel to do the job. i think your end purpose is a very, very worthy one and we have small dams in ohio that would benefit by the gentleman's amendment, but i have to come down on the side of rigor and proper administration by the department in all of their accounts and the amount of mismanagement and cost overruns in some of their programs is into the billions. and the administrative accounts overall are only $187 million. to manage a department with over

$30 billion worth of expenditure and all kinds of contractors, all kinds of cleanup programs that stand on that thin reed of $187 million for nationwide contract administration and personnel administration. so i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. i understand what he's trying to do, but we simply can't risk improper contract management in that department at this time. so i yield back my remaining time and urge opposition. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio yields back the time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. perry: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? ms. castor: i have an amendment at the desk, number 12. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment, number 12. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. castor of florida. page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount insert increased by -- ms. castor: i ask unanimous consent to waive the reading. mr. frelinghuysen: point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment and ask it be read. the clerk: page 22 line 5 after the dollar amount insert increase before the period, insert the following, provided, that the amount made available under this heading shall be allocated between programs, projects and activities previously funded under the heading energy efficiency and renewable energy and programs. projects and activities, previously funded under the

heading electricity delivery and energy reliability and the same proportion as such funds were allocated between such accounts in fiscal year 2013 by division . of public law 113-6 the chair: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for five minutes on her amendment. ms. castor: mr. chairman, i rise today to offer an amendment that would restore funding for america's renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy conservation initiatives, restore it to the very modest levels of the last year, 2013. these relate to the department of energy's energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives the department of energy's delivery and energy reliability as well. the problem with the republican bill is it slashes, itof americ

renewable energy and energy conservation. they also have something that i would maybe a term of art, rearranging the debt tiers on the titanic and they squeeze them down into a single account and when you take it all together it is a 57% reduction. in energy efficiency and renewable energy. this is outrageous. it's shortsided and very poor public policy. the republican bill slashes clean energy initiatives that are critical to the all of the above energy strategy that i thought we agreed on that is needed for u.s. energy independence arranging from solar and wind power and more efficient buildings and advanced vehicles. i have to say, if i hear any of my republican colleagues they are for an all of the above approach, this energy and water

appropriations bill belies that on pulls the curtain back is what it is on the other side of the aisle. the administration has objected. they write the republican bill would leave u.s. competitiveness at risk in new markets such as advanced vehicles and advanced manufacturing, energy efficiency for homes and businesses and domestic renewable energy such as wind, solar and biomass. they do this at a time when they are content to leave huge taxpayer subsidies going to the big oil companies, meanwhile slashing investments in renewable energy and energy conservation. specifically, the impact of these cuts will reduce by 50% the homes weatherized to help our neighbors back home reduce their energy bills. and ranking member kaptur was correct. they do not have big lobbyists

here in washington, d.c. this bill would delay research on next generation technologies that save energy in our homes, schools, hospitals and businesses. the republican bill will hinder the development of new technology and appliance standards that save americans money by increasing energy productivity. this bill spells the likely demise and end to solar energy job training for students and military veterans at community colleges. it will slow efforts tom secure the energy grid and respond to energy emergencies. i ask that we return the funding levels to the modest levels of last year and the amendment directs that funds be allocated in the same proportion that they were in fiscal year 2013. because these clean energy initiatives are critical to achieving energy independence, boosting our economy, creating

jobs, maintaining global leadership, ranking member kaptur was right during this debate when she said we are sacrificing our future and not living up to the standards of our country because you are slashing the investments that make this country go, investing in innovation and technology. i'm afraid it highlights the broader issue and the fact that the republicans refuse to negotiate on the budget. they passed a budget 100 days ago. the democrats have appointed conferees. i don't know what the holdup is, why my republican colleagues are afraid to negotiate on the republican budget. here in this amendment, we have the opportunity to stand up for jobs, clean energy and the future of our great nation. i ask for the support of the castor amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i insist on my point of order. it proposes a net increase in

budget authority in the bill. the amendment is not in order under section 3-d-3 of house resolution 5, 113th congress which states, quote, it shall not be in order to consider an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2-f of rule 21, end of quotation. the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of subsection. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: a member wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentlelady from florida. ms. castor: i appreciate that there is a point of order brought up, but i think there is a major point of order that faces the house of representatives and that's the fact that the democrats have appointed conferees to negotiate the budget and my republican colleagues appear to be afraid

to come together and discuss the budget. that is why -- the chair: the gentlelady will confine her point of order comments to the point of order. ms. castor: i will insist upon a vote on the point of order. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. the gentleman from new jersey makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the the gentlewoman from florida violates section 3-d-3 of house resolution 5. it establishes a point of order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill. as persuasively asserted by the gentleman from new jersey, the amendment proposes a net increase in the budget authority therefore it is sustained and the amendment is not in order. ms. castor: may i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the amendment is not in order. ms. castor: i move to table and

call for a vote on that. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? . i'll appeal the ruling of the chair. the chair: the question is the ruling of the chair stand as the judgment of the committee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, he ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. broun: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk.

it's amendment number 52. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. in the item relating to department of energy, energy programs, renewable energy, energy reliability and efficiency, after the first ollar amount insert reduced by $9,826,370. and in the strength reduction account after the diaz-balart amount insert increase $9,826,370. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. mr. broun: the bill before us cuts a significant amount of money from programs which have targeted for strength reductions. i commend my friends, the full committee chairman, hahl rogers, and the -- hal rogers, and the subcommittee chairman, also a good friend, mr. frelinghuysen, for these cuts. i congratulate them on such. that being said, we are at a

time of a real fiscal emergency. congress has allowed the sequester to happen, and we can see some of the effects of the sequester in this underlying bill. i opposed the use of the sequester from the git-go because i believe that a governmentwide across-the-board ts are not a wise way of cutting spending. i believe it's bad policy. instead of if you are loge civilian d.o.d. -- furloughing civilian d.o.d. employees and cutting our military, we ought to make targeted cuts where there's room to do so. and this amendment, mr. chairman, would do just that. it would trim just a small additional 1% or about $9.8 million, from programs relating to renewable energy and energy efficiency and put that amount towards spending reduction.

the committee report for the underlying bill notes that funding for these programs prioritizes reducing gas prices and supporting american manufacturing and absolutely we must be doing those things. yet these funds are focused on technologies which are still emerging like new vehicle technology, hydrogen and fuel cell technology and bioenergy. mr. chairman, i'm not arguing that these technologies aren't worth studying. what i'm suggesting is that we -- and i'm not suggesting we completely defund them. i'm suggesting we make a mere 1% cut towards the proposed spending level. what i'm saying is we make this small additional cut and work towards getting our fiscal house in order before pouring scarce funding into new unproven technology. i urge support of my amendment

and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. and oppose the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: the gentleman from georgia's amendment would further cut funding for renewable energy and energy reliability and efficiency program by additional 1% from the levels contained in our bill. the energy and water development bill cuts levels by $2.9 billion below last year's level including $971 million from renewable energy and energy efficient activity. alone, those accounts that's 50% below fiscal year 2013 and 67% below the president's request. to that end, the funding the bill preserves is just as important as the funding it cuts. our bill focuses the vast majority of remaining funds within this account on programs

that can address high gas prices and help american manufacturers compete in the global marketplace. these programs can reduce american manufacturing costs, help companies compete in that market, creating jobs here at home, and reducing funding is critical that's why it's at half its current levels. but we must make strategic investments to address high gas prices and help america compete. the amendment would limit these important programs. i urge members to oppose it and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i rise in opposition to the broun amendment and really find it somewhat incredible that in the bill that the majority brought forward the renewable energy

accounts had been cut by over half. over 60% already. this gentleman proposes an amendment to cut it by an additional 1%. $9,826,370 to an account that has already just been drubbed. i want to say something here. here's a chart that shows america's trade deficit. and energy, imported energy comprises the largest account. we haven't had a balanced trade deficit since the 1970's when the job hemorrhage started in this country. and it gets worse every year. america's future depends on innovation. we can't continue to live like this. every community you go to in this country, they say, well, we have to move somewhere because my child can't find a job or, gosh, i had to get

another job and i had my salary cut in half. it's pretty obvious what's been happening. the major category of trade deficits is energy imports. energy. because we are not self-sufficient in energy production in this country. part of the answer lies in new energy systems. systems that even nasa has helped us to begin to invent. yes, in the solar fields. yes, in new hydrogen technologies like cryogenic hydrogen. yes, in natural gas. thank goodness the department invested in fossil fuel technologies. that's where the fracking technologies came from. it came from thinking about the future, not living in the past. so the gentleman's cutting even further into the bone. now he cut in the bone. now you're whacking the spine and say, let's cut some more. either you live in the future or you live in the past. and i sadly view the

gentleman's amendment as a retreat to the past. i want to live in an america that's a can-do nation, an america that invents new technologies and literally the renewable technologies will have to be there when the finite resources of carbon-based fuels aren't there anymore because they're finite. they're finite globally. i stand here for every single soldier in this country that's died in the line of duty trying to protect the stuff to be brought in here because they're trying to hold america together while she's not energy dependent here at home. this is vital for the future if someone is capable of thinking what that future might look like. i've seen the technology, sir, that can take a thin fillment invented by the best scientists this country has. they float it in a nitrogen bath. from the point of generation of power to point of use, it's 100% energy efficient. unlike the current transmission

technologies that we have here today where we lose 25% to 80% of our power. there has to be a majority in here. 218 that are capable of thinking about living in the future, not just the past. i oppose the gentleman's amendment. i think he's trying to be a good budgeteer, i guess, but in so doing he cuts off the nose to spite his face. america deserves to have an energy future and it won't happen with amendments like this one. i oppose the gentleman's amendment. i ask my colleagues to vote no, and i yield back my remaining time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. kaptur: on that, mr. chairman -- the chair: the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: i would ask for a recorded vote on this. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman, i seek recognition because i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. cohen of tennessee. page 22, line 5 -- mr. cohen: i ask unanimous consent that that amendment be considered as read. the chair: is there objection? the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount insert increased by $50 million. page 21 -- mr. cohen: may i ask again -- my friend from colorado, who shares my birth date, didn't understand what was going on. he doesn't want to listen to this. nobody wants to listen to this. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for ive minutes. mr. gingrey: my amendment --

mr. cohen: my amendment would move to energy reliability and efficiency account, kind of a compromise of what we've been hearing. it doesn't take too much from nuclear. it gives some back to solar. it's a compromise where we work together. this bill, the weapons activities account, which have been funded at $7.7 billion, that's more than $190 million over the president's request and over $95 million more than the account had in 2013. and to offset this increase, which the committee voted, the committee decided to do so by funding the renewable energy, energy reliability and efficiency account at only $98 million, slashing that -- $982 million, slashing that account by almost 50% in this budget. while ensuring the security of the united states is certainly very, very important, the consequences of ignoring climate change trends and data is a serious and ever-growing threat right here on our soil.

i'm sure that this is a paramount concern to all of us. however, in order to achieve this goal, we must do the business of securing that energy future. ensuring reunusual energy research program is adequately funded is one of the most effective and climate-neutral ways to achieve this goal. for example, solar power is the most abundant energy resource available to the planet and demand for solar power in the united states is at an all-time high. as solar prices continue to fall, americans are reassessing their american resources. cutting the funding to projects to make this clean energy even more affordable is not prudent and out of line with the priorities of clean energy-minded americans. renewable energy is secure and domestic and energy efficient programs, savings for families and businesses alike. according to the alliance to save energy, the president's climate plan is dobble -- to

double domestic energy production by utilizing renewable energy could save the average family house how old $1,000 - households every year. it will lower heating and cooling bills across the country. for these reasons and others and the best interest of energy security, i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. i would ask you to spend money on finding -- funding research to see how we can come up with renewable energies and improve the savings and save about -- save the future and not cut too much from the nuclear program which we already have funded higher than the president requested or last year. i would urge for a yes vote on this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word and rise in opposition to the amendment.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: the cut eman's amendment would weapons activities in the nnsa administration, using that as an offset, our bill not only cuts the renewable and energy and energy -- energy accounts, it cuts fossel energy by 16%, nuclear energy by 14%. as i said, mr. chairman, our allocation made for some tough choices. we placed the highest priorities to the priorities which the federal government must take the lead. one of those, of course, the most critical mass is assuring funding for national security. it's our highest priority. while i support the programs that he outlines, we should not divert the programs from national security. therefore, i oppose his amendment and ask members to do so as well. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from tennessee. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment, also. the chair: does the gentleman rise in -- move to strike the last word? mr. lamborn: i move to strike the last word. the chair: then the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lamborn: thank you, mr. chairman. i object to where this money is being cut. . the amendment would take $50 million away from lower amounts for modernizing our nuclear stockpile. the president agreed that he ould modernize our nuclear stockpile in order to secure ratification of the start treaty. under that treaty, u.s. and russian forces are being reduced, but we have to modernize the force so we maintain a credible deterrent with the remaining weapons after the deductions take place.

the president is not fully funding that obligation. that's troubling enough. this committee has lowered what the president recommended to an even lower level and that is even more troubling. and if we take this amendment for a further reduction, we are really getting into serious cuts. the trouble with not modernizing our nuclear capability is that we will no longer have an effective deterrent, these weapons degrade over time and lose their effectiveness and reliability. and if we have allies who cannot depend on our nuclear deterrent, what are they going to want to do? they are going to start their own nuclear programs like korea and japan. unless you want more nuclear proliferation in the world, you want the u.s. to maintain a serious and credible deterrent and have an effective arsenal.

this amendment takes us in the wrong direction. it's not good strategicically for the united states and not a good savings of money and i urge strong rejection of this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? thekaptur: i move to strike last word and i yield time to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: i appreciate it. we have had these discussions. we have enough money in weapons, nuclear weapons to destroy the world thousands and thousands and thousands of times. and i understand defense, but i also understand the future and the future is energy self-reliance and that comes from the sun. not going to be taken out of the earth. it's going to come from the solar energy that god has given us to harness and use for

mankind. the amendment in my opinion is a sound amendment and budgetary use. d little more see, the distinguished gentleman made remarks nothing is more important than our defense department. we are cutting $1.6 billion from the national institutes of health and that's my defense department and your defense department because cancer and heart disease and stroke and diabetes and parkinsons and alzheimer's and aids that's the enemy that is going to get each one of us and we are cutting $1.6 billion, which is our defense department. i yield back. ms. kaptur: i yield back. the chair: the question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. cohen: i request the yeas

and nays. the chair: does the gentleman request a recorded vote? mr. cohen: that's exactly right. the chair: pursuant proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee will be postponed. the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. broun: i have an amendment at the desk. number 53. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment 53. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. in the item relating to department of energy, energy programs, renewable energy, energy reliability and efficiency, after the first dollar amount insert reduced by $4,451,000. and after the dollar amount nsert by $4 million -- $4,451,000. >> he mr. broun: this would reduce the appropriations relating to

renewable energy, energy reliability and efficiency by $4 ,45,000 and increase the spending account. t is to eliminate increase for facilities and infrastructure under this structure of the bill. mr. chairman, we must do everything we can to rein spending. we are facing an economic emergency as a nation. and my friends particularly on the other side seem to not face the fact that we are headed to an economic meltdown if we don't stop this uncontrolled spending, that i believe is irresponsible. my amendment is not to cut funding but eliminate the proposed increase keeping the appropriated amount at the current levels. i believe this is a commonsense amendment and i urge my

colleagues to support it. mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: our bill already cuts the national energy renewable lab under the department of energy. we cut it by $15 million below the president's request, that is 33% reduction. i don't think the facility could take any further reductions that undermines this budget consolidation which is something we sought and the department of energy has gone ahead and we oppose this amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: i rise to oppose the gentleman from georgia's amendment and i want to put this on the record. this is the chart showing u.s.

when of oil since 1973, america became every and every succeeding decade more vulnerable. and we know that if gas prices gothis country go over $4 we into deep recession. we live at the edge every year and we have seen what happens. so, i repeat what i said in prior debates today. either you live in the past or you attempt to live in the future and build a future. the gentleman's amendment might be well intentioned is moving america backwards. we have to address the fact that we aren't energy independent as a country and the renewable energy accounts are part of that future. we must embrace it. we must move our nation away from complete dependence on foreign sources of energy and stand on our two feet. i oppose the gentleman's

amendment. ask my colleagues to do so. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it -- the gentleman from georgia. broun h a broun: i re-- i request recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the gentleman's amendment are postponed. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, proceedings will resume

on those amendments. amendment number 1, mr. moran of virginia. amendment number 2, mr. moran of virginia. amendment number 7 of mr. takano of california. amendment by mr. perry of pennsylvania. first amendment by mr. broun of georgia. the chair will reduce to five minutes the time for any electronic votes after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request of a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in congressional record offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran on which the proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. moran of virginia. 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 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 177 --

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 177, the nays are 236. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment 2 printed in the congressional record, offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by

voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. moran of virginia. 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 arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-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 epresentatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 188, the nays are 226. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from california, mr. takano, on which further proceedings were postponed, and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. takano of california. 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 five-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 ayes are 152, the nays are 264678 the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. perry on which further proceedings were postponed and voice vote. ayes those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and remain standing. a sufficient numbering are viz -- having risen, a recorded vote is ordered.

members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-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 epresentatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 140, the nays are 275. the amendment is not agreed to. he committee will be in order. members are advised to take their seats. the committee will be in order. the chair: the committee will be in order. members are advised to take their seats.

members are advised to take their seats. the committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. the chair: without objection. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pelosi: i rise with the greatest respect, admiration and appreciation to congratulate the distinguished the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, who has served for nearly four decades in the house of representatives. o weeks ago --

ms. pelosi: two weeks ago, the people of massachusetts elected him to the united states senate. i'm pleased to yield to the skillful leader, this person of great vision, a legislative virtuoso, a person who has served with great values and bittersweet moment to yield to the last time to the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey. mr. markey: thank you, madam leader. 37 years ago, i stepped off of a plane here and it was my first visit in my life to washington, d.c. i had never been here before and i was sworn in as a congressman on my first visit to

this city 37 years ago. and i'm so proud to have been a congressman here in this chamber along with all of you. for me, the house is democracy in action, all of us declaring our love of country and our desire for a better future for all of our constituents and for our nation. i'm honored to have served here. i am blessed to have made so many wonderful friends here. and i'm humbled by the dedication of all of you to this great nation. as i have represented massachusetts, so, too, have each of you represented your states with your conscience. i now go to serve in the senate. but there is a big part of me that will always be a man of the

house after 37 years, having served here in this great body. and with that, for the last time , i say, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. .hank you all so much the chair: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, 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. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request for 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 five-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 153, the nays are 257. he amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the yeas have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under

consideration h.r. 2609, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2609 and has come to no esolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: i send to the desk a privileged report for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 292, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 761, to require the secretary of the interior and the secretary of agriculture to more efficiently develop domestic sources of the minerals and mineral materials of strategic and critical importance to the united states' economic and national security and manufacturing

competitiveness. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed.

ifment pursuant to house resolution 288 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house in the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2609. will the the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, indly resume the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2609 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, 2014, and for other purposes.

the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, amendments offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 22, line 9. ine 8. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment -- the clerk: amendment offered by mr. swalwell intsh mr. swalwell: i ask oto waive reading. the chair: is there without objection? trks objection? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. transfer ll: i ask to unds from eere, i recently joined a letter calling for robust funding for this crucial program.

eere's research and development and deployment programs focus on three major fields, renewable electricity generation, sustainable transportation and ngs, y saving homes, buildi and manufacturing. this program plays a key role in advancing america's all of the above energy strategy and we must set priorities and make smart decisions about funding. this is the only way to ensure that this country is prepared for whatever changes the marks may experience. i thank our ranking member for yielding me the time and allowing me to speak about the amendment. i appreciate her comments about either you look backwards or you look forward can or you act forward about how you get your energy supply. she's talked on the floor today and articulated that our country right now faces a trade deficit. she's right. every month by about $40 million we are import manager goods and services than we are exporting. in many cases that's because of the crude oil we have to import month after month after month because we are not meeting our own energy needs.

and the united states at our peak production, we only have about 3% of the world's crude oil. however, our country, our consumers, our people, we consume about 22% of the world's crude oil. there's a supply problem in in -- there's a supply problem in this country. we need to not drill our way out of this but invent our way out of, and eere allows us to do this unfortunately, this bill consolidates the two offices within d.o.e. and fund the combined program at about $9 3 million. this is a cut to these programs fiscal million below year 2013. i'm honored to serve on the -- as the ranking on on the science space and tech nothing subcommittee because i believe the federal government has a role to play in encouraging federal innovation in this.

this bill does the opposite by gutting the eere program. instead of innovating our way out rather than drilling our way out, we are doing the opposite. we gut crucial eere fund. if washington bickers, our competitors are pulling out all the stops. by cutting the eere program so drastically now we all but ensure the united states will miss out on scientific discoveries that will change the world and transform our economy. with scientific research, nothing is guaranteed so we need to be willing to take risks. scientific progress, after all, has never been a straight line. i come from the bay area which includes silicon valley where risk taking is critical to the re's economy. taking risks means you sometimes will not succeed but scientific prodepress requires taos continue to take risks and invest in the future. only by taking risks and charging forward as our ranking member continues to emphasize can we ever hope to reach goals

which today may seem out of three united states should be leading the world in the search for better, safer, more affordable energy. instead, we have a bill before us that makes unacceptable shortsighted cuts to eere. while my amendment does not close the gap by any means, it's a signal to our scientists and engineers that we support renewable energy. an over reliance on a limited range of fuel technology and finite resources is shortsighted. our strength lays in our ability to transition a new, cleaner, more sustainable and more pin know vative source of energy. we must be competitive and not let ourselves get behind and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields ack the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. frelinghuysen: this amendment has a $1 billion support fo renewable activeties, it would increase funding by $1 million using the department administration as its offset. while i support my colleague's good intentions, what he calls his signal gesture of support, we cannot afford to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy by diverting funding from other essential activities, therefore i oppose the amendment and urge others to do so as well. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seeng recognition? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. kaptur: let me say that the gentleman's amendment takes a step in the right direction tavepls modest step but one that signals a view toward the horizon that is ahead of us. i rise in support of his very responsible amendment that would

make an investment in our future and move to a more diversified energy portfolio. it does nick an account, our ad mrtive account, which is troubling but it is not at the level that some of the prior amendments today did and so i snorte gentleman's amendment, i thank him for all the time he spent on the floor today waiting his turn, talk about a gentleman of the house, you surely are. i want to thank congressman swalwrel for his leadership -- swalwell for his leadership and for trying to take a step to the future in offering your amendment today. and i yield back -- i urge my colleagues to vote for the swalwell amendment and yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. 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. mr. swalswel: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mcclintock of california, page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $731,600,000. page 22 line 20, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by -- mr. mcclintock: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment.

mr. mcclintock: thank you, madam chairman. i applaud the committee's decision to cut the renewable energy program by half. my amendment simply completes the very good work of the committee and cuts it by the other half along with similar subsidies we provide the fossil fuel industry, saving $1.5 billion. if we're serious about an all of the above energy policy, we have got to stop using taxpayer money to pick winners and losers based on their political connections and instead require every energy company to compete on its own merits as decided by the customers it attracts by offering better products at lower costs and the investors that it attracts as well. for too long we suffered if the conceit that politicians can make better energy investments with taxpayer money than investors can make with their own money. it is this conceit that has

produced the continuing spectacle of collapsing energy scandals epitomized by the solyndra fiasco. at least solyndra was funded from a loan program in which the public had a chance to get some of its money back when these dubious schemes go bankrupt. my amendment eliminates the direct spending that funds research and development and commercialization products for politically favored firms, money the taxpayers have no chance to collect after it's spent. any breakthroughs financed by the research and development paid for by taxpayers doesn't go into the public domain where everyone can benefit. these innovations, if there are any, are financed by taxpayers and yet are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the private companies. s that get the -- this is a gift of public funds, pure and simple. my amendment prevents them from

being forced to pay these companies and requires all energy companies and all energy technologies to compete equally on their own merits and with their own funds. this amendment cuts all such subsidies, about half go to fossil fuel and nuclear energies -- industries that are capable of doing well on their own and about half goes to the so-called alternative energy technologies, we have been told for years that's necessary to nurture new and promising programs, but they are not new and not promising. photovoltaic cells, for example, were invented in 1839 and in nearly 175 years of technological research and innovation and billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies, we have not yet invented a more expensive way to generate electricity. o we hide these costs from

consumers whose subsidies are taken from their tax moneys. nor is there any reason tax pay urs should pay for research and development for general motors any other companies. if companies are not willing to finance them with their own money, we have no business forcing our constituents to finance them with theirs. all we've accomplished with these programs is to take dollars that have naturally flowed into the most effective and promising technologies and diverted them into those that are politically favored. this misallocation of resources not only destroys jobs and productive ventures, it ends up minimizing our energy potential instead of maximizing it and destroying our wealth instead of creating it. let every energy technology rise or fall on its own merits. if the technology is promising, it doesn't need our help, and if it isn't promising, it doesn't deserve our help.

i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: this amendment would eliminate all renewable energy and energy efficiency activity, fossil energy activities and severely reduce funding for nuclear energy in favor of deficit savings and of course, the committee has done a lot, we have done a will the of cutting. we're down to way below the 2008 levels. i think we've made a commitment in our committee to reduce spending and contribute to reducing the deficit. nuclear energy research does keep american innovation at the forefront of the technology that we invented, i think we need to continue that leadership. fossil energy, whether people like it or not, provides 82% of

our nation's energy needs and we need to find ways to refine and make it even more productive. and lastly, renewable energy addresses high gas prices and helps americans manufacture and compete in the global marketplace. so maybe not all of those activities are imperative but renewable energy is part of that equation and our bill supports diversity of energy supply and therefore madam chair, i oppose the amendment and urge members to do likewise. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the gentleman from new jersey for raising opposition to the amendment. mr. garamendi: i'm glad he gave me a few moments, madam chair, to slow down a bit before i ould comment on the amendment.

the author of the amendment would probably want to take a few steps more to carry out the full intent of what he's proposing, to eliminate all subsidies for everything then where would we be. i suppose if we're going to be consistent in this, if we would adopt this amendment we ought to go to the oil and gas industry and eliminate all of the subsidies that they have. which are tax breaks. direct subsidies by reducing their taxes to the tune of well over $10 billion a year. probably not a bad idea. and then to go on as the chairman of the committee has suggested to take on all of the other subsidies, where would we be? it's a long history of america dating back really to the

founding fathers, in which alexander hamilton presented to the congress at the request of george washington a plan on manufactures in which was stated a policy then and carried forward ever since that time, some 230-plus years, in which the federal government has been directly involved in the development of the american industries. for example, at that time, alexander hamilton suggested the federal government ought to support the development of roads, ports, and canals. one not far from here received that assistance. the potomac canal. and ports were built, eventually light houses were put up. all of them to benefit commerce. abraham lincoln subsidized, with

the consent of congress and the senate, subsidized the transcontinental railroad that has helped the gentleman's state of california and my state of california. there's a long, long history of america in which the federal government has directly, indirectly subsidized the creation of industry. we went to the moon but we created enormous numbers of businesses as a direct result. and in the gentleman's pocket is an iphone or some other device that was directly subsidized by the federal government. now, if you want to go back and simply forget about progress, then carry out this amendment to its fullest extent. i don't think any of us want to go there. i'd ask for a no vote on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: madam chair, i rise in opposition to this amendment and i listened to the gentleman's argument and i just want to point something out. the gentleman is saying that private industry will do this in any case. i have been very engaged in our part of the country with local companies and inventors that are tryinging to lead america into the future and what's interesting about the start of some of these new technologies is, many of these inventors don't have the deep pockets of huge multinational corporations. and when smaller high-tech companies start out, maybe these inventors have 10, 20, 30 patents to their name. sometimes they launch from a cooperative effort with a university base. they don't have the funds to do the kind of basic research

that's necessary to move their technology forward. they need the help of entities like the department of energy. and so it just doesn't happen by magic that one moves the technology forward. most businesses don't have the interest or the funding to put into this direct research, basic research. so, for example, with solar, which is something our region of the country knows quite a bit about because it's spun off of the glass industry, just getting seven layers of material to adhere takes incredible effort. if you are a small inventor, if you are a smaller company, i defy you to roll steel so thin and then find adherence to go with it that will hold electrical charges and then to invent the electrical materials that go through there and by golly, over the last 30 years they have done it.

they have brought the cost of panels down to a competitive rate. where we are now is storage capacity, moving the electricity from those plates to storage systems that will actually be more efficient and then onto the grid. the lease don't say that work that they go through, the americans who are blocked by the people who sit in this chamber and can't even imagine what they are up against technologically, don't think that when they do doesn't matter. and while they're doing this, what do they face? just in the solar industry, the chinese dumping two million panels globally and pushing down the price, a country that's a communist country, whose economy is a marxist market system, a len nist market system. and we ask our -- leninnist market system. and we ask our people to compete with that and do nothing to help them out. i'd fight for these americans

any day of the year because i know the next generation will be more independent than today's generation because of what they are doing. i'll do anything in my power to help them. that's the role of the government of the united states. so lift up those who are trying to make this country free again and separate us from those countries and those interests that don't share our political values. and so i want to be a champion for those who are out there fighting for the future and they're not all big multinationals who have these deep pockets they can just reach into, but they're individual americans who are taking what they learned in their company and they can't finance is alone. banks won't necessarily do it because the technology isn't fully developed them. need a partnership. and we're the one partnership of the federal level that can help lift their technology and bring it forward. i'm proud of them and, sir, i oppose your amendment. i think it's a well-intentioned amendment but it doesn't lead us

forward. and it really doesn't help those inventors and those companies around this country who are leading this -- leading us into the future. i ask the membership to oppose the gentleman's amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. connolly: i thank the chairwoman. i rise in opposition to this amendment and i think that in many ways this amendment, and i give credit to its author, encapsulates a debate that's going on not only between the parties but in america. it's premised on the narrative that is utterly unhistorical. it is a false narrative. if it's worth doing, the private sect already do it. -- sector will do it. that flies in the face of 237 years of this republic's history.

george washington understood that. he understood that there were investments only the federal government could make. and he made them. thomas jefferson, an advocate for small government, also understood that. he subsidized the rogers and clark expedition that opened up the west. and created enterprise for science. mr. garamendi mentioned the 37th congress and abraham lincoln. in the middle of the worst catastrophe this country's ever experienced, a civil war, that congress understood that we had to make investments as a federal government if this country was going prosper and grow and allow the private sector to take up where we left off. and that's why they invested in the transcontinental railroad. that's why they created the homestead act. that's why they created a united states department of agriculture. hat's why they created the college-university system. the idea that the private sect consider do it, we don't needed it -- sector can do it, we don't need to do it.

well, the internet was 100% of federal investment. it stayed a federal investment for 25 years until the commercial application was clear and then it went private. whatever we invested in that was worth every penny in how it's transformed american life. g.p.s., entirely a federal investment. not a private sector investment. and it's the private sector that's understood the commercial applicability. that's the partnership that has characterized all of our history, not some of it. and to substitute a false rrative for that involvement will guarantee that the chinese will clean our clock in the next generation. i stood -- i sat here hours ago and listened to our republican colleagues from washington and tennessee say, without fear of understanding their own contradiction, we need the federal government to clean up these nuclear sites. not the private sector.

the federal government. this isn't just a bad amendment. this is about a profound philosophical disagreement about the future role of the federal government. investments have returns. not all spending is the same. and we need to be enhancing investments in this bill, not cutting them back, if we want to hand over to the next generation a competitive america that still helps provide a shining light upon a hill. 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 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. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on this amendment offered by the gentleman from california will

e postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. peters of california. page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount insert -- mr. peters: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the chair: is there objection? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment. mr. peters: thank you, madam chair. two years ago on september 8, 2011, san diego and much of southern california, arizona and parts of mexico suffered a huge electric power failure. this is the biggest electric power failure in the history of california. millions of people were left without electricity when a 500 high voltage transmission line from arizona to california failed. knocking a major nuclear power plant offline. the electricity outage led to school and business closures, flight cancellations, suspended

water service and dark traffic lights. and when the power goes out, it's not just our lights that are affected. in the heat without air conditioning we're putting health of our seniors and vulnerable populations at risk of health failures. so the risks of public safety and health increase and economic disruptions can be hard to recover from. we are putting greater load on our grid each day and the grid faces also threats to its cybersecurity. in addition we've seen extreme weather events wreak havoc on the grid. d.o.e. is making great strides to strengthen our grid and make it more resilient to all threats and we need to protect this critical infrastructure. the appropriations committee has recommended $80 million for the electricity delivery and energy reliability which is a cut of $32.49 million from f.y. 2013 levels. my amendment would increase electric delivery and energy reliability by $10 million with an equal offset reduction to the d.o.e.'s departmental

administration account. this increase will strengthen the electric grid and provide greater power and reliability for all americans. and the amendment would support the research and technology to improve grid strength and reliability. more importantly, these are -- these are more important investments than this particular department administration account. this is spending reduction in the long run. the cost of energy outages are much greater than what we put into modernizing and strengthening the grid. every dollar that we put toward making our infrastructure more resilient yields $4 in future savings. when the power goes out, there are huge economic costs. our modern world can't function and perform business transactions without electricity and we need to ensure that the power is there. if it goes out, we need to make sure that it gets back on quickly. a better grid will save taxpayers money. a better, smarter, more modern grid will lead to fewer outages, getting power back faster and savings in cost.

madam chair, i ask for the support of my colleagues 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 seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. the amendment would increase renewable energy, energy reliability and efficiency by $10 million, using, once again, as others have before him, the departmental administration account as an offset. as i said earlier, our allocation did make for some tough choices. one thing we know that you can't operate a department of energy unless you have staff doing oversight and doing the tough work of reviewing contracts, to make sure the money we give them is well spent. so with all due respect, i have to oppose the gentleman's amendment. we can't divert more money from the essential department activities and 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 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. mr. peters: i'd ask for a roared vote, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, -- a recorded vote, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. perlmutter of colorado. page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount insert -- mr. perlmutter: i move to dispense with the reading of the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. perlmutter: thank you, madam chair. and to the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee, thank you for your work. but there's always a but. h.r. 2609 appropriates $30.4

billion for fiscal year 2014 for the energy department and federal water projects, which is $4.1 billion below the president's request and $6.3 billion, 17%, below the enacted evel for 2013. the reductions in h.r. 2609 undermine america's strategic energy investments and remove vital funding for laboratories such as the national renewable energy lab in golden, colorado. facilities such as nrel are leading energy inenovation and the clean energy market has grown exponentially from $1 billion a year to $211 billion a year over the past decade this number continues to grow. congress should be funding

facilities which help to bring next generation renewable technologies to market. these technologies are not only helping local energy entrepreneur bus are also helping business owners drive down energy costs. e energy systems integration cility, otherwise known as esif is a perfect example of this partnership. esif is the only facility to model on aing me ga watt scale how clean energy technologies such as wind and solar interact on the electrical grid with traditional energy sources such as coal and natural gas. the facility is aimed at overcoming generation, ransmission, and end use challenges to support a cleaner, affordable, more secure u.s. energy mix including research into next generation building technologies, microgrids, energy

storage batteries and utility scale renewable energy. as the cost of clean energy technologies continues to come down, seamless and efficient grid integration will help make these resources and products even more affordable. funding for programs like esif and labs like the national renewable energy lab is good for our utilities and consumers. it's good for our economy and good for energy security. yet the majority continues to believe that cuts to our energy department will provide us a brighter future. i say no way. while i believe the funding in the entirety of this bill is wholly inadequate, i cannot allow our energy investments to be reduced to rubble. my amendment would transfer $15 million to the office of renewable energy, energy reliability and efficiency, with an equal offset regular ducks from the production support for w.-7 -- for w-76 life exextension program under the

weapons account. while i support the committee's attempt to support the national renewable lab, the proposed funding of $31 million is $15 million below the budget request. thus my amendment seeks to fully funds the facilities and infrastructure line item. the committee recommends we fund $345 million for production support, an additional $23.5 million over the administration's request. the administration cites a lower level of funding from fiscal year 2013 to 2014 due to the completion of modern manufacturing floor process. what the committee has done is raise $23.5 million over the president's request. i'm asking that that be backed up by $15 million so that the national renewable energy lab and eere is increased by $15 million. i ask for an aye vote on my amendment and with that i yelled back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek

recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. is would increase fund for energy reliability using weapons activities within the nuclear -- national nuclear security administration as an offset. while i support and i think all the committee members do, the programs championed by my colleague, we cannot afford to increase energy renewable and efficiency activity by diverting funding from inherently federal responsibles. the focus and primary responsibility of the department of energy is indeed to make sure that we have a modern nuclear weapon stockpile even if we don't need to use it. it has to be verified by the secretary to the president. so this would divert funds from

that essential mission and so i oppose the amendment and urge others to do likewise and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from ohio seeks recognition. ms. cap fur: i move to strike the last word. -- ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. kaptur: i am reluctant to move funds from weapons account torse purposes within the department but i rise in support of this gentleman's amendment, congressman perlmutter of colorado has made a reasonable proposal here. and i agree with his interest in advancing our work in renewable energy technologies. we also know in working with the department the incredible cost overruns that we see occur year after year after year in these nuclear weapons accounts.

and i think that the gentleman's amendment is a modest amendment, i think it signals movement in the proper direction for our country and it also says to those managing our nuclear weapons accounts that we're paying attention to the fact that you probably wasted more money and not done oversight on your contracts more than almost any department in the government of the united states. e need for investment in new energy technology is important to the country, and i think the gentleman, you know, you've done something that i think moves us down the road of new technology and you take it from -- you take a very modest amount from the weapons account and my own position generally supports the administration's efforts not to touch the weapons accounts

unless we do so within the context of nuclear arms reduction negotiations. but the amount of funds that you are transferring i think is very -- is very, very reasonable. and therefore would wish to support you in your amendment and i would urge my colleagues to support the perlmutter amendment and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. 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 visit. the amendment is not adopted. mr. perlmutter: madam chair i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be post-poned. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by

. connolly of virginia, page 22, line eight, after the dollar amount, insert $15,500,000. page 29, line one after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $15,500,000. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. connolly: i have rack midbrain to find a democratic amendment the distinguished manager could support and i think i have found it. a low-impact amendment, modest in the extreme, but with high payoff and, gravy a $3 million net savings according to the scoring. as we have learned time and time again, madam chairman, from weather it's aers and other emergencies, having reliable and resilient energy infrastructure is vital. -- is absolutely vital to the

stability of the community. i appreciate the committee actnologying the current strain being placed on our aging power infrastructure and the need for more modern, efficient systems. i and other member os they have sustainable energy and environmental caucus has been advocating for increased federal investments to meet those needs for some time. the energy efficiency and renewable energy renewable account, a mouthful, i admit, supports the technologies that will support our power grid is cut in this bill by 50%. i'm offering this simple, modest, commonsense amendment, i know will appeal to the republican manager. by transfering a mere $15.5 million if the nuclear weapons activity account which reseefed $98 million increase above last year, than as i said will reduce outlays by $3 million according to the c.b.o. one of the energy efficient initiatives that has a proven track record of improving power

reliability, reducing electric costs is combined heat and power, for example. it provides simultaneous production of electricity and heat, such as natural gas, biomass, coal and oil. up to 2/3 of the energy from the fuel used to generate power is lost as wasted heat. in contrast, combined heat and power systems contrast that heat that would otherwise be lost, maybing the systems twice as efficient. thanks to that on-site generation, there's less risk of power disruption and improved efficiency. we have seen the success of such systems. when superstorm sandy knocked out power to 8.5 million residents in the northeast including the distinguished republican manager's home state of new jersey, those facilities with combined heat and power systems had working electricity and heat. south forks hospital on long

island which includes a hospital and assisted living center was able to maintain power in the storm an the aftermath. similarly in katrina, the mississippi baptisted me c58 center was the only hospital in the area to remain 100% operational during and after the hurricane. combined heat and power systems are used across the nation and generate 2 gigawatts of eelect electricity, about the equivalent of 130 coal plants. analyst say we could double that figure and for states that have suffered natural disasters, the timing is right. these investments not only lead to more efficient use of power but help create jobs. it's estimated that for each combined gigaquat of capacity, we can generate money. we need to expand the success from the manufacturing secor to commercial and residential

settings especially after the experiences of katrina and sandy. this is a simple, commonsense amendment largely crafted to try to help the republican manager find a democratic amendment he can enthusiastically support and -- and -- i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yield back. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. frelinghuysen: it may be the relative lateness of the hour but i welcome the comity with which you put forward your amendment. may i say for the record that having handled the hurricane sandy supplemental, i can make you aware that our power was off in our very modern part of newark, new jersey, for the vast number of my constituents for over two and a half weeks. so even despite the best minds in the nation, some of which still circle around the remains

of bell laboratories, we still didn't get it right. but having said that, i appreciate your intent and your good humor. our primary focus has been national defense in our bill. nuclear security. and i don't think this is the time when we should be taking away from that modernization project which is important and something which has to be certified in terms of being reliable to the president by the secretary of energy so i oppose your amendment and yelled 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 virginia. does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i seek recognition. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. kaptur: i want to briefly extend support for the connolly amendment for the same reason as in the prior amendment offered

by mr. perlmutter, and though i generally support nuclear security issues in the context of arms reducks talks, this is a modest amendment, a $15.5 million transfer from the weapons accounts, we have seen huge cost overruns, i think it's important to send a smoke signal their way that we're paying attention and support the cause of our renewable energy in the connolly amendment. i urge my colleagues to support it and yelled back my remaining time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on 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. he amendment is not agreed to. mr. connolly: madam chairman, on that i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from virginia will be ostponed. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. tonko of new york. page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $145 million. the chair: the clerk will suspend. mr. tonko: i ask unanimous consent to waive the reading. the chair: is there objection? the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: madam chair. i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved.

the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. tonko: thank you, madam chair. first i would like to thank representative welch and representative sablan for working with me on this amendment and thank the gentlelady from ohio for the opportunity to chair the amendment in the house. madam chair, this bill would be fine if we were still living in the 1950's. in a world where we had few energy limitations, no knowledge of the fact that burning fossil fuels would alter the chemistry of our officer, and the trajectory of our earth's climate. we lived in a world where energy was much more affordable. in a world where the united states was the dominant economic and manufacturing power. it was also a time when there were two nuclear powers and we believed that nuclear weapons were a guarantee of security. well, it is not the 1950's. and this bill does not meet our present or future needs. the overall funding level is too small. and the funding distribution reflects the wrong priorities. our amendment addresses just two

of the important programs that are grossly underfunded in this bill. the weatherization assistance program and the state energy program. energy is a significant part of families' budgets. and its cost is especially burdensome for low-income families and the elderly who live on fixed incomes. burning fossil fuels generates emissions that are leading us into a much warmer future and one with unstable, unusual weather patterns. we cannot afford to reduce our support of energy efficiency. our amendment provides additional funds in the energy efficiency account, to raise the funding for the state energy program from the $12 million in the bill to $50 million. in addition, it provides an increase of $107 million for the weatherization assistance program, to restore this program to $184 million, a level that will provide benefits to homeowners across this country. the weatherization assistance program is the largest residential efficiency program in the nation. the sequestration and low

allocation for fiscal year 2013 have put this important program at risk in many of our states. demand has not gone away. individual consumers are still faced with significant energy bills and those who are elderly or disabled or whose income is not sufficient to make investments in weatherization themselves rely, rely heavily on this program for assistance. the amendment also restores funds for the state energy program. s.e.p. is a cost-share program, a partnership between the federal government and the states. the state energy program enables states to assist with the development of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. such as improving deficiency at our hospitals and our schools. working with utilities and energy service companies to install clean energy and energy efficiency projects and supporting private sector energy innovations through business incubators and job training. each dollar of s.e.p. funding produces significant returns. a study by the elk ridge

national landtory found that every dollar -- laboratory found that every dollar of funds results in $7.22 in energy cost savings. the modest investments we have made in these two programs have paid for themselves many times over throughout the country. they have produced benefits in the form of better insulated, more comfortable homes, jobs, savings on energy bills, product improvements and greater energy security. we continue to ignore problems, neglect our infrastructure and disinvest in our communities at our peril. these programs make a modest but important contribution to job creation and energy security. i urge you to support this amendment and keep the important work done through these programs moving forward. with that i'll yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i insist on my point of order. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: the amendment proposes to amend portioners of

the bill not yet -- portions of the bill not yet read. it may not be considered en bloc because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill. the object being increased has first-year outlays of $72 ,500,000. the objects being decreased have decreased, first-year outlays, $71,250,000, leading to a net utlay-in crease of $-- net outlay ncrease -- net increase. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. to be considered en bloc, pursuant to clause 2-f of rule 21, an amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority or outlays in the bill. because the amendment offered by

the gentleman from new york proposes a net increase in the levels of outlay in the bill as argued by the chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations, it may not avail itself of clause 2-f to address portions of the bill not yet read. the point of order is sustained. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: i ask -- mr. takano: i ask unanimous consent that -- the clerk: amendment offered by r. takano of california. pages 22, line 5, after the dollar amount insert increase by -- the chair: is there any objection? the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i would ask that the reading continue. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: page 22 line 5, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $20 million. page 29, line 2 1, after the

dollar an -- 21, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $0 million. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: i rise today to offer an amendment to fiscal year 2014 energy and water appropriations bill, to increase funding for the vehicles technology program. my amendment increases funding for the renewable energy, energy reliability and energy firbletsy account by $20 million to fundy funds the zero admission cargo grant program. the vehicle technologies program is an important asset in the effort to decrease the impact of high gas prices on american drivers by investing in technologies that make vehicles more fuel efficient and less harmful to air quality. one critical piece of this program is the zero emission cargo transport grant program that helps to incentivize zero emission goods movement and especially in the areas where high air pollution and traffic congestion such as my district in river side, california, which is a logistics hub for southern

california. i believe these funds are better spent reducing our emissions, improving air quality and investing in energy efficient technologies. -- ill provides more than more than -- the bill does take from the account -- the security administration's account, which is funded at $11 billion. the modest reduction we're asking to fund -- fully fund this program is an investment we believe is wise. more efficient freight will save money, create jobs and make products cheaper. cleaner air improves quality of life and lowers the cost of health care. if we pay for this today by decreasing spending on our bloated nuclear weapons programs, we will see major savings down the road. this is a smart investment and i encourage my colleagues to support my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chair, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. as i said on other occasions, ensuring adequate funding for the modernization of our nuclear weapons stockpile is our highest priority in our energy and water and development bill. this amendment unacceptably strikes funding for these very critical national security investments and therefore i oppose the bill and ask others to do as well and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields ack the balance of his time. 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. mr. takano: i ask for a recorded vote, mr. chairman. the chair: 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 california rise? mr. takano: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. takano of california. page 22, line 5 after the dollar amount -- mr. takano: i ask to dispense with the reading. the chair: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. takano: mr. chairman, i rise today to offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2014 energy and water proachingses bill, to increase fund -- appropriations bill, to increase funding for the department of education's -- department of energy's weatherization assistance program. my amendment increases funding for the renewable energy, energy reliability and efficiency account by $40 million to ensure we provide adequate weatherization assistance. the weatherization assistance program provides much-needed funding that enables low-income families, homeowners with disabilities and seniors to permanently reduce their energy bills. making their homes more energy efficient. for 36 years the weatherization assistance program has provided weatherization services to more

than 7.3 million low-income households. the energy conservation efforts promoted through this program have helped our country reduce our dependence on foreign oil of lowering the cost energy for families in need. this program benefits households across the nation from my district in riverside, california, where temperatures can rise over 100 degrees fahrenheit in the summer, to the northeast where it is below freezing in the winter. the weatherization assistance program has helped reduce the energy bills for america's neediest families by hundreds of dollars, which can be used to purchase more groceries, daily necessities and child care. the reduction in funding for nuclear weapons means that a larger investment can be made in our weatherization assistance program, to help american families reduce their energy costs. the underlying bill provides more than $11 billion for the national nuclear security administration. i believe the modest reduction of $40 million to the nuclear weapons account means that we are better -- means -- or is

money that's better spent on programs like the weatherization assistance program. it supports jobs, businesses, homeowners, and reduces our energy dependence. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: our committee's priorities are well known. the modernization of our nuclear stockpile is a national security issue. we need to continue to make those investments. i oppose the amendment and 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 california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. takano: i demand a recorded vote, mr. chairman. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will e postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 22, line 9, uclear energy, $656,389,000.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. heck of nevada. page 22, line 20, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $25 million. page 26, line 12, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $25 million. the chair: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for five minutes. mr. heck: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment builds on the committee's work in support of scientific research and development within the department of energy. moore than 30 years have elapsed since congress passed a nuclear waste policy act and over that same time technology and scientific knowledge have evolved significantly. however, congress still klings to outdated technology and policy prescriptions to address today's nuclear waste issues. the fact, mr. chairman, is that

sticking our country's highly radioactive nuclear waste in a hole in the ground for perpetuity is a 0th century solution. instead we must encourage the use of 21st century technology to address this issue. my amendment redirects the $25 million designated for the yucca mountain high-level waste geological repository into the high-energy physics program within the department of energy's office of science for the development of a 21st century solution to this problem. the high-energy physics program is currently researching and developing as we to -- ways to use accelerating technology to reduce the toxicity of nuclear waste, transforming it into a stable, less hazardous form. according to a report released by the department of energy, quote, the united states, which has traditionally led the world in the development and application of accelerator technology, now lags behind other nations and in many cases and the gap is growing, end quote. the report concludes that, quote, to achieve particle acceleraters t