clean energy. these investments in energy efficiency help make our businesses more competitive compared to businesses all across the globe. in addition, energy efficiency reduces the cost for consumers. wouldn't that be revolutionary? to put some money back in the pockets of our neighbors in this day and age? and has the added benefit of providing cleaner air. . back home in florida i've noticed local governments investing in better lighting and energy efficiency. this has the potential to lower property taxes for our neighbors back home. mr. chairman, we're on the cusp of a technological revolution when it comes to energy and energy efficiency. look at what's happening all across america. we have a very diverse portfolio, but this budget today is screwed -- skewed a little bit, it chops energy efficiency and renewable energy that has such great potential to create jobs. and it's a little too heavy on

some of the fossil fuel areas. and i'll suggest an area that my republican colleagues on the energy and commerce committee criticized during a committee meeting not too long ago and that was the carbon capture and sequestration. compare the return on investment right now provided in this bill for the multimillion-dollar amount we're putting into carbon capture that has not proven -- that is not proven compared to what we could achieve on a return and investment in energy efficiency for our neighbors, for our businesses and for jobs. so therefore this amendment will shift a little bit, not all, from those technologies and put it into a place where it works, energy efficiency. i appreciate ranking member kaptur's vision. she understands that this is our future, this is a job creator. i appreciate her work and chairman simpson's work on the appropriations bill. i ask for an ray vote on the

cass -- an aye vote on the castor amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. mr. simpson: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: mr. chairman, though i share my colleague's support for energy efficiency , grams, the bill funds eere the energy efficiency portfolio, at $26 million above last year's level, with targeted increases for weatherization assistance and advanced manufacturing. what we did in this bill actually was refocus some of the administration's request, increases in the renewable energy arena, to where we actually use energy. the coal, oil and natural gas provides 82% of the electricity in this country. of the energy used in this nation's homes and businesses. 82%. and reducing the fossil energy

research, they're studying things like how heat can be more efficiently converted into electricity, in an effort with the nuclear and solar energy programs. how water can be more efficiently used in power plants and how coal can be used to produce electrical power. the amendment would also reduce funding for a program that ensures we use our nation's fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly as possible. in fact, we increase the efficiency of our fossil fuel plants. by just 1%, we could power an additional two million households without using a single additional pound of fuel from the ground. that's the research we're doing in the fossil energier in -- energy area. that's where we would take the money out of. the area where most of our electricity is produced from. and shift it to an area, while important, doesn't produce nearly as much energy as the other areas in this bill.

so while i understand what the gentlelady is trying to do, we have actually increased the energy efficiency budget as i said by $26 million above last year and we will continue to work on that and i would oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to vote against it. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his ime. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida. 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 ohio seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clrk will report the amendment -- the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: page 19, line 12, after the dollar amount insert, reduced by $10,42,000. page 23, line 12, after the dollar insert, increased by $15 million. page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount insert, reduced by $,540,000. -- $8,540,000. the chair: the gentleman from ohio and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i rise to follow through on a promise the american government made to the people of my district and across the country, to fund nuclear cleanup projects at cold war enrichment facilities. this amendment would direct $15 million to the uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund. at the height of the atomic age, the government began

enriching uranium in our arms race against the soviet threat. mr. owens: -- mr. wenstrup: one of these facilities is in ohio. today, half a century later, it needs to be decommissioned and cleaned up, a task that has been entrusted to the department of energy. like other d.o.e. projects, this is largely funded through uranium sales. since the price of uranium has dropped significantly since fuke, additional funding is necessary it to make up for the loss of revenue. the community cannot move forward without an adequate cleanup. the people of pike county and the region worked extremely hard for the national security interests of this country. unfortunately we, the federal government, seem to be running from them in their time of need. this community is helds who tanl, unable to develop -- hostage, unable to develop their economy or their land until the cleanup is complete. delaying the cleanup punishes a community that answered our nation's call and now our nation is willing to walk away from them, leaving a radioactive and chemical contamination.

without adequate funding, the federal government is leaving a massively contaminated site right in the heartland of our country. a delay in funding for fiscal 2015 only means a higher cost to the government in future years. the success of the environmental management work at the plant is critical to the pike county area and the entire region. we're talking about good, honest, hardworking americans and we're standing in their way by undercutting the project funding and leaving a contaminated cold war facility in the heart of their community. in an effort to minimize wasteful delays, unnecessary laufs and job loss, -- laufs and job loss, our amendment -- layoffs, and job loss, our amendment would fix this. this amendment prioritizes funding for annual -- actual existing, ongoing project that employs hundreds of hardworking ohioans and keeps an important environmental management work onschedule. i acknowledge and appreciate the che he is -- the committee's work to include $15 million in funding for this

project, but the bottom line is this is far short of the needed $65 million more to continue the cleanup project in a timely manner. again, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment with each delay, the cost goes up. our nation benefited from the work conducted in pike county and now they're being left out. and endure more uncertainty from washington. this site must be cleaned up. it's an environmental imperative and an economic imperative. and it's the right thing to do. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. ms. kaptur: excuse me, would the gentleman yield? would you yield me time for a question? mr. wenstrup: yes. ms. kaptur: thank you very much. you are -- so i understand, where are you taking the $15 million from? mr. wenstrup: the $15 million is coming from renewable energy accounts and less crucial administrative accounts. ms. kaptur: can i offer the opinion that if the gentleman found different offsets, this

member as an ohioan would be very interested in supporting the workers there and in that region of ohio which are so devastated. at the moment i can't do that because i don't agree with the offsets. but i wanted to place the opinion on the record and i thank the gentleman very much for his efforts on behalf of the state of ohio and that region of ohio. mr. wenstrup: if i could reclaim my time. renewable is not an option for this area of america until it's cleaned up. and waiting costs more. and it paralyzes a large portion of ohio. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? mr. simpson: claim time in opposition to the amendment. the clerk: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition of the amendment, although i understand what the gentleman's trying to do.

the gentleman's amendment would increase appropriated funds by another $15 million. because of the overall reductions that were necessary in the department of energy's environmental cleanup programs, we balanced these reductions across all cleanup sites so that no one site is targeted. i certainly understand the gentleman's concerns about the site and this bill provides strong support for that area. despite the fact that funding at most sites is going down, the bill actually boosts funding for the site by $37 million above the fiscal year 2014 and $15 million above the budget request. however, i can't support further increases to compensate for the department's offbudget uranium transfers which our subcommittee has criticized for years. the department has been transferring stockpiles of uranium to generate cleanup funds for the site. a practice the government accountability office has determined to be illegal and

which could be further held up in fiscal year 2015 due to recent litigation. the department's reliance on its uranium transfers has inappropriately circumvented the appropriations process, has adversely impacted our domestic uranium mining and conversion industry and is now creating further problems as the market price of uranium continues to drop. i'm also concerned about the amendment's offsets, particularly the cut to eere, which is $113 million below the budget request. ms. ast amendment by castor proposed increasing eere by taking money out of fossil energies. i opposed that. wasn't because i don't like eere. it was because i didn't like where they were taking the money from. this would take money out of eere that's already reduced to $113 million. from last year. which i also oppose. so i must oppose this gentleman's amendment and urge

members to do the same. ms. kaptur: would the gentleman yield? mr. simpson: i'd be happy to yield to the gentlelady. ms. kaptur: i wanted to make a point on this particular facility. and the department of energy's seeming inability to help communities transition. whether it's coal-fired utilities, in the issues that coal country faces in general, or here you have a facility that's important in the nation's defense looking back and looking forward. and so many times it just seems that when technologies change, when situations change, the local people who invested their lives just get spit out. and i just wanted to put that statement on the record because i know the department of energy's listening today. and we have the ability in this country to transition communities, maybe in places like portsmith, we should be doing more in renewable, because america's going to need renewables and maybe there's a way the department of energy could be more creative, whether it's natural gas, whether it's

storage of certain materials and so forth. but to put all those people out of work without a plan, without a transition plan, it's like, you know, the private sector giving the pink slip at christmas. that's when they always give them the pink slips, right before christmas. it's so heartless. and here you have a community that's going to be heavily affected. so i just wanted to say on the record, mr. chairman, that i just -- i just feel that the department's been a bit laggered and i would hope they could work with us in a more constructive way. i understand what the gentleman's trying to do and he's very i think well intentioned as he comes to the floor today. i just wish i could do more to convince the department to help him. mr. simpson: reclaiming my time. i agree with the gentlelady's comments. i should say, it is not portsmith or the gentleman from ohio's fault that they have been using the uranium transfers to fund this. it's not the people that are working there, it's not their fault. it's the department's fault. and we have raised concerns for

years that that is inappropriate and illegal. and we knew that it was going to come to this when those uranium transfers couldn't be made anymore. because of the price of uranium and other things. and it's the result of the choice of the department to fund this by using the uranium transfers. unfortunately it has come to what we predicted would be a problem when we started raising these concerns with the department. so while i understand what the gentleman is doing and sympathize with what the gentleman is doing and would be willing to work with him to see what can be done as we move this -- as we move this bill forward, do i have to oppose the amendment as it currently exists. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. wenstrup: i would like to yield 90 seconds to my colleague from ohio, mr. johnson, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman has 60 econds to yield. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker.

today i rise in strong support of the amendment offered by dr. wenstrup. this much-needed amendment will blunt the job losses that are coming to the hardworking men and women who are currently working to try to clean up that atomic energy commission plant there in piketon. i understand the committee's attempts and i appreciate the committee's attempts. unfortunately the $15 million that they have put in this appropriation is still not enough to stop the hundreds of layoffs that will come if nothing more is done. nor is it enough to keep this critical cleanup project on track so that the property can be developed to create more jobs, to replace the ones that are going to be lost anyway. that's why this amendment is so necessary. it reroutes money from renewable and overhead costs to pay for the cleanup work that we promised to the piketon, ohio, folks and we ought to stay with that. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. .

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the their, the noes have it. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio 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. swalwell of california. page 19, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $111,641,000. page 21, line 2, after the dollar amount, instert -- insert reduced by $161,879,450.

the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. swalwell: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. swalwell: this legislation asks the simple question, will we look forward, as a country, as to where we draw our energy resources toward cleaner, more renewable sources, or will we continue to look backwards toward dirtier fossil fuels that will harm our environment. do we want to be part of a 21st century energy policy or do we want to be part of a 20th century energy policy? my amendment increases the office of energy efficiency and renewable energies, or eere, funding levels by $161 million above what's in the bill. the offset comes from the r&d in the amount necessary to make the amounts in my amendment budget

neutral. the request from the majority exceeds the white house's request for fossil fuel r&d but cuts the request for eere. this would bring the ee; re -- would bring the levels back to the 2014 level and ensure we're not moving backwards in our work toward energy security my colleagues across the aisle instead are seeking to cut this forward-looking program by $111 million. reducing funding for eere on top of the cuts it suffered last year is incredibly shortsighted, not to mention it's done at the expense of protecting fossil fuel industry who is already doing pretty all right, you ask me. i find it hard to believe that any of us actually have a problem with supporting efforts to become more energy efficient. the only reason i can think of that anyone would support any cuts to eeere would be a dislike on the part of some for the term renewable energy. by increasing energy efficiency

in our homes and businesses and through developing advanced models and methods of manufacturing, we will save money, we'll improve productivity and create new, good-paying jobs here in the united states, and most importantly, yes, we can reduce emissions from power plants that are contributing to global climate change and leave an earth that is much healthier for our children. one great example of this is that eere is partnering with colorado state university to provide small and medium-sized manufacturing companies no cost energy assessments. more than 650 energy assessments have been done to date with an average of $30,000 in energy savings per asaysment. i would say that programs like this are worthy of sustained support and $5.6 billion in savings have been found across the country. eere's manufacturing program is also enabling us to become a world lead for the making new energy technologies. so the choice is clear.

we can accept this massive cut to eere and risk becoming a net importer of next generation energy technologies or we can do what america has always done and we can look forward and we can make the needed investments to help us become a net exporters of these next generation technologies. eere supports all types of innovative and potentially ground breaking research in solar, wind, geothermal and other technologies. given how abundant these resources are, from the sun in the southwest to the wind in the plains to the numerous riffer rivers with potential for tidal power, we would be foolish not to look into using these resources on a greater scale. the problem with using these resources currently is when the sun is not shine thoring wind is not blowing, it's hard to use these resources. however, we are very close to

closing that gap and eere gos a long way to bridging that gap. they're also helping to pioneer research into advanced combustion engines that will drastically increase gas mileage in traditional cars, saving taxpayers countless amounts of oney even while removing pollution from the atmosphere. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment to restore the funding level of fiscal year 2014. appropriations is about priorities and priorities reflect values. america has always looked forward and we should not look anywhere but forward when it comes to where we receive america's energy needs. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks recognition? >> i claim time in opposition,

mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> while i appreciate the gentleman's comments, i have to say you can oppose this amendment and still like renewable energy. mr. simpson: i rise to oppose this amendment that would use the fossil energy account again as an offset. this year, funding for eere is $1.789 billion. $113 million below last year, and $528 million below the budget request. it's sill $1.789 billion. it's not like we're eliminating eere. they still have a substantial amount of money in that account. much more in that account than in the fossil energy account or the nuclear energy account. this is a modest 6% cut from the robust funding level included in last year's omnibus

appropriations bill and slightly below the fiscal year 2013 level presequester. but there's nearly $1 billion more than last year's house bill. the funding that the recommendation provides is focused on three main priorities where he's trying to take money out of the fossil energy account. helping america's manufacturers compete in the global marketplace, supporting weatherization assistance programs and addressing future high gas prices, these are areas with broad, bipartisan support. we simply cannot afford to increase funding in this bill by diverting funds from research to fossil energy. fossil fuels, as i said in the last couple of amendments, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, provides for 8 % of the energy used by this nation's homes and businesses and will continue to provide for the majority of energy needs for the foreseeable future. it is folly to believe that renewable energies are going to replace the base load that much of this produces for our energy

needs in the future. but renewable energies are an important part of an all of the above energy strategy we have in this country. but it is not renewable energies that's going to replace owl of the fossil energies that we have. so we need to do research into the fossil energies too and what they do. if we increase the efficiency of our fossil fuel plants, as i said earlier, by just 1%, the efficient soif our fossil fuel plants by 1%, we could power an additional two million households without using a single additional pound of fuel from the ground. that's energy efficiency. that's the research we are focusing on with funding this program. therefore i must oppose the gentleman's amendment. i'm happy to yield. the walswel: i would ask

gentleman's reasoning -- mr. swalwell: i would the gentleman's reasoning for reducing eere budget and increasing the fossil fuels budget maybe if you could explain the reasoning behind an increase in fossil and a decrease in renewable. mr. simpson: we tried to refocus to those areas that actually produce energy. 82% is produced by coal, oil, and natural gas. that's where we do the majority of our research. i'm not saying we shouldn't do anything in renewable energies. i love renewable energies. i don't believe they are going to replace the majority of our base load, and as the gentleman said, you've got real problems when the sun isn't shining if you're using solar energies. you've got problems if you're trying to address the base load that mean whence you turn on the switch, the power actually comes on, the light goes on. if you try to replace that base load and the wind isn't blowing and you've got wind power. but they are an important and

vital part of our energy mix but we are trying to put the research into those areas that we use most of -- that produce most of the electricity while still maintaining research in those areas that are important for the future. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. swalwell: do i have any time remaining. the chair: the gentleman has yielded his time back. the question is on the question offer -- on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. poe pose -- those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it, the amendment is not agreed to. mr. swalwell: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed thonings amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. -- furd proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by

mr. burn of alabama, page 19, line 12, after the dollar $1,907 insert reduce by million. page 20 line 13, after the reduceed. nt, insert the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from alabama and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama for five minutes. mr. burn: this amendment seeks to strike all funding for the department of energy's energy efficiency and renewable energy program. this program, under the department of energy, allows the government to invest millions of taxpayer dollars in high-risk research and development schemes for green energy, quote-unquote, projects to the tune, as we've heard already of over $1.7

billion. mr. byrne: the government should not be subsidizing the research and development initiatives of individual companies, competition and innovation have been key aspects of private sector success from day one in the energy sector and other parts of our economy and the government should not take the role of a private investor. for example, the eere program facilitated a $2.5 million grant o massachusetts-based tiax l.l.c. to work with green mountain coffee to reduce the energy used in roasting coffee beans. the program has also aloud for millions of dollars to large chemical and auto companies such as buying a subsidy to -- providing a subsidy to ford motor company to develop a new sheet metal forming tool. i have nothing against those companies but why should the government be picking and choosing winners and losers?

every business has a bottom line. which is in and of itself a direct incentive for developing methods for become manager energy efficient and innovative. by subsidizing the small sector of the energy economy, which includes renewables such as solar and wind and allows for such focuses as the weatherization of houses, we are essentially allowing d.o.e. to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on unconventional energy initiatives and projects that place taxpayer dollars at risk and that are not likely to produce a return on investment. we as a congress have continuously stated the need for an all of the above energy strategy but continue to -- continued investment into the eere program focuses on a small portion of a largely unproductive portion of the energy sector at the expense of more traditional energy sources. such as fossil fuels and nuclear , that we have a proven,

reliable track record on. with regard to the national energy policy, the committee report even highlights the president's failure to adequately focus our resources on an all of the above energy strategy, stating that, quote, his fiscal year 2015 budget request, like its predecessors, instead seems more ideological than practical. cutting, quote, this country's most important energy sources in order to increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, close quote. it goes on to state that, quote, as attractive as renewable energy may be, it will supply only a mere fraction of this country's energy needs over the next 50 years and it presents considerable challenges to the nation's existing electrical power grid. given its increased variability and uncertainty from supply and demand changes, close quote. .

at a time when many americans continue to struggle to make ends meet, including paying their energy bills, we must focus on reasonable energy strategies that allow for the most affordable and reliable energy sources for consumers and businesses alike. i am pleased that the committee has made reductions to this account in general. however, i believe that eliminating the energy efficiency and renewable energy program altogether under the department of energy will achieve all of our goals, while allowing savings to go towards the very important goal of reducing the deficit of this nation. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. ?ho seeks ms. kaptur: would the gentleman yield? the chair: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for five minutes in opposition.

mr. simpson: i yield to the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman for allowing me this privilege. i want to rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and to say that, you know, one of the reasons we have a budget deficit is because we have an energy deficit. and we've had an energy deficit for over a quarter century. well over three decades now. and every year the average family in our country puts out over $2,800 now just for gasoline for their automobiles. there are those who said we shouldn't incentivize the ethanol industry, now about 10% of every tank full of gasoline has ethanol in it. and that has reduced our imports. if you look at the hemorrhage from interest this country of over $10 trillion over the next quarter century, with oil being $100 a barrel, and you look at what's happening to the middle class in our country, because we aren't energy independent, we better be serious about changing the composition of

energy production in this country. because it is part of the major problem we face in lack of robust economic growth. you can't import economic growth. you have to produce economic growth. and one of the major ways we can produce economic growth in this country is to invent a future different than the past. and so i completely oppose the gentleman's amendment because you're going to increase the federal deficit. because economic growth will not increase at the level that it should be. it's been slowly creeping forward with the weight of two wars on our backs over the last decade or so. but you can't kill the future. and alabama especially. you had that major huntsville operation. with all those nasa facilities and all those subcontractors and there are parts of alabama that are doing very well as a result of federal investment. don't hurt the rest of the country on the energy front because you have some perspective about why we might have a deficit. we have a deficit because we're not inventing the future fast enough and we're importing too much of what we should be making here at home.

so i appreciate the courtesy in allowing me to place this on the record. we can't kill renewable energy. we can't kill the future. we've got to be able to invent it. and to cut off these imports and to begin to produce our way forward again in this country. it's a very -- i view it as our chief strategic vulnerability. so i appreciate the gentleman wants to do something good in terms of reducing the deficit. the best thing we can do is invent our way forward and create new energy sources for this country, including the renewables. don't kill the future. oppose the gentleman's amendment. i would respectfully yield the time that has been yielded to me back to the gentleman. mr. simpson: reclaiming my time. i also oppose the amendment. while i opposed increasing eere funding in previous amendments, i'm also opposed to eliminating eere. when you look at the traditional energy sources that

the government has done research into the fossil fuels, into nuclear energy, into fracking and other things, and hydrocarbonens. because they're important. -- hydrocarbons. because they're important. it's not the companies that we try to pick winners and losers from, but it's the technology that we try to do the research into, to try to advance certain technologies and help technologies become more efficient for the consumers to use. we're trying to make automobile morse fuel efficient. we're trying to do work to make trucks a supertruck that is much more fuel efficient. i guess it could be argued of whether the government should do any research at all. years and years ago a lot of those things used to be done by private companies. when you had the bell labs and other types of things like

that. those aren't done nimby companies. because -- done nimby companies. because -- anymore by companies. because they're much, much too expensive for companies to do. but they're good for our economy. i mean, you could make the argument that we really shouldn't have put any money into space research and putting a man on the moon. that should have been done by a private company. yet the american economy and the world has benefited greatly . from the investment that american taxpayers made into nasa. the same is true with fuels that we use. and while we have tried in this bill to refocus what the administration had proposed, which was huge increases for renewable energies that produce a minority -- small amount of energy compared to the others, we've tried to refocus that appropriation to where it more accurately reflects the actual energy used, percentage of the actual energy used. that doesn't mean that we can completely eliminate eere and

renewable energy. as i said previously, i like renewable energies. i think they're cute. they provide a small portion of ur overall energy demand and i don't see that increasing a whole lot. because they can't address the baseload needs of our energy demand in this country. but they are going to be a very important part of an overall energy strategy. with that i oppose the amendment and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. the gentleman has one minute. mr. bryne: i respectfully disagree with the gentlewoman. the reason we have a deficit problem is because we're spending money we don't have and thanks clear example of where we're spending money we don't have. even under the most optimistic projections for this year, we're going to run a $400 billion-plus deficit and we've got to start cutting in areas that may be good things or nice things, things we would like to do, we've got to start

prioritizing our spending. and this is one place we can start and i would urge this house to adopt this amendment, to make a concrete step forward in reducing our deficit and not favoring certain companies in our economy over the others. 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 alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. bryne: request a roll call vote. the speaker pro tempore: the amendment -- the chair: the amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i offer an amendment which should be at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. cohen of tennessee. page 19, line 12, after the dollar amount insert, increased by $10,340,000. page 21, line 2, after the

dollar amount insert, reduced by $15 million. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from tennessee and a member oppose will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i offer this amendment with mr. scott peters of california. mr. peters and i both have an interest in saving money and $5 amendment would save million. and in putting our moneys wisely in research on renewable energies which saves individuals money, individual citizens' money, and protects our environment. in using that money -- instead of putting the money in the budget, to do research on coal and fossil fuels that contribute to global warming and a threat to our environment. the fact is, the department of energy's energy efficiency

program has been effective. this would increase it by $10.3 million. this program is underfunded already in the bill. and it would take $15 million from funds that are in the budget for coal research and development, $15 million that are in excess of the president's budget request. the department of energy's energy efficiency programs partners with private industry, small business and academics to facilitate research development and deployment of innovative energy efficiency technologies in manufacturing buildings and homes. in this collaboration with these different stakeholders, they determined the best practices that can be found and then put into commercial use, resulting in energy saving advancements that create jobs and give businesses competitive advantages with foreign competitors.

increasing energy efficiency is often done in ways that the individual citizen benefits in their home by saving money by more energy efficient devices and appliances. we work on these in the energy department now and they finalize new efficiency standards for more than 30 household and commerce products. these include -- commercial products. these include dish washers, refrigerators, water heaters, the general stuff you have in your kitchen and home. because of the energy department's new efficiency standards, consumers are estimated to save more than $400 billion, $400 billion for our constituents, consumers, and will be cutting greenhouse emissions by $1 -- 1.8 billion metric tons through 20306789 that's a lot of -- 2030. that's a whole lot of help to our environment and constituents in saving money. just as an example, walk-in coolers and freezers. the rules that have been proposed will yield $37 billion in savings while cutting 159

million metric tons of carbon dioxide. that's the equivalent of taking 0 million cars off the road. so as the cost of energy continues to pose a burden on the american consumer's wallets -- american consumers' wallets, our voters, our taxpayers, our constituents, it costs them more money. and extreme weather causes climate change which threatens the fauna and flora, our property and the way of life, we need to find ways to reduce energy consumption and decrease those adverse effects upon our environment. we need to redouble our efforts at this point on renewable energy and energy efficiency and the efforts by this amendment would save money, $5 million for the budget, energy deficit reduction, it would protect our environment by having more research on energy efficiency standards, save our

consumers and constituents money and protect our environment at the same time, and yet not have us invest in fossil fuels needlessly which is the opposite direction we should be going. so i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment, show their -- both for fiscal conservative sound budget deficit reduction programs, as well as protect the environment and be concerned about the effects on the pocketbook of our individual consumers. reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his ime. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: mr. chairman, i rise to oppose the amendment. the amendment would increase funding for the office of electrical delivery and energy reliability by $10 million, using funds from fossil energy

as an offset. we've already had conversations about taking funds out of where we use, where we create most of our energy and some of the things that are done in fossil energy, while the gentleman speaks passionately about the environment, fossil energy also is doing the research into sequestration and carbon capture technology. i don't suspect that we are going to stop using fossil energy in the near future. in fact, if you looked at the predictions of the department of energy, of what the percentage of fossil energy is -- or what percentage of the energy's going to be used by fossil energy, be created by fossil energy 20 years from now, that's pretty close to what it is now. so it's important that we do some things environmentally like carbon capture and sequestration and we need to do some research into that. you're taking money out of the account that would do that. i don't think that's a wise thing for us to do.

while i share my colleague's support for the electrical grid, that's why this bill before us already provides a $13 million increase for the office of electrical and delivery and energy reliability above last year or 9% increase over last year. that's the largest percentage increase that any of the other applied energy programs within this bill. the largest increase. the bill prioritizes programs within o.e. that keep our electrical grid safe and secure, including $47 million for cybersecurity and $16 million for infrastructure security, which will provide $8 million for strategic operations center to better respond to emergencies. while i appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, and i've already spoken of the important investments that are -- that are -- that our fossil energy research does for our

economy and our electrical therefore iose -- i oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. would yield to the gentleman from west virginia. how much time do i have remaining? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. mr. simpson: i yield 2 1/2 minutes or whatever time he may consume to the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mckinley: this and other amendments i would oppose. this program is providing us the doorway, the pathway, for energy independence. in the past it's been funded by over $700 million.

this administration in the last four or five years has seen that eroded down and the appropriators have been putting it back up again. we have already made a cut from $700 million down to $590 million. we're talking about a huge cut that's already occur. what we have to suns that this facility, all across -- just in the sponsor of this amendment new york tennessee, there are 24 projects, $27 million being spent in his state to take care of, 300 jobs are at risk on this. more importantly is that what they're doing in this facility, all these across the country, the research laboratories, they're trying to find ways for us to have carbon capture. if we want to reduce the carbon footprint, we need to spend it through the department of energy in their laboratories and they're doing a chemical looping, one of the largest

projects in this country is being done. they're trying to find ways to reduce our carbon footprint by energy efficient high turbines for boilers to make coal -- to make energy from our coal, natural gas, and steam. trying to find ways to improve it. these this -- these are things they're working with. they're trying to find way of fracking the gas to get more gas out of the ground than we're getting right now. it has a terrific track record. we assume the best scientist and physicists in the country, working to try to make energy efficiency and we've cut their budget by over $100 million in the last few years. this is not a time, mr. chairman, to be cutting their budget and challenging them even further. if we're going to reach this, i want them to be able to reach internally to do the things that will give us energy independence. so it's not a time to poke an

eye at these hardworking people and what they've done. this is a time to continue the funding, continue this, if we're going to get energy independence, this is the way to do it system of again, i would andto reject this amendment any other that further erodes the power of neto to do its job. the chair: the gentleman has 30 seconds. mr. cohen: i was going to yield, but i'm not, i'm going to close by saying, one day, one day this house will see that we need to have more and more money put into research on energy efficiency and renewables and not into fossil fuel. i feel a cold wind coming from the south and i realize today it is not that day but one day, one day. with that, i ask for -- i'm going to withdraw the amendment because i feel that chill coming and i don't want anybody else to get a cold.

the chair: the gentleman withdraws his amendment, without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the gentleman will specify which amendment. >> this will be number one, beginning with page 19, line 12. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mcclintock of california, page 19, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $1,789,000,000. page 19, line 13, after the dollar amount insert reduced by $150 million. page 13, line -- page 30, line 11, insert reduced by $170 million. page 21, line 3, after the

dollar amount insert reduced by $120 million. page 59, line 20 after the dollar amount, insert increased by $3,099,000,000. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman this amendment requires energy companies of all kinds to fund their own research and development programs rather than continuing to require taxpayers to subsidize this activity to the tune of $3.1 billion. if we're serious about an all of the above energy policy, we've got to stop using taxpayer money to pick winners an losers in the energy industry and start -- winners and losers in the energy industry and start requiring every energy technology to compete on its own merits. for too long we've suffered if canconceit that politicians

make better investments with taxpayer money than individuals can with their own money. this research doesn't even benefit the common good by placing these discoveries in the public domain. any discoveries, although they're financed by the public are owned, lock, stock, and barrel, by the private companies that receive the public funds. public cost, private benefit. that's called corporate welfare. that's what these energy subsidies amount to. by amendment protects taxpayers from being forced into paying the research and development budgets of these companies. it gets government out of the energy business and requires all energy companies and all energy technologies to compete equally on their own merits and with their own funds. last year, when we debated similar amendments, we heard of the technological breakthroughs financed by the federal government, from railroads to the internet and we heard

promises of future breakthroughs from this massive expenditure of public funds. i freely recognize that if you hand over billions of dollars of public subsidies to private businesses, those particular private businesses will do very well. i freely recognize that some of these dollars will produce breakthroughs that will then be owned by these private companies and they'll do extremely well. but what the advocates of these subsidies fail to consider is the dilemma between the seen and the unseen, the immediate effects you can clearly see and the unintended effects that cannot be seen. in this case, what we don't see clearly is the opportunity cost of these subsidies. investors using their own money are very focused on making investments based on the highest economic return of these dollars. politicians using other people's money make investments based on the highest political return of these dollars. this is the principal difference

between apple computer and solyndra or between fedex and the post office. these public subsidies in effect take dollars that would have naturally flowed into the most effective and promising technologies and diverts them into those that are politically favored. dollar for dollar, this minimizes our energy potential instead of maximizing it. for example, hydraulic fracturing. it's revolutionized the fossil fuels industry and offers us the real potential of becoming energy independent. after the 1973 oil embargo, the federal government began heavily subsidizing research on this technology. how did it work out? according to cnn, quote, between 1978 and 2000, the federal government spent about $1.5 billion on oil and gas production, research, much of it on extracting fuel from shale according to a 2001 report from the national academy of sciences. but the process remained expensive and research faded as

oil prices came back down in the 1980's. by the 1990's, this is still cnn talking, private industry began to step back into the business with new technologies that lower costs, leading to today's boom and -- boom, end of quote. we were told last year that the little companies don't have the capital to develop their big ideas. that's why there are private investors who can accurately evaluate those ideas and invest in the best of them. government investment doesn't do that very well or very efficiently and it's time we had done with it. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? >> i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: this year the committee continues its responsibility to reduce government spending and we have worked tirelessly to that end. the bill cuts energy efficiency and renewable energy below last

year he's level and below the budget request. and the fossil and nuclear energy programs received modest increases. the increase to fossil energy was for research into how we can be -- how heat can be more efficiently converted into electricity and how coal can be used to produce electrical power through fuel cells. the increase will support base physical and cybersecurity facilities at the idaho national laboratory and protect the nation's nuclear materials and a range of national security at homeland security and other federal agencies. though my colleague asserts the amendment would keep the government from intervening in the private markets, these applied energy programs are strategic investments for our energy independence. i appreciate my colleague's desire to reduce the size of the

government but this amendment go taos far by eliminating the strategic investments we make for our own future. i therefore oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. simpson: i yield to the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would also like to rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and actually it's quite astounding that someone from the state of california a state that exists because of federal investment through the entirety of its existence, would come forward with an amendment like this. kind of -- for someone from ohio, it's very unusual to see this. let me just say that in opposing this amendment, i wish to offer the perspective that america can't live in the past. that in fact, when one looks at what we are enduring because of our dependence on energy that is imported, there is no greater imperative than for taos unhook

from imports. and as i look at the gentleman's amendment it's actually very destructive. you actually destroy our future. america is not innovating at the level that we should in renewables. we have a burgeoning solar industry, but china has captured it. she steals the patents, she steals the innovation and we don't do much about it. you take money from moss ill programs. i don't have all the scientific answers, but i know that a piece of our future relies on assets that we have here in the ground. the energy portfolio and the research portfolio of the department of energy is critical. it's the reason we have the horizontal drilling technologies. those were developed outside by

-- those weren't developed outside by some humanitarian group. they were developed by the american people's investment in drilling technologies that have now given us a gas boom that will help us transition to a new energy future because the gas won't last forever but at least we have the possibility of becoming independent here at home again. i find the gentleman's amendment very backward looking and i would say, for someone from the state of california if you look at the bureau of reclamation, all the benefits that have accrued to the state of california and your own presence inside this 50-state union, it is because of the investment in energy and water that you even exist. and so for you to come forward and, you know, it may be a well intentioned amendment, but to try to destroy the future of innovation through your amendment in the primary arena of imports, imported petroleum,

which we have to unhook from, and become energy independent, to me is just astounding. we live in very different universes, that's clear through your amendment. but there's no greater strategic imperative than for this country to become energy independent here at home. our liberty depends on it. if you go back over the last 25 years and -- and look at where our soldier have died, it is clear, we are not independent. i oppose the gentleman's amendment, i think it's backward looking, i think it fails to move america into a new energy future and i thank the chairman of our subcommittee for yielding me this timism oppose this amendment with full gusto. mr. simpson: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california has 60 seconds. mr. mcclintock: california had the freedom to develop its vast natural resources. it is government intervention that's caused this economy to

decline dramatically. both my friends miss the point. government simply doesn't make these investments as wisely as private investors who are using their own money. private investors invest to the highest economic value of a dollar. politicians invest to get the highest political return. the gentlelady is correct in one respect. california is the home of solyndra and many, many other failed government investments in recent years. it is the private investors who took up the research on hydraulic fracturing after government investments failed that have produced the technologies that are giving us the economic boom in states like north dakota that actually have the freedom to continue to develop their resources on public lands. it's simply a question of efficiently, a question of waste and right and wrong. let the investors use their own

money to make these research and development decisions. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. 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. mcclintock: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will e postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. an amendment by mr. mcallister of louisiana. an amendment by mr. -- ms. hahn of california. an amendment by mr. gosar of arizona. n amendment by mr. win strup of ohio -- mr. wenstrup of ohio. an amendment by mr. swalwell of

california. an amendment by mr. byrne. and an amendment by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair will reduce to two minute the time of any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana, mr. mcallister, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. cleag. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. mcallister of louisiana. 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 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 132. the nays are 284. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california, ms. hahn, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. hahn of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise nd be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. 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 281. the nays are 137. the amendment is not adopted. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. 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 two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 104. the nays are 316. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio, mr. wenstrup, on which the further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by

mr. wenstrup of ohio. 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 two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 112 and nays are 309. he amendment is not adopted.

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

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 1772. the nays are 245. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama, mr. byrne, on which further proceedings were postponed, and on which the noes prevailed by a voice vote.

clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by byrne of alabama. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. a recorded vote is ordered. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 110, the nays are 310. he amendment is not adopted. unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered.

members will record their votes by electronic device. [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.]

can

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 97 and the nays are 321. he amendment is not adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, 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 ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee

rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. hairman. 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. 4923 and has come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentleman from minnesota, mr.

klein, to suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 803, an act to reform and strengthen the work force investment system of the nation to put americans back to work and make the united states more competitive in the 21st century, senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment. 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.]