for this country. the first point i would make is that the bill includes a reduction of $491 million for the overall renewable program from fiscal year 2011, even a more significant reduction compared to fiscal year 2010. and so the committee, i believe, fully recognizes its responsibilities to be careful fiscally. but i must also indicate that someone i have a great deal of respect for, my senior senator from my state, senator lugar, has characterized our energy problem as a national security problem. we all recognize it is an economic problem. we can debate the environmental aspects. i think it is an environmental problem itself, but no one can dispute it is a national security issue relative to where we are buying so many of our petroleum products. and to gain energy independence, we are going to need a different matrix of energy sources. much of our energy is produced from coal and oil and it is not healthy to our national security. we need to diversify. in this instance, the committee has recognized and continues to make an investment in our economic, our job and our energy future and i do oppose the gentleman's amendment. and i would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: move to strike the last word. i would like to associate my remarks with those of the ranking member. this amendment would slash even more than we did in our committee, the vehicle technologies program. and this energy efficiency renewable account, there is almost nothing left in the account now. maybe the desire is to put this account out of business, but i think it's unwise. we made the tough choices. we have held our hearings. we have had the input and i would ask those to oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from georgia. the gentleman from vermont. jch indiana. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. welch of vermont, page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert increased by $491 million, page 33, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert reduced by $491 million. the chair: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for five minutes. mr. welch: i have been sitting here listening to what i think is a very interesting debate, what's the role that the taxpayer through this body should play in trying to steer an energy policy towards efficiency. there are a lot of contentious debates we have had about energy policy and about climate change. one of the areas that i found that we have frequently had common grouped is that less is more, whatever the source of energy that you use or favor, if a consumer is able to use less oil, that's what we rely on in vermont to heat our homes or less electricity that's generated by nuke, you can save money. and the efficiency title is one that gives us an opportunity to try to promote efficiency where doing so has significant benefits. last year, mr. speaker, we passed in this house but failed in the senate, an energy efficiency bill that would have given homeowners an incentive to put money into home retrofits and the government would have matched that. you would have had an all-in situation. when you are retrofitting your home, you are using local contractors. they need work and work that is done locally in your district and mine. 95% of the materials that are used in any kind of efficiency work in a commercial building or home building are manufactured in america. even without the debate of make it in america, we would be getting the benefit of manufacturing in america. and it would have the impact of saving homeowners money. that particular bill would have saved $10 billion in energy bills over 10 years. that is real savings for homeowners. the bill that's brought before the floor makes a decision to dramatically cut the efficiency title by about 27% or $491 million. what my amendment would do is propose to restore that money and take that from the nuclear security weapons activities account, which has $7.1 billion. so diverting the amount of money this amendment proposes would not wipe out that account in any way. you know, i think all of us would like to find some places we can work together despite the very significant differences between us. and efficiency, i found in the last congress, was one of those areas we had some potential to do it. ranking member -- then-ranking member bart ton was supportive of these efforts. and the money in this title actually does end up promoting projects back in your district and mine. i will give some examples and they are small things, but important. burlington, vermont, we had a program through this title that helped a community market install 136 solar panels on the roof of the city market and generated 30 kilo what thes of power and created jobs and reduced their costs and local, local people doing it. and water bury, home for seniors was retrofitted and improved with insulation. it's not rocket science, but it's real. real vermonters doing the insulation work and insulation manufactured in america and made the seniors warmer and made their bill lower. that kind of thing can happen all around. way up by the canadian border, auburn star farms got loans and grants from a home star energy program and allowed them to build a digest ter and will produce biogas to produce electricity and help the bottom line of that farm that is struggling with high costs. the real question before us is do we want to promote energy efficiency at the local level. all the various ways that people can save money, when we know that in your district or mine, republican, democrat or independent, we have out of work contractors and homeowners who want to save money and manufacturers who want to sell their goods. i urge the body to consider favorably the amendment that is before you and mr. speaker, thank you. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word and rise in opposition. let me salute the gentleman from vermont. vermonters are often characterized as being independent and self-sufficient and self-reliant. i have to note for the record that your 72% reliant on nuclear power in vermont. there may be other things dish you might want to check on that. i rise in opposition to the amendment because this decreases funds in order to increase the efficiency in renewable account. modernization of the nuclear complex is a critical national security priority and must be funded and doesn't matter whether it is the obama administration or the bush administration. all of our administrations are working to make sure that we have a nuclear stockpile that is safe, reliable and verifyable. with years of stagnant funding we have put off the investments that are needed to sustain our nuclear capabilities into the future. the funding in our bill for weapons activities is both now as a result now, both timely and urgent. when every tax dollar must be spent well, we cannot enact cuts that will risk our national security while throwing money at poorly-planned programs that have large balances which i mentioned earlier, $9 billion in the account of unspent stimulus money. i rise in opposition to the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote accordingly and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: i rise in opposition to the amendment. i talked about a mix of energy sources in the future, what the intent of the amendment is. he obviously wants to return us to where we are in fiscal year 2011. would certainly point out for the record that at that level, $1 billion, we will be significantly below where we were last year, fiscal year 2010, when our spending level in this account was $2,240,000. the problem i have is where the money has come from and that is the weapons account. too oven and we saw it last -- too often, we saw it last week and hold the defense department harmless. the committee has recommended and it was carefully considered, an increase in the weapons account. if the amendment was adopted, the fact is we would be $296 million current year level. i have on numerous occasions in my district in conversations with colleagues on the floor and elsewhere suggested that it is time -- if we are going to solve our budget crisis in america for everybody to belly up on both sides of the equation and i don't care where you are getting your pay check or earning your contract money, i cannot believe if you are a defense function of the government of the united states, you can't find one penny, one cent of saving out of every dollar we spend. that comes out to 1%. i think at this point, 4.3% in the weapons program that is important as far as their safety, security and suretty is a step beyond that 1% that i have talked about in the last months. so with great respect to my colleague, i would oppose this amendment and would yield back my time. the chair: jabts. the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: i move to strike the last word just for purpose of clarification. the chair: does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? mr. welch: yes. the chair: without objection. mr. welch: just a clarification. member from new jersey, vermont has about one-third nuclear power, that was misreported, one-third nuclear and one-third hydro and one-third other. mr. frelinghuysen: this is from the e.i.a. 22% is hydro and 72% is nuclear. nothing to be ashamed of. mr. welch: that is news to us in vermont and there is a dispute about the relicensing of the current nuclear plant we have. and i yield back. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from vermont. 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. welch: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from vermont will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. it's the nonpreprinted amendment. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. pompeo of kansas. page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $45,641,000. page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $45,641,000. the chair: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for five minutes. mr. pomeroy: thank you, mr. chairman. the -- mr. pompeo: thank you, mr. chairman. this would increase the energy renewable program by $45.6 million and the funding for d.o.e.'s vehicle technologies program. while i'm certainly 100% behind innovation and the development of domestic sources of energy and new vehicle technologies, this program is simply not the way to do it. we shouldn't take money from one set of citizens to subsidize companies that frankly have had subsidies for too long in the development of new energy vehicle technologies. it's a subsidy program plain and simple. the program is part of this president's administration's liberal agenda to replace the free market with government bureaucrats in determining which energy source we ought to use to propel our vehicles and for transportation. you know, we're already seeing tremendous advances in hybrid technology and electric vehicle technology in the state of kansas we have folks coming up with wonderful great, innovative ideas. they're seeking private capital markets to make that innovation happen. we have enormous venture capital firms that have made significant investment in these technologies. why would the government use taxpayer money to compete with those ventures? they don't need the subsidies, they'll make these things work. this is a quarter of a billion dollars in an r&d subsidy in a sector that has received subsidies for decades. and they know longer need that. they're -- and they no longer need that. they're far along. they can make these vehicles work. and the market will also choose them when they provide a technology that provides a cost effective solution for folks who want to drive their vehicles and for companies that want to move their products and goods all across our nation. you know, these subsidies comes in lots of forms and i've opposed them in every form. they come in our tax code, they come in the form of grants, they come in the form of other programs. both the house and the senate have recently rejected tax subsidies for specific fuel purposes already this year. this vehicle technology program should be no different. the president today said that we need to eat our peas. i suggest that he was suggesting that we need to do some difficult things, i happen to like peas. but he said we should do some difficult things. this is an easy thing. i would just as soon see this entire technology subsidy go away but my suggestion here in this amendment is only this, that we return to spending levels from 2008, just too two short years ago -- just two short years ago. i don't believe and i don't think the folks in kansas and across this country believe we spend too little meb money on vehicle technology subsidies in 2008. so i'd urge my colleagues to support this amendment and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i move to strike the last word and rice in -- rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i i would point out that we have a vote pending in the house for a reduction of about $26.5 million from this account. this would be an additional reduction of another $45 million from this account. the gentleman noted that what his intent is is to get the vehicle technology program, if i understand him correctly, back to where we were in 2008. if i did understand him correctly i would suggest that that is why we are where we are today, because the levels for vehicle technology research were inadequate, totally inadequate in 2008. you drive by a gas station today and gas is $4 a gallon. all of us repeatedly are asked what are we going to do about gas prices? if we are not going to act as far as price fixing, collusion, cartels, monopolies, speculation and we can't do anything about the laws of supply and demand, i have indicated to my constituents the thing that congress can do most effectively for the price of gasoline is help our constituents buy less of it. if we can through vehicle technology research help everyone in this country get an extra mile per gallon we have helped them with the price of gasoline. if we begin to cut back to prior year levels as far as the investment in making sure people can move in this country as efficiently as possible and reduce our dependency on imported oil we are not going to make economic progress in this country and are going to continue to be held hostage to those overseas who send that oil to us for our dollars that they then use for other nefarious purposes. so again i think that this is ill-advised amendment, i think it takes us into wrong direction . we should be looking for ways to ensure that we do good research to get more miles per gallon and to make sure that the department of energy also, as they do this research, ensures that it is applied not for more power in cars but for more miles per gallon because again this is our taxpayers' dollars. so for those reasons again i would be opposed to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: let me just say to the gentleman from kansas, he said he'd like us to at least go back to, in this particular account, to the 2008 level. maybe there's some consolation in our bill. we go back to 2007 in this account. and the bill is just beneath the overall allocation of our bill in terms of the final product is just beneath the 2016 level. you won't find too many bills on the appropriations docket that go back to those levels, recognizing this is 2011, our committee goes back to just below 2016 levels. so give us a little bit of credit -- 2006 levels. so give as you little bit of credit. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question son the amendment of the gentleman from kansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment say greed to. >> i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas will be postponed. the gentleman from new york. >> yes, mr. chair, 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 23rks line 4, after the dollar amount insert the following, increased by $226,800,000. page 33, line 20, after the dollar amount insert the following, reduced by $226,800,000. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. chairman. first i want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. vats, for offering this bipartisan amendment with me. is he a leader on energy issues and thank him for his support. mr. chair, the tonko-bass seamed simple. it will restore three specific results-driven energy efficiency programs within the fiscal year 2012 energy and water development appropriations bill. to last year's levels. it is neither a stretch nor an overreach, it is a balanced approach and it's fully offset. that is why i would like to ask unanimous consent to submit this letter of support for the record. the chair: the request is covered by general leave. mr. tonko: the following companies, organizations and associations all support the amendment and speak to its broad impact, the dow chemical company, the alliance to save energy, johnson controls, natural resources defense council, and approximately 75 more. i would also like to ask unanimous consent to submit two additional letters of support for the record. one from the southern states energy board and another from the united states green building council. the chair: the gentleman's request is covered by general leave. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. chair. first, this amendment will restore funding to the weatherization assistance program or w.a.p. w.a.p. is the largest residential efficiency program in our nation. it reduces the energy burden on low income families, the elderly and disabled and creates jobs, invests in local businesses and advances technologies. state-of-the-art technology. the 35% energy savings as a result of weatherizing homes under this program saves $437 in annual utility bills for the average homeowner. second, the amendment restores funding to the state energy program or s.e.p. s.e.p. is the only cost-shared program administered by the united states department of energy that provides resources directly to the states for allocation by the governor, for use in energy efficiency. this includes 56 state and territory energy offices and according to a study by the oak ridge national laboratory, for every $1 in federal s.e.p. funds, annual savings