7:55 PM EDT

Paul C. Broun Jr., M.D., R-GA 10th

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment cuts $26.51 million from the Vehicle Technologies Deployment Subprogram in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Clean Cities program and transfers those funds to the spending reduction account.

The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has identified many concerns with this program which it has shared with the Department of Energy. This program filters over $25 million to about 90 coalitions to buy electric charging stations, E85 pumps, alternative fuel vehicles, and other infrastructure.

Beyond concerns with how this program is run and how the dollars are being spent, this program should not be funded or run by the Federal Government. This type of program is best served by the private sector or local and State governments.

Despite the management concerns, the Department of Energy has recently announced its intention to broaden the scope of the Vehicle Technologies Deployment Subprogram to also include the National Clean Fleets program. One mission of this program is to assist Fortune 100 companies to upgrade their commercial fleet. Is this really an appropriate use of Federal dollars when we are facing a $1.6 trillion deficit? Is it really appropriate to be helping companies such as Enterprise, GE, and Ryder upgrade

their fleets to electric or alternative fuel vehicles? The answer to these questions, in my opinion, is no. In fact, I think most of the American people believe the answer to those questions is no.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

7:58 PM EDT

Andy Harris M.D., R-MD 1st

Mr. HARRIS. The doctor from Georgia is absolutely right. We held a hearing in my subcommittee on this very topic, and it was very instructive because for the last several weeks we have heard a lot about, oh, my gosh, these giveaways to corporations and [Page: H4839]

how we have to look at them critically. Well, here is a program where we can put $25.5 million back into our deficit reduction by reducing corporate subsidies.

The doctor is right, GE doesn't need a subsidy, but they get it through this program. UPS doesn't need a subsidy; they get it through this program. They all make money, millions and billions of dollars, but this program gives them another subsidy. Verizon doesn't need a subsidy, but they get it through this program. They make a lot of money. They make a lot of money. This program subsidizes it.

And the gentleman is right, E85 is probably a bad choice. Why are we spending money--money that we have to borrow from the Chinese every day--in order to put E85 pumps around or to convert vehicles to E85 as part of this program? Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense.

This is another little contribution we can make. Our constituents have sent us here to deal with the Federal deficit. The doctor makes a contribution, $25.5 million. We held a hearing on this. You know, their press release on one of these was ``green beer for St. Patrick's Day'' because they actually spent money for a beer distributing company to upgrade their trucks.

[Time: 20:00]

Last I looked, that business made money. We shouldn't be subsidizing it.

This is a good amendment. The body should adopt the amendment, help cut our deficit, and stop sending money to corporations that simply don't need our help.

I yield back the balance of my time.

7:58 PM EDT

Andy Harris M.D., R-MD 1st

Mr. HARRIS. The doctor from Georgia is absolutely right. We held a hearing in my subcommittee on this very topic, and it was very instructive because for the last several weeks we have heard a lot about, oh, my gosh, these giveaways to corporations and [Page: H4839]

how we have to look at them critically. Well, here is a program where we can put $25.5 million back into our deficit reduction by reducing corporate subsidies.

The doctor is right, GE doesn't need a subsidy, but they get it through this program. UPS doesn't need a subsidy; they get it through this program. They all make money, millions and billions of dollars, but this program gives them another subsidy. Verizon doesn't need a subsidy, but they get it through this program. They make a lot of money. They make a lot of money. This program subsidizes it.

And the gentleman is right, E85 is probably a bad choice. Why are we spending money--money that we have to borrow from the Chinese every day--in order to put E85 pumps around or to convert vehicles to E85 as part of this program? Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense.

This is another little contribution we can make. Our constituents have sent us here to deal with the Federal deficit. The doctor makes a contribution, $25.5 million. We held a hearing on this. You know, their press release on one of these was ``green beer for St. Patrick's Day'' because they actually spent money for a beer distributing company to upgrade their trucks.

[Time: 20:00]

Last I looked, that business made money. We shouldn't be subsidizing it.

This is a good amendment. The body should adopt the amendment, help cut our deficit, and stop sending money to corporations that simply don't need our help.

I yield back the balance of my time.

8:00 PM EDT

Pete Visclosky, D-IN 1st

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and it would appear there will be others differing in amounts but very similar in intent. And I think that they do not represent a wise energy policy 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, an even more significant reduction compared to fiscal year 2010. So the committee, I believe, fully recognizes their responsibilities to be careful fiscally.

But I also must indicate that someone who I have a great deal of respect for, my senior Senator in the State of Indiana, Senator Lugar, has always characterized our energy problem as a national security problem. I think we all recognize it is an economic problem. We can debate the environmental aspects. I happen to think it is an environmental problem myself. But I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that 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 and more diverse matrix of energy sources.

Seventy percent of our energy today is created through coal and natural gas, and that cannot continue. That is not healthy for our Nation. It is not healthy for our economy. It is not healthy for our national security. We need to diversify. In this instance, the committee has recognized our fiscal responsibility but continues to make an investment in our economic, our job, and our energy futures. And I do oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.