8:26 PM EDT

Pete Visclosky, D-IN 1st

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise in opposition to the amendment as well.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.

8:26 PM EDT

Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-NJ 11th

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. In order to increase funding for this energy efficiency and renewable account, the gentleman's amendment again suggests we decrease funding for weapons activities.

As I said earlier the modernization of the nuclear complex is a critical national security priority and must be refunded. Reductions of this magnitude would be unacceptable and impact our ability and our nuclear security strategy.

These reductions in the nuclear account would be to increase funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs primarily in the area of weatherization in the State Energy Program. For your information, these two programs have $3.4 billion in unspent funds from the 2009 stimulus and a full $2.7 billion is expected to be available for use in fiscal year 2012.

They don't need any more money. The Department of Energy needs to get the money out of the door, and if they aren't capable, they need to make sure States that have received money get money out of the door. So I therefore oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

8:28 PM EDT

Charles Bass, R-NH 2nd

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. As much as it pains me to oppose the position of my good friend from the State of New Jersey, I rise in support of this very worthy amendment and want to thank my friend from New York for his sponsorship of it.

As he said, it raises the Weatherization Assistance Program by about $141.3 million, the State Energy Program by $25 million, and the Buildings Technologies Program by $60.5 million, basically to the level funded at the 2011 level. It is offset, as was mentioned, by a reduction of an increase in the Nuclear Security Administration's Weapons Activities, which would make that line item level funded as well.

And I believe, as has been said by my friend from Indiana, as well as my friend from New Jersey, that the Weapons Activities Programs are laudable, especially as they relate to the safety and security of our weapons stockpile. But I think level funding the 2011 levels is adequate.

[Time: 20:30]

When you look at the weatherization programs and what they do, you can't dispute it. Low-income individuals cannot afford to spend money on efficiency. It's just not possible. Yet when they do, it has a positive impact on all sorts of other programs, one of which is LIHEAP.

As was mentioned by my friend from New York, these programs pay back on the order of $7, $8, $9, $10, $11 to $1 spent, not only in savings to low-income individuals but also to the Federal Government. This is good for the economy. It puts people to work. It's good for energy efficiency and lessening our dependence on foreign sources of oil, and it does contribute to the long-term national energy goals for this country as I see them.

So all that Mr. Tonko and I are looking for is level funding for fiscal year 2011 for both the nuclear weapons program as well as the weatherization program, the State Energy Program, and the Building Technologies Program, which benefit so many people in so many different parts of America.

So I urge adoption of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

8:28 PM EDT

Charles Bass, R-NH 2nd

Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. As much as it pains me to oppose the position of my good friend from the State of New Jersey, I rise in support of this very worthy amendment and want to thank my friend from New York for his sponsorship of it.

As he said, it raises the Weatherization Assistance Program by about $141.3 million, the State Energy Program by $25 million, and the Buildings Technologies Program by $60.5 million, basically to the level funded at the 2011 level. It is offset, as was mentioned, by a reduction of an increase in the Nuclear Security Administration's Weapons Activities, which would make that line item level funded as well.

And I believe, as has been said by my friend from Indiana, as well as my friend from New Jersey, that the Weapons Activities Programs are laudable, especially as they relate to the safety and security of our weapons stockpile. But I think level funding the 2011 levels is adequate.

[Time: 20:30]

When you look at the weatherization programs and what they do, you can't dispute it. Low-income individuals cannot afford to spend money on efficiency. It's just not possible. Yet when they do, it has a positive impact on all sorts of other programs, one of which is LIHEAP.

As was mentioned by my friend from New York, these programs pay back on the order of $7, $8, $9, $10, $11 to $1 spent, not only in savings to low-income individuals but also to the Federal Government. This is good for the economy. It puts people to work. It's good for energy efficiency and lessening our dependence on foreign sources of oil, and it does contribute to the long-term national energy goals for this country as I see them.

So all that Mr. Tonko and I are looking for is level funding for fiscal year 2011 for both the nuclear weapons program as well as the weatherization program, the State Energy Program, and the Building Technologies Program, which benefit so many people in so many different parts of America.

So I urge adoption of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.