Peter Visclosky: “Woman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment for the very reasons that I mentioned earlier in…”

“Woman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment for the very reasons that I mentioned earlier in debate when the gentleman from Illinois had an amendment to cut EERE--the renewable accounts--to add $15 million to science. Again, in this case, I don't think it is wise for us to make a choice of cutting fossil energy research by $100 million to increase the energy efficiency account by one-half that amount, $50 million. The fact is I understand that some people have a significant concern about the use of fossil fuels. I certainly do myself. But the fact remains that 83 percent of all energy consumption in the United States today is generated by fossil fuel, and we need to apply ourselves to the wise and efficient use of that fuel as well. Again, I would reluctantly be opposed to the gentlewoman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.”