Peter Visclosky: “I appreciate the recommendation and also rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and will simply state that my…”

“I appreciate the recommendation and also rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and will simply state that my objection is based on national security concerns. The fact is, as the senior Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar has characterized our energy crisis for years, and I absolutely agree with him. The fact is the importation of petroleum products in our use of carbon, because of where we buy them, has created a significant national security issue for the United States of America. One of the accounts in the renewable accounts that will be eliminated under the gentleman's amendment is vehicle technology. There is no question American citizens are suffering today because of high gas prices. I myself--and I only speak for myself--can't do anything about that particular price at the pump today. But if through the vehicle technology program and the wise investment of the Federal taxpayers dollars we can get every American another mile per gallon, we have removed some of their economic discomfort and burden. We have also helped to begin to ensure our national security by reducing our dependency on foreign oil. Therefore, I do strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it. Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.…”