Energy And Water Development And Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. This legislation asks the simple question: Will we look forward, as a country, as to where we draw our energy resources, toward cleaner,…
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
This legislation asks the simple question: Will we look forward, as a country, as to where we draw our energy resources, toward cleaner, more renewable sources? Or will we continue to look backwards toward dirtier fossil fuels that will harm our environment? Do we want to be a part of a 21st century energy policy? Or do we want to be a part of a 20th century energy policy?
My amendment increases the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, or EERE, R&D funding levels by $111.6 million above what is in the bill. The offset comes from the fossil energy R&D in an amount necessary to make the outlays in my amendment budget-neutral.
The request from the majority exceeds the White House's request for fossil fuel R&D but cuts the request for EERE. This increase in EERE would bring the funding levels back to fiscal year 2014 level and help ensure that, at the very least, we are not moving backwards in our work towards energy security.
My colleagues across the aisle, instead, are seeking to cut this forward-looking program by $111 million. Reducing funding for EERE on top of the cuts that it suffered last year is incredibly shortsighted, not to mention it is done at the expense of protecting the fossil fuel industry which is already doing pretty all right, if you ask me.
I find it hard to believe that any of us actually have a problem with supporting efforts to become more energy efficient. The only reason I can think of that anyone would support any cuts to EERE would be a dislike on the part of some for the term ``renewable energy.''
By increasing energy efficiency in our homes, at our businesses, and through developing advanced models and methods of manufacturing, we will save money, we will improve productivity, and create new good- paying jobs here the United States. And, most importantly, yes, we can reduce emissions from power plants that are contributing to global climate change and leave an Earth that is much healthier for our children.
One great example of this is that EERE is partnering with Colorado State University to provide small- and medium-sized manufacturing companies no-cost energy assessments. More than 650 energy assessments have been done to date, with an average of $30,000 in energy savings per assessment. I would say that programs like this are worthy of a sustained support and that $5.6 billion in savings has been found across the country. EERE's manufacturing program is also enabling us to become a world leader in making new energy technologies.
So the choice is clear: we can accept this massive cut to EERE and risk becoming a net importer of next-generation energy technologies, or we can do what America has always done, and we can look forward, and we can make the needed investments to help us become a net exporter of these next generation technologies.
EERE supports all types of innovative and potentially groundbreaking research in solar, wind, geothermal, and water technologies. Given how abundant these resources are, from the sun in the southwest to the wind in the plains to the numerous rivers and potential for tidal power, we would be foolish to pull back on the potential for using these environmentally sustainable resources for power on a larger scale.
The greatest challenge today with the renewables is that when the sun is not shining and wind is not blowing, it is very hard to harness those energies. However we are very, very close to closing that gap, and EERE goes a very long way to bridging that gap.
They are also helping to pioneer research into advanced combustion engines that will drastically increase gas mileage, with EERE funding, in traditional cars, saving taxpayers countless amounts of money even as they remove harmful emissions from the atmosphere.
EERE R&D can help our Nation transform the way that we generate and use energy. This cut that is proposed by the majority is unnecessary, ill-conceived, and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to restore the funding level of fiscal year 2014.
Appropriations is about priorities, and priorities reflect values. America has always looked forward. And we should not look anywhere but forward when it comes to where we receive America's energy needs.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Will the gentleman yield for a question?
I appreciate the gentleman from Idaho and his comments.
I would just ask that the majority's reasoning for--and I understand tough budgetary priorities have been made--but to reduce EERE's budget but to increase the fossil R&D budget, maybe if you could explain the reasoning behind an increase in fossil but a decrease in renewables?
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.