Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to speak in support of the gentleman from Georgia's amendment. He is so articulate and so convincing, we are willing to accept his amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment, but I give him credit for pursuing it. I have already noted that the bill reduces funds for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy activities from that account because the government needs to live within its means and really because they don't need any additional funding. This amendment increases that account despite, as I said earlier, $9 billion in unspent stimulus money. But perhaps the amendment illustrates how there is simply no room to increase funding for this provision, as the amendment makes an unrealistic cut to departmental administration to do so. It's not responsible to cut administration and oversight, the very thing that both the ranking and I would suggest the Department of Energy needs more than anything. They need people to review their programs, provide accountability, meet the benchmarks we've set and the timetables we've set and report back to our committee. So I oppose the amendment and urge others to do so as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. First of all, let me compliment my colleague and good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett). And, of course, I'm reluctant because he's done his homework and he's worked hard, and I believe, with him, that we need to reduce Federal spending. We've been going over a financial precipice. But we on the Energy and Water Committee made a commitment. Of course, we were given a very low allocation, so we had to meet that. But we have cut Energy and Water back to approximately the 2006 level after multiple hearings. We have put into the bill more oversight. I believe we have made the tough choices. We've reviewed all accounts. We've put at the pinnacle, of course, our responsibility for national security, national defense, and the weapons program and the nuclear navy, the next class of Ohio ballistic submarines, and also made substantial investments in the Army Corps of Engineers. I am reluctant to oppose this amendment, but I think we've made the tough choices. I urge Members to oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Let me just say to the gentleman from Kansas, he said he would like us at least to go back to, in this particular account, to the 2008 level. Maybe there is some consolation: In our bill, we actually go back to 2007 in this account, and the bill is just, just beneath the overall allocation, in terms of the final product, is just beneath the 2006 level. You won't find too many bills on the appropriations docket that go back to that level, recognizing this is 2011. Our committee goes back to just below 2006 levels. So give us a little bit of credit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Certainly let me salute the gentleman from Vermont. Certainly Vermonters are often characterized as being independent and self-sufficient and self-reliant. Of course I would have to note for the record that you are 72 percent relying on nuclear power in Vermont. There may be other forms of power, so you might just want to check on that, just for the record. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment because this amendment decreases funding for weapons activities by $491 million in order to increase, as we heard, the Energy Efficiency and Renewable account. Modernization of the nuclear complex is a critical national priority and must be funded, and that doesn't matter whether it's the Obama administration or the Bush administration. All of our administrations are working to make sure that we have a nuclear stockpile that is safe, reliable, and verifiable. With years of stagnant funding, we have put off long enough the investments that are needed to sustain our nuclear capabilities into the future. The funding in our bill for weapons activities is both now, as a result, timely and urgent. When every tax dollar must be spent well, we cannot enact cuts that will risk our national security while throwing money at poorly planned programs that have large balances, which I mentioned earlier--$9 billion in the EERE account that's unspent of stimulus money. So not so reluctantly, I rise in opposition to the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote accordingly. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would like to associate my remarks with those of the ranking member. This amendment would slash even more than we did in our committee, the Vehicle Technologies Program and this Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account. There is almost nothing left in the account now. Maybe the desire is to put this whole account out of business; but personally, I think that is unwise. We have made the tough choices. We have held our hearings. We have had the input. And I would ask Members to oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I have mixed views as well. Obviously, Israel is a strong ally, and were it not for Kazakhstan, we perhaps wouldn't be able to do some things militarily to support our troops that are both in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think that it bears close watching, but there is a perception that somehow we're giving China, India, Brazil, and other countries sort of an advantage. I view this program as a two-way street. It does provide a degree of access to American companies. So I reluctantly oppose your amendment, but I can assure you that both of us feel very strongly that it bears watching. It has borne some fruit, so it's not money wasted, and it's not money given away to our competitors. At least that's my view of it.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The gentleman from Virginia's amendment would increase funding for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and reduce funding for Fossil Energy Research and Development. This would result in an increase in a program that already receives sufficient funds and hamper efforts to further technologies that produce most of our electricity. Let's be frank. Fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas, generate 70 percent of our Nation's electricity, and we will use these valuable energy sources for many generations. We must ensure that we use those resources, of course, as efficiently and cleanly as possible. Further, the amendment increases funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, a program that has seen record increases since 2007, and still has nearly, if you can believe it, $9 billion of unspent stimulus funds from 2009. There is a proper role for the core Energy Efficiency and Renewable programs, and the bill preserves funding for those activities while cutting out activities that are redundant with the private sector or that intervene improperly in market innovation. The amendment would also add back unnecessary funding for administration proposals that are poorly planned and lack justification. That in and of itself is bad enough, and I oppose the amendment and urge others to do so as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the amendment. The weatherization program was provided $5 billion by the stimulus bill in 2009. But the program has been slow to act, and approximately $1.4 billion will be unspent and available for use in fiscal year 2012. Some States have spent all of their stimulus money, while others will have plenty left for fiscal year 2012. But the Department of Energy, by law, must spread any new funding evenly across all States. The bill cuts this program by $141 million below the President's request. The language in the underlying bill gives the Secretary of Energy the flexibility to use limited appropriations provided in fiscal year 2012 to supplement States that have no stimulus funding. The bill does not allow--I would like to add that emphasis--the bill does not allow the Secretary to reallocate stimulus funds. All it does is allow the Secretary some flexibility in where he allocates it. There is $33 million left in the bill. Let me say, we can't afford, in the Department of Energy, with this program, or any other program, to have business as usual in terms of weatherizations. And I would agree with the gentleman from Colorado that in many cases, the money hasn't been spent, and in some cases there have been questions as to how well it's been spent. This waiver in our bill provides a solution allowing all States to continue this program under a tight federal budget and with direct oversight of our committee. The amendment that is suggested by the gentleman from Colorado would undo the solution by striking language providing this flexibility, causing job losses and program stoppages in many States where, in fact, in those States, these funds are obligated. So, therefore, I oppose the amendment and urge other Members to do so as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Our Energy and Water bill is already $1 billion below last year's fiscal amount and $2.8 billion below fiscal year 2010. As a matter of fact, our entire mark is reaching the 2006 level. So the committee has done its homework. We've made deep cuts. I think the committee understands we're about to go off a fiscal cliff in our country, but the cuts that we've made were developed after a lot of hearings, a lot of discussion, a lot of thought. The bill recommended by our committee recognizes that the Federal Government has gotten too large--and in many ways philosophically I agree with a lot of what the gentleman from California says, that we're too involved with the private sector, sometimes picking winners and losers and different technologies where the market should be choosing. But the committee is also mindful that there are appropriate roles that the government should take because sometimes the private sector can't or will not take those risks. The cuts proposed in this amendment would eliminate, as the ranking member said, or cut many worthwhile programs, put at risk, I think in many instances, our country's competitive intellectual advantage, and put in doubt perhaps the ability of the private sector to make some substantial investments. And those investments lead to jobs, jobs that we badly need. So for that and many other reasons, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I still oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the amendment. The amendment that has been rewritten somewhat would reduce funding for salaries and expenses in order to increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy activities at the Department of Energy. Within this year's extraordinarily tight budget constraints, the bill cannot fund programs that overlap improperly with the private sector, for one; or that do not have pressing needs for additional appropriations. In other words, Madam Chair, I can't support reducing funds for an account, especially for accounts and administrative purposes that oversee Department activities. We need more oversight in the Department of Energy. So I reluctantly oppose the amendment. As I promised, I said I would yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would like to take my own time to respond in a more formal manner. I would be happy to yield to you perhaps at the end of my remarks.