Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. One of the convincing arguments you made, you made reference to the Department of Energy newsletter, a new program where maybe personal responsibility should be perhaps ahead of what they may suggest. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I assume it is verifiable. Twenty-two percent is hydro and 72 percent is nuclear. Nothing to be ashamed of.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. This is from the EIA.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The gentleman from North Carolina's amendment increases funding for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable account, a program that I said earlier has seen record increases since 2007 and still has $9 billion in unspent stimulus funds in its account from 2009 to spend. On that alone, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman's amendment would increase funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy accounts and reduce funding for Fossil Energy Research and Development and nuclear energy research. This would increase money for a program that already receives sufficient funds and hamper efforts to further technologies that produce most of our electricity. Madam Chair, the gentleman asserted that fossil and nuclear energy are yesterday's sources of energy and that we're shortchanging tomorrow's energy sources. Well, in fact, nuclear energy produces 20 percent of our Nation's electricity, and even the State of Massachusetts depends on nuclear energy for about 10 percent of its energy. 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. In fact, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts gets 80 percent of its electricity from fossil fuels. I understand his desire to move us forward, but realistically, we'll be using fossil fuels for decades and nuclear energy perhaps for centuries. And we must ensure that we use those resources as efficiently and clearly as possible. Further, the amendment increases funding for that Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account, a program that has seen a record increase since 2007 and still has nearly $9 billion of unspent stimulus funds from 2009. Imagine that. There's a proper role for core Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs, and our bill preserves funding for those activities while cutting out activities that are redundant with the private sector or that interfere improperly in market innovation. But his amendment would add back unnecessary funding for administration proposals that are poorly planned and lack justification. For example, the administration proposes more than $200 million to deploy electric vehicle infrastructure. But after repeated requests, the department provided less than one page of explanation for this program. At best, this funding would be poorly used, and at worst, it will interfere with entrepreneurial innovations in infrastructure underway in the private sector. The administration also proposes a new Race to the Green program, a State and city grant program. Again, after repeated requests for justification to the Department of Energy, this new $100 million proposal is accompanied by barely more than a paragraph of explanation. When every tax dollar must be spent well, we can't throw money at poorly planned programs while cutting fossil energy and nuclear programs. I, therefore, oppose the amendment and urge all Members to do likewise. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order. The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment does not merely propose to transfer appropriations among objects in the bill but also proposes language other than amounts. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order, and I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the amendment. I share in the gentleman's support for smart investments in our Nation's water resources infrastructure and in the good work of the Army Corps of Engineers. I well understand on the committee the economic benefits of spending money on these needs. At the same time, we cannot ignore the importance of addressing our Nation's deficit problem and the other priorities of the bill, namely national defense and scientific innovation. The underlying bill balances these important goals, in part, by reducing the construction account from the fiscal year 2011 enacted level but not by nearly as much as that account was reduced in the President's own fiscal year 2012 budget request. With this level of funding, we are working to reduce the deficit, funding our national defense needs, supporting scientific innovation, and at the same time allowing the Corps to continue progress on the most critical water resources investments. We must preserve the careful balance that this bill strikes. Therefore, I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to assert my point of order.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment basically for the same reasons I did for his earlier amendment. We worked hard to preserve a careful balance that our bill strikes, but I appreciate his effort. We recognize his commitment to this type of work; and when we have a better allocation in the future, maybe we will be able to be of more assistance. I continue to reserve my point of order.

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

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.