On the recordJuly 9, 2014
While I appreciate the gentleman from California's comments, I have to say that you can oppose this amendment and still like renewable energy, in contradiction to the gentleman's statement. I rise to oppose this amendment that would increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy by $112 million using the fossil energy account, again, as an offset. This year, funding for EERE is $1.789 billion, $113 million below last year and $528 million below the budget request. It is still $1.789 billion. It is not like we are eliminating EERE. They still have a substantial amount of money in that account. They have much more in that account than they have in the fossil energy account or that they have in the nuclear energy account. This is a modest 6 percent cut from the robust funding level included in last year's omnibus appropriation bill and slightly below the fiscal year 2013 level presequester. Put another way, there is nearly $1 billion more than last year's House bill. The funding that the recommendation provides is focused on three main priorities, where he is trying to take money out of the fossil energy account: helping America's manufacturers compete in the global marketplace; supporting the Weatherization Assistance Program; and addressing future high gas prices. These are areas with broad bipartisan support. We simply cannot afford to increase funding in this bill by diverting funds from research to fossil energy.…
