Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, this bill, in its current form, appropriates considerably above the administration's mark for fossil energy research and development. My amendment doesn't take away all of the amount that has been plussed up. It just takes a small amount of that--$13 million out of the $645 million, which is the amount the bill is above last year's appropriations--and directs those funds to the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy fund, which is an extremely important fund that funds a lot of important activities across our country.
As an example, the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy fund is working with American manufacturers to apply 3-D printing, also called additive manufacturing, to renewable technologies. Blades are one of the most costly components of wind turbines, but additive manufacturing has the promise of reducing costs. There is a lot of important basic research that supports it.
In addition, they are working on--it is funded by EERE--advanced technologies for microgrid projects, coordinated with the Electric Power Research Institute, to have localized grids that are connected to traditional grids--but can also disconnect--to operate autonomously and help mitigate grid disturbances, meaning more security for our national energy system when we can avoid large-scale downtime from large grid outages.
Another example is solar resource maps, leading to solar exports to enhance the quality and accuracy of our research maps across the country, helping to facilitate exports of solar PV products to other countries, like India, by identifying high-quality solar projects in India that are creative and profitable.
Another example of the EERE is the Vehicle Technologies Office to the Clean Cities coalition in support of a project fostering electric vehicle readiness in the Rocky Mountain area to foster State policies to increase the adoption of plug-in electric vehicles.
As we know, plug-in engines powered from the grid are far more efficient at converting energy, whether it comes from a balance of coal and wind and solar, than an internal combustion engine that just runs off gasoline.
So the budget estimate for the fund that we are talking about was $360 million. The plus up recommended was $645 million. This would simply remove $13 million and allocate it to a very important account that I hope we can build bipartisan support for.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am hopeful that this amendment will pass. I have prepared some other amendments that specifically look at the fossil fuel R&D as a wasteful expenditure.
To be clear, this one does not contemplate that. It still increases the level substantially from the budget estimate, which is $360 million for this account. The recommended 2017 level in the chairman's mark is $645 million, so there is a plus-up of $285 million over the President's budget for this line item.
So I think it is entirely appropriate to just take $13 million from that, without prejudice with regard to the rest, put it into the Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy Fund, which I had the opportunity to talk about some of the great advances that it makes for energy security with regard to our grid, for manufacturing, and job creation through 3D printing of wind blades, and many other worthy causes.
I am hopeful that this body chooses to gain from the best of both worlds by adopting this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, look, now let's get serious here. Fossil fuel research and development is simply the wrong direction for our country. Putting more and more money behind oil and gas, which we need to move away from, over time, is only increasing our sunk costs in an economy that leads to climate change and long-term ruin. Not only our economy is ruined by the use of oil and gas, but health and safety for communities, our oceans, our air, and our world.
The fact that this bill has appropriated almost $300 million more than the President requested shows how lopsided the priorities in the bill are. This is an enormous subsidy for the oil and gas industry. One of the most profitable industries in the world is more than capable of funding its own research and development without subsidies from the Federal Government using the taxpayer money from hardworking Americans to further fund them.
This bill would simply reduce the fossil fuel account back to the President's recommended level, and the remainder would go to reduce the budget deficit.
I think that this is an important point to point out, that many of the components of the fossil energy R&D expenditure line make our air dirtier, our water dirtier, and, of course, move to destruction of the climate. So, in many ways, the less we can do the better.
At a time of record budget deficits, finding smart savings by reducing handouts to the oil and gas industry is something that can help restore some semblance of fiscal responsibility to our Nation.
There is an example of an account under the Division of Fossil Energy that creates technology that allows oil and gas companies to drill in oil shale formations where there is less than 50,000 barrels per day.
We should be doing less oil shale drilling, not ways to find more. As a district and a State directly affected by oil shale drilling, we deal with all of the economic externalities and costs every day. Oil shale is one of the most dirty extraction methods that exists, and the distillation for oil shale releases toxic pollutants into the air, like sulfur dioxide, lead, and nitrogen oxide.
If companies want to research new extraction technologies, more power to them, as long as they abide by the EPA and other health and safety guidelines. But for taxpayer money and subsidies to go to developing something that has been devastating for my State and for the country is really an abomination, and I am hopeful that, in the name of reducing a budget deficit and finding smart savings, we can reduce this line significantly back to the $360 million that was in the original budget estimate.
Point of Order
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, it is simply the deficit savings account, so when the money isn't spent, that is where it goes. The deficit savings account is not an outlay. It is simply not being spent in the first place.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, point of parliamentary inquiry.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, when would it be in order to present the amendment?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, further point of parliamentary inquiry.
If the deficit reduction account is not cited, what happens to the savings that are designated under the bill?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the amendment has been revised, and if I might request that the Clerk report the revised amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I believe with this new structure of this amendment we have now addressed the procedural issue around deficit reduction. We are now, again, with this amendment, seeking to reduce the fossil energy subsidies back to the level requested by the President and return the savings to our Federal coffers, namely, by not spending them in the first place.
So, again, in previous amendments, we talked about spending some on renewable energy. In this case, it doesn't increase any of those lines. What it does do is simply decrease the subsidies to the fossil energy industry, including some of the research priorities we talked about, which private companies are welcome to pursue.
But I don't want to go back to Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer in my district and say, guess what, your hard-earned tax money is going to subsidize these multi-billion dollar international corporations to do their research for them.
This amendment would do that. It would then allow the savings to not be spent and to reduce our deficit.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, we have a somewhat ironic situation where the Republicans are saying: President Obama, you don't want to spend enough. President Obama, you have to spend more.
This from the so-called party of fiscal responsibility telling our President's budget: You aren't spending enough, you aren't spending enough on fossil fuels on this case, spend hundreds of billions of dollars more of money we don't have that we are borrowing from China and Saudi Arabia to fund a legacy technology that we are moving away from.
Of course, we still rely on fossil fuels. The gentleman won't have any disagreement, and I am not trying to zero out the account. We are simply reducing it to the level that the President wants to spend at rather than throwing more and more money hand over fist like this Republican tax-and-spend Congress continues to do.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment would do is reduce the budget deficit by $285 million. It gives Congress an opportunity to say: Let's not spend more than the President of the United States wants; let's make some reasonable cutbacks to levels that are in the budget estimate already; and rather than throw subsidies hand over fist to the most profitable industry on the face of the planet, instead of rebalancing, let's move towards balancing our budget.
I came here to reduce our deficit. I support a constitutional amendment to balance our budget. We haven't been able to have a vote on that in this body this session of Congress. By reducing this $285 million of expenditures where we found an area where Congress actually wants to spend $285 million more than President Obama wants to spend, let's just go back to what President Obama wants to spend, okay, rather than be even more profligate throwing money hand over the fist after a legacy industry and research that should be done by highly profitable private companies, let's simply cut it back to the level in the President's budget and move towards balancing rather than rebalancing.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I would and I have supported across the board 1 percent cuts and 3 percent cuts. I am happy to do it on this bill, too. I hope that somebody offers one. I haven't prepared one. Usually Mrs. Blackburn prepares those. I usually vote for them as long as they are reasonable.
What we have here is a targeted cut that can reduce the budget deficit by $285 million by simply spending as much as President Obama wants to spend. We shouldn't need a balanced budget amendment. I support it. Let's bring it to the floor. I am glad the gentleman agrees. I hope he tells his conference and the majority leader to work with Democrats on a bipartisan amendment to balance our budget.
But in the meantime, we needn't wait for that. Let's start right now. Let's cut $285 million which will actually make a dent in this bill and move towards balancing the budget rather than simply put it off for tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, the $500,000 in funds will be for sites where remediation is currently being conducted by the Office of Legacy Management at DOE in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, called CERCLA--these are called CERCLA sites--and/or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, RCRA.
So it is CERCLA sites and RCRA sites. There are eight of them in seven different States. There are two in Ohio, one in California, one in Kentucky, one in Utah, one in Florida, one in Colorado, and one in Mississippi.
In Colorado, Rocky Flats, which is a now-shuttered nuclear weapons plant, has oversight by DOE. They do some water testing, but downwind and downstream communities have concerns about potential contamination.
These funds will help complete testing, which is vital for scientific knowledge, for public confidence, and for public health. We need them as we move forward with various uses of the land and properties in the area, including, in the case of Rocky Flats, opening to extensive public visitation.
Several municipalities and communities in my district have voted to ask for more soil samples. The portion they have asked for this regarding is both on Fish and Wildlife- and DOE-managed areas.
I personally have heard from many scientists, residents, even somebody who investigated the former Rocky Flats plant 30 years ago, who feel that it is very important that we make sure that the downstream areas and the site are not still contaminated and not hazardous for human visitors.
We need to have the proper science by testing the air, water and soil, relatively low-cost propositions that would be funded by this small change from administrative accounts. These funds, to be clear, would be applied to all CERCLA lands, such as Rocky Flats and the others.
Mr. Chairman, to conclude, I am very grateful to work with the committee and their staff on this important testing for CERCLA and RCRA lands like those at Rocky Flats and in the other seven States.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source