Expanding Access to Sustainable Energy Act of 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

We have heard the same sensible logic from our side of the aisle countless times over the past 24 hours as we have debated this bill and these amendments. The package is over-funded, incorrectly prioritized, and a partisan process nightmare.

So in a way, I guess it is fitting that this is the only standalone amendment we will consider today. It is one that is seeking even more funding for one of this bill's most misguided priorities.

The United States Chamber of Commerce said it best when they penned that this bill needed to avoid ``contentious and extraneous issues'' for this bill to be supported.

Let me tell you, the Democrats' unyielding focus on massive increases to applied energy and, in particular, for the DOE's already well-funded Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is the most contentious issue here.

By now, I am sure you can all say it along with me, but I cannot stress it enough: It is basic research, not applied energy, that will put us in the best global position to develop the long-term clean energy solutions to address our changing climate and, yes, lay the foundation for our clean and affordable energy future for generations to come.

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has grown considerably, starting with what was supposed to be a temporary recovery in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Remember that? Temporary.

What was it President Reagan said? There is nothing more permanent on Earth than a temporary government program. Here is a great example. Today it is funded at $2.8 billion, with a B, which is more than DOE's research in fossil energy, nuclear energy, electricity, and cybersecurity combined. And let me just say, there is no clean energy future without nuclear energy.

H.R. 4447, just the base text, would spend more than $3.7 billion on the EERE programs. Really? This amendment, which seeks to increase authorizations by an additional 50 percent, can only be labeled as irresponsible.

This is a contentious and extraneous issue. The country doesn't have unlimited Federal research funds. It just doesn't. I am sorry to disappoint y'all. It doesn't.

Look, it is difficult, but we must set priorities and invest strategically. That is our job, folks. That is our job. This amendment does exactly the opposite.

As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy of the House Science Committee, I support an all-of-the-above energy strategy, and, yes, that includes renewable energy. Texas is number one in wind energy. But supporting an all-of-the-above energy strategy does not mean increasing Federal investment for every R&D program in perpetuity.

What did Reagan say? Closest thing to eternity.

I would like to ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, when-- w-h-e-n--do we let the mature technologies of wind--w-i-n-d--and solar stand up on their own in the market without continued funding to ``reduce market barriers''? Market barriers? The only barrier is commonsense thinking that we don't need to increase that funding. That is the barrier we are struggling against here.

When do we acknowledge that the solar industry has an average annual growth rate of--check this out--49 percent? And wind power has tripled over the past decades, Texas being the leader. These industries don't need our support for deployment. They are already in the market and growing, for Pete's sake.

This kind of duplicative and shortsighted strategy, while it may result in politically expedient talking points--I give y'all that.

Madam Speaker, I hope that we will vote against this. I hope you will help us, Madam Speaker.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source