Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Again, our committee's priorities are well known. The modernization of our nuclear stockpile is a national security issue. We need to continue to make those investments. I oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman from Nevada's amendment. First of all, while I appreciate the concerns that he has raised about the Office of Science, just for the record, the Office of Science has been funded at $32 million above the current post-sequester levels, so they have plenty of money. I rise, more importantly, on the second issue. This money comes from $25 million that we've set aside to address Yucca Mountain where we, as taxpayers, have put well over $12- to $15 billion of investment as a repository for high-level nuclear waste. We understand the dynamics of the State and resistance on the part of many there, but we also know that if we are ever to recoup that investment in the future, since consumers and taxpayers pay for that facility, that we are going to need some money to reopen Yucca Mountain. I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment, urge others to do so as well, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order. 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: Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup outlays at 65 percent, an increase in outlays of $3,250,000; and nuclear energy outlays at 55 percent, a decrease in outlays of $2,750,000, resulting in a net increase in outlays of $500,000. I ask for a ruling from the Chair at this time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. His amendment would increase funding for ARPA-E by $127 million, using offsets from weapons activities and our Fossil Energy account. While I support the ARPA-E program personally, we simply cannot afford to divert funds from our highest priorities, which are the nuclear weapons modernization program. The Fossil Energy account has been cut already, and I don't think it should sustain any further cuts, so I oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia. His amendment would cut $158 million from the Office of Science within the Department of Energy in favor of deficit savings. I should say for the record we cut approximately $220 million from last year's number. So we've substantially reduced this account. Let me just say, too, that the basic science program within the Department conducts research with a staggering potential for benefits for our Nation. Cutting the program further, which is what he seeks, threatens our long-term energy security, hurts American scientists and industry, and I think to some extent blemishes our credibility as a worldwide leader in basic science programs. I therefore oppose this amendment, urge others to do likewise, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment, but let me salute the gentleman from Florida for his patience--I know he has been in the Chamber at least 5 or 6 hours waiting for his mark in this bill so he could get up--and also for the kind words, but most especially those directed towards our staff, which, as you know, have been dealing with an open rule, which is part of our process here, and juggling quite a few amendments which continue to come over the transom and will be coming over the transom all night. Indeed, I wanted to thank you for that recognition. I do oppose the amendment because it would increase funding for the Office of Science, not because I don't support the Office of Science, but it would hit our National Nuclear Security Administration's weapons activity account. I do support the basic science programs championed by our colleague. We worked hard in our committee to prioritize basic science. As I said earlier, this bill actually increases the Office of Science's budget by $32 million above the current post-sequester level, but we still make national defense the first priority in our bill, and so I oppose this amendment and urge others to do likewise. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment, but I do salute the gentleman for his work at the Fermilab, one of the finest labs in the Nation. Obviously, we appreciate his knowledge, and I would salute his contributions to science during his career before he came here. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I oppose his amendment. A cut of this magnitude to the weapons activities would seriously endanger our ability to carry out the modernization work that I talked about earlier, and so I oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. This amendment would unacceptably strike funding for NNSA's weapons activities by $325 million in order to increase funding for ARPA-E at the Department of Energy. I am supportive of ARPA-E, but a reduction of this magnitude in the National Nuclear Security Administration's Weapons Activities account would seriously affect their ability to ensure the continued reliability of our weapons. These weapons have to be certified by the Secretary of Energy to the President, our Commander-in-Chief. The Secretary's ability to do that would be hurt by cuts of this magnitude. And for this, and other reasons, I oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. While I appreciate the gentleman's position on the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan program--and certainly some of his knowledge of the program is entirely accurate--the elimination of this funding would hurt Federal oversight of the more than $8 billion in loans already given. As our committee report states, there are no new applications for this program, and the Department of Energy doesn't expect any. The committee recommendation includes the $6 million as a reasonable amount to provide oversight and direction to the existing loan portfolio, and no more. So I must oppose the gentleman's amendment in order to ensure proper oversight of taxpayers' funding that's already out there in the form of loans, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I must oppose the gentlelady's amendment. This is, though, a very important program, and I support it, our committee supports it. But this program is primarily funded within the Office of Legacy Management. That office receives substantive funding in this bill under the account for other defense activities. Funding for the Legacy Management increases $3.4 million over fiscal year 2013. The Office of Legacy Management is the correct office to provide stewardship for the legacy sites. They are the experts. And I am happy to help ensure that this very important program receives support within available funding for Legacy Management. I look forward to working with Ms. Jackson Lee to support this program as we move on through the appropriations process, but I oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, our bill had many competing priorities with a low allocation, and I appreciate my colleague's commitment to finding more savings in the bill. He is ever persistent, and I salute his willingness to challenge us each year on the floor when we do this energy and water bill, and we are not the only bill where he makes these challenges. However, the Department Administration account in our recommendation was already suffering a $49 million cut from last year's level. Earlier amendments that we did this afternoon and this evening have taken another $60 million. There is not a lot of money left to run the department. While some may want to close down the department, the department has some pretty incredible responsibilities in terms of nuclear safety and national defense and things that relate to cleanups and things of this nature. If they had to respond--if you will pardon the expression--to some of the emergencies that we might have as a Nation, and we know our deficit is an emergency situation, they might not be able to respond on our behalf. Therefore, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Our bill provides $560 billion for the B61 Life Extension Program, $23.7 million above the request. I understand there are concerns about the cost of the refurbishment of the B61 and the committee shares those concerns. As a result, this bill contains a provision that requires that NNSA provide a full analysis of the alternatives that were considered. But failing to move forward without the full support of the B61 refurbishment will put that program even further behind what is already a tight schedule. The Government Accountability Office conducted a study of the B61 Life Extension Program in 2011 and reported there was no room left in the refurbishment schedule. If the Life Extension Program slips further behind, there will be gaps in the United States commitment to our NATO allies. In fiscal year 2012, NNSA performed a full cost estimate for the B61 refurbishment, and the Department of Defense Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation validated those costs. This was the most comprehensive and accurate performed by the NNSA on a life extension to date--aka the administration was behind the most comprehensive and accurate report on the program to date--and the costs, by everybody's admission, were admittedly staggering. Those costs were ultimately verified and provided to the committee in a cost report. The amount of funding in this bill is consistent with that cost report and provides $23.7 million above the amount requested, which fell slightly short of the validated figures. The National Nuclear Security Administration explained the shortfall away by stating they would find unspecified ``efficiencies in the program,'' hence the additional money. While I do support a concerted effort that will lower the cost of this program to the taxpayer, we never received any plan on how the NNSA--aka the administration--proposes to find savings. This is not the first time this has happened. The administration has as a stated goal to reduce the overall cost of the W76 Life Extension Program. The Department of Energy's inspector general reported there was no credible plan to make savings and that the lower funding levels being requested would simply lead to delays in the refurbishment. We cannot allow the B61 Life Extension Program to be further delayed given the important role it serves in providing a nuclear umbrella to our allies. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's amendment and I salute, obviously, his desire to protect all of our nuclear sites. I certainly share the gentleman's concern for the security of nuclear weapons infrastructure. The security incursion at Y-12 in Oak Ridge in July of 2012 revealed some disturbing problems with Federal oversight that directly impacted the effectiveness of the protective forces. In particular, a botched security upgrade project caused an excessive number of false alarms, which distracted the security forces. And poor maintenance practices meant the security cameras where the protesters entered the high- security area were not working. There is also a second security upgrade project at Los Alamos that was installed incorrectly. The National Nuclear Security Administration is still working on getting that project back on track. We need to be able to upgrade our security systems, but I have concerns that taking on a third project in 2014 will lead to more problems. Our report has directed NNSA to wait a year before starting the project at Nevada. Given the problems, I feel this is the most prudent path forward and will give the administration some time to implement the reforms that are so urgently needed in security oversight and project management. So I must reluctantly oppose the amendment at this time. I yield back the balance of my time.