Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against Mr. Heller's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would forbid funds for Yucca Mountain, but its most damaging effect is to stop the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from moving ahead with the Yucca Mountain license, application and review process. Mr. Chairman, the House has overwhelmingly voted multiple times over the last several years to reject the administration's closure of Yucca. The gentleman's amendment would do nothing but support the administration's political manipulations and it will waste over $12 billion of ratepayers' money. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 15 seconds to my ranking member, Mr. Pastor.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill, and therefore it violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rules states, in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties. 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. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California.

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

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I think the idea is we wanted to wrap this up without too much debate. I just felt in fairness that the gentleman deserved some extra time. I don't think we need to prolong this.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I urge a ``no'' vote. This is a proposition that ought to be discussed by the authorizers. It should not be considered within the limits of this continuing resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment attempts, using the appropriations bill before us, to enact significant legislative changes to a prior law. The law in question, enacted by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, establishes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as the issuer of licenses for liquefied natural gas terminals. Notwithstanding the merits of the gentleman's concerns, and we can see the gentleman cares deeply about the issue and knows of the issue, this is not the appropriate place to modify such a law, as this amendment would attempt to do. Frankly, such a broad authorizing issue warrants a suitably more broad discussion. We would be happy to work with the gentleman to facilitate that wider discussion at the appropriate time, on the appropriate bill, and through the appropriate committees of jurisdiction. In this regard, I yield to my ranking member, Mr. Pastor of Arizona, for the time that he may wish to consume. (Mr. PASTOR of Arizona asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield the remaining minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire about time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield 1 minute to the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's concern over responsible spending and the need to address the Nation's deficit problem. That's why our continuing resolution before us reduces spending by historic proportions. Where I differ from my colleague is whether there is a Federal interest in beach replenishment projects. Beach replenishment projects aren't just about dumping sand on shores so people can have fun. These projects provide States with protection from coastal storms for individuals and businesses, and these projects must meet the same standards of economic justification and cost benefit ratios as other levee projects and navigation projects. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), former chairman of the committee.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I join with the ranking member in opposing this amendment. The current allocation for defense is already $14.8 billion below the fiscal year 2011 request, an almost 3 percent reduction; and of course our committee wants to help to address the Federal deficit, too, as do other committees. Further, arbitrary reductions, especially of this magnitude of over $23.5 billion, will basically bring the Department of Defense to a grinding halt, perhaps one beyond what is reasonable. Specifically, the amendment would require reducing and canceling training for returning troops; canceling Navy training exercises; reducing Air Force flight training; delaying or canceling the maintenance of aircraft, ships or vehicles; delaying important safety and quality-of-life repairs to facilities and military barracks. At a time of war, we should be showing support for our troops and not undercutting them, even though for good reasons, in order to lower the Federal deficit by making reductions of this amount.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a fellow member of the committee.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to associate my remarks with those who rise to oppose the amendment, basically because it's across the board. Right now we are affecting the Army Corps of Engineers in a way that will affect most of our major navigation around the country. Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio River. We need to get these projects moving. They are important to commerce, billions of dollars of commerce, suppliers, producers. And lastly, there is a national security aspect. We need to maintain the reliability of our nuclear stockpile. That's under the Department. There is nothing more important than the nuclear stockpile. Protecting that stockpile, making sure it's reliable, and that we meet the requirements of cleanups across the Nation. Across the board cuts would impact that in a big way.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address concerns that many of my colleagues have expressed to me regarding maintenance to the Lower Mississippi River deep draft navigation channel. As the Chairman of the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, I am well aware of the economic benefits provided by the Mississippi River system that connects approximately 30 States in our Nation's heartland with international markets. Accordingly, the Subcommittee works hard to ensure that the Lower Mississippi River deep draft navigation channel is maintained by the Corps to meet export and import trade and other domestic transportation needs. As Congress considers the Continuing Resolution for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011, I want to assure my colleagues that I have provided sufficient flexibility within the $2,361,000,000 in the operation and maintenance account for the Corps to maintain the Lower Mississippi River deep draft navigation channel to adequately meet our transportation needs. It is our intent that the Corps recognizes the economic importance of navigation on the Lower Mississippi River when allocating these funds.