Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Himes of Connecticut makes a good point about the importance of making infrastructure investments before major disasters can occur. I share his concerns about the backlog of Army Corps of Engineers projects, particularly in the backdrop of communities throughout the New England and the Mid-Atlantic area that continue to rebuild after one of the worst storms in our Nation's history. I want to assure the gentleman that the committee's position on New Starts is reconsidered each and every year. We take a look at the funding requirements of ongoing studies and projects, new studies and projects, and overall funding levels for certain accounts. I commend the gentleman for his attention to this issue. I look forward to working with him to address these new needs at the earliest appropriate time, and I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I appreciate my colleagues from New Mexico raising their concern for the long-term vitality of the National Nuclear Security Administration's laboratories. I look forward to working with both of you to make sure that the levels allowed for the Laboratory Directed Research and Development, or the LDRD, program do not adversely impact the national security capability of these remarkable laboratories.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment. This amendment would cut funding, which has already been cut today, for the Fossil Energy Research and Development program, on top of reductions that we also took of 16 percent in our bill before we brought our bill to the floor. We all know that American families and businesses are struggling to pay high gas prices. This Fossil Energy Research and Development program holds the potential, once and for all, to prevent future high gas prices and substantially increase our energy security. To cut it further would be dangerous and counterproductive, so I strongly oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleague from West Virginia for his continued leadership on fossil fuel research. He knows it firsthand. He is a strong advocate. He is a strong supporter of NETL, of which he speaks, which is an important center for a critical, critical purpose. As he knows well, fossil energy provides 82 percent of our Nation's energy needs, and research into tapping these resources as efficiently and as cleanly as possible is vital to our energy security. I look forward to continuing to work with him and our other colleagues who have interest in fossil energy research through conference to ensure this vital program has adequate resources.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment, but I appreciate his persistence in trying to find an offset. I, of course, share the gentleman's support for smart investments in our Nation's water resources infrastructure. In fact, as I've said on a number of occasions, the Corps of Engineers was really one of our primary priorities in putting our bill together. The total program level is $50 million above the budget request and almost $150 million above the post-sequester level. The Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account specifically is at the President's request. These funds will go primarily to training and response activities. If repairs to projects are necessary due to storms, the Corps has previously-appropriated, unobligated Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies funds which could be used for these purposes. On the other hand, the bill has already reduced funding for fossil energy by $84 million, which is a 16 percent reduction, and I believe we took another substantial reduction earlier this evening. Research conducted within this program ensures that we use our Nation's fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly as possible. We simply can't take another reduction to this account. For this reason and several others, I oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of Rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The amendment proposes to state a legislative position. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank my colleague for his interest and strong advocacy on behalf of the Jefferson Lab and for the nuclear physics program. Our allocation has made for some tough choices, and we worked hard to fund the Office of Science at $32 million above current levels, post-sequester. This level of funding is sufficient to support a $7.5 million increase for the Medium Energy Nuclear Physics program, which goes to the Jefferson Lab. I want to thank my colleague for his advocacy and look forward to working with him to support this vital program through the appropriations process. I also assure my colleague that the bill keeps CEBAF on track to begin operations in fiscal year 2014.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment. Our colleague from California describes yet another troubling example of what seems to be Federal overreach, regulatory overreach. I support his amendment, which I think addresses the situation. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I don't have any objection to the amendment, although I do have a few concerns, which I'd like to cover. First of all, I want to thank my colleague for bringing these issues to our attention. If, in fact, the Corps' actions are detrimental to flood control efforts in his region, those types of actions need to be stopped, and I would be happy to work with him to do that. I do believe, of course, that some of these issues would be better dealt with by the authorizing committees that have jurisdiction over the Corps and the Endangered Species Act. So I think there are some concerns that we have that are legitimate here. We're going to do some more investigation and work with the gentleman to see if we can address his concerns. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under section 3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5, 113th Congress, which states: It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriation bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI. The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that this amendment has costs associated with it. The Corps' current pricing policy is based upon ``updated cost of storage'' which reflects today's value (indexed to current price levels) rather than at the original construction cost price level. So reverting to construction cost levels will unavoidably have a cost, with the net effect of increasing the level of budget authority in the bill. Under section 3(d)(3), an increase in budget authority must be accompanied by an equal or greater decrease. This amendment does not contain an equal or greater decrease, and so violates section 3(d)(3). I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The House has worked its will over the past 2 days, and dozens of amendments have been considered in a very open and amicable process. This bill strengthens national security, fosters a stronger economy, and maintains important infrastructure that keeps American open for business and promotes job opportunities. And we do all of this while making some tough, but smart, funding decisions, saving taxpayers $2.9 billion over last year's enacted level. We have just 2\1/2\ months left before the end of the year. This is the time to act. Now is the time to pass our government funding bills. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit and to support the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on consideration of H.R. 2609, and that I might include tabular material on the same.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is my honor to bring the fiscal year 2014 Energy and Water Development bill before the membership of the House. However, before I go through its highlights, I would like to thank my ranking member, Ms. Kaptur, for her partnership on this bill and hard work and friendship. It's been a real honor to work with you, and I look forward to working with you to get through the entire process. I would also like to thank all the members of our committee on both sides of the aisle for putting this bill so quickly together and so responsibly. I would also like to recognize the hard work of Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey to bring this bill, and several others before it, to the floor under an open rule. The bill for fiscal year 2014 totals $30.4 billion, $2.9 billion below last year's levels and more than $4 billion below the President's request. The budget allocation we received this year made for some very difficult decisions, but in our bipartisan tradition, we worked hard to incorporate priorities and perspectives from both sides of the aisle. Mr. Chairman, we placed the greatest priority on national defense, our nuclear deterrent, also the critical work of the Army Corps of Engineers and other activities on which the Federal Government must take the lead. The reductions we had to make to the applied energy research and development programs will shift more of their work to the private sector. The bill provides $7.6 billion, an increase of $98 million above the fiscal year 2013 amount, to modernize the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and its supporting infrastructure, excluding rescissions. I would also like to note that the recommendation contains no funding to implement the President's recently announced plans in Berlin to reduce the nuclear stockpile. No funding for such purposes will be available until Congress has judged that these plans will fully support our national defense. The recommendations increase the Corps of Engineers by $50 million above the President's request and redirects funds to ensure our waterways and harbors keep America open for business and economically competitive. These waterways and harbors handled foreign commerce valued at more than $1.7 trillion last year alone. As in previous fiscal years, the bill maintains the constitutional role of Congress in the appropriations process by ensuring that all worthy Corps of Engineers projects have a chance to compete for funding. Basic science programs total $4.7 billion, just above last year's post-sequestration levels. Environmental cleanup programs to address the legacy of the Manhattan Project and other contaminated sites are funded at $5.5 billion, approximately $185 million above the post-sequester levels for fiscal year 2013. In order to find room for the bill's core priorities, applied energy research and development had to be cut. The recommendation prioritizes funding in this area for programs which truly support American manufacturing jobs, stable energy prices, and diversity of energy supplies. Our bill includes $450 million for fossil energy technologies and $650 million for nuclear energy activities. Both of these programs are cut below the fiscal year 2013 post-sequester level. The bill combines the electricity delivery program and the energy efficiency and renewable energy program, and provides $983 million for these activities, excluding rescissions. The recommendation orients these programs to focus on electricity infrastructure resilience--to include cybersecurity--and gasoline prices. Finally, on Yucca Mountain, our recommendation includes $25 million to sustain the program, along with similar language as last year's prohibiting activities which keep that facility from being usable in the future. It also includes support for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to get that Yucca license application finally finished. No funding is included for requested activities to move past the Yucca Mountain repository program. If and when Congress authorizes changes to the program of record, the committee will consider funding for alternatives. Mr. Chairman, this bill recognizes our fiscal realities and makes the tough decisions to ensure we get our spending under control without sacrificing our most critical of Federal functions. I'm expecting a vigorous and open debate during an open process over the coming days so all can have a chance to contribute to this legislation. Before I reserve the balance of my time, I want to thank those who helped bring this bill on the floor. On the majority side: our clerk, Rob Blair; Angie Giancarlo; Ben Hammond; Loraine Heckenberg; Perry Yates; Adam Borrelli. On the minority side: Taunja Berquam. From our personal offices, Ms. Kaptur's: Nathan Facey, her deputy chief of staff; and Ryan Steyer. From my staff: Nancy Fox, my chief of staff; and Katie Hazlett. All of these individuals and others behind the scenes make this process work, one that we can be proud of, and I think we have a bill that, indeed, we can be proud of. I reserve the balance of my time. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY13.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY13.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY13.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY13.004