Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, may I ask if the ranking member, Ms. Kaptur, is prepared to close.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The gentleman from Michigan is correct: the Department of Energy would have the flexibility to transfer funds, as needed, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission either from funds appropriated in our bill or from funds previously appropriated for this purpose that remain unspent. This language would also allow the Department of Energy to reprogram funds and subsequently transfer them to the NRC for this purpose, if necessary, to ensure that no one could claim that access to adequate funds is a barrier to completing the review of the Yucca Mountain license application.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I would also like to recognize his leadership on this issue as the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He has worked hard with his colleagues to ensure that the will of the people is heard. The administration must apply the law that Congress already enacted and get this job done. We look forward to working with the gentleman to get this appropriation enacted and to get this license wrapped up at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for being a strong advocate for sufficiently maintaining his waterways and the Nation's waterways. These ports and channels are very important, not only to the Great Lakes' economy, but to our national economy, and I want to commend him for his attention to the needs of his constituents. He is extremely knowledgeable from a professional point of view and certainly as a Member of Congress, who voted to the needs of his constituents. The committee has heard from many Members, including from those from the Great Lakes, who are concerned that the administration's budget processing has left small, remote, subsistence ports across the Nation unable to continue to conduct business due to inadequate or oftentimes nonexistent maintenance. These are what prompted the committee to include a minimum of $30 million to be made available to such ports. The Great Lakes' ports will certainly be eligible for this funding. I believe our bill addresses his concerns to the greatest priority possible in light of other priorities which he mentioned in our bill, which are, obviously, balancing the Federal budget and controlling spending. I want to thank our colleague for bringing the concerns of the Great Lakes' ports to our attention. We will do our level best to work with the gentleman. We honor his request. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I appreciate your longstanding commitment to Hanford, and I support this amendment, which is aimed at strengthening environmental management in the Richland Operations Office. EM is a priority for the subcommittee. I look forward to returning to Hanford, as I have in the past, to get a firsthand look at the latest challenges and progress, and we know there are lots of challenges. As you know, Representative Hastings, the Department of Energy has not yet provided confirmation of probable tank leaks, a Record of Decision on the potential for tank TRU waste, or a plan for the waste treatment plant. This information will be required as Congress completes the appropriations process for the Office of River Protection.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. In the event of a continuing resolution, the Department of Energy has the flexibility in determining funding levels for individual programs and projects, including EM. Mr. Hastings, I am pleased to support your amendment and I wish its success.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I object. Would the gentlewoman be able to identify the amendment which she is proposing?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I withdraw my objection.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. This amendment increases funding for science, ARPA-E, and renewable energy, energy reliability and efficiency by a total of $1.7 billion, using defense environmental cleanup as an offset. Defense environmental cleanup provides funding to clean up the legacy of the Manhattan Project, as we discussed earlier, which is a huge task that will take years to do. It will be a major expense and will take significant resources. We heard part of the Washington State story, but there is part of it in other parts of the country as well. The Federal Government has an inherent responsibility to address this legacy and to ensure that the materials created to build our nuclear weapons stockpile do not endanger the public health and the environment. There are also some other daunting technical challenges in cleaning up this waste, and this amendment would, frankly, completely gut those types of programs. It is doubtful that this level would even sustain the basic operation and maintenance of the facilities, let alone allow for any progress in the cleanup effort. The cleanup effort needs to be sustained. Our allocation has made, as I said earlier in the afternoon, for very tough choices. We placed the highest priority on activities on which the Federal Government must take the lead. While the applied energy and advanced research programs are down substantially, admittedly, there is a strong interest in advancing these areas of research, and the responsibility for conducting that research can shift, in many ways, to the private sector. Therefore, I strongly oppose the amendment, and I urge other Members to do the same.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentlelady.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. In reclaiming my time, we know that the gentlewoman's heart is in the right place. We know of your heartfelt views. We would be happy to work with you to see what we can do to assist in these other areas, but this environmental cleanup, in some respects, is court-ordered besides there being, obviously, the potential for human health to be adversely affected. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I understand he may be offering some other amendments similarly related later on the floor. Suffice it to say that my remarks here will also pertain to those amendments. This amendment would unacceptably strike funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration's weapon activity by $245 million in order to increase funding for renewable energy, energy reliability, and efficiency activities. Ensuring funding to maintain our nuclear stockpile is our highest priority in our Energy and Water development bill. Historically, it always has been and will continue to be. We have put off for too long the investments that are needed to ensure that we maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile in the future. Because of this historical underfunding, there's been strong bipartisan support for increasing weapons activities. Our bill takes a responsible approach to meeting those needs, reducing funding $193 million below the request for nonessential activities within the weapons activities account that are not required to maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile, but there are no further savings available. A reduction of this magnitude would severely impact the National Nuclear Security Administration's ability to ensure the continued reliability of our weapons, something which the Secretary of Energy has to do to our Commander in Chief each and every year. I support the programs championed by my colleague. That's why we worked hard to increase the advanced manufacturing program by $5 million over fiscal year 2013 within an account that is cut by $971 million. I oppose the amendment and urge Members 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. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise to oppose the gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment. First of all, I want to salute him for being a strong advocate for water power. I think those of us on the committee are as well. His amendment would increase, as we're aware, funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy by $31 million using the Department's administration account as an offset to restore the water power program to the requested level. Our allocation, as I've said a number of times, made for some really tough choices. Our bill cuts applied energy and advanced research programs to allow more funding for inherently Federal responsibilities. While I support the program championed by my colleague, we can simply not afford to increase energy reliable activities so significantly by diverting funding from other essential activities within the Department of Energy. One of the issues within the Department of Energy is they've had management issues. They need money to better manage a lot of the activities. They have a new Secretary of Energy. He needs the resources to do it. If we keep tapping from this account, there will be no money to pay for the management and operation and the accountability we expect from the chief executive of this Department. Therefore, I reluctantly oppose his amendment and urge Members to do likewise. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I object to waiving the reading, and I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.