Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the request for a recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) be withdrawn, to the end that the Chair put the question de novo.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

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

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 5325 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 667, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except: pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chair or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees for the purpose of debate; amendments printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1, 10, 17, and 18; an amendment by Mrs. Blackburn regarding an across-the-board reduction; an amendment by Mrs. Blackburn regarding section 1705 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; an amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia limiting funds for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy; an amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia regarding Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy awards with expected Technology Readiness Levels; an amendment by Mr. Chabot regarding funding levels in title IV of the bill; an amendment by Mr. Cleaver limiting funds relating to the Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan; an amendment by Mr. Cravaack regarding the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; an amendment by Mr. DeFazio regarding section 9.104(d) of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; an amendment by Mr. Denham regarding section 10011(b) of Public Law 111 11; an amendment by Mr. Engel limiting funds for new light duty vehicles, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding an across-the-board reduction; an amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Wind Powering America initiative; an amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Batteries and Electric Drive Technology program; an amendment by Mr. Flores limiting funds to enforce section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; an amendment by Mr. Fortenberry regarding funding levels for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; an amendment by Mr. Fortenberry limiting funds for the proposed rule ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies''; an amendment by Mr. Frelinghuysen regarding funding levels; amendments en bloc by Mr. Frelinghuysen consisting of amendments specified in this order not earlier disposed of; an amendment by Mr. Gardner regarding energy management requirements under the National Energy Conservation Policy Act; an amendment by Mr. Gohmert regarding Department of Energy construction, purchase, or lease in the District of Columbia; an amendment by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas regarding funding for Corps of Engineers Operation and maintenance; two amendments by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas regarding funding levels for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; an amendment by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas regarding funding levels for Corps of Engineers Construction; an amendment by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas limiting funds for Department of Energy; Energy Programs; Science an amendment by Mr. Jordan limiting funds for title 17 loan guarantees; an amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code; an amendment by Mr. Kucinich regarding section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; an amendment by Mr. Landry limiting funds relating to mitigation methodology, referred to as the ``Modified Charleston Method''; an amendment by Mr. Landry regarding section 801 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; an amendment by Mr. Luetkemeyer limiting funds for the study conducted pursuant to section 5018(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007; an amendment by Mr. Luetkemeyer limiting funds for the study authorized in section 108 of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009; an amendment by Mr. Lujan regarding funding levels for Defense Environmental Cleanup; an amendment by Mrs. Lummis regarding uranium; an amendment by Mr. McIntyre limiting funds to plan for termination of periodic nourishment for water resource development projects; an amendment by Mr. Mulvaney regarding an across-the-board reduction; an amendment by Mr. Pearce regarding funding levels for Defense Environmental Cleanup; an amendment by Mr. Polis regarding funding levels for Weapons Activities, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; an amendment by Mr. Reed regarding funding levels for Non- Defense Environmental Cleanup; an amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher limiting funds for the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center; an amendment by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California regarding funding levels for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; an amendment by Mr. Schock regarding a prohibition on the planting of row crops; an amendment by Mr. Schweikert regarding title 10, Code of Federal Regulations; an amendment by Mr. Stearns regarding funding levels for Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy; an amendment by Mr. Stearns limiting funds to subordinate interest in any loan guarantee; an amendment by Mr. Stearns limiting funds for purchase of light duty vehicles; and an amendment by Mr. Tipton limiting funds to conduct surveys; and further that each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, or by the Member who caused it to be printed in the Congressional Record or a designee, shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole, and shall not be subject to amendment except that the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations (or their respective designees) each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and further that except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and further that an amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 5325, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The amendment offered by our colleague would cut nuclear energy research and development activities by 70 percent. It would all but eliminate this very critical program to our Nation. Our bill provides the same funding level as last year, funding that is a critical part of our support for a balanced energy portfolio, protecting American manufacturing, and reducing reliance on foreign energy sources. Nuclear power generates 20 percent of our Nation's electricity. It will continue to play a large role in the future, as our constituents look for reliable, inexpensive, and clean energy. America invented nuclear power, but now other nations are mimicking our companies' designs and building them entirely within their own borders. We must drive the next generation of reactors, and that's what this program does, in addition to improving the reliability of our current nuclear fleet. Through simulations, cooperation with the industry, and advanced research, the program develops next-generation reactors, such as small modular reactors and high-temperature gas designs, that are inherently safe and have even more substantial safety margins than today's reactors. These new types of reactors can be wholly built here at home by American companies, by American workers. The gentleman's amendment would halt these efforts, lose the innovation and manufacturing edge overseas, and risk hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs. I therefore oppose this amendment and urge the Members to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. My colleague's amendment would increase funding for ARPA-E to levels beyond what the program needs. Our bill provides $200 million for ARPA-E because of its focus on energy security, American manufacturing and competitiveness and research to address gas prices; but we have continuing concerns that this program must not intervene where private capital markets are already acting. It must not fund work redundant with other programs at the Department of Energy. ARPA-E is only 3 years old and is still proving itself. Given how we must spend tax dollars wisely, it would simply not be prudent to give this young program its highest funding level ever. This amendment would, unfortunately, do just that; therefore, I oppose it for that and for many other reasons. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Our bill funds a truly all-of-the-above research approach for addressing future high gas prices by reducing oil imports, developing fuel alternatives, and reducing what Americans pay at the pump. The amendment would eliminate, as we've heard, $25 million in our bill for an oil shale research program, an important component of our comprehensive approach. The United States has an estimate of 2 trillion barrels of resources in oil shale deposits. For some perspective, that's more than 10 times larger than the United States' estimated proven and unproven oil reserves, and roughly as large as the entire world's proven oil reserves. But shale oil resources have been barely tapped worldwide because substantial environmental and technological hurdles prevent their extraction, and the fluctuating world oil prices prevent the sustained research needed to bring this resource to market. Our bill provides $25 million for an oil shale research program to develop the technologies that can make our vast reserves competitive and environmentally sustainable for decades or centuries. If successful, the program could change the game completely. It could prevent future high gas prices and substantially reduce our reliance on foreign oil. For these and many other reasons, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, but I do appreciate my colleague's advocacy for removing uranium tailing at the former uranium ore processing facility in his congressional district, Moab, Utah, to protect the Colorado River and downstream water users. There has been, as I'm sure he'd admit, tremendous progress at this site, where work was accelerated with an influx of $100 million from the stimulus bill, or the Recovery Act. Our bill, for the record, fully funds the President's request for nondefense environmental cleanup. It provides $198 million to sustain ongoing cleanup projects. While this is a reduction from fiscal year 2012, it is a reasonable one considering the need to reduce overall Federal spending in our bill. Within that amount, the amount of funding for the Moab project, which my colleague is particularly concerned about, is sustained at $31 million, the same amount as in fiscal year 2012. This amendment increases funding over the request and over last year's level for Moab. While many sites like Moab are struggling to reduce cleanup work following the Recovery Act, we simply cannot maintain these highly elevated funding levels. As an offset, this amendment proposes to take resources from important national security activities. It unacceptably strikes funding for priority investments in our nuclear security enterprise which is both urgent and long overdue. Thus, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on his amendment, 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 rise to speak very briefly to associate my remarks with Mr. Dicks, Dr. Hastings, and Mr. Shimkus. I want to thank them for bringing this amendment forward to increase funding for license for Yucca. This is a bipartisan effort. And it's not only bipartisan; the nexus is also support from authorizers and appropriators. So I'm highly appreciative of their initiative. I think it ought to be supported by all Members. I think we ought to move forward and send a message: we need to get Yucca open. This is a way to reclaim the $15 billion that's been put into that effort by keeping the license process open and above board. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. Though less than last year's level, the $2.3 billion provided for defense nuclear nonproliferation already shows very strong support of our committee for nonproliferation. Our bill fully funds the core nonproliferation programs to secure vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in 4 years. In fact, it goes further and provides an additional $28 million above the request for the international programs under what's called the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. While I appreciate our colleague's support for these activities, there's simply no reason to provide even more funding. The international activities have been clearly laid out in the 4-year plan, which peaked in 2011. These activities are supposed to ramp down as we accomplish more and more projects abroad. The President's budget reflects that planned ramp-down. This additional funding would just likely sit there unexpended. The National Nuclear Security Agency already has considerable problems getting other countries to follow through with agreements. The Government Accountability Office has confirmed that half of all the funding we provide each year is not spent. To use the words I heard a few minutes ago: the money is sitting there. This additional funding is simply not needed, and I ask the Members to reject this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We have no objection to the amendment. We think it's a good way to enact it. It's a commonsense approach, and we have no objection. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Assuring funding for the modernization of our nuclear weapons stockpile is the most critical national security issue in our Energy and Water bill. The Secretary of Energy must certify to the President that our nuclear stockpile is reliable. It's absolutely essential that these funds be put in the bill and kept in the bill. With years of level funding, we have put off for too long the type of investments that are needed to sustain our nuclear capability as our stockpile ages. That's why the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review concluded that additional funding was essential to ensure that our infrastructure is adequately maintained and that our warheads receive the refurbishments they need to remain reliable and effective. There has also been strong bipartisan support for carrying out the recommended increases in modernization funding. This amendment unacceptably strikes funding for these priority investments, which are both urgent and long overdue. I strongly urge my colleagues to make defense a priority and to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, respectfully, a mention was made of congressional earmarks. There are no congressional earmarks in the Energy and Water bill. This is a Presidential priority, but this is not a congressional earmark. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.