Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

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.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. No, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment and recognize his advocacy for nonproliferation. I share my colleague's concerns about the National Nuclear Security Administration's management of the MOX fuel fabrication facility project. The latest Department of Energy report indicates that the MOX facility could take months, if not years, to complete and will exceed the current baseline cost by as much as $1.4 billion due to continued construction problems and creeping scope. So I'm pleased to support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition reluctantly.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from New Mexico's amendment. The bill before the committee provides a total of $4.9 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities at the Department of Energy. This funding sustains thousands of cleanup jobs, and I thank my colleague for his deep concern about supporting these programs and meeting our cleanup commitments. Our bill makes several difficult choices to achieve our deficit- reduction goals, providing the necessary increases for our nuclear security programs while making targeted reductions to activities which can be deferred. This amendment seeks to partially reverse that priority setting that we put in place. It targets vital nuclear security programs and shifts funds to non-security environmental cleanup that should be ramped back. The cleanup programs received an infusion of $6 billion from the Recovery Act--AKA, the stimulus--accelerating the scope of work and pace of cleanup at those sites. And while I would like to express my support for the cleanup, we cannot sustain that stimulus-level funding that we had so in the past. The funding for Los Alamos--which my colleague is particularly concerned about, is extremely knowledgeable about, and is very, very concerned about--will actually increase by 45 percent, or $30 million, over last year's level. The 1.7 reduction to defense cleanup is a reasonable one in our bill. Recently, we've been informed by the Department of Energy that the Department of Energy may miss a number of its cleanup milestones because they had been relying on receiving large funding increases year after year, an assumption that was overly optimistic in any budget environment. We cannot continue to shovel in funding to make up for poor planning. Instead, the Department needs to work constructively with its stakeholders to establish reasonable and sustainable plans for remediating these sites, which will still take another 20 to 30 years. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I want to thank my colleague from New Mexico, as I did Mr. Pearce, for his continued advocacy for the cleanup at Los Alamos. The committee is well aware of the increasing vulnerability of above-ground radioactive waste being stored at Los Alamos, and share the Members' concerns. As a result, our bill strongly supports accelerating the cleanup efforts there, providing a total of $215 million for cleanup at the site. The bill increases funding $30 million, or 45 percent above the Fiscal Year 2012 level. That makes the increase for Los Alamos the largest site expenditure increase across all the cleanups in our bill. But understandably, of course, you'd like more. We look forward to working with the Member to see what we could do to be of additional assistance. I would be happy to yield to the ranking member for any comments he would make.

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

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment. Our bill fully funds the request for non-defense environmental cleanup at $198 million. I know my colleagues from New York State--Mr. Reed and Mr. Higgins--are particularly concerned about the West Valley site in New York, and we respect their views and that they know their districts and their State well. But this bill provides the full amount requested for the project in the President's budget. While below last year's level, it's a reasonable reduction given the need to reduce overall Federal spending in our bill. But this amendment proposes to increase funding 18 percent over the amount of our request. This would be an unbalanced approach considering the reduction to other sites in the bill, and there are many sites in different congressional districts, a number of which have much higher hazard activities taking place. And that is not to minimize what's happening at this site. We've prepared--in a bipartisan way--a balanced bill, one that prioritizes available funding to address the highest risk activities first while ensuring progress at lower risk sites, that that progress continues, albeit at a smaller pace. We simply cannot sustain the high levels of spending at every location and must make the hard choices to extend time lines where the risks are lower. As an offset, the amendment would eliminate the salaries of approximately 100 employees who are engaged in carrying out vital security activities, as well as the salaries of up to another 100 employees who are carrying out a variety of, I think, critically important energy and science programs at the Department of Energy. I know their heart is in the right place. I know that they want to do more things to clean up the site in their home State, but I reluctantly oppose their amendment for the reasons that I've outlined. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 56, line 24, be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to seek time in opposition, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. It would put in jeopardy thousands of jobs in our energy sector. The types of projects it would jeopardize are entirely different than Solyndra. If the Member wants to reduce the risk of losing taxpayers' dollars, he should look towards the 1705 program, which has already lost over half a billion dollars to risky loans. This may be a convenient attempt to paint some of these potential loan guarantees with a Solyndra brush, but it just doesn't wash. The companies requesting these loan guarantees are not startups with shaky financial records, but neither are they large enough to have enough capital to fully pay for such massive projects. The loan guarantees help them leverage their capital in a reasonable manner to ensure that the benefits of these technologies can be shared by millions of Americans. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We are prepared to accept her amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Our bill already cuts $1 billion from the President's request. We're below 2009 levels. While difficult trade-offs had to be made, the bill, in its current form, balances our needs. We prioritize funding for essential activities and cut out new spending on poorly performing programs. Yet the gentlelady's amendment proposes an across- the-board cut on every one of these programs. With all due respect, and she's extremely knowledgeable, that's not the way that Governor Christie does it in New Jersey. He takes a look at each program, considers its merit, considers whether it's a proper investment in infrastructure, whether it will promote jobs. And yet unlike, perhaps, the State budget, we're responsible for nuclear security, for our nuclear stockpile, national security needs. This is not the way to approach budget cutting. I urge the committee and the House to reject this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We are prepared to accept your amendment.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would risk our nuclear security activities in order to add unnecessary funding to energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. Our bill preserves the funding for that account's highest priorities and those accounts that help advance American manufacturing and that help our companies compete globally and address soaring gas prices. Additional funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is unwarranted, especially when it comes at the expense of national security. So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the gentlewoman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

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