Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

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

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

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. I appreciate my colleague's passion for solar energy. She has been a tireless supporter of American innovation in this energy and technological area. I also have the pleasure of serving with her on the Defense Appropriations Committee, and she's been an innovator and promoter of responsible energy policy with the Department of Defense as well. But within tight budgets, we need to focus funding on our highest priorities, which is what we've done in our Energy and Water bill. To make room for our national security and infrastructure responsibility, our bill cuts energy efficiency and renewable energy by $428 million and reprioritizes funds within the program to support American manufacturing and address rising gas prices. The focus is on jobs, the economy, and American manufacturing. Our bill also preserves $155 million for solar energy research that continues to advance American manufacturing and helps our companies compete globally. While I support activities that help American manufacturers compete, we cannot afford to add unnecessary funds to solar energy by cutting other important priorities. Indeed, the amendment would cut departmental administration, a cut that we all know simply cannot be sustained in the final appropriation without jeopardizing the Department of Energy's ability to run and oversee their operation. They have enough management problems now. Reducing that management amount would make it difficult for them to run and oversee the problems that they really need to oversee. So this amendment uses money we simply do not have. It has perhaps the effect of crippling management by the Department. We need to live within our means. And I, regretfully, oppose the gentlewoman's 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 very reluctantly to oppose the amendment. I do recognize the passion of the Members of Congress from Illinois and South Dakota who have spoken, and I may say repeatedly spoken and advocated to me over the last couple of months on behalf of the high-energy physics program and national laboratories in their congressional districts and, in fact, all relevant national laboratories that play a critical role in maintaining our Nation's scientific leadership and competitiveness. So I recognize their advocacy, I appreciate it, and I certainly will be working with them to do whatever we can to be of assistance. We tried our very best in our bill to help those and all of the Department's remarkable national laboratories, but our constraints did not afford us the luxury of bringing more money to the table in many cases. Many labs wanted money, and these are remarkable labs, and they are deserving as well. We did what we could for high-energy physics by shifting $16 million into project engineering and design for the Long Baseline neutrino experiment. This allows the Department to move quickly in choosing a path forward for the program. We also ensured that the Homestake mine, which is a remarkable mine and a remarkable structure and a national asset, has sufficient minimal funding to operate while that path forward is yet to be determined. If more funding were available, we certainly would have brought more resources to bear. Unfortunately, the amendment finds resources by cutting a program--and we discussed this earlier--that has already been reduced by $428 million. That's a 24 percent reduction from fiscal year 2012 and a 40 percent reduction below 2010. I recognize--the committee recognizes--the importance of these programs, and I promise we'll work with our colleagues as we move forward in the appropriations process to be supportive and helpful, but I must reluctantly oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. His amendment would put at risk our nuclear security activities, the things we're doing to modernize our nuclear stockpile, the type of investments we're making there that help protect our country. And we would be adding money to programs that, quite honestly, don't need the money. He referenced some of those programs. The Weatherization Program has hundreds of millions of dollars in unspent money. Some of it's been obligated; some of it has not been obligated. But sitting in that program and in the State programs he referred to is a lot of Federal money from the stimulus and other prior appropriations that remains unspent. So it's not a question of not having enough money. They just haven't spent it down. Our bill provides enough funding, new funding, that when combined with the unspent funds, our bill will fully fund each State at the fiscal year 2010 level. That's enough money for the States. More funding is unnecessary. This amendment has unnecessary funding, adds unnecessary funding, and it cuts our security, our national security, things we need to do for our nuclear stockpile, and I strongly oppose it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Let me assure the gentleman that we are very sympathetic to his concern for fixing the infrastructure that was damaged in last year's flood event. In fact, we provided $1.7 billion to the Corps of Engineers for that exact purpose. The issue the gentleman raises, however, is something that all Members need to be aware of: based on the definitions in last year's amendments to the Budget Control Act, disaster relief funds may only be used in locations declared major disasters under the Stafford Act. For some agencies, like FEMA, that may make sense. But for the Corps of Engineers, there are times when that definition is too restrictive. We all need to be aware of the potential consequences of forcing regular appropriations to the account for these disaster-related damages that happen to be in the wrong location according to the Budget Control Act. That notwithstanding, the gentleman's amendment would try to address some of these needs, and I'm pleased to support his amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the gentleman from Utah's amendment. Our bill works hard to cut Federal spending. We're on his side. We want to reduce spending. Our committee has gone through the budget for the Department of Energy. We've taken a look at it, and we've prioritized. In fact, we've already said in other debates on other amendments that we've cut this EERE, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, by $428 million. That's 40 percent below the fiscal year 2011 level. With the remaining funds, we re-prioritize to invest in our Nation's most pressing needs, one of which is in doing more research to help American manufacturers compete and survive. Let me restate: We do not increase this account. We re-prioritize to address our Nation's most pressing needs. In this case, the challenge is to keep our American manufacturers competitive and to keep jobs here. Our bill does that. Therefore, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment. The amendment will reduce fossil fuel energy by $50 million. And let's start by noting that fossil fuels produce most of our Nation's energy, nearly 70 percent of our electricity and nearly all of our transportation fuels. But I do appreciate the gentlewoman's passion for electric vehicles. In fact, our bill already funds research in that area at above the fiscal year 2012 level as part of our focus on programs that address future gas prices. Therefore, I do oppose her amendment. I understand her views and her passion, but I strongly oppose it. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, briefly I rise to oppose the amendment. I share my colleague's concerns that we should not be funding activities that the private sector should do on its own. That's why our bill cuts 24 percent out of this account, only preserving appropriate Federal activities that are too risky for the private sector to take on alone. The amendment goes too far, undercuts our ability to address gas prices, and therefore I must oppose it. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment, which would eliminate the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the Department of Energy. This year, the committee continued fulfilling its responsibility to reduce government spending by eliminating ineffective and wasteful programs. Our bill cuts EERE by $428 million. That's a 24 percent cut below fiscal year 2012, nearly 40 percent below 2010, and well below the 2000 level. Our bill slashes programs that are ineffective and cuts activities that improperly intervene in private markets. The committee will continue its work to reduce spending and to keep the government out of private enterprise where private enterprise could make those substantial investments themselves. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment, but certainly understand it and share the passion of the gentleman for reducing Federal spending, and our bill does plenty of that. As we went through the process, we did exactly that. This amendment would cut administrative expenses across the entire bill. Over many months and public hearings, our committee, in a bipartisan way, has already considered each administrative account separately and has made specific cuts while maintaining oversight to prevent wasteful spending. We've done our job. The gentleman's amendment cuts all administrative accounts indiscriminately without regard to where funds are needed and where cuts are possible. We understand where he is going, but the committee has done its work. Therefore, I must strongly oppose his amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. I continue to reserve my point of order, though.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of new budget authority in the bill. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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 to include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 5325, and that I may include tabular material on the same.