Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would be happy to yield to the ranking member from Indiana.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Washington.

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

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We respect the gentlewoman's efforts to protect the interests of her State and district; however, her amendment intervenes in a specific local project by prohibiting funds for a required step in the licensing process. I do not believe this is an appropriate Federal role in a process that should be driven by the State and local communities while being carefully evaluated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I, therefore, must oppose the amendment and urge other Members to oppose it as well.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The gentleman's amendment would eliminate funding for the Fossil Energy Research and Development program, causing hundreds, if not thousands, of job losses and threatening our Nation's ability to compete in the rapidly growing portion of the energy sector. I may also note for the record, Mr. Chairman, that Arizona itself is dependent, I believe, with close to 60 percent of its energy coming from fossil energy. So fossil energy is a part of the Nation's equation, and we had better be careful before we eliminate research and development. Let me say, I appreciate and recognize the gentleman's passion for cutting spending and spending that is duplicative, but this type of research is important.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the ranking member.

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

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in reluctant opposition. First of all, I want to commend the gentleman for his advocacy for coastal restoration, and should we say literally carrying the ball for coastal restoration and for his remarkable props. We know on this committee what a high priority it is for his district and his State. May I thank him also for coming to the floor earlier to make a case, obviously, for controlling spending, but also doing some things that are very important to his constituents and others affected by the devastating floods. I want to commend him for his strong advocacy. The bill before us includes more than $16 million, or more than 15 percent of the entire investigations account, to continue work on coastal restoration through studies, engineering, and design on various components of the program. The committee had to make some tough choices in the bill, though, and although the Corps of Engineers construction account has increased $86 million above the President's request, let me say, above the President's request, it is still a reduction from fiscal year 2011. The Corps had numerous projects under construction that were not included in the President's budget request and so were likely to be funded in construction year 2012. While construction funding is trending downward, I believe it is most prudent to prioritize funding for these ongoing projects so they can be completed and the Federal Government can realize some benefits from previous spending, rather than starting new projects, as important as they are. And even given that this project is currently authorized at approaching $2 billion and may continue to grow, it would not be prudent to begin another major new project while we have so many new commitments. For these reasons I must oppose the amendment, but I sympathize with the gentleman on the purposes for which he is here. I yield to the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana.

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

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The amendment of the gentleman from Georgia would prohibit funds for the Vehicle Technologies activities at the Department of Energy that work with cities across the country to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The gentleman should know that the committee closely evaluated the alternative fuels program and slashed it to $202 million below the budget request, leaving only $26 million that we found to be well justified. So we are making some progress and we are making some tough decisions. And even though the gentleman's heart is in the right place, we do need the $26 million to continue the program, and thus I oppose the gentleman's amendment, albeit reluctantly. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am prepared to accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas. His amendment strengthens national security by allowing the Federal Government more alternatives to imported petroleum fuels. More than half of the oil the Nation consumes each year is imported, as we know, and today the price of gasoline is hovering around the $4- a-gallon mark. By declaring some new fuel options to be off limits, section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 limits our Nation's ability to reduce its dependence on oil imports. His amendment puts all alternatives back on the table, which I think is needed, so the Nation can begin to develop and use fuels that are made with resources from here in the United States. Energy self- sufficiency is a national security issue, and this amendment takes us in the right direction. I am pleased to support the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We accept the amendment as well.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentlewoman from Tennessee's amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. First of all, I do appreciate the fact that she recognizes the committee made some tough choices. In fact, our overall bill is really down close to the 2006 level. Obviously, in some quarters, that doesn't satisfy every Member of Congress, but I'm respectful of her desire to go further. Cuts of this magnitude, quite honestly, go far too deep. The types of things we do in our bill--our responsibility for the reliability of the nuclear stockpile--that's utmost, as is our responsibility for cleaning up nuclear waste. In fact, there are consent decrees where things have to be cleaned up because of things left over from World War II. There is research and development, which is important, and water issues. We heard for 2\1/2\ hours earlier today of the types of things that can happen to our Nation when water infrastructure is not kept up and modernized. There is the loss of human life, the loss of livelihoods, the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. I am respectful of the gentlewoman's perspective, but in reality this would be very damaging to our national security and to things that are important to life and property. I am happy to yield to the ranking member.

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

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. First of all, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee again for her steadfastness in trying to reduce spending. Our committee had the lowest--our spending level went back to 2006. One of the benefits of serving on the committee and one of the reasons I traditionally oppose across-the-board cuts, 1 percent, 5 percent, 3 percent, is when you serve on the committee and you've already made substantial reductions, you do it in a careful and thoughtful manner. And when you're dealing with issues that relate to the nuclear stockpile, the reliability of that stockpile, the responsibility for taking care of nuclear waste and meeting consent decrees and court orders and you're dealing with lives and property that relate to issues of flooding and things that affect lives and property literally, billions of dollars of commerce that we heard about earlier this afternoon from those who represent Missouri and the Mississippi, really the bedrock of, I think, 44 percent of our Nation's economy, making these types of cuts, while it may feel good, without having the benefit of what we have the benefit of, which is debate and input from some of the Nation's greatest experts as well as obviously people from the administration, there is no way that I would support this reduction. I would be pleased to yield to the ranking member.

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

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The amendment eliminates, as we know, international cooperative programs at the Department of Energy that focus on developing innovative energy technologies. I appreciate and share the gentleman's concerns that activities that simply fund energy projects--like installing windmills--in other nations are not an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. There is nothing in this program that funds windmills, with all due respect. This is especially true when we must rein in spending and eliminate waste all around. But this is a good example of when a scalpel is needed to save the worthwhile programs instead of a blunt instrument that eliminates the entire program. The gentleman is correct that this program includes several small activities that the United States should not bankroll. However, many of the large activities in this program not only engender good will in countries like China, India, and Brazil--and Kazakhstan, which has been a tremendous ally in the war on terror--but they also increase economic activities abroad. The energy sectors in China and India are increasing by leaps and bounds. In just the last 10 years, China's energy consumption has more than doubled. China and India and other nations' energy sectors represent an enormous economic opportunity for whoever will develop and supply energy technologies used in these rapidly growing countries. Cooperative programs eliminated by this amendment help the U.S. industry and researchers gain access to these booming markets. These programs don't cost much, but they leverage much more in international contacts and economic opportunities. For this reason and many others, I oppose the amendment. I yield to the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana.