Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I strongly support, Mr. Chairman, the Shimkus- Inslee amendment. This administration's Yucca Mountain policy has been, at best, irresponsible with the taxpayers' time and treasure. Most Members in this room have voted many times in support of this project. For years, we supported it as the law of the land, and ensured that the scientific review process continued so we could understand how good the site was. Despite more than the $15 billion already spent on the site or the more than $16 billion in potential fines that the taxpayer is facing because the administration has not fulfilled its responsibility to take spent fuel off the hands of so many utilities, this administration has persisted in a backroom political deal to shut down the project. Yet, despite the administration's best efforts to hide from the public the inconvenient facts, we now know that the science does support Yucca Mountain as a long-term geological repository. The NRC's review, which was virtually complete when the administration pulled the plug, apparently shows that the site can safely store the fuel for thousands and thousands of years if that is necessary. Even in the face of this, the administration hasn't changed its position. We can only keep the pressure on and trust that good policy and good science will eventually overcome bad politics. We need to finish the Yucca Mountain license application so that we as a Nation can take into account all of the facts as we determine the future of nuclear energy in this country. I want to thank the gentlemen, both Mr. Inslee and Mr. Shimkus-- members of the authorizing committee. I had an opportunity, as an observer, to attend Mr. Shimkus' subcommittee. May I say I was impressed by how the gentleman from Illinois questioned the NRC commissioners, and particularly the chairman, on some of the very questions the gentleman from Illinois and other Members have raised. I want to commend you for your vigor and for your astuteness and for coming to the floor with this very important amendment. I would be happy to yield, unless he cares to have his own time, to the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana.

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

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose this amendment. I'm strongly in favor of a thriving domestic automotive industry, but I'm sure the gentleman knows I have also been critical of the slow pace with which the Department has implemented this program. In the Homeland Security bill, we trimmed out $1.5 billion for this program, which has been sitting unused since 2009. We have put it toward flood assistance, where there was a true emergency purpose. But we left adequate funding to cover applications already in the pipeline. Cutting those off midstream would put at risk, I believe, thousands of jobs, and literally billions of dollars of private sector investment. Understandably, I know where the gentleman is coming from, but I urge opposition to his amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the amendment. My colleague's amendment would add funding to ARPA-E which receives $100 million in our bill. Our bill, which reduces funding to nearly the 2006 levels--may I repeat, 2006 levels--fulfills our top responsibility of reducing government spending while focusing funding on a small set of top priorities. In addition to national defense and water infrastructure, our top priorities include research to keep Americans competitive in science, innovation and the development of intellectual property. ARPA-E is a relatively new program--today we're discussing only its second regular fiscal year appropriation--that offers industry, university and laboratory grants for high-risk energy innovations. ARPA-E is getting positive early reviews for its strong management and ability to execute on its mission to drive innovation and keep American companies competitive. However, I share many of my colleagues' concerns about this program. ARPA-E must not intervene where capital private markets are already acting, and it must not be redundant with other programs at the Department. In fact, ARPA-E is still a young program, and it is prudent to provide a lower level of funding while it is still maturing as a program and demonstrating its ability to address congressional concerns, especially when the bill has so many important priorities competing for scarce funding. This prudent approach is especially warranted when the bill has so many important priorities competing. While I support the goal of this new program, I cannot support any additional funding at this time. Further, this amendment makes an unrealistic cut to the Department's salaries and expenses. We cannot cut departmental oversight by 35 percent and expect the efficient use of taxpayer dollars and more oversight and more management responsibilities. For these reasons and many more, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill. Therefore, it violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. First of all, it has been a pleasure to work with you and to have the opportunity firsthand to see some of the remarkable things that have been occurring in your congressional district in Washington State in terms of cleanup and the enormity of these problems that you're trying to address. Overall, we've seen some considerably poor planning for the Department of Energy's cleanup activities, including the very politically motivated termination of the Yucca Mountain project. My colleague understands his constituents well and how these issues impact the overall plan to clean up Hanford's tank waste, which is considerable. I support and salute his leadership. As we move into conference, I will work with you. I promise to do that to achieve the appropriate balance between the waste treatment plant and the tank farms so that these projects are properly coordinated.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, if Dr. Broun is insistent, I must say that I want to thank him for his amendment and I am willing to accept it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And Mr. Visclosky's as well.

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

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

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I oppose the amendment, but certainly I recognize Dr. Heck's leadership on this issue, and I know of what he speaks and how proud he is of his State and how determined he is relative to the Yucca Mountain project. I just want you to know, having been to that site at one point in time and seeing the substantial investment there, of course, from many other people's perspective, including mine, that substantial investment at some point ought to be realized. So, understandably, we appreciate and understand where you are coming from, and we respect your dedication to your own State's welfare. Mr. Chairman, I do rise to oppose the amendment. This amendment attempts to secure additional funding for the State of Nevada. It also attempts to stipulate policies for research and development for the back end of the fuel cycle, which should properly be authorized before they are funded from this account. This committee and Members, and many Members, have taken a strong position against the administration's Yucca Mountain policy that's well known. The future of our nuclear waste policy, of course, deserves more consideration than this amendment and perhaps this evening would afford. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of order, and I move to strike the last word.

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

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. The Energy and Water bill makes available a very limited amount of funding for activities which are Federal responsibilities, activities such as basic science research and development. This is very early stage work which the private sector simply has no profit incentive to invest in. It funds cutting-edge research that will be the foundation of technology in future decades. This science research leads to the breakthroughs in innovation that will make our Nation's energy sector self-sufficient and keep America competitive as the world leader of science innovation. This is why we work so hard to sustain funding for this program. Blindly cutting it will not only cut hundreds of more jobs around the country; it will put at risk our Nation's competitive edge in intellectual property and potentially set back our country's energy future. I must oppose this amendment and ask other Members to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman. We're going to keep Yucca Mountain open, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the amendment of the gentleman from California, but I do recognize and agree with his view in terms of the economy but not the purpose for which he rises. My colleague's amendment would eliminate methane hydrates research at the Department of Energy. This is a good example of a program that would not be otherwise funded by the private sector and has the potential to make a significant contribution to our Nation's energy needs. Vast quantities of methane gas are stuck in frozen deposits deep at the bottom of the ocean and in the Arctic permafrost. Some of these deposits may evaporate over time and escape into the atmosphere. If we can understand how to use these resources rather than letting the methane float away into the air, we could tap a vast new natural gas resource and prevent large quantities of methane from entering the atmosphere. The research for this is too risky for industry to do. The science is too difficult for there to be an economic return. That is a proper role of government, research the private sector cannot do that can substantially reduce our dependence on foreign imports while inventing new science and technology that puts America in the lead. I, therefore, respectfully rise to oppose the amendment and urge other Members to do so as well. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.