Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I want to salute my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) for not only his career in science but, obviously, his focus as a Member of Congress on science and science research and so many areas. In order to increase funding for science research, his amendment decreases funding for weapons activities. Our Nation's defense relies on a reliable and effective nuclear deterrent, and these capabilities cannot be allowed to deteriorate. There is now a strong bipartisan consensus for the modernization of our nuclear stockpile. It is a critical national security priority and must be funded. With a reduction of nearly $500 million from the request, this bill has already made use of all available savings. Additional reductions would unacceptably impact our ability to support our Nation's nuclear security strategy. Further, the amendment would use these reductions to increase funding for science research. I am a strong supporter of the science program, he knows that. It leads to the breakthroughs in innovations that will make our Nation's energy sector self-sufficient and keep America competitive as a world leader of cutting-edge science. This is why we worked so hard, the ranking and I, to sustain funding for this program. But within the realities of today's fiscal constraints, which we all know, we cannot simply afford to add more funding to science research, especially when it means risking crucial national defense activities. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. The level for Naval Reactors includes $121.3 million to develop a new reactor design for the Ohio replacement and $99.5 million to refuel a prototype reactor in upstate New York that is associated with the development of the Ohio replacement.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

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 include extraneous material on H.R. 2354.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I must oppose the amendment as authorizing on an appropriations bill. I share the gentleman's support for the Corps of Engineers' participation in beach replenishment projects that provide protection from coastal storms for individuals and businesses. Coming from a State with 137 miles of shoreline, I too understand the importance of these projects to local, regional, and our national economy. The amendment offered, however, would add authorizing language to the Energy and Water bill; therefore, it is subject to a point of order. So while I am sympathetic to the gentleman's intent, I must oppose the amendment and insist on my point of order.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against this amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore 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 imposes additional duties. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The amendment of the gentleman from Texas will allow the Corps to use the A-76 process at its discretion. It will not require that anything in particular be contracted out. I agree with the gentleman that, particularly during this time of necessary budget-cutting, we should allow the agencies to evaluate all options and to choose the most cost-effective manner of delivering a product or service. The language to be struck is a carryover provision from several years ago when there was, perhaps, too much of an emphasis placed on the A-76 process. We are not in the same situation as several years ago, as we know, so the provision is unnecessarily restrictive. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under Section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states: ``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.'' The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

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

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, while I strongly support the gentleman from Connecticut's overall intent, I must regretfully oppose his amendment. I share my colleague's concern for sufficiently maintaining our waterways. These waterways contribute significantly to our national economy by providing a means of cost-effective cargo transportation. In recognition of the economic benefits of navigation generally and maintenance dredging specifically, the bill before us provides funds above the President's budget request for navigation needs--$191 million in total and $99 million specifically for the operation and maintenance activities. This funding represents a 12 percent increase over the President's own budget for navigation. I also agree with the gentleman from Connecticut's idea that if the Federal Government levies a tax for a specific purpose, the revenue should be used for that purpose. Unfortunately, the only way to do that at this point would be to make substantial reductions in other priorities in our bill. The gentleman's amendment would avoid those difficult decisions by simply not offsetting the additional spending, but our debt crisis makes that, too, an untenable option. For these reasons, even though I am very much in support of what he is trying to achieve, which is things for navigation, keeping America open for business, I must oppose his amendment, and I will insist on my point of order.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, 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 outlays in the bill. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We are highly sympathetic to working with the gentleman and look forward to working with him to address this crisis and what he is talking about, future crises and devastation.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, we have not had a chance to really study the implications of the gentleman's amendment. First of all, we would like to extend our sympathy to the gentleman, his constituents, and to many Members of Congress and those affected by the devastation and, in many cases, loss of life, loss of income and livelihood. But we are not quite sure what $1 million in and $1 million out means, and we need a little more time to further investigate. Would the gentleman be willing to work with us to accomplish this objective without moving ahead on the amendment? Would you be willing to work with the committee, the ranking member and yours truly?

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

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 include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 2354, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

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