Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

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

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

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida yielding. I appreciate Mr. Rivera's passion for the Everglades restoration, and that of the entire Florida delegation, which continues to move forward in this bill. The committee dedicated 8 percent of the entire Corps construction budget to the Everglades, making it one of the three largest allocations in title I. So I say to the gentleman that we will continue to work with the Florida delegation on this important issue, knowing how committed they are to it. And when we have additional resources, we hope to be able to consider them.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am very sympathetic to those that have been devastated by floods in Missouri and in other States across the Nation. It's a very personal thing for many Members of Congress who look to their congressional districts and see the loss of life, and livelihoods, and jobs, and devastation to family farms and to small towns. One of the things we did in our bill of course, and I am sure the gentleman would recognize this, we came up with a billion dollars of emergency aid, which hopefully will be of assistance. I know he doesn't speak of that in this amendment. But certainly all Members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, are committed to help those whose lives have been unalterably changed because of the devastation. My concern with his amendment is that the Corps has said this construction funding is necessary to avoid jeopardy under the Endangered Species Act. If the river system jeopardizes species, it could have great effect on the operations of the river. So speaking to my earlier point, we want to be helpful, but we also look to the Corps for some direction on this point. As a consequence, I oppose his amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Unfortunately and reluctantly, I must oppose the gentleman from Louisiana's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's concern for sufficiently maintaining our waterways as necessary to realizing the national economic benefits of efficient cargo transportation. Representing, as I do, part of New Jersey, which is highly dependent on the Port of New York and New Jersey, I am well aware that navigation and money for navigation and dredging is absolutely essential, and I am highly sympathetic to the gentleman from Louisiana for all of the historical things that have impacted Louisiana's economy and so many people down there. In fact, a major factor in developing the recommendation for the Army Corps of Engineers' budget this year was to focus proportionately more funds on the projects and activities that contribute most to the economy and job creation, including dredging and other navigation improvements. The underlying bill does not include, as we are aware, any congressional earmarks. Oftentimes these issues were dealt with through the earmark process. Rather, our bill provides the Army Corps of Engineers the flexibility to allocate programmatic funds to those navigation and flood control projects that it deems most critical, and we have the ability as individual Members of Congress to help the Corps focus on what we feel is most critical for their attention. The Corps is required to report to Congress in our bill, within 45 days of enactment, on which projects were deemed most critical and why. Navigation needs are not the only important issues addressed in our bill, however. Increased funding for this programmatic line even further would upset the careful balance of priorities that I have spoken of earlier, including national defense, which is a major component of why we even have a Department of Energy, and nuclear safety, energy innovation and, of course, the great work of the Army Corps, the water resources needs. So, therefore, reluctantly I must oppose the gentleman's amendment. I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. Again, our bill strikes a balance between funding for many competing national priorities in this bill that this amendment would undo. I do, and we do, support the important work of the Army Corps of Engineers but not at the expense of those national priorities--national defense, scientific research, good things in the Department of Energy. And may I say our mark is considerably more generous for these purposes than the President's mark; so do give us a little bit of credit. This amendment would cut into the fossil energy research program, an account nearly $200 million below the 2010 budget mark. Fossil energy, I think as we're all aware of, produces nearly 70 percent of our Nation's electricity, and we must continue to invest to ensure that we use our fossil resources efficiently and clearly. This bill, again, strikes a careful balance between these priorities, and I oppose the amendment and will insist on my point of order.

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

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

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

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the amendment but also to associate myself with the ranking member's comments on ARPA-E, which I'm supportive of. Of course our colleague's amendment would add funding to ARPA-E, which receives some $100 million in our bill; but the way he would do it would be virtually to eliminate funding for the Fossil Energy Research and Development program, I think causing excessive job losses. And I think the program makes major contributions. Of course we can't forget that fossil fuels, coal, and natural gas generate about 70 percent of our Nation's electricity. ARPA-E may someday generate a much greater percentage than perhaps it potentially does today, but we're a long way from there. So I oppose the gentleman's amendment and certainly the source, using the Fossil Fuels account for this additional money, that he suggests. I yield back the balance of my time.

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 of outlays in the bill. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I will insist on my point of order but would first make a few comments. The gentleman's amendment prescribes a path forward for the back end of the nuclear energy fuel cycle by directing the Department of Energy to develop a specific type of reprocessing plan and facility, the integral fast reactor. Let me say I appreciate our colleague from California's passion for moving forward our Nation's strategy for handling spent nuclear fuel, and I want to thank him for the many times he approached me on this issue. I and many of my colleagues share the gentleman's concerns, and I have repeatedly pushed the administration to move forward at least one piece of the solution, which is the Yucca Mountain repository. There is, however, ongoing debate about the future of the back end of our Nation's fuel cycle. There are many approaches, including open, closed and modified fuel cycles. Each of these approaches--some of which utilize reprocessing facilities--are far from straightforward and can be accomplished using a variety of competing technologies. While I appreciate my colleague's desire to move the Nation forward, we must carefully evaluate these highly technical issues to address the economic safety and nonproliferation impacts that accompany any fuel cycle option. The gentleman's amendment chooses one winning technology, and I believe it deserves more careful evaluation before moving forward. Point of Order

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, but let me thank him for his historical perspective of the department and of its initial responsibility and for his own deep knowledge, which he shared with many of us in the House, of its necessity in terms of space exploration. The gentleman's amendment increases funding for the plutonium-238 production restart project, as it's called. To do so, funding for other valuable nuclear energy activities would have to be cut, including the advanced reactor concept research, fuel cycle development, and promising avenues like small modular reactors licensing and research. The administration has proposed this new project for several years in order to increase domestic supplies of plutonium-238. The vast majority of this material, as Mr. Schiff has said, would be used by NASA for in- space power supplies, and only a small fraction would be used by the Department of Energy. Unfortunately, after the committee repeatedly expressed concerns since fiscal year 2010, the administration once again proposed in the 2012 budget request for the Department of Energy to share a full half of the project's financial cost. The administration has neither altered its stance nor addressed or even acknowledged the committee's concerns about this disproportionate sharing. The funding plans in the budget request and the amendment simply don't make sense, particularly given the other critical priorities in this bill. As we have expressed for 2 years, the administration must develop a more sensible plan. Therefore, I oppose the amendment, and urge Members to do likewise. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I oppose this amendment, but agree with the gentleman's concern about the use of the taxpayers' dollars. In this account, which we have been debating for perhaps an hour and a half, I don't think any program has probably had a larger cut than the solar program, perhaps for the very reasons that the gentleman raises. Solar technologies have been around for a long time. We have a fairly viable public sector, but I still think we do need within the Department of Energy people in the Department of Energy who can put together and provide some degree of expertise and advice to a variety of different entrepreneurs. So I reluctantly oppose the amendment, but certainly know his heart is in the right place. I yield back the balance of my time.

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